Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor to tell my colleagues about a bill I am introducing today to encourage savings. To set the stage for the necessity of that bill, I am going to speak for a minute about the obstacles that this administration's economic policies--particularly inflation--have put in that give need for such legislation.

On Friday, we learned that inflation surged to 8.6 percent, a new 40- year high for inflation. Inflation is the No. 1 concern that I hear from Iowans as I do my 99-county tour throughout the State over the course of a year. I hear how rising prices, particularly for food and energy, are cutting into budgets, making it difficult to make ends meet.

Moreover, I hear from Iowans who are concerned that inflation is eating into their savings. That gets to the purpose of the legislation I am going to soon talk about. This is particularly true for seniors who are living on fixed budgets and are dependent on their savings and investment income to keep their heads above water.

Yet President Biden and congressional Democrats continue to ignore the damage done by their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Sadly, their solution for inflation is just more of the same old Democratic tax-and- spend agenda. We still hear rumors that there may be some version of Build Back Better. Just think. If that original version of Build Back Better had passed, we would have had another $4.5 trillion in additional spending feeding the fires of inflation. Thank God for 50 Republicans and Senator Manchin that that has not happened.

Several Democrats have argued for hiking taxes to combat inflation. However, their proposed tax hikes on job creators would suppress business investment, lowering productivity. This would be counterproductive at a time when consumers' demands far outpace supply. We need more production, not less, to combat unchecked inflation.

Moreover, the proposed Democratic tax hikes would be passed on to the middle class in the form of lower wages and higher prices. These tax hikes would further squeeze a middle class that is already enduring the worst of inflation.

I just complimented Senator Manchin for putting a stop to Build Back Better. When it comes to some of the original tax policies we have heard from the Democrats, we can thank Senator Sinema, another Democrat, for stepping in and bringing at least some common sense to tax policy, even though it wasn't a complete change of that tax policy. Raising taxes on job creation isn't the only misguided tax proposal. While many consumer products are in short supply, ill-conceived Democratic proposals are not.

In addition to reckless tax hikes on businesses broadly, Democrats have proposed providing consumer gas rebates, forgiving student loan debt, imposing windfall profit taxes on oil and gas, and implementing price controls. None of these proposals would help tamp down inflation. Instead, they would only make things worse--much worse.

Instead of providing relief, gas rebates would increase demand, driving prices higher. Forgiving student loans would have a similar effect and would be horribly counterproductive and, at the same time, would be very unfair to those students who have already paid off their student loans.

Yet you don't have to take Chuck Grassley's word for it. Prominent Democratic economist Larry Summers has said that student debt cancelation would be ``regressive, uncertainty creating, untargeted and inappropriate at a time when the economy is [already] overheated.''

Windfall profit taxes and price controls may be the worst of all of the proposals.

That should have been learned from the Nixon administration when he froze prices and wages. It was a disaster--part of the cause of the great inflation of the 1970s. There were disastrous consequences then as a result of what happened in the 1970s. Anyone who lived through that time can tell you how these policies made things worse by reducing supply. The result was of rampant shortages, most notably with gas lines all around the block.

When addressing inflation, Congress must be guided by the principle: First, do no harm. The Democrats' proposal has failed this principle miserably.

The fact of the matter is that, once the inflation fire gets started, it is hard to put out. Just think: Just a few months ago, inflation was transitory, and then it got up to 6 percent, 7 percent, 8.3 percent. Then somebody said last month that it was going to cool off, but it is up to 8.6 percent. The Federal Reserve is best suited for reining in inflation given its control over the money supply.

As Milton Friedman said:

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

This doesn't mean Congress is helpless when it comes to responding to inflation. The most important thing that Congress can do is stop spending like drunken sailors. Even better would be to trim the budget to eliminate unnecessary spending.

Congress can also provide targeted inflation relief. However, 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 by providing targeted inflation relief that incentivizes and rewards taxpayers who save rather than spend.

With today's high inflation, many in the middle class could see most or even all of their savings and investment gains wiped out by the inflation that is upon us. Yet, even though middle class savers may be losing money in real terms, they are still taxed on all gains and interest income as if inflation doesn't exist. This creates a perverse incentive that encourages taxpayers to consume today rather than to save today. This can push up the demand for goods and services, forcing prices higher and further fueling inflation.

To help counter the current bias in favor of consumption, I now come to my proposal, a proposal subjecting most middle class savings and investment income to zero tax.

Now, this isn't a silver bullet in the fight against inflation. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve will have to do the heavy lifting. However, unlike counterproductive Democrat policies, my proposals would incentivize and reward saving. As a result, it would get relief to the middle class without further fueling consumer demand or reducing production and supply.

The title of the bill is the ``Middle-Class Savings and Investment Act.'' Under that bill, taxpayers in the 22-percent individual income tax bracket and lower would pay zero tax on their long-term capital gains and dividend income. Moreover, my proposal would allow individuals to exclude a reasonable amount of interest income from tax. For 2022, the combination of those proposals means an individual with a taxable income of below $89,075 or a

married couple below $178,150 would largely be able to save tax-free.

In addition to exempting the middle class from the tax on most of their savings and investment income, my proposal would enhance and expand the saver's credit. This provides a tax credit to low- to middle-income taxpayers who contribute to a tax-favored retirement account. My proposal would increase the maximum credit amount by $500 for married taxpayers and expand eligibility to more taxpayers.

Finally, my proposal would address a massive marriage penalty that is gradually catching ever more taxpayers by surprise thanks just simply to inflation. Under ObamaCare, Democrats imposed a new 3.8-percent tax on investment income of taxpayers earning over $200,000 single or $250,000 married. Congress never indexed these thresholds for inflation; thus, given current inflation, it is likely it won't be long before millions of middle-class taxpayers find themselves squarely within the grasp of that marriage penalty. To prevent this, I index the income threshold for this tax to inflation. Moreover, I eliminate the marriage penalty by raising the threshold for married taxpayers to twice that for single earners.

Of course, any relief provided must be fully paid for to ensure that we aren't just adding unsustainable debt and deficits. This is why my proposal is fully paid for by extending the $10,000 cap on State and local tax deductions beyond the current scheduled expiration at the end of 2025.

The SALT deduction is a highly regressive tax subsidy that primarily benefits high-income taxpayers. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, more than half of the benefits from lifting the SALT cap would go to those making over $1 million a year. Extending the current cap on SALT--an otherwise highly regressive tax benefit--to provide immediate inflation relief to the middle class should be a no- brainer to all of my colleagues.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this proposal.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to tell my colleagues about a bill I am introducing today to encourage savings. To set the stage for the necessity of that bill, I am going to speak for a minute about the obstacles that this administration's economic policies--particularly inflation--have put in that give need for such legislation.

On Friday, we learned that inflation surged to 8.6 percent, a new 40- year high for inflation. Inflation is the No. 1 concern that I hear from Iowans as I do my 99-county tour throughout the State over the course of a year. I hear how rising prices, particularly for food and energy, are cutting into budgets, making it difficult to make ends meet.

Moreover, I hear from Iowans who are concerned that inflation is eating into their savings. That gets to the purpose of the legislation I am going to soon talk about. This is particularly true for seniors who are living on fixed budgets and are dependent on their savings and investment income to keep their heads above water.

Yet President Biden and congressional Democrats continue to ignore the damage done by their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Sadly, their solution for inflation is just more of the same old Democratic tax-and- spend agenda. We still hear rumors that there may be some version of Build Back Better. Just think. If that original version of Build Back Better had passed, we would have had another $4.5 trillion in additional spending feeding the fires of inflation. Thank God for 50 Republicans and Senator Manchin that that has not happened.

Several Democrats have argued for hiking taxes to combat inflation. However, their proposed tax hikes on job creators would suppress business investment, lowering productivity. This would be counterproductive at a time when consumers' demands far outpace supply. We need more production, not less, to combat unchecked inflation.

Moreover, the proposed Democratic tax hikes would be passed on to the middle class in the form of lower wages and higher prices. These tax hikes would further squeeze a middle class that is already enduring the worst of inflation.

I just complimented Senator Manchin for putting a stop to Build Back Better. When it comes to some of the original tax policies we have heard from the Democrats, we can thank Senator Sinema, another Democrat, for stepping in and bringing at least some common sense to tax policy, even though it wasn't a complete change of that tax policy. Raising taxes on job creation isn't the only misguided tax proposal. While many consumer products are in short supply, ill-conceived Democratic proposals are not.

In addition to reckless tax hikes on businesses broadly, Democrats have proposed providing consumer gas rebates, forgiving student loan debt, imposing windfall profit taxes on oil and gas, and implementing price controls. None of these proposals would help tamp down inflation. Instead, they would only make things worse--much worse.

Instead of providing relief, gas rebates would increase demand, driving prices higher. Forgiving student loans would have a similar effect and would be horribly counterproductive and, at the same time, would be very unfair to those students who have already paid off their student loans.

Yet you don't have to take Chuck Grassley's word for it. Prominent Democratic economist Larry Summers has said that student debt cancelation would be ``regressive, uncertainty creating, untargeted and inappropriate at a time when the economy is [already] overheated.''

Windfall profit taxes and price controls may be the worst of all of the proposals.

That should have been learned from the Nixon administration when he froze prices and wages. It was a disaster--part of the cause of the great inflation of the 1970s. There were disastrous consequences then as a result of what happened in the 1970s. Anyone who lived through that time can tell you how these policies made things worse by reducing supply. The result was of rampant shortages, most notably with gas lines all around the block.

When addressing inflation, Congress must be guided by the principle: First, do no harm. The Democrats' proposal has failed this principle miserably.

The fact of the matter is that, once the inflation fire gets started, it is hard to put out. Just think: Just a few months ago, inflation was transitory, and then it got up to 6 percent, 7 percent, 8.3 percent. Then somebody said last month that it was going to cool off, but it is up to 8.6 percent. The Federal Reserve is best suited for reining in inflation given its control over the money supply.

As Milton Friedman said:

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

This doesn't mean Congress is helpless when it comes to responding to inflation. The most important thing that Congress can do is stop spending like drunken sailors. Even better would be to trim the budget to eliminate unnecessary spending.

Congress can also provide targeted inflation relief. However, 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 by providing targeted inflation relief that incentivizes and rewards taxpayers who save rather than spend.

With today's high inflation, many in the middle class could see most or even all of their savings and investment gains wiped out by the inflation that is upon us. Yet, even though middle class savers may be losing money in real terms, they are still taxed on all gains and interest income as if inflation doesn't exist. This creates a perverse incentive that encourages taxpayers to consume today rather than to save today. This can push up the demand for goods and services, forcing prices higher and further fueling inflation.

To help counter the current bias in favor of consumption, I now come to my proposal, a proposal subjecting most middle class savings and investment income to zero tax.

Now, this isn't a silver bullet in the fight against inflation. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve will have to do the heavy lifting. However, unlike counterproductive Democrat policies, my proposals would incentivize and reward saving. As a result, it would get relief to the middle class without further fueling consumer demand or reducing production and supply.

The title of the bill is the ``Middle-Class Savings and Investment Act.'' Under that bill, taxpayers in the 22-percent individual income tax bracket and lower would pay zero tax on their long-term capital gains and dividend income. Moreover, my proposal would allow individuals to exclude a reasonable amount of interest income from tax. For 2022, the combination of those proposals means an individual with a taxable income of below $89,075 or a

married couple below $178,150 would largely be able to save tax-free.

In addition to exempting the middle class from the tax on most of their savings and investment income, my proposal would enhance and expand the saver's credit. This provides a tax credit to low- to middle-income taxpayers who contribute to a tax-favored retirement account. My proposal would increase the maximum credit amount by $500 for married taxpayers and expand eligibility to more taxpayers.

Finally, my proposal would address a massive marriage penalty that is gradually catching ever more taxpayers by surprise thanks just simply to inflation. Under ObamaCare, Democrats imposed a new 3.8-percent tax on investment income of taxpayers earning over $200,000 single or $250,000 married. Congress never indexed these thresholds for inflation; thus, given current inflation, it is likely it won't be long before millions of middle-class taxpayers find themselves squarely within the grasp of that marriage penalty. To prevent this, I index the income threshold for this tax to inflation. Moreover, I eliminate the marriage penalty by raising the threshold for married taxpayers to twice that for single earners.

Of course, any relief provided must be fully paid for to ensure that we aren't just adding unsustainable debt and deficits. This is why my proposal is fully paid for by extending the $10,000 cap on State and local tax deductions beyond the current scheduled expiration at the end of 2025.

The SALT deduction is a highly regressive tax subsidy that primarily benefits high-income taxpayers. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, more than half of the benefits from lifting the SALT cap would go to those making over $1 million a year. Extending the current cap on SALT--an otherwise highly regressive tax benefit--to provide immediate inflation relief to the middle class should be a no- brainer to all of my colleagues.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this proposal.

Madam President, there has been a lot of well-deserved attention to free expression limits on college campuses. My colleagues have heard me right here on this very Senate floor speak about the need for free expression many times. But one reason we have this issue at colleges is because students aren't exposed to the diverse ideas in our public schools and other K-12 institutions. So when brandnew college students encounter opposing ideas for the first time, you have heard it--they lash out. They demand what are called safe spaces on the college campuses.

Now, that tells me that students are coming to college very unprepared to hear diverse views. If your own views have never been challenged, then you almost certainly have not developed the skills to evaluate different viewpoints and then go ahead and make up your own mind.

So let's raise this question: Why are students arriving in college so resistant to hearing diverse views?

I have been following some news stories on this subject last month, and all of this may not be entirely accidental, that our high school students aren't prepared to hear diverse viewpoints when they get to college.

The American Federation of Teachers recently announced that it wants to put an extension on the computers of its 1.7 million members. The goal of this NewsGuard extension is to provide ``trust ratings'' of news websites. Although numerous studies have pointed to a clear leftwing bias from NewsGuard, the AFT still wanted to bring it into the classrooms across America. Now, that should not be our goal. Our goal should be to get political bias out of K-12 schools, not ingrain it.

Contrariwise, a major focus that I have heard from Iowa teachers has been that we need to develop among our students critical thinking. Well, critical thinking requires listening to different ideas. If all students just agree with their teachers, that is repetition, not independent thinking.

The disease that has infected so many colleges now seems to spread throughout our K-12 schools. I hope for our country's future we find a way to continue to show kids both sides of an argument rather than shutting down ideas that teachers may disagree with. I have heard from many Iowans concerned about exactly that kind of bias. But we can't fix it here in Washington, DC.

The first rule of education policy should be that decisions are made as close to the family as possible. If you have issues with how your school is being run, your local school board should be your very first step. These elected officials are directly accountable to the parents in their own communities. A problem should only go up to the State legislature if it is caused by State law, and only a select few issues should go to this national level, where Federal intervention is found out to be the source of the problem.

So if you see political bias or lack of diverse viewpoints in your kids' school, go to the people who can fix it. Make your voice heard both at school board meetings and at the ballot box.

Border Security

Madam President, on another subject, we had the good fortune of hearing a series of speeches last week led by my colleague from Iowa, Joni Ernst, on the critical situation at our southern border, with people violating our laws, coming into this country, and almost being invited into this country in violation of our laws because our

laws say you need the permission of the United States to come to this country.

So I didn't speak last week on that subject, but, as I have done on a number of occasions otherwise, I want to once again come to my colleagues about the border crisis created by President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, and maybe more throughout this administration.

The crisis at our southern border is one of the top issues I hear at my county meetings. Iowans are understandably upset by President Biden's policies that have incentivized illegal immigration and created a historic crisis at the southern border.

In the first 15 months of this administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection--CBP, as we call it--has experienced over 2.7 million encounters with illegal immigrants at the southern border. That number is staggering. It is larger than the population of 15 States and Washington, DC. It is almost three times larger than the President's home State of Delaware.

Make no mistake about it, this crisis is entirely the fault of President Biden and the policies that he put in place almost his first day in office.

Since taking office, this administration has terminated physical barrier construction at the southern border. In other words, the wall that works to keep people from entering our country was stopped being built.

Next, this administration attempted to severely limit the ability of ICE to deport illegal immigrants; also attempted to terminate the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy; rolled back asylum cooperative agreements; openly supported sanctuary city policies; embraced mass catch-and- release policies; put forward mass-amnesty legislative proposals that would do nothing to secure the border; and even attempted to terminate title 42 without any plan in place to deal with what happened when we increased the number of people illegally crossing our border from about 6- to 7,000 a day to 18,000 a day, and that figure comes from the estimates of our own executive branch government.

Now, listing all these things, therefore, it shouldn't be a surprise to see a record-shattering surge of illegal immigration at our southern border. This is what happens when you make it clear that you have no intention of fully enforcing the Nation's immigration laws or cracking down on illegal immigration.

As I have said before, it is an unfortunate reality that the President and his administration believe the surge in illegal immigration at the southern border due to his policies is a process to be managed rather than a crisis to be stopped. Until that mindset changes, this historic crisis at our southern border will continue. And President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, and the irresponsible and reckless policies of this administration deserve all of the blame for the situation that we are in.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the executive branch executes the laws and uses taxpayer money that has been appropriated to do it according to congressional intent. Now, around here, we refer to seeing that the laws are faithfully executed as the constitutional responsibility of oversight of the Congress of the United States. In furtherance of that constitutional responsibility, Congress has an obligation to investigate the executive branch for fraud, waste, abuse, and gross mismanagement. I take my constitutional responsibilities of oversight very seriously.

From time to time, I receive information that requires me to ask questions of the executive branch in efforts to better understand whether any wrongdoing has occurred and, if so, what remedial actions will be taken and employed to cure the damage done. That is what brings me to the floor of the Senate today, focusing on Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault at the FBI's Washington Field Office.

Last week, while I was meeting with my constituents in Iowa, I sent a letter to the Justice Department and the FBI and also a letter to the Department of Justice's inspector general. In those letters, I provided evidence of extreme leftwing bias shown by Special Agent Thibault. Now, in his position, he is a very powerful agent within the FBI--so powerful that he can open and close Federal public corruption cases and investigations. He is a shining example, at the same time, of what is wrong with the FBI.

Andrew McCarthy wrote about Mr. Thibault last week and wondered what the heck has happened with the FBI. This FBI agent's leftwing political bias was exposed by his very own LinkedIn and Twitter accounts. There, in those accounts, he posted highly partisan material related to his superiors, matters under the FBI's purview, and matters under his own purview. His LinkedIn network includes current and former FBI personnel. The general public is able to review his social media content, which includes his political views, his political biases, and objections.

Thibault, under the title of Assistant Special Agent in Charge, directly posted a partisan article related to the LTG Michael Flynn case to his LinkedIn account. The article was a September 3, 2020, opinion piece from the Washington Post, entitled ``Why the Michael Flynn case still matters,'' which was about the ``Trump administration's abuses of the justice system.'' He also ``liked'' other politically charged articles relating to then-President Trump and his superior, then-Attorney General Barr.

Thibault's public political association doesn't even end with those examples.

According to his Twitter feed, which is also under his name, he mocked the election of one of our new colleagues, Senator Tuberville, and the State of Mississippi at the same time.

He said:

Thank God for Mississippi--state motto of Alabama.

I am not sure exactly what that means, but it is pretty clear that he is making fun.

When Representative Liz Cheney tweeted ``Dick Cheney says wear a mask,'' Thibault replied with this:

Your dad was a disgrace.

He recently tweeted:

Can we give Kentucky to the Russian Federation?

In response to a Catholic priest's tweet that was critical of abortion, he tweeted an anti-Catholic slur to both Catholic priests and then-President Trump:

Focus on the pedophiles.

There are other examples, but I think it is pretty clear you get the bias of this particular special agent. You get the picture, in other words.

After my letters were made public, he reportedly then set his tweets to protected mode and deleted his LinkedIn profile. His social media activity likely violated several Federal regulations and Department guidelines. The guidelines are designed to prevent political bias from infecting FBI matters. Such restrictions on political activity are heightened by senior FBI officials like Thibault because of the risk of improper influence on investigative matters.

If he projects this type of political sentiment in public, using his name and title, there is absolutely no telling what he is doing within the privacy of his office and in front of subordinates.

The fact that this FBI agent has the power to open and close investigations, particularly into political figures--Republican and/or Democrat--is cause for serious concern. His actions present a grave risk of political infection and bias in his official decision-making process.

Let me ask: What have the Justice Department and FBI done to oversee his work behavior?

Let me ask: How many investigations have been infected by this political bias by this special agent?

I fear, for many years, he has been able to do whatever he has wanted to do. Accordingly, such conduct unquestionably undermines both the Justice Department and the FBI because, at a minimum, it creates the perception of the unequal application of the law. At the maximum, his political bias has materially affected investigative matters that he has been a part of.

This is why the American people have lost confidence in the Justice Department and the FBI to do the jobs that those two Agencies are assigned to do under our law. Political considerations have infected these Agencies, and the cost is a loss of faith in the very institutions that depend on the American people's trust for the credibility of these Agencies.

My press release last week listed a phone number and an email address for the Justice Department and FBI whistleblowers to contact my office if they know some of these similar things that we need to know. Since then, I have had whistleblowers reach out to me about Thibault and others. I will have more to say on that matter, in the coming weeks, to my colleagues here in the Senate.

I urge anyone who is willing to speak to government waste, fraud, abuse, and gross mismanagement to contact me. And, of course, I strongly urge the Justice Department and the FBI to clean house without hesitation.

Transparency brings accountability, and my future investigative actions in this space will do exactly that. I am asking my colleagues to stay tuned.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I speak today on the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.

As I have said many times, I am committed to fighting political violence from across the political spectrum. This bill doesn't help us do that.

In fact, career DOJ attorneys reviewing the legislation have indicated that the bill is ``harmful'' and ``counterproductive.'' I use their words.

This short bill merely reorganizes the government offices that already fight domestic terrorism in DHS, DOJ, and the FBI. This reorganization wasn't sought by the Agencies themselves.

In fact, in technical assistance provided to us, the operators pointed out a number of problems with it. For example, the bill assigns responsibilities monitoring and analyzing domestic terrorism activity to DHS that actually belong in FBI.

The other major feature of the legislation is a direction to the Agencies that they must focus on the greatest historical threats, looking backward.

The operators have told us this means they can't be agile or address rapidly evolving threats if they were to follow this law.

I am always willing to listen to the needs of Agencies that keep Americans safe.

In fact, there are authorities that DOJ and the FBI need, for international terrorism.

I introduced an amendment to the NDAA last year, to expand these authorities. I hope we will pass it into law this year.

The domestic and international functions work together, and siloing them would not help DOJ fight terrorism.

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act won't help us prevent or combat terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on moving to this bill.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, last April, I came to the floor to honor fallen Iowa State Patrol Sergeant Jim Smith, who was murdered trying to apprehend a violent criminal. Last week, justice was served. His killer was convicted. I thank everyone who worked on this case.

Today, after the completion of National Police Week, it is with a heavy heart that I recognize another Iowa State Patrol officer killed in the line of duty last year in a tragic car accident. State Patrol Trooper Ted Benda was a dedicated servant of the people of Iowa for 16 years.

He began his career in Marquette and later moved to the Iowa State Patrol to serve the communities of Mason City and Oelwein. Trooper Benda was beloved by his colleagues who described him as dedicated. He ``fully embraced the call to protect the community.''

He put his family first, always lent a hand to friends and neighbors and cherished both his country and his community. Even in death, his service continued. As an organ donor, Trooper Benda continued to save lives. Trooper Benda: We thank you.

Trooper Benda left behind a loving family including his wife, Holly, and his four young daughters: Madilyn, Avery, Vivyan, and Sylvia.

Let me say to them: Your immeasurable sacrifice is honored by your community and your country. We thank you.

Losses like Trooper Benda's remind us of the great dangers that law enforcement officers and first responders face in service to our communities.

Last week, the Judiciary Committee held a Police Week markup. We passed several important measures through our committee that will help the police.

Soon, at my request, the Judiciary Committee will have a hearing on attacks on police. I have and will continue to lead efforts in the Senate to support law enforcement. After all that they have done to protect and serve us, it is the least I can do to protect and serve them.

Mr. President, in 1988, President Ronald Reagan first recognized May as National Foster Care Month.

Each year since then, the month of May has been recognized as a time to bring awareness to youth in foster care.

I thank my colleagues for once again unanimously passing a resolution to recognize the experiences of youth and families in the foster care system and celebrate those who work to improve their lives.

Organizations in Iowa and around the country tirelessly serve kids and families in foster care and the foster parents who open their homes to kids in need.

I salute these organizations and individuals for their year-round efforts to support the kids most in need.

In 2020, there were over 400,000 kids in foster care, including over 4,000 kids in Iowa.

During the pandemic, there was a drop in reports of child abuse, as well as entries into foster care and exits from foster care.

There were the fewest adoptions from foster care since 2016 with 8,000 fewer children being adopted compared to the previous year.

However, Iowa deserves recognition for being one of only nine States to increase adoptions from foster care during 2020.

Permanency for youth in foster care is so important, and I am glad that Iowa continued to make this a priority during the pandemic.

Older youth in foster care and adults who experienced foster care as a child can speak to what worked for them and what didn't work.

These young adults should always have a seat at the table.

When I founded the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth in 2009, the special focus was to hear directly from youth themselves.

Over and over again, I have heard the same thing from kids in foster care: They want a mom and dad. They want a family and a place to call home.

All children, no matter their circumstances, deserve a permanent, loving home and consistent, caring adults in their lives.

We know that just having one caring and consistent adult can meaningfully improve the lives of kids in the long-term.

For some kids, this can be a biological parent who receives the support they need to safely care for their child.

For others, a foster parent, mentor or court-appointed special advocate can be that adult.

My resolution marks May 31 as a particular day to recognize and show appreciation for foster parents.

Congress has worked to expand access to prevention services in the hopes of keeping families out of foster care in the first place.

But in addition to this, it is crucial for foster parents to get the support they need to continue serving kids in their communities.

In Iowa, almost every county has a shortage of trained foster parents who are able to provide a temporary home for kids.

Without volunteer foster parents, kids who cannot remain safely at home end up sleeping in hotels and in the offices of social workers.

Moving forward, Congress must continue to work to find better solutions and secure better outcomes for youth in foster care.

It is clear that there is no one answer for kids in foster care. Some can be reunified with their families; others are best cared for by adoptive parents or a kinship caregiver.

But the goal should always be the same: to protect kids from neglect and abuse and provide them with love and support.

I thank my colleagues for unanimously passing my resolution honoring May as National Foster Care Month once again and look forward to continuing to work on this issue.

Mr. President, farmers across Iowa are finishing their planting of corn and soybeans. As for the Grassley farm, Robin and Pat Grassley finished planting last Thursday.

Most people have never stepped foot on a family farm, let alone know all about the complexities that go into planting, growing, and harvesting a bountiful crop. That is why I often use my social media to show my followers what is going on in farming--hashtag ``corn watch,'' hashtag ``soybean watch.'' I like to show how only 2 percent of the population raises food for the other 98 percent, plus exporting one- third of our production to feed people overseas. Food doesn't just magically appear on grocery store shelves.

When so few people know what it takes to produce food, we often run into obstacles at policymaking tables here in Congress and around Washington, DC. I often quote something Dwight Eisenhower said, and he said it best:

Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and

you're a thousand miles from the corn field.

There has never been a more important time than right now for farmers to have a successful year. We are facing a world threatened by food shortages and food insecurity the likes of which we haven't seen since the Arab Spring a decade ago, in large part today because of Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

The productivity of the American farmers and ranchers this crop season will have a big impact on the security and prosperity of countries around the world, as well as to make sure we don't get into a devastating shortage of food.

With so much at stake, Washington, DC, must provide farmers across the country a consistent policy when it comes to regulation of inputs and crop protection products. One State out of fifty can't go another direction without bringing harm to food production.

When it comes to the regulation of these products, public policy must be based on the best science available to make informed decisions. Science-based decisions shouldn't surprise anybody in this town because science was the Golden Rule in every coronavirus decision made in the Trump administration and still being made in the Biden administration.

The best science is why Congress enacted, in 1972, the regulation that goes by the title of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or FIFRA for short. Since 1972, FIFRA has expressly preempted State law, vested the EPA with final authority over pesticide labeling and the usage of that pesticide. Specifically, FIFRA gave the EPA authority over pesticide labeling and the usage of that pesticide. Under FIFRA, it is the EPA's responsibility to undertake very extensive scientific review of regulated products and then determine what disclosures, if any, must be on the product labels. FIFRA provides that EPA conduct studies to determine product safety.

Congress intended that there be a Federal regulatory regime that would impose warnings, impose disclosures, and impose restrictions on the use of products under FIFRA. Congress made it very clear that Congress wanted science-based certainty and predictability for farmers and the resulting benefit that is to the farm entire economy.

Unfortunately, we have seen politically motivated environmentalists pushing for restrictions on regulated products that the EPA has determined are not necessary. This fundamentally undermines trust in the EPA and trust in Federal regulation of these products used in farming.

Make no doubt about my stand or anybody's stand here in the U.S. Senate, we all strongly support thorough vetting of regulated products to ensure public safety. However, I strongly support ensuring Iowa farmers have the supplies they need to feed families across America.

I hope President Biden would agree with me. His administration should be putting forward policies and taking positions that protect public safety, while ensuring farmers can produce the food that we need here in America and that we are able to supply one-third of our production for overseas. As we look at the world with a growing shortage of food-- as I emphasized, partly because of what is going on in Ukraine--we must then ask ourselves what more we can be doing to support farmers.

Unfortunately, some recent decisions just made by this administration do just exactly the opposite. I said ``just made by this administration'' because 2 weeks ago, President Biden's Solicitor General filed a brief in a case involving widely used pesticides. In that brief, the Solicitor General flipped the government's long-held position that FIFRA preempts State law and instead argued against EPA's authority. So it looks to me like politics overcomes science.

You would think such a significant change would be firmly based on the law and science, just as I said. However, the Solicitor General explained this astounding change wasn't based on science because it was based on politics. Perhaps that is why the EPA general counsel's name doesn't appear on the brief.

I heard from many constituents about how serious of an impact the position taken by Biden's Solicitor General would have on the farming industry at-large. If the Court, meaning the Supreme Court, effectively adopts the Solicitor General's position and that of the lower court decision, it will fundamentally disrupt the Federal regulation of use and of warnings under FIFRA related to substances such as these that farmers rely on every day in production agriculture.

It is clear that it wasn't the intent of Congress when it enacted FIFRA for there to be 50 State standards in addition to Federal standards because we all know the purpose of FIFRA was to create a uniform regime with authority vested in the EPA to set such standards, and that has never been questioned until now.

It is shocking that President Biden chose to put forward an argument that undermines the public trust in the EPA by putting politics ahead of the longstanding and consistent EPA regulation that enables farmers to grow the food that we and the world need. This abrupt change in the administration's position will have serious implications for the farm economy and our food supply.

Again, there needs to be a consistent regulatory regime to ensure the public's trust and to support U.S. agriculture so farmers can produce food, again, I say, that the Nation needs and the world needs.

So I hope the Solicitor General reverses her position, and even if she doesn't reverse her position, I hope the Supreme Court of the United States will be willing to hear this case.

I want to now quote Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, I think, in 1970. This winner was born and raised in Iowa:

If you desire peace, cultivate justice, but at the same

time cultivate the fields to produce more bread; otherwise

there will be no peace.

I think what he is referring to there is--at least what I believe and I have heard--that societies are only nine meals away from revolution. In other words, if you are a father and a mother and you can't feed your kids for 3 days, you will go to almost any end to make sure they get the food. So if you want social cohesion in America and around the world, we have to have enough food to feed our people.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to finish my remarks before the vote.

On September 23, 2021, November 30, 2021, and again on February 15, 2022, I spoke on this floor about the fake Russia Alfa- Bank narrative. That narrative started in 2016. It took on a new life when Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann met with FBI General Counsel James Baker.

In that meeting, Sussmann provided information and data files that allegedly contained evidence of a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and a Russian bank, Alfa-Bank. The evidence was fabricated by the Clinton campaign. The allegations about the Trump organization being linked with a Russian bank were false. Of note, Sussmann also provided Baker information Fusion GPS gave him as part of their work for the Clinton campaign. This was an all-hands-on-deck strategy to destroy the Trump Presidency and the campaign.

With the ongoing Sussmann trial now underway here in DC, the false Alfa-Bank narrative is more relevant now than ever before. I want to tell you why.

A mere several days after the meeting with James Baker, the FBI opened a full investigation on September 23, 2016. Around that time, an FBI agent working on cyber matters reviewed the information provided by Sussmann. That agent said:

We did not agree with the conclusion . . . that this

represented a secret communication channel.

He also stated that ``whoever had written that paper had jumped to some conclusions that were not supported by the data'' and that ``the methodology they chose was questionable to me.''

Here is the kicker:

I did not feel that they were objective in the conclusions

that they came to. The assumption that you would have to make

was so far-reaching that it just didn't make sense.

So last Friday, in a courtroom, Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, testified that Hillary Clinton was asked about the plan to share this fake information with the media. Hillary Clinton approved that plan. Jake Sullivan was involved in that decision as well. He is, of course, as we know, President Biden's National Security Advisor.

The Clinton campaign fabricated evidence trying to connect Trump to Russia. They fed it to the media to start a yearslong wildfire of false allegations. They fed it to the FBI to trigger a Federal investigation into their opposing candidate.

I said it before and will say it again: The Clinton campaign was the conspiracy, and it was a big bag of dirty tricks.

This false Alfa-Bank information eventually landed with the media outlet Slate, which ran an article on October 31, 2016. After that article, Sullivan, the now National Security Advisor, issued his now- infamous tweet: ``This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.'' Hillary Clinton also tweeted: ``Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.''

Now, they weren't the only ones pleased with this fake news. On October 13, 2020, Senator Johnson and I wrote a letter to the FBI where we made public texts between Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page.

Page says to McCabe:

And the Alfa-Bank story is in Slate.

McCabe's reply:

Awesome.

The FBI's excitement didn't end there. This week, Durham's prosecutors introduced a message between FBI agents that said:

People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up

about this server.

Now, they--meaning the FBI seventh floor people--were ``fired up'' about fake information, which is just terrible. The FBI's job is really to get fired up about fake information? It is more than that, however; it is a gut-wrenching attack on our system of government.

Now, there is another data point that I want to share. Durham recently released notes from a March 6, 2017, meeting between the Justice Department and FBI officials. In that meeting, they discussed predication and Crossfire Hurricane issues. This meeting was 2 weeks before then-Director Comey publicly announced his investigation into Trump.

On that very day, March 6, 2017, I wrote a letter to Comey asking questions about the Steele dossier. My press release for that letter is titled ``FBI plan to pay ex-spy for Trump intel during campaign sparks questions of Obama administration's use of federal authorities for political gain.'' That was from March 6, 2017. Now, in May of 2022, that title just about sums up Crossfire Hurricane as best as it can be described.

Now, in closing, I would like to make a few notes with respect to predication.

The September 23, 2016, FBI electronic communication opened a full investigation into the Alfa-Bank allegations, but let's unpack the first few lines from that document.

The FBI received a referral of information from the US

Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice provided the FBI with a white

paper that was produced by an anonymous third party.

Well, the information didn't come from the Department of Justice; it came from Sussmann and the Clinton campaign--hardly an anonymous third party since Sussmann himself showed up at the door. By wording it this way, the document almost blesses this so-called white paper. Mind you, the white paper is the false Alfa-Bank information. By the looks of it, this FBI document contains false information.

I fear these recent developments are just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI's exposure to false information and actually using that false information for investigative purposes wreaks of a political vendetta. It points to a ``get Trump at all costs'' attitude.

Whether Sussmann is convicted or not, the evidence introduced by Durham shows serious government misconduct--misconduct by the Federal Government of the United States of America. Special Counsel Durham can't let government misconduct go unpunished.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous that Senator Fischer and I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each before the vote.

Mr. President, when Democrats blew up the filibuster for nominees some 8 years ago, Republicans warned then that they would regret that move when the tables were turned. It seemed like such short-term thinking on the Democrats' part, but I have said before that progressive ideology has many Democrats convinced that they are, so to speak, on the side of history in the long run.

If you believe history is heading only in one direction and that direction is your way, you don't worry about the pendulum swinging back. That explains why they broke from 200 years of precedent to filibuster conservative judges nominated by President George W. Bush and then expressed shock and outrage when their own precedent was used against them under President Obama. That ideology also explains why Democrats can passionately defend the filibuster one day as a vital protection for the minority and then just months later, after taking control of a 50-50 Senate thanks only to the Vice President's tie- breaking vote, call the filibuster racist.

The phrase ``demography is destiny'' as applied to politics today is another version of progressive ideology. The assumption with ``demography is destiny'' is that ethnic minorities who tend to vote Democrat are bound to vote that way forever, so they support an open- border policy, with a push for amnesty, even if it green-lights human trafficking and lets the lethal fentanyl pour into the bloodstreams of young Americans, driving down life expectancy in our country.

Progressive Democrats assume more Hispanic citizens means more votes for them and then, somehow, a permanent majority.

Let me remind you that Republicans thought that, after the elections of 1994 and 2010, that we would have a permanent majority. It didn't work out that way. Just like the Irish and Italians of the late 1800s and early 1900s, Hispanic citizens who have assimilated into the fabric of our Nation do not vote as a bloc.

So, just maybe, that is why the left seems increasingly desperate to stoke identity politics and racial division. Such thinking leads to counterproductive calls to, as an example, defund the police, followed by a desperate attempt to do a 180-degree turn when crime spikes and the very communities they sought to pander then end up suffering.

Remember how so many prominent Democrats felt compelled to defend and justify rioters they deemed to be on their side? Now Democrats insist not just on prosecuting January 6 rioters, as we should with all rioters, but on weaponizing that horrible day for political purposes.

They decry disinformation. They decry conspiracy theories on the right about the election while perpetuating conspiracy theories on the left. Remember the absurd claim that because the Postmaster General supported President Trump, absentee ballots wouldn't be delivered in the 2020 election? It caused a lot of unnecessary worry for many Iowans who vote absentee.

Democrats call for supporting our elections while at the same time touting false claims of systemic voter suppression, deeply undermining faith in our democracy.

Democrats do not seem to support America's democratic institutions for those democratic institutions' own sake. But if the Democrats are convinced that they are not just right but on the right side of history, institutions are only worth preserving so long as they can be used to advance their own agenda. You cannot have respectful disagreement with someone on the wrong side of history. In fact, you demonize those people.

This kind of thinking pits neighbor against neighbor and drives wedges within our communities. This sense of division comes up in every one of my 99 county meetings in Iowa. I sense Iowans are fed up with this poison.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to honor the life and legacy of Julianne ``Julie'' Beckett of Cedar Rapids, IA. Julie was a mother and passionate advocate for children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities. I got to know Julie very well over the years as the result of her daughter, Katie Beckett, and Julie's passionate advocacy on Federal policy work such as Katie Beckett waivers, Family Opportunity Act, Money Follows-the-Person, Family-to-Family Health Information Centers, Advancing Care for Exceptional Kids Act, Accelerating Access to Kids Care Act, and more.

Julie's daughter, Katie, was born in Cedar Rapids, IA, on March 9, 1978. Five months after she was born, Katie contracted viral encephalitis followed by grand mal seizures. The encephalitis caused damage to her central nervous system and her respiratory system, and she was attached to a ventilator. She would be almost 2 years old before she could breathe on her own. Under Medicaid law at the time, Katie could only receive care through Medicaid if she remained in the hospital, even though she was able to receive care at home. Iowa Congressman Tom Tauke heard of Katie's situation and realized that it made no sense to keep a child in the hospital who could be at home with her family. He worked to convince the Reagan administration that the system should be changed to allow States to provide Medicaid to children receiving care in their homes. Ultimately, President Ronald Reagan took up Katie's cause, intervening so that Katie could receive treatment at home and still be covered under Medicaid.

In the 1980s, Julie and Katie were able to help change national policy that became known as ``Katie Beckett waivers'' and, to date, more than a half million disabled children have been able to receive care in their homes with their families rather than being forced into hospitals and institutions. Katie passed away on May 18, 2012. Since then, Julie continued her advocacy.

Sadly, last Friday, May 13, 2022, Julie passed away. As the result of Julie's advocacy, children like Katie are able to live a healthy, happy, and independent life. Our Nation has lost a passionate advocate for children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities. For more than 40 years, Julie advocated and organized the voices of families of children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities. Julie cofounded Family Voices, a national family-led organization of families and friends of children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities. Julie was instrumental in passing the Family Opportunity Act, which established Family-to-Family Health Information Centers and created options for families with children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities to buy into Medicaid while continuing to work, among other important provisions. Julie also worked at Child Health Specialty Clinics in Iowa for 30 years and served as a consultant with the American Academy of Pediatrics. In 2021, she was honored with the Family Voices Legacy Award in recognition of her outstanding lifetime contributions to healthcare policy and services that have improved the lives of children with special healthcare needs and disabilities and their families. Julie positively impacted the lives of children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities and their families.

While Julie would often say she was ``Katie Beckett's mom,'' we also knew her as a passionate advocate and servant leader. Julie's lifelong pursuit to improve the lives of children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities made an impact for the better for her community, State, and Nation. Godspeed, my friend.

Madam President, I intend to lift my objection to proceeding to the consideration of the nomination of Mayor Eric Garcetti, of California, to be the U.S. Ambassador to India.

Today, I released the findings of a staff review examining whether Mr. Garcetti was aware of allegations of misconduct by a former senior adviser. I am making these findings public in the interest of transparency and for the benefit of my colleagues as the Senate fulfills its advice and consent duties. I intend to lift my hold on the nomination, but based on what I have learned, I intend to vote no if the nomination is considered by the full Senate.

Please see the full investigative report here: https:// www.grassley.senate.gov/download/report-on-investigation-into-eric- garcetti-nominated-to-be-ambassador-to-the-republic-of-india.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to celebrate with my colleagues the month of May as National Beef Month, and I come to the floor not just to say that we ought to eat more beef and help the farmers and cattlemen of this country.

Before I get to something else, though, Iowa has the seventh largest cattle inventory in the United States and ranks fourth in the country for cattle and calves on feed. While I usually focus on the need for a fair and transparent market for cattle producers, today I want to draw attention to the job that cattle producers across the country have feeding America and the world.

Over the last 30 years, the U.S. population has increased by 80 million people. In that same period, the world's population has grown by more than 3 billion people. In the face of a growing population, farmers across America have been faced with a challenging question: How do we meet the growing demands for food while also lowering our environmental footprint?

American farmers and ranchers have risen to that occasion; in other words, not just producing more food but helping the environment at the same time. Farmers in all segments have expanded production to fulfill increasing demand while protecting our environment. The United States is currently producing 80 percent more pork, 48 percent more milk, and 18 percent more beef than just 30 years ago.

Now, you would think, with all that increase in production, you would have more of an environmental problem, but despite the increases in production, per unit greenhouse gas emissions from pork production have decreased by 20 percent and 8 percent for beef production.

Nonetheless, environmentalists still seem to place unwarranted blame on farmers for contributing to our changing and warming climate. The recent narrative that U.S. agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is simply not true. Now get that--it is simply not true. According to the EPA, only 11 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. The leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions contribute nearly twice as many emissions as the agriculture industry does. Transportation contributes 27 percent, electricity contributes 25 percent, general industry is contributing 24 percent. So I am here to set the record straight. For the last 30 years, American farmers have been reducing greenhouse gas emissions with each meal served by embracing efficiency and the adoption of new technologies.

Agriculture needs to have a seat at the table for these conversations because farmers are the first conservationists and can help offset emissions from other sectors of the American economy. Whether it is creating carbon sinks on farmland to produce biofuels

or turning farm waste into energy, farmers have taken a very active role in reducing the environmental impact of agriculture.

Research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that even if the entire world was vegan, it would lower global emissions by less than one-half of 1 percent, while losing access to high-quality protein very much needed in the diets of human beings.

However, the facts that I have mentioned do not matter to radical environmental groups or the mainstream media. Articles on food sustainability often focus on how eating insects and bugs can help save the planet. A simple search on the internet reveals some unsettling articles in our publications. A headline from Time magazine reads like this: ``How Humans Eating Insects Could Help Save the Planet.''

Then from the publication The Atlantic: ``To Save the World, Eat Bugs.''

And from the New York Times--can you imagine, the New York Times: ``Why Aren't We Eating More Insects?''

All of these stories have a very common thread--to solve world hunger and to protect the environment, the American people and the world need to eat bugs and insects. But as I have already laid out, you can just eat more beef and feel good about the environmental impact.

Now, as for me, I will be doing my part in May to honor National Beef Month. I will be eating juicy hamburgers or eating steak, if the price isn't too outrageous--and it is right now. I will be supporting cattlemen from Iowa who produce the highest quality beef in the world. Farmers know firsthand the importance of a clean and healthy environment. It is simply unfair to place the blame of a changing climate on the backs of farmers.

As a nation, we must stand with the farmers across the country and work with them to promote a clean environment. I will continue working at the policymaking table to ensure our cattle producers can continue raising high-quality beef for generations to come and that families can enjoy it at their kitchen tables at prices they can afford.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Joshua Frost to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets. While by most accounts Mr. Frost is qualified for this position, I will vote against his nomination out of growing concerns that the Treasury Department has been derelict in its responsibilities to the Senate Finance Committee and its members.

The most recent example of Treasury thumbing its nose at the committee is the unprecedented delay of Secretary Yellen in agreeing to testify before the committee on the President's budget. Typically, the Treasury Secretary agrees to testify before the Finance Committee the week that the President releases his budget. Since 2005, the only other time a Treasury Secretary testified before the committee more than 3 days after the release of the President's budget was Secretary Geithner in 2009, and he appeared just 6 days after the President released his budget.

This year, 37 days have passed since the President unveiled his budget, and Secretary Yellen has yet to agree on a date to come before the committee. Finance Committee members have been informed that the earliest Secretary Yellen will appear before the committee is sometime in June, more than 2 months after the release of the President's budget. The reason given for this unprecedented delay is that Secretary Yellen is too busy to fit the Finance Committee into her schedule. This excuse rings hollow when just last week she was able to find time in her busy schedule to give the keynote address at an event held at the liberal Brookings Institution.

So Secretary Yellen has time in her busy schedule to address the D.C. liberal intelligentsia at the Brookings Institution, but can't find time to answer the questions of elected Members of Congress and their constituents? This is unacceptable, and the Treasury Department must be held to account for shirking its responsibilities. In light of this, I intend to vote against the nomination of Mr. Frost to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets.

Vote on Frost Nomination