Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, our Nation is hurting. George Floyd's death was horrific, and justice must be served. The Justice Department has opened an investigation, and the officer has been charged with murder. A single act of violence at the hands of an officer is one too many. George Floyd deserved better. All Black Americans do. Indeed, all Americans do. The last thing we need is more pain, more devastation, and more injustice. As a country, let's strive for compassion and listening to others. The best way to honor George Floyd is to engage with all members of our community, including Members of this body, on how to heal these wounds. This is an opportunity for Congress to discuss what reforms can and should be made to address police use of force. Let's move forward and protect our communities together. 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, we all ought to be very concerned, as I am, about the ongoing religious persecution happening in Nigeria. It may be happening in a lot of countries, but I just want to mention Nigeria today. In the last 6 months, there have been multiple attacks. This includes the murder of 11 Christians by extremists identified as part of ISIS, and--can you believe it--the beheading of a pastor by Boko Haram militants. West Africa released a barbaric video of a child of about 10 years old executing a Christian. The Nigerian authorities need to stop this persecution right now, and our own government, the U.S. Government, needs to do what it can to support that effort. For sure, those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 50 minutes we are voting to confirm the nominee as Director of National Intelligence. Today, I want to discuss Congressman Ratcliffe's confirmation as Director of National intelligence. I want to congratulate that Congressman on a job well done. With this new position comes great responsibility. Congressman Ratcliffe will have tremendous power to do good and to be transparent. I would like to remind Congressman Ratcliffe, as I have reminded many heads of departments before, transparency brings accountability, and the public's business ought to be public. By its very nature, the intelligence community is a secretive bunch. They often operate in the shadows and have to in order to do the job that we ask them to do to protect our national security. However, that doesn't mean when Congress asks them questions, the intelligence community has a license to withhold information. When Congress comes knocking, the intelligence community must answer. After all, the intelligence community does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The intelligence community is a creation of Congress; Congress isn't a creation of the intelligence community. The intelligence community answers to us and, in turn, to the American people. Acting Director Grenell, now in that position as acting, understood that. He is perhaps one of the most transparent government officials in my time serving the great people of Iowa. Ambassador Grenell is a breath of fresh air. Mr. Ratcliffe has some big shoes to fill; that is for sure. Luckily, he has Acting Director Grenell's example to guide him. Mr. Grenell's short time as Acting Director has resulted in a number of very important items being declassified. For example, he and Attorney General Barr declassified dozens of footnotes from the Justice Department's inspector general's report that show how the Department of Justice and the FBI mishandled the Russian investigation. To give some highlights of what those previously classified footnotes show, let me go through six or seven of them. One, the Russian intelligence was aware of Steele's anti-Trump research in early July 2016, before the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane. That means the Russians knew they could possibly use the Steele dossier as a vehicle to plant disinformation and sow chaos to undermine the American Government. Two, the FBI had an open counterintelligence case on Steele's key source, but they failed to give that information to the FISA Court. The FBI had intelligence that some of Steele's sources had connections to Russian intelligence. That is point three. Point four, Steele had sources connected to the Presidential administration, and some supported Clinton, not Trump. Five, the Crossfire Hurricane team was aware in late January 2017 that Russian intelligence may have targeted Orbis. Orbis is Steele's company. Six, Steele's primary subsource viewed his or her contacts not as a network of sources but, rather, as simply friends that discussed current events. Seven, two intelligence reports--one from January 12, 2017, the other from February 27, 2017--indicated that information contained within the Steele dossier was a product of Russian disinformation. This information was withheld from the FISA Court, and the FBI continued to use the Steele dossier to justify surveillance on Carter Page. I also want to note a very interesting fact about the January 12, 2017, date. Not only did the FBI learn that the dossier, their ``central and essential'' document, was most likely filled with this Russian disinformation, they then failed to inform the FISA Court about it on the very same day that the FBI got the FISA renewal on Carter Page. Do you know what? It was renewed two more times. My fellow Americans, what the FBI did is a complete travesty. You have to ask yourselves: Why did they do it? Well, the text messages from Strzok and Page that I made public help us better understand that question. Their animus toward Trump helped to explain why the FBI employees cut corners and didn't follow regular protocol in running their inquiry. As I have mentioned before, Strzok's text to Page about how he will ``stop'' Trump from becoming President is very telling. But thanks to Acting Director Grenell and Attorney General Barr, these texts can now be read in a greater context. For example, on August 15, 2016, Strzok texts Page: I want to believe the path that you threw out for consideration in Andy's office-- And that was referring to Andrew McCabe-- that there's no way Trump gets elected--but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. The next day, on August 16, 2016, the FBI opened the Flynn probe, code-named Crossfire Razor. On August 17, 2016, the FBI used a briefing for Trump, who was now the Republican nominee, and Flynn to surveil Flynn for his ``mannerisms''--what is said about it, I don't know--and whether he mentioned anything about Russia. Let's also not forget about the text from November 2016 that Senator Johnson and I made public. Those texts between Strzok and Page show that the FBI used a November 2016 briefing for Presidential transition staff as a counterintelligence operation. For example, Strzok told Page: He can assess if there are any new questions or different demeanor. If Katie's husband is there, he can see if there are people we can develop for potential relationships. That is an astounding finding. Imagine if that had been done by the Democratic nominee. You wouldn't hear the end of it. In fact, they would probably call for another special counsel. Yet because it is Trump and Flynn, the media has gone largely quiet. On January 4, 2017, the FBI wrote a closing memorandum on Flynn that said the intelligence community could find no derogatory information on him. That should have been the end of it. Yet on the very same day that the FBI was ready to close the Flynn case, Strzok asked another FBI agent: ``Hey, if you haven't closed Razor don't do it yet.'' The case was still open at that moment and Strzok asked that it be kept open ``for now.'' Strzok then messaged Lisa Page, saying that Razor still happened to be open because of some oversight and said: ``Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20 percent of the time.'' Then the next day, on January 5, 2017, President Obama met with Director Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Vice President Biden, and National Security Advisor Susan Rice. In that meeting, they briefed Obama on the Russia investigation. On January 5, 2017, the very same day as the Oval Office briefing with Obama and Biden, an Obama administration official leaked the existence of the December 29, 2016, Flynn call with the Russian Ambassador. However, that leak hadn't yet been publicly reported. Also on January 5, Obama's Chief of Staff requested to unmask Flynn. According to Deputy Attorney General Yates, when she met with Obama on that day, Obama already knew about Flynn's call with the Russian Ambassador. She was surprised that Obama knew about it already. On January 11, 2017, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power requested to unmask Flynn. She requested this be done seven times after the election. She ought to explain why she did that. Then on January 12, 2017, Vice President Biden requested to unmask Flynn. That same day, the existence of Flynn's call with the Russian Ambassador was leaked and ran in the Washington Post. Then, in February 2017, the alleged contents of the call were leaked. Those leaks are a criminal action. They are some of the many criminal leaks that occurred during the transition period and, also, the early days of the Trump administration, which were obviously designed to undermine the new administration. I assume U.S. Attorney Durham is investigating all of those leaks. With respect to the unmasking, what I would like to know is, Why did so many Obama administration officials who were not within the intelligence field request to unmask Flynn? The sheer volume of unmasking and the timing cause me to question whether it was politically motivated. Based on the facts that we now know, it appears that the Obama administration's top law enforcement agency, as well as the intelligence community, engaged in a coordinated effort to cut the legs from under the Trump administration before they could even get their footing. The American people have had to suffer through years of criminal leaks, innuendos, false news reports, and flatout lies--all designed to destroy the Trump administration. The Russian investigation should have closed shop early on, especially when the people they surveilled from the Trump campaign offered exculpatory evidence-- evidence which showed that the Trump campaign wasn't involved in the Democratic National Committee hack and didn't have the Russian connections the FBI thought they had. By the way, that evidence was hidden from the FISA Court by the FBI. Obama has said DOJ and FBI must be kept independent of White House interference. Yet, based on information that we have at this point, it appears that he and Biden were much more involved in aspects of the Russia investigation than they would like to have us believe. Ultimately, Obama and Biden will have to answer for what they knew and when they knew it. That shouldn't be a problem for the so-called most transparent administration in history, as they used to tell us all the time. Simply said, heads need to roll over this. If they don't, the intelligence community, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may never get the people's trust. Where do we go from here? On May 12, 2020, I wrote a letter to Acting Director Grenell that requested a broad range of information relating to unmasking by the Obama administration. On May 19, I expanded that request with Senator Johnson. Prior to that, I wrote to the Justice Department and Mr. Grenell, requesting that the transcripts of Flynn's calls with the Russian Ambassador and Susan Rice's infamous January 20, 2017, email to herself be declassified, among other things. That email has now been declassified and casts further doubts on the FBI's actions. I have also requested, along with Senator Johnson, underlying intelligence reports from the Russia investigation. Moreover, reports suggest that the Obama administration unmasked a lot more U.S. persons related to the Trump campaign than just General Flynn. The responsibility to respond to these requests will now fall on Congressman Ratcliffe. Hopefully, he is as helpful to congressional oversight and public accountability as Ambassador Grenell. Let's see it all. The American public has waited long enough. Finally, I want to remind Congressman Ratcliffe and the intelligence community of the hold I placed on William Evanina. I did that 2 years ago. I placed that hold in my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I have explained in detail many times before why I placed a hold on him, and I am not going to bother explaining it again, other than to mention that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein agreed to give me the documents, and he never did. In turn, General Rosenstein blamed Director Coats, who then blamed Rosenstein. You have heard it before--all of my colleagues have. Whether you have a Republican or Democratic administration, it is your typical bureaucratic blame game. Thanks to Acting Director Grenell and Attorney General Barr, the blame game has ended. But, importantly, especially for future administrations and for Congressman Ratcliffe, I want to make very clear that the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction extends to the intelligence community. Since the authorization resolution that created the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate explicitly reserved for other standing committees, such as the Senate Judiciary Committee, independent authority to ``study and review any intelligence activity'' and ``to obtain full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence activities of any department or agency'' when such activity ``directly affects a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee.'' The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over all Federal courts, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where a lot of intelligence activity takes place. Of course, all of Congress, not just any one committee or any one Senator, has the constitutional authority over the intelligence community. In conclusion, please, Congressman Ratcliffe and, please, the greater intelligence community, remember you were created by statute, but Congress was created by the Constitution 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. Journalists, as we all know, serve as the watchdog for accountability, particularly to keep government responsible. These journalists inform and investigate issues important to their readers, from human interests to public interests. Right now, a lot of focus is upon the COVID-19 pandemic. The University of Iowa's independent newspaper, the Daily Iowan, has been named the ``Best All-Around Daily Student Newspaper'' by the Society of Professional Journalists. This prestigious honor follows its recognition as the 2020 ``Newspaper of the Year'' by the Iowa Newspaper Association. I come to the floor to commend the team of collegiate journalists in the student-run newsroom at the Daily Iowan. These awards show that the staff's hard work and commitment to their craft rise above the rest. You are the cream of the crop. Congratulations and keep up the good work. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise for two reasons: one, for a very short comment on political prisoners in foreign lands, and the other one on how the CARES Act is developing and the reaction to it. First of all, our country is now hopefully recovering from COVID-19, so I want to take this opportunity to address the plight of an extremely vulnerable population--political prisoners abroad. In Turkey, Syria, China, and a lot of other countries, political prisoners remain locked away in crowded prisons without adequate medical care. The spread of COVID-19 among this population dramatically increases the risk of serious medical consequences or even death. Authoritarian regimes only risk further destabilization of their countries by jailing the innocent. Political prisoners ought to be released, and they ought to be released now.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I give tribute to a lifelong Iowan who has devoted his career in service to families who are mourning the loss of a loved one. From an early age, Charles Yoder knew what he wanted to be when he grew up. He lived next door to the Powell Funeral Home in Wellman, IA. That is where Charlie's precocious path to his lifelong occupation first started. Years later, he graduated from the Worsham College of Mortuary Science in Illinois. He returned home to Washington County, where he manages two funeral homes in Wellman and Kalona. Like many small business people across my State, Charlie's leadership reaches deep into the community. His civic stewardship reflects a character of service to others. He is a member of the Rotary Club, Kalona Chamber of Commerce, Community Foundation of Washington County, and the Dayton Lodge. His public service includes time spent on the Mid-Prairie Community School District Foundation and the Kalona Library. A member of the National Funeral Directors Association, Charlie participated in its leadership conference here in Washington, DC, for the past 3 years. Like so many other events, the national conference this year was cancelled due to COVID-19. That didn't stop Charlie from stepping up to lead and help his profession navigate these difficult times. For the past 4 years as president-elect and president of the Iowa Funeral Directors Association, he developed strong relationships across its eight districts, traveling to each one across the State. Networking strengthened his efforts to update strategic plans and foster continuing education services. This collaboration also helped Iowa funeral directors meet unprecedented challenges from the pandemic. Iowans are known to celebrate the lives of the deceased with large funeral gatherings, attended by many people in the community, who gather to pay their respects and help friends and family mourn the loss of a loved one. Obviously, COVID-19 limited large social gatherings, including graduations, weddings, and funerals. Charlie developed guidelines to help Iowa funeral home directors adapt to the public health crisis and continue providing safe, compassionate, and personalized attention to the people and communities they serve. As caretakers in their respective communities, Charlie did not let COVID-19 redefine their mission to serve with professionalism, empathy, and integrity. Working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Iowa Department of Public Health, Charlie's leadership helped ensure the public welfare was protected and that grieving families and their loved ones remained in good hands. I thank Charlie for service to his community and his vocation. As he steps down as president of the Iowa Funeral Directors Association, I am pleased to learn a member of the next generation plans to follow in her dad's footsteps. I congratulate him and his wife, Dorie, and wish their daughter Morgan all the best as she starts her studies and pursues her dream this fall.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am deeply concerned about reports that China began hoarding medical supplies in early January while working to prevent the World Health Organization from sounding the alarm about the virus pandemic. By analyzing international trade data, the Department of Homeland Security assessed that the Chinese Government intentionally concealed the severity of COVID-19 from the world in early January in order to stockpile medical supplies. Furthermore, the Chinese Communist Party Government tried to hide its actions by denying there were any export restrictions. They even tried to obscure and delay its trade data so it wouldn't get caught. These acts are outrageous. Even worse, the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies have found evidence that China threatened the World Health Organization to stop cooperating on efforts to combat COVID-19 if the organization declared a global health emergency early on. So it was declared, and, hence, there was valuable time lost in fighting the virus. This is simply unacceptable behavior. The Chinese Communist Party ought to be held accountable for the countless lives that have been lost around the globe due to its nontransparent, aggressive, inhumane behavior. The World Health Organization is composed of many honorable and dedicated medical professionals who believe in the WHO's mission. If any of them were privy to what was going on by the Chinese Communist Party, he ought to step forward and shine light on any misdeeds by the organization's leadership. Whistleblowers are necessary to prevent corruption within any institution, which is why I have a longstanding reputation of protecting whistleblowers. The world deserves to know what the World Health Organization's leaders knew and when they knew it. The evidence is quickly becoming crystal clear--that China is responsible for tremendous suffering worldwide through its lies and active coverup. Telling the truth about the Chinese Communist Party does not, as some have suggested, have any bearing on how we analyze our domestic response. We should learn from democratic countries that have been successful in containing outbreaks, like Taiwan and South Korea. However, in going forward, everyone around the world should have his eyes open about the true nature of the Chinese regime. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 45 seconds.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this time of year is typically spent celebrating students of all ages as they graduate on to their next endeavors. Most graduations have a different look this year due to the pandemic, but the occasion has not lost its significance. Graduations are a time to celebrate the hard work and dedication students put into their educations. I congratulate all Iowans who are graduating this spring as you begin new chapters in your lives. Barbara and I wish you all more years of continued success.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss a piece of legislation that Senator Booker and I worked on to help public safety officers. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, over 100 first responders have lost their lives to this virus. Unlike the rest of us, these brave men and women, by the very nature of their work, haven't been able to stay home or social distance. In firehouses across the country, firefighters have had to continue sharing confined spaces and respond to emergencies in cramped trucks. Police officers have had to continue to respond to 911 calls and also interact with the public in very close quarters. While most of us are avoiding COVID at all costs, State and county EMT crews have been transporting the infected and others to hospitals for emergency care. While I am inspired by the bravery of these first responders, I am not at all surprised by the actions they take to protect the people they serve. First responders always answer the calls to action, selflessly placing others before themselves. So, in recognition of the many sacrifices they make, Congress established the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program a long time ago, in 1976. This law provides first responders with onetime payments if they die or are totally disabled on duty. Let me be very clear. Nothing can ever put a family back together who has lost a loved one, but the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program provides some economic relief to grieving families and gives peace of mind to the first responders themselves in their knowing that their families will not be left destitute if tragedy is to befall them. Unfortunately, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program wasn't designed to deal with a global pandemic of this type or magnitude that we were made aware of in the United States in late January. Under the existing statute then, to be awarded benefits, first responders had to be able to prove that they contracted COVID on duty. From the reports we get, it is kind of hard to tell where one comes in contact with it. So the last thing a grieving family needs to be worried about then, after experiencing the loss of a loved one, is whether the family will be able to successfully prove that its loved one contracted COVID in the line of duty and that it qualifies for the loss of life under the 1976 law. Almost as soon as the nationwide stay-at-home order was instituted, I began working with Senator Booker to craft language to create a presumption that would allow families to receive benefits without having to prove that their loved ones contracted a deadly virus on duty. Senator Booker and I were determined to get this done as soon as possible because we understood that families who have lost loved ones will soon begin filing for benefits. We know that the number is about 100 at this point. Our bill is entitled ``Safeguarding America's First Responders Act,'' or SAFR, pronounced ``safer'' for short. The bill was introduced on May 5, which was 1 day after the Senate returned to session. This bill is the product of several weeks of friendly negotiations and input from fire groups and police groups. The bill garnered a total of 22 bipartisan cosponsors, including the entire New York and New Jersey delegations. Last Thursday, the Senate unanimously passed our bill. It now is in the House, where we hope it will receive immediate consideration. I know our colleagues in the House are deeply concerned about our first responders, and I would expect this to have a successful effort over there. I have been working with Congressman Pascrell and others on several other reforms for the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, so I think it has been well received over there by some outstanding people who can carry it to victory. There is no excuse for this bill not to receive a vote as soon as possible. It is the only bill of its kind that has the support of the International Association of Firefighters, of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and of several State and Federal police groups. It was coauthored by Senator Booker and features the support of 11 Democrats and 10 Republican Senators as original cosponsors, including the Senate minority leader. SAFR, this bill, also has the support of the Department of Justice, which stands ready to pay out benefits to grieving families but is limited by statute as to what it can do under existing law--hence, the importance of this legislation. Simply put, this bill is a no-brainer. I urge Speaker Pelosi to schedule a vote on SAFR as soon as the House returns to session. It is now my privilege to thank Senator Booker and to yield to my colleague from New Jersey, who worked so hard to get this done as well.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask permission to address the Senate in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, an important part of my job--and I hope for every Senator--is hearing the views, in my case, of Iowans but in the case of my colleagues, the citizens of their States. But it is not every day that we hear about the executive branch of government and its bureaucracy making an effort to listen to the American people. Fortunately, that is changing under this administration. I have advised the people of Iowa, and I am advising them again--and, hopefully, my colleagues will have their constituents take advantage of it--that this administration in January, through the White House, put out a call to Americans who deal with Federal regulations to share their ideas on how to ensure that those who face regulatory enforcement have due process and get a fair shake. Those ideas will now be used to make regulatory enforcement fairer. Take advantage of this opportunity. Americans who face a burden of complying with regulations should have a voice in making the process better, and I applaud this administration for listening to the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, people often think of prisons as places only to send criminals and then forget about them. But as I have noted here before, most inmates will one day be released. Helping former criminals become productive citizens is very much an important function of our prison system. In recent weeks, inmates in the Iowa prison system have acquired what you might consider strange skills--but they are new skills--and even monetary allowances. They have done this by producing personal protective equipment, like face shields and masks. During this time of the virus pandemic, we all know what those are used for. I commend these efforts by our prisoners and our prison system promoting this sort of training. They will help to protect the health and safety of the prisons and our State in the short term, but they will also help inmates in the long term. These inmates are providing an essential public service, and for that they deserve our appreciation. It is an important contribution that I hope they will long remember and that will help them to be productive members of society when they finish their sentences. 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, I come to the floor today to recognize this month of May as National Foster Care Month. In 1988, President Reagan brought attention to the importance of foster care. He first designated the month of May as a time to celebrate and remember all of those people in foster care, including foster parents, caseworkers, and others who work to improve the lives of those in care. We made some progress since that time with legislation, such as the Fostering Connections Act of 2008 and the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act of 2011. We provided new investments and services to improve the outcomes for children in the foster care system. More recently, in 2018, Congress passed the Family First Prevention Services Act. That legislation, passed in 2018, changed the way Federal reimbursement for foster care works, allowing States to provide services to parents before their kids are placed into foster care, not just after they go into foster care. It also ensures more kids will be cared for by a family, instead of being placed in a group setting outside the home. Last year, I introduced and Congress passed the Family First Transition Act to help States get moving to this new system and do it more quickly. A lot has changed since President Reagan first announced this month of May as National Foster Care Month, but one thing hasn't changed, and that is the tireless work of one Iowan in particular that I want to recognize today: Linda Faye Herring, of Johnson County, IA. Linda started serving as a foster parent in the 1970s, at least a decade before President Reagan recognized the importance of highlighting foster care. Over the course of almost 50 years, Linda has fostered over 600 kids. Over 600 kids in need of a place to call home, even if for a few days, were welcome in Linda's home. Just think of how many lives just one person, Linda, was able to impact by making the decision to be a foster parent. It is not just that it is 600, although that number is staggering enough. It is the birth parents of those children who, due to the help that they received from the foster care system, may have been able to treat their substance abuse and turn their lives around, to maybe be a mother or father to their children again. Also, this month honors all the parents who were able to adopt children who temporarily stayed in Linda's home. Linda has influenced her own family as well, because the family that she had continues her good work. It is this kind of example of selfless service that caused five of Linda's children and three of her grandchildren to also become foster parents. Foster parents deserve more recognition. They deserve more support, and even more services. I will continue to work here in the Senate to try to make these goals a reality. If you have ever considered becoming a foster parent, this Senator urges you to take that first step and reach out to your local child welfare agencies and tell them you are interested in being a foster parent. There is a great need out there for that. Sometimes the numbers can seem overwhelming. There are over 400,000 kids in foster care--some of them sleeping on the floor of their social worker's office due to the lack of available homes to care for them. But Linda is proof that just one person can make an incredible impact. Over the years, I have heard from many kids in foster care. I make a special effort to hear directly from them on what they think needs to be improved about the system so future foster children can have a better life and a better future. Do you know what? After decades of being involved in this subject, I hear the same thing from them. They tell me: I would like to have a home. Why would they say they would like to have a home? They have been shifted in a 1-year period of time to two or three different foster homes in two or three different school districts. They say that they want a mom and a dad for the same reason, because they could have had three or four different moms and dads within the year. They want to be a part of a family. Those are the things I hear from them. Whether it is the biological family getting the help they need to parent their children or whether it is a foster parent stepping up to the plate, kids belong in a family. All children deserve a safe, loving, permanent home. Unfortunately, the foster care system has also been impacted by the virus that we have all been affected by in the last 4 or 5 months. Families who were already vulnerable were thrown into unemployment and instability. Children in temporary foster care placements are remaining there for a much longer time than usual, all because of canceled and delayed court proceedings, which makes staying in the foster home longer than getting into a permanent home. Foster parents, birth parents, and children in foster care, all lost access to peer networks and other vital support services because of the last 4 or 5 months we have been dealing with this pandemic. Especially impacted at this time are older youth who have aged out of foster care. Youth in college lost their housing when campuses closed. Those who were training for a career or are in the workforce have lost their jobs as well. Many of the provisions in the CARES Act will help foster families and the youth generally who are in their care. However, I will continue to work to ensure that needy relief for kids and families is provided. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support my resolution marking May as National Foster Care Month to bring awareness to the issues that kids in foster care face and to honor Linda of Johnson County, the one I used as an example, who helped 600 kids--and not only Linda but all the other foster parents who make a world of difference. That is what this month is all about. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I come to the floor to salute and thank our Nation's law enforcement officers during this year's National Police Week. It is notable that this week dedicated to the brave men and women in blue is in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am grateful to all who are working on the front lines right now, whether they are doctors and nurses or teachers and grocery store clerks. We are grateful to all of them, including a lot of jobs that I haven't even mentioned. But this week, we have the unique opportunity just to settle on one group of people and thank them in a special way during National Police Week, and that is our police officers. Now, more than ever, we appreciate their service and dedication. Being a police officer isn't just a job. I am in public service, but I haven't been a police officer. I think it is fair to assume that they put their lives on the line more than most of us who are Members of the Senate. It is not just a job. It is a calling. Each officer has answered that call and is dutifully serving during these very trying times that we call this virus pandemic. For that, I am--and, I am sure, everybody is--forever grateful. I am particularly thankful for the men and women in blue who serve my fellow Iowans. I would also like to recognize the officers who serve in Washington, DC, the Capitol Police, meaning those who serve here on the Hill. They work to ensure our safety and protection, not only from criminals but also from a virus that has drastically changed the way we work in the Senate to serve our constituents, the American people, and, for me, the people of Iowa. Thank you to the policemen on Capitol Hill here for your selflessness and dedication. COVID-19 knows no boundaries and has, unfortunately, affected hundreds of police officers. As of May 11, 101 officers have died in the line of duty from the virus. We must continue to honor members of the law enforcement community who have made the ultimate sacrifice. The circumstances of loss are a little different now but no less heroic or devastating. As a Senator, my actions often speak louder than my words. So I am pleased to show the members of the law enforcement community how much I support and appreciate you through legislation. Every year, during Police Week, the Senate advances various bills focusing on the needs of the police community. This year is no different. To that end, I recently introduced a bipartisan bill with the title of Safeguarding America's First Responders Act. This bill addresses the unfortunate reality of officers' exposure to COVID-19. To ensure benefits through the Public Safety Officer Benefits Program, my bill creates a presumption that if a first responder is diagnosed with COVID-19 within 45 days of their last day on duty, the Justice Department will treat it as a line-of-duty incident. Loss of a family member in the line of duty isn't only emotionally devastating, but it also means lost wages in tough times. This bill recognizes the challenges posed by the pandemic and better ensures that officers' families will get the financial help as promised to other police officers who are killed in other ways in the line of duty. This bill enjoys wide support from multiple law enforcement groups and a group of bipartisan cosponsors here in the Senate. The Senate is considering two other police bills that I support. Police officers have demanding jobs and experience events that often impact their mental health. The next bill is named the Confidentiality Opportunities for Peer Support Counseling Act, or we call it COPS Counseling Act, for short. This bill builds off the recommendations provided by the Justice Department in their recent report on law enforcement mental health and wellness issues. Specifically, the bill provides confidentiality to Federal law enforcement officers by restricting individuals who participate in peer support counseling sessions from disclosing communications arising out of these sessions. With that privacy, we encourage more people to get the help they might need. Peer support programs serve as a valuable role in providing mental health care to law enforcement and first responders. But as I have indicated, confidentiality concerns have left these programs and these professionals underutilized. This bill also encourages best practices for officers and for first responders on peer support programs across the country. I want to thank Senator Cortez Masto for leading this bill and teaming up with me on this important issue. Lastly, I am proud to cosponsor Senator Hawley's bill, with a title of Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection Act. This bill seeks to address mental illness and increasing suicide numbers among law enforcement by requiring the FBI to open a voluntary data collection program to track suicides and attempted suicides within local, Tribal, State, and Federal law enforcement. By providing accurate and detailed information on these issues of suicide, more effective prevention programs can be implemented. I urge my colleagues to support all three of these bills. Passing them into law is one way of saying a big thank-you to the brave men and women who serve us so selflessly in law enforcement. We owe them a debt of gratitude, particularly during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Iowa is home to 88,000 family farmers. These farmers make up the economic foundation of our rural communities, and farmers are the leaders who make up the councils and the school boards across our State. So when we see economists estimate a 20- percent drop in livestock and grain producers' revenue due to COVID-19, it isn't just our farmers who are concerned; it is our whole State. In the CARES Act, we provided USDA with $24.5 billion to address this loss in revenue; however, we know that even with this funding, the supply chain disruptions from COVID-19 will force some agriculture producers to miss payments, and ultimately some will be forced to sell their family farms. The consequences of COVID-19 shutdowns have injected uncertainty that we haven't seen since the farmer crisis of the 1980s. During my time in the Senate, I have always tried to be a vocal advocate for the importance of a safe, affordable, and secure supply of food. But now our country's food supply chain is facing disruptions never envisioned before. As processing plants have shut down due to employees being sick, the supply chain disruptions are being felt by farmers and, of course, by consumers. I ought to tie the two together because it is so important. The old saying that we are only nine meals away from a riot--we haven't had that in the United States yet, and I hope we don't have it, but when you see short supplies of toilet paper and people fighting over toilet paper in the supermarket, it wouldn't surprise you that they would fight more for food. With as much as 40 percent of the slaughter capacity at our packing plants down for the past month, beef prices have doubled for the consumer. That has caused meat shortages in fast food chains, and grocery stores across the country have been forced to limit meat purchases per consumer. If that is not bad enough, at the same time, livestock producers with livestock that is ready to sell have been turned away by meat processors. Even if producers are lucky enough to sell, the prices they are getting are well below the cost of production, and they are losing money on every animal they sell. I have received a large volume of calls and emails from Iowans and member organizations expressing concern that the current discrepancy between high shelf prices and increased losses for cattle producers just doesn't make any sense. I share the concerns of these farmers, and I take their claims of market manipulation very seriously. President Trump is on top of this issue, and this past week, he echoed a request that I made of the Attorney General last month to examine the current structure of the beef meatpacking industry and investigate potential market and price manipulation. Holding the four large meatpacking companies accountable is the least we can ask of Federal officials, and I thank President Trump for talking to Barr about that as well. The fact is, over 80 percent of the feedlot cattle in the United States are slaughtered by the four largest meatpacking companies: Tyson Foods, JBS, Cargill, and No. 4, National Beef. Because these companies control a large percentage of slaughter and processing capacity in the United States, they have the unique ability to influence the price of live cattle. They use tactics such as bottlenecking processing speeds, importing foreign meat, utilizing private forward-formula contracts, and piling up meat in cold storage to delay the need to purchase live cattle from the family farmer. I am glad the President asked the Department of Justice to look into these schemes to see if any of this behavior is illegal--the same request I made to Barr about a month ago. Independent producers will always struggle with negotiating prices when there are only four large, multinational corporations that control prices; however, in Iowa, it is a little different. Our producers sell 50 percent of their cattle through negotiated cash prices. This allows for market transparency so that producers know the market price of cattle, and the price more accurately reflects the cost the producers incur when raising livestock. However, this isn't the case across the entire United States, as more than 80 percent of all cattle are sold through formula contracts and/or the cattle futures market. These private contracts don't allow for price transparency and hide the true value of production from the rest of the marketplace. It happens that this is not a new problem. In fact, 18 years ago, I introduced a bill with former Senator Feingold from Wisconsin that would have helped producers gain leverage by mandating that a percentage of a packer's weekly slaughter come from a negotiated cash price. I introduced that bill every Congress until 2009, but, sadly, at that time, not enough of my colleagues saw the need for a transparent marketplace. That need is much more obvious today because conversations across the country have started to shift, and people's opinion about four big meatpackers controlling 80 percent of the market--it looks like more of a problem when farmers are losing a lot of money when they sell their cattle and the price for the consumer goes up at the supermarket. Lawmakers have begun to realize that in order to have a sustainable supply of meat in our country, we need to restore transparency in the marketplace and protect the market from collapsing when there is a supply chain disruption. Let me repeat something I said at the beginning--nine meals away from a riot and people fighting about who is going to buy the last roll of toilet paper in the supermarket. We can't let that same thing happen with food, so today I come to the floor to submit my bill to foster efficient markets and increase competition and transparency among packers that purchase livestock from our producers. The only change to that Feingold-Grassley bill is to increase the amount of mandated negotiated cash trade to 50 percent from the original 25 percent in that bill that Feingold and I cooperated on. This change is needed to increase price discovery for producers across the country. I am proud to lead this effort with Senator Tester of Montana and will work with my colleagues in the Senate and particularly those on the Senate Agriculture Committee to make sure this bill becomes law. Without significant action by Congress, our independent beef producers will not be able to stay in business. I believe the time to act is now. Failure to act is failing our independent producers. If there is one silver lining that could come out of COVID-19, it may be that consumers will start to understand where their food comes from. Food does not come from grocery stores; it comes from the tens of thousands of farmers and independent producers who bust their backs day and night to ensure families across the country have an adequate supply of food. Farmers are 2 percent of the population who provide for the other 98 percent, and they even provide for more than 98 percent of Americans--a lot of it is exported I urge my colleagues to support my legislation being introduced today and do right by the producers who provide the food that we all eat.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Iowa is home to 88,000 family farmers. These farmers make up the economic foundation of our rural communities, and farmers are the leaders who make up the councils and the school boards across our State. So when we see economists estimate a 20- percent drop in livestock and grain producers' revenue due to COVID-19, it isn't just our farmers who are concerned; it is our whole State. In the CARES Act, we provided USDA with $24.5 billion to address this loss in revenue; however, we know that even with this funding, the supply chain disruptions from COVID-19 will force some agriculture producers to miss payments, and ultimately some will be forced to sell their family farms. The consequences of COVID-19 shutdowns have injected uncertainty that we haven't seen since the farmer crisis of the 1980s. During my time in the Senate, I have always tried to be a vocal advocate for the importance of a safe, affordable, and secure supply of food. But now our country's food supply chain is facing disruptions never envisioned before. As processing plants have shut down due to employees being sick, the supply chain disruptions are being felt by farmers and, of course, by consumers. I ought to tie the two together because it is so important. The old saying that we are only nine meals away from a riot--we haven't had that in the United States yet, and I hope we don't have it, but when you see short supplies of toilet paper and people fighting over toilet paper in the supermarket, it wouldn't surprise you that they would fight more for food. With as much as 40 percent of the slaughter capacity at our packing plants down for the past month, beef prices have doubled for the consumer. That has caused meat shortages in fast food chains, and grocery stores across the country have been forced to limit meat purchases per consumer. If that is not bad enough, at the same time, livestock producers with livestock that is ready to sell have been turned away by meat processors. Even if producers are lucky enough to sell, the prices they are getting are well below the cost of production, and they are losing money on every animal they sell. I have received a large volume of calls and emails from Iowans and member organizations expressing concern that the current discrepancy between high shelf prices and increased losses for cattle producers just doesn't make any sense. I share the concerns of these farmers, and I take their claims of market manipulation very seriously. President Trump is on top of this issue, and this past week, he echoed a request that I made of the Attorney General last month to examine the current structure of the beef meatpacking industry and investigate potential market and price manipulation. Holding the four large meatpacking companies accountable is the least we can ask of Federal officials, and I thank President Trump for talking to Barr about that as well. The fact is, over 80 percent of the feedlot cattle in the United States are slaughtered by the four largest meatpacking companies: Tyson Foods, JBS, Cargill, and No. 4, National Beef. Because these companies control a large percentage of slaughter and processing capacity in the United States, they have the unique ability to influence the price of live cattle. They use tactics such as bottlenecking processing speeds, importing foreign meat, utilizing private forward-formula contracts, and piling up meat in cold storage to delay the need to purchase live cattle from the family farmer. I am glad the President asked the Department of Justice to look into these schemes to see if any of this behavior is illegal--the same request I made to Barr about a month ago. Independent producers will always struggle with negotiating prices when there are only four large, multinational corporations that control prices; however, in Iowa, it is a little different. Our producers sell 50 percent of their cattle through negotiated cash prices. This allows for market transparency so that producers know the market price of cattle, and the price more accurately reflects the cost the producers incur when raising livestock. However, this isn't the case across the entire United States, as more than 80 percent of all cattle are sold through formula contracts and/or the cattle futures market. These private contracts don't allow for price transparency and hide the true value of production from the rest of the marketplace. It happens that this is not a new problem. In fact, 18 years ago, I introduced a bill with former Senator Feingold from Wisconsin that would have helped producers gain leverage by mandating that a percentage of a packer's weekly slaughter come from a negotiated cash price. I introduced that bill every Congress until 2009, but, sadly, at that time, not enough of my colleagues saw the need for a transparent marketplace. That need is much more obvious today because conversations across the country have started to shift, and people's opinion about four big meatpackers controlling 80 percent of the market--it looks like more of a problem when farmers are losing a lot of money when they sell their cattle and the price for the consumer goes up at the supermarket. Lawmakers have begun to realize that in order to have a sustainable supply of meat in our country, we need to restore transparency in the marketplace and protect the market from collapsing when there is a supply chain disruption. Let me repeat something I said at the beginning--nine meals away from a riot and people fighting about who is going to buy the last roll of toilet paper in the supermarket. We can't let that same thing happen with food, so today I come to the floor to submit my bill to foster efficient markets and increase competition and transparency among packers that purchase livestock from our producers. The only change to that Feingold-Grassley bill is to increase the amount of mandated negotiated cash trade to 50 percent from the original 25 percent in that bill that Feingold and I cooperated on. This change is needed to increase price discovery for producers across the country. I am proud to lead this effort with Senator Tester of Montana and will work with my colleagues in the Senate and particularly those on the Senate Agriculture Committee to make sure this bill becomes law. Without significant action by Congress, our independent beef producers will not be able to stay in business. I believe the time to act is now. Failure to act is failing our independent producers. If there is one silver lining that could come out of COVID-19, it may be that consumers will start to understand where their food comes from. Food does not come from grocery stores; it comes from the tens of thousands of farmers and independent producers who bust their backs day and night to ensure families across the country have an adequate supply of food. Farmers are 2 percent of the population who provide for the other 98 percent, and they even provide for more than 98 percent of Americans--a lot of it is exported I urge my colleagues to support my legislation being introduced today and do right by the producers who provide the food that we all eat.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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