Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, 1 week in June, 4 in July, 3 in September--that is the number of weeks the Senate is in session between now and the election. A lot of people think a lot of things need to be done between now and the election, and I agree with that. But those weeks I just named add up to about 21 days that the Senate is going to be in session; a lot of work to be done in 21 days. I can think of one I am interested in--E15, for the agricultural economy of Iowa. Another Senator spoke to me about the necessity of getting some control of college athletes in legislation that is pending and doing that before the beginning of the college football season. So I hope my colleagues will think about that there is not a whole lot of time left and use it very efficiently. Last week, President Trump signed a deal to end the hostilities between the United States and Iran. That deal could be called a memorandum of understanding, as it is so named, or you could look at it as a letter of intent. Let's remember what Operation Epic Fury was all about: preventing the Iranian regime, which has chanted ``Death to America'' for 47 years, from having a nuclear weapon. ``Death to America'' is death to Americans. We have seen it as the alert threat is up. If you had the secure briefings that I have had, you would be very thoughtful about what can come from Tehran to affect Americans. We have seen it, two people shot in Austin, TX, by a person that had ``Allah is great'' on his sweatshirt, and we saw it, two bombs thrown in Brooklyn that didn't go off that would have killed a lot of people. So with the peace agreement at hand, the devil is in the details. While key details are set to be finalized within 60 days, Congress will and must keep a very close eye to ensure that Iran is held accountable every step of the way. Accountability starts with facts, because we have heard these absurd claims from opponents of the Iranian war, suggesting that Iran has never been better off. The facts don't back that claim up. Under President Trump's direction, America's military has put a massive dent in Iran's nuclear program, military arsenals, and its energy and transportation infrastructure. What is more, Iran's economy is buckling with hyperinflation. The United States naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz cost Iran up to $500 million per day, and by early May, Iran lost $4.8 billion in oil revenue. In May, inflation in Iran reached 77 percent, and the cost of basic goods in Iran has risen as much as 400 percent in a year. The currency in Iran has also plummeted to historically low levels. In late April, their currency hit a record low of 1.8 million to the dollar and remained at historically low levels. Now you put all that together, and the picture is pretty clear. That is not a thriving nation; it is a nation facing total collapse. And that is exactly why we need to pay attention as the United States and Iran continues these negotiations because when a country is under this kind of pressure, it changes what it is willing to do and raises the stakes for getting this agreement right in the first place. So we shouldn't take anything at face value. We must verify, and we should judge this agreement by what Iran does, not what it promises, because in a situation like this, pressure alone doesn't guarantee results; only accountability guarantees results. And then you always have to keep in the back of your mind that people in that part of the world consider those of us in the Western World as infidels, and you don't have to keep an agreement with infidels. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the first item I bring up should be stated tomorrow, but tomorrow I am going to be busy in the Judiciary Committee, as chairman of that committee, so I have to present this a day early. Fifty years ago, on June 18, 1976, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I submitted an essay by a student from Dike, IA, in celebration of America's 200th birthday. I am once again submitting work by a student from Iowa but this time in celebration of America's 250th birthday. As we celebrate America's birthday this year, students all across the country are participating in a national writing and artwork contest, answering the prompt ``What does America mean to you?'' Mary Elouise, a fourth grader from Waukee, IA, was recently selected as a first-place winner for this contest. In Mary Elouise's first- place-winning poem submission, she wrote about the American flag, and she detailed in that poem how it represents America and her family's military service. She concluded her poem by saying: I look at our flag and I proudly say, God bless the USA. Mary Elouise also was recently recognized by the Governor of Iowa Kim Reynolds for her second poem titled ``People Behind the Flag.'' This poem was submitted to Iowa's America 250 student writing contest on America's founding principles. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have both of Mary Elouise's winning poems printed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read them.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, now another short statement on something that is going on that is very important to the American people: the price of prescription drugs--something I hear quite frequently in my 99-county meetings that I hold around the State every year. Prescription drug prices come up, and they want Congress to do something about it. So last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up and passed out of committee six bipartisan bills that address the high cost of prescription drugs and the abusive practices that keep prices high for too many American families. The bills simply put a stop to anti-competitive tactics. Why? So cheaper drugs can enter the market. These bills also increase transparency and accountability for the prescription drug supply chain. With these bills, we strengthen Agency collaboration and the patent process. We curb the use of sham citizen petitions to the FDA so it is easier for generics to obtain approval and get generics to the market quicker. We end the pay-for-delay deals to keep brand-name drug companies from paying generic companies to keep cheaper options off the market so they keep the price of the patented drug higher for a longer period of time. Lastly, we require the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to finish the work it started in studying the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. These bills will help make prescription drugs more affordable for patients who need them. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that these bills collectively would save over $2 billion. We need the Senate to act on these bills, and I will continue pushing to fix a broken system and lower drug costs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a top issue for Iowans and particularly an issue in these midterm elections is the farm economy, which isn't very good. Farmers continue to face stronger headwinds. It is not profitable today, particularly in grain farming. It is not just an Iowa issue. It is not just an American issue. I recently read that Brazil farmers are being foreclosed on because of low prices there as well. There are two ways of attacking this. There are only two sides of a ledger. We can help lower input costs and increase markets for farmers. Farmers continue to say they don't want checks from the Treasury that are often passed on to the input suppliers; they want their prices from the marketplace. So I have a solution about the marketplace. I and other Senators, both Republican and Democrat, have been talking about the ethanol issue of E15. We have been doing that for months now. I have been sharing that year-round E15 would create a nearly $14 billion increase in demand for corn in the United States. Those figures come from economists and the Iowa Corn Growers Association. But this does not show the full picture. E15 would also add $25.8 billion to the national gross domestic product and 128,000 jobs. Most of the jobs and value created from E15 support rural communities. High- paying jobs go to local ethanol plants, grain cooperatives, ag equipment manufacturing, and other agriculture suppliers. And, of course, the farmers benefit from it as well. During my annual 99-county Q&As that I hold around the State--this year and each year--I have heard directly from Iowans at county farm bureaus, other businesses, and cooperatives how year-round E15 will support the rural American economy. It is time, then, that the Senate pass E15 legislation. It is good for the farmers. It is good for good-paying jobs in rural America. It is good for the environment because ethanol is cleaner burning than gasoline from fossil fuels. It is good for national security, as we depend less on foreign sources of energy. So I like to say when I do a ribbon-cutting at the opening of an ethanol plant, it is good, good, good. You have heard it too: M'm, m'm good. I want to speak also about ethanol and E15 as a process right here in the U.S. Senate, and I think it is about time that this be highlighted by both Democrats and Republicans from agricultural States that support E15 but don't talk about it enough. Now, it could be handled as a separate issue in the U.S. Senate, and that would be the appropriate way to do it. But you know, when the Senate is only in session about 3 days out of the week, we aren't getting much done with separate pieces of legislation. So something like E15 is going to have to find a home in some other bill--the farm bill, the Defense bill, appropriations bills. But we aren't talking about what that is going to do. I just mentioned three possibilities, and there aren't a whole lot of other possibilities. There is even talk around here that you don't hear or read in the press, but talk about maybe the government is going to shut down just before the election, that maybe Democrats want the government shut down just before the election. Then, you know what, you get into continuing resolutions, and continuing resolutions are usually what we call clean--nothing added to it. So let's say we get to October 1 and there are no appropriations bills. Then you have a continuing resolution until Thanksgiving. Then you don't pass appropriations bills and you have a continuing resolution until Christmas. And then Christmas comes and you have a continuing resolution that maybe takes you over into the new calendar year, middle of February. And if those are all clean appropriations bills, where are you going to put E15 if it is not on the farm bill or the Defense bill or appropriations bills? Now, we have to start thinking about that, both Republicans and Democrats, from farm States that support ethanol. We have to be thinking about what we are going to do if this isn't going to come up as a separate bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate. And I think we had better put our heads together. That is probably at least 28 Senators from grain-growing States in the United States where we grow. At least 14 States, 28 Senators better put our heads together, or we are going to lose the opportunity of getting E15. It is through the House of Representatives. It is further than it has ever been. And if we miss this opportunity, we may never get E15 and lose that $14 billion that the economists for the Iowa corn growers tell us that we are going to get--increased price of grain. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement has been in force for 6 years. It is scheduled for review-- and renewal, I hope--now, and that process is going on. I have been here two or three times this year to discuss the importance of continuing the Mexico-Canada agreement with the United States. This week, delegates from Mexico will be meeting with U.S. trade officials to discuss leveling the playing field in agriculture under the USMCA. I would like to discuss some specific issues that affect the country nationally but that also affect my State of Iowa. In July of last year, the United States ended the Tomato Suspension Agreement with Mexico. In direct response, the Mexican Government launched an investigation into the American pork industry. That is what affects my State of Iowa. Not only has the ending of the suspension agreement led to a tit for tat between the United States and Mexico, but it has opened the door to the issue of seasonality of fresh produce. The effects of this issue stretch way and far beyond the southernmost regions of the United States--even up to my State of Iowa, where covered produce growers have been negatively impacted by the end of the tomato agreement. While the USMCA meetings on agriculture take place, I hope that our U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Greer and others on his team take into consideration all the produce growers across the United States and especially the potential impact of Mexico's investigation of the U.S. pork industry. This is particularly important for my State of Iowa, as my State is the top producing State in the entire country, and Mexico is the No. 1 export market for American pork, with over $22 billion in exports last year alone. These issues must be resolved quickly for farmers who rely on this important market. The USMCA has been an important trade agreement for Iowa agriculture. While there are areas for improvement, I urge the Trump administration to quickly advance trilateral conversations on renewing it. And I think it should be renewed. It is a big deal for all three countries, and it is a particularly big deal for American agriculture. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to honor a young Iowan, so I am here to recognize Daniel Umemezie, who was recently named the 10th National Youth Poet Laureate. Daniel is a recent graduate of Cedar Falls High School, Cedar Falls, IA. That is 10 miles from my farm. Daniel is already a master of poetry. Last year, he was named Iowa's Student Poet Ambassador. This year, he was named the 10th National Youth Poet Laureate. This makes him the first Iowan to receive this prestigious award in poetry. Daniel's poetry uses his childhood growing up in Nigeria as inspiration for his work. I want to congratulate Daniel on this achievement. Daniel, you are making the State of Iowa proud.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on another matter, as I hold my 99 county meetings, I always hear from the farmers about the ag economy, and it is a top concern for all Iowans, of course, because Iowa is the No. 1 State in the Nation for food production. Yesterday, I welcomed the opportunity to discuss what is on the minds of family farmers with Agriculture Secretary Rollins as she appeared for her annual oversight appearance before the Senate Agriculture Committee. And it happens that I believe that the Madam Secretary is a great advocate for the family farmers, and I appreciate how she is handling the Office of the Agriculture Secretary. Now, back home in Iowa, I hear Congress could do more to help the farmers. For instance, I hear about year-round E15. Now, that is good for the consumers because it would reduce gas prices 20 to 40 cents, but it is also good because our major crop in Iowa--corn--is where ethanol is manufactured from. And then I also hear from the agriculture community about we need to deal with the problem of the State of California having what is called Proposition 12, and that prohibits Iowa pork that isn't raised just exactly the way California says it is raised. It can't be sold in the State of California, and that ought to irritate Members of Congress because 1 of the 18 powers of Congress under the Constitution in article I is the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. So we have 1 State out of 50--California--saying that you can't sell pork in their State--and California is about 15 percent of the consumer market in the United States--if it isn't raised just exactly the way the law of California says it should be raised. So the farmers of Iowa are telling me: Get rid of Proposition 12. Now, basics of a strong society is feeding your people. And the tax bill that the President signed last July 4, called the Working Families Tax Cut, was a good start to strengthening farm programs because we strengthened the farm safety net by raising support prices for corn to $4.10 and soybeans to $10 a bushel. But that isn't enough to help farmers that are underwater, not making a profit. So there is more work that needs to be done. So here, in somewhat of a repetitive statement, it is time for the Senate to pass a 5-year farm bill. The last one was 2018. Inflation affecting agriculture demands that there be some changes in the 2018 farm bill and that we pass E15 by law and not rely on Presidential waivers anymore and that we pass Proposition 12 legislation to get rid of the bad environment in California for selling our product there-- pork--because Iowa is the No. 1 pork producer in the Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, during the mid to late 1990s, President Clinton and a Republican Congress worked hard to do a bipartisan reform package. It required work requirements for people who were on welfare. It was a great success. It reduced the welfare population by about 40 percent, and a lot of people were saying having to go to work ended up being one of the best things in their life. It changed their life. So having a job gives people purpose and dignity. You guessed it; it is central to having a happy life. Now, more recently, along the lines of what we did in the 1990s, in the Working Families Tax Cut law, signed by the President last July 4, Congress established further commonsense work requirements for able- bodied adults receiving Medicaid. Federal law already requires able-bodied adults to work if they are on food stamps and receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cash assistance. As required in last year's tax bill, last week, following up on that statutory requirement, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-- CMS for short--released regulations for these work requirements before their implementation January 1 of next year. Now, the public has a chance to comment on the interim final rule through the end of July. So before the end of July, any citizen in the United States--well, I mean, you don't even have to be a citizen. You just have to take advantage of giving your views on this interim rule. So let CMS know your view--that is everybody and anybody. As the law requires, the Medicaid work requirements only apply to able-bodied adults, ages 19 to 64. To fulfill the requirements, a person has a lot of alternatives: getting a job for at least 20 hours a week, going to school at least 20 hours a week, or volunteering at least 20 hours a week, or receive job training for at least 20 hours a week. So there are lots of flexibilities that ought to meet the needs of people who want to keep their Medicaid Advantage. In other words, if you are capable, you can't just sit at home watching television. Now, there have got to be some exceptions to this work requirement, so I will discuss those at this point. The elderly, people with disabilities, medically frail, pregnant women, and children are all exempt from the work requirements. That makes sense. It is a reasonable thing to do. If people aren't able to work, and they still require Medicaid, they are exempt. There are other exemptions. If you are an able-bodied adult, but you are a caregiver or a parent with kids under 14 years of age, you are exempt from the work requirements. Also, if you have been hospitalized or need to get mental health treatment, you are exempted. There are other reasonable hardship exceptions for communities impacted by natural disaster or that have high unemployment rates. Now, if that sounds like there are so many exemptions that nobody will have to meet the 20-hour work requirement, there will be just many, many people that will have to work, go to school, or take care of volunteer work if you are going to get Medicaid, and it is a reasonable requirement. The Federal Government and many States are taking a data-first approach when implementing these work requirements: the government by using data and information to verify eligibility and exemptions before requiring the individual to prove they are compliant or exempted. The added benefit is this: For those people that have to work, go to school, work for a nonprofit, or have a real job, these work requirements can lead to improved health outcomes and a reduction of poverty. The interim final rule takes note of research that finds that ``obtaining and maintaining stable employment is associated with improved physical and mental health outcomes and greater overall well- being, while unemployment and unstable work are linked to poorer health outcomes.'' In other words, working is good for your health. New evidence also shows the work requirement will lift 1-6/10 to 2-9/ 10 million people out of poverty, and that is exactly what we found as a result of the 1990 welfare reform bills that were passed by a Republican Congress when we had a Democrat President; in other words, very bipartisan. Commonsense Medicaid work requirements for able-bodied adults take the same approach as welfare reform did in the 1990s, and I am repeating that because it was an important move that had very positive outcome effects. So moving people from welfare to work and self-sufficiency was our goal in the 1990s, and it is a goal that was established in the tax bill of last year in regard to Medicaid. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I come here to speak about one of my favorite topics: protecting patriotic people that we call whistleblowers, people whose goal is, in government, to make sure that laws are faithfully enforced and money spent according to the way it should be, and sometimes these whistleblowers pay a price for doing that, even losing their job and ruining themselves professionally. I have conducted longstanding oversight to ensure the Federal Government complies with whistleblower protection laws, and some of those laws I have gotten on the books. Unfortunately, elements of the Federal Government--whether Republican or Democrat--have made efforts to silence whistleblowers through illegal nondisclosure agreements. Let's not forget that in addition to Federal statute, a fundamental precept of whistleblowing is the First Amendment, freedom of speech. That is why I spearheaded a very successful effort to get what is called anti-gag provisions enacted in the law. I worked a very long time to make anti-gag provisions law. The anti-gag provisions require all Federal Agency nondisclosure policy forms and agreements to notify employees of their right to blow the whistle to Congress, to inspectors general, and to the Office of Special Counsel. The failure to comply with the law isn't only a chilling effect that discourages whistleblowers, it is also illegal. For decades, my oversight efforts have successfully led Federal Agencies bringing their unlawful nondisclosure and similar agreements into compliance. And I will tell you this: It is amazing that after all these years, the Federal Government still--still--has problems with compliance with my anti-gag legislation. That is why Congress must continue to do constant oversight. So this is what brings me to the floor today. On May 26, this year, the Office of Personnel Management--OPM for short--published a notice with requests for comment in the Federal Register. That notice announced that OPM created a draft nondisclosure agreement form for use by Federal Agencies for both new and existing employees. According to the Office of Personnel Management, this governmentwide nondisclosure agreement is needed to protect confidential information from unauthorized disclosure. In other words, this new proposed regulation is supposed to stop what we call leaks in this town. Office of Personnel Management provided examples of recent leaks to the media about law enforcement and military operations that put the lives of our Federal officers and military members at risk. It is truly unacceptable when the unauthorized disclosure of information puts the lives of law enforcement and military personnel at risk. Full stop. It is important to note the distinction between leaks and whistleblowers. Legally protected whistleblower disclosures are not leaks. Legally protected whistleblower disclosures aren't unauthorized disclosures. It can be a fact-specific analysis to determine which side of the line a disclosure falls on. But during that analysis, the benefit must be given to the patriotic whistleblower. Now, turning to the text of the Office of Personnel Management draft disclosure form, it works this way: It contains an anti-gag provision but doesn't include the full text as required by law. So it should have the full text of the law that got passed. It fails, also, to include that disclosures to the Office of Special Counsel are allowed. And that is in the law as well. Further, the anti-gag provisions are at the very beginning of the form rather than at the end like other government nondisclosure agreements, where people that are signing the agreement know what their rights are. As a general matter, I am concerned about the use of nondisclosure agreements because they can chill whistleblowers, even if that is not the intent of the nondisclosure agreement. I demand that the anti-gag provisions be put at the end, where employees sign. At the end will provide the employee with the mental assurance that they are not giving up their whistleblower rights. Again, the balance must always be on the benefit of the whistleblower because we shouldn't be doing anything in this government to discourage honest whistleblowing. As I continue to analyze the draft rule this month, 2026, I wrote to the Office of Personnel Management Director making clear that they need to immediately fix these preliminary issues, have the nondisclosure just above the signature, mention the Office of Special Counsel, and also put the entire language of the legislation in the document. If the draft nondisclosure form is implemented, Congress, of course, should follow up with oversight to ensure that it is not used inappropriately. And this Senator intends to do that oversight for sure.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. On June 6, 1944, the United States and Allied nations led that historic invasion on the beaches of Normandy, France. Two days ago, there was a remembrance of that occasion at a place called Omaha Beach. Nearly 160,000 Allied troops, 5,000 ships, and 13,000 aircraft supported the assault against Hitler-dominated Europe. That allowed the Allied Powers to gain a foothold in Europe, and 11 months later Europe was free of Adolf Hitler. While victory eventually followed, D-Day came with very heavy casualties. Thousands of paratroopers died before they even landed out of the sky, and amphibious tanks faced rough surf, and only 2 of 29 tanks made it ashore. Courageous infantrymen who stormed Omaha Beach were also severely disadvantaged and met with a brutal welcome from German artillery. On D-Day alone, more than 9,000 Allied soldiers were killed or wounded. More than 2,000 were American servicemen. Knowing this history ought to prepare us for today and tomorrow and well into the future because these sacrifices remind us of a hard truth; that failing to confront aggression early deepens the cost as time goes on. That lesson is something that we should keep top of mind as we continue efforts to address aggression today, whether it is Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Iran's destabilization efforts across the Middle East, or rising tensions with China. These challenges are different than they were in World War II, but the pattern is very familiar. As we reflect on the anniversary of D-Day, we should be reminded not only of the bravery of those who fought but the united front that made that victory possible. That same unity forged by America's doctrine of ``peace through strength'' will determine whether we preserve peace or pay a far higher price in the future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 87,000, that is how many lives were at risk in August 2024 when Austrian security services thwarted a devastating terrorist attack on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna. Many of these lives could have been young girls from around the world, including Americans. Now this tragedy was halted because, thanks to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Austrian authorities were able to cancel the concert and apprehend the plotting terrorists, all because U.S. intelligence Agencies were able to share critical intelligence gathered under section 702 authority before the attack occurred. In 4 very short days, title 7 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including this essential service, expires. We can't let that happen. Section 702 happens to be our most nimble and effective intelligence collection tool. Section 702 equips our military with a strategic advantage. It protects our troops overseas, and it keeps terrorists, foreign adversaries, and dangerous illicit drugs from harming Americans, enabling over 90 percent of synthetic drug disruptions. It helps our intelligence and law enforcement community to defend our homeland from attacks, and it is essential for protecting our cyber security infrastructure. Title 7 then is critical to our national security, but it doesn't just protect us from security threats; it also protects us from government abuse and government overreach. Now, if title 7 expires, not only do we lose section 702's utility, we also lose all of its civil liberties, privacy, transparency, and accountability measures. There is a dangerous assumption that the program will function seamlessly if this statute expires on Friday. Well, I hope the certifications issued a few months ago will still apply in the event of the statute lapsing. This is not a certainty. There will be high-stakes litigation and a very real possibility that intelligence collection will cease, at least temporarily. And in this work of intelligence gathering, minutes do matter. Letting 702 lapse is a real gamble that we can't afford to take. So let's be very clear, if section 702 lapses, our adversaries will benefit greatly and Americans will suffer. In other words, we will be less secure in our safety as well as our privacy. Over the last few weeks, I have worked closely with Senators Cotton and Warner, the administration, the national security community, and Members of the House to develop a product that delivers meaningful reforms while maintaining section 702's essential operational effectiveness. This product is bipartisan, bicameral, and it strikes the right balance. The reforms in our bill build on the substantial reforms passed by the Congress in 2024. Again, I want to be clear that the reforms of 2024 that goes by the acronym RISAA are working. FBI query compliance is at 98.9 percent, with the remaining noncompliant queries due to typos and other harmless errors. This isn't the same program plagued by abuse a few years ago that civil libertarians rightly condemned and by their condemnation brought about some of the reforms in the 2024 bill. Because our bill builds on what the House sent us a few weeks back, it retains and strengthens the provisions and the good progress made by our colleagues in the other Chamber and, at the same time, adds 11 additional reforms that deliver real transparency and accountability. So let me list just a few. First, it requires the Justice Department to rescind and replace the Department of Justice memo drafted by the previous administration that, quite frankly, illegally restricts congressional oversight access to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Now, why the previous administration didn't want to carry out the transparency requirements of the last Congress, I don't know, but they didn't do it. Secondly, it gives Congress a voice in the amici appointment process by requiring leadership to submit a bipartisan list of candidates to whom the FISC court is obliged to give the highest preference. Three, it levies criminal penalties on those who willfully violate querying standards. Fourth, it limits and clarifies the definition of an ``electronic communication service provider,'' thus addressing a concern of civil liberties groups across the political spectrum. Fifth, it requires the FBI monthly to submit U.S. person query justifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Civil Liberties Protection Officer for review. And, sixth, it requires noncompliant queries and abuse to be referred to the inspector general. Now, there is other points that could be made, and I could go on, but I think the point is very clear when it comes to transparency and accountability that we have added to what was started in 2024. There is no doubt that this bill is a compromise. That is how things are done in the U.S. Congress and, particularly, in the Senate. This bill isn't the clean reauthorization called for by the administration. This bill also isn't the maximalist approach called for by some skeptics of this program. This bill reflects what the American people expect and the American people deserve: the reauthorization of a very important national security tool but coupled with meaningful guardrails and transparency. If title 7 lapses, not only will these thoughtful and thorough reforms fail to become reality, but we will lose many of the key reforms instituted in the last reauthorization of 2024. This section 702 is the most transparent and most scrutinized intelligence collection in history. If it lapses, so does Congress' essential insight into and oversight of its functions. So we owe it to our constituents to protect them from threats, from terrorists, and other adversaries, but also to defend their privacy and civil liberties. Our bipartisan, bicameral, thoughtful bill accomplishes both goals. I appreciate the collaboration with my colleagues Senator Cotton and Warner, and I appreciate the collaboration and engagement from the administration and from our national security partners. I am grateful for the engagement from the House of Representatives. We got this bill to a very good place, and it is the kind of a bill that should have significant support from both sides of the aisle. Now, we need to finish this job. We need to put aside partisanship and do what is right by the American people. We need to advance this bill to the President's desk and reauthorize this very critical program. My Democratic colleagues should recognize that walking away from this deal isn't hurting President Trump; it is hurting the American people. I hope my colleagues appreciate this bill for what it is, and I pray that we can consider this bill later this week. And I urge everyone in this Chamber to vote yes on reauthorizing section 702 in this very careful and very thoughtful way now before the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Ossoff's motion to commit would require an amendment to the False Claims Act. In 1986, I authored the False Claims Act, and for decades, I have worked to successfully strengthen the law. The Ossoff issue is an issue worthy of review; however, a motion to commit isn't the right way to do it. The False Claims Act is implicated when a company charges the government for healthcare it didn't render. The plain text of the motion doesn't appear to cover that scope. The Justice Department already performs investigations into healthcare insurance fraud. The Senate also confirmed a new Assistant Attorney General to fight fraud. Further, sending the reconciliation bill back to the Judiciary Committee would essentially kill it. Remember, the False Claims Act has brought $87 billion of ill-gotten money back into the Federal Treasury, and I am going to do all I can to protect it. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Ossoff motion.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Medicaid Program is an important resource for the support of the most vulnerable people in our society, and we intend to keep it for the most vulnerable. The Working Families Tax Cut Act, passed and signed by the President last year, strengthened the Medicaid Program by cracking down on fraud, waste, and abuse, and by improving access to home and community-based services. And I would like to give one example of taking care of fraud, waste, and abuse. We learned last year, in looking back, when the Biden administration made eligibility for ObamaCare above 400 percent of poverty, that we found that there were 6-4/10 million people that were put on ObamaCare that were already on Medicaid. Now, you need one or the other, but you don't need both. So the waste, and maybe fraud, came when agents for insurance companies--health insurance companies--would call you up and say: You can get really low-cost or no-cost insurance now under ObamaCare. And 6-4/10 million people took that offer up, and we wasted billions of dollars of money with 6-4/10 million people not needing it, if they were already on Medicaid. So we made those changes to make sure that Medicaid is staying strong for the most vulnerable, the original intention of Medicaid 60 years ago. Now, to bring you up to date about the legislation--because we hear from our constituents that we are hurting Medicaid by the changes we made--I want to bring attention to lesser known provisions of the law, enabling a broad range of individuals with developmental disabilities to gain access to home and community-based services. The new law also enabled interim home and community-based service coverage while newly eligible individuals developed their full care plan. The law will cut redtape and provide more services to vulnerable citizens. While Congress has added new flexibilities to Medicaid in the tax act of last year, I also want to highlight an important milestone in integrating people with disabilities into their local communities. More than 20 years ago, I helped enact legislation that goes by the title of Money Follows the Person Program, helping people with disabilities transition from long-term care facilities into home based in their very own communities of that person's choice. Rebalancing individuals from institutions to their home community is a very important goal. Iowa began its program with Federal support, more than 16 years ago, and has now transitioned over 1,100 people out of institutional-based care into independent settings in the communities of that person's choice. Last year, Iowa surpassed moving over 1,000 people through this program. This program, which I said is entitled the Money Follows the Person Program, is helping more people with intellectual disabilities and brain injuries gain independence for the very first time. This also means people are choosing their own daily activities for the very first time, going to work or going to school or participating in other things that you might say are the first in their life. Iowa is the leader in moving people with intellectual disabilities into the community. In 2025, 96 percent of the people who went through this program were still living in the community a year later. This program is helping Americans with disabilities find independence in their daily lives. Whether a new or old program in Medicaid, I am proud to support these efforts that support the original purpose of Medicaid to help those who are the most vulnerable. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here to say happy 40th birthday to C-SPAN2, broadcasting democracy in the Senate to the American people. I have to confess to you that, 40 years ago today, I voted no on the Senate being televised. I thought it would hurt the decorum of the U.S. Senate. Whether it has hurt the decorum of the U.S. Senate or not, I am not going to make a judgment on that today. But I do tell you that, on reflection, I am glad that the Senate is televised to make government more real to the American people. So I guess I would have to confess that I cast the wrong vote 40 years ago. So now, for four decades, C-SPAN2 has served as an essential conduit between the U.S. Senate and the American people. Since its launch on June 2, 1986, C-SPAN2 has offered uninterrupted, unfiltered access to the debates, the votes, and the deliberations of the U.S. Senate so people in this country that watch the Senate on C-SPAN2 get the news unfiltered, directly to you, the American people. The American people don't have to rely on biased journalists to get their news when it might really be distorted. And when I say ``distorted,'' too often at my town meetings in Iowa--and I had 12 of them last week--I hear people say: How come you can't get along? In other words, Republicans and Democrats don't seem to be talking to each other. I always try to explain that there is more partisanship than there should be, but I also say there is not as much as you, as an Iowan, actually see because you see on television Members of the Senate always disagreeing. When there is agreement, you never see much about it. So this is your opportunity to listen in the U.S. Senate, to get it unbiased, in a way that you would not from journalists. Also, C-SPAN2 operates without any public funding or any government oversight. The continued success of C-SPAN2 is due to the funding that is provided by platform operators such as cable, satellite, and now even streaming services. These platforms should continue to make delivery of C-SPAN2 a priority, and I am sure they will because Americans then can watch Congress in action in realtime. So I say once again: Happy birthday, C-SPAN2. Your coverage of the Senate helps democracy work and provides a true public service. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on March 15, 2026, I made public an FBI agent's interview statement. That agent was involved in a conspiracy called Crosswind, which was a code-named investigation into former Trump adviser Walid Phares. That statement, made under penalty of perjury, exposes widespread abuses within then-Special Counsel Mueller's operation. That operation is kind of history, but it leads us up to something more current. For example, the statement noted that multiple personnel were removed from then-Special Counsel Mueller's team because they ``saw concerning things and voiced their concern''--that word ``concerning'' meaning they knew something wasn't right going on in Special Counsel Mueller's team investigating the whole thing about Russia's involvement in the first election of Trump. That statement--remember, that statement was made just this year-- noted that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe referred to President Trump in a derogatory manner. In other words, were they unbiased in their investigations? And I think I will show you where they weren't very unbiased in that investigation. A Justice Department attorney wanted to remove and water down McCabe's negative tone about Trump from McCabe's interview summary, so it looks to me like another coverup attempt. The statement--and again, this is an FBI agent who served on Mueller's team and was under oath when he gave this statement--noted that Mueller's right-hand man Aaron Zelinsky exhibited clear bias against President Trump. And that political infection at the top trickled down to everyone else, because this FBI agent said the Mueller team created throughout the office space characters and cartoons that were very anti-Trump. To wrap it all up in a bow, the FBI agent's statement discusses violations of security protocol, mishandling of classified information, and more potential FISA abuses. For example, one Justice Department prosecutor is alleged to have brought a classified notebook to a meeting without the proper carrying bag. This prosecutor also was alleged to have traveled from her house, which means she had stored classified information outside of a classified facility. This is the same Justice Department that prosecuted Trump for allegedly mishandling classified information. Remember, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, all in an attempt to ruin Trump politically, financially, and, of course, with the end goal that they were hoping to put him in prison. Of course, the partisan media has neither reported these jaw-dropping findings nor the blatant and potential criminal FISA abuses. The FBI agent said the FISA on Crosswind shouldn't have been renewed, and other FBI personnel held that very same view. The agent's statement said: ``As the investigation progressed, the facts that we originally thought meant one thing were learned to mean something else. Per reporting from another agency and what we learned from the investigation up to the point of the third renewal''-- Meaning the FISA renewal-- ``there were no corroborating facts that tied Crosswind to certain facts that we thought were originally true.'' This FBI agent--again, I want to remind you that he was under oath when he gave this statement. The agent then ``pointed out these specific corrections to the application''--meaning the FISA application--``in numerous instances throughout the FISA-certified copy process. This was circa 2018. I sent these edits to Kevin Clinesmith, who said, `We can't send this to DOJ.''' That is the same Clinesmith who admitted to criminally altering an email connection with a FISA application during Crossfire Hurricane, which, as we all know, was yet another effort to get Trump and his associates, even if it meant breaking the law to get Trump. The FBI agent also testified about Crosswind that there were overzealous thoughts and bias that permeated the investigation and a ``let's get him'' attitude. Even with these known material defects and objections to filing the FISA renewal, then-Special Agent Walter Giardina ``signed it as Case Agent,'' according to this FBI agent's statement under oath. If the statements by this FBI agent are true and accurate, the FISA application process described was a false filing intended to improperly target a known innocent person. These are criminal allegations that the Justice Department and the FBI ought to fully investigate. In fact, this FBI agent implored the FBI to do just that. This agent encouraged the FBI to get copies of the FISA and the predicating documents. This Senator asked for the same, and the government has failed to produce these important documents. And I don't know why they would be afraid to let this Senator have access to those documents, because transparency is going to bring accountability. And for the sake of justice and for the sake of exposing things that have been political weaponization in our government, they should be exposed so they don't happen again. Now, Crosswind wasn't the only investigation this FBI agent gave a statement about. So this brings us more up to more recent months, at least the recent year and a half. The agent also discussed the known defects of the case against Trump adviser Tom Barrack. The agent said the ``get someone'' attitude that led to the FISA renewal and search warrants also led to the investigation of Tom Barrack. The agent's statement noted that these matters ``relate to ethical dilemmas.'' The FBI agent further stated that ``there was no authority for the [Special Counsel's Office] to open a case on Tom Barrack.'' Even the FBI Washington Field Office had, at that point in time, declined to open a case on Barrack, and yet this FBI agent said: ``Giardina didn't want to open a case on Barrack but wanted to keep people happy.'' So you do illegal things just to keep people happy. That is not right. And the fact that we have this FBI agent's statement to verify all of the wrongdoing that went on in this whole process, that is obviously no basis to criminally investigate anyone. What the Biden Justice Department and the FBI did to Barrack and his staffer Matthew Grimes is worthy of note as another lesson of what the government should not do. Barrack gave an interview to the government way back in December 2017 and June 2019. Grimes also gave interviews. It appears they cooperated. Then, years later--4 years later and 2 years later in another instance--the Biden administration Justice Department, in July 2021, decided to indict both Barrack and Grimes for acting as an agent of a foreign government, for obstruction, and for false statements. They were arrested by more than 20 Federal agents going to their homes. At first, the government asked that Grimes not be given bail. The government said that he was a flight risk, among other things. Grimes, a 22- and 23-year-old at the time the crimes were alleged to have occurred, was detained for 5 days and eventually released--can you believe this?--on $5 million bond. Barrack's bond was set--can you believe this?--at $250 million, even though he had no criminal record. Barrack and Grimes took their fight to a jury trial, and the jury acquitted Barrack on all nine counts. Grimes was acquitted of the two counts against him. So I would like to share three quotes from that trial. During the trial, the judge told the government: I mean, I've had patent cases that I tried involving algorithms that were easier for the jury to figure out than this one is going to be. Then a further quote from the judge also said, about some of the government's theories in the case, that they ``were right in line between barely permissible inference and impermissible speculation.'' And then there is the third, and last, quote from an alternate juror, who stated publicly after the verdict: I thought much of the prosecution's evidence was very misleading and misrepresented the truth. So that is what you have with political weaponization going on in the American Government. So now, to sum up, year after year, my investigative work has exposed the overt bias by Federal law enforcement against Republicans. Here, the same political government Agencies were involved in Crosswind, the Barrack case, and Crossfire Hurricane. These cases went nowhere. My Democratic colleagues never raised a finger about any of these abuses. My Democratic colleagues did the opposite and went on partisan television every day, falsely claiming crimes occurred. And you can see from what I have said today and what the FBI's statements--the agents' statements--say, that there was no crime. But it appears the real crimes were committed by the Biden-Harris government investigators. Now, bringing this today, and the responsibility of President Trump's administration, it is clear that this administration has a responsibility to fully investigate these matters. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Iowa is the leading producer of ethanol. About 43,000 jobs are connected with that production. Ethanol is produced from corn. Iowa is the No. 1 producer of corn in the United States. The House of Representatives has passed a bill for 15 percent mixture of ethanol with petroleum gasoline. That is E15. Up until now, E10--10-percent mixture--has been considered a pretty good success story. So expanding it will have more homegrown renewable energy, if we can get E15 nationwide year-round. And it takes legislation to make that happen. In recent weeks, some of my colleagues have come to the floor to speak on this very same subject--some for E15 legislation and some against E15 legislation. So I think there are a lot of myths about ethanol and E15 that need to be cleared up. One of those myths that continues to spread is that year-round, nationwide E15 is a mandate. So I want to be very clear: E15 legislation is not a mandate; it is a choice. And it is this simple: You are driving into the filling station to fill up your car--even today with the high price that it is--you will see that you have a choice of gasoline with no ethanol or with 10- percent ethanol or E15. The trouble is, not every retailer has it. But it is a choice when you go to the pump to punch the button you want for the type of gasoline that you want to put in your car. I support E15 legislation because it removes both outdated and unnecessary redtape from the EPA. Just as an example of that redtape, the law says that in some parts of our country, you can't dispense ethanol in your gasoline in June, July, August, and September. You can't do it during those months. However, we have been successful under 2 years of Trump 1, 4 years of Biden, and 2 years now of Trump, by Presidential waiver, that we can have E15 nationwide. But that is redtape that we shouldn't have to go through. And that is the reason for the legislation. It would allow consumers to have a choice to purchase E15 year-round in all 50 States. And it takes legislation to do that because you will never get the retailers of gasoline to spend the money to update their pumps for E15 without the legislation. Some have done it now, trusting that there will be a Presidential waiver year after year, but a lot of retailers won't depend on that. So this legislation is not a mandate because it would not force gas stations to sell E15 if they don't want to. However, because E15 saves consumers 10 to 30 cents per gallon, I suspect that many fuel retailers will choose to provide their customers with this high quality, low cost, homegrown fuel. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as I travel through Iowa, the issue of rural healthcare comes up frequently. In living in rural Iowa, I understand the importance of my fellow Iowans' having access to healthcare close to home. In pursuit of that goal, I have led the charge to protect and expand access to rural healthcare. Some of the items that I have worked on over the years would be extending telehealth flexibilities; extending the rural hospital programs, like the Medicare-Dependent Hospital Program and the Low-Volume Hospital Program; also enacting pharmacy benefit manager reform and expanding access to rural pharmacies--I hope that the pharmacy benefit manager reform leads to lower drug costs for all Iowans--and then establishing the Rural Emergency Hospital Program and establishing the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund that was in the tax bill of last year. Most recently, I have introduced the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Reauthorization Act, which extends this demonstration program for another 5 years. Since 2005, the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program has supported what we call rural ``tweener'' hospitals and has given policymakers insight into improving rural healthcare. Now, how do you get that name ``tweener'' hospitals? They are hospitals like those that are too large to be classified as critical access hospitals and yet still face lower volumes. The program tests innovative hospital payment models under Medicare. Nationally, up to 30 hospitals can participate in this program. Iowa is fortunate enough to have four hospitals in this program, which are located in Fort Dodge, Grinnell, Newton, and Spirit Lake. Until last year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services underutilized the program by leaving spots open. I am happy that the Trump administration acted at my urging to correct this. I recently visited one of these hospitals in Grinnell, IA. As a result of the Grinnell Regional Medical Center's participation in this demonstration program, the hospital has been able to improve access to mental health, maternal health, and recruit more providers. The data shows that the demonstration program has benefited rural healthcare generally. Hospitals in the program have significantly improved their margins and have had higher capital investments. The program has also helped with staff retention and adding services. While Congress has extended the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program before, we need to reauthorize it again to continue this important work. I am glad to partner with a bipartisan group of 16 Senate colleagues to introduce the bill that reauthorizes the program. I am happy to report that, last night, the Senate passed the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Reauthorization Act. Now I look forward to working with my House colleagues to make this law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in the past several Congresses, my investigative work has resulted in the public release of thousands of pages of information once hidden from the public. Much of it is evidence of political bias in law enforcement and intelligence community investigations, and I will give you 10 examples of how this information has been hidden and how our efforts have brought it to light. They are Crossfire Hurricane, Arctic Frost, Plasmic Echo, Round River, the Clinton Foundation, Rampart 12, the Biden Family Investigation, the Clinton annex, Durham annex, and the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. But those 10 aren't the total; there are many others I could mention. I have made public record after record, and the partisan media continues to turn its very negative sights on my and Senator Johnson's work. Most recently, The Hill published an article attacking our work on Arctic Frost. Specifically, the article took offense for daring to make public largely unredacted records that the Biden administration had kept from the public--records by and large I obtained through protected public whistleblower disclosures and not from government officials. In doing so, The Hill also raised questions about the identities of who provided legally protected whistleblower disclosures. For example, when referring to my and Senator Johnson's making public Jack Smith's subpoenas, The Hill said it raises ``questions about the identities of the whistleblowers who shared them with Grassley.'' It sounds like The Hill is trying to improperly identify whistleblowers who stuck their necks out for the truth just like Jack Smith's prosecutors have gone after them. For example, J.P. Cooney and Molly Gaston reportedly filed a complaint with the Justice Department inspector general. Cooney and Gaston asked for that Office to investigate what they claim is the improper disclosure to Congress of 197 Jack Smith subpoenas. So Cooney and Gaston want the inspector general to investigate whistleblowers who have exposed the bad conduct by Jack Smith and his staff. That is obviously a conflict of interest. By the way, Cooney and Gaston are the same Jack Smith prosecutors who wanted to prosecute nuns present on January 6. More precisely, Cooney said: I would like to prosecute any nun who still wears [a] head habit. Instead of attacking patriotic whistleblowers, this partisan media ought to do a deep report on how invasive Jack Smith's operation was because Jack Smith sought communications of Republican groups and what these Republican groups had to do with the legislative branch as well as the media. All this time, I thought the partisan media held the First Amendment in very high regard. Evidently, they do not. The Hill also failed to report on the emails that we publicly released from Special Agent Thibault. Thibault's own emails show he violated the FBI's no self-approval rule in opening up the Arctic Frost investigation. Those emails were made public in January of last year. Thibault's own words paint the picture. And this is the same agent who violated the Hatch Act for anti-Trump partisan conduct. Not only was that fact not reported by The Hill, the outlet also couldn't be bothered to report on those emails that we released. By the way, we didn't get those records from the government either; we got them from patriotic whistleblowers. The Hill's reporting accuses our record production of playing a significant role in FBI agents being fired. Now, The Hill knows this, but they don't report it: The FBI makes personnel decisions, not we, Members of Congress. The Hill's reporting failed to take into account the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation names that I have made public which gave them credit for doing good work. For example, last year, I issued a majority staff report on then-Secretary of State John Kerry's interfering in the FBI arresting high-level Iranian nationals and the targets that those nationals were. I also released FBI records about agents attempting to investigate the Clinton Foundation. Credit ought to be given to those government officials who did their job. I have received no complaints about making their names public. Yet The Hill focused on Arctic Frost, and in doing so, buried the lede: The documents released by Grassley include names of nearly 70 FBI agents and employees. That includes some figures already known to the public, as well as other agents whose case history the bureau is well aware of. Now, I have five points. First, it is common practice to make public the names of taxpayer- funded government officials whose conduct is within the public interest. That is especially the case when their names are already public. Now, I call that and I hope everybody around here calls that accountability. Second, not all of the named individuals have been fired. Third, The Hill article fails to explicitly note that three of the FBI agents who sued over their termination had their names public before we released them. In fact, one name was public as early as 2016. Fourth, our document production made those three names public on January 30, 2025, during Kash Patel's nomination hearing to be FBI Director. Clearly, he and then-FBI leadership didn't give us those records. Who gave us those records? Well, where we get most of our records--patriotic whistleblowers did that. The fifth and last point, Patel fired those three agents approximately 10 months after we made their names public on January 30. But, again, their names were public years before our release. Now, the point I am trying to make is that The Hill is not doing its job. They failed to mention all those critical facts. Next, The Hill takes a shot at the FBI 1023 document that Chairman Comer and I made public in the last Congress. That is the one about the Biden bribery allegations. Also, The Hill failed to mention that Senator Johnson and I made public two additional FBI 1023 documents last year. Both of those documents provided additional information from FBI informants about Biden family criminality. So there are at least three different FBI confidential human sources. Each provided information about the Biden family criminality on three separate occasions. And the sources provided that information to three different FBI agents. Question: Did DOJ and FBI prosecute those other two FBI sources? No. So, last year, I asked Director Patel about the initial FBI 1023 document that Director Wray was supposed to investigate. I asked whether an investigation was carried out into the alleged records. Patel answered this way: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. I am not saying the allegations are true. I just want to know if the investigation has been carried out. The Hill failed to mention any of that very important context. The Hill also failed to take into account some of my whistleblowers. They failed to take into account that some of my whistleblowers have faced years of retaliation and face serious abuse by officials who have since been fired. Wrongdoing should be punished. It is called accountability. And I have also said lower-level personnel who appropriately follow directives without violating procedures ought to have that taken into consideration. Now, The Hill should endeavor to report on the heroic and brave efforts that whistleblowers have undertaken to expose government abuse, instead of providing a forum for government agents to smear them. To my patriotic whistleblowers, I want them to know that this Senator's work will continue in full force. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the month of May is a very busy time of year: graduation season, recital season, and, of course, planting season for American farmers. Here in the Senate, lawmakers will burn the midnight oil this week to pass a reconciliation bill that delivers essential funding for national security and public safety. Well, I want to assure my colleagues that this Senator is never too busy to set the record straight, and today, I come to the floor to set the record straight on E15. E15 is a higher blend, higher octane fuel that is 85 percent gasoline and 15 percent homegrown American ethanol. Last week, the House approved landmark legislation to make year-round E15 the law of the land and lower gas prices for Americans from coast to coast. The driving force behind the House victory was Iowa's House delegation. That shouldn't surprise you because Iowa is the leading producer of ethanol. That victory was led by Congressman Randy Feenstra, Congressman Zach Nunn, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, and Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks. I applaud all four of these House Members for their effort and for supporting a major industry in Iowa and probably about 40,000 jobs in Iowa, and I am glad to take up the baton with a bipartisan coalition here in the U.S. Senate. With those generalizations, I would like to shed some light on what year-round E15 would do. E15 would offer Americans a lower price fuel option when they fill up at the pump, giving families somewhere between 10 and 30 cents per gallon. That is a big savings. Making E15 permanent delivers more choices for the consumer and year-round savings for families who are facing these higher gas prices that we have seen since the war in Iran started. So it is very simple: A vote for E15 is a vote for lower gas prices. Year-round, nationwide E15 would bring certainty to fuel refineries, to the marketers, to the retailers, and the renewable fuel producers. No more costly switchovers in the summer when, under law, ethanol cannot be sold in certain parts of the country. It would end a patchwork of regulations from one year to the next, boost the domestic gas supply chain, and it would surely unleash America's domestic energy dominance. Unleashing E15 stops Americans from being held hostage to foreign crude oil. It reduces carbon emissions and tailpipe pollutants and would pump $14 billion into the U.S. farm economy. On top of all those advantages, E15 is pro-environmental. At a time when farmers are looking for expanded markets, E15 would deliver for corn farmers and create more jobs in rural America. E15 puts American families, our farmers, and our biofuel producers in the driver's seat to power forward clean, affordable, homegrown fuel. Here is what year-round E15 does not do, and I emphasize this part of my remarks because there is a lot of lack of knowledge about E15 and maybe a lot of lack of knowledge about ethanol generally. And this is from what I have been hearing from my colleagues. It would not force Americans to fill up their gas tank with E15. It would not force fuel retailers to even sell E15. In short, it would not create a mandate. And how many times have I heard from my colleagues that it would be a mandate? In fact, EPA Administrator Zeldin confirmed this very fact to my colleague from Nebraska just last week. E15 is not a mandate, and that is from EPA Administrator Zeldin. President Trump delivered his seal of approval for year-round E15 during a visit to my home State in January. He called on Congress to pass E15 without delay and said he would sign it as soon as it reached his desk. Vice President Vance and Secretary Rollins have also traveled to Iowa to endorse E15 because they know what I know: Ethanol is good for national security, good for the farm economy, and good for U.S. energy independence. My efforts to help get homegrown fuels from the field to the pump started five decades ago during the energy crisis of the 1970s. That energy crisis was called that because--it was referred to as an oil embargo, and it was something that OPEC forced upon the entire world. Two decades ago, I worked with President George W. Bush to create and expand the renewable fuel standard, known here in Washington among energy people as RFS. Last year, the RFS celebrated 20 years of success, paving a cleaner, more energy independent future for Americans. Within those 20 years, I have worked with the Obama, the Trump, and the Biden administrations to expand E15 into our domestic fuel supply. Having said all that, guess what happened. The sky didn't fall. No refineries shut down. So that brings me to the Chicken Littles inserting themselves into today's debate, and I am talking about the so-called midsize refiners. They are running around this town trying to gut the hard-fought year- round E15 victory that passed with bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. It is interesting this coop of Chicken Littles is now crowing. After 8 years of Presidential waivers that allowed for E15 summertime sales, the refineries are now trying to convince people in Washington-- including some of my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate--that the sky will fall if we pass permanent year-round, nationwide E15. So let's get back to the facts. We have had E15 by Presidential waiver since 2019. Ambassador Zeldin has confirmed that in these 8 years, not one refinery closed because consumers had the choice to purchase E15. For those saying that refineries have been ignored in the E15 debate, that is surely not the case--and after 16 years of working on this issue, I would know. Refineries have been deeply involved in negotiations for years. There have been very high-level talks on the topic of E15, and the Rural Domestic Council in the House was specifically created to hear from people with these refineries. In her remarks here on the Senate floor last week, my colleague from Iowa mentioned that the annual earnings of the Nation's six midsized refineries are more than all of America's family farmers combined. Now, there is nothing wrong with making money--that is the beauty of the free economic system that we have in America. It has powered our economy and fueled innovations for the last 250 years. However, we shouldn't let this bill's opponents talk out of both sides of their mouth. You can't take in record profits on the one hand and claim you are a step away from bankruptcy because of E15 on the other hand. Homegrown E15 is an example of the entrepreneurial spirit and discovery that makes America great. E15 powers up American domestic energy, lowers prices at the pump, and boosts the farm economy. You add all that up, and E15 is a win for America and for Americans. America's farmers and families are counting on this. The commonsense choice is very clear--America needs permanent year- round E15 from sea to shining sea. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, you might wonder how this Senator from Iowa gets involved in issues of foster youth. Thirty years ago, I hired a staffer from Urbandale, IA, by the name of Sarah Gesiriech. Sarah now works for the First Lady in the White House on this issue of foster care.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this year, at my annual 99 county meetings, I was asked about the operations in Iran and was asked the question of why the administration's actions were necessary. For starters, there are historic reasons the United States must address the threat of Iran. ``Death to America,'' we hear from over there, and that is death to individual Americans. Just recently--last week, for instance--there was an Iraqi indicted. He was captured overseas and brought to the United States because his sole purpose was to kill people, including even here in America. If you go back to 1979, when it started, Iranian revolutionaries almost immediately seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostage for 444 days. One of those Foreign Service officers was a native of Waverly, IA. Four years later, Iranian-backed terrorist groups carried out a suicide car bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. They drove two truck bombs into the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut--killing over 250 Americans. In 1996, the Iranian regime carried out another truck bombing near a United States Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia--killing 19 Americans and wounding more than 370. In 2007, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out a plot in Iraq that killed five members of the United States armed services and wounded three others. And then we all know how destructive the bomb was that we call the improvised explosive device that was buried and killed about 600 American servicepeople and wounded many others. Now, what is more is that the regime also continues its efforts to build nuclear weapons. In 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency, also known as the IAEA, revealed that Iran had engaged in a variety of clandestine nuclear-related activities. In 2005, the IAEA's Board of Governors found Iran in noncompliance with the Agency's safeguard agreements. In 2014, the Director of National Intelligence reported to Congress that Iran had made substantial progress with its nuclear program. In 2025, the IAEA declared that Iran had enough enriched uranium-- just short of weapons grade--to potentially make nine nuclear bombs. So Iran is not a distant or theoretical threat. It is a direct U.S. national security concern. A nuclear-capable Iran would be able to expand its support for global terrorism, threaten American forces across the region, and put our allies at immediate risk. Over time, Iran's capability could extend beyond the region, increasing the risk to the American homeland itself. This presents a clear threat that the United States could not afford to ignore. I am happy that President Trump took action to address this threat that seven previous Presidents did not consider necessary, and I remain hopeful that a long-lasting peace agreement can soon be reached. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor many times recently to explain how important the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is to the economies of the three countries--particularly the United States and particularly agriculture in the United States--and that we need to soon make a decision to continue the USMCA. It is up for review, and that review ought to be conducted very quickly because of the economic importance that I have kind of tried to demonstrate on the floor of the U.S. Senate--how it has expanded trade between our countries and business between our countries and how it has been so beneficial to the economic growth of all three countries but particularly the United States. So I have said the renewal is really a no-brainer. So I continue my review today of this USMCA, but there is one part of that agreement that does not show up in the text of the agreement or is easily calculated in dollars, as I have tried to explain the value of the USMCA in dollar terms. In other words, it is hard to give any statistics to this aspect of the USMCA and its value. It is the invaluable effect of countering China on the global stage because of what has developed as a result of the USMCA. That is through alignment on agricultural, environmental, intellectual property rules and regulations, and by aligning rules of origin, strengthening nearshore supply chains, and countless other provisions. The USMCA protects our domestic workers, our companies, and our products from being replaced by Chinese competition. The alignment of the North American economy, because of the USMCA, to U.S. standards--that all sends a very strong signal to the rest of the world. That signal is this: If you align with the United States, you and your economy will prosper. As more and more countries are finding out, aligning in the opposite direction--with China--means intellectual property theft, continuously moving goalposts, and regulatory uncertainty. Because of the USMCA and the North American economy being aligned--because of the USMCA--I think it shows the importance of counteracting China. So I urge the Trump administration to quickly advance trilateral conversations on renewing USMCA, and I say this especially with Canada because I see we are dragging our feet in regard to sitting down with Canada. We should not be pushing Canada to the back burner in the USMCA negotiations. The United States and Canada economically are so integrated that it is important to keep this moving. The Canadians showed their willingness to expand trade with China, to our detriment. They did this in January--including in electric vehicles. This administration must move quickly to ensure Canada remains focused on strengthening trade between our two countries, and we do that by sitting down with Canada very quickly. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am here in the Senate about the Democrat Judiciary Committee minority in the House of Representatives. They wrote a letter on May 12 of this year that I found to be more than troubling. That letter made disgraceful and wrongful accusations regarding this Senator's helping many FBI whistleblowers. For the entirety of this Congress, I have been open and very public about my efforts to help whistleblowers. Accordingly, the timing of this letter, so late after settlements occurred in August of 2025, is suspect. If concerns existed, why were they not raised last year? I have seen a lot, in my time serving the people of Iowa, but this attack on this Senator and my office and whistleblowers is beyond the pale. Now, you have often heard me say on the Senate floor, over many years, that I feel like honest whistleblowers are treated like a skunk at a picnic. Oftentimes, their only crime is telling the truth. And for telling the truth, they often lose their job. They are hurt professionally, and it discourages other people who want to tell the truth about wrongdoing in government from coming forth. That is why whistleblowers deserve the protection that I and other Senators give them. So getting back to that letter, this letter from the minority calls my office's efforts to obtain a fix for whistleblowers who faced years of retaliation and financial ruin--that letter called it a ``shakedown scheme.'' The Democrats are dead wrong about what they said, and if they had a sliver of integrity, they would retract that letter. This isn't the way to handle disagreements. But what is there to disagree with? Patriotic whistleblowers had wrongs against them righted, and I helped make their case right. This should be a bipartisan celebration, especially since some of these whistleblowers weren't pro-President Trump. The letter also notes that some of the whistleblowers were properly disciplined, as if suffering retaliation is OK. The letter further notes: The record definitively shows that the agents weren't disciplined for making protected disclosures to Congress or for the imaginary offense of being a Republican. Now, even publications in this town--and I am going to quote POLITICO. POLITICO noted in their article: Judiciary Democrats did not provide supporting documentation for the sources of some of their claims. As an example of how far off base the letter is, one FBI official who was wrongly accused of being a part of a January siege was cleared by the inspector general. His clearance was restored. He got his job back. The FBI Security Division had ignored photo and video evidence supporting that whistleblower's claim. Indeed, the whistleblower's lawyers have publicly defended their client, noting: No classified leaks. No criminal conduct. But the records happen to exist, just not the ones that the Democrats want to talk about. The lawyers for the whistleblowers rightly said the following, publicly: It's common practice for Federal Agencies to settle legal or administrative complaints against them, which virtually all the whistleblowers had against the FBI at the time of settlements. Those lawyers also noted that they published hundreds of pages ``documenting the flaws in FBI actions against employees'': In fact, two of our clients who received settlements were FBI Security Division employees retaliated against for exposing the FBI's use of the security clearance process for reprisal also against other Empower Oversight clients--a wrong even the Biden-era FBI recognized when it reinstated Marcus Allen's security clearance. President Trump's Justice Department and the FBI should get credit for righting the wrongs against these additional whistleblowers. And what the Democrats did with this letter may cause tremendous damage to whistleblower reputations for getting the facts wrong. At my direction, my staff did what many in this town don't understand. When whistleblowers step up to the plate, you have to fight for them. So that is exactly what my office did, and I am not going to back down one bit and let brave individuals suffer more years of ruin. And I am certainly not going to apologize for fighting and winning for whistleblowers. That doesn't always mean that every whistleblower is going to get the satisfaction and settlement that he or she deserves. But that effort to get them justice must be made, and I make it clear to all of my staff that they must do what they can to get the job done of protecting whistleblowers--in other words, give the effort of protecting whistleblowers the ``old college try.'' That is what the taxpayers expect, and that is my reputation as a whistleblower defender. I have made a career out of protecting and defending whistleblowers; and never in my time have I, my staff, or my whistleblowers received more attacks for doing that job than in this Congress. I encourage all whistleblower groups in this town to stand up to what is happening here, just as I stood up for whistleblowers throughout the decades--no matter who they blow the whistle on, Republican or Democrat administrations--whether that is disagreeing with this administration about Mr. Reuveni being a real whistleblower or defending the Ukraine whistleblower, years ago. In conclusion, I will note that the Democrat letter said: The treasury isn't a personal checkbook for ideological payouts, and the misuse of millions of dollars in taxpayer resources for personal or political benefit is a felony. Did the Democrats forget about FBI Agent Peter Strzok reportedly receiving $1.2 million or Lisa Page receiving $800,000 from the Biden Department of Justice after the damage that they did to this country? Or were they covering up again for a disastrous Biden-Harris administration? For God and country, this Senator will never stop fighting for whistleblowers. I yield the floor. Nomination of Kevin Warsh