Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am happy to join Senator Ossoff in support of our bill, the Prevent Child Trafficking Act. This is an important bill with an important objective: fostering communication between the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services with the result, we hope, of preventing children from falling prey to the evils of human trafficking. It does this, as Senator Ossoff just said, by implementing recommendations from the Government Accountability Office and requiring these Agencies to set performance goals that reflect best practices. Preventing future instances of trafficking is very, very essential, and I am happy to support this bill's advancement today. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I come to the floor of the Senate today. Over the weekend, on December 13, two members of the Iowa National Guard, alongside a civilian interpreter, were killed by ISIS terrorists in Syria. SGT William N. Howard and SGT Edgar B. Torres-Tovar, both part of the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division, paid the ultimate sacrifice. We are forever indebted to them for their dedication and service to Iowa and to the United States. I would like to take a moment to speak about each of these remarkable young men. SGT Nate Howard of Marshalltown, IA, has served the Iowa National Guard for 11 years. His admiration for his grandfather's service enkindled his patriotic spirit and ultimately led to his joining the Guard. This past May, Sergeant Howard was among the brave Iowans to deploy to the Middle East in support of Operation Inherent Resolve--a counterterrorism mission in Syria to fight against ISIS. Prior to this, he was deployed to Kosovo in 2020. Sergeant Howard is a graduate of Marshalltown High School and worked as a laser engraving specialist at a company in his hometown before answering the call to serve. His wife Arianna has shared that she wishes her husband will be remembered for his courage and bravery. I believe it is safe to say he will be so remembered. My wife Barbara and my prayers are with Arianna, his parents, and all his family. I would also like to recognize Sergeant Torres of Des Moines, IA. Sergeant Torres was deployed in the Middle East in support of Operation Inherent Resolve. A dedicated patriot, he served in Kosovo prior to his deployment to the Middle East. Sergeant Edgar Torres was the first person in his family to serve in the U.S. military. His family and fellow servicemembers describe him as a selfless individual who put others before himself and cared deeply for his family. Barbara and I--our hearts and prayers are with his family and loved ones. Until Saturday, which was also the 339th birthday of the National Guard, it had been over a decade since we lost an Iowan in combat. Our prayers for continued safety are with the many Iowans and Americans abroad, including those who remain in the Middle East to combat the evils of terrorism and stand as a symbol of freedom and hope. The loss of these lives is an unfortunate reminder of the dangers of terrorism that are ever present. The United States must continue to strengthen our ability to combat the horrors of terrorism while preserving the liberties that make our country special. I once again extend my gratitude to Sergeant Howard and Sergeant Torres, who served with honor, and my deepest condolences to their families. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, former Governor Branstad is being honored today. Before I read that tribute about his honoring today, I thought I would give a little bit of background about what I know about former Governor Branstad. I first met State Representative Terry Branstad in January 1973, when he was a new member of the legislature. He would tell you that I actually spoke to a group of Republicans who were at the University of Iowa in 1966. I will take his word for that. He served 6 years in the State legislature. Then, we used to elect our Lieutenant Governor separate from the Governor, and he served 4 years as Lieutenant Governor. Then he was elected Governor of Iowa in 1982 and served 16 years, until 1998. Then he decided to have a private life and a business life, and during those 12 years that he was not Governor, we had 12 years of Democratic Governors. They left a big fiscal hole. There was a real feeling among Iowans that only former Governor Branstad, then, could get us back on a strong fiscal path to fiscal sanity in Iowa. So he decided to run for Governor again, and he selected now-Governor Reynolds as his running mate. And Terry Branstad served until the Trump administration, when he was appointed Ambassador to China. The second Branstad administration, continued by Governor Reynolds, has had Iowa on a strong fiscal path, not with any deficits, and reducing taxes, having balanced budgets, and having several billions of dollars in reserve funds. So now I would like to, with that background, talk about the honor that he is getting today. It is an honor for me, today, to congratulate my good friend Terry Branstad. This very day, he will become the 26th recipient of what is called the Iowa Award, our home State's highest citizen award. Governor Branstad is the longest serving Governor in U.S. history, who also served Americans as U.S. Ambassador to China during the first Trump administration. Like me, Terry grew up on a family farm. Throughout his lifetime of public service, Terry applied the bone-deep work ethic of an Iowa farmer, with extra elbow grease, fiscal conservatism, and rock-solid tenacity. He is famous for his retail politicking and his political skill. I am proud to say that Terry has been a supporter of mine in every one of my congressional campaigns, dating back to 1974. He joins an esteemed group of Iowans--examples like President Herbert Hoover to Norman Borlaug and Grant Wood--who have helped make our State the best place to call home. Barbara and I congratulate Governor Branstad on his well-deserved award and thank him for his friendship and decades of service. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a few times every year I come to the floor to compliment the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine. I am here again to do it. It has, once again, shown that it is a leader in medicine and advancing new treatments. As the cofounder and cochair of the Senate's Cystic Fibrosis Caucus, I take a keen interest in cystic fibrosis treatment advances. Dr. Michael Welsh at the University of Iowa has recently received several awards for his research on cystic fibrosis that has paved the way for new therapies, which is transforming the lives of people with cystic fibrosis. Most recently, Dr. Welsh received the 2025 Lasker- DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award. Dr. Lasker's awards are sometimes called ``America's Nobels'' and are among the world's most prestigious biomedical and clinical research awards. Cystic fibrosis is a lethal genetic disease that affects a person's lungs, pancreas, and other organs and typically results in morbidity and even mortality. Until recently, living with cystic fibrosis was challenging and often led to infections in lungs that were very difficult to treat. Thanks to Dr. Welsh's research, we can now target cystic fibrosis at the molecular level that has resulted in 90 percent of cystic fibrosis patients benefiting from the new and improved treatments. Doctors no longer treat only a person's symptoms, they actually correct a person's defective gene through treatment discovered by Dr. Welsh. I would like to thank Dr. Welsh as his Senator and as chair of the Cystic Fibrosis Caucus for his decades of pioneering work on the fundamental biology of cystic fibrosis and also to congratulate him on winning this prestigious Lasker award. His landmark discoveries have led to new lifesaving therapies that correct the effects of genetic disorders.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Monday, the Wall Street Journal editorial board published an article titled ``ObamaCare is a Mecca For Fraud.'' It articulates the waste, fraud, and abuse in the ObamaCare Program, so I am going to read this article on the floor today and do it for the benefit of my colleagues that maybe don't always read these editorials. So quoting, and I will try to leave out commentary comment. If I do that, I will identify it as such. The Minnesota Medicaid grift illustrates how open-ended government welfare can easily become an inducement for fraud. A new Government Accountability Office report finds the pandemic-era sweetened ObamaCare subsidies are . . . ripe for gaming. The GAO last fall began an undercover test in which it submitted insurance applications for fictitious individuals to the federal ObamaCare exchange and insurance brokers. Nearly all of its invented people were able to enroll in subsidized plans despite submitting false or no records to verify their identities and incomes. Of GAO's 24 applications, 23 were approved. Eighteen enrollees were still covered as of September, suggesting that the exchange and insurers didn't verify information even after enrollment. The subsidies paid to insurance companies for those 18 applicants totalled more than $10,000 per month, equivalent to a $6,700 annual subsidy for each enrollee. GAO says in some cases ``we were not prompted to provide documentation'' to verify an applicant's identity. No Social Security number? No problem. In another instance, the ObamaCare exchange ``notified us that it had verified the applicant's estimated income based on documentation we submitted. However, we did not submit documentation.'' In two cases, brokers called the ObamaCare help center because applicants had submitted invalid Social Security numbers. The center let brokers submit the fraudulent applications anyway. This suggests the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the federal ObamaCare exchange, was ignoring fraud. GAO also analyzed enrollment data in 2023 and 2024 for data anomalies. It found more than 29,000 Social Security numbers in 2023 and nearly 68,000 in 2024 that were used to receive more than one year's worth of insurance coverage with subsidies in a single year--meaning the same Social Security number was used by more than one person. In 2023 one Social Security number was used to apply for more than 125 policies. Perhaps this was identity theft, but it's also possible brokers submitted fake Social Security numbers to enroll ineligible or phantom people in plans. Brokers earn more in commissions from insurers if they enroll more people in ObamaCare. The Justice Department has charged numerous brokers with enrolling people in ObamaCare plans, or switching them to new plans, without their consent. GAO identified at least 30,000 applications in 2023 and 160,000 in 2024 that had ``likely unauthorized changes by agents or brokers.'' GAO also found that incomes weren't later verified for enrollees who received $21 billion in subsidies in 2023. That means they might have received bigger subsidies than they were eligible for. The Paragon Health Institute's Brian Blase has warned that ObamaCare's lax verification controls encourage people to understate income to get bigger subsidies. Using Census Bureau data, Mr. Blase estimates that about 6.4 million people this year were improperly enrolled in subsidized ObamaCare plans, costing taxpayers $27 billion. He has also found that about 40 percent of enrollees in plans fully subsidized by the government filed no medical claims. GAO's report suggests many may not be real people. Others may have employer coverage and been enrolled by brokers without their knowledge. This year's GOP tax bill included modest reforms to prevent ObamaCare fraud, such as requiring the exchange to verify Social Security numbers and income data before enrolling applicants in plans. It also requires people to repay the government if their incomes turn out to be higher than what they estimated on their applications. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the tax bill's ObamaCare fraud controls could result in about one million more people going uninsured, but most aren't eligible for subsidies--and some might not even exist. Democrats want to boost enrollment in ObamaCare no matter the cost because they view the subsidized and regulated plans as a way-station to a single-payer system. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer plans to tee up a vote this week to extend the pandemic-era subsidies, which have been an inducement for fraud. Republicans would be wise to remind voters that Democrats sold ObamaCare on false pretenses--e.g., it would make healthcare ``affordable.'' Extending the subsidies would perpetuate that fraud. That is the end of my reading of the Wall Street Journal of Monday of this week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if you hear the term ``Arctic Frost,'' for most of us in Washington, DC, it is not a meteorological term. It is a name that the Biden administration put on the efforts through Special Counsel Jack Smith to put then-citizen Trump in prison so he could never run for President again. I have been trying to make as much of this information that we discover public. So I come to the Senate floor now to discuss this now- infamous Arctic Frost investigation that I and Senator Johnson of Wisconsin have exposed. As we have shown through our investigation, Arctic Frost was not just about putting President Trump in prison, but it was a means to an end. That end that the Arctic Frost investigation sought was a vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and partisan Department of Justice prosecutors could improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus. As Arctic Frost became Special Counsel Jack Smith's election case, it also targeted over 400 Republican groups and individuals. Recently, Senator Johnson and I have exposed that the Special Counsel's office obtained phone records of at least 11 Senators and 6 Members of the House of Representatives--all of them Republican. I expect there will be more Members of Congress added to that list. Each of these subpoenas included a court-issued nondisclosure order. Recently, I made public Department of Justice documents, including emails. These documents showed that Special Counsel Smith's office knew of the constitutional implications of issuing a subpoena for congressional data. A May 17, 2023, email shows that Molly Gaston from Special Counsel Smith's office emailed John Keller, one of the heads of Biden's Department of Justice Public Integrity Section. In that email, Gaston consulted Keller about issuing subpoenas for Members' phone records. Keller, from the Department of Justice, told her that there might be litigation risk if you do that. So Smith's staff was warned. And the reason why? Keller said subpoenaing congressional information could violate the speech or debate clause of the Constitution. As we all know, the speech or debate clause protects Members of Congress from any retaliation or civil action for what is said right here on the floor of the House and Senate. Well, no kidding--they were warned. Of course, the Department of Justice knows that core constitutional activity of constitutional officers is protected in the Constitution. Keller's email to Gaston also notes case law saying legislators asserting an invasion of speech or debate may intervene and oppose subpoenas. So it is a constitutionally based opposition. However, affected Members--remember they are all Republicans--weren't afforded the opportunity to challenge the subpoenas, as the law would give them the right to do. It is all about the subpoenas having a nondisclosure order in it. Now, these nondisclosure orders, rubberstamped by a judge named Boasberg and others on the same court, kept secret Jack Smith's action against the Republican Members. So far, almost all of the nondisclosure orders for Members' own records were signed by Judge Boasberg. On November 20, 2025, I, along with Chairman Johnson and Mr. Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to Judge Boasberg. We asked what information Special Counsel Smith's office presented, if any, to the court that led to the approval of the nondisclosure orders of Members' phone records, in violation of Federal law. We also asked Mr. Boasberg if he ever denied any Department of Justice nondisclosure order requests. Now, Judge Boasberg never answered our letter. He had Judge Robert Conrad, the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, responding on his behalf. Judge Conrad failed to fully answer our questions. The letter claimed that responding to our letter fully would ``encroach upon the separation of powers.'' Now, the court ought to have raised that concern when Special Counsel Smith requested the nondisclosure orders for the legislative branch phone records--not after it became public as a result of our getting these documents. But the limited response by the judge shows that the Federal court, including Judge Boasberg, essentially acted as a rubberstamp in approving Special Counsel Smith's nondisclosure orders. Judge Conrad's letter stated that the Department of Justice typically doesn't include a subpoena with a nondisclosure order request and only provides a signifier, like a phone number, to the court. Thus, the information before the court would reveal that a phone number belonged to a Member of Congress. Judge Conrad's response appears to indicate that Special Counsel Smith's office failed to disclose to the court that any subpoenas sought phone records for Members of Congress. Jack Smith took this egregious action even though Smith and his team knew case law was clear that legislators could challenge the grand jury subpoena on grounds it violated the speech or debate clause of the Constitution. The letter from Judge Conrad raises serious questions about Special Counsel Smith's candor--or lack thereof--before the court. But the volume of subpoenas issued by the special counsel's office should have raised alarms with Judge Boasberg and any other judges involved in issuing those subpoenas--alarms that maybe congressional records could have been swept up by the government's conduct. So there are some questions: Did Judge Boasberg and others even ask the question? Was even a small amount of due diligence done? Boasberg and others won't say. Not asking these simple questions appears to be a clear dereliction of duty. The actions by the Biden Justice Department and the Federal court raise more questions that Congress and the American people deserve answers to. These things are very important because when the power of the Federal Government, particularly through the Department of Justice prosecutors and the FBI to be politically weaponized to put anybody in prison--and if they can attempt to do it to a former President then and now President Trump for 4 years, it could be done to anybody. And we need to know that this should never happen again in the United States of America. So I am giving you this update. Accordingly, my oversight will continue. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces under the government of that country and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, it is called. It is termed in the paper and reports regularly--Rapid Support Forces-- as ``RSF.'' After an 18-month siege of El Fasher in the Darfur region, RSF forces took control, and the Sudanese Armed Forces retreated. Now, the RSF controls roughly half of the country of Sudan. Following the violent takeover of El Fasher, there have been reports of mass killings, reports of executions, and reports of sexual violence. According to the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale University, satellite imagery found evidence of mass killings and executions. The Humanitarian Research Lab also alleges war crimes, including the targeting of health facilities, targeting of workers, patients, and even humanitarian aid workers. Through the curse of this conflict, millions have been displaced and tens of thousands have been killed. The United Nations has determined that the conflict in Sudan is one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. Our own country, the United States, has condemned reports of mass atrocities committed by the RSF in El Fasher. The United States has gone as far as in January 2025 to declare that the RSF and its allied militias are committing genocide in Sudan. The atrocities in Sudan are not just a foreign tragedy. I have been hearing from Sudanese Iowans who have families in Sudan. I wish the Trump administration well as it attempts to bring the violence to a halt. I have heard President Trump, in his many news conferences, sometimes bring the Sudan atrocities to our attention, indicating he wants to take some action to bring peace to that country. I thank him for doing that. The Sudanese people have been through enough over the years and deserve a chance at a peaceful and prosperous life. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, when the Affordable Care Act became law, President Obama promised affordable healthcare. Contrary to Obama's promises, in reality, ObamaCare has spiked health insurance premiums and led to higher costs. Instead of fixing ObamaCare and lowering costs, Democrats established a new, temporary COVID subsidy for wealthy households--temporary. That ``temporary'' ends December 31. Democrats want to extend it way beyond that. It is another example of a temporary program never being very temporary. So this temporary subsidy has driven more taxpayer dollars into broken systems where premiums keep going up and more money is shoved to insurance companies. Now, remember the promises of 2010--ObamaCare's passage that year. It promised to bring down healthcare costs by $2,500, and we see now, 15 years later, it is up at least $5,000. So you can see the promise in 2010 by President Obama was off by $7,500. I want to explain how we got here, discuss my concerns about fraud, waste, and abuse in ObamaCare, and provide some commonsense solutions to bring down healthcare costs. When ObamaCare became law, it established taxpayer-funded subsidies through the Federal Health Insurance Marketplace to reduce a household's monthly insurance premiums. However, these subsidies go directly to insurance companies, not to the consumer. In the United States today, the median household income is $84,000 a year. Permanent law gives ObamaCare premium subsidies to a family of three making up to four times the Federal poverty line, which is about $106,000 a year. That means that someone making $20,000 more than the median household income is eligible for a subsidy under permanent law. I assume the ObamaCare authors probably figured households making much more than the median household income made enough money to buy insurance without taxpayers subsidizing it. Nothing in this debate takes away middle-income households' subsidies. A family making up to $106,000 is at 400 percent of the poverty line. Let me make it very clear, those families are eligible for a subsidy today, next year, the year after, and so on until the law is changed, and I don't expect it will be changed. In 2021, things changed. It was supposed to be temporary. As I pointed out, temporary laws in this country soon become permanent. In 2021, the Democrats passed their partisan reconciliation law that temporarily lifted the income cap on ObamaCare subsidies. Now, that was supposed to be temporary. The cap, which was at four times the poverty line, was removed temporarily in the name of COVID. In other words, the country was facing a very dramatic health issue. The Federal Government shut down the economy, 22 million people were unemployed, and we didn't really know what it was all about. Now, we learned a lot of lessons from that, and those lessons will not be repeated hopefully. But this temporary program was set up in this time of great distress about what the future held. Now, as a result of this temporary program because of ObamaCare and COVID, wealthy households making $600,000, which is well above the median household income, are eligible for the temporary taxpayer-funded ObamaCare subsidies or better known as COVID bonuses. The expansion of ObamaCare subsidies for wealthy earners has cost billions, and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projections for its costs keep going up. In 2021, anticipating some of these problems, I wrote a letter to the then-Health and Human Services Secretary and also the IRS Commissioner. In that letter, I expressed concern about the lack of fiscal responsibility in the ObamaCare subsidy expansion and how that expansion would lead to more waste, fraud, and abuse. At the time, the DHS Secretary responded saying: HHS and the IRS take program integrity seriously. The Health and Human Services Secretary outlined all the ways that the Agency was preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. I can only conclude that the Biden administration's response was just empty rhetoric. Since my letter to the HHS Secretary, the Government Accountability Office has found ongoing fraud risks in these ObamaCare subsidies. In the last 2 years, the Government Accountability Office successfully enrolled 96 percent of its fictitious applicants in ObamaCare. I really mean fictitious people. This was a test by the Government Accountability Office to see how easy it was to defraud. Now, when they started it out, they didn't know that that might be the result, but I am going to tell you that that is the result. For example, the Government Accountability Office succeeded in enrolling these fake people despite rules requiring documentation to confirm citizenship status and income. The Government Accountability Office also found that HHS had let Social Security numbers be misused by allowing the same number to be used more than once. The Agency also failed to match enrollment data with Social Security's death data and chose not to reconcile tax credit overpayments with IRS tax data. Fraud, waste, and abuse don't stop with those examples. This summer, the Trump administration found that 1.6 million people were dually enrolled in 2024 in Medicaid and ObamaCare, leading to billions in waste. Now, understand, 1.6 million people having 2 sources of healthcare and then, at the same time, we keep telling the public how many people in this country--the millions that don't have any insurance at all, and here we have 1.6 million people who were enrolled in 2 healthcare systems. My own oversight has shown how billions in ObamaCare subsidy overpayments were not collected and--can you believe this?--rules let billions go uncollected. The COVID bonuses created incentives to misestimate income to qualify for larger ObamaCare subsidies, leading to billions of wastes--yes, higher income people reporting lower income than they actually had just to get a government subsidy. Lastly, insurance agents are using targeted internet ads to fraudulently enroll consumers with false income verification extension requests. Extending the COVID bonus permanently increases the deficit by $350 billion and lets billions more go to fraud, waste, and abuse. CBO has found that 3.9 million Americans would lose their employer- sponsored health insurance if we make these subsidies for wealthy earners permanent. In other words, because of a government program that was supposed to be temporary--if it is continued, employers are smart enough to stop their healthcare program, health insurance program, and turn it over to the government and the government subsidy that goes with it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will suggest that they are only asking for another ``temporary'' extension of the COVID bonuses for wealthy households. Yet their bill will cost taxpayers nearly $300 billion, and there are no reforms to stop fraud, waste, and abuse. Despite warnings from the Government Accountability Office, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last issued a comprehensive fraud risk assessment of ObamaCare subsidies in 2018. Now, the law doesn't require that report every year, but the Government Accountability Office said it ought to be issued every year. So by not issuing that on a regular basis--the Agency failing to update its fraud risk assessment plan--it doesn't surprise me that we have a lot of fraud. My oversight in 2013 found the Obama administration at that time tried to exempt ObamaCare from certain Federal anti-fraud provisions. Yes, the administration at that time wanted anti-fraud provisions to be ignored. So any wonder why you have an environment for fraud. The full arsenal of civil and criminal anti-fraud protections must be used. I have introduced the Fraud Risk Assessment of ObamaCare Subsidies Accountability Act. My bill simply requires the Agency to update its fraud risk assessment of ObamaCare and update it yearly. I am glad the Agency is already working to update its fraud risk assessment, but we must hold the Agency accountable to complete this. I am glad the Republican-led Congress and the Trump administration have begun cracking down on ObamaCare fraud, waste, and abuse, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill that the President signed on July 4. The new law stops resources from going to illegal immigrants and those not here permanently, establishes improved preenrollment verification, and requires excess subsidies to be repaid. It is a start, but more work needs to be done. We can lower healthcare costs and increase quality. It starts with expanding access and competition to high-quality, affordable health insurance through health saving accounts, association health plans, and other consumer-driven health plans. Lowering healthcare costs requires action to reduce prescription drug prices through pharmacy benefit managers and reforming that program. I have been leading the charge to hold PBMs accountable and put sunshine on their opaque business practices. We also need price transparency. I am a cosponsor of a bill that is entitled Patients Deserve Price Tags Act and supported the Trump administration's efforts to establish price transparency on hospitals and health insurance companies through regulations. Just like all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I am committed to finding solutions to bring down healthcare costs for American families and not extending government handouts to insurance companies. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in early November, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service announced improvements to their voter verification system. Now, States can use a program named the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements to verify that only citizens are voting in the Federal elections. This is welcome news. So here is why it is welcome news: During the 2024 election, Iowa's election official, Secretary of State Paul Pate, sought confirmation of citizenship status for 2,176 voters that, based on driver motor vehicle records, may have been noncitizens. The Biden-Harris administration refused--yes, refused--to give Secretary Pate the information he needed to confirm whether these 2,176 voters were eligible to vote, which kind of proves that the previous administration was not interested in verifying citizenship for voting. Now that the Trump administration has allowed Secretary Pate access to the SAVE Program, we know that 277 people from Iowa's 2024 voter registration list were noncitizens. In other words, potentially, 277 people could have voted if they wanted to, and I will tell you that some did. While the Biden-Harris administration refused to verify the citizenship of these voters, 40 noncitizens attempted to vote in Iowa. Five of those attempts were caught before the ballots were counted, but 35 unlawful ballots were actually tallied. Thanks to President Trump's Executive order concerning election integrity and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's needed upgrades to the SAVE system, other States can avoid the uncertainty that Iowa had in last year's election, and the voters in those States can have peace of mind that noncitizens won't be voting because when noncitizens vote, it reduces the value of every legal vote. I would encourage these States to participate in this program. I want to thank the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service for their improvements to the SAVE Program, and I also want to thank Iowa's Secretary of State Paul Pate for his commitment to election integrity and the Trump administration for providing Iowa the information needed to confirm the citizenship of its voters. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is real concern in rural America, particularly among family farmers. Farmers know that margins matter. Farmers don't want to see their revenue continue being eaten up by input suppliers. So we need to do what we can to ensure that competition in seed and fertilizer industries is fair and that markets are transparent to our farmers. That is a very important consideration, at this very time, as the Trump administration and we Members of Congress look to provide aid to farmers. This is a top concern that I hear from many family farmers. My farmers are concerned that Federal dollars meant to help the farmers will simply get passed on to seed and fertilizer companies. That concern brings me to my legislation and bringing it to the attention of my fellow Senators. Passing the Fertilizer Research Act is the first step in addressing those concerns. I hope my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee will join me to provide transparency for farmers through this very important legislation that I am offering. So please take a good look, a very hard look, at the Fertilizer Research Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if you watch television, you are hearing a lot of reports from Nigeria about kidnappings and murders, other reports of violence, and particularly you are hearing it about Christians in Nigeria. This violence has grown more frequent and more troubling as time goes on. The enforcement of blasphemy laws by the Nigerian Government coupled with the rise of violent attacks by terrorists against religious communities represents a serious infringement upon the freedom of religion that you are supposed to have in that country. Blasphemy laws are enforced in 12 Nigerian states and also at the Federal level. That enforcement is resulting in the prosecution and imprisonment of Christians, Muslims, traditional practitioners, and even humanists. Furthermore, violence by terrorists like Boko Haram and the other organization called the Islamic State West Africa Province continues to pose serious security challenges. Unfortunately, these challenges are not new developments. For years, we have been hearing from our own government Agencies, particularly the FBI and the Department of Justice, urging our own State Department to designate the terrorist group Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, a step that was delayed until 2013. For my part, I have consistently sought information and action to address this ongoing threat. Going way back almost 10 years in 2016, I sent a letter to then-U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch requesting information regarding the yearslong process of designating the Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. In 2020, I wrote to then-Secretary Pompeo and Ambassador Sam Brownback asking what steps were being taken to protect Christians in Nigeria and whether a Special Envoy might be appointed. At that time, the Department assured me that they were actively addressing the issue at multiple levels with the Nigerian Government, but now, years later, we continue to see concerning reports about violence and religious prosecution in Nigeria. That is why I was so very happy to see our own President Trump take long-awaited action in designating Nigeria a country of particular concern. That designation puts Nigeria on a watch list, puts Nigeria on notice that if they don't take care of this situation, other things can intervene. The Nigerian Government must take immediate action to end this violence, and the United States should do all it can to support and encourage those efforts. Once again, I am proud to see President Trump on television, at his news conferences and things like that, speaking up for the Nigerian Government to take action and supporting the plight of Christians in Nigeria. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, two members of the West Virginia National Guard were tragically shot here, while on duty, in Washington, DC. They were attacked by an Afghan national, brought here under the Biden administration. Sadly, Specialist Beckstrom has passed away, and Staff Sergeant Wolfe continues to fight for his life. May God bless both of them. Our prayers and mine are with them and their families.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, also last week, an Afghan evacuee was arrested for threatening to bomb a building in Texas. The terrorists entered our country as part of a program called Operation Allies Welcome in the aftermath of the Biden administration's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Since 2021, I have warned the Biden administration, my congressional allies and colleagues, and the American public about the failure to vet Afghan evacuees. Unfortunately, the Biden administration was not honest with the American people about the program's vetting vulnerabilities. I asked then-Director Wray about the program's national security, and I asked the same, this year, of Director Patel of the FBI. This year, Director of National Intelligence Gabbard told my office an important data point: Of the more than 100,000 Afghan evacuees, as of August 2022, 1.6 percent had links to terrorism or other derogatory information. So, when you take that 1.6 percent, that is over 1,600 people who at the time of Biden's disastrous evacuation posed a potential threat to our homeland and to the American people. On July 8, 2025, I came to the Senate floor and urged the current FBI and the intelligence community leadership to aggressively investigate evacuees. In September of this year, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem told my office that, as of August 12, 2025, thousands of Operation Allies Welcome parolees were potential national security threats. As we have tragically witnessed, the Biden administration's failure to properly vet Afghan evacuees has serious consequences and probably consequences we haven't seen beyond the killing last week. I think we should thank the Trump administration's efforts--and I thank them--for responding to my oversight requests and their efforts to fix the Biden administration's failures. This Senator's oversight work will continue. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as I travel in Iowa throughout the year, I meet some very special people. Last month, in Sheldon, IA, at the high school, I had the honor of meeting Stephanie Pritts, who was recently named Iowa's 2026 ``Teacher of the Year.'' Now, it goes way back to 1958 that Iowa started the ``Teacher of the Year'' award, honoring an exceptional Iowa teacher each year. There is very tough competition each year among Iowa's many outstanding educators to find the one who best represents student learning through evidence-based instruction, empowering students with multiple pathways to postsecondary success; the teacher who learns from and invests in other fellow educators and, at the same time, serves students in partnership with their families. The annual program is sponsored by the Iowa Department of Education, and it is funded by an appropriation of the Iowa Legislature. Now that she is 2026 ``Teacher of the Year,'' Stephanie will serve as an ambassador to schools, an ambassador to higher education, and an ambassador to various communities across the State. I would like to congratulate Stephanie, again, and thank her for her service to our State. Iowans can be very proud that teachers like Stephanie call our State their home. I visit about 10 to 12 high schools a year to have a Q&A with young people because they never come to my open town meetings. One of the surprises that happens at a high school is meeting Iowa's ``Teacher of the Year.'' This year, that was Stephanie Pritts, and I congratulate her for a second time. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month. One in eighteen people receives a lung cancer diagnosis during their lifetime. Twelve percent of the diagnoses have had no tobacco exposure. This disease impacts hundreds of thousands of families across our country. My friend Marlys Carlson of Stratford, IA, finished her battle with lung cancer in July of this year and is now with her Lord and Savior. I want to raise awareness for lung cancer in her honor today. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a remarkable business and civic leader from my home State who passed away peacefully at age 99 surrounded by his beloved family members. A World War II veteran, William C. Knapp is an American patriot who piloted landing craft amidst kamikaze attacks during the Battle of Okinawa in the Pacific Theater, one of the bloodiest battles of World War II. A member of the ``Greatest Generation,'' he enlisted in the U.S. Navy at age 17, a bold decision that underscored how he would pursue entrepreneurial endeavors for the rest of his life, fueled by humble beginnings, his own ``gut check,'' and strong farm kid work ethic. Bill's zest for life was shaped by his wartime experience, surviving fierce fighting during the largest amphibian landing of the Pacific theater with heavy death tolls on both sides. The experience left an indelible imprint in his mind and on his heart, compelling him time and again to pay it forward for his fellow veterans. Two decades ago, Bill donated land for the Iowa Veterans Cemetery in Van Meter, providing sacred ground for tens of thousands of burials for Iowa veterans. On Friday, November 21, Bill will be laid to rest with full military honors among other Iowa hometown heroes on the land he donated to honor veterans for generations to come. Bill's donation of prime real estate is but one example of his generosity and commitment to share his blessings and make a difference. A decades-long philanthropist, Bill underwrote the cost of a Central Iowa Honor Flight to ensure aging Iowa veterans were able to travel to Washington, DC, to see the World War II Memorial built for their service and sacrifice. Bill leaves behind an iconic footprint on Iowa's landscape, from the skyline of Des Moines to the celebrated Iowa State Fair. With his business acumen and leadership prowess, Bill founded Knapp Properties and scaled Iowa Realty into a financial juggernaut that fueled transformative projects in our State capital. Although Bill and I were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, we are both Iowa farm kids who worked hard to make Iowa a better place to live, build a business, raise a family and earn a good living. Partisanship didn't spoil our mutual love for Iowa or stop us from working to improve the lives and livelihoods of our neighbors. I am flattered he even supported me a time or two over the course of my political career. Bill and I shared a special fondness for the Iowa State Fair. He kept up a larger-than-life tradition every year and parked a big camper at the State fairgrounds for all 10 days, hosting people in the political realm and meeting with Iowans from across the State. As always, his generosity followed his heart. Over the years, he opened his wallet generously and spearheaded fundraising efforts to help make our state fair among the very best in the Nation. Bill contributed to many charitable organizations and institutions, from childcare centers to affordable housing and human services, as well as impactful contributions to Drake University in Des Moines. Good leaders tend to dream big and those who surround themselves with the best and brightest are able to turn those dreams into reality. Bill was one of those rare people in this world who never met a stranger. From the hotel valet to the electrician to those who helped run his businesses, Bill's kindness, optimism, and work ethic inspired others to ``make things happen'' and be like Bill, no matter which rung of the economic ladder you occupied. His lifetime of service and good works was recognized in 2011 when Bill was presented with the Iowa Award, becoming the 21st person to receive our State's highest citizen honor. Barbara and I share our condolences to Bill's wife Susan and members of the Knapp family. For nearly a century, Bill led a full life, lived with virtue and purpose. May his memory be a blessing, and may his loved ones take comfort that his legacy will endure for generations yet to come.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I commend First Lady Melania Trump for her leadership on the recent ``Fostering the Future for American Children and Families'' Executive order, and, obviously, the thanks would go to President Trump for his support of his wife's work. And it wouldn't happen without his signing the order last week. This action is an important step to see that young people who have experienced foster care are supported as they begin to navigate their lives as adults. For decades, I have worked to shine a light on the challenges that foster youth face. The bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth that I launched with former Senator Mary Landrieu in 2009 and still cochair today has a particular focus on the challenges that older foster youth face. Young people who already face constant uncertainty growing up, often compounded with the trauma of neglect and abuse, are then expected to lead the rest of their lives successfully on their own, and that is a hard way to start a life outside of foster care. And, of course, that is just not quite right. They deserve a mom and dad, a supportive and safe environment to grow up and to develop, and to have meaningful connections. While nothing can replace the things I just mentioned, I find they, at least, ought to have a chance to have some support to pursue higher education and find employment and stable housing, all to help prepare for their future. I continue to work to find avenues to provide this support for these young people, including exploring ways to increase the awareness of Federal programs that support older foster youth. I started out by complimenting our First Lady. In her remarks announcing the Executive order, the First Lady said this: I predict this small spark today will ignite a profound and lasting nationwide movement. I share her optimism and, once again, thank her for her commitment to improve the lives of young people. I look forward to working with her and supporting how I can do that here in the United States Senate, both as an individual Senator and cochair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. Iowa Mr. President, on another article, on Thursday, in Kossuth County, IA, I completed my 45th annual 99 county meetings. For 45 years in a row, I have held at least one question-and-answer session in all of Iowa's 99 counties. Now, I have to modify that just a little bit because I remember--and it is not here in print--that in my first term in office, there was one county where nobody showed up, but, otherwise, I have had a Q&A in every county of Iowa--all 99--for the last 45 years. Last week, I met with welders, students, family farmers, factory workers, and others to hear what is on their minds. I was in two high schools so I could hear straight from the next generation of Iowans about what is most important to young Iowans. This year, I joined an artificial intelligence workshop in Grinnell, IA, with small business owners. I visited seven hospitals to hear from nurses and doctors about changes to Medicaid and how I am working to strengthen rural healthcare. I held a roundtable with restaurant and hotel workers about the no tax on overtime and no tax on tips. These were all provisions, as we Senators know, from last summer's tax bill--everything to help working men and women of our country. These workers told me how the tax bill was a big moral boost for their employees and also to help recruit more employees. Congress legislates and makes policy that impacts Americans. As a part of representative government, it is important to hear from our constituents how this policy is impacting their daily lives. Hearing from Iowans face to face in my county meetings is the best way to keep in touch, but, as I tell them at that particular time, they only see me maybe 1 day out of 365. There are 364 days in the year that they ought to be telling me what is on their minds. So I encourage all Iowans to write or call my office with their opinions, and I always say dialogue is the essence of representative government. So if they don't see me face to face to have that conversation and they have it by email, they should expect an answer. If you don't get an answer, let me know because if I encourage you to write to me and I say I am going to answer, then I had better give you an answer. Knowing what Iowans care about helps me better serve them. I look forward to more Q-and-A's in the coming weeks. Waiving Quorum Call I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Nieh nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is the 40th day of the government shutdown. It has been so long that a recap is in order. As I have said before, Iowans don't plan their lives around what we do here in Congress, but the Democrats' failure to support a clean, bipartisan funding bill has caused pain, suffering, and uncertainty for the American people. Let's remember: It is the Democrats who caused the shutdown and got us into this mess. All but three Democrats have repeatedly voted against a clean continuing resolution to fund government Agencies and programs even at Biden-era levels. They won't even support funding that Democrats had voted for and supported for the last 4 years prior to Trump's reelection. All we need are five more Democrats. There are not any partisan policy priorities from either side. That is why we call it a clean government funding resolution. Republicans, by supporting this continuing resolution, have sought to put partisan politics aside to keep the government open for the American people while the Appropriations Committee members hash out full-year appropriations bills under what we call regular order. Obviously, for the last 40 days, the taxpayers of this country and every citizen have seen demonstrated daily that Democrats have had plans other than just a clean funding resolution. They have not put their policy priorities to the side. They have taken the American people hostage by refusing to vote for government funding unless it has included their partisan priorities. At the top of their list is an extension of the Biden-era COVID subsidies for ObamaCare. Understand that what we are talking about was instituted because we had a COVID shutdown of government, and people were hurt because the government decided in early 2020, at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, that 22 million people should be put on the unemployment rolls. That is what happens when the government shuts down the economy. So this is a subsidy that Democrats decided to sunset at the end of this year. Now the Democrats have shut down the government to continue what was meant to be a temporary program. Something we have learned from the word ``temporary'' program or ``temporary'' taxes is that everybody soon decides temporary becomes permanent. These expanded subsidies that go back to the beginning of the COVID era go to big insurance companies for Americans over 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. Can you believe it? What I mean when I say ``over 400 percent of the poverty level'' is that it could include people making over $600,000 a year. I want to make clear, this expiration is only about the expanded, temporary COVID subsidies. So to everybody else who depends on the subsidy for ObamaCare, I want to make it very clear to them that the premium subsidies for individuals and families under 400 percent of the Federal poverty level that existed prior to COVID are permanent law. Those people will not be affected because that permanent law is not being changed by anything we are debating here today--permanent law; no change for those under 400 percent of poverty. Writing healthcare policy is our job--meaning the Senators' job and the House of Representatives' job. However, every one of us in this body knew that this deadline that we are talking about was approaching, and we had already made plans to address the policy issues later in the year. Yet, as we have found out now for the last 40 days, that timeline was not satisfactory to the Democrats. I have been in elected office a long time. Taking the government hostage and shutting it down is always a losing proposition. It costs money to shut the government down, and it costs money to open the government up, and we find out little is accomplished. In the process, the government is supposed to be in service to the American people. When there are 700,000 Federal employees sitting at home who are probably going to be paid because they always have been paid, they can't serve the American people, and the government is not doing its job. In my view, this shutdown was doomed from the start, but Democrats marched forward anyway, following their leaders into the mess that we now have had for the last 40 days. On day 38--2 days ago, so 38 days after the government shut down-- Leader Schumer came to the Senate floor and unveiled his big plan. On day 38, he came with the Democrats' first plan to get the American people out of this government shutdown. Why would he wait 38 days? Why would he wait? If you were serious about a bipartisan solution to lower the cost of healthcare for the American people, I don't believe you would sit idle for 38 days before making an offer. I have shared the pain the shutdown has inflicted upon Iowans, but it bears repeating. I have families calling my office asking where they can get food. Our food banks are overrun as Thanksgiving is just a few weeks away. I want to give you an example that was reported by the person behind this constituent in the checkout line. One of my constituents, while grocery shopping in Walmart in Marion, IA, was left with no groceries for her family when she found out at the cash register that her food stamps were not on her debit card. That kind of uncertainty has real- world impacts. The realization brought this constituent to tears, it was reported to me. And why wouldn't you go into tears? Let's just take a moment to think about how you would feel coming home emptyhanded from the grocery store and the stress it inflicts on families. Perhaps your kids are crying because they are hungry. Young farmers can't get their loan money from the Department of Agriculture during this government shutdown. These young farmers are already in an ag economy that is underwater. How are they going to keep their business going? Then, I don't know what percentage of the American public flies every day, but it is significant that flights are being canceled left and right because air traffic controllers aren't being paid. That means people who are trying to get to a sick family member or attend a sister's wedding may not make it on time. Law enforcement, including our own Capitol Police whom we rub shoulders with every day here, are working overtime and not being paid. The entire Federal workforce is not being paid--3 million people who have families and bills to pay. Those are just four or five examples. Unfortunately, the list could go on. I often say Washington, DC, right where we are standing now--this town and the people who are in it--live and work in an island surrounded by reality. I have been begging Leader Schumer to give just five Democrats the go-ahead to join us in a commonsense clean funding bill. Let me remind you that Democrats voted for this same structure of a clean funding resolution at least 13 times during the 4 years of President Biden. So I would ask them: What is wrong with voting for a clean funding resolution during this year and during this shutdown or to prevent this shutdown? The answer is, The American people elected a new President, and that President is not a Democrat. Well, elections have consequences. In a democratic republic, the will of the people is exercised by voters, and congressional leaders must respect that and live with the consequences. It is past time the Democrat leaders cut loose their Members who want to work in a bipartisan way. Iowans at my town meetings want more bipartisanship out of Washington. They are cynical that all we do is fight and nothing ever gets done. I tried to educate them on how it is not as bad as what they see on TV, and Senators really do want to legislate and serve the American people. So let's roll up our sleeves and get the job done. The American people deserve better. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I come to the floor ahead of next Tuesday, which is Veterans Day, to recognize and share my gratitude to those who have all answered the call to serve the United States of America. November 11 is the Federal holiday that we observe today as Veterans Day. It has not always been referred to as Veterans Day. Its origins come from the term Armistice Day, the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, which marked the end of World War I. The holiday is often marked by tributes and other ceremonies to show our gratitude to our family, friends, and neighbors who have served. In honor of Veterans Day, my office typically hosts a Veterans History Project event to collect stories from Iowa veterans and submit those stories to the Library of Congress to honor those individuals and their service for generations to come, also, so that researchers can hear the exact words spoken from the mouths of those veterans of what war is all about. To date, I have submitted 95 stories from Iowa veterans to the Library of Congress. There are more Iowa veterans who wish to share their story, and I look forward to continuing my efforts to preserve those stories. Normally, it would be this weekend at some major city in Iowa. I would ask veterans to gather so we can record their memories. Obviously, with the government shutdown, that is impossible for my staff to do, but we will continue that as long as I serve in the U.S. Senate. I would also like to recognize that, this year, the day before Veterans Day marks the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Marines. On November 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress established the Marine Corps. I have been fortunate enough to have a brother who served in the Marines in World War II. I have had a grandson in the Marines in the last 10 years. For the last 250 years, the Marine Corps has faithfully defended our Nation with a distinct fighting spirit, and I am confident that the Marines will continue to do that. Thank you to our dedicated marines and thank you to all veterans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I came to the floor of the Senate earlier this year warning my colleagues that the leader of one of the subdivisions within the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Dodik, was ignoring rulings by the national-level Bosnia court. He was threatening to have half the country secede, which, of course, drags up memories we should never forget about the war and the genocide in those countries in the 1990s in which many Bosnian Iowans lost family. Well, I am glad that he has since complied with the court ruling by stepping down from his position as leader of the RS entity and walked back some of his destabilizing actions. In return, the United States has dropped sanctions against Mr. Dodik and his family. I am all for rewarding this good behavior, but there are very good reasons to believe that Mr. Dodik has not seen the error of his ways. Mr. Dodik, since, falsely alleged that he was still the rightful President of RS, questioned whether Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to exist--and can you believe this?--he was photographed embracing Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Belarus. Mr. Dodik should be on notice then that the United States is watching to see that he stays on the straight and narrow that he wants us to believe that he is on. I can assure you that this Senator will be on the lookout for any destabilizing actions that threaten the peace in Bosnia. And I will work with the Trump administration to make sure that all actors in the region respect the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the violence and genocide that took place in 1995. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to express my concern about recent attacks on the legitimacy of the judicial branch of government. A fair and neutral judiciary plays a very indispensable role in our constitutional structure. Judges wield enormous power, and their decisions determine the legal rights of the parties before them. One especially potent power of the judiciary is the practice of judicial review. As we all know, the judiciary sometimes decides cases that impact the operation of laws passed by Congress or the actions of the executive branch. We accept this judicial review because neutral arbiters are necessary in a system based upon the rule of law, but this system only works if everyone accepts that the arbiters are, in fact, neutral. Litigants, the coequal branches of government, and the American people must be confident that judges are merely saying what the law is and not what those judges wish the law to be. Our judicial system also requires respect for appellate review. The Federal courts are hierarchal, and the rule of law depends on public confidence that lower courts will faithfully apply and respect the decisions of the higher courts. It is no surprise that some people are not always happy with how the courts exercise judicial power. Criticism is fair and sometimes warranted, but too often it has strayed into outright attacks on the judiciary as an institution. Today, however, I am here to discuss attacks on the judiciary coming particularly from a concerning place that is within the judiciary itself. It is one thing for the political branches or the public to criticize the Supreme Court. It is entirely different for Federal judges themselves to undermine their own branch of government. In two high-profile instances in the last few months, numerous judges have anonymously gone, as you might expect, to the press to denigrate the Supreme Court. This ought to be deeply concerning not only to this Senator but to the public at large. On September 4, 2025, NBC News published a report alleging that 12 Federal judges gave anonymous interviews, and 10 of them took that opportunity to criticize the Supreme Court. One judge described the Supreme Court's conduct as ``inexcusable.'' Another judge said the Supreme Court ``is effectively assisting the Trump administration in `undermining the lower courts.''' Then we have a big hit piece by the New York Times on October 11, 2025. That newspaper ran a story where they sought out judges specifically to criticize the Supreme Court. The Times approached 400 of the almost 1,500 Federal judges with questionnaires. The Times intentionally solicited judges in districts that litigants considered to be unfavorable to the current President. Of the 400 judges approached, thank God only a small percentage took the offer. I think this is an important point. Then we can draw the conclusion most Federal judges didn't take the bait of the New York Times because it violated the ethics of the judiciary. So only a small percentage did, but that is still a fabulous 65 judges responding to the Times' questionnaire. It happens that some responded with very harsh criticism. They then gave the Times the fodder that they needed to spin the narrative of a judiciary in crisis. The Times wrote: [F]ederal judges called the Supreme Court's emergency orders ``mystical,'' ``overly blunt,'' ``incredibly demoralizing and troubling'' and ``a slap in the face to the district courts.'' One judge compared their district's current relationship with the Supreme Court to a ``war zone.'' Another said the courts were in the midst of a ``judicial crisis.'' I am deeply concerned--and I hope the public at large is--that these public attacks on the Court from sitting Federal judges damage the public's faith and confidence in our judicial system. When judges call the legitimacy of their own branch of government into question, they erode the faith of the institution itself. My colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives, shares these concerns. Together, we sent a letter of concern to Chief Justice Roberts. We expressed our concern that the conduct of the judges, as reported, may violate the applicable ethical canons. We also asked whether the judicial branch will give guidance to Federal judges or even investigate this matter. The document called the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges is very clear that judges have an obligation to uphold public confidence in the judiciary. For example, canon 2 states: [A judge] . . . should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In 2024, Chief Judge Diaz of the Fourth Circuit applied the canon in resolving a judicial complaint against a judge for authoring an opinion piece lambasting a sitting Supreme Court Justice. He concluded that the judge in question violated the canons and ``diminish[ed] the public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.'' Chief Judge Diaz's reasoning appears to apply with similar force to the recent anonymous attacks on the Court. Anonymous public comments from sitting judges describing the relationship between the Supreme Court and lower courts as a ``war zone'' and otherwise attacking the legitimacy of the Supreme Court rulings undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In fact, it may violate the Code of Conduct. Judges shouldn't mimic the infighting and rhetorical attacks that are so common among us in the political arena. This damages the public's faith in the judiciary. The Supreme Court is a uniquely American institution that has played an important role since our Republic's founding. In contrast to the other branches--meaning the political branches of the Federal Government--the Supreme Court is meant to stand above the day-to-day squabbles of politics. And that is not just the Supreme Court, as I implied; that is every level of the judicial branch. For the most part, the Court does this remarkably well--speaking of the Supreme Court. We know this because neither Democrats nor Republicans are always happy with the decision of our highest Court. The Court is either too conservative or too liberal, depending on the day and whom you ask. But at the bottom, the job of the Court is not to please us or agree with us but to say what the law is. In recent years, we have seen vicious attacks against the Court from a variety of directions, many aimed at weakening public confidence in this important institution. This is bad for all of us. So today, I am here to defend the integrity of the Supreme Court and to urge the judicial branch to address these attacks that are coming from within-- mostly by district court judges--and the ones that reply to everything anonymously and really don't have the guts to stand up publicly with their criticism of the Supreme Court. So here is my bottom line: I call on the Federal judiciary to give clear guidance to Federal judges on acceptable public commentary and to take seriously the public's perception and confidence in the courts. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, you heard the Chaplain refer to the death of former Vice President Dick Cheney. The family announced that early this morning. Dick Cheney lived a life of service to his country. He was bit by the political bug, biting him very early in his life, and he was committed in his entire life to public service. He served as White House Chief of Staff under President Ford. He was a Congressman for the people of Wyoming. He was the 17th Secretary of Defense and the 45th Vice President of the United States. Dick Cheney was a part of American history for more than five decades. Barbara and I will pray for Dick's family as they mourn the loss of a beloved family member.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to compliment Erika Kirk, wife of the assassinated conservative leader Charlie Kirk. She has made the emotional appeal to have cameras in the courtroom at the trial of her husband's murderer. I commend her for this brave plea because it fits in with a stand I have been taking for the last couple of decades. Courts at both the State and Federal level have a massive impact on our daily lives and the lives of generations to come. Yet few Americans get the chance to see the Nation's courts in action. That is almost totally true of Federal courts. I believe most States do allow cameras in the courtrooms, although not necessarily required under State procedure in State courtrooms. I have long held that cameras should be present in the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, because what I said about State courts is not yet a requirement in Federal courts. Cameras would boost transparency and help Americans grow in confidence and understanding of the Federal Judiciary if we had cameras in the Federal courtrooms. It has been maybe a joke that a couple of the Supreme Court Justices said that having cameras at the Supreme Court would be over their dead body. I don't wish anybody at the Federal court, whether they are liberals or conservatives on that court, to pass because of cameras in the courtrooms, but I happen to believe that cameras in the Federal courts, like State courts, would boost transparency and help Americans grow in confidence and understanding of the Judiciary. When pivotal moments in history happen, we shouldn't be timid in calling for greater transparency that history demands in the Federal courts. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Thursday, I sounded the alarm as the lapse in government funding endangered food assistance for 42 million Americans and rapidly approached. That was November 1, the approach date. I called on Senator Schumer to end the partisanship and vote for a clean extension of government funding. Forty-five Democrats have opposed a clean extension of funding 13 times. Republicans have voted for it 13 times. The Trump administration is putting a temporary bandaid on the program, tapping into emergency funds that will cover half a month of food stamps. Meanwhile, I have Iowans calling my office, asking me where they can get food for their families. This is a sad commentary on the politics in our Nation--in a nation of abundance. I always say you are only nine meals away from a revolution. Just think, if you are a family, you have children, 3 days without any food, what action you might take if you can't properly feed them. We have seen those sorts of revolutions in other countries. So let's feed the American people with the bipartisan cooperation they deserve and the bipartisan cooperation that has always been a part of the Food Stamp Program because, over decades ago, two famous Senators, Dole and McGovern, in a bipartisan fashion, came up with the idea that why should we have people that are nutrition deficient in the United States when the Federal Government has warehouses full of plenty of food. That is the basis for the Food Stamp Program. We should continue that bipartisan cooperation. I hope the Democrats will wake up and give families a permanent solution to the government programs they rely on.