Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title United States Code, of the Rule Submitted By the Office of the Comptroller of Currency Relating to ``National Banks and Federal Savings Associations As Lenders''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is National Police Week, and yesterday I spoke about the importance of police in our activities, our daily life. I come to the floor now to address my colleagues about a piece of legislation I am putting in.

I recently reintroduced the Protecting America's First Responders Act, a bipartisan bill cosponsored by 11 of my colleagues. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the last Congress.

In this new Congress, it is time that we once again turn our attention to the public service officers across our Nation who steadfastly serve and protect fellow Americans. These great men and women fulfill some of our most vital and irreplaceable needs. Their duties affect every part of our communities. We have seen that clearly--very clearly--over the past year as their services have been instrumental in keeping our communities safe during the pandemic.

Our firefighters dedicate themselves to braving harrowing fires. Our police officers rush headlong into danger to protect the innocent. Emergency first responders dutifully come to the aid of the injured, no matter the threat. Despite these vast responsibilities, their purpose is very much the same: to serve and protect their communities.

We know this call to service comes with great risk. We, in Congress, will forever be indebted to the Capitol Police officers who suffered substantial injuries and even gave their lives on these very grounds.

There is no way for us to truly comprehend or repay the sacrifices made by these officers and their loved ones left behind. Yet, knowing this, our public safety officers willingly accept the responsibilities of injury and, if need be, lay down their lives to fulfill their duties and their oaths.

We owe our firefighters, law enforcement, and all of our first responders a great deal, and we don't say thank you enough. They don't hesitate to take action when we need them to, and we must be equally steadfast in coming to their aid by ensuring that those officers, disabled or killed--killed in the line of duty--receive what they are due.

They must receive what we, in Congress, first promised now four and a half decades ago through the law that is called the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. So the original PSOB Program was created in 1976. Yet, since that time, it has been plagued with unclear and out- of-date regulations, forcing families of our fallen heroes to continually suffer through technical interpretations and drawn-out claim processes. This cannot continue.

This bill that 11 of us have introduced, the Protecting America's First Responders Act, ensures that disability claims are consistent with Congress's original intent for the PSOB Program. It received wide bipartisan support here in the U.S. Senate in the last Congress. Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the House.

Over the last year, I worked closely with Congressman Pascrell to alleviate opposition and work through amendments that can pass the House. I am confident that with these changes, it will reach the President's desk very quickly.

The 117th Congress has a fresh opportunity to make this bill law, and there are many waiting for us to do exactly that. I introduce this bill with strong support from organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations. I urge my colleagues to, once again, vote for the Protecting America's First Responders Act, thereby fulfilling the original promise to honor those whose lives were forever altered by their service Russia Investigation

Mr. President, on another subject, I come to the floor probably to explain to my colleagues something I have done on three or four different occasions, and nobody ever seems to get it right. So I am back here again trying to explain something so we don't have to deal with it again.

So here we go again. While I was traveling throughout Iowa meeting with constituents, I kept my eyes on news reporting out of Washington, DC. I have seen a lot of bad reporting in my time. The events that occurred starting on April 30 are there at the top of bad reporting.

The Washington Post, the New York Times, and NBC all had to retract their reporting about Russian disinformation warnings given to Rudy Giuliani. I am not here to talk about Rudy Giuliani. I am talking about how this report affects me and Senator Johnson because, unfortunately, in the Washington Post article, my and Senator Johnson's investigations into the Biden family's financial dealings was tethered, once again, to Russian disinformation attempts, and that tethering is what I have been here on the floor of the Senate, over the last maybe more than a year now, trying to explain that that just is a big hoax.

The report was based on anonymous current and former U.S. officials. Apparently, the Washington Post still hasn't figured out how to read a Senate report. My staff also spent many hours talking with the Post the day before the story ran in order to help them understand. And I presume they called us; we didn't call them.

I am going to quote from my staff's emailing them the following, which, in the end, the Post completely ignored in their article. So here is a long email:

Sen. Grassley's report with Sen. Johnson relied on Obama- era U.S. government records and information from a Democrat- aligned U.S. lobby shop, which employed Telizhenko while representing the corrupt Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

The email goes on:

Sen. Grassley never received a defensive briefing related to his oversight of the Biden family's foreign business ventures. Discussions with the FBI and the Intelligence Community were initiated by requests from Democrats, as is detailed in Section Ten of the report.

The FBI and members of the Intelligence Community indicated last year that there was no reason for the committee's investigation to be halted, even with knowledge of Telizhenko's limited involvement (see report page 59).

This is what the email says to the Post. Continuing to read from my staff's email to them:

The report and its underlying transcripts further reveal that Telizhenko had deep and longstanding relationships with Obama State Department officials, National Security Council staff and left-wing lobbyists. The transcripts also illustrate that material created by Derkach was introduced by Democrats, not Republicans, and it was quickly rejected by an expert witness as disinformation.

And then in parenthesis, it says: ``([S]ee Minority Exhibit J and George Kent's response to Minority staff regarding that exhibit).''

Continuing to report from the email to the Post:

Following a classified letter authored by Democratic leadership, portions of which were later leaked and reportedly referenced Derkach, Democrats again sought an FBI and Intelligence Community briefing, which was provided in August of 2020. At that briefing, the FBI stated that it's not attempting to--

And these are the words that the FBI used-- ``quash, curtail, or interfere'' in the investigation in any way.

And then in parenthesis it says: ``([S]ee report, page 59).''

That's not the sort of direction provided at defensive briefings.

This is what my staff's email says to the Post.

Obviously, we didn't rely on any of this for the report's findings on Hunter Biden's and James Biden's extensive financial entanglements with questionable foreign nationals, including some connected to the communist Chinese government. Subsequent to the report, the public has also learned that Hunter Biden is under criminal investigation relating to his financial entanglements.

Given Telizheko's longstanding ties to Blue Star Strategies and Obama administration officials, are you similarly asking them whether they played into some Russian-pushed narrative?

I am going to go back because that question needs to be repeated. It is not repeated in the email I am reading to you.

Given Telizheko's longstanding ties to Blue Star Strategies and Obama administration officials, are you--

Meaning the Post-- similarly asking them whether they played into some Russian- pushed narrative?

Given that Democrats introduced Derkach material, are you similarly asking them whether they played into some Russian- pushed narrative?

Now, that is the end of the quote, and I think those last two questions indicate--because, obviously, the newspaper article doesn't say that they asked these questions that I repeated one twice and then the other question. They aren't really interested in getting to the bottom of this.

Now, after all this information and long phone conversations, the Washington Post opted for unnamed sources rather than on-the-record comments from my staff. So they had an opportunity to quote Grassley and explain all this stuff, and what do they do? They used an anonymous source. Maybe the Post should work on putting more investigation into so-called investigative reporting instead of focusing on false Russian disinformation narratives; for example, maybe spend some time investigating the Biden family's ties to Chinese nationals connected to the Communist regime's military and intelligence services.

I have addressed these Russian disinformation issues at length in my committee report with Senator Johnson, as well as right here on the floor of the Senate three or four times over the course of many months, maybe stretching into more than a year. I am going to do this again even though I have better things to do. If you want every detail, read section 10 in 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 included unclassified elements that attempted and failed to tie our work to Andrii Derkach, a Russian agent. This document falsely accused us of potentially receiving material from Derkach. It was pure speculative nonsense that the liberal media ran with as what they would call or want you to believe was the truth. Do you know what it was? It was garbage. Those unclassified elements were leaked to the press to support a false campaign accusing us 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. Now, more precisely, the Democrats relied upon and disseminated known disinformation from a foreign source who the intelligence community warned was actively seeking to influence U.S. politics.

But there is yet more. On July 16, then-Ranking Member Wyden and Senator Peters wrote a letter to me and Senator Johnson asking for a briefing from the intelligence community on matters relating to our investigation.

On July 28, 2020, Senator Johnson and I reminded those two Senators that the FBI and relevant members of the intelligence community had already briefed the committee in March 2020 and assured us that there was no reason to discontinue the investigation we were involved in.

In August 2020, subsequent to these Democrat-led letters, Senator Johnson and I had a briefing from the FBI on behalf of the intelligence community. However, in that briefing, the FBI discussed matters that were already known and completely irrelevant to the substance of our investigation. The FBI also made clear that it was not attempting to-- and these are the FBI's words--``quash, curtail, or interfere'' in the investigation in any way.

Any talk about an FBI briefing warning us that our investigation into the Biden family's financial and business associations was connected to Russian disinformation is complete nonsense. No such briefing ever happened. Our investigation was based on Obama administration government records and records from a Democrat-aligned lobby shop, Blue Star Strategies. If those records amount to Russian disinformation, then that means the Obama administration dealt in disinformation every day, which brings me to the ultimate point I want to bring to attention today.

The FBI assured me that the August 2020 briefing, which was a pointless briefing that shouldn't have happened, would remain confidential. That is what the FBI told us, that it would be confidential. However, I was concerned that the substance of this briefing or at least elements relating to it would leak, and I knew that once it did, the briefing would be misreported and used to paint our investigation in a false light. That is exactly what happened last week.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. The editorial began this way:

Did the FBI set up two Members of Congress for political attack under the guise of a ``defensive briefing''? It's possible, and Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley are rightly demanding answers.

On May 3, Senator Johnson and I wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, asking to meet with them to discuss the August 20 briefing. We need answers, and we need answers now. Why did the FBI and the intelligence community brief us? Who made that decision? At the briefing, the FBI didn't even show us what intelligence product formed the basis for the briefing.

I will tell you this, even without seeing any paperwork, we were already aware of everything they talked about that very day, and it was unconnected to the substance of our investigation.

I asked the FBI whether they had any new intelligence to share because we hadn't heard anything new, and they didn't give us a single new item. So, as far as I am concerned, the briefing was totally unnecessary.

Based on the timeline of events, it appears the briefing was done because the Democrats wanted it done, which means it was a political decision.

The Wall Street Journal ended its piece by saying this:

Whether the FBI was pressured, duped, or actively political, the bureau has again landed in the center of a partisan fight. Mr. Wray might [want to] ask how that keeps happening.

That is exactly right. The FBI and the intelligence community have lots of explaining to do.

We already know that under Comey, the FBI used intelligence briefings as surveillance operations against Trump and his team. Did the FBI and the intelligence community also misuse briefing processes against congressional Members? Only Director Wray and Director Haines can answer that question, and so far, they have failed to answer those questions. Their credibility and, more importantly, their professionalism are on the line.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source