Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the misuse of opioids is a national crisis. Every single day, more than 130 people in this country overdose on these drugs, with tragic results. In 2017, there were more than 70,000 drug overdose-related deaths in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. These deaths eclipsed the number that were due to guns or automobile crashes. May 12 through 18 is National Prevention Week, which is dedicated to increasing public awareness of substance abuse disorders. Addiction exists everywhere. We have taken steps in the past to fight this epidemic. We passed comprehensive substance abuse and treatment legislation in 2016 and again last year. However, the opioid epidemic continues to destroy lives and communities. We need to remain committed to defeat this crisis. This week also marks the seventh anniversary of my investigation, with former Senator Baucus, into opioid manufacturers' connections to medical groups and physicians who advocated for the increased use of opioids. As senior members of the Senate Finance Committee in 2012, we sought documents and financial information from three opioid makers, in a period when deaths from opioid overdoses were skyrocketing. News reports of that time suggested that opioid makers may have initiated conflicts of interest to encourage the prescribing of opioids. More recent news reports confirm that we had very good reason to launch this oversight work. For example, yesterday, BBC News published an article concerning opioid makers' sponsorship, in the early 2000s, of so-called educational meetings for pain specialists from the United Kingdom. The doctors, whose opioid prescribing rates were being monitored by opioid makers, were invited to New York City, where they would stay in posh hotels and attend Broadway shows at a drugmaker's expense, BBC reported. As reportedly shared by a doctor who attended one of these trips: ``I feel very ashamed . . . I was just a guinea pig to promote the prescribing of a class of drug.'' I remain concerned that opioid-related deaths over the last decade may have been fueled by misinformation and marketing practices embraced by drugmakers and the medical organizations to which they donated. What I said 7 years ago remains true today: ``Doctors and patients should know if the medical literature and groups that guide [opioids'] use are paid for by the drugs' manufacturers and if so, [by] how much.'' As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I intend to continue my oversight work in this area, including by convening a congressional hearing later this summer. I also believe that we need to do more to ensure that Americans have access to effective recovery treatment options. The recent arrests in multiple States of those who operated sham treatment facilities for addicts point to a problem. Moreover, we have reason to be concerned about the lack of information available to the public about the most promising treatment options available. A related issue has been the lack of adequate, national standards of care in the addiction treatment field. That is why I joined several of my colleagues in sponsoring bipartisan legislation that calls for the development of new quality measures to improve treatment for Americans battling opioid and substance addiction. This measure directs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to work with a coalition of healthcare providers to identify quality measures to be used to assess the effectiveness of substance use disorder treatment programs. In 2016, I also supported the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. This bipartisan measure was enacted after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it during my tenure as chairman. It includes a number of provisions I authored. The causes of the opioid epidemic are complicated and its effects are widespread. It is impossible to solve this national crisis overnight. We must continue our efforts at the local, State, and Federal level to break the cycle of addiction.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to shed light on yet another really dark cloud that is hanging over our Department of Defense. In fact, for decades, a dark cloud of fiscal mismanagement has loomed large over the Pentagon. During my very first term here in the Senate, I began my quest to bring fiscal accountability to the Pentagon. Four decades later, I am still keeping tabs on the money trail. That money trail is sometimes difficult to follow. Back then, it was a bit like David taking on Goliath. We all know that the United States of America has the strongest and mightiest military in the world. I am thankful for that because a strong military is not meant to fight a war; it is meant to maintain the peace. We haven't had a world war III since we have had a strong military. Our brave men and women who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces protect our shores at home and abroad to keep us safe and to protect the blessings of liberty for our children and grandchildren. That is exactly why it is so very important to keep check on the Pentagon's ledgers, to help make sure that every tax dollar assigned to the Nation's defense is actually spent effectively and not squandered on waste, fraud, and abuse. With the help of brave whistleblowers who stuck their necks out to ``commit truth,'' I stuck my neck out during the Reagan administration. That is when I learned about the Pentagon's little shop of price horrors. Of course, ripping off the taxpayers started during the Revolutionary War, when contractors sold rotten meat to the Continental Army, and it continued during the Civil War, when profiteers sold ammunition filled with sawdust and shoddy shoes and horses to the Union Army. It looks like it continues to this day. Back in 1985, Americans will recall, the Defense Department was shelling out vast amounts of taxpayer dollars for spare parts. Remember back then the $450 hammers and the $640 toilet seats? That sounds like a real bargain compared to the more recent wasteful spending at the Pentagon, such as the $1,280 coffee mug and the $14,000 toilet seat lid. Obviously, the cost of waste is getting a whole lot more expensive for our taxpayers. Back in the 1980s, I fought to win a spending freeze on unchecked spending sprees. Misspending and overspending were riddling the defense budget at the expense of the American taxpayer. Military readiness drives the spending decisions that Members of Congress make when we cast our votes on the defense budget. Our constituents expect their elected representatives to make sure that the moms and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters who are serving our country in uniform are well equipped with the best resources money can buy. But they also expect their elected representatives to make sure their hard-earned dollars that are withheld from every paycheck-- their tax dollars--aren't being ripped off by greedy corporations, like TransDigm Group, Inc., which I will speak about in a moment. That is why I conduct robust oversight of defense spending. As a taxpayer watchdog--and all of us are supposed to be watchdogs, and all of us would claim to be watchdogs--it is our responsibility and my responsibility to make sure every defense dollar is spent as effectively and as efficiently as possible. Every dollar lost to waste, fraud, and abuse harms military readiness, and it also lines the pockets of somebody else at taxpayers' expense. Trimming the fat in a bloated bureaucracy won't happen in the shadows. There is no magic wand to wave either. If there is one thing I have learned in my years of oversight, transparency matters. Transparency brings accountability. Every time I come to the floor to talk about the fiscal mess at the Pentagon, I get a bit of deja vu. Earlier, I said my fraud-fighting efforts in the 1980s could be compared to David v. Goliath. Now let's fast-forward to this year, 2019. I am still here working as hard as ever to do away with wrongdoing and extract fiscal accountability at the Pentagon. Today, some might say that job is like the one performed by the famous character in Greek mythology who was destined to roll that heavy stone up the hill and to do it from then until eternity. Congressional oversight can be extremely tedious, and it can be time- consuming, but, as I like to remind each of the other 534 Members of Congress, it is essential to our country that we exercise this system of checks and balances. Without it, the dark fiscal cloud looming over the Pentagon would swell bigger and bigger and bigger. Oversight work may feel like an uphill climb, but oversight is not futile in the end. That is why I keep my shoulder to the wheel--to hold people at the Pentagon accountable, to protect taxpayers, and most importantly, when it comes to a defense dollar, to make sure we have our military readiness. Right now, I am here today to share some new details about the broken record of fiscal mismanagement at the Department of Defense. No matter how high I turn up the volume, the overdogs at the Pentagon remain tone deaf to fiscal integrity. Consider the recent report by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General. It is called ``Review of Parts Purchased From TransDigm Group Inc.'' First, I want to compliment Senator Warren and two Representatives, Ro Khanna and Tim Ryan, for getting the ball rolling with their request asking the inspector general to look into the contract--this contractor's pricing structure. We need all hands on deck in Congress to conduct oversight, so I thank these other Members of Congress just named. After digging into the details, I can only conclude that the Pentagon is still, after all these years, stuck on autopilot. No one on board in the Pentagon's mother ship seems to bother to steer its ``fiscal ship'' into shape. Fiscal integrity somehow got lost in the spare parts horror story I am about to tell. In fact, I was more than dismayed with the response from the internal watchdogs at the DOD IG office. Their team wrote the report, and yet the inspector general leadership team seemed to show no urgency whatsoever to fix the problem they described. This tells me I also need to keep a tight leash on the internal watchdogs leading the Department of Defense inspector general's office. Their February report exposes a galactic price gouging, colossal ripple, and out-of-this-world waste. It reads like a sequel to the same financial shenanigans that have turned the Pentagon into a taxpayer money pit. Change out the name of the contractor, inflate the charges, submit the invoice and voila--the American taxpayer is on the hook for another fixed-price, sole source contract. For this report, the inspector general examined one contractor, TransDigm Group. In total, the inspector general analyzed 113 contracts between January 2015 and January 2017. They reviewed 47 spare parts the Department of Defense purchased from this contractor. In just those 2 years, the inspector general found TransDigm overcharged the Pentagon by $16-1/10th million out of a total of $29-7/10th million in contracts. The reasonable profit threshold is considered by the Department of Defense to be 15 percent or below. The IG found that TransDigm earned excess profits on 46 of the 47 parts sold to the Defense Department. On 17 of those parts, TransDigm earned more than a 1,000-percent profit. Remarkably, the highest profit percentage was 4,436 percent. It is obvious to our taxpayers that that is a fleecing of the American taxpayer. Pulling the wool over the eyes of Congress and the taxpayers will only stop with transparency--which transparency will bring accountability. So that is why I am here today. Just think for a minute about the big picture. This report is just one snapshot of a much larger problem. It is kind of a spit in the ocean when you consider the enormous $716 billion defense budget. Just imagine the boatloads of bloat elsewhere in the bureaucracy. The Department of Defense is obligated under Federal law and under regulations to uphold basic measures of fiscal integrity. So where do we go from here? The inspector general made just a few paltry recommendations. For starters, it directed contracting officers to request voluntary refunds for excess profits. Guess the chances of getting voluntary refunds. Let me suggest that I would not advise taxpayers to hold their breath on a voluntary refund. The inspector's general recommendations, then, have no teeth. Their recommendations are insufficient. What is worse, the inspector general leadership team claims no single Department of Defense official is responsible for this price gouging that goes on. So let me repeat: The inspector general leadership team, the internal watchdog for fiscal integrity and compliance at the Department of Defense, is effectively saying something like this: No one person at the Department of Defense can be held accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' money. Obviously, to the taxpayers listening or anybody else, this illustrates a cavalier attitude toward taxpayer money that former Secretary of Defense James Mattis sought to extinguish. By the way, I wrote him a note, complimenting him on some statements he made about taking care of some of these problems. The decades-long odyssey of misspending at the Pentagon keeps going around and around and around. That is why--the way I see it--the Department of Defense has a fundamental responsibility to uphold fiscal integrity. After reviewing the IG report and meeting with its auditing team and the Department of Defense pricing czar, I have reached three conclusions. No. 1, fiscal control at the Department of Defense is AWOL. The Pentagon will never clean up its books if it cannot properly track the money trail and connect the dots. Consider why the Department of Defense contracting officers were unable to even certify if a profit was ``fair and reasonable.'' Do you know why? It was because they could not obtain critical cost data at the company TransDigm. In the most egregious case--that case I mentioned where there was a 4,436-percent profit margin for just one spare part--the contracting officer--you will not believe this-- certified that the price was fair and reasonable. There is something very, very wrong about that procedure. A whopping 4,000-percent profit margin for a spare part doesn't square with our midwestern commonsense standard. No. 2, the leadership team at the IG office has exhibited an alarming hands-off approach toward stopping waste, fraud, and abuse. The lack of urgency and the failure to hold anyone accountable is very revealing. It sends a signal throughout the chain of command: Just keep on signing contracts; keep ordering spare parts; keep up business as usual. Lastly, it shows that no one will be held accountable for price gouging. No. 3, the pattern of price gouging at TransDigm and its subsidiaries has gone unimpeded for decades. It has amassed exclusive rights to sell these spare parts to the Pentagon. In fact, the Defense Department accounted for 34 percent of its sales in 2017. TransDigm exploited its business model and took advantage of its sole source position to leverage higher prices. Now, as a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--and still a member of that committee--I have examined anticompetitive business practices over a long period of time, including those in agriculture and the pharmaceutical sectors of our economy. It is very concerning to me when contracting arrangements, like those between TransDigm and its 100 subsidiaries, are effectively a monopoly. It is like an octopus with 100 arms putting the squeeze on the Pentagon. Effectively, the Pentagon is at the mercy of TransDigm--which owns the intellectual property--to buy the spare parts it needs to build the Nation's critical weapon systems. That leaves the American taxpayer on the hook for exorbitant price gouging. The inspector general report found that TransDigm's choke hold has added up to tens of millions of dollars overcharging to the taxpayer. This is a good time to refresh people's memories about my legislative and oversight work with anticompetitive business practices. It is pretty simple. Monopolies invite government regulation. If that is the road TransDigm wants to continue following, I am here to deliver a message. The jig is up on this cozy relationship. The buck stops here. I have written a letter to Acting Secretary Shanahan about these flawed contracts and failures to identify price gouging. I have asked him to make measurable recommendations on how to restore accountability and end this price gouging. One thing is crystal clear. Transparency and competition are MIA--missing in action--when the Pentagon buys spare parts from TransDigm and its subsidiaries. Now, thank God the other body, the House of Representatives, its Committee on Oversight and Reform, called an oversight hearing this week to examine TransDigm and its price-gouging shenanigans. Congress has a constitutional duty of oversight to keep check on taxpayers' money and hold government accountable. As I said earlier, we need all hands on deck to root out wasteful spending. Once again, we are back to square one. The Pentagon has flunked a fundamental benchmark of fiscal responsibility and stewardship. It is one of Washington's worst kept secrets. Year after year, Congress shovels more money into the Pentagon coffers to ensure we maintain the best military in the world, and I express my support for the military. I express my support that a strong department of national defense is also a strong keeper of the peace because we might not be challenged, and we are going to be able to help keep peace around the world, but year after year, the Pentagon squanders hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Some people at the Pentagon seem to think that paying $16 million in excess profits somehow seems to be small potatoes. In my letter to the Acting Defense Secretary, I made it clear that I am not one of those people. I have asked him to answer a direct question. That question is this: What specific steps is he going to take to stop the profiteers from pilfering taxpayer money? Contracts like I have described today between TransDigm and the Pentagon are shortchanging the troops, fleecing the taxpayers, and tarnishing its reputation. As Justice Brandeis said, ``sunshine is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' So I am here today to pull back the curtains on the TransDigm audit. The American people need the sun to shine in on price gouging at the Pentagon so we can root out the wasteful spending here and elsewhere. Transparency is the best ammunition that we have to chase away the dark fiscal crowd looming along the shores of the Potomac.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, to commemorate this year's National Police Week, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators on a resolution to honor these people who lost their lives in order to protect our lives. The men and women of law enforcement make sacrifices every day to protect their families and fellow citizens. We are indebted to their dedication. I want to express my appreciation for each and every police officer, firefighter, first responder, and other law enforcement officers who work diligently to protect our friends and families. All of those visiting Washington this week to commemorate National Police Week, if you get a chance to see them on the streets of Washington, DC, thank them for their service. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to tell my colleagues in the Senate about a project I worked on in Iowa on getting history from various veterans. This morning, I delivered 20 stories from veterans to the Veterans History Project at our Library of Congress. These stories will be preserved in the permanent collection of the Library of Congress, making accessible the personal accounts of American war veterans so that future generations may hear directly from veterans and better understand the realities of war. I want to thank all of our veterans, including those who were interviewed, who have sacrificed for the defense of our freedoms. Their service ensures that all Americans will live in peace and prosperity for generations to come.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, May is National Foster Care Month. Due to the opioid crisis and other substance abuse issues plaguing communities in Iowa and all across America, the number of kids in foster care is rapidly rising. In 2017, there were 443,000 kids in care. Ninety-six thousand entered foster care because of parental substance abuse. These families need help. That is why Congress passed the Family First Prevention Services Act, which will allow States to receive Federal reimbursement for services to help keep kids with their parents. These services include substance abuse treatment programs. As we celebrate this month of May as National Foster Care Month, I hope we will think about the number of kids who are there and do what we can to help those kids have permanency and parents. As chairman of the Caucus on Foster Youth, those are the two things I hear from them when listening to them talk about going from foster home to foster home, sometimes two or three times a year. They tell me they would like to have parents and they would like to have a home. They want stability. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week marks National Police Week, which is dedicated to the brave men and women of law enforcement. Police officers prioritize the safety of their neighbors and fellow citizens above their own. This week gives us an opportunity to reflect on the dedication and perseverance of law enforcement officers across the country. We should also honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving our communities. It is because of the commitment and bravery of police officers, firefighters, first responders, and other public safety officers that we can feel safe in our homes, places of work, and our communities. I am particularly grateful for the men and women in blue who serve my fellow Iowans. I would also like to thank the officers who serve in Washington, DC. The Capitol Police work diligently every day to ensure that those of us who work here and everyone who visits this Capitol are safe. Each member of the Capitol Police works selflessly to protect us, and their dedication to service doesn't go unnoticed. National Police Week serves as a reminder to thank specific members of law enforcement whom we know and care about; however, we can't forget to honor those who sacrificed their lives to protect ours. These individuals are heroes. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a total of 1,582 officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years. That is an average of one death every 55 hours. In 2018, 158 officers were killed in the line of duty. At the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, the names of some 200 Iowans are inscribed amongst those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Each name represents a unique individual who answered the call of duty. We are indebted to each and every one of those people. To that end, I am pleased that the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved three bills, two of which I cosponsored and one that I introduced. My bill, the Protecting America's First Responder's Act, seeks to fix issues in the Federal Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program. Officers whose lives have been transformed by injury in the line of duty deserve our support, and that bill lends to their support and makes sure that it is actually accomplished. Unfortunately, the Federal program that was created to assist them has fallen short in responding to claims efficiently. This important bill improves this program to ensure that disabled or fallen officers receive the benefits they deserve. My bill enjoys the wide support of multiple groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Sergeants Benevolent Association, National Association of Police Organizations, Peace Officers Research Association of California, Wounded Blue, How2LoveOurCops, Billings Montana Police Department, National Volunteer Fire Council, National Association of School Resource Officers, and the Violently Injured Police Officers Organization. I look forward to passing this bill into law, and I thank all of the bill's cosponsors for helping to move this bill forward. In addition to the Protecting America's First Responder's Act, we also moved two other bills out of the Judiciary Committee. The first is the Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program reauthorization. This bill allows State and local law enforcement officers to purchase lifesaving bulletproof vests for those officers working in the field. I am happy to cosponsor this legislation and support my colleague Senator Leahy's tireless efforts to improve the availability of bulletproof vests to our police. The other bill that passed out of committee last week is the Supporting and Treating Officers in Crisis Act. Mental illness and suicide among police officers continue to grow. Senator Hawley introduced this bill, and I am proud to cosponsor it with him because it addresses a critical issue that far too many officers face. This bill seeks to provide necessary resources to law enforcement on mental health and suicide prevention. I urge my colleagues to support all three of these bills. Passing them into law is one way to say thank you to the brave men and women who serve us so selflessly. I would like to conclude my remarks by once again thanking all members of law enforcement for their dedication and sacrifice. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to a revered and distinguished member of the press corps, Robert Pear, a longtime reporter for the New York Times. He spent four decades in the corridors of this U.S. Capitol. I often say that journalists are the watchdogs of democracy, and I really believe that--policing their beats to inform the public and, more importantly, to hold wrongdoers and especially our big government accountable. That makes them very valuable to preserving our representative system of government. These journalists serve as the eyes and ears of the American people--reporting on issues that impact the daily lives and livelihoods of our neighbors. From crime to education, healthcare, and foreign policy, journalists serve as guardians of the First Amendment. That brings me to Robert. On Tuesday, the healthcare beat lost a legendary reporter. The death of Robert Pear will be mourned for many years to come. As the dean of the national healthcare reporters, he established a reputation for hard-nosed reporting. For decades, he carried out a noble mission to inform the public, and he did it with integrity and fairness. He leaves behind a legacy of unmatched institutional knowledge, particularly in the area of healthcare policy. As a policymaker and history buff myself, I read as much news as I can possibly get my hands on. On weekends, I catch up on my reading when traveling to and from Iowa. For every year I have served in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Pear's byline has appeared in the New York Times. I am told that it appeared more than 6,700 times. It is a byline that I made sure not to miss. His work put meat on the bones of public policy. Even those of us who study legislation closely could learn a lot and did learn a lot from his writings. Substantive and crisp, his exceptional reporting delivered a thorough analysis of complex issues and then without a doubt influenced the policy conversation on healthcare. His prolific pen sharpened the minds of readers, including staff and lawmakers who wrote legislation here on Capitol Hill. It even informed lobbyists who worked to penetrate and influence the debate. His work carried weight with those who implemented healthcare policy from the executive branch, including the White House, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration. Now that he has passed away, his absence on the healthcare beat here on Capitol Hill will be missed profoundly. His understanding of the mechanics of health policy were without equal. He was able to wade through the weeds of our archaic Federal spending formulas for Medicare and Medicaid and decipher their impact on the delivery of care in my rural communities but also urban America. Mr. Pear deftly communicated how proposed changes would affect patient care, from the point of service to the pharmaceutical counter and the pocketbooks of consumers. Policymakers, providers, patients, and the taxpayers have been well- served by this giant of journalism. Unlike many of his peers, Mr. Pear shunned the spotlight by just doing the old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting. Unassuming and understated, Mr. Pear let his published work speak for itself. I am sure you are going to hear from Ranking Member Wyden shortly, and he knows Mr. Pear very well and would agree with some of these things I say. Before holding a press conference to unveil a bill dealing with healthcare, any Senator, including this one, had to be sure to have all their ducks in a row. No lawmaker wanted to be a sitting duck with Robert Pear in the front row of the press gaggle. I will miss his bylines, particularly the extent to which they helped to educate me, helped me to understand policy that other Members of Congress were promoting and maybe even learning from his criticism on some stands that I took. Today, I extend my condolences to his family, friends, and peers. I salute his lifelong contribution through exemplary service on behalf of the American people--most importantly, policing the process of representative government and making sure that government and those of us who serve in government are accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to speak on another matter, but I want to thank Senator Wyden for the kind words he had to say, as well, about a very distinguished journalist.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address my colleagues with three different subjects. The first one is very, very short. It is things that are being talked about right now, particularly in the other body. Many in the media seem very, very unhappy with the results of the Mueller report, or they might be embarrassed that the world knows that they sold a bunch of snake oil for the past 2 years, talking for 2 years about collusion with Russia, and now after the Mueller report has come out, they find out that the jig is up. I hope the media will pursue the origins of the Russian collusion investigation with the very same vigor over the last 2 years that they pursued the collusion narrative. It will go a long way, then, to restore the media's damaged credibility, and knowing how all of this started will help us to prevent such a fiasco from ever happening again.

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, May has been recognized as National Foster Care Month for over 20 years to bring awareness to the challenges that foster youth face. Through my work on the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have had the opportunity to hear firsthand what children in foster care need. They need love, support, safety, and permanency. They need a family. I salute all those who dedicate their time and resources to help these kids. In moving forward, I will continue to work to find better solutions and to secure better outcomes for youth in foster care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, the Department of Labor released its monthly scorecard for the U.S. workforce. The unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent, which is the lowest rate since December 1969--a new 50-year low. Moreover, an additional 263,000 jobs were created. Job gains have averaged a robust 218,000 over the past 12 months. Additionally, for the ninth straight month, year-over- year nominal wage gains have equaled or exceeded 3 percent. It is good to see this administration's tax reform and pro-growth policies continuing to improve the daily lives of all Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the taxpayers spent $30 million on the special counsel's investigation. Now we know without a single doubt that there was no collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia. For more than 2 years, the Democrats screamed collusion and did so not based on fact but based on rumor, hearsay, and probably wishful thinking. They have done a huge disservice to the American people by taking that approach. As I have said before, the real collusion was actually with the Democrats. Here is how it has evolved. It was the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee that hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research against Candidate Trump. Then Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to compile what we now hear always referred to as the Steele dossier. That document was very central to the fake collusion narrative, and it reportedly used Russian Government sources for information. So the Democrats paid for a document created by a foreign national that relied on Russian Government sources--not Trump; the Democrats. That is the definition of collusion. But Democratic collusion didn't stop there. Last week, The Hill newspaper reported that a Democratic National Committee contractor contacted the Ukrainian Government to get dirt on the Trump and Manafort during the Presidential election. Specifically, the Democratic National Committee contractor reportedly ``wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets working to hurt the U.S. and working with Putin against U.S. interests.'' The Democrats were up in arms about the Trump Tower meeting when the Trump campaign was approached about dirt on Hillary Clinton. Here, the DNC proactively pounded the door of a foreign government for dirt. Where is the outrage at that? The special counsel ignored all of that in his report; thus, he didn't fulfill all of his responsibilities. The Deputy Attorney General appointed Mueller in May of 2017 to investigate alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. The Deputy Attorney General further ordered that if the special counsel believed it was necessary and appropriate, he was authorized to ``prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.'' But that is not what the special counsel did on the obstruction question. Instead, the special counsel declined to make a traditional prosecutorial decision. The report said that ``[t]he evidence that we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.'' As the Attorney General said when he released the report and then again in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, the role of a prosecutor ``is to make a charging decision.'' It isn't a prosecutor's job to exonerate a subject; it is to charge a crime or, in the alternative, not to charge a crime. But in his report, the special counsel explains his decision not to even make a decision. He says, among other things, that stating the President had committed a chargeable offense without actually charging him, under the Justice Department's guidance, would be unfair to the President because, according to the special counsel, then the President couldn't defend himself properly before a neutral factfinder. Instead, the special counsel laid out 200 or so pages of facts and hand-wringing relating to the obstruction and then dumped all of this material on the Attorney General's desk. It reminds me of former FBI Director Comey's declaration in the summer of 2016 that Secretary Clinton was extremely careless in handling classified information but that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Secretary Clinton. FBI Director Comey made a prosecutorial decision that wasn't his to make; it was up to the Attorney General to make. That was Attorney General Lynch. Comey also released derogatory information about Secretary Clinton and then refused to show all of his work. The special counsel's report is at least equally problematic. The report lays out 200 pages of investigative product but leaves the charging decision hanging in Never Never Land. Nevertheless, the report asserts that if the special counsel team could have found the President did not commit obstruction, they would have said so. But, again, that is not what prosecutors do. That is a reversal of the innocent until proven guilty standard that is basic to American justice. If it really were a thorough investigation, it seems the inverse would be true as well. The inverse is that, after a thorough investigation, the special counsel did not have enough evidence to conclusively state obstruction actually occurred. During the Attorney General's May 1 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he noted that if the special counsel found facts sufficient to constitute obstruction, he would have stated that finding. Curiously, the special counsel spilled a lot of ink in his report to explain why he believed the President could be charged as a matter of legal theory. So why didn't he just make that decision or at least make a very clear recommendation to the Attorney General and stand behind his own theories? The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General asked Mueller whether he would have charged obstruction but for the Department's guidance on charging sitting Presidents. The special counsel said no, which means, if warranted, that there was no barrier for him to make that charge. In the absence of a decision from the special counsel, it was then up to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, who appointed Mueller and supervised his work. The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General reviewed all of the facts and evidence that the special counsel collected. The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General evaluated it under Mueller's own legal theories, even though they disagreed with some of those theories. After all of that, the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General determined that the evidence was not sufficient to charge. Oddly, the special counsel's report is probably the most notable for what it doesn't address at all. The special counsel's report does not address the genesis of the Russia investigation. It doesn't address whether the FBI used improper surveillance techniques on the Trump campaign or individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It doesn't address the credibility of the FBI's sources. It doesn't address whether the Steele dossier was a Russian disinformation campaign. Even one of the reporters at the publication that initially dumped the dossier into the public domain wants to know where it came from and what it means. The special counsel's report doesn't address whether Department of Justice officials turned a blind eye to potential misconduct. It also doesn't address whether the Department of Justice misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when it applied for that court's decision against the Trump campaign. So now we know what reasonable people have long suspected--there was no collusion and no obstruction of the collusion investigation. Yet we still don't know how this so-called collusion investigation got started in the first place. In March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey testified that he briefed President-elect Trump about these allegations in January 2017 even though, according to his public testimony, Director Comey considered them to be, in his words, ``salacious and unverified.'' If, in fact, they were salacious and unverified in early 2017, then what were they months before that when Comey started the investigation? We know the allegations against Page were unverified when they were used by the FBI and the Justice Department to support a FISA application to spy--yes, spy--on an American citizen, an American citizen who, by the way, has never been charged with anything. In January of 2018, Senator Lindsey Graham and this Senator wrote to the Deputy Attorney General and FBI Director Christopher Wray about the allegations in the Steele dossier, about its author, and, more importantly, about its bankrollers. In that memo, we described inconsistencies between what Steele swore to a British court about his contacts with the media and what the Page FISA application represented to the FISA Court about those same contacts. The FISA application represented that Steele did not communicate with the media about his intelligence reports but that he told the British court he did. We noted in our memo that if Mr. Steele had lied to the FBI about his media contacts, it would bear on his credibility. That would be a huge problem because the FISA application and its renewals depended on taking Steele at his word. Remember, at that time, the Steele dossier was still ``salacious and unverified,'' and those were Comey's words. So it mattered a whole lot whether the FBI and the Department of Justice could trust Steele and his dossier. In our referral, Senator Graham and I also noted that Mr. Steele's contacts with the media likely affected, in our words, the ``reliability of his information-gathering efforts'' in compiling the dossier. By the time the Department of Justice and the FBI filed the FISA application and even before the FBI officially opened the investigation, the Steele dossier was probably the worst kept secret in Washington, DC. The same can be said for the government's efforts to look for ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. All of these folks--the media, lawyers, lobbyists, campaign organizations, private research firms, FBI officials, the Department of Justice and Department of State officials, and even foreign intelligence agencies--reportedly had access to the dossier information or the dossier itself. An attorney for Clinton and the Democratic National Committee even passed on some aspects of this information directly to the FBI's general counsel before the FISA was issued. Basically, this piece of paper was, in some form or another, all over this town, and the more the dossier was shopped around, the more vulnerable it became to its manipulation. We also know that at least as early as the summer of 2016, foreign intelligence agencies were reportedly feeding information to the CIA about Trump campaign associates and that the FBI was using a source to seek information from individuals who were associated with the Trump campaign. At about that time, Fusion GPS had hired Steele on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. We need to know if leadership in the intelligence community and the FBI were already gathering intelligence on Trump associates when Fusion hired Steele. We need to know whether the Obama administration was looking so hard for connections that it figured the Steele dossier would justify efforts to continue its surveillance activities. Further, we need to know if the Russians knew our government was that hungry for information to the point they packed the dossier with disinformation just to sow chaos. If so, it looks like the Obama administration fell for it hook, line, and sinker, and it certainly seems like some in leadership may have ignored clear warning signs. Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr spoke with top FBI leadership about Steele's work the day the investigation opened, and after the FBI terminated Steele as a source, Ohr continued to feed Steele's work to the Bureau. At various times, Mr. Ohr made it clear to the FBI that the information from Steele could not be taken at face value because it was based on hearsay. Ohr noted that Steele had an anti-Trump agenda and that the whole operation was bankrolled by Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Of course, the Clinton campaign wasn't keen on the world's knowing it was footing the bill for the dossier. Its lawyers even lied to the media about this fact for more than a year. That is not my saying it. A New York Times reporter said that. So, by the time the FISA application was filed and every time it was renewed, FBI and Department of Justice leaders were very much aware of the political bias and the purpose of the unverified information that supposedly supported it, so much so that according to reported text messages between former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and his staff, the FBI worked to create--these are their words--a ``robust explanation'' for ``any possible bias'' of the source ``in the package'' supporting the FISA application. It also seems from these text messages that the FBI was getting pushback from at least one individual at the Justice Department about seeking the FISA. In the end, the FISA application was presented to the court with there being no mention whatsoever of Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, or any mention of the source's political bias and with only mere speculation by the FBI that its primary source was not peddling his information far and wide. The FISA application was then granted by the court and was renewed three times. Let me say that again. The FISA application was granted and renewed three times. The FBI surveilled an American citizen for many months based on salacious and unverified information that had been gathered by a former foreign intelligence officer who was desperate to keep the President out of office. He was British Agent Steele. That former intelligence officer used Russian sources, including Russian Government sources, at the behest and with the funding of a rival political party and campaign. The Democrats and the mainstream media have been screaming at the top of their lungs about salacious, unverified allegations that this President stole an election by working with the Russians, but it is a sobering and verified fact that the Democrats actually paid for dirt from the Russians to damage their political opponents. So now, after the taxpayers have spent $30 million to work through this swirling cesspool of allegations, when the Attorney General says he has concerns about certain aspects of this investigation, I agree with him. I don't know whether laws were broken or protocols were breached or rules were violated, but for decades, I have been doing oversight of the Federal Government, including of the Department of Justice and the FBI, and I think there is certainly enough there to be asking questions. For example, did the Obama administration improperly use the U.S. intelligence community to attempt to neutralize and denigrate a political opponent? Did the Obama administration fail to properly assert oversight of the Department of Justice and the FBI FISA process? These questions must be answered. It is fundamentally American to care not just about what laws the government enforces but also how the government enforces those laws. If the greatest enemy we see is the person on the other side of the political spectrum, then the foreign powers who seek to divide and weaken our Republic are going to succeed. Now, I have been trying to get to the bottom of all sides of this issue for years, and I have urged my Democratic colleagues to join me. I am encouraged that the Attorney General is taking a look, and I am encouraged that the independent Department of Justice inspector general has been looking at these issues as well. I have no idea what they are going to find. I know Mueller turned a blind eye to what they are investigating, however. The American people need answers--all the answers. It is not just this administration that has been dragged through the mud with wild collusion and obstruction theories. The American people have had to listen to those falsehoods now for years. Many in the media have been breathlessly flooding the airwaves with speculation and what- ifs about the bogus Trump collusion narrative. Now that the report is out, some media figures are still struggling to come to terms with Mueller's findings and decisions. It is as if they are unhappy with the results or perhaps they are embarrassed that the world is learning that we have been sold a bunch of snake oil for the past 2 years and now they are finding out that the jig is up. I hope the mainstream media will pursue the origins of the Russian collusion investigation and do it with the same vigor as they have been pushing the collusion narrative for the last 2 years, and there ought to be some apologies from some of them. This would all go a long way to restoring their damaged credibility. So I am going to do whatever I can to make sure the people get these answers. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I hope that the New York Times article will be a wake-up call to congressional Democrats and people outside of Congress to abandon this misleading rhetoric. Unfortunately, it is more likely they will continue their campaign of misinformation. Yet, as more and more hard data come in on the benefits of tax reform, it will become harder and harder for the American public to take the Democrats seriously with their rhetoric. With the tax filing season now behind us, we are finally starting to get some of this hard data. H&R Block has released data for this filing season based upon its experience in helping taxpayers during this filing season, which demonstrate how taxpayers fared in each State. Again, as you can see from this chart, taxpayers who are in red and blue States alike have all benefited from tax reform. One knows what the rhetoric was around here even before we voted on this bill: It is an attack on the blue States. Well, it didn't turn out that way. On average for all States, taxpayers saw a 24-percent reduction in their tax bills. This data directly contradict misleading arguments by these Washington Democrats, as I stated, that tax reform was an attack on high-tax blue States due to the cap on the State and local tax deductions, and we set that cap at $10,000. According to H&R Block, not according to this Senator, some of the largest tax reductions are actually found in the high-tax blue States. On average, taxpayers in New Jersey saw the largest reduction in their tax bills at 29 percent. New Jersey, based on the last several elections, is a blue State. Massachusetts had the second largest reduction of 27.6 percent, and California had the third largest with 27.1 percent. They are blue States. The fact is, on average, taxpayers in every State have benefited from tax reform, and in some cases, high-tax blue States have fared even better than red States. I am proud of the work we did on tax reform. No bill is perfect, and we still have work to do in addressing a number of technical correction issues, but we have kept our promise to enact meaningful reform that has cut taxes for the middle class. Even more important is what tax reform means for long-term economic growth. It doesn't take a tax expert to see that income, wages, jobs, and unemployment numbers have all very much improved since the enactment of this tax bill. That then reflects in significant benefits obtained by American workers. Of course, that is on top of the direct tax relief that hard-working individuals and families are already receiving, which I described at the beginning of my remarks. Annualized growth in real after-tax personal income averaged 2\1/2\ percent during the Obama administration; it has averaged 3.3 percent since tax reform. Annualized growth in real average hourly earnings averaged a mere 0.6 percent under Obama compared to 1.7 percent following the enactment of the tax bill. So it is about three times as much. Monthly job gains averaged 110,000 under President Obama; they averaged 215,000 after this tax bill passed. There have been nearly 5.4 million jobs created since January of 2017, with more than half of that job creation having occurred since the enactment of tax reform. Under President Obama, the unemployment rate averaged a whopping 7.4 percent. Today, it averages 3.9 percent. Following tax reform and for the first time since 2001, the number of job openings in the national economy has exceeded the number of unemployed Americans--a phenomenon that has continued for the past year. That means an American who wants a job can get a job. To say it simply, tax reform is working for America. For the Democrats to suggest otherwise is nothing more than their continued effort to mislead the American public. I invite the Democrats to take a page from the New York Times article, acknowledge the facts, and work with us to continue to improve the economic environment for hard- working individuals and families all across this great country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to first give approximately a 1-minute speech and then speak for a longer time on another subject. I am happy to recognize small businesses in Iowa, and, of course, we should recognize them all across our country. We do that by celebrating National Small Business Week. In my State of Iowa, 99 percent of all businesses are small businesses. Also, almost half of Iowa's employees are employed by small businesses. Government regulations have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, often costing them 20 percent more than the average of all businesses. So we need to remember that small businesses are the main source of America's innovations and economic strength. We should all be proud of and support these men and women who work hard to keep our communities vibrant. This week is devoted to honoring small business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I have worked to secure tax policies to help spur entrepreneurship, competition, and innovation. Opportunity zones are a perfect example of the type of tax policy that creates that kind of growth in our economy. Opportunity zones were created under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed by the President in December 2017. That bill stimulates economic development and job creation across the country by incentivizing long- term investments in economically distressed neighborhoods. Last year, more than 8,700 census tracts were identified as opportunity zones by the Governors of each of the 50 States. These zones are home to approximately 31 million Americans, or roughly 10 percent of the population. Even in just this short period, we are already seeing wage increases within these economically distressed areas after their having been designated as opportunity zones. For example, during the second and third quarters of last year, our counties with a large presence of opportunity zones experienced an annualized wage growth of 8 percent. That is compared to other economically distressed counties that were not designated as zones, which did not see a significant spike in wages. We are also seeing States across the country showing an interest in opportunity zones, with at least 17 State legislators considering their own opportunity zone measures at the State level. Although States can't make direct investments into the Federal opportunity zone projects, many are considering measures to encourage initiatives such as solar energy or affordable housing. Even in my home State of Iowa, cities such as Iowa City and Coralville have made local investments in their economically distressed communities and are actively recruiting investors for development projects in their opportunity zone areas. I also want to applaud the efforts of the Treasury Department to provide much needed clarity for community leaders and investors. These include two packages of proposed regulations dedicated to implementing opportunity zone rules. As the Treasury Department works to finalize these regulations and provide other guidance, I will continue working with Secretary Mnuchin, States and cities, and the investment community to ensure that opportunity zones succeed in driving new business investment and activity to America's low-income communities. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the leader, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Wolson nomination, the Senate proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of the veto message on S.J. Res. 7, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate, at 1:45 p.m., Thursday, May 2, and with 5 minutes of debate prior to the vote under the control of Senator Menendez.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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