Floor Statements

Mr. President, we study about checks and balances in government in political science classes.

Often, people think in terms of the Court, the Supreme Court, primarily, being a check on the Congress of the United States not doing constitutional things or things in a constitutional way or maybe checking a President not doing things that he is constitutionally empowered to do.

We don't often think of Congress being a check on the judicial branch of government, but from time to time we pass legislation that says: To you folks on the Supreme Court making a decision, you didn't make that decision according to what congressional intent was. So we find ourselves passing legislation to overturn some Court case that misinterpreted a statute. At least that is our view that they misinterpreted a statute or congressional intent.

The last time I remember doing this was maybe a couple, 3 years ago on a tax bill. It happened that I had at least one person interpreting our statute correctly on this tax provision. It was Justice Breyer. I got a little note from Justice Breyer, pointing to his dissent in that case, and it said: It is an opportunity for you to pass a statute correcting what, I think, was a misinterpretation by the majority of that tax provision.

And we got that passed.

So here I am again. I don't know how many times in the last 30 years I have had to correct Court decisions misinterpreting the False Claims Act. We are in the process of trying to do that on the subject of whether or not certain actions of our government are material to that case actually being able to be prosecuted. I am talking about the False Claims Act that I and a liberal Member of the House of Representatives got passed in 1986.

The False Claims Act is the government's most powerful tool in fighting and deterring fraud. And I say to my fellow colleagues that any law that has brought in about $65 billion of fraudulently taken money, that ought to, in itself, prove the worth of this legislation.

On the other hand, the courts interpret it and maybe weaken it, so I am back here to make an argument for strengthening it but not strengthening it beyond the original intent of the Congress of the United States in 1986. I have devoted much of my time in the Senate to strengthening this law on behalf of the taxpayers.

Last November, the Judiciary Committee voted on a bill that I sponsored that was very much a bipartisan cosponsorship to further strengthen the False Claims Act by clarifying what violations are ``material.'' Some of my colleagues expressed concern with my amendment, even in light of the fact that this legislation has brought $65 billion of fraudulently taken money back into the Federal Treasury. Most of those concerns by my colleagues were based on debunked, recycled talking points from lobbyists that sound a lot like the ones that I have been hearing since 1986--the purpose of the legislation. Most of the time, they have come from businesses that profit the most from defrauding the government.

When I authored the False Claims Act amendments in 1986, I did it because fraud against the Federal Government was out of control, especially in the defense sector. At the time, the Justice Department estimated that we were losing somewhere between 1 percent to 10 percent of the Federal budget to fraud. Most importantly, I saw that fraud put lives at risk, including those of our military, those of our law enforcement, and even of our veterans. So I am going to speak about some of this fraud that put lives at risk.

Recent court misinterpretations--and these are the misinterpretations that I have talked about already. Recent court misinterpretations have, once again, like several times in the last 25 years, hurt the government's ability to hold these fraudsters accountable by the courts that have made those decisions not following properly legislative intent.

Some courts now say that if the government keeps paying a claim despite some knowledge of potential fraud, then the violation is not material. Now, that is not common sense. If the government knows of fraud--now, think of this: If the government actually knows of fraud but keeps paying for that fraud, then that fraud can't be prosecuted under the False Claims Act.

That doesn't make sense to hard workers on Main Street in the Midwest. It doesn't meet the commonsense test for the government to protect fraudsters. This is wrong, and I want to show you some instances of where it is dangerous.

Today, I want to bring examples to you about real cases with real life experiences, cases where, had this flawed interpretation applied, the results would have been absurd and tragic.

First, in 2009, a major defense contractor settled a False Claims Act case with the Federal Government for $325 million after allegations arose that they provided faulty parts for spy satellites. Due to the faulty parts, several satellites started to malfunction. One of them was on an important mission over the Middle East during a time of war.

Evidence showed that the contractor knew about the malfunctions but hid--hid--these modifications from the government. But even if the government had some idea about fraud, it couldn't stop payment because the contractor was the only company that could manufacture and support these satellites. Had this case been brought today, a court could incorrectly find that the violation was not material.

This ought to be unacceptable, and it is. This kind of fraud can hurt our troops and damage our national security.

Second example: Fraud hurts our law enforcement officers here at home. In 2018, the Justice Department settled a fraud claim brought by a whistleblower against a manufacturer of bulletproof vests. According to public records, the manufacturer knew the vests would actually degrade and degrade very quickly under normal heat and humidity. The manufacturer tried to cover its tracks by publishing misleading data.

Those actions delayed the government's efforts to determine the true extent of the damage to these bulletproof vests. After years of investigation, a National Institute of Justice study found that more than 50 percent of the used vests could not stop a bullet--a very life- threatening issue.

In this case, the manufacturer argued that since the government kept paying for the vests, the fact that they didn't work was immaterial. Thankfully, the judge had common sense enough to see past such ridiculous arguments. In other words, common sense prevailed in that particular courtroom.

Now, remember, the actions of these fraudsters put our law enforcement personnel's lives at risk. Now, we had a brave whistleblower. So thanks to that brave whistleblower who uncovered this fraud, the money recovered from the settlement was used to purchase new bulletproof vests.

Third example and last example: Fraud hurts our veterans and undermines the Federal programs Congress created to support them and their families.

Another case involved fraud in home loans insured by the VA. The goal of these loans is to keep veterans in their homes. So, as most veterans know, VA loans prohibit lenders from charging veterans hidden fees. In this instance, a mortgage lender was illegally charging our veterans fees for VA-insured loans.

But the government never ceased payment because doing so would hurt the program and the veterans it was meant to help--not to mention that once a loan guarantee is approved, the VA is prohibited by law from declining payments.

Despite this, the district court applied the bogus new interpretation of materiality. The court dismissed the case. In other words, the fraudsters got away with it, and the court dismissed, saying that the government's continued payment meant the fraud was not material. So the government is allowing a program to go on, pay money out, even if they know there is fraud.

So let me underscore the obvious. I am telling you, Congress didn't intend for courts to find that fleecing veterans for profit is immaterial. The legislation that has come out of the Judiciary Committee will fix this nonsense. And I hope some Republicans--because most of the opposition in the Judiciary Committee came from Republicans. Democrats understand that this bill must pass, but, for some reason, Republicans are willing to accept this nonsense about immateriality.

So that is the purpose of this legislation. It clarifies that the government's

decision to continue paying a claim despite knowledge of fraud is not dispositive if other reasons exist for the continued payment--these simple reasons like everybody expected our government ought to do: to continue protecting our troops, to continue helping our law enforcement officers be safe in their job, and to make sure that a veteran doesn't get taken as a sucker to give away a lot of money that would be illegally taken.

So, as shown by the examples I just gave you, examples I highlighted this very day, the government's decision to continue paying a claim by itself doesn't prove materiality.

You may ask: Why did the government continue the payments? Well, that is pretty much simple common sense too--because you want these programs to function the way they should function.

My amendment will guarantee that the government can hold fraudsters accountable even when the government has to continue payment for a product or a service.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we all know that our country is facing a drug crisis. I think it is pretty well known, as the CDC has reported, that over 100,000 Americans died from a drug overdose over a recent 12- month period.

Although fentanyl drugs are heavily responsible for this, we are battling the fight on many fronts. For instance, synthetic drug use is evolving and, of course, very dangerous; same thing for methamphetamine, which is very much on the rise.

Too many lives are being lost. That is why I have been busy working on legislation to stop this epidemic, bills like this title of a bill: Stop the Importation and Manufacturing of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2021.

For too long, criminals have been skirting the law. Do you know how they do it? By changing the chemical makeup of a drug. They keep ahead of regulation-writing. They keep ahead of Congress making laws. Congress is kind of in a situation of playing the deadly game of whack- a-mole as law enforcement tries to keep pace with savvy drug dealers. My bipartisan bill nips this deadly cycle in the bud. This bill would control synthetic substances similar to known drugs while the more time-consuming testing, research, and analysis can be performed.

Also, methamphetamine abuse and use is very concerning. The volume and purity of meth smuggled from Mexico into the United States is at a near alltime high. To address this dire situation, I joined with Senator Feinstein of California to reintroduce the Methamphetamine Response Act. This bill declares meth an emerging threat and requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop and implement a national plan to prevent meth addiction and overdoses. This is a necessary step to combat meth in Iowa and, of course, in the rest of the country.

The Senate passed, very recently, the Meth Response Act. In fact, it was passed this week. The House must act quickly to get the bill to President Biden's desk. Meth is rampant, and action should not be delayed.

I also joined with Senator Feinstein to reintroduce a cannabidiol and marijuana research bill to encourage scientific and medical research on marijuana. Instead of rushing into legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, we need a better understanding of that plant and its potential benefits but also to know what the side effects are. Let's not put the cart before the horse here in the Senate.

I have also been active as cochairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control. Along with the chairman, Senator Whitehouse, we held hearings examining the Federal response to the drug overdose epidemic and the nexus between illicit drug trade and corruption.

I also convened a field hearing in Iowa to hear from grassroots, the experts there and the constituents there, about our own State's efforts--drug control, prevention, and treatment efforts. At that hearing, we had a sad story by a father, Rod Courtney from North Liberty, IA, sharing his story of losing his son Chad 5 years ago due to fentanyl. Rod's powerful testimony is just one instance of the struggles families face from drug abuse.

Stories like Chad's are why I sent multiple letters to the Biden administration to proactively and permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances. We did get a positive response. I am glad to see that the Biden administration has taken my advice and probably the advice of a lot of other Senators as well and recommended permanently scheduling fentanyl drugs.

Yet the administration proposes shielding fentanyl dealers from mandatory minimums. These dealers are potential killers. This watered- down position flies in the face of our current crisis with fentanyl. We have to keep our neighborhoods safe and must hold poison peddlers accountable. That is particularly true with fentanyl offenders.

I am happy to say that, with my support, Congress has extended the lifesaving scheduling authority into February, but don't be fooled--we still need a permanent solution.

With the close of 2021 on the horizon, it is natural to reflect. One hundred thousand overdose deaths is an unspeakable tragedy. Each loss is a loved one, a friend, or a neighbor. We must find solutions to this crisis, and I look forward to being part of that solution.

I hope my colleagues will join me in moving those bills.

Mr. President, many times my fellow Senators have heard me say that my definition of a university is a place where controversy ought to run rampant. The point of going to college is not for all students to come out thinking exactly the same way. College is for ideas to be challenged. To weed out ideas we disagree with, we need open debate, not to shut down the conversation. Students of all stripes should be able to say what is on their mind.

Institutional free speech should not be partisan. You can have partisan discussions, but the merely speaking of it, right or wrong, you agree or disagree, should not be a partisan issue or even be a controversial issue. Everyone is hurt if ideas are not frankly discussed by the next generation.

Thankfully, Iowa has recognized this reality. So this spring, Governor Reynolds signed a bill into law that helps codify free expression in Iowa's public colleges.

Now, it sometimes feels like Washington, DC, can forget common sense on this issue as well as a lot of other issues. But in Des Moines, the bill passed both chambers of the Iowa Legislature with just 1 single ``no'' vote out of 150 senators and representatives.

But here we are nationally. We seem to be heading in the wrong direction in regard to free speech on campus and discussion of some controversial issues. As recent as 2016, majorities of students were confident that the First Amendment was secure, but now it looks like there has been a chilling effect on too many campuses.

According to a more recent poll, 80 percent of the students now say that they self-censor. In other words, 80 percent of the students are afraid to voice and give their support or opposition on certain issues. Hostility to freedom of expression is being heard loud and clear by our students.

But somehow it doesn't seem like the donors seem to be listening to what is happening on these college campuses. I have tried to highlight this overlooked group of donors in the free speech debate. Students and faculty are limited by the threat of getting canceled on campus. But donors have much more sway if they want to take advantage of it.

Now, it seems, unfortunately, these alumnae don't seem to consider free speech when they make a decision to donate, because their donation would have some power behind it if they would take the time to say what they think about how universities ought to be an environment where controversy runs rampant.

We have a poll of donors to one college that found that the vast majority thought that freedom of expression should be a priority on campus, but only 20 percent said it was clear their alma mater protects speech in practice. Now, this is among donors, those who have already given despite their concerns. That is despite donations representing up to 19 percent of college budgets.

There are more examples than I can count of donors withholding contributions and making real concrete change. Donors have stopped speakers from being deplatformed and overrode the veto of the crowd.

It is time to stop pretending that alumni have no say. Earlier this year, I joined the Campus Free Speech Caucus here in the Congress. That caucus tries to preserve this trend. I am also a cosponsor of the Campus Free Speech Resolution, which urges greater First Amendment protection in America's universities.

But this is not a problem that can be solved by any bill in the Senate. Thankfully, that tide is starting to turn. One of the first colleges to make a move was the University of Chicago. In 2015, the university president sent a statement on free expression to the incoming freshmen. He showed in that letter how both sides of the aisle are hurt when campuses clamp down on open debate. He called out what are considered ``trigger warnings'' and ``safe spaces'' while praising academic freedom.

Now other colleges in our country are slowly starting to follow suit. So far, 75 schools have released similar statements, but, of course, 75 schools is only a fraction of all the colleges in the United States.

To continue this progress we need individual Americans to make their voices heard. Ultimately, being a democracy means that we are able to listen to each other and do it civilly. We ought to be able to respectfully talk about where we agree and disagree, not sweep those disagreements under the rug and, in the process, silence those who do have the guts to speak out.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the words I just heard from the Senator from Oregon are very refreshing, and I thank him for making those statements.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Durbin, and thank you, Senators Durbin and Lee, for bringing some common sense to the principles of checks and balances of government.

In this particular case, it is not checks and balances between the legislative branch and the executive branch so much as it is injecting another level of checks on abusive authority within the executive branch.

So I strongly support this act and the bipartisan work of you two Senators to bring greater accountability to the attorneys at the Department of Justice.

Congress created the inspectors general to be independent. They don't just investigate whatever their Agency or Congress might want them to; the law says that inspectors general shine a light on waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal Agencies. Sometimes transparency is very uncomfortable, but it is extremely necessary.

You are not going to get real accountability if you have an Agency's employees policing themselves. Right now, the only folks who can investigate the Justice Department attorneys are other Justice Department attorneys. This system erodes public trust and creates clear conflict of interest.

For example, the Justice Department attorneys reviewed the plea agreement given to serial child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. I note that many of my colleagues here found that internal review ``substantively inadequate.'' Those are words from my colleagues. Had the inspector general conducted the review, he might have gotten somewhere with it, just like he did with the behavior of FBI agents in the Larry Nassar case. What if we had left that investigation to the FBI to police itself?

This is why the Justice Department inspector general has identified as the Agency's No. 1 top management challenge ``strengthening public trust'' in the Justice Department. One way to fix that is to make sure the independent inspector general has the same authority over all Department employees. Why do FBI analysts and DEA agents require more independent scrutiny than Department attorneys? This is so simple that even a lawyer could get this.

I heard rumors that my friend Senator Cotton may be objecting to this--a person I agree with 90 percent of the time. It seems to be very uncharacteristic. He and I believe alike that there are two ways of doing business in the United States: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or let the bureaucrats run everything. And I know Senator Cotton is a person who doesn't think bureaucrats should run everything. In this case, nothing is reviewable by people who make a decision not to produce this. That is the height of irresponsibility.

I yield the floor.

Well, following on the Christmas season message that we just heard, this season is around the corner, and Democrats are scrambling very, very hard to deliver on their liberal wish list before the end of the year. And that's not a Christmas list that people--or an agenda that people are going to accept very well, from what I've heard about the opposition to the trillions of dollars that they are trying to spend.

This grab bag of long-sought, new government programs is a top priority for Washington Democrats. Meanwhile, the bigger concern that I hear around Iowa is rising prices on everything from gas, to food, to home goods.

Americans doing their holiday shopping this year are finding items out of stock and, when in stock, paying far more for less. Even the Christmas tree is no exception. Christmas tree prices are up 30 percent.

Overall, consumer prices were up 6.2 percent on an annual basis in the month of October--a 31-year high. Economists polled by the Wall Street Journal expect November inflation to shoot up to 6.7 percent. Even some analysts are saying that it could be closer to 7 percent.

Americans are experiencing the highest inflation in a generation. The last thing they need for Christmas is another Democrat spending boondoggle further fanning the flames of inflation.

They ought to listen to their own Democrat economists. Larry Summers, former Secretary of Treasury in the Clinton administration, Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, warning us in January, again in April, again in August, again in October, I saw on television. They're pouring fires on the--gasoline on the fires of inflation.

Unfortunately, unless our voices of reason within the Democratic Party prevail, that's exactly what they are going to get, more inflation. Democrats say there is nothing to worry about because--to quote Treasury Secretary Yellen--their bill is, ``fully paid for.''

We know that's not true. But even the Washington Post isn't buying Yellen's statement, and they said that by awarding the Secretary two Pinocchios for her comment. The reality is Democrats pull every budget trick in the book in an attempt to cloak the reckless tax-and-spending spree with the illusion of fiscal responsibility.

However, even their budget sleight of hands fail to mask the upfront inflationary pressures embedded in that

very bill. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office-- CBO, as we call it around here--their bill contains hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending in each of the first 5 years.

That means that, regardless of what Democrats say, their bill will add to inflation pressures now when it matters most. Under honest assumptions, the deficit spending never stops.

According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, their analysis, if their spending proposals are permanent, as they intend, their plan would increase debt and deficits by more than $2 trillion over 10 years. As a result, by 2050, government debt would be 24 percent higher, economic growth will be 3 percent higher, and wages of the middle class would be 1.7 percent less than they would otherwise be.

Now, they go by the bill, building back better. Sounds to me like all of this is building back worse. So I urge my Democratic colleagues to pursue and rethink the approach. Securing a near-term ideological win is not worth the risk of spurring unchecked inflation, sapping the value of America's hard-earned dollars.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss what anybody ought to discuss with a heavy heart because when it comes to fighting drug abuse, the United States seems to be losing.

Over 100,000 Americans have died from drug overdoses in the last year alone. These casualties could have been prevented by better drug prevention, treatment, and intervention, but the brunt of this epidemic is due to drug trafficking organizations. Cartels fuel the flames of drug abuse, often using violence and causing devastating loss of life.

Drug traffickers lace street drugs with fentanyl, making deadly drugs even more lethal. And, of course, we all know that most or all of that fentanyl comes from China. China is winning a war, killing Americans through drug overuse, without even firing a shot.

Of course, drug traffickers are not slowing down. In June of this year alone, Customs and Border Protection agents seized over 1,000 pounds of fentanyl. This could kill two-thirds of the population of the United States.

The boots-on-the-ground agents seize these drugs before they reach us, but what they find, what they seize, is a fraction of what comes into the United States. In my home State of Iowa, agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration seized more lethal doses

of fentanyl in 2020 than there were people within the State. This means the Drug Enforcement Administration seized enough fentanyl to kill everyone in Iowa.

Our law enforcement officers are critical to the fight against illicit drugs.

Now, listen. In the last year or two, law enforcement has been subject to terrible abuse, but these brave men and women don't do just great things; they also do good--good for our country and good in protecting our people. The brave members of State and local law enforcement--you know, like the police, like the sheriffs, like the correctional officers, as well as our Federal officers--deserve honor and respect. They put their lives on the line to ensure that we are all safe.

When tragedy strikes, we feel the loss of our fiercest defenders. In fact, according to the FBI, the rate of officers killed in the line of duty is up. As of last month, 59 members of law enforcement were killed in 2021. At this point in 2020, the number was 39, and that was still an uptick from years prior. This trend is a grim reminder of the bravery, the courage, and the valor each law enforcement officer has when they go to work.

DEA Agent Mike Garbo was one of our most recent casualties in the fight against the illicit drug trade. He was conducting a routine check on an Amtrak train in Arizona when two drug traffickers ambushed him and his fellow DEA agents with gunfire, and of course Agent Garbo was killed.

Agent Garbo was a committed law enforcement person, committed to a career of public service generally and law enforcement specifically. He served as a police officer in Nashville for nearly 12 years before he joined the Drug Enforcement Administration. He served the DEA honorably for more than 16 years, combating drug traffickers all over the globe, from our southwest border all the way to Afghanistan.

This tragedy reminds us in Washington, here, that our work to stop the flow of illicit drugs and to combat drug-related crime isn't over. I support being tough on deadly drugs like fentanyl substances by pushing for permanently scheduling all fentanyl analogs, and I am leading a bipartisan effort to proactively control synthetic analogs and address the heightened threats of methamphetamine.

Being pro-active in the fight against illicit, deadly drugs is critical for multiple reasons.

First, we want to make sure it is harder for drug traffickers to bring drugs into our Nation and to fuel the addiction crisis, but we also need to make it harder for drug traffickers to feel emboldened in lawlessness and to kill law enforcement people like Mike Garbo.

It is time for us to stop sharing stories about tragedies, and, instead, we need to rewrite the story of our future as a nation. I urge my colleagues to act for the betterment of all Americans and join me in the fight against the illicit drug trade, particularly the scheduling of fentanyl and its analogs.

Most importantly, we must all--and I do--thank Agent Garbo and his family for putting his life on the line to protect his fellow countrymen. His sacrifice is, sadly, much too common, but it doesn't make it any less powerful and tragic. We will continue to honor this man and those who follow in his footsteps as we fight the spread of illicit, deadly drugs.

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

Madam President, this week marks the 80th year since FDR delivered his ``Day of Infamy'' speech. That was in a joint session of Congress. FDR told the Nation that the United States of America was under attack. Besides that attack, Pearl Harbor changed the course of history, including the future and fortunes of a young man from Russell,

Reserving the right to object, I would like to give some remarks.

I want to start off with a process question to all the 100 Senators.

Obviously, this is an important issue with a lot of people. Democrats control every committee in this body, and this bill is being offered, when it could be brought up in the committee under regular order because they control the agenda of, in this case, the Judiciary Committee. So why hasn't that come up?

Then I would remind people that in 2013, we actually had a vote on a Grassley-Cruz amendment that got the most votes so far of any gun issues. That was in, I think, the year 2013.

Let's get to the issue that was brought up today by the Senator from Connecticut. Let me say that we have to have real regard for the position he takes because of the tragedy that happened in his State in 2012. Nobody is going to justify that. If they did, they would be crazy for trying to say that something bad like that happened and that it is not a crisis for everybody.

Let me start off by saying in regard to what happened in Michigan that the senseless tragedy we saw in that State should not have happened. The shooter, as we have been told, killed four and injured others in a shocking act of violence. I cannot imagine what those families of the victims are going through because I guess you would have to go through it to try to get their feeling about it. You see it expressed on television, but it doesn't make the same impact on the people who are listening that it makes on the family of the victims.

Difficult topics require across-the-aisle conversations, particularly when you have to have 60 votes to get anything done in this body. I would invite my colleagues across the aisle to have a bipartisan conversation on this topic and a lot of related topics to it.

Violent crime and violence at schools are serious problems. I have supported legislative efforts to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which we call NICS. For example, I introduced the EAGLES Act, a bipartisan bill that would help reauthorize the U.S. Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center, where they study targeted violence and proactively identify and manage threats before they result in tragedies.

However, in regard to the motion before us, I have serious concerns with the bill raised by the Senator from Connecticut. This bill is hostile toward lawful gun owners and lawful firearm transactions. This will not solve the problems that it seeks to solve.

So-called ``universal'' background checks will not prevent crime and will turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals.

I have introduced legislation, along with Senators Cruz and Tillis, called Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act. Our bill will be much more effective than the underlying bill and has been supported by a majority of the Senate in the past.

And I think that is the same thing that I was referring to--a vote that got a majority but not 60 votes in 2013.

But the Democrat leadership has blocked that approach, which I assume that they will do again today.

This legislation, S. 1775, would reauthorize and improve NICS, increase resources for prosecution of gun crime, and address mental illness in the criminal justice system, which if it had been addressed properly in the case of the Parkland, FL, shooting, that individual who had been identified, I think, somewhere between 30 and 40 times as having very serious mental issues, if he had been identified, he would have been in the NICS system and not been able to buy that gun. And that is just one thing, mental illness being a problem.

And this legislation would also strengthen criminal law by including straw purchasing and illegal firearms trafficking statutes. It does that without burdening any Second Amendment rights of Americans.

In addition, this bill would require a commission to study and report to Congress the underlying causes and triggers for mass shootings. The commission and study proposed could not come at a more important time, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that I will suggest to the Senate on a UC request.

Therefore, Mr. President, I object to the motion that you have asked UC on.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 62, which is S. 1775, the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2021; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I made the request. So there isn't any objection, so my bill passes?

Before I give up the floor, I would like to suggest that we can start sitting down with the Senator from Connecticut and a lot of other Senators who are interested in this issue, both on the Republican side and the Democrat side, with the legislation that I have suggested.

The other thing I would like to comment on, just to clarify, is the Senator's statement about the recapture of gun rights under our bill: He is right. But you have got to look at why those Second Amendment rights were taken away in the first place, and I think it is the same principle that applies to people that have gone through the Social Security system and the people that have gone through the VA system. It is as simple as a little thing, that you have got to have a third party handle your finances for your family or whatever finances you have. You have to have a third party to do it. That name gets put in the NICS system, and it shouldn't be there just because you can't handle your finances. That has got nothing to do with that you ought to be denied your Second Amendment rights.

And so our legislation provides a process to make sure that the due process of the Second Amendment rights that have been denied can be recaptured, so they can have the Bill of Rights as was intended.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, it is typical for commentators to talk about how China is no longer really a communist nation. Of course, only the most ardent China apologist would question that China is still a one-party, authoritarian state. It is just that the economic policies pursued since the early 1980s are hard to square with Marxism-Leninism.

I want to say to everybody: Not so fast. The sixth plenary session of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party contained a brand new historical resolution. This is only the third such paper since the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. The first, historians will remember, was when Mao Zedong put out one in 1945, and the second one was Deng Xiaoping in 1981.

Now, revising the historical narrative has been used in the past to set a stage for a whole new era in China and a whole new era for the Communist Party. Most China watchers see this paper as a consolidation of power by the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jingping. But to what end does he pursue? His rhetoric sounds more like Mao than the Chinese leader--any Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. General Secretary Xi's historical resolution reads as a break from China's economic policies--what we thought was moving towards a free market system since the 1980s, and until the last few years, I would say it was moving towards a free market system. But it is too late to turn back now, right? Well, don't be so sure. The Soviet Union pursued its New Economic Policy as a short-term effort to strengthen the state before returning to a more pure Marxism.

In a similar vein, General Secretary Xi has been cracking down on non-state-owned businesses, giving seemingly no care to the cost to the Chinese economy. General Secretary Xi's recent policies reportedly wiped out up to $1 trillion in stock value. He is doing this under the banner of so-called ``common prosperity,'' giving a socialist ideology backbone to what seems to be a power play to put him in a position of forever, the rest of his life, governing China.

American businesses need to pay attention to all this. Even if they don't care about the slave labor camp full of Uighurs, even if they don't care about the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, if our business leaders don't care about China's increasingly aggressive military posture--even willing to look the other way to China's stealing intellectual property and trade secrets--considering all that for American business over there, I would urge extreme caution to any business that still sees the Chinese market as a cash cow.

Many people thought China would become very democratic once it was sufficiently capitalist. Maybe General Secretary Xi is worried about just that--being too capitalistic, making too many people successful without the help of the government. So if anyone thinks that General Secretary Xi would not dare sacrifice economic growth in the pursuit of power, think again.

Emerging market funds with a lot of exposure to China ought to think about rebalancing. Pension funds that are overexposed to the Chinese market are risking wiping out the retirement savings of American workers, just like we have seen so far--$1 trillion less value in Chinese stocks because of General Secretary Xi's policies.

My advice, then, to American business is that China is not a safe bet--surely, not the safe bet that many American businessmen thought it was. So a little bit of advice: Anyone investing in China ought to go in with open eyes and a big tolerance for risk as long as General Secretary Xi goes down this line of accumulating political power and not caring about destroying what private sector is left there.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on November 3 of this year, Special Counsel Durham indicted Christopher Steele's primary subsource, Igor Danchenko. He indicted him on five counts of lying to the FBI. He lied about his contacts and the identity of his sources.

One of the more serious lies was about Sergei Millian. The indictment shows that Danchenko alleged a phone call occurred between him and Millian about a Trump-Russia conspiracy. That call was part of the basis that the FBI used to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

Now, according to Durham, Steele's source lied about the call because that call never happened. This is yet another stunning, fatal defect against the Obama-Biden administration's fake predicate to investigate Trump--specifically, yet another illustration of Justice Department and FBI failure.

Now, as a result of these failures, this country has been dragged through the mud for years. That statement is well understood at this point, but I have more to explain about it.

The indictment also shows that one of Steele's sources was a ``longtime participant in Democratic Party politics'' and that he ``fabricated'' at least some of the information that he gave to Danchenko.

This source, identified as Charles Dolan, ``actively campaigned and participated in calls and events as a volunteer on behalf of Hillary Clinton'' during the 2016 election.

Another one of Danchenko's sources was also a Hillary Clinton supporter. Charles Dolan gifted to this particular Russian subsource an autobiography of Hillary Clinton signed with these words: ``To my good friend, a great Democrat.''

Now--get this--while the Democrats were smearing Trump with false Russia allegations, they were the ones rubbing elbows with Russians and spreading false information in the media, and, of

course, the media, as we know, gladly ran with that information. For example, President Biden's current National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, promoted the false story about the Russian bank called Alfa Bank communicating with the Trump organization, when he worked for the Clinton campaign.

Notably, during congressional testimony, several years ago, Sullivan said that he wasn't sure who Marc Elias represented when he presented Trump opposition research to the campaign. Now, for crying out loud, Elias was the Clinton campaign's general counsel.

My oversight work dating back to December 2016 has focused on the Democratic Party's and Clinton campaign's links to the Steele dossier. Last Congress, Senator Johnson and I obtained many records relating to Crossfire Hurricane. We were able to get many of them declassified for the public.

I point you to our April 15, 2020; December 3, 2020; and December 18, 2020, press releases on this information. Some of the declassified records show that the FBI had reports in its hand that showed the Steele dossier was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation.

One document indicates that the FBI received a U.S. intelligence report on January 12, 2017, warning of an inaccuracy in the dossier in relation to Michael Cohen. The report assessed that the material was ``part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.''

That same day, the FISA warrant against Page was renewed for the first time by Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. This is when the Obama-Biden administration and the Justice Department were still in charge.

A similar U.S. intelligence report arrived on February 27, 2017, undercutting a key allegation against then-President Trump. The report noted claims about Trump's travel to Moscow in 2013 ``were false, and they were the product of Russian intelligence services infiltrat[ing] a source into the network'' of sources that contributed to the dossier. Just over a month later, the FISA warrant against Page was then renewed for a second time.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the FBI also opened a counterintelligence case on Danchenko and failed to tell the FISA Court about it. If this fact pattern was a movie script, nobody would believe it.

With Durham's recent indictments, we now have even more proof that the Trump-Russia collusion investigation had the wrong name. It should have been the Clinton-DNC-Russia collusion investigation.

The media and many members of the Democratic Party ought to be ashamed of the falsehoods that they were spreading throughout these years. Our political discourse has been damaged for decades to come because of that scheme.

Recently, the Washington Post had to correct over a dozen articles relating to its previous Russia reporting in light of the extensive errors made by that newspaper--years of errors, I might add. I think it is somewhat unprecedented, and I am sure the Washington Post hated to retract and correct the record.

As Durham proceeds, I would say this: Don't take your eyes off of government misconduct. The Justice Department and the FBI hid critical information from the FISA Court that would have cut against their case. They failed to correct the record when they should have corrected the record. Simply put, the Justice Department and the FBI misrepresented information to the court. That conduct can't be allowed to pass.

Remembering Tom Riter

Mr. President, on another matter, just a short point I want to make about a very important voice in agriculture journalism that has gone silent.

Every Tuesday morning--probably for 52 weeks out of the year--I hold a conference call with agriculture reporters and farm broadcasters to discuss news and issues impacting the 2 percent of the Americans who feed and fuel the world. I am talking about our family farmers.

For the past several decades, the first question each week came from a very familiar voice in the agriculture community: Tom Riter of WNAX out of Yankton, SD.

Sadly, Tom passed away on November 21, just a few days before Thanksgiving.

Tom rarely--and I mean very rarely--ever missed my weekly call. In fact, he always kicked off the discussion that was carried on by probably another dozen people--kicked off the discussion with a smart question about farm policy. Undoubtedly, his reports kept his listeners informed on issues that make a big difference to their lives, their farms, their ranches, and businesses in the American heartland.

He happened to be a native of Rock Rapids, IA, not far from Yankton. He was a fellow University of Northern Iowa Panther. Tom joined WNAX in 1999, so he was around that station for 22 years, I think it adds up to. Ever since, I have looked forward to our weekly discussions.

I am grateful for Tom's dedication to his craft, specifically his work to expand the public's understanding and appreciation of the ag community's contribution to our society--most importantly, that 2 percent of the people in this country who produce the food for the other 98 percent.

My wife Barbara and I extend our sympathies to Tom's family and friends, the WNAX family, and his colleagues in the ag press community. We lost a very big voice for American agriculture. He will be greatly missed.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, today I am going to highlight a new Hunter Biden record that I have recently made public.

Before I get to that point, I am going to take a trip down memory lane--yes, down memory lane.

On September 23, 2020, Senator Johnson and I released our ``Biden Report,'' as it has been called. That report focused on questionable financial transactions between the Biden family and foreign, government-linked individuals.

On November 18, 2020, we released a supplemental to that report. I am going to read several statements from the media and my Democratic colleagues about our report.

So, to start with, on September 23, 2020, a New York Times article by Nicholas Fandos described it in two ways: ``lack of meaningful new information'' and ``overlap with a Russian disinformation campaign.''

And the then-Democratic minority leader was quoted in the same article

and said the report read ``as if Putin wrote it, not United States senators.''

A September 23, 2020, Salon article by Igor Derysh quoted a Democratic Senator saying that the report was the culmination of a ``sham investigation.'' In that article, the same Democratic Senator described our investigation as being ``rooted in disinformation'' from Russian operatives.

Separately, a Democratic Senator also said about our report: ``Bottom line: The Johnson-Grassley investigation is baseless. It's laundering Russian propaganda for circulation in the U.S.''

In a September 23, 2020, CBS article by Melissa Quinn, another Democratic Senator said about our report, meaning the Johnson-Grassley report: ``The chairmen have amplified a known Russian attack on our election,'' and ``It is unconscionable that the chairmen are continuing to advance false information intended to undermine our democratic process at the expense of bipartisan work that we should be doing to protect our national security.''

That same CBS article said that our report ``reveals little new information.''

And one Washington Post columnist, Josh Rogin, said: ``Even after accepting disinformation from Russian agents, Johnson and Grassley couldn't come up with anything new or interesting on Hunter Biden.''

So understand this: Week after week, month after month, year after year, the media and my Democratic colleagues falsely attacked our investigation with reckless disregard for the truth. I have spoken at length on the Senate floor rebutting all these false charges with example after example. I did so on May 11, 2021; March 18, 2021; December 14, 2020; December 10, 2020; October 19, 2020; and September 29, 2020.

Well, on November 15, this year, Senator Johnson and I publicly released a record that I placed in part on this poster next to me, and I will get to this in a minute. The full document illustrates an assignment and assumption of business interests.

The part next to me is a signature block in unaltered form, including one typographical error. The signature block includes Hunter Biden, two of his companies, and individuals connected to the communist Chinese regime. These are the main companies that Hunter Biden and his associates used to funnel money all over the world: Hudson West III, Hudson V, and then the other ones are ColdHarbour Capital and Owasco. Owasco is Hunter Biden's firm that was the recipient of millions of dollars from questionable financial transactions.

Gongwen Dong was the right-hand man for the owner of a company called CEFC China Energy Company. Mervyn Yan was his associate. CEFC was an arm of the Chinese Government. Hunter Biden was a close business partner of these men and their companies. Therefore, this signature block shows a direct financial and legal relationship between Hunter Biden and individuals connected to the communist regime.

Now, these are the same folks and companies that we discussed at length in our September 2020 report. This new document is yet another record that substantiates our report that we issued September 2020-- that same report that the media and my Democratic colleagues said was based on Russian disinformation.

So I now say to the media and I now say to my Democratic colleagues who said our report was Russian disinformation, this question: Is this signature block Russian disinformation? Are the names of these companies Russian disinformation? Is this document disinformation?

No. This is a legitimate record that my staff uncovered, and it didn't come from the Hunter Biden laptop. This is the same type of record that Senator Johnson and I based our report several months ago on.

To my Democratic colleagues who falsely smeared our report: You are in the majority. You are now committee chairs, and you have jurisdiction over these matters. So I want to challenge you to use the same effort and energy that you exerted in the Trump-Russia investigation to expose the extensive ties between the Chinese regime and members of the Biden family.

I think I speak with some credibility on this point because you know there was a President Trump, and at the time there was a President Trump, I investigated Donald Trump, Jr., on things that were appropriate at that time to ask legitimate questions about in the constitutional role of congressional oversight.

Education

Madam President, on another matter--and this will be my last statement for the day--I have always been a critic of one-size-fits-all government, and there are few places where this is more inappropriate than education. Each child is different, and if we offer a cookie- cutter, assembly-line education, it will hurt all students.

Whether we are talking about students with gifts and talents or those with learning disabilities, students with unique learning needs must have teachers trained to address their way of learning. It may seem like common sense to say that, that students benefit when their education is tailored to their individual needs. Any parent can tell you that. You can't expect all students to learn at the same speed and depth in every subject.

Unfortunately, those like outgoing New York Mayor de Blasio want to scrap programs for gifted students. Citing the fact that White and Asian students were overperforming compared to students from other ethnic categories, de Blasio tried to end the city's program.

His focus on maintaining equality of outcomes by preventing any students from excelling is a misguided policy. It would have the perverse effect of reducing opportunity for the very students who need it most, including historically disadvantaged minority groups.

Now, we all know that wealthy families can afford to put their kids in private schools or pay for services outside of the schools. It is those students who aren't as well off who need access to services to address their unique learning needs. Families from less advantaged backgrounds are not helped by limiting opportunities for all students in public schools. They are the ones who have the most to lose when public schools cancel needed services.

Thankfully, the incoming New York mayor recognizes the importance of gifted and talented programming and has pledged to keep it.

I introduced the TALENT Act to address these unique needs of gifted and talented students and ensure that they don't slip through the cracks. Thankfully, much of this bill was included in Every Child Achieves in the year 2015. But I am also a strong supporter of Javits Gifted and Talented Education. This is the only dedicated Federal program to develop and help teachers implement teaching methods that meet the needs of gifted students, and it is targeted specifically to disadvantaged gifted students.

Thankfully, my State of Iowa is a leader in this area. Iowa law requires gifted education services for kids who need to be challenged. This applies to all students, whether or not they can afford private schools. Iowa has recognized that we should aim to challenge kids with gifts and talents and give them the resources they need to excel. We should help all students achieve their potential, not try in vain to find one identical education for every kid.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my fellow Senators: On November 4 of this year, I introduced an amendment to this year's national defense bill. This amendment focuses on the Office of Net Assessment. That office is within the Pentagon.

The Office of Net Assessment's purpose is to produce an annual net assessment, which is a long-term look at our military capabilities and those of our greatest adversaries.

In 2019, when I began to look at Stefan Halper's contracting work for the Office of Net Assessment, something didn't look right. So I asked the inspector general to look into it.

For those who are unaware, Halper was a central figure in the debunked Russia collusion investigation. And I don't have to explain the Russia collusion investigation; everybody in the U.S. Senate knows something about that and they know what it refers to.

Halper secretly, at that time, recorded Trump campaign officials during Crossfire Hurricane.

Halper also received over 1 million taxpayer dollars from the Office of Net Assessment for several research projects. But the question is: Were they really research projects?

But the inspector general found some problems with his contract:

The Office of Net Assessment didn't require Halper to submit evidence that he actually talked to the people he cited in his work, which included Russian intelligence officers.

Secondly, the Office of Net Assessment couldn't provide sufficient documentation that Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with the law.

Thirdly, the Office of Net Assessment didn't maintain sufficient documents to comply with all of the Federal contracting requirements and OMB's guidelines.

The inspector general also found that these problems weren't unique to Halper's contract. This is the inspector general speaking up on this. I am reporting what he said. So these findings indicate systemic issues within the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon.

Moreover, this office has spent taxpayers' money on research projects unconnected to net assessments. In other words, they are spending money and wasting money that doesn't deal very closely with our national defense.

Two cases in point: The office funded a report titled ``On the Nature of Americans as a Warlike People: Workshop Report.''

Now, that report highlighted the ``level of American belligerency which is the result of the persistence of Scotch-Irish culture in America.''

That ought to get a lot of your attention. What does that have to do with the assessment of the capability of us to deliver on the constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government to the defense of the American people? Or what does that have to do with our assessing the capability of our enemies?

Yet another report focused on Vladimir Putin's neurological development and potential Asperger's diagnosis.

Now, I have highlighted these reports for the Pentagon, and I have asked for records from the Office of Net Assessment relating to some of its other work as well. To date, they still haven't been able to provide all of the records that they ought to provide to the Congress of the United States, under our constitutional responsibility, to see that money is faithfully spent according to congressional intent and that the laws are faithfully executed.

While the Office of Net Assessment was busy wasting taxpayers' money and not responding to congressional requests, China built its hypersonic missile program.

Are we on top of that program? It has got something to do with our enemy's capability.

As a result of all of these failures, then, like I told you, I introduced my amendment to the defense bill on November 4. The amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to determine how much taxpayer money this unit actually uses for net assessment--the reason they were set up.

Are they doing their job? Are they following the law? Are they spending the taxpayers' money responsibly?

I think I have shown, in some instances, where they have not.

The amendment would filter out taxpayer-funded research that has nothing to do with net assessment. In other words, the Office of Net Assessment ought to be doing net assessment, and that deals with the capability of the U.S. Government to do the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government: the national defense of the American people.

The second responsibility of this Agency is to determine the capability of our enemies to do damage to us. In other words, it is time that we find out how much money the Office of Net Assessment needs to actually do its job instead of acting like a slush fund for irrelevant or political research projects.

Of course, if this happens and the taxpayers' money is spent properly, this, in turn, will save the taxpayers, potentially, millions of dollars a year.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on November 15, the Pentagon announced that it completed its fourth consecutive annual audit and received a fourth consecutive failing opinion.

This is what the Pentagon believes: If it somehow merely just conducts an audit, then somehow conducting that audit is a success despite the fact that it has been a requirement under the law for the last 30 years for Agencies--and that means all government Agencies--to conduct and pass an annual audit. The Department of Defense is about the only one that doesn't meet the requirements of the law.

The Department points to other signs of progress, such as that they were able to downgrade one material weakness from a previous audit and the closure of some 450 adverse findings. That, somehow, is progress. It is not progress--at least, it doesn't meet the demands of the law. However, the fact remains that the Department of Defense is unable to accurately account for billions of taxpayer dollars it spends each year.

Funding for the Department of Defense is crucial to our national security. Men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform and, hence, defend our country--these people deserve to be well paid and well equipped.

In light of the rising threats around the globe, it is more crucial than ever that not one dollar is lost to fraud, waste, and abuse. A clean audit, which the Defense Department has never had, is the key to whether Department of Defense money is spent responsibly.

A key underlying problem to the continued failed audits is the financial management systems used by the various military Departments. The Department of Defense uses hundreds of different financial systems that are outdated and are unable to communicate with each other. They cannot generate reliable transaction data and are not auditable.

There are inadequate internal controls in financial management systems, presenting an environment that is ripe for waste and fraud. Without internal controls at the transaction level, military leaders can never know how much things cost.

I have tried to work with leaders in the Department on this subject for years, but time and again, I have been disappointed.

The Defense Department's inability or its unwillingness to make necessary and overdue changes should be unacceptable to any Senator.

I filed an amendment to the bill before the Senate this year to address the root cause of the Pentagon's failed audits. The underlying bill provides for an independent Commission tasked with examining the budgeting and planning processes at the Pentagon. My amendment will require that very same Commission to also make recommendations on bringing financial management systems up to snuff.

The Department of Defense will never be able to get a clean audit opinion while these systems remain unfixed, and the Department of Defense has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to deploy an accounting

system capable of capturing payment transactions and generating reliable data. If you can't follow the money, you will never be able to get a clean audit.

I am glad that my amendment has been included in the substitute amendment of the Defense bill before the U.S. Senate now, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort through to final passage to finally make real progress towards getting to a clean audit opinion. Fiscal accountability and military readiness are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either-or scenario. Earning a clean bill of fiscal health will strengthen military readiness and boost support for necessary increases to defense spending in Congress, and it would get the backing of the American people to a greater extent than it does today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, inflation soared to a 31-year high in October.

Now, after thinking about it, it seems President Biden and his allies are sensing inflation may endanger their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Now, as a result, they have taken to arguing that the cure for the inflation spurred by their reckless spending is to pursue even more reckless spending.

I am not buying it. The American people aren't buying it either.

President Biden and his allies have been wrong about inflation from day one, and they are wrong now. Immediately after taking office, we all know what happened: They pursued a partisan $2 trillion liberal wish list package under the guise of COVID relief, and only 9 percent of it was to fight COVID.

Congress had already approved $4 trillion in bipartisan relief, including a nearly $1 trillion bill, only a month prior to the President's inauguration. And all that money that was spent recovering from Congress shutting down the economy in March of 2020 was all passed in a bipartisan, cooperative way, not like bills this year are tuned up to just be partisan, with the majority Democrats of the House and Senate supplying all the support.

Now, our economy was already on the road to recovery when the President was sworn in, and highly effective vaccines were allowing economic activity to bounce back, and it did bounce back quickly.

I, along with many on my side of the aisle, warned that adding $2 trillion on top of the existing relief--that money still entering the economy--risked sparking inflation, and it has.

And it wasn't just Republicans sounding the inflation alarm. Longtime Democratic economist Professor Larry Summers, who held top posts in both the Obama and Clinton administrations, also made his inflation concerns known. So Democrats in Congress and the White House don't even heed the advice of their own.

In a February Washington Post op-ed, Professor Summers warned President Biden's so-called COVID package might ``set off inflationary pressures of a kind [that] we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the value of the dollar and financial stability.'' Six and two-tenths inflation just announced, which proves that Professor Summers was right.

With a prominent liberal economist such as Larry Summers raising inflation concerns, wouldn't one think the President of the United States would begin to take the risk of inflation very seriously? It is not how it is turning out. Instead, President Biden and senior administration officials are doubling down, arguing the real risk was not spending enough.

Now, think about that for a second. Congress had already spent almost as much responding to COVID, in inflation-adjusted dollars, as it did in waging World War II. Yet we are somehow expected to believe too little spending, not inflation, was the real risk.

In reality, President Biden and congressional Democrats were simply determined to not let a crisis go to waste. They couldn't let a ``high class problem'' like inflation get in the way of passing ``the most progressive piece of legislation in history.''

How out of touch is that? Remember, inflation is a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most, increasing the cost of food, clothing, and shelter; in other words, affecting the basic essentials of life. Then, in the months to follow, inflation began to tick upward. In April, inflation clocked in at an annualized rate of 4.1 percent--the highest spike since the financial crisis of 2008.

Nothing to see here, the Biden administration officials said. That inflation was solely due to ``base effects''--those are their words, ``base affects''--that resulted from prices being suppressed during the pandemic.

In a month or two, they said inflation was to return to normal or you heard the word ``transitional'' inflation, as Fed Chairman Powell was preaching to the entire country. Now, of course, Powell has changed his mind, to some extent.

Now, around the same time, President Biden released his reckless tax- and-spending agenda, calling for an additional--can you believe it?-- $4,000 in spending?

Professor Larry Summers again sounded the inflation alarm warning, ``[W]e are injecting more demand into the economy than the potential supply . . . and that will generate overheating.''

Now, skip ahead a month to June. Inflation surges to 5.4 percent. Again, the administration claims that there is nothing to worry about. Again, we are told inflation is merely transitory and solely the result of bottlenecks in the supply chain.

Inflation remained at those elevated levels of 5.4 percent July through September. Inflation was persisting longer than the administration expected. But they were still sure it was only transitory.

According to President Biden, ``[N]o serious economist''--those are his words--``[N]o serious economist'' was predicting spiraling inflation. Really? Larry Summers, a Harvard professor and former Clinton Secretary of Treasury, isn't a serious economist?

I will tell you how serious of an economist he is. I think he got on the Harvard staff at a very young age with a title of distinguished professor. And I think he was only about 30 years of age at that time. Then, early this month, the inflation numbers for October were released. Inflation surged to 6.2 percent. That is the highest inflation rate in 31 years.

Only then did the administration begin to acknowledge that inflation is a problem. To do otherwise would be an insult to the intelligence of the American public. Hard-working Americans have been experiencing historically high price increases for more than half a year.

The Biden inflation tax on average Americans is now $175 a month, which equates to about an extra $2,100 of costs every year. Gone are the claims that inflation is transitory. Instead, according to President Biden, ``[i]nflation hurts Americans' pocketbooks, and reversing this trend'' is his ``top priority.''

Now, President Biden and his allies claim the key to reversing this inflation trend is to enact the same reckless tax-and-spending agenda that they have been pursuing all year. How convenient. The solution to surging inflation is the same agenda he has been passing all along.

I won't go as far as President Biden and try to claim no serious economist agrees with him. However, even the economists cited by the administration as supporting their agenda do have caveats. Those caveats include that their spending policies are entirely paid for and are structured in a way that will increase labor productivity.

The current version of their spending plans doesn't come close to meeting those huge caveats. The President claims his agenda is completely paid for, but those claims rest solely on sleight of hand and budget gimmickry.

Their largest gimmick comes from artificially sunsetting spending provisions that they do not intend to expire while imposing a permanent tax hike. In other words, increasing taxes and accounting it for over the 10-year period of time that the Congressional Budget Office looks ahead--spend that money in the first 2 or 3 years, and then supposedly the program is going to sunset. But everybody knows that these programs won't sunset. So you better figure what the long-term cost is. And that is that $4.2 trillion that has been in the press since this Build Back Better program hit the press.

Now, on another point, even taking President Biden's claim at face value, his agenda will result in hundreds of billions of dollars of increased deficit spending in the near term, fueling current inflation pressures.

Moreover, according to a Penn Wharton Budget Model and its analysis, under the more realistic assumption that their spending proposals are made permanent, their plan would increase debt and deficit by more than $2 trillion over 10 years. The Penn Wharton Budget Model shows that.

As a result, then, by 2050, government debt would be 24 percent higher, economic growth would be 3 percent lower, and wages would be 1.7 percent less than they otherwise would be.

Now, he calls the program Building Back Better. This is a recipe for building back worse. The bottom line is that the President's ill- designed spending-and-tax spree isn't deficit neutral. It won't boost productivity, but it will fuel inflation. So I think after this October report comes out of inflation being the highest in 31 years at 6.2 percent, it is time to pause and rethink this entire approach.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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