Floor Statements

Mr. President, over the last 3 or 4 years, I have come to the floor to discuss with my colleagues information that I get from whistleblowers in the FBI and the Department of Justice, most of it dealing with the subject of the critical weaponization of people at the highest levels of the FBI and their violating of protocol, getting involved in political situations that the FBI has no business being in.

Last week, when Mr. Patel was before my Judiciary Committee, I released some new emails that I have gotten that show further involvement of certain people in the case against Trump that Jack Smith headed up. I am here today because, when I released those emails, last week, there was a New York Times story that got it all wrong. So, today, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention a January 30, 2025, New York Times article from Adam Goldman and Alan Feuer about my and Senator Johnson's oversight of the FBI.

In that article they said: ``FBI emails released Thursday showed that agents and officials followed standard procedure'' when opening the Trump elector case.

Well, they read it wrong, and I am going to tell you why they read it wrong.

The article written by these two can be summed up like this: a very wet kiss to the politically biased leadership within the FBI.

Last week, Senator Johnson and I made public FBI records that showed a snapshot into the origins of the Jack Smith elector case against Trump. Those records included a February 14, 2022, email from Assistant Special Agent in Charge Thibault to his subordinate agent, Michelle Ball. The subject line of that email was ``Elector Matter.''

My office has been told that Thibault handpicked subordinate agents, including Michelle Ball and Jamie Garman, who are both referenced in the documents that I released, to conceal his role as an initiating agent. The documents Senator Johnson and I released support that.

In the February 2022 email, Special Agent Thibault says, in part: ``Here is [the] draft opening language we discussed.'' Attached to that email is a Word document titled ``Elector.'' That Word document, when opened, contains information that became part of the predicating document that would later be approved to open the case code-named ``Arctic Frost.'' That was all about prosecuting then-Citizen Trump.

When opening the Word document, it says this: ``Author: Timothy Thibault.'' It also says this: ``Last modified by: Timothy Thibault.''

Today, Senator Johnson and I will be publicly releasing a new email that we have obtained that was sent from Thibault to Michelle Ball and Jamie Garman on March 1, 2022. In the email, Thibault says: ``To add . . . will come by to discuss.'' The document was attached to the email, with language to be added to the Arctic Frost document opening the investigation against Trump.

The document attached to the email lists the author and modifier as-- you guess it--Thibault.

The document itself is titled ``Arctic Frost,'' and it adds President Trump as a criminal subject to the investigation. Notably, the document lists then-Chairman Durbin's 2021 investigative report on Trump to help justify that Trump yet fails to use my 2021 report, which provided much needed context.

Now, the New York Times article said the FBI records Senator Johnson and I made public ``showed that agents and officials followed standard procedure,'' but that totally ignores the facts and evidence, let alone not even considering the FBI rules for making these determinations for opening a prosecution case.

So I go to these rules. Section 7.7.1 in the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide--and that is, essentially, the FBI's manual--is titled, ``Opening Documentation.''

That rule shows the work flow approval and makes clear that supervisors--I want to emphasize ``supervisors''--are to approve the work product provided to them. The point here is Thibault did not conduct himself like that sort of a supervisor.

In other words, the intent of this rule, based on its plain text, is that subordinate agents provide work product to supervising agents for the latter's approval. Should there be any doubt about this intent, look no further than section 3.5.2.3 titled ``No Self-Approval Rule.'' That rule says, in part: ``an approval official (and the rule uses the word supervisor to define this person) may not self-approve his/her own work activity. An independent evaluation and approval of these activities must be obtained, including the opening and closing of any Assessment or predicated investigation.''

Then the rule says this: ``In the event that an FBI employee errantly conducts a self-approval, the approval is considered substantial non- compliance and must be documented.'' So that leaves you with Thibault self-approving something that he wasn't supposed to self-approve.

Moreover, another FBI document defines ``general roles and privileges'' of supervisors as this: ``Supervisor--assigns leads; approves documents; assigns squad current workload.''

None of this says that a supervisor like Thibault is allowed to draft and open a case and approve it for themselves.

Based on the facts and the evidence that Senator Johnson and I have obtained to date, and based on the FBI's own rules, Thibault essentially self-approved his own case, in violation of FBI

rules, which means this guy was out to get Trump as fast as he could.

According to this case that, again, I say is named Arctic Frost, as they code-named the Trump case, it was defective from the very start, not only from a political infection standpoint but also because of substantial noncompliance with FBI rules.

Getting back to the New York Times article, at this point, the paper simply is an FBI stenographer and propagandist, parroting FBI lies, claiming emails released by me and Senator Johnson ``showed that agents and officials followed standard procedure'' when opening Arctic Frost.

As with most of the information in the leaks the FBI has laundered through Goldman, the truth is quite the opposite of the FBI and the New York Times' narrative.

Does the New York Times believe that it is normal for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge to prepare case predication for the opening of an investigation and then feed it to a street agent? And add to that doing it to a former President of the United States.

Is it normal for FBI agents to ignore sources that counteract the predication they so badly manufacture? Is it normal for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge to boast anti-Trump social media poses under his true name and title while he is overseeing the most politically sensitive investigation for the FBI? Is it normal for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge responsible for the most sensitive political investigations in the FBI to be forced to resign for partisanship on the job and then be found to have violated the Hatch Act for that same partisanship?

It seems to this Senator that the New York Times has become the paid publicist of senior members of the FBI, an unethical quid pro quo of pushing their narratives in exchange for publishing false information.

On the occasion of the latest article as a mouthpiece for nameless FBI sources, I invite the New York Times editorial board to undertake its own investigation into Goldman's receipt of one-sided law enforcement information leaked to him from FBI employees. Absent that, continued New York Times reporting in this area is inherently questionable.

Now, I started this by talking about occasionally, from time to time, I come to the U.S. Senate floor to discuss information I get from whistleblowers that deals with the political weaponization of the FBI. I released some of those emails last week at the Patel hearing.

Now, what Patel is all about, by President Trump appointing him to FBI Director, is simply to see that none of this stuff that I have discussed in previous speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate ever happens again and that the FBI is going to be a law enforcement Agency and not a political weaponization organization. And I say that about the people that are on the seventh floor of the Hoover FBI Building. I am not condemning the people that are working FBI cases in Iowa or any of the other 49 States because they are doing their job. But they should have the full support of the seventh floor of the building and not be concerned about prosecuting a former President of the United States, now reelected as the 47th President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota will soon be our next Secretary of the Department of the Interior. I am going to support that nomination.

I think he will be confirmed, but until that happens, we always say ``if confirmed.''

If confirmed, Mr. Burgum will play a critical role in balancing the importance of conserving our wildlife and natural resources, while also assisting in the enhancement of domestic energy production.

Now, we must remember, over the last 4 years--in other words, under the Biden administration--many of our Nation's Federal lands were off limits for any type of use, and the excuse was for the sake of conservation. Though that is a broad stroke--the word ``conservation''--it wasn't made very clear what was meant.

Many know that I have been a longtime advocate for transparency in the public's business because transparency brings accountability. Mr. Burgum will be expected to be transparent and forthcoming when leading the Department, and I expect that he will be, but especially when responding to letters from Members of Congress.

If confirmed, Mr. Burgum will oversee several Bureaus and Agencies that all work together supporting the Interior Department's mission of protecting, of managing, and of honoring our Nation's natural resources and lands.

On the topic of our country's resources, the United States has ample resources for energy production and generation, and President Trump winning the election has made clear that that is a top priority for him. And the President has created a special council on energy, and Mr. Burgum will be chairing that council.

Now, I happen to be a believer, as I am sure Mr. Burgum is, in what you call an ``all of the above'' strategy on energy. An ``all of the above'' strategy really means just that, in other words, an emphasis upon what we have got energy from--fossil fuels--and that is declining in use, but it is still going to be around for a long, long time. It means

all the energy--alternative energy--that we can create. It means conservation, and not necessarily conservation promoted by government but individual conservation. And, of course, nuclear, and nuclear brings to our attention a whole new generation of ways to produce nuclear energy. That is ``all of the above.''

And, of course, we ought to, in order to accomplish that, cut back on Biden-era regulations. These regulations seem to be very opaque. And, consequently, we would forge a fiscally sound path forward in regard to everything that less regulation would bring us.

I believe that Mr. Burgum understands the need to support an ``all of the above'' approach to energy policy, given his leadership on that issue as Governor of the State of North Dakota.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, every so often, I come to the Senate floor to bring my colleagues up to date on the lack of financial management system in the Department of Defense.

I am here again to address what I consider a festering bureaucratic sore. The Pentagon can't keep track of the taxpayers' money. And as I just indicated, I speak about this many times. In 30 years of watchdogging, little or nothing has happened.

Internal controls over the taxpayers' money remain weak or nonexistent at the Department of Defense. And I am here today to speak specifically about a recent inspector general's audit, driving home that point. Specifically, auditors discovered $1.1 billion in undocumented payments by the Pentagon using funds Congress provided to assist Ukraine.

They examined 479 transactions for the calendar year 2022, totaling $2.1 billion dollars. The auditors determined that 65 percent of the transactions could not be verified for a lack of documentation.

If the sample were doubled in size, the inspector general estimated a staggering 94 percent would be unsupported.

Now, we all agree that is unacceptable; or if we don't agree that that is unacceptable, there is something wrong with our thinking.

The rules are crystal clear. Supporting documentation is required when paying bills. Proper documentary support should include a contract, travel authorization, invoice, receipts, payment voucher, or things like that.

And I don't mean you have to have all those available to pay a bill, but you ought to have at least one of them or more before you spend the taxpayers' money.

Now, taken together, these records form an audit trail essential for payment verification and fraud detection.

If the documents match up, a bill is ready to pay. So $1.1 billion went out the door, and there is no documentation to back it up.

I want to make very clear: That is an audit report, not Chuck Grassley saying that. So we don't know how that money was used. Was it spent to assist Ukraine as required, or was it misused or stolen? We simply don't know.

Clearly, unsupported payments leave the door wide open to fraudsters. Paying bills without documentation shows neglect and indifference. It is reckless and should not be tolerated.

These undocumented expenditures occurred on the watch of Chief Financial Officer--or as we know him CFO Mike McCord. Though Mike McCord has departed the Department, he and his deputies are accountable. They failed to exercise due diligence over the public's money.

Such gross mismanagement is made worse by the Pentagon's pitiful accounting system--or as I said in my opening, the lack of a financial management system.

Top managers turned a blind eye to this problem as well, just like a long line of their predecessors. Instead of modernizing, they kept pouring out billions down a rathole to upgrade ancient systems that belong on the junk heap.

Why did such smart, experienced managers go down that rabbit hole? Why did they fail to acquire modern systems that could produce reliable information, effective controls, or clean opinions? Why has this problem not been fixed?

There once was a bravehearted watchdog in the Air Force's Comptroller's who claimed to know the answer. Ernie Fitzgerald was that person's name. I knew him in the 1980s. He worked in the Defense Department until he retired maybe 20 years ago, and he probably died about 3 or 4 years ago.

He had this to say:

Leaders in the Pentagon don't want to fix it. Sloppy

accounting gives them flexibility to hide their shenanigans.

When there is no audit trail to follow, it is easy to make sneaky accounting adjustments to cover your backside. Pentagon managers have some explaining to do, and I am all ears. I want to give you just one recent example, and I am following up with the inspector general in the Pentagon to get some answers on this.

Over a period of 6 years, until earlier last year when she pleaded guilty to--can you believe this--stealing $106 million out of the Defense Department. She was buying all kinds of homes and all kinds of expensive cars, and I don't have a long list of where $106 million went, but can you believe over a period of 5 years, there was nobody in the Defense Department who caught it? Eventually, after 6 years, the IRS discovered it, but she got away with it for 6 years. Now, she is prosecuted and 15 years in prison. She wasn't prosecuted--she pled guilty.

But so I write to the IG to get an explanation of how come they have a financial management system--or a lack thereof--that doesn't catch somebody stealing $106 million. So I sent along, with those questions I am asking the IG, a report that I put out in 1998 that was a report of people stealing money at the Air Force base in Dayton, where they had this check-writing machine, and we found out that the person managing that check-writing machine could make checks out to people in his family. And there was about $5 million stolen at that particular time.

And so we went to Dayton to study what was wrong, and what was wrong is exactly what this audit report shows today, they were writing checks without invoices.

Now, you see, we pointed something out, what, 26 years ago or something like that, that was wrong with financial management in the Defense Department, and I--so I guess you could say the Defense Department has learned nothing in the last 26 years.

And I just hope that they would take my report of 1998 and what is wrong with Janet Mello stealing $106 million and try to change the system.

Now, we, in the Congress, with our power of oversight, or as you study in high school government, checks and balances of government, we appropriate money, we pass laws, but we don't enforce those laws. We have a constitutional responsibility to point out when the executive branch of government or the people in the executive branch of government aren't faithfully executing the laws that we pass or properly appropriate spending the money the way we appropriated.

So we don't enforce the laws; we make the laws. We have oversight.

But what do you do? You come to the floor of the U.S. Senate and try to raise Cain about it and get some changes made. But the Defense Department is a little bit different than any other Agency of the Federal Government because they are the only Agency of the Federal Government that has never had a clean audit.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am here to back the nomination of Lee Zeldin of New York to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, so my vote will be yes in a few hours from now when we vote on that nomination.

The EPA plays a very important regulatory role in the United States. Not only does it regulate pollution, like many Americans already know, but it also regulates many areas that impact Americans every day.

As many farmers in Iowa know, the previous administration's EPA put out a regulation that would overregulate what we know in this town as waters of the United States or, as the leader just put it, WOTUS. This would have regulated 96 percent of the land in the State of Iowa, and that would subject that land to Federal water regulations. It would almost be impossible to do regular farming operations without wondering whether you were violating some regulation. That is what the leader just said. This regulation is not common sense.

The EPA also oversees issues critical to agriculture, such as the approval and labeling of pesticides and other important tools for farmers.

The EPA also oversees the renewable fuel standard and protects its integrity. The renewable fuel standard provides an important framework for biofuels, which benefits farmers by sustaining an additional market for their commodities.

Besides, biofuels, or in Iowa because we are No. 1 in the production of ethanol, we like to say it is good for agriculture; it is good for good-paying jobs in rural America that we would never have without the ethanol industry; it is good for the environment because it is clean- burning; it is good for our national security--less reliance upon foreign sources of energy. There is everything about biofuels that is good, good, good. There is not a negative that you can come up with about them.

In our meeting earlier this month in my office--Mr. Zeldin came there--I impressed upon him the far-reaching impact that his Agency has over the lives of farmers and all Americans.

Mr. Zeldin assured me that he would be responsive to Congress and that he would provide ample time to provide transparency and market stability before regulations from his Agency are promulgated. Mr. Zeldin's assurance about making decisions on time is important because previously the required volume obligations dealing with biofuels and the small refinery exemptions have not been finalized in time to make the RVOs whole. This leads to less ethanol blending, which goes against President Trump's commitment to farmers and the ethanol industry, which Mr. Zeldin assured me that he supports. For the sake of Iowa farmers, I am hopeful that Mr. Zeldin stays true to his word.

Just in case you wonder whether or not we have anything to fear from EPA in agriculture, I want to give you a little history that is now history, but it just shows you how, in this town, which I call an island surrounded by reality--the real America is outside of this island here--a few years ago, they were going to promote a rule that you would say is just unbelievable. You have to be telling us a story. They wouldn't be proposing this rule.

It was called the fugitive dust rule. OK. The theory of the fugitive dust rule from EPA is that if you are farming and you create dust in the normal operations that go into a farming operation--plowing, disking, planting, spraying, whatever it might be, combining the harvest--that you are supposed to keep that dust within your property lines.

Now, that is what EPA tried to promulgate. In fact, I think one time we thought we had it killed, and a couple of years later, it came up again. Now I think it is dead forever because it doesn't meet the commonsense test that a farmer working his fields can keep the dust within his property lines.

So I tried to explain it to EPA Administrators this way in regard to the harvesting of soybeans, which leaves a lot of dust. I said that when soybeans are 13 percent moisture, it is very necessary that you very quickly harvest them because 13 percent is the most ideal time with that amount of moisture in soybeans.

Do you know, to these Administrators, only God determines when the wind blows, and whether the wind is blowing or not, your soybeans are 13 percent, you have to get in there and combine them and not worry about where the dust goes, and you have about 2 weeks during the harvest season to accomplish the same goal.

But, no kidding, that is what EPA was trying to do to agriculture a few years ago.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, we are confirming former Congressman Sean Duffy as the new Secretary of Transportation.

Our Nation's infrastructure is essential to the economy, trade, and vitality of each of our 50 States. In Iowa, it is fundamental to moving our agriculture products, manufacturing goods, and, of course, our 3.3 million people.

I have long supported sound, sustainable infrastructure policies that provide certainty to businesses, States, and the transportation community. I agree that businesses and State and local governments need long-term visions and plans to ensure our infrastructure networks remain strong and support our Nation's economic growth and competitiveness.

We are soon faced, in this body and in the entire Congress, with reauthorizing our Nation's surface transportation laws. I am glad that Congressman Duffy understands, from representing Northwest Wisconsin, that rural America has many infrastructure needs--as many as urban areas. I supported the bipartisan infrastructure bill to provide needed funding to repair and replace Iowa's aging infrastructure. I look forward to working with him to advance Iowa's priorities and sound policies for the Nation.

Now, in the case of Secretary Duffy, even though I didn't meet with him in my office, like I do a lot of nominees, I stress today the importance of responding to congressional letters and inquiries. Congress has a constitutional duty to perform oversight over the executive branch for, as we learn in high school civics, what we call checks and balances. Congress not only passes laws and appropriates money, but we have a responsibility to make sure that those laws are faithfully executed by whomever is President of the United States.

Oversight, then, allows us to hold bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law, and it helps to keep faith with taxpayers. Or another way of saying it, if we have transparency in government, which the oversight of Congress ought to implement, we have greater accountability of our work.

Currently, I have been conducting oversight over the FAA and the safety of Boeing aircraft. I fully expect the new Secretary to respond to all congressional inquiries in a timely and responsive manner.

When people come to my office, I remind them of that question they get from every chairman of every committee: Will you answer the letters that we send, or will you appear before Congress, or will you take our telephone calls?

Every one of them says yes, but that is not entirely how it works out. I use an example of the Justice Department the last 4 years--as I showed soon-to-be Attorney General Pam Bondi--that I wrote 158 letters to the Justice Department. And if I got answers, they were partial answers, but most were not responded to. That is not the way that the executive branch of government, either under a Democrat or Republican President, should be handling or, let's say, should be thumbing their nose at the legislative branch of government.

So when people say yes to these questions that they are offered by the chairmen of the committee, I say to them: It would be more honest if you

would say maybe instead of saying yes. So I hope that Secretary-to-be Duffy will respond to my inquiries about the FAA and Boeing aircraft.

I look forward to working with former Congressman Duffy to support long-term infrastructure policies to keep our manufacturing and our agriculture sectors robust and to support our State and local communities that depend on their jobs.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration and extermination camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau. We commemorate this day through International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Today, we remember the 6 million Jewish victims as well as millions of other victims persecuted by the Nazis, and we do this so that it is never repeated. I honor the victims, the survivors, and their families by combating anti-Semitism and preserving history for future generations.

In 2023, the Simon Wiesenthal Center approached me about wrongdoing by the Swiss bank named Credit Suisse in its internal investigations into undisclosed information relating to the bank's Nazi ties.

For decades, we have tried to track the Nazi confiscation of all kinds of Jewish valuables and cash, and we all know that the Nazis used Swiss banks to hide whatever was confiscated.

I went to Senator Whitehouse, chairman of the Budget Committee. He and I issued the Budget Committee's first subpoena since 1991 to obtain a report that was developed by the investigation's independent ombudsman, Mr. Neil Barofsky. The report confirmed allegations and shed light on the breadth of Credit Suisse's servicing of Nazi wealth during and after World War II, along with their efforts to keep that wealth hidden.

So it is very clear Credit Suisse's past leadership handled this matter terribly. They lied to Congress while smearing the reputation of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and also the reputation of Mr. Barofsky. The bank even fired Mr. Barofsky, which is why we had to subpoena his report.

Since then, Credit Suisse as a bank collapsed and was merged, and Mr. Barofsky has been rehired after our pressure. Now, the bank UBS owns the results of this inquiry, and it also owns Credit Suisse's past of mishandling this whole event.

Earlier this month, Senator Whitehouse and I released updates from this investigation. Shortly after, there were negative press leaks about UBS and possibly past disgruntled employees. The leaks contained lies about the work and attacked Mr. Barofsky's

character. These attacks serve no purpose other than to frustrate an investigation into Credit Suisse's Nazi past. That absurd conduct is, in fact, a spit in the face to the victims of the Holocaust.

The U.S. Congress won't tolerate and shouldn't tolerate that kind of evil here in the 21st century, and neither will those brave souls long past that lived through the Nazi evil. They stand guard as our spiritual strength.

So let this be a message to the bank obstructionists: This Senator, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will leave no stone unturned when it comes to Nazi evils--and neither will Senator Whitehouse.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as the leader has just said, I come to the floor for the same purpose: to talk about my vote in favor of Mr. Bessent to be Secretary of the Treasury.

This Cabinet position is one of the most important positions in any administration. The Secretary is the tip of the spear for a President's domestic economic agenda. Moreover, the Secretary is a very key player in international affairs, with responsibilities covering international trade, global finance, and foreign sanctions--and that is just to name a few.

Given the current challenges we face as a nation, the next Treasury Secretary will have a full load on their plate.

The United States is facing what former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers recently called ``the biggest fiscal sustainability problem since the Civil War.''

At the same time, the expansionist ambitions of Russia in Europe and China--particularly China's pursuit of economic hegemony--threaten the international economic order.

Having met with Mr. Bessent, I am confident he is up to the task. He has indepth knowledge of economic history. In fact, he taught a class on the subject at Yale University. That and his decades-long career in finance make him uniquely qualified to be our next Secretary of the Treasury.

He is acutely aware of the risks posed to our national economy by our $36 trillion national debt. He understands that digging ourselves out of our fiscal hole will require spending restraint and, coupled with that, great economic growth.

As he discussed in testimony before the Senate committee, avoiding the largest tax hike in the history of our country by extending the 2017 tax law is crucial to the health of the American economy. And we all know in this body that the biggest tax increase in the history of the country can happen to the middle class even without a vote of Congress because the 2017 tax bill sunsets at the end of this year.

Mr. Bessent also understands that international trade and access to foreign markets are vital to the economic success of the American farmer. And when I spoke with this nominee in my office, I was pleasantly surprised by his knowledge of agriculture, stemming from his ownership of farmland in North Dakota.

As with all nominees, I stressed to Mr. Bessent the importance of responding to Congressional letters. Congress has a constitutional duty to perform oversight of the executive branch. I intend to hold him to his commitment to

respond to all congressional inquiries in a timely and responsive manner.

I also told him that every nominee that comes before any committee is asked that same question: Will you respond to our letters? And I say, kind of tongue-in-cheek but with some truth to it, that you ought to say ``maybe''--because I showed Pam Bondi, our nominee for Attorney General, when she was in my office, a whole file of 158 letters in the last 4 years that I sent to the Department of Justice that have remained unanswered or not fully answered, and all that.

So I hope that we can get this Trump Cabinet to keep their word that they are going to answer our letters, because they need to focus it from the standpoint of the Constitution. You learn in eighth grade civics that we not only pass laws here and appropriate money, but under checks and balances, we have the responsibility to make sure that the executive branch faithfully executes that law or spends that money appropriately.

And so checking up on that requires a lot of communication between us in the Congress and the executive branch, and that is true whether it is a Republican or Democrat President. But I hope this administration is committed to fully cooperating with Congress on our oversight responsibilities.

Now, there is another item I always stress with Treasury nominees, and that is the importance of the IRS Whistleblower Program that I authored critical updates to in 2006. To date, this program has brought in over $6 billion to the Treasury, thanks to whistleblowers who often risk their careers to blow the whistle on tax cheats.

This legislation is meant to make sure that the IRS has total information on who is paying their taxes and who isn't. So if you are working with some corporation that is not paying their taxes and you can report that successfully--the collection of those taxes--to the IRS, that whistleblower can get a share of the return.

And so far since 2006, $6 billion--billion dollars--has come back into the Federal Treasury as a result of that program.

However, in regard to that program, for much of the program's history, there has been an embedded culture in Treasury and the IRS that has hampered the success of the program. So I will look forward to working with Mr. Bessent to turn that culture around so that the 2006 legislation will be much more productive in not having the Federal Government cheated out of taxes that people owe.

So based on my discussions with Mr. Bessent, there is no doubt in my mind that he is well qualified to be Treasury Secretary. So I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of his nomination later today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, everybody knows that except for Native Americans, this great Nation of ours is a nation of immigrants.

We are one of the most welcoming nations in the world, maybe the most welcoming to immigrants, because about a million people come here every year legally.

My family has been blessed by two: a daughter-in-law of 45 years from South Korea and a granddaughter-in-law of about 6 or 7 years from Ethiopia. I have learned much from them. And I think America is great because of the people that come here.

But we are also a nation based on the rule of law. We have not seen that immigration law enforced over the last 4 years. So I am going to be voting for Governor Noem because she is committed to enforcing our immigration laws.

I think Secretary Mayorkas felt in his heart that America ought to be a land of opportunity, the opportunity for anybody who wanted to come here. He said he was enforcing the laws, but we know that he wasn't enforcing laws because you saw, every night on TV, people crossing the Rio Grande coming to this country and violating our laws as they entered.

We all know that if you are going to be a sovereign nation, you have got to control your borders. We can't have millions of people coming here in violation of our laws--people who are on the Terrorist Watchlist, people with criminal records, everybody just willy-nilly coming here. We are that land of opportunity but also a land of the rule of law.

We are seeing deportations going on now with priority on people who are criminals or on the Terrorist Watchlist. We are hearing some economists and some business people saying our economy is in jeopardy if we deport these people, but no employer is going to hire somebody on the Terrorist Watchlist if they know that they are. No employer is going to hire somebody with a criminal record if they know about that criminal record. So let's talk about the impact of deportation on the economy after people with criminal records, after people who are on the Terrorist Watchlist, and the 1.2 or 1.3 million people who have been adjudicated who did not meet the test of our law so they could legally be in this country, to have those three categories of people deported. Then maybe let's talk about the impact on the economy after that. But I think that is quite a few months down the road.

One other reason that I am voting for Governor Noem--and this is a repeat of what I said last night on the floor of the U.S. Senate in regard of Pete Hegseth being Secretary of Defense. When these people who are nominees come to my office, I point out to them a couple of things: No. 1, I always say, You are going to be asked if you will answer our letters. And everybody for decades has been saying yes to that.

And I point out to them how they ought to really say ``maybe,'' because I use the last 4 years of the Garland Department of Justice as an example, showing these nominees, when they come to my office, a pile of about 158 letters that the Department of Justice and the FBI haven't appropriately answered, even after they said they had answered all of our letters.

Now, that may be tongue in cheek--``maybe''--when I tell them that. But I think we have a responsibility to make sure in our constitutional job of oversight to see that the laws are faithfully executed and when we contact the administration when we think things are wrong, that we are entitled to an answer.

This isn't a problem just in a Democrat administration; this is also a problem in Republican administrations.

So I asked the new Secretary of Defense that question. He said he was going to be diligent about that. And I discussed the same thing with Governor Noem as well because we ought to have cooperation of the executive branch of government in Congress doing its job of oversight.

I am satisfied that Governor Noem will, to the best of her ability, help us with our oversight abilities and even help us get answers to those left over from the Biden administration.

I think Governor Noem is very well-qualified to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I wish her well in the enforcement of law and reemphasize that a border security is very important not only for the sovereignty of this great Nation of ours, because you can't be a sovereign nation if you don't control the borders; and, secondly, for our national security because you can't have people on the Terrorist Watchlist coming to this country and invading us; and also for law enforcement because you can't have people with criminal records coming to this country.

It is a big job that is left over from the last 4 years of a Secretary of Homeland Security who wasn't enforcing the law. I think Governor Noem is up to the task, and we wish her well as she proceeds down this road of making sure that the sovereignty of the United States is protected, our national security is protected, and we have a safe nation based upon law enforcement being able to do its job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is the 52nd annual March for Life right here in the Nation's Capital. Folks from all over the Nation and world are in Washington to offer a joyful witness to the beauty and dignity of every human person. They will march in the cold in solidarity with babies in the womb. They will march in solidarity with mothers who deserve better than abortion--mothers who deserve love, support, and encouragement. They will march with a hope that the day is coming when all people will see babies as the blessing they are, the day when abortion is unthinkable. The signs the marchers carry reveal the hearts of each one.

A popular sign each year reads ``Love them both.'' The pro-life movement desires to affirm and restore the bond between mother and child. This sacred bond exists even before a baby is born.

So I say thank you to the pro-life marchers. I say thank you for your faithful example of what it means to be pro-life. God bless you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am going to support Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. In the process of doing that, I am going to refer generally to some of the things that I spoke about--problems at the Department of Defense--when Mr. Hegseth was in my office for these personal interviews that all nominees tend to do before their consideration on the floor of the Senate.

One of those subjects was my oversight work of the Department of Defense. I have been conducting rigorous oversight of the Defense Department, along with other Federal Departments, since I became a Member of Congress. My oversight work of the Department of Defense has led me to sound the alarm time and again about the lack of internal controls, price gouging, and the mismanagement of the taxpayer dollars.

If confirmed, Pete Hegseth, President Trump's Secretary of Defense nominee, will be the 16th Secretary of Defense to lead the Department during my tenure in this Chamber.

When I met with Mr. Hegseth, I told him what I tell all Cabinet nominees whom I meet with: When asked if you will respond to letters from Members of Congress, instead of saying ``yes,'' you ought to say ``maybe'' so you won't be made a liar later when you don't answer those letters, because, as we all know here in the Senate, there is not a nominee who comes before any committee in the U.S. Senate who doesn't firmly promise to answer all of our letters or come and testify or take our phone calls. So everyone says yes when seeking confirmation, and most don't respond when they get into office.

Mr. Hegseth said yes to the answer to that question in committee. He kind of laughed when I said in my office ``You ought to say `maybe,''' but he said ``I get the message.''

Mr. Hegseth and I also discussed the need for the Department of Defense to pass an independent audit and upgrade outdated financial management systems to make the independent audit being certified a real possibility.

You know, the Department of Defense is the only Agency of the Federal Government that can't get a certified audit, and they have been mandated to have one for more than a decade, maybe even two decades. They have tried to produce it.

The smallest of the military groups--the U.S. Marines--they tried to work with that one first of all to see if they could get a certified audit. They went through that rigamarole, and somehow they did get certified. I asked for the Government Accountability Office to check on the legitimacy of that certification, and the Government Accountability Office said that it was not a legitimate certification. After a couple of speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate about 8, 10 years ago, we finally got them to admit that it was a hoax that they were saying they were getting a certified audit.

So this has been a big problem for a long period of time, and I hope Mr. Hegseth can get to the bottom of it and get a clean audit because the lack of a clean audit opinion at the Department of Defense presents huge potential for waste, fraud, and abuse in defense spending. When I get to the end of my remarks, I am going to give you a couple of examples.

Mr. Hegseth acknowledged this weakness within the Department of Defense and assured me that he will get the Department on a proper financial footing.

He also committed to ensuring the protections of whistleblowers who speak out against instances of fraud, waste, and abuse that have been unrestrained within the Department. We spoke about that issue because, for every nominee who comes to my office wanting confirmation, I say to them: You know, whether you have a Department of a few hundred or a few thousand or a few 10,000s--and there are some Departments around here that have a few hundred thousand people--big or little, you can't know what is going on in that Department as far as listening to whistleblowers.

I consider whistleblowers to be very dedicated to their jobs and very patriotic people. They just want the government to do what the government is supposed to do under the law or to spend the money the way it is supposed to be spent. So they see something wrong; they come forward. You know, maybe sometimes they accomplish a lot by coming forward, but sometimes they are so frustrated that they come to us Members of the Senate--in my particular case, Chuck Grassley. Of the 35 investigations I have going on somewhere in the executive branch of government, 90 percent of them are instituted by information whistleblowers give me.

So I tell these nominees: You don't know what is going on. You ought to listen to whistleblowers.

It isn't just the case of a nominee listening to a whistleblower; it is a case of the nominee having a culture within their Department that will encourage middle management to listen to whistleblowers. That is particularly a problem in the Defense Department.

We find too many whistleblowers ruining themselves professionally. They are treated like a skunk at a picnic in their Departments. I could tell you a lot of stories where they have been misused just because they came forward with information that the government wasn't following the laws.

I know you can tell from what I just said that I have been a longtime advocate for whistleblowers and continue to work to ensure that they are protected when they rightfully speak out about the wrongdoings within our government.

As you can tell from my conversation with you, my colleagues, I expect Mr. Hegseth to stay true to his word that he is going to listen to whistleblowers and get the financial management system of the Department of Defense turned around.

Finally, we should thank anybody who serves in the military but particularly Mr. Hegseth for his service to our country in the military. All of the brave men and women who have served our Nation in uniform deserve our gratitude and respect.

Now, I told you that I would give you a couple of examples. One of them is financial mismanagement or not following the law.

One is Janet Mello. About 6 months ago, she pleaded guilty in a Texas court--can you believe this?--for stealing $106 million over a period of 5 years as a Defense Department employee.

The problem there is that I am trying to get information from the Defense Department on one of my investigations. How could an employee of the Department of Defense over a period of 5 years get away with $106 million? I read someplace it was $112 million, but whether it was $106 million or $112 million, what difference does it make? It makes a difference if $1 is stolen from the taxpayers. Anyway, if she had stolen $5 million, she would probably still be a free person.

But what is wrong with the financial management system of the Defense Department that they can't keep track of $106 million being stolen? So I am trying to get an answer to that, and finally, today, I got a response on my investigation. Maybe I got it because I talked to Pete Hegseth about it.

Another one is what we call in Washington the JEDI, a program that the Defense Department wanted to establish called the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure. There were people in the Defense Department who had a conflict of interest because they had a relationship with Amazon. Amazon wanted that contract. They didn't recuse themselves.

This whole Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure and these contracts, there was so much competition among a couple wanting that besides Amazon, that it was given a brandnew start on negotiations, and I don't even know where they are on those negotiations at this point.

But those are two examples of things that have been really wrong with the way the Department of Defense has been run, not just under Biden but under a lot of Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, over a long period of time. And that is why I am going to suggest that the inspector general at the Department of Defense ought to be fired. Hopefully, Mr. Hegseth can straighten that out.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today marks 5 years since the Robinson family of Iowa City, IA, has been matched with their adoptive child way over in China. Sadly, this is not a celebratory anniversary of that date, as the Robinson family, along with 300 other American families, have yet to be unified with their adoptive children, many with unique medical needs.

You see, in August of 2024, China very abruptly ended its intercountry adoption program without even clarifying what that would mean for the families already matched with their child.

The Chinese Embassy cited that cross-border adoption has fulfilled its mission for the country, as now many more Chinese families have stronger will and capacity to adopt the orphans in China. While that is good news for those orphans, the country has made a commitment to American families that is not being kept. China still hasn't given a straight answer on whether these matched cases will be completed.

I have been told that families from other countries have been invited to travel to complete their adoptions but not Americans. Why not Americans?

It has been 5 years since families like the Robinsons have prepared their homes to welcome these adoptive children, 5 years of a developed familiar relationship.

I hope that President Trump and the incoming administration see that these matched adoption cases be completed. President Trump talks about wanting to meet with Xi, have more friendly relationships with President Xi. Hopefully this is an environment that can bring the Robinsons and their child together.

China made a commitment, and I think and everybody thinks China ought to honor its commitment. China ought to do that for no reason other than they want the respect of the world. They seem to be working to get that respect, and when people question that respect, they get very uptight about it.

Mr. President, on another issue, I want to talk about the 30-year anniversary of a piece of legislation that I have been involved with.

A lot has happened during the first week of the second Trump administration. Within just 3 days in the White House, President Trump has put the pedal to the metal, delivering on the mandate voters expected when they went to the polls on November 5.

Now, thinking of history, it brings to mind a message the voters delivered 30 years ago. Some of my colleagues will remember what is called the Contract with America. That was a platform, if you remember, engineered by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich that led to what was called the Republican Revolution of 1994. In fact, it was so much of a revolution that I remember that in President Clinton's State of the Union Message, he said and opened his statement with these few words:

The era of big government is over.

That is how much the Gingrich contract rattled Washington, DC.

So the American people expressed that they were fed up with government-knows-best and a Washington mindset that applied rules for thee but not for me. Sounds familiar, doesn't it, 30 years later with the Trump mandate?

So I come to the Senate floor today to talk about one particular issue that still comes up at my county meetings. For years, Iowans have asked me something like this: Why doesn't Congress have to follow the same laws as we have to follow? That used to be true until we passed the Congressional Accountability Act. In fact, that law became law, law of the land, 30 years ago today.

Prior to 1995, Congress was exempt from about a dozen workplace laws that applied to the private sector but not to us in the Congress. I want to revisit how it came about.

In 1994, the American people delivered a landslide victory to Republicans. We gained majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. It was an epic victory considering that Democrats had run the

House of Representatives for all but 4 years going way back to 1931.

The best approach to good leadership is to keep an ear to the ground and a finger to the pulse of the American people, much like our 45th and 47th President has done since 2017. Throughout my public service, that is how this U.S. Senator has worked to represent Iowans. By listening, by keeping in touch, and by going home every chance I get, I hold myself accountable to the people. This year, I will start my 45th consecutive year holding meetings with Iowans, holding Q&A meetings in each of Iowa's 99 counties.

Now, for a basis for keeping in touch and keeping government responsible, let's look at Federalist 57. In that Federalist Paper, James Madison wrote about the vital need for what he called ``communion of interests'' between the people and their leaders, ``without which every government degenerates into tyranny.'' In the 21st century, you could call that having skin in the game.

Back to this 30th anniversary of the Congressional Accountability Act, during the period of Congress having exemption from some workplace rules, Iowa's small businesses and Main Street civic leaders hit the nail on the head. They said to me and other Members of Congress: What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

So some of us rolled up our sleeves and got to work. I teamed up with former Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut here in the Senate. Like many legislative efforts, it took years to build a bipartisan coalition to have these laws applied to the Congress of the United States. The 1994 electoral victory was the boost that we needed to get across the finish line.

On January 4, 1995, I reintroduced the Congressional Accountability Act. My good friend and former Senate majority leader Bob Dole summed up the reason for this legislation better than anybody else. I quote Senator Dole:

Many of our citizens have begun to view the Senate and

House of Representatives not as a people's body, but as an

``imperial Congress,'' as an institution that considers

itself above the law and without accountability.

That double standard had to end. We had to restore confidence with the American people. That is why I championed the Congressional Accountability Act--to inject common sense into lawmaking.

This Federal law would provide that lawmakers walk in the shoes of our constituents, abiding by the same workplace rights and worker protection laws, including civil rights, age discrimination, disability, overtime pay, and occupational safety and health laws.

One of my opponents during those years of trying to get this legislation passed was Senator Stevens of Alaska. I remember as this bill passed the U.S. Senate and I was victorious, he came up to me and poked his finger in my chest and said: I hope you are the first Senator to get sued because of this legislation.

Well, I haven't been sued, and I don't think anybody has been sued.

The first bill that we sent to the President's desk in the 104th Congress was the Congressional Accountability Act. President Clinton signed it, as I mentioned earlier, 30 years ago today, on January 23, 1995.

Since then, I have led reforms to expand whistleblower protections to employees in the legislative and executive branches. In 2018, President Trump signed into law reforms to the law's reporting and resolution process for workplace harassment claims.

Although the ink has long dried on the Congressional Accountability Act, we all still need to be fighting every day to keep a reality check here in Washington, DC.

I am going to finish with this ironic statement. Even though this legislation was passed 30 years ago and even though I have heard about its need for a long time before that, I still--as I say, ironically-- hear at my town meetings some constituents say to me: Why don't you have to live under the same laws that we live under? Then I have an opportunity to tell them about the Congressional Accountability Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, in early February 1972, when abortion was not the issue it is today and probably after California had changed its abortion laws under then-Governor Reagan, the Iowa Legislature considered repealing Iowa's law about abortion. I cast my first vote in that assembly. That year, our abortion law stayed in place on a vote of 44 to 44. Then, 1 year later, everything changed.

Today marks the 52nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I invite my colleagues to a moment of silence and somber reflection to honor the millions of lives quietly lost to abortion since 1973.

(Moment of silence.)

I also invite my colleagues to share my heartfelt hope in this new era we are in following the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision. Since then, we have witnessed the American people, in their respective States, reempowered to protect lives in the womb.

These young lives are precious, vulnerable, and equal in worth to each of our own who are here today and millions throughout this country.

I recall with joy the moments that I learned that I was a father, a grandfather, and now a great-grandfather. I am amazed at how technology has changed over time to reveal the humanity of the unborn ever more clearly.

Through ultrasound imaging, I saw my grandchildren and great- grandchildren in the early stages of their development. These ultrasound photos show how similar these little ones are to you and to me. Their hands and feet were tiny, yet indistinguishable from mine. We are all part of the same human family.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 119th Congress to continue to support mothers, babies, and families through commonsense legislation.

Iowa Legislature

Mr. President, I would like to proudly say that, 10 days ago, I had the opportunity to see a great-granddaughter, Reagan Grassley, open the Iowa legislative session. Her father, Pat Grassley, is the speaker of the Iowa House.

I have had a chance, in his 6 years of being speaker, to see Reagan Grassley, now only a freshman at Dike-New Hartford High School, give the opening prayer at each one of those opening sessions.

And I would like to repeat for my colleagues her prayer:

Heavenly Father, we gather today with hearts full of

gratitude and hope as we celebrate the commencement of the

91st General Assembly of the Iowa Legislature. We thank You

for the trust placed in these new and returning lawmakers by

the people of Iowa.

Lord, we ask for Your wisdom to be upon each legislator.

Grant them clear thinking in their decisions, clarity in

their thoughts, and integrity in their actions. May they be

guided by the principles of justice, compassion, and truth as

they navigate the difficulties of lawmaking.

Bless them with the courage to uphold what is right, even

when it is not easy. Gift them with patience and perseverance

to address the pressing issues of our time.

We also pray for their families, that they find support and

strength in each other as they share in the sacrifices and

challenges that come with public service.

Lord, let this assembly be an inspiration of good

governance, where every decision made

reflects a commitment to the welfare of all Iowans, now and

for generations to come.

In Your name, we pray.

Amen.

So you can see why I am proud of that granddaughter doing that from sixth grade now to a freshman in high school.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 52 years ago today, Roe v. Wade was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Approximately 1 year before that, I was a member of the Iowa Legislature, and that legislature attempted to repeal Iowa's law of decades old. That vote in the house of representatives was 44 to 44, so obviously that bill was not adopted, and our ban on abortion continued for a year until Roe v. Wade. I was one of those 44 who voted to retain the law that had been on the books for a long period of time. Well, there has been a lot of history since then. We are still fighting this issue.

This bill before the U.S. Senate now is a very important bill to express what life in the womb is all about.

Dr. Willard Cates, the director of abortion surveillance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1981, referred to the survival of a baby after an attempted abortion as the ``dreaded complication.'' Now, I happen to call that ``dreaded complication'' a miracle.

While it may be a troubling truth for some people to hear that, there are babies who survive attempted abortions. In 2024, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology analyzed almost 14,000 late-term abortions and found that over 11 percent resulted in live births. However, because we lack reliable Federal and State abortion data, we don't know the number of babies who survive an attempted abortion and are born alive each year in the United States.

When an abortion results in the live birth of a child, that child should be entitled to quality healthcare under the law. Tragically, that isn't always the case.

During my time in Congress, I have heard a number of stories from abortion survivors regarding their health struggles and the lack of care they received following failed abortions.

Melissa Ohden, for example, was born alive in 1977 and was left to die in a bucket of formaldehyde in a utility closet before being saved by two nurses. She is an advocate for children who come into this world the same way she did. Her message for moms considering abortion is this:

There is hope for you and your child even after an

attempted abortion. You aren't alone.

While children born alive are already recognized as persons under the law, there is not a Federal law on the books to penalize abortionists who actively kill or passively deny care to babies who survive abortions. These precious babies deserve justice. That is why I have joined my colleagues in introducing the legislation that we have entitled the ``Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.''

This legislation requires that any child born alive following an attempted abortion receive the same level of care as any other newborn who is born alive at the same stage of development. It doesn't and should not matter if a child is born in a hospital, in a maternity ward, or in an abortion clinic. In any case, this is a baby, and that reality ought to convict each of us in our hearts and move us to compassion and to action. Our bill would bring justice for babies who survive abortions and are born into this world.

Under our current legal system, human lives viewed as unwanted are treated as dispensable. No matter what each of us may think about abortion, we must speak and vote with unity to protect children outside of the womb.

In Congress, my colleagues and I have reached across the aisle to protect children in many other contexts, and I ask my colleagues to do the same here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, January is National Trafficking and Modern Slavery Prevention Month, so today, Senator Cortez Masto and I are introducing a resolution to honor victims and to raise very needed awareness.

As I speak, victims are being trafficked across our southern border. We each have a role to play in protecting the most vulnerable among us, especially women and children, from becoming victims of trafficking.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am committed to making human trafficking prevention a priority in this Congress, and I thank the Senator from Nevada for leading this effort.

Biden Administration

Mr. President, on his watch, President Biden wiped away student debt for more than 5 million borrowers, stiffing taxpayers with a heavier burden. That is on top of trillions of dollars in partisan deficit spending that fueled the fires of inflation to 20 percent during his administration.

His failed border policies allowed more than 10 million people to come into the country illegally.

I remember, during his inaugural address, President Biden pledged to unite Americans. At that time, I welcomed that very much. Unfortunately, his administration's actions did not match those lofty words of uniting Americans.

During his 4 years in the Oval Office, the 46th President adopted the divisive policies of leftwing ideologues and the more radical candidates that he beat in the Presidential primary. It was a notable departure from my 28 years serving together with him here in the U.S. Senate.

Even on his way out the door, President Biden doubled down on the dark and divisive rhetoric that failed his party in this most recent election. He put illegal immigrants before the security of Americans. He doubled down on class warfare, hammering, as you so often hear, the same nail that the ``wealthy'' need to pay their ``fair share'' when our Tax Code is among the most progressive in the world.

Many Iowans question the fairness of pardoning the President's son, including for tax evasion and crimes not even specified, especially when President Biden promised that he would not pardon his son. Iowans also tell me that wiping away student debt isn't fair to those who saved and sacrificed to pay their fair share.

In this Congress, I will work with President Trump to put America first and strengthen the economy so hard-working families, farmers, and small businesses can get ahead and, of course, stay ahead. That includes renewing the Trump tax cuts, securing our border, and securing peace through strength.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.