Floor Statements

Madam President, on another subject, I want to speak again about the border crisis created by the Biden administration. I spoke on this subject just last week, and the situation has not improved since then.

Encounters with family units and unaccompanied alien children continue to increase. There are now new reports that at some segments of the border, illegal immigrants are being released into the interior of the United States without receiving a notice to appear in immigration court. To be clear, it appears that the administration is now releasing some illegal immigrants into the United States without even attempting to give them immigration court dates, much less taking any real steps to ensure that they actually schedule their hearings and show up for their court dates in the future.

Once again, this is totally unacceptable. This is catch-and-release without even pretending to care whether the immigrants show up for court or are removed from the country in the future. This is also not sustainable. Every sovereign nation has a right as well as a duty to its citizens to control its borders. What we are seeing from this administration isn't border control or security. You see it on television. It is chaos. It is what happens when you broadcast to the world that you have no intention of enforcing our Nation's immigration laws.

The President could take action to end this crisis today if he actually wanted to. He could restore the Migrant Protection Protocols and the asylum cooperative agreements that the Trump administration signed with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

He could start building more physical infrastructure along our southern border as administrations of both parties have done for over 20 years, including the administration in which Biden served as Vice President. Fencing isn't something new, and it has not been a partisan issue until just here lately.

Rather than propose unserious blanket amnesty legislation that contains no real border security, the President could work with Congress on commonsense changes to our immigration laws that we all know are needed.

Finally, the President could make clear that he is in favor of fully enforcing our immigration laws as written, across the board, remembering that he takes an oath that has the words to ``faithfully execute'' the laws.

Unfortunately, this administration believes that the surge in illegal immigration at the southern border, due to its policies, is a process to be managed rather than a crisis to be stopped. As long as that is the case, we won't be able to truly secure our border and cut off the flow of illegal immigration to this country. Let's hope things change soon.

Mr. President, on another subject, over the years, the consolidation of the beef industry has threatened the livelihood of Iowa farm families and rural communities where they reside, and it isn't limited to just Iowa. This would be farmers all over the country.

I have been working since 2002 to increase the producers' leverage against processors, improve market price discovery, and better situate independent Iowa cattlemen in the fed cattle markets.

This past year, these issues became even more apparent and urgent because of the COVID pandemic. While the cattle industry has internally looked for ways to increase the amount of cash trade, it has not been able to find a solution.

Unfortunately, this means that government intervention is needed as it is past time for a solution. The government needs to step in to guarantee that the free market treats cattlemen fairly.

From the 2012 USDA ``Agriculture Census'' to the 2017 ``Agriculture Census,'' Iowa lost nearly 1,500 cattle producers. While we don't have USDA statistics from the past 2 years, the release of the 2022 USDA ``Agriculture Census'' will likely see an even more dramatic loss of producers because of the pandemic. I know this because of my many conversations I have with independent cattle producers from nearly every county in Iowa.

During my meetings in all 99 Iowa counties, cattle market transparency and my bill introduced last Congress with Senator Tester, mandating 50 percent of negotiated cash trade in the cattle markets, is one of the most mentioned topics at those county meetings. The aid that Congress offered via the USDA Coronavirus Food Assistance Program provided over $7 billion in assistance to cattle producers so far.

However, this assistance is merely a bandaid covering a gaping wound. Congress must step up again and, instead of providing payments to producers, make sure that producers have access to fair and transparent markets. From the Holcomb, KS, fire at a Tyson's facility to the widely reported closures of processing plants due to the coronavirus outbreaks, we continue to see a wide disparity between the cash price of fed cattle and the price of boxed beef, which, in turn, affects consumer costs.

Normally, the packer spread between the price of live cattle and boxed beef is about $21 per hundredweight, but USDA's report on the coronavirus shutdowns showed that, last May, this spread was $279, as opposed to that usual $21 per hundredweight, the highest since reporting began 20 years ago.

It is just part of a pattern that has evolved during my time in the Senate. That pattern is that farmers are getting a smaller amount of the overall dollar for their food production.

I appreciate the leadership from Secretary Perdue in issuing their USDA report last August. That report helps the cause for the Grassley- Tester legislation. Beyond just highlighting problems, Perdue also offered recommendations, one of which was for Congress to consider a mechanism to mandate a level of negotiated cash trade. This is not a new issue in the beef industry. In fact, I first introduced a bill that would mandate cash trade way back almost 20 years.

Today, on behalf of Iowa's independent cattle producers, I am proud to reintroduce my bill with Senator Tester to mandate negotiated cash trade at 50 percent. Without a mandated amount of cash trade, producers continue to be residual suppliers and will lack leverage to fairly negotiate with packing companies.

Earlier this month, Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska introduced the Cattle Market Transparency Act of 2021. There are some excellent provisions in Senator Fischer's bill, such as the creation of a contract library, as well as new required reports on the number of cattle scheduled for delivery. These provisions will add great transparency and great price discovery. They are important to Iowans, as they are to Nebraskans.

However, when it comes to a negotiated amount of cash trade, Senator Fischer's bill only mandates a regional minimum. This means price discovery would still be reliant upon cattle producers who already are negotiating.

So what is price discovery?

Well, put simply, price discovery is where a buyer and a seller agree on a price and a transaction occurs

Cattle producers of all sizes and in all regions recognize that price discovery is a public good, a very good public good. These producers also realize that the thinning of the cash market is a serious problem for all market participants. Producers in the Midwest of the U.S. reporting regions already provide ample price discovery by putting in hard work and selling cattle using negotiated means at nearly 60 percent. They do this while producers who sell with formulas use these prices in their contracts. That is why something must be done. Any legislative solution should address the imbalance of the cash trade across the entire beef belt.

My bill with Senator Tester would simply shift the burden of price discovery from independent producers, like those in Iowa, and spread it evenly among all cattle producers.

I am looking forward to working with Senator Fischer and the entire Senate Agriculture Committee to

make permanent changes in mandatory price reporting, which needs to be reauthorized by September 30 of this year.

Cattle producers are counting on us to make changes. We can no longer take a wait-and-see approach. The beef industry employs hundreds of thousands of hard-working men and women who work each day to help feed our country and the world, but the USDA Agriculture Census shows we are losing these producers.

I am asking my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor my bill with Senator Tester to ensure the strength of the beef supply chain and to support our cattle producers

Madam President, during committee review of Ms. Young's nomination to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, important questions were raised about whether she would uphold and enforce the restrictions of the Hyde amendment if confirmed. I found her initial response to a question put to her on the subject troubling as it suggested she may seek to use her position to undermine Hyde. However, after speaking with Ms. Young and pressing her on the issue, I am satisfied that she will follow the law as written by Congress without regard to her own personal views. She has assured me that she has no intention to revise rules or regulations concerning Hyde and understands it is not her place to change law. I therefore have decided to vote in favor of her nomination.

A Civil War legislation called the False Claims Act has been on the books since that period of time. In 1986, I believe it was, I got some amendments to it that made it a much more valuable piece of legislation than it was before that time.

It is called the False Claims Act, and it has brought, I think, something like $64 billion back into the Federal Treasury of fraudulently taken money since then.

The problem today, even though it has been a successful law, is that the courts tend, from time to time, to neuter its capabilities by interpreting it in a way so it is not quite as effective. From time to time, we have passed legislation to overcome some of those court decisions.

I am here today to talk about another opportunity this Senate has to make the False Claims Act the effective piece of legislation it was.

So I want to alert my colleagues about the most recent limitations the courts have imposed on the False Claims Act.

The False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, for the very same purpose it serves today: to fight fraud, not just with military matters, as was the reason for doing it because the Union Army was being defrauded at that particular time, but, today, it fights fraud governmentwide.

Today, it is the government's most powerful anti-fraud statute. That is because amendments that I offered in 1986 empowered whistleblowers to sue fraudsters on the government's behalf with or without the government's help. Since then, we have recovered more than $64 billion of taxpayer money lost to fraud.

Now, when we talk about anti-fraud statutes like the False Claims Act, we use the term ``materiality.'' It is because of that term that the courts have caused--their interpretation of that term has caused-- the act to be less effective. The False Claims Act defines ``materiality'' as ``having a natural tendency of influencing the payment or receipt of money or property.'' Basically, if the government could have withheld payment, then it was likely material.

However, based on a 2016 Supreme Court opinion, the Federal courts are trying to reshape the act's materiality requirement. In the Supreme Court's opinion in Escobar, ``if the Government pays a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not material.''

Citing this language, other courts have made the government's payment decisions in these cases a deciding factor. Consequently, the Justice Department now shies away from prosecuting these cases. That is the case even when the fraud is very obvious and then, obviously, material.

Recently, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction briefed me on a report about a botched Defense Department effort to quickly buy cargo planes from an Italian manufacturer called Alenia.

In 2009, the Department of Defense bought 20 cargo planes from this company, Alenia, for $549 million. These planes were intended to move goods and train Afghan pilots. This is the type of plane we are talking about. The contract required the manufacturers to refurbish 20 retired aircraft and provide enough spare parts for 10 years of maintenance. To seal the deal, the company even took Department of Defense personnel on several warehouse tours to prove they had all these spare parts.

When the planes arrived in Afghanistan, mechanics quickly noted the planes were very poorly refurbished. Worse, they couldn't actually fly. The poor state of the planes and the hazards of the Afghan elements made that impossible. The company, Alenia, also lied about their maintenance commitments.

Now, remember, I already told you about their promise that those warehouses were full of parts for the next 10 years. These spare parts that they

showed them were not for these planes. In other words, they were for the wrong planes.

Despite this blatant fraud, the Department of Defense inspectors kept certifying the planes, and the government kept making payments.

But here is the catch: The inspectors later admitted that many of the documents and manuals they reviewed were in Italian, and none of them spoke Italian.

In the final count, out of 20 aircraft, 4 never even made it to Afghanistan.

It is unclear why the Department of Defense continued making payments despite these flagrant violations, but by 2013, it became clear that continuing this program was unfeasible, and the government tried to sell the remaining 16 planes. You can imagine that nobody wanted these planes. So the Obama-Biden administration sold them all for scrap metal. You can see the scrap metal right here.

To recap, the government bought 20 airplanes for $549 million and, in less than 5 years, sold them for $40,257 worth of scrap metal. The photos next to me show what we bought compared to what it was actually worth, a little pile of garbage.

It is clear that the actual condition of the planes and the lack of parts were very material components of this contract. See, there is that word ``material.''

Now, thanks to the Department of Defense's poor judgment and also the courts' new standard on materiality, the Justice Department won't bring False Claims Act charges against that company.

Materiality is important to protect against parasitic lawsuits, but we can't allow defendants to get away with scalping the taxpayers because some government bureaucrats failed to do their jobs.

Government bureaucrats are highly segmented and often unable to make key decisions for their organizations. Now, that is not the employee's fault. That is just kind of the way government, I am sorry to say, operates.

Also, the government typically stops payments only when it has fully investigated and corroborated a claim of fraud.

In my many years of investigating the Department of Defense, it has taught me that a Pentagon bureaucrat is rarely motivated to recognize fraud. That is because the money doesn't come out of their pocket. This example highlights how the courts' narrow interpretation of ``materiality'' fails to take into account how the government really works and why we need to overcome the courts' decision on the definition of ``materiality.''

When the False Claims Act was originally passed, one fraudster boasted--and this is a direct quote--``You can sell anything to the government at almost any price if you've got the guts to ask.''

Unfortunately, that was true in this case as well. I have already made it public that I am working to patch this hole in the taxpayer's pocket. This example perfectly illustrates the need for change. I am working on introducing legislation to address the issue, and I am in the final stages of negotiating and look forward to putting forward a very bipartisan bill in the coming weeks.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that my Judiciary Committee detailee, Joseph Routh, be given privileges of the floor for the remainder of the 117th Congress.

Mr. President, on March 6 of this year, the intelligence community issued its ``Intelligence Community Assessment on Foreign Threats to the 2020 U.S. Federal Elections.'' Based on that report, some in the liberal media have falsely claimed that my and Senator Johnson's Hunter Biden-related oversight activity last Congress was based on Russian disinformation. Even Peter Strzok felt the need to chime in on Twitter to say that we received Russian disinformation.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but such claims are false and misleading. To be precise, Senator Johnson and I didn't receive, solicit, or rely upon any information from Andrii Derkach, and we publicly said so many times.

I don't know how many times last fall I was on this floor of the U.S. Senate trying to explain that to the people who were making those accusations. It seems like Strzok pays just about as careful attention to these facts as he did to the Crossfire FISA applications.

Of course, Twitter lets disinformation about the Steele dossier run wild on their platform yet shuts down still unrefuted reporting on Hunter Biden before the 2020 election. In other words, we have a double standard.

Now, regarding Russian disinformation, it wasn't Senator Johnson and this Senator that dealt in it. It happens to be very clear that the other side, the Democrats, were dealing with it. Here's one quick example. If you want more, then I would refer you to section 10 of our September 23, 2020, report.

On July 13, 2020, then-Minority Leader Schumer, Senator Warner, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Schiff sent a letter with a classified attachment to the FBI to express a purported belief that Congress was the subject of a foreign disinformation campaign.

The classified attachment to that letter included unclassified elements that attempted, but failed, to tie our work to Derkach. Those unclassified elements were leaked to the press to support a false campaign accusing us two Senators of using Russian disinformation.

Then, during the course of our investigation, we ran a transcribed interview of George Kent. Before that interview, the Democrats acquired Derkach's materials. During that interview, they asked the witness about it. He stated: ``What you're asking me to interpret is a master chart of disinformation and malign influence.''

At that interview, the Democrats introduced known disinformation into the investigative record as an exhibit. More precisely, the Democrats relied upon and disseminated known disinformation from a foreign source whom the intelligence community warned was actively seeking to influence U.S. politics. Yet now--can you believe this?--they accuse this Senator and Senator Johnson of doing that very thing. Now let that sink in because there is a case of double standard around here.

It is clear that the Democrats hope that their self-created disinformation campaign would drown out our report and its findings to protect Candidate Biden from the facts. Now that President Biden is in office, the facts aren't going anywhere.

I had an opportunity to serve 28 years in the Senate with Senator Biden. I liked him then; I still like him. But that doesn't mean that I like the double standard the press has toward President Biden and us Republicans.

As President Biden gears up for his first press conference, he ought to answer for the fact that his family was and possibly still is financially connected to Chinese nationals with links to the Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army. Indeed, Hunter Biden reportedly admitted that he was well aware that some of his business associates were connected to the Communist Chinese Government intelligence services. Now, double standard--where is the media in asking serious questions about that?

It has also been reported that emails show Joe Biden and his brother were ``office mates'' with the very same Chinese nationals with links to the Communist regime and the its military. Now, talk about a double standard. Where is the media in asking serious questions about that? Yet they are reporting this very day about things that Johnson and Grassley did about disinformation, which I have told you so many times we never received.

Now there is this interview on television with Tony Bobulinski, publicly stating that Joe Biden was aware of and possibly involved in Hunter Biden's business deals. Talk about a double standard. Where is the media asking serious questions about that?

The Biden family transactions and associations in our September 20 report raised criminal, counterintelligence, and extortion concerns. Yet the media--the liberal media--has ignored all of it and has failed to ask any legitimate questions. Don't you think that we the people have a right to know the answers?

The media certainly seemed to think so in all the doings of the Trump administration. If the story I just laid out here were about Trump, I guarantee you that it would be all over the news.

It is perfectly legitimate and reasonable for Congress and the news media to question the Biden administration

about these global financial transactions and associations. It is perfectly legitimate to ask how they could impact the Biden administration's foreign policy. That is especially true as it relates to China, given the extensive links between the Biden family and that country. Let's see if anyone dares to ask questions at the President's first news conference.

Mr. President, on another subject, I want to discuss the national security threats facing our country.

A recent poll showed 45 percent of Americans acknowledge that China is the greatest threat to the United States. A year ago, that percentage was half that number thinking that China was a threat, the greatest threat to the United States.

Frankly, this year, no other nation came close to what they think about China being a threat--not Russia, not North Korea, not Iran. These were all far behind.

Half of Americans believe China is the world's leading economic power. A record 63 percent say that the economic power of China is a critical threat to the United States.

Now, we all know the American people are smart. They are perceiving exactly what is happening with the United States vis-a-vis China or China vis-a-vis the rest of the world. China wants to supplant our country as the greatest nation and the greatest economy in the world, and China will do it if we are blind to that danger.

Everywhere I see the threat of China's rise minimized. On Tuesday, I saw a very curious thing in the declassified ``Intelligence Community Assessment of Foreign Threats to the 2020 U.S. Elections.'' The intelligence community determined that China did not engage in pervasive election meddling but noted that was in part because China saw the risk associated with doing so.

The intelligence community determined that China would not be excited if President Trump had won the 2020 election because he would ``challenge China's rise.''

The National Intelligence Officer for Cyber Issues, in particular, found that the Government of China wanted former President Trump to be defeated in the general election, preferring ``the election of a more predictable member of the establishment instead.'' And ``China took at least some steps to undermine former President Trump's reelection chances, primarily through social media and official public statements and media.''

Yet some in the news media read this very same report that I read and declared triumphantly and falsely that there was nothing to fear from China in terms of influencing our elections. It is pretty clear why China would not want a President unafraid to assert American national interests. That means demanding reciprocal trade, secure borders, and a defense policy focused on American national interests.

We all know that China has been playing us for suckers. China continues to try to expand its influence globally, including in international bodies like the World Bank and the World Health Organization. It doesn't seek to play by the rules but to exploit its influence for its own advantage at the expense of the United States and probably any free country because they don't like democracy.

In this same assessment I saw that Iran, another enemy, also wanted to defeat a strong American President and sow division. Many others-- Lebanese Hezbollah, the Government of Cuba, and the Maduro Government of Venezuela--they all had the very same idea. They all wanted to defeat President Trump. Only Russia seems to have preferred Trump but just according to that assessment--although I remember reading a year ago during the primaries that Senator Bernie Sanders was also a favorite of Russia. He had to have a defensive briefing, meaning Senator Sanders, because Russia wanted to help his campaign.

Also, remember, it was then-Vice President Biden who first announced the naive and disastrous Obama ``reset'' appeasement policy toward Russia. This, coming in the wake of Russia's invasion of our ally, Georgia, arguably gave Putin the idea that he could get away with invading Crimea and Ukraine.

Let's also take this moment to recall that when the Obama Justice Department and the FBI saw threats from Russia during the 2016 election, they didn't do what they did for Sanders. They didn't defensively brief Trump and his team. Instead, do you know where they went? They opened Crossfire Hurricane and outrageously used briefings to Trump and his associates as intelligence gathering operations, ultimately wasting years of taxpayer money and time.

Abraham Lincoln once said:

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we

lose our freedoms it will be because we have destroyed

ourselves from within.

In fact, the goal of what the KGB calls ``active measures,'' like disinformation since Soviet times, has been to pit Americans against each other to cause us to destroy ourselves.

That brings me to another related point. As I see this seat of democracy fortified with walls and barbed wire while the people, the citizens, and the taxpayers are kept out, I can't help but think about where we will go from here.

Yet the Democrats can only speak of destroying the filibuster during these difficult times. When I hear talk of destroying the filibuster-- the very tools that force bipartisanship and ensure that those representing all Americans are heard and that America act as one being abolished forever--I am worried. If the slimmest of majorities is about to impose its will on the other half of the country from inside an armed bunker, the Russians will have achieved their ultimate goal.

We are not our own enemies to be silenced and to be fenced in. We are one Nation, but we must pull together and acknowledge what it means when countries like China and Iran, our enemies and our adversaries, don't want us to put our country's interest first.

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

Mr. President, we welcome about a million immigrants every year. We welcome them because they come here, abiding by our laws, and we need immigrants. We have been a welcoming country for a long time, but I come to the floor to speak about the ongoing crisis at our southern border--a crisis that, I think, this administration doesn't want to admit is a crisis. Because of some changes in policy, we have that crisis, and that crisis is people entering our country in violation of our laws.

Since taking office, this administration has advanced policies that have undermined immigration enforcement. These policies undermine efforts to secure our southern border, and they encourage illegal immigration into our country. President Biden has signaled that, when it comes to immigration that violates our laws, the United States is open for business. Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are doubling down on that position this very week. They are working to pass several mass amnesty bills that contain no provisions related to securing the border.

It turns out that people are finally paying attention. U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently confirmed that it had encountered over 100,000 migrants attempting to cross the southern border in February-- the first full month of this new administration. That is the highest total for the month of February since 2006. News reports are that Democrats are blaming Trump's policies for this situation that we are in. Yet the number of single adults encountered at the southern border was up 175 percent compared to last February. The number of family units was up 170 percent, and the number of unaccompanied alien children was up 171 percent.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for the care of the unaccompanied children after they arrive in the United States, had 7,300 unaccompanied children referrals in February. That is the highest number of February referrals in the history of the program.

As of late last week, Health and Human Services had over 8,500 unaccompanied children in its facilities.

As of this past weekend, more than 4,200 were being held by the Customs and Border Patrol holding facilities, with nearly 3,000 being held past the legal limit of 72 hours.

These are the ``kids in cages,'' whom many of our Democratic colleagues were so outraged about a few years ago, blaming Trump, even though the so-called cages were created in the Obama administration, just being reused again.

Curiously, we are not seeing nearly as much outrage now as we saw during the Trump episode. Where is our fair and balanced press today?

Reports emerged late last week that one Border Patrol facility in Texas was operating at 729 percent of pandemic capacity. Many minors who had been in custody for over 5 days were reportedly able to shower only once.

If this were happening during the Trump administration, our Democratic colleagues would be expressing their anger and their outrage on any media outlet that they could find. But because this crisis is happening as a result of President Biden's policies, we have mostly silence.

President Biden's border crisis reaches beyond just these staggering numbers that I have given you. First, it is a humanitarian tragedy--a crisis. The Biden administration's policies have incentivized unaccompanied children and family units to make an incredibly dangerous trip to our southern borders.

On March 10, Reuters reported that the Mexican Government is worried that the Biden administration's asylum policies ``are stoking illegal immigration and creating business for organized crime''--from the Mexican Government, reported by Reuters.

There is no doubt that cartels are profiting greatly from this trafficking. One Mexican official was quoted as saying: ``Migrants have become a commodity.''

The article went on to discuss how gangs are ``diversifying methods of smuggling'' and how smugglers are advising migrants on how to more easily apply for asylum in the United States, including by bringing children.

It also described how higher concentrations of migrants in areas near the U.S.-Mexican border have encouraged gangs to recruit some migrants as drug mules and to kidnap other migrants. For what? For money. This is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy created in just recent weeks by changes of policies at the border by this new administration.

Second, President Biden's border crisis presents a public health threat in the middle of a pandemic.

Recent reports have indicated that the administration plans to turn two Texas facilities, where migrant family units are being held, into rapid processing centers. The plan is to hold the family units for 3 days or less.

It is unclear if all of these migrants are being tested for COVID-19, when they are being tested, how they are being tested, and how they are being handled if they test positively.

Recent media reports also indicate that 100 undocumented immigrants who were released by the Department of Homeland Security into the United States later tested positive for the virus. In these times, as we are all concerned about the pandemic, it can't be acceptable.

Finally, President Biden's border crisis has created a situation that is overwhelming the men and women who work to protect our borders. It is straining the resources of agencies that must cope with the results of this administration's misguided immigration policies.

One of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Government and any Presidential administration, Republican or Democrat, is to enforce our immigration laws in ways that ensure the sovereignty of our borders, protects the American people, and, lastly, discourages illegal immigration. It is clear that this administration has failed to live up to this responsibility.

I hope that President Biden changes course and begins to work with Congress in a bipartisan way to secure our borders and, at the same time, reform our laws in ways that discourage this violation of our immigration laws by people just willy-nilly crossing the border, even being invited here. If they instead continue on their present course, this will be just the first of many border surges to come over the next 4 years.

What we need is to keep our doors open, as we have done for decades with legal immigrants, and do everything we can to discourage people from coming here in violation of our laws.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today, I am going to discuss a very important issue that I started to investigate during the last Congress, and it is an issue that the executive branch must continue to improve upon. The subject is information sharing between the intelligence community and the Department of Health and Human Services. The connection between those two entities is a critical information sharing data point, and it must last beyond the current pandemic.

To state the obvious, the healthcare landscape has evolved considerably in the past several decades. More specifically, the healthcare landscape has changed considerably in just the last year because of the COVID pandemic. Threats to healthcare now include cyber, intelligence, and counterintelligence threats.

For example, we know the Chinese Government engaged in cyber attacks to steal American COVID-related research. The Communist Chinese Government will stop at nothing to steal our hard-earned work product. They know, as does the world, that the best of the best is still right here in America.

Last Congress, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I focused a good deal of my oversight efforts on the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of National Security. For example, in June of 2019, I held a hearing on foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research, where the Office of National Security was one of the government witnesses. After the hearing, I then held a classified committee briefing with all the government witnesses to further discuss the foreign threats that we face.

That office is the Department's connection, then, to the intelligence community and, accordingly, it plays a critical role in the Department of HHS's overall mission. That mission includes pandemic response and countering national security threats

To fully perform its function, HHS needs access to intelligence community products and databases. So with that access, they would have information that is vital to mitigating threats to the Department, its funded partners, and its interagency colleagues. So, as part of my oversight efforts and before the pandemic even started, I worked to get that process done.

I noted my concerns to the Trump administration that the Office of National Security hadn't been adequately incorporated into the intelligence community. To their credit, the Trump administration rightly and quickly resolved many of these issues. The Trump administration created links and information sharing between the intelligence community and the Department of Health and Human Services where that cooperation hadn't existed before.

Those links should have existed many years ago, but prior administrations, like the Obama-Biden administration, failed to see around the corner and get the job done. Just as an example, even with the swine flu and outbreaks across the globe, the Obama-Biden administration failed to plug the Department of Health and Human Services into the intelligence community the way that it should have been done. The current pandemic exemplifies the need to have a robust intelligence operation that includes the Department of Health and Human Services.

As pathogenic threats to our homeland and our people increase and become more complex, the Federal Government must prepare well in advance for a very quick response. In order to accomplish that task, the government must focus on the seamless communication that must exist between and among the various Departments and Agencies. The Federal Government must take a whole-of-government approach.

One serious barrier to that seamless communication is overclassification. That is a serious barrier we find too much in government. But, particularly when it deals with the pandemic, it becomes a problem that can cost a lot of lives.

In January of 2020 when reports began to circulate about COVID, I instructed my oversight and investigative staff to get a classified briefing from the Office of National Security. After that briefing, I made clear in a public way that overclassification during a public health emergency could have deadly consequences.

If a certain intelligence work product is classified in a certain way, sometimes other government Agencies won't then have access. The Federal Government must guard against this type of overclassification, and that is especially important during emergency situations that demand quick action.

To the extent that disagreements exist between Agencies, which they often do in complex and ever-changing fact patterns, discussion must be had between and among the government. From that, the facts will bear out, and the best decisions can then be made. That process can't take place if the government puts information in silos that Federal health Agencies are unable to access.

Overclassification is more of a problem when China's Government refuses to share relevant data with researchers. At least this government--the United States Government--can and should share information between and among its Agencies.

This administration must advance and improve upon the cooperative gains created by the Trump administration and make sure that the left hand continues to communicate with the right hand. The last thing that we should do is to revert to the lack of cooperation that existed before, especially in light of the current pandemic and the lessons that have been learned from this pandemic.

The cooperation between Federal health Agencies and the intelligence community will strengthen ties between them for decades to come, and the American people will be better served by the increased communication. Simply put, increased communication will save lives.

Madam President, recently, the Biden administration withdrew a proposed Trump administration rule that would have required universities and K-12 schools to identify their connections with Confucius Institutes, which are very much connected to the country of China and, I would even say, to the Communist Party of China, which may be one and the same. I have asked the Biden administration about that move, but the administration has failed to respond to date. So I am here today to discuss four areas wherein the administration must be tough with China as well as with other countries.

Since April 2015, I have conducted oversight on several key aspects of foreign efforts to influence Members of

Congress and the American public. First, I have focused on the equal, fair, and aggressive enforcement of transparency laws. An example of one transparency law that I will focus on is the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

I first raised concerns about the Foreign Agents Registration Act in April 2015, when it became very apparent that it wasn't being used hardly at all. Historically, it hasn't been used very much, and people have been getting away without registering under that act. It may be OK to represent a foreign country or a foreign interest, but at least we in Congress ought to know about it, and, in turn, the American people ought to know who you are and whom you are speaking for.

In 1938, Congress passed that law for the purpose then of exposing Nazi propaganda and identifying foreign attempts to influence policymakers as well as the American public. Last updated in 1966, the Foreign Agents Registration Act requires those who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and foreign interests to register their affiliations and activities with our Justice Department.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act reflects the fundamental principle that transparency brings accountability. Until recently, however, the law has been seldom used. The Foreign Agents Registration Act ought to be better enforced and also be equally enforced. That is why I worked to expose holes in the existing law and then find ways through additional legislation to shore it up or even use oversight to see that the Justice Department takes its use with more certainty and with more force.

As a result of those efforts, last session, I introduced a bipartisan bill that goes by the title of ``Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration Enhancement Act.'' Since it wasn't passed in the last Congress, I will be reintroducing it this session. The bill requires the Justice Department for the first time to craft a comprehensive enforcement strategy and to release advisory opinions to promote that transparency. It gives investigators new tools, including civil investigative demand authority, to help identify violations.

Last Congress, the bill had support from Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman Rubio and Vice Chairman Warner of the Intelligence Committee. It also had bipartisan support on the Foreign Relations Committee, including from Senators Shaheen, Rubio, Murphy, and Young, who have all worked to shine a light on foreign influence. We also had the signoff from the chairman of that committee, also with support from the Trump administration.

Unfortunately, when Senator Cornyn and I joined on the floor just before Christmas to ask for unanimous consent for the passage of this bill that had such broad bipartisan support, the Democrats objected even though it had this bipartisan, multicommittee support.

So I strongly urge the Biden administration to join my efforts in making commonsense, bipartisan reforms to the Foreign Agents Registration Act and to make it a priority. My bill gets the job done.

The second point I want to raise is that I have focused my oversight on increasing nontraditional espionage activities and foreign threats targeting taxpayer-funded research.

When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2018, I convened a hearing regarding Chinese nontraditional espionage against the United States. In that hearing, both DOJ and FBI officials made very clear that the threat to our universities and taxpayer-funded research from foreign governments, especially China, is real and it is ongoing. For example, the Department of Justice witness stated:

We need to adapt our enforcement strategy to reach non-

traditional collectors, including researchers in labs,

universities, and the defense industrial base, some of whom

may have undisclosed ties to Chinese institutions and

conflicting loyalties.

The FBI witness stated that China's talent recruitment programs are effectively ``brain gain programs'' that ``encourage theft of intellectual property from U.S. institutions.''

In June of 2019, when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I held a hearing on foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research which focused heavily on China's theft and China's espionage within our research community here in the United States.

After the hearing, I organized a classified committee briefing on the topic from the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The Trump administration ramped up government efforts to investigate and prosecute researchers for stealing intellectual property and research. The Biden administration must continue those aggressive efforts if they want to be taken seriously. Those efforts are more important now than ever. For example, during the COVID pandemic, China has used cyber attacks to try to steal COVID-related research.

Third, another focus of mine has been on propaganda efforts within our schools and universities. Specifically, that concerns China's Confucius Institutes. As an extension of the Chinese Government, the Confucius Institutes are a foreign principal for purposes of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. According to reporting, the strategic goal of the Chinese Government is to place its institutes within existing colleges and universities in order to influence perceptions of the Communist government in China under the guise of teaching Chinese language, Chinese culture, and Chinese history. In other words, we have to see this problem with open eyes.

In light of these factors, in October of 2018, I wrote to the Justice Department and asked why it had yet to require individuals working for Confucius Institutes to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Then, in March of 2020, I wrote to dozens of schools asking that they get a briefing from the FBI on the threats Confucius Institutes bring to the academic environment.

I have also strongly backed Senator Kennedy's Confucius Act--that is the title of the bill--which passed the Senate just last week. In part, that bill mandates that if a school wants an institute on campus, that school must have full managerial and academic control, not control from the Chinese Government.

China's threats to our security are very real. They are known and show no sign of stopping. It is a very good sign that in the past couple of years, many universities and colleges have cut ties with Confucius Institutes. Probably some of those were on those respective campuses for a long period of time.

The Biden administration must use every tool at its disposal to protect and defend our national security from this Communist threat, which is why I wrote to the Biden Department of Homeland Security on February 11 this year regarding its withdrawal of the Confucius rule, which I thought was a very good step forward from the previous administration.

Among the questions I asked of the Department, two relate to whether the Biden administration considers the Confucius Institute to be an extension of the Communist Chinese Government as well as being purveyors of Communist Chinese propaganda. That ought to be easily recognized, and I imagine our President does recognize it, but I want to have him tell me so. So far, that Department has thus far failed to respond.

The Biden administration would be wise to answer both in the affirmative to clearly state to the country and the world where it stands regarding China's gigantic propaganda machine, of which the Confucius Institutes are only a small part. In other words, besides going after the Confucius Institutes, we have to have our eyes open to every way that the Communist Chinese and their government is trying to influence things in this country, as well as stealing things from our country.

Lastly, I want to highlight a very important issue that has recently been brought to my attention. Upon entering office, President Biden fired all U.S. Executive Directors at multilateral development banks who were currently serving out their terms. Some of these multilateral development banks are the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

It has been U.S. tradition for incoming Presidents to allow these nonpartisan U.S. Executive Directors to

serve in their positions until their term ends regardless of whatever administration put them in those positions. This tradition is meant to ensure that the United States maintains a consistent authoritative presence and engagement within those multilateral institutions.

In the last administration, the United States was tough on China through these development banks, and we were hoping that these people would be left in place so they could continue that tough-on-China approach. The Executive Directors who were in their respective positions made it a point to defend U.S. strategic interests by building coalitions aimed at eroding Chinese influence, which has been allowed to grow at an alarming extent. There is quite a push by the Chinese Communist Government to get involved in the highest levels of almost every international organization, not just these banks that I am talking about.

Removing these U.S. leaders from their positions prior to their terms expiring and with no replacements even nominated isn't an example of the United States leading; this is an example of our country ceding its duties and responsibilities on the world stage.

In addition to my unanswered letters, the Biden administration should inform Congress as to why it removed all Executive Directors from their positions prior to their terms expiring.

I hope President Biden knows China is aggressively growing its influence in these multilateral organizations, so now isn't the time to abandon the field. There is no time to be weak with China. We must work tirelessly to protect our way of life and our national security from the ever-present threat of the Communist Chinese Government. At the same time, we must build on the foundation that the Trump administration created to protect American taxpayers from foreign theft and espionage and propaganda.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have spoken on the Senate floor recently on the subject of free speech as it applies to the world of digital media. The principles of free speech are timeless and are applicable to new forms of communication. Still, it is natural that new questions will arise and new mechanisms might be needed to apply those principles across new modes of communication.

What shouldn't be in question is the need for open dialogue and freedom of speech in academia. Otherwise, what does the principle of academic freedom mean if it isn't involved with freedom of speech?

All of the progress that has made modern life possible has been the result of individuals who have been able to think of things in new ways, even if that challenged an old orthodoxy. A healthy and vibrant academic environment is not afraid of those challenges.

Only stagnant, defensive, and unconfident regimes suppress speech. Think about the recent protests in Russia, Belarus, or Burma. China's restrictions on the internet and suppression of minorities show that it is threatened by contrary ways of thinking.

Which would you describe as an advanced, stable, and dynamic society: North Korea or South Korea? Obviously, that describes South Korea well. It does not at all describe that part of the Korean Peninsula north of the 38th parallel.

So what does it say about so many American academic institutions that the notion of free thought and free speech has now become controversial? What purpose do universities serve if one of the purposes is not to discuss controversial subjects? I often say my definition of a university is where controversy runs rampant.

We hear lots of rationales about why the current generation of college students needs to be protected from hearing speech that could be offensive, hateful, or just plain wrong. Of course, none of us support hateful speech. I don't support it, but I do support freedom.

If you empower those in authority to limit hate speech, whether they be college administrators or government officials, that power will eventually be abused to limit dissenting points of view of all kinds, and that is where some universities are right now.

Even in Iowa's three public universities, we have seen recent efforts to shut down mainstream, center-right views. For instance, a dean at the University of Iowa sent an email across a university platform criticizing a Trump administrative Executive order, but at that same university, when a student challenged the position of the dean using the very same medium, the student was threatened with disciplinary action.

Well, the dean has since apologized for his initial handling of the subject, so I don't raise that to pick on him. In fact, that very dean has befriended me in very many ways and in thoughtful ways as well. But it just makes you wonder if it is part of a broader cultural trend in academia, what went on in that instance at the University of Iowa.

Then there was an English professor at Iowa State University who had to be reprimanded for banning her students from writing papers expressing certain viewpoints such as opposition to abortion or same- sex marriage. The president of my alma mater, the University of Northern Iowa, had to step in to reverse a decision by the student senate denying a group of pro-life students student organization status purely because of their political views.

In each case, the university administrations of these three universities ultimately resolved these incidents well and properly so. I mention them not to pick on my State of Iowa's universities and not to criticize any university, for that matter, but because they seem to be examples of a broader trend on campuses across the country of a knee-jerk reaction to shut down speech some find disagreeable.

The best response to the expression of views that you find repugnant is speech that points out the errors of that particular way of thinking. Now, I think that is best expressed by the University of Chicago's policy, which has become kind of a gold standard for free speech advocacy on university campuses. The University of Chicago expressly prohibits obstructing or otherwise interfering with freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.

If you are confident in the rightness of your views and you have an environment that allows free expression of those views, you need not fear speech you find wrong. Of course, that assumes that human beings are all gifted with the power of reason and can discern what is right.

Now, if it happens that that is not the case, if people cannot be trusted to listen to different views and come to the right conclusion, then there is no basis for democracy and our system of self-government, then, is fundamentally flawed.

You can shield students from hearing challenging and uncomfortable views while in college but not when they get out in the real world. Just think of these college students who are on campus. What if they had left high school for the world of work? They would be faced with all these things every day.

So what is special about a college campus? In fact, it is so special that you ought to have a discussion of all these subjects. Academic institutions that do not allow for student views to be challenged, to be tested, to be refined through rigorous debate are doing those very same students a very great disservice. These students' knowledge will be limited, then, and their views unsophisticated. Their ability to deal with different ways of thinking, which they will inevitably encounter throughout their lifetime, will be greatly diminished.

I feel sorry for students who graduate from colleges that cocoon them from controversy. Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I have always thought of a university as a place where controversy should run rampant.

The notion that the voices students hear must be curated for their own good is concerning, not just because it has a totalitarian ring but because it is harming students in the long run, when they have to deal with the real world.

If students are showing up on campus unable to cope emotionally with hearing conflicting viewpoints, that is a problem of their upbringing and education to that point, before they go to that university. It is something colleges need to confront head-on for their students' well- being. Further shielding students from having their views challenged and then sending them out in the world thinking they are prepared is a recipe for failure.

Americans seem to be losing the ability to understand the point of view of those with whom they disagree. That is an unrealistic point of view for Americans to have. It is a failure to teach about freedom. Questioning of motives has replaced principled argument. Shouting insults has displaced logical debate.

Don't you see, this is a societal trend that increasingly is reflected in the Halls of Congress--right here. Those who have attended institutions of higher education should have to be exposed to the great thinkers of the past and the present, be able to argue points logically, and, more importantly, understand the points of those whom they are trying to persuade or refute.

College graduates should be models of civil discourse. Instead, they are too often the vanguard of the closing of the American mind. For the sake of their students and for the benefit of society, I urge college administrators, trustees, alumni, and all Americans who value the free exchange of ideas to work toward reversing this trend.

Open debate may seem contentious at times, but it is the only path toward mutual understanding, which is so needed right now in American society, our less-than-civil American society, which that less-than- civil American society tends to show up in a democracy that has representative government where, if you are really going to have representative government, wouldn't you expect some of what is happening at the grassroots to show up here in the Halls of Congress? And we do see it all the time, to our shame.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk, and I ask that it be reported.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.

Mr. President, this bill includes an $86 billion no- strings bailout of multiemployer pension plans. It does not belong in the current package. It has nothing to do with COVID. The bailout is not coupled with any reforms. Consequently, there won't be any long- term sustainability. It is just a blank check with no measures to hold plans accountable.

Senator Alexander and I spent the last Congress working on a responsible proposal to rescue and reform failing multiemployer pension plans. Without reforms included, the precedent will be that taxpayers, not the PPGC, will be the ultimate guarantors of private employer pensions. In that case, the burden on the taxpayers will not be for the $86 billion. It will be endless as to how much the taxpayers are going to have to pay.

Please vote in favor of my motion to commit to consider the reforms necessary to protect the taxpayers and ensure the long-term sustainability of the multiemployer pension system.

Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 902 and ask that it be reported by number.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. President, you folks on the other side of the aisle, the House Agriculture Committee voted out the bill that Senator Warnock successfully defended. That same House Agriculture Committee voted out a bipartisan bill that had the support of Congressman Feenstra of Iowa and Congresswoman Axne of Iowa.

It got out of committee, and then you know what? The Rules Committee took it out of this bill that came over here. So I am asking for the reconsideration of that.

This amendment does this: It makes farmers in Iowa that were hit by the derecho wind--and that is a wind that you don't predict like you do a tornado, and it just crops up, 150 miles long and 30 miles wide. It destroyed 855,000 acres of corn, laid it flat. And if it was meteoric, you still couldn't harvest it. So most of it was plowed under.

My time is up already? I would like to have it considered, please.

I request a rollcall vote.

Mr. President, the multiemployer pension system has been in need of a major overhaul for years. More than 300 plans are critically underfunded. Moreover, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, multiemployer insurance fund, which is a backstop for these plans, is projected to become insolvent in the next 5 years.

If this occurs, 1.5 million retirees, due to no fault of their own, could see their hard-earned retirement benefits slashed to pennies on the dollar. This is unacceptable, and it is one of the reasons that, when I took over as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2019, I made it a priority to fix the failing multiemployer pension system. To me, this has always meant helping secure the retirement benefits of millions of retirees and ensuring that this retirement system is sustainable over the long term. Working with former Senator and HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, I immediately got to work on a draft proposal, which was released for public input and stakeholder feedback in November of 2019. We received numerous comments from workers, retirees, unions, employers, actuaries, academics, plan officials, and members of the general public that helped me refine my approach and create a balanced plan.

Yesterday, I reintroduced this version of my plan, which is titled the ``Chris Allen Multiemployer Pension Recapitalization and Reform Act.'' This legislation recognizes that, given the severity of the underfunding issue, some Federal dollars will be necessary to shore up severely troubled plans in the short term. But, this limited assistance must be coupled with structural reforms intended to address the root causes of our current situation. This includes reforms to multiemployer funding rules to ensure plans are adequately capitalized to make good on promises made to plan participants. Furthermore, it would increase PBGC oversight of troubled plans and enhance transparency for plan participants. Critically, it also overhauls the financing of the PBGC multiemployer insurance fund so that it can resume its role as the insurer of last resort for these plans without additional taxpayer funding.

The fundamental tenet of my plan is that all stakeholders have a role in fixing the multiemployer pension system. The American taxpayer shouldn't be expected to simply write a blank check. Stakeholders need to have skin in the game if the system is to be sustainable moving forward.

I understand that this is an extremely complex situation. There is no perfect solution. From the start, I have let it be known I want to work with my Democratic colleagues to find a bipartisan compromise. In June of last year, I came to the floor to plead with my Democratic colleagues to come to the table in hopes we could work toward a bipartisan agreement prior to the end of last Congress. Unfortunately, for months I heard nothing. Then, with only a few weeks left in the 116th Congress, my Democratic colleagues took me up on my offer and negotiations began in earnest. Several weeks of bipartisan negotiations ensued, but there simply was not enough time to iron out all our differences to ensure we had sufficient Member support before the end of the year. However, I found our discussions constructive. They were focused correctly on securing the retirement benefits of participants in the failing plans in the near term, while also ensuring the long- term sustainability of the multiemployer pension system without a Federal takeover.

I hoped our negotiations would provide a foundation for continuing to work toward a bipartisan solution this Congress. Instead I am disappointed to see that the majority has include an unprecedented $86 billion no-strings bailout of troubled multiemployer pension plans in the reconciliation bill currently before the Senate.

As I have discussed, I recognize that Federal funds will be needed to solve the pension crisis in the short term, but it is equally as important that essential reforms are enacted to ensure the system can be self-sustaining in the long term. Otherwise, taxpayers will be perpetually subsidizing a private sector system of employee-benefit promises. That is exactly what will occur if my Democratic colleagues insist on going forward with the reform-free bailout included in this package. As is, this proposal has been stripped of even the most rudimentary of reforms or accountability measures. In fact, one provision even bars the PBGC from issuing regulations to provide for such measures. As a result, the proposal is likely to breed what economists call ``moral hazard'' as plan managers and sponsors realize that there are no consequences to underfunding and overpromising. In the end, the American taxpayer will be left footing the bill for a private sector retirement system.

I hope my Democratic colleagues will reconsider moving forward with their no-holds-bared bailout. Fundamentally, it does not belong in the current package. The issues plaguing the multiemployer system long predate the pandemic and are not COVID related. But if it is to be included, at a minimum, essential reforms along the lines of what I have proposed must be included. They are essential to protect the American taxpayer and to ensure the long-term sustainability of the multiemployer system.

Toward this end, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report it back with critical reforms to ensure multiemployer plans are adequately funded and the PBGC's insurance fund is adequately financed. Without such reforms, the current proposal would set the precedent that the American taxpayer, not the PBGC, is the ultimate guarantor of private-employer pension promises. If this is the case, the burden on the American taxpayer will not be the $86 billion in this package or even hundreds of billions of dollars. It will be limitless.

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