Floor Statements

On June 6, 1944, the United States and Allied nations led that historic invasion on the beaches of Normandy, France. Two days ago, there was a remembrance of that occasion at a place called Omaha Beach.

Nearly 160,000 Allied troops, 5,000 ships, and 13,000 aircraft supported the assault against Hitler-dominated Europe. That allowed the Allied Powers to gain a foothold in Europe, and 11 months later Europe was free of Adolf Hitler.

While victory eventually followed, D-Day came with very heavy casualties. Thousands of paratroopers died before they even landed out of the sky, and amphibious tanks faced rough surf, and only 2 of 29 tanks made it ashore.

Courageous infantrymen who stormed Omaha Beach were also severely disadvantaged and met with a brutal welcome from German artillery.

On D-Day alone, more than 9,000 Allied soldiers were killed or wounded. More than 2,000 were American servicemen.

Knowing this history ought to prepare us for today and tomorrow and well into the future because these sacrifices remind us of a hard truth; that failing to confront aggression early deepens the cost as time goes on. That lesson is something that we should keep top of mind as we continue efforts to address aggression today, whether it is Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Iran's destabilization efforts across the Middle East, or rising tensions with China.

These challenges are different than they were in World War II, but the pattern is very familiar.

As we reflect on the anniversary of D-Day, we should be reminded not only of the bravery of those who fought but the united front that made that victory possible.

That same unity forged by America's doctrine of ``peace through strength'' will determine whether we preserve peace or pay a far higher price in the future.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 87,000, that is how many lives were at risk in August 2024 when Austrian security services thwarted a devastating terrorist attack on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna.

Many of these lives could have been young girls from around the world, including Americans. Now this tragedy was halted because, thanks to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Austrian authorities were able to cancel the concert and apprehend the plotting terrorists, all because U.S. intelligence Agencies were able to share critical intelligence gathered under section 702 authority before the attack occurred.

In 4 very short days, title 7 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including this essential service, expires. We can't let that happen.

Section 702 happens to be our most nimble and effective intelligence collection tool. Section 702 equips our military with a strategic advantage. It protects our troops overseas, and it keeps terrorists, foreign adversaries, and dangerous illicit drugs from harming Americans, enabling over 90 percent of synthetic drug disruptions.

It helps our intelligence and law enforcement community to defend our homeland from attacks, and it is essential for protecting our cyber security infrastructure.

Title 7 then is critical to our national security, but it doesn't just protect us from security threats; it also protects us from government abuse and government overreach.

Now, if title 7 expires, not only do we lose section 702's utility, we also lose all of its civil liberties, privacy, transparency, and accountability measures. There is a dangerous assumption that the program will function seamlessly if this statute expires on Friday.

Well, I hope the certifications issued a few months ago will still apply in the event of the statute lapsing. This is not a certainty. There will be high-stakes litigation and a very real possibility that intelligence collection will cease, at least temporarily. And in this work of intelligence gathering, minutes do matter. Letting 702 lapse is a real gamble that we can't afford to take.

So let's be very clear, if section 702 lapses, our adversaries will benefit greatly and Americans will suffer. In other words, we will be less secure in our safety as well as our privacy. Over the last few weeks, I have worked closely with Senators Cotton and Warner, the administration, the national security community, and Members of the House to develop a product that delivers meaningful reforms while maintaining section 702's essential operational effectiveness.

This product is bipartisan, bicameral, and it strikes the right balance. The reforms in our bill build on the substantial reforms passed by the Congress in 2024. Again, I want to be clear that the reforms of 2024 that goes by the acronym RISAA are working. FBI query compliance is at 98.9 percent, with the remaining noncompliant queries due to typos and other harmless errors.

This isn't the same program plagued by abuse a few years ago that civil libertarians rightly condemned and by their condemnation brought about some of the reforms in the 2024 bill. Because our bill builds on what the House sent us a few weeks back, it retains and strengthens the provisions and the good progress made by our colleagues in the other Chamber and, at the same time, adds 11 additional reforms that deliver real transparency and accountability.

So let me list just a few. First, it requires the Justice Department to rescind and replace the Department of Justice memo drafted by the previous administration that, quite frankly, illegally restricts congressional oversight access to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Now, why the previous administration didn't want to carry out the transparency requirements of the last Congress, I don't know, but they didn't do it.

Secondly, it gives Congress a voice in the amici appointment process by requiring leadership to submit a bipartisan list of candidates to whom the FISC court is obliged to give the highest preference.

Three, it levies criminal penalties on those who willfully violate querying standards.

Fourth, it limits and clarifies the definition of an ``electronic communication service provider,'' thus addressing a concern of civil liberties groups across the political spectrum.

Fifth, it requires the FBI monthly to submit U.S. person query justifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Civil Liberties Protection Officer for review.

And, sixth, it requires noncompliant queries and abuse to be referred to the inspector general.

Now, there is other points that could be made, and I could go on, but I think the point is very clear when it comes to transparency and accountability that we have added to what was started in 2024.

There is no doubt that this bill is a compromise. That is how things are done in the U.S. Congress and, particularly, in the Senate. This bill isn't the clean reauthorization called for by the administration. This bill also isn't the maximalist approach called for by some skeptics of this program.

This bill reflects what the American people expect and the American people deserve: the reauthorization of a very important national security tool but coupled with meaningful guardrails and transparency.

If title 7 lapses, not only will these thoughtful and thorough reforms fail to become reality, but we will lose many of the key reforms instituted in the last reauthorization of 2024.

This section 702 is the most transparent and most scrutinized intelligence collection in history. If it lapses, so does Congress' essential insight into and oversight of its functions.

So we owe it to our constituents to protect them from threats, from terrorists, and other adversaries, but also to defend their privacy and civil liberties. Our bipartisan, bicameral, thoughtful bill accomplishes both goals.

I appreciate the collaboration with my colleagues Senator Cotton and Warner, and I appreciate the collaboration and engagement from the administration and from our national security partners.

I am grateful for the engagement from the House of Representatives. We got this bill to a very good place, and it is the kind of a bill that should have significant support from both sides of the aisle.

Now, we need to finish this job. We need to put aside partisanship and do what is right by the American people. We need to advance this bill to the President's desk and reauthorize this very critical program.

My Democratic colleagues should recognize that walking away from this deal isn't hurting President Trump; it is hurting the American people.

I hope my colleagues appreciate this bill for what it is, and I pray that we can consider this bill later this week. And I urge everyone in this Chamber to vote yes on reauthorizing section 702 in this very careful and very thoughtful way now before the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Ossoff's motion to commit would require an amendment to the False Claims Act.

In 1986, I authored the False Claims Act, and for decades, I have worked to successfully strengthen the law. The Ossoff issue is an issue worthy of review; however, a motion to commit isn't the right way to do it.

The False Claims Act is implicated when a company charges the government for healthcare it didn't render.

The plain text of the motion doesn't appear to cover that scope. The Justice Department already performs investigations into healthcare insurance fraud.

The Senate also confirmed a new Assistant Attorney General to fight fraud. Further, sending the reconciliation bill back to the Judiciary Committee would essentially kill it.

Remember, the False Claims Act has brought $87 billion of ill-gotten money back into the Federal Treasury, and I am going to do all I can to protect it.

So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Ossoff motion.

Mr. President, the Medicaid Program is an important resource for the support of the most vulnerable people in our society, and we intend to keep it for the most vulnerable.

The Working Families Tax Cut Act, passed and signed by the President last year, strengthened the Medicaid Program by cracking down on fraud, waste, and abuse, and by improving access to home and community-based services.

And I would like to give one example of taking care of fraud, waste, and abuse. We learned last year, in looking back, when the Biden administration made eligibility for ObamaCare above 400 percent of poverty, that we found that there were 6-4/10 million people that were put on ObamaCare that were already on Medicaid. Now, you need one or the other, but you don't need both.

So the waste, and maybe fraud, came when agents for insurance companies--health insurance companies--would call you up and say: You can get really low-cost or no-cost insurance now under ObamaCare.

And 6-4/10 million people took that offer up, and we wasted billions of dollars of money with 6-4/10 million people not needing it, if they were already on Medicaid.

So we made those changes to make sure that Medicaid is staying strong for the most vulnerable, the original intention of Medicaid 60 years ago.

Now, to bring you up to date about the legislation--because we hear from our constituents that we are hurting Medicaid by the changes we made--I want to bring attention to lesser known provisions of the law, enabling a broad range of individuals with developmental disabilities to gain access to home and community-based services.

The new law also enabled interim home and community-based service coverage while newly eligible individuals developed their full care plan. The law will cut redtape and provide more services to vulnerable citizens.

While Congress has added new flexibilities to Medicaid in the tax act of last year, I also want to highlight an important milestone in integrating people with disabilities into their local communities. More than 20 years ago, I helped enact legislation that goes by the title of Money Follows the Person Program, helping people with disabilities transition from long-term care facilities into home based in their very own communities of that person's choice.

Rebalancing individuals from institutions to their home community is a very important goal. Iowa began its program with Federal support, more than 16 years ago, and has now transitioned over 1,100 people out of institutional-based care into independent settings in the communities of that person's choice. Last year, Iowa surpassed moving over 1,000 people through this program.

This program, which I said is entitled the Money Follows the Person Program, is helping more people with intellectual disabilities and brain injuries gain independence for the very first time. This also means people are choosing their own daily activities for the very first time, going to work or going to school or participating in other things that you might say are the first in their life.

Iowa is the leader in moving people with intellectual disabilities into the community. In 2025, 96 percent of the people who went through this program were still living in the community a year later.

This program is helping Americans with disabilities find independence in their daily lives.

Whether a new or old program in Medicaid, I am proud to support these efforts that support the original purpose of Medicaid to help those who are the most vulnerable.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am here to say happy 40th birthday to C-SPAN2, broadcasting democracy in the Senate to the American people.

I have to confess to you that, 40 years ago today, I voted no on the Senate being televised. I thought it would hurt the decorum of the U.S. Senate.

Whether it has hurt the decorum of the U.S. Senate or not, I am not going to make a judgment on that today. But I do tell you that, on reflection, I am glad that the Senate is televised to make government more real to the American people.

So I guess I would have to confess that I cast the wrong vote 40 years ago.

So now, for four decades, C-SPAN2 has served as an essential conduit between the U.S. Senate and the American people. Since its launch on June 2, 1986, C-SPAN2 has offered uninterrupted, unfiltered access to the debates, the votes, and the deliberations of the U.S. Senate so people in this country that watch the Senate on C-SPAN2 get the news unfiltered, directly to you, the American people.

The American people don't have to rely on biased journalists to get their news when it might really be distorted. And when I say ``distorted,'' too often at my town meetings in Iowa--and I had 12 of them last week--I hear people say: How come you can't get along? In other words, Republicans and Democrats don't seem to be talking to each other.

I always try to explain that there is more partisanship than there should be, but I also say there is not as much as you, as an Iowan, actually see because you see on television Members of the Senate always disagreeing. When there is agreement, you never see much about it.

So this is your opportunity to listen in the U.S. Senate, to get it unbiased, in a way that you would not from journalists.

Also, C-SPAN2 operates without any public funding or any government oversight. The continued success of C-SPAN2 is due to the funding that is provided by platform operators such as cable, satellite, and now even streaming services. These platforms should continue to make delivery of C-SPAN2 a priority, and I am sure they will because Americans then can watch Congress in action in realtime.

So I say once again: Happy birthday, C-SPAN2. Your coverage of the Senate helps democracy work and provides a true public service.

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, on March 15, 2026, I made public an FBI agent's interview statement. That agent was involved in a conspiracy called Crosswind, which was a code-named investigation into former Trump adviser Walid Phares. That statement, made under penalty of perjury, exposes widespread abuses within then-Special Counsel Mueller's operation.

That operation is kind of history, but it leads us up to something more current. For example, the statement noted that multiple personnel were removed from then-Special Counsel Mueller's team because they ``saw concerning things and voiced their concern''--that word ``concerning'' meaning they knew something wasn't right going on in Special Counsel Mueller's team investigating the whole thing about Russia's involvement in the first election of Trump.

That statement--remember, that statement was made just this year-- noted that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe referred to President Trump in a derogatory manner. In other words, were they unbiased in their investigations? And I think I will show you where they weren't very unbiased in that investigation.

A Justice Department attorney wanted to remove and water down McCabe's negative tone about Trump from McCabe's interview summary, so it looks to me like another coverup attempt.

The statement--and again, this is an FBI agent who served on Mueller's team and was under oath when he gave this statement--noted that Mueller's right-hand man Aaron Zelinsky exhibited clear bias against President Trump. And that political infection at the top trickled down to everyone else, because this FBI agent said the Mueller team created throughout the office space characters and cartoons that were very anti-Trump.

To wrap it all up in a bow, the FBI agent's statement discusses violations of security protocol, mishandling of classified information, and more potential FISA abuses.

For example, one Justice Department prosecutor is alleged to have brought a classified notebook to a meeting without the proper carrying bag. This prosecutor also was alleged to have traveled from her house, which means she had stored classified information outside of a classified facility.

This is the same Justice Department that prosecuted Trump for allegedly mishandling classified information. Remember, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, all in an attempt to ruin Trump politically, financially, and, of course, with the end goal that they were hoping to put him in prison.

Of course, the partisan media has neither reported these jaw-dropping findings nor the blatant and potential criminal FISA abuses. The FBI agent said the FISA on Crosswind shouldn't have been renewed, and other FBI personnel held that very same view. The agent's statement said: ``As the investigation progressed, the facts that we originally thought meant one thing were learned to mean something else. Per reporting from another agency and what we learned from the investigation up to the point of the third renewal''--

Meaning the FISA renewal--

``there were no corroborating facts that tied Crosswind to certain facts that we thought were originally true.''

This FBI agent--again, I want to remind you that he was under oath when he gave this statement. The agent then ``pointed out these specific corrections to the application''--meaning the FISA application--``in numerous instances throughout the FISA-certified copy process. This was circa 2018. I sent these edits to Kevin Clinesmith, who said, `We can't send this to DOJ.'''

That is the same Clinesmith who admitted to criminally altering an email connection with a FISA application during Crossfire Hurricane, which, as we all know, was yet another effort to get Trump and his associates, even if it meant breaking the law to get Trump.

The FBI agent also testified about Crosswind that there were overzealous thoughts and bias that permeated the investigation and a ``let's get him'' attitude.

Even with these known material defects and objections to filing the FISA renewal, then-Special Agent Walter Giardina ``signed it as Case Agent,'' according to this FBI agent's statement under oath.

If the statements by this FBI agent are true and accurate, the FISA application process described was a false filing intended to improperly target a known innocent person.

These are criminal allegations that the Justice Department and the FBI ought to fully investigate. In fact, this FBI agent implored the FBI to do just that. This agent encouraged the FBI to get copies of the FISA and the predicating documents.

This Senator asked for the same, and the government has failed to produce these important documents. And I don't know why they would be afraid to let this Senator have access to those documents, because transparency is going to bring accountability. And for the sake of justice and for the sake of exposing things that have been political weaponization in our government, they should be exposed so they don't happen again.

Now, Crosswind wasn't the only investigation this FBI agent gave a statement about. So this brings us more up to more recent months, at least the recent year and a half.

The agent also discussed the known defects of the case against Trump adviser Tom Barrack. The agent said the ``get someone'' attitude that led to the FISA renewal and search warrants also led to the investigation of Tom Barrack.

The agent's statement noted that these matters ``relate to ethical dilemmas.'' The FBI agent further stated that ``there was no authority for the [Special Counsel's Office] to open a case on Tom Barrack.''

Even the FBI Washington Field Office had, at that point in time, declined to open a case on Barrack, and yet this FBI agent said: ``Giardina didn't want to open a case on Barrack but wanted to keep people happy.''

So you do illegal things just to keep people happy. That is not right. And the fact that we have this FBI agent's statement to verify all of the wrongdoing that went on in this whole process, that is obviously no basis to criminally investigate anyone.

What the Biden Justice Department and the FBI did to Barrack and his staffer Matthew Grimes is worthy of note as another lesson of what the government should not do.

Barrack gave an interview to the government way back in December 2017 and June 2019. Grimes also gave interviews. It appears they cooperated. Then, years later--4 years later and 2 years later in another instance--the Biden administration Justice Department, in July 2021, decided to indict both Barrack and Grimes for acting as an agent of a foreign government, for obstruction, and for false statements.

They were arrested by more than 20 Federal agents going to their homes. At first, the government asked that Grimes not be given bail. The government said that he was a flight risk, among other things.

Grimes, a 22- and 23-year-old at the time the crimes were alleged to have occurred, was detained for 5 days and eventually released--can you believe this?--on $5 million bond. Barrack's bond was set--can you believe this?--at

$250 million, even though he had no criminal record.

Barrack and Grimes took their fight to a jury trial, and the jury acquitted Barrack on all nine counts. Grimes was acquitted of the two counts against him.

So I would like to share three quotes from that trial.

During the trial, the judge told the government:

I mean, I've had patent cases that I tried involving

algorithms that were easier for the jury to figure out than

this one is going to be.

Then a further quote from the judge also said, about some of the government's theories in the case, that they ``were right in line between barely permissible inference and impermissible speculation.''

And then there is the third, and last, quote from an alternate juror, who stated publicly after the verdict:

I thought much of the prosecution's evidence was very

misleading and misrepresented the truth.

So that is what you have with political weaponization going on in the American Government.

So now, to sum up, year after year, my investigative work has exposed the overt bias by Federal law enforcement against Republicans. Here, the same political government Agencies were involved in Crosswind, the Barrack case, and Crossfire Hurricane. These cases went nowhere.

My Democratic colleagues never raised a finger about any of these abuses. My Democratic colleagues did the opposite and went on partisan television every day, falsely claiming crimes occurred.

And you can see from what I have said today and what the FBI's statements--the agents' statements--say, that there was no crime. But it appears the real crimes were committed by the Biden-Harris government investigators.

Now, bringing this today, and the responsibility of President Trump's administration, it is clear that this administration has a responsibility to fully investigate these matters.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Iowa is the leading producer of ethanol. About 43,000 jobs are connected with that production. Ethanol is produced from corn. Iowa is the No. 1 producer of corn in the United States.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill for 15 percent mixture of ethanol with petroleum gasoline. That is E15.

Up until now, E10--10-percent mixture--has been considered a pretty good success story. So expanding it will have more homegrown renewable energy, if we can get E15 nationwide year-round. And it takes legislation to make that happen.

In recent weeks, some of my colleagues have come to the floor to speak on this very same subject--some for E15 legislation and some against E15 legislation.

So I think there are a lot of myths about ethanol and E15 that need to be cleared up. One of those myths that continues to spread is that year-round, nationwide E15 is a mandate. So I want to be very clear: E15 legislation is not a mandate; it is a choice.

And it is this simple: You are driving into the filling station to fill up your car--even today with the high price that it is--you will see that you have a choice of gasoline with no ethanol or with 10- percent ethanol or E15.

The trouble is, not every retailer has it. But it is a choice when you go to the pump to punch the button you want for the type of gasoline that you want to put in your car.

I support E15 legislation because it removes both outdated and unnecessary redtape from the EPA. Just as an example of that redtape, the law says that in some parts of our country, you can't dispense ethanol in your gasoline in June, July, August, and September. You can't do it during those months.

However, we have been successful under 2 years of Trump 1, 4 years of Biden, and 2 years now of Trump, by Presidential waiver, that we can have E15 nationwide. But that is redtape that we shouldn't have to go through.

And that is the reason for the legislation. It would allow consumers to have a choice to purchase E15 year-round in all 50 States. And it takes legislation to do that because you will never get the retailers of gasoline to spend the money to update their pumps for E15 without the legislation. Some have done it now, trusting that there will be a Presidential waiver year after year, but a lot of retailers won't depend on that.

So this legislation is not a mandate because it would not force gas stations to sell E15 if they don't want to. However, because E15 saves consumers 10 to 30 cents per gallon, I suspect that many fuel retailers will choose to provide their customers with this high quality, low cost, homegrown fuel.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as I travel through Iowa, the issue of rural healthcare comes up frequently. In living in rural Iowa, I understand the importance of my fellow Iowans' having access to healthcare close to home.

In pursuit of that goal, I have led the charge to protect and expand access to rural healthcare. Some of the items that I have worked on over the years would be extending telehealth flexibilities; extending the rural hospital programs, like the Medicare-Dependent Hospital Program and the Low-Volume Hospital Program; also enacting pharmacy benefit manager reform and expanding access to rural pharmacies--I hope that the pharmacy benefit manager reform leads to lower drug costs for all Iowans--and then establishing the Rural Emergency Hospital Program and establishing the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund that was in the tax bill of last year.

Most recently, I have introduced the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Reauthorization Act, which extends this demonstration program for another 5 years.

Since 2005, the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program has supported what we call rural ``tweener'' hospitals and has given policymakers insight into improving rural healthcare.

Now, how do you get that name ``tweener'' hospitals? They are hospitals like those that are too large to be classified as critical access hospitals and yet still face lower volumes.

The program tests innovative hospital payment models under Medicare. Nationally, up to 30 hospitals can participate in this program. Iowa is fortunate enough to have four hospitals in this program, which are located in Fort Dodge, Grinnell, Newton, and Spirit Lake.

Until last year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services underutilized the program by leaving spots open. I am happy that the Trump administration acted at my urging to correct this.

I recently visited one of these hospitals in Grinnell, IA. As a result of the Grinnell Regional Medical Center's participation in this demonstration program, the hospital has been able to improve access to mental health, maternal health, and recruit more providers.

The data shows that the demonstration program has benefited rural healthcare generally. Hospitals in the program have significantly improved their margins and have had higher capital investments. The program has also helped with staff retention and adding services.

While Congress has extended the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program before, we need to reauthorize it again to continue this important work. I am glad to partner with a bipartisan group of 16 Senate colleagues to introduce the bill that reauthorizes the program.

I am happy to report that, last night, the Senate passed the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Reauthorization Act. Now I look forward to working with my House colleagues to make this law.

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, in the past several Congresses, my investigative work has resulted in the public release of thousands of pages of information once hidden from the public. Much of it is evidence of political bias in law enforcement and intelligence community investigations, and I will give you 10 examples of how this information has been hidden and how our efforts have brought it to light. They are Crossfire Hurricane, Arctic Frost, Plasmic Echo, Round River, the Clinton Foundation, Rampart 12, the Biden Family Investigation, the Clinton annex, Durham annex, and the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. But those 10 aren't the total; there are many others I could mention.

I have made public record after record, and the partisan media continues to turn its very negative sights on my and Senator Johnson's work.

Most recently, The Hill published an article attacking our work on Arctic Frost. Specifically, the article took offense for daring to make public largely unredacted records that the Biden administration had kept from the public--records by and large I obtained through protected public whistleblower disclosures and not from government officials.

In doing so, The Hill also raised questions about the identities of who provided legally protected whistleblower disclosures. For example, when referring to my and Senator Johnson's making public Jack Smith's subpoenas, The Hill said it raises ``questions about the identities of the whistleblowers who shared them with Grassley.''

It sounds like The Hill is trying to improperly identify whistleblowers who stuck their necks out for the truth just like Jack Smith's prosecutors have gone after them. For example, J.P. Cooney and Molly Gaston reportedly filed a complaint with the Justice Department inspector general. Cooney and Gaston asked for that Office to investigate what they claim is the improper disclosure to Congress of 197 Jack Smith subpoenas. So Cooney and Gaston want the inspector general to investigate whistleblowers who have exposed the bad conduct by Jack Smith and his staff. That is obviously a conflict of interest.

By the way, Cooney and Gaston are the same Jack Smith prosecutors who wanted to prosecute nuns present on January 6. More precisely, Cooney said:

I would like to prosecute any nun who still wears [a] head

habit.

Instead of attacking patriotic whistleblowers, this partisan media ought to do a deep report on how invasive Jack Smith's operation was because Jack Smith sought communications of Republican groups and what these Republican groups had to do with the legislative branch as well as the media.

All this time, I thought the partisan media held the First Amendment in very high regard. Evidently, they do not.

The Hill also failed to report on the emails that we publicly released from Special Agent Thibault. Thibault's own emails show he violated the FBI's no self-approval rule in opening up the Arctic Frost investigation. Those

emails were made public in January of last year. Thibault's own words paint the picture. And this is the same agent who violated the Hatch Act for anti-Trump partisan conduct. Not only was that fact not reported by The Hill, the outlet also couldn't be bothered to report on those emails that we released.

By the way, we didn't get those records from the government either; we got them from patriotic whistleblowers.

The Hill's reporting accuses our record production of playing a significant role in FBI agents being fired. Now, The Hill knows this, but they don't report it: The FBI makes personnel decisions, not we, Members of Congress.

The Hill's reporting failed to take into account the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation names that I have made public which gave them credit for doing good work. For example, last year, I issued a majority staff report on then-Secretary of State John Kerry's interfering in the FBI arresting high-level Iranian nationals and the targets that those nationals were. I also released FBI records about agents attempting to investigate the Clinton Foundation. Credit ought to be given to those government officials who did their job. I have received no complaints about making their names public.

Yet The Hill focused on Arctic Frost, and in doing so, buried the lede:

The documents released by Grassley include names of nearly

70 FBI agents and employees. That includes some figures

already known to the public, as well as other agents whose

case history the bureau is well aware of.

Now, I have five points.

First, it is common practice to make public the names of taxpayer- funded government officials whose conduct is within the public interest. That is especially the case when their names are already public. Now, I call that and I hope everybody around here calls that accountability.

Second, not all of the named individuals have been fired.

Third, The Hill article fails to explicitly note that three of the FBI agents who sued over their termination had their names public before we released them. In fact, one name was public as early as 2016.

Fourth, our document production made those three names public on January 30, 2025, during Kash Patel's nomination hearing to be FBI Director. Clearly, he and then-FBI leadership didn't give us those records. Who gave us those records? Well, where we get most of our records--patriotic whistleblowers did that.

The fifth and last point, Patel fired those three agents approximately 10 months after we made their names public on January 30. But, again, their names were public years before our release.

Now, the point I am trying to make is that The Hill is not doing its job. They failed to mention all those critical facts.

Next, The Hill takes a shot at the FBI 1023 document that Chairman Comer and I made public in the last Congress. That is the one about the Biden bribery allegations. Also, The Hill failed to mention that Senator Johnson and I made public two additional FBI 1023 documents last year. Both of those documents provided additional information from FBI informants about Biden family criminality.

So there are at least three different FBI confidential human sources. Each provided information about the Biden family criminality on three separate occasions. And the sources provided that information to three different FBI agents.

Question: Did DOJ and FBI prosecute those other two FBI sources? No.

So, last year, I asked Director Patel about the initial FBI 1023 document that Director Wray was supposed to investigate. I asked whether an investigation was carried out into the alleged records. Patel answered this way:

Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.

I am not saying the allegations are true. I just want to know if the investigation has been carried out. The Hill failed to mention any of that very important context.

The Hill also failed to take into account some of my whistleblowers. They failed to take into account that some of my whistleblowers have faced years of retaliation and face serious abuse by officials who have since been fired.

Wrongdoing should be punished. It is called accountability. And I have also said lower-level personnel who appropriately follow directives without violating procedures ought to have that taken into consideration.

Now, The Hill should endeavor to report on the heroic and brave efforts that whistleblowers have undertaken to expose government abuse, instead of providing a forum for government agents to smear them.

To my patriotic whistleblowers, I want them to know that this Senator's work will continue in full force.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the month of May is a very busy time of year: graduation season, recital season, and, of course, planting season for American farmers. Here in the Senate, lawmakers will burn the midnight oil this week to pass a reconciliation bill that delivers essential funding for national security and public safety.

Well, I want to assure my colleagues that this Senator is never too busy to set the record straight, and today, I come to the floor to set the record straight on E15.

E15 is a higher blend, higher octane fuel that is 85 percent gasoline and 15 percent homegrown American ethanol.

Last week, the House approved landmark legislation to make year-round E15 the law of the land and lower gas prices for Americans from coast to coast. The driving force behind the House victory was Iowa's House delegation. That shouldn't surprise you because Iowa is the leading producer of ethanol. That victory was led by Congressman Randy Feenstra, Congressman Zach Nunn, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, and Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks. I applaud all four of these House Members for their effort and for supporting a major industry in Iowa and probably about 40,000 jobs in Iowa, and I am glad to take up the baton with a bipartisan coalition here in the U.S. Senate.

With those generalizations, I would like to shed some light on what year-round E15 would do. E15 would offer Americans a lower price fuel option when they fill up at the pump, giving families somewhere between 10 and 30 cents per gallon. That is a big savings. Making E15 permanent delivers more choices for the consumer and year-round savings for families who are facing these higher gas prices that we have seen since the war in Iran started. So it is very simple: A vote for E15 is a vote for lower gas prices.

Year-round, nationwide E15 would bring certainty to fuel refineries, to the marketers, to the retailers, and the renewable fuel producers. No more costly switchovers in the summer when, under law, ethanol cannot be sold in certain parts of the country. It would end a patchwork of regulations from one year to the next, boost the domestic gas supply chain, and it would surely unleash America's domestic energy dominance. Unleashing E15 stops Americans from being held hostage to foreign crude oil. It reduces carbon emissions and tailpipe pollutants and would pump $14 billion into the U.S. farm economy. On top of all those advantages, E15 is pro-environmental. At a time when farmers are looking for expanded markets, E15 would deliver for corn farmers and create more jobs in rural America. E15 puts American families, our farmers, and our biofuel producers in the driver's seat to power forward clean, affordable, homegrown fuel.

Here is what year-round E15 does not do, and I emphasize this part of my remarks because there is a lot of lack of knowledge about E15 and maybe a lot of lack of knowledge about ethanol generally. And this is from what I have been hearing from my colleagues. It would not force Americans to fill up their gas tank with E15. It would not force fuel retailers to even sell E15. In short, it would not create a mandate. And how many times have I heard from my colleagues that it would be a mandate? In fact, EPA Administrator Zeldin confirmed this very fact to my colleague from Nebraska just last week. E15 is not a mandate, and that is from EPA Administrator Zeldin.

President Trump delivered his seal of approval for year-round E15 during a visit to my home State in January. He called on Congress to pass E15 without delay and said he would sign it as soon as it reached his desk.

Vice President Vance and Secretary Rollins have also traveled to Iowa to endorse E15 because they know what I know: Ethanol is good for national security, good for the farm economy, and good for U.S. energy independence.

My efforts to help get homegrown fuels from the field to the pump started five decades ago during the energy crisis of the 1970s. That energy crisis was called that because--it was referred to as an oil embargo, and it was something that OPEC forced upon the entire world.

Two decades ago, I worked with President George W. Bush to create and expand the renewable fuel standard, known here in Washington among energy people as RFS. Last year, the RFS celebrated 20 years of success, paving a cleaner, more energy independent future for Americans. Within those 20 years, I have worked with the Obama, the Trump, and the Biden administrations to expand E15 into our domestic fuel supply.

Having said all that, guess what happened. The sky didn't fall. No refineries shut down.

So that brings me to the Chicken Littles inserting themselves into today's debate, and I am talking about the so-called midsize refiners. They are running around this town trying to gut the hard-fought year- round E15 victory that passed with bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. It is interesting this coop of Chicken Littles is now crowing.

After 8 years of Presidential waivers that allowed for E15 summertime sales, the refineries are now trying to convince people in Washington-- including some of my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate--that the sky will fall if we pass permanent year-round, nationwide E15.

So let's get back to the facts. We have had E15 by Presidential waiver since 2019. Ambassador Zeldin has confirmed that in these 8 years, not one refinery closed because consumers had the choice to purchase E15.

For those saying that refineries have been ignored in the E15 debate, that is surely not the case--and after 16 years of working on this issue, I would know. Refineries have been deeply involved in negotiations for years. There have been very high-level talks on the topic of E15, and the Rural Domestic Council in the House was specifically created to hear from people with these refineries.

In her remarks here on the Senate floor last week, my colleague from Iowa mentioned that the annual earnings of the Nation's six midsized refineries are more than all of America's family farmers combined.

Now, there is nothing wrong with making money--that is the beauty of the free economic system that we have in America. It has powered our economy and fueled innovations for the last 250 years.

However, we shouldn't let this bill's opponents talk out of both sides of their mouth. You can't take in record profits on the one hand and claim you are a step away from bankruptcy because of E15 on the other hand.

Homegrown E15 is an example of the entrepreneurial spirit and discovery that makes America great. E15 powers up American domestic energy, lowers prices at the pump, and boosts the farm economy.

You add all that up, and E15 is a win for America and for Americans. America's farmers and families are counting on this.

The commonsense choice is very clear--America needs permanent year- round E15 from sea to shining sea.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, you might wonder how this Senator from Iowa gets involved in issues of foster youth.

Thirty years ago, I hired a staffer from Urbandale, IA, by the name of Sara Gesiriech. Sara now works for the First Lady in the White House on this issue of foster care. She was hired by me to work on banking and education issues, but she came to me 1 day and said: I was adopted by my parents, and there are a lot of things wrong with the foster care system in the United States.

So she said to me: Do you care if I work on that issue as well as the other issues you hired me to work on?

So that is the story behind my being involved with foster care issues.

You learn to listen to these kids who go from home to home maybe three times a year and change schools three times a year. If you listen to them, they say: I would like to have a mom and dad. I would like to have a permanent home. And that touches your heart.

The need to support children in America who want a mom and dad is more important now than it was even 30 years ago.

In 2025, there was an increase in the number of children who entered and were in foster care compared to 2024. Now, that increase is not the case in each and every State. For example, in Iowa, there was a slight decrease in the number of children in foster care from 2024 to 2025, demonstrating Iowa's success in supporting children and families.

At the Federal level, I am committed to exploring policy solutions that improve long-term outcomes for children in foster care. So the bill that I am introducing--the bipartisan bill that goes by the title of Recruiting Families Using Data Act--modifies decades-old Federal requirements and empowers States to develop family partnership plans that incorporate best practices with quality data. By integrating quality data and best practices, States are better equipped to address the needs of children in their care.

Today, I am releasing the discussion draft of legislation to support older youth in foster care. I do that by providing an opportunity for States to expand on services that help these young people achieve independence.

My draft legislation would also require the Government Accountability Office to study the funding formulas used to allocate Federal funds to States as part of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood. That is a long name for a program written 25 or 30 years ago by former Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, who was also very much interested in this issue.

In January of 2025, the Government Accountability Office published a report that studied how States use the Chafee program to support older foster youth who are transitioning out of foster care, which is natural when they reach a certain age. Sometimes it is 18. Sometimes it might be a little bit older. Aging out of foster care is a traumatic time for these kids.

I asked for this report after it was brought to my attention that Chafee dollars were being returned while also hearing that not all eligible youth were being served by the program. As a cofounder and cochair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I continually hear of the challenges that foster youth face as they approach adulthood and how they can be better supported.

By the way, I would like to thank Senator Lujan of New Mexico for his

cochairing this committee with me; so it is a very bipartisan effort.

Now, after getting this report, I look forward to getting feedback on how Federal programs can encourage foster youth to achieve self- sufficiency. We have a responsibility to protect children and their well-being.

As we recognize the month of May as being National Foster Care Month, it is my hope that we can continue to find solutions to see that every child has the chance to build a bright future and an opportunity for permanent and loving homes.

I want to congratulate First Lady Trump for her efforts in this area and in her recently holding a hearing in the House of Representatives on this issue.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this year, at my annual 99 county meetings, I was asked about the operations in Iran and was asked the question of why the administration's actions were necessary.

For starters, there are historic reasons the United States must address the threat of Iran. ``Death to America,'' we hear from over there, and that is death to individual Americans.

Just recently--last week, for instance--there was an Iraqi indicted. He was captured overseas and brought to the United States because his sole purpose was to kill people, including even here in America.

If you go back to 1979, when it started, Iranian revolutionaries almost immediately seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostage for 444 days. One of those Foreign Service officers was a native of Waverly, IA.

Four years later, Iranian-backed terrorist groups carried out a suicide car bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. They drove two truck bombs into the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut--killing over 250 Americans.

In 1996, the Iranian regime carried out another truck bombing near a United States Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia--killing 19 Americans and wounding more than 370.

In 2007, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out a plot in Iraq that killed five members of the United States armed services and wounded three others.

And then we all know how destructive the bomb was that we call the improvised explosive device that was buried and killed about 600 American servicepeople and wounded many others.

Now, what is more is that the regime also continues its efforts to build nuclear weapons.

In 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency, also known as the IAEA, revealed that Iran had engaged in a variety of clandestine nuclear-related activities.

In 2005, the IAEA's Board of Governors found Iran in noncompliance with the Agency's safeguard agreements.

In 2014, the Director of National Intelligence reported to Congress that Iran had made substantial progress with its nuclear program.

In 2025, the IAEA declared that Iran had enough enriched uranium-- just short of weapons grade--to potentially make nine nuclear bombs.

So Iran is not a distant or theoretical threat. It is a direct U.S. national security concern. A nuclear-capable Iran

would be able to expand its support for global terrorism, threaten American forces across the region, and put our allies at immediate risk. Over time, Iran's capability could extend beyond the region, increasing the risk to the American homeland itself. This presents a clear threat that the United States could not afford to ignore.

I am happy that President Trump took action to address this threat that seven previous Presidents did not consider necessary, and I remain hopeful that a long-lasting peace agreement can soon be reached.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor many times recently to explain how important the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is to the economies of the three countries--particularly the United States and particularly agriculture in the United States--and that we need to soon make a decision to continue the USMCA. It is up for review, and that review ought to be conducted very quickly because of the economic importance that I have kind of tried to demonstrate on the floor of the U.S. Senate--how it has expanded trade between our countries and business between our countries and how it has been so beneficial to the economic growth of all three countries but particularly the United States. So I have said the renewal is really a no-brainer.

So I continue my review today of this USMCA, but there is one part of that agreement that does not show up in the text of the agreement or is easily calculated in dollars, as I have tried to explain the value of the USMCA in dollar terms. In other words, it is hard to give any statistics to this aspect of the USMCA and its value.

It is the invaluable effect of countering China on the global stage because of what has developed as a result of the USMCA. That is through alignment on agricultural, environmental, intellectual property rules and regulations, and by aligning rules of origin, strengthening nearshore supply chains, and countless other provisions. The USMCA protects our domestic workers, our companies, and our products from being replaced by Chinese competition.

The alignment of the North American economy, because of the USMCA, to U.S. standards--that all sends a very strong signal to the rest of the world. That signal is this: If you align with the United States, you and your economy will prosper.

As more and more countries are finding out, aligning in the opposite direction--with China--means intellectual property theft, continuously moving goalposts, and regulatory uncertainty. Because of the USMCA and the North American economy being aligned--because of the USMCA--I think it shows the importance of counteracting China.

So I urge the Trump administration to quickly advance trilateral conversations on renewing USMCA, and I say this especially with Canada because I see we are dragging our feet in regard to sitting down with Canada. We should not be pushing Canada to the back burner in the USMCA negotiations. The United States and Canada economically are so integrated that it is important to keep this moving.

The Canadians showed their willingness to expand trade with China, to our detriment. They did this in January--including in electric vehicles. This administration must move quickly to ensure Canada remains focused on strengthening trade between our two countries, and we do that by sitting down with Canada very quickly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I am here in the Senate about the Democrat Judiciary Committee minority in the House of Representatives.

They wrote a letter on May 12 of this year that I found to be more than troubling. That letter made disgraceful and wrongful accusations regarding this Senator's helping many FBI whistleblowers.

For the entirety of this Congress, I have been open and very public about my efforts to help whistleblowers. Accordingly, the timing of this letter, so late after settlements occurred in August of 2025, is suspect. If concerns existed, why were they not raised last year?

I have seen a lot, in my time serving the people of Iowa, but this attack on this Senator and my office and whistleblowers is beyond the pale.

Now, you have often heard me say on the Senate floor, over many years, that I feel like honest whistleblowers are treated like a skunk at a picnic. Oftentimes, their only crime is telling the truth. And for telling the truth, they often lose their job. They are hurt professionally, and it discourages other people who want to tell the truth about wrongdoing in government from coming forth. That is why whistleblowers deserve the protection that I and other Senators give them.

So getting back to that letter, this letter from the minority calls my office's efforts to obtain a fix for whistleblowers who faced years of retaliation

and financial ruin--that letter called it a ``shakedown scheme.''

The Democrats are dead wrong about what they said, and if they had a sliver of integrity, they would retract that letter. This isn't the way to handle disagreements.

But what is there to disagree with? Patriotic whistleblowers had wrongs against them righted, and I helped make their case right.

This should be a bipartisan celebration, especially since some of these whistleblowers weren't pro-President Trump.

The letter also notes that some of the whistleblowers were properly disciplined, as if suffering retaliation is OK.

The letter further notes:

The record definitively shows that the agents weren't

disciplined for making protected disclosures to Congress or

for the imaginary offense of being a Republican.

Now, even publications in this town--and I am going to quote

Mr. President, I have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: