Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week, our Nation mourns the loss of our 39th President, Jimmy Carter. With grief comes reflection on his life, a life well lived. There is no doubt President Carter made an impact on scores of Americans. As for this Senator, in 1976, I was on the ballot as a Congressman for Iowa's 3rd Congressional District, and of course Jimmy Carter was on that same ballot. Now, he and I were bit by different political bugs, but we have a similar foundation--two smalltown boys anchored in our faith. As the only sitting Member of Congress today who served with the Carter Presidency, I remember him fondly and maybe have a couple of times to remind you about. I don't know exactly what year it was, but I was in Iowa. He made a phone call to me asking--he was on his way to Nicaragua to observe whether or not a Presidential election at that time was going to be a fair election. He asked me if I would go along with him. I said the work of the Senate didn't allow me to do it at that particular time. So, obviously, I regretted that. Another time, he asked me--I think this was in the 2000 period of time, maybe around 2003, 2004, or 2005--he asked if I would come and speak to a Baptist group in Atlanta, GA, that he was leading. I had that opportunity to be there and to have a private conversation with him and his wife, the former First Lady. Carter answered the call to serve his Nation in many different ways. We remember him as a naval officer, his call to serve in public service as our President of the United States, and his call to serve those in need after leaving the White House. 1 Peter 4:10 says: Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God's grace in its various forms. The light of the Lord shone through President Carter's life of service. He used these gifts to serve others even beyond the borders of the United States. We say goodbye during this time to this man of many talents. We know about his background as a peanut farmer. We know about his background as a naval officer and, more famously, as our 39th President and, lastly, as a homebuilder as he worked through organizations building homes for the needy. Now we remember him as he is in his heavenly home. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as the 119th Congress kicks off, I look forward to continuing my work for Iowans. As President pro tempore of the Senate, Iowa is No. 1 with my leadership. I look forward to working with my colleague Senator Joni Ernst to represent the people of Iowa and bring their views to the policymaking tables. The two of us will work with our colleagues--Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, Congressman Zach Nunn, and Congressman Randy Feenstra--across the Capitol to represent the good people of Iowa. We are ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work. I just emphasized the Iowa delegation putting Iowa first. I do that at the same time we remember the voter mandate of the last election to put America first. We will work with President Trump to bring that goal to fruition.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. On another point, yesterday, January 6, was Christmas Day for many Christians of the Orthodox faith. But during the Soviet Union--if you remember the history of the Soviet Union--Christmas had to be celebrated in secret, lest the communist authorities would find out and you would be punished. The godless Soviet regime encouraged celebrating the new year with a visit from Grandfather Frost, a secular Russian folk character, in place of ``Jolly Old St. Nick.'' In a repeat of history, ``KGB Dictator Putin''--now President Putin, supposedly--banned Santa Claus in occupied Ukraine. Christmas caroling, Nativity scenes, and any mention of St. Nicholas were reportedly banned in Russian-occupied Ukraine for fear of spreading Western influence. A video recently came out showing the Russian military shooting down Santa's sled over Russia to the praise of Grandfather Frost. This is a war on Christmas, communist style. In Russia today, religious expression outside of the state-controlled church is discouraged. And in Russian-occupied Ukraine, all Protestant churches have been closed. The head of the Russian church is a KGB guy who answers directly to KGB Putin. It is no wonder, then, that only 16 percent of Russians say religion is very important to them, and only 7 percent attend church weekly. It is also no wonder that most Ukrainians chose to celebrate Christmas with the West on the 25th, even while under rocket fire from Russia. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here to visit with my colleagues about the Social Security bill that is before the Senate, but before I do that, I would like to give my point of view from past shutdowns of the Federal Government and why the shutdown of the Government is a bad idea. Usually, people approach shutting the Government down because they have some big scheme they want to accomplish, and they will accomplish it during the negotiations to opening up the Government or accomplishing from the threat of shutting down the Government. What I have found in past instances when that has been tried: You shut the government down. You open the government up. And that Member or Members have not accomplished the goal that they wanted to accomplish. It costs money to shut the Government down. It costs money during this week to get ready to shut the Government down. And after a period of time of a day or, at the most, 35 days, about 6 or 7 years ago, Government opens up, and it costs money to open the Government up. The Government is supposed to be a service for the American people, and you can't serve the American people when the Government isn't operating. So I hope that something can be accomplished today or tomorrow so the Government stays open.

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, reserving the right to object, I have a counteroffer. But before I get to that, I want to say, first of all, it is not easy for me to stand here and object to something the Senator from Maryland wants to bring up, because he is a gentleman in the 100 percent way in the U.S. Senate. So it is not easy to go against his ideas. But I want you to know, I have been working on the this with Representative Burgess, the leader in the House of Representatives, and we offered four amendments to him. In the negotiations, he agreed to two of them, and two of them he didn't agree to. And we agreed not to push for that amendment. So we felt that we had good discussions with Representative Burgess. But now we are working on the House bill here, and none of those things that Burgess agreed to could be. So where we are is that, even though Burgess agreed to some compromise, Senators over here have issues with preventing Congress from depositing savings into the Medicare Improvement Fund in budget years 11 through 30, based upon CBO estimates of preventing health savings legislation. Now, I have no doubt that preventive medicine saves money, but putting money in a fund for 11 to 30 years out can only lead to what we know happens too often here in the U.S. Senate of budget gimmicks, saying that we are going to use funds in a certain fund. Well, that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but you have to have confidence that what CBO says about that is going to be legitimate and have credibility. And so what I have been trying to work out with Representative Burgess is just exactly to do that: Put this fund out there. As you say, it is going to save money. But I want to make sure that CBO, when they say something, we have a way of verifying that. So I want to say that I appreciate the intentions of this bill. Increasing preventive healthcare to improve health outcomes and help patients and taxpayers avoid costly treatment and services down the road is a laudable goal. However, I am concerned that, as currently constructed, this bill will lead to budget gimmicks that will ultimately increase rather than decrease health spending. The sponsors are well aware of my concerns. I worked in good faith to offer up ideas to address my budget gimmick concerns. I made it clear I am willing to compromise. I have already done so with my most recent offer and dropped commonsense budget process reform provisions that I thought were important. And these budget process reforms were what was in the famous Enzi-Whitehouse bill that Senator Enzi--former-Senator Enzi--and, now, Senator Whitehouse worked out in Budget Committee reform. And I have said that Burgess was willing to go along with my changes to establish commonsense guardrails and to prevent budget gimmicks. But these changes have been rejected in the Senate, and my concerns haven't been addressed. The bill before us contains no commonsense guardrails, such as requiring a disclaimer that a supplementary estimate doesn't replace a CBO 10-year cost estimate, ensuring supplementary estimates are separate and distinct from the 10-year cost estimates, and requiring the Congressional Budget Office to be transparent in their modeling. That latter point is based on the proposition that we expect CBO to show us how they arrived at figures dealing with cost savings of some particular preventive medicine program. The bill also doesn't address concerns about how supplementary analysis could be used for budget gimmicks in the future, such as depositing uncertain out-year savings into the Medicare and Medicaid Improvement Funds. The bill needs commonsense guardrails to prevent budget gimmicks. So I would like to suggest this alternative. So I ask the Senator from Maryland to modify his request to include my amendment, which is at the desk; that the amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yes, I object. I would like to--

Mr. GRASSLEY. Around here, we use the words ``budget gimmickry'' pretty freely. And I want to say, as an example, that every Senator in this Senate knows the term ``Medicare sequester'' as a budget gimmick, so something at the end of the 10-year window we are going to draw in to spend money today. That is one example of a budget gimmick. I just want to make sure that we don't widen that down the road. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am placing a hold on S. 4996, the Dakota Water Resources Act Amendments of 2024. This bill authorizes the appropriation of more than $1.5 billion to further the construction of projects that directly and indirectly facilitate the diversion of water outside of the Missouri River basin. Despite the precedent this will set and the impacts these projects will have on the future of water supply for downstream States along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, the Bureau of Reclamation has only held two meetings with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, one in 2010 and the other in 2015. The Bureau has not engaged with any other downstream States or impacted interests, which includes municipal water supply users, navigators, and electric utilities.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations to the Pi Gamma Mu International Honor Society on celebrating its 100th anniversary. As a proud member, I commend the work the society has done and continues to do in encouraging and promoting excellence in the world of social science disciplines. Social science studies are important because they help us understand one another, our government, and how we can help build a better world. One hundred years is an important milestone, and it represents the exceptional achievement and impact the society has around the world and in our country. I appreciate the unwavering commitment of Pi Gamma Mu toward contributing to philanthropic causes and intellectual spaces. One hundred years of service and achievement is rare, and it demonstrates the society's outstanding impact on young scholars. As a Senator and a member, I am pleased to send my best wishes to Pi Gamma Mu International Honor Society for this extraordinary accomplishment. On behalf of all Iowans and myself, I salute you on a job well done.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor Anna Mae Weems. Anna Mae was a standout citizen from Waterloo, who passed away in September after 98 years of life well-lived. My wife Barbara and I met Anna Mae during my first congressional campaign for elected office in 1974. Little did we know, our fast friendship would endure 50 cherished years. We were fortunate to get to know the Weems family. I was reminded recently of a story. Barbara had shared the Senate bean soup recipe with the Weems family, and they enjoyed it together each year. Anna Mae was always helping others and bridging connections. She fostered relationships for me with countless fellow Iowans, local groups, churches, and more. Her passion for civil rights and fierce advocacy against racial discrimination drove Anna Mae's work as a talented organizer. She facilitated a march in Waterloo to honor the 20th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington and invited me to join. It was an important event that brought the community together. Anna Mae had marched on the picket line alongside Dr. King during the 1968 sanitation workers' strike in Memphis. At that time, she served as a prominent union leader at Rath Packing Company in Waterloo. She was the perfect person for the job. Change seemed to happen overnight when Anna Mae came around because she refused to rest until people paid attention. She never gave up on a cause she felt was unjust. In fact, I have Anna Mae to thank for bringing many causes to my attention. As a Senator, my No. 1 priority is to help Iowans the best I possibly can. She identified me as a resource to many Iowans who didn't know a Senator could help with their particular cases. Over the years, through frequent phone conversations, I learned from Anna Mae's insights--and about the ways she was making our community a better place. It was a privilege for Barbara and me to know Anna Mae, her extraordinary impact, and the positive mark she left wherever she went.

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, I come to the floor to make a unanimous consent request, but out of courtesy to somebody who may object--since there is nobody here to object--I won't make the motion, but I would like to give my remarks at this point. Today, I am going to discuss a decades-long priority of mine, and that is reforming the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Around here, it is known by the acronym FARA. This legislation is necessary to give it the teeth that it needs to be effective. Just a little bit of history about FARA: Until maybe 6, 7 years ago-- now it is being enforced a little more often by the Department of Justice, but prior to that, a law that had been on the books for decades was not really being enforced. So that means people could be hired to lobby for a foreign country before the Congress of the United States and we didn't even know who they were. Well, the FARA act, passed decades ago, was supposed to make that public because we ought to know who is working for foreign countries as they try to influence policy in this country. And now more attention is being paid to it. It is being enforced. But I come to the floor today, as I am going to explain to you, because we had recent court decisions that have made it even weaker than it should be--is intended to be. Since 2015--to give you a little history of my involvement with this issue--over four Congresses, I have investigated potential FARA violations to ensure the Justice Department equally enforces FARA without regard to power, party, and privilege. In 2017, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I held a FARA oversight hearing, which contributed to the Disclosing Foreign Influence Act that year. I also introduced the bipartisan Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration Enhancement Act in 2019, which was supported on both sides by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee also signed off on that legislation. So then Senator Cornyn and I requested unanimous consent to pass that bill at that time; however, the then-ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez, objected. The Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration Enhancement Act is one of several FARA bills that I have sought to advance. Today, I am here to talk about the bipartisan bill entitled ``Retroactive Foreign Agents Registration Act.'' The purpose of that legislation is to overcome the court decisions that I have already spoken about. Chairman Peters, my Democratic co-lead, and Senators Warren, Rubio, and Young are cosponsors of the bill that goes by the number S. 2229. The bill overturns a recent court ruling that held a person doesn't have to register as a foreign agent if their relationship with a foreign principal has stopped. It is understood that FARA imposes a continuing obligation for persons to register as foreign agents; otherwise, once a lobbyist for a foreign country is caught not reporting, it is pretty simple for them if they don't want to be prosecuted or registered; they just have to sever their representation with that country, and they are off the hook. And, of course, that is not what Congress intended. My bill, the Retroactive Foreign Agents Registration Act, fixes that problem, overrides the court decisions. Remember, FARA doesn't prohibit any activity. You are free to do anything you want to. It is a disclosure statute. It simply requires lobbyists and public relations groups on K Street representing foreign interests, which might be friendly to the United States or unfriendly to the United States, in the Halls of Congress--all they have to do is disclose, just disclose. They can do anything they want to, but they have to disclose whom they are working for. If a lobbyist doesn't want everyone to know that they are working for the communist Chinese Government, then I guess that person shouldn't be working for the communist Chinese Government. Now, it is pretty simple what the spirit of this FARA legislation is all about. It is all about transparency. And with transparency, you are more apt to get accountability. And who shouldn't want transparency because the public's business ought to be public, and you ought to be accountable for what you are doing. My retroactive FARA fix is supported by almost a decade of oversight, hearings, legislative vetting, and discussions with the Department of Justice. Congress must send a crystal-clear message to foreign actors that they can't hide in the shadows. So now that we have other people on the floor who might want to speak on this, at this point I want to make this request. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2229 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to speak to this. This legislation was passed in 1938. You heard me say in my opening remarks that for a long period of time--until about, I think, less than 8 years ago, when we started bringing attention to this legislation not being enforced by the Department of Justice--probably only about a dozen people or less were convicted under this legislation. I heard what my colleague from Kentucky said about this legislation. I think you could read his remarks to indicate that a violation of freedom of speech is--we might as well repeal the lobbying act or lobbying registration act--whatever the law is--of 1946 that lobbyists have to register if they are going to lobby the Congress of the United States. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. What it has to do with is transparency, so we know who is spending money to influence the laws in this country. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can say anything you want to. It is just about transparency and accountability that comes with transparency. I think it is very important. I don't find a lot of fault with what Senator Rand has said about regulatory criminalization and too much federalization, but this is a law that has been on the books since 1938 and, really, hasn't been enforced until very recently here. I think when you enforce the law, you get respect for the law. And there ought to be respect for a simple little law that says nothing more than: We just want to know who you are; who you are working for; and, particularly, if it is a foreign country, we ought to have a record of who is being hired to influence public policy in the United States as a result of your work. It could be a national security concern. It could be a business concern. It doesn't matter what that concern is. You can do anything you want to lobby Congress, but we ought to know who you are. I have great respect for Senator Paul. Of course, as you just found out, I happen to disagree with him on his decision not to let this bill move forward. I know a thing or two about government abuse and weaponization. My investigative staff has been surveilled by the Justice Department, as an example. You find out that from whistleblowers. You don't find out that because there is transparency of what they are doing. I and my investigative staff have been subject to briefings from the Justice Department that were targeted to interfere in my investigative work. I have seen government weaponization firsthand. That data point shouldn't be a basis to object to this bill. The due diligence has been done--the oversight, the hearing, the negotiations. This bill is bicameral. This bill is bipartisan. There is no legitimate basis for this bill to not be law. I thank my colleagues, including the objector, for their giving attention to it even if we couldn't agree on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as my colleagues know, I get a lot of information about wrongdoing in government from whistleblowers. A significant part of my investigative activity is driven by whistleblower disclosures. To make that very effective, I have directed my investigative staff to cultivate those whistleblower relationships. Whistleblowers share information with me that the government likes to hide from Congress and, indirectly, then hiding it from the American people. Today, I am going to discuss a very concerning problem within the U.S. Postal Service. Based on whistleblower disclosures to my office, I have been alerted that the post office hired a registered sex offender as a letter carrier. The employment was confirmed in writing by that same Postal Service. Based on whistleblower allegations, this employee disclosed his status as a registered sex offender on his job application. If accurate, did the Postal Service then even bother to read his application before he was hired? After the Postal Service figured out what they had done, my office has been told via whistleblower disclosures that they put the employee on paid leave. So I began digging deeper to figure out the extent of this problem at the Postal Service. Since then, the Postal Service has obstructed every effort that I have made to get the information that Congress is entitled to. Wouldn't the American public like to know how many letter carriers are registered sex offenders? Where are they working? Do they travel near schools, homes, and where children are often seen? Now, the Postal Service apparently disagrees. The Postal Service was asked by my staff for a list of letter carriers who are registered offenders. Now, as you might expect, the Postal Service refused. So I and my staff asked for a list of letter carriers on the payroll. The Postal Service later said: Current employees' names, titles, and duty stations are generally considered to be public information and releasable. But then the Postal Service refused to provide the information because my staff might cross-reference the names on the public registries. Specifically, the Postal Service said this: They have a personal privacy interest in protecting the fact that their names appear on a sex offender registry. The Postal Service also said that it is refusing to provide this information because I ``intend to use the provided list to infer what employees appear on the public sex offender registries.'' Now, it is time to get this straight for everybody. The names of Postal Service employees are publicly releasable, as admitted by the Postal Service to me in writing. These offender registries are public, which was also admitted in writing to me by the Postal Service. But the Postal Service says a privacy interest prohibits them from providing the names of all Postal Service letter carriers because my staff might cross-reference them on a public list? What a disgrace. Further, the Postal Service had the audacity to ask my staff this garbage request, and I am quoting from the Postal Service: We ask that you agree not to publicly release the names of any employees that you believe appear on a sex offender registry as a condition precedent to the release of a list of letter carriers to you. Now, that kind of appears to be a shakedown, doesn't it? In support of its obstruction, the Postal Service cited a 2020 Freedom of Information Act court case, White Coat Waste Project v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The Postal Service claimed that this case allowed them to withhold the information. Now, there are two problems with that. First, this isn't a FOIA request that I am making. It is a congressional request under the constitutional power of checks and balances of the government to make sure that the executive branch of government faithfully executes the laws. Congress isn't subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Second, in the case, the court held that the government had to produce requested names of government employees, in part, because it ``will ensure that the public stays informed about what their government is up to.'' Like you often hear me say, transparency brings accountability in our government. My staff then later asked the Postal Service the following, related to employee names: So, what's public is being treated as non-public because there's a chance some letter carriers are sex offenders? The Postal Service's employee answered: Yes, because you can't put that together without both lists. The Postal Service conduct is without any legitimate basis. Postmaster General DeJoy and the Postal Service Board need to fix this mess and fix it immediately. When it comes to this matter, our community deserves much better than what they are getting from the Postal Service. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Bob served as Acting Director of CBO from November 25, 2008, to January 22, 2009, before becoming senior adviser to the Director and unofficial quality control officer for CBO's written products. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, CBO's Director from 2003 to 2005, described Bob as ``the living heart of CBO.'' Peter Orszag, CBO's Director from 2007 to 2008 said, ``It is no exaggeration to say that CBO is what it is today--rigorous, independent, and widely respected--in no small part because of Bob Sunshine. For nearly half a century, he has worked in service of facts, good analysis, and sound policymaking.'' Bob is highly regarded on both sides of the aisle for his deep knowledge of the budget process and commitment to CBO's role in that process. But as his colleagues have said, it is his personal ethic--his optimism and thoughtful consideration for his friends and colleagues--that truly defines him. We thank Bob for his decades of service and wish him the best in the years to come.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, I placed a hold on S. 306, the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 2023. Although I don't find fault with the substance of the bill, the legislation is not paid for and would violate multiple budget enforcement rules. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would increase the deficit by $804 million.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in the Biden-Harris America, children disappear every day. You won't see their faces on any milk cartons. Search parties aren't sent for them, and the AMBER alert almost never sounds. According to the Justice Department's filings, some of these children reappear years later in emergency departments with injuries from physical or sexual abuse. Others resurface as underaged laborers working jobs that most adults won't even take, and many are never heard from again. These forgotten children are overlooked because they are unaccompanied migrant children. These are the children who crossed into the United States without their families--without their moms or dads. By February 2023, the New York Times reported the Biden-Harris administration could not reach 85,000 of the unaccompanied migrant children that had entered the United States since 2021. Then, in August of 2024, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found the government failed to enroll 291,000 of these children in immigration proceedings over the last 5 years. Of those that were enrolled, 32,000 never showed up to the court. Many of them are missing. Government employees working directly with these kids began to sound the alarm. The Biden-Harris administration responded by quietly, very quietly, suppressing attempts to save these missing children in order to avoid a politically inconvenient narrative. And the very same Democrats and members of the media who had actually decried Trump-era immigration policies stayed silent. The media didn't do their job of properly pointing out wrongs, except when you have a Republican President. At least one whistleblower was actually walked offsite at a shelter for these children for reporting that children were in danger to law enforcement. Other whistleblowers told my office they were denied access to records that might have raised concerns about children being trafficked. The most consistent whistleblower complaint that I received was that law enforcement was not given the information needed to save missing children. Desperate to find these kids, at least one Homeland Security agent asked a whistleblower to establish information-sharing channels on imperiled children because there was no formal channel in place for this information to be shared. Now, we all know that denying law enforcement access to this lifesaving information was part of the Biden-Harris immigration plan. Three months into their term, the Biden-Harris administration tore up information sharing, an agreement between Homeland Security Investigations and the officials responsible for running the Unaccompanied Children Program. They replaced that agreement with a watered-down agreement that deleted provisions requiring sponsors to be vetted and run through certain law enforcement checks before receiving custody of a child. Today, law enforcement has significantly less involvement in vetting sponsors, even if the sponsor is a complete stranger to the child. Now, this is not family reunification, as the Biden administration wants the entire country to believe. According to government statistics, between October 2021 and September 2022, over 18,000 children were given to distant relatives or unrelated adults. Now, turning over custody of a child is one of the most consequential actions a caseworker can ever take. From there on out, every decision made for the child belongs to the sponsor--financial, housing, medical, you name it, the sponsor is in control of their decisions. I can't imagine having every decision critical to my survival turned over to a complete stranger who the government hasn't even fully vetted, but child safety wasn't this administration's priority. Now, thanks to whistleblowers, we have been provided records and disclosures that were so bad I had to refer the information to law enforcement way back in January to try and rescue kids. But given the poor vetting, it is much harder to find those same kids. As illegal border crossings surged, pressure mounted from the top of the bureaucracy to process kids faster, to avoid accusations of ``kids in cages.'' During a conference call, Secretary Becerra of HHS admonished his employees that they weren't moving kids out to sponsors fast enough. That is the environment that I am talking about--getting things done quickly so you can't be politically criticized like Trump was criticized. Secretary Becerra said: This is not the way you do an assembly line. Program operators knew this politically motivated rush could have dangerous consequences, but they proceeded anyway. One official said the quiet part out loud to a whistleblower trying to intervene to protect endangered kids. She was told: We only get sued if we keep kids in care [of the government] too long. We don't get sued by traffickers. Now, can you believe that approach to protecting kids? The Biden administration has published wave after wave of field guidance meant to push kids to sponsors faster and cover up the consequences of this haste. They removed fingerprint requirements for sponsors claiming to be parents or legal guardians, even without sufficient verification; simply this, just ``I am who I say I am.'' They released kids to sponsors before background checks had been completed. They denied law enforcement access to photographs of children. Now, during a Senate Finance hearing, Senator Cornyn asked Secretary Becerra who the Biden-Harris administration believes is responsible for making sure that these children aren't being trafficked. Secretary Becerra said it is ``the communities where they enter,'' so just some community, anyplace in the United States, to be responsible, to make sure that these children are treated and not being trafficked. I am not sure if the Biden-Harris administration ever stopped to wonder how local law enforcement looks after a child when this administration won't even give them a photograph of an endangered child. I am told that law enforcement can't. What resulted from this administration's disastrous policies almost inevitably was the systematic abuse and disappearance of migrant children. Whistleblowers fought in vain to prevent children from going to men who sexualized them, MS-13 gang-affiliated sponsors, and also sponsors who were mass applying for kids. We had an example where one address someplace, some city in this country, was used to get massive numbers of kids under that address. Just hearing that ought to scare anyone. One whistleblower told my office they called a sponsor, only to hear a child's agonizing screams before the line then was quickly disconnected. Whistleblowers testified on all this in heartbreaking detail at an oversight roundtable that I led on this topic just this year in July. I have lost count of the number of reports and letters sent by Congress to the unaccompanied migrant children's program actually sounding alarms that have gone unheeded, even ignored. Each highlighted program vulnerabilities, and there are plenty of those vulnerabilities. Each made recommendations that could have saved lives. Now, I have been involved in this in a bipartisan way for a long period of time. My decade of bipartisan oversight has revealed an unaccompanied migrant children program in which abuse and misconduct have become routine and tolerated. For example, in 2021, Oregon Democratic Senator Wyden and I warned of the rampant sexual abuse of unaccompanied migrant children in the care of contractors, especially Southwest Key. Now, remember that contractor's name is Southwest Key--not a very good place to put kids. The Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General also identified issues with Southwest Key's self-dealing and compensation. Now, as part of my ongoing investigation, for months I have requested from Southwest Key and other contractors and grantees basic information on their care of unaccompanied children, including whether these contractors performed background checks of their employees before they had access to these kids. Southwest Key has failed to fully respond to this inquiry, actually thumbing their nose at the U.S. Congress. Still the government kept giving Southwest Key contracts to care for these unaccompanied minor kids. What followed all these contracts? Do we know that the kids are safe or not safe? Well, a recent Justice Department lawsuit alleges ``a pattern or practice of severe or pervasive sexual harassment of children in Southwest Key's care.'' So just think, this Justice Department has said that with this contractor, there is pervasive sexual harassment of children in their care. So we have to ask ourselves, if we are humanitarians, how many more children have to endure abuse before Congress finally says enough is enough? I say it shouldn't be even one more. I am offering a bill, then--that is why I am here--that denies future contracts to bad actors who have been identified by the Justice Department as abusing unaccompanied migrant children. After applying due process, those government contracts would cease until the Justice Department certifies that the conditions leading to the abuse--that those conditions are taken care of, they are over. I think this is a very commonsense solution that no politician, no Member of the Senate, Republican or Democrat, should stand against. So I now make a request, Mr. President. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5073, which is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is kind of you to say that. Thank you.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to speak to this issue a little bit and point out some of the shortcomings of what Senator Merkley is trying to accomplish by amending my motion. I see this amendment merely cementing into place the Biden-Harris policy that lost more than 85,000 migrant children. Can you believe that? If there was any question whether Democrats prioritize speed over safety when it comes to pushing migrant kids out the door, this partisan amendment lays that question to rest. I think I made very clear, in giving reasons for my legislation, how this is really a big problem. Now, the text of what Senator Merkley is asking me to do mandates that the government make a placement determination for a child not later than 7 days after the government receives a sponsored application. Fingerprint-based background checks aren't required. And even the criminal record of a sponsor isn't necessarily disqualified. Now, a question: What if a sponsor has no preexisting relationship to the child? Think of that. Well, that is not a problem for this proposal. The fact that a sponsor has no preexisting relationship to a child cannot be the sole basis for denying sponsorship under this Democrat-led solution. This amendment just willy-nilly turns over children to sponsors who foot-drag on providing the documents needed to verify sponsor identity and safety. I can't imagine a loving parent or guardian slow rolling the paperwork needed to reunite with their child. To most folks, that would be a very clear red flag, but not to Democrats. For them, it is just an administrative inconvenience. So just understand, this Democratic solution allows the government to release children to sponsors even if there is a risk of harm to that child. According to this text, that is fine, so long as post-release services are in place. In fact, those are the only conditions under which post-release services are required according to this modification presented to me. After directing the government to make what could be life-or-death decisions for a child on virtually no information, the bill restricts the ability to share lifesaving information with law enforcement. Let's go back to what I laid down. I came to the floor tonight to offer a commonsense solution to deny bad actors access to kids. My bill would put contractors on notice that they can't willfully blind themselves to child abuse in order to get rich off taxpayers' dollars. Democrats couldn't even take that blindness seriously. I encourage my colleagues to read the Justice Department's recent complaint against Southwest Key. I referred to the same Justice Department action in my opening remarks. This is what Justice found out, among other horrors: That complaint describes the repeated sexual abuse of a 5-year-old girl, the prostitution of a 15-year-old boy, and acts of a contractor desperate to even cover up all those wrongdoings. So thanks to this Democrat-led effort, Congress won't prevent contractors like them from getting access to more kids and more taxpayers' dollars. So, Senator Merkley, I am sorry to say that your modification doesn't do what I am trying to accomplish and leaves in place too much the status quo; so I have to object.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to share a few words about my friend, the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell. I have had the privilege to serve alongside the senior Senator from Kentucky here in the U.S. Senate for nearly four decades, spanning 40 sessions of the U.S. Senate. From the 110th Congress through the 118th, Senator McConnell won support of our caucus to serve as Republican leader. In those secret ballot elections, he often ran unopposed because of his very strong support from our conference. That makes his tenure the longest serving Senate leader in the history of the U.S. Senate. For the last four decades, Senator McConnell has lived and breathed the U.S. Senate. So when Senator McConnell spoke on the floor in February, announcing that he would step down from his leadership post after the upcoming November election, he took many of us by great surprise. After all, his love for the U.S. Senate, the State of Kentucky, and for our great country, America, are indisputable. Although his critics and even some of his supporters don't see eye to eye on every issue, I would suggest my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can agree on this: Senator McConnell's service as the Republican leader was hard- earned. Time and again, Mitch McConnell has shown a shrewd skill set that set the table for his climb up the leadership ladder. Once he got to that top rung, Senator McConnell didn't flinch from his resolve. A keen negotiator, Leader McConnell finessed legislative hurdles, scaled political mountains, and secured policy victories on behalf of the American people. It takes a steel spine to survive and thrive in the dog-eat-dog world of politics. Senator McConnell's grit, his purpose, and laser focus to deliver are just three of his ironclad leadership traits that our caucus has counted upon since 2006. Senator McConnell and I have served many years together on the Senate Agriculture Committee, joining forces for family farmers and for rural America. When I served as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, we teamed up to deliver historic tax relief that put money back in the people's pockets and helped grow the American economy. One of the seminal moments of Leader McConnell's tenure took place in 2016 when I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. That February, as you remember, Justice Scalia passed away unexpectedly, thus creating a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. That vacancy created a once-in-a- generation prospect to shape the highest Court in the land. Leader McConnell and I recognized what was at stake. Without wavering, we leveraged the constitutional authority of the U.S. Senate--that is the authority of advice and consent--and held off on confirming a nominee until after the elections so the American people could have a say in that process. Now, to put it mildly, the decision wasn't met with open arms by the White House or our colleagues across the aisle. Leader McConnell can play hardball with the best of them, with detractors within and outside of our conference. We kept with the tradition and precedent of the Senate, a rule articulated by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1992, that when there was a Republican White House and a Democrat majority here in the U.S. Senate, you wait until after the election to make that appointment. Generations from now, historians will note our efforts to confirm Trump-appointed judges and the imprint it made on the Federal judiciary, reshaping the Supreme Court and lower courts with what we ought to have on the judiciary--people that you call strict constructionists, meaning people that are going to interpret the law according to congressional intent and interpret the Constitution according to original intent. So we have jurists who now interpret the laws written by Congress, not jurists who legislate from the bench. Now, in addition to tax relief, the Federal judiciary, and agriculture, Leader McConnell and I most recently worked together to get the bipartisan infrastructure package and funding for U.S. national security, with support for our allies in Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine. That got across the finish line, and it wasn't a very easy job for Senator McConnell. Senator McConnell and I served together here in the Senate during the Reagan administration. The Reagan doctrine made the world safer and more secure. In other words, ``peace through strength'' actually works. This month, we observed the 23rd anniversary of 9/11. Next month marks the 1-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on October 7 in Israel, and October 7 in Israel will be remembered in that country much like December 7, 1941, is remembered in the United States. Now, more than ever, Leader McConnell and this U.S. Senator agree that America can't afford to fall asleep at the wheel. Senator McConnell didn't mince words about why he is stepping down as Republican leader. He has a firm grasp of the politics of our party. His ability to read the room helped him to scale the leadership ladder, winning the top job nine times in our Republican conference. In his floor remarks this February, he wryly noted: I have many faults. Misunderstanding politics is not one of them. Politics aside, his reverence for this institution and his reverence for this great country of America come from an unwavering commitment to the ideals enshrined in our founding charters. I am proud to associate myself with the statement that ``for as long as I am drawing breath on this Earth, I will defend American exceptionalism.'' And I will do the same thing here as this Senator. We know that, no matter who runs the White House or the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate serves a vital constitutional role in our system of checks and balances. Senator McConnell and I also share a love for history, especially Senate history. We have that in common. George Washington supposedly told this very story about pouring a cup of hot tea into a saucer and comparing the role of the U.S. Senate as that saucer to cool legislation coming in hot from the House of Representatives. James Madison said the Senate was the ``anchor'' of government and a ``necessary fence'' against the ``fickleness and passion'' of the temporary waves of public opinion.'' Former Republican Leader Howard Baker referred to the Senate leadership as ``herding cats,'' suggesting it required the dual ability to understand how the institution worked and to understand the personalities of individual Members. For certain, Leader McConnell has a clear grasp on the arcane rules and precedents of this body, and he has kept his finger on the pulse of our caucus for now 18 years. You will have to ask him if he agrees with Senator Baker's analogy of what it is like to run the U.S. Senate. But in my observation, it is not easy and often thankless. In closing, I applaud Senator McConnell for his historic service as our Republican leader. Barbara and I extend our warmest wishes to him and Elaine for their partnership and decades of public service. We are grateful for our friendship over these many years. I am glad to say this isn't a farewell speech. We will continue our work together in the next Congress, here in the U.S. Senate. I have no doubt that Senator McConnell will continue to be an effective champion for American agriculture, U.S. leadership around the world, and peace through strength, and especially prosperity for all of the American people.