Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. In August, I held 49 county meetings as part of my annual 99-county set of meetings in Iowa. At every meeting, the format is the same: Iowans set the agenda. Challenges from the pandemic and storm recovery were among their top concerns. To explain the storm recovery--about once every 10 years there is a big wind storm called a derecho going across someplace in the country. That path was about 150 miles long in Iowa and 34 miles wide, and it destroyed the crops for this year in that area. Other issues came up as well. Biofuels, unemployment insurance, the farm economy, access to childcare and school reopenings were frequent points of discussion. I had the chance of visiting in 15 different locations with about that many school superintendents, and they were very optimistic about the coming school year. This is my 40th year holding my 99 county meetings. I started this tradition when I first was elected to the Senate, so Iowans in every corner of the State would know I care about their opinions. It is an honor to serve Iowans in the U.S. Senate and uphold my end of representative government. I look forward to more Q&As across the State this year and starting my 41st year of 99 county meetings in 2021. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday many parts of my home State of Iowa were hit by extreme winds and severe storms--90-mile-an-hour winds, probably along the path along Interstate 80 from the Missouri River to the Mississippi River. Trees are uprooted, roadways are obstructed, crops are severely damaged, grain bins are busted, outbuildings lost, some homes hurt, and over 400,000 households lost power. Just like any other natural disaster Iowa has experienced, I know that Iowans are going to band together and support each other as we recover from this storm. Senator Ernst and I stand ready to help with any Federal assistance Iowa may need, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact our respective offices--both in Washington, DC, and in Iowa--if you need us. For sure, if Governor Reynolds declares this as a disaster area, Senator Ernst and I will be quick to advise the President to follow the recommendations and requests of Governor Reynolds. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute as in morning business, please.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today our national public health and economic crisis continues without additional legislative action. Reports over the weekend indicate that the Senate minority leader believes that he can hold out for a massive, unwieldy bill that even includes unrelated policies, yet refuse to consider action where there is already consensus. The New York Times reported that the Speaker ``believes she has the upper hand'' and ``does not intend to lose it.'' The other side refuses to support even the relief measures where there is broad bipartisan agreement, such as providing additional funds for unemployment benefits, the Paycheck Protection Program, education, State and local governments, recovery checks, and hiring and employee- retention incentives. This shows us where their priorities are-- politics, not people. That is a shame. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak about a Native American tradition in the State of Iowa. It is about the Meskwaki Nation--the only federally recognized Tribe in Iowa. This year, many important annual community events have been canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Each year, the Meskwaki Powwow serves as an opportunity to bring the Meskwaki Tribe together with fellow Iowans to share, learn, and honor the Meskwakis' unique contributions to our State. This gathering is important to preserving the Meskwakis' heritage and sharing it with the next generation. In light of the cancellation, the Meskwakis are posting a number of educational resources on their Facebook page, at Meskwaki Nation, to honor the Meskwaki Annual Powwow week. I encourage Iowans to visit and learn. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, every day we can see that this public health crisis is also an economic crisis. During the shutdowns, some employers shuttered completely, and others were forced to lay off workers. Tens of millions of jobs were saved thanks to the Paycheck Protection Program and other CARES Act provisions, but millions of other Americans lost their jobs and remain unemployed. While job numbers have improved since the more dire days of March and April, there are still many Americans facing unemployment. Talks are continuing to determine how best to modify and extend a Federal supplement to State unemployment insurance programs, but those talks are going miserably slowly. These State programs and the extra Federal aid have been important safety nets for folks who have lost their income, but they are only a piece of what we can and should do and what a bill before the U.S. Senate lays out. It is called the HEALS Act, put forth by our leader. As the leader said yesterday, we know that these programs shouldn't pay someone more to stay home than essential workers are making by working hard. We also know that most people would prefer to have a reliable job and avoid layoff entirely. That is why Republicans, as part of the HEALS Act, have put forward several additional proposals to help already unemployed Americans and prevent others from getting laid off in the first place. That is why these talks ought to speed up, so we can get some of these other things in place as well as the unemployment issues that we are talking about. We extend and significantly expand the employee retention tax credit that was included in the CARES Act so that employers can keep more people on the payroll instead of laying them off. It supports businesses that hire more workers as the economy continues to improve. We expand the work opportunity tax credit to support employers who are helping those currently receiving unemployment insurance find a new, safe, and steady job. Bringing in new employees and expanding the workforce can be complicated, especially in times of a pandemic. Both employers and employees want to maintain safe working environments. It is important for employers to have the resources to keep their workplaces clean and their employees protected. Republicans then proposed a new tax credit for these expenses, like additional cleaning expenses, personal protective gear, and even office reconfigurations that keep employees and customers safe. The HEALS Act also provides for another round of economic impact payments. An average family of four would receive $3,400 to help cover expenses. These payments will help any family or any individual who has had to deal with layoffs and are in addition to any unemployment benefits they may receive. These tax provisions serve as a complement to the unemployment insurance program that is being negotiated right now, with no evidence of progress. There ought to be progress. These programs do set up an extra layer of protection for workers and those already out of work. Together, these proposals provide a responsible approach to help employers reopen businesses so that employees can safely and effectively return to work to continue fueling the Nation's economic recovery. Why can't we get these important issues resolved for the American people, particularly for the American people who are hurting? And they are hurting because we were faced with a virus pandemic. As a result of the virus pandemic, the government, for the first time in 240 years, shut down the economy of the United States, and then immediately, in the middle of March, after that happened, we made a point of passing the CARES Act to open up the economy, to give people confidence that what the government did that was bad for the economy and for people and hurting people, unemployed--that we were going to take a lead in getting them back. And we are still in this situation. We shouldn't be debating as long as we are to get these issues taken care of. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleague from Iowa, Senator Ernst, in this effort. We ought to get this unanimous consent request accomplished, and we ought to get this bill passed because it is unjustified that we don't get the cooperation that it takes to keep a person who has committed a felony from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. I joined Senator Ernst in reintroducing Sarah's Law on January 31 of last year, and that was the third anniversary of Sarah Root's death. Sarah was from Council Bluffs, IA, and as my colleague said, Sarah was tragically killed in Omaha, NE, on the very night of her graduation. An illegal alien struck and killed her while he was driving drunk. He was three times over the legal limit of the amount of alcohol you can have in your blood to be a safe driver. It is a travesty that the previous administration refused to take Sarah's killer into custody. He was not considered a priority. Can you imagine that? Her killer then disappeared. Obviously, being a smart person who is in violation of the law, he is not going to be seen. So he remains at large. I have said before that Sarah's senseless death is a tragic reminder of the serious improvements that we need in border security and in interior immigration enforcement in our United States of America. It is outrageous that many innocent Americans have been seriously injured and, in some cases, killed as a result of the actions of criminal illegal aliens. It is even more outrageous that criminal illegal aliens, like the one who killed Sarah Root, are not subject to mandatory immigration detention. Sarah's Law would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the mandatory detention of an illegal alien who is charged with a crime resulting in the death or serious bodily injury of another person. This bill is common sense. A lot of times, common sense doesn't prevail in Washington, DC, and the long time to get this very important legislation passed is evidence of the lack of common sense. This bill is long overdue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill and to support Senator Ernst's unanimous consent request. I gladly thank her for her leadership in this area. I yield the floor

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, watch the news or read the newspapers, and you will know that there are a lot of deliberations going on to help with the problems that we have of people being unemployed, the pandemic we are fighting, and getting the economy up and running. While those negotiations are going on, every once in a while, some of us on this side of the aisle try to get things to help people who have needs. A few days ago, the Democratic leader objected to one of these attempts, which was a short-term extension of the Federal unemployment supplement that was created by this body as part of the CARES Act. Remember, the CARES Act passed unanimously by this body back in March. Those things are running out, and we are trying to get them extended. This effort to get this short-term extension was to provide for Americans who need the continued help while talks continue about a longer extension and even more relief. Common sense ought to play a role. There doesn't seem to be any downside to a temporary extension, but there apparently was a political upside to the other side's blocking it. I hope we can work together and that the Democratic leader will let his Members work with their Republican colleagues on a path forward. This partisan ``my way or the highway'' approach just doesn't work, particularly in a body in which it takes 60 votes to get things done. These objections are not how we got the CARES Act passed in the first place, and it is not how we will continue to deliver for the American people now if we don't get more cooperation. I yield the floor.

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, history has a way of repeating itself. If we don't learn from the mistakes of the past, we are apt to repeat them. As the November election draws near and as foreign adversaries again seek to meddle in our democracy, let's review our history so we can better identify and prevent future threats. In late July 2016, Obama's FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign that ended up spiraling out of control for years--4 years. The investigation was ultimately based, in large part, on what is known as the Steele dossier, which was a bunch of unverified claims from Russian Government sources. It happens that that dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and by the Clinton campaign. We know that its author, Christopher Steele, simultaneously pitched those same unverified claims to U.S. media outlets, which then reported on them without even testing their veracity. That is not responsible journalism. We know that Members of this Senate publicly seized on those unverified media reports to attack their political rivals. They even made references to the ``secret FBI investigations'' to give the unverified, foreign-sourced claims a veneer of credibility. We know that those unverified claims became part of the focus of a sweeping and unnecessary multiyear investigation by some of the Justice Department's most aggressive prosecutors. In the end, they found no crime by the campaign or President Trump, despite the dossier's allegations. Also, that shameful and damaging episode was propelled by selective leaks from government officials and breathless broadcasting by the press and the opposing political view. Of course, now it is undergoing a postmortem. What we are finding out isn't very pretty, and the people behind it ought to be ashamed--ought to be very ashamed. We have learned that some of those now-debunked claims of collusion with a foreign adversary were actually sourced to that same foreign adversary. In other words, those claims were assessed to be Russian disinformation. Democrats got duped into falsely accusing their political rivals of doing the very thing they were actually complicit in. We have learned that senior FBI officials had such disdain for President Trump that they pushed the unverified information despite repeated warnings of its flaws. They wanted to believe so badly in the politically convenient narrative that they failed to do their jobs. They lied to a court to spy on the campaign. They leaked memos to launch a special counsel investigation. They even doctored the paperwork--all to advance an investigation rooted in lies, innuendo, and foreign disinformation. I could go on about the harmful consequences from the hysteria that consumed the last few years, but the lesson from it all is very simple: Our adversaries will do anything to hijack our political differences to sow discord and distrust. Our adversaries want us at each other's throat. So long as we are fighting amongst ourselves, they win. Why do I bring this up now? Because exactly 4 years later, we are watching the same group run the same play today. If we aren't careful, they will win again. Just like in 2016, foreign sources are pushing unverified material about political candidates; just like in 2016, that material has reportedly found its way into the U.S. intelligence reviews; and just like in 2016, political rivals in Congress and the press are using the unverified foreign sources and their claims to suggest collusion between Republicans and foreign adversaries. Just remember what I said--just like in 2016. In the last few weeks, Democrats have falsely accused me and Senator Johnson of receiving packets of information, including tapes, from a Ukrainian. That is false reporting based on leaks from a letter written by Senators Schumer, Warner, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Schiff, which is itself based on cherry-picked innuendo from classified documents. This Ukrainian claims that he also sent the information to several Democrats. These Democrats have also denied receiving anything. Again, what is this all about? The goal is to sow as much confusion as possible. The claims are baseless. Neither I nor anyone on my staff had anything to do with him. We never reached out to him or received anything from him. We never received or reviewed anything like what was described in the Democrats' leaked documents. Here is the rub. But that didn't stop the press from reporting the story anyway. Remember, 2016, 2017, and 2018? It didn't stop the press from reaching out to this Ukrainian to present him with the apparently leaked classified information from the Democrats' letter. Let me be clear. My investigation with Senator Johnson is based on how the Obama administration formulated its Ukraine policy, which then- Vice President Biden oversaw while his son was on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian natural gas company that was under investigation. Did the corrupt firm get special access or special treatment because of its ties to the Vice President's son? We should know that. Did the Obama administration appropriately address any conflicts of interest? We should know that. In fact, the American people should know that. In pursuit of those facts--now, following the leads where they take you, so I say, in pursuit of the facts, we have requested records from the State Department, National Archives, Department of Justice, some other Federal agencies, and the U.S. consulting firm Blue Star Strategies. We have also talked with current and former U.S. Government officials. Isn't this odd? Apparently, Obama administration records and speaking with Obama administration officials is, to our Democratic friends, foreign or Russian disinformation. Isn't that odd? As Senator Johnson and I noted to our Democratic colleagues in a letter when we answered their letter--if it is, then that means the Obama administration routinely peddled in it as well. Democrats have suggested that the cause of their concern is Andrii Telizhenko. In March 2020, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee sought to subpoena him only for records from his yearlong employment with Blue Star Strategies--a Democratic consulting firm that lobbied the U.S. Government on behalf of the Biden-connected Ukrainian energy firm. Blue Star also had contracts at the highest levels of President Obama's administration. Notably, Mr. Telizhenko had working relationships with Obama administration officials I don't recall ever any Democrat raising concerns about Mr. Telizhenko being a national security threat while he was meeting with the Obama administration, but, apparently, he suddenly becomes one when Republicans ask for records involving his time at a Democratic lobby shop. Truth be told, the Democrats should know a thing or two about Russian disinformation. Investigative work by me and Senator Johnson has revealed now declassified intelligence reporting that parts of the Steele dossier were parts of the Russian disinformation campaign. I am not aware of the Democrats commenting publicly on this very disturbing revelation. Where is their outrage about concerns of actual Russian disinformation contained in the Steele dossier and at the same time Russian disinformation paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton? The Steele dossier is the very, very definition of election interference, and yet we hear no objection from Democrats. Did the Democrats and the Clinton campaign know that the dossier was filled with Russian disinformation and run with it, anyway, knowing it would cause damage to Trump, his campaign, and administration? Is Russian disinformation synonymous with Democratic National Committee disinformation? Maybe the Democrats don't want to look under the hood of the fake Russia investigation because--because they would be front and center. I would like to remind my Democratic colleagues that I ordered my staff to interview Donald Trump, Jr., and Republican officials during my time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and we did so. At the same time, ask yourself if I ever requested an interview with Hunter Biden. If I did that, how would the Democrats react? My fellow Americans, this is where we are at now. The Democrats live by the motto ``Do as I say, not as I do.'' Yet they accuse me and my colleague, Senator Johnson, of playing politics and engaging in a disinformation campaign. The hard truth is, it is the Democrats who are engaged in a disinformation campaign all because the facts don't fit into their political narrative. Their silence regarding the Steele dossier and fake Russia investigation, yet complaints about my legitimate oversight investigation, is proof of that. In conclusion, these recent media reports hinge on the leak of Democrats' classified documents, which they hadn't shared with their Republican colleagues. Only after the stories were published--I want to emphasize, only after the stories were published--were I and my staff able to review the Democrats' documents. Their letter is full of cherry-picked lines designed to shoehorn Republicans into warnings of a very real threat that faces all of us. Their letter attempts to cast Republicans as unwitting pawns in foreign disinformation, but it appears that the Democrats are playing the role as a useful idiot for foreign adversaries. The leaks only further distort the content of their letter. In no conceivable way do the facts support the Democrats' and the media's preposterous narrative. Here is what really bothers me the most. My Democratic colleagues have known me for a very long time. They know who I am. They know where to find me. And they know that if they were so concerned about what I was allegedly up to, they should have just raised all of those issues with me. This nonsense of orchestrated leaks to plant stories and falsely accusing me of dealing in disinformation based on actual disinformation that I wasn't even privy to serves only the interest of our shared adversaries. This happens to be the behavior of cowards. And, of course, it should stop. As I started out my remarks today, we have seen this movie before. It didn't end well for those who relied on a disinformation dossier in 2016. Finally, the truth is slowly starting to come out and the FBI, the media, and the Members of Congress who touted the disinformation look pretty bad today. I started out by saying we need to learn from history--I believe it was George Santayana who said something like that maybe 100 years ago--or you are going to repeat the mistakes of the past. Let's not repeat this history. Instead, we ought to be learning from it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues who want to speak next, I have a 1-minute remark and approximately 5 minutes of remarks. Today is National Chocolate Chip Cookie Day. It is a perfect day to salute an Iowa entrepreneur who built a cookie empire at the Iowa State Fair. Last year, his business sold 2 million chocolate chip cookies during the 11 days of the fair. A lifelong salesperson and legendary concessionaire, this 92-year-old Iowan is in a league of his own. After more than a quarter century rolling cookie dough at the State fair, Joe Barksdale decided it was time to hang up his apron. However, his legacy will continue for generations to come. He is paying it forward by giving back to the people of Iowa. Joe gifted his legendary cookie recipe to the Iowa State Fair so that its profits could be reinvested for years to come. As of today, Barksdale's State Fair Cookies has a brand new home. The permanent cookie building will shorten customer wait times with a dozen sales windows. For anyone who hasn't tasted this State delicacy, I suggest you put it on your bucket list.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. On another matter, Madam President, Iowa is home to 86,000 family farms and leads the Nation in the production of commodities, such as corn, where we are No. 1; soybeans, No. 2; pork, and eggs, No. 1. Iowa also ranks in the top 10 in cattle production, as many family farms raise livestock alongside their corn and soybeans. The 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture showed over 23,000 farms in Iowa that raise cattle or calves, with annual sales of $4.7 billion. Caring for livestock takes a spirit of commitment, selflessness, and, of course, hard work. These farmers get up very, very early in the morning, work on their farms all day, and are active members of their communities. These families and their values form the foundation of what makes up our rural communities across Iowa. However, over the years, the consolidation of the beef industry has threatened the very livelihood of these families and rural communities where they reside. From the 2012 USDA Agriculture Census to the 2017 Agriculture Census, Iowa lost nearly 1,500 cattle producers. This is not a new issue to the beef industry. The concern of fair and transparent cattle pricing has seen increased attention due to disruptions in our food supply chain. It has been very obvious during this period of the virus pandemic. For background, the U.S. Department of Agriculture mandates price reporting for live cattle and tracks the spread between fed cattle prices--what the producer gets paid--and the boxed beef values, which is what the packing company gets paid. For the years 2016 to 2018, this spread averaged about $21 per hundredweight. Soon I will be comparing that to a very, very big increase from that $21. However, during April and May, there were major beef supply disruptions, as large numbers of plant workers contracted COVID-19. Because there are only four companies that slaughter 80- percent of the cattle, companies have the advantage of purchasing cattle from thousands of producers, acting as a chokepoint for the entire industry. These packers dominate the marketplace and limit opportunities for price negotiation. During this time, in these recent months, packer profit margins topped out at a spread of $279 per hundredweight compared to the $21 that I previously mentioned. This was the largest spread between the price of fed cattle and the price of boxed beef since the inception of the mandatory price reporting law of 2001. So while all the packers were making record profits, the independent producer had nowhere even to market his livestock. It is important to note that the impact of consolidation doesn't just hurt producers. It hurts consumers. We have seen the price of ground beef and steaks--a staple in many American diets--double or triple recently. Grocery stores also limited the amount of meat that families could buy. All this has made it very clear that the cattle market is broken and real action is needed to fix it. Thankfully, the Trump administration stepped up to this cause. It has responded with two decisive actions to address the country's cattle market. First, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice are both investigating the practices of these packing companies, particularly the four that dominate the market. While this will take time, President Trump has personally asked for these investigations and said he did it because he wants to protect the family farmer. Second, on July 22, the USDA issued a significant report that lays out a roadmap to fix the cattle marketplace. The U.S. Department of Agriculture mentions 12 different ways to create additional price discovery, increase marketplace competition, and have a more transparent relationship between the price of live cattle and the beef products that the consumer buys. This investigation and report are very much a breath of fresh air, particularly for this Senator who has been bringing this issue to the attention of Agriculture Department and Justice Departments under both Republican and Democratic administrations for a long period of time. We have had multiple administrations from Democrats to Republicans ignoring independent cattle producers and the broken cattle market. So I am very grateful that President Trump and Secretary Perdue take this issue seriously, when so many others before them have ignored this problem. In the report issued by Secretary Perdue, one of the considerations for Congress is to create a mechanism to mandate negotiated cash trades. I am getting to one of the very key reasons why I am on the floor today, because I see some of the actions in this report from Secretary Perdue as almost an endorsement of the Grassley-Tester 50/14 concept. The Grassley-Tester bill will require half of packers' weekly volume of beef slaughter to come as a result of purchases made on the cash market. The fact is that without a mandated amount of cash trade, independent producers become residual suppliers and then lack the leverage to fairly negotiate with packing companies. Besides the Grassley-Tester bill, Congress has the responsibility to fully vet the 11 other considerations that the Trump administration lays out in its report. The Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee should hold hearings on this road map. We should bring a diverse set of stakeholders, government officials, business executives, and subject matter experts to explain the challenges that cattle producers are facing. The hearings would allow the committee to properly vet proposals to improve mandatory price reporting, which needs to be reauthorized by September 30 of this year. The beef industry employs hundreds of thousands of hard-working men and women who work each day to help feed our country and, because we export so much, you can say feed the world. As the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census shows, we are losing producers due to consolidation. We need to show these men and women that Washington, DC, is listening. We need to show our rural communities that we want them to survive. We must develop solutions to the problems that they are facing. I will continue to be the voice for independent producers. Today, I am asking my colleagues and Congress to be that voice with me. Support my bill with Senator Tester and bring competition and price transparency back to the cattle markets. While I am at it, I want to reemphasize something I previously said. The Ag committee should hold a hearing on these issues and do it very soon. I am happy to see Senator Tester on the floor, who I think is here to speak on the very same issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, Iowa's secretary of state Paul Pate will mail an absentee ballot request form to every registered Iowa voter for the November election. This is a request form, not a ballot, being mailed out to everybody. Iowa's current absentee ballot system allows anyone who wants to vote by mail the option to do so. Just send in the request form when you receive it, or you may download it online, but if Iowans prefer to vote in person, that remains their choice. There has been a lot of misinformation claiming that some massive, Federal intervention is needed to allow citizens to vote by mail. This isn't true in Iowa or elsewhere. Every State has vote-by-mail, and 16 States ask for a reason, such as being over 65, for example, but most have waived or loosened this requirement. Some groups are now using the pandemic to push for a Federal mandate on States to adopt a new, universal vote-by-mail system overnight. It took 5 years when Washington State implemented voting by mail. Requiring every State to replace its current voting system with a whole new, centralized, mail-only system this close to our November election is a recipe for disaster. In such a system, every registered voter, including those who have died or moved away, would automatically be mailed a ballot with no voting in person. Every Iowan who wants to vote absentee in November can do so, and those who want to vote in person can also do so safely. It is a voter's choice and should remain so 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, everybody now in the Senate remembers Senator Hatch. I want to tell you how he is still on the job, reminding Americans of our traditions. Recently, my friend from Utah, former Senator Orrin Hatch, wrote about American academia and our so-called cancel culture. I encourage all Americans to read his essay that was published in the Wall Street Journal. Senator Hatch calls for a ``renewed commitment to intellectual diversity'' and for a ``radical overhaul of campus culture.'' I agree with Senator Hatch. Our institutions of higher learning need to wake up and welcome the open exchange of ideas in the classrooms and across campuses, and if that isn't what universities and colleges are for, I don't know what they are for. Silencing or shaming students from sharing divergent views is antithetical to the American way. Our next generation of leaders deserves better. As colleges begin the school year, they should focus on keeping their students safe from the virus, but--and a big ``but''--they shouldn't worry one bit about keeping students safe from the free exchange of ideas or prevent professors from teaching different schools of thought. The herd mentality limits intellectual curiosity, and that is bad for freedom, particularly academic freedom. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from Delaware for bailing me out, as we sometimes say in Iowa. I have two reasons for speaking this morning. No. 1, very shortly, this week is the 30th year of the Americans with Disabilities Act as the law of the land. There are plenty of reasons to recognize that law for the landmark that it is and how it has helped people advance in our society and get more equality, but also, I do it because a former colleague of mine from Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin, working along with Senator Bob Dole, worked really hard to get this landmark civil rights legislation signed into law. Since that day, America has continued to improve opportunities, inclusion, and access for individuals who live with disabilities. As my colleagues and I work to defeat the virus, heal the racial divide, lower prescription drug prices, and restore the U.S. economy, let's take a lesson from the passage of the ADA, very much a cooperative relationship between Republicans and Democrats. Let's work together in good faith and work out our differences for the good of the American people--whether it was the Americans with Disabilities Act or, now, efforts to beat the virus and get the economy going.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the motorcoach industry has been particularly hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic turndown as a result of it. Iowa has many motorcoach operators, several of which are really family owned and some of them for two or three generations. I have been in frequent communication with these Iowans, and I am learning they are quickly coming to the point of making a decision of whether they can even stay in business. Motorcoaches provide passenger transportation services to all Americans, providing over 600 million passenger trips annually across the country. By comparison, airlines provided service for 925 million passenger trips in 2019. While most other modes of transportation received specific funding to help them through the pandemic, the motorcoach industry has not. What they are really referring to when they talk to me, they seem to feel that they have been left out when we have given several tens of millions of dollars to help the airline industry. I spoke with Secretary Mnuchin about this matter and have relayed the concerns from these Iowa companies to relevant committees here in the Senate. The government relies on motorcoach industries to help move troops and also evacuate people to safety during our natural disasters. However, with passenger bookings being nonexistent and few charters being scheduled, this leaves little hope of rebound yet this year. The industry may not survive to provide this service in the future if they don't receive support. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, now that the United Kingdom has separated from the European Union, it is our opportunity to sit down with the United Kingdom and do some business. Therefore, I am pleased that the United States and the United Kingdom are making strides in our negotiations to complete a free trade agreement. Our two countries, as you know, have a centuries-old relationship. That relationship will be further strengthened by a comprehensive deal that presents economic opportunities for our farmers, our manufacturers, and our service providers to the benefit of both sides of the Atlantic. I will continue to insist that an agreement reached between our two countries will allow us to reach our full potential as trading partners, particularly when it comes to agricultural trade. The United Kingdom has been subject to very restrictive European Union rules that have no scientific basis. We call those sanitary and phytosanitary rules. I urge the administration to work with the United Kingdom negotiators to achieve greater marketing access for U.S. farmers. In other words, I am tired of the EU restrictions that we have had over the last couple of decades on our GMO grains. I yield the floor.