Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have long maintained that rape victims shouldn't have to wait years for justice, and that is why I supported the original version of the Debbie Smith Act when the Senate Judiciary Committee originated it more than 15 years ago. I am delighted that we last week reached a compromise enabling Congress to send another 5-year reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act to the President's desk this year. Congress has generously funded the program authorized by this statute at roughly $100 million annually since its inception. Unfortunately, however, we have seen repeated media reports that a backlog of untested sexual assault evidence persists in many States, and the Justice Department, which administers this formula grant program, has not done enough to tackle persistent issues with the program's implementation. These reports concerned me, and at a 2016 meeting of the Judiciary Committee, I began voicing questions about whether rape victims were truly the top priority under our DNA Capacity and Backlog Enhancement Program. I also questioned whether additional oversight was needed. I insisted at this time that transparency requirements be added to the Justice for All Act reauthorization prior to its passage by the full Senate. These changes, which I later offered as a floor amendment and which the Senate accepted by voice vote in 2016, ensure that the Justice Department collects and reports more data about how Federal grant funds are being spent. In 2017, I also called on a government watchdog agency to assess the progress we have made in reducing backlogs of untested DNA evidence in sexual assault kits since the enactment of the Debbie Smith Act grant program. Last year, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I also convened an oversight hearing to review Congress' billion-dollar investment in the DNA backlog program, which makes Federal resources available each year for crime laboratories across the country to analyze untested DNA evidence collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders. The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, testified at last year's congressional hearing that we still don't know with certainty that this program is working. GAO explained--and this year reconfirmed in the final report prepared by GAO at my request--that the Justice Department has yet to articulate measurable program-wide goals for the grant program authorized by the Debbie Smith Act, making it difficult to assess and verify State grantees' performance. GAO raised similar concerns in a 2013 report on this national program. GAO also suggested the need for the Justice Department to implement additional steps to prevent lobbying-related conflicts of interest. This year, I developed additional proposed reforms in response to the issues that GAO and others raised. I want to thank Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America, who testified at my invitation at last year's Judiciary Committee hearing, for suggesting certain changes to ensure that the analysis of sexual assault evidence is accorded a higher priority by grantees. This statutory reform is essential, because most States impose a statutory deadline by which crimes of sexual violence must be prosecuted. Changes suggested by her organization, for which I have advocated since 2016, were incorporated into the Debbie Smith Act reauthorization bill by the Senate sponsor, Senator Cornyn, with my support. The House of Representatives also accepted these changes this year. Additional reforms I proposed to the program this year, based on GAO's findings and suggestions, cleared the Judiciary Committee as an amendment to the Debbie Smith Act during our committee's consideration of the 2019 reauthorization. The full Senate later approved the reauthorization, including these reforms, by voice vote, but the House of Representatives declined to accept all of them. If enacted, the changes opposed by the House would require both that the Justice Department articulate measurable, program-wide goals and that the National Institute of Justice take additional steps to prevent lobbying-related conflicts of interest. They would not resolve every issue with the DNA backlog program, but I believe their enactment would substantially strengthen the program. Because the House of Representatives dropped the GAO-backed reforms that the Senate approved by voice vote, I imposed a hold on the other Chamber's reauthorization measure this month. I then called on the Attorney General to implement my proposed reforms through administrative action. I thank the Attorney General for almost immediately agreeing to do so. Rather than indefinitely hold up the extension of the Debbie Smith Act, I lifted my hold on the bill last week, and I will continue to conduct oversight to ensure that these reforms are implemented as promised by the executive branch. At this time, I want to thank Senator Cornyn for his efforts to advance the 2019 reauthorization, which I cosponsored, and for cosigning my December 2019 letter to the Attorney General. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter and Attorney General's response be included in the Congressional Record. I am hopeful that this bipartisan measure can be approved today by voice vote and sent to President Trumps' desk this week for signature.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote that was going to start at 11:45 a.m. start now.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to an extraordinary Iowan with whom I shared a decades-long friendship--a very prominent Democrat from my State. Over this past weekend, former Iowa Congressman Berkley Bedell passed away at the age of 98. For nearly a century of life, Berkley took his grandmother's advice to heart: ``You can do almost anything within reason if you will only set your mind to it.'' From an early age, Berkley Bedell set his mind to a high standard of achievement. He set an example for the rest of us. He practiced what he preached and he made a difference in this world. As a child raised during the Great Depression, Berkley became a soldier in the U.S. Army. He was, obviously, a World War II veteran, an entrepreneur, a job creator, a philanthropist, a policy influencer, and, most of all, a devoted husband and father. What I left out is how I got acquainted with him. He was a fellow Member of the House of Representatives during my early years and for some time after I came to the Senate. Our decades-long friendship began when Berkley and I were elected to serve Iowans in the House of Representatives in 1974. Soon after the orientation for new Members, Barbara and I developed a close relationship with Elinor and Berkley. This friendship remained for the next 45 years. Looking back, those were lonely days for a freshman Republican House Member. That is when the Watergate scandal upended the midterm elections. Voters elected 91 new House Members to that Congress. I happened to be the only Republican in the Iowa congressional delegation. Among our so-called Watergate class of 1974, I was joined by Iowans Tom Harkin, Michael Blouin, and Berkley Bedell. We were all freshman Members of Congress. We joined then with more senior Members from the State of Iowa--Neal Smith, who went on to serve 36 years in the House, and Ed Mezvinsky. The Democrat Senators from Iowa were Dick Clark and John Culver. Berkley would go on to represent Iowa's Sixth Congressional District for six terms, from 1975 to 1987. Even though he lived about another 32 years after that, I presume he would have served a lot longer if his health had held out. Although Berkley and I didn't share the same political points of view, we did share a common approach for representative government, meaning with dialogue and feedback from Iowans that was very necessary if we were going to represent them properly. Most often, the forums for that were our respective townhall meetings. Throughout our service together in Congress, party labels didn't displace our ability to work with and for Iowans. As one example, during the farm crisis of the 1980s, which was much worse than this farm crisis we have right now, we used our voices to raise public awareness and steer help to struggling farm communities in our home State. We did everything possible to shape farm policy and restore hope to thousands of farm families who were coping with double-digit inflation and with the farm debt crisis. As a Federal lawmaker, Berkley took his oversight work seriously. Even though I take oversight seriously, I didn't do it in quite the way he did. His was kind of an unorthodox approach. He just ventured, willy-nilly, into a Federal bureaucracy here or a Federal bureaucracy over there. He took the liberty of dropping by in person at these agencies. He would go up to people and ask: What is your job? I don't know exactly the questions he asked, but in knowing Berkley the way I did, I think he probably wanted to have very calm conversations with them to determine what they did and maybe even see if they were doing it right, particularly if they were spending the taxpayers' money right. He did this to keep tabs on how these Federal employees in these various bureaucracies were serving the Nation and, particularly, serving Iowans. Now, that is what I would call an in-the-flesh gut check--a very different type of oversight from what I have done. Berkley was born in Spirit Lake, IA. I assume he lived his entire life in Spirit Lake, IA, except for the period of time he was in the military and until he spent some retirement time in Florida. Spirit Lake, IA, is a close-knit farming community in Dickinson County. His neck of the woods is located in the Iowa Great Lakes region--a regional destination for fishing, boating, and outdoor recreation. I will bet the Presiding Officer has been there many times. The area is fondly known as the University of Okoboji, where generations of families go year after year to vacation and enjoy life. By the way, the University of Okoboji is not really a university but is very much a selling point for that part of the State, from an economic development point of view, and it has worked very successfully. As I just described, this is where Berkley's insatiable work ethic took root. It guided him for his nearly 100 years of life on Earth. Through philanthropic good works, he leaves behind a legacy of conservation, stewardship, and historic preservation. With his wife, he helped to launch the Okoboji Foundation more than three decades ago. Since then, the foundation has awarded millions of dollars to scores of nonprofit organizations in that lakes region of Iowa. In other words, Berkley believed in paying it forward. He cared deeply about giving back to his community for future generations to enjoy. As you would expect an Iowan to do, he rolled up his sleeves, opened his wallet, and pitched in to make a difference. By my measure, his represents a life well lived, and he lived life well. As I mentioned earlier, Berkley and Elinor became steadfast friends with Barbara and this Senator. We shared an abiding mutual respect, and we cherished their gracious regard for that friendship. After the Bedells moved to Florida in their retirement, Barbara and I enjoyed an annual gift from the Bedells each February. It was a very simple annual gift but one that had a lot of meaning to it--more than the material it represented. They sent us a box of oranges from their home in the Sunshine State. Just as regularly as a clock, we received these over many, many years. Through these many years, their annual Christmas letter was something that we looked forward to. In many years, in personal notes in those very letters, they even thanked us for our friendship. Berkley also stayed in touch with a friendly Valentine note each year to Barbara, my wife. With Berkley's passing, we are saddened to know that these tokens of friendship have now come to an end. Berkley's story is an inspiration for younger generations of Americans who are pursuing their dreams. It is never too early to dream big. This was how Berkley Bedell was dreaming as a 16-year-old: He became an entrepreneur. Berkley launched a fishing tackle business with Jack, his brother. It was called the Berkley Fly Company. I am told he started the company with $50 from paper route money. He started tying fly fishing lures in his bedroom. Pouring years of sweat equity into the family business boosted the local economy and created jobs in his beloved Iowa Great Lakes. His tenacious leadership developed a strong workforce for what was then called Berkley Industries. That company, which is now called Pure Fishing, is today one of the leading fishing tackle manufacturers in the world. At 98 years young, Berkley didn't let age slow him down by any stretch of the imagination. He remained active in public policymaking and immersed in electoral politics in Iowa. Usually, at least once a year, he called on me here in Washington, in the Hart Office Building, to tell me about some legislative issue he was interested in, and we worked together on some of those legislative issues. Everything here in Washington is so political, so this may sound very unusual, and maybe it is unusual today: Despite our differences in political philosophies--he was a Democrat; I am a Republican--we both appreciated how crucial it was to engage the next generation in civic life. Berkley's leadership and legacy will be remembered for generations to come. I am proud to have called him a very good, good friend. Barbara and I extend our condolences to his sons, Ken and Tom, and to Joanne, his daughter. Your dad made a big footprint in his life's journey. As my former colleague in the House of Representatives, Berkley later became my constituent when I was elected to serve here in the U.S. Senate. I never knew Berkley Bedell to stop advocating for his community or for the good of our Nation. It became Berkley's lifelong hallmark to leave God's green Earth better than he had found it for generations to come. I wish Godspeed to my good friend Berkley Bedell, who joins Elinor, his beloved wife, in eternal life. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, despite the objections of the United States, the World Bank adopted a plan for lending more than $1 billion annually to China. China is the world's second largest economy, and its per capita income is well above the level at which countries are supposed to graduate from needing World Bank assistance. American tax dollars should not be used, even indirectly, for lending to wealthier countries, particularly when they violate human rights. China seeks legitimacy through international institutions for its bad practices, including for its own predatory lending through the Belt and Road Initiative. Despite what the recent World Bank Group's Country Partnership Framework reads, China is not an example developing countries should follow. To sum up on this point, China has the second largest economy in the world, and it still wants to be considered a developing country and lend taxpayers' dollars around the world in order for there to be a greater Communist influence. As taxpayers, we should not stand for that to happen. 78th Anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor Mr. President, on another point, this past weekend marked the 78th anniversary of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor--a raid that plunged the United States into World War II. Almost 2,500 U.S. soldiers lost their lives that day. I am proud of the many Iowans who have served and sacrificed for our great country. Earlier this year, three of these people returned to Iowa to be laid to rest--Robert J. Bennett, William L. Kvidera, and Bert E. McKeeman. I honor them and all of our servicemembers for their sacrifices in serving our people, protecting our constitutional rights and the freedom and liberties we have. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have one very short remark that I want to make and then longer remarks to my colleagues.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I and my friend Senator Wyden released an updated version of our bipartisan Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. This bill will now deliver even more savings for seniors and Americans with disabilities. When I say ``more,'' it will be more than the bill that was voted out of the Senate Committee on Finance on a 19-to-9 vote during the last week of July. The bill will also help pay for critical health programs. Billions of dollars saved in out-of- pocket costs are also a result of the bill and billions of dollars allocated for healthcare programs that tens of millions of Americans rely upon. What I just said will be accomplished all without spending a dime more of taxpayer dollars. That is because Big Pharma, our pharmaceutical industry of the United States, will finally be held accountable. Taxpayers shouldn't be put on the hook for unlimited subsidies from the Federal Treasury to big companies that make billions in profits. I don't often quote the Washington Post about legislation I put in, but the Washington Post recently wrote that our bill was the ``drug pricing bill with the best chances of passing Congress.'' Over the weekend, President Trump applauded the work my friend Senator Wyden and I have done to improve our bipartisan legislation. The President was very supportive of it even before we made these changes. That is because, in the Congress of the United States today, it is the only significant bipartisan legislation that exists to address the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. The Senate must demonstrate courage and finally pass this very important bill because very few Members of Congress can miss the cry of their citizens that drug pricing is too high, and they expect Congress to do something about it. This bill answers that cry and should soon get a vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address my colleagues for 1\1/2\ minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I believe I have developed a reputation among my colleagues, and hopefully among my constituents, for transparency in the issue of the public's business should be public. That applies to how the World Bank loans U.S. dollars. The World Bank is right now trying to sneak through a new policy that offends me. I received word that the World Bank is planning to vote right now, as I speak, on a new country partnership framework with China. That framework commits the World Bank to providing China with billions of dollars in loans indefinitely. What is odd about this is that China is now the world's second largest economy and its per capita income is well above the levels at which countries are supposed to graduate from needing World Bank assistance. In other words, China should stand on their own two feet without help from the American taxpayers or even indirectly through the World Bank. It happens that our country is the World Bank's largest contributor, and the spending bill that funds the World Bank includes a provision for a big capital increase from the American taxpayers to the World Bank. With this legislation pending, we in the Congress have an opportunity to weigh in and we should take that opportunity to make sure that American taxpayer dollars don't go to China, particularly when China is taking their own money and investing in the Belt and Road Initiative to get influence around several countries on the face of the Earth. I will have more to say later on this topic. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to discuss two issues: one dealing with the World Bank and another one dealing with the Department of Defense's inability to get clean audits. Today the World Bank is releasing its country partnership framework with China. Reportedly, this includes $1 billion to $1.5 billion of loans to China per year and $800 million to $1 billion in private sector investment. Keep in mind that the World Bank was created to help economic development in the world's poorest countries. China is now the world's second largest economy after the United States. Also, the United States is the World Bank's largest contributor. I think many Americans would question why so many American tax dollars are going to support low- interest loans in China. In China, there is a large and growing body of evidence of human rights abuses in Xinxiang, including mass internment camps. Reports indicate that these camps are centers for social control and political indoctrination. Chinese authorities reportedly mistreat or even torture detainees, while requiring them to engage in forced labor and to renounce their religion and their culture. Yet the World Bank has supported a program called Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project in Xinxiang Province. This is wording very close to what the Chinese Communist Party euphemistically calls its internment camps. Plus, one reporter has uncovered documents that these schools purchased barbwire, tear gas, and body armor using other funds--and, of course, funds are fungible. Institutions like the World Bank have a great responsibility to further assess critical human rights risk and religious freedom, such as those exhibited in Xinxiang in any region where it lends money. The World Bank's own social framework standards state that when assessing social risk and impacts, the Bank must assess threats to human security and impacts on the health, safety, and well-being of workers and project-affected communities. The Bank and other such institutions cannot adequately assess a project's full impact without monitoring and examining reports of widespread human rights abuses in any local area. On November 16, the New York Times published leaked Chinese records indicating a coordinated effort going back years, directed by General Secretary Xi, to detain hundreds of thousands of Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslims in internment camps and to unleash the tools of ``dictatorship'' on the Xinxiang Muslim population. Given these repeated reports about repression in Xinxiang that date back even years, it is hard to see how any project in that region could meet the Bank's social framework standards. There needs to be a periodic internal review of risk assessment mechanisms to ensure that they are appropriately calibrated to capture changing risk profiles. I question whether the Bank's oversight processes are adequate, given its own assessments saw no issue with these intern camps that go by the professional name of Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project--and I am referring particularly to those in Xinxiang Province. In a statement on August 29, the World Bank stated that it had conducted supervision missions twice a year since the project started and that these missions included a review of social safeguards and a monitoring and evaluation review. The World Bank found ``no evidence from subsequent reviews that funds were diverted, misused, or used for activities not in line with project objectives or World Bank policies and procedures.'' However, just last month, the Bank raised the environmental and social risk ratings from moderate--the second lowest level--to substantial and then to high--the highest level. It is very disappointing that very little happened in upgrading the risk assessments on this project until after congressional attention, even with an internal whistleblower raising the matter. This seems like a failed process to me when routine audits and a whistleblower complaint do not catch anything, despite increasingly concerning reports in the media about mistreatment and abuse. I have written a letter to the Bank President, Malpass, asking questions about these systemic concerns. Moreover, I questioned why a country like China, whose economy has far surpassed the threshold at which it is supposed to graduate from rural bank funding, is now and forever still taking loans. The World Bank was created for a very worthwhile purpose--to help poor countries that cannot, on their own efforts, assess capital markets. Both China and Russia today have well surpassed the World Bank's graduation threshold and have access to capital markets. Yet American taxpayers are called on to do more. Yet China then continues to borrow, on average, $2 billion a year from the World Bank, making it one of the Bank's top borrowers--the second largest economy in the world and one of the Bank's top borrowers. Countries like China or Russia that have seen the most economic progress should not seek to maintain access to the Bank's preferential lending rates and technical support. Moreover, these are our two major geopolitical foes. I have previously highlighted China's intellectual property theft and foreign influence activities at American universities as just an example of other things I looked at in the case of China. Russia's illegal occupation of territory in Georgia and Ukraine and its ``active measures'' against democracies, including the U.S. democracy, make it effectively an outlawed state. Meanwhile, China does substantial foreign lending of its own, which it uses as a tool of geopolitical influence over other countries. Now, just think, through the World Bank, they get U.S. taxpayer dollars, and then the country is still so rich that they can lend to many other nations around the world to increase the geopolitical influence of China, and that country's lending does not follow international development finance standards, nor does China disclose the amounts or terms for loans that it offers. Through the Belt and Road Initiative in China--this initiative is a process where they invest in other countries to have Chinese influence in these other countries--this Belt and Road Initiative in China has raised concerns about debt sustainability in recipient countries. They can invest money in these countries, and then they have an agreement that if the loan isn't paid, then China takes over, enhancing their influence--a lot of it for military purposes. A March 2018 report from the Center for Global Development assessed the current debt vulnerabilities of the countries I just referred to, identified as potential Belt and Road Initiative borrowers. Out of the 23 countries determined to be vulnerable to debt distress, the center identified 8 countries ``where Belt and Road Initiative appears to create the potential for debt sustainability problems, and where China is a dominant creditor in the key position to address these problems.'' The World Bank, again using American tax dollars, should not be lending to wealthy countries that violate the human rights of their citizens and attempt to dominate weaker countries through their loans, whether it is done for military reasons or for economic reasons. The State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill contains funding and authorization for a large capital increase for the World Bank. In other words, what I just said--the Senate is going to be facing this issue. I have developed an amendment to this bill that would insert language requiring the U.S. representative to the World Bank to work to defeat any project in a country that has reached the World Bank's own ``graduation threshold'' and, secondly, that is designated by the State Department as a ``country of particular concern for religious freedom'' or is on the watch list for such designation. Both of those would include China and Russia at this point. Countries with broadly documented violations of international norms, human rights, and religious freedoms should not be given the privilege of accessing preferential loans that then limit access to other countries in need. In other words, the second largest economy in the world--China--by getting loans from the World Bank at the same time they violate the human rights of their people--developing countries that need the loans and resources are not getting them because they are going to the wealthy nations.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Angel Ventling, a State Department fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to address the Senate for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I hope a lot of Americans have been able to watch on television what is going on over in Iran right now. I hope Americans have an opportunity to listen to some Americans of Iranian descent who are commenting on what is going on over there because, recently, thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets protesting their country's corrupt regime. Frustrated by a lack of opportunity and frustrated by constant political oppression, these largely young and nonviolent protesters have stood up to say: Enough is enough. In response to these protesters, we see the regime engaging in a brutal crackdown, and that crackdown is on a scale not seen since the 1979 revolution, killing hundreds of civilians within the last few days. The United States is not an enemy of the Iranian people. In fact, Americans of all backgrounds can't help but sympathize with these brave protesters seeking a more prosperous, more responsible Iran and having the Iran Government give that sort of an environment. We need to tell the Iranian leaders the world is watching. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, one thing I am always going to remember about Johnny Isakson is that with every conversation with him, he always included some words of encouragement for the work that I am involved in or how we are working together. I think you saw that in his remarks today, that he wants to encourage all of us. In this town of Washington, DC, where a lot of people think that they are the most important person in the room, Johnny Isakson is known instead for his unassuming manner. He is unfailingly kind and considerate to Senators and staff alike, and I think I expressed that in my first statement about his giving encouraging words in almost every conversation one has with him. In fact, my staff told me a story wherein Senator Isakson came to the Senate Committee on Finance when I was previously the chairman, and he asked to speak to a member of my tax staff. The staff assistant didn't recognize Senator Isakson. When asked who he was, he simply said, ``Senator Isakson.'' It was not until after my tax staff came out that he realized that it was Senator Isakson himself. Throughout my Senate career, it is safe to say that when it comes to me, all roads lead to Iowa. For Johnny, it is no exception. Johnny has close friendships with the famous Knapp family of Des Moines, IA. In fact, the Knapp family is known all throughout Iowa. Now, you are probably thinking: How in the world does a southern boy from Georgia get acquainted with Iowans? Well, for Johnny, a common answer is the golf course. That is where he first became friends with the Knapp brothers, Paul and Bill. In fact, Johnny delivered the eulogy at Paul's funeral in 2008. Paul and Carol, his wife, were friends of the Isaksons for more than two decades. Bill, Paul's brother, is a senior statesman of the Democratic Party of Iowa. Partisan glasses will not fool commonsense Iowans, particularly when it comes to Johnny's charm and heart. Johnny reminds me that he was the first Republican who Bill Knapp ever supported. I guess, Johnny, you beat me to the punch on that one. Johnny said today that Iowa produces some of the finest people he knows, but I say today that Georgia produces very fine people as well. At the top of my list is Johnny Isakson. Johnny brings a smile to each person he encounters when he walks the halls of the Senate. As a result, he will be greatly missed by everyone. That includes me and our fellow colleagues. It also includes a lot of people who don't get much attention around the Senate, the young staffers who answer the phones and the support staff who do things like cleaning the bathrooms. Johnny is always interested in how you are doing and has a word of encouragement to share, the same sort of encouragement he gives me in every conversation. We have heard it before, but I haven't said it; he is a workhorse, not a show horse. No one can doubt Johnny Isakson's dedication to the people of Georgia and the United States, not to mention our country's veterans, where he has worked very hard as a member of that committee and as the chairman of that committee to bring justice to our veterans and to keep our promises to those veterans. Johnny Isakson is a true public servant. I am proud to have served with him, and I am proud of the work he has done on the Committee on Finance, which I chair. Now, Johnny, I am sorry to see you go, but I wish you and Dianne, your wife, the best as you step back from public life. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have come to the floor many times to speak with my colleagues about the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. I recently spoke with my colleagues in the House of Representatives and also officials within the administration about the same subject. By all accounts, the deal is close on the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. I urge House Democrats to act quickly and be reasonable so we can finally deliver certainty on this issue to the American people. It has now been more than a year since the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed the agreement, so Americans have waited a year for what can happen now. This modernized trade agreement will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and help Americans grow wages for our workers. The end of this year's legislative session is rapidly approaching, as we all know. If a deal cannot be reached by the end of this week, I do not see how the USMCA can be ratified in the year we are in. As it is, the window of opportunity for 2019 is extremely tight. Now is the time for the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to finally act so we can act in the Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on the Saturday before Thanksgiving, my wife Barbara and I traveled to Carroll, IA, for the induction of our youngest son, Jay Grassley, to the Iowa Girls Coaches' Association Hall of Fame. Jay earned this honor through his work over the last 29 years as a volleyball official. Jay has officiated the most Iowa high school volleyball finals in history with 14 games. With one exception, Jay has officiated at every Iowa State volleyball tournament since 1995. This outstanding record demonstrates Jay's dedication to his work as an official. In addition to his officiating, Jay has been a coach and mentor to volleyball players for more than 30 years. His interest in volleyball started when he was a student at the University of Northern Iowa. Jay started the Six Pack Volleyball Club in 1990, and after years of building a strong reputation, his team earned the USA Volleyball 18s Division National Championship title in 2011. As I travel across Iowa for my annual 99 county meetings, I often run into Iowans whose relationship with Jay has had a lasting impact. They commonly ask that I tell Jay ``hi'' and follow with a story of how he was a mentor and coach to them or one of their children. As a father, those are heartwarming sentiments for me to hear. Jay's kind nature and motivational spirit help him to connect with people of all ages and make his influence all the more worthwhile. At the hall of fame induction, Jay's fellow coaches and officials described him as ``one of, if not the best, official(s) out there.'' Barbara and I are very proud of Jay being named to the Iowa Girls Coaches' Association Hall of Fame.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, probably a lot of my colleagues know I have had a quarter-century interest in legislation dealing with foster care and the foster care system. This is National Adoption Month, and while recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services show improvements for kids in foster care, it is clear that there is still work to be done. In 2018, the average length of stay in foster care increased to over 19 months. We need to take that statistic as movement in the wrong direction. Less than half of the kids who exited foster care were reunited with their parents. Our goal ought to be to reunite them with their parents when it isn't harmful to the kids, but what I have also learned over the last 25 years from talking to kids who are in foster care, being shunted from home to home, school to school in the same school year--I have heard from them, ``I would like to have a mom and dad,'' and ``I would like to have a permanent home.'' I have taken that to heart, and legislation that I have worked on helps with that issue. All children deserve a permanent home, and they deserve caring, consistent adults to nurture and guide them. As long as I serve in Congress, I will continue to work toward that goal. Also, during this month of November, National Adoption Month, I hope people will take a special concern about kids who are in foster care. I yield the floor.