Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Mary Jane Cobb for her career as executive director of the Iowa State Education Association. She began her distinguished career in education in 1994. After serving in a number of positions working with students across the country, Mary Jane came to Iowa in 2008. In her role with ISEA, she has worked with teachers and schools around the State on many issues affecting our students. Mary Jane had an impact on the education of hundreds of thousands of our students in Iowa. I congratulate her on her career and wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to give an update on my oversight work. I often speak on the floor about the importance of oversight. Now, my remarks today have some history that goes back from now back to 8 years ago, so it might not seem very important today, but I speak so the Defense Department won't make the same blunder they made over that period of time. That blunder I am talking about is the mess- up with the JEDI contract, a cloud contract.

The parable of the vineyard tells us about corrupt tenants who tried to steal someone's harvest and keep it for themselves. It is especially bad, then, when public officials try to take the fruit of the taxpayers' vineyard for private gain. We can't ignore this sort of corruption or it will surely get worse.

The 2019 planned Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract-- otherwise known as JEDI--was an attempt to move the entire Defense Department to cloud, meaning cloud computing, which happened to be a very, very expensive project. It was around $10 billion and was ultimately canceled, as it should have been.

Ten billion dollars is a lot of tempting fruit, even by Washington, DC, standards. Early on, there were allegations that various Defense Department officials were helping the big corporation of Amazon behind the scenes to gain a contracting advantage. The allegations caused the inspector general of the Department of Defense to review the matter.

My oversight work started in 2019. My oversight has centered on conflicts of interest on the one hand, and on the other hand, the inspector general's review. It is a good-government oversight inquiry.

I know Amazon didn't end up getting this particular contract, but that doesn't matter to my oversight and what I am telling you today. Even attempted efforts to steer a government contract need to be exposed. That is what the taxpayers deserve.

Sally Donnelly, a key person in my investigation--happened to be a close adviser to then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former Amazon consultant--is a central figure. Let me make it very clear. Sally Donnelly was a close adviser to the Secretary of Defense and a former Amazon consultant. So that is the central figure of what I am talking about today.

Throughout her time at the Defense Department, Donnelly received payments from the sale of her consulting business, which she sold right before she entered government service. She didn't disclose precisely who purchased her firm to either the Defense Department, which she should have, or to the inspector general, even when asked the identity under oath.

In late 2022, I obtained new evidence the inspector general failed to obtain during its investigation. That evidence was that the actual name of the company that purchased Donnelly's firm was VMAP--an acronym, V- M-A-P. This company was a portfolio company of C5 Capital, an Amazon- linked company.

The Defense Department inspector general claimed in its 2020 report that it found no evidence that Donnelly ``had an ongoing or undisclosed financial relationship with C5 Capital or Amazon and its affiliates that would have required her to recuse.'' The evidence appears to show otherwise. There was a financial relationship. Why the inspector general didn't find out about it, I don't know.

In two letters last year, I continued to press Donnelly and her then- business partner, Andre Pienaar, the CEO of C5 Capital, for answers. Now, as you might expect, both have refused to cooperate with my oversight inquiry.

The inspector general report also claimed to have found no evidence that Donnelly had any role in the JEDI contract or violated any of her ethical obligations.

For additional transparency, we need to look at Defense Department records from 2017 and 2018, when Donnelly worked there, so you are going to hear a lot of quotes from emails I got.

These records appear to show Donnelly working behind the scenes to favor Amazon. Some of this information was included in the inspector general's report. However, much of it was not included even though the inspector general had access to these government records.

Kevin Sweeney, then-chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Mattis, told the inspector general that he thought Donnelly invited an Amazon vice president responsible for public sector sales to a London dinner with Secretary Mattis in March of 2017. This dinner was shortly after Donnelly began working for the Secretary of Defense. That Amazon executive, Teresa Carlson, used the dinner to invite the Secretary to later meet Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

Secretary Mattis also revealed it was Donnelly who suggested he travel to meet tech leaders, including Amazon.

Now, following that London dinner, Donnelly repeatedly pushed for the meeting between Bezos and Mattis. The inspector general report deflected by saying the Secretary's chief of staff, not Donnelly, scheduled his meetings. But that report cuts out part of an email showing that the chief of staff deferred to Donnelly on whether the Secretary should meet with Amazon's CEO.

The inspector general's report also omitted a part of Donnelly's email where she said the Secretary should meet Bezos because he was ``the genius of our age.''

The inspector general's report omitted another email from an Amazon official asking Donnelly for guidance on the Secretary of Defense's Seattle visit to Amazon and what ``landmines we should avoid.'' That same email asked Donnelly to ``put a bug in some ears'' to help Amazon counter challenges from the Defense Department's Chief Information Officer.

Donnelly responded on her government email with inside advice, telling the Amazon official to emphasize ``security security security of [the] cloud.''

Now, just 3 days before the visit to Seattle, a DOD official emailed Donnelly the agenda for Amazon's presentation, which included a ``cloud overview'' by the same Amazon official that had asked her for advice.

An email sent from another Department of Defense official to Donnelly shortly after the Secretary's visit noted that discussion of cloud technology was the centerpiece of meetings with Amazon and other tech leaders.

Donnelly also was informed by a DOD official traveling with the Secretary, on the very day of the Secretary's visit with Amazon's CEO, on August 10, 2017, that the visit ``seemed to morph into an Amazon Web Services sales pitch.''

A followup email from that same official informed her that after the visit, the Secretary of Defense was ``99.9% there in terms of going to the cloud.''

Despite all of this, when asked whether the Defense Department cloud

was discussed during the meeting, Donnelly swore under oath on August 15, 2019: ``I don't know. I wasn't there.''

She also swore that she didn't know how long Bezos was present during the visit. But the same Defense Department official traveling with the Secretary of Defense told her via email that Bezos stayed for the Secretary's entire visit.

The inspector general, however, found no ethics violation, claiming Donnelly had no formal role in the procurement.

Now, the evidence again appears to say otherwise, and there is more.

An email, 2 weeks after the Secretary's Amazon visit from DOD officials, spoke of the need for a memo from the Secretary to ``crush the bureaucratic impediments'' Amazon had been encountering.

In other words, there were a lot of people in the Defense Department who knew something was going on, and they were trying to stop it. That is the way I read that email. Of course, Donnelly and another DOD official were on that email.

In response, that DOD official, with Donnelly still copied, said: ``Sally is already working angles'' to crush those impediments.

On September 13, 2017, merely weeks later, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a memo Department-wide crushing those impediments by announcing rapid cloud adoption through ``a tailored acquisition process.''

Now, I suppose ``tailored acquisition process'' has many definitions, but I kind of read that, as suspicious as I am, as trying to short- circuit the process of contracting so some favorable person can get it.

Now, Air Force procurement documents interpreted this memo as what I just said, the Secretary's intention to award the contract to Amazon. Records also show that after the Secretary's Amazon meeting, the head of the Digital Defense Service asked Donnelly for permission to ``let me lead cloud tiger team.''

Donnelly didn't respond that she had no role in the process. Instead, she told the DOD official to ``Do it quick!''

Just a few weeks later, that official was appointed to lead the first phase of the JEDI contract.

Donnelly reportedly organized another dinner in Washington in January 2018. Only four people were there: The Secretary of Defense, Sally Donnelly, Teresa Carlson, and the CEO of Amazon. Carlson directly admitted to the inspector general that the dinner's purpose was to continue the discussion from the Secretary's Amazon visit. That visit, apparently, became a sales pitch. Carlson sent Amazon Web Services sales material to Donnelly's government email for review just hours before that dinner.

Instead of taking this evidence head-on, the inspector general report pointed to the Government Accountability Office, or what we know as GAO around here. The report claimed that the GAO ``also reviewed whether Mrs. Donnelly should have disqualified herself from participating in the JEDI Cloud procurement.''

That same report also claimed the GAO, in resolving a bid protest, agreed with the Defense Department that ``Ms. Donnelly wasn't involved in any way with the JEDI Cloud procurement.''

Attorneys for Donnelly and attorneys for C5's CEO made that very same claim. However, there is one very big problem. Donnelly wasn't even mentioned in the GAO's decision.

The GAO told my office late last year that they have ``no idea where the statement in the DOD Inspector General report comes from.'' The GAO also told my office there is ``simply no support for this statement from the decision itself or the record of the arguments raised by the protester.''

So not only did the inspector general report omit critical evidence, that I have described to Senators today, but it blatantly misstates the work of another government Agency. So we have a big problem not only with conflict of interest, but we have a problem with the inspector general not doing its job because the Inspector General Office's work in this matter is a disgraceful example of government oversight.

Former Department of Defense Acting Inspector General Sean O'Donnell was so embarrassed by his Agency's work that he refused to even name the staff who worked on this incompetent report.

Robert Storch, the current inspector general, has followed suit.

Donnelly has continued to refuse to cooperate with this congressional investigation, yet--can you believe this?--she still sits on the Defense Business Board, providing advice to the Secretary of Defense.

A portfolio company of C5 Capital, according to its own public statements, has gained cyber security business in Ukraine. If that is supported by taxpayers' money, well, they shouldn't get a penny until the CEO cooperates with Congress and clears this matter up.

Inspector General Storch must redo the investigation and rewrite relevant sections of this report, considering the clear failures of the original report.

It is time to clear the air, time to fight corruption, time to restore trust in how you negotiate contracts and how you fight conflicts of interest.

That is the history I have given you today.

Yes, I know the JEDI contract is dead, but right now, there are people in the Defense Department who are still pursuing contracts to make use of the cloud for storage. Hopefully, lessons learned from this report I have given you and what took place in the JEDI contract are lessons learned so they won't be repeated as DOD moves ahead. These are multibillion-dollar contracts.

We need to avoid conflicts of interests like this that I just have pointed out to you. We need to make sure there is good oversight of the expenditure of taxpayers' money, but that ought to start with the people in the Department of Defense itself. It ought to be policed by the inspector general of the DOD. That wasn't done in this case involving Donnelly. And, for sure, Congress shouldn't give up any of its constitutional responsibilities to see that taxpayers' money is spent wisely.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, every year, at this time of the year, Sunshine Week is held around the birthday of James Madison--not only a former President but one of our greatest Founding Fathers and the acclaimed ``Father of the Constitution.''

Sunshine Week is a critical reminder of the need for transparency and open government. And our government is not as open as it should be.

President Madison famously said that a great difficulty in forming a government operated by imperfect people was that you must oblige it-- meaning the government--to control itself. Well, amen to what Madison said.

As a conservative, I have worked especially hard on Madison's challenge, making sure that the government controls itself. One way to do that is to limit the size and scope of the government. It is hard to control a government that does everything but make your bed and tuck you in to sleep.

Another check on out-of-control government is separation of powers-- the same separation of powers when you study the essentials of American government. Congress doesn't execute laws. The President and the executive agencies shouldn't try to make laws. And neither should our courts.

To control a government as big as ours, it takes a lot of very bright light shining on every Agency and Office. And instead of 1 week called Sunshine Week, we ought to have 365 days a year in which we have sunshine on our government's operation.

I have long supported the Freedom of Information Act. And that act urges Agencies to be more responsive to record requests. That is essential to open government because it gives citizens access to information. As the old saying goes, knowledge is power.

Congress also has a solemn constitutional duty to conduct strong oversight to ensure that the executive branch executes the laws as Congress has intended. You learn that in eighth grade civics class, called checks and balances of government. I call it oversight. But it is a constitutional responsibility.

We can't legislate effectively unless we in Congress know what is going on behind the scenes, and most of that behind-the-scenes is in the executive branch of government. That is why whistleblowers are so very important and why I rely on whistleblowers to give me a lot of information I would not have other access to. So I consider them a very important part of doing my role, my constitutional responsibility of oversight to see that a President does what the Constitution says, and his oath says to faithfully execute the laws.

These whistleblowers are patriots and our most powerful tool in rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct. Despite their vital contribution to good government, they are often targeted for retaliation and harassment. That should stop. In so many speeches, I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to point out specific examples of where these patriotic people we call whistleblowers are retaliated against and retaliated in a way that--the law says that retaliation is not lawful.

There is a growing trend among Federal Agencies to place a blanket of silence over whistleblowers. The Agencies do this by violating whistleblower disclosure laws, including withholding notice of what we call anti-gag provisions. In other words, if you are the head of an Agency and you have a whistleblower, you can't tell them they can't talk to Congress.

The law requires all Federal Agencies to include an anti-gag provision in their nondisclosure policies and forms. This provision notifies employees of their rights to report misconduct to Congress, to inspectors general, and to the Office of Special Counsel.

Without knowing of the anti-gag provision's protections, employees who see government wrongdoing often stay in the shadows. If people are notified that they can talk to Congress and the law protects them, we are more apt to get information on wrongdoing, the misexpenditure of money, or laws not being carried out as we intended that Congress wouldn't even know about.

The reason they don't speak is they fear the retaliation if they do speak out, and this is what I have spoken about so many times on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The fact that they are retaliated against is something that I say over and over again is unacceptable. That is why this week I wrote to all of our inspectors general of the executive branch of government, requesting they ensure this provision is included, as required by law, which will make it harder for Federal Agencies to conceal their wrongdoing.

This year, whistleblowers have helped to let the sunshine in where it matters most. They are helping me track down vulnerable migrant children the Biden Department of Health and Human Services has failed to protect against potential trafficking. As we speak, law enforcement is working through information I provided to hopefully bring their own special kind of sunshine to the criminals taking advantage of these young kids.

I have also sought information from government contractors who receive billions of taxpayer dollars to care for unaccompanied children but whose practices and failures are largely shielded from public knowledge and scrutiny. We need a full accounting of how contractors spend the taxpayers' hard-earned money.

That is why last year I also launched an investigation into one of the Environmental Protection Agency's grant programs. That exposed significant waste. It turns out that the EPA doesn't even require the program's grantees to submit financial documents during the grant that show how taxpayer money is being spent by those various organizations.

You would think Agencies would be very grateful when these failures are exposed. Instead, you know what--I was met with delay and obstruction by this administration's EPA. Accountability can be uncomfortable, and bureaucrats don't like it. After I reported that obstruction to the EPA Office of Inspector General, it agreed to audit the program and look into how EPA influenced grantees to obstruct my oversight.

Then we get to the Justice Department and the FBI. Recently, the Justice Department indicted an FBI confidential human source who served as the basis for what is commonly known as the document 1023. That is the FBI-generated document that Chairman Comer in the House and I made public alleging criminal bribery schemes between the Biden family and a foreign national. Embarrassingly, for 3 years, the 1023 collected dust--until Congress and Justice Department whistleblowers forced the FBI and U.S. Attorney Weiss to interview that FBI source.

The Federal indictment doesn't explain the full set of facts and leaves many questions unanswered. Those questions include how the Justice Department and the FBI could use this confidential human source for approximately 13 years, pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars, use his information in investigations and prosecutions, and then ultimately determine after 13 or 14 years that this guy is a liar. According to government documents in the court case, the FBI source was reporting information to the FBI as late as December 2023.

This is a matter that requires extensive sunlight.

If not for whistleblowers, my securing the document 1023 and releasing that document, do you know what? The FBI would still be believing the lies of their confidential human source, and they would still be paying taxpayer dollars to this confidential source for the lies he was giving to the FBI. Now, they have arrested him because of my oversight work. So what is the government doing to get all the money back that they paid him?

In addition to my investigative efforts, I have worked with a bipartisan set of colleagues to strengthen attorney misconduct oversight at the Justice Department. For example, I cosponsored bipartisan legislation to close a loophole that prevents the inspector general at the Department of Justice from investigating alleged Justice Department attorney misconduct. Now, understand, in the Department of Justice, the inspector general, who is supposed to sort out wrongdoing, can't even investigate the lawyers of that Department when they do misconduct.

My consistent efforts to let in sunshine continue across our government, whether it is asking the FBI to explain a memo targeting Catholics based on biased sources, ensuring our immigration officials follow the law and collect DNA from illegal migrants they encounter at the border, or even exposing flaws at the Veterans' Administration that endangered the privacy of our veterans.

So we all ought to be thankful for Sunshine Week, which is an opportunity for us doing our constitutional duty of oversight to highlight these efforts and to remind us that shining a consistent light is essential to make government accountable to ``we the people.''

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, it is no secret this U.S. Senator for Iowa loves history. And I love rooting for our Iowa student-athletes who put in the work at practices and in the off-season to play hard and walk off the court as champions, whether or not they win or lose the game that day.

Today, I would like to toot the horn for my hometown team and its victorious, history-making season. The Dike-New Hartford Wolverines won the 2A State basketball title at the Iowa Girls State High School Basketball Tournament in Des Moines on Saturday, March 2, 2024. Getting to play in the historic and storied annual Iowa Girls State High School Basketball tournament is a privilege sought by 7,500 basketball players across Iowa every year. This was the team's fourth consecutive State basketball title, and with it, the Dike-New Hartford Wolverines became the second program in State five-on-five history to take that crown four times in a row, 2021-2024. The Dike-New Hartford Wolverines now tie with the Ankeny Hawks who won four State titles from 2002-2005. A century earlier, Audubon took home the title 4 years in a row at the six-on-six tournament, 1921-1924.

In an interview after the Wolverine's four-peat State title, the leading scorer in the championship game, Payton Petersen summed up the victory with a hot tip to her teammates and community. ``We worked so hard to get where we are. Sometimes you take things for granted, but just knowing you put blood, sweat, and tears into this, we're working hard every day in practice and every summer. That's a testament to what our team is, how our coaches coach and our community.''

March is Iowa History Month and National Women's Month, both fitting themes to honor the accomplishments of the Dike-New Hartford Wolverines. Over their career, Barbara and I had the chance to see the team play and enjoyed every minute of it. We congratulate the players, managers, trainers, coaches, cheerleaders, fans, and family members for their history-making season. It is a thrilling achievement that will bring these young student-athletes a lifetime of memories and lessons for years to come, from the pageantry of the tournament to the teamwork it takes to overcome obstacles, build confidence, and lead to succeed.

From the varsity starters to the bench players and fans in the stands, this was a team effort the entire community can take pride in celebrating. Congratulations to the coaches who devoted countless hours of time and preparation, led by head coach Bruce Dall and assistant coaches Matt Dove, Ashley Beninga, Craig Chapman, and Mandy Danner. Notably, Coach Dall has been named a finalist for the 2024 National High School Athletic Coaches Association Coach of the Year. To all the athletes on the roster, keep up the good work. #RollBlue:

Players

Abby Jensen, Addy Joslin, Autumn Meester, Izzy Norton,

Jadyn Petersen, Josey Syhlman, Joy Eilderts, Kailyn Meester,

Keely Kauten, Kennedy Syhlman, Madde Buskohl, Mallory

Petersen, Mariah Asche, Maryn Bixby, Miranda Tyler, Payton

Foster, Payton Petersen, Rylee Reicks, Sophia Bennett, Seeri

Smith, Silvey Fuller, Sydney Anema.

Coaches

Bruce Dall, Matt Dove, Ashley Beninga, Craig Chapman, Mady

Danner.

Managers

Will Huck, Reedlynn Kannegieter, Zari Jones, Ashton

Schmitz.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss with my colleagues the fact that Agencies of the Federal Government aren't very insightful to make sure that taxpayers' money is spent properly and also to say how they are not cooperating with the constitutional responsibility of Congress to make sure the money is spent in a legal way.

In this case, I am here to talk about the Environmental Protection Agency.

On April 13, I began an investigation into an EPA program called the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program. Now that is quite a name, isn't it?

On February 22 of this year, I issued a preliminary report on my investigation. That EPA program dishes out millions of taxpayer dollars to left-leaning nonprofits. The funding is from President Biden's American Rescue Plan, which was opposed by Senate Republicans.

According to the EPA, the purpose of this environmental justice program is to address environmental and public health issues in underserved communities.

As part of that program, the EPA sent 34 individual nonprofits a combined $4.3 million, with each receiving up to $200,000.

I think the money was meant to be spent for the purpose of improving the environment--and I don't have any trouble with that--but I think you will see that the grantees didn't use the money for what it was intended for.

Now, I wrote to all 34 grantees because I wanted to know how they spent that taxpayer money. I wrote to the EPA because I wanted to know how it was conducting oversight of that spending. You see, it isn't only Congress that has a responsibility to see that the money is spent responsibly and according to Congress's will, but it is also up to these Agencies to make sure that they spend the money accordingly.

It is a pretty simple request. I want EPA to show their work, how the taxpayers' money is being spent. Well, this EPA, apparently, to them that question is just too much for them to handle.

So guess what happened after I sent the oversight letters. The EPA interfered and told these 34 grantees that they--meaning the EPA--would handle the Grassley request. This led many grantees to refuse compliance with any congressional oversight request and also obstruct my efforts of getting answers for the taxpayers.

Some grantees were so emboldened by EPA's obstructive conduct that they sent my staff emails. And this is just one example of the emails:

We report to EPA and they're responding on our behalf. You

can make your request to them. We won't be responding

further. Don't contact us any further.

That is how they treat this Senator doing his constitutional responsibilities, and, obviously, you can tell by that quote that this is very much obstruction.

What the Biden EPA has done is to obstruct a core constitutional requirement of the Congress; that is, knowing how appropriated taxpayer money is being used by the executive branch. Moreover, the EPA couldn't even respond on behalf of grantees, and it is pretty simple because the EPA doesn't even possess the records that I was requesting from the nonprofits. That is a whole different problem for the EPA.

Specifically I asked grantees--and this is a quote from my letter:

Provide all records showing how the taxpayer money your

organization received was spent. In your production, please

provide a financial summary showing what the taxpayer money

was spent on.

Amazingly, the EPA can't fulfill this request for grantees because, at this point in the life cycle of the grant, it doesn't possess the records that show how taxpayer money has been spent.

Accordingly, except for my asking these questions, the EPA wouldn't have possessed these records at this point in the grant program. The EPA only has financial records showing how much money the grantees had drawn down from the overall grant.

The EPA emailed my staff this:

At the current stage in the grant process, this is the only

document detailing financial progress that grantees are

required to submit to the Agency.

For context, the ``only document'' referred to by the EPA doesn't show how, and on what, taxpayer money was being spent by each grantee.

Now, that is beyond embarrassing. It is a disgrace and a slap in the face to the taxpayers who worked so hard for their money that the EPA has failed to track their money. The EPA is throwing taxpayers' money around without a care in the world.

My preliminary oversight report also found that some of the projects didn't even pass the smell test. For example, grantees that did respond to us reported projects like empathetic listening training, tree walk- and-talks, making musical presentations to their communities, and buying clothing. And it turns out the lion's share of the money, so far, is being used for more salaries of the people who are on the nonprofit payroll and also other employee benefits.

Many of the 34 grantees were unable to provide records showing how much money their projects could cost. Some were able to provide those records I asked for. Then why didn't all of the grantees? Well, I think, going back to what I previously said, the EPA said you didn't have to answer.

I think the taxpayers have a right to know these financial details. With America suffering from record inflation and being forced to make difficult financial decisions, the EPA's obstructive conduct toward the Congress and the EPA's weak and incompetent oversight all are insults to the American taxpayer.

To make it worse, the EPA program I have talked about is just getting started. The EPA plans to spend tens of millions of dollars more in coming years on similar programs and has spent, according to what I have been able to assess at this point--that means for more salaries and benefits probably for the employees of the organizations as opposed to helping solve our environmental problems.

I imagine one would be hard-pressed to find any American taxpayer who would be satisfied with the EPA's conduct in how this money is being spent. It is time for the EPA to do real oversight of how all this money is spent.

The American taxpayers deserve better from its government, so, as usual, the Grassley oversight will continue.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first, I would like to thank Senator Graham for his leadership for protecting our kids, and also I would like to thank him for giving me this opportunity to help him advance three bipartisan bills which could revolutionize child safety in the digital era.

As child predators have exploited the development of technology to harm and endanger our Nation's most vulnerable, our laws to address this grave and growing threat to our kids have fallen way, way behind.

We have three bills to talk about. One goes by the title of ``STOP CSAM.'' It strengthens reporting requirements of suspected abuse by expanding mandatory reporting and enhancing the CyberTipline, and it also protects child victims in court.

Another bill goes by the title of ``EARN IT.'' It modernizes section 230 to ensure that victims can secure justice.

And the last one, the SHIELD Act, would impose necessary criminal penalties for distributing illegal explicit material and hold sexual predators accountable.

I am proud to cosponsor both the STOP CSAM and the EARN IT Act and have supported all three bills in the Judiciary Committee as part of my efforts, joining with Senator Graham, to protect American youth. These bills are essential to protect our children and are examples of the fine bipartisan work that this body is capable of doing when we put constituents first.

Nothing is more important than protecting our youth, their childhood, and their futures. It is time to send these bills to the House and then hopefully through the House to President Biden. The longer we wait, the more children

are victimized and more childhoods are lost. We owe it to them to do what is right.

Thanks again to Senator Graham for deferring to me, and thank you for your leadership.

Mr. President, I am proud to recognize University of Iowa's Caitlin Clark, a true generational talent, for her historic achievements in women's collegiate basketball. Clark is a West Des Moines native.

In the Hawkeyes' February 15, 2024, matchup against the Michigan Wolverines, Clark became the alltime leading scorer in NCAA women's basketball history. She clinched the record in the opening 2 minutes with three baskets, including a logo 3-point shot. She put up 49 total points that game in the Carver Hawkeye Arena, a new school and personal best.

Less than 3 weeks later, during her last regular season game with the Hawkeyes, Clark surpassed ``Pistol'' Pete Maravich's 1970 record for highest number of points scored in the NCAA. To date, Clark has racked up 3,685 career points, more than any Division I player in history, men's or women's.

Clark's success is undoubtedly the dividend of her hard work, discipline, and dedication. It seems to have earned her a suffix: ``the first.''

Clark, the first player to record a 40-point triple-double in men's or women's NCAA tournament history.

Clark, the first player to drop consecutive 40-point games in the women's NCAA tournament.

Clark, the first Division I player to top 3,000 points, 1,000 assists, and 800 rebounds.

Clark, the first Big Ten player to win every major national player of the year award: AP Player of the Year, the Honda Sports Award, the John R. Wooden Award, Naismith College Player of the Year, USBWA National Player of the Year, and the Wade Trophy.

She is a team player, too. In the 2022-23 season, Clark was responsible for 48 percent of the team's assists--another first. No other Division I player, male or female, had ever accounted for more than 42 percent of their team's assists.

Clark is captivating the world with her talent, competitiveness, team spirit, sportsmanship, leadership, work ethic, and evident love for the game of basketball. Already, she has become one of history's most influential women in sports.

Public engagement in women's college basketball has never before reached today's heights. During the 2023 NCAA Tournament, the championship boasted a sellout crowd of 19,482 ticket holders and 9.9 million at-home viewers. The Hawkeyes' Final Four faceoff garnered 5.5 million viewers, making it the most-watched Women's NCAA Tournament semifinals game on the books. Weeks ahead of the Hawkeyes' 2023-24 season opener, the team broke the alltime attendance record for a single women's basketball game when 55,646 spectators packed Kinnick Stadium for a charity-benefit exhibition. The 2024 Big Ten Women's Basketball Tournament is sold out for the first time ever.

The ``Caitlin Clark Effect'' is not just changing women's college basketball; it is inspiring athletes of all ages, across all sports. As Clark continues to rise through the ranks of the ``all-time greats,'' I congratulate her on behalf of the Hawkeye State. Keep making us proud. Go Hawks.

Mr. President, today I want to take the time of my colleagues to set the record straight, yet again, about an FBI investigative report that has been generated that goes by the number 1023, and I do this because the breathless media misreporting requires that I come to the floor to give a historical reorientation of the facts and the evidence.

As I have said all along on the Senate floor, I and Chairman Comer of the House, made the 1023 document public for this single purpose; that purpose is to force the FBI to do what the taxpayers pay the FBI to do, and that is investigate, in this case, the information contained in that document that goes by the number of 1023.

It is all pretty simple. I didn't promote or vouch for the allegations in 1023 as the truth, like some confused Democrats and the partisan media have falsely said. I pushed the FBI to do their job because that is my responsibility to the taxpayers and the people of Iowa.

Now some confused Democrats and partisan media have returned to their favorite line, falsely saying that our effort to get the FBI to do their job is somehow peddling Russian disinformation. It is kind of like a nervous tic to all of them.

For years, they falsely said the same thing about my and Senator Johnson's Biden family investigation, even though our investigation was based on Obama and Biden administration records and, really, on authentic bank records.

Some Democrats and the partisan media apparently don't care about observing and reading the facts. Well, this Senator does care about that. So let's discuss the facts of the matter that they either missed or, more likely, are choosing to ignore because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The whistleblowers within the Justice Department who came to me said the FBI had this document, the 1023, in their possession, now 3 years ago, June of 2020--3.5 years ago, in fact, because that document is dated June 30, 2020. Those whistleblowers that came to me were right.

Whistleblowers said that the FBI considered its confidential human source to be credible. That confidential human source--which I will simply describe today as the FBI's source--formed the basis of the 1023.

If you are following television, we now know the name of that FBI source. But until he was arrested, I did not know his name.

The FBI said the same to Congress and used the credibility of that source, the credibility assessment of that individual, to withhold the 1023 from Congress when we first asked for it. Even Ranking Member Raskin of the House Committee confirmed that the FBI told Congress that the FBI source was credible.

The FBI found their source so credible that the FBI gave their source the authority even to engage in illegal activity for the FBI's criminal investigation. And, yes, I want to make clear: The FBI said that he could do illegal things in his work for the FBI. The FBI told him that he may even have to testify in court based on the information he provided.

In fact, the FBI said that this source was so credible that the public release of the unclassified 1023 could put his life at risk, another excuse that they used.

Now let me be clear: The FBI consistently and publicly vouched for their source. Then the other week, the Biden Justice made this source's name public for the world to see. So if you watch television, you get his name off of television. Apparently, the FBI's excuse to withhold the document from Congress, as you can see, was pure smoke. Remember, the FBI said releasing the 1023 could put their confidential human source's life in danger.

The FBI's conduct is, of course, obviously absurd and a disservice to the American people--that means a disservice to the American people when the FBI doesn't do its job of following up on investigative reports, as they didn't in this case for 3 years.

So you can see those same whistleblowers were right about the FBI believing that their source was credible. Whistleblower said the FBI's source served as a source for many years, dating to the Obama administration. According to the Justice Department indictment, the FBI's source worked for the Federal Government and was paid by the Federal Government since 2010. So, again, those whistleblowers at the Justice Department were right.

Whistleblowers said the FBI failed to investigate the allegations in the document. So let me refresh this history by giving the timeline: According to the Justice Department indictment, the FBI finally interviewed the FBI source on September 27 last year. We made the 1023 public just a few months prior on July 20, 2023.

Clearly, the FBI finally acted because of our release of the document. In other words, we embarrassed them. And by that time, as I have said, by my timeline, the document was over 3 years old--3 years they didn't do their job that the FBI ought to have been following up on.

So the 1023 sat with the FBI collecting dust until we in Congress acted. My releasing the 1023 got the FBI to do its job that they should have been doing 3 years before. So I think it is legitimate in this political climate we are in this year, a presidential year, to ask the question: Would Special Counsel Jack Smith have waited years to act if the 1023 was about former President Trump?

Those whistleblowers were right about the FBI's failure to investigate. I started my oversight relating to the FBI's failure to investigate the 1023 on October 13, 2022. So I didn't have the document in my possession. I knew about it from the whistleblowers, but what information I got from the whistleblowers was without actually reading the document.

I sent a letter to Attorney General Garland, Director Wray, and U.S. Attorney Weiss to ask this very simple question:

What have the FBI and the Justice Department, to include

U.S. Attorney Weiss, done to investigate?

I also asked for an array of documents, including travel documents that the Justice Department has used to indict the source, and I also asked, before I had read the document, for the same records. Again, this would have been after we released the document, so I correct myself. I asked for the same records again on October 24, 2023.

I said this on May 3, a year earlier:

What we don't know is what, if anything, the FBI has done

to verify these claims or investigate further.

I asked on May 5, 2023, about the 1023:

I wish I could say I knew it was true or untrue.

On May 9, 2023, I said:

My focus right now is on the FBI and the Department of

Justice. What have they done with this [1023] document?

On June 1, 2023, I said:

We're responsible for making sure the FBI does its job, and

that's what we want to know.

I came to this floor of the Senate on June 12, 2023, to say to my colleagues this:

Here, with this 1023 document I've been referring to

throughout my remarks, the Biden Justice Department and FBI

must explain to Congress and the American people what, if

anything, they have done with this information. And they need

to show their work. We are not accepting their word anymore.

We are seeking documentary proof of what they did to

investigate the matter or their failure to do so.

Then, after Comer and I publicly released the document, I said this on July 25, 2023:

I want to make clear what my oversight focus is and will

be: holding the Biden Justice Department and FBI accountable

to explain to the American people what they did to

investigate and what they found.

What did the Justice Department and FBI do to investigate

the information contained in the 1023? Did the Justice

Department and [the] FBI follow normal investigative process

and procedure or try to sweep it all under the rug because of

political bias? More precisely, did the FBI and DOJ seek to

obtain the evidence referenced in the document?

Did [the Department of Justice] and FBI seek to interview

individuals relating to the 1023? If not, why not? If so, one

way or the other, what did they find?

And that is the end of the quote from what I said here on the floor of the Senate last year on this very subject.

Let me say that one line again so everyone hears me. ``One way or the other, what did they'' meaning the FBI, ``find?''

All of these partisan media outlets, if they had a shred of intellectual honesty and decency, would report these facts and hold the FBI accountable for their failures. And, of course, one congressional request after another went unanswered by the Justice Department and the

Mr. President, I understand why many Americans would like to find a quick way to end the horrific war Russia unleashed on Ukraine. It is tempting to think we can ignore it and hope it will not affect us down the line. However, whether we like it or not, Vladimir Putin's Russia has launched the largest war in Europe since World War II, and if not stopped now, it will only expand until U.S. allies and U.S. troops are dragged in. I want to prevent that from happening.

Russia is not our friend, nor is Russia neutral toward the United States. Putin, with his roots in the KGB, has identified us as an adversary and actively works to undermine the United States. All the way back in 2005, Vladimir Putin said, ``The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'' Obviously, for those countries previously held captive by the Soviet empire, and now free and independent, the collapse of their Soviet prison was anything but a catastrophe. Putin's lackey, former Russian President Medvedev, has recently threatened our NATO ally Poland with losing its statehood. Putin likes to repeat the phrase that ``Russia's borders do not end anywhere.'' A billboard was recently spotted with Putin's face and that phrase just before the border crossing with Estonia, another deeply pro-American NATO ally. Maybe this is all bluster, but history shows that we should take it seriously.

Some people on my side of the aisle have suggested that we should deny Ukraine the arms and ammunition they need to defend themselves and push the Ukrainians to negotiate an end to the war. But we already tried that. This was the Obama policy, and it failed miserably. Remember, Putin invaded Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014. President Obama responded by refusing lethal aid to Ukraine and urging negotiations, effectively locking in Russia's territorial gains. Far from ending the conflict, this led Putin to conclude that he could get away with invading all of Ukraine, which he did in February 2022. I am very surprised to see some Republicans now urging a return to the dangerously weak and failed Obama policy. That would be a huge mistake. I also want to be clear that I do not wholeheartedly support

President Biden's handling of Russia's invasion. If the Biden administration had made the decision to send key weapons sooner, the Ukrainians might have been able to take back even more territory.

Both Putin and most Western analysts expected the mighty Russian army would take Kyiv in days. The Ukrainians shocked the world with their will to defend their homeland. Western support trickled in, with some of our European allies leading the way. Ukraine was then able to take back half of the territory Russia initially captured in its full-scale invasion. Today, Ukraine remains in control of roughly 83 percent of its territory. That is a remarkable success, thanks to the support of Europe and the United States and the fighting spirit of the Ukrainians. The United States has been spending about 5 percent of our annual U.S. military budget to arm Ukraine and U.S. intelligence believes the war has severely degraded Russia's military power and its ability to threaten NATO allies. However, Ukraine is now running out of shells. Europe has now committed double the amount of aid to Ukraine in dollar terms as the United States. The United States ranks 15th in aid to Ukraine relative to the size of our economy, with some European allies providing many times more than us. But Europe's military production capacity is not as great as ours. In the short term, Europe cannot fill the gap in military assistance if the United States does not chip in.

The frontlines have not moved much in months, which has led to the false impression that the situation is stable and ripe for a settlement. Russia has shown no indication that it will settle for less than its stated aim of toppling the freely elected Government of Ukraine and either installing a puppet government or occupying Ukraine outright. On the Ukrainian side, after uncovering the massacres at places like Bucha and Irpin after being liberated from Russian occupation, public opinion has swung overwhelmingly against ceding any territory to Russia. The Russian occupiers tortured, raped, and killed anyone who espouses Ukrainian national identity. As we have been reminded lately and as I spoke about in the Senate a year ago, Putin ascribes to a twisted Russian nationalist view of history that denies the legitimacy of Ukrainian national identity. In this, he comes from a long line of Russian imperialists that for centuries have tried, and failed, to convince Ukrainians that they are really ``little Russians'' and not a separate nation. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted and taken to Russia, where they face indoctrination to forget their Ukrainian identity and become Russian. As I have spoken out about, Christian denominations other than Russian Orthodox are persecuted by Russian occupying forces. Evangelical Christians, which are seen as linked to the West, have been disproportionately singled out for torture and repression. We should not urge Ukrainians to accept this fate, nor would they if we did.

It is clear that, with continued Western military aid, Russia is unlikely to make significant territorial gains. But, if Ukraine continues to face a shortage of artillery shells and the lifesaving Patriot missiles, Ukraine could gradually lose in a painful attritional war. This would mean even more death and suffering and more genocidal Russian war crimes like we have seen.

Keep in mind that the United States and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union in return for a guarantee of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia is in violation of that agreement and at least two other treaties with Ukraine. As a signatory, the United States should not look the other way, nor should we simply trust Russia to adhere to any future agreement any longer than it takes to rearm.

Putin faced no consequences for his invasion and occupation of part of Georgia in 2008. The weak response to his partial invasion of Ukraine in 2014 led him to embark on a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. If Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, he will be emboldened to attack NATO countries down the line, and it will cost much, much more-- potentially including American lives. Those who worry about World War III should take a lesson from World War II. Appeasement encourages further aggression. Agreeing to let aggression pay off in return for a temporary halt to fighting is not an anti-war position; it is likely to lead to a wider war before too long.

I should also add that there is a lot of inaccurate talk about ``$60 billion for Ukraine.'' In fact, about 80 percent of that money will be spent right here in the U.S. This is a U.S. national security bill to protect Americans. Much of the money in the bill actually goes to beef up our military, not Ukraine's. For instance, $20 billion of the so- called Ukraine money is actually for DOD to buy weapons here at home to replenish our stockpiles with new, updated weapons; $8.3 billion is allocated to greatly expand American military production capacity. This gets put under the Ukraine heading because Russia's full-scale war on Ukraine was a wakeup call that our munitions production capacity is not where it should be in the event we get into a major war. But we need that capacity for our national security whether we help Ukraine or not. In fact, $344 million from previous so-called Ukraine bills has already gone to Iowa. The Iowa Army Ammunition Plant loads the explosives into shells, including the much in demand 155mm artillery ammunition. The dedicated workforce at the Iowa plant has already doubled production, and these modernization investments will greatly increase the capacity to surge production much further if needed to keep our country safe. I am proud of Iowa's role in keeping America the ``arsenal of democracy.''

I remember in the Truman administration, Republicans blaming Democrats with the slogan ``Who lost China?'' Republicans at that time were blaming the Democrats for China becoming communist. So how does that relate to Ukraine? There was an editorial in the Washington Post recently titled, ``Will the GOP become the party of retreat and surrender?''--meaning surrendering Ukraine to Russia and Putin. So my admonition to my fellow Republicans is this: Do we want to make the same mistake the Democrats made 70 years ago?

I, for one, have no intention of doing so.

Madam President, this week, a dear friend of mine and the Grassley family passed away unexpectedly at age 64. A fourth- generation family farmer, Bill Northey was a son of the soil from Northwest Iowa, where Iowa Nice and a strong work ethic run through the bloodstreams in smalltown Iowa.

Bill graduated from Iowa State University in 1981 with an undergraduate degree in agricultural business. A quarter-century later, he earned a master of business administration from Southwest Minnesota State University. After graduating from Iowa State, Bill returned home to the family farm near Spirit Lake, IA, in Dickinson County. Here, Bill practiced what he preached. The Northey family farm implemented conservation-friendly farming practices, including reduced tillage, cover crops, and GPS on its corn and soybean acres.

At age 20, in the midst of the farm crisis in 1985, Bill was the only local farmer to show up at a meeting organized by the Iowa Corn Growers Association. Unbeknownst to Bill at the time, that meeting launched his public service career. He ran for the Iowa Corn Growers board and, later on, became president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the National Corn Growers Association.

His resume reflects his lifelong commitment to and champion for Iowa agriculture. Bill cut his teeth in public service at the grassroots, where he served as a commissioner of the Dickinson County Soil and Water Conservation District and rose through the ranks of the Iowa Farm Bureau at the county and State levels. In 2006, he ran and won a statewide election to serve as Iowa Agriculture Secretary, where he served from 2007 to 2018. He served at the helm of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship for 11 years, winning reelection in 2010 and 2014. Under his leadership, Bill championed renewable fuels, a statewide voluntary water quality program and led Iowa producers through animal disease outbreaks, including the State's bird flu outbreak in 2014-2015 that has helped guide responses today to the highly contagious disease.

President Trump tapped Bill to serve as the first USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation, where he served under Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue until 2021. Bill was caught in some crossfire over regional disputes related to the Renewable Fuel Standard. Without hesitation, I went toe-to-toe with Texas Senators in support of his nomination. Bill was highly qualified and deserving of the responsibility to serve in this leadership role for America's farmers. Bill never wavered in his patience and commitment to public service. He weathered the nomination storm with grace and self-sacrifice over an issue that is important to the farm economy, U.S. energy independence, national security, and the environment.

Once confirmed to the USDA post, Bill oversaw a division with 21,000 employees who worked across 3,000 locations. Traveling to 48 of 50 States, Bill expanded his agrarian horizons beyond the row crops of Middle America. But for Bill, there was no place like home. After leaving the USDA, Bill returned to Iowa and was hired to lead the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, an organization whose 1,100-plus membership supplies feed, seed, crop protection chemicals, grain, fertilizer, equipment, and more to support Iowa's agricultural supply chain across the State.

Bill was a natural leader. His decades of advocacy for Iowa agriculture came naturally. It was rooted bone-deep in his heritage as family farmer. A steward of the soil, Bill understood that a farmer's livelihood hinges on protecting natural resources and the whims of Mother Nature. He brought dirt-underneath-the-fingernails work experience to the policymaking table where his voice mattered. That was because Bill spoke with authority, with farm-calloused hands and the authenticity of a farmer's heart. He knew the challenges farmers faced from 1 year to the next. A soft-spoken leader, Bill had gravitational pull with the people he worked with and for the people he served. He was approachable, affable, and put in the work. A thoughtful leader, Bill was a problem-solver who led by example. As one of the architects of

the Nutrient Reduction Strategy and early adopter of cover crops to improve water quality, Bill was known to tell farmers, whose livelihoods depend on environmental stewardship, that such programs are voluntary, but ``not optional.''

Named an Iowa Master Farmer in 2016, the Iowa farm community has lost a giant. Barbara and I have lost a dear friend. His leadership and friendship will be missed. Iowa farmers will benefit from his work to promote conservation and their work to feed and fuel the world for generations to come. To his beloved wife Cindy, three daughters, grandchildren, extended family, and loved ones, Barbara and I send our prayers and condolences. May Bill's memory heal your hearts and evoke smiles and laughter around the dinner table in the days and years to come.

Mr. President, in its relentless pursuit of canceling student debt, the Department of Education seems to have forgotten that Congress gave it a job to do.

Last year, the Department announced its unconstitutional efforts to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars, contrary to law. Of course, you

remember that was the forgiving of student loans.

Even after this attempt was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, endless efforts of debt cancellation seem to have taken precedent over the duty Congress is giving the Department.

For example, after being on pause for 3 years, student loan payments finally started back up here in October of this year.

Servicers, students, and Members of Congress pressed for answers about how and when this process would work. But instead of a plan, the return to repayment has been utter chaos. Iowans, and even some Members of my staff who have student loans, have waited for weeks to get answers to very basic questions about their loans.

Due to sloppy recordkeeping, the Department has failed its audit for the second straight year in a row. In its hurry to cancel debt, the administration can't even provide auditors enough information to do their jobs.

It isn't just previous students who are being left in limbo. There is another issue that is hard to get information on.

So we have current and incoming college students who still can't fill out the application form that goes by the acronym FAFSA. That stands for ``free application for student aid.'' In a normal year, students would fill it out in October and know early in the process whether they had qualified for Pell grants or other forms of student aid, but this year, students still don't have the information they need to start choosing the best school for them. I have long said that students don't have enough transparent information when applying to college. The shortened timeline this year makes it even harder.

To address the problem that I just mentioned, I recently sent a letter, with Senator Kaine of Virginia and other colleagues, pressing the Department of Education to give students the information they need. That includes making sure that farm families aren't forced to sell their farms in order to send their kids to college. It helps no one to lump small family farms in with the largest mega farms--as if a farm family who is barely getting by is somehow considered to be rich--and have their kids not qualify for student loans. The bipartisan effort by Senator Kaine and me pushes the Department to recognize that distinction and ensure that farm kids have the information they need to properly fill out the proper forms to see if they qualify for student loans.

All students deserve to have the information they need and to get that information ahead of time. Students, families, and borrowers shouldn't have their timelines delayed by changing political whims.

Congress certainly did not pass a law telling the Department to cancel hundreds of billions in student debt, but Congress did give the Department a mandate to properly oversee student loan repayments, the implementation of the FAFSA, and to keep its finances in order. Before trying to unconstitutionally create enormous new cancelation programs, I suggest and encourage the Department of Education to do the job it has actually been given by the Congress to do.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the organ transplant business and network governance has been in shambles for decades, and people have needlessly died because of it, and we have passed very good legislation unanimously to correct it.

So I come to the Senate floor because I have very serious concerns about the Biden administration's implementation of H.R. 2544. That legislation goes by the title of Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Act. I am joined by a colleague who has worked really hard on this issue, Senator Moran of Kansas, who will also give his views on this issue. He worked with me and championed this very important issue.

On September 22 of this year, this legislation, H.R. 2544, was signed into law by this President. In less than 3 months, the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services is already ignoring congressional intent while asking Congress--can you believe it--for money to implement the law, and it is presumably to implement the law contrary to what the legislation requires.

Now, I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this very important bipartisan piece of legislation. We fought alongside patient organizations that knew this whole setup, for decades, was not working the way it should. We did this with the hope and expectation that we would have real competition to manage our organ donation system.

Congress unanimously passed the bill, as I said before, and we were able to do it despite attempts by a lot of people within the 40-year- old organization that runs this program that tried to kill it with what we call around here poison-pill amendments. And that point is very important because we didn't adopt any of those amendments. Yet we see some of those amendments' approaches being now promoted by this administration in the implementation of this bill.

These potential poison-pill amendments would have prevented competition in our organ donation system, and we felt that competition was what we needed, instead of the monopolistic approaches that had existed for decades. And you can imagine these amendments were pushed-- yes--by the same nonprofit monopolies that have called the shots in our Nation's failed organ donation system for the last 40 years.

So here is where we are within just 3 short months after the passing of what we thought was real reform. Now, the Health Resources and Services Administration of HHS, led by Administrator Carole Johnson, has attempted to restrict competition right out of the gate by inserting, via contracting process, the very poison pills that Congress kept out of the law. For example, that Agency announced plans to install the existing United Network for Organ Sharing board--the one that has been running the show--as the new, so-called independent board.

Regarding limiting competition for the board contract, Agency officials

told my staff and staff from other congressional offices: the Agency can place restrictions on any contracts, including the IT contract.

Again, the purpose of this legislation was to create competition, not stifle it with government restrictions and sweetheart deals. My bipartisan oversight over the years has shown that the United Network for Organ Sharing IT system is failing at every level. I have heard from patient groups and leaders with these very same concerns.

These patient advocacy organizations are rightfully concerned that HHS, today, is caving to bad actors who have been running our Nation's organ donation system since 1986. The president of the Global Liver Institute wrote: I never imagined that industry could so quickly dictate the terms of the law's implementation.

The National Kidney Foundation wrote that these proposals ``continue to empower those who have been responsible for the problems that have plagued the transplant system.''

From what my staff has been told, Health Resources and Services Administration officials have threatened the very patient groups writing those letters to me and other Members of Congress. The Health Resources and Services Administration allegedly told some of these patient groups to retract their letters of concern and that their letters were a lie.

All of this is unacceptable--and should be to the 100 Members of this body who passed this legislation unanimously. I started working to fix our Nation's corrupt, broken organ donation system way back in 2005. Since then, more than 200,000 Americans have needlessly died on the transplant waiting list, disproportionately for people of color and people of rural America.

Patients and Congress fought for this legislation. Now, HHS, under this administration, needs to implement this law in the interest of patients. Patients' lives depend on it--200,000 lives over 40 years lost because of how this organization has distributed or lost or a hundred other ways you can say the organ not getting to the patient it was intended.

Maladministration by the organ network must stop, and it looks to me like HHS wants to keep it going as it is and prevent and stand in the way of this important piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, I placed a hold on S. 595, the Rio San Jose and Rio Jemez Water Settlements Act of 2023. The legislation is not paid for and would violate multiple budget enforcement rules. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would increase the deficit by $1.7 billion.

Mr. President, today, I want to address the ill-advised and really unacceptable conduct at the November 30 Judiciary Committee executive meeting. The majority there didn't allow a single Republican amendment to the adoption of the subpoena authorization, and that was breaking with precedent. Contrary to what Democrats allege, when I was chairman, I followed the rules and let everyone speak who wanted to so speak. I even allowed them to offer resolutions during a confirmation process, which I could have ruled out of order. Simply put, this subpoena authorization isn't based on oversight; it is based on overreach. It is a political hit.

Over the past 6 months, the left's web of dark money interest groups has tried to impugn the character and reputation of certain conservative members of the Supreme Court. This Democratic investigation into the Supreme Court totally ignores ethical questions and dark money networks surrounding liberal Justices. This is all part of a whirlwind effort to cast doubt on our country's highest Court and call into question the legitimacy of its rulings. Conservative Justices have been specifically targeted, harassed, and even threatened. The left's influence-peddling scheme views these conservative Justices as the greatest obstacle to jamming their radical agenda through our courts because Congress won't do the same liberal bidding.

The left has outlined new rules for conservative Justices: Justices' spouses must give up their independent law practices; Justices shouldn't vacation with close personal friends; Justices shouldn't have wealthy friends; and Justices shouldn't make any new friends after donning the robe.

How unfair and how unrealistic. No such conflicts of interest ever were raised during the Court's liberal years. These rules were not invoked against the Court's liberal Justices. This persistent political battering of the Judiciary is coming at a tremendous cost. The conservative Justices have endured real threats to their safety and the safety of their loved ones.

As I have said before, judicial decision-making must be based on law and sound jurisprudence. It shouldn't be subject to the whims of public opinion or clamor. It cannot be the result of threats and intimidation of Supreme Court Justices. This political hit by the Democratic majority of the committee will do lasting damage not only to the Court but to the committee. Again, this effort isn't really oversight as I like to do, and we do a good job of it; instead, it is about political theater.

Let me give some examples of how an investigation should be conducted.

During my time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, starting in 2017, the committee investigated, in a bipartisan fashion, alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Bipartisan committee staff--I want to emphasize that--bipartisan committee staff interviewed five individuals who participated in that meeting, including President Trump's son, and collected documents from several others involved. At the Democrats' request, the committee interviewed an additional six individuals. I subpoenaed even Paul Manafort, with then-Ranking Member Feinstein's agreement for him to appear at a hearing and to provide testimony. With the exception of Democrats refusing to subpoena Fusion GPS and related parties, then-Chairman Graham's 2020 Crossfire Hurricane subpoena authorization was based on years of bipartisan work.

As I have thought more about my Democratic colleagues' apparent laser focus on government ethics, it is clear that they have totally ignored the biggest, most obvious ethical fact pattern that requires investigation, and that is of the Biden family.

Since August 2019, Senator Johnson and I have investigated the Biden family's connections to foreign governments and questionable foreign nationals. We issued two reports and gave three floor speeches that made public hundreds of bank records. Our findings showed criminal activity, to include potential money laundering, with respect to members of the Biden family and their business associates and the use of public office for private gain.

Well, with respect to the Hunter Biden-related accounts, some have also been flagged for potential human trafficking. As Senator Johnson and I noted in our September 23, 2020, Biden family report, Treasury records show thousands of dollars in financial transactions involving Hunter Biden and Ukrainian and Russian women. These Treasury records link those women to Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking rings.

At this Judiciary Committee executive meeting that I have been speaking about, Democrats failed to consider my amendment to gather more facts on this abuse against women. Senator Johnson and I made public a bank record that showed Hunter Biden received $1 million from a Chinese company that was an arm of the communist regime for representing Patrick Ho. Patrick Ho was charged and convicted for bribery and related Federal offenses. Now, guess what. Hunter Biden called Patrick Ho the spy chief for China. Based on the known facts, it appears that Hunter Biden was effectively a foreign agent of the communist regime.

The Judiciary Committee maintained jurisdiction and still maintains jurisdiction over the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Justice Department's enforcement of it. Yet, the Democrat-led committee has ignored the law and the Biden family.

In July of this year, I obtained and publicly released what is now called the Biden family 1023. This FBI-generated document is based on information provided to a long-serving FBI confidential human source. The FBI document shows a criminal bribery scheme. The criminal scheme included Joe Biden and Hunter Biden each being paid $5 million for Joe Biden to take a policy position in favor of a foreign national. That policy position was ultimately taken. Joe Biden even bragged about it, and you can see, fairly regularly, his voice and his face talking about this--what he did to the Ukrainian Government to get somebody fired. The 1023 used the phrase ``Big Guy'' to describe Joe Biden before the ``Big Guy'' description was publicly known months later. Different people at different times in different parts of the world independently used the same code name to describe Joe Biden.

Do my Democratic colleagues believe that it is just a coincidence? The 1023 includes references to audio recordings with Joe Biden, text messages, and records allegedly proving bribery criminal activity, and that it was real.

What have my Democratic colleagues done to investigate that evidence? What has the Biden Justice Department done?

The Tony Bobulinski interview noted that the Biden family would receive a multimillion-dollar unsecured loan, intended to be forgivable, from the energy company in China called CEFC. That would serve as payments for actions Joe Biden took during his Vice Presidency.

This financial strategy to illegally treat income as a loan is consistent with the IRS whistleblower testimony that indicated Hunter Biden attempted the same with respect to other income. These facts and allegations indicate criminal activity, money laundering, bribery, tax evasion, and significant ethical violations.

And, by the way, the Hunter Biden tax indictment mentioned financial transactions that my and Senator Johnson's work exposed years ago.

Look at indictment paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 100. Compare them with the other two reports from 2020 and three floor speeches last year.

My Democratic colleagues have shown zero interest in knowing, understanding, joining forces, or advancing this 4-year-old investigation. Instead, they have shown willful blindness to protect the President and family.

One of my Democratic colleagues said the right thing when we considered then-Chairman Graham's subpoena authorization. Senator Whitehouse brought up an amendment to ``reinforce his point made at the last meeting about the selective enthusiasm of [the Judiciary] Committee for getting to the bottom of things and what appears to be a policy at the Department of Justice of refusing to answer Committee members' letters and Committee members' questions for the record.''

The U.S. Congress has a constitutional mandate to conduct oversight of Republican and Democratic administrations without any political bias for either. We have a duty to ensure the Justice Department and the FBI consistently enforce the law without regard to politics.

Judiciary Committee Democrats were eager to engage in the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation before it was totally debunked. However, they were very eager to falsely attack my and Senator Johnson's Biden family investigation as Russian disinformation. Sadly, I haven't seen the same enthusiasm from the other side now that a Democratic political family is under the microscope.

If it is criminal and ethical questions my Democratic colleagues are interested in, then the Judiciary Committee should, in a bipartisan fashion, bring the family members for interviews and obtain records from them. No, the Democrat majority wants to investigate Supreme Court Justices and, of all nine of the Justices, only the conservative ones. So I can only conclude the Democrats' brand of oversight is more about politics than fact finding.