Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am placing a hold on the nomination of David M. Satterfield, who has been nominated to serve as Ambassador to Turkey. My objection comes down to one increasingly irrefutable point: the State Department's, through Ambassador Satterfield, consistent efforts to protect the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization from liability and thereby undermine the rights of American victims of Palestinian terrorism. This stands in sharp contrast to the intent of Congress.

Last year, I introduced the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, ATCA, in response to recent court decisions that gutted the jurisdictional reach of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992, which I also authored. These decisions made it substantially more difficult for American victims to hold sponsors of international terrorism accountable in our nation's courts.

The ATCA expressed a clear principle: If you accept taxpayer-backed assistance or maintain a presence in the United States, then you should be answerable in our courts if you are alleged to have supported terrorism that harmed or killed Americans.

The bipartisan bill was considered through regular order, with markups in both Chambers, as a standalone bill, passed Congress without objection, and was signed into law by President Trump in October. Never once did the State Department or the administration raise a single concern.

Yet, 2 months later, at the end of the 115th Congress, the State Department began directly lobbying Congress for a ``fix'' to the ATCA to remove certain forms of assistance from the statute, thereby allowing defendants like the Palestinian Authority to enjoy such benefits without risk of liability. Ambassador Satterfield led the State Department team, with whom my staff attempted to negotiate in good faith over several weeks at the end of 2018 and early this year.

I offered numerous compromise proposals to the State Department, including delays of the foreign assistance provisions, a rule of construction to aid victims, and even a complete strike from the ATCA of the assistance that State Department deems so valuable. Never once, however, did State or Ambassador Satterfield demonstrate interest in supporting language that would tangibly benefit victims. Rather, my bill seemed an annoyance to State's priorities, and Ambassador Satterfield on several occasions vocalized his concern about the law's impact on the Palestinian Authority, who have been found liable in U.S. courts for supporting terrorist attacks against Americans.

When my staff asked for any alternative ideas they would support to help victims, State's team came back empty-handed, and after I found bipartisan support for a compromise proposal, the State Department made clear to other offices that it would not support the compromise unless and until Congress expressly protects the Palestinian Authority's presence in the United States.

I refuse to assist the State Department in silencing any litigation arguments of U.S. victims of terrorism.

I also understand that recent efforts in the House of Representatives have proved futile in finding language that both benefits American victims and gets support from the State Department. I am tired of our State Department putting the interests of alleged sponsors of terrorism over those of our own citizens. The State Department should work in good faith with Congress and victims by unambiguously demonstrating its support for restoring jurisdiction over sponsors of terrorism.

Mr. President, the misuse of opioids is a national crisis. Every single day, more than 130 people in this country overdose on these drugs, with tragic results.

In 2017, there were more than 70,000 drug overdose-related deaths in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. These deaths eclipsed the number that were due to guns or automobile crashes.

May 12 through 18 is National Prevention Week, which is dedicated to increasing public awareness of substance abuse disorders. Addiction exists everywhere. We have taken steps in the past to fight this epidemic.

We passed comprehensive substance abuse and treatment legislation in 2016 and again last year. However, the opioid epidemic continues to destroy lives and communities. We need to remain committed to defeat this crisis.

This week also marks the seventh anniversary of my investigation, with former Senator Baucus, into opioid manufacturers' connections to medical groups and physicians who advocated for the increased use of opioids. As senior members of the Senate Finance Committee in 2012, we sought documents and financial information from three opioid makers, in a period when deaths from opioid overdoses were skyrocketing. News reports of that time suggested that opioid makers may have initiated conflicts of interest to encourage the prescribing of opioids.

More recent news reports confirm that we had very good reason to launch this oversight work. For example, yesterday, BBC News published an article concerning opioid makers' sponsorship, in the early 2000s, of so-called educational meetings for pain specialists from the United Kingdom. The doctors, whose opioid prescribing rates were being monitored by opioid makers, were invited to New York City, where they would stay in posh hotels and attend Broadway shows at a drugmaker's expense, BBC reported. As reportedly shared by a doctor who attended one of these trips: ``I feel very ashamed . . . I was just a guinea pig to promote the prescribing of a class of drug.''

I remain concerned that opioid-related deaths over the last decade may have been fueled by misinformation and marketing practices embraced by drugmakers and the medical organizations to which they donated.

What I said 7 years ago remains true today: ``Doctors and patients should know if the medical literature and groups that guide [opioids'] use are paid for by the drugs' manufacturers and if so, [by] how much.'' As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I intend to continue my oversight work in this area, including by convening a congressional hearing later this summer.

I also believe that we need to do more to ensure that Americans have access to effective recovery treatment options. The recent arrests in multiple States of those who operated sham treatment facilities for addicts point to a problem. Moreover, we have reason to be concerned about the lack of information available to the public about the most promising treatment options available.

A related issue has been the lack of adequate, national standards of care in the addiction treatment field. That is why I joined several of my colleagues in sponsoring bipartisan legislation that calls for the development of new quality measures to improve treatment for Americans battling opioid and substance addiction. This measure directs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to work with a coalition of healthcare providers to identify quality measures to be used to assess the effectiveness of substance use disorder treatment programs.

In 2016, I also supported the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. This bipartisan measure was enacted after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it during my tenure as chairman. It includes a number of provisions I authored.

The causes of the opioid epidemic are complicated and its effects are widespread. It is impossible to solve this national crisis overnight. We must continue our efforts at the local, State, and Federal level to break the cycle of addiction.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to shed light on yet another really dark cloud that is hanging over our Department of Defense. In fact, for decades, a dark cloud of fiscal mismanagement has loomed large over the Pentagon. During my very first term here in the Senate, I began my quest to bring fiscal accountability to the Pentagon. Four decades later, I am still keeping tabs on the money trail. That money trail is sometimes difficult to follow. Back then, it was a bit like David taking on Goliath.

We all know that the United States of America has the strongest and mightiest military in the world. I am thankful for that because a strong military is not meant to fight a war; it is meant to maintain the peace. We haven't had a world war III since we have had a strong military.

Our brave men and women who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces protect our shores at home and abroad to keep us safe and to protect the blessings of liberty for our children and grandchildren. That is exactly why it is so very important to keep check on the Pentagon's ledgers, to help make sure that every tax dollar assigned to the Nation's defense is actually spent effectively and not squandered on waste, fraud, and abuse.

With the help of brave whistleblowers who stuck their necks out to ``commit truth,'' I stuck my neck out during the Reagan administration. That is when I learned about the Pentagon's little shop of price horrors.

Of course, ripping off the taxpayers started during the Revolutionary War, when contractors sold rotten meat to the Continental Army, and it continued during the Civil War, when profiteers sold ammunition filled with sawdust and shoddy shoes and horses to the Union Army. It looks like it continues to this day.

Back in 1985, Americans will recall, the Defense Department was shelling out vast amounts of taxpayer dollars for spare parts. Remember back then the $450 hammers and the $640 toilet seats? That sounds like a real bargain compared to the more recent wasteful spending at the Pentagon, such as the $1,280 coffee mug and the $14,000 toilet seat lid. Obviously, the cost of waste is getting a whole lot more expensive for our taxpayers.

Back in the 1980s, I fought to win a spending freeze on unchecked spending sprees. Misspending and overspending were riddling the defense budget at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Military readiness drives the spending decisions that Members of Congress make when we cast our votes on the defense budget. Our constituents expect their elected representatives to make sure that the moms and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters who are serving our country in uniform are well equipped with the best resources money can buy. But they also expect their elected representatives to make sure their hard-earned dollars that are withheld from every paycheck-- their tax dollars--aren't being ripped off by greedy corporations, like TransDigm Group, Inc., which I will speak about in a moment.

That is why I conduct robust oversight of defense spending. As a taxpayer watchdog--and all of us are supposed to be watchdogs, and all of us would claim to be watchdogs--it is our

responsibility and my responsibility to make sure every defense dollar is spent as effectively and as efficiently as possible. Every dollar lost to waste, fraud, and abuse harms military readiness, and it also lines the pockets of somebody else at taxpayers' expense.

Trimming the fat in a bloated bureaucracy won't happen in the shadows. There is no magic wand to wave either. If there is one thing I have learned in my years of oversight, transparency matters. Transparency brings accountability.

Every time I come to the floor to talk about the fiscal mess at the Pentagon, I get a bit of deja vu. Earlier, I said my fraud-fighting efforts in the 1980s could be compared to David v. Goliath. Now let's fast-forward to this year, 2019. I am still here working as hard as ever to do away with wrongdoing and extract fiscal accountability at the Pentagon. Today, some might say that job is like the one performed by the famous character in Greek mythology who was destined to roll that heavy stone up the hill and to do it from then until eternity.

Congressional oversight can be extremely tedious, and it can be time- consuming, but, as I like to remind each of the other 534 Members of Congress, it is essential to our country that we exercise this system of checks and balances. Without it, the dark fiscal cloud looming over the Pentagon would swell bigger and bigger and bigger.

Oversight work may feel like an uphill climb, but oversight is not futile in the end. That is why I keep my shoulder to the wheel--to hold people at the Pentagon accountable, to protect taxpayers, and most importantly, when it comes to a defense dollar, to make sure we have our military readiness.

Right now, I am here today to share some new details about the broken record of fiscal mismanagement at the Department of Defense.

No matter how high I turn up the volume, the overdogs at the Pentagon remain tone deaf to fiscal integrity. Consider the recent report by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General. It is called ``Review of Parts Purchased From TransDigm Group Inc.''

First, I want to compliment Senator Warren and two Representatives, Ro Khanna and Tim Ryan, for getting the ball rolling with their request asking the inspector general to look into the contract--this contractor's pricing structure. We need all hands on deck in Congress to conduct oversight, so I thank these other Members of Congress just named.

After digging into the details, I can only conclude that the Pentagon is still, after all these years, stuck on autopilot. No one on board in the Pentagon's mother ship seems to bother to steer its ``fiscal ship'' into shape. Fiscal integrity somehow got lost in the spare parts horror story I am about to tell. In fact, I was more than dismayed with the response from the internal watchdogs at the DOD IG office. Their team wrote the report, and yet the inspector general leadership team seemed to show no urgency whatsoever to fix the problem they described.

This tells me I also need to keep a tight leash on the internal watchdogs leading the Department of Defense inspector general's office. Their February report exposes a galactic price gouging, colossal ripple, and out-of-this-world waste. It reads like a sequel to the same financial shenanigans that have turned the Pentagon into a taxpayer money pit. Change out the name of the contractor, inflate the charges, submit the invoice and voila--the American taxpayer is on the hook for another fixed-price, sole source contract.

For this report, the inspector general examined one contractor, TransDigm Group. In total, the inspector general analyzed 113 contracts between January 2015 and January 2017. They reviewed 47 spare parts the Department of Defense purchased from this contractor. In just those 2 years, the inspector general found TransDigm overcharged the Pentagon by $16-1/10th million out of a total of $29-7/10th million in contracts.

The reasonable profit threshold is considered by the Department of Defense to be 15 percent or below. The IG found that TransDigm earned excess profits on 46 of the 47 parts sold to the Defense Department.

On 17 of those parts, TransDigm earned more than a 1,000-percent profit. Remarkably, the highest profit percentage was 4,436 percent.

It is obvious to our taxpayers that that is a fleecing of the American taxpayer. Pulling the wool over the eyes of Congress and the taxpayers will only stop with transparency--which transparency will bring accountability.

So that is why I am here today. Just think for a minute about the big picture. This report is just one snapshot of a much larger problem. It is kind of a spit in the ocean when you consider the enormous $716 billion defense budget. Just imagine the boatloads of bloat elsewhere in the bureaucracy. The Department of Defense is obligated under Federal law and under regulations to uphold basic measures of fiscal integrity.

So where do we go from here? The inspector general made just a few paltry recommendations. For starters, it directed contracting officers to request voluntary refunds for excess profits. Guess the chances of getting voluntary refunds. Let me suggest that I would not advise taxpayers to hold their breath on a voluntary refund. The inspector's general recommendations, then, have no teeth. Their recommendations are insufficient. What is worse, the inspector general leadership team claims no single Department of Defense official is responsible for this price gouging that goes on.

So let me repeat: The inspector general leadership team, the internal watchdog for fiscal integrity and compliance at the Department of Defense, is effectively saying something like this: No one person at the Department of Defense can be held accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' money. Obviously, to the taxpayers listening or anybody else, this illustrates a cavalier attitude toward taxpayer money that former Secretary of Defense James Mattis sought to extinguish. By the way, I wrote him a note, complimenting him on some statements he made about taking care of some of these problems.

The decades-long odyssey of misspending at the Pentagon keeps going around and around and around. That is why--the way I see it--the Department of Defense has a fundamental responsibility to uphold fiscal integrity. After reviewing the IG report and meeting with its auditing team and the Department of Defense pricing czar, I have reached three conclusions. No. 1, fiscal control at the Department of Defense is AWOL. The Pentagon will never clean up its books if it cannot properly track the money trail and connect the dots.

Consider why the Department of Defense contracting officers were unable to even certify if a profit was ``fair and reasonable.'' Do you know why? It was because they could not obtain critical cost data at the company TransDigm. In the most egregious case--that case I mentioned where there was a 4,436-percent profit margin for just one spare part--the contracting officer--you will not believe this-- certified that the price was fair and reasonable. There is something very, very wrong about that procedure. A whopping 4,000-percent profit margin for a spare part doesn't square with our midwestern commonsense standard.

No. 2, the leadership team at the IG office has exhibited an alarming hands-off approach toward stopping waste, fraud, and abuse. The lack of urgency and the failure to hold anyone accountable is very revealing. It sends a signal throughout the chain of command: Just keep on signing contracts; keep ordering spare parts; keep up business as usual. Lastly, it shows that no one will be held accountable for price gouging.

No. 3, the pattern of price gouging at TransDigm and its subsidiaries has gone unimpeded for decades. It has amassed exclusive rights to sell these spare parts to the Pentagon. In fact, the Defense Department accounted for 34 percent of its sales in 2017. TransDigm exploited its business model and took advantage of its sole source position to leverage higher prices.

Now, as a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--and still a member of that committee--I have examined anticompetitive business practices over a long period of time, including those in agriculture and the pharmaceutical sectors of our economy. It is very concerning to me when

contracting arrangements, like those between TransDigm and its 100 subsidiaries, are effectively a monopoly. It is like an octopus with 100 arms putting the squeeze on the Pentagon. Effectively, the Pentagon is at the mercy of TransDigm--which owns the intellectual property--to buy the spare parts it needs to build the Nation's critical weapon systems. That leaves the American taxpayer on the hook for exorbitant price gouging.

The inspector general report found that TransDigm's choke hold has added up to tens of millions of dollars overcharging to the taxpayer. This is a good time to refresh people's memories about my legislative and oversight work with anticompetitive business practices. It is pretty simple. Monopolies invite government regulation. If that is the road TransDigm wants to continue following, I am here to deliver a message. The jig is up on this cozy relationship. The buck stops here.

I have written a letter to Acting Secretary Shanahan about these flawed contracts and failures to identify price gouging. I have asked him to make measurable recommendations on how to restore accountability and end this price gouging. One thing is crystal clear. Transparency and competition are MIA--missing in action--when the Pentagon buys spare parts from TransDigm and its subsidiaries. Now, thank God the other body, the House of Representatives, its Committee on Oversight and Reform, called an oversight hearing this week to examine TransDigm and its price-gouging shenanigans.

Congress has a constitutional duty of oversight to keep check on taxpayers' money and hold government accountable. As I said earlier, we need all hands on deck to root out wasteful spending.

Once again, we are back to square one. The Pentagon has flunked a fundamental benchmark of fiscal responsibility and stewardship. It is one of Washington's worst kept secrets. Year after year, Congress shovels more money into the Pentagon coffers to ensure we maintain the best military in the world, and I express my support for the military. I express my support that a strong department of national defense is also a strong keeper of the peace because we might not be challenged, and we are going to be able to help keep peace around the world, but year after year, the Pentagon squanders hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Some people at the Pentagon seem to think that paying $16 million in excess profits somehow seems to be small potatoes.

In my letter to the Acting Defense Secretary, I made it clear that I am not one of those people. I have asked him to answer a direct question. That question is this: What specific steps is he going to take to stop the profiteers from pilfering taxpayer money?

Contracts like I have described today between TransDigm and the Pentagon are shortchanging the troops, fleecing the taxpayers, and tarnishing its reputation.

As Justice Brandeis said, ``sunshine is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' So I am here today to pull back the curtains on the TransDigm audit. The American people need the sun to shine in on price gouging at the Pentagon so we can root out the wasteful spending here and elsewhere.

Transparency is the best ammunition that we have to chase away the dark fiscal crowd looming along the shores of the Potomac.

Mr. President, I ask to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Madam President, to commemorate this year's National Police Week, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators on a resolution to honor these people who lost their lives in order to protect our lives. The men and women of law enforcement make sacrifices every day to protect their families and fellow citizens. We are indebted to their dedication.

I want to express my appreciation for each and every police officer, firefighter, first responder, and other law enforcement officers who work diligently to protect our friends and families.

All of those visiting Washington this week to commemorate National Police Week, if you get a chance to see them on the streets of Washington, DC, thank them for their service.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I would like to tell my colleagues in the Senate about a project I worked on in Iowa on getting history from various veterans.

This morning, I delivered 20 stories from veterans to the Veterans History Project at our Library of Congress. These stories will be preserved in the permanent collection of the Library of Congress, making accessible the personal accounts of American war veterans so that future generations may hear directly from veterans and better understand the realities of war.

I want to thank all of our veterans, including those who were interviewed, who have sacrificed for the defense of our freedoms. Their service ensures that all Americans will live in peace and prosperity for generations to come.

Mr. President, May is National Foster Care Month.

Due to the opioid crisis and other substance abuse issues plaguing communities in Iowa and all across America, the number of kids in foster care is rapidly rising. In 2017, there were 443,000 kids in care. Ninety-six thousand entered foster care because of parental substance abuse.

These families need help. That is why Congress passed the Family First Prevention Services Act, which will allow States to receive Federal reimbursement for services to help keep kids with their parents. These services include substance abuse treatment programs.

As we celebrate this month of May as National Foster Care Month, I hope we will think about the number of kids who are there and do what we can to help those kids have permanency and parents. As chairman of the Caucus on Foster Youth, those are the two things I hear from them when listening to them talk about going from foster home to foster home, sometimes two or three times a year. They tell me they would like to have parents and they would like to have a home. They want stability.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week marks National Police Week, which is dedicated to the brave men and women of law enforcement. Police officers prioritize the safety of their neighbors and fellow citizens above their own.

This week gives us an opportunity to reflect on the dedication and perseverance of law enforcement officers across the country. We should also honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving our communities. It is because of the commitment and bravery of police officers, firefighters, first responders, and other public safety officers that we can feel safe in our homes, places of work, and our communities.

I am particularly grateful for the men and women in blue who serve my fellow Iowans.

I would also like to thank the officers who serve in Washington, DC. The Capitol Police work diligently every day to ensure that those of us who work here and everyone who visits this Capitol are safe. Each member of the Capitol Police works selflessly to protect us, and their dedication to service doesn't go unnoticed.

National Police Week serves as a reminder to thank specific members of law enforcement whom we know and care about; however, we can't forget to honor those who sacrificed their lives to protect ours. These individuals are heroes.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a total of 1,582 officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years. That is an average of one death every 55 hours.

In 2018, 158 officers were killed in the line of duty.

At the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, the names of some 200 Iowans are inscribed amongst those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Each name represents a unique individual who answered the call of duty. We are indebted to each and every one of those people.

To that end, I am pleased that the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved three bills, two of which I cosponsored and one that I introduced.

My bill, the Protecting America's First Responder's Act, seeks to fix issues in the Federal Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program. Officers whose lives have been transformed by injury in the line of duty deserve our support, and that bill lends to their support and makes sure that it is actually accomplished. Unfortunately, the Federal program that was created to assist them has fallen short in responding to claims efficiently. This important bill improves this program to ensure that disabled or fallen officers receive the benefits they deserve.

My bill enjoys the wide support of multiple groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Sergeants Benevolent Association, National Association of Police Organizations, Peace Officers Research Association of California, Wounded Blue, How2LoveOurCops, Billings Montana Police Department, National Volunteer Fire Council, National Association of School Resource Officers, and the Violently Injured Police Officers Organization.

I look forward to passing this bill into law, and I thank all of the bill's cosponsors for helping to move this bill forward.

In addition to the Protecting America's First Responder's Act, we also moved two other bills out of the Judiciary Committee.

The first is the Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program reauthorization. This bill allows State and local law enforcement officers to purchase lifesaving bulletproof vests for those officers working in the field. I am happy to cosponsor this legislation and support my colleague Senator Leahy's tireless efforts to improve the availability of bulletproof vests to our police.

The other bill that passed out of committee last week is the Supporting and Treating Officers in Crisis Act. Mental illness and suicide among police officers continue to grow. Senator Hawley introduced this bill, and I am proud to cosponsor it with him because it addresses a critical issue that far too many officers face. This bill seeks to provide necessary resources to law enforcement on mental health and suicide prevention.

I urge my colleagues to support all three of these bills. Passing them into law is one way to say thank you to the brave men and women who serve us so selflessly.

I would like to conclude my remarks by once again thanking all members of law enforcement for their dedication and sacrifice.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to a revered and distinguished member of the press corps, Robert Pear, a longtime reporter for the New York Times. He spent four decades in the corridors of this U.S. Capitol.

I often say that journalists are the watchdogs of democracy, and I really believe that--policing their beats to inform the public and, more importantly, to hold wrongdoers and especially our big government accountable. That makes them very valuable to preserving our representative system of government. These journalists serve as the eyes and ears of the American people--reporting on issues that impact the daily lives and livelihoods of our neighbors. From crime to education, healthcare, and foreign policy, journalists serve as guardians of the First Amendment.

That brings me to Robert.

On Tuesday, the healthcare beat lost a legendary reporter. The death of Robert Pear will be mourned for many years to come. As the dean of the national healthcare reporters, he established a reputation for hard-nosed reporting. For decades, he carried out a noble mission to inform the public, and he did it with integrity and fairness. He leaves behind a legacy of unmatched institutional knowledge, particularly in the area of healthcare policy.

As a policymaker and history buff myself, I read as much news as I can possibly get my hands on. On weekends, I catch up on my reading when traveling to and from Iowa. For every year I have served in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Pear's byline has appeared in the New York Times. I am told that it appeared more than 6,700 times. It is a byline that I made sure not to miss.

His work put meat on the bones of public policy. Even those of us who study legislation closely could learn a lot and did learn a lot from his writings. Substantive and crisp, his exceptional reporting delivered a thorough analysis of complex issues and then without a doubt influenced the policy conversation on healthcare.

His prolific pen sharpened the minds of readers, including staff and lawmakers who wrote legislation here on Capitol Hill. It even informed lobbyists who worked to penetrate and influence the debate. His work carried weight with those who implemented healthcare policy from the executive branch, including the White House, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

Now that he has passed away, his absence on the healthcare beat here on Capitol Hill will be missed profoundly. His understanding of the mechanics of health policy were without equal. He was able to wade through the weeds of our archaic Federal spending formulas for Medicare and Medicaid and decipher their impact on the delivery of care in my rural communities but also urban America. Mr. Pear deftly communicated how proposed changes would affect patient care, from the point of service to the pharmaceutical counter and the pocketbooks of consumers. Policymakers, providers, patients, and the taxpayers have been well- served by this giant of journalism.

Unlike many of his peers, Mr. Pear shunned the spotlight by just doing the old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting. Unassuming and understated, Mr. Pear let his published work speak for itself.

I am sure you are going to hear from Ranking Member Wyden shortly, and he knows Mr. Pear very well and would agree with some of these things I say.

Before holding a press conference to unveil a bill dealing with healthcare, any Senator, including this one, had to be sure to have all their ducks in a row. No lawmaker wanted to be a sitting duck with Robert Pear in the front row of the press gaggle.

I will miss his bylines, particularly the extent to which they helped to educate me, helped me to understand policy that other Members of Congress were promoting and maybe even learning from his criticism on some stands that I took.

Today, I extend my condolences to his family, friends, and peers. I salute his lifelong contribution through exemplary service on behalf of the American people--most importantly, policing the process of representative government and making sure that government and those of us who serve in government are accountable.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to speak on another matter, but I want to thank Senator Wyden for the kind words he had to say, as well, about a very distinguished journalist.

Mr. President, I want to address my colleagues with three different subjects. The first one is very, very short. It is things that are being talked about right now, particularly in the other body.

Many in the media seem very, very unhappy with the results of the Mueller report, or they might be embarrassed that the world knows that they sold a bunch of snake oil for the past 2 years, talking for 2 years about collusion with Russia, and now after the Mueller report has come out, they find out that the jig is up.

I hope the media will pursue the origins of the Russian collusion investigation with the very same vigor over the last 2 years that they pursued the collusion narrative. It will go a long way, then, to restore the media's damaged credibility, and knowing how all of this started will help us to prevent such a fiasco from ever happening again.

Mr. President, for the third or fourth time, I want to visit with my colleagues about the flooding in the Midwest and particularly my State of Iowa. This is ongoing flooding in the Midwest and particularly Iowa, and it is not going to end for a while.

Flooding on the Mississippi has gotten worse, as flood protection has not been adequate in several areas of Scott County along the Mississippi to deal with historic water levels.

Parts of the downtown area in Davenport are now inundated with floodwaters. This picture is a perfect example of it. I think you probably have seen this on television quite a lot. This area includes many businesses and homes. It appears that this will be the most damaging flood in Davenport's history. Unfortunately, the National Weather Service reports that this week's forecast is filled with rain for the whole of our State of Iowa, which could cause additional flooding or reflooding throughout the State.

The Missouri River could rise 2 to 4 feet, depending on location and tributary flows. As of right now, most of southwest Iowa is without even minimal flood protection due to the breached, overtopped, or compromised levees caused by the unique weather system that brought record flows down the lower Missouri River earlier this year. The Army Corps of Engineers is working to fix the large breaches, but communities are threatened by even minor rain.

This recovery will be long, and Federal resources will continue to be needed as the restoration and the rebuilding that are necessary take place. I am committed to continuing to work at the Federal level to help Iowa and our neighboring States through this whole process.

In April, the Environment and Public Works Committee held a field hearing on the Midwest floods chaired by Senator Ernst of Iowa, and she and I, along with other Senators, had a chance to question the Army Corps of Engineers on its management of the Missouri River.

For years, I have worked with several of my congressional colleagues to make flood control the No. 1 priority of the Corps in its management of the Missouri River. Protection of life and property should take precedence over recreation and experiments that may or may not help endangered species and the other purposes of the river identified in the Army Corps of Engineers' master manual.

From 1979 until the changes in that manual in 2004, the manual stated that the No. 1 priority was flood control; in other words, protecting life and property was more important than anything else. Changes to the manual made in the year 2004 made it so that the Corps must consider other purposes for the river. They have to balance these other purposes with flood control.

Since 2004, there has been a dramatic increase in flood frequency and floodwater levels. The river's flood-carrying capacity has greatly changed, and

there were no natural events before 2011 that could have caused these changes.

I reiterate--life safety and property should be the No. 1 priority of the Corps in its management of the Missouri River.

My colleagues and I have also heard complaints about the unresponsive Corps and the lack of communication with local residents about the floods. After the 2011 floods, some communications were enhanced; however, a lack of updated data and communication was still one of the most common complaints.

As a direct result of meetings with local levee sponsors, homeowners, small businesses, farmers, and other stakeholders, a group of 10 Senators requested that the Corps begin sending email updates to all local sponsors on a weekly basis starting within 30 days. These updates should include snowpack levels, available flood control storage in the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System, cubic feet per second release rates at the system's dams, and flow rates to key tributaries, as well as current National Weather Service precipitation forecasts and the spring flood outlook.

Today, the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on oversight of the Public Works Program. My colleagues on the committee are asking Corps leadership about flood control on the Missouri River and what emergency resources are necessary to help the Corps with the recovery process.

With over 100 miles of levees needing repair, we know that additional resources will be needed. We also know that the State of Iowa, Iowa communities, and individual Iowans will need assistance from programs such as the community development block grant and Economic Development Administration disaster accounts.

I have been working with my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to ensure that critical funding for Iowa is provided through the emergency supplemental appropriations. I filed an amendment to the disaster bill, along with my colleagues from the Midwest, to help farmers who have lost an estimated $17.3 million to $34 million of their on-farm stored corn and soybeans. My amendment would allow impacted midwestern farmers to address agricultural losses not covered by crop insurance or other programs. I will continue to provide the Appropriations Committee with damage and need assessments for recovery in Iowa as we get further clarity on the actual numbers.

Furthermore, several Midwest Senators and I introduced the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019. This bill includes a series of disaster tax relief provisions that will help American families and businesses recover from the terrible disasters that have occurred so far in 2019, including the Midwest flooding.

The disaster tax relief provisions we have worked on will reduce penalties and make it easier for people to access retirement funds so that individuals and families can get back on their feet faster and rebuild their lives. They also make it easier for disaster victims to claim personal casualty losses, and they suspend certain limitations on charitable contributions to encourage more donations for disaster relief. For businesses affected by the disasters, this tax relief is available to help them retain employees while the businesses get back up and running.

Iowa Governor Reynolds and her administration are working closely with FEMA on adding Scott County to the existing disaster declaration and on other key needs, such as housing assistance for communities in southwest Iowa that have very few existing options for people to return to or stay in those communities.

I have talked to Acting Administrator Gaynor of FEMA about this matter and urged him to promptly work on getting this much needed assistance to those in need.

Governor Reynolds has also established a flood recovery advisory board to coordinate flood recovery and rebuilding efforts across Federal, State, and local levels of government. As an ex-officio member, I am looking forward to participating in these meetings to ensure that the Federal Government is offering needed assistance to Iowans affected by the flooding.

This isn't a case of our doing something new through the Federal Government for people hurt by natural disasters; this is a case of following policy that has been part of the Federal Government for several decades that the Federal Government is an insurer of last resort for natural disasters that can't be anticipated and appropriate insurance provided in advance.

So I expect that the Federal Government will do exactly what we have done for decades and do it in a nonpartisan way, almost in a consensus way, as we have in the past, and replenish these funds that provide the money for this disaster.

I happen to appreciate the stamina and determination of Iowans in fighting these natural disasters. Many of these people I am referring to have a long recovery ahead of them. This Iowa spirit will help us pull through these difficult times stronger and better, just as we have in the past.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. President, May has been recognized as National Foster Care Month for over 20 years to bring awareness to the challenges that foster youth face.

Through my work on the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have had the opportunity to hear firsthand what children in foster care need. They need love, support, safety, and permanency. They need a family. I salute all those who dedicate their time and resources to help these kids.

In moving forward, I will continue to work to find better solutions and to secure better outcomes for youth in foster care.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 1 minute as in morning business.