Floor Statements

Mr. President, with recent political victories in Democrat primaries in Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere by socialists, I wanted to spend some time with my colleagues sharing the failed results that we have witnessed throughout history under socialism regimes. And if any of my colleagues consider themselves democratic socialists, I would like their attention.

The expansion of candidates and people who want to institute socialism in the United States is very concerning. What they desire is going to destroy everything America has stood for.

The recent trend toward socialism in the Democratic Party frankly surprises me. It ought to make every traditional Democrat worry about the trend of their party and be a warning for all of us.

I am glad some Democrats share this concern, as Democrat pollster Mark Penn wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Democrats could take a playbook out of the 1947 effort by Eleanor Roosevelt and Hubert Humphrey, as recently reported in the Washington Post.

Socialism is a failed ideology and experiment. It claims to focus on the good of society as a whole over the rights of individuals. This is in contrast to America's founding principles.

Socialism, whether it is the revolutionary kind or the democratic kind, is aimed at government ownership of industry and the elimination of private property.

Countries that have adopted socialism have found themselves less prosperous, even witnessing starvation and economic ruin followed by lawlessness and corruption. The only people that benefit from it are the people in the political system.

Socialist countries have also seen private property confiscated and constitutional rights taken away from the people. Recently, there is a group of socialists called Democratic Socialists that have won Democrat Party primaries. Where I sit, socialism is still socialism. They may think that calling themselves democratic somehow would cancel out all of the negatives of socialism, but they want to bring about the same negative outcomes that will produce less prosperity and less freedom. Example after example in history backs up my point.

In 2021, I spoke here on the Senate floor about Sweden's experiment with socialism. I encourage my colleagues to go back and read that speech. In case they don't have time, I will summarize it right now.

In the 1950s, Sweden gained newfound wealth and economic freedom. Then it started to adopt socialist policies. During Sweden's experiment with socialism between the 1960s and the 1980s, it experienced short- lived prosperity, massive government spending and taxation, and a highly regulated economy that eventually came crashing down. During that time, not a single net job was created in Sweden's private sector, and inflation took away almost all of the value of any wage increases. Sweden's socialist policies killed off its wealth creation that was needed to fund all of that government spending.

By the 1990s, Sweden realized its mistake and reversed course, and its leftwing Swedish Social Democrats recognized their mistake as well.

According to a White House Council of Economic Advisers report, if the United States had moved toward Nordic country-style policies in the 1970s, by 2018, America's GDP would be at least 19 percent smaller, coming out to about 11,000 fewer dollars of wealth per person here in the United States.

We can learn a lot from Sweden so we don't go down the dead-end road called socialism. We can also learn a lot from Cuba's experience moving from freedom to socialism. That happened in 1959. Cuba's standard of living over the past 50 years has been destroyed.

In 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, the Cuban Government took away private property and established price controls. This led to food shortages, and you can see that on our own televisions being a problem today in Cuba. Castro's regime even killed political opposition.

Decades of socialism meant that by the 2000s, Cuba lacked basic infrastructure and reliable energy.

A 2005 report found:

Instead of blackouts, Cubans jokingly refer to periods when

electricity was available as ``lights-in.''

That energy crisis continues today, and you see it reported on American television.

Cuba's story under socialism can be summed up by Margaret Thatcher's words. When she was Prime Minister of Great Britain, she said:

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out

of other people's money.

Not everyone in Cuba has suffered. Its dictators have taken care of themselves.

If Sweden and Cuba aren't enough reasons why socialism has failed as an idea, let's take a look at Venezuela.

In 1998, socialist Hugo Chavez became President of Venezuela. At the time, Venezuela was the richest country in South America, and now it is one of the poorest. One of Chavez's first actions was to nationalize the agriculture sector and rob landowners of their property.

Food production fell 75 percent over two decades. Chavez went on to nationalize other parts of the economy, including electricity, water, oil, banks, supermarkets, construction, and other parts. He did this all while also expanding the welfare state with money that the country didn't have.

Not only is the country poor, but it has also been ruled by brutal dictators, under Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, and riddled with corruption. One analysis about Venezuela's experience with socialism put it this way:

So, what are the results of socialism in Venezuela? Well,

we have experienced hyperinflation. We have people eating

garbage, schools that do not teach, hospitals that do not

heal, long and humiliating lines to buy flour, bread, and

basic medicines.

So history is very clear: Economic freedom is a ticket to broad prosperity. Today's American socialists espouse more than just economic ruin and fewer freedoms. They want less law and order by abolishing ICE, defunding the police, and emptying out our prisons.

Don't take my word for it; just look at the agenda of some of the recent people who have won Democratic primaries in New York City. The Democratic socialist platform also wants to defund the Department of Defense, get rid of the U.S. Senate, and draft a new Constitution. Other countries that tried socialism have failed. Socialists' ideas and candidates offer failed ideas.

We should not forget what history has taught us or, as George Santayana once said almost 100 years ago: If you don't learn from history, you are going to repeat the same mistakes.

The United States was founded on principles of individual liberty and on unalienable natural rights, with the government's primary function being to preserve those rights and prevent fellow citizens or attacks by foreign powers from violating our constitutional rights.

Americans have been reluctant to grant too much power to the government since the very beginning. Ultimately, free markets have helped America become the richest country in the world and have lifted more people from poverty than anything else in human history.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as the Senate and House are currently working on the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, it is important--very important--that Congress pass this bill. We need a very strong and capable military, and we need to hold the Pentagon accountable for taxpayer dollars.

For 240 years, the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government has been national security. A nonnegotiable tenet of America's national security is ``peace through strength.'' In preventing war, a strong Department of War is also an instrument of peace.

So, to achieve peace through strength, we must invest in our Nation's defense and modernize military capabilities to be best prepared for any threat. Our military ought to be strong enough to deter any aggressor. We have learned from our history that preventing conflicts is less costly and spares more lives.

I support the $1.1 trillion authorization put forth by our Senate Armed Services Committee. The fiscal year 2027 Defense bill supports our servicemembers, boosts our national industrial defense base and allows for historic investment in our national security.

This legislation also includes important provisions that I back to hold defense contractors accountable. This includes a requirement that contractors provide notification when the price of a product or service increases beyond a predetermined threshold.

While our investments in defense increase, ensuring accountability and fiscal responsibility is very paramount. Companies that work for the government should not be ripping the taxpayers off.

I am also pleased that a provision I worked on is included in the bill that reinforces the notion that Russia's aggression toward Ukraine is unacceptable. This provision prohibits funds being used to recognize Russia's control over any Ukrainian territory that has been forcibly seized by Russia.

I have offered several amendments to this Defense bill to combat crime and support law enforcement, strengthen security provisions and cooperation in the Baltics, and condemn very strongly Russia's abduction of Ukrainian children, which has been in the amounts of tens of thousands of children.

If the Defense bill is passed this year, it will be the 66th consecutive year that Congress has passed this important annual Defense legislation. So I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass a Defense bill that strengthens our national security and best supports our military readiness.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is a sad day for all of us in the Senate and particularly those that are very, very close to Lindsey Graham, and that would be most Senators and, obviously, his staff. So I would like to take a moment to honor the life of our fellow Senator Lindsey Graham.

We were shocked by the sad news yesterday of his untimely death. Senator Graham was a devoted public servant, through his military service as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard, as well as being elected to office continually since 1992.

Senator Graham was a very forceful and quick-witted presence in every room that he entered. His warm nature made everyone his friend, and I feel blessed to be one of them.

A few feet from right here is the Senate cloakroom. Frequently, Senator Graham would hold court there, and in holding court, he was making every Senator laugh, no matter what the challenge we were dealing with on that particular day.

He was infectious in the way he told a story, and, of course, there was always a punch line.

I was no stranger to being the butt of his jokes. Senator Graham loved to tell people how frugal I was and that if I were ever to open my billfold, dust and moss would come out of it. I don't know how many times I have heard that.

Senator Graham always brought a smile to your face and levity to the Halls of Congress.

Senator Graham was no stranger to my home State of Iowa, as it is first in the Nation for Presidential elections. And in the year 2016, when he announced he was going to run for President, I had the privilege of showing him around a time or two during his campaign for President. He was a fan of the good people of my State of Iowa, identifying with our shared values of hard work, of faith, and genuine care for one another.

I also worked closely with Senator Graham on the Senate Budget and Judiciary Committees, and we worked together for decades. He was a coveted ally on legislation, and, as chairman of those Committees, he was always fair, and he was always productive. From Supreme Court confirmations to criminal justice reform and border security, having Senator Graham in your corner was a great asset.

He will be remembered for his many accomplishments as a national figure for the Republican Party.

Senator Graham deeply loved his country. He was a bold leader, an impassioned national security hawk. He spoke his mind, as we all know, and we all know that he had the capability and the desire to work across the aisle. He was at the center of some of the most famous deal- making groups in the past 30 years.

He loved the Senate as an institution, and his hard-working staff was like family to him.

Most importantly, he dutifully served the people of South Carolina, and his roots ran strong through him every day of his life.

Barbara and I are praying for Senator Graham's family as we all grapple with the loss of a great man.

And I think we should show our appreciation for the hard work, as just 2 days before he passed, he was in Ukraine, meeting with Zelenskyy, and he was announcing that he was going to move forward with some very important legislation putting additional sanctions on Russia because of their invasion of Ukraine. And I think we can show our gratitude and appreciation of Senator Graham by moving that legislation forward.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am here once again like I have done at least once a week every week since the House passed year-round E15. I do it to communicate the importance of the Senate passing year-round

Mr. President, many times, I and Senator Ernst and Senator Fischer and maybe many other Senators have come to the floor to implore the Senate to pass E15 legislation. E15 is an additive to gasoline that comes from ethanol which comes from corn.

So I am going to cite to you something that I have got off of the web of iowarfa.org, Renewable Fuels Association, in other words. They have this chart that I am going to refer to. I am sorry I don't have a big one to put on an easel here.

It starts out with saying these six refining companies are trying to kill the year-round E15 legislative deal. These companies made more money than 3.3 million family farmers will make combined in 2026.

These six companies are: Delek US, HF Sinclair, Cenovus, Suncor, CVR Energy, and Par Pacific. They have made $171.7 billion compared to 3.3 million family farmers, estimated to make in 2026 $153.4 million.

So I think about the Members of Congress that are representing these interests. They also have tens of thousands of family farmers as well in their districts.

So why would they put the prosperity of these six companies ahead of 3.3 million family farmers?

When I bring that issue up, their answer is: We need to find a solution.

Yes, we do need to find a solution. But if we don't find a solution, these six companies are still going to be making their $171 billion, and these 3.3 million family farmers are going to be making $20 billion less.

So that is the employees and the management and the stockholders of these six companies are going to make out better than the 3.3 million family farmers, which is only 2 percent of the population of the United States feeding the other 98 percent.

I think we have got to give more consideration to the family farmers by passing E15. That is not the main reason I came to the floor.

Mr. President, I am here today to condemn another attack by Vladimir Putin's regime on Ukraine's religious and cultural heritage.

On June 15, Russian strikes set fire to and damaged the Dormition Cathedral in Kyiv. This cathedral is part of a monastic complex whose history stretches back over 1,000 years. Generations of worshippers have walked its grounds, prayed within its walls, and looked to it as a symbol of continuity through war, through empire, and through upheaval.

It is one of the most sacred sites in Eastern Christianity and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. And right now, that same cathedral stands scarred by fire by the very regime that claims to defend the traditions and heritage of Eastern Orthodoxy.

So let's be clear what this means. This attack is part of a broader pattern of targeting Ukraine's cultural and spiritual landmarks because Putin wants to erase the identity, undermine morale, and rewrite the history of Ukraine.

This senseless attack exposes the real hypocrisy at the heart of Putin's propaganda. Putin claims that Ukraine is persecuting Russian Orthodox Christians, but that is not what happened.

In fact, it is Russia who is doing exactly what Russia falsely accuses others of doing because Russia is targeting churches, damaging sacred sites, and now has set fire to one of the holiest places in Eastern Christianity--a site that predates even the city of Moscow, a site that belongs not to one nation, but to the shared spiritual heritage of millions.

So let's set the record straight. Russia is not the victim of religious persecution in Ukraine; Russia is carrying

out this persecution and so ought to be condemned.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, 1 week in June, 4 in July, 3 in September--that is the number of weeks the Senate is in session between now and the election. A lot of people think a lot of things need to be done between now and the election, and I agree with that.

But those weeks I just named add up to about 21 days that the Senate is going to be in session; a lot of work to be done in 21 days. I can think of one I am interested in--E15, for the agricultural economy of Iowa.

Another Senator spoke to me about the necessity of getting some control of college athletes in legislation that is pending and doing that before the beginning of the college football season.

So I hope my colleagues will think about that there is not a whole lot of time left and use it very efficiently.

Last week, President Trump signed a deal to end the hostilities between the United States and Iran. That deal could be called a memorandum of understanding, as it is so named, or you could look at it as a letter of intent.

Let's remember what Operation Epic Fury was all about: preventing the Iranian regime, which has chanted ``Death to America'' for 47 years, from having a nuclear weapon.

``Death to America'' is death to Americans. We have seen it as the alert threat is up. If you had the secure briefings that I have had, you would be very thoughtful about what can come from Tehran to affect Americans.

We have seen it, two people shot in Austin, TX, by a person that had ``Allah is great'' on his sweatshirt, and we saw it, two bombs thrown in Brooklyn that didn't go off that would have killed a lot of people.

So with the peace agreement at hand, the devil is in the details. While key details are set to be finalized within 60 days, Congress will and must keep a very close eye to ensure that Iran is held accountable every step of the way.

Accountability starts with facts, because we have heard these absurd claims from opponents of the Iranian war, suggesting that Iran has never been better off. The facts don't back that claim up.

Under President Trump's direction, America's military has put a massive dent in Iran's nuclear program, military arsenals, and its energy and transportation infrastructure.

What is more, Iran's economy is buckling with hyperinflation. The United States naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz cost Iran up to $500 million per day, and by early May, Iran lost $4.8 billion in oil revenue.

In May, inflation in Iran reached 77 percent, and the cost of basic goods in Iran has risen as much as 400 percent in a year.

The currency in Iran has also plummeted to historically low levels. In late April, their currency hit a record low of 1.8 million to the dollar and remained at historically low levels.

Now you put all that together, and the picture is pretty clear. That is not a thriving nation; it is a nation facing total collapse. And that is exactly why we need to pay attention as the United States and Iran continues these negotiations because when a country is under this kind of pressure, it changes what it is willing to do and raises the stakes for getting this agreement right in the first place.

So we shouldn't take anything at face value. We must verify, and we should judge this agreement by what Iran does, not what it promises, because in a situation like this, pressure alone doesn't guarantee results; only accountability guarantees results.

And then you always have to keep in the back of your mind that people in that part of the world consider those of us in the Western World as infidels, and you don't have to keep an agreement with infidels.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the first item I bring up should be stated tomorrow, but tomorrow I am going to be busy in the Judiciary Committee, as chairman of that committee, so I have to present this a day early.

Fifty years ago, on June 18, 1976, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I submitted an essay by a student from Dike, IA, in celebration of America's 200th birthday. I am once again submitting work by a student from Iowa but this time in celebration of America's 250th birthday.

As we celebrate America's birthday this year, students all across the country are participating in a national writing and artwork contest, answering the prompt ``What does America mean to you?''

Mary Elouise, a fourth grader from Waukee, IA, was recently selected as a first-place winner for this contest. In Mary Elouise's first- place-winning poem submission, she wrote about the American flag, and she detailed in that poem how it represents America and her family's military service. She concluded her poem by saying:

I look at our flag and I proudly say, God bless the USA.

Mary Elouise also was recently recognized by the Governor of Iowa Kim Reynolds for her second poem titled ``People Behind the Flag.'' This poem was submitted to Iowa's America 250 student writing contest on America's founding principles.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have both of Mary Elouise's winning poems printed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read them.

Mr. President, now another short statement on something that is going on that is very important to the American people: the price of prescription drugs--something I hear quite frequently in my 99-county meetings that I hold around the State every year.

Prescription drug prices come up, and they want Congress to do something about it. So last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up and passed out of committee six bipartisan bills that address the high cost of prescription drugs and the abusive practices that keep prices high for too many American families. The bills simply put a stop to anti-competitive tactics. Why? So cheaper drugs can enter the market.

These bills also increase transparency and accountability for the prescription drug supply chain. With these bills, we strengthen Agency collaboration and the patent process. We curb the use of sham citizen petitions to the FDA so it is easier for generics to obtain approval and get generics to the market quicker. We end the pay-for-delay deals to keep brand-name drug companies from paying generic companies to keep cheaper options off the market so they keep the price of the patented drug higher for a longer period of time. Lastly, we require the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to finish the work it started in studying the impact of pharmacy benefit managers.

These bills will help make prescription drugs more affordable for patients who need them.

The Congressional Budget Office has reported that these bills collectively would save over $2 billion.

We need the Senate to act on these bills, and I will continue pushing to fix a broken system and lower drug costs.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, a top issue for Iowans and particularly an issue in these midterm elections is the farm economy, which isn't very good. Farmers continue to face stronger headwinds. It is not profitable today, particularly in grain farming. It is not just an Iowa issue. It is not just an American issue. I recently read that Brazil farmers are being foreclosed on because of low prices there as well.

There are two ways of attacking this. There are only two sides of a ledger. We can help lower input costs and increase markets for farmers. Farmers continue to say they don't want checks from the Treasury that are often passed on to the input suppliers; they want their prices from the marketplace.

So I have a solution about the marketplace. I and other Senators, both Republican and Democrat, have been talking about the ethanol issue of E15. We have been doing that for months now. I have been sharing that year-round E15 would create a nearly $14 billion increase in demand for corn in the United States. Those figures come from economists and the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

But this does not show the full picture. E15 would also add $25.8 billion to the national gross domestic product and 128,000 jobs. Most of the jobs and value created from E15 support rural communities. High- paying jobs go to local ethanol plants, grain cooperatives, ag equipment manufacturing, and other agriculture suppliers. And, of course, the farmers benefit from it as well.

During my annual 99-county Q&As that I hold around the State--this year and each year--I have heard directly from Iowans at county farm bureaus, other businesses, and cooperatives how year-round E15 will support the rural American economy.

It is time, then, that the Senate pass E15 legislation. It is good for the farmers. It is good for good-paying jobs in rural America. It is good for the environment because ethanol is cleaner burning than gasoline from fossil fuels. It is good for national security, as we depend less on foreign sources of energy. So I like to say when I do a ribbon-cutting at the opening of an ethanol plant, it is good, good, good. You have heard it too: M'm, m'm good.

I want to speak also about ethanol and E15 as a process right here in the U.S. Senate, and I think it is about time that this be highlighted by both Democrats and Republicans from agricultural States that support E15 but don't talk about it enough. Now, it could be handled as a separate issue in

the U.S. Senate, and that would be the appropriate way to do it. But you know, when the Senate is only in session about 3 days out of the week, we aren't getting much done with separate pieces of legislation. So something like E15 is going to have to find a home in some other bill--the farm bill, the Defense bill, appropriations bills. But we aren't talking about what that is going to do. I just mentioned three possibilities, and there aren't a whole lot of other possibilities.

There is even talk around here that you don't hear or read in the press, but talk about maybe the government is going to shut down just before the election, that maybe Democrats want the government shut down just before the election. Then, you know what, you get into continuing resolutions, and continuing resolutions are usually what we call clean--nothing added to it.

So let's say we get to October 1 and there are no appropriations bills. Then you have a continuing resolution until Thanksgiving. Then you don't pass appropriations bills and you have a continuing resolution until Christmas. And then Christmas comes and you have a continuing resolution that maybe takes you over into the new calendar year, middle of February. And if those are all clean appropriations bills, where are you going to put E15 if it is not on the farm bill or the Defense bill or appropriations bills?

Now, we have to start thinking about that, both Republicans and Democrats, from farm States that support ethanol. We have to be thinking about what we are going to do if this isn't going to come up as a separate bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate. And I think we had better put our heads together. That is probably at least 28 Senators from grain-growing States in the United States where we grow. At least 14 States, 28 Senators better put our heads together, or we are going to lose the opportunity of getting E15.

It is through the House of Representatives. It is further than it has ever been. And if we miss this opportunity, we may never get E15 and lose that $14 billion that the economists for the Iowa corn growers tell us that we are going to get--increased price of grain.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement has been in force for 6 years. It is scheduled for review-- and renewal, I hope--now, and that process is going on. I have been here two or three times this year to discuss the importance of continuing the Mexico-Canada agreement with the United States.

This week, delegates from Mexico will be meeting with U.S. trade officials to discuss leveling the playing field in agriculture under the USMCA. I would like to discuss some specific issues that affect the country nationally but that also affect my State of Iowa.

In July of last year, the United States ended the Tomato Suspension Agreement with Mexico. In direct response, the Mexican Government launched an investigation into the American pork industry. That is what affects my State of Iowa. Not only has the ending of the suspension agreement led to a tit for tat between the United States and Mexico, but it has opened the door to the issue of seasonality of fresh produce.

The effects of this issue stretch way and far beyond the southernmost regions of the United States--even up to my State of Iowa, where covered produce growers have been negatively impacted by the end of the tomato agreement.

While the USMCA meetings on agriculture take place, I hope that our U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Greer and others on his team take into consideration all the produce growers across the United States and especially the potential impact of Mexico's investigation of the U.S. pork industry. This is particularly important for my State of Iowa, as my State is the top producing State in the entire country, and Mexico is the No. 1 export market for American pork, with over $22 billion in exports last year alone. These issues must be resolved quickly for farmers who rely on this important market.

The USMCA has been an important trade agreement for Iowa agriculture. While there are areas for improvement, I urge the Trump administration to quickly advance trilateral conversations on renewing it. And I think it should be renewed. It is a big deal for all three countries, and it is a particularly big deal for American agriculture.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I want to honor a young Iowan, so I am here to recognize Daniel Umemezie, who was recently named the 10th National Youth Poet Laureate.

Daniel is a recent graduate of Cedar Falls High School, Cedar Falls, IA. That is 10 miles from my farm.

Daniel is already a master of poetry. Last year, he was named Iowa's Student Poet Ambassador. This year, he was named the 10th National Youth Poet Laureate. This makes him the first Iowan to receive this prestigious award in poetry.

Daniel's poetry uses his childhood growing up in Nigeria as inspiration for his work.

I want to congratulate Daniel on this achievement. Daniel, you are making the State of Iowa proud.

Mr. President, on another matter, as I hold my 99 county meetings, I always hear from the farmers about the ag economy, and it is a top concern for all Iowans, of course, because Iowa is the No. 1 State in the Nation for food production.

Yesterday, I welcomed the opportunity to discuss what is on the minds of family farmers with Agriculture Secretary Rollins as she appeared for her annual oversight appearance before the Senate Agriculture Committee. And it happens that I believe that the Madam Secretary is a great advocate for the family farmers, and I appreciate how she is handling the Office of the Agriculture Secretary.

Now, back home in Iowa, I hear Congress could do more to help the farmers. For instance, I hear about year-round E15. Now, that is good for the consumers because it would reduce gas prices 20 to 40 cents, but it is also good because our major crop in Iowa--corn--is where ethanol is manufactured from.

And then I also hear from the agriculture community about we need to deal with the problem of the State of California having what is called Proposition 12, and that prohibits Iowa pork that isn't raised just exactly the way California says it is raised. It can't be sold in the State of California, and that ought to irritate Members of Congress because 1 of the 18 powers of Congress under the Constitution in article I is the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.

So we have 1 State out of 50--California--saying that you can't sell pork in their State--and California is about 15 percent of the consumer market in the United States--if it isn't raised just exactly the way the law of California says it should be raised. So the farmers of Iowa are telling me: Get rid of Proposition 12.

Now, basics of a strong society is feeding your people. And the tax bill that the President signed last July 4, called the Working Families Tax Cut, was a good start to strengthening farm programs because we strengthened the farm safety net by raising support prices for corn to $4.10 and soybeans to $10 a bushel. But that isn't enough to help farmers that are underwater, not making a profit. So there is more work that needs to be done.

So here, in somewhat of a repetitive statement, it is time for the Senate to pass a 5-year farm bill. The last one was 2018. Inflation affecting agriculture demands that there be some changes in the 2018 farm bill and that we pass E15 by law and not rely on Presidential waivers anymore and that we pass Proposition 12 legislation to get rid of the bad environment in California for selling our product there-- pork--because Iowa is the No. 1 pork producer in the Nation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, during the mid to late 1990s, President Clinton and a Republican Congress worked hard to do a bipartisan reform package. It required work requirements for people who were on welfare.

It was a great success. It reduced the welfare population by about 40 percent, and a lot of people were saying having to go to work ended up being one of the best things in their life. It changed their life. So having a job gives people purpose and dignity. You guessed it; it is central to having a happy life.

Now, more recently, along the lines of what we did in the 1990s, in the Working Families Tax Cut law, signed by the President last July 4, Congress established further commonsense work requirements for able- bodied adults receiving Medicaid.

Federal law already requires able-bodied adults to work if they are on food stamps and receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cash assistance.

As required in last year's tax bill, last week, following up on that statutory requirement, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-- CMS for short--released regulations for these work requirements before their implementation January 1 of next year. Now, the public has a chance to comment on the interim final rule through the end of July. So before the end of July, any citizen in the United States--well, I mean, you don't even have to be a citizen. You just have to take advantage of giving your views on this interim rule. So let CMS know your view--that is everybody and anybody.

As the law requires, the Medicaid work requirements only apply to able-bodied adults, ages 19 to 64. To fulfill the requirements, a person has a lot of alternatives: getting a job for at least 20 hours a week, going to school at least 20 hours a week, or volunteering at least 20 hours a week, or receive job training for at least 20 hours a week. So there are lots of flexibilities that ought to meet the needs of people who want to keep their Medicaid Advantage. In other words, if you are capable, you can't just sit at home watching television.

Now, there have got to be some exceptions to this work requirement, so I will discuss those at this point. The elderly, people with disabilities, medically frail, pregnant women, and children are all exempt from the work requirements. That makes sense. It is a reasonable thing to do. If people aren't able to work, and they still require Medicaid, they are exempt.

There are other exemptions. If you are an able-bodied adult, but you are a caregiver or a parent with kids under 14 years of age, you are exempt from the work requirements.

Also, if you have been hospitalized or need to get mental health treatment, you are exempted. There are other reasonable hardship exceptions for communities impacted by natural disaster or that have high unemployment rates.

Now, if that sounds like there are so many exemptions that nobody will have to meet the 20-hour work requirement, there will be just many, many people that will have to work, go to school, or take care of volunteer work if you are going to get Medicaid, and it is a reasonable requirement.

The Federal Government and many States are taking a data-first approach when implementing these work requirements: the government by using data and information to verify eligibility and exemptions before requiring the individual to prove they are compliant or exempted.

The added benefit is this: For those people that have to work, go to school, work for a nonprofit, or have a real job, these work requirements can lead to improved health outcomes and a reduction of poverty.

The interim final rule takes note of research that finds that ``obtaining and maintaining stable employment is associated with improved physical and mental health outcomes and greater overall well- being, while unemployment and unstable work are linked to poorer health outcomes.''

In other words, working is good for your health.

New evidence also shows the work requirement will lift 1-6/10 to 2-9/ 10 million people out of poverty, and that is exactly what we found as a result of the 1990 welfare reform bills that were passed by a Republican Congress when we had a Democrat President; in other words, very bipartisan.

Commonsense Medicaid work requirements for able-bodied adults take the same approach as welfare reform did in the 1990s, and I am repeating that because it was an important move that had very positive outcome effects.

So moving people from welfare to work and self-sufficiency was our goal in the 1990s, and it is a goal that was established in the tax bill of last year in regard to Medicaid.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I come here to speak about one of my favorite topics: protecting patriotic people that we call whistleblowers, people whose goal is, in government, to make sure that laws are faithfully enforced and money spent according to the way it should be, and sometimes these whistleblowers pay a price for doing that, even losing their job and ruining themselves professionally.

I have conducted longstanding oversight to ensure the Federal Government complies with whistleblower protection laws, and some of those laws I have gotten on the books.

Unfortunately, elements of the Federal Government--whether Republican or Democrat--have made efforts to silence whistleblowers through illegal nondisclosure agreements.

Let's not forget that in addition to Federal statute, a fundamental precept of whistleblowing is the First Amendment, freedom of speech. That is why I spearheaded a very successful effort to get what is called anti-gag provisions enacted in the law. I worked a very long time to make anti-gag provisions law. The anti-gag provisions require all Federal Agency nondisclosure policy forms and agreements to notify employees of their right to blow the whistle to Congress, to inspectors general, and to the Office of Special Counsel.

The failure to comply with the law isn't only a chilling effect that discourages whistleblowers, it is also illegal.

For decades, my oversight efforts have successfully led Federal Agencies bringing their unlawful nondisclosure and similar agreements into compliance. And I will tell you this: It is amazing that after all these years, the Federal Government still--still--has problems with compliance with my anti-gag legislation.

That is why Congress must continue to do constant oversight.

So this is what brings me to the floor today. On May 26, this year, the Office of Personnel Management--OPM for short--published a notice with requests for comment in the Federal Register. That notice announced that OPM created a draft nondisclosure agreement form for use by Federal Agencies for both new and existing employees.

According to the Office of Personnel Management, this governmentwide nondisclosure agreement is needed to protect confidential information from unauthorized disclosure. In other words, this new proposed regulation is supposed to stop what we call leaks in this town. Office of Personnel Management provided examples of recent leaks to the media about law enforcement and military operations that put the lives of our Federal officers and military members at risk.

It is truly unacceptable when the unauthorized disclosure of information puts the lives of law enforcement and military personnel at risk. Full stop.

It is important to note the distinction between leaks and whistleblowers. Legally protected whistleblower disclosures are not leaks. Legally protected whistleblower disclosures aren't unauthorized disclosures. It can be a fact-specific analysis to determine which side of the line a disclosure falls on. But during that analysis, the benefit must be given to the patriotic whistleblower.

Now, turning to the text of the Office of Personnel Management draft disclosure form, it works this way: It contains an anti-gag provision but doesn't include the full text as required by law. So it should have the full text of the law that got passed. It fails, also, to include that disclosures to the Office of Special Counsel are allowed. And that is in the law as well.

Further, the anti-gag provisions are at the very beginning of the form rather than at the end like other government nondisclosure agreements, where people that are signing the agreement know what their rights are. As a general matter, I am concerned about the use of nondisclosure agreements because they can chill whistleblowers, even if that is not the intent of the nondisclosure agreement.

I demand that the anti-gag provisions be put at the end, where employees sign. At the end will provide the employee with the mental assurance that they are not giving up their whistleblower rights.

Again, the balance must always be on the benefit of the whistleblower because we shouldn't be doing anything in this government to discourage honest whistleblowing.

As I continue to analyze the draft rule this month, 2026, I wrote to the Office of Personnel Management Director making clear that they need to immediately fix these preliminary issues, have the nondisclosure just above the signature, mention the Office of Special Counsel, and also put the entire language of the legislation in the document.

If the draft nondisclosure form is implemented, Congress, of course, should follow up with oversight to ensure that it is not used inappropriately.

And this Senator intends to do that oversight for sure.