Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Mr. President, once again, I am going to remind people that there was some wrong done by the U.S. Government between the periods of about 6 years ago to 10 years ago, and the taxpayers of this country might wonder why a Senator is bringing this stuff up. It involves government coverup. The public's business always ought to be public, and if there is government coverup, we need to make sure that the public knows about it and people in government know about it that might be wanting to cover up things today so they learn a lesson that I hope I can say that nobody is going to get away with wrongdoing if they are working for the U.S. Government.

So here I go on something that most people would consider history but has got a present-day purpose for doing. As part of my longstanding oversight of the FBI's discredited, ``Crossfire Hurricane'' investigation into President Trump, this week I made public a formerly classified document. Probably most of it shouldn't have been classified in the first place. That is the way the government does things to cover up.

The American people deserve to see the facts that the FBI previously buried. This document, known as the Durham Annex, contains intelligence suggesting Hillary Clinton's campaign fabricated the Trump-Russia narrative in 2016. But the FBI turned a blind eye to the evidence. In other words, it was used as a political weapon.

The American people deserve full transparency about the FBI's failure to investigate this intelligence and related records so that America's law enforcement Agencies and intelligence communities aren't weaponized again.

I am grateful to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel for working with me to totally bring this information to light, and it is just not those two people that President Trump has appointed but other people like Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, have done in other ways things that were buried by previous administrations that she is making public knowledge of. And I could say, very generally, that the Trump administration is better than any Republican or Democratic administration in the past of trying to get

some of this wrongdoing out and declassifying stuff that shouldn't have been classified in the first place.

Now, what I have just told you is not the end of the story. There is a lot more to uncover, and you can expect more documents to be released from this Senator in the coming months. This is not a Republican issue, this is not a Democrat issue, this is an issue of the bureaucracy, in this case the FBI being used as a political weapon, covering up. In fact, some of these documents that I released, Director Patel told me, and I think he also told the public this, that they found some of this evidence in what the FBI would call a burn bag.

So we have got to make sure that this stuff doesn't happen again.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, soon, we will vote on the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

Until recent years, it has been unheard of to use floor time to confirm U.S. attorneys. Typically, they are confirmed by voice vote. I regret that we have become a body where every nominee has been obstructed. U.S. attorneys keep our communities safe and ensure law and order is enforced. There are 93 U.S. attorneys in the United States. It would take more than 230 hours to confirm all of them. That is totally unrealistic, and that is not hyperbole.

The Democrats' obstruction of nominees is hindering law and order across our Nation. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I will continue to work across the aisle to restore a commonsense confirmation process for U.S. attorneys.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the nomination.

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

One of the next two votes will be for Ms. Pirro, nomination for U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Ms. Pirro is a trailblazer. It is shameful for Democrats to oppose this trailblazing woman. Her qualifications speak for themselves. She graduated from law school in 1975, and began prosecuting domestic abuse cases at a time when very few other women did so. She was the first woman to serve as a judge in Westchester County Court. She was the first woman to serve as district attorney for that county. And she was the first woman to serve as president of the New York State District Attorneys' Association.

Her record is remarkable. She spent 27 years prosecuting criminals and another 3 as a judge. In those three decades, Ms. Pirro gained a reputation for fierce advocacy against domestic abuse and crimes against children.

In 1977, she helped create the Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Bureau in Westchester County, serving as its first-ever chief. She also created the Elder Abuse Bureau to prosecute crimes against elderly citizens.

In the 1990s, she stood up one of the first law enforcement sting operations against sexual predators on the internet. Her reputation was so widely known that online predators referred to suspected police officers in the internet chat rooms as ``Pirro's Boys.''

Today, many Americans know her as Judge Jeanine, and she is beloved for her straight talk and witty commentary.

You may hear my Democratic colleagues criticize Ms. Pirro for some of her colorful remarks during her time as a TV personality. Yes, she has a larger-than-life personality, but she has decades of distinguished record as a prosecutor and judge.

DC is fortunate that the President nominated her to serve as its U.S. attorney. Her job in the interim role where she is stationed now has been heralded. She boosted morale. She has the support of the DC Police Union and the National Fraternal Order of Police.

I look forward to supporting her nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.