Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor before to speak about the value of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the value to all three countries, but most importantly the United States. I am here again in honor of National Agriculture Week. I would like to continue my review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA for short, and I do it today by thanking President Trump for what he called ``the largest, fairest, most balanced, and modern trade agreement ever achieved.'' I hope that President Trump remembers those words--and they were very appropriate words--as he leads the reconsideration of USMCA today. One little provision, but an important provision in the USMCA, in 2020, when the agreement was signed, it may have been difficult to see just how big an impact the first ever biotechnology provision in a trade agreement would make and how important the dispute settlement piece would be for that agreement, and, in this particular case, helping American farmers. It happens that in 2022, Mexico tried to ban genetically modified corn. In Iowa language, we say GMO product. This could have led to more bans and shutting off billions of dollars in markets for U.S. ag products. After a significant push by this Senator and the junior Senator from Iowa, the U.S. Trade Representative filed a successful dispute settlement in the process that was laid out in the USMCA, and that dispute settlement resulted in Mexico reversing its ban on GMO corn. It was a win for U.S. farmers, processors, and the very large, fair, balanced, and modern United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Now, that is a very small part of this agreement because, overall, the big picture is that USMCA has been a success throughout and for all of our economy, but especially for agriculture. Now, this agreement--and it is under the agreement--is going through a review process that was called for in that agreement, and the big question is: Will the United States lead Mexico and Canada to continue this agreement to the year 2036? I am urging this administration that the first few years of the USMCA has been so beneficial to all three countries that it is a no-brainer to continue the USMCA through 2036. Along this line, I will be meeting with Canadian Senators to talk about how they feel this agreement is going and how successful they think it might be getting it continued. I hope that it will be continued, and that is what I am urging the Trump administration to see through because, like I say, it is a no- brainer. It should be continued. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon, the Senate will debate a bill. The bill is called the SAVE America Act. The policies in this bill have the support of more than 80 percent of Americans. Some of my colleagues say that the SAVE America Act isn't necessary. They are wrong. There are two fundamental, commonsense reasons as to why 80 percent of Americans support the policies of this legislation. No. 1, only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote in our elections. So this bill simply requires Americans to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. No. 2, it requires a photo ID when voting. This helps to ensure the person who is registered to vote in that election is the person who is actually casting that ballot. The SAVE America Act would give voters peace of mind that Federal elections are conducted fair and square. It would give voters peace of mind that their vote isn't diluted by people who are not eligible to vote. I am a cosponsor of the SAVE America Act. I support free, transparent, and accurate elections. Every American deserves the absolute confidence that there is no funny business distorting election outcomes. Let me tell you about the track record in my home State of Iowa. Voter ID laws in my State have been successful and well received since the passage in 2017. Iowa's voter turnout increased in the 2018 mid-term elections, and turnout has continued to remain very strong. So the proof is in the pudding. Iowa's track record demonstrates voter ID improves the integrity and security of our elections. It also enhances voter turnout and boosts public confidence in the outcomes of elections. Nearly a century ago, a Supreme Court Justice said that States are the ``laboratories of democracy.'' Guess what. Iowa has shown voter ID laws work. They don't impede voter turnout, as Iowa has shown. Voter ID boosts the public trust. In fact, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 States have voter ID laws on the books. This bill would apply a minimum Federal standard much like other Federal voting laws. Partisan critics of this commonsense bill are misleading the public with bad information. This bill would not make it harder to vote. Americans ought to be insulted by the arguments being made on the other side of the aisle. I am confident Americans are capable of bringing a photo ID with them to vote. That happens to be no different than when they drive, when they open a bank account, when they board an airplane, when they buy cold medicine, or sign up for government benefits. These are all examples of people showing ID. Another argument claims it is unfair to require people to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. That is even more revealing in coming from the other side because it makes the Biden administration's open border policy even more alarming. After President Biden allowed more than 12 million people to illegally enter our country, protecting the right to vote for American citizens is top of mind to the millions of law-abiding citizens throughout America. Because of the influx of illegal immigrants streaming into our country during Biden's border crisis, it is not surprising Americans want to suppress voter fraud and ensure every ballot is legitimate. The bill gives voters five different ways to show proof of citizenship, and it gives States the flexibility to create other pathways to show proof of citizenship. For example, for those whose current name doesn't match their birth certificate, they can provide a marriage certificate or other name change verification. I have been honored to serve in my elective office for many decades. I have worked hard to earn every vote at the ballot box. Public trust in elective officeholders requires public trust in our elections. Voting rights have a long history in America's march to a more perfect Union. They are enhanced by the 15th Amendment to the Federal Constitution and by the 19th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. My mother was one of the very first women to cast a ballot after the ratification of the 19th Amendment. I have shown proof of that with placards here on the floor of the U.S. Senate in a speech that shows her picture in the Des Moines Register newspaper and the Waterloo Courier newspaper. The SAVE America Act doesn't infringe on these hard-fought voting rights. It would preserve the integrity of every vote cast in a Federal election. Election integrity is sacred to our system of self- government. Losing public trust in the outcome of elections would be a death knell for our fragile American experiment, even though it is 250 years long. For our Nation's 250th birthday, the SAVE America Act is a gift to current and future generations to strengthen our system of self- government. This brings me to more commonsense policies included in the bill, as well as the voting issues. Like many Americans, I am alarmed by the prevalence of gender mutilation surgeries being performed on minors. Protecting children makes our society stronger. Irreversible damage from gender reassignment surgery should not be conducted on kids. This bill would put an end to this reckless practice on American children. The SAVE America Act would make this policy the law of the land this very week. On another issue in the bill, America is in the thick of March Madness. Filling out brackets, watching buzzer-beaters, and cheering on Cinderella contenders is a rite of passage during the month of March. I am thrilled to cheer on our Iowa teams in the NCAA Tournament, including two women's teams--the Iowa Hawkeyes and the Iowa State Cyclones--as well as three men's teams--the Hawkeyes, the Cyclones, and my alma mater, the University of Northern Iowa Panthers. Earlier this month, the Iowa high school basketball tournament brought the best of 32 girls teams and 32 boys teams from across the State to compete in 4 divisions. These young athletes deserve to compete on a level playing field--girls against girls, boys against boys. This is a matter of fairness. Our bill would guarantee a level playing field for young athletes. Title IX was enacted a few years before I became a Member of Congress. It has been a game changer for women's sports. Just think of Iowa University's Caitlin Clark. She has blazed a trail for women's sports for generations to come. The SAVE America Act delivers commonsense government to the American people. As a student of history, I would prophesize that Americans looking back at this debate, 250 years from now, will scratch their heads, because protecting election integrity and protecting women's sports are as American as motherhood and apple pie. In fact, 80 percent of Americans are able to see eye to eye on these issues. When it comes to elections, 80 percent of the American people support voter ID. I have even seen polls that say that 71 percent of the Democrats support voter ID. I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to join us and pass the SAVE America Act without delay. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to again remind my colleagues and the Nation about this significant day in the history of the Senate. Of course, America's 250th celebration gives us a special opportunity to reflect on events and on the people who made a mark on our Nation's history. That, of course, would include more than 2,000 Americans who have served in the U.S. Senate since it first met on March 4, 1789. On another occasion, on this very day 67 years ago, 2 very distinguished Members of this body presided at a special ceremony in the Senate Reception Room. That Senate Reception Room is the beautiful space located just off the floor of this historic Chamber. So, on March 12, 1959, then-Senator John F. Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson unveiled the portraits of the five Senators who were unanimously chosen for their ``statesmanship'' and ``leadership in national thought and constitutional interpretation.'' These five Senators are known as the Famous Five: Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Robert La Follette, Sr., of Wisconsin, and Robert Taft of Ohio. In the year 2000, which would have been 41 years after the first portraits were unveiled, another historic review took place. The U.S. Senate approved two former Senators to join the ``Famous Five.'' So, on September 14, 2004, the portraits of Senators Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan and Robert Wagner of New York were unveiled. I am giving you this history. All I can do is encourage Americans to study these Senators who made a mark on U.S. history from just before the Civil War through the Cold War to make America the more perfect Union that the Constitution's preamble calls on us to do--evolve into a more perfect Union--obviously, expressing, in 1789, that they knew we were not a perfect Union and that it were to be always an evolving principle for the United States of America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to recognize the 40th anniversary of a day we call National TRIO Day. On February 24, 1986, a congressional resolution declared that February 28 should be designated ``National TRIO Day.'' At the same time, I come here to recognize the achievements of the TRIO programs. Although there are now six distinct TRIO programs, the name TRIO originates from the Higher Education Act of 1968. That Act consolidated a ``trio'' of programs under one overall program. Today, these six programs include Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Talent Search, Educational Opportunity Centers, the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, and sixth, the Staff Development Training Program. I am a longtime supporter of TRIO programs, and I am a member of the TRIO caucus in the U.S. Senate. As a caucus member, I understand these programs provide critical support to low-income, first-generation college students and prospective students. In 2025, 54 TRIO programs in Iowa served over 18,000 Iowans from sixth grade to graduate programs. As we mark 40 years of National TRIO Day, I commend the educators; I commend the counselors; and I commend the staff--all who have dedicated their careers to students' success. At the same time, I celebrate the generations of students whose lives have been transformed through TRIO. I remain committed to supporting these vital programs so they may continue expanding opportunities and building stronger futures for Iowa and for the Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the weekend, I was honored to attend a very solemn but dignified transfer of the remains at the Dover Air Force Base along with President Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary Hegseth, and the entire Iowa congressional delegation. We paid our respects to the seven fallen heroes. Barbara and I continue to pray for the safety of our brave military.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Last night, we received the sad news that two more Army Reserve soldiers from the 103rd Sustainment Command, based out of Des Moines, IA, were killed in Kuwait amid Operation Epic Fury. That includes MAJ Jeffrey O'Brien, who is from Indianola, and he has family in Waukee, IA. Their heroism should be remembered forever. These soldiers represent the best of Iowa and the best of the United States. We should never forget their sacrifice and their service. Barbara and I are praying for their loved ones in this time of grief, and we also pray for the safety of all soldiers serving in harm's way.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have a short statement on history and then a short but very necessary statement of bad news, sad news. Anniversary of the Convening of the First Senate Mr. President, as we celebrate America's 250th birthday this year, I want to acknowledge the anniversary of the Senate convening on this day 237 years ago. On March 4, 1789, the U.S. Senate convened for the first time at New York City's Federal Hall. However, this body didn't reach a quorum, so it couldn't do business until April 6, 1789, when the 12th Member arrived. The Senate began convening in January instead of March in 1935 because the Congress and the State legislatures ratified the 20th Amendment. The Senate was designed by the constitutional writers to protect States with smaller populations from being silenced by larger States, so obviously two Senators from each State does that. And remember, until 1913, Senators were selected by their State legislatures. Now, 237 years later, this body's size has grown to 100, and how Senators assume office--by popular election--has changed, but the role of the Senate as a deliberative body has not changed. Honoring Captain Cody Khork, Sergeant First Class Nicole Amor, Sergeant First Class Noah Tietjens, and Sergeant Declan Coady Mr. President, this is the sad news. Last night, we received sad news and awful news that four Army Reserve soldiers from the 103rd Sustainment Command, based out of Des Moines, IA, were killed in Kuwait amidst Operation Epic Fury. That includes SGT Declan Coady, who was from West Des Moines, IA. I am deeply saddened to learn of the four's passing. They represent the best of Iowa and the best of America. We should never forget their sacrifice and their service. Barbara and I are praying for their loved ones in this time of grief, and we continue to pray, as I hope all Americans will, for the safety of all soldiers serving in harm's way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to refer to billions of dollars. I am not referring to billions of taxpayer dollars. I am visiting with you about billions of crime fines that are not collected. For many years, I have addressed and pressed the Justice Department to ensure that the Crime Victims Fund has sufficient resources. That fund supports victims and survivors of crime in our hometowns and all across America. Congress established the fund to be taxpayer-neutral. Its balances are filled through criminal fines and penalties that the Justice Department collects and deposits in that Crime Victims Fund. Last Congress, my oversight revealed that the Biden Justice Department failed to collect and deposit more than $1 billion in fines and penalties. The Biden-Harris administration was weak on crime and weak on protecting victims. Since my oversight, the balance of the fund has increased from $1 billion in 2023--the lowest in over a decade--to its current balance of $3.5 billion. Last April, this Senator, along with Senators Ernst, Crapo, and Risch, sent a letter to the Justice Department. In that letter, we urged the Justice Department to avoid the failures of the Biden administration. In June 2025, the Justice Department updated its policies to prioritize vindicating the rights of victims. It is a step in the right direction. According to the Department of Justice statistics, at the end of fiscal year 2024, the Department identified over $10 billion in outstanding criminal fines and penalties that remain uncollected. That money could help many victims and survivors of crime. On February 11 of this year, I, along with Senators Collins, Ernst, Crapo, and Risch, wrote to the Justice Department about their efforts to collect that money. Our letter highlighted two main points: First, collecting the money would hold criminals accountable. Second, collecting the money would provide a substantial boost to the Crime Victims Fund. We Senators urged the Justice Department in our letter to prioritize collecting these funds and to keep our offices updated on how those efforts to collect that money go. I look forward to hearing from the current Department of Justice about the status of these efforts so we can make sure that victims of crime are benefited from the bad aspects of criminal activity. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I talked about Lithuanian Independence Day; yesterday, Estonia's Independence Day. Today, I have another country, but I don't want my colleagues to think that I am going to be speaking about the Independence Day of all 200 nations on the face of this Earth. In fact, I know very few of their Independence Days. But because the United States and my State of Iowa has a close relationship with Kosovo, I want to recognize that Tuesday, February 17, was that Republic's Independence Day; that is, the 18th anniversary of Kosovo's Declaration of Independence in the year 2008. Also, next month will mark 15 years of Kosovo-Iowa National Guard partnership. Many Iowa National Guard members have served in Kosovo, starting with the NATO mission there, to working with the Kosovo Security Force as part of the National Guard State Partnership Program. Both my State of Iowa and Kosovo have found this partnership to be very beneficial, so much so that it has grown into a whole sister state relationship. Our Governor Reynolds and the president of the Kosovo exchange visits and keep in contact, and that close working relationship extends down to other Iowa and Kosovo Government officials. Kosovo and Iowa have also developed close ties in areas like trade and education, in addition to the national security concerns of both countries. People from Kosovo have attended Iowa's educational institutions, and Kosovo has even established a consulate in our capital city of Des Moines. When you look at the polling of which countries have a favorable impression of the United States, Kosovo often comes up on top. I am proud that my State has such a close relationship with arguably the most pro-American country in the world. Our State and the country of Kosovo both benefit from the ties that we continue to build. I know that both Iowans and people of Kosovo cherish our partnership, and I look forward to that partnership continuing to grow. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a few days ago, I stood here and congratulated Lithuania on its Independence Day. Well, there is another Baltic State that had Independence Day yesterday, the country of Estonia. Just as we celebrate Independence Day on the anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, yesterday marked the anniversary of Estonia's Declaration of Independence in 1918. The United States established diplomatic relations with Estonia 4 years later in 1922, and that recognition and relationship with Estonia has continued uninterrupted until today. That is right. We even had accredited Estonian diplomats working in the United States throughout the 50 years that Estonia was illegally occupied by the Soviet Union and Moscow considered Estonia as a legitimate part of the Soviet Union. So we never gave up on Estonia's freedom. That is something that we Americans can be proud of: standing by our friends. Today, Estonia is very free, very prosperous, and very pro-American.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Banks and I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each prior to the scheduled recess.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, I started my 46th executive year of holding meetings in each of Iowa's 99 counties. During the Q&A's in 13 southwest Iowa counties, we discussed the need to lower prescription drug costs by reining in pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs for short. We also spoke about the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which puts more money back into Iowans' pockets. For the average Iowa household, that is $2,063 of your hard-earned money back to you. I look forward to hearing directly from more Iowans throughout the year as I continue with all the meetings in each of our 99 counties. On February the 3rd, President Trump signed into law the fiscal year 2026 funding package that included a very important priority of mine, legislation called Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act. This law is meant to simplify the process so that kids with complex medical needs can get the specialized healthcare that they need in a timely manner. I would like to spend a few minutes explaining the importance of this new law and how we got to this point. Kids with complex medical needs often face redtape, face delays, and face frustrations when getting their specialized medical care. The Federal Government defines kids with complex medical needs as having a life-limiting illness, a rare pediatric disease, or one or more chronic conditions that impact multiple organ systems and reduce cognitive or physical abilities. This can be kids with cancer, cystic fibrosis, or congenital heart disease. These kids, on average, see 5 to 6 specialists and up to as many as 20 or 30 allied health professionals. You can see, managing these types of medical needs takes patience and help because parents are often overwhelmed at the scope of that care and overwhelmed how to navigate the system to get that care for their special needs kids. The specialized medical care for kids with complex medical needs tends to come from only a few providers, and here is the rub: often out of State at a pediatric hospital. This requires coordination with instate and out-of-State providers and State Medicaid officials to allow this care to happen. The process to get care is difficult and full of redtape, delaying care that these kids desperately need and, in some cases, not receiving care at all. To solve this problem, in 2018, I introduced the Accelerating Kids' Access to Care bill. Our aim was simplification of this redtape process. This law will give States the ability to use a streamlined screening and enrolling process for out-of-State specialized pediatric care providers that need to enroll in the State's Medicaid Program. We do this while also retaining safeguards to protect program integrity. When I first started on this law in 2018 during the 115th Congress, we had eight bipartisan sponsors. In this, the 119th Congress, it garnered 46 bipartisan sponsors and became one of the most cosponsored Medicaid bills before the Finance Committee. Over the past few years, we built support from well over 200 organizations dedicated to pediatric care. I also worked with my colleagues, including those on the Finance Committee, and I want to give a special shout-out to Chairman Crapo of the Finance Committee for his partnership in getting this law passed. The passage of the Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act is a win for kids with complex medical needs and also very helpful to the families that care about their children. It is a win for kids like Charlie, a brain tumor survivor who also spoke before the Finance Committee in 2023 about the importance of this legislation. It is a win for kids like 3-year-old Edwens from Perry, IA, whose family travels out of State so he can receive pediatric gene therapy at the M Health Fairview Hospital in Minnesota. Only a few medical centers provide this kind of care in the country for Edwens' rare disease. There are many other kids whose lives will improve because of this law. Another person I can think of when I talk about this law is the late Katie Beckett. Katie was from Cedar Rapids, IA. She was born in 1978, and at 5 months, she contracted a brain infection that required a ventilator to breathe. After many years in the hospital, Katie was unable to leave because Medicaid rules didn't allow her to receive care outside of the hospital, even though it was possible for her to get care at home being with family and, of course, having this treatment at home be very cost effective to the taxpayer. In the early 1980s, President Reagan heard about Katie Beckett's story, and he removed redtape for Katie through a Medicaid waiver. I had a colleague from Iowa in the House of Representatives at that time, Congressman Tom Tauke of Iowa, who was the main mover to get the President to grant this waiver, and I will never forget Tom Tauke's hard work in this area. Since then, Katie Beckett waivers have resulted in more than a half a million disabled kids being able to receive care at homes with their families rather than being forced into hospitals and institutions. This law also established the Family-to-Family Health Information Centers. Today, these centers in each State are helping families and their kids navigate the complex system of services and support. This is the kind of empowerment Washington ought to promote--public policy that illuminates opportunities instead of keeping people in the dark. In my time in the Senate, we have seen medical advancements for kids with complex medical needs, and Congress has responded by giving these kids and their families the proper medical resources. One of these resources was the Family Opportunity law that President Bush signed 20 years ago this very month. That law did several things. This, by the way, was a cooperation between this Senator from Iowa and then-Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. First, the legislation, the Family Opportunity Act, enabled middle- income families who have kids with disabilities to buy into Medicaid. It has helped families get the healthcare they need for their kids with disabilities without going into poverty. It was a pro-work, pro-family, and pro-taxpayer piece of legislation. More recently in 2019, Congress passed my Advancing Care for Exceptional Kids law, or a law that goes by the short term of ACE Kids. ACE Kids better aligns Medicaid rules and payment to incentivize coordination of care. It does this by establishing a pediatric health home for kids with complex medical conditions. Kids with complex medical conditions often see multiple doctors and dozens of healthcare professionals. You can see, that is a lot of care coordination that often doesn't happen, or it is left to the parents to figure out. ACE Kids fixes this and ensures care coordination happening. While I am sure more work will need to be done, I want to recognize the hard work that went into the passage of the Accelerating Kids' Access to Care law and the importance of it--its bipartisanship, its backing by a couple hundred organizations that advocate for kids with special needs. Yet it is another step towards supporting the dignity of exceptional kids. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I remind people that this day is Abraham Lincoln's birthday and talk about Lincoln, I want to start this morning by saying that my wife Barbara and this Senator are praying for those involved in the bus crash from Iowa Lakes Community College. Just yesterday, in Calhoun County on Highway 4, a bus rolled several times leaving 1 dead and 32 injured. These young people were traveling to a baseball tournament when tragedy struck. We are praying for the family who lost a loved one. To the passengers and their families, we are praying for you and for full recovery from your injuries. I am thankful for the Iowans on hand to help, including emergency personnel, healthcare providers, and the Iowa Lakes Community College community for supporting the team through this difficult time. Abraham Lincoln Mr. President, as we celebrate the 250th birthday of this great America and our independence from Great Britain, I want to recognize the birth of our Nation's 16th President on this very day, February 12, 217 years ago. Americans know that President Lincoln was instrumental in preserving the United States and abolishing slavery. He also championed a law to fight fraud. That is my intention today. In 1863, President Lincoln signed the False Claims Act. ``Lincoln's Law,'' as it is referred to, helped expose fraudsters at that time selling inferior supplies at premium prices to the Union Army during the Civil War. So how did this law work? It gave patriots a financial incentive to blow the whistle on wrongdoing, rewarding them with a share of the fines collected through litigation. Now, what happened to Lincoln's Law during World War II, and for reasons I don't know, but I have a suspicion that maybe Congress, at that time, felt that reporting this stuff may hurt our defense efforts to win World War II or for whatever reason, they neutered the legislation. Then, four decades ago, I strengthened Lincoln's Law. I wrote the 1986 amendments to Lincoln's Law that restored this commonsense tool to fight fraud. By empowering patriotic whistleblowers to reveal wrongdoing, the law continues to deliver for the American people, returning approximately $85 billion for taxpayers since my amendments were adopted 40 years ago. And that is not all. There is a deterrent effect of the legislation. My amendments to the False Claims Act have saved even more taxpayers' dollars by deterring untold billions of dollars of fraud in the first place. In the last fiscal year, the Federal Government recovered over $6.8 billion dollars in fraudulent payments. This is the largest single-year recovery in the history of the False Claims Act. As we observe President Lincoln's birthday on February 12, I also want to remind Americans to celebrate the patriotic whistleblowers who have used Lincoln's Law to hold wrongdoers accountable and recover a lot of taxpayers' money. You can be sure that I will keep championing the False Claims Act to protect truth-tellers from retaliation when they stick their necks out to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about a country that loves freedom, and they are also a friend of the United States and have had a good relationship with the United States. It happens that, on February 16, 1918, the Act of Independence of Lithuania was signed by the Council of Lithuania. This act proclaimed independence from the Russian Empire and the restoration of the historic State of Lithuania to be governed, as we would expect, with democratic principles. Some people may be thinking: Isn't Lithuania a former Soviet Republic? No, Lithuanians and their statehood go back to the 13th century, but the modern Republic of Lithuania has existed since 1918. The United States has maintained continuous diplomatic relations with Lithuania way back since 1922. In fact, the Republic of Lithuania has occupied the same building here in Washington, DC, for over 100 years. The United States made crystal clear, at the time--1940, that is--and ever since, that it would not recognize the Soviet annexation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, those three countries that sometimes we refer to as the Baltic States. And I am proud of the fact that the United States has made that crystal clear. I am sure that many people thought this stance was somewhat silly and didn't recognize the reality of what it meant to be under Soviet domination. In the depths of the Cold War, the notion of Lithuania restoring its de facto independence seemed very, very farfetched. But, today, Lithuania is free and prosperous and one of the most pro-American countries in the world. Lithuania is a close U.S. ally and a beacon of Western values on the frontlines of freedom. This example of freedom and economic opportunity on its border rankles the Soviet-like Russia, as we know it today. You can tell by the rhetoric coming from the Putin regime. For instance, the Putin regime sometimes suggests that the vote of the Soviet Duma recognizing Lithuania's independence from the Soviet Union was not legal. Of course, if you know the history that I have just explained, that is an absurd position, because the Soviet occupation of Lithuania itself was never legal, and the United States never recognized it as being legal. Lithuania, today, is a good friend of the United States and a model North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally. I congratulate the people of Lithuania on their independence day and thank them for their friendship. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For the majority leader, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on December 28, last year, merchants in Tehran's Grand Bazaar took to the streets, protesting high inflation, protesting currency devaluation, and protesting a worsening economy in Iran. Accompanied by frustrations of constant political repression, then thousands of Iranian citizens have gone to the streets to protest. So what would you think is the normal thing in an authoritarian government? These Iranian government authorities responded with more repression and violence against their own people--their own Iranian people. On January 8, 2026, the regime also implemented a complete internet blackout. That made it, obviously, harder for Iranians to communicate with one another and to share evidence of the regime's abuses with the outside world. The same internet blackout has made it also more difficult to confirm how many protesters have been injured or killed. These reports suggest that thousands of protesters have been killed, and more than 41,000 have been arrested. And that happens to be more than double the number arrested in previous protests. The latest were in 2022, when Mahsa Amini was murdered, and the protests that followed that murder. The violence and lethal force used against Iranian citizens is alarming, and if you saw it on the streets on our own television, you would say it is outrageous. That is why I was glad to see President Trump out in front, speaking out against this violence and supporting the Iranian citizens who were doing nothing more than fighting for their freedom and liberty. It was also encouraging to see the Department of Treasury and the Department of State announce sanctioning of Iranian individuals who are involved in the violence against their own people. So it is obvious the United States is not an enemy of the Iranian people. I stand with the protesters in Iran and will continue to support their fight for freedom, for dignity, and for a future free from fear and repression. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For the majority leader, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, once again, I want to honor a fellow Iowan. This time I want to commend Jill Ridder of Woodbine, IA, for receiving the distinguished Milken Educator Award. Jill earned this award as a result of her outstanding service to her students, to her school, and to her community. Throughout her career, Jill has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to student success and her innovative approach to education. As principal of the Woodbine Elementary School, she has fostered a culture of high expectations, resulting in over 75 percent of the students performing above grade level in reading and math. Jill served as a classroom teacher at both the preschool and elementary levels, and as a school-based interventionist. This experience led to her use of a comprehensive, student-centered educational model at Woodbine Elementary. Beyond her primary responsibilities as principal, she leads professional development efforts, provides mentorship to new educators, and helps teachers track student progress to provide effective intervention. Jill is engaged with families and the broader community. Her service includes strengthening the parent-teacher organization and directing the school's in-house daycare program. So I am here to congratulate Jill on her esteemed award. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this year marks 6 years since the President and Congress approved the North American U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement--USMCA for short. It is also the year that the three countries will review the agreement and decide on its future. That 6- year review is part of the agreement itself, so it must be done. So I would like to review the USMCA's impact in the first 6 years. The agreement has really enhanced U.S. exports, so President Trump has hailed the trade deal as ``a colossal victory for [Iowa] farmers, ranchers, energy workers, factory workers, and American workers in all 50 states.'' What President Trump said there was 100 percent on target when he made that statement about the value of the USMCA to the U.S. economy. Since 2019, U.S. agriculture exports have increased by almost $35 billion, and nearly half of that $35 billion was from just two countries--Canada and Mexico. After 10 years of relative stagnation before the agreement, U.S. agriculture exports to Mexico shot up by $11 billion between 2019 and 2024 to over a total of $30 billion. Today, Mexico is the No. 1 market for U.S. corn, and around one-third of all U.S. agriculture exports go to either Canada or Mexico. Remember I said Mexico is the No. 1 market for U.S. corn? Iowa, my State, is the No. 1 producer of corn, so you know how that benefits the farmers of Iowa. To summarize, the U.S. agriculture exports pie has gotten bigger, and the biggest slices have been for Canada and Mexico because of the USMCA. This means bringing home more bacon for Iowa farmers. When I mention bacon, Iowa is also the No. 1 pork producer of the 50 States. So what I have just said to you is why it is necessary to continue the great economic environment that the USMCA has produced for the United States. In other words, it is a no-brainer to get the USMCA extended and get it done very, very soon. President Trump needs to speak forcefully about the success of the USMCA, along the same lines of the quote that I gave you earlier in my speech. We know it is his strong position; it should be easy to restate that to everybody. His positive words will take the uncertainty out of whether this agreement will be extended, and if it is not extended, there will be great economic loss to the United States. Uncertainty doesn't help anybody's economy. Such uncertainty is holding back our economic growth. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am here to again speak about the New York Times' anti-whistleblower reporting. Obviously, it is very misleading. On January 18, 2026, Glenn Thrush, Alan Feuer, and Adam Goldman gave another big, wet kiss to their fired friends from the Biden Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they did so in an effort to intimidate, to smear, and to discredit brave and patriotic whistleblowers. This has now become a pattern of conduct by the New York Times, dating back to articles starting in 2023. On January 30, 2025, Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman mischaracterized my and Senator Johnson's Arctic Frost disclosures by saying ``messages showed that FBI investigators took normal bureaucratic steps and precautions'' when opening the case. Now, was this supposed to be an opinion piece on behalf of terminated FBI agents or a real news article? Normal steps weren't taken. As I noted in my February 3, 2025, floor speech about FBI agent Thibault: Does the New York Times [truly] believe that it is normal for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge to prepare case predication for the opening of an investigation and then feed it to a street agent? Is it normal for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge responsible for the most sensitive political investigations in the FBI to be forced to resign for partisanship on the job and then be found to have violated the Hatch Act for that same partisanship? These two New York Times articles are merely examples out of others that could be addressed with the same rebuttals. So, in the interest of time, I will only address the January 18, 2026, article that I came here to discuss with my colleagues. In that article, Thrush, Feuer, and Goldman issued the same slobbering defense of fired FBI agents whose emails Senator Johnson and I made public. So who does the Times end up attacking? They have chosen this Senator, and they have also chosen to attack my whistleblowers. First, Thrush, Feuer, and Goldman did get something right. Can you believe that? They said the FBI is producing records ``in response to longstanding inquiries by Republicans on Capitol Hill.'' The House and Senate have finally begun to receive responsive productions to our oversight requests as the New York Times has correctly stated. Some of those requests date back many years. Indeed, some requests date back to the first Trump administration. This isn't a scandal the Times would like to create. The Justice Department and the FBI have an obligation to respond to congressional inquiries. To Attorney General Bondi's and FBI Director Patel's credit, they have done better in that regard than any of their predecessors of Republican Presidents and Democrat Presidents. Now, am I fully satisfied? Of course not, but Bondi and Patel deserve credit. If the Biden administration had done the same, I would have given the Biden administration credit as well. By and large, the records I have made public in this and the last Congress are directly from whistleblowers in unredacted form to which my office applied limited redactions or the records are from the government in response to whistleblower disclosures that I have shared. There have been examples in this Congress and the last where the government had no idea what records were in the files of the executive branch of government until I transmitted whistleblower disclosures to that same executive branch, the most recent being the email about an FBI agent wanting to criminally investigate Elon Musk. This, too, is not a scandal that the Times would like to imply because that is called good government oversight, and I have done good government oversight all of my career in the Senate. Second, the Times said I called the raid at Mar-a-Lago, where the FBI reportedly searched the rooms of the First Lady and Barron Trump, a miscarriage of justice. Of course, when the Times said that, they didn't include my full tweet. They left out the beginning of the sentence where I said: ``Based on the records'' those records showed that the FBI agents had many concerns about the raid and ``will not do'' the search warrant unless the Deputy Director were to provide direction. These are records that were covered up by the Biden administration. Indeed, the public ought to know and give credit to those FBI agents for expressing their concerns and doing it in writing; in other words, following what the law requires. I gave the same credit to FBI agents who were obstructed by their leadership and then-Secretary of State John Kerry during the Obama administration. For example, at that time, I released a majority staff report just last year. That report made public FBI emails that showed agents tried to arrest high-level Iranians but were stopped from making those arrests. Those agents were stopped then from doing their jobs because of political considerations relating to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that President Obama was so intent upon getting finalized. Lastly, I released records this year showing FBI agents wanting to investigate election matters but were obstructed. Those agents created an investigative document that was suppressed, in part, because the information would have contradicted then-FBI Director Wray's testimony. The records show real frustration among the FBI rank and file. Again, I made this information public to inform the American people and to give due credit to those agents who were standing up for their work and following the law. Relating back to the Times article, the third issue to raise is that Thrush, Feuer, and Goldman did something unforgivable. That unforgivable thing was their article essentially accusing my whistleblowers of violating the law. It does so, in part, by citing a complaint filed by J.P. Cooney and Molly Gaston. These were two of Jack Smith's partisan prosecutors--prosecutors with a mission to put President Trump in prison when he was a private citizen while he was between his two terms in office. J.P. Cooney and Molly Gaston reportedly accused the whistleblower disclosures of violating grand jury secrecy rules when I obtained 197 of Jack Smith's subpoenas--wide- ranging subpoenas--that violated the privacy of a lot of people, including a lot of Members of the Senate and Congress. Senator Johnson and I then made these subpoenas public--almost 2,000 pages of information. That information exposed that Jack Smith, the prosecutor, and his team targeted over 400 Republican individuals and Republican and conservative organizations. In some cases, Prosecutor Smith and his team sought communications with the media and the legislative branch. J.P. Cooney and Molly Gaston were a part of Jack Smith's team; so that reported complaint they filed against my whistleblowers is littered with a lot of conflict of interest. But let's focus on this: Prosecutor Smith and his team sought communications with the media. Instead of the New York Times investigating and reporting on that major constitutional red flag, the Times brushes it aside and gladly runs with the false accusations from Cooney and Gaston against my whistleblowers. In doing so, the Times also links a 2020 Justice Department opinion memo to the article to try and support Cooney's and Gaston's whistleblower-chilling efforts. The Department of Justice's opinion was scoped to ``leaks to the press [of] confidential information concerning prosecutorial decision- making.'' The whistleblower disclosures were to Congress, not to the media. The same Department of Justice's opinion also says in footnote No. 2 that a separate statutory provision exists that ``protects disclosure to Congress using significantly different language and raises distinct issues that we don't discuss in this opinion.'' The same Department of Justice opinion also says, in part, that an employee is provided whistleblower protection ``when the employee reasonably believes that the disclosure reveals a violation of law or rules or exposes serious wrongdoing as defined by statute.'' Thrush, Feuer, and Goldman's opinion piece fails three ways. They misled the public by creating a false narrative that whistleblower disclosures provided to me and Senator Johnson were somehow illegal. Moreover, a fundamental precept of whistleblowing is the First Amendment. I thought the New York Times and its left-leaning compatriots loved the First Amendment. Here, in this January 18 article, the Times shreds the First Amendment and, in doing so, undermines and devalues patriotic whistleblowers. That is an historic disgrace that will age very poorly for these authors, their editors, and the New York Times at large. The January 18 article also argues that my critics say these whistleblowers won't face reprisal because Trump is in office. Reprisal isn't a condition precedent to be a whistleblower. And how dare the Times make any insinuation that my whistleblowers haven't put themselves at risk. Whether there is a Republican or Democrat running the White House, whistleblowers always face real risk: ruining themselves professionally, losing their job, all that and more. And mine--my whistleblowers--have faced years of risk because their disclosures to me have occurred over a period of years, not just during the Trump administration. Here, too, the Times and the authors try very hard to undercut the assertion that my whistleblowers are protected by law. It is an act done to chill, to intimidate, and to smear patriotic government workers. In closing, perhaps the most disappointing element of this article is the quote from the Government Accountability Project. The Government Accountability Project is a group that I have worked with for decades on legislation and whistleblowers, and I consider them a very fine organization, not only helping whistleblowers, but helping all of Congress in our responsibility of oversight to see that the executive branch faithfully executes the laws according to the constitutional requirement. The Government Accountability Project said this to the Times about my whistleblowers not facing any risk of reprisal: There is no risk, given that it looks like the entities who ordinarily might retaliate apparently might be behind the release. This is a shameful statement for the New York Times and their authors to make. So my office approached the Government Accountability Project, and this is what they told us: First, the Government Accountability Project apologized. They said about the New York Times article: It is not something the Government Accountability Project wanted to have our organization part of. Second, the Government Accountability Project said the quoted employee ``is a contract lawyer who isn't authorized to speak for the organization beyond his clients.'' The Government Accountability Project asked the Times to make that correction, but, ``unfortunately, they declined.'' Third, the Government Accountability Project said it didn't stand behind the statement, as it ``violated Government Accountability Project standards, because it was speculative rather than evidence based.'' Fourth, the Government Accountability Project said the quoted employee ``didn't know the context when a reporter asked him a hypothetical question and has promised to check before any future public statements that could overlap with Judiciary Committee work.'' So I hope it is clear. It appears that, based on Government Accountability Project's representations to my office, the New York Times misled the Government Accountability Project employee to get a quote, as you could expect, that would fit the Times' predetermined narrative--so much for following the facts and the evidence, as you would expect any journalist to do. The Government Accountability Project also submitted a letter to the editor in support of this Senator. I thank the organization for doing that. What really shoddy work by Thrush, Feuer, and Goldman. Thanks to these three reporters, the New York Times is a paper of record when it comes to attacking and undermining whistleblowers. So I say to my whistleblowers: I will defend you. I will protect you. I will continue to make public the records that you are giving to me. And so to the New York Times, shame is not a strong enough word to describe these unprofessional articles. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 601, which is at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to adopt a Senate resolution.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to honor a young Iowan who has probably had a lifetime of hard work preparing for something that is coming up very soon in the 2026 Winter Olympics. They begin on Friday in Italy. As the Senator from Iowa, I am proud that West Des Moines, IA, native Zach Stoppelmoor will be representing Team USA. Zach will be competing in his first Winter Olympics in the 500-meter speed skating competition. He first began skating at around 6 years old at a place called Skate South roller rink in Des Moines. Zach credits his Iowa coaches for instilling a strong work ethic, and he used that Iowa work ethic to win the U.S. trials in January. Zach's goal is to win a gold medal. I look forward to watching Zach and all Americans compete in the Winter Olympics over the next few weeks, and we should all say: Go Team USA. I yield the floor.