The government. This came after weeks of acrimony and no shortage of hostility here on the senate floor and elsewhere. And while most of the recent debate has been focused on the future of immigration policy, another vitally important priority and a bipartisan priority, no less, was also addressed this week. Im talking of course about the sixyear extension of the Childrens HealthInsurance Program which was included in the funding bill. Its a shame really that this bipartisan accomplishment has in some respects been overlooked while more attention has been given to partisan squabbling over more divisive issues. Since its interception, chip has been a bipartisan program. In 1997, senator kennedy and i came together to create chip in order to provide Health Insurance to vulnerable children. It was a Republicancontrolled Congress working with a democratic president that brought this program into existence. The year before that same Republican Congress and democratic president worked together to produce another landmark welfare reform bill that sought to replace a culture of dependency with an emphasis on work. Schip became a necessity for those milies making the transition. Prior tohe introduction of the original chip bill, i came across a number of families with parents who work but still could not afford private coverage for their children, yet they made too much to qualify for medicaid. Senator kennedy and i designed our bill to fill this gap and meet those needs. Today the chip Program ProvidesHealth Insurance for about nine million children, needy children, every year. While the program isnt perfectly designed, though few programs are, it is widely considered to be one of the most efficient and costeffective Health Care Programs. For that reason, members from both parties have been supportive of the Program Since the day it was signed into law. Last year with an extension deadline approaching, senator wyden, the Ranking Member of the finance committee, and i went to work on drafting another bipartisan chip bill, one that would make needed improvements to the program and extend it for an additional five years. We were successful. We introduced our bill in september and shortly thereafter the finance committee marked it up, and it reported it by a voice vote. Weve been working to pass our bill since last september, and thankfully that time came earlier this week. When we worked when we voted to pass the c. R. , we also voted to successfully extend chip for six years. Six years. That is the longest chip extension in the history of this program. Other than that extra year of funding, the bill we passed was identical to the one senator wyden and i introduced last year. I know we have colleagues already talking about adding additional years, and i know a number of stakeholders would like to see that as well. Im definitely open to having a conversation with my colleagues on how we might move forward to support an additional four years of funding for chip. In my view, if we can Work Together to pass a bill adding four years to the sixlready in place, that would b simply fantastic. But for this moment let us not overlook the success weve achieved this week. A sixyear chip extension gives security and certainty to millions of American Families and allows states to plan their budgets for several years into the future. Thats a big deal, madam president. Let us keep that in mind as we look for ways to do more. Id like to thank senator wyden, my partner on the finance committee, for his efforts on developing this legislation. Id like to thank other members of the Senate Finance committee who supported us all the way. Thank you to our distinguished majority leader and his team as well as the leaders in the house who worked alongside us. I also want to thank the stakeholders across the country the governors, care providers and of course the families who depend on chip for making their voices heard throughout this endeavor. I look forward to working with all of you Going Forward so we can make sure we do right by the children who benefit from chip. Now, madam president , id like to turn to a related issue in the health care space. The senate will soon vote on President Trumps nominee for secretary of health and human services. I can think of very few others and ive only been here 42 years, but i can think of very few others qualified to take the helm of this ship than mr. Alex azar. As secretary of of h. H. S. , mr. Azar would be responsible for trillions of dollars in spending, of liabilities and contracts that make up the backbone of our Health Care System. Whats more, madam president , h. H. S. Is still in the process of off ramping many of the poor decisions made throughout the eight years of the Obama Administration. Unfortunately, many of those policies, regulations, procedures and practices still remain in place, continuing to undermine the sustainability of programs like medicare and medicaid and artificially propping up the socalled Affordable Care act. But the good news is that mr. Azar brings with him nearly two decades of experience in the Health Care System working in both the private and public sectors. Mr. Azar spent several years as a senior official at h. H. S. , holding key positions overseeing Medicare Part d and medicare advantage. He also led h. H. S. s responses to the anthrax attacks shortly after 9 11, the sars andkey pox crisis, Hurricane Katrina and many others. Clearly mr. Azar has seen both the good and the bad at h. H. S. And knows how to manage them. I dont think theres anyone here, even on the other side of the aisle, who would contest that. In fact, in the past, mr. Azar has actually been confirmed twice with experience both on the company side and the government side of health care. He is now only more experienced and knowledgeable. I think the broad exercise will serve him well particularly at this critical time when the h. H. S. Secretary will need to be and focused on the Opioid Epidemic and other major problems facing our country. No doubt, all of these reasons why we reported mr. Azar out of the finance committee with a bipartisan vote. If we set aside the partisan and the preconceived notions some have about certain industries, mr. Azar would likely get a near unanimous vote. So i hope at least some of our democratic colleagues will vote to confirm him. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in doing so. And with that, madam president , i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call the presiding officer the senator from iowa. Mr. Grassley i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley i come to the floor today to talk about the Judiciary Committee, which i chair, about our important oversight work, and the investigation work and kind of concentrate on the past year. There are a lot of issues that need more sunlight and more scrutiny. One of my key concerns is the loss of faith in the ability of the Justice Department and the f. B. I. To do their job free of partisan political bias. The American People are rightly skeptical because of how the department and the f. B. I. Have handled the following subjects. On the one hand, hillary clinton, and on the secondhand, donald trump and his associates. Hiding from tough questions about these controversial cases is no way to reassure the public. If the department is afraid of independent oversight, that just reinforces peoples suspicion and skepticism. The only real way to reassure people is to let the sun shine in and let the chips fall where they may. In each of these cases, the government should obviously find out what happened and hold people accountable if there was any wrongdoing. But it also has to play by the rules and be held accountable for its aions as well. We need to shine the light of day on all of it. As part of our investigation, we have requested documents and other information from the department of justice and the f. B. I. Much of that information is classified. The department has provided very limited access to those classified materials. It has limited the Judiciary Committee review to the chair, this senator, the Ranking Member of the full committee that war senator feinstein and the subcommittee on crime and terrorism. That would be senator graham and senator whitehouse. The government has also tried to severely limit the number of appropriately cleared staff who can review documents and even take notes. We have reviewed some information related to whether the fib used the socalled trump dossier and the extend of its relationships with its author christopher steele. As we know now, mr. Steele was hired by fusion g. P. S. To research mr. Trumps alleged ties to russia. His work was funded by the Democratic National committee and the Clinton Campaign. Now, remember, it took a subpoena and a court battle with the House Intelligence Committee to force that fact out into the open. Lawyers for the Democratic National committee and the bill Clinton Campaign officials denied it to the press for months. In other words, they lied. The founder of fusion g. P. S. Denied that his firm was, quoteunquote, democratically linked. That, too, was untrue. When the news finally broke, New York Times reporters actually complained that people who knew better had flatout lied to them about who funded mr. Steeles dossier. But back before the 2016 election, it is unclear who knew that steele was gathering dirt on trump for the Democratic National committee and for the Clinton Campaign. Many of his sources for claims about the Trump Campaign are russian government officials, so steele, who was working for fusion g. P. S. , who in turn was working for the Democratic National committee and the Clinton Campaign, was also working with the russians. So who was actually colluding with russians is coming more clear. Mr. Steele chaired his at least partially russianbased allegations far and wide. He shared them with the f. B. I. He shared them with the media. And according to public reports, he shared them with highranking officials in the Justice Department and the state department. Well, in the course of our review, senator graham of South Carolina and i came across some information that does not add up. We saw mr. Steele swearing one thing in a public liable suit against him in london, england. Then we saw contradictory things in documents that im not going to talk about in an open meeting, open setting here. I know everybody understands that. And from everything that we have learned so far, senator graham and i believe these discrepancies are significant. So we send a referral of twister steele to the Justice Department and the f. B. I. For potential violation of 18 u. S. C. 1001. Now, i guess people are going to say whatever they want to say about this whole matter, no matter what the facts are, but it doesnt contribute anything meaningful to the public debate to ignore those facts or to speculate wrongly about senator grahams motivations or mind. First, despite all the hubbub, this is not all that unusual. Anyone can ask for a criminal investigation. I have done it in the past when i come across potential crimes in the course of my oversight work, and i have done so publicly. This situation is no different. Second, as the special counsel has reminded us all recently, lying to federal officials is a crime. It dsnt matter who is doing the lying. Politics should have nothing to do with it. We have i have said repeat repeatedly that i support mr. Muellers work and that i respect his role. I still do. Nothing has changed. I think it ought to be said again in case anyone missed it. The special counsel should be free to complete his work and to follow the facts wherever they lead. But that doesnt mean that i can ignore what looks like false statements. Ifage individual sees what might be evidence of a crime, he or the clerk should call the roll report that to Law Enforcement so it can be fully investigated. That is exactly what senator graham and i did. That does not mean that we have made up our minds about what happened. It is possible mr. Steele told the truth and the other contradictory statements that we saw were wrong. But just like any court would do, we start by assuming that government documents are true until we see evidence to the contrary. If those documents are not true and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of mr. Steele, then we have another problem, and arguably a more serious problem. Of course, even aside from these inconsistencies, the public reports about the way the f. B. I. May have used the dossier should give everyone in this chamber pause. Director comey testified in 2017 that that dossier was, quoteunquote, salacious and unverified. If it was unverified in 2017, then it had to be unverified in 2016 as well. So it was a collection of unverified Opposition Research funded by a political opponent in an election year. Ul it be proper for the Obama Administration or, for ma , for that matter, any administration to authorize Something Like that t for an investigation that intrudes on People Associated with political opponents . That should bother civil libertarians of any political stripe. Now, i wish i could talk more openly about the basis of our referral and other concerns, but right now that information is largely classified. That information is controlled by the Justice Department. As i said, the department has permitted only the chair and Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee and the chair and Ranking Member of the subcommittee on crime and terrorism of judiciary and a limited number of their cleared staff to see the underlying documents. I have been pushing for the department to provide the same access to other Judiciary Committee members and their appropriately cleared staffs. But the department refuses to provide that access or even to brief the other members on the underlying information. Fortunately, the department has agreed that it has no business objecting to our members reviewing our own work. So i have encouraged our Committee Members and their appropriately cleared staff to do just that, review that work. Look at the memo that senator graham and i sent to Deputy Attorney general and the f. B. I. Director. Members can then make up their own minds about what senator graham and i have concluded. I have also encouraged them to review the committees transcripts and other unclassified materials that have been available to them and their staffs for now a long period of time, many months. Finally, i have encouraged them to let me know if they believe that any of that information should be made public. I believe in transparency. We may agree that certain information should be released at the appropriate time with care to preserve classified information and the integrity of any investigation. I have already been pushing the department to review the classified referral memorandum to confirm the memos classification markings so we can release the unclassified portions as soon as possible. Now the department has deferred to the f. B. I. , and the f. B. I. Is falsely claiming that three of our unclaified paragraphs each ntain the same or single classified fact. Now, that really surprised me because these particular paragraphs are based on nongovernment sources and do not claim to repeat or confirm any information for any government document. Even if these portions of our referral did reference the allegedly classified fact at issue, it is hard to understand why that fact should be classified. First, the Deputy Attorney general has discussed the fact at issue with me more than once in an unsecured space and on an unsecured phone line. That ought to tell you something. Second, the f. B. I. Is not acting as if this information would Harm National Security if released. The f. B. I. Never notified the entities copied on the memos transmittal, for example, including the Inspector General and the Intelligence Committees to ensure that fact was protected as classified. Now, if the f. B. I. Really believed this fact was classified, then the f. B. I. And the department should take better care to act consistent with that belief. Unfortunately, i spent something i suspect Something Else is really going on. It sure look