Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is a not-so-perfect storm brewing for farmers in my State of Iowa and in agricultural States generally. Many factors are coming together--and all at once--like low grain prices, high input costs, consolidation in the industry, and uncertainty from trade and tariffs. It is beginning to look more and more like the 1980s to me. One thing that concerns me is the lowering of land values in Iowa. Land value has gone down 3 percent since last year and down 5.4 percent since the same time in 2023. That is not as bad as it was in the 1980s. There was a very catastrophic drop in prices compared to what I just quoted you for now. And in the 1980s, that didn't happen overnight; it kind of crept up on us very slowly. We don't want to let that happen again, so we need to be vigilant today. When it comes to land prices, as you know, if farmers lose too much land value, they won't be able to leverage against it for debt to cover their expenses. That happened in the 1980s, and as I said, it kind of crept up on us at that particular time, and Congress didn't see it coming soon enough. Congress waited too long to act. Farmers had been pleading with Congress for 2 or 3 years in the 1980s before Congress was able to pass some help for the farmers. In the meantime, farmers went bankrupt, and a lot of farmers were lost due to suicide. Now, that may sound like everyday business, but if you have been operating a family farm and you were the fifth or sixth generation doing that and you lost it because of bankruptcy, low prices, land values going down, you become depressed and ashamed, and I am sure that is why a lot of people committed suicide. Now we have a farm safety net in place. We have tried to be on top of farmers' mental health to a greater extent than in the past. So hopefully all these bad things that happened in the 1980s won't happen again. But I am here saying I don't want to see it happen again. We can't be complacent, knowing the history of Congress being too slow to act. So Congress ought to act now, before it is too late. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the third day, we heard an opening prayer of the Chaplain praying that the government will open up and we in Congress would find a solution to keep the government open. That will help the 750,000 executive branch employees who are on furlough without pay; that will help the congressional staff who are working without pay, help the economy--something we should be doing. You have heard me say several times how ridiculous it is to shut the government down because it costs money to shut the government down. It costs money to open the government up. The government is supposed to be a service to the American people, and you can't serve the American people if the government is not functioning properly.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 2 days ago, I spoke about the potential shutdown of government. I am going to repeat what I said then, but the shutdown of government is now a fact. I said it costs money to shut the government down; it costs money to open the government up. The government is supposed to be a service to the American people, protect the American people, and you can't do either if the government is not functioning. You heard the Chaplain speaking about prayer and the government shutdown. Prayer is in order for almost anything, but if common sense would prevail here in the U.S. Senate, 100 Senators would take care of this issue with or without prayer. On the other hand, if people want to pray for the opening of government and the serving of people, that is perfectly appropriate, and, hopefully, it works. But all 100 of us Senators ought to be ashamed that the government is in shutdown. It affects the United States. Each of our staffs will not be paid during this period of time, and I will bet each Senator will expect their staffs to be on duty since the Senate is going to be in session. We should think about the people we are hurting. Particularly, Democrats who want to speak, seem to speak more for Federal workers now on furlough, not being paid, ought to think about their support for them that is voiced almost every day and the harm that will come because this is the Democrat shutting down the government. Thirteen times during the Biden administration, they voted for a clean continuing resolution, and this is exactly what we are asking they vote for this time. Agricultural Economy Mr. President, I come to the floor, once again, to speak about the agricultural economy and trade and tariffs in this particular instance today. You have heard me talk about the high input costs that farmers are facing. I concluded my remarks 2 days ago by saying farmers need immediate relief. This is especially true if it is the Federal Government's action that has caused the economic hardships. I am going to speak about some of that Federal Government action. It happens that fertilizer is one of the largest expenses in growing crops. Most fertilizers used in the United States are imported. The tariffs on fertilizers have sent shock waves throughout the supply chains. Most often, those waves come crashing down on the farmers who bear the brunt of the increased cost of fertilizers. Tariffs not only cause farmers to pay more for their inputs, but they also have seen tariffs reduce markets for U.S. farm products. Last week, when the Argentinians reduced export tariffs, they sold $7 billion worth of soybeans in just a few days to China. It happens that China has not bought a single one of American soybeans this year, and that is why farmers are losing $2 a bushel on soybeans. Taking away tariffs on ag inputs and striking meaningful deals to open markets would send immediate signals to the ag economy, helping farmers' bottom lines. Yesterday, former Senator David Perdue, now Ambassador to China, visited the U.S. Senate, and I had the opportunity to express my views about the situation with China not buying soybeans. He says he hears it; that it is the No. 1 issue when it comes to talking about trade negotiations with China. He also mentioned something that I think I need to bring to our attention because it is something that China promised to do in 2019. It was something that Trump, in his first term, negotiated with China; that they had to buy a certain amount of agricultural products from the United States. During the period of time that Trump was President, they filled about two-thirds of that agreement. But the Biden administration came into power and didn't follow up on the enforcement of that 2019 Trump agreement with China to buy agricultural products. So besides hoping that Trump makes a quick deal with China, settles our trade disputes so they will buy soybeans, I hope that maybe President Trump today can follow up on the shortcomings of the Biden administration not enforcing that 2019 agreement with China. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Chaplain, in his opening prayer, mentioned something about the shutting down of the government. It would be a good opportunity for me to follow on that and say that it costs money to shut down the government and costs money to open up the government. The government is supposed to protect and serve the American people. You can't do that if you are shut down. I hope we can avoid it. Agricultural Economy Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the agricultural economy. There are many big issues facing our Nation's farmers this season. There is stress in the grain-producing areas of the United States. That is true of my State of Iowa. Stress comes from the fact that farmers are losing $1.10 a bushel on corn and soybeans about $2 a bushel. Stress comes not only from low prices for their products but high input costs, uncertainty in the international market, particularly the issue of tariffs. Then, also, we have the issue of high interest rates, market consolidation, and I suppose you can go on. Today, I would like to focus on high input costs that farmers will be paying this season. The average production costs for farmers are down only 3 percent since their very high peak in 2022. Meanwhile, corn prices are down 50 percent in the same period. To put it plainly, many farmers will be lucky if they break even this fall. Those words ``break even'' is not possible just because of price. If they break even, it is only because of the expectant bumper crops that we will have at least throughout the Midwest that I know about. In response to the farmers' concerns about the market concentration and changes in anti-dumping and countervailing duty rates, I introduced the Fertilizer Research Act to shed light on the fertilizer industry. The issue of ag inputs has become a large enough problem that last week, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice announced a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on agricultural antitrust issues. I am certain many farmers are glad to see these developments, but they need more immediate relief. This will become more of an issue as the harvest progresses. My message is, as I see it from my State of Iowa, it is beginning to look like the 1980s' agriculture depression all over. Congress was too slow to respond in the 1980s. Thousands of farmers went out of business in the 1980s. That should concern all of us because with only 2 percent of the people producing all the food for the 98 percent, we can't let the destruction of the family farmer happen in 2025 like it did in the 1980s. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, what I am going to say is, remember the history of Putin saying 20 years ago that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster of the 20th century and that Putin's goal was to reestablish the Soviet Empire; and we see that going on every day with how he is destroying Ukraine. So everyone interested in religious freedom in Russia and Ukraine should read the recent report by the Free Russia Foundation. The Free Russia Foundation is an organization of Russians who wants a ``free, democratic, peaceful and prosperous Russia reintegrated into the international community as a constructive and positive actor.'' This organization's recent report, entitled ``The Russian Orthodox Church and the War,'' demonstrates how this church body supports the ongoing invasion of Ukraine through propaganda, rituals for the invaders, diplomatic manipulation, and espionage. Now, doesn't that seem very odd for a church--any church--to have that as goals? The Russian Orthodox Church is also actively engaged in suppressing and persecuting other Christian denominations, including Orthodox believers who do not answer to Russia. It seems shocking to me to see Russians talk about the main Christian denomination in Russia in this way, but remember this: After initially persecuting Orthodox believers, dictator Joseph Stalin co-opted the Russian Orthodox Church to support the Soviet state. At that time, the Russian Orthodox faithful outside of Russia broke all ties with the Soviet-installed patriarch. Today's Russian Orthodox Church is dominated by leaders who came of age under the KGB-controlled church structure. Now understand this: The current patriarch of Moscow was a KGB agent, so it is no wonder that he is close to Putin. The Free Russia report documents the Moscow patriarch's blessing of the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. It quotes the patriarch's September 2022 sermon: Anyone who dies in the performance of military duty sacrifices himself for the sake of others. Therefore, we believe that such a sacrifice washes away all sins previously committed. Now, as a Christian--and, I hope, for any Christian--I find that shocking. So does the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, the first among equals in the Orthodox tradition. He said of the Moscow patriarch's support for Putin and his war: It is damaging to the prestige of the whole of Orthodoxy because Orthodoxy doesn't support war, violence [or] terrorism. There has been a lot of propaganda claiming that the Russian Orthodox Church is somehow a victim of religious persecution in this war. In fact, it is a leading perpetrator of the persecution of fellow Orthodox believers, evangelicals, and other churches. I had a chance to meet a year ago with 30 church leaders from Ukraine who told how this persecution was going on. Don't take my word for it, though. Read this report that I have quoted from by these pro-democracy Russians. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, September 19 is National Stillbirth Prevention and Awareness Day. This day is set aside to recognize the tens of thousands of families in the United States who have endured a stillbirth. More than 21,000 pregnancies in the United States end in stillbirth each year. Sadly, this exceeds the top five leading causes of death among children under 15 years of age. It is critical that we raise awareness and take action to improve this grave statistic. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of the Maternal and Child Health Stillbirth Prevention Act that was signed into law last year. The law clarifies that resources like Count the Kicks can be deployed for stillbirth prevention. Count the Kicks is a simple and free tool that helps pregnant moms count their babies' movements during the third trimester. The results speak for themselves. In the first 10 years of the Count the Kicks campaign in Iowa, the State's stillbirth rate went down 32 percent while rates in the rest of the country remained static. My work to improve maternal and child health doesn't stop there. I have introduced the bipartisan Healthy Moms and Babies Act. This bill is a comprehensive approach to addressing our maternal mortality crisis. Through community-based efforts, improved support for rural labor and delivery units, and increasing the use of technology like telehealth, we can prevent maternal and child mortality regardless of the ZIP Code. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. In the United States this year, over 9,000 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed among children from birth to age 14. While cancer rates and their deaths for children have declined by 70 percent from 1970 through 2020, cancer remains the leading cause of death from disease among children. Access to timely pediatric care is critical to reducing cancer deaths. Children's hospitals specialize in certain types of cancer care. Unfortunately, gaining access to a children's hospital across the country or in the State next-door can be a real challenge. That is why I am the sponsor of the bipartisan Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act. Moms and dads seeking lifesaving cancer care for their kids should be able to access care quickly and wherever it is available. Now, sadly, sometimes it takes months for a child to get access to treatment if it is out of State. There is no excuse for that. In fact, it is pure bureaucratic redtape. Families shouldn't have to navigate redtape to get lifesaving care for their child with complex medical needs. My bill simplifies this process so parents can ensure kids with cancer diagnoses get timely medical care. Our bill is the most cosponsored, bipartisan bill--I want to emphasize ``bipartisan bill''-- of all the Medicaid bills before the Senate Finance Committee. I look forward to making this bill become law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week, we are privileged to welcome Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Washington, DC. He is the spiritual leader and the first among equals of Orthodox Christianity worldwide. The patriarch is coming to receive the Templeton Prize, a very prestigious award in religion and science. I know many Orthodox Americans hold him in very high regard and will be very excited to have him visit our country. Now, because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I really appreciate the fact that he has used his spiritual authority to ensure that Orthodox believers in areas of Ukraine, formerly dominated by Russia, have the opportunity to practice their Orthodox faith through institutions that do not answer to the Kremlin as the Russian Orthodox Church has since Stalin's time. On behalf of Greek Orthodox Iowans, such as those who attend the St. George Greek Orthodox Church in Des Moines, IA, I welcome Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the United States. May God bless his ministry. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we all have a responsibility to understand the history of our country. We have a responsibility to learn from that history, and we learn from that history so we don't repeat the failures of the past. I am here to remind my colleagues of some of that history but also am able to fill in some details that were just recently made public as a result of some of our investigative work and the cooperation we have had from the intelligence community and from the FBI. Today, I visit with my colleagues to discuss two dates of significant importance: January 6, 2021, and January 6, 2017. Most of my remarks are about that date in 2017. Regarding the 2021 date, it was a dark day in American history. The violence against our Capitol and law enforcement was, as we all know, a great national disgrace. First Amendment activity turned into something else. The latter date, January 6, 2017, is a date many in this country may not remember or care to remember, but I think it is important that we remember. It is a day that signifies a much larger systemic attack on our Republic. On that date, as the Obama administration planned its exit from its Presidency of 8 years, it put into motion its final traps against the incoming first Trump administration. To fully understand January 2017, we must revisit March and July of 2016. But one could argue that it all started June 16, 2015, when Trump declared his candidacy. Around March and July of 2016, the FBI received particular intelligence information. Notably, July 2016 is the very same month that FBI Director Comey opened the discredited Crossfire Hurricane investigation. That intelligence information consisted of reports that the Clinton campaign, with Hillary Clinton's approval, created a plan to falsely tie Trump to Russia. That information was made public this year when I released the Durham annex and the Clinton annex. The Clinton annex showed the FBI had evidence necessary to do a complete investigation into Hillary Clinton and the FBI failed to look at that very evidence and perhaps they intentionally decided not to follow up. So the FBI swept the evidence against Clinton under the rug as they planned to advance the Crossfire Hurricane against Trump. Regarding the intelligence about the Clinton campaign's plan to falsely tie Trump to Russia, the Durham annex notes that ``FBI was fully alerted to the possibility that at least some of the information it received about the Trump campaign might have its origin either with the Clinton campaign or its supporters, or alternately, was the product of Russian disinformation.'' The Durham annex concludes, in part, that ``despite this awareness, the FBI appears to have dismissed the [intelligence information] as not credible without any investigative steps actually having been taken to either corroborate or disprove the allegations.'' In other words, the FBI didn't do what the FBI should do, and that is, follow up on the facts. So just as with the Clinton annex, where Comey's FBI didn't investigate evidence that might have been bad for Clinton, the Durham annex shows the Comey FBI didn't investigate the intelligence that the Clinton team wanted to falsely tie Trump to Russia to destroy his candidacy in favor of her candidacy. I refer to the Durham and the Clinton annexes because they were just recently declassified, so this information is available. Folks, that is what I have just described as a coverup. So the question is, What was the main purpose of the coverup? The answer: to weaponize the Federal Government to destroy Trump's candidacy and Presidency to favor Clinton. You see, Clinton, to the people in this town, was not a threat to the status quo, and they saw Trump as that threat. In August 2016, President Obama and Vice President Biden met with three high-level people--or probably more than three. But the three that I name are CIA Director Brennan, Director of National Intelligence Clapper, and FBI Director Comey. They discussed the intelligence relating to the Clinton plan. They were aware of the possibility that the Clinton campaign had dirty tricks up its sleeve designed to impact the election. So let me ask: Did that stop the Obama administration's effort against Trump? Well, we know that it did not. Then, on December 9, 2016--so this is after Trump had been elected-- President Obama's national security team gathered. That meeting included Director of National Intelligence Clapper, CIA Director Brennan, FBI Deputy Director McCabe, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Secretary of State Kerry, Attorney General Lynch, and others. After that meeting, Clapper's office transmitted an email to the intelligence community leaders titled ``President of the United States Tasking on Russia Election Meddling.'' Clapper asked his personnel to create an ``assessment per the President's request.'' The new assessment was an intelligence community assessment. Per the good investigative work of the House Intelligence Committee's report Unlike routine intelligence community analysis, the intelligence community assessment was a high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior intelligence community heads, and created by just five analysts, using one principal drafter. Production of the intelligence community assessment was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees and, particularly, the Director of the CIA. This is from the House Intelligence Committee's report. Again a question, Why go through all this effort to create a new product? Well, according to the good work of Tulsi Gabbard on the House Intelligence Committee, CIA officials didn't have credible and verifiable information showing Putin wanted to get Trump elected, and the intelligence at the time showed that Putin withheld information that would have been damaging to Clinton and, therefore, would have helped Trump. Obviously, these fixers would not do anything to hurt Clinton. So the Obama administration needed their fixers. On December 22, 2016, the National Security Agency Director emailed Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. That email noted that the National Security Agency didn't have enough time to review the intelligence for purposes of the new intelligence community assessment Obama ordered, and they wanted to get it done very, very quickly. So this is how Clapper responded to the National Security Agency: We may have to compromise on our normal modalities; [that] more time is not negotiable; [and] this is one project that has to be team sport. In other words, we need this very quickly. Don't go through the normal process. You will see here that the deep state wanted a new intelligence product created from the top down, not from the bottom up as is usually done, and they wanted it done so badly that they were willing to cut corners even if it put the country into chaos. What was this new product? It was the December 30, 2016, intelligence community assessment tying Trump to Putin. It stated, in part: We assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances, when possible, by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. Him, meaning Trump. In their partisan rush--and it was a rush--that intelligence product was published on the date that I previously referred to. It is a date that ought to be remembered: January 6, 2017. That same day, then-Director of the FBI Comey briefed President-elect Trump on the discredited Clinton campaign-funded--that we call--famous Steele dossier. The new intelligence assessment said Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton even though earlier intelligence had shown Russia simply wanted to cause political chaos in the United States, and it didn't matter whether the President were a Clinton or a Trump. The new intelligence assessment is exactly what the Durham annex said the Clinton campaign wanted to accomplish. The Durham annex also noted existing intelligence product said the Clinton campaign believed elements of the Obama administration would help them achieve their political ends against Trump. Based on the available evidence, there is no doubt the new intelligence assessment was a political hit job that had been ordered by President Obama. Let me remind folks that Senator Johnson and I got Annex A to the new intelligence assessment declassified way back in 2020. Annex A was a summary of the discredited Steele dossier. Comey and Brennan worked hard to make sure it was included, even though it was unverified and didn't meet the standard for inclusion. Now, how convenient do you see that is for them? This next part is very important. In 2020, Senator Johnson and I publicly released additional information that we had been able to get declassified. That declassified information showed that the Russians knew of the Steele dossier at least as early as July 2016 and before the FBI began Crossfire Hurricane. The declassified information also stated that the FBI received information that an individual ``central in connecting Trump to Russia'' was very likely a Russian intelligence officer. The declassified information also showed that the FBI received an intelligence report on January 12, 2017, warning of false information in the dossier and that the material was ``part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.'' On the very same day, January 12, 2017, the FISA warrant on Carter Page, which used the discredited dossier, was renewed for the first time. The Steele dossier served as a gift to the Russians--a vehicle to pack false information in the hopes the Obama administration and Comey would fall for it hook, line, and sinker or that Obama and his minions saw the obvious and proceeded anyway, believing nobody would ever get all this information declassified for the public to see. In any event, with all of these red lights flashing ``stop,'' the Obama administration went full speed ahead, and even with Trump as President, Comey gleefully ran every stop sign. The Comey FBI still used the discredited Steele dossier to get a FISA warrant and multiple renewals on Carter Page, and the political hit job continued with the Mueller special counsel investigation. Now, with the public having seen all of this declassified information kept in the dark for all of 10 years, there is no doubt that the Mueller investigation or review was totally unnecessary. As this continued to evolve, the Mueller fiasco was just the deep state trying to get another hit job on Trump. Then the Biden administration entered the office to continue the partisan political dirty work. For example, Senator Johnson and I released records relating to Arctic Frost. That is the FBI case that anti-Trump Special Agent Thibault created with the help of partisan FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors. Based on emails that I have obtained from whistleblowers, we know Thibault opened and even approved the case, in violation of FBI rules. According to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, as defense counsel for Trump, Jack Smith and his team withheld these emails from the Trump defense team. Arctic Frost conveniently became one of Jack Smith's cases against Trump and was politically infected from the very start. Based on more emails whistleblowers have given me, we also know that Thibault, Supervisory Special Agent Blaire Toleman, Special Agent Walter Giardina, and partisan DOJ prosecutors focused their efforts and resources on Peter Navarro. When Department of Justice prosecutors under Merrick Garland's authority decided to prosecute Navarro, Thibault said: Wow. Great. You see how determined these people were to do anything underhanded to get Trump. From the time then-Candidate Trump came down the escalator in 2015 to this very day, it has been a decade of political weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence community activities. The examples I have given today are that--examples. I could speak for days on end about my investigative work, what it has uncovered over the years, and the fact that political bias has so deeply infected this country's law enforcement and intelligence community agencies. What all that has added up to ought to shake everyone in this country to their very core. If the government, including the Department of Justice's so-called public integrity unit and an elite FBI public corruption squad, can do that to the President of the United States, just imagine what the government can do to you, the very citizens of this country, if it decides to give you its full and undivided attention. January 6, 2021, was a single day--a day that we shouldn't forget. January 6, 2017, was a day that was meant to topple a Presidency, and it should certainly outweigh January 6, where a ragtag mob stormed the Capitol with zero chances of succeeding. To be intellectually honest and fair, we can't ignore the decade of weaponization by taxpayer-funded law enforcement and intelligence community agencies against Republicans, not just the President. What is so disgusting about the Obama and Biden administrations' partisan conduct that I have just told you about is that their personnel didn't care about the longlasting damage to this great Nation, including eroded trust in American institutions. And the partisan media went right along, no questions asked. Those journalists in this town and around the country are supposed to be policing the political system to make sure that everything is aboveboard. They didn't do it in this case, and they aren't doing it today either. In this case, no questions were asked. This behavior is an existential threat to our Republic because it creates a systemic, insidious infection that grows in the dark, behind classified walls and bureaucratic redtape, far away from the eyes of the American public and the Congress. And all this behavior was paid for by the taxpayers of this country. I am thankful to Attorney General Bondi, Director Patel, Director Gabbard, and Director Ratcliffe for their aggressive transparency efforts. Making all these classified documents public may prevent further dangerous conspiracies from recurring again. For my part and for ``we the people,'' my investigative work will continue to shine light on those very dark corners of government because, as I said when I opened my remarks, you have to know about the history of the country to appreciate what we enjoy today. If you don't learn from the mistakes of the past, they are going to be repeated. So I have come to the Senate floor to tell my people what has been discussed today that was previously classified and go through the entire story so this country doesn't make the mistake again of letting all the powerful forces of the American Government--the FBI, the intelligence community, people who operate behind closed doors--that that political strength and weaponization never continue again. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, one of the most fundamental constitutional responsibilities afforded Congress is the power of the purse. It grants Congress the authority to raise and spend revenue, to operate the government, and examine spending decisions. The Federal Government is primarily funded through 12 annual appropriations bills. The Federal fiscal year begins on October 1 of each year. If the appropriations bills are not signed into law by September 30, lawmakers and the President must agree on a temporary spending resolution that is known in this town as a continuing resolution, keeping the government open for business. If that fails, the unfunded parts of government shut down. History has repeatedly shown that shutting down the government is bad policy and also bad politics. It costs the taxpayers money to shut down the government and even more to reopen it. A government shutdown reduces essential services for the American people, erodes the trust of the American people, and limits the ability of Congress to conduct oversight over Federal Government operations. Government shutdowns don't make for great bargaining tools. How many times have we heard Members of both political parties--probably not at the same time--but say: If I don't get what I want, I am not going to vote for a continuing resolution. We are going to shut down the government. What happens after a few days or even, in one case, 3 weeks? Eventually, the heat gets so bad that Congress votes to reopen the government and the Members who crowed that they were going to shut down the government if they didn't get what they wanted--who were eventually pushing for certain policy changes that they wanted--usually, in the end, don't get what they want. That is why it is bad politics, as well as bad financial management. Instead, Congress is in the same spot, but now is stuck with a last- minute omnibus bill or a long-term continuing resolution. Neither a last-minute omnibus or a long-term continuing resolution allows Congress to carefully analyze spending and make necessary tough decisions. In other words, that is not a good replacement for passing 12 appropriations bills separately. In short, shutdowns have always been a losing proposition for the American people. On Thursday, I joined Senator Lankford and others in reintroducing a bill entitled the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act. This bill would permanently end government shutdowns by creating an automatic continuing resolution. This would continue critical services and operations and hold Federal workers harmless while Congress negotiates a final spending agreement. To encourage Members and the President to reach an agreement on funding, the Lankford bill would prohibit Members of Congress, congressional staffs, and Office of Management and Budget officials from traveling outside of Washington, DC, during the automatic continuing resolution. In other words: Do your job. Stay here in town until you get it done and prevent a shutdown. It would also prevent Congress from recessing or from considering legislation unrelated to appropriations bills with limited exceptions after 30 days of an automatic continuing resolution. So Congress needs to stop governing from crisis to crisis, respect the appropriations process, and fulfill its constitutional responsibilities to keep the government funded. Moreover, we need to put an end to the recurring political side show of costly government shutdowns. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Dudek nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns on the Committee of Agriculture be granted floor privileges through December 12, 2025: Mara Hallcock and Elise Sharp.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for the second time in a week, I come to the floor to implore my Democratic colleagues to stop partisan obstruction of public safety officials. We have 10 highly qualified nominees on the Senate floor right now waiting for confirmation. Several have blue slips from Democratic Senators. All were reported to the floor by voice vote. There is no reason that we shouldn't get them to work for the American people today. As I explained just a few days ago, communities around our country are in desperate need of U.S. attorneys to protect the public and uphold the rule of law. Eighty-one percent of Americans think that crime in large cities is a major problem. If we can agree to put partisanship aside, this body can take a tangible step to address this today by confirming 10 qualified law enforcement officers to their posts. I am disappointed that my Democratic colleagues have chosen to place partisan obstruction over public safety. I am here again today to give my colleagues a chance to do the right thing. This blanket obstruction of all nominees is a misguided attempt to score political points. I know that several of my Democratic colleagues agree with me because just a few months ago, some of them stood on the Senate floor and made the same argument that I am making today. In one speech last Congress, the Democratic whip and chairman of the Judiciary Committee said: Don't stand up and say you're for law and order, you're for law enforcement, and then turn around and stop the appointment of U.S. attorneys. In another speech, the same Senator said: Our communities desperately need top federal prosecutors in place. Interested in stopping fentanyl? I am. Thousands of people are dying. Who's going to prosecute these cases? The U.S. Attorneys--93 of them across the United States. But you can't prosecute the case if you don't have the U.S. Attorney there to lead the effort, coordinate the effort with other branches of government. My Democratic colleagues continue to claim that their obstruction is justified because two Republican Senators placed holds on some U.S. attorneys in the last administration. This compares apples with oranges. One of the Senators relented on his hold and allowed U.S. attorneys to be confirmed by voice vote. The other Senator ultimately blocked five U.S. attorneys. A handful of U.S. attorneys being held last Congress, which I opposed, isn't comparable to the blanket hold on all 93 U.S. attorneys that we are facing today. The strategy this Congress is orchestrated by Senate Democratic leadership and is part of a broader, Senate-wide assault on the functioning of the executive branch. At the end of the day, we can just look at the numbers. During the Biden administration, nearly 94 percent of his U.S. attorney nominees were confirmed by voice vote. So far in the second Trump administration, zero percent of his U.S. attorney nominees have been confirmed by voice vote. For months, I have repeatedly tried to engage my Democratic colleagues to end their obstruction. I have warned that their tactics ultimately hurt the American people and will lead to lasting damage to the Senate as an institution. I have even offered a compromise where we hold five rollcall votes to compensate for the five nominees returned to the President at the end of March. To my great disappointment, my colleagues haven't relented from their strategy, and I hope they will relent today with my unanimous consent requests. I mentioned last week that one of the U.S. attorneys being held up is Daniel Rosen, nominated for the District of Minnesota. Mr. Rosen was reported out of committee by voice vote. He is supported by his home State Senators Klobuchar and Smith, both Democrats. He is a qualified nominee. He should be responding to the horrific mass shooting of children at the Annunciation Catholic Church but instead is languishing here on the Senate floor as a pawn of partisan obstruction. This needs to end, and it needs to end today. So I now will ask unanimous consent to confirm 10 U.S. attorneys who have been reported out of committee. I hope that my Democratic colleagues will allow these nominees to get to work. Debate and disagreement about policy is to be expected but should never be at the expense of public safety. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following nominations en bloc: No. 176, David Charles Waterman, Iowa; No. 183, Ronald A. Parsons, South Dakota; No. 257, David Metcalf, Pennsylvania; No. 258, Bart McKay Davis, Idaho; No. 316, Kurt Alme of Montana; No. 317, Nicholas Chase, North Dakota; No. 318, Lesley Murphy, Nebraska; No. 319, Daniel Rosen, Minnesota; No. 320, Erik Siebert, Virginia; and No. 321, Kurt Wall, Louisiana; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, obviously, I am disappointed that my request has been objected to. I had hoped today we could set a new direction and put the interests of the American people over partisanship. I want to offer to the Democratic leader an offer he shouldn't object to because it has both Republican and Democrat support. If we can't agree to allow 10 U.S. attorneys who have been reported out of committee to be confirmed today, I am going to make a more modest request. David Waterman is my pick to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa--highly qualified. He was reported out of committee by voice vote, no recorded objections. My State needs him to get to work. I initially recommended him to President Biden during the last administration, and he was nominated and reported out of committee last Congress. My Democratic colleagues have tried to justify their obstruction by pointing to the hold by then-Senator Vance last Congress. Well, Mr. Waterman was one of the five U.S. attorneys returned to the President from that hold. So are we going to confirm a nominee who has been submitted to the Senate by two different Presidents and reported out of committee twice--seems to me like something the Democrats should not object to-- or are my Democratic colleague going to continue the objection? Now, here is another one. They have confidence, surely, in their two Democratic Senators from Minnesota. I have already spoken about Daniel Rosen. Like Mr. Waterman, Mr. Rosen is well qualified to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota. He, too, was reported out of committee by voice vote, and he is supported by both home State Senators Klobuchar and Smith. So I encourage my Democratic colleagues to send a clear signal to the people of Minnesota that they think they ought to have a law enforcement person at their side. The District of Minnesota needs its top Federal prosecutor in place to preserve law and order, so we need to confirm Mr. Rosen. So I am now going to ask unanimous consent to confirm Mr. Waterman as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa and Mr. Rosen to be U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: No. 176, David Charles Waterman, Iowa, and No. 319, David Rosen, Minnesota; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. GRASSLEY. You can see the weakness of that objection because here is somebody that has been nominated by President Biden and President Trump, and you have two Democratic Senators supporting him. At least in those 2 instances, out of 93 that are potentially on hold, they could go do their jobs. I want to make one final request before I yield the floor. The Senate Judiciary Committee--in that committee, it is common practice to report certain nominees by voice vote. We have been doing it for decades-- particularly for noncontroversial U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshal nominees. Under my chairmanship, we only conduct voice votes with explicit consent of the ranking member, and we don't do them if there are any objections to so doing. Recently, I have heard concern that nominees reported out of committee by voice vote may be challenged or face additional obstruction on the floor to further derail the functioning of the executive branch. I sincerely hope this isn't the case. Voice votes are a longstanding practice of our committee and involve complete cooperation between the majority and minority parties on the committee. On the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite our differences, the ranking member and I have a good working relationship. When we reach a bipartisan agreement about how to manage our committee consistent with our norms, I hope that every Member of this body will respect this agreement. So this is my unanimous consent request: I ask unanimous consent that no point of order lie with respect to the following U.S. attorney nominees reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote pursuant to explicit agreement between the offices of the chairman and ranking member, whether those nominations are offered individually or pursuant to a resolution: David Charles Waterman, Ronald A. Parsons, David Metcalf, Bart McKay Davis, Kurt Alme, Nicholas Chase, Lesley Murphy, Daniel Rosen, Erik Siebert, and Kurt Wall.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow up on a topic that I discussed with my Senate colleagues. That topic was on June 2, and it was on the 39th anniversary of C-SPAN covering the Senate. I led the Senate with Senators Klobuchar, Young, and Wyden in passing a resolution highlighting the importance of continuous Senate coverage for all Americans and the need for live coverage of C-SPAN to be accessible on all platforms. Yesterday, both Hulu and YouTube announced that YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV will be carrying the C-SPAN networks so Americans can watch Congress's actions in realtime and see our democracy at work through a nonpartisan lens. I thank all of these entities for being committed to this public service. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on August 1, 2025, Augusta Petrone passed away peacefully at age 88, surrounded by members of her beloved family in her adopted home State of New Hampshire. In honor of a life lived in service to others, I would like to memorialize her life and legacy. Augusta loved her family, enriched her community with civic leadership, and exhibited a fierce devotion to our country. Born in Massachusetts with marital ties to the Heartland and my home State of Iowa, she was a freedom-loving American who cared about people from all walks of life. Barbara and I were fortunate to enjoy her friendship for the last half-century. As I mentioned, Augusta married an Iowa farm boy who graduated from West Point and went on to serve as a lieutenant in General Patton's 3rd Army in the Battle of the Bulge. Joseph C. Petrone was from Marshalltown, IA. He met the love of his life in Washington, DC. They married in 1958 and led a life of public service that took them to places around the world. After Joe retired from the Army, the couple relocated to Marshalltown for about a decade. That is when our paths crossed and stayed connected for the next half- century. Augusta was a workhorse, full of enterprise and engagement. During one of their residencies in Paris, she studied at the Sorbonne. She would go on to teach English and French to students around the world, including in Washington, DC, Seoul, South Korea, and Marshalltown, IA. Augusta threw herself into grassroots politics, from local candidates to Presidential campaigns. In 2000, Augusta was an elector for New Hampshire who cast the 271st electoral vote for George W. Bush to win the razor-thin Presidential contest against Al Gore. In the previous Presidential election, I traveled with my good friend Bob Dole after the Iowa caucuses in 1996 to meet with Augusta on the campaign trail in New Hampshire. It was a special treat to stay in her beautiful home in the same bedroom that President Taft once slept in. No matter the political party their friends and neighbors aligned, Augusta and her husband Joe encouraged their fellow citizens to get involved and make their voices heard. Indeed, upon her passing, Augusta requested that in lieu of flowers, people donate ``at some level to their favorite U.S. political party.'' Her deep love of America transcended party lines, just like her warmth and generosity for all people, no matter if you were a repairman making a house call or a U.S. President serving in the White House. One of the first campaigns she got involved with was my first run for Congress in 1974. She went door-to-door, knocking on the doors of Iowans in the Third Congressional District to support my campaign. A decade later, she and her husband relocated to Des Moines to work on the Reagan/Bush ticket in the 1984 campaign. Their next call to service took them to Geneva, Switzerland, where Joe served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Upon their return to the United States, they put down roots in New Hampshire, where Augusta became a prominent leader in Granite State politics and civic life. In recent years, I had the pleasure to see Augusta when GOP leaders from New Hampshire came to Washington. I never missed this opportunity to see my long-time friend. We took mutual pride in the status of our respective States to hold the first-in-the-nation caucuses and primary that kicked off the Presidential nomination contest every 4 years. The people of Iowa and New Hampshire take very seriously the responsibility that comes with this privilege of being first in the Nation. Augusta thrived on it, and her ebullience was uplifting to everyone with whom she crossed paths. Augusta was preceded in death by her husband of 58 years who passed away in 2016. Some people refer to Augusta as the ``First Lady of Republican Politics.'' She was a force of nature and shared her generosity and gift of leadership with charming warmth and kindness. Barbara and I send our condolences to her many friends and loved ones. May her memory be a blessing, and may her love of country inspire those who knew and loved her to never lose sight of the shining city upon a hill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale University now estimates that over 35,000 abducted Ukrainian kids are being held by Russia. The few who have been rescued tell horrific stories of Russian indoctrination, illegal militarization, and brutal punishment for refusing to give up their Ukrainian identity. Here are some stories from kids who were rescued, courtesy of an organization called Bring Kids Back Ukraine: ``The Russians said that my mother did not need me and that I would be given to a foster family in Russia,'' said 12-year-old Olekander from Mariupol. ``I wanted to escape through the backyard but was afraid they might shoot me. So I had to get in a truck with them. It was so scary,'' said 13-year-old Artem from Kharkiv. Another story is from these six children: Vitaliy, Zhenia, Taya and Dayana and then, of course, two other girls who asked not to be named. They said, in September and October 2022, they came to the occupied Crimean Peninsula for what was called a rehabilitation program. They say they were mocked in the camp, humiliated based on their nationality. The Russians lock children like these folks who expressed pro-Ukrainian positions in a basement or an isolation cell. They forbade children to speak Ukrainian and, instead, forced them to listen to the Russian national anthem, learn Russian patriotic songs, and to do hard work. For at least 6 months, the Russians lied to children that their parents had allegedly abandoned them and, in general, that Ukraine no longer needed these children. Now, as the Trump administration moves forward to secure a peace, we must not forget the plight of these children. I appreciated very much First Lady Melania Trump's heartfelt letter urging Putin to release these kids, and I also heard that President Zelenskyy mentioned those letters and the children at a recent White House meeting. So children should not become bargaining chips in the geopolitical negotiations. Their safe return must be prioritized before any final peace agreement is reached. I yield the floor. 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, today, I want to address a serious matter of public safety facing our country. Although our government has many responsibilities, the foremost responsibility of any government is the protection and safety of its citizens. By many measures, as elected leaders, we are falling short. Recent polling indicates that crime in large cities is a major concern of 81 percent of Americans. We can debate crime trends and statistics until we are blue in the face. But at the end of the day, if 81 percent of Americans don't feel safe, we are not doing our job. For hundreds of years, we have known that swift and certain punishment for criminal acts is a basis of deterrence and order. And in a country such as ours based on the rule of law, this kind of deterrence requires officials to prosecute criminals. Communities around our country are in desperate need of U.S. attorneys to protect the public and uphold the rule of law. We have 10 highly qualified nominees on the Senate floor right now waiting for confirmation. There is no reason that we shouldn't get them to work for the American people today. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues have engaged in blanket obstruction of all nominees in their misguided attempt to derail the Trump administration. This sweeping obstruction shockingly includes even highly qualified U.S. attorneys that are supported by Democratic Senators. The actions of Senate Democrats are putting the public in harm's way. There is simply no other way to say it. On May 22, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee announced a hold on nominations for U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of Florida. Since then, the Senate minority leader and Senate Democrats have expanded the hold to apply to all 93 U.S. attorneys. This blockade of public officials is unprecedented and untenable. As the ranking member explained just last Congress, obstructing the confirmation of U.S. attorneys is ``dangerous'' and ``undermines public safety across the entire Nation.'' He correctly noted: You can't prosecute the case if you don't have the U.S. Attorney there to lead the effort, coordinate the effort with other branches of government. I completely agree with these points made by my friend Senator Durbin. My Democratic colleagues claim that their obstruction is justified because at the end of the Biden administration, a freshman Senator at that time placed a hold on a handful of U.S. attorneys. Although only five U.S. attorneys were ultimately blocked by that hold, I even opposed the decision by my freshman colleague. That limited hold was wrong then, and this blanket hold is even more wrong at this point. Five U.S. attorneys held by a freshman Senator at the end of an administration is a far cry from the current widespread obstruction. The strategy today is orchestrated by Senate Democrat leadership and is occurring at the beginning of an administration and impacts all 93 U.S. attorneys. Last Congress, the Democratic whip said that requiring a rollcall vote for all U.S. Senators is ``unsustainable'' because ``without Senate-confirmed leadership of U.S. Attorneys, public safety will suffer across the United States.'' He was entirely correct. Confirming each U.S. attorney by a rollcall would consume more than 230 hours of valuable floor time in the Senate. So what has changed now? Why are the same Democrats who decried the obstruction--pardon me. So what has changed? Why are the same Democrats who decried the obstruction of U.S. attorneys last year engaging in that very same conduct today? The answer is that they don't like the President of the United States. I understand disagreement with the President. People know that I have had my disagreements with President Trump. I certainly had no shortage of objections also to the conduct of President Biden. But elections have consequences and the President's ability to select these U.S. attorneys is a direct reflection of the electoral mandate of November 2024, a mandate that no Republican President has had since Reagan had that same mandate in 1984. For months, I repeatedly tried to engage my Democratic colleagues to end this obstruction. If some kind of equal measure is necessary, I even offered a compromise where we hold five rollcall votes to compensate for the five nominees returned to the President at the end of the Biden administration. To my disappointment, my Democratic colleagues haven't taken me up on that offer; although, I have had some very satisfying discussions with them in the late hours. I hope that we get a relenting of that. And whatever it takes, I am going to participate in that process. I think that I am finding the same sort of participation on the other side. But in the meantime, I remind my Democratic colleagues of the ranking member's own warning last Congress when he admonished the Senate needs to ``put public safety and the needs of law enforcement ahead of politics.'' Currently, there are 10 U.S. attorney nominees that have been reported favorably out of the committee by a voice vote. These are not controversial nominees. Three of them carry blue slips returned by Democratic Senators. Several of them are in districts where recent tragic crimes have taken place. Instead of languishing on the Senate floor as pawns of partisan obstruction, these nominees should be in their districts investigating crimes, prosecuting criminals, and keeping the American people safe. Take the nomination of Daniel Rosen to the District of Minnesota as one example. Mr. Rosen was reported out of committee by voice vote. He has the support of his home State Senators Klobuchar and Smith, both Democrats. He is a qualified nominee. Just last week in Minnesota, a shooter entered a service at Annunciation Catholic Church, murdering 2 little children and injuring 18 others. This horrific crime shocked our Nation, and the full force of our government should be mobilized in response. But what are Democrats doing instead? They are blocking the confirmation of Mr. Rosen to be the chief Federal law enforcement officer in Minnesota--not because of any objection to his qualifications but as an act of partisanship. Enough is enough. My priority is the safety of the American people, and that priority should be shared by all Members of this body. I know that even Democrats--I shouldn't say ``even Democrats.'' I know Democrats also want that same public safety. But this business of not having U.S. attorneys is standing in the way. I will now ask unanimous consent to confirm the 10 U.S. attorneys who have been reported out of committee. I hope that my Democrat colleagues will relent from their partisan obstruction and allow these nominees to get to work. Debate and disagreement about policies are to be expected, but it should never come at the expense of public safety. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: David Waterman of Iowa, No. 176; No. 183, Ron Parsons, South Dakota; No. 257, David Metcalf, Pennsylvania; No. 258, Bart Davis, Idaho; No. 316, Kurt Alme, Montana; No. 317, Nicholas Chase, North Dakota; No. 318, Lesley Murphy, Nebraska; No. 319, Daniel Rosen, Minnesota; No. 320, Erik Siebert, Virginia; and No. 321, Kurt Wall of Louisiana; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am sorry for the objection. I would agree with continuing to work to see if we can find a solution on this. Public safety is such an important issue. U.S. attorneys are central to such public safety, and we should get them approved. I hope we can get something worked out. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, one minute to honor my colleague Joni Ernst. She announced today that she will not seek another term in the U.S. Senate. It has been a wonderful opportunity serving with her and serving Iowans since 2015. As the Senate's first female combat veteran and Iowa's first woman elected to Congress, she broke barriers at every turn and accomplished what she set out to do by coming to the U.S. Senate, in her words: Make 'em squeal. After a long career in the Iowa National Guard as well as elected office, Joni has served our country and State with pride and with distinction. Barbara and I wish her well and know that whatever she chooses to do in her next chapter, they will be lucky to have this outstanding leader on the team. I will miss serving with Joni but know she will enjoy having more time to cherish her favorite role as a mother and grandmother. Tribute to Educators Mr. President, now on another subject, across Iowa and America, students and teachers are back in the classroom. As we look ahead to a new academic year, I would like to commend the dedicated educators, administrators, and support staff who make a difference in the lives of students each and every day. Teachers make a lasting impact on their students from one school year to the next and even decades after their students leave the classroom. Like so many families across my home State, I am proud to have teachers in my own family tree. I am the son of a schoolteacher. My mother taught in one-room rural schools for nearly a half century, 49 years to be exact. My sister Lois was lauded for her work ethic and being a respected mentor to her peers. She taught business and computer classes to three generations of students. Today, I would like to sing the praises of my daughter-in-law Diane Grassley. She is married to my son Robin who operates our fourth- generation family farm in New Hartford, IA, with their son Patrick Grassley. At the start of this school year, Diane marks 25 years of service in the Dike-New Hartford Community School District where she works as a teacher associate. Barbara and I congratulate Diane on this remarkable milestone, and we are proud to say that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree because both of Diane's daughters followed in their mother's footsteps. Dana teaches math at Union Middle School in Dysart, IA, and Carrie is a school counselor at the Dike Elementary School. Congratulations, Diane, on your decades of service and unwavering commitment to educating the next generation in the Dike-New Hartford Community School District. As a proud father-in-law and a graduate of New Hartford High School, I say: #rollblue to the Wolverines. Have a great year. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on this very day, an outstanding civic and business leader in my home State and our capital city of Des Moines, will conclude an impressive 41-year career with the Principal Financial Group. Today, Dan Houston will step down as chair of the Principal Board of Directors. As many Iowans do throughout their careers, Dan rose through the company ranks by climbing the corporate ladder with hard work, grit, and sacrifice. He showed exemplary leadership skills and thrived in a competitive environment to build a culture of opportunity and servant leadership at Principal Financial Group. During my first term in the U.S. Senate, Dan joined Principal in 1984 as part of the sales team after graduating from Iowa State University. Through the years, he took on key leadership roles, including president, CCO, and CEO. For the past decade, Dan served as the driving force to steer Principal through extraordinary times. At the helm, Dan navigated one of the largest acquisitions in company history, a global pandemic, and a new enterprise strategy, just to name a few. A principled leader, Dan cultivated a successful climate by planting the seeds of success for team members on every rung of the ladder. With charisma and generosity, he inspired the company's rank-and-file and management teams to manage assets, innovate, and build tools to help people achieve retirement security. In addition to an impressive professional career in global finance and asset management, Dan shared his visionary leadership skills to give back to the greater Des Moines area, including Principal's philanthropic contributions to United Way, the annual Principal Charity Classic, and of course, the scenic Principal Riverwalk that transformed downtown Des Moines with a series of parks and public-use areas along the banks of the Des Moines River. When I served as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I was glad to lead Iowa's congressional delegation to help support this infrastructure project that links the east and west sides of our State capital in the heart of downtown Des Moines. Thanks to a public-private alliance and gifts from the Principal Foundation, generations of Iowans and outdoor enthusiasts can enjoy its landscaped public spaces, world class public art, pedestrian bridges, and pathways that connect downtown with 300 miles of central Iowa trails. Although Dan is hanging up his CEO hat, Iowans will continue to reap the benefit from the bounty that his servant leadership brings to the community. I have no doubt Dan and his wife Joanie will throw their civic stewardship into high gear to support causes closest to their hearts--including Joanie's work with hospice and ChildServe--and Dan's contributions to the ICON Water Trails, Legacy Woods, the Principal Charity Classic, Iowa State University's Ivy College of Business, and Future Ready Iowa Alliance, among others. Barbara and I wish Dan and Joanie many years of happiness in retirement. Dan spent his entire professional career helping people reach retirement security. Now, it is time for you to enjoy the fruits of your labor. May this next chapter bring even more quality family time with your children and grandchildren. Congratulations, Dan, you have left the Principal Group, and your adopted hometown of Des Moines, even better than you found it.