Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, Governor Reynolds designated this week as ``Severe Weather Awareness Week'' in Iowa. That goes beyond just a flooding situation; it is because of the catastrophic flooding throughout our State and to tell everybody that it is not over. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has warned of significant spring flooding yet to come. We are seeing increased flows in the Missouri River, the Mississippi River, and their tributaries. Iowans should review their insurance policies for gaps and consider flood insurance. That is one of the things Governor Reynolds is suggesting. Also, it would be good to have a plan in case it is necessary to evacuate, including important personal belongings and pets. FEMA's website, ready.gov, can help you with that information. Iowans know severe weather, including massive snowstorms, flooding, tornadoes, and heavy winds. The key is that we prepare, help our neighbors, and stay vigilant. I thank Governor Reynolds for alerting people to the future, as well as worrying about the past. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, another thing that I shouldn't have to come to the floor to talk about--and it will only take me about 3 or 4 minutes--is that I am still hearing questions about my intent to object to the nomination of William Evanina. These are the same questions I heard last year when I initially placed my hold on Evanina. By the way, my hold is printed in the Record, and the rules of this Senate require all Members who put a hold on a nomination or a bill, within 2 days after doing that, to put something in the Record, and most Senators aren't following that rule of the Senate. So if you have some disagreement about something and you put a secret hold on and somebody wants to sit down and talk with you to see what is wrong, how are they going to know who it is? That is why, in 2011, on a vote of 96 to 4, Senator Wyden and I got these rules, so there should be no secret holds in the U.S. Senate. So I am back here again. This statement will be the fourth time since June 4, 2018, that I have publicly expressed my reason for this hold here on the Senate floor. It seems to me no one has been listening to what I have been saying, but what is unusual about that? As I have said repeatedly, the Judiciary Committee has experienced difficulty in obtaining relevant documents and briefings from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein personally--I want to emphasize--personally assured me that the Judiciary Committee would receive equal access to information provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with regard to negotiations about the pending subpoenas from that committee related to the 2016 election controversies. I haven't received equal access, as promised. On August 7, 2018, I wrote to the Justice Department and pointed out that the House Intelligence Committee received documents related to Bruce Ohr on May 8, 2018, that the Judiciary Committee did not receive. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter inserted in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Department flatout denied that those records had been provided to the House Intelligence Committee. That wasn't the truth. After my staff confronted the Department, we eventually received some documents. There is no reason for stonewalling; there is no reason for lack of cooperation--plain and simple. In that August 2018 letter, I asked for additional documents based on my equal access agreement with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. To date, the Department still hasn't provided a response. I later learned that the Justice Department has taken the position that Director Coats has prohibited them from sharing the requested records with the committee. Then, in addition to the outstanding records request, in May 2018, the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department provided a briefing in connection with the pending House Intelligence subpoena, to which no Senate Judiciary Committee member was invited. The Judiciary Committee's attempt to schedule an equivalent briefing has been ignored. The lack of cooperation, then, obviously, as any one of the 100 Senators would do--the bureaucracy, the faceless bureaucrats, are forcing our hand. Congressional oversight is a constitutional requirement. It seems that in every administration--Republican or Democratic--I am forced to remind them of that constitutional responsibility of oversight, and that responsibility cuts both ways. The executive branch can't hide documents from one congressional committee, especially one that clearly has oversight jurisdiction over the matter, and at the same time provide those very same documents to another committee. In this case, my colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee have received these documents. I don't blame them at all for getting that information. I say to them: full speed ahead with whatever you need to do. However, that doesn't mean this Senator has to stand down. It is quite the opposite. I am going to fight until I get what has been promised to me but, more importantly, promised to 21 members of the Judiciary Committee. I think it is worthy of note that the authorizing resolution that created the Senate Intelligence Committee made clear that other committees still have authority to review intelligence documents. For example, S. Res. 400 explicitly reserves for other standing committees, such as the Judiciary Committee, independent authority to ``study and review any intelligence activity to the extent that such activity directly affects a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee'' and ``to obtain full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence activities of any department or any agency'' within that jurisdiction. The information I seek is connected to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That court is within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Now, to be fair, the Justice Department has provided access to FISA applications and some of the relevant background materials on more than one occasion. One must give credit where credit is due. However, if they have provided the Judiciary Committee access to that information, what is holding them back from showing us the rest? The secrecy just doesn't make any sense, and it is secrecy that often prevents accountability. I will not release my hold until the Justice Department upholds its equal access agreement with me and the Judiciary Committee. In no way am I questioning Mr. Evanina's credentials. Director Coats and others have spoken highly of him. The fact is, if they really do believe in his credentials, then they should produce the requested documents they have promised me more than once. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleague, Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden, will be joining me in introducing the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 later today. This legislation seeks to modernize the Internal Revenue Service, improve taxpayers' services, and strengthen taxpayer protections. The package of IRS reforms we will introduce today is the culmination of years of work by both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. It is truly a bipartisan package that adopts provisions authored by committee members on both sides of the aisle of the House and the Senate. Former Chairman Hatch of Utah deserves a lot of credit for working to reach a bipartisan, bicameral agreement at the end of the last Congress, which is reflected in the legislation we will be introducing this afternoon. I know Senator Hatch put a lot of work into trying to get this legislation across the finish line last year. Unfortunately, it wasn't meant to be, due to both political realities and, maybe, time constraints--even more so. However, his work helped us get to where we are today. In other words, we are advancing a great deal of what Senator Hatch worked on, and our hope is that it will allow us to move quickly this year and finally get these commonsense reforms of the Internal Revenue Service enacted into law. Some of the IRS reforms in this legislation include establishing a truly independent Office of Appeals within the Internal Revenue Service. This will help ensure the playing field is not tilted against taxpayers when those taxpayers are in dispute with the Internal Revenue Service. To help bring the Internal Revenue Service into the 21st century, the legislation also would require the IRS to submit to Congress a plan to redesign the structure of the Agency to improve efficiency, enhance cyber security, and better meet taxpayer needs. It also includes a number of provisions to protect the taxpayers better from tax ID theft and improve taxpayer interaction with the IRS, should they become a victim of that crime. This includes creating a single point of contact in the IRS to help the taxpayers navigate the bureaucracy and resolve their issues as quickly as possible. To provide taxpayers with better protection against becoming such a victim in the first place, the legislation will expand to all taxpayers an IRS program that currently allows victims--and only victims--of tax ID theft to obtain a personalized PIN that better secures the identity of any taxpayer who asks for it. The legislation also puts in place new safeguards to protect taxpayers against recent IRS enforcement abuses of so-called structuring laws. On several occasions, the IRS used these laws to seize bank accounts of small business owners when no underlying criminal activity was present. This includes seizing $33,000 from a small business owner who operated a small restaurant in Arnolds Park, IA, for nearly 40 years. The IRS--on a whim, taking $33,000 from that small business--caused the business to close, and the owner did nothing wrong in the end. Provisions in our bill will help ensure these types of abuses never occur again. I would also like to note the improvements to the IRS whistleblower program that are contained in the bill. In 2006, I authored legislation establishing a mandatory Internal Revenue Service whistleblower program. Since it was established, the IRS whistleblower program has turned into one of the most effective programs addressing tax evasion, leading to the recovery of more than $5 billion in taxes that otherwise would have been lost to fraud. Unfortunately, too many IRS whistleblowers continue to be treated like a skunk at a picnic. They often wait for years, and while they are waiting for years, it is in the dark, with no indication of whether the information they provided to the IRS would ever lead to a successful recovery or whether their reward is even being processed. Moreover, they are often putting their careers on the line, exposing corporate tax shelters with no protection should their employer decide to retaliate. Provisions in our bill will help to address these issues by authorizing the IRS to communicate with whistleblowers, in certain instances, while protecting taxpayer privacy. What we are really saying is this: You ought to let these whistleblowers, who are patriotic people, trying to help the Federal Government collect money that wouldn't otherwise be collected--treat them like the patriotic citizens they are. The bill would also extend anti-retaliation provisions to IRS whistleblowers that are presently afforded to whistleblowers under other whistleblower laws--the False Claims Act, which I authored in 1986, as well as the more recent Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which came out of another committee that I didn't serve on. Finally, the bill includes modifications to the private debt collection program. I have long been a proponent of this program as a way to tackle the tax gap and to promote tax fairness. It works by assigning certain tax debts, which the IRS otherwise would not attempt to collect, to an outside contractor to pursue. In other words, if the IRS isn't going to go after all the money that is owed to the taxpayers--and we don't want $1 more than what people owe, but we want every dollar that people do owe--if they aren't going to go after it, we ought to find some way to go after it. That is why we have outside contractors pursuing some of these issues that the IRS isn't going to pursue. Recent quarterly revenue reports demonstrate the program has the potential to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue on an annual basis. I understand some of my colleagues, particularly on the House Ways and Means Committee, have been concerned that the program has been too heavily focused on lower income taxpayers. We listened to these concerns, and we worked to develop a sensible compromise while yet strengthening the long-term viability of this program. These are just a few of the provisions in this bill. There are many others that will go a long way toward making the IRS work better for taxpayers. I also know that some of my colleagues have additional ideas that we were unable to include in this package. I want them to know that I see this legislation as a first step toward reforming the IRS and strengthening taxpayers' protections. I agree there is more that we can do. I am committed to evaluating additional proposals with input from all of our colleagues on reforms that could be included in a package of additional IRS reforms later this Congress. But first things first. Companion legislation is being introduced in the House, which I hope the Senate will receive in the near future. I ask all of my colleagues to join me and Ranking Member Wyden in supporting this bipartisan bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleague, Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden, will be joining me in introducing the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 later today. This legislation seeks to modernize the Internal Revenue Service, improve taxpayers' services, and strengthen taxpayer protections. The package of IRS reforms we will introduce today is the culmination of years of work by both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. It is truly a bipartisan package that adopts provisions authored by committee members on both sides of the aisle of the House and the Senate. Former Chairman Hatch of Utah deserves a lot of credit for working to reach a bipartisan, bicameral agreement at the end of the last Congress, which is reflected in the legislation we will be introducing this afternoon. I know Senator Hatch put a lot of work into trying to get this legislation across the finish line last year. Unfortunately, it wasn't meant to be, due to both political realities and, maybe, time constraints--even more so. However, his work helped us get to where we are today. In other words, we are advancing a great deal of what Senator Hatch worked on, and our hope is that it will allow us to move quickly this year and finally get these commonsense reforms of the Internal Revenue Service enacted into law. Some of the IRS reforms in this legislation include establishing a truly independent Office of Appeals within the Internal Revenue Service. This will help ensure the playing field is not tilted against taxpayers when those taxpayers are in dispute with the Internal Revenue Service. To help bring the Internal Revenue Service into the 21st century, the legislation also would require the IRS to submit to Congress a plan to redesign the structure of the Agency to improve efficiency, enhance cyber security, and better meet taxpayer needs. It also includes a number of provisions to protect the taxpayers better from tax ID theft and improve taxpayer interaction with the IRS, should they become a victim of that crime. This includes creating a single point of contact in the IRS to help the taxpayers navigate the bureaucracy and resolve their issues as quickly as possible. To provide taxpayers with better protection against becoming such a victim in the first place, the legislation will expand to all taxpayers an IRS program that currently allows victims--and only victims--of tax ID theft to obtain a personalized PIN that better secures the identity of any taxpayer who asks for it. The legislation also puts in place new safeguards to protect taxpayers against recent IRS enforcement abuses of so-called structuring laws. On several occasions, the IRS used these laws to seize bank accounts of small business owners when no underlying criminal activity was present. This includes seizing $33,000 from a small business owner who operated a small restaurant in Arnolds Park, IA, for nearly 40 years. The IRS--on a whim, taking $33,000 from that small business--caused the business to close, and the owner did nothing wrong in the end. Provisions in our bill will help ensure these types of abuses never occur again. I would also like to note the improvements to the IRS whistleblower program that are contained in the bill. In 2006, I authored legislation establishing a mandatory Internal Revenue Service whistleblower program. Since it was established, the IRS whistleblower program has turned into one of the most effective programs addressing tax evasion, leading to the recovery of more than $5 billion in taxes that otherwise would have been lost to fraud. Unfortunately, too many IRS whistleblowers continue to be treated like a skunk at a picnic. They often wait for years, and while they are waiting for years, it is in the dark, with no indication of whether the information they provided to the IRS would ever lead to a successful recovery or whether their reward is even being processed. Moreover, they are often putting their careers on the line, exposing corporate tax shelters with no protection should their employer decide to retaliate. Provisions in our bill will help to address these issues by authorizing the IRS to communicate with whistleblowers, in certain instances, while protecting taxpayer privacy. What we are really saying is this: You ought to let these whistleblowers, who are patriotic people, trying to help the Federal Government collect money that wouldn't otherwise be collected--treat them like the patriotic citizens they are. The bill would also extend anti-retaliation provisions to IRS whistleblowers that are presently afforded to whistleblowers under other whistleblower laws--the False Claims Act, which I authored in 1986, as well as the more recent Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which came out of another committee that I didn't serve on. Finally, the bill includes modifications to the private debt collection program. I have long been a proponent of this program as a way to tackle the tax gap and to promote tax fairness. It works by assigning certain tax debts, which the IRS otherwise would not attempt to collect, to an outside contractor to pursue. In other words, if the IRS isn't going to go after all the money that is owed to the taxpayers--and we don't want $1 more than what people owe, but we want every dollar that people do owe--if they aren't going to go after it, we ought to find some way to go after it. That is why we have outside contractors pursuing some of these issues that the IRS isn't going to pursue. Recent quarterly revenue reports demonstrate the program has the potential to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue on an annual basis. I understand some of my colleagues, particularly on the House Ways and Means Committee, have been concerned that the program has been too heavily focused on lower income taxpayers. We listened to these concerns, and we worked to develop a sensible compromise while yet strengthening the long-term viability of this program. These are just a few of the provisions in this bill. There are many others that will go a long way toward making the IRS work better for taxpayers. I also know that some of my colleagues have additional ideas that we were unable to include in this package. I want them to know that I see this legislation as a first step toward reforming the IRS and strengthening taxpayers' protections. I agree there is more that we can do. I am committed to evaluating additional proposals with input from all of our colleagues on reforms that could be included in a package of additional IRS reforms later this Congress. But first things first. Companion legislation is being introduced in the House, which I hope the Senate will receive in the near future. I ask all of my colleagues to join me and Ranking Member Wyden in supporting this bipartisan bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, yesterday, we had debate on the Green New Deal. I wonder how many Americans realize that this debate on the Green New Deal was not on a bill before the Congress that would become law but was on nothing but a nonbinding resolution. Rather than working on specific changes in the law, the authors chose vague aspirations for dramatic action in the future. That is the difference between an active environmentalist and an environmental activist. I am proud of my accomplishments that have had a real, positive impact on the environment. For instance, I authored the production tax credit for wind energy back in 1992. During my leadership on the Senate Finance Committee in the 2000s, I oversaw the establishment, enhancement, and renewal of numerous clean energy tax incentives. My point is not to say that I made some impact on the environment but to say that there is a difference between offering a bill and, in turn, just a nonbinding resolution, which--the Democrats haven't put forth any real law. I yield the floor. Recognition Of The Majority Leader

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I appreciate the majority leader's bringing the Green New Deal to a vote today so that every Senator had an opportunity to go on record. I voted no. Some of my Democratic colleagues may argue that a vote against the Green New Deal demonstrates an unwillingness to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to tackle serious environmental issues of the day, but nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the United States is not a bad actor on the world stage. The United States has reduced its carbon emissions by 758 million metric tons per year since 2005. This is the largest decline of any country in the world. Meanwhile, China's and India's carbon emissions have grown. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. consumption of biofuels and other renewable energy has more than doubled from 2000 to 2017. The United States will only continue to increase renewable energy consumption through 2050 as we see more investment in wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and other alternative energies. Let's be very clear. A ``no'' vote on the Green New Deal is a vote against a government takeover of our economy that would stifle economic growth, bankrupt our Nation, and endanger the prosperity of all Americans. A ``no'' vote is a vote in favor of continuing an open and free economy that has made America the richest country in the world. We find that the best way to make environmental improvements is to use the wealth of a nation to accomplish that goal, and as a nation becomes more wealthy, the more apt it is to have the ability to protect the environment. The fact is that the Green New Deal is wholly unrealistic in its goal of obtaining net-zero carbon emissions within 10 years. We are not going to be successful at reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and lowering our carbon emissions through virtue signaling. That is all the Green New Deal boils down to--virtue signaling. It is all lofty goals and aspirations with no concrete plan or concern as to its feasibility. It is easy to support a vaguely worded, nonbinding resolution calling on the Federal Government to accomplish certain goals, but guess what. That is us--we, in the Congress. Congress is part of the Federal Government with the responsibility under our Constitution to write the laws. If Members of Congress have concrete ideas about what the Federal Government should be doing, they should introduce real legislation detailing who should do what to accomplish these goals. Instead of a ``green dream,'' as Speaker Pelosi called the Green New Deal, we need to focus on commonsense, bipartisan approaches that have an actual shot at making a difference. In other words, a resolution is a resolution; it is not a law. It doesn't accomplish anything. It states these goals that we ought to seek, but nobody has come forth with a concrete plan to accomplish those goals. Cutting taxes is an effective way to encourage positive, environmentally conscious ways to produce electricity and fuel. This is what I have sought to do as a leader on renewable and alternative energy production for decades now. I was the original author of the production tax credit for wind energy in 1992. It won me an award as the father of wind energy, and now, I suppose, 25 years later, I am the grandfather of the wind energy approach. During my leadership on the Senate Finance Committee during the early 2000s, I oversaw the establishment, enhancement, and renewal of numerous tax incentives that promote clean energy from sources such as wind and solar to renewable fuels like biodiesel, to energy efficient buildings, homes, and appliances. Unlike the aspirational goals of the Green New Deal, these proposals I have been a part of are real, proven, bipartisan actions that I helped shepherd into law to make the United States more energy independent and, at the same time, improve our environment. Renewable energy is a very smart investment and the fastest growing source of electricity generation in our country. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, utility-scale solar power is expected to increase by 10 percent in 2019--that is in 1 year alone-- while wind power is expected to surpass hydropower for the first time. As prices continue to fall, the economic benefits from these clean energy investments will obviously increase. Already, Iowa leads the Nation for its share of renewable energy. Iowa's wind generates nearly 37 percent of the State's electricity from wind, and the State's largest utility in America is set to generate 100 percent of its electricity within just a few years. Iowa ranks first in the Nation in the production of ethanol and biodiesel. Iowa alone accounted for over 26 percent of the entire U.S. ethanol production and over 17 percent of the U.S. biodiesel production. The solar industry in Iowa continues to mature and ranks 17th nationally. The bottom line is that renewable energy helps diversify Iowa's economy. It creates jobs in rural America and strengthens U.S. energy independence. As far as the jobs are concerned, I believe there are about 7,000 just for wind energy and 43,000 for biofuels. Instead of trying to build on these and other proven policies, the authors of the Green New Deal are more concerned with trying to correct all the ills they see in the U.S. economic system and even our broader society. So it is not just about environment. Here is a list of the grievances they want to attack in the name of an environmentally sustainable economy: life expectancy, wage stagnation, economic mobility, income inequality, systemic injustices, the oppression of indigenous people, the unhoused, and the list goes on and on and on. Just in case I might be taken as a person who doesn't care about all of those things I just listed--in other words, don't get me wrong; these are important issues that deserve our attention as a nation, but it is simply not realistic to believe that they can all be solved through a plan that targets environmental sustainability. Of course, since no crisis should be allowed to go to waste, every aspect of the progressive agenda must be implemented to fend off the threat of climate change. According to an analysis by the American Action Forum, a portion of the so-called Green New Deal plan focuses on eliminating carbon emissions. That program, by itself, would cost between $8.3 and $12.3 trillion. Of course, that is assuming it is followed up with actual legislation that attempts to implement the goals it lays out, and I have pointed out that all of that legislation is not being brought forward. Those figures account for only a fraction of the Green New Deal's cost. The portion of the progressive economic agenda that includes enacting universal healthcare, free college tuition, a Federal jobs guarantee program, and much more is estimated to cost somewhere between $43 and $81 trillion. So that would put the total cost of the Green New Deal at somewhere between $51 and $93 trillion over the first 10 years. Now, $93 trillion--that is kind of hard to imagine. Can you imagine that? That is more money than the U.S. Government has spent in its entire 230-year history. How would we even go about paying for it? Several Democrats have floated ideas or introduced bills that have gone along the lines of taxing the wealthy. That, I assume, may make up some of their possibilities. Earlier this year, the House author of the Green New Deal suggested imposing tax rates of 70 percent or more on earnings over $10 million. Here in the Senate, Senator Warren has proposed an annual wealth tax of 2 percent on assets of $50 million and 3 percent on assets of over $1 billion. Not to be outdone, Senator Sanders has introduced legislation to supercharge the death tax with rates as high as 77 percent of estates exceeding $1 billion. More recently, Representative DeFazio reintroduced his proposal to tax securities transactions. Think about this. Even if we assume that these proposals would not have detrimental economic or behavioral effects--and we all know they would--these taxes would not come anywhere close to covering the price tag of the Green New Deal. The Washington Post reported that a 70- percent tax rate on incomes over $10 million could theoretically raise $720 billion over 10 years. Senator Warren's own estimates suggest her annual wealth tax proposal could raise as much as $2.75 trillion in a decade. According to Senator Sanders, his death tax proposal would raise $315 billion over a decade. Congressman DeFazio's transaction tax is estimated to bring in $777 billion. So adding up all that, even under the rosiest assumptions, these Senators' proposals combined would only cover between 5 and 10 percent of the Green New Deal's cost. The fact is, there are not enough millionaires and billionaires in the United States to cover the price tag, so eventually they start taxing the middle class. These socialist ideas remind me of former United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's wise observation that ``the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.'' Many of the Green New Deal backers appear to realize this and have even suggested that offsetting its cost is unnecessary. According to these authors of the Green New Deal, it can be paid for simply by printing more money. Yes, you heard me right--printing more money. Their solution is the same as what has been tried by every bankrupt third world country around the world--just crank up the printing presses. The poster child for this fantasy in the world today, at least, is Venezuela, a country rich with great economic vitality in the 1970s-- probably even earlier than the 1970s--but that economy has been driven into the ground by socialist policies, financed in large measure by churning out currency, leading to multimillion percent inflation rates. Now that Senators have had an opportunity to go on record in support or opposition to the resolution, I hope the nonsense that is the Green New Deal will be put to rest. Hopefully, we can all now rally around sensible, proven policy to secure our energy independence and to improve the environment. From my point of view, that is the United States continuing on the success we have already had but standing as an example for China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and other countries. Affordable, clean energy is key to moving the United States forward. A good starting point would be to enact tax extenders legislation that I introduced last month with Ranking Member Wyden. This legislation would extend nearly a dozen separate practical and proven incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Investing in alternative forms of clean energy is good for the environment, good for national security and energy independence, and good for job creation, particularly in rural America. It is good for economic development and surely good for the taxpayers, and it is obviously good for attacking climate change. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to share a message from Iowa's heartland. As you know, millions of Americans in the middle of the country are experiencing catastrophic flooding. My home State of Iowa and our neighbors in Nebraska are particularly hard hit, and it will affect others downriver of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. I want to thank the Trump administration for its swift response on Saturday to approve the expedited requests for a major disaster declaration made by Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds Thursday evening. The flooding has caused tremendous damage, impacting more than two-thirds of Iowa's 99 counties. The Federal disaster proclamation will trigger emergency assistance to 56 of those counties so far. Those would be the counties in blue on the map here. Governor Reynolds' team has been in the trenches, working hand in hand with local officials and county emergency coordinators. They estimated damages so far across our entire State to be $1.6 billion. The damages estimated for agriculture are $214 million; damages to homes, $481 million; and levee repairs, $525 million. By all accounts and every possible metric, the damages and devastation are overwhelming. Yet, at the very same time, the legendary mythology of America's heartland and its people is rooted in truth. The road to recovery will be long, grueling, and at times gruesome, but I am confident that the grit and resilience of Iowans and their fellow midwesterners will prevail. Over the last week, we have heard remarkable stories of neighbor helping neighbor and neighbors helping total strangers. Residents of all ages and differing abilities rubbed elbows to bag sand to save a water treatment facility in their small town. First responders and Good Samaritans rescued people stranded in their homes. Farmers moved their neighbor's grain and livestock to higher ground. Volunteers rolled up their sleeves to serve hot meals and deliver water. Generous Americans across our country opened their wallets to donate money, food, water, hygiene products, and medical supplies. Iowa farmers who were not wiped out by the floods are sending truckloads of much needed hay to livestock producers and ranchers in Nebraska. These stories offer a glimmer of sunshine in the darkest hours of the 2019 floods. You might say that we are experiencing an unwelcome twist of March Madness along the Missouri River. Despite being mired in muck and mud, it is reassuring to see the full-court press and gritty resilience of midwesterners. Make no mistake--the catastrophic damages to private property, farmland, Main Street businesses, public utilities, and critical infrastructure, including wells, roads, bridges, and railways, have extended beyond the capability of local and State government. Aerial footage of our State makes entire communities and farmsteads look like an island surrounded by an ocean. You can see some of that here in this photo that was taken just last week. You see here a small community along the Missouri River. This is the town of Pacific Junction, which is located in the southwestern corner of the State in Mills County. Its entire population was forced to evacuate. As you can see from this photo, the rooftops of homes appear to be floating in the muddy waters of a Monopoly board. I ask my colleagues here in the Senate and I ask Americans listening at home to put yourselves in the shoes of those evacuated from their homes. Imagine if this were your home soaking in unsanitary water for days on end. Consider for a moment the damages to your furniture, clothes, appliances, and your most prized possessions. Think how much it would cost to replace those items. Now add up the countless hours of hard work it would take to clean up the mess, mud, muck, and mold once the water finally recedes. I have another photo here I want you to look at. Let's now turn to a photo taken near Pacific Junction. I thank Larry Winum of Glenwood, IA, a constituent and a friend, for sharing these photos. Just think of the small businesses impacted by the floods. The photo here of a motel illustrates how flooding can wash away the livelihoods of business owners and their employees. This particular business will indefinitely have zero occupancy. Even if the roads were open, this business would need a floor-to-ceiling refurbishment to replace beds, linens, carpets, and towels, and most likely even significant plumbing and electrical work. I want to show a photo of Main Street in Hamburg, IA. This community was hard hit in 2011. I was there in 2011. It is worse now. You can see it is underwater in 2019. Let's examine how the flooding has affected our farmers. As a lifelong farmer, I know exactly what farmers across my State are feeling at this time of the year. They get very antsy and keep constant watch on the weather, soil temperatures, and planting conditions for their seed. They have ordered seeds and fertilizers. These farmers are chomping at the bit to get started on field work. Now imagine the farmers along the Missouri River. Tens of thousands of acres of farmland are underwater. For sure, these acres may never be ready for planting this season. Now consider the farmers who were storing grain in the bins along the Missouri. Millions of bushels of flood-soaked grain have spilled into murky floodwaters. This picture says it all. This is grain that farmers were counting on to pay the bills to put this year's crop in the ground. This photo was shared courtesy of State Representative David Sieck, whose legislative district is almost completely impacted by the flood damages. I thank David for sharing. My State staff tells me that some farmers in the flooded areas didn't get last fall's crop fully harvested, and of course that is destroyed. Since March 12, my staff has been crisscrossing scores of Iowa counties to visit affected communities and meet directly with Iowans. They are sharing directly with me the feedback from Iowans. I am making plans to visit affected areas as soon as I can as well. I am anxious to measure recovery and cleanup efforts to inform my decisions on tax and spending policies that are needed to help with recovery efforts going forward. As my speech and these photos suggest to all and I hope will suggest to each of my colleagues here in the Senate, we have a long road to recovery from the floods of 2019. In fact, it could be worse. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a wake-up call last week. We are not yet out of the woods--not by a long shot. With more precipitation, snowmelt, saturated soils, frozen ground, and massive ice jams, we are in store for significant spring flooding that may reach 200 million Americans. Today, I have talked largely about the extent of damages and the recovery efforts that are just getting started. It is also important to talk about flood mitigation. Breached, overtopped, or compromised levees span hundreds of miles on the Missouri River along the States of Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri. It took a long time for these communities to recover from flooding that took place 8 years ago. It is no wonder an awful lot of Iowans are feeling like they are way back to square one again. Iowans, especially those who live along the Missouri River, want and deserve answers. Southwest Iowa communities have raised grave concern about the unresponsive Corps of Engineers--specifically, about the lack of communication and about not enough river dredging, water release, and about ordering the town of Hamburg, back in 2011, to remove reinforcements of the now-breached levee that left the town under water. I, too, share the concerns that have been expressed to the Corps of Engineers. I have had a chance to talk to the Corps headquarters in Omaha. For years I have worked with several of my midwestern colleagues along the Missouri River to make flood control the No. 1 priority of the Corps. It seems to me that misguided decisions and misplaced priorities have eclipsed common sense. As I told you, I talked last week with the commander of the Corps in Omaha and shared my concerns about the lack of communication and coordination with local communities. Perhaps a good scrubbing of the Master Manual of the Corps of Engineers for the Missouri River may help to clear the wax out of bureaucratic ears that haven't gotten the message. The No. 1 priority of the Corps should be flood control--flood control, period. I started out today by saying that I wanted to share a message from America's heartland. I close my remarks by sending a message to that American heartland. As Iowa's senior Senator, I will stand with you every step of the way. My staff and I are working very closely with Iowa and midwestern congressional delegations, the Trump administration, and State agencies to make sure disaster relief programs are working effectively for homeowners, small businesses, farmers, and our local communities. The best I thing I can say to any Federal Agency and their employees, the Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and many others is to use a little common sense and cut out a lot of the redtape, but here is where it ends. When the going gets tough, Iowans get tougher. So hang tough, keep fighting, and know that help is on the way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am voting against the resolution to end the national emergency. Make no mistake: Our Nation is facing a prolonged and worsening security and humanitarian crisis on our southern border. Lethal drugs are flooding across the border at an alarming rate. Just last year, enough fentanyl to kill 88 million Americans was seized by border patrol agents between our ports of entry. We are also witnessing unprecedented levels of illegal immigration and are on track for the highest level of illegal immigration in more than a decade. That means more human trafficking, more forced labor, and more exploitation of people along the dangerous journey to the United States. Failures by Congress to adequately address our immigration and border security issues have only exacerbated this crisis. Here is just a sample of the data from our Federal authorities. The total volume of illegal immigration is increasing. Illegal immigration is on pace to exceed the highest level in more than 10 years. There has been a 338 percent increase in family units from the Northern Triangle apprehended thus far in fiscal year 2019 compared with same period in fiscal year 2018. There was 54 percent increase in unaccompanied minors apprehended thus far in fiscal year 2019 compared with same period in fiscal year 2018. Additionally, drug seizures are increasing between ports of entry. In fiscal year 2018, U.S. Border Patrol intercepted 388 pounds of fentanyl between our ports of entry. That is enough to kill 88 million Americans; that is right, 88 million Americans. Fentanyl seizures increased 73 percent between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018. Heroin seizures also increased 22 percent between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018. Methamphetamine seizures increased 38 percent between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018. As I have said repeatedly, even though the President is using the authority given to him by Congress, I share my colleagues' concerns that too much authority has been delegated to the executive branch. In 1976, Congress gave the President the authority to declare national emergencies, so we shouldn't be surprised when he seeks to use it, just as others have done. For this reason, I will continue working to pass meaningful legislation, like the ARTICLE ONE Act, to reclaim congressional power from the executive branch and improve congressional oversight of the National Emergency Act. I encourage my colleagues to join in this effort, which takes real action, as opposed to symbolic show votes that don't address the root of the problem.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are celebrating an important week in our system of self-government. This week is known as Sunshine Week. For the last 14 years, advocacy groups, good government watchdogs, and media organizations have joined forces to observe the importance of transparency and freedom of information. With transparency and freedom of information, there is more accountability in government. As a long- time champion of an open, accessible government, I speak today in support of those enduring principles. Sunshine Week coincides each year with March 16. That is the day one of the Nation's Founding Fathers and fourth President of the United States was born. That person was James Madison, widely known as the Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. From his writings in the Federalist Papers, it might be said that he was the architect who framed our system of checks and balances. Madison believed all powers of the government are derived of, by, and for the people. That is what brings me to the floor today. The public has a right to know what their government is doing and how their government is spending the taxpayers' dollars. What is more, the American people owe a debt of gratitude to our fellow citizens who bravely come forward, often at great professional risk, to report wrongdoing in government. We ought to expect that out of government employees or any fellow citizen who knows something is wrong. I am here today to talk about a ray of sunlight coming from the Defense Department. More specifically, I want to alert you about the whistleblower hotline managed by the inspector general. Once in a while, good news comes out of that Department. I spend a lot of time on government oversight. Congressional oversight is part of our constitutional assignment to protect the power of the purse and to ensure that the laws we pass are faithfully executed. My sights are set quite often on the Pentagon when it comes to oversight. The U.S. military is the strongest and mightiest in the world. Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line to protect our sacred freedoms. Each of us should be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they have the resources they need. I am not, however, talking about writing blank checks; I am talking about making sure that defense dollars are spent wisely. The Pentagon shoulders a strategic and vital mission for America but is by no means infallible--not by a long shot. As with almost any bureaucracy or corporate organization, its workplace culture dictates that each individual should go along to get along, and that is not how it should be. Institutional foot-dragging at the Pentagon, for example, has hampered efforts to root out sexual misconduct. You read about it too often. A systemic bookkeeping system has plagued the Department of Defense for decades. Nevertheless, I keep pressing the Pentagon to fix this fiscal mess. Every dollar lost to waste, fraud, and abuse is a dollar that could be put to better use for our men and women in uniform for better housing, as just one example. I learned long ago that one of the best ways to expose wrongdoing is by listening to whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are the ones who have their noses and ears to the ground day in and day out. They are patriots doing their job in reporting wrongdoing. These patriots know the difference between right and wrong. So when their good conscience compels them to come forward, we should hear them out, and we need to encourage others to do the same. Whistleblowers within the Defense Department help weed out improper payments, procurements, fraud, and other unethical schemes and misbehaviors that come at taxpayers' expense and the expense of military preparedness. As cofounder and cochairman of the Whistleblower Protection Caucus, I lead efforts from Capitol Hill to strengthen protections and raise awareness for what is often an uphill battle for whistleblowers. In the rigid command of the U.S. military, the civilian workforce and uniformed members of the military are trained to follow protocol and to respect the chain of command. Instead of receiving a pat on the back for exposing wrongdoing, too many of these whistleblowers face retribution and reprisal. I often say they are treated like skunks at a picnic. That brings me to the DOD whistleblower hotline, a vital conduit for whistleblower complaints. Once again, there is some good news about DOD and whistleblowers and trying to improve things there in a November IG report. It shows the huge backlog of tips has been reduced. You could say that it is a glimmer of hope in an otherwise swamp of secrecy. You see, the report also exposes the bad news. The playbook of Federal authority--defend, delay, and deny--is alive and kicking. From fiscal years 2013 to 2018, the Office of the Inspector General found the number of reports tripled. It also showed the number of reprisal complaints doubled. The report found that 350 Defense Department officials, most of them in the branches of the Armed Forces, retaliated against and sought to intimidate 195 whistleblowers. I can't speak about 195 cases, but I will bet, in many cases, many higher-ups in the chain of command would be embarrassed, and that is why it wasn't reported, and that is why these folks were retaliated against. This tells me also that higher-ups who are accused of retaliating against whistleblowers are going unpunished. Consider, about 85 percent of the people who reported wrongdoing and faced professional punishment or personal embarrassment are still waiting for any remedy according to this inspector general report. This sends a very unsubtle signal to whistleblowers: Blow the whistle at your own risk. When the top dogs who dish out retribution go unpunished, and some are even promoted, the message to the rank and file is loud and clear: Blow the whistle at your own risk. Nearly 2 years ago, I came to the floor of the Senate to sound the alarm on this very subject. At that time I shared statistics from a 2016 IG report. It listed 406 hotline cases that had been open for more than 2 years. Nobody is in a hurry to do anything about wrongdoing in the Defense Department when things like that can accumulate. More than half of those 406 cases--246 cases to be exact--had been open for more than 1,000 days, and some had been lying around for 4 years. So back when I gave that speech a couple of years ago, I noted that the IG's office wasn't moving the needle, despite increases in personnel and money in the IG's office. The workforce-to-workload ratio was mismatched. Cases were adding up, and the corrosive workplace culture within the IG was a festering sore. Allegations of tampering with investigations and whitewashing cases were tarnishing the reputation of the premier whistleblower oversight unit at the Pentagon. Congressional watchdogs, like myself, should not have to watch the Pentagon watchdogs to keep oversight on track. As I said, there is some good news. Things seemed to turn the corner when Acting Inspector General Fine recognized the antics of a bureaucracy run amuck. I am glad to see a ray of sunlight coming from the IG's office. However, we still aren't out of the woods. I want to thank those in the IG's office who are toiling to reduce this hotline backlog; however, the DOD needs to step up and face the music. DOD needs to own these failures in letting retaliators off the hook. Failing to hold these folks accountable is a huge slap in the face to those in the Department who are performing their responsibilities every day with dedication and excellence, being patriotic people, blowing the whistle, and pointing out waste, fraud, and abuse. It also happens to be a slap in the face of the taxpayers. It is telling these patriotic whistleblowers: Thanks but no thanks. Feel free to disclose your report, but we may press the mute button after processing the claim. Make no mistake about it--the hotline becomes meaningless if whistleblowers lack confidence in the system. They will stop calling and stop reporting waste, fraud, and abuse. My advice to Inspector General Fine is this: Put some mustard on it, and add some hot sauce while you are at it. Get down to the brass tacks, and recommend disciplinary action against those who retaliate against patriotic people pointing out waste, fraud, and abuse. In closing, I would like to share a tip with the Department of Defense. This U.S. Senator will continue shining the spotlight on waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon--and, of course, elsewhere--and I will continue advocating for whistleblowers with every tool at my disposal. As an Iowa farmer, I know what a load of manure smells like. I am also very aware of why farmers make hay when the sun shines, and that is a very good lesson for good government. Sunshine helps hold government accountable to the American people, and that is why we celebrate Sunshine Week this week and every year now for, I think, 14 years--because Sunshine Week promotes openness and transparency in government. That is why the Congress passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. This law establishes a mandatory national disclosure program in which drug and medical device manufacturers report payments to prescribers in teaching hospitals. However, it appears that some parties may not be disclosing this information. That is why, in addition to what I told you about overseeing things in the Defense Department, it is necessary to call out HHS and CMS to be forthcoming about whether opportunities exist for us to work together to strengthen the law where all these things aren't being reported as they should be. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Free Trade Mr. President, lastly, I would like to talk about free trade for a minute. I am calling on the administration to promptly remove the section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico. This will help clear the path for the United States-Mexico- Canadian Agreement to be ratified in all three countries. These tariffs and their retaliation are having a negative impact on Americans. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is supposed to be a free-trade agreement, but we don't have free trade with these tariffs in place. As chairman of the Committee on Finance, I look forward to helping the President with this important task. And a little bit of advice for the President would come this way: I think he imposed tariffs on Mexican and Canadian steel and aluminum because he didn't think they were going to negotiate and said that is why he put the tariffs on. Obviously they negotiated in good faith because the President said he has a very good agreement. I happen to agree that he has a very good agreement. So wouldn't you think, then, that the tariffs ought to come off? Somebody down at the White House recently told me: Well, you can't conflate the tariffs on aluminum and steel with the USMCA agreement. Well, don't tell me you can't conflate them when you conflate them when you say to the other side: If you don't negotiate, we are going to put these tariffs on. I think there is a clear path to getting this done. The President is concerned about the transshipment of steel from China, through Canada, into the United States, which obviously wouldn't be fair. They are concerned, as well, about surges in exports to the United States. I think he would find Prime Minister Trudeau very open to receiving assurances that if the House of Commons in Canada moves ahead with approval of it, these tariffs would go off. At the same time, I think they will get assurances from the Canadian Government that they will make sure transshipment from China, through Canada, to the United States won't happen and that surges in exports won't happen as well. If we can get the Canadian Government to approve this agreement, it seems to me it is going to be a lot easier to get through the Congress of the United States. And I think that just as soon as Mexico changes some labor laws they promised they would change to make labor more fair and less unfair to the American worker, I think the Mexican Senate will approve this agreement. But time is a factor here because Canada has to get this all done before they adjourn in June for their October elections. It seems to me that when the President says he has a good agreement-- and there is a certain amount of anxiety out there about all these trade negotiations that are going on--we could get this thing settled pretty fast and reduce that anxiety, and we could make sure we enhance our economy more than the fine policies of this President, through taxes and through deregulation, have already improved the economy and keep it growing. I would ask the President to consider moving this as fast as he can and get off of this business of negotiating trade and tariffs for quotas because that is not much better for the United States and not much better even for the Canadians, and it isn't going to satisfy the Canadians that they can move ahead before their election. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my constituent, Christy Teslow, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record information about a program she founded to help educate children of all ages about the importance of being a good digital citizen.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I recently reintroduced the Accountability through Electronic Verification Act this Congress, as I have in previous Congresses. This commonsense bill would require all employers to use E-Verify programs, which in turn would ensure that they are employing nothing but a legal workforce. As most Americans have realized, the immigration debate here in the Congress today--and for a long time--has become highly partisan and obviously has been controversial. Of course, worst of all, it has become completely unproductive. I believe there is a sliver of hope, however, and that is through the passage of an E-Verify program that makes E-Verify mandatory. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you are for open borders or you want secure borders, we all ought to agree that enforcing the law and protecting Americans is a bipartisan goal. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act made it, for the first time, a Federal crime to employ undocumented workers. Ten years later, in 1996, Congress created a new tool to verify employment eligibility known as E-Verify. Today, E-Verify is a voluntary program that gives employers a web- based tool to verify the identify and employment eligibility of new employees. I have worked to renew and expand the program for use in all 50 States and to allow for information-sharing between Federal Agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security. Participating employers then tap into a user-friendly, free electronic system that cross-matches documents provided by employees on their I-9 forms with Federal records available to show the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Social Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. So the records of a worker applying for a job can be compared with government records to know whether somebody is legally in the country. Today E-Verify provides instant verification for more than 750,000 employers and businesses all across America. In fact, my Senate office uses E-Verify when hiring employees whom the taxpayers pay for, but I am responsible for their employment. My Senate office uses E-Verify when hiring our staff, and I have found it to be quick and easy to use. At my annual 99 county meetings that I have throughout Iowa, I regularly hear about the growing economy, rising wages, and the vitality on Main Streets. Iowa now ranks first in the Nation for the lowest level of unemployment. That also means there are growing challenges for employers in my State to hire the workforce needed to grow and expand. I will bet a lot of my colleagues hear that in their respective States as well. We need to make sure hiring practices don't harm U.S. workers or those authorized to work in the United States. That is why I reintroduced the bill I announced in the first words of my speech today, the accountability through electronic verification bill. This legislation will help businesses comply with immigration laws by certifying the legal status of their workforce. The bill will permanently authorize the E-Verify Program, and require employers to use the program to determine workers' eligibility. It would then make every employer have to use it, except as contrasted for the last couple of decades on a voluntary basis. For decades, E-Verify has served as a proven tool for employers that want to use it. It has helped to reduce incentives for illegal immigration and safeguard job opportunities for Americans and other legal workers. Expanding the system to every workplace will improve accountability for all businesses and take another very important step toward putting American workers first. Current law requires all contractors doing work for the Federal Government to use E-Verify, repeating for a third time now the mandatory aspect of this compared to the voluntary aspect of the present law. States that have passed laws mandating the use of E-Verify also may require employers to participate, for example, as a condition of business licensing. With low unemployment across the country, and with Iowa leading the way, policymakers have a responsibility to ensure the growing economy has the workforce it needs to continue to do the growth of the last few years. As the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I worked extensively to protect the integrity of employment visas and work permits for foreign workers. A top priority must be to ensure immigration policies aren't displacing American workers or depressing wages. Making E-Verify a permanent and mandatory requirement for all U.S. employers will bring across-the-board certainty to hiring practices throughout our country. Certifying the legal status for prospective hires makes common sense, and having in place the tools at one's fingertips makes it a simple, convenient solution. E-Verify is a proven tool to encourage legal immigrants to apply for unfilled jobs and to deter illegal immigration and human trafficking. In addition to making E-Verify permanent and mandatory within 1 year of enactment, my bill will increase penalties for employers who illegally hire workers unauthorized to work in our country. The bill will also require employers to check the status of all current employees within 1 year using the E-Verify system and terminate employment of those found unauthorized to work in the United States. This bill establishes a demonstration project in rural areas without internet capabilities to assist small businesses. Finally, the bill will require the Social Security Administration to improve its efforts to detect identity theft using Social Security numbers. Expanding E-Verify will help restore integrity and trust in our Nation's immigration system by curbing incentives for hiring persons unauthorized to work in America. I was pleased to hear my colleague, now-Chairman Graham of the Judiciary Committee, highlight the benefits of E-Verify in a Judiciary Committee hearing held last week. He is right. Nationwide E-Verify would go a long way to relieve concerns about illegal immigration and workforce displacement. Let me repeat. This bill will not change immigration law. All it does is ensure that businesses are complying with existing Federal law through a quick, cost-efficient, and proven online method of proving that people are legally in the country and legally able to work here. It is a simple first step toward tackling larger issues within immigration; in other words, bringing credibility to our immigration system where credibility has been lost because for the last 20 or 25 years, we in Congress have been telling the American people we are going to control the border and people can only come here legally, and we haven't done it. We have to do things to build up credibility if we are going to deal with issues like what do you do about the 10 or 11 million people who are unauthorized to live and unauthorized to work in America. Some people say: Well, you are going to load them up and get them out of the country, but that isn't realistic, and it wouldn't be humanitarian. To deal with that issue, we have to have credibility for the whole immigration system, and E-Verify will help that, along with everything we are doing to control the borders, and we have to do more to control the borders. Again, to repeat, this is a simple first step to tackling larger issues within immigration. Best of all, it has the support of the American people. A recent Zogby poll showed that mandatory E-Verify enjoys widespread support from voters. Seventy-four percent of all voters polled support mandatory E-Verify. In fact, the support is very bipartisan. The poll showed that roughly 55 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Independents, and nearly 91 percent of Republicans support the idea of E-Verify. Support for Nationwide E-Verify isn't just nonpartisan, it is supported by Americans across all ethnic boundaries. Fifty-eight percent of Hispanic voters, 52 percent of Black voters, and 74 percent of Asian voters polled all support E-Verify. I will close with this. Perhaps it is time that Congress and both parties take a very deep breath and listen to the American people instead of to our own echo chambers. Before we discuss expanding guest worker programs or discuss comprehensive immigration reform, let's first codify E-Verify and restore the American people's trust in our immigration system. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is Sunshine Week, and I support transparency throughout government. The public's business ought to be public. That includes right here in the U.S. Senate. My newer colleagues might be unaware that the Senate has banned what are referred to as secret holds. Since January 2011, a standing order has been in effect, requiring that Senators make public any hold they place on bills or nominations. A Senator, of course, has a right to withhold consent when unanimous consent is needed to move to a measure. However, there is absolutely no right to do so in secret. The public's business ought to be done in public. That is why Senator Wyden and I sent a letter to all Senators reminding them of this standing order that we authored requiring disclosure of holds. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY. When Senators spend most of their time on the Senate floor, as they used to before the Senate was on television, it was easy for any Senator to stand up and say ``I object,'' if consent were asked for any motion or any nomination. Now we spend most of our time in committee hearings and meeting with those we represent. We rely on our party leadership to protect our rights, and we sometimes tell them if we need someone to object on our behalf to moving a bill or a nominee. That happens to be called a hold. A hold should not be secret, I want everybody to know that sometimes I put holds on nominations or bills. Whoever heard of shouting ``I object'' in secret? A hold, in other words, ought to be public, as the standing order requires. The Senate affirmed that in the year 2011 by adopting a permanent standing order that Senator Wyden and I wrote. I remind my colleagues, that standing order is still in place. I yield the floor. 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, in the last couple of weeks, I have come to the floor for a few short comments on the Green New Deal. I have compared it to the New Deal of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration and its attempt to get us out of the Depression with the New Deal then. In his 1932 campaign for President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for what he called a ``bold persistent experimentation.'' That is a pretty good description of the New Deal. It wasn't a very cohesive plan, but it was a collection of disconnected policies. In that sense, the Green New Deal emulates its namesake. It, too, is kind of a collection of disconnected policies. The New Deal of the 1930s failed to pull the economy out of the Depression that actually ended at the beginning of World War II. It is not surprising, however, that it didn't pull us out of the Depression because it didn't create economic growth. Economic growth needs predictable and sensible tax and regulatory policies. We have seen the fruits of this approach under the Trump administration. So let's not, through the Green Deal, kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The Green New Deal is both breathtaking in its professed ambitions and, quite frankly, laughably weak. It is just a resolution calling on the government to enact a whole range of policies. Then, why not introduce a bill that actually does something rather than a resolution calling for future implausible actions? It is supposed to be about protecting the environment. As someone with a track record of real bipartisan achievements that have resulted in a cleaner environment, I don't get it. If you want to know my credentials there, I am the father of the wind energy tax credit, just as an example. We get 38 percent of our electricity from wind in Iowa. What do universal healthcare--another item of the Green New Deal--or free college tuition or a Federal jobs guarantee program have to do with the environment anyway? All of those things are in the Green New Deal. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak to my colleagues about two things. One will take less than 1 minute, and the other will take about 5 or 6 minutes. The first one deals with why I can't get answers for citizens of the United States for the murder of a son. In 2017, the U.S. Park Police fatally shot Bijan Ghaisar, after a minor traffic accident led to a police chase in Virginia. Since then, his family has been looking for answers, but they have only encountered silence. The FBI took over the investigation but has not shared any findings or even an update with the family. So last December, I asked the FBI where things stand. Even this Senator got silence from the FBI. Investigations into the use of deadly force should be handled in a manner that reinforces accountability and public confidence in law enforcement. The FBI's silent treatment is concerning. The Ghaisar family, Congress, this Senator, and the public shouldn't have to wait years to get an answer from the FBI.

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, yesterday, I came to the floor to speak about the Green New Deal. I compared it to the New Deal of the 1930s. I mentioned before that the New Deal of the 1930s is not something that we ought to be emulating. The National Recovery Administration of the 1930s was a key feature of that New Deal. It was designed to eliminate competition, with industry, government, and labor all working together. The National Recovery Administration turned out hundreds of codes, regulating every aspect of business. Small businesses struggled to comply, job creation stalled, and prices stayed high. When big business and big government get together to write regulations, hard-working Americans suffer. You don't create jobs. So I hope you will take a look at how complicated the Green New Deal is, besides costing $93 trillion in the future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Iowa, Senator Ernst, for organizing this opportunity for several of us in the Senate to discuss the Green New Deal and to do it this week. To put it mildly, the Green New Deal is ambitious. To frame it more accurately, it is an unworkable, pie-in-the-sky attempt to reshape every aspect of everyday Americans' lives. First, let me say that I am proud of my record in successfully advancing the availability and affordability of renewable energy. Many have called me the father of the Wind Energy Incentives Act. I suppose after--what?--probably 26 years, that makes me the grandfather of the Wind Energy Incentives Act. My legislation sought to give this alternative energy source the ability to compete against traditional, finite energy sources. At that time, we never knew about fracking for natural gas and for oil. We thought we were going to be completely dependent upon Saudi Arabia for our energy. Now we know that is not true, but back in 1992 and before, we did everything to think up every alternative energy we could in order to be less dependent upon the Saudis. One of those acts that I was involved in was wind energy. The wind energy bill--now law--has been extremely successful. Iowa supplies more than 35 percent of its own electricity from wind. We were the first State in the country to generate more than one-third of its electricity from wind. Wind energy employs approximately 7,000 Iowans, and the nearly 3,000 wind turbines in Iowa generate millions of dollars in economic activity. So I want to make it very clear that I am speaking as someone who has a very successful track record of advancing clean energy. Think about what the Green New Deal is about. Presumably, they don't know we have been this successful because the Green New Deal, on the other hand, is nothing more than a grab bag of vague aspirations. In fact, the Green New Deal was initially introduced in the House and Senate by its authors as a nonbinding, symbolic resolution--in other words, a lot of hot air. That means that even if it were to pass as introduced, it would not become law. I am glad that Senate Majority Leader McConnell reintroduced the text in a format that could become law so we Senators could go on record as to whether we would want to make this the policy of the United States. It would be one thing if the policy and goals remained on topic-- namely, reducing pollution and cutting our Nation's carbon emissions. Those are worthy goals. Yet the resolution reads like a utopian manifesto that seeks to implement every liberal policy priority from the past many decades. We have seen extreme leftwing agendas that rely on the power of the State and that usurp the role of individuals. How will those policies turn out? We have plenty examples. Look at the former Soviet Union. Look at Cuba over the last 60 years. Look at what has happened to Venezuela in the last 15 years. It has gone from the richest country in South America to a destitute country in which they die of malnutrition and people can't get medicine. In more instances than in the three I have just given you, these utopian ideas never turn out very well. Sure, the Green New Deal includes goals that are related to energy and the environment, but for the most part, they are wholly unrealistic. For example, their calling for the upgrading of all existing buildings or, in another statement, their meeting 100 percent of the power demands of the United States through clean, renewable, zero-emission energy sources--all within the next 10 years--is simply not feasible. Of course, no concrete proposals are put forward on how this is to be achieved. The Green New Deal just leaves us scratching our heads thinking about how all this would work. There are a lot of questions. Would it require the government to mandate that every building owner in the United States make costly building improvements to meet national standards set here in Washington, DC? Another question is, would every homeowner have to submit to government inspection to ensure that his or her home meets the standards dictated by the government? Another question is, what government expenditures would have to be made, assuming all of this is even technologically possible, to go from about 17 percent of U.S. electricity generation coming from renewables today to a total 100 percent in 10 years? The last question I will raise is, are the backers of the Green New Deal willing to support nuclear energy as a means to reach their goal? On this last point, I would conclude that a summary of the Green New Deal initially put out by the chief author in the House suggests a lack of support for nuclear energy. As I have said before in my remarks today, I have been a leader on renewable energy production for decades, not just wind, as I have said, but geothermal, solar, biofuels, et cetera. So I am not just talking about being the author of the wind energy production tax credit. During my leadership of the Senate Finance Committee in the 2000s, when I was chairman there, I oversaw the establishment, the enhancement, and renewal of numerous tax incentives that promote everything from wind and solar to renewable fuels like biodiesel, to energy-efficient homes, buildings, and appliances. Unlike the unrealistic goals of the Green New Deal, these initiatives I just read are not only law, but they are real, proven, bipartisan actions that I shepherded into law to make the United States more energy independent and also, at the same time, improve our environment. Unfortunately, many of these key energy incentives I just mentioned are currently expired, and some of them have been expired for more than a year. We had a real opportunity to extend these energy incentives as part of the appropriations deal reached earlier this month, but that was ultimately blocked by House Democrats--probably some of the same people who are promoting the Green New Deal. They seem overly focused on the lofty goals of the Green New Deal or, as Speaker Pelosi called the Green New Deal, ``The green dream or whatever they call it, no one knows what it is.'' The House Democrats could not be bothered a month ago with extensions of existing and successful provisions that incentivize the type of investment they claim to have backed and not only tend to incentivize, actually have incentivized alternative energy over the last two and one-half decades--provisions that support millions of jobs for people who are actually willing to work. Perhaps this just shows that the Green New Deal is less about tackling energy and environmental issues and more about remaking America into a dreamy new progressive paradise. No sector of the economy is left unchecked by the Green New Deal-- make no mistake about thinking otherwise. The authors of the Green New Deal are intent on reshaping every aspect of American life through a ``national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization,'' and those last six words are in quotations. Shaping American life through ``national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization'' that is eerily reminiscent of the 5-year plans of the former Soviet Union or of the Great Leap Forward under Chairman Mao of China. Even the family farmer is not spared from its grand plans. The Green New Dealers want to remove what they call pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture through sustainable farming and building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food. Now, I am not against farmers taking actions to prevent soil erosion and minimizing pollution because we farmers do that already. We have been doing it for decades. The recently passed farm bill invests more in conservation programs than any farm bill before. I trust that farmers know more and have more common sense about how to take care of their land than some bureaucrat in Washington, DC, or politicians from New York City. We all know Washington, DC, is an island surrounded by reality. So you put forth legislation like this, and it is just like 535 Members of Congress have all the knowledge in the world to tell 310 million other people what they ought to be doing. I don't believe all those smarts rest in the Congress of the United States or even the bureaucracy of this government. Over the last several years, when it comes to farming, we have seen farmers readily adopt the use of cover crops to prevent nutrient runoff and to sequester carbon in the soil through what we call minimum or no tillage. Today farmers may go down as the first group in history to leave the land better than they found it for future generations. Moreover, every indication is that these calls for sustainable farming and a sustainable food system go well beyond farmers being good stewards of our natural resources. It appears to be intent on changing everything from how we farm to what we farm. A fact sheet released by the House author, shortly after introduction, made this perfectly clear. It notes a desire--now, listen to this--it notes a desire to rid the planet of methane gas-emitting cows. In case the authors are unaware, all cows and all people emit methane. It is part of the natural digestive process. The only way to stop these emissions is to ban animal agriculture. That proposal couldn't be more disconnected or out of touch with Americans. That is what makes the taxpayers feel there is nobody in Washington, DC, who has any common sense, but don't worry. According to the authors of the Green New Deal in the House, ``It is not to say you get rid of agriculture or force everybody to go vegan.'' This doesn't instill much confidence in the farmer about the real intentions behind the Green New Deal. I am amazed by the scope of what the authors would have the government impose on the American people. I will end by noting that I am interested in working with my colleagues on sensible policies to secure our energy independence and improve our environment, but I fear this will not be possible as long as my Democratic colleagues remain intent on handing over the country to the government to remake it in Washington, DC's, image. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.