Chuck Grassley

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, last week, I led my colleagues in reporting a bill that is entitled the ``HALT Fentanyl Act.'' This bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is a battle-tested bipartisan bill that passed the House of Representatives with a supermajority of votes, including 98 Democrats voting in favor of the bill. If you have been involved with this issue over the last 3 or 4 or 5 years, you would know that bipartisan fentanyl legislation has been hard to come by. But I am pleased to see that this bill has seven Democratic cosponsors here in the Senate and had nearly half the Democrats in my committee vote in favor of it. I want to thank all my Democratic colleagues for working with us on such a vital piece of legislation. I think you all know the statistics: About 70,000 of the 100,000 people that die of drug overdose are dying because of fentanyl. The HALT Fentanyl Act does three things. First, it makes permanent the class scheduling of fentanyl-related substances. This is the same classwide scheduling that occurred during the first Trump administration and has been continued nine times by Congress on a short-term basis. This legislation would eliminate that from time-to- time scheduling of fentanyl analogs, and that is why permanent legislation is so important. Second, the bill confirms the sentencing penalties the Federal courts have long applied to fentanyl-related substances. And thirdly, the bill creates a streamline registration process for studying schedule I controlled substances. Classwide scheduling has been a successful policy. It has been a success in stopping the creation of fentanyl-related substances that would have otherwise killed countless Americans. If you don't believe me, I would like to have you listen to Dr. Tim Westlake. Dr. Westlake is the inventor of the classwide scheduling system the DEA adopted. He came before my committee and testified: [T]hese efforts have resulted in shutting down the creation and flow and very existence of new fentanyl related substances into the [United States]. It's why Congress must act to finally make permanent this temporary policy. I began by saying that bipartisan fentanyl legislation has been very hard to come by. I am proud to lead the HALT Fentanyl Act with Senators Heinrich and Cassidy. That is one Democrat and one Republican. Our bill has the support of the leading law enforcement organizations. These 12 organizations have called on us here in the Congress to ``advance this critical legislation without delay or modification.'' Our bill also has the support of an organization called Facing Fentanyl. That is a coalition supported by over 200 family groups impacted by fentanyl. They ``stand in full support of the HALT Fentanyl Act as it is currently written, without amendments.'' I have also received over 100 individual letters from parents who have lost their children to fentanyl poisoning. Our bill also has the support of the medical community. The HALT Fentanyl Act is truly a bipartisan compromise, bringing together stakeholders and Members from across the spectrum. During the last 4 years, Senate Democrats couldn't be bothered to bring this bill or any other permanent legislation to schedule fentanyl to the floor for a vote, and that was the situation even after HALT passed the House with 74 Democrats voting in favor and even with the Biden administration's coming out in support of the bill--all taking place in the last Congress. So the time has surely come. This is long overdue legislation, and I urge my colleagues to move to and support this bill. If we can't come together to pass this battle-tested bipartisan legislation, then we will have failed the American people and made the environment for even more people to die of drug overdoses and fentanyl poisoning. We owe it to the hundreds of thousands of families who have lost loved ones to this very poison. We owe it to our constituents. It is time that we found the will to act, and now is that time to act. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my message today is to the administration and particularly to President Trump, who is very forcefully enforcing the immigration laws that were not enforced in the last administration, a message about bringing justice to some people who have been harmed by the previous administration. On January 20, President Trump's first day in office, he signed the Executive order that is called Securing Our Borders Executive Order. His Executive order properly instructs the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to ``fulfill the requirements of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005.'' That is music to my ears because I have been involved in that issue in regard to the kids who have been lost in this system of immigration that the previous administration has not been able to follow. As I said, that is music to my ears. For years, my oversight has sounded the alarm on the Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security's failure to fully implement the 2005 DNA Fingerprint Act. I have a lot of whistleblowers come to me on different subjects. Three whistleblowers--Mark Jones, Mike Taylor, and Fred Wynn--disclosed to their superiors that the Department of Homeland Security wasn't following the 2005 law. In other words, they were not taking DNA from the people whom they were supposed to be keeping track of. Specifically, these whistleblowers disclosed that the government wasn't collecting the DNA from individuals encountered at the southern border like the law requires. As you might expect, because it happens to so many whistleblowers, instead of being thanked for pointing out this failure, the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection officials retaliated against these whistleblowers. That is why you hear me say so often that whistleblowers are a very--I would like to say they love their country. They want to see their government just simply enforce the law. Then we find out, as I am going to show you, how they are treated like a skunk at a picnic. Mr. Jones and Mr. Taylor had their law enforcement credentials removed. After 30 years of Federal service, Mr. Taylor lost his law enforcement retirement benefits. All three were subject to harassment. The Office of Special Counsel has the power to investigate and did investigate and substantiated their whistleblower disclosures and that retaliation occurred. President Trump and this administration, moving so forcefully to see that the laws are enforced, ought to appreciate whistleblowers who are telling the truth about the government not carrying out the law. In this case, I am asking President Trump to immediately remedy the situation of these whistleblowers. Last year, how I became acquainted with a lot of this--at least the details of it--I hosted an oversight roundtable with these whistleblowers. The roundtable exposed that the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection failed to take the DNA of the individuals charged with the tragic murder of Rachel Morin despite having three opportunities to take those fingerprints. Had the Biden-Harris Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection done their job, there is a chance that Ms. Morin would be alive today. This Executive action couldn't come soon enough. That is why I am pleading with President Trump or his staff to follow up and make sure that justice is brought to these three whistleblowers. Then the President is going to see that the law is enforced. I don't have any doubt about the President seeing that this law is carried out in the future because full compliance with the law will make our border stronger and our citizens safer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have always advocated respect for the Federal courts, and, particularly, over the last 2 years, I have opposed a vicious smear campaign by Democrats designed to undermine faith in our Supreme Court and our judicial system. Now that we have a Republican President, my Democratic colleagues appear to have a newfound respect for the courts. It wasn't very long ago that they were singing a different time and a different tune. In the last few years, the Democrats have called the Supreme Court: controlled by a ``creepy right-wing billionaire,'' ``a radical Supreme Court,'' and ``a partisan and reactionary court.'' One of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee said the idea that you can trust the Supreme Court has been ``blown to smithereens.'' Another committee colleague declared: ``I oppose these Justices.'' And yet another committee colleague questioned: ``How can they call it an honorable court? The Justices are cherry-picking their way through constitutional text and history to impose their own ideological agenda on the American people.'' Over the last few years, Democrats have repeatedly threatened the Court for ruling in ways that they did not like. Famously, in 2020, the Senate Democratic leader threatened the Court to influence its rulings on abortion. He said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. And in the wake of the 2024 Presidential immunity decision, the Democratic House minority leader said: House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right Justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution. Now, I am happy that Democrats have finally discovered the importance of respecting the judiciary. They certainly didn't hold this view when President Biden was in office. President Biden ignored the Court's position that the CDC's eviction moratorium was unconstitutional and his own lawyer's advice that he couldn't do it. He went ahead and extended the moratorium anyway, and the Court had to strike it down. President Biden boasted once that the Court's decision on student loan forgiveness ``didn't stop him.'' The Biden administration undermined the Court's 2023 decision that racial discrimination in college admissions is unconstitutional and even issued a ``Dear colleague'' letter on how to circumvent that ruling. More broadly, President Biden flouted law after law throughout his entire administration. He ignored the plain text of our immigration laws, the parole statute, and our civil rights laws in the name of advancing his agenda. And you know what? I heard no complaint from my Democratic colleagues. Although I fully agree that Congress stands for the rule of law, this resolution is nothing but a partisan messaging statement. President Trump has been clear on this. Just a few weeks ago, he said: I will always abide by the courts, and then I will have to appeal. The answer is I always abide by the courts. There have been numerous extreme orders from various district courts improperly encroaching on core article II powers. President Trump and his administration have worked diligently to abide by those orders, no matter how outrageous, by appealing them and challenging their scope and reach. He is completely within his right to do so, and his conduct is appropriate and legitimate. Our constitutional system has a robust system of checks and balances. The executive branch must abide by the courts, and the courts must also ensure that their rulings are respectful of jurisdictional limits and, particularly, our famous separation of powers. Some of the recent orders of individual district judges issued on an expedited basis with very broad nationwide impact have concerned me. I think Congress needs to examine this issue closely. Concerns about nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders have been raised on both sides of the aisle, across Presidential administrations. And if my colleagues want to work with me on it, we will head down that route of addressing those abuses. For today's purposes, however, this resolution is incomplete. And coming from Democrats, I think it shows that they are totally inconsistent. It unfairly targets President Trump. In turn, then, it ignores the Democratic attacks on the legitimacy of the Court, and it ignores President Biden's flagrant violation of law. So I am offering Senator Durbin an opportunity that he can't turn down, a resolution to highlight the inappropriate attacks by Democrats against the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and to clarify the executive branch must comply with lawful orders. So the point is that I ask that the Senator would modify his request; that the Grassley amendment to the resolution at the desk be considered and agreed to, and the Grassley amendment to the preamble at the desk be considered and agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, it does.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is right.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I think you need to be--we need to clarify because I think your inference is that Trump has violated some court orders. He has not. In fact, this very day, the Supreme Court ruled against him on a 5-to-4 decision that goes back to the lower court to make a firm decision. So you can't say that the court system isn't working against President Trump as it worked against President Biden.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have made very clear that we have a separation of powers, and each branch has to respect the other's powers.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I think what I would like to do is--do you agree with my amendment or you don't so we can move on and get to other important stuff today. I want to help you get your resolution through, and I want to just say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, before I do object, I want Senator Durbin to know that there are things like this that we ought to work out, but we can't be complaining about the courts if we have a Democratic President and not complaining--just complaining when we have a Republican President. I think there are enough abuses of these nationwide orders to stop certain activity that our committee ought to be looking at and reviewing and see if they are being abused. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to speak on Mr. Blanche. Senator Durbin, I see we have an agreement. Mr. President, I see we have an agreement that Senator Durbin speaks--that I go again. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin. Soon, we will begin voting on the nomination of Todd Blanche. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be allowed to speak prior to the rollcall vote: Senator Durbin for 5 minutes, Senator Ricketts for 5 minutes, and this Senator for 10 minutes, but I am not going to take 10 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in January, investor concerns about China's advances in AI innovation wiped out nearly $1 trillion in U.S. tech stock value, and that happened in a single day. Chinese companies like DeepSeek are often able to keep pace with Silicon Valley because they steal our tech secrets, and they do it from right under our own noses. This not only puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage but also threatens our national security. The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman has warned that Chinese nationals in our university systems are engaged in widespread technological espionage both on campus and in the workplace. Foreign STEM students often take tech jobs that give them access to sensitive technologies. This shouldn't be possible. Why? Because the law clearly states that student visas are solely for study, not for work. Outrageously, the Department of Homeland Security has granted work authorizations to hundreds of thousands of foreign students every year, in violation of the law. The Department of Homeland Security has even allowed foreign students to stay in this country under their student visas for years after they graduate in order to work. If we want to protect our national security and our competitive economic competition with China, this must end. So I am hopeful that with new leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, these unlawful work authorizations will no longer be approved. That leads me to calling on Secretary Noem to protect American jobs, innovation, and national security by terminating the CPT and the OPT student work programs--in other words, stop the steal that benefits the Communist Party of China. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon, we will be voting on the nomination of Todd Blanche to serve as Deputy Attorney General of the United States. I support his nomination and urge all of my colleagues to vote for this well-qualified nominee. Mr. Blanche's record shows that he is the right man for this job. His story exemplifies the American dream. As a young man, he supported his young family by working as a paralegal during the day while attending law school at night. He clerked twice for judges appointed by Presidents of both parties and ultimately became a respected prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. His colleagues from that office of both political parties told us that Mr. Blanche is ``a fundamentally good and decent man.'' Mr. Blanche then entered private practice at two very prestigious law firms--including the oldest firm on Wall Street. This remarkable resume has all the hallmarks of someone who should serve as a senior official at the Justice Department, but this isn't what impresses me the most. I have spoken often about the partisan weaponization of our justice system. I have worked to investigate it. I have released records proving that weaponization exists. My colleagues, for your information, you can expect to see more of this information coming out from me very, very soon. I believe Mr. Blanche is the right man for the job because he has seen this weaponization firsthand, and he has paid a personal cost to do something about it. This is the price he paid: Mr. Blanche was forced out of his law firm because he chose to represent President Trump. Now, that is quite a law firm, isn't it? Just because you are taking business in, they don't like it. So then he put his reputation on the line and he put his career on the line to fight against Jack Smith's and District Attorney Bragg's rampant lawfare, and he handled these cases with professional excellence. We need good people like Todd Blanche in the Justice Department. We need lawyers who will do justice even when it is unpopular or comes at a personal cost, as it did to Mr. Blanche. We need people leading the Department who will end the abuses of the past and make the Agency live up to the ideals of our Constitution. I am not the only one who thinks Mr. Blanche is the right man for the job. He has received support from some of the people who understand the Justice Department best. Over 100 alumni of the Southern District of New York who worked alongside Mr. Blanche wrote to say this: Todd's experience, character, intellect, openness to dialogue, and longstanding love of and belief in the mission of the Department of Justice make him eminently qualified to serve as Deputy Attorney General. Another communication. Seventy former DOJ officials wrote to say: Mr. Blanche is a special nominee in that he brings decades of experience both as a prosecutor and defense attorney to the role of Deputy Attorney General. Another one. Law enforcement groups representing tens of thousands of officers wrote to support Mr. Blanche because of his history working alongside of law enforcement and prosecuting violent crime. Between his record, his presentation in committee, and his extensive support, I am convinced that Mr. Blanche is the best person to serve as Deputy Attorney General. I am proud to support this nomination, and I look forward to voting for him. I know that he will work with President Trump and Attorney General Bondi to restore faith in the Justice Department.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 8 score and 2 years ago, President Abraham Lincoln signed the False Claims Act into Federal law. The anti- fraud tool, enacted March 2, 1863, became known as Lincoln's Law. Our 16th President embraced meatier measures to go after fraudsters bilking the U.S. Treasury during the Civil War. Contractors were selling inferior supplies to the Union Army, outfitting the troops with poor quality uniforms and boots, mixing sawdust with gunpowder, and even selling blind horses to the Union cavalry. Back then, Congress resurrected the legal principle known as qui tam--part of a Latin phrase that translates to ``in the name of the king''--with origins from the 13th century England in which citizens could bring lawsuits on behalf of the king. Lincoln's Law gave workers a financial incentive to blow the whistle on their employer's wrongdoing, rewarding them with a share of fines collected through litigation. This common sense, patriotic solution put more eyes and ears on the ground to save tax dollars and ensure Union soldiers were getting high-quality supplies the Federal Government purchased. The principle also was anchored in the merits of our Nation's first whistleblower law enacted on July 30, 1778. The Continental Congress sided with naval informants who reported abuses by their supervisor. Since the earliest days of our Republic, our Nation's leaders affirmed it is the duty of every American to report wrongdoing ``in service to the United States.'' During my first term in the U.S. Senate, I launched a decades-long crusade to expose wasteful government spending, leaning on the inside scoop provided by patriotic whistleblowers such as Ernie Fitzgerald. A Pentagon analyst, Fitzgerald relentlessly pursued the facts and courageously told the truth. When he appeared before my Judiciary Subcommittee in 1984, he testified the Air Force pumped the brakes on his requests for information needed to properly analyze costs for weapons systems and spare parts. At the time, I remarked how ``inefficiency is almost an underground economy in this town.'' Those comments offer a foreshadowing clue to the Trump administration's effort to drain the swamp. Transparency brings accountability. It is impossible to expose wrongdoing if whistleblowers are muzzled and access to information is blocked. President Trump created the Department of Government Efficiency--DOGE--to derail the ``underground economy'' and scrutinize how taxpayer dollars are spent. Fleecing Uncle Sam's coffers is a tale as old as time, exploited during war, natural disasters, and economic crisis, including the pandemic. Honest Abe deployed the False Claims Act to unleash an army of private citizens to serve as watchdogs during the Civil War. Congress can't adequately do its constitutional oversight duty without them. After hearing from truth-tellers like Ernie Fitzgerald, I dusted off the Civil War-era law to encourage more patriots to step forward and help put a stop to fraud and corruption. In 1986, I authored amendments to the False Claims Act that beefed up the qui tam provisions in Lincoln's Law to strengthen financial incentives and protections for whistleblowers. It takes guts to stick one's neck out and report misconduct within an organization. Whistleblowers put their careers, livelihoods, and reputations on the line in service to their country. So, when a qui tam case is successful, the whistleblower can receive up to 30 percent of the recovery. My amendments to the False Claims Act put fraudsters across the sprawling bureaucracy on notice that fraud is no longer the cost of doing business and empowered whistleblowers throughout the private sector to report willful misuse of taxpayer dollars. Since the enactment of my 1986 amendments, the False Claims Act has become the Federal Government's No. 1 tool to fight and deter fraud. It has returned over $78 billion back to taxpayers and saved countless more by deterring would be fraudsters. Last year, whistleblowers filed 979 suits, a historic number of qui tam actions in a single year. The False Claims Act recovered nearly $3 billion in fiscal year 2024, of which $2.4 billion came from whistleblower qui tam actions. In just the last year, whistleblower qui tam cases exposed fraud in defense procurement, pandemic and disaster relief programs, Federal housing grants and underpaid royalties on Federal lands. Notably, the healthcare industry produced the lion's share of fraud recoveries. Whistleblowers exposed kickbacks, price fixing, double billing, unlawful prescriptions for opioids and controlled substances, and other fraudulent schemes that returned scarce resources to Federal programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE. These False Claims Act whistleblowers also protected patients by exposing providers who billed for medically unnecessary, substandard, and potentially harmful care. Every dollar lost to fraud rips off the American people and erodes the public trust. I will keep fighting misguided efforts to water down Lincoln's Law and build on whistleblower protection laws across-the- board so truth-tellers don't fear reprisal. I have asked President Trump and every President since the Reagan administration to hold a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers. Such an event would complement President Trump's efforts to drain the swamp, eliminate waste, and promote government efficiency by welcoming the very whistleblowers who put Washington, DC, on notice to wake up and smell the roses.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, October 7, 2023, will probably go down in history to Americans like December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor Day. On October 7, 2 years ago, Israel experienced a surprise attack from Hamas. As those under attack rushed to safe rooms and to bomb shelters, the terrorist group infiltrating the country began firing on homes and killing Israelis at random. Those who have seen the footage of the attacks--in many cases, those films have been taken by the attackers themselves--have said that the glee and the pride Hamas showed in killing and mutilating and raping innocent civilians were particularly shocking. It is also very chilling and also very disgusting. On October 7, Hamas also took roughly 250 residents hostage, even including babies, really old people, and even some Americans. The horror these individuals have faced under the brutal reign of Hamas is unimaginable. The hostages have been subjected to inhumane conditions, deprived of their basic human rights, and used as pawns in the cruel game of manipulation. Now more than 500 days later, Hamas is still holding dozens of hostages captive, including five Americans. Of the five Americans in Hamas's captivity, four have been confirmed to have been murdered. As the families have spent over a year in anguish, waiting for any sign of their loved ones, desperate for their safe return, Hamas has kept their bodies and refused to return them to family and friends, compounding the grief of loved ones. All Americans would say this cannot stand. The United States must remain steadfast in its commitment to securing the release of these hostages and holding Hamas accountable for these atrocities. Under President Trump's leadership, that is exactly what our country is doing because of President Trump's support for the State of Israel and his stand against hostage taking. To the families of these hostages, we grieve with you. We share in your pain, and we share in your hope as well. To the hostages still in captivity, we want them to know they are not forgotten. The world is watching, and we will not rest until justice is served and you are safely returned home. God bless you all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote to confirm Linda McMahon to be Secretary of Education. I know that some people feel that the Secretary of Education should have extensive experience in a school system; however, it is important to remember that education is still mostly a State and local responsibility. There is no such thing as a Federal superintendent of schools. The U.S. Department of Education doesn't run any schools. Our many public school systems in this country do not report to Washington, DC, and Washington also has no authority over what is taught in our schools around the country. The job description of a Secretary of Education is to manage a bureaucracy that runs a number of funding programs. By all accounts, Linda McMahon did a great job running the Small Business Administration in the last Trump administration. I have no reason to believe that she cannot run the Department of Education. I think she understands the difference between the State and Federal role in education. I also expect that she understands the difference between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the serious policymaking of education. Congress passes the laws and holds the power of the purse. We have also the responsibility to make sure that laws are faithfully executed by the executive branch of government. I expect Linda McMahon to respond to all the congressional inquiries in a timely and responsive manner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I come to the Senate floor to congratulate a legend in the broadcasting business. Ron Steele is a long-time journalist from my hometown TV station KWWL in Waterloo, IA. Tomorrow will be his last day behind the anchor desk after more than 50 years of bringing news, weather, and sports to Iowans. Over the years, he has interviewed newsmakers from around the world and across our State, spanning U.S. Presidents, Nobel laureates, Olympic medalists, and hometown athletes. Iowa's families in the Cedar Valley looked forward to his weekly coverage of ``Friday Night Heroes.'' He also launched a public affairs program called ``The Steele Report,'' where he interviewed more than 400 people, including this U.S. Senator. As an avid news consumer, I hold Ron's work in high regard. He has received recognition for his outstanding work, including the prestigious Jack Shelley Award from the Iowa Broadcast News Association as well as multiple Emmy Awards. Ron didn't let grass grow underneath his feet behind the anchor's desk. He leveraged his platform to become an invaluable civic leader across Cedar Valley, bringing particular focus to special needs kids. Ron's program called ``Iowa's Child'' series has helped 200 children find their forever families. Like my work in the U.S. Senate on foster care, what I hear from foster care kids as they are shuttled from one family to another over the course of a year: I would like to have a mom and dad and a home. That is what Ron was helping these 200 children find. His leadership also was instrumental in raising enough money for the five Sullivan Brothers Iowa Veterans Museum in Waterloo. I don't expect people in Washington to know about the Sullivan brothers, but they are the five brothers who were on the same destroyer in 1942 in World War II. It sunk, and they all lost their lives. There are some trees planted out here, on the Capitol Complex, in their memory--five Japanese trees. So, from one small town kid to another, I appreciate Ron's commitment to our community and to the people of Iowa. He will certainly be missed behind the news desk. My wife Barbara and I wish the entire Steele family the very best in the years ahead. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon, we will be voting on the nomination of Jamieson Greer of Maryland to be U.S. Trade Representative. I will be supporting that nomination. I voted for his nomination to get out of the Finance Committee because I believe we need a clear change from the last 4 years, when there was never any attempt to do anything to reduce trade barriers. Unlike his predecessor, I am confident that Mr. Greer will pursue an aggressive trade strategy that includes opening access to new markets through new trade deals. I also believe that Mr. Greer will work to level the playing field for U.S. farmers to compete with Brazil fairly and to deal with China head on. As my colleagues know, I am a free and fair trader, and though I would not like to see extreme tariffs, I am hopeful that Mr. Greer and President Trump will bring us to freer and more fair trade. We often think of Europe, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, and China as being big problems for us when it comes to trade. I would like to remind my colleagues that there are about 190 other countries on this globe that we can seek agreements with, and taking time to seek those agreements would be good. Along this line, Senator Boozman, chairman of the Ag Committee, and I, a member of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade, sent letters to members of the Finance Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives. We asked our colleagues to listen to somebody who has had some experience in dealing with some of these smaller nations with bilateral trade agreements. That person is a person by the name of Al Johnson. During the George W. Bush Presidency, he negotiated trade agreements with about a dozen countries that added up to about six or seven different agreements--all bilateral. I think, this is the way President Trump prefers--bilateral negotiations rather than multilateral negotiations. He was very successful, and that success can be measured by the fact that he has shown in his studies that, with these dozen countries with which we negotiated bilateral free-trade agreements during the George W. Bush administration, we increased our trade with those nations by about 600 percent. So I hope my colleagues will give Al Johnson a chance to talk to them. I know he has already visited with some Members of the U.S. Senate, and he is very vigorously promoting the idea that we ought to have bilateral negotiations--and with a lot of countries that we never think about--that could be beneficial to American exports. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is Estonian Independence Day. On this day in 1918, the Estonians declared their independence from the Russian Empire. They had to fight a war against both Germans and the Army of Soviet Russia to secure their independence in a treaty in 1920. In that treaty, Russia renounced any claim to Estonian territory and recognized the independence and sovereignty of Estonia forever. Forever lasted only 20 years because the Soviet Union illegally occupied Estonia as well as Latvia and Lithuania for the next 50 years. Ten percent of the population of the Baltic countries was deported or sent to labor camps. The United States always saw the occupation of the Baltics as illegitimate and recognized their sovereignty throughout the entire Cold War. In the depths of the Cold War, it was hard to imagine that the Baltics would ever, ever regain their independence. Today, to the contrary, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are vibrant, prosperous, and free. Of course, that irritates Putin, the KGB dictator of Russia.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support the budget resolution that is before the U.S. Senate. Speaking to that, I want to remind people of some history. These famous words came from Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of Staff. It dates from about 2008. He famously said: You never want a serious crisis to go away. There is no statement that better encapsulates the mindset of the previous administration. We all know Americans are struggling to cope with economic and social disruption still carrying on from the pandemic. The Biden administration saw a real opportunity, an opportunity to permanently increase the size and scope of government. They said that they wanted to transform America. I hope everybody on my side of the aisle wants to preserve America. In my view, it makes sense, in times of national emergency, for government to take steps to help individuals, families, and small businesses weather that storm. But once the crisis subsides, so should the programs and spending enacted in response. Yet here we are in 2025, and Federal spending, as a share of the economy, remains at levels never seen outside of war or national emergency like recessions or depressions. In 2019, before the pandemic, the total Federal spending totaled $4.45 trillion. In 2024, the Federal Government spent over $2 trillion more. So that is a total of $6.75 trillion, a relative increase of over 50 percent. We must begin to put spending back on a path of normalcy, and that is why we are having this debate that we call the budget resolution. The path to normalcy is a spending path that accounts for the historic inflation of the past 4 years as well as population growth. Now, there are a lot of people in this body that would say that spending that much is still too much, but I think it fits in with the principle of the 1974 budget resolution. Once inflation and population growth are factored in, Federal spending in 2024 remained roughly $1 trillion above prepandemic levels. If Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt are set to the side, Federal spending was still over half a trillion dollars above 2019 levels. I hope you will study the chart here that shows what I just told you. Unless we have a course correction, our national debt will set a new record as a share of our economy in 2028. That is eclipsing the previous high-water mark set in the wake of World War II. You can see that here in the period of time where it was at World War II. As another Democrat said, elections have consequences. So as a part of the November mandate, President Trump is looking for ways to reduce wasteful government spending. Through this budget resolution before the Senate now, we plan to help in that process. But, in fact, that power should rest here. The President shouldn't have to do it. But it is Congress that has the power of the purse, and we will have to do the heavy lifting. Getting out of the fiscal hole that we dug for ourselves requires that we first stop digging. The budget that we are debating this week takes that first step, and some people would say it is too small of a first step. Any new spending will have to be accomplished by reductions in spending elsewhere. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on a return to fiscal sanity, and that fiscal sanity is the prepandemic level of spending increased only by inflation and population growth. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I take Congress's constitutional oversight mandate very seriously. What you learn in eighth grade civics, oversight responsibility is checks and balances of government. In the 118th Congress, as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, I established the committee's very first Oversight and Investigative Unit. Its oversight touched on 97 percent of government taxpayer-funded Agencies, sending over 600 oversight letters to Federal, State, and private sector entities. Last year, my team sent over one letter per day, on average. That oversight unit launched the committee's first subpoena since 1991, and I obtained records uncovering brandnew information about Credit Suisse's servicing of Nazi accounts. I thank then-Chairman Whitehouse for issuing that subpoena. I hosted, also, oversight roundtables where whistleblowers exposed the Biden administration's failure at the southern border to collect DNA and protect unaccompanied children. My investigation resulted in a referral to law enforcement to find and protect unaccompanied children who were brought here in violation of our laws. But the Federal Government had a responsibility to make sure that they were protected. My oversight team made records public and performed interviews to ensure accountability following the assassination attempt of President Trump in Pennsylvania. I published data for an EPA grant program showing most taxpayers' money wasn't spent like the law required. My oversight also uncovered abuses by the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force; FBI political bias in the Hunter Biden investigation and prosecution; the Obama-Biden State Department obstruction of law enforcement efforts against Iran; wasted money on misclassified ATF employees; private equity investments exploiting healthcare and damaging hospitals, even in Ottumwa, IA; Department of Justice's shortchanging the Crime Victims' Fund so those victims didn't get the money that they were entitled to; excessive DOD spending on spare parts and price-gouging. In response to that, I got legislation passed to fix that problem. My oversight team also worked to protect whistleblowers and force government Agencies to amend their policies to comply with Federal whistleblower laws. So we are in the 119th Congress, and as this Congress gets underway, I have become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My oversight work is already full speed ahead, and I look forward to what the next couple of years produce because we want to guarantee the executive branch faithfully executes the laws as the Constitution requires and to expose waste, fraud, and abuse and the wasting of taxpayers' money. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon confirm Kelly Loeffler. She will then be the next Administrator of the Small Business Administration. As a former colleague in the Senate representing Georgia, I know she understands the needs of small business in both rural and urban areas. I am very sympathetic to the needs of small businesses. These small businesses have experienced disruptions from the pandemic, labor shortages, inflation, and supply chain issues. I meet with many small business owners as I travel throughout Iowa, and I hear about the policy issues that are important to them. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. During the past 20 years, small businesses have created 75 percent of the new private nonfarm jobs in the United States. We always hear about excessive taxes and regulations affecting small businesses standing in the way of small businesses making the investments that would drive even more job growth. I have consistently supported legislation and policies to keep small businesses robust and prosperous. I look forward to working with Senator Loeffler to advance Iowa's small business priorities and improve the policies of the Small Business Administration. I recently met with her in my office, and one of the items that I stressed was the importance of responding to congressional letters and queries. I didn't do that just because the Small Business nominee was before me. I do this with all the nominees that come to my office because we have this constitutional responsibility of checks and balances, doing proper oversight of the laws and money that we appropriate being handled by the executive branch of government because we all know Congress not only passes laws and appropriates money, but we have to make sure that the President faithfully executes those laws and spends the money appropriately. Oversight then allows us to hold bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law and, most importantly, keep faith with the taxpayers because if we have transparency in government, we have greater accountability. The public's business must be public. I fully expect the new Administrator to respond to all congressional inquiries in a timely and responsive manner. I look forward, then, to working soon with Administrator Loeffler to support policies to keep our small businesses strong and to keep them productive. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon, we will be voting on the nomination of Kash Patel to serve as Director of the FBI. I have spoken with my colleagues on this nomination within the last couple of days, but I want to spend a few more minutes urging my colleagues to vote for Mr. Patel's confirmation. Mr. Patel's career shows that he is a man who will fight to defend the Constitution and fight to expose corruption. This is exactly the kind of experience the FBI Director needs. For almost a decade now, Mr. Patel served as a public defender, defending the constitutional rights of some of the least popular people in America. After serving as public defender, Mr. Patel joined the Department of Justice under Democrat President Obama as a counterterrorism prosecutor in the National Security Division. In this role, he investigated and he prosecuted many important cases, including the World Cup bombing in Uganda in 2010 for which he received the Award of Excellence. In 2017, Representative Devin Nunes asked Mr. Patel to join the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to uncover the truth about Russiagate, and Mr. Patel did uncover the truth. Through tireless work, in regard to that investigation, Mr. Patel showed that Crossfire Hurricane was based on fraudulent, even discredited information, actually paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. After exposing the Russiagate scandal in Congress, Mr. Patel then went on to serve in senior national security positions in the National Security Council, then as a Deputy Director of National Intelligence and as Chief of Staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense. Mr. Patel managed large intelligence and defense bureaucracies, identified and countered national security threats, and prosecuted and defended the accused. He has done this while fighting for transparency and accountability in government. We all know that if things are transparent, the people connected with them are going to be more accountable, and we also know that the public's business in this great democracy of ours ought to be public. Mr. Patel's experience and Mr. Patel's vision is why he has been endorsed by organizations representing more than 680,000 law enforcement officers and by dozens of former and current FBI agents, State attorneys general, and U.S. attorneys. These people understand law enforcement. These people understand the rule of law, and these people who have endorsed Mr. Patel trust that he will do the right thing, and we should as well today by voting for Mr. Patel. I want to speak now to those who have viciously opposed Mr. Patel's nomination. At the heart of their opposition is the fear that he will act like Democrats did when Democrats were in power. So these Democrats are afraid that the FBI, under Mr. Patel's leadership, will use lawfare against political opponents like the FBI used lawfare against President Trump and others. These Democrats are afraid he will use subpoena power and coordinate with the media to target those seeking accountability just like Democrats did against Mr. Patel and, also, against my own investigative staff. These Democrats are afraid that he will deploy the FBI to conduct investigations and engage in surveillance against those who disagree like they did with Catholic families and parents expressing concern at school board meetings. These Democrats are afraid that he will retaliate against whistleblowers like the Biden administration did against FBI and IRS agents who blew the whistle. After reviewing Mr. Patel's record and listening to his testimony at his hearing, I am convinced that these fears that the Democrats have are unfounded. Mr. Patel's leadership will not be business as usual in the FBI as it has been in previous administrations when the FBI, the people on the 7th floor--not the local agents--were used for political weaponization. Mr. Patel told us at our hearing he wants to reduce FBI involvement in politics and domestic surveillance. Mr. Patel wants to end political investigations and strengthen protections for whistleblowers. Mr. Patel wants to make the FBI accountable once again, get back the reputation that the FBI has had historically for law enforcement, and he wants to hold the FBI accountable to Congress, to the President, and most importantly, to the people they serve, the American taxpayer. My Democratic colleagues often lament that Mr. Patel won't protect the independence of the FBI, but there is a fine line between independent judgment and being unaccountable. The FBI has been unaccountable all too long. My Democratic colleagues decry the recent firing of FBI agents and somehow want to blame Mr. Patel for those personal decisions. That isn't fair, obviously, because he is not running the FBI. As my oversight has shown, many of those fired agents were behind the retaliation against multiple FBI whistleblowers. They ruined lives and careers for their own political hands. They should be held accountable, and, yes, they should have been and have been fired. The FBI has also kept too many secrets. It has hid from the duly elected Members of Congress the origins of the lawfare against President Trump, which we all know and which I have shown in my exposure of a lot of emails, was in large part from the anti-Trump agent, Timothy Thibault. Now based on testimony from soon-to-be Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, we know that the Biden DOJ and FBI violated process by not sharing evidence with Trump's defense team that could have helped Trump's case against the government. If that happened--now, just think, if that happened on the Democrat side, you wouldn't hear the end of it. Yet, you can't hear a peep today from my Democratic colleagues. The government hid its investigations into those who dared to question the Democratic Party line. But then, when it is convenient for political reasons, the FBI would leak or coordinate with the media to hide the truth and to smear people. We need to restore transparency; we need to restore oversight; we need to restore accountability at the FBI, particularly on that top floor of the Hoover Building. Mr. Patel is exactly the man that can do that, and it is why those who benefit from the status quo have come so forcefully against him with a relentless smear campaign. Mr. Patel is a reformer, and we need a reformer in the FBI. We need to restore the public trust, and we need to return the FBI to its core mission, which is to keep people on our streets safe. The bottom line: It is the people doing the everyday work at the FBI, enforcing the law, solving crimes that the people on the 7th floor of the Hoover Building should be doing, instead of thinking about how we can get at our political enemies. I will be voting to confirm Mr. Patel. I will urge my colleagues to do the same thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the nomination of Howard Lutnick to be Secretary of the Department of Commerce. When I met with Mr. Lutnick, I stressed two related issues to him. The first was the importance of being responsive to Congress. I view listening to whistleblowers and sending letters to Agencies as part of my oversight responsibility to bring transparency to the American people. Agencies in turn have a responsibility to respond to congressional letters to remain accountable. I also stressed the impacts that trade retaliation can have on domestic industries, something that Iowa farmers know well. As international trade continues to heat up in the administration, I expect timely responses from Agencies like Mr. Lutnick's to provide transparency to the American people. I look forward to working with Mr. Lutnick to foster more fair trade with America's trading partners while remaining transparent with the American people.