Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to support Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. In the process of doing that, I am going to refer generally to some of the things that I spoke about--problems at the Department of Defense--when Mr. Hegseth was in my office for these personal interviews that all nominees tend to do before their consideration on the floor of the Senate. One of those subjects was my oversight work of the Department of Defense. I have been conducting rigorous oversight of the Defense Department, along with other Federal Departments, since I became a Member of Congress. My oversight work of the Department of Defense has led me to sound the alarm time and again about the lack of internal controls, price gouging, and the mismanagement of the taxpayer dollars. If confirmed, Pete Hegseth, President Trump's Secretary of Defense nominee, will be the 16th Secretary of Defense to lead the Department during my tenure in this Chamber. When I met with Mr. Hegseth, I told him what I tell all Cabinet nominees whom I meet with: When asked if you will respond to letters from Members of Congress, instead of saying ``yes,'' you ought to say ``maybe'' so you won't be made a liar later when you don't answer those letters, because, as we all know here in the Senate, there is not a nominee who comes before any committee in the U.S. Senate who doesn't firmly promise to answer all of our letters or come and testify or take our phone calls. So everyone says yes when seeking confirmation, and most don't respond when they get into office. Mr. Hegseth said yes to the answer to that question in committee. He kind of laughed when I said in my office ``You ought to say `maybe,''' but he said ``I get the message.'' Mr. Hegseth and I also discussed the need for the Department of Defense to pass an independent audit and upgrade outdated financial management systems to make the independent audit being certified a real possibility. You know, the Department of Defense is the only Agency of the Federal Government that can't get a certified audit, and they have been mandated to have one for more than a decade, maybe even two decades. They have tried to produce it. The smallest of the military groups--the U.S. Marines--they tried to work with that one first of all to see if they could get a certified audit. They went through that rigamarole, and somehow they did get certified. I asked for the Government Accountability Office to check on the legitimacy of that certification, and the Government Accountability Office said that it was not a legitimate certification. After a couple of speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate about 8, 10 years ago, we finally got them to admit that it was a hoax that they were saying they were getting a certified audit. So this has been a big problem for a long period of time, and I hope Mr. Hegseth can get to the bottom of it and get a clean audit because the lack of a clean audit opinion at the Department of Defense presents huge potential for waste, fraud, and abuse in defense spending. When I get to the end of my remarks, I am going to give you a couple of examples. Mr. Hegseth acknowledged this weakness within the Department of Defense and assured me that he will get the Department on a proper financial footing. He also committed to ensuring the protections of whistleblowers who speak out against instances of fraud, waste, and abuse that have been unrestrained within the Department. We spoke about that issue because, for every nominee who comes to my office wanting confirmation, I say to them: You know, whether you have a Department of a few hundred or a few thousand or a few 10,000s--and there are some Departments around here that have a few hundred thousand people--big or little, you can't know what is going on in that Department as far as listening to whistleblowers. I consider whistleblowers to be very dedicated to their jobs and very patriotic people. They just want the government to do what the government is supposed to do under the law or to spend the money the way it is supposed to be spent. So they see something wrong; they come forward. You know, maybe sometimes they accomplish a lot by coming forward, but sometimes they are so frustrated that they come to us Members of the Senate--in my particular case, Chuck Grassley. Of the 35 investigations I have going on somewhere in the executive branch of government, 90 percent of them are instituted by information whistleblowers give me. So I tell these nominees: You don't know what is going on. You ought to listen to whistleblowers. It isn't just the case of a nominee listening to a whistleblower; it is a case of the nominee having a culture within their Department that will encourage middle management to listen to whistleblowers. That is particularly a problem in the Defense Department. We find too many whistleblowers ruining themselves professionally. They are treated like a skunk at a picnic in their Departments. I could tell you a lot of stories where they have been misused just because they came forward with information that the government wasn't following the laws. I know you can tell from what I just said that I have been a longtime advocate for whistleblowers and continue to work to ensure that they are protected when they rightfully speak out about the wrongdoings within our government. As you can tell from my conversation with you, my colleagues, I expect Mr. Hegseth to stay true to his word that he is going to listen to whistleblowers and get the financial management system of the Department of Defense turned around. Finally, we should thank anybody who serves in the military but particularly Mr. Hegseth for his service to our country in the military. All of the brave men and women who have served our Nation in uniform deserve our gratitude and respect. Now, I told you that I would give you a couple of examples. One of them is financial mismanagement or not following the law. One is Janet Mello. About 6 months ago, she pleaded guilty in a Texas court--can you believe this?--for stealing $106 million over a period of 5 years as a Defense Department employee. The problem there is that I am trying to get information from the Defense Department on one of my investigations. How could an employee of the Department of Defense over a period of 5 years get away with $106 million? I read someplace it was $112 million, but whether it was $106 million or $112 million, what difference does it make? It makes a difference if $1 is stolen from the taxpayers. Anyway, if she had stolen $5 million, she would probably still be a free person. But what is wrong with the financial management system of the Defense Department that they can't keep track of $106 million being stolen? So I am trying to get an answer to that, and finally, today, I got a response on my investigation. Maybe I got it because I talked to Pete Hegseth about it. Another one is what we call in Washington the JEDI, a program that the Defense Department wanted to establish called the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure. There were people in the Defense Department who had a conflict of interest because they had a relationship with Amazon. Amazon wanted that contract. They didn't recuse themselves. This whole Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure and these contracts, there was so much competition among a couple wanting that besides Amazon, that it was given a brandnew start on negotiations, and I don't even know where they are on those negotiations at this point. But those are two examples of things that have been really wrong with the way the Department of Defense has been run, not just under Biden but under a lot of Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, over a long period of time. And that is why I am going to suggest that the inspector general at the Department of Defense ought to be fired. Hopefully, Mr. Hegseth can straighten that out. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is the 52nd annual March for Life right here in the Nation's Capital. Folks from all over the Nation and world are in Washington to offer a joyful witness to the beauty and dignity of every human person. They will march in the cold in solidarity with babies in the womb. They will march in solidarity with mothers who deserve better than abortion--mothers who deserve love, support, and encouragement. They will march with a hope that the day is coming when all people will see babies as the blessing they are, the day when abortion is unthinkable. The signs the marchers carry reveal the hearts of each one. A popular sign each year reads ``Love them both.'' The pro-life movement desires to affirm and restore the bond between mother and child. This sacred bond exists even before a baby is born. So I say thank you to the pro-life marchers. I say thank you for your faithful example of what it means to be pro-life. God bless you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today marks 5 years since the Robinson family of Iowa City, IA, has been matched with their adoptive child way over in China. Sadly, this is not a celebratory anniversary of that date, as the Robinson family, along with 300 other American families, have yet to be unified with their adoptive children, many with unique medical needs. You see, in August of 2024, China very abruptly ended its intercountry adoption program without even clarifying what that would mean for the families already matched with their child. The Chinese Embassy cited that cross-border adoption has fulfilled its mission for the country, as now many more Chinese families have stronger will and capacity to adopt the orphans in China. While that is good news for those orphans, the country has made a commitment to American families that is not being kept. China still hasn't given a straight answer on whether these matched cases will be completed. I have been told that families from other countries have been invited to travel to complete their adoptions but not Americans. Why not Americans? It has been 5 years since families like the Robinsons have prepared their homes to welcome these adoptive children, 5 years of a developed familiar relationship. I hope that President Trump and the incoming administration see that these matched adoption cases be completed. President Trump talks about wanting to meet with Xi, have more friendly relationships with President Xi. Hopefully this is an environment that can bring the Robinsons and their child together. China made a commitment, and I think and everybody thinks China ought to honor its commitment. China ought to do that for no reason other than they want the respect of the world. They seem to be working to get that respect, and when people question that respect, they get very uptight about it.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on another issue, I want to talk about the 30-year anniversary of a piece of legislation that I have been involved with. A lot has happened during the first week of the second Trump administration. Within just 3 days in the White House, President Trump has put the pedal to the metal, delivering on the mandate voters expected when they went to the polls on November 5. Now, thinking of history, it brings to mind a message the voters delivered 30 years ago. Some of my colleagues will remember what is called the Contract with America. That was a platform, if you remember, engineered by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich that led to what was called the Republican Revolution of 1994. In fact, it was so much of a revolution that I remember that in President Clinton's State of the Union Message, he said and opened his statement with these few words: The era of big government is over. That is how much the Gingrich contract rattled Washington, DC. So the American people expressed that they were fed up with government-knows-best and a Washington mindset that applied rules for thee but not for me. Sounds familiar, doesn't it, 30 years later with the Trump mandate? So I come to the Senate floor today to talk about one particular issue that still comes up at my county meetings. For years, Iowans have asked me something like this: Why doesn't Congress have to follow the same laws as we have to follow? That used to be true until we passed the Congressional Accountability Act. In fact, that law became law, law of the land, 30 years ago today. Prior to 1995, Congress was exempt from about a dozen workplace laws that applied to the private sector but not to us in the Congress. I want to revisit how it came about. In 1994, the American people delivered a landslide victory to Republicans. We gained majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. It was an epic victory considering that Democrats had run the House of Representatives for all but 4 years going way back to 1931. The best approach to good leadership is to keep an ear to the ground and a finger to the pulse of the American people, much like our 45th and 47th President has done since 2017. Throughout my public service, that is how this U.S. Senator has worked to represent Iowans. By listening, by keeping in touch, and by going home every chance I get, I hold myself accountable to the people. This year, I will start my 45th consecutive year holding meetings with Iowans, holding Q&A meetings in each of Iowa's 99 counties. Now, for a basis for keeping in touch and keeping government responsible, let's look at Federalist 57. In that Federalist Paper, James Madison wrote about the vital need for what he called ``communion of interests'' between the people and their leaders, ``without which every government degenerates into tyranny.'' In the 21st century, you could call that having skin in the game. Back to this 30th anniversary of the Congressional Accountability Act, during the period of Congress having exemption from some workplace rules, Iowa's small businesses and Main Street civic leaders hit the nail on the head. They said to me and other Members of Congress: What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. So some of us rolled up our sleeves and got to work. I teamed up with former Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut here in the Senate. Like many legislative efforts, it took years to build a bipartisan coalition to have these laws applied to the Congress of the United States. The 1994 electoral victory was the boost that we needed to get across the finish line. On January 4, 1995, I reintroduced the Congressional Accountability Act. My good friend and former Senate majority leader Bob Dole summed up the reason for this legislation better than anybody else. I quote Senator Dole: Many of our citizens have begun to view the Senate and House of Representatives not as a people's body, but as an ``imperial Congress,'' as an institution that considers itself above the law and without accountability. That double standard had to end. We had to restore confidence with the American people. That is why I championed the Congressional Accountability Act--to inject common sense into lawmaking. This Federal law would provide that lawmakers walk in the shoes of our constituents, abiding by the same workplace rights and worker protection laws, including civil rights, age discrimination, disability, overtime pay, and occupational safety and health laws. One of my opponents during those years of trying to get this legislation passed was Senator Stevens of Alaska. I remember as this bill passed the U.S. Senate and I was victorious, he came up to me and poked his finger in my chest and said: I hope you are the first Senator to get sued because of this legislation. Well, I haven't been sued, and I don't think anybody has been sued. The first bill that we sent to the President's desk in the 104th Congress was the Congressional Accountability Act. President Clinton signed it, as I mentioned earlier, 30 years ago today, on January 23, 1995. Since then, I have led reforms to expand whistleblower protections to employees in the legislative and executive branches. In 2018, President Trump signed into law reforms to the law's reporting and resolution process for workplace harassment claims. Although the ink has long dried on the Congressional Accountability Act, we all still need to be fighting every day to keep a reality check here in Washington, DC. I am going to finish with this ironic statement. Even though this legislation was passed 30 years ago and even though I have heard about its need for a long time before that, I still--as I say, ironically-- hear at my town meetings some constituents say to me: Why don't you have to live under the same laws that we live under? Then I have an opportunity to tell them about the Congressional Accountability Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 52 years ago today, Roe v. Wade was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Approximately 1 year before that, I was a member of the Iowa Legislature, and that legislature attempted to repeal Iowa's law of decades old. That vote in the house of representatives was 44 to 44, so obviously that bill was not adopted, and our ban on abortion continued for a year until Roe v. Wade. I was one of those 44 who voted to retain the law that had been on the books for a long period of time. Well, there has been a lot of history since then. We are still fighting this issue. This bill before the U.S. Senate now is a very important bill to express what life in the womb is all about. Dr. Willard Cates, the director of abortion surveillance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1981, referred to the survival of a baby after an attempted abortion as the ``dreaded complication.'' Now, I happen to call that ``dreaded complication'' a miracle. While it may be a troubling truth for some people to hear that, there are babies who survive attempted abortions. In 2024, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology analyzed almost 14,000 late-term abortions and found that over 11 percent resulted in live births. However, because we lack reliable Federal and State abortion data, we don't know the number of babies who survive an attempted abortion and are born alive each year in the United States. When an abortion results in the live birth of a child, that child should be entitled to quality healthcare under the law. Tragically, that isn't always the case. During my time in Congress, I have heard a number of stories from abortion survivors regarding their health struggles and the lack of care they received following failed abortions. Melissa Ohden, for example, was born alive in 1977 and was left to die in a bucket of formaldehyde in a utility closet before being saved by two nurses. She is an advocate for children who come into this world the same way she did. Her message for moms considering abortion is this: There is hope for you and your child even after an attempted abortion. You aren't alone. While children born alive are already recognized as persons under the law, there is not a Federal law on the books to penalize abortionists who actively kill or passively deny care to babies who survive abortions. These precious babies deserve justice. That is why I have joined my colleagues in introducing the legislation that we have entitled the ``Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.'' This legislation requires that any child born alive following an attempted abortion receive the same level of care as any other newborn who is born alive at the same stage of development. It doesn't and should not matter if a child is born in a hospital, in a maternity ward, or in an abortion clinic. In any case, this is a baby, and that reality ought to convict each of us in our hearts and move us to compassion and to action. Our bill would bring justice for babies who survive abortions and are born into this world. Under our current legal system, human lives viewed as unwanted are treated as dispensable. No matter what each of us may think about abortion, we must speak and vote with unity to protect children outside of the womb. In Congress, my colleagues and I have reached across the aisle to protect children in many other contexts, and I ask my colleagues to do the same here. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in early February 1972, when abortion was not the issue it is today and probably after California had changed its abortion laws under then-Governor Reagan, the Iowa Legislature considered repealing Iowa's law about abortion. I cast my first vote in that assembly. That year, our abortion law stayed in place on a vote of 44 to 44. Then, 1 year later, everything changed. Today marks the 52nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I invite my colleagues to a moment of silence and somber reflection to honor the millions of lives quietly lost to abortion since 1973. (Moment of silence.) I also invite my colleagues to share my heartfelt hope in this new era we are in following the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision. Since then, we have witnessed the American people, in their respective States, reempowered to protect lives in the womb. These young lives are precious, vulnerable, and equal in worth to each of our own who are here today and millions throughout this country. I recall with joy the moments that I learned that I was a father, a grandfather, and now a great-grandfather. I am amazed at how technology has changed over time to reveal the humanity of the unborn ever more clearly. Through ultrasound imaging, I saw my grandchildren and great- grandchildren in the early stages of their development. These ultrasound photos show how similar these little ones are to you and to me. Their hands and feet were tiny, yet indistinguishable from mine. We are all part of the same human family. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 119th Congress to continue to support mothers, babies, and families through commonsense legislation. Iowa Legislature Mr. President, I would like to proudly say that, 10 days ago, I had the opportunity to see a great-granddaughter, Reagan Grassley, open the Iowa legislative session. Her father, Pat Grassley, is the speaker of the Iowa House. I have had a chance, in his 6 years of being speaker, to see Reagan Grassley, now only a freshman at Dike-New Hartford High School, give the opening prayer at each one of those opening sessions. And I would like to repeat for my colleagues her prayer: Heavenly Father, we gather today with hearts full of gratitude and hope as we celebrate the commencement of the 91st General Assembly of the Iowa Legislature. We thank You for the trust placed in these new and returning lawmakers by the people of Iowa. Lord, we ask for Your wisdom to be upon each legislator. Grant them clear thinking in their decisions, clarity in their thoughts, and integrity in their actions. May they be guided by the principles of justice, compassion, and truth as they navigate the difficulties of lawmaking. Bless them with the courage to uphold what is right, even when it is not easy. Gift them with patience and perseverance to address the pressing issues of our time. We also pray for their families, that they find support and strength in each other as they share in the sacrifices and challenges that come with public service. Lord, let this assembly be an inspiration of good governance, where every decision made reflects a commitment to the welfare of all Iowans, now and for generations to come. In Your name, we pray. Amen. So you can see why I am proud of that granddaughter doing that from sixth grade now to a freshman in high school. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, January is National Trafficking and Modern Slavery Prevention Month, so today, Senator Cortez Masto and I are introducing a resolution to honor victims and to raise very needed awareness. As I speak, victims are being trafficked across our southern border. We each have a role to play in protecting the most vulnerable among us, especially women and children, from becoming victims of trafficking. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am committed to making human trafficking prevention a priority in this Congress, and I thank the Senator from Nevada for leading this effort. Biden Administration Mr. President, on his watch, President Biden wiped away student debt for more than 5 million borrowers, stiffing taxpayers with a heavier burden. That is on top of trillions of dollars in partisan deficit spending that fueled the fires of inflation to 20 percent during his administration. His failed border policies allowed more than 10 million people to come into the country illegally. I remember, during his inaugural address, President Biden pledged to unite Americans. At that time, I welcomed that very much. Unfortunately, his administration's actions did not match those lofty words of uniting Americans. During his 4 years in the Oval Office, the 46th President adopted the divisive policies of leftwing ideologues and the more radical candidates that he beat in the Presidential primary. It was a notable departure from my 28 years serving together with him here in the U.S. Senate. Even on his way out the door, President Biden doubled down on the dark and divisive rhetoric that failed his party in this most recent election. He put illegal immigrants before the security of Americans. He doubled down on class warfare, hammering, as you so often hear, the same nail that the ``wealthy'' need to pay their ``fair share'' when our Tax Code is among the most progressive in the world. Many Iowans question the fairness of pardoning the President's son, including for tax evasion and crimes not even specified, especially when President Biden promised that he would not pardon his son. Iowans also tell me that wiping away student debt isn't fair to those who saved and sacrificed to pay their fair share. In this Congress, I will work with President Trump to put America first and strengthen the economy so hard-working families, farmers, and small businesses can get ahead and, of course, stay ahead. That includes renewing the Trump tax cuts, securing our border, and securing peace through strength. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business for 3 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, we have a new President. So I say congratulations to President Trump. As we turn a new page from one administration to another, we can put a contentious campaign and all the negative rhetoric behind us. There will be plenty of time for arguments, and those arguments can be about policy and personalities in the days and years to come, but today, this very day, is a day that all Americans can celebrate in their own way. With today's inauguration, there is a sense of optimism that always comes with a new President and a rededication of our republican form of government. Even those who voted another way on November 5 can take the opportunity to pause and enjoy the excitement of their fellow Americans and even allow themselves to share in some of that optimism. Of course, a new President must assemble a Cabinet of people he trusts to carry out his agenda and do that under the Constitution with the advice and consent of the Senate, with the expectation that before the day is out, we will approve the nomination of Senator Marco Rubio to be our Nation's 72nd Secretary of State. I am proud that today we can do that. No one in this body can doubt that Marco Rubio is a very intelligent man with a remarkable understanding of America's foreign policy and a very deep commitment to the American dream. That dream comes from the fact that his family has a history that started with the immigration to the United States from Cuba and then watching their former homeland fall into a communist dictatorship that still exists to this day. That helps explain his love for America and his drive to oppose oppressive, autocratic regimes that threaten freedom. Even in this time of intense partisanship and intense time of character assassination, I expect Senator Rubio will receive an overwhelming vote for his confirmation. His colleagues know his talents and his character firsthand. I expect most, if not all, of my colleagues will vote based on what they have seen with their own eyes rather than blind partisanship. I look forward to Marco Rubio continuing his passionate defense of freedom in his role as our next Secretary of State. 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, last week, you heard me speak in support of the Laken Riley Act, a vote that we are going to have later this afternoon. Today, I would like to discuss a related bill called Sarah's Law. Sarah Root was a young woman from Iowa who had a bright future ahead of her. Her life was tragically cut short just 1 day after she graduated from college with a 4.0 grade point average. She was killed when an illegal migrant who was street racing while heavily drunk crashed his car into Sarah Root's while she was stopped at a red light. In an outrage of justice, this illegal migrant was released after his arrest. Sarah's Law requires immigration authorities to detain criminals responsible for a death or serious bodily jury. Illegal migrants shouldn't be here in the first place. Everybody knows that it is against the law to enter the United States without our permission. Even so, if they come here violating our law, they hurt and kill an American, the Federal Government must prioritize their detention and deportation. The Trump administration has promised to remove dangerous criminals who cross our borders illegally. Sarah's Law will support these efforts. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Ernst for her long and tireless efforts to get this bill passed. Senator Ernst first introduced Sarah's Law almost a decade ago, and I was proud to join as an original cosponsor and colead this effort. Since then, she has reintroduced the bill with each new congressional session. We haven't forgotten Sarah Root, and it is long past time for Congress to pass this legislation that we have named after Sarah-- Sarah's Law. I urge my colleagues to pass the Laken Riley Act as amended with Sarah's Law included. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will speak for a couple minutes in morning business. I am an advocate, through the farm program, of having an absolute limit on the amount of money that one farmer can get from the farm program so that we target toward medium- and small-sized farmers so we don't subsidize very big farmers to get bigger. I got such a legislation through the House and the Senate in previous Congresses, and, would you believe it, even though it was exactly the same language in both Houses and that isn't supposed to be touched by the conferees, the conferees diluted it to not a very meaningful limit. Well, I am still concerned about limits. So today, I come to the floor to say, as one of its last official acts, the Biden Department of Agriculture decided to disregard the wishes of Congress by using its authority under section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation's charter to increase payment limits for specialty crop farmers from $125,000 to $900,000 under the Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops Program. This increase cost American taxpayers over $650 million without a vote of the Congress. Had this been the desire of Congress, it would have been included in the continuing resolution passed just weeks before. Article I of the Constitution is very clear. Congress has the power of the purse. It is time that we stop the abuse of that power by the executive branch, whether that is Republican or Democrat. So getting back to what I said when I opened my remarks. I am going to be pursuing in the 5-year farm bill, this year, that same cap on what one family farmer can get, and we are going to take additional action to make sure that we reform the Commodity Credit Corporation's law to make sure that the executive branch Secretary of Agriculture does not have the authority to just willy-nilly put out money at the drop of a hat. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business for 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Sunday, January 12, it was National Pharmacists Day. I think it is quite appropriate that we pay attention and give reward to the work that pharmacists do. I would like to extend a warm thank-you to Iowa pharmacists for their dedication and for their service. While we commonly know a pharmacist as someone who fills our prescription needs and educates us about medications, a pharmacist is typically the most accessible healthcare provider, and that is especially true for rural America. Do you know what? Nearly 90 percent of the U.S. population lives within 5 miles of a pharmacy. For several Congresses, I have been leading a bipartisan effort that is called the Pharmacy and Medically Underserved Areas Enhancement Act. This bill encourages pharmacists--only where they are licensed and trained to do this--to offer healthcare services under Medicare, such as health and wellness screenings, immunizations, and diabetes management. This is necessary because, for many seniors in rural areas, it is simply easier to get to a pharmacist than it is to get to their nearest doctor. I also know that it is vital to protect rural pharmacists from greedy pharmacy benefit managers who have placed unfair pressures on pharmacies in recent years. In fact, I hear from a lot of Iowa pharmacists that if we don't do something about pharmacy benefit managers, we are going to continue to lose pharmacies in the small communities of rural America and particularly Iowa. So, since 2018, I and about 65 or 70 of my colleagues have been trying to hold PBMs accountable and do that through legislation--about three different pieces of legislation--so that we can lower prescription drug prices and, in turn, keep our rural pharmacies in business. We want to do this through transparency because nobody knows what PBMs do. It is an opaque operation; yet they make up our formularies. Do they help big pharmaceutical companies or do they help the consumer? We don't know, and we need to do that. So I hope this Congress will move on some legislation to make what PBMs do transparent because with transparency comes accountability. I am going to keep fighting for our pharmacists and our consumers. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Majority Leader

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Jewish people have faced many libels and many libels over their history--in their case, for millennia. Today, the Jewish State faces the dirty libel--can you believe it?--of committing genocide, all while defending themselves from Hamas. Remember, Hamas has pledged to destroy the Jewish people in their homeland. Now, that happens to be real genocide. Israel's accusers cite large civilian casualty numbers traced to Hamas's self-reporting. As we know, Hamas has a history of inflating numbers, of not distinguishing fighters from civilians, and of listing male soldiers as women or children. A recent report by the Henry Jackson Society confirms that the widely cited Gaza casualty statistics suffer from all forms of falsifications. Still, as we would all agree, any civilian death in Gaza is a real tragedy. While Israel goes out of its way to issue warnings to civilians, Hamas actually encourages civilians to ignore evacuation warnings while embedding in schools and hospitals to use civilians as human shields. Hamas officials are on record that they seek civilian casualties for propaganda effect. The definition of ``genocide'' in the United States and also under international law focuses on the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnic, racial, or religious group. A very recent Amnesty International report adopts a new definition just to tar Israel with that disgusting libel. Amnesty International Israel was not involved in the report and, as you might expect, rejects its central claims. So I want my fellow Senators to know that I, too, reject this bias and this misleading report, and I say: Shame on them. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Stennis Center for Public Service is a legislative branch Agency with a congressional mandate to attract young people to careers in public service, provide training for leaders in, or likely to be in, public service, and offer training and development opportunities for senior congressional staff, Members of Congress, and other public service leaders. A strong civil society is the foundation of a free society and essential for our republican form of government to work. That starts with public service minded individuals identifying problems and working together to solve them. This aspect of our society astounded Alexis de Tocqueville when he traveled our country in the early days of our Republic and compared what he saw to his native France. But, as Ronald Reagan observed, ``Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.'' Part of perpetuating a free society is encouraging civic minded thinking and actions. So I am glad that the ``Public Service Review,'' produced by the Stennis Center for Public Service, features stories from young leaders who are making a difference in their communities. The publication, available on the Stennis Center's website at www.stennis.gov, recognizes and highlights examples of young people engaging in public service. I am particularly proud that the entire summer 2024 edition highlights the Legislative Practice Center at Drake University Law School in Des Moines, IA. I encourage everyone to read this edition of ``Public Service Review'' and learn about how, for 25 years, the Drake Law School Legislative Practice Center has equipped students for public service careers by blending rigorous academic training with invaluable hands-on experiences. You will hear from staff and students in the Legislative Practice Center, learn about prominent alumni of the program now working in public service, and read about prominent Iowans working in public service, with stories written by the students. The Drake Law students featured in this edition of Public Service Review include: Carter Forrest Witt Harberts Haley Ledford Laura Book Natalie Sherman Charlotte Miller Zach Goodrich Taylor McDonald Zach Engstrom Tom Ashworth Bernardo Granwehr Jacob Shrader J.T. Harris I congratulate them on this recognition and thank them for their dedication to public service.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I served 16 years in the Iowa House of Representatives before I came to the Congress of the United States. Frequently, I visit that body. Yesterday, I participated in the opening of the 91st session of that Iowa House of Representatives. I enjoyed hearing from Iowa legislators about the issues their communities are concerned with. I also had the opportunity to swear in my grandson Patrick Grassley for his sixth year as speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives. I wish both the Iowa House and Senate a productive session as they work to better the lives of Iowans through State law. By the way, I can say to my colleagues here: Congress could learn a lesson not only from the Iowa Legislature but from most State legislatures in the balancing of the budget because the Federal budget needs that sort of discipline. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, January 9 is National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. Today, as well as every day, we should give our thanks to the Nation's men and women in blue. I make this a practice. Whenever I see a police officer, I always try to stop and say two things: I am not for defunding the police, and I am proud to back the blue, or I say it another way: Thank you for maintaining the peace. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you can be sure that I will continue my work to protect and support law enforcement in both Iowa and nationwide. The Judiciary Committee always accomplishes issues supporting police in a bipartisan series of bills, most often in the month of May. To our law enforcement friends, all Senators say: Thank you for your selfless service. May God bless you, and may God protect you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here to support the Laken Riley Act. This legislation comes within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, which committee I will chair this Congress. We all know that the result of the last election was a mandate for the President to carry out his agenda. In that agenda was the deportation of people who illegally enter our country. Everybody knows you can't come to the United States without our permission. One of those things that President Trump prioritized was his pledge to detain and deport criminals who are in this country illegally. Laken was a young woman who lost her life at the hands of a violent, illegal immigrant with a criminal history. Laken's killer robbed a business before he robbed Laken of her life. He should have either been in prison or deported immediately after committing his first crime of robbery. This bill would ensure that thieves are detained by our immigration authorities. Sadly, we know from experience that some administrations willfully refuse to enforce our immigration laws. This bill protects our citizens against any future administrations that want to let criminals stay in the United States illegally. It allows States to sue the Federal Government if and when it refuses to detain an illegal immigrant who has harmed a person in that State. Over the past 4 years, a countless number of criminals have crossed our borders and hurt Americans. No American should be harmed by those who shouldn't be here in the first place. The Laken Riley Act will empower the President and his administration to remove the dangerous criminals that currently roam our streets and threaten our citizens' safety. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Britt for taking the lead on the Laken Riley Act. Thanks to her leadership, we have supporters and cosponsors from both sides of the aisle backing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to move to and support this bill. The primary role of the Federal Government is to protect its citizens. We owe it to Laken Riley and others who have fallen victim to crimes by illegal migrants to ensure that the Federal Government never fails to protect other Americans like it failed to protect them. I yield the floor.