Floor Statements

Madam President, I want to share some words of wisdom with my colleagues. These words of wisdom come from 13 former top civilian and military leaders. I am going to start with the list of eight former Defense Secretaries: Dr. Ashton Carter, recently deceased; William Cohen, also a former Senator; Dr. Mark Esper; Dr. Robert Gates; Charles Hagel, also a former Senator; Gen. James Mattis, besides being Secretary of Defense; Leon Panetta, also a former Congressman; and Dr. William Perry. Also added to this list are five former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: GEN Martin Dempsey; GEN Joseph Dunford, Jr.; ADM Michael Mullen; GEN Richard Myers; and GEN Peter Pace. They offer some very sage advice for improving civil-military relations.

Everybody knows where this principle came from of civil control of our military. It happened December 1783 when GEN George Washington surrendered his papers to the Continental Congress and gave up being commander in chief at that particular time.

These words of wisdom appear in an open letter that was published September 6 in a national security blog, and that blog is entitled ``War on the Rocks.''

I intended to speak about this letter at the time that I first read it, but due to our extended recess, I am just now getting to it about 2 months late.

These former leaders warn us about what they call ``extreme strain'' in civil-military relations coming from all directions, and these are the directions that this strain is coming from, affecting civil- military relations: the pandemic, with social disruption; wars that ended with unachieved goals; military withdrawal from Afghanistan; rising great-power rivalries; ``extremely adverse'' political environment caused by the divisiveness of polarization in our American society, evidenced here in the Congress of the United States; and lastly, contested elections and the shaky transfer of power. After listing these points, these defense leaders then predict rising tensions.

This is a red flag that we all ought to observe. Civil-military relations are out of balance.

Although alarming, the open letter is both educational and reassuring. It offers guidance and remedies. Sixteen what they call ``core principles and best practices'' are spotlighted for restoring ``healthy American civil-military relations.'' Most of these remedies hinge on the all-important principle of civilian control of the military.

By the way, I spoke on that very subject from a different angle on July 14 of this year.

The letter that I am referring to views civilian control as I do: ``the bedrock foundation of American democracy.'' It is ultimately ``wielded by the will of the American people as expressed through elections.'' That core constitutional principle keeps our ``powerful standing military'' from threatening democracy.

``Healthy civil-military relations''--those four words are in quotes--``Healthy civil-military relations'' are instrumental to civilian control. They must rest on a rock-solid foundation of ``mutual trust.'' Mutual trust and respect between civilian and military leaders are essential for healthy civil-military relations. They are fostered in part by honest deliberations over policy choices. According to this open letter, mutual trust is cultivated when civilian leaders ``rigorously explore alternatives that are best for the country regardless of the implications for partisan politics.''

A ``dynamic and iterative process'' for policy development helps ``civil-military teams build up a reservoir of trust.'' That extra measure of trust will defuse friction when the military must ``faithfully implement directives that run counter to their professional military preference.''

When tensions rise over disagreement with the Commander in Chief's policy choices, the former Pentagon leaders offer this guidance in their very own words. And this is a fairly long quote:

Elected (and appointed) civilians have the right to be

wrong, meaning they have the right to insist on a policy or

direction that proves, in hindsight, to have been a mistake.

This right obtains even if other voices warn in advance that

the proposed action is a mistake.

Military officials are required to carry out legal orders

the wisdom of which they doubt. Civilian officials should

provide the military ample opportunity to express their

doubts in appropriate venues . . . members of the military

accept limits on the public expression of their private

views--limits that would be unconstitutional if imposed on

other citizens.

Civilian and military officials should also take care to

properly characterize military advice in public. Civilian

leaders must take responsibility for the consequences of the

actions that they direct.

Now, the advice of these former chiefs of staff and former secretaries of defense is honest, it is direct, and squares very much with the Constitution of the United States. The Commander in Chief's orders must be obeyed. The military must refrain from criticizing the President in public. And the President is accountable for policy choices.

On partisan political activities, the former chiefs and secretaries of defense offer a straightforward piece of advice:

There are significant limits on the public role of military

personnel in partisan politics, as outlined in longstanding

Defense Department policy and regulations . . . military and

civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping military

separate from partisan political activities.

The final best practice that they offer us covers the responsibility of military leaders during the transfer of power after Presidential elections. They--meaning the military--have a dual obligation. First, they must assist

the incumbent Commander in Chief in the exercise of his or her constitutional duty. And, second, since the voters choose the new Commander in Chief, they must prepare to assist whomever the voters pick.

They carry out their responsibilities regardless of who sits in the White House. To summarize, this open letter provides sound advice that could help to moderate civil-military strife. It telegraphs a message to the top brass: It is time to hit the reset button and rebalance civil-military relations.

Now, I don't know the motive behind this letter, because there wasn't any indication of it, but the sum of it may be pointed directly at Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley. My advice to him: Take their sage advice to heart. A dose of humility burnishes one's integrity. As the Nation's most senior military officer, General Milley has a responsibility to set an example of excellence and cease all partisan political activity. Partisan political activity is harmful to civil-military relations and has the potential for creating dangerous divisions within the ranks of the Armed Forces.

Military personnel must stay out of politics. Period. End of story.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as a leading advocate for lower drug prices in the Senate, No. 1, I have hauled Big Pharma and pharmacy benefit managers' executives before my committee of Congress; second, I led a 2-year bipartisan investigation into insulin price-gouging; and three, introduced bipartisan reforms to lower the cost of insulin and many other prescription drugs. In the past few years, legislation I have championed into law has saved the taxpayers $9.6 billion.

Right now, the Senate is not acting on bipartisan legislation to lower drug costs. I support a bipartisan plan by Senators Collins and Shaheen that establishes a $35 out-of-pocket cap on insulin for patients with private insurance while also reforming PBMs, the powerful middlemen who are behind rising drug prices. If you don't address PBM reform, a cap on out-of-pocket costs will only result in shifting patient costs somewhere else.

In my 2-year bipartisan insulin investigation, we found that a drug's list price is tied to rebates and other fees that drug companies have to pay the PBMs. The scheme encourages drugmakers to spike the list price of the drug to offer a greater rebate. And then do you know what happens in turn? Secure priority placement on a health plan's list of covered medications. We have to hold PBMs accountable, then, if you really want to lower prescription drug costs.

In 2018, I called on the Federal Trade Commission to assess consolidation in the pharmaceutical supply chain and its impact on drug prices, but I didn't wait for the FTC to act. I introduced the Prescription Pricing for the People Act with Senator Cantwell, and it was approved out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously last year.

A few months ago, the FTC agreed to conduct a study of PBM business practices. This is very welcomed news, but the FTC needs to complete this study and do it in a timely way. Last week, I asked FTC Chair Kahn about when the PBM study would be completed. Chair Kahn didn't commit to a date.

While we need more sunshine on the PBMs, we don't need to wait to take some action. Senator Cantwell and I have introduced the PBM Transparency Act, and it has been approved by the Commerce Committee on a 19-to-9 vote. The bill prohibits PBMs from engaging in spread pricing and clawbacks. Both spread pricing and clawbacks are actions that game the system and hurt consumers.

When the majority party pursued a partisan, reckless spending-and-tax package that they called the Inflation Reduction Act, I filed the Grassley-Wyden Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as an amendment that had 10 Republican cosponsors. I did that in order to show that the majority party could have chosen to pass drug pricing reform on a bipartisan basis if the majority wanted to do that. The bill establishes PBM accountability and transparency, something missing from the Inflation Reduction Act.

So, Madam President, we have bipartisan prescription drug legislation awaiting action. We don't have to wait until 2026 for what happened in August in the Inflation Reduction Act to get anything done because that doesn't take effect until 2026. This includes the bipartisan plan to lower insulin prices and my two bills to hold PBMs accountable. That is what we need bipartisan action on in the U.S. Senate.

I have also led out of the Judiciary Committee three bipartisan bills to establish more competition to lower prescription drug prices. They save taxpayers a combined $1.9 billion.

So the Senate must act on six bipartisan bills. Collectively, they lower insulin costs, secondly hold PBMs accountable, and lastly establish more competition to lower prescription drug prices.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, home should be the safest place in the world for a child. It used to be that parents could breathe a little easier once they locked the front door, knowing that their child was safe on the inside.

For some reason or other, not anymore is that the case. Drug dealers have found ways into our homes through social media. Now, more and more children are dying alone at night in what should be the safest place for them, in their own bedrooms.

That is where Deric and Kathy Kidd found their son Sebastian, unresponsive, on the morning of July 30, 2021. He was slumped on his bed, still in his street clothes.

Sebastian was a high school senior in Des Moines, IA. He took half of what he thought was a pain pill. It was actually fentanyl. Sebastian's parents should have had the rest of their lives with him. Instead, they buried their 17-year-old son.

Congress has responded in the worst possible way to parents like the Kidd family. We have responded with inaction. I am disappointed that my Democrat colleagues have tried to block fentanyl analog scheduling. Under this Democrat-led Congress, the reauthorization periods of fentanyl analog scheduling keeps getting shorter and shorter, and bipartisan talks about permanent scheduling have all dropped. And if you don't have bipartisan talks, nothing happens in the U.S. Senate. That is what it takes to get things done in a body that takes a supermajority of 60 to stop debate to get to finality.

It doesn't matter if you are a rank-and-file Democrat or Republican, fentanyl is a problem for all of us. It is time that we start treating it like the problem it is. We can't keep ignoring law enforcement's requests for fentanyl analog scheduling. Police are the folks responding to fentanyl poisoning. Police are the ones putting their lives on the line facing off with cartels, and police are asking us to extend classification of fentanyl analog as schedule I substances.

Who are we to deny the police when they say what they need? We all agreed that fentanyl analog scheduling was necessary in 2020 when we unanimously extended it by 15 months. Even career officials in the Biden administration agreed that fentanyl analog scheduling was necessary when they asked Congress. The Biden administration asked Congress to permanently schedule it.

But here we are on the brink of fentanyl analog scheduling--the expiration of it. Families and law enforcement alike are panicked that we let this authority disappear. Temporary fentanyl analog scheduling cannot lapse while we hash out more permanent solutions.

We have all voted this provision into law before. We have been warned that more parents will have to bury their children if we do not pass it.

So, I have this motion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 45, S. 1216; further, that the Grassley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action.

Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's right to do that. I appreciate his position on this whole problem that we are trying to deal with. I am just sorry that Senator Booker had to have people object for him.

It is not right. How many people have to die before we do something about it? Last year, there were over 107,000 overdose deaths, with 70,000 due to fentanyl-related substances--200 opioid overdoses in the State of Iowa.

Somebody has got to wake up around here and realize that we can do something about it. The Biden administration wants us to do something about it, and one person--not Chairman Durbin, but other people--stands in the way. It is just not right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, roughly 175 Americans will die from fentanyl poisoning. Many of them won't even know that they have taken the fentanyl. They will think they have taken Xanax for anxiety or oxycodone for pain. That is what Devin Anderson--you will see his picture here in a minute--of Shelby, IA, thought when he took a fentanyl pill marked like an oxy.

Devin had fought hard for his sobriety. He had enrolled in treatment and moved back home, but he was struggling with anxiety. To cope, he took a pill from a friend.

Devin's coworker came to pick him up for work in the early morning of February 24 of this year. Devin wasn't ready, so his coworker called him. When Devin didn't answer, he called again. Devin's 14-year-old brother heard the phone ringing. He went downstairs to investigate and found Devin unresponsive.

Devin was 23 years old when he died. His mom wants you to know that Devin was a kind person and he was loved by his friends.

In 2021, fentanyl killed more Americans between the ages of 18 and 45 than any other cause. That is more than COVID-19, cancer, and car accidents combined.

Six months ago, I stood where I am now and asked for a permanent solution for fentanyl scheduling. Today, we are absolutely no closer to a permanent solution than we were back then, 6 months ago.

While Congress has been waiting to take action, the cartels have not. The cartels have simply rebranded, coloring fentanyl like candy to addict America's children. Fentanyl is in our schools, like in Blackwood, NJ, where a 12-year-old overdosed on a schoolbus after his uncle made him clean a fentanyl trap house; or in Chipman Junior High School in California, where a 13-year-old brought 150 fake Percocet pills laced with fentanyl, with 4 out of every 10 fake pills containing a potentially lethal dosage of fentanyl. Both of these schools are hours away from the Mexican border, but despite Customs and Border Protection's efforts, fentanyl has reached our children's hands.

So when the Vice President tells the press that our border is secure, we all know that is just plain wrong and irresponsible, and that attitude, that the border is secure, ends up killing.

In the Federal Government's absence, parents like Arletha and Robert Gilliam have been forced to fill the void. Their daughter Ciara died last month because of fentanyl. And you see Ciara right here. By all accounts, Ciara had a big heart. As her dad puts it, if you were in a bad mood, Ciara would make sure that that bad mood didn't last very long. Even though she had graduated from Iowa's Ankeny Centennial High School and lived on her own, she still FaceTimed her mom every day.

But on August 23 of this year, no one could get hold of Ciara, so her grandparents drove by her house. Her car was in the driveway. Ciara's grandparents knocked, both on her doors and her windows, with no response. Finally, Ciara's grandpa crawled through her bedroom window. There, he found her dead on her bedroom floor. Fentanyl shut down her organs, and she went to sleep. She never woke up again. She was only 22 years old.

Ciara's parents are now searching for answers they never should have had to find in the first place. They have offered a $50,000 award to locate the dealer who supplied the fake pill that killed their daughter. They deserve better than that. They deserve congressional action, and they deserved it in 2017 when the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, first scheduled fentanyl.

Grieving parents are the unsung heroes in the fight against fentanyl. Time after time, they push through their heartbreaks to share their stories, as you have heard me tell for two families, and now they demand action so that more kids don't die. It is time for Congress to match the efforts of those parents.

The Department of Justice has been very clear:

The permanent scheduling of FRS is critical to the safety

and health of our communities and class-wide scheduling

provides a vital tool to combat overdose deaths in [America].

End of quote from the Department of Justice.

For those whom we have lost, like Ciara and Devin, and for the countless lives that we will save if we take action, it is time that we give them the

tool they need, and that is the scheduling of fentanyl--and on a permanent, long-term basis.

Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act

Mr. President, on another subject--and a shorter subject for anybody waiting to talk--it is dangerous to live in many places in America, especially in blue cities. Like inflation, violent crime remains very high. For example, compared to 2019 midyear figures, America's largest cities have seen a 50-percent increase in murders and a 36-percent increase in aggravated assaults. And it is no mystery what is causing this spike in crime. Blue city progressive, pro-criminal prosecutors and radical bail reform laws fuel this spike, a spike in violent crime, by letting dangerous, repeat criminals go unpunished and, in some cases, even uncharged.

The recent tragedies in Memphis, TN, earlier this month underscore the dangers that families face at the hands of chronic criminals. And remember the words ``chronic criminals'' because the fact is that the majority of violent crimes are committed by a relative handful of repeat offenders like the two in Memphis. For example, criminals in Chicago charged with shootings and murders have, on average, 12 prior arrests. In Oakland, CA, only around 400 people, or just one-tenth of 1 percent of Oakland's population, were responsible for a majority of the city's murders. Now, just think, one-tenth of 1 percent of the population of that city is responsible for a majority of the murders in Oakland.

Federal law enforcement has a unique and very vital role in targeting repeat violent criminals, but for the last 2 years, the Senate's ability to actually pass bills that expand criminal law to reduce violent crime and target repeat violent criminals has hit a brick wall. It is just impossible to get any consensus even though we all know it is a very major problem.

In July, as part of my effort to promote a solution to this problem of major crime caused by a very small number of people in each community, I introduced a bill that I entitled ``Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime,'' which is cosponsored by 26 of my Republican colleagues in the Senate. The House companion bill was introduced September 15, with seven Republican cosponsors.

The bill has seven simple solutions that will help to reverse this violent crime spike by putting dangerous criminals in jail and keeping them there. These commonsense solutions will fix real problems and bring immediate relief and increased safety to communities plagued by the scourge of violent crime.

Given the unprecedented increase in murders, we can and we should make it easier to prosecute murders. This bill will do that.

Mr. President, 2021 was the deadliest year to be a law enforcement officer since 9/11. We should make it easier to prosecute people who attack law enforcement. This bill will do that.

Carjackings are way up nationwide--200, 300, and even 400 percent in some cities. We should deter carjacking with sufficient sentences. This bill will do that.

Dangerous drugs are being marketed to young people as colorful candy--I just spoke about that--and these children are dying from overdoses. We should make it so that no children die from fentanyl made to look like candy. This bill will do that.

Bank robbery, kidnapping--the list of violent crimes that would be strengthened by this bill goes on and on.

I stand ready to work with Democrats who want to provide relief to their constituents from this crimewave. So if any of them are open to any of these provisions, I want them to know that I am ready to work with them. Let's partner together to make the American people safer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think you all might remember when the Biden administration's so-called

experts claimed that inflation was ``transitory.'' It ended up that they couldn't have been more wrong by using that word.

Since President Biden took office, Iowans have seen prices rise 13.7 percent. That adds an extra $666 to their monthly budget. Couple that with falling real wages, and Iowans have been strapped very thin.

This combination of rising prices and falling real wages has hit rural Iowa communities particularly hard. As a result, according to a report issued by Iowa State University, the disposable income of rural Iowans fell 33 percent over the past 12 months alone. It is no wonder, then, that the high cost of living is the number one concern that I hear about from Iowans as I travel all of our 99 counties.

However, here in DC--and remember, DC is an island surrounded by reality--here in this town, the primary concern of President Biden and congressional Democrats has been enacting their very partisan agenda.

They have refused to work with Republicans on sensible policies to tame inflation and provide targeted relief. In the process of doing that, they haven't even followed the advice of their own brethren. And I will use Larry Summers as an example, that Harvard professor and former Secretary of Treasury. He said, way back in January, before this President was sworn in, that the economy was turned around: Don't spend any more money or you are going to have inflation.

And, immediately, within 60 days of being in office, this new President and this new Congress passed a $2 trillion appropriations bill to feed the fires of inflation.

So instead of taming inflation, they rebranded the reckless tax-and- spending spree that they had pursued for more than a year as a bill recently passed called the Inflation Reduction Act, which I call the ``Inflation Enhancement Act''--never mind that outside experts uniformly concluded the bill's hodgepodge of the Green New Deal and the subsidies that go with that program and the tax hikes would do nothing to address inflation today.

Of course, if you want to stop inflation, now caused by excessive government spending, the first thing you should do is stop spending; or another way you can say it--and common sense dictates this: When you are in a hole, quit digging.

Instead, Democrats doubled down with Big Government spending and coupled it with job-killing tax hikes. The National Association of Manufacturers said they would lose about 217,000 jobs. Democrats' policy decisions made even less sense given that, only a week before, we learned our economy had shrunk for two straight quarters, indicating recession.

And everyone knows, as President Obama once said--and this seems to be the third term of the Obama Presidency, but this is what he said when he was actually President:

The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the

middle of a recession.

And yet it was done in that bill in August by more than $300 billion. The last thing our economy needed was another tax-and-spending spree, but Democrats just couldn't let go of their wish list.

What is more, at the height of hypocrisy, Democrats touted the Inflation Reduction Act as an example of fiscal responsibility. Yet the supposed savings they claim will result from the bill was then immediately dwarfed in just 1 day of actions by President Biden's unilateral student loan announcement, which will cost American taxpayers at least $500 billion. And some people are saying it could cost up to $1 trillion.

When President Biden announced that he was wiping out $10,000 to $20,000 of student loan debt for people making as much as $150,000 or $250,000 for households, that likely illegal action will send the bill for this student loan giveaway to Americans who did not attend college or people who graduated from college already paying off their college expenses. And at the same time, it is going to fuel the fires of inflation.

So much, then, for the lip service about deficit reduction and inflation. But we now know that that inflation was not transitory. It is persistent. Iowans are sick and tired of paying the price for the failures of this Biden economy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as of 12:01 tomorrow morning, our Nation's transportation system was set to come to a screeching halt. It now sounds like

we have a bit of a reprieve, but we still have a threat.

Since 2019, railroads and unions have been negotiating a new contract. Two months ago, President Biden appropriately appointed members of what is called the Presidential Emergency Board. This Board recommended the largest pay increase in industry history at 24 percent, in addition to an annual bonus and healthcare changes.

President Biden promised to be the ``most pro-union president'' in history, but even President Biden's recommendations weren't enough for these unions. A few unions continued to hold out and, in fact, took us to the verge of a nationwide strike.

A railroad strike would really plunge us back into the supply chain issues that have just now started to somewhat improve. These trains that would be stopped actually carry the food we eat, the gas for our tanks, and the energy that heats our homes.

Already, I am hearing from grain elevator operators in my State that they are having trouble transporting their grain. Hazardous cargo, like the chlorine cities need to purify drinking water, stopped moving earlier this week. Amtrak has canceled long-distance routes. Maybe they are going to be up and running now, but at least they were getting ready to stop.

But what I just described is the tip of the iceberg unless these unions agree to a long-term deal. The last thing we need is for grain shipments to grind to a halt right as farmers are going to the fields to harvest their grain. Iowa corn and soybeans can't feed the world if they are stuck on the farm or in the local elevator.

That is why I cosponsored Senator Burr's joint resolution to prevent all of this. The resolution would mandate that both sides adopt the recommendations of President Biden's emergency Board. Then, of course, if we pass that, the trains would keep running.

We are just learning about a tentative deal that would let unions back away from the cliff. If they don't, then Congress must step in and pass the joint resolution to keep our economy going. The alternative is unacceptable.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, more than a year ago, a news website by the name of ProPublica published stories that it claims are based on ``a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation's wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years.'' Since then, ProPublica has continued to publish articles that appear to use data leaked or hacked from the IRS.

Despite questions from Congress and immediate expressions of concern from the Treasury Department, as well as the IRS, we don't know any more today than we did a year ago. Even though these apparent leaks of confidential taxpayer information appear to target the wealthy, not just the wealthy but all taxpayers and anyone who cares about effective tax administration should be very concerned. The fact is, until we get answers, we don't know if anyone's tax return or other information submitted to the IRS is actually secure.

At the end of the 2022 filing system, more than 145 million individual income tax returns had been filed with the IRS. Right now, we don't know if there is a current vulnerability to the IRS's systems that makes this personal information accessible within the IRS or to bad actors outside of the IRS. We do not know if a foreign nation with hostile intentions is responsible for a leak or a hack of taxpayer information or the full scope of the IRS's information that may be involved. Just because ProPublica hasn't found it politically useful to publicly disclose your private taxpayer information doesn't mean that your tax information hasn't been compromised.

As I said earlier, in June of 2021, concern was immediately expressed in the Congress and at the Treasury Department. Almost on that very day, Commissioner Rettig appeared before the Finance Committee. In fact, it was on that very day that the first story was published.

Commissioner Rettig said:

I think that trust and confidence in the Internal Revenue

Service is sort of the bedrock of asking people and requiring

people to provide financial information, and we have, as I

said, turned it over to the appropriate investigators,

external and internal.

Attorney General Garland was quoted as saying:

This is an extremely serious matter. People are entitled,

obviously, to great privacy with respect to their tax

returns.

With this level of concern expressed so quickly, now a year ago, you would expect action to have been taken quickly. If you expected that, you would be wrong. Despite several letters sent by this Senator and other Members of Congress, we don't know any more today about what happened than we did last year on June 8, when this situation began.

When testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, Secretary Yellen said:

I am as anxious as you are to find out what happened.

As a strong proponent of congressional oversight--as I am--of the executive branch, I have always been frustrated when the executive refuses to share relevant information that we need in Congress and are entitled under the Constitution to have. Secretary Yellen's statement suggests a more disturbing possibility where the executive branch completely lacks the sought-after information. Now, consider how shocking it is if the Secretary of the Treasury actually has no insight or any knowledge into a possible massive leak or hack of taxpayer information that occurred under her watch.

In order to determine if any action had been taken, I, along with other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray on June 24 of this year to ask what the status was of any investigation. This was the second time we tried to get this information.

I know the Department of Justice is capable of taking action quickly when the Department of Justice wants to. I have written to the Attorney General several times about the memo that he issued in response to a letter from the National School Boards Association. That school board letter compared parents to domestic terrorists. It took the Department of Justice only 5 days,

which included a weekend, to inject Federal law enforcement into local debates with concerned parents.

Clearly, the Attorney General is capable of taking action very quickly, but that seems to only be when an administrative priority is of concern. I hope the Biden administration and the Garland Department of Justice would be as concerned about the protection of confidential taxpayer information as they are about monitoring concerned parents who testify before a school board.

If the Department of Justice and the FBI want to show that they take the confidentiality of taxpayer information seriously, they can start by fully and completely responding to my letter of June 24, which hasn't yet been responded to. More than a full year, with a complete filing season, is too much time to have gone by without having any information on this leaking of taxpayer information being provided to any extent.

Democrats constantly spoke of the need for fairness in the tax system as they pushed through partisan tax-and-spending bills. Yet we have heard barely a peep out of our Democratic colleagues on what may be the largest unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information in history.

While we continue to wait for answers, we have learned of another massive breach of taxpayer information.

On the first Friday of September, we learned the IRS mistakenly published on its website private information from about 120,000 taxpayers. According to Politico, the disclosure consisted of ``details from business tax returns filed by tax-exempt organizations and retirement accounts, included people's names, business contact information and income produced by certain investments.''

Clearly, the ability of the IRS to safeguard taxpayer information is still an ongoing issue.

This new revelation should light a very big fire underneath the FBI to get at the bottom of the ProPublica leak or hack. Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray must fully respond to my letter and help all of us really understand if our tax system is safe and secure.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that James Carmany, a detailee in my office, be granted floor privileges until August 31, 2023, and that another detailee in my office, Dave Lewen, be granted floor privileges until March 3, 2023.

Madam President, last week, while I was meeting with constituents in Iowa, news broke here

in Washington, DC, about Assistant Special Agent in Charge Tim Thibault's retirement.

Since May 31 of this year, I have highlighted Tim Thibault's partisan bias and how it infected major FBI investigations. That included a July 18 letter of this year that highlighted his role in opening a criminal investigation into Trump's campaign and advisers. That investigation is the electoral investigation that has been in the news.

For example, on July 26 of this year, the Washington Post reported on that very same Trump investigation. Now, however, the Post failed to note that Thibault was the prime mover in opening it.

Now get this: The Post failed to note that Tim Thibault predicated the investigation, in a substantial part, on liberal news articles, as well as information derived from a liberal nonprofit. Attorney General Garland and Director Wray approved a full investigation anyway, which, as we all know, was contrary to standard procedure for moving ahead on an investigation.

That Washington Post article occurred 1 day after I made the Trump investigation letter public and 1 day after I made the July 25 Hunter Biden investigation letter public.

Since Tim Thibault's exit from the FBI, I have noticed more news articles and reporting that haven't been accurate with respect to the allegations that I have made public. Let me take this opportunity, then, to correct the record with respect to that inaccurate reporting.

Some reports have noted that the Hunter Biden criminal probe is ongoing; therefore, how can the allegations of Thibault shutting down investigation activity relating to Hunter Biden be credible?

Well, this is the difference: The whistleblower disclosures to me relate to investigative activity and avenues of information that originated entirely separate from the ongoing Hunter Biden criminal probe. That is why the allegations that I made--that I brought forward--are so very, very important, because we are dealing with a separate category of potentially criminal information relating to Hunter Biden that the FBI has within its possession and the information received by the FBI was either verified or verifiable. Even so, based on allegations, the investigative activity was shut down by Special Agent Thibault and, of course, by others based on the false assertion that it was disinformation.

How many times do we have this ``disinformation'' coming up as an excuse all the time with Grassley's investigations?

Now, to be precise, FBI officials want to take action with respect to this separate investigative information that the FBI had in its possession related to Hunter Biden. However, Thibault blocked the FBI from doing what would normally be done. Accordingly, the investigative activity and the information cannot be advanced as it should have been, which means the FBI could have gathered more evidence with respect to Hunter Biden but cut bait instead. And the FBI and Thibault cut bait right before the 2020 Presidential election.

Since the information and activity was shut down, it wouldn't have been initially shared with any ongoing criminal probe. That calls into question, then, what U.S. Attorney Weiss is actually investigating. It also calls into question what the FBI's Baltimore field office is reviewing and whether it is the full scope of evidence.

Now, I have asked Director Wray about that whole issue. I asked him:

How can verified and verifiable information relating to the

Hunter Biden's potential criminality be shared with U.S.

Attorney Weiss if it is shut down?

We have no answer from Director Wray.

At the Judiciary Committee's August 4 oversight hearing, Director Wray said that it is his expectation that such information would be shared with relevant offices.

So, Director Wray, I have this question: What have you done to ensure that your expectation has been met?

Because of Director Wray's failure to answer, Congress is unaware of whether or not the FBI has finally shared full and complete information and investigative activity with any ongoing criminal probe.

Therefore, without additional transparency from the government, there is a very real chance the Hunter Biden criminal probe doesn't include the full evidentiary picture.

Now, how can the American people trust the results? Some have also questioned how an assistant special agent in charge like Thibault can have so much power--power to open and close investigative activities.

Well, that is exactly what he did. And that power is often abused within the FBI. For example, on March 28 of this year, Chairman Durbin and I wrote a letter to the FBI about an audit. That audit showed widespread violations of internal policies designed to ensure proper handling of the FBI's most sensitive investigations.

To read from my letter with Chairman Durbin:

The FBI reviewed 353 Sensitive Investigative Matters--just

under half of all such matters that were pending during this

18-month review period--and identified 747 violations.

In 45 investigations, the FBI didn't conduct or document a legal review prior to opening it. In 40 investigations, the FBI officials who opened a sensitive investigative matter didn't obtain approval from the relevant special agent in charge or even the assistant special agent in charge.

Now, with those statistics, I fear that is just the tip of the iceberg.

In conclusion, let's look at Thibault's recent statement and the allegations he didn't address. I think we have five or six.

First, he didn't address his role in opening a Trump investigation based on liberal news articles and information derived from a liberal nonprofit. Secondly, he didn't address his collaboration with Richard Pilger with respect to that investigation. Third, he didn't address efforts to water down the Trump investigation memo sent to Attorney General Garland and Director Wray which they ultimately approved. Fourth, he didn't address the shutting down of the investigative activity and avenues of information relating to Hunter Biden. Fifth, he didn't address the alleged criminality within the information provided to the FBI about Hunter Biden. Sixth, he didn't address the August 2020 assessment opened by Brian Auten that was used to falsely label Hunter Biden's information as ``disinformation.'' Seventh, he didn't address his actions to try and improperly mark investigative closings so that they couldn't be opened in the future. Lastly, Thibault said that he ``welcomes any investigation'' into allegations against him.

Well, Mr. Thibault, come on in. Sit for a transcribed interview with me and my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this body has a long record of coming together to improve healthcare for Americans.

In 2003, when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, we worked in a bipartisan manner to establish the Medicare Part D benefit. More recently, I have worked with my colleagues on the Finance Committee on oversight and investigations to hold EpiPen manufacturers accountable that were misusing taxpayer dollars and insulin manufacturers and PBMs accountable that were unfairly increasing the list price of insulin. We can work together and meaningfully improve healthcare.

This Congress, I have worked with my Democratic colleagues to pass five of my bills out of committee in a bipartisan way. These bills will lower drug prices, create more competition, while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. Unfortunately, the leader hasn't brought any of these bills up for a vote, even though they would easily pass the U.S. Senate.

But this hasn't stopped me from trying to find other ways to help bring down the cost of medications.

In 2019, as Finance Committee chairman, I began a bipartisan committee process with the ranking member from Oregon to lower the costs of prescription drugs. That bill is entitled the ``Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.''

We held three committee hearings to learn from policymakers and advocates, while also holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. We held a committee markup, where the bill passed 19 to 9 on a bipartisan basis. We continued to hold additional negotiations to make improvements in the bill, even after it got out of committee. It contained stuff that I like. It also contained stuff I didn't like, but that is the way we do bipartisan legislating.

Today, it is still the only comprehensive prescription drug bill that can garner more than 60 votes on the Senate floor.

I recently outlined on the floor the bill's details in case the majority party has forgotten. I won't restate every part of my July 20 speech, but here are some of the bill's key highlights:

One, it lowers costs for seniors by $72 billion and saves the taxpayers $95 billion.

Two, it establishes an out-of-pocket cap, eliminates the doughnut hole, and redesigns Medicare Part D.

Three, it ends taxpayer subsidies to Big Pharma by capping price increases of Medicare Part B and D drugs at inflation.

Four, it establishes accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry.

Five, and most important in this body, the bill is bipartisan.

Now, believe it or not, a bipartisan bill limiting pharmaceutical increases is possible. Compare this to what the majority has offered us. Their partisan bill includes more reckless spending and tax increases. Their partisan bill reduces the number of new cures and treatments. Their partisan bill fails to enact any bipartisan accountability for Big Pharma and, in particular, for PBMs.

Even while the majority party has decided to pursue a purely partisan bill in secret over the past 20 months, I have continued to meet with Democrats and Republicans to advance a bipartisan and negotiated bill. I would prefer a bipartisan bill to pass the U.S. Senate.

We could still pass the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. My colleagues know it. Several of them have thanked me publicly on my bipartisan work to lower prescription drug prices. Sadly, the majority party has chosen a different route.

They have chosen a bill that contains zero--zero--PBM accountability. It gives middlemen a pass. They have chosen a bill that contains none of the 25 accountability and transparency provisions that had bipartisan consensus in my bill.

Finally, one last thing I would like to address about my colleagues' reckless tax and spending. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say this bill's prescription drug provision is what I have described today as Grassley-Wyden. This is untrue. This is a reckless tax-and-spending bill. It is not bipartisan, and no reporter should accept or repeat that notion.

I oppose the partisan bill because it is a long list of reckless tax increases and spending. It is not the bipartisan prescription drug bill that passed out of the Finance Committee 19 to 9.

I will file the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as an amendment today. We could strike and replace this reckless tax-and- spending spree with comprehensive drug pricing reform that could garner more than 60 votes and lower drug prices while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable.

We could actually enact meaningful accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. I will file that amendment as well. We could pursue PBM transparency and accountability, and I will file that amendment as well.

I have said throughout this Congress that I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan-negotiated Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.

To continue on the bill today, the Democrats' most recent reckless tax-and-spending spree suffers from some serious policy whiplash. Just last week, all but one Democrat voted to provide nearly $80 billion in subsidies to some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world. The goal then was to make America a more favorable business environment to attract investments from a critical industry.

But mere hours later, they unveiled a huge tax hike on domestic manufacturing. Democrats tried to justify this 180-degree policy turn by claiming their tax hike is necessary to make corporations ``pay their fair share.'' However, this claim is laughable, given the so- called CHIPS+ bill nearly all Democrats enthusiastically supported last week. As I pointed out at that time, the CHIPS+ bill ensures many large, very profitable semiconductor manufacturers will pay zero tax or even receive payments from the IRS exceeding any tax liability.

Yet Senator Sanders was the only Democrat to express any concern about these profitable companies paying nothing in taxes.

Under the Democrats' so-called book minimum tax, large, profitable corporations favored by Democrats can still escape paying any Federal tax. While they claim their reckless tax-and-spending bill will ensure companies pay their fair share, they include carve-outs and expanded subsidies for their favorite industries.

For example, business tax credits are carved out from Democrats' book minimum tax, including a myriad of souped-up green energy tax breaks.

This is despite the fact that research by the liberal Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy confirms these credits are a significant reason why seemingly profitable companies pay little or no tax.

The Democrats' bill not only carves out certain tax credits, it doubles down with $270 billion in corporate tax subsidies in the name of their Green New Deal agenda. Along with a new provision that allows green energy developers to sell their credits to others, a host of businesses and industries will be able to use this new loophole to pay little or no tax. This could include financial institutions, private equity firms, tech firms, and wealthy private investors.

Democrats' message to the business community is very clear: If you are a large, Democrat-aligned green industry, you have nothing to worry about; paying your ``fair share'' of taxes is optional. But if you are a domestic textile or electronics manufacturer, prepare to be taxed into submission.

This mindset is especially concerning given our increasingly fragile economy. Late last week, we learned our economy contracted for the second straight quarter, indicating, as we know, we are in a recession. The last thing businesses and families need right now are tax hikes and a rash of poorly vetted policies creating even more confusion and uncertainty in the economy. Nonpartisan analyses by the Joint Committee on Taxation and outside groups show this is exactly what Democrats are offering.

During the election, Democrats promised not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000, but the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms their proposal does exactly the opposite. For 2023 alone, Democrats propose a $17 billion tax hike on families and individuals making less than $200,000.

While Democrats' tax hikes hit Americans of all incomes, their proposed benefits are targeted at a privileged few, like helping wealthy Americans purchase $80,000 electric SUVs. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the original version of their bill had a whopping $155 billion tax hike on domestic manufacturing stemming from their so-called book minimum tax.

The National Association of Manufacturers estimated that this tax hike would cost more than 200,000 jobs, reduce labor income by $17 billion, and reduce GDP by nearly $70 billion.

Now, I understand Senator Sinema has since secured changes to the book minimum tax that may lessen the burden on domestic manufacturers. However, even if we assume all the relief secured by Senator Sinema accrues to manufacturers, the best-case scenario is manufacturers will still see a $100-billion-plus tax hit.

Democrats' inflation act still throws blue-collar workers overboard for their Green New Deal. The Democrats' war on manufacturing is mind- boggling. Members of both parties have stressed a need to reshore manufacturing to address supply chain disruptions and delink from China for national security reasons. Saddling manufacturers with a giant tax bill will hurt, not help, our efforts. Targeting manufacturers for tax hikes makes even less sense in the face of our surging inflation.

Democrat tax hikes will curtail investments necessary to increase the supply of goods needed to meet consumer demand. This mismatch between supply and demand is what is actually driving our inflation. The potential harm to our economy is underscored by Penn Wharton's analysis of the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree. They called out the novelty and uncertainty surrounding Democrats' book minimum tax saying more work is needed to understand its impact on capital market efficiency and the economy.

Penn Wharton's analysis also shows Democrats' proposals will do nothing to bring down inflation and are more likely to make inflation worse in the near term. Essentially, Democrats are gambling on untested and unproven policies while our economy is in a recession, real wages are falling, and inflation is soaring.

The truth is, Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree is bad for jobs, bad for the economy, and won't do anything to address what Iowans care about the most: the rising cost of inflation.

I urge my Democrats to rethink your approach. Stop gambling with our Nation's economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this body has a long record of coming together to improve healthcare for Americans. In 2003, we worked in a bipartisan manner to establish the Medicare Part D benefit. More recently, I have worked with my Finance Committee colleagues on oversight investigations to hold: EpiPen manufacturers accountable who were misusing taxpayer dollars, insulin manufacturers and PBMs accountable who were unfairly increasing the list price of insulin, and our organ donation system accountable and investigate its troubling underperformance.

We can work together and meaningfully improve healthcare. This Congress, I have worked with my Democrat colleagues to introduce eight bills to lower drug costs. In the past year alone, we have passed five of my bills out of committee on a bipartisan basis. They will lower drug prices and create more competition while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. Unfortunately, the leader hasn't brought any of these bills up for a vote, even though they would easily pass the Senate. But this hasn't stopped me from trying to find other ways to help bring down the cost of medications.

In 2019, as Finance Committee chairman, I began a bipartisan committee process with the ranking member from Oregon to lower the cost of prescription drugs. The bill is called the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. We held three committee hearings to learn from policymakers and advocates while also holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. We held a committee mark-up where the bill passed 19 to 9, on a bipartisan basis. We continued to hold additional negotiations to make improvements to the bill. It contained stuff I liked and didn't like. But that is bipartisan legislation. Today, it is still the only comprehensive prescription drug bill that can garner more than 60 votes on the Senate floor.

I recently outlined on the floor the bill's details in case the majority party has forgotten. I won't restate every part of my July 20 speech, but here are some of my bill's key measures: No. 1, it lowers costs for seniors by $72 billion and saves taxpayers $95 billion. No. 2, it establishes an out-of-pocket cap, eliminates the donut hole, and redesigns Medicare Part D. No. 3, it ends taxpayer subsidies to Big Pharma by capping price increases of Medicare Part B and D drugs at inflation. No. 4, it establishes accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. No. 5, and the bill is bipartisan. Believe it or not, a bipartisan bill limiting pharmaceutical increases is possible. Compare this to what the majority has offered: Their partisan bill includes more reckless spending and tax increases. Their partisan bill reduces the number of new cures and treatments. Their partisan bill fails to enact any bipartisan accountability for Big Pharma and PBMs.

Even while the majority party has decided to pursue a purely partisan bill in secret over the past 20 months, I have continued to meet with Democrats and Republicans to advance my bipartisan and negotiated bill. I have met or spoken with: President Biden and White House staff, Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, HHS Secretary Becerra, House Democrats who wanted a bipartisan bill, Problem Solvers Caucus Health Care Working Group, Congressman Welch, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, Democrat Senators Sinema and Carper, and others.

I wanted a bipartisan bill to pass this Senate. We could still pass the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. My colleagues know it. Several of them have thanked me publicly on my bipartisan work to lower prescription drug prices. Sadly, they have chosen a different route. They have chosen a bill that contains zero PBM accountability. It gives middlemen a pass. They have chosen a bill that contains none of the 25 accountability and transparency provisions that had bipartisan consensus in my bill. This includes ending DIR clawbacks that are hurting patients pocketbooks and small/independent pharmacies; ending ``spread pricing'' in Medicaid that is drive up taxpayer costs; requiring sunshine on PBMs through financial audits, so we knows the true net cost of a drug; requiring sunshine on excessive drug

price increases and launch price of new high-cost drugs. None of these bipartisan accountability and transparency provisions--and more--are included in their bill.

Finally, one last thing I would like to address about my colleagues' reckless tax and spending bill: I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say this bill's prescription drug provision is Grassley- Wyden. That is untrue. This is a reckless tax and spending bill. It is not bipartisan, and no reporter should accept or repeat that notion. I oppose the partisan bill because it is a long list of reckless tax increases and spending. This is not the bipartisan prescription drug bill that passed out of the Finance Committee 19 to 9.

I have filed the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as an amendment today. We could strike and replace this reckless tax and spending spree with comprehensive drug pricing reform that could garner more than 60 votes and lower drug prices while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. We could actually enact meaningful accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. I have filed that amendment, too. We could pursue PBM transparency and accountability. I have filed that amendment, too.

I have said throughout this Congress, I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan and negotiated Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.

I ask to call up amendment No. 5421, and I ask that it be reported by number.

It is 4:50 a.m., and I want all the people who thought that inflation was going to be transitory to understand that it is persistent, and that persistence of inflation has hurt the Tax Code that tries to help middle-class America.

So my amendment fixes this by providing inflation relief to the middle class by increasing family and education tax provisions to account for Biden inflation.

Moreover, the bill includes important savings incentives that will enable middle-class Americans to save tax-free, ensuring that they aren't taxed on phantom income resulting from inflation.

So I urge my Members to support this. Particularly when you have in this Tax Code things that benefit the rich who can afford Teslas for $80,000, you can surely do something for middle-class America.

Do I have some time left?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I have long fought to protect victims of violent crime. Victims of sexual assault, especially children who are victimized by sexual predators, must be safeguarded. I have worked to ensure the Violence Against Women Act is funded. I steered through the Senate and into law the Survivor's Bill of Rights in the States Act. And I have introduced the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to support victims of human trafficking. I have fought and will continue to fight for victims of violent crime.

When I was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I convened the first congressional hearing on protecting young athletes from sexual abuse. I conducted aggressive oversight into the U.S. Olympic Committee's response following the scandal involving disgraced Olympic physician Larry Nassar. And I worked to ensure that the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act became law, which requires instructors, coaches, and others who work with young athletes to report cases of child sexual abuse to the authorities. But more needs to be done.

I continue to press the Department of Justice for more answers on the FBI's handling of the Nassar case and why Nassar wasn't federally charged for his heinous physical abuse against our Olympic gymnasts. My oversight in this area has brought to the surface more information about how our legal system fails victims of abuse, especially children. Our outdated laws aren't keeping pace with how predators develop new tricks and use new technology.

Children are a gift, but they are vulnerable. They must be protected--not taken advantage of. As a father and a grandfather, the safety and welfare of the next generation is a deeply personal issue to me.

Today, I am pleased to announce that I, along with Senator Ossoff, am introducing the Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Act. We are confident this bill will make children--both at home and around the world--safer from the predators who want to sexually abuse them.

I have worked extensively with the Department of Justice's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to get their feedback and hear about what legislative tools they need to protect children. I look forward to continuing this partnership with them as we improve this legislation.

Victims and advocacy groups focused on this issue endorse this bill, including: U.S. Olympic medalist Tasha Schwikert, the Army of Survivors, the National and International Centers for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, Stop Child Predators, Rights4Girls, the Keep Kids Safe Movement, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, and the Iowa County Attorneys Association. I appreciate their contributions and suggestions in improving this bill and their tireless efforts to keep children safe from the scourge of this kind of abuse.

This bill gives prosecutors more tools in their toolbox to get child abusers away from children. One of the sections in my bill will now make it possible for Federal prosecutors to charge the likes of Larry Nassar with a Federal crime for his abuse of our gymnasts. Another section ensures that Americans who travel abroad under the guise of business or charitable work to abuse children will be held accountable. The final section of this bill modernizes our understanding of child sexual abuse in the digital age.

I wish legislation like this wasn't necessary, but it is. We have to crack down on violent crime against children, and we shouldn't wait another minute to act. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to pass this legislation quickly and keep our children safe from predators.

Madam President, we all know that Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the executive branch executes the laws and uses taxpayers' money appropriately in accordance with congressional intent. It doesn't matter whether we have a Republican President, a Democratic President, a Republican Senate, or a Democratic Senate. We all have the constitutional responsibility of checking the executive branch.

In furtherance of that constitutional responsibility, Congress has an obligation to investigate the executive branch for fraud, for waste, for abuse, and even gross mismanagement.

And if Congress finds potential wrongdoing, we have an obligation to the American people to make sure that it is public because transparency of the public's business brings accountability to those who conduct that public business.

Last week, I made public two oversight letters that I have sent to the Justice Department and to the FBI. These two letters are part of my investigation into a political bias that is infecting the Department of Justice and the FBI.

These letters are based on information provided to my office by whistleblowers, and I hope everybody knows that I consider whistleblowers as patriots. And whistleblowers have to have guts, and they do have guts.

And Director Wray has personally told me that these whistleblowers won't be subject to retaliation, as often, whistleblowers in the Federal Government are subject to retaliation, hurting themselves professionally and maybe even losing their jobs.

Now, these letters that I sent follow up on a May 31, 2022, letter to the Justice Department, the FBI, and the inspector general.

In those letters, I provided evidence of extreme leftwing bias shown by a special agent in charge by the name of Tim Thibault. He is special agent in charge of the FBI's Washington field office.

Now, he has since been referred to the Office of Special Counsel for potential Hatch Act violations. Thibault is at the center of my two letters sent last week. The first letter relates to an FBI investigation that Thibault opened on the Trump campaign and its advisers. He allegedly had help from Richard Pilger, an official in the Justice Department's Election Crime Branch within the Public Integrity Section. During Chairman Durbin's investigation into the Justice Department misconduct, Pilger really stood out.

The committee interviewed Richard Donoghue, the former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General during the Trump administration. He was also a key January 6 Committee witness. Donoghue testified to the Judiciary Committee that Pilger's conduct frustrated the Department's ability to properly operate the Elections Crime Branch.

Thibault and Pilger played a major role in opening the criminal investigation into the Trump campaign. And this isn't a preliminary investigation; it is a full investigation, which requires heightened standards to go forward with that investigation.

According to the whistleblowers that contacted my office, the opening memo for that investigation is based, in substantial part, on liberal news reporting. Liberal news reports are not enough for a full investigation. The Washington Post reported on the investigation last Tuesday. However, the Post did not report that Thibault and Pilger were involved in opening that case against Trump and his advisers. Yet Attorney General Garland and Director Wray allegedly approved opening those investigations.

Now, as I have said in my letter to those two people, if you are going to open an investigation, you have to do it in the right way.

So let's contrast this investigation with what the FBI has done with the information received from sources relating to Hunter Biden. Whistleblowers have told my office that the FBI maintains many sources that have provided extensive information on Hunter Biden. That information allegedly involves potential criminal activity, such as money laundering. That is the same criminal concern that Senator Johnson and I raised in our 2020 Biden report. To clarify, that was way back in 2020. According to the whistleblowers' allegations, the underlying information was verified and was verifiable.

Now, here is where it is appropriate to raise questions about politics and political interference in investigations. However, instead of green-lighting the investigative activity, the FBI shut down the Hunter investigation.

So, now, how did they do that? According to allegations, in August 2020, FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment. That assessment was used by the FBI officials to improperly discredit Hunter Biden's information as you know what? Disinformation. Those officials allegedly included Thibault.

Then, in October 2020, an avenue of additional Hunter reporting was ordered closed at the direction of Special Agent Thibault. It has been alleged that Thibault and others suggested to FBI agents that the information was at risk of being you know what? Disinformation. However, according to allegations, the source reporting was either verified or verifiable via criminal search warrants.

Thibault allegedly ordered the matter closed without providing a valid reason as required by FBI guidelines. In other words, Thibault shut down an allegedly legitimate avenue of information. So in order to shut down Hunter Biden sources and investigative leads, the FBI engaged in a disinformation campaign against itself and its own agents. If these allegations are true and accurate, the Justice Department and the FBI are and have been substantially corrupted.

Before I conclude, I want to know four things regarding the summer of 2020. Yes, the summer of 2020: The opening of Auten's assessment in August 2020; secondly, efforts by the FBI officials to shut down Hunter Biden's investigative activity; third, efforts by the FBI to provide a really unnecessary briefing to me and Senator Johnson in August of 2020--that reading was purportedly about our Biden investigation, but it had nothing to do with the Biden investigation--fourth, and lastly, leaks relating to the briefing and the liberal media and Democrats falsely accusing me and Senator Johnson of advancing Russian information.

All of those four data points happened as Senator Johnson and I prepared to finalize our September 2020 Biden report. These data points show a plan was in place at the FBI to undermine anything related to Hunter Biden.

Attorney General Garland and Director Wray, you both have an obligation to the country to immediately investigate these allegations and to clean house.

And my oversight work on this and related matters will certainly continue.

Madam President, today is a very important date for the relations between the United States and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Today marks 100 years of continuous, uninterrupted diplomatic relations between our country and each of the Baltic countries.

Let me explain why I emphasize continuous, uninterrupted diplomatic relations. Last Saturday marked 82 years since Acting Secretary of State Sumner Welles issued a declaration that is remembered to this day in each of the Baltic countries. Soviet troops had entered the Baltic states, arrested leaders, and organized rigged elections to create pro- Soviet government.

The Welles Declaration decried the ``devious processes whereunder the political independence and territorial integrity of the three small Baltic Republics--Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--were to be deliberately annihilated by one of their more powerful neighbors.'' It was a clear, principled statement that the United States would not recognize Soviet control over these countries as legitimate.

During the 50 years the Soviet Union forcibly occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, diplomats from each of the Baltic states continued their work in the United States, and we continued to recognize them as independent, sovereign countries under foreign occupation.

The Soviet Union justified sending troops to the Baltics on the basis of the threat from Nazi Germany. However, just a year before, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Nazis and Soviets contained a secret protocol whereby Hitler and Stalin agreed to carve up their neighbors into ``spheres of influence.'' Under this agreement, the Baltics, Finland, eastern Poland, and what is now Moldova would be controlled by the Soviet Union, and the rest of Poland would go to Germany. Finland was able to fight back in the Winter War, retaining its sovereignty, but losing significant territory to Russia. The rest of the pact played out just as Stalin and Hitler agreed.

This isn't just history. This is directly relevant to Vladimir Putin's rhetoric, attitude, and actions in Ukraine. He believes he has a right to a sphere of influence over his neighbors just like Stalin and Hitler thought. To this day, Putin maintains that the three Baltics joined the Soviet Union in 1940 and ceased to exist as countries until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Russian Duma has even threatened to repeal a Soviet law recognizing Lithuania's independence from the USSR--what a joke.

Let's be clear: The Baltic states are not former Soviet republics. They have been independent countries for over a century. Following in Stalin's footsteps, Putin justifies attacking Ukraine, at least to audiences outside of Russia, as a reaction to NATO encroaching on Russia. Putin casts NATO as a threat, even making up a claim that NATO was planning to put missiles in Ukraine targeting Russia.

The fact is, even our eastern flank allies in NATO do not currently have the kinds of defensive missiles they would need to repel a Russian invasion, which is unfortunate. Currently, we have meager ``tripwire'' forces that are insufficient to stop the kind of invasion we saw in Ukraine in February. Russia's military leaders know that NATO cannot begin to threaten Russian territory.

There were no allied reinforcements in any NATO country bordering Russia until the invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine was militarily neutral then, but seeking economic ties with the European Union, thus slipping away from economic dependency on Russia.

The fact that NATO has become attractive to Ukraine since Russia seized Crimea and part of the Donbas is a threat not to the territory of the Russian Federation, but to Russia's imperial desire for a sphere of influence. Putin blames Ukraine's westward turn on provocations by western intelligence agencies, failing to recognize that Ukrainians are making their own choices. Just like in 1940, the United States has refused to recognize another Russian occupation of a sovereign country as legitimate.

We were once a small collection of colonies seeking to chart our own, independent course free from European empires. That is why the Welles Declaration expressed admiration for the Baltic countries as they pursued self-government and democracy.

That is why the Welles Declaration made clear that the people of the United States oppose intervention or the use of force by large or powerful countries on smaller, weaker ones. That principle applies today to Ukraine. No one should decide Ukraine's fate except the Ukrainian people. True to our principles, the United States can never, directly or tacitly, consign Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence.

As we celebrate 100 years of excellent diplomatic relations with our Baltic allies, there is no doubt in retrospect that we were right to stand up for their sovereignty, even when that seemed hopeless, even foolish. Fifty years of Russian occupation could not turn them into Russians, just as centuries of Russification policies have not convinced Ukrainians to accept the Russian view that they are just ``little Russians.'' The Baltic countries are thriving democracies with strong Western values and some of our closest allies. Thank God they regained their independence and are now in NATO.

Madam President, I don't know how many years in a row I have been doing this, but this week in July, I always come to the Senate floor to honor whistleblowers.

I expect this week that the Senate will unanimously pass my resolution designating this Saturday, July 30, as National Whistleblower Appreciation Day. This year the resolution has 21 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, more cosponsors than this resolution has had ever before. Now, that should serve as a very important reminder that protecting and celebrating whistleblowers is not a partisan issue. It is just as simple as it being good government.

This Congress, I have been working on several pieces of whistleblower legislation that also have bipartisan support. One of those bills, which I introduced last December along with Senators Warren and Warnock, relates to money laundering. In 2020, Congress established the first-ever anti-money-laundering whistleblower program. Under this reward-based program, whistleblowers who provide actionable information to the government that exposes money laundering may receive a percentage of the funds recovered as a result of their disclosure.

While that is an important step forward, the current program has its issues. First, there is no minimum award amount, so the government isn't

obligated to pay a whistleblower anything at all, even if the information that the whistleblower provides leads to a successful enforcement action. Second, the program doesn't provide the Treasury Department with a mechanism to pay whistleblowers and, instead, relies on yearly congressional appropriations.

My bill addresses these issues. It raises the cap on whistleblower rewards from 25 to 30 percent, and it sets a 10-percent base minimum on rewards to ensure that if the government collects as a result of the whistleblower's disclosure, the whistleblower isn't left holding the short end of the stick. It also establishes a funding mechanism to ensure that the Treasury Department has funds readily available to pay whistleblowers independent of congressional appropriations.

These improvements will ensure that whistleblowers have the confidence to come forward and assist law enforcement in cracking down on money laundering.

The bill also expands the whistleblower disclosures that are eligible for the award. Current whistleblower laws don't offer anything to whistleblowers who report violations of sanctions against individuals. That would include sanctions placed on Russian oligarchs following Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. That is a missed opportunity. I have it on good authority that there are some whistleblowers who might have come forward to report sanction violations associated with the Russians if only the reward system were in place to cover their disclosure. My bill fills the gap by expanding the list of covered disclosures to include sanctions violations.

Another bill which I am introducing this week strengthens the FBI whistleblower protections. For years, the FBI has argued that the FBI and the Justice Department should retain tight control over FBI whistleblower-retaliation cases. The FBI has its own separate whistleblower law that leaves authority for settling FBI whistleblower- retaliation complaints to the FBI and to the Department of Justice.

The bill that I introduce will allow FBI employees to appeal their whistleblower retaliation cases to the Merit Systems Protection Board. This bill gives them outside review by a neutral third party. The bill also includes a kickout provision. That will mean that, if the FBI doesn't act in a timely manner, the whistleblower can take their cases straight to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by Senators Durbin, Hawley, Whitehouse, and Blackburn. I want to thank each of those cosponsors for their support.

Those are just two of several legislative initiatives before Congress that will ensure whistleblowers remain protected. I urge Congress to consider and pass this legislation before the end of the year. Support for whistleblowers is something that we can all get behind. It can and should unite every Member of the Congress who believes government needs to remain transparent and accountable to people. This week, I encourage my fellow Senators to remember that important fact.

Let's renew our shared commitment to strengthening the Nation's whistleblower laws by taking up and passing this important whistleblower legislation.

Mr. President, I want to congratulate News Talk 1540 KXEL on celebrating 80 years of broadcasting to Iowans in the Waterloo and Cedar Falls area. When I was younger, I remember joining my father at the National Cattle Congress and was excited to see one of the early on-location broadcasts of the new KXEL radio station.

Iowans look to broadcasters at KXEL as trusted leaders in the community, relying on its programs each morning, noon, and night to stay up to date on local events, learn more about breaking news, and get critical information during emergencies. As an elected Representative, I particularly want to thank everyone at KXEL for their work to provide a way to communicate with constituents. I have the pleasure of speaking with Jeff Stein at least once a month, where I answer questions on any subject and update Iowans on how I am working on their behalf in Washington.

KXEL's work every single day to report the events that matter to listeners keeps Iowans safe, informed, and engaged. I look forward to my future conversations with KXEL to achieve this shared goal.