Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to congratulate AM 600 WMT- NewsRadio on celebrating 100 years of

broadcasting to Iowans in the Cedar Rapids area. Iowans look to broadcasters at WMT as trusted leaders in the community, relying on their 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 WMT for their work to provide a way to communicate with constituents. I have the pleasure of speaking with Doug Wagner 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.

WMT'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 WMT to achieve this shared goal.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am hearing a lot of news reports, and if they are correct, it sounds like the majority party has a very partisan bill that they want to call a drug pricing bill.

And I am also told that this is moving along because it looks like the Parliamentarian is currently reviewing that proposed legislation to see if it fits into the process of reconciliation.

If the majority party passes its partisan bill, it will be bad policy for patients and taxpayers, but that doesn't mean we don't have answers to the problems that they are trying to solve.

But first of all, let me say what the Senate-proposed legislation-- what we know about it--would do. It would put taxpayers at risk for more spending. It would fail to enact any bipartisan accountability of Big Pharma and powerful middlemen that we call pharmacy benefit managers or PBMs for short.

Yes, a bipartisan bill limiting pharmaceutical increases is possible. And their bill has been developed in secret, with no markup or open debate.

Now, this partisan bill and this process are a far cry from bipartisan drug pricing ideas that I have developed over the past few years.

In the past 12 months alone, I have passed five bipartisan drug pricing bills out of committee that will lower prices and create more competition and hold Big Pharma and PBMs accountable.

In addition, I have a comprehensive bill to lower prescription drug prices that could pass the Senate with at least 60 votes. My bill is bipartisan; it has been negotiated; and it is comprehensive.

The bill is called the Prescription Drug Pricing Act. It is also known as Grassley-Wyden, but I want to be fair to Wyden. I am not sure that he would claim that he negotiated that bill, but I still like the bipartisan part of it.

The Senate should act today on this bipartisan bill to lower drug prices because this is what Grassley-Wyden would do: It would lower costs for seniors by $72 billion. It would save the taxpayers $95 billion. Those are CBO figures.

It establishes an out-of-pocket cap, eliminates the donut hole, and it redesigns Medicare Part D, that needs some redesigning after 19 years. This legislation will hold Big Pharma and powerful PBMs accountable.

Now, too often, cheaper alternatives like generics are available, but Big Pharma and these middlemen have an incentive to push the patient into higher-cost drugs, and patients pay the cost. My bill ends that incentive and is very pro-consumer.

A third point I want to make, it ends taxpayer subsidies to Big Pharma. It does it by capping annual price increases of Medicare Part B and D drugs at inflation. In other words, drug companies can't raise prices two or three times a year 5 to 10 percent--once a year at no more than CPI.

A Kaiser Foundation study found that half of the drugs in Medicare Part B and D increased higher than inflation over the period of time that Kaiser study covered. Over 600 drugs during the study increased 7.5 percent or more.

Another point of the bill: It establishes accountability and transparency. There are 25 major provisions to my bill to reform how the pharmaceutical industry operates.

Accountability in my bill includes, one, ending clawbacks that drive up costs at pharmacy counters for the patient. Second, ending ``spread pricing'' in Medicaid contracts that drive up taxpayers' costs. Three, requires sunshine on powerful PBM financial audits so the public knows the true net cost of a drug.

Everything with PBMs is opaque. You don't know what goes on between the manufacturer and the consumer.

And, four and lastly, requires sunshine on excessive drug price increases and sunshine on the launch price of a new high-cost drug.

Big Pharma and powerful middlemen benefit from the current system that we have today, and at the same time, patients and taxpayers suffer. My bill's bipartisan reform will change all of that.

Finally, the bill is bipartisan. I suppose Democrats get tired of me talking about a bipartisan bill when they are in the secrecy of their rooms drawing up their own bill.

We have 11 Republicans who supported this bill in the Finance Committee markup or are cosponsors of the bill. Thirteen Democrats supported this bill in markup. It was debated and negotiated in public.

But don't take my word for it, take it from some of my Democratic colleagues. A few months ago, the senior Senator from Delaware said this:

Senator Grassley did, I thought, a masterful job in

drafting a bill with broad bipartisan support.

And the chairman of the Finance Committee and senior Senator from Oregon--and he is probably going to hate me for saying this, but I am going to quote him:

Big Pharma was relentless in fighting what Senator Grassley

is talking about and has been for 2 years.

My bill will save seniors money, save taxpayers money, hold Big Pharma and powerful middlemen accountable, and enact necessary reform and sunshine; plus, it has bipartisan support.

So we can lower drug prices without having to resort to this partisan reconciliation process. The Grassley Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act is a solution. It is a product of a bipartisan, transparent process. Compare that to the secrecy of the Democratic reconciliation process.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, at each of my 99 county meetings and in conversations with Iowans generally, the record cost of living is top of mind as Iowa families feel the impact of 9.1 percent inflation. They feel that on their family budgets, for sure.

Due to rampant inflation spurred by reckless government spending, consumer prices are escalating at a historic pace. Middle-class Americans are paying more for everything from gasoline, food, and shelter, to home furnishings, prescription drugs, and clothing.

Since President Biden took office January 2021, consumer prices have increased, on average, 12 percent nationally. As a result, the average Iowa household has seen its monthly living expenses increase to $670 a month. The rising cost of transportation, energy, and food has hit household budgets particularly hard.

Since January 2021, Americans on average are paying an extra $206 a month on energy, $334 a month on transportation and gas, and an additional $76 a month for food. It is no wonder inflation is the No. 1 concern that I hear about as I tour Iowa's 99 counties.

Rising wages have helped some Iowans manage the rising cost of living. However, for most, rising prices have far outpaced the wage gains. While trying to make up an extra $600 a month is hard enough for wage earners, it is next to impossible for senior

citizens who are on fixed incomes. For senior citizens, there is no prospect of getting a raise like you might get if you have a job. They must make do by stretching their Social Security checks, their pensions, or investment income, if they have that. They must count on just stretching that as far as they can.

While there is an annual cost of living adjustment intended to maintain the purchasing power of Social Security benefits, this adjustment lags inflation increases. The 5.9 percent COLA for 2022 was the largest increase since 1982, the last time we had this out-of- control inflation. However, that is far below the 9.1 percent annual inflation rate reported for June. So just like wages go up 5.5, they can't keep up with a 9.1 percent increase inflation.

So you get a 5.9 percent increase in your COLA for Social Security; that is far below the 9.1 percent increase in inflation. Now, the Social Security Administration reports the 2023 COLA will be between 7.3 percent and 10.8 percent. Well, that might help. But will it make up for what inflation is?

Unfortunately, seniors have another 6 months until they see this relief in their benefit payments.

The current turmoil in the stock market has made it even harder for seniors to keep their heads above water. They are seeing their retirement savings in 401(k)s, their IRAs, and their non-tax-advantaged accounts eroded by stock market declines, by inflation, and by taxes.

Seniors are understandably looking to the administration and to this very Congress to take action to address inflation and rising prices. Unfortunately, all the administration and a majority in Congress have offered them are false assurances, more reckless spending, and damaging tax hikes.

It is time that we try an entirely different approach. That approach should be one focused on fiscal prudence, targeted non-inflation inducing relief, and increasing market competition or boosting supply.

The most important thing Congress can do to fight inflation is stop its reckless spending. Even better would be to trim the budget to eliminate unnecessary spending.

As for providing inflation relief, it must be done in a way that won't add to our growing debt or further fuel the flames of inflation. One way to do this is to provide targeted inflation relief that incentivizes and rewards taxpayers who save rather than spend.

This is the approach taken in the Middle-Class Savings and Investment Act, which I introduced last month. Under my legislation, most middle- class savings and investment income would be subject to zero tax. This means middle-class seniors would be subject to no Federal income tax on their long-term capital gains and dividend income. They would also be exempt from Federal tax on up to $600 of interest income that they earn in a year. Exempting most middle-class savings from tax not only provides relief to those seniors and to others but also will reduce tax bias that favors consumption over saving.

While not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination to stop inflation, encouraging more consumers to save rather than spend may help reduce inflation pressures by dampening demand.

Importantly, my proposal is fully paid for, so it won't add to our unsustainable debt and deficits.

In addition to practicing fiscal responsibility and providing sensible, targeted relief, I support policies designed to hold down prices by increasing supply and promoting greater competition in the marketplace. A prime example of this is my work to rein in out-of- control prescription drug prices.

Americans--especially our seniors--are paying too much for their prescription drugs. AARP says brand-name drugs that seniors use are going up more than twice the rate of inflation. Recent data indicates that nearly a half million seniors filled a single prescription that met their out-of-pocket threshold and millions of seniors are reaching the catastrophic phase of Part D.

We must act to lower prescription drug prices. I passed out of the Finance Committee a bipartisan and negotiated bill that will lower the cost of prescription drugs. It is called Grassley-Wyden or by its name the ``Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.'' It saves seniors $72 billion and taxpayers $95 billion. It caps out-of-pocket costs at $3,100 and eliminates the doughnut hole. And perhaps the most important part of it will also cap year-over-year price increases of prescription drugs at the CPI. This also ends taxpayer subsidies to Big Pharma and provides real relief to our seniors.

Let's not waste another minute to lower drug prices. I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan Grassley-Wyden bill.

In addition to prescription drugs, I am leading the charge to lower the cost of grocery bills. The big four meatpackers who have over 85 percent of the market use anticompetitive tactics to hurt smaller producers or independent family farmers. While independent farmers in Iowa are forced to sell livestock at dirt-cheap prices, the cost to the consumer is climbing to a historic high level. This is happening at the same time the big four packers are reaping record profits.

Just this past week, Sysco--the largest food distributor in the United States--filed a lawsuit against these very same big four packers alleging price fixing. Sysco claims that these packers intentionally reduce the number of slaughtered cattle to inflate beef prices that families must pay at the supermarket.

We must maintain a cash market for cattle producers and thus increase competition. Toward this goal, I am spearheading two bipartisan bills that sailed through the Senate Agriculture Committee that would do just that.

Another reason why we are seeing high prices on store shelves is the high price of gasoline and diesel. Contrary to what some people believe, food does not grow on grocery store shelves; food comes to the stores on trucks. And our country has never seen prices at the pump as high as they are right now. In fact, gas prices have doubled since President Biden took office.

Instead of focusing on domestic fuel production, the President and his administration have caved to environmentalists in shaping our energy policies. Since energy is an input in every item on the store shelves, energy prices mean climbing prices at the cash register at Hy- Vee in Des Moines, IA, or Walmart anyplace in the country and every other store.

It is time to reverse course on President Biden's energy policies and pursue an ``all of the above'' strategy. Let's go back to being energy independent rather than energy dependent.

Instead of just talking about inflation and its impact on Iowa families and seniors, it is time for this Congress to stop reckless spending and start focusing on commonsense relief and reforms. I am leading the charge to do just that through targeted tax relief--the savings bill that I talked about; market reforms in key industries to hold down prices, like the cattle bill I was talking about; and by boosting the supply of fuel to keep prices at the pump in check. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in these efforts.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am here today in the Senate to sound the alarm about one of America's guiding principles--everybody knows about this--the constitutional principle of civilian control of our military, very much a cornerstone of our Republic.

This fundamental principle of self-government may have been in jeopardy during the final days of the Trump administration, but before I get to that, I will provide a historical context.

That principle became part of the American fabric on June 14, 1775, when the Congress of the Continental Congress appointed George Washington commander of the Continental Army. His commission ordered him to report to civilian authorities.

It specified:

You--

Meaning the new General Washington--

are punctually to observe such orders and directions, from

time to time, as you shall receive from this, or a future

Congress of these United Colonies.

Well, he followed that. At the war's end, General Washington gave this

principle lasting purpose, and he did it with power and grace.

On December 23, 1783, in a solemn ceremony at the statehouse in Annapolis, George Washington voluntarily surrendered his commission, as well as his military power, to civilian authority, the President of the Continental Congress. The scene is memorialized in a dramatic John Trumbull painting that is displayed in the Rotunda not far from here. All of my colleagues go through that part of this Capitol every day and probably don't pay a lot of attention to it, but it is an important description of our basic constitutional principles.

We know there are other ways of doing these things in other countries. We know that dictators rule their nations with an iron fist because they control the sword. Washington selflessly laid down that sword to ensure America's destiny for generations to come. He chose to disband the Army and return to private life at Mount Vernon.

One scholar explained it this way:

The Virginian . . . went home to plow.

By this noble act, Washington cemented a crown jewel of self-rule: civilian control of the military. Five years later, as Washington was elected President, this bedrock principle was enshrined in our Constitution.

While this governing rule is essential to the preservation of democracy, it has been challenged with grave consequences. The Truman- MacArthur dispute over conducting the Korean war is a case in point. President Truman wanted to limit the war. General MacArthur disagreed. General MacArthur defied orders, and General MacArthur criticized his Commander in Chief's--Truman's--decision, and he did that publicly, so Truman fired him for insubordination.

Now I want to get to the main purpose of coming to the floor. Recently, several books, including a book entitled ``Peril'' by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, suggest that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, may have trampled on this principle. The book ``Peril'' provides an alarming account of his words and deeds.

Milley told the authors he ``was certain'' that the Commander in Chief was ``in serious mental decline . . . and could go rogue and order military action or the use of nuclear weapons. Milley felt no absolute certainty the military could control or trust the President.''

So Milley, in his words, ``took any and all necessary precautions.''

``His job,'' he said, was ``to think the unthinkable'' and, in his words, ``pull a Schlesinger.'' To ``contain Trump,'' he had to ``inject a second opinion.'' His opinion was then injected into the command structure.

In doing so, he may have stepped out of his lane as the President's principal military adviser and into the statutory chain of command where law doesn't allow him to go because, by law, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has no command authority.

When President Nixon faced a crisis over impeachment and resignation, Secretary of Defense Schlesinger feared that he might order an unprovoked nuclear strike. So he, Schlesinger, reportedly took extra legal steps to prevent it. That is the same Schlesinger that Milley referred to as he was being interviewed for this book.

It happens that ``pulling a Milley'' as opposed to a ``Schlesinger'' is a very different kettle of fish. A four-star general can't ``pull a Schlesinger.'' Schlesinger was at the top of the chain of command, just below the President. He kept the President's constitutional command authority firmly in civilian hands as the Constitution requires. Milley allegedly placed military hands--his hands--on controls that belong exclusively to the President.

According to ``Peril,'' the book I am referring to, he summoned senior operations officers in the Military Command Center to his office. He had them take ``an oath'' not to ``act'' on the President's orders without checking with him first.

These brazen words and actions, if accurate, strike at the heart of our democracy: civilian control of the military. They turn this guiding rule upside down and show utter contempt for the Commander in Chief. Coming from the Nation's top general, they are dangerous and contrary to military code 10 U.S.C. 888.

After describing Milley's actions, the book's authors rightly ask this question: ``Was he subverting the President?'' Had he ``overstepped his authority and taken extraordinary power for himself?''

Milley assured this Senator in a letter to this Senator that his actions were on the up and up. The book, however, seems to imply a different story. I had a hearing where the general was. Senator Blackburn asked him about the mismatch. He replied: ``I haven't read any of the books, so I don't know.''

She said to him: ``Read them and report back to us.''

He said: ``Absolutely,'' he agreed. ``Happy to do that.''

Nine months later, he is still dodging the question with the same lame excuse.

To crank up the pressure, I joined Senators Paul and Blackburn a few months ago in a letter pushing for a straight answer. When none came, I began sending handwritten notes to the general. I soon received a 10- page letter from General Milley that ignored the question. My second note sparked an email. It claimed that our letter did not raise ``a direct question'' and asserted ``General Milley answered the specific questions.''

I think I can legitimately ask: Is that Pentagon baloney or what is it?

After my third note, General Milley responded with the same old smoke-and-mirrors routine: ``I have never read the books.''

Years of oversight have taught me this lesson: Evasive answers usually offer revealing clues about the truth. I think General Milley knows better. He knows the score. If those books and all attendant press coverage of those books contained gross misrepresentations, we would have heard about it a long time ago. He would have hammered the authors and corrected the record. However, to date, not a peep from the general. His silence speaks volumes.

Something doesn't smell right. As the Pentagon watchdog, when I get a whiff of wrongdoing, I sink in my teeth and don't let go.

So Congressman Jim Banks, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and I upped the ante on April 11. With 12 pointed questions, we gave General Milley a second bite of the apple to clear the air. Now, 2\1/2\ months later, we still have no response.

General Milley, you said you were going to answer Senator Blackburn's question. Honor your word. Answer the question. Come clean with the American people. We are all ears.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before I speak, I have been asked to make a unanimous consent request that Senators Scott, Hoeven, Barrasso, and I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each prior to the votes and that Senator Bennet be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the votes.

Madam President, over the July 4 recess of Congress, I held Q&A's in 17 counties as part of my annual 99 county meetings. The need for energy independence and the concerns over soaring gas prices were raised at nearly every meeting. As an example, at Woodford Equipment in Emmetsburg, IA, farmers raised their concerns over the high cost of diesel and their pricey commutes to work at that business caused by President Biden's failed energy policies.

Today is a very difficult time for American families and businesses, with gas and diesel prices at record highs--more than doubling since President Biden took office. Americans who drive every day are feeling the impact of an administration that is making it harder to drill and refine fossil fuels.

President Biden has stated that it is the administration's goal to have half of the Nation's vehicles be electric by the year 2030. The Energy Secretary

has said that to beat the high gas prices, Americans should purchase electric vehicles. Now, that is practically impossible for most families because the average price of an electric vehicle, according to Kelley Blue Book, is $56,000. That happens to be roughly equivalent to Iowa's median family income.

Even if having half of all cars be electric by 2030 were attainable-- which, of course, it isn't--that presents yet another real problem. Large swaths of the United States' electrical grid are at risk for shortfall this summer. In May, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation released its summer reliability assessment. They identified the West and Midwest as being at heightened risk for energy shortfalls. The farm where I live near Cedar Falls, IA, is served by Cedar Falls municipal electricity, and this is the first time in my life that I have ever gotten a warning from that electric company that we could have brownouts. So if all cars were electric, the United States would need roughly 25 percent more electricity than it does today. We simply cannot add that many electric vehicles to the grid.

While gas prices have gone through the roof, energy prices are not far behind. From June last year until May this year, the Consumer Price Index for electricity rose 12 percent. That is the largest increase in the past 15 years.

With reliability concerns increasing this summer and energy prices rising, Democrats still continue to pursue their Green New Deal agenda. There continue to be rumors of another massive tax-and-spending spree passed on a partisan vote that would push prices even higher.

It is past time for Democrats in Congress and the White House to rethink our Nation's energy policy. Instead of becoming more like Europe, the United States must have an ``all of the above'' strategy. Our country has bountiful resources for energy generation. I am very proud of Iowa, a State that produces over 60 percent of its electricity from wind, but I know that this does not work in every State of the Nation. Fossil fuels still account for 60 percent of electricity generated in the United States.

Instead of focusing on domestic energy production, the President and his administration have caved to environmentalists in shaping our energy policies. Utilities and energy companies are up to the task to provide affordable energy to all Americans. Every year, these companies are becoming cleaner and reducing our carbon footprint. Nevertheless, Washington continues to layer regulation upon regulation, making costs go up.

Between new requirements on banking, blocking new oil leases, and blocking key pipelines, Democrats in Congress seem determined to inflict pain at the pump and also on our energy bills. The world has dramatically changed since President Biden took office. Democrats need to adjust their priorities and stop this madness.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am back to the floor for reasons that my Senator friends are tired of hearing me talk about all the time, but I have come back to give you a specific example of retaliation against whistleblowers, Agencies of the government not answering letters that we have sent, and also what I believe is some political interference in some of my oversight work. Today, it deals specifically with the Department of Veterans Affairs--as we know it around here, the VA.

On April 2 of last year, 2021, I sent letters to the VA and the VA Office of Inspector General based on allegations from multiple whistleblowers. Those whistleblowers reported numerous ethical violations, retaliation, and possible leaking of market-sensitive information that may have affected retail investors. I have been waiting more than a year for a response to my inquiries.

Emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by a government watchdog group called Empower Oversight show that career public servants at the VA prepared a response to my letter over a year ago, but when it came time for the Secretary of the VA, McDonough, to send that letter to my office, senior Biden political officials blocked it. It appears that Biden-appointed VA officials have issued an order not to respond to my request, and I have a pretty good reason why.

We know that the VA received these allegations from whistleblowers early on, and the VA ignored them. Whistleblowers alleged, among other things, conflicts of interest between a senior-level VA official and a company represented by her husband. This official, Charmain Bogue, has since left public service. The company that employed her husband, Barrett Bogue, is entitled ``Veterans Education Success,'' or VES.

On multiple occasions, starting in December of 2017, an employee at VA sought guidance from VA lawyers on whether Ms. Bogue should recuse herself on procurement-related matters. The lawyers affirmed that Ms. Bogue should recuse herself, and the employee even copied Ms. Bogue on that guidance of recusal. The employee also alerted VA leadership of Ms. Bogue's need to recuse herself. Ms. Bogue never recused herself, but the VA employee was reportedly removed from Federal service. Now, that is retaliation. That is unjustified. It should never happen.

In response to my letter about these and other allegations, the VA Office of Inspector General immediately opened an investigation. The VA Office of Inspector General uncovered more wrongdoing than originally thought, and I have four points that they uncovered. I am only going to go into those four.

Ms. Bogue participated in matters involving her husband's employer, contrary to ethics guidance. Ms. Bogue's interaction with that company violated the apparent conflict rules. Ms. Bogue did not provide sufficient detail to VA ethics about her spouse's business. No. 4, Ms. Bogue refused to cooperate fully in the OIG's investigation.

These are only some of the allegations that I have received.

The VA Office of Inspector General did not review the allegations of whistleblower reprisal; nor did it investigate whether VA employees mishandled nonpublic information.

I raised questions about all of these issues, and to date, I have had no substantive communication from Secretary McDonough about any of these questions I have raised. So what is the VA hiding? What else did the VA know or choose to ignore?

Congress needs answers not stonewalling. Independent government watchdogs and whistleblower advocates have called on the VA to review government grants and screen for companies and individuals who have engaged in wrongdoing. They have also urged the VA to consider whether those individuals or entities should be able to obtain government contracts in the future.

I would be very interested to know whether those who refuse to cooperate with an OIG request can still obtain taxpayer money through government contracts. The Biden administration has claimed, time and again, that it is the most transparent administration in U.S. history. Well, I think I just gave you an example that that is not true, and it certainly hasn't been true, in this case, for emphasis.

The VA deserves much better. Of course, the VA serves our veterans, and our veterans deserve much better from that Agency. The VA needs to start being as transparent as they claim to be transparent and cooperate with this investigation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on May 9 of this year, Senator Johnson and I wrote to David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware. Now, he happens to be in charge of the Hunter Biden criminal case. In that letter, we asked Mr. Weiss a series of threshold questions that Attorney General Garland has repeatedly failed to answer.

First, we asked whether Nicholas McQuaid is recused from the Hunter Biden case. As we have said publicly many times, McQuaid is conflicted because he worked with Hunter Biden's criminal attorney before he was hired as a top position in President Biden's Justice Department.

Second, we asked Mr. Weiss whether he or any of his employees have had any communications with McQuaid.

Third, we asked Mr. Weiss whether any of his employees, not just Mr. McQuaid, are recused from the Hunter Biden case.

We asked these questions because the Biden family is from Delaware and has extensive political connections. Notably, Hunter Biden told his business partners:

I'll bring suit in the Chancery Court in Delaware--which as

you know is my home state and I'm privileged to have worked

with and know every judge in the Chancery Court.

Does the Biden family have connections to anyone in Mr. Weiss's office? That seems to be a very fair question.

With respect to those three questions, Mr. Weiss didn't even try to answer. In fact, the Attorney General jumped in and answered on behalf of U.S. Attorney Weiss. But calling the Attorney General's letter an answer is an overstatement. It was another nonanswer--essentially just words on a piece of paper that didn't say anything worthwhile.

So Senator Johnson and I also asked Mr. Weiss if he has received sufficient resources and support from the Justice Department to properly handle the Hunter Biden case.

Again, no answers.

One would think that the Department, and specifically Mr. Weiss, would want to tell Congress and the American public that the answer to that question is yes. The failure of Mr. Weiss to answer that very important question adds to the growing concern and public concern that the Justice Department is pulling the punches on the Hunter Biden case.

We also asked Mr. Weiss whether he has discussed the need for a special counsel or an independent counsel to properly investigate the Hunter Biden case.

Again, no answer.

The last question is more relevant today than when it was asked because the other week a voicemail was released reportedly from Joe Biden to Hunter Biden. In it, Joe Biden repeatedly left a message about a New York Times article that involved Hunter Biden's dealings with Ye Jianming. That business associate is closely connected to the communist Chinese regime.

Joe Biden told his son: ``I think you're clear.''

Well, that message appears to show that Joe Biden was aware of Hunter Biden's business deals and relationships. So the White House strategy for the President to continue to deny knowledge of these business relationships falls very flat.

On July 30, 2021, and on June 28, 2022, Senator Johnson and I wrote to the White House counsel. We wrote about then-Vice President Biden's use of nongovernment email to transmit government information to Hunter Biden. The White House counsel's office refuses to answer whether President Biden still communicates government business to Hunter Biden, among other questions that we posed.

So what do we get? More stonewalling.

Most recently, on July 7, this year, Senator Johnson and I wrote to the Attorney General, FBI Director, and U.S. Attorney Weiss. In our letter, we asked again about recusals of Hunter Biden's case. We also noted that recent reporting on Hunter Biden showed more connections between him and foreign nationals--this time, Russians and Ukrainians. Those additional links further support my and Senator Johnson's conclusion in our September 2020 Biden report that Hunter Biden's activity causes criminal, counterintelligence, and extortion concerns.

At the time, our findings were ignored or falsely labeled Russian disinformation by Democrats and by liberal media. We gave floor speeches on March 28, this year, March 29, this year, April 5, that introduced bank records connecting Hunter and James Biden to the communist Chinese regime. The same connections that we made in our 2020 report. Those bank records have proven to be authentic and, hence, aren't Russian disinformation.

For years, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle levied complaints against the Trump administration's Justice Department for the lack of transparency. Now, why aren't those same Democrat colleagues raising this concern about this administration not showing the proper transparency?

Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure the proper execution of, and compliance with, conflicts of interest laws and regulations. The failure of the Justice Department to comply with these rules will cause political infection to run rampant. And, of course, that will rot the core of the Justice Department and cast a cloud over everything that the Department of Justice does.

As I have said before, the Justice Department's failure to be transparent with the Hunter Biden criminal case and recusals related to it has cast a cloud over that investigation. So I ask: What is the Justice Department trying to hide?

The American people's concern about how the case has been managed, these concerns are very legitimate.

To Attorney General Garland, to Wray, and to Mr. Weiss, I strongly urge you to clear the cloud sooner rather than later.

Madam President, on another matter, I want to say a few words--I suppose too few words--about the tragedy that happened at Highland Park on July Fourth where seven souls lost their lives. On that day, a disturbed and troubled young man opened fire from a rooftop at crowds below who were attending that Fourth of July parade event.

Like many disturbed men before him, there was a long trail of warning signs. Police and prosecutors contacted him twice in 2019 when he was still a teen, including when he attempted suicide. We shouldn't bear to see these predictable signs anymore. I ask again this Congress to pass my EAGLES Act of 2021. This bill provides the proper training to recognize the signs of a person mobilizing to do violence and then give the opportunity to intercede before these bad acts take place.

There is a pattern to these tragedies, and we need to pass the EAGLES Act to make sure more people are aware of how to identify these young men and get them the help they need before we have another tragedy.

Madam President, on another matter, I had the privilege of spending time meeting with Iowa law enforcement during a recent break when the Congress was not in session. I met with them to hear directly what they are facing on the ground. I asked what support they needed from Congress and what challenges these people are facing.

Law enforcement faces too many problems, and we need to understand more how that affects their work and their morale. Do you know what I heard from these people? That recruiting new officers and retaining their current officers is a harder job for the chiefs to do than ever. In part, this is because young people are being told by leaders, even Members of Congress, that being in law enforcement is not an honorable profession. They are hearing that it isn't a career worth pursuing.

These Iowa officers asked me to speak with my fellow legislators to stop that kind of nonsense talk, and they happen to be right when they give us that advice, that we ought to honor the policemen today and law enforcement generally. There is no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his community, and that sacrifice of personal safety for the well-being of others is what law enforcement embodies every day.

Recruiting and retaining good officers is also hard because of the increase in ambush attacks on law enforcement. Not only are citizens much less cooperative when dealing with law enforcement, but some are actually intentionally targeting and murdering our law enforcement personnel. Twenty twenty-one was the most dangerous year to be a law enforcement officer in the last two decades. Many officers in Iowa aren't volunteering for overtime anymore because it is too dangerous.

An ambush attack like this happened a few weeks ago in Los Angeles. Two officers responded to reports of a stabbing. When they knocked on the door, they were shot and killed by a gang member who was out on probation. He should have been already in jail, but he caught a huge break from progressive prosecutors in that city.

That wasn't the first time an officer was killed by a gang member in Los Angeles this year. This type of tragedy is getting replayed over and over again throughout the country, but we simply don't have good data on gang violence and on assaults on law enforcement, so we don't know the exact number of gang killings of policemen.

We need more data, which is why I am working on two pieces of legislation to improve data collection on both gang violence and assaults on law enforcement. The Senate Judiciary Committee will have a hearing on attacks on police to discuss these issues. I look forward to having it during that period. I hope my colleagues will stay on target and focus on the violence these brave men and women face and not use this as a forum to chastise police. We cannot wait any longer to talk about this issue and the effects it is having on our communities.

Honoring Sergeant John Williams and Deputy Sheriff Austin ``Melvin''

Richardson

Madam President, while I am addressing this issue, I have some related and tragic news. Once again we in Iowa have a heavy heart as I recognize two Iowa officers who recently died in the line of duty.

Sergeant John Williams of the Coralville Police Department died from a medical issue while he was on patrol July 3. He was described by those who knew him as ``an extraordinary officer, a friend, and a neighbor'' and also a ``fantastic family man and a true public servant.'' He was a fixture in the community as a 28-year veteran of the force, the longest serving sergeant with the Coralville Police Department--a department which said that Sergeant Williams' ``knowledge, experience, and leadership will be near-impossible to replace.''

Deputy Sheriff Austin ``Melvin'' Richardson perished on June 14 in a traffic collision. Deputy Richardson was a dedicated public servant in law enforcement for 15 years. He was an officer for Sidney, IA, and then joined the Fremont County Sheriff's Office in 2015, where he faithfully served since. Deputy Richardson truly fulfilled the meaning of a public servant. He was not only a member of law enforcement but also a volunteer firefighter for Percival and Sidney. He was described as a ``staple'' in the community, and he will be deeply missed.

Sergeant Williams is survived by his wife Kim; his four children: Brandon, Benjamin, Sarah, and Rebekah; as well as six grandchildren: Noah, Elijah, Elsa Adalyn, Kalliope, and Emma.

Deputy Richardson will be left behind by his wife Jennifer and three daughters, Bryxtol, Cheyenne, and Everly.

I say to all of them: Your sacrifice is honored and appreciated in your community and by your country. We thank you all.

Mr. President, I would like to submit for the record a statement of commendation to Sheila and Ronald Wetjen for recently celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. Sheila and Ron were married on February 5, 1972, in Dubuque, IA, and raised five children: Nicholas, Mark, Sean, Melissa, and Amanda. They also now have nine grandchildren: Grace, Cullen, Xavier, Rourke, Reece, Finnegan, Rockwell, Sophia, and Wyatt.

I would like to commend Sheila and Ron for their commitment to each other, their children, their grandchildren, their faith, and their country. Sheila and Ron represent so many of the ideals that gave rise to this great country and bind it together today--the importance of family and an enduring selflessness and faith in others that speaks to a firm commitment to the common good. We wish Sheila and Ron our congratulations all for this great achievement and wish them many more years of faithful marriage.

Mr. President, I am here today to visit with my colleagues about a group that we refer to as pharmacy benefit managers, but around Washington, the shorthand for that term is PBMs.

Many Americans may not know about PBMs. They are very obscure in the whole pharmaceutical business. Yet the PBM market is nearly $500 billion, and they are powerful in our pharmaceutical drug supply chain.

It is our duty in Congress to understand, first, how PBMs operate; second, hold them accountable; and, third, work to lower prescription drug costs for the taxpayers and for the consumers.

In 2018, I pressed the Federal Trade Commission to investigate PBMs. I saw the ongoing consolidation in the pharmaceutical supply chain and its impact on drug prices, driving those prices up. But I didn't wait for the FTC to act.

I have pursued, one, bipartisan legislation; two, held hearings; and, three, conducted oversight. Most recently, Senator Cantwell and I have introduced the PBM Transparency Act. This bill prohibits PBMs from engaging in spread pricing. This is a situation where PBMs charge an insurer more than they charge the pharmacy and then they pocket the difference. Iowans call that gaming the system.

Another practice we prohibit in our bill: clawbacks. In Medicare Part D, these are sometimes called retroactive direct and indirect remuneration fees--or DIR, for short.

Iowa pharmacists have told me clawbacks are costing patients more in higher copays and also costing the local pharmacy. This practice is putting rural and independent pharmacists out of business. In addition, our bill will incentivize fair and transparent PBM practices, benefiting consumers and taxpayers.

The bill has the support of community pharmacists, manufacturers, and patient advocacy organizations. Not surprisingly, this industry we call PBMs oppose the Cantwell-Grassley bill. They say my bill is ``anti- competitive'' and, in their words, an ``expansion of power at the FTC.'' They also claim that their industry is already well-regulated. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My bill establishes transparency and accountability. So good news: Tomorrow, the Commerce Committee will mark up the PBM Transparency Act. I don't happen to sit on this very important Commerce Committee, but I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Finally, I have never given up on passing the bipartisan Wyden- Grassley bill, known as the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. Despite the Democrats having the majority for 18 months, we have not passed a prescription drug bill. So we still have high prescription drug prices.

By now, I would assume they would be interested in advancing a bipartisan prescription drug bill. They can get 60-plus votes, save the taxpayers $95 billion and seniors, who are consumers, $72 billion-- rather than a partisan effort that doesn't have 60 votes here in the U.S. Senate.

I want my colleagues to know I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley bill.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.