[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S828-S830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Kashyap Patel

  Mr. President, this Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is 
scheduled to consider whether to recommend Kash Patel's nomination to 
be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the full Senate 
for consideration. So far, my Republican committee colleagues have 
chosen to ignore the myriad redflags about Mr. Patel, especially his 
recurring instinct to threaten retribution--political retribution--
against his and President Trump's perceived enemies. This is a 
dangerous characteristic for a person who wants to lead the Nation's 
most powerful domestic, investigative Agency, the FBI. I hope that what 
I reveal today from credible whistleblowers at the highest levels will 
give my Republican colleagues some pause before it is too late.
  Multiple whistleblowers have disclosed to my staff highly credible 
information indicating that Mr. Kash Patel has been personally 
directing the ongoing purge of senior law enforcement officials at the 
FBI.
  Let me remind the Presiding Officer, Mr. Patel, at this moment in 
time, is not on any public payroll, nor does he have any authority by 
our government.
  Listen. On the morning of January 29, the day before Kash Patel's 
confirmation hearing, there was a meeting between the acting leadership 
of the Department of Justice and the FBI. Notes from that morning 
meeting read:

       KP wants movement at FBI, reciprocal actions for DOJ.

  Let me say that again. Notes from the meeting:

       KP wants movement at FBI, reciprocal actions for DOJ.

  Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove told the participants in 
this meeting that he had received multiple calls from the White House 
Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller the night before. Miller had 
pressured him because Kash Patel--``KP''--wanted the FBI to remove 
targeted officials faster, as DOJ had already done with prosecutors.
  The list of officials identified for termination was in the 
possession of a group of individuals who, according to our sources, 
were personally interviewed by Mr. Patel to be on what was known as the 
Director's Advisory Team.
  This advisory team at the FBI is a group of political appointees who 
were brought in to prepare for Mr. Patel's arrival. The FBI's 
leadership understanding of the Advisory Team's list was that ``a lot 
of names were people in the crosshairs.''
  According to my whistleblower sources, Mr. Patel is receiving 
information from within the FBI from the Director's Advisory Team. Mr. 
Patel then provides direction to Stephen Miller, who relays it to 
Acting Deputy Attorney General Bove.
  It is unacceptable for a nominee with no legal or current role in 
government to personally direct the unjustified and potentially illegal 
firings of dedicated, nonpartisan professionals at the FBI.
  If these allegations are true, then Mr. Patel may have committed 
perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A day after the meeting 
I described, where Mr. Patel's desire for FBI officials to be fired 
more quickly was discussed, was Mr. Patel's confirmation hearing before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee. So the morning after he is putting the 
heat on the leadership at the FBI to dismiss more people more quickly, 
he testifies before the Judiciary Committee under oath.
  During the hearing, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey asked Mr. 
Patel:

       Are you aware of any plans or discussions to punish in any 
     way, including termination, FBI agents or personnel 
     associated with Trump investigations? Yes or no.

  Mr. Patel answered that he was ``not aware of that,'' and continued:

       I don't know what is going on right now over there, but I'm 
     committed to you, Senator, and your colleagues that I will 
     honor the internal review process of the FBI.

  Yet, if these whistleblower allegations are true, just 2 days before, 
Stephen Miller, at Mr. Patel's direction, had ordered DOJ leadership 
not just to terminate a specific list of officials but to speed up 
those terminations.
  Mr. Patel seems to be unable to wait for Senate confirmation to carry 
out retribution against his perceived political enemies.
  Patel is a private citizen today, and he was when he testified, with 
no current role in government, directing baseless firings of career 
public servants. This speaks directly to the fact that Mr. Patel is not 
fit to be entrusted with government authority, which is evident to 
anyone who has seriously reviewed his record.
  And let me remind you: He is not seeking a term of 2 years or 4 years 
but 10 years as Director of the FBI.
  The ramifications of these terminations at the FBI are dangerous. 
They go way beyond Mr. Patel's fitness for office, because these 
terminations have greatly weakened the FBI's ability to protect the 
country from national security threats and have made America less safe.
  This hollowing out of one of the major law enforcement Agencies of 
the Federal Government by the new Trump administration is at the risk 
of making America more dangerous and people in America more vulnerable 
to criminal and terrorist elements.
  Among those who were removed so far--so far--by the Trump 
administration are the top officials who oversee the FBI's work 
combatting international and domestic terrorism.
  Think about that. The Trump administration starts off by going to the 
Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and comes 
up with a political list, and among those people who were eliminated 
are the people in charge of combatting international and domestic 
terrorism, cyber security threats, human and drug trafficking, and 
violent crime. Does that make us any safer?
  Mr. Patel's need to punish his perceived enemies is apparently 
greater than his interest in protecting the American people. Given the 
serious nature of these allegations and the need to protect the 
identities of my sources, I have asked the Department of Justice 
inspector general today, in a letter, to investigate these specific 
claims. I believe they are true, but the inspector general can make his 
own conclusion.
  I will urge my Republican colleagues to, please, take these 
allegations seriously and, at least, pause for a moment and consider 
whether Kash Patel is the person you want to put in charge of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation for 10 years--10 years.
  If this man is so fast and loose with the truth before our committee 
now, imagine what he will do if given the protection of office.
  We need to pause in this consideration and consider what we already 
know about Mr. Patel. He has pledged to ``shut down FBI headquarters,'' 
in writing, and, ``come after'' the President's enemies.
  He has even published the enemies' list that he will target. I know I 
have read it, and anybody can in the book that he has published.
  He falsely claimed that the FBI ``was planning January 6 for a 
year,'' and has even sold musical recordings of a song performed by 
January 6 rioters who violently assaulted police officers on January 6.
  He has left behind a trail of grievances throughout his life, lashing 
out at anyone who dares to disagree with him or fails to respect him 
sufficiently.
  You want to give power to this man, the power of the investigation of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation? I think not.
  Now there are these credible allegations that he has personally 
orchestrated a purge of senior FBI law enforcement officials.
  The FBI is an Agency that plays a critical role in keeping us safe 
from terrorism, violent crime, narcotics, and other threats. Our Nation 
needs an FBI Director who understands the gravity of the mission, not 
someone who is focused on settling a political score.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Iowa.


                  Nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, after the Gabbard nomination, the next 
issue up for consideration by the Senate is cloture on the Robert F. 
Kennedy nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. This 
Cabinet position is responsible for implementing the administration's 
health agenda.
  As Secretary, Mr. Kennedy must spend his time focused on improving 
the health of all Americans, ensuring HHS is transparent and 
accountable to congressional oversight, and respecting whistleblowers.
  I think Kennedy has made it very clear, in life as a citizen, talking 
about improving the health of all Americans.

[[Page S829]]

  So I would like to outline some of the priorities that Mr. Kennedy 
should focus on at Health and Human Services. And, obviously, I am 
asking him to focus on things and issues that are very dear to my heart 
and take up a lot of my time as a Senator from Iowa and a person very 
concerned about the quality of healthcare in rural America.
  Our country spends more than $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare. 
Growing healthcare costs don't just strain Americans' pocketbooks. 
Healthcare is also a major driver of widening budget deficits and the 
Federal Government's unsustainable fiscal outlook.
  We are not getting our money's worth for all of that spending. Major 
healthcare programs spending eats up 34 percent of the Federal revenue 
today, and that will grow to 41 percent of revenue by 2055.
  Mr. Kennedy must--and I think he is committed to--ensure that the key 
health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, are protected and 
strengthened by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse.
  The nominee must increase transparency and accountability. These 
actions will help make our healthcare system more efficient for the 
taxpayers and the consumers.
  I am the author of major and more recent updates to the Federal 
Government's most powerful tool in fighting fraud, and that is people 
that use the False Claims Act. Since the enactment of this 
legislation--I am talking about reforms to the False Claims Act--the 
Federal Government has recovered more than $78 billion lost to fraud 
and saved billions more by deterring would-be fraudsters.
  People in the Justice Department, both Republican and Democrat, say 
that the False Claims Act is their best tool to get after these 
fraudsters.
  In the 1 year of just 2024--and Attorney General Garland reported 
this to me just a couple of days before he left office--in 2024, there 
was more than $2.9 billion in False Claims Act settlements and 
judgments, with $1.7 billion of it involving the healthcare industry.
  Now, as you know, I listen to a lot of whistleblowers, and 
whistleblowers were responsible for helping to recover nearly all of 
that $1.7 billion.
  And I think I discussed the False Claims Act and the use of it by 
soon-to-be Secretary Kennedy. He seemed to be very enthused about 
listening to whistleblowers and use of the False Claims Act, and I 
think that he was probably being made aware of it for the first time. 
So I hope he will look into how he can use this act and, particularly, 
by listening to reports from whistleblowers of the waste of taxpayers' 
money.

  Now, the Justice Department and HHS, in combination, need to more 
aggressively go after healthcare waste, fraud, and abuse and empower 
and encourage whistleblowers.
  My top healthcare priority is lowering the cost of prescription 
drugs. We can start by putting more sunshine on pharmacy benefit 
managers' practices and holding these PBMs accountable.
  We should also establish price transparency on prescription drug TV 
ads. Knowing what something costs before buying it is just common sense 
and very helpful to the consumer. Transparency will bring more 
accountability and lower costs to consumers.
  Mr. Kennedy must also protect and improve access to rural healthcare. 
The previous administration dragged its feet in opening up spots for 
what is termed the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration programs. HHS 
must also listen to the concerns from rural pharmacies and ensure rural 
hospitals benefit from additional physician slots that Congress has 
authorized.
  I look forward to strengthening the new and voluntary rural emergency 
program to ensure that it is working for rural communities, extending 
telehealth access, and supporting physicians getting a fair 
reimbursement under Medicare.
  I also expect HHS to support healthy moms and babies by improving 
care, coordination, and using telehealth in rural areas.
  HHS should work with me to support kids with complex medical needs so 
these kids and their families are getting the right care at the right 
time and at the right place. Our programs helping support kids with 
complex medical needs covers probably six or--well, depending on how 
many problems these kids have--but they have to navigate across several 
different programs, and what we are trying to do through legislation we 
pass is to have help so that when you have to see five or six different 
specialists, you have somebody saying what is available and what can we 
do to help you make access to all this.
  I also expect HHS to protect the most vulnerable and older Americans.
  I have spoken at length with Mr. Kennedy about some comments that he 
made in regard to agriculture, and I have heard from farmers in Iowa 
and agricultural organizations and commodity groups in the State, 
fearful that Mr. Kennedy has some radical ideas on agriculture.
  At the end of the hour meeting I had in his office, prior to his 
hearing before the Finance Committee, I was calmed quite a bit by what 
he told me about his views on agriculture. I hope that that calm can be 
maintained. But if it is not, Mr. Kennedy is sure to hear from me. So 
when we talked about this in my office, Mr. Kennedy prefaced our 
initial conversation by saying that he, as HHS Secretary, will not have 
jurisdiction over agricultural issues. So you can expect that I will 
expect him to leave agriculture practices regulations to the proper 
Agencies and, for the most part, that is the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  I have also sent letters to Secretaries of Agriculture and HHS 
requiring--requesting they provide information regarding conflicts of 
interest on the Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee to increase 
transparencies. The problem there is that there is a feeling among a 
lot of members of the Advisory Committee that they may have an 
unjustified conflict of interest in what they are suggesting we eat and 
the type of diet we have.
  So I expect Mr. Kennedy to provide Congress with a confidential 
financial disclosure from the Advisory Committee before finalizing 
dietary guidelines so that we know that nobody has a vested interest in 
however those guidelines are written.
  On issues of healthcare and agriculture, Mr. Kennedy said in his 
nomination hearing:

       I agree with all of those provisions--

  I am quoting him now.

       I agree with all of those provisions, Senator.

  Meaning this Senator.

       My approach to [the] administration [of] HHS will be 
     radical transparency. If members of this committee or other 
     members of [the committee] want information, the doors are 
     open. . . . [I]f Congress asks me for information, you will 
     get it immediately.

  That is the end of the quote. I don't know whether people, even in 
the Senate here but particularly outside, know how refreshing it is to 
have a member of the Cabinet say: If Congress asks me for information, 
you would get it immediately. Because over the years that I have been 
in the U.S. Senate, it doesn't matter whether it is a Republican or 
Democrat administration, carrying out our constitutional 
responsibilities to see that--checks and balances to see that the 
executive branch and the President faithfully executes the laws is not 
an easy process, and we have difficulty getting answers to our 
questions.
  Now, I don't know how much of this--I have had trouble with HHS in 
the past, but I know when Pam Bondi came to my office, I showed her a 
file of 158 letters that I had written to the Justice Department in the 
last 4 years to get information and documents in regard to my 
investigations of wrongdoing, and most of them weren't answered. Or if 
we got answers, it was merely words on a sheet of paper. Not very 
helpful.
  So thank you, Mr. Kennedy, for your promise. And I am going to quote 
again: If Congress asks me for information, you will get it 
immediately.
  Because that is what our job is. Every high school student learns in 
government about checks and balances of government, that we not only 
pass laws and we not only appropriate money, but we have a 
responsibility to the taxpayers and the citizens of this country to 
make sure that a President does what the Constitution says he should 
do: faithfully execute the laws.
  And Cabinet people are bound by that same thing. Every Cabinet member 
that comes to my office, I tell them

[[Page S830]]

about the importance of our constitutional responsibility of oversight, 
answering our letters, and listening to whistleblowers. And in regard 
to answering letters, everybody that comes before a committee is asked 
by the chairman of that committee: Will you answer our letters? And 
everybody says yes. And I advise them to say ``maybe'' so that they 
aren't turned out to be liars.
  So I expect Mr. Kennedy's Agency to provide timely and complete 
responses to congressional oversight. Oversight allows us to hold 
bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law and helps keep faith with 
the taxpayers.
  So I look forward to working with Mr. Kennedy to improve the health 
of all Americans, make our healthcare system more efficient, and ensure 
HHS's adherence to Kennedy's radical transparency commitment.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.