Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, probably all my colleagues are very concerned that we have learned, over the last few months or couple years, that our Department of HHS is not tracking the 300,000 children--unaccompanied children--under our immigration laws. We don't know where they are. And if you are one of these Senators that is concerned about that, I would like to say, this morning, I want to discuss a Department of Homeland Security inspector general report that everyone in the Senate or their staffs ought to be on top of. Last week's report confirmed alarm bells that my investigative work had been ringing for a decade. The Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement is responsible for placing unaccompanied children with fully vetted U.S. sponsors. And so what we are finding out is that children are being placed in sponsorship that has not been properly vetted. Hundreds of thousands of children were unaccounted for during the Biden administration. This inspector general report confirmed that the Biden administration's Health and Human Services failed to take necessary steps to protect and find migrant children. Last Congress, my oversight attacked these failures on behalf of these children. The Biden administration obstructed my oversight. More than that, the Biden administration also ripped up an agreement made during President Trump's first term allowing much more sharing of sponsor information with law enforcement. The Biden administration worried that the information would show sponsors were here illegally. This was the Biden administration's priority over the lives and health of children. To emphasize whether or not sponsors were here illegally was more important than protecting the lives of these children. So simply put, the last administration's conduct, to include its obstruction of my oversight, is a textbook example of what not to do. So I urge my colleagues, please, read the inspector general's report. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, 20 of my colleagues and I will introduce legislation to stop the abuse of universal injunctions that we are seeing all across the country--all of this to stop the Trump agenda. Universal injunctions violate the words of the Constitution that we agreed that the courts can only hear ``case or controversy.'' And that is a requirement of article III of the Constitution because they apply court orders to people not even parties to the lawsuits--so the necessity for doing away with universal injunctions violating the ``case-or-controversy'' requirements. Universal injunctions were almost unheard of for the first 175 years of our history and only became common in the last decade. In addition to being unconstitutional, they are also anti-democratic. Universal injunctions have become a favorite tool of those seeking to obstruct President Trump's agenda. Individual district judges who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts are singlehandedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement. Now, universal injunctions have been used against both Democrat and Republican administrations since they have sprung up so numerously in the last few years. But in the past 2 months alone, judges have issued more universal injunctions against the Trump administration than President Biden faced throughout his entire 4-year term. By exercising power this way, the courts are doing great damage to the judicial process that they should be working to protect, and the Supreme Court could stop this whole process, but the Supreme Court has not taken such action. So it is Congress's job to legislate. So what would you expect? I am introducing legislation to solve this problem. My bill prevents judges from providing nonparty relief, make temporary restraining orders immediately appealable, and reset the separation of powers. In short, I am trying to fix a bipartisan problem that has been plaguing both Democratic and Republican administrations alike.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, 20 of my colleagues and I will introduce legislation to stop the abuse of universal injunctions that we are seeing all across the country--all of this to stop the Trump agenda. Universal injunctions violate the words of the Constitution that we agreed that the courts can only hear ``case or controversy.'' And that is a requirement of article III of the Constitution because they apply court orders to people not even parties to the lawsuits--so the necessity for doing away with universal injunctions violating the ``case-or-controversy'' requirements. Universal injunctions were almost unheard of for the first 175 years of our history and only became common in the last decade. In addition to being unconstitutional, they are also anti-democratic. Universal injunctions have become a favorite tool of those seeking to obstruct President Trump's agenda. Individual district judges who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts are singlehandedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement. Now, universal injunctions have been used against both Democrat and Republican administrations since they have sprung up so numerously in the last few years. But in the past 2 months alone, judges have issued more universal injunctions against the Trump administration than President Biden faced throughout his entire 4-year term. By exercising power this way, the courts are doing great damage to the judicial process that they should be working to protect, and the Supreme Court could stop this whole process, but the Supreme Court has not taken such action. So it is Congress's job to legislate. So what would you expect? I am introducing legislation to solve this problem. My bill prevents judges from providing nonparty relief, make temporary restraining orders immediately appealable, and reset the separation of powers. In short, I am trying to fix a bipartisan problem that has been plaguing both Democratic and Republican administrations alike.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Senate will soon vote to confirm my good friend and fellow Iowan Matt Whitaker to be the U.S. Ambassador to NATO. I support his nomination and urge all my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. Matt is someone who is well known back in Iowa, and he has earned the respect of many here in Washington, too. He has a long record of service to our country, from his time as Acting Attorney General in the first Trump administration to his work as chief of staff at the Department of Justice. He has traveled around the world, meeting with leaders on important issues, including dealing with the fentanyl crisis and negotiating with Chinese officials. During the George W. Bush administration, Matt served our State as U.S. attorney for the Southern District from 2004 to 2009, where he worked hard to keep our communities safe. In Iowa, he is known not just for his work, but for his deep pride in his home State. He never lets you forget that he is a proud graduate of the University of Iowa, where he earned his undergraduate degree, MBA, and law degree. In fact, he even played football for the Hawkeyes, including going to the Rose Bowl, which speaks to his work ethic and commitment to teamwork. Matt carries that same commitment and drive in every role he takes on--whether it is on the football field, as a U.S. attorney, or in his leadership in national law enforcement. This dedication is exactly what he will bring to his work with NATO. I am proud to support a true friend and fellow Iowan who has always shown the highest standards of service to our country. I ask my colleagues to support Matt Whitaker's confirmation. He will serve with the same passion and energy that he brings to his love of Iowa football, and I have no doubt that he will represent the United States on the world stage with the same level of commitment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to ask my colleagues, as a reminder, that there are some tricks of the trade to get to your political enemies or for other reasons like covering up embarrassing situations or just to cover up wrongdoing. I am going to use and compliment this administration. As one of its first acts after taking office, the Trump administration and Attorney General Bondi shut down the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force. Despite criticism, this is a positive step, given what the task force had been twisted into by the Biden administration. This task force was created in 2017 by then-Director Wray for very good reasons. We were told it was designed to counteract maligned foreign influence operations. However, this task force became infected with politics. In other words, this task force came to be used as a political weapon. So let me explain how this became weaponized. As an example, in 2020, during my and Senator Johnson's Biden family investigation, that FBI task force was used in unnecessarily briefing us two Senators, but that only happened after pressure from our Democratic colleagues for it to happen. So pure and simple, this was a setup. The FBI wrongly did the bidding of the Democrats. The results of the setup was this: The contents of that briefing were later leaked to the media, even though the FBI promised Senator Johnson and this Senator confidentiality. Those leaks were used to falsely link our Biden family investigation to somehow advancing Russian disinformation. The FBI's conduct undermined and frustrated our congressional investigation. My and Senator Johnson's investigation made public Obama-Biden administration records. That included Treasury information of financial transactions between and among Biden family members. We also made public authentic bank records showing deep financial connection between and among the Biden family and China. Authentic records like these, as we all know now, have nothing to do with Russian disinformation. So I compliment President Trump and Attorney General Bondi for getting rid of this Foreign Influence Task Force and its obstructive conduct. That is how it ended up. If the task force did any good, I only know what it did bad, and that was setting Senator Johnson and I up because there was some embarrassing information that they obviously did not want out. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, before I give my reasons for objecting, I want to comment on a couple of things in your remarks. Before you spoke, you spoke about the times that we often agree. Just today, you and I--I won't go into the subject matter. But just today, you and I cosponsored a bill together, as an example. The other thing I would like to say, before I go to my remarks, is that I want to associate myself with your quote from our colleague Senator Cornyn that you don't impeach judges just because of a decision, because we would be impeaching judges all the time. That is my additional comment. The third thing is to inform you that I hope I can get, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, something moving in this area. I happen to agree with some Democrats, in previous years, that said some judges have gone way beyond what a judge should do on national injunctions, and I hope to find a solution for that. I would hope that you and I maybe could work on that together because I know Democrats have made that same accusation about district court judges in 1 district out of 93 in the United States applying their decision nationally. So now, I would like to go to my reason for objecting. A few weeks ago, I objected to a version of this resolution because I considered that something that both Democrats and Republicans do too much around here is nothing but a political messaging exercise. Today, I come here for the same reason. I won't stand by and allow my colleagues to imply that ``the rule of law''--those three words--only matters when there is a Republican President. As I explained a few weeks ago, the Biden administration engaged in 4 years of complete lawlessness. Instead of condemning it, Democrats viciously attacked the legitimacy of the courts for ruling against the Biden administration. The silence that we heard from Democrats about the rule of law during the Biden years is quite deafening. I won't repeat my last speech, but I will expand on one of my previous objections. This resolution demands that the President comply with all court orders, but it is completely silent about the role of the Federal courts to adhere to the law themselves. For a number of years, but particularly in the last few months, we have seen increasingly sweeping, potentially lawless orders coming from any 1 of our 600 district judges out of the 93 districts we have. Although our Founders saw an important role for the judiciary, individual judges have empowered themselves to become nationwide policymakers, as opposed to interpreting law. I consider this very dangerous. In the last few weeks, individual unelected judges made policy decisions for the whole country. Some examples include: ordering the President to stop deporting foreign terrorists; directing the military to enlist and retain transgender servicemembers; directing who will and will not staff the President's administration--that is really extraordinary, I think--and then, lastly, an example, ordering the immediate expenditure of billions of dollars. One judge even went so far as to order the government to pay out 2 billion taxpayer dollars and to do it within 36 hours. Much of this would go to organizations not even involved in the case, and the government would never be able to get this money back, even if they ultimately won on appeal. In the 2 months since President Trump has entered office, his administration has suffered more of these sweeping orders at the hands of district court judges than the Biden administration experienced in 4 years. I want to emphasize that--more obstacles to carrying out what the President wants to do in 2 months and stopped by the court more than the entire 4 years of the Biden administration. Has President Trump chosen to ignore this avalanche of irresponsible court orders? Flat-out no. He has appealed these outrageous decisions, just as he promised he would do when he said: I always abide by the courts and then I'll have to appeal it. . . . The answer is I always abide by the courts. Appellate courts have responded by striking down many of the unlawful intrusions into Presidential authority, but the core problem remains: The President of the United States shouldn't have to ask permission from more than 600 different district court judges to manage the executive branch that he was elected to lead. The practice of sweeping, nationwide injunctions, broad restraining orders, and judicial policymaking must end. It is unconstitutional, it is anti-democratic, and it is imprudent. If the Supreme Court won't stop it, then Congress must. And I wish the Supreme Court would get on this and do it right away. This issue isn't a partisan issue. I want to work with Democrats, as I just said to the Senator from Illinois. Democrats, work with us to fix this. In the past, Democrats and Republicans have both criticized nationwide injunctions and the power of individual district judges. My Democratic colleagues have even proposed legislation to rein in some of these abuses. You don't have to take my word for it. In 2022, Justice Elena Kagan correctly observed: It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process. In 2024, President Biden's Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, argued before the Supreme Court. Now listen to this quote: A court of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it. The district court violated that principle by issuing a universal injunction purporting to enjoin the Act itself and forbidding the enforcement of the Act even against non-parties. So, as I told Senator Durbin, I hope to soon be holding a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to address this matter and even introduce legislation to end these abuses. I hope both my Democratic and Republican colleagues join me in this effort. For the resolution at hand, I propose an amendment so it reads ``the Constitution of the United States and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all lawful Federal court rulings.'' This simple change of one word--``lawful''--will show that Congress expects both the executive branch and the judicial branch to respect the rule of law and constitutional constraints. My amendment mirrors what the Chief Justice said in 2024. The Chief Justice rightly raised concerns about the intimidation and the threats leveled at the Court in the wake of the Dobbs decision. He said: The final threat to judicial independence is defiance of judgments lawfully entered by courts of competent jurisdiction. He had no problem adding the word ``lawful'' in. We shouldn't have it any other way. So therefore I ask the Senator, my friend from Illinois, to modify his request such that the Grassley amendment to the resolution at the desk be considered and agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Are you asking about the original one?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendments at the desk be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I know of no further debate on the nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on this day in 1949, the Russian-Soviet regime occupying the Baltic countries rounded up 95,000 people, mostly women and children, and sent them to Siberia. During Stalin's rule, more than 220,000 innocent people were deported to cold Siberia. This doesn't even include political prisoners sent to the gulag camps. This day is observed by those Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania by lighting candles in the memory of these deportees. The reason the Soviets did this is pretty simple: They wanted to crush civil society in newly occupied areas because they took over the Baltic countries in 1940. The ultimate goal was to eliminate Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian national identity entirely, replacing it with, of course, a Soviet- Russian identity. The Soviets did not succeed in this effort. Now, you may not remember this from history, but the United States never recognized the illegal Soviet occupation of these three Baltic States. Now, the people of those three countries kept the flame of freedom alive by quietly telling their children the truth about how their countries were once free and independent. Then, when the Soviet empire showed signs of weakness, their desire for freedom burst forth in what is called the Singing Revolution. It got the name because of the use of national songs banned by the Soviet, and this, by singing it, was their means of protest. Fifty years of brutal Soviet occupation could not extinguish the flames of freedom and all Baltic countries are again free and prosperous and these three countries happen to be among the most pro- American allies. I wonder if we can learn a lesson because we know that when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, he has since kidnapped about 20,000 young people from Ukraine and taken them to Russia to ``Russiafy'' them, I guess you would say. We don't hear enough of that. We ought to be reminded of what the Soviets did after World War II, and it seems like the world has not learned a lesson or Putin wouldn't get away with his kidnapping of 20,000 children to take them to Russia from Ukraine. We should not allow this to continue, and the United States of America ought to be very cautious in any dealings with an international war criminal as Putin has been so condemned. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues. I am going to give a 1-minute remark on things that probably should have been said on January 21. In January, Americans celebrated one of its greatest rituals of our Republic; the peaceful transfer of power. I was honored to bear witness to history. I look forward to working closely with President Trump to advance the golden age in America. As part of the ceremonies, my wife Barbara and I joined the inaugural luncheon in Statutory Hall. We enjoyed a delicious meal featuring food from America's heartland, including Nebraska beef and Minnesota apples. An Iowa-born artist provided a feast for the eyes at that luncheon. Her magnificent painting hung behind President Trump. It is entitled ``American Horizon.'' Jane Wilson was born on her family farm near Seymour, IA in 1924. It is the first time a female artist's work was selected for this occasion. She painted American Horizon 25 years ago, 10 years before her death at age 90. Senator Klobuchar told us she selected the piece for its vast, open landscape, noting how its enduring horizon reflects our enduring democracy. I am proud to pay tribute to an Iowan whose work became part of history at the 60th inauguration ceremony here in the U.S. Capitol. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last Tuesday, I released a committee report. The committee report was about my investigation about the Obama-Biden administration's obstruction of FBI law enforcement efforts against Iran. My report was based in large part on whistleblower disclosure and FBI records. The FBI records show that the Obama-Biden administration blocked arrests of indicted Iranian terrorists in 2015 and 2016. Now, I know, to my constituents and my fellow Senators, that is history, but it is history that we don't want to repeat. The records show that interference was done against our own people to score political points for what ended up being the failed Iran nuclear deal. Specifically, then-Secretary of State Kerry actually stopped the FBI from doing its job, and the purpose of that interference was to appease Iran. One FBI agent emailed: We're all beside ourselves on asking the field to stand down on a layup arrest, however, as it stands right now we all have to sit back and wait until all the US and Iran negotiations resolve themselves. The Obama-Biden administration made our country less safe. We don't want history to repeat itself. So, as you might expect, none of this changed until President Trump took office in his first term. Records show international banks stopped financing projects in Iran because of the incoming Trump Presidency. Whistleblower disclosures show the Trump administration brought criminals to justice when the Obama-Biden administration did not bring those same criminals to justice. So now we are in a new Trump administration. I encourage President Trump and his new Director of the FBI, Patel, to take heed of the positive impact in the first Trump term and let the FBI line agents do their jobs without political rot getting in the way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is a good day for the Senate and a good day for the American people. The Senate will soon pass a bill that is entitled ``HALT Fentanyl Act.'' The House is expected to take the measure up very soon and send it to President Trump, who is waiting with pen in hand to enact one of his campaign promises. The HALT Fentanyl Act permanently schedules these deadly substances that have been the main driver of overdose deaths in the United States. No longer does the Drug Enforcement Agency need to play this game of Whac-A-Mole every time a cartel develops a new fentanyl knockoff. In other words, today, a fentanyl knockoff might be illegal, and then they change the chemical makeup of it, and it becomes legal. It is a nightmare for law enforcement. So no longer will Congress be kicking the can down the road with temporary extensions. We have had many, many extensions over the last several years to keep fentanyl scheduled and its analogs scheduled in I. It also revises policies to research schedule I substances. These are changes the research community has welcomed. Drug overdoses in the United States have exploded to the highest levels we have ever seen, and, of course, this is thanks to fentanyl and fentanyl knockoffs. The Drug Enforcement Agency has called fentanyl and its knockoffs the ``deadliest drug threat the United States has ever faced.'' Since 2016, I have been raising the alarm on deadly synthetic drugs like fentanyl. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I held a hearing on these substances and the need to stay ahead of the peddlers of this poison. Sadly, it has taken us 9 long years to get to permanently scheduling these deadly knockoffs. Of course, we thank each of the previous Congresses that, on a temporary basis, extended the scheduling of fentanyl and fentanyl knockoffs, but this bipartisan HALT Fentanyl Act takes care of this by making it permanent. Senators Cassidy, Heinrich, and Johnson were very instrumental in this effort. Their interest in permanently scheduling fentanyl knockoffs inspired the Senate to move this bill to the floor. Republican leadership was also crucial in prioritizing this bill for the floor and helping us navigate the floor process. Credit is also due to our House colleagues--Representative Griffith, Chairman Guthrie, and now retired Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers--who led and championed the HALT Fentanyl Act on the House side. I would also like to thank Dr. Tim Westlake, who came up with the temporary scheduling structure that we have been using since the year 2018. He has testified before my committee and before the Congress on numerous occasions, and I thank him for his hard work and unflappable dedication. So, in the end, this campaign earned the support of nearly every major law enforcement organization and also several medical associations and research associations supporting the research component of this bill. Most importantly, we must say thanks to the countless families organized over a long period of time across the country that have lost loved ones to fentanyl poisoning and have not given up on this type of legislation to make permanent the scheduling. I want to thank my Senate staff who helped make this possible, especially Colleen Bloss and Michael Perkins, who spearheaded this effort for me and all the committee members. Together, we have taken steps to open the doors of research to permanently schedule the deadliest substance the United States has ever faced and to send a clear message that Congress is willing and ready to act. Together, we have taken an important step to live up to our commitment to our constituents and to the loved ones lost to put them first and to serve them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a military unit that is being retired in Fort Dodge, IA. On March 2, the colors were retired for the 133rd Test Squadron in Fort Dodge, IA. The 133rd has an extraordinary legacy. Since its inception in 1948, the 133rd has stood as a pillar of excellence, evolving from radar spotting to pioneering the use of advanced communication technologies. From the Korean war to the Global War on Terror, the 133rd has answered our Nation's call with unwavering dedication. Its innovation has helped ensure our military remains at the forefront of defense capabilities. To the men, women, and families of the 133rd, past and present, thank you for your service, sacrifice, and commitment to our State and Nation. Your impact is immeasurable, and your legacy will endure. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, two points--a short one and a long one. The short one is simply this: to remind my colleagues that at the beginning of the year, we get a Senate calendar that says what days we are going to be in session and what days we are not going to be in session. Between now and the end of the fiscal year, September 30, we have 16 Fridays that we are supposed to be in session. Will we be in session on those Fridays? We have had a few Friday sessions this year so far, but I am afraid that if we don't count on being a little more devoted to a 5-day workweek, those Fridays will slip away from us. I bring that to our attention because we are always complaining because we don't have enough time to do appropriations bills. These extra 16 days that we might not be in session would be a good amount of time to take care of the 12 appropriations bills that we have to do regularly. I always say there is enough work for a Senator, an individual Senator, to do 7 days a week if he wants to work. But you can't solve this country's problems if you are only in session 2\1/2\ or 3 days a week. That was the practice of the U.S. Senate before the Republicans took over. Republicans are supposed to make a difference, and I think a big difference we can make in the U.S. Senate is showing that we are running the U.S. Senate in a businesslike way, and that is to get more work done and in particular do our separate appropriations bills instead of doing one great big thousand-page appropriations bill just before government is ready to shut down.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, every year, Sunshine Week is held around March 16, the birthday of James Madison, who not only is a former President, but the acclaimed ``Father of the Constitution.'' On its 20th anniversary, Sunshine Week continues to be a crucial reminder of the need for transparency and open government. To control a government as big as ours, it takes a lot of very bright light shining on every Agency. As Justice Brandeis wrote in 1913, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' Transparency brings accountability and the public's business ought to be public. That attitude and approach is an important check on the Federal Government. It reminds bureaucrats that they ultimately work for and answer to ``We the People.'' One transparency tool I value is the Freedom of Information Act. This law, first enacted in 1966, requires our government to proactively make material public and to respond to requests for documents, reports, and many other types of information. The presumption under this law is that government actions, rules, and work is public property. Putting this information in public hands helps us hold our government accountable. The Freedom of Information Act is one of the strongest tools we have to ensure that our government is doing what it should be doing and in ways that are best for us. And speaking of records, a large part of my oversight work includes publicly releasing documents to hold current and former government officials accountable. To accomplish that, I often work with whistleblowers to get the information the government likes to hide. Whistleblowers are patriots and our most powerful tool in rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct, including the weaponization of our government. They are often targeted for retaliation and harassment. That must stop. Time and again, I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to point out specific examples of retaliation. That is why I have called on every President since Ronald Reagan to hold a Rose Garden Ceremony to honor whistleblowers. I hope President Trump will be the first to set this historic precedent. Unfortunately, there has been a growing trend among Federal Agencies to unlawfully silence whistleblowers by failing to include the anti-gag provision in their nondisclosure policies, forms, and similar agreements. The law requires Federal Agencies to include the anti-gag provision to notify employees of their whistleblower rights. That is why last Congress, I called on 76 inspectors general to conduct a review of their parent Agency's nondisclosure agreements and similar documents to ensure the anti-gag provision was included. In response, so far, 36 IGs have completed reviews. Thirty IGs found that their parent Agency's nondisclosure agreements were noncompliant with the law. Twenty-six IGs said their parent Agency updated or was in the process of updating these deficient agreements. The IG community has much work to do, and this Senator won't stop protecting whistleblowers. Whistleblower disclosures proved that anti-Trump FBI agent Tim Thibault was involved in the genesis of Jack Smith's election interference case against President Trump. The FBI codenamed it Arctic Frost. Internal FBI records revealed Thibault acted outside of established FBI protocol and essentially opened and approved his own investigation into President Trump. This is just one of many instances of political infection at the Justice Department and FBI. Whistleblowers also provided me with new information that, during the Biden administration, FBI leadership politicized investigations at the expense of saving victimized children. According to whistleblowers, agents working large caseloads on the Violent Crimes Against Children Unit were reassigned by FBI leadership to work January 6 cases. Political infection isn't just a DOJ and FBI problem. Whistleblower disclosures provided to my office showed that the Obama-Biden administration's then-Secretary of State John Kerry obstructed arrests of indicted Iranian terrorists. Kerry did so to score political points with Iran for the failed nuclear deal. My consistent efforts to let in sunshine continues across our government whether it is exposing flaws in the Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement that caused children to be placed in harm's way, pressing the FBI on issuing a memo about targeting Catholics, or fighting to obtain information from DOJ on the horrific January 1, 2025, attacks in New Orleans. We need more whistleblowers to shine light on political infection because we certainly can't count on the government to turn themselves in. Now, the Federal Government isn't the only bad actor that whistleblowers provided sunlight on. The Simon Wiesenthal Center also disclosed to my office that Credit Suisse engaged in misconduct during in internal investigation. That investigation focused on the bank's Nazi-linked financial accounts. Turns out, Credit Suisse serviced more Nazi wealth than was known during and after World War II and tried to keep it hidden. Thanks to these whistleblowers, I discovered that Credit Suisse lied to Congress about all this, while smearing the reputation of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. My oversight list could go on and on thanks to whistleblowers. In conclusion, we all ought to be thankful for Sunshine Week, which is an opportunity for the country to highlight the righteous fight for transparency. Shining a consistent light on the work of our government is essential to making it accountable to ``We the People.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 35 years ago today, the freely elected Parliament of Lithuania declared that country was restoring its independence after about 50 years of Soviet occupation. This started the breakup of the Soviet Union. The end of that evil empire made the world safer and millions of people freer. So I say: Thank you, Lithuania--or I should say, in their language, ``aciu.'' Lithuania didn't become a country just in the 1990s, however. It is a very old country. In fact, it was a significant regional power in the Middle Ages. The modern Republic of Lithuania was born on February 16, 1918. The United States has maintained continuous diplomatic relations with Lithuania for now 103 years, going back to 1922. As an American, I am proud that our country never recognized the Soviet annexation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, just as we don't recognize Russia's annexation of any part of Ukraine to this very day. Today, Lithuania is free, and Lithuania is prosperous. Lithuania is a close U.S. ally and a beacon of Western values on the frontlines of freedom. I thank Lithuania for its friendship, for its important contribution to the NATO alliance, and for its vocal defense of our shared values. 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, soon, we will vote on the nomination of Gail Slater to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. I support her nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Antitrust is as important to me as it is to most Senators. I have long been concerned about market concentration and anticompetitive practices in industries that impact Iowans whether it is agriculture or healthcare or technology. These issues don't get the most attention around the U.S. Senate, but they still impact millions of Americans. Family farmers and independent producers deserve fair prices for their products. Seniors deserve affordable prescription drugs. Children deserve to be safe from predatory behavior on dominant tech platforms. All of these are antitrust issues. Attorney General Bondi told me during her confirmation process that she shares my interest in these issues and that she would work with me and the Antitrust Division to address these issues. There is no better person to help her in this project than Gail Slater. Ms. Slater has the right qualifications for this job. She spent several years practicing antitrust law in private practice before spending a decade at the Federal Trade Commission, handling antitrust investigations and litigation. In these roles, she learned the nuts and bolts of antitrust enforcement. Ms. Slater also understands antitrust and economics from a policy perspective. She served in President Trump's first administration on the National Economic Council, and she served now-Vice President Vance as his economic policy adviser and as a member of his Senate staff. So Ms. Slater has numerous accomplishments in the antitrust space. I am not the only one who thinks Ms. Slater is the right person for the job. She has received letters of support from nine previous heads of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. These men and women were appointed by Presidents of both political parties. They wrote: Ms. Slater has the experience, intelligence, judgment, and leadership skills necessary to serve as an excellent Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Another bipartisan coalition letter commands her ``unique ability to collaborate on a bipartisan basis with stakeholders across the political spectrum, building coalitions toward common goals.'' And it might surprise you that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters announced that they support her nomination. In a rare sign of unity on the Judiciary Committee I share, where we don't get a lot of unity, Ms. Slater was advanced out of committee by 20 yes votes to 2 negative votes. I hope for a similarly strong bipartisan vote here on the floor. The Antitrust Division will flourish under Ms. Slater's strong leadership, and I am proud to support her. She is ready to serve our country, and we need to get her confirmed quickly. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for my colleagues who are protectionists, I think that when it comes to the issue of trade, we need less of Peter Navarro and more of Adam Smith. I think the certainty that comes with trade policy will benefit our economy the most. Hopefully, we don't have a government shutdown this week. I want my colleagues to remember that it costs money to shut down the government. It costs money to open the government up. There is even some money being wasted this week as bureaucrats plan for a possible shutdown. The government is supposed to be a service to the American people, and you can't serve the American people if government is not functioning.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I want to honor an outstanding Iowan who devoted his life in service to our home State and to America. This weekend, my good friend of nearly 70 years was laid to rest with full military honors, after passing away on February 16, at age 99 years young. Evan L. Hultman was better known by his nickname. He was called ``Curly'' for his thick crop of curly blond hair. Throughout his career in the military, law, and politics, Curly never met a stranger. And he never let a blade of grass grow underneath his feet. A stand-out athlete, Curly helped lead his high school football team to victory at the state championship in 1941. He was a multisport varsity athlete at East High School in Waterloo. In the ninth grade, he met the love of his life Betty Ann Hook. Following graduation from high school in 1943, Curly enlisted in the U.S. Army during World War II. He married his high school sweetheart on October 14, 1944, before Curly served in the South Pacific in the 19th Infantry Division. A member of the ``greatest generation,'' Curly served our country in uniform with honor and distinction. He remained in the Army Reserve for more than a half-century following Active Duty. In 1980, he attained the rank of major general. After the war, Curly attended the University of Iowa, earning his bachelor's and law degrees. From there, he delved head first into civic and political life. After winning election as Black Hawk County Attorney, Curly was elected Iowa Attorney General. This is around the time our paths crossed on the campaign trail in the Cedar Valley and when I started serving in the State legislature in Des Moines. A lifelong Republican, Curly was our party's nominee for Governor in 1964. He lost a hard-fought race to Harold Hughes, who went on to join this body in the 91st Congress. From 1969 to 1977, Curly served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, under Presidents Nixon and Ford. During my first term in the U.S. Senate, President Reagan reappointed Curly as U.S. Attorney, and I was pleased to help steer his nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Following his three tours of duty as U.S. Attorney, Curly served as executive director of the Reserve Officers Association and the International Confederation of Reserve Officers, an organization of reserve officers in the NATO alliance. In this capacity, Curly helped forge lasting peace and security for former Warsaw Pact nations and some former Soviet republics. During his tenure, NATO expanded from 13 to 30 member-nations. Curly was named the organization's honorary president for life. Curly's distinguished record of public and military service was recognized with the Army's Distinguished Service Medal from President Reagan and the Distinguished Public Service Medal from the U.S. Secretary of Defense in 1994. His leadership for peace and freedom also were recognized around the globe, including from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden, and Denmark. Closer to home, Curly was a treasured, invaluable civic leader in the Cedar Valley. He helped raise funds for Honor Flights and many other veterans programs, including money for the Sullivan Brothers Iowa Veterans Museum, for which he had a leading role in its design, construction, and fundraising. Curly was known to break into song and dance to raise money for local veterans causes. For decades, Curly was a mainstay on the campaign trail, from the Iowa caucuses, statewide and local elections. He got bit by the political bug early, attending his first grassroots event at an early age for the reelection of President Herbert Hoover. And just last year, in sub-zero temperatures, Curly attended his precinct caucus at the Columbus Catholic High School gymnasium in Waterloo. This Iowa Hawkeye turned statesman was larger than life and made life better for those around him. He stood on principle and leaves a lasting legacy as a peacemaker and patriot and his love for America. His greatest duty and devotion were reserved for his family and high school sweetheart Betty, his wife of 73 years. Barbara and I send our sincerest condolences to his entire family, especially his three children Stevan, Susan, and Heidi. Godspeed, Curly. May you rest in eternal peace alongside your beloved Betty.