[Pages S3503-S3517]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024--Resumed

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2226, which the clerk will
report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2226) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2024 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Schumer (for Reed-Wicker) amendment No. 935, in the nature
of a substitute.
Schumer amendment No. 936 (to amendment No. 935), to add an
effective date.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

S. 2226

Mr. SCHUMER. First, I want to thank my colleagues for all of the good
work so far on the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. We
were very productive last week, and I hope this week can be equally so.
Today, we will begin our work by holding two floor votes, one on
Senators Cornyn and Casey's outbound investment screen amendment and
then a vote on the Round-Tester farmlands amendment. Both of these
amendments have been in the works for months, and I intend to vote in
their favor. I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
I know there are concerns on both sides of the aisle with some of the
text in both amendments. Senators Cornyn, Casey, Rounds, Tester, and I
are all committed to working through these concerns in the conference
process.
Tomorrow, we will vote on the Warnock-Budd amendment designed to halt
debt collector harassment of our servicemembers. Again, I appreciate
the cooperation of Senators on both sides as we worked to lock in these
votes.
And today and tomorrow, Leader McConnell, Chair Reed, Ranking Member
Wicker, and I will also work on assembling a second managers' package
of amendments.
I hope this effort is successful. It will require everyone to work
together, and we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Concurrently, we will also keep working on additional floor votes
that we might need to finish the NDAA this week. We have a chance to
show the American people that the Senate can work productively on our
national defense, in stark contrast to the partisan race to the bottom
that we saw over in the House.
But the work isn't finished yet. We are going to keep negotiating a
path forward, and the Senate will continue working on the NDAA until
the job is done. I thank both sides for their efforts.

Business Before the Senate

Mr. President, now on other Senate business, as we move forward with
the

[[Page S3504]]

NDAA here on the floor, appropriators also continue working in
committee. Last week, the Appropriations Committee marked up and
approved three more bills, and, this week, they will hold another
markup on Thursday. Just like the NDAA, I am proud to say the
appropriations process has been largely bipartisan, precisely as it
should be.
And, finally, with so much going on this week, I want to remind my
colleagues that we will be holding our third all-Senators briefing on
AI, following up on our classified briefing earlier this month. I thank
all of my colleagues for making the time to attend these AI briefings.
Today, I also wish to recognize the efforts of the Judiciary
Committee, which this afternoon is holding its own hearing on AI
regulation. They join the work of many other committees that have moved
quickly this year to begin focusing on AI in a very serious way.
The Senate will continue ramping up our focus on AI policy when we
begin hosting our Insight Forums later this fall.
So, once again, thank you to my colleagues for their good work on
this pressing matter.

Inflation Reduction Act

Mr. President, now on the IRA and its 1-year anniversary. We are
approaching the 1-year anniversary of the passage of the Inflation
Reduction Act. The Inflation Reduction Act, known as the IRA, was one
of the most consequential pieces of legislation passed in decades, and
in just one year it is already paying huge dividends for the American
people, for our economy, and for our environment.
Since we passed the Inflation Reduction Act, costs are down for
families. For the first time ever, we made it possible for Medicare to
negotiate the price of prescription drugs. Vaccines are free for
Medicare beneficiaries. A cap on out-of-pocket drug spending for
seniors is just a few months away. No one will pay more than $2,000 a
year for expensive drugs that they need to save their lives.
And, of course, after a lot of hard work, we also capped the price of
insulin for seniors on Medicare to $35--only $35--a month. Since then,
Ely Lilly and Novo Nordisk have also lowered insulin costs for
everybody.
And we hope to build on all of this work with additional legislation
later this year. Every American deserves to have affordable insulin,
not just those on Medicare. Let's not forget that the patent for
insulin expired a long time ago. It was invented in 1921 or 1922--I
believe it was--by a Canadian inventor who sold the patent for only a
dollar. So there is no need to have insulin at the exorbitant high
price that it is for those not on Medicare.
The Inflation Reduction Act has also helped countless Americans
manage their energy costs. The tax credits and rebates on energy
efficiency are helping Americans keep their homes warmer in the winter
and cooler in the summer, all at a more affordable price, while at the
same time reducing our carbon emissions.
And a few weeks ago, we saw that inflation slowed down to just 3
percent, the lowest it has been in over 2 years. In fact, since we
passed the Inflation Reduction Act, inflation has been cut by more than
half on an annual basis, and wage growth is still continuing to grow.
It is now significantly above inflation, meaning workers are taking
home more while spending less. That is the emblem of an economy that
America needs.
And, of course, the IRA is also paving the way for millions--
millions--of new good-paying green jobs. The IRA produced a boom in
clean energy investment with nearly 80 new clean energy manufacturing
facilities announced across the country.
So when you put it all together, the Inflation Reduction Act is a
shining example of the Democratic agenda in action: lower costs for
families, higher wages for workers, and millions--millions--of new
good-paying jobs for years to come.
Democrats are proud of the progress we have made in implementing our
agenda and will keep working until every American feels the benefits.

Honoring Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson

Mr. President, finally, on a sad anniversary, yesterday marked 25
years since Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut of the
Capitol Police were killed in the line of duty while defending the
Capitol Building.
It was a dark day in the history of the Capitol, and it would have
been even darker if not for the heroics of Detective Gibson and Officer
Chestnut. In the face of grave danger, they acted with extreme valor
and courage, undoubtedly saving the lives of many others in the
building that day.
We are grateful for their sacrifice 25 years ago and grateful for the
work the Capitol Police do every day to keep the Capitol Complex and
those who work here safe.
And we pray that their families have some degree of peace, even
though they have huge holes in their heart with these terrible losses.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I need to begin my remarks today by
acknowledging two solemn anniversaries.
Yesterday marked 25 years since a deranged gunman shattered the calm
of a summer afternoon here at the Capitol, 25 years since two brave
members of the United States Capitol Police--Jacob Joseph Chestnut and
Detective John Michael Gibson--paid the ultimate price to keep us safe.
The senseless tragedy of July 24, 1998, robbed two families of
beloved husbands and fathers. It deprived fellow officers of devoted
colleagues and friends. But that day, the sacrifice of Officer Chestnut
and Detective Gibson saved lives. They protected the lawmakers and
staff who come here to work, the tourists who come here to encounter
the heart of our democracy, and the institutions of Congress
themselves. And they reminded an entire nation of the vital service the
men and women of the Capitol Police render honorably every day.
Time will not heal the pain of losing these fine men, but in a
special way today, I know my colleagues join me in extending our
sympathies to the families of Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson and to
their comrades in the Capitol Police. America will never forget their
service and sacrifice.

Kentucky Flooding

Mr. President, tomorrow will mark 1 year since the brave people of
Eastern Kentucky endured some of the worst flooding in the
Commonwealth's history. Heavy rains and rising water caused mass
evacuations and over 40 deaths, including a number of children. Roads
turned to rapids, neighborhoods were swept away overnight, and families
were left stranded.
In communities like Lost Creek, where I stood with Jackson Mayor
Laura Thomas, not a single home was left untouched. From Lost Creek to
communities and counties like Pike, Letcher, Knott, and Breathitt, I
saw similar scenes of devastation and heard the painful stories of
families displaced by the floods. But in the face of devastation,
Kentucky's first responders rushed to help neighbors in their time of
need.
As the full scope of the disaster became clear, I worked with leaders
at FEMA to cut through redtape and encouraged a rapid Federal response.
I made sure that Eastern Kentucky received big investments in recovery
and that local leaders got more autonomy to restore communities,
rebuild homes, and revitalize the economy.
Last year's tragedy tested Eastern Kentucky's resolve, and today,
there is still work to be done. But Kentuckians are resilient. We rise
up to the big challenges. I will continue to work with folks in Eastern
Kentucky to build their communities back even stronger than before.

U.S. Supreme Court

Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, Democrats on the
Judiciary Committee spent last Thursday considering the best way to
reach from article I of the Constitution into article III and tell a
coequal branch of government how to conduct its business.
The pretext for this latest chapter in Democrats' war on the
institution of the Supreme Court was ``ethics and

[[Page S3505]]

transparency.'' They had a supposedly urgent legislative bone to pick
with Justices who take vacations and publish children's books. But for
all our colleagues' heartburn over a textualist Court that won't
reliably affirm their political preferences, for all of the baseless
commotion about undue outside influence, Senate Democrats have proven
themselves to be quite thoroughly influenced by the far left's most
notorious dark money advocates and discredited causes.
Here are some of the recent marching orders our colleagues have
received from the activist left:
``Start taking on the court rhetorically as a political villain.''
``We'd like to amplify anyone who uses this corruption/legitimacy
messaging.''
``Restrain MAGA justices immediately.''
``Rip the veil off.''
Well, Mr. President, Senate Democrats have dutifully followed their
orders. In their words:
The Supreme Court is ``MAGA-captured.''
We have a ``stilted, illegitimate'' Court.
``We need to expand the Court.''
One Senator let the cat out of the bag, saying that this supposed
``ethics'' inquiry is just a predicate to Court packing. Quote: ``I
don't think we should foreclose that in an amendment.''
Our colleagues understand what the far left expects of them. They
know that their party's base has long since discarded any desire to
achieve its goals from within our institutions. So last week, they
rammed a blatant power grab through the Judiciary Committee as part of
their effort to tear down a branch of government they can't control.
Well, Senate Republicans are going to keep fighting this dangerous
campaign at every step of the way, and in the meantime, our Nation's
highest Court should continue to pay it no mind.

Ukraine

Mr. President, now on one final matter, Russia's violence against
civil infrastructure in Ukraine continues, but the consequences of this
unilateral destruction extend far beyond Ukraine's borders.
Just a week has passed since Vladimir Putin pulled out of the
agreement that had allowed critical Ukrainian grain shipments to
transit the Black Sea unharmed. But already, Russia has expanded from
threatening vessels carrying the world's grain supply to attacking
grain storage in Odessa and other coastal cities.
Yesterday's attacks are the latest in the wave of violence against
agricultural infrastructure that will punish the world's poorest and
hungriest nations. Leaders in the developing world who have hesitated
to cast blame in this conflict should take a careful look at Russia's
unprovoked behavior.
But Russia hasn't limited its nonmilitary targets to grain supplies.
On Sunday, Russia struck Odessa's largest Orthodox cathedral with a
deadly missile barrage. So much for Russian propaganda efforts to
present the Kremlin as a defender of the faithful. Of course, Putin,
like many of his Soviet predecessors, has already done so much to
corrupt and control the Russian Orthodox Church that we should not be
surprised by his disrespect for religious institutions.
So let's be very clear. A regime that exploits the clerics as
propagandists and agents of influence and that destroys historical
houses of worship is not--not--a friend to believers.
Now, as Ukraine's counteroffensive makes slow progress, the United
States and our allies can be sure of a few things.
First, our friends are using the munitions we have sent them,
including the cluster munitions that are now hammering Russian
positions in occupied Ukraine.
Second, at every step of the way, the Biden administration's
indecision and inaction have meant certain key capabilities have
arrived late--late--to the battlefield.
And, third, additional long-range firearms would help Ukraine put
Russian invaders on the back foot as our friends have already
demonstrated by successfully using British Storm Shadow cruise
missiles.
So the Biden administration needs to start moving at the speed of
relevance--at the speed of relevance--and give our friends in Ukraine
the lethal tools they need to finish their fight.
For our part, as we work to provide for the common defense, the
Senate must invest in a defense industrial base that can sustain
America's support for Ukraine while equipping our own forces to deter
further threats from Russia and China.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.

Honoring Officer Jake Wallin

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, tomorrow, thousands of people will gather
at Scheels Arena in Fargo, ND, to pay a final tribute to a hero. I wish
I could be there to celebrate his life as well. It was a life that was
well lived while being far too short. Fargo Police Officer Jake Wallin
was laid to rest on Saturday in the small Midwest town of Pequot Lakes,
MN.
Eleven days ago, on July 14, Officer Wallin was killed as he and
fellow officers Andrew Dotas, Tyler Hawes, and Zachary Robinson
responded to, really, a routine fender bender, where they were ambushed
by an uninvolved assailant who was armed with several weapons, 1,800
rounds of ammunition, and multiple homemade explosive devices--clearly
intent on going on a murder spree. Officer Robinson, the last cop
standing, swiftly responded to neutralize the threat, fatally shooting
the hate-filled killer.
Officer Wallin was murdered for simply being a cop, a peace officer,
helping ordinary people in need of assistance--a life-long public
servant gunned down simply because of the uniform and badge that he
wore. He has been, is, and will forever be a hero to our community.
Jake grew up in St. Michael, MN, and enlisted in the Minnesota
National Guard after graduating from high school. He served our country
on deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan before returning home and joining
the Fargo Police Department in April of this year--3 months on the job.
Like so many boys and girls, Jake wanted to be a police officer more
than anything. In fact, his father Jeff said in an interview that he
``could never have stopped him'' from joining the force. He always
wanted a job with purpose behind it and said he didn't want to work
behind a desk.
He said, in fact:

I want to be doing something I can tell myself at the end
of the day that I made a difference somehow.

That, colleagues, is the quote of an American hero. We need more
heroes like Jake who are ready to answer the call.
In the time since Officer Wallin's passing, Fargo hardware stores
have experienced a phenomenon that many outside Minnesota would find
baffling. Across the city, stores are almost completely sold out of
blue light bulbs as people have rushed out to purchase them and light
their porches and their homes blue in support of Jake and the Fargo
Police Department's officers.
I wish every State were like North Dakota and every American had the
same respect and admiration for our law enforcement officers. In our
neck of the woods, we pass these values down to our children as we
teach them the importance of law and order and as we hope to inspire
them to, one day, be police officers like Officer Wallin--protecting
and serving their communities.
Our actions matter whether we want to acknowledge it or not. The end
result of ruthless attacks on the men and women in uniform, whether
with our words or actions or calls to defund the police, have never
been clearer than in what transpired in Fargo just 11 days ago.
We do not know the assailant's motives, but it is abundantly clear
that he singled out the officers in his pursuit of a sick, twisted plan
to wreak havoc in our community. He sought them out because of the job
that they were doing.
While we are slowly learning the details of this senseless, tragic
day, we know Officer Wallin is a hero who died while serving his
community. Heroes like Jake bravely respond to the call and serve
without hesitating, without knowing what might be around the corner or
at the end of the parking lot.
Kris and I are praying for the recovery of fellow officers Andrew
Dotas and Tyler Hawes, as well as bystander Karlee Koswick, the entire
Fargo Police Department, and fellow officers

[[Page S3506]]

throughout our community, our State, and our country.
We also pray that God's peace--the peace that Scripture tells us
``passes all understanding''--will come to Jake's fiancee Winter, to
his parents Jeff and Amy, to his brother Brady, and to his brothers and
sisters in blue as they mourn this terrible loss.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jake Wallin's obituary be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Obituary

Jake Ryan Wallin, 23, died in the line of duty as a Fargo
Police Officer on July 14, 2023.
He was born November 23, 1999, in South Carolina, the son
of Jeff Wallin and Amy (Shuler) Wallin.
Jake grew up in St. Michael and graduated from St. Michael-
Albertville High School and Alexandria Technical and
Community College. He attended the American Military
University. He served in the Minnesota National Guard and was
deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq before returning stateside
to make his home in Fargo, ND. He became a Fargo Police
officer in April of 2023 and was on duty at the time of his
death.
Jake wanted to live a life of purpose, where what he did
meant something at the end of the day. His short adult years
were spent in service to others. Not only to his country and
his community, he was also dedicated to and loved dearly, his
friends, family, fiancee, and his dog, Thor. His smile
brightened any room. His laughter was contagious. He enjoyed
life and all it had to offer. A life that was cut short doing
a job he loved.
Jake is survived by his loving parents, Jeff and Amy
(Shuler) Wallin, his beloved brother Brady, all of Saint
Michael; his fiancee, Winter Malone, of Fargo; his
grandparents John and Carolee Wallin of Pequot Lakes, Minn.,
and grandparents Jerry and Deborah Shuler, of Rock Hill,
South Carolina, along with his aunts, uncles, and cousins.
A funeral service will take place at Pequot Lakes High
School at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, July 22, at 30805 Olson
Street, Pequot Lakes, MN 56472.
A private service will be held graveside at Greenwood
Cemetery in Nisswa following the service.
In lieu of flowers, please make donations to the Soldier's
6 at Soldiers6.com.
Arrangements by Kline Funeral Home, Pequot Lakes, MN.

Mr. CRAMER. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today and join my colleague Senator
Cramer to pay tribute to a truly exceptional young man, Fargo Police
Officer Jake Wallin.
Tomorrow, the Fargo community will gather to honor Officer Wallin,
who was tragically killed in the line of duty on July 14. The Senate's
debate on the National Defense Authorization Act prevents both myself
and Senator Cramer from being there in person. So we wanted to do what
we could to pay our respects here to Officer Wallin on the Senate
floor.
As a member of the Minnesota National Guard, he served both in
Afghanistan and in Iraq. His platoon captain had this to say of Officer
Wallin:

Jake was that individual that you could always trust. Any
time that you asked him to step up or do anything, there was
no hesitation.

That dedication to service continued after his deployments to the
Middle East. Following his time overseas, Jake made his home in Fargo,
ND. He graduated from the Fargo Police Academy and joined the Fargo
Police Department because, as he put it, ``I've always wanted to work
in some sort of position that had purpose behind my job. Police officer
is always what came to me.''
Jake had only been on the job since April, but his impact on the
community will not be forgotten. Police Chief Zibolski said that, even
in his final moments, he was thinking of his fellow officers and trying
to save the lives of those fellow officers.
My wife Mikey and I send our sincerest condolences also to his
parents Jeff and Amy, his brother Brady, his fiancee Winter, and all of
Jake's loved ones.
At the same time, we continue to pray for his fellow officers,
especially Officers Andrew Dotas and Tyler Hawes, who were injured in
the ambush. They were both shot as well. We are also grateful to
Officer Zach Robinson, who was able to put an end to this horrific
incident and whose bravery will never be forgotten. These peace
officers have a long road to recovery and will continue to be in our
prayers.
This tragic event is a reminder of the dangers our law enforcement
officials face each and every day and of the enormous debt we owe them
and their families for the sacrifices they make to keep our communities
safe. We are truly grateful to our peace officers--all of them--whether
they are in North Dakota or anywhere across this amazing country. We
truly value them. We owe them so much, and we are truly grateful to all
of them.
Particularly, we honor Officer Jake Wallin for making the ultimate
sacrifice on our behalf. May God bless him and his family.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.

Tribute to Joel Brubaker

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to a good
friend, a great confidant, and a strong leader: my chief of staff of
over 18 years, Joel Brubaker.
I am joined in the Galleries by many folks who have worked with him,
who know him, and who love him just as I do.
Joel started with me in the year 2005, when I was just entering my
third term in the U.S. House. His experience in working with Bill
Shuster and Bob Walker--both Pennsylvania Representatives from Joel's
home State of Pennsylvania--prepared him well to head up a growing and
aggressive congressional office from West Virginia.
Joel's path to Capitol Hill started in Lancaster, PA. He was born
there and was raised by his mother Eleanor. I haven't had the chance to
meet Eleanor yet, but from what Joel has told me, she is a strong and
independent woman.
Joel is also the youngest of four boys. My husband and I have always
said that, no matter what the problem is, big or small, Joel handles it
exactly like the youngest of four boys would--calmly, for the most
part, and like it is no big deal.
After graduating from high school, Joel went to Gettysburg College
and, later, picked up an MBA at American University.
His talents as a legislative director for then-Congressman Shuster
led me to realize that those very same talents were perfect for our
office to help us make decisions, to hire people. And do you know what?
The results speak for themselves.
Last week, we had a gathering of well-wishers to send Joel off. The
room was full--full--of folks from hockey players to former employees
to coworkers to friends from West Virginia to neighbors and family,
including my very own family, because our families are very much
together. It was great to see so many individuals from all walks of
life gathered in one place to wish Joel a good sendoff from a place
that he truly loves.
Speaking of things that Joel truly loves, he has quite a few
favorites in his life. First of all, Katrina, his wife of many years--
who is one of my favorites too--and their two terrific children, Kat
and Heath. Believe it or not, I remember Kat and Heath's births and
their birthdays. Kat was a page here a couple of weeks ago, and we
loved it. In fact, Katrina was 6 months pregnant with Kat when I
interviewed Joel for the job of chief of staff, and now Kat is going to
be away for her freshman year at Ole Miss.
Ice hockey is another one of Joel's favorite things. Whether it is
pond hockey in freezing New Hampshire, going to a Caps game, watching
his kids play hockey, or the Capitol Members hockey game--which, I must
admit, he is a star there--he just loves the game. And he has the
lineup of framed jerseys in his office to prove it.
Joel loves beef jerky; Chick-fil-A; Disney World and crazy rides;
decorating his house outrageously for Halloween and Christmas--for
those of you who live in Arlington, yes, that is his house--politics,
especially West Virginia politics; and the Fourth of July. He always
attends the national Independence Day celebration on the Capitol lawn.
That brings me to another strong attribute that we will miss about
Joel. Joel loves his country and our traditional American values. He
has not--and never has been--one to shy away from talking about what a
great country we have. And he is grateful. He is grateful for that.

[[Page S3507]]

Joel has a great sense of integrity, and he is always careful--very
careful--to make sure that we are all working within the boundaries of
our office--and for me, especially, my oath of office. I appreciate his
very keen sense of right and wrong, and I will miss the way we both see
our duties through the same lens.
Now, Joel is not perfect. He will not fly into our great State of
West Virginia, and he hasn't for many years. Apparently, one flight was
just a little bit too much for him over those mountains, so he began to
name our airlines ``Air Fallujah.''
He almost stayed overnight one time in my district office to fend off
some very aggressive protesters, and he is known to have a camping-
style cot that is very unique that he used in our campaign office once
upon a time. Rumor has it the cot still exists today, despite Katrina's
best efforts to get rid of it.
You could always tell you are getting under Joel's skin because his
voice always raises an extra octave.
Apparently, Joel and I had three disagreements over 18 years. But do
you know what? He tells me--and I am pretty sure--I think I won all of
them.
Joel's sense of humor has carried us through tough times, hard
campaigns, long days and nights, missed vacations, and challenges
associated with larger and larger responsibilities.
I personally will always appreciate his affection for both of my
parents and his compassion for the difficulties of watching them
decline. Our whole family will miss Joel, because we really are parts
of each other's families.
Joel has an enormous affection for West Virginia. He is a Mountaineer
and holds the same sense of pride in our foundations and aspirations as
if he had been there his whole life.
As I have often said in my speeches, and I will say to him: The
country roads of West Virginia will always welcome you home, Joel. Good
luck. We will miss you. You will always be a big part of my life and
our lives. Eighteen years is a long time, but it has all been great.
Thanks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.

Nomination of Julie A. Su

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to express my support and
appreciation for Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su and all she is
doing to uplift workers and businesses across our country.
Acting Secretary Su has been leading the Department of Labor for
nearly 5 months. She previously served as Deputy Secretary of Labor. In
both positions, she has shown her ability to bring people together--
labor and management--to resolve disputes. She did so to avert a
freight railroad strike, and recently, as Acting Secretary, she helped
avert a catastrophic strike at ports all across the west coast. Had
major ports across our country come to a screeching halt, our country
would have been subjected to massive supply chain disruptions, costing
our economy billions of dollars.
As Gene Seroka, director of the Port of Los Angeles, put it, Julie
was ``a constant and reassuring voice of reason that helped to keep
both sides at the bargaining table and focused on resolution.''
As she often does, Julie got the job done without fanfare or
attention. She didn't ask for credit or recognition; she simply did the
job. And that is what she has done throughout her career, whether while
fighting for undocumented garment workers in California or helping the
Biden-Harris administration create more than 13 million jobs.
Julie Su isn't a politician. She has dedicated her life to fighting
for working people and leveling the playing field between labor and Big
Business. She knows that the work of the Department of Labor isn't
about her; it is about the millions of working people who keep our
economy and our country moving forward.
Now, Mr. President, when I first immigrated to this country, we just
had one suitcase, and our first home was a boarding house where we
shared a single bed sleeping sideways.
My mother's perseverance eventually enabled her to get a job at the
Honolulu Advertiser, our local newspaper. And while the job was
nonunion when she was first hired, my mother and her coworkers
ultimately came together to form a union. It was then that Mom's pay
increased, providing the stability that allowed our family to buy our
very first home, and, literally, we entered the middle class.
Unions are critical at a time when economic disparity continues to
grow. We are seeing a resurgence of labor organizing across our
country. From Honolulu to Hollywood and far beyond, actors, writers,
teamsters, and so many others are organizing to demand fair pay, decent
treatment, and basic dignity. At a time like this, we need a Labor
Secretary who can bring labor and management together. Julie Su is that
person.
Julie has broad support from businesses and labor alike, garnering
the endorsement of groups including the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce, Small Business Majority, the AFL-CIO, and dozens of labor
unions across the country. Given her experience, her qualifications,
and those endorsements, it is hard to understand my colleagues'
objections to her nomination, especially by those who voted to confirm
her as Deputy Secretary of Labor in 2021.
Over the last few months, Julie has endured lies about her record,
condescending questions about her qualifications, and an unprecedented
campaign by special interests--some big businesses--to deny her
nomination. They are going so far as to put up anti-Julie Su billboards
in a number of States, all to persuade certain Senators to not vote for
her confirmation.
In spite of this coordinated smear campaign, as far as I am
concerned, Julie has a strong commitment to public service and to doing
the job President Biden asked her to do. She will persevere.
Like millions of working people all across our country, I am grateful
for Julie's perseverance and her leadership. I hope my colleagues will,
at some point soon, acknowledge her record of accomplishments, her
ability to do the job, and support her nomination. Julie not only
deserves our support; she has earned it. In the meantime, I know that
she will continue to do her job, and our country will be better for it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.

Hunter Biden

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I would like to address the
unclassified, FBI-generated 1023 form that I made public last week.
This is a 1023 that Director Wray refused to admit existed until I and
Chairman Comer told him that we had read the document.
The FBI provided a highly redacted version to the House Committee on
Oversight and in the process ignored the Senate access to that
document. That version redacted references to the alleged audio
recordings between then-Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden, and the
foreign national. It also redacted references to text messages and
financial records that allegedly existed to prove the criminal act was
done. Those redactions are an obstructive conduct by the United States
Government. Why? Because this was an unclassified document. It is not
even marked ``law enforcement sensitive.''
By the way, Justice Department and FBI leaks exposed the source well
before the 1023 became public.
Now there have been allegations in the media that this 1023 consists
of unverified information. That didn't stop the media's breathless
reporting for years about the unverified and very famous Steele
dossier. But the Justice Department and the FBI have not told us what
they did to investigate the 1023 document. So since the FBI hasn't told
us anything about their investigation of the 1023, if they did any, how
does the media then know that it is unverified?
From what I have seen, much of the media's reporting has missed the
essential question. That essential question is this: Did the Justice
Department and the FBI follow normal investigative process and
procedures to run the information down or did they sweep this
information under the rug?
Now, we have had several media outlets interviewing law enforcement
sources with knowledge of the 1023 who start to answer that very
question, so I am going to refer to some of these reports from the
media.
One law enforcement source reported that ``this was a confidential
human

[[Page S3508]]

source that had a long relationship with the FBI, had given information
that was used in multiple other investigations unrelated to Burisma or
the Bidens.''
That law enforcement source said there was a ``fight for a month'' to
get the FBI handler to reinterview the FBI source. That reinterview was
necessary because a separate 1023 mentioned Hunter Biden, and that
reinterview ultimately produced the 1023 that I made public last week.
When seeing that, my first question was: Why the fight to reinterview
the FBI source? That is the fight that supposedly took a month that I
previously referred to. Then the law enforcement source said:

We got that report back and we're, like, holy smokes, this
is something.

The news reports also show that the Justice Department and FBI
personnel were able to validate some claims in the 1023 report without
compulsory process. For example, a news report quotes a law enforcement
source:

There were multiple meetings alleged overseas. Some of the
confidential human source's claims were corroborated against
the confidential human source travel records and contemporary
knowledge from the handler about him attending meetings with
Zlochevsky and other people present.

The news report also notes that public records also validate some of
the 1023 claims about Zlochevsky's efforts to buy into the American
energy market. A separate news report, based on a law enforcement
source with knowledge, says that Weiss's team was briefed on the
validations, which then begs the question, What did the investigators
do to investigate?
Well, it has been reported that a law enforcement source believed
U.S. Attorney Weiss was reluctant to pursue leads because of political
sensitivities. More precisely, Weiss' team was concerned about
investigating because it would involve then-Presidential candidate
Biden. Well, that didn't stop the Justice Department when Trump was a
candidate the first or second time.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention a July 25, 2022, letter that I
wrote to the Justice Department and FBI. That letter talked about the
FBI shutting down verified and verifiable investigative avenues into
Hunter Biden separate from the ongoing U.S. Attorney Weiss'
investigation and the 1023. So it is clear that even if information is
verified, the FBI has shut it down in the past if it relates to the
Biden family.
Former Attorney General Bill Barr has said that the 1023 was credible
enough to be passed on to Delaware for ``further investigation.'' He
has also said that a review was done to ensure the 1023 wasn't
disinformation before passing it on.
Director Wray, likewise, informed me and Chairman Comer of its
credibility, noting that it is relevant to an ongoing investigative
matter. This also took place in the phone call that Comer and I had
with Wray. Wray also didn't say that it is part of Giuliani's
information, and he didn't tell me and Comer that it is the product of
any disinformation.
Accordingly, I want to make clear what my oversight focus is and will
be: holding the Justice Department and the FBI accountable to explain
to the American people what they did to investigate and what they
found. To do that, congressional oversight must focus on the Justice
Department and the FBI's investigative process and whether the U.S.
Attorney Weiss's scope includes bribery.
Congress and the public must get answers to these questions: What did
the Justice Department and FBI do to investigate the information
contained in the 1023? Did the Justice Department and FBI follow normal
investigative process and procedures or try to sweep it all under the
rug because of political bias? More precisely, did the FBI and DOJ seek
to obtain the evidence referenced in the document? Did the DOJ and FBI
seek to interview individuals relating to the 1023? If not, why not? If
so, one way or the other, what did they find?
Here we are in July 2023, and we are talking about a June 2020
document. The FBI can easily answer those questions. The fact that they
haven't indicates to me that the Justice Department and FBI have not
followed normal investigative protocol.
Congress must also find out the true extent to which the August 2020
assessment created by Brian Auten was used to shut down the Biden
family investigative leads. For example, we know that the FBI had at
one time over a dozen sources who provided potentially criminal
information relating to Hunter Biden. Did the August 2020 assessment
shut any of them down?
In conclusion, as we prepare to celebrate National Whistleblower's
Day, let's not forget that the only reason why Congress has been able
to make this information public is because of brave and very patriotic
whistleblowers who have approached my office.
Remember this: To date, the Justice Department and the FBI have not
disputed any of their allegations. Further, remember that it includes
information relating to this 1023 that I made public, and some of this
information goes back to October of last year. During that period of
time, the Department of Justice and the FBI haven't disputed any of
that information. And a perfect chance for Christopher Wray, Director
of the FBI, to do that would have been in that telephone conversation
that he had with Chairman Comer and me.
Having given you all this information, that ought to tell you
something about what the FBI is up to, what the DOJ is up to. And the
information I have given you today ought to tell you that there is
plenty out there in the media, and the media should not be questioning
whether or not this information in the 1023 has any validity.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.

Tribute to Amy Kaplan

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize longtime friend
Amy Kaplan, who retired this month after a long career of service.
For the past 17 years, Amy has led the Jewish Federation of Cleveland
as the vice president of external affairs. She has been a staunch
advocate for Cleveland's vibrant Jewish community on a range of issues.
I was speaking to the Ambassador from Israel today, Ambassador
Herzog, about the vibrancy and the reach of the Cleveland Jewish
community; how proud I was to have interacted with them for so many
years.
Amy, herself, followed in her parents' footsteps when she joined the
Federation. Her mother was a staff member, and her father volunteered
there often. Amy shares their commitment to their community and to
their faith.
Her work has made a difference for so many Clevelanders in the
communities the Federation serves--those who are too often overlooked
and those who too often don't have a voice in our government.
She has worked with me and my staff to combat anti-Semitism,
strengthen Federal resources for our seniors, and to protect Medicaid
from cuts. She led advocacy efforts on bail reform, voting rights, and
gun violence, and oversees the Federation's community relations work.
Amy has ensured that the issues most important to the Cleveland
Jewish community are on the agenda.
She has been recognized over and over for her dedication to the
community. She was named a ``Difference Maker'' by the Cleveland Jewish
News, and she did it while caring for a family.
I hope in retirement, Amy will get to spend even more time with her
husband Ira and their children and grandchildren.
Amy will be missed at the Federation. I am confident this won't be
the end of her work with the Jewish community and won't be the end of
her positive impact on Northeast Ohio.
In his letter from the Birmingham jail, Dr. King wrote:

Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability.

Now, those were Dr. King's words, I would add, Progress rolls in
because of advocates and activists like Amy Kaplan who listen, who
learn, who work with communities to make a difference.
Congratulations, Amy, on your well-earned retirement. Thank you,
again, for your service to our community and to our State and wish you
the best in your retirement. We look forward to working with your team
to keep pushing for these important priorities and to make sure that
Cleveland's and all of Ohio's Jewish community continues to have a
voice in our government.
I yield the floor.

[[Page S3509]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Tennessee.

Human Trafficking

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, this month, millions of Americans
received a very rude awakening as they saw the horrors of human
trafficking playing out on the big screen.
I say that they had a rude awakening because until very recently, the
fight against modern-day slavery has been an uphill battle on multiple
fronts.
Transnational criminal organizations have turned the buying and
selling of human beings into a $150 billion-a-year enterprise, and
current policy has made it almost impossible to catch them.
Of course, the work being done on a Federal, State, and local level
to help trafficking victims hasn't been made any easier by the
astonishing number of people who insist that human trafficking is a
myth or that things aren't nearly as bad as advocates make it out to
be.
That is some truly impressive spin. It is really quite disgusting.
And right now, the American people are wondering why that is the
message that, apparently, is driving this administration and,
unfortunately, some of my Senate Democratic colleagues when we have so
much evidence to the contrary.
Human trafficking is an epidemic. Tennesseans have asked me, and they
want to know, how could this happen in this country? How could this
human trafficking issue have gotten to be so bad, and what are we going
to do to stop it?
I will tell you, the data does not lie. In the interest of setting
the record straight, I want to start by offering to my colleagues a few
statistics showing us just how bad things have gotten for the victims
of human trafficking. That $150 billion-per-year figure that I
mentioned a few moments ago doesn't come from me; it doesn't come from
a nonprofit. This comes from this administration's Department of
Homeland Security. That is their assessment. That is their number.
If you want to look it up, I encourage you. Go to the report that DHS
issued in January; you are going to find that stat on page 2 of that
report. Yes, indeed. Selling of human beings, trafficking of human
beings is, indeed, $150 billion-a-year business. And it is happening
right here, every community, every State, all across this country.
Should we accept that? Absolutely not.
Here is another one for you: DHS also estimates that there are--get
this number--30 million victims of sex trafficking and forced labor
around the world. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation estimates that,
on average in the United States, a child is bought or sold for sex
every 2 minutes. Think about that. Every 2 minutes a child--a child--is
bought or sold for sex every 2 minutes.
This is what is going on. This is what is happening right here:
modern-day slavery. You better believe it is modern-day slavery.
In fiscal year 2022, DHS alone--just DHS--helped 765 confirmed
victims of human trafficking. They initiated another 1,373 cases and
made 3,655 arrests. As of this January, they had convicted 638
traffickers and indicted another 1,045.
In 2022, the number of investigations, arrests, indictments, and
convictions all increased from the previous year, so it is safe to say
the cartels and the traffickers, they are gaining ground. They are
gaining power.
And, again, this is not my educated guess. You can find every bit of
that information on page 6 of the report that DHS put out in January of
this year.
So human trafficking is not a myth. Our concern is not overblown.
These criminals--criminals--violent, vicious criminals are hiding in
plain view in your cities, in your communities, in your States. They
are selling human beings. They are setting a price. It is disgusting.
In 2021, the National Human Trafficking Hotline received 525 reports
from good Samaritans in Tennessee concerned about potential human
trafficking. That year, advocates identified 152 confirmed cases
involving 217 victims. That is 217 people identified by one
organization in one State. Think about that one. And that stat is 2
years old.

Human trafficking has grown from a $500 million-a-year business about
4 years ago to $150 billion-a-year business. And Tennessee is not the
only one. There were 217 victims in Tennessee; Massachusetts had 143
victims; Michigan identified 429 victims; California, 2,122 victims;
Georgia, 1,065 victims. You know, the list goes on and on. Texas, 1,702
victims. It is all there on the National Human Trafficking Hotline
website.
If you drill down to the local level, you are going to see it gets
even worse, because this is where the survivors come for help. The
Community Coalition Against Human Trafficking, which serves survivors
in the Knoxville, TN, area, handled 408 referrals in 2022. The
situation was dire, or so they thought. And, yes, indeed, it is.
But guess what? This year it is worse. I know that other
organizations around our State in Jackson, in Franklin, Chattanooga,
Nashville, Memphis, Powell, Dayton, and Cleveland, they are all telling
me the same story.
I don't know how any serious person could look at these numbers and
claim that the horror stories these advocates have heard are part of
some elaborate conspiracy theory to say that human trafficking is not
happening; to say that, well, it is a falsehood meant to distract. No,
it is happening. The stats show it.
Now, we do know for a fact that our wide-open southern border is
enabling this disgusting practice. Many of the people who fall into the
hands of the cartel smugglers are trafficked by their captors. Yes,
indeed. Many are women. Many are children. They are physically,
mentally, emotionally, and sexually abused as they make their journey
to that southern border.
But don't take my word for it; ask the Department of Homeland
Security. Now, they know it is an issue, so they have allocated more
than 60 million to the Counter Human Smuggler campaign and sent more
than 1,300 personnel to the southern border and into Latin America to
try and stop it.
DHS has identified a problem at the border, so why can't Congress put
politics aside and do the same thing and admit that these children,
these women, need our attention and our help. This is a humanitarian
crisis. This year, I have introduced two bills that would throw a
wrench in the operations of these trafficking rings and help the border
patrol and the local law enforcement regain some ground in this fight
that they seem to be losing.
The SAVE Girls Act would establish a $50 million grant program for
States, localities, NGOs that work to prevent the smuggling and
trafficking of young women and girls.
We know that most of the innocent people who end up in the hands of
sex traffickers are, indeed, young women and girls. And even if they do
manage to escape, we see many of these women fall victim to domestic
violence and to drug abuse.
They are trapped in a system. If the Federal Government is not going
to secure that border and stop this, it ends up with local entities.
That is why the SAVE Girls Act would put resources into the hands of
these local law enforcement agencies and NGOs who are trying to rescue
and save these women and girls from this.
Heightened border security is a necessity, but it won't save the
women who have already been forced into servitude. And as I said, many
of them are in your communities. They are hiding in plain sight.
Having those funds locally will help to save them. But there are also
things we can do directly at the border to pull young women out of the
hands of traffickers before they disappear into the country.
Last month, I reintroduced my End Child Trafficking Now Act, which
would crack down on the practice of ``child recycling,'' which is
horrendous. Absolutely disgusting.
It would mandate DNA testing for migrants coming across the border
with children. My bill would require up to a 10-year prison sentence
for any person who lies about their familial relationship with a minor.
If this sounds familiar, it is because it is an old policy that was
very successful in the previous administration because of the data that
was collected from that one pilot program. What we learned from that
was that 30 percent of the children presenting at that southern
border--30 percent--have no relation at all whatsoever to the adult who
is bringing them to the border. These children are

[[Page S3510]]

enslaved. And what happens? That adult gets through, they send that
child back to the cartel, and they attach them to another adult the
cartel is trying to get into the country.
Passing the End Child Trafficking Now Act and implementing DNA
testing at that border would help save lives. This is something we
should do on a bipartisan basis.
The problem with human trafficking is intertwined with so many other
issues that we are charged with handling every day. You can find
connections to border policy, immigration law, criminal justice, and
even to the NDAA and defense policies.
As many of my colleagues know, I filed the End Child Trafficking Now
Act in the form of an amendment to the NDAA, and I have asked for a
floor vote on this issue. The U.S. Senate should be heard on this
issue. So of course I ask for support of that amendment, but no matter
what people decide to do on this, I would remind my Democratic
colleagues that they cannot hide from this issue just because it would
force them to ask some serious questions about the policies of this
administration.
The American people are figuring this out. Every 2 minutes, a child
is trafficked and sold for sex. What they have seen this month has
driven them to start asking questions, and I am so glad so many
Tennesseans have paid attention to the media around this issue.
The Nashville Anti-Human Trafficking Coalition normally welcomes
about three new volunteers every week. Now, on average, 38 new
volunteers per week are reaching out and saying: Tell me what I can do
to help rid our community, our State, our Nation of this problem. I
hope other organizations across the State and the country are seeing
the same wave of support.
Advocates who work with victims of sex and labor trafficking refer to
this as modern-day slavery. If you look at the pictures and if you
listen to these survivors who have been rescued tell their stories
about their experience, you would see why. They have been raped,
abused, stripped of their dignity. They live in fear. Many of them have
been in bondage so long that they have lost their sense of self.
These people deserve better from us and from this administration and
our President. At the very least, they deserve a government that
recognizes that, indeed, their lives are worth saving.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 931

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to respectfully request
bipartisan support from my Senate colleagues on the Cornyn-Casey
amendment No. 931, the Outbound Investment Transparency Act. This
amendment would establish a program to provide visibility on U.S.
investments going to the People's Republic of China and critical supply
chains and technology sectors.
Here is what the amendment does. The proposed amendment would
establish a program led by the Department of the Treasury, in
coordination with the Department of Commerce, that would require U.S.
companies planning to invest in national security technology sectors in
countries of concern to notify--notify--the Department of the Treasury
before those deals are completed.
This proposal has been vetted by industry, by the Senate Banking
Committee, and by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission.
Those are the fundamentals of this amendment.
We all know that this year's Defense bill that we are going to be
voting on today that we started last week tackles the toughest national
security issues that face our Nation, and technological competition
with the People's Republic of China is certainly at the top of that
list.
Right now, we are in competition with a communist government that
doesn't play by the rules. The Chinese Government employs economic
espionage, and it exploits the United States' open research and
innovation to build up its own capabilities.
U.S. companies are sending capital, intellectual property, and
innovation to the People's Republic of China, fueling its advance in
dual-use critical technological areas.
A recent report by the National Security Advisor in the last
administration, GEN H.R. McMaster, states as follows:

Outbound investment harms U.S. strategic interests when it
facilitates inappropriate technology transfer, allows for
underinvestment in domestic capabilities, or undermines the
long-term competitiveness of American firms.

Testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee--the committee on
which both Senator Cornyn and I sit--noted that in 2020, U.S.
companies' capital investment in China totaled over $200 billion just
in artificial intelligence, so-called AI--$200 billion just in AI--over
$21 billion in semiconductors, and over $50 billion in biotechnology.
These numbers don't even account for the transfer of operational know-
how and intellectual property. You can't even quantify those values. We
need a targeted response to these risks to our national security.
Again, this amendment would require U.S. companies planning to invest
in national security technology sectors in countries of concern to
notify only--to notify the Department of the Treasury before those
deals are completed. We need this type of outbound investment
notification to understand just how much critical technology we are
transferring to our adversaries via these capital flows. With this
information in hand, we can begin to take control of our own economic
future. By utilizing this information, we can make determinations as to
how to protect U.S. talent, U.S. technology, and U.S. supply chains.
This issue--and this is true of a lot of the Defense bill--this issue
transcends party lines and gets to the heart of one of the most
significant national security threats that we must confront.
I want to thank Senator Cornyn for his strong bipartisan work on this
issue over the last 3 years.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of amendment No. 931.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Food Security

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, we are going to be voting on an amendment
here in a few minutes that I want to rise in support of. It was
introduced by my friend the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Rounds.
This amendment aims to protect American food security against attacks
by foreign adversaries--in particular, these four foreign adversaries:
China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
As many of you know, I am a third-generation farmer. I know firsthand
that food security is national security. It is that plain. It is that
simple. Allowing our foreign adversaries to invest in American farmland
and agribusiness is a direct threat to our food supply.
Preventing our adversaries, our enemies from acquiring land near
sensitive military sites--sites like Air Force bases, like the one in
Montana, Malmstrom Air Force Base--is a no-brainer, and now we need to
protect the rest of our food system.
This amendment will enable the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States--otherwise known as CFIUS--to review all significant
agriculture-related foreign investments, and it will empower the Agency
to prohibit future purchases of farmland by our foreign adversaries.
Our amendment also includes commonsense provisions that protect the
rights of U.S. citizens and permanent residents and small farmers and
business owners.
This is a critical step toward making sure we aren't handing over
valuable American assets to foreign entities that want to replace us as
the world's leading military and economic power.
I would urge all of my colleagues in this room and the ones who are
going to come to this room to support this commonsense solution that
will protect our Nation's food supply and defend our country against
folks who would like to see us cease to exist.

[[Page S3511]]

I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 931

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, is it timely for me to call up my
amendment No. 931?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Mr. CORNYN. I would do so and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 931 to amendment No.
935.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for an investment screening mechanism relating to
covered sectors)

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1083. PROTECTION OF COVERED SECTORS.

The Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``TITLE VIII--PROTECTION OF COVERED SECTORS

``SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

``In this title:
``(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means--
``(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Finance, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
``(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Ways and Means, the Committee on Financial Services, the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
``(2) Country of concern.--The term `country of concern'
means, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed in
accordance with section 806, a country specified in section
4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
``(3) Covered activity.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to such regulations as may be
prescribed in accordance with section 806, and except as
provided in subparagraph (B), the term `covered activity'
means any activity engaged in by a United States person in a
related to a covered sector that involves--
``(i) an acquisition by such United States person of an
equity interest or contingent equity interest, or monetary
capital contribution, in a covered foreign entity, directly
or indirectly, by contractual commitment or otherwise, with
the goal of generating income or gain;
``(ii) an arrangement for an interest held by such United
States person in the short- or long-term debt obligations of
a covered foreign entity that includes governance rights that
are characteristic of an equity investment, management, or
other important rights, as defined in regulations prescribed
in accordance with section 806;
``(iii) the establishment of a wholly owned subsidiary in a
country of concern, such as a greenfield investment, for the
purpose of production, design, testing, manufacturing,
fabrication, or development related to one or more covered
sectors;
``(iv) the establishment by such United States person of a
joint venture in a country of concern or with a covered
foreign entity for the purpose of production, design,
testing, manufacturing, fabrication, or research involving
one or more covered sectors, or other contractual or other
commitments involving a covered foreign entity to jointly
research and develop new innovation, including through the
transfer of capital or intellectual property or other
business proprietary information; or
``(v) the acquisition by a United States person with a
covered foreign entity of--

``(I) operational cooperation, such as through supply or
support arrangements;
``(II) the right to board representation (as an observer,
even if limited, or as a member) or an executive role (as may
be defined through regulation) in a covered foreign entity;
``(III) the ability to direct or influence such operational
decisions as may be defined through such regulations;
``(IV) formal governance representation in any operating
affiliate, like a portfolio company, of a covered foreign
entity; or
``(V) a new relationship to share or provide business
services, such as but not limited to financial services,
marketing services, maintenance, or assembly functions,
related to a covered sectors.

``(B) Exceptions.--The term `covered activity' does not
include--
``(i) any transaction the value of which the Secretary of
the Treasury determines is de minimis, as defined in
regulations prescribed in accordance with section 806;
``(ii) any category of transactions that the Secretary
determines is in the national interest of the United States,
as may be defined in regulations prescribed in accordance
with section 806; or
``(iii) any ordinary or administrative business transaction
as may be defined in such regulations.
``(4) Covered foreign entity.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to regulations prescribed in
accordance with section 806, and except as provided in
subparagraph (B), the term `covered foreign entity' means--
``(i) any entity that is incorporated in, has a principal
place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a
country of concern;
``(ii) any entity the equity securities of which are
primarily traded in the ordinary course of business on one or
more exchanges in a country of concern;
``(iii) any entity in which any entity described in
subclause (i) or (ii) holds, individually or in the
aggregate, directly or indirectly, an ownership interest of
greater than 50 percent; or
``(iv) any other entity that is not a United States person
and that meets such criteria as may be specified by the
Secretary of the Treasury in such regulations.
``(B) Exception.--The term `covered foreign entity' does
not include any entity described in subparagraph (A) that can
demonstrate that a majority of the equity interest in the
entity is ultimately owned by--
``(i) nationals of the United States; or
``(ii) nationals of such countries (other than countries of
concern) as are identified for purposes of this subparagraph
pursuant to regulations prescribed in accordance with section
806.
``(5) Covered sectors.--Subject to regulations prescribed
in accordance with section 806, the term `covered sectors'
includes sectors within the following areas, as specified in
such regulations:
``(A) Advanced semiconductors and microelectronics.
``(B) Artificial intelligence.
``(C) Quantum information science and technology.
``(D) Hypersonics.
``(E) Satellite-based communications.
``(F) Networked laser scanning systems with dual-use
applications.
``(6) Party.--The term `party', with respect to an
activity, has the meaning given that term in regulations
prescribed in accordance with section 806.
``(7) United states.--The term `United States' means the
several States, the District of Columbia, and any territory
or possession of the United States.
``(8) United states person.--The term `United States
person' means--
``(A) an individual who is a citizen or national of the
United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence in the United States; and
``(B) any corporation, partnership, or other entity
organized under the laws of the United States or the laws of
any jurisdiction within the United States.

``SEC. 802. ADMINISTRATION OF UNITED STATES INVESTMENT
NOTIFICATION.

``(a) In General.--The President shall delegate the
authorities and functions under this title to the Secretary
of the Treasury.
``(b) Coordination.--In carrying out the duties of the
Secretary under this title, the Secretary shall--
``(1) coordinate with the Secretary of Commerce; and
``(2) consult with the United States Trade Representative,
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the
Director of National Intelligence.

``SEC. 803. MANDATORY NOTIFICATION OF COVERED ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Mandatory Notification.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to regulations prescribed in
accordance with section 806, beginning on the date that is 90
days after such regulations take effect, a United States
person that plans to engage in a covered activity shall--
``(A) if such covered activity is not a secured
transaction, submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a
complete written notification of the activity not later than
14 days before the anticipated completion date of the
activity; and
``(B) if such covered activity is a secured transaction,
submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a complete written
notification of the activity not later than 14 days after the
completion date of the activity.
``(2) Circulation of notification.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, upon receipt of a
notification under paragraph (1), promptly inspect the
notification for completeness.
``(B) Incomplete notifications.--If a notification
submitted under paragraph (1) is incomplete, the Secretary
shall promptly inform the United States person that submits
the notification that the notification is not complete and
provide an explanation of relevant material respects in which
the notification is not complete.
``(3) Identification of non-notified activity.--The
Secretary shall establish a process to identify covered
activity for which--
``(A) a notification is not submitted to the Secretary
under paragraph (1); and
``(B) information is reasonably available.
``(b) Confidentiality of Information.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
information or documentary material filed with the Secretary
of the Treasury pursuant to this section shall be

[[Page S3512]]

exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United
States Code, and no such information or documentary material
may be made public by any government agency or Member of
Congress.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Deng Xiaoping often repeated a Chinese
proverb:

Hide Your strength. Bide your time. Never take the lead.

As a result of that strategy, which worked beyond anybody's
imagination, whether by the People's Republic of China or the Chinese
Communist Party, America slumbered during the economic rise of the
People's Republic of China. American companies invested. Chinese
students studied here and then went home to use their new education to
compete against us while intellectual property theft, forced technology
transfers, and cyber crime emanating from the People's Republic of
China have become rampant.
Well, I think it is fair to say that the colossus that is America has
finally awakened from its slumber and realized what a challenge China
is to us and to world peace.
Today, the market value of American investments in the PRC numbers in
the trillions of dollars. Those are American companies that invested in
China that helped them to grow their economy. It is no exaggeration to
say that we have helped to build their economy into a near-peer status
and helped them to finance a military that threatens us and our allies
in the Indo-Pacific.
What this amendment does that Senator Casey and I have been pursuing
is to seek transparency. We need to understand as policymakers exactly
what is going on. We are not asking for any sort of limitation on
investments in the PRC. It just makes sense to me that we should know
what is going on so that we can consider whether there are any policy
options that we ought to embrace.
We policymakers need to know what American companies are doing to
help finance an aggressive, authoritarian adversary. What we do know
about this and what we do about this is a debate for another day.
First, we need to know the facts.
I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense
amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 931

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin),
is necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), and the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Scott).
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 6, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

YEAS--91

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Ernst
Feinstein
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--6

Blackburn
Braun
Lee
Paul
Sinema
Tillis

NOT VOTING--3

Budd
Durbin
Scott (SC)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). On this vote, the yeas are 91,
the nays are 6.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 931) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

Amendment No. 813

Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 813 and ask
that it be reported by number.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S3512, July 25, 2023, in the second column, the
following appears: Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I call up my
amendment No. 813 and ask that be reported by number.

The online Record has been corrected to read: Mr. ROUNDS. Mr.
President, I call up my amendment No. 813 and ask that be reported
by number.

========================= END NOTE =========================

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Rounds], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 813.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include the
Secretary of Agriculture on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States and require review of certain agricultural transactions)

At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert the following:

SEC. 1083. REVIEW OF AGRICULTURE-RELATED TRANSACTIONS BY
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES.

Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. 4565) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) in clause (i), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(II) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:

``(iii) any transaction described in clause (vi) or (vii)
of subparagraph (B) proposed or pending on or after the date
of the enactment of this clause.'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the
following:
``(vi) Any other investment, subject to regulations
prescribed under subparagraphs (D) and (E), by a foreign
person in any unaffiliated United States business that is
engaged in agriculture or biotechnology related to
agriculture.
``(vii) Subject to subparagraphs (C) and (E), the purchase
or lease by, or a concession to, a foreign person of private
real estate that is--

``(I) located in the United States;
``(II) used in agriculture; and
``(III) more than 320 acres or valued in excess of
$5,000,000.'';

(iii) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``subparagraph
(B)(ii)'' and inserting ``clause (ii) or (vii) of
subparagraph (B)'';
(iv) in subparagraph (D)--

(I) in clause (i), by striking ``subparagraph (B)(iii)''
and inserting ``clauses (iii) and (vi) of subparagraph (B)'';
(II) in clause (iii)(I), by striking ``subparagraph
(B)(iii)'' and inserting ``clauses (iii) and (vi) of
subparagraph (B)'';
(III) in clause (iv)(I), by striking ``subparagraph
(B)(iii)'' each place it appears and inserting ``clauses
(iii) and (vi) of subparagraph (B)''; and
(IV) in clause (v), by striking ``subparagraph (B)(iii)''
and inserting ``clauses (iii) and (vi) of subparagraph (B)'';
and

(v) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``clauses (ii) and
(iii)'' and inserting ``clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), and
(vii)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(14) Agriculture.--The term `agriculture' has the meaning
given such term in section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203).'';
(2) in subsection (k)(2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (H), (I), and (J), as
subparagraphs (I), (J), and (K), respectively; and
(B) inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) The Secretary of Agriculture (nonvoting, ex
officio).''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(r) Prohibition With Respect to Agricultural Companies
and Real Estate.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, if the Committee, in conducting a review and
investigation under this section, determines that a
transaction described in clause (i), (vi), or (vii) of
subsection (a)(4)(B) would result in control by a covered
foreign person of or investment by a covered foreign person
in a United States business engaged in agriculture or private
real estate used in agriculture, the President shall prohibit
such transaction.
``(2) Waiver.--The President may waive, on a case-by-case
basis, the requirement to prohibit a transaction under
paragraph (1), not less than 30 days after the President
determines and reports to the relevant committees of
jurisdiction that it is vital to the national security
interests of the United States to waive such prohibition.
``(3) Defined terms.--In this subsection:
``(A) Covered person.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided by clause (ii), the
term `covered person'--

``(I) has the meaning given the term `a person owned by,
controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of
a foreign adversary' in section 7.2 of title 15, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2024), except that each reference to `foreign
adversary' in that definition shall be deemed to be

[[Page S3513]]

a reference to the government of a covered country; and
``(II) includes an entity that--

``(aa) is registered in or organized under the laws of a
covered country;
``(bb) has a principal place of business in a covered
country; or
``(cc) has a subsidiary with a principal place of business
in a covered country.
``(ii) Exclusions.--The term `covered person' does not
include a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence to the United States.
``(B) Covered country.--The term `covered country' means
any of the following:
``(i) The People's Republic of China.
``(ii) The Russian Federation.
``(iii) The Islamic Republic of Iran.
``(iv) The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, China and Russia are our near-peer
adversaries, and North Korea and Iran are no friends of the United
States.
In just a few minutes, we will vote on an amendment that I proposed
with Senator Tester that would ban China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran
from purchasing American farmland or ag businesses.
In recent years, our country has seen, firsthand, attempts by our
near-peer competitors to acquire land adjacent to our military bases.
In 2020, a Chinese-linked company planned to build a wind energy farm
project near Del Rio, TX, only miles away from Laughlin Air Force Base,
where U.S. pilots are trained.
In 2022, a Chinese-linked company attempted to build a corn milling
plant on farmland near a sensitive Air Force base outside Grand Forks,
ND. Treasury later determined that they did not have the proper
jurisdiction to take action in this case, which demonstrates the need
for this amendment.
My amendment would require the Committee on Foreign Investment of the
United States, CFIUS, to prohibit China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran
from purchasing ag land and ag businesses in the United States and make
modest reforms to the CFIUS process to improve our country's ability to
protect our national security.
I want to thank my friend from Montana, Senator Tester, for his hard
work on the amendment and our original bill, the PASS Act.
I would also like to thank our cosponsors on this amendment: Senators
Daines, Kennedy, Lummis, Kramer, Hoeven, Ernst, Britt, Brown, and Cruz.
This is a commonsense provision that will make our homeland more
secure.
I yield my time.

Vote on Amendment No. 813

I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
There being none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 91, nays 7, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

YEAS--- 91

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Ernst
Feinstein
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murray
Ossoff
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--7

Hirono
Markey
Murphy
Padilla
Paul
Warren
Welch

NOT VOTING--2

Durbin
Scott (SC)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). On this vote the yeas are 91, the
nays are 7.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 813) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Remembering Lowell Weicker

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today to speak
in tribute to the late Lowell Weicker, a U.S. Senator from Connecticut
and Governor from my State--a giant in Connecticut politics but on the
national scene as well. He, sadly, passed away.
I will be introducing a resolution, with my colleague Senator Murphy,
honoring him for his service to our country, and I hope that it will be
enacted overwhelmingly--in fact, unanimously--by the Senate shortly.
The most common thing said about Lowell Weicker after his passing was
that he was larger than life. Certainly, he was a big man in stature.
He was tall, strong, forceful, and remarkable in his physical presence.
He was larger than life in his fearless and relentless championing of
what he believed was right and in serving people. He might have been a
big man physically, but he cared about everyone. No matter how small
they might be in power or wealth, everyone deserved a champion, in
Lowell Weicker's view.
He had a long history of service to this country. He began in the
U.S. Army in 1953, and he served through 1955, reaching the rank of
first lieutenant. He went on to serve in the town of Greenwich, where I
live, as the first selectman and then represented Connecticut as a
Member of the House of Representatives and then for three terms as a
U.S. Senator.
He is probably best known here for standing up to the President of
his own party, Richard Nixon. During Watergate, he had the political
courage and fortitude to say no to corruption and to persevere against
attacks within his own party as he insisted, as a matter of conscience
and conviction, that a President who violated the law should be held
accountable. He was the first Republican Senator to call for the
resignation of Richard Nixon as President. It was an act of political
bravery and, more importantly, a dedication to public service and the
rule of law. It was a message to the American people that nobody is
above the law and that nobody can defy the Constitution of this great
country, not even the President.
Although we talk a lot about it now, in his day, for him to take that
position and call for the resignation of a President of his own party
was also an act of potential political destruction. It was very much
against his self-interest, but he stood strong, he persevered, and
history has vindicated him. Beyond vindication, it has honored him for
that courage.
He was also a champion of many other causes and people. Throughout
his tenure, he was a strong advocate for the Americans with
Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disabilities
in everyday activities. One example is his standing for new laws that
protected people. He was a champion of public health, of preventing
cuts in funding for the National Institutes of Health, of supporting
scientific medical research efforts, of securing funding for AIDS and
HIV treatment.
After he left the Senate under circumstances that might have
discouraged a lot of people from remaining in public service, he came
back--and it was one of his finest hours--as Governor of the State of
Connecticut.
I was sworn in as attorney general of our State on the same day that
he became Governor, and we served together for 4 years. We had what
could be called a close working relationship, not always totally
amicable or not always in agreement, but I knew about Lowell Weicker
that what he told me was what he believed. I returned that approach,
and he respected me for it even when we disagreed. He understood that
the attorney general of the State, at

[[Page S3514]]

least in Connecticut, was not the Governor's lawyer; he was the
people's lawyer. He is elected separately, and he has to do what he
thinks is right.
For me, it was always the ultimate tribute to his belief in the rule
of law that he respected the attorney general of Connecticut for
whatever legal opinion I would give, whatever litigation I would bring,
or whatever positions I would take based on the law. And he was, again,
a champion of social services to the people who needed them, of
education, of the kind of fairness in our criminal justice system that
distinguishes us in our respect for legal rights.
He is probably best known for securing passage of a State income tax.
It was incredibly unpopular. Everybody in our State who was around at
the time will remember well how he refused to go around the back way to
exit the capitol, even though there was an angry crowd, even though
they were going to deluge him with invectives and worse. But he was
going out to face that crowd, to confront them, to speak with them, to
listen to them.
He was responsible for enabling the State of Connecticut to retain
those essential services that people needed because he cared, and he
listened.
He also signed a ban on assault weapons, the first time in
Connecticut's history. We now have had one since then. I defended it in
court when it was challenged on constitutional grounds. I tried the
case in a Litchfield County courthouse, a 10-day trial with evidence. I
tried it myself because I thought it was so important. We won, and then
I argued it when the outcome was appealed. And we won again in the
State supreme court. Nobody was happier in the State of Connecticut
with that result when our ban on assault weapons was upheld in the
1990s.
He was a model of courage for me, a role model in standing up,
speaking out for conviction and conscience, even when others disagreed,
especially when others disagreed.
He did immense good for Connecticut. He left a legacy that is lasting
and large that will inspire people for decades and generations to come.
I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Claudia, all of his
children--a number of them good friends of mine--and to his
grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
I hope my colleagues will join me unanimously in honoring Lowell
Weicker, U.S. Senator, Governor of our State.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
The Senator from Minnesota.

Afghan Adjustment Act

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the importance
of passing the Afghan Adjustment Act as an amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act, which is pending before the U.S. Senate.
This is our moment. We have been working on this for 2 years--2
years--while people who have stood with our military have been in
limbo, 2 years when they don't know what their future will hold. This
is their time.
This bipartisan legislation that I lead with Senator Lindsey Graham
is also cosponsored by Senator Coons; Senator Moran, who is the ranking
Republican on the Veterans' Affairs Committee; Senator Blumenthal;
Senator Murkowski; Senator Shaheen; Senator Wicker, who is the ranking
Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee; Senator Durbin, who
is the chair of the Judiciary Committee; of course, Senator Graham, who
is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee; Senator Tillis and
Senator Mullin, with many others who support this bill.
Mr. President, this bill strengthens our national security. It does
right by Afghans who worked alongside our troops. And from a broader
national security perspective, as we look at the many purposes of the
bill before us, this amendment shows the world that when the United
States of America makes a promise, we keep it. We keep our covenant.
Nearly 80,000 Afghans who sought refuge in our country, who are in
our country, are currently in limbo, including many who risked their
own lives and their families' safety to protect our servicemembers.
Among them are translators, humanitarian workers, and courageous
members of the Afghan military who stood shoulder to shoulder with our
troops.
We were right to help those people flee the Taliban and come to the
United States, and it now falls on us to uphold the covenant we made to
them and give them the stability and the security that they need to
rebuild their life.
We know this has worked before. I know this. I have one of the
biggest Hmong populations in the United States of America. They came
after a war in really sad circumstances for our country and for them,
but they have rebuilt their lives. They are now police officers in
Minnesota. They are teachers. They are lawyers. They are legislators.
That is what we did after the revolution in Cuba. That is what we
did. We took people and we gave them a status that allowed them to
succeed in our country.
But in this case, we actually asked them to serve with our military,
to put their lives at risk, to gather intelligence for our military.
Who do you think is going to want to help us in the future if we
don't keep our covenant, if we don't keep our promise?
The bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act creates a more thorough system
for Afghan allies to apply for permanent legal status. It requires that
applicants go through a vetting that is just as rigorous as the vetting
they would have gone through if they came to the United States as
refugees.
They get this. They are already here.
So one of the reasons that Senator Graham, especially, and Senator
Wicker are so interested in this bill is it actually provides more
security because of the vetting that will occur that otherwise would
not occur. This vetting standard is a standard that eight former Trump
and George W. Bush administration national security officials called
the ``gold standard'' of vetting.
Senator Graham and I worked closely with Republicans, including
Senator Moran, and the Department of Defense to strengthen the bill's
vetting standards. That is what is before us with this amendment--
keeping our covenant and doing the vetting. Both ways you look at it,
it is good for national security.
In addition, our legislation updates the Special Immigrant Visa
Program to include groups that should never have been excluded from the
program in the first place, including the female tactical teams of
Afghanistan, who did so much to support our troops. The entire purpose
of the Special Immigration Visa Program is to provide residency for
those who have supported the United States abroad. It is clear to me
that these brave women should qualify just as many of the men did.
The Afghan Adjustment Act is supported, as I noted, by a bipartisan
group of 11 cosponsors. But get this: This bill has earned the backing
of more than 60 organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
or, as we know them, the VFW, and the American Legion. This is one of
their top priorities right now, as well as for some of our most revered
military leaders, including Admirals Mike Mullen, William McRaven, and
James Stavridis; and Generals Richard Myers of the Air Force, Joseph
Dunford of the Marine Corps, and Stan McChrystal of the Army.
I think the Presiding Officer knows a few of these people, and he
knows how they have served our country.
That is why, if you are not going to listen to me, listen to them.
Listen to the leading veterans groups in this country that know how
important it is for us to pass this bill. We must uphold our covenant.
That means bringing well-earned certainty to Afghans who are already
here--an example, Nangialy, who began working alongside U.S. troops as
an interpreter in 2007.
I want to be clear about what it meant for an interpreter to work
alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan. What did it mean? When the
Taliban ambushed our soldiers with bullets, they ambushed their
interpreters too.

[[Page S3515]]

They weren't just sitting in an office being interpreters and just
sitting there and whispering in their books. They were out on the
battlefield with our military. When the Taliban ambushed the soldiers,
they ambushed the interpreters. When our troops were targeted with
IEDs, the interpreters were targeted too.
That is what Nangialy risked, but he did it anyway. Why? To use his
words, ``same goals, same target, and same achievement.''
Now, it wasn't just the interpreters. There is another Afghan who
wants to remain anonymous because his family is still back in
Afghanistan. That is the risk we are putting people in when they are in
this very unclear status. He was a helicopter fighter pilot with the
U.S. military. He worked with our troops to combat the Taliban in
remote areas of Afghanistan for 8 years. On one mission, he was shot in
the face by flying bullets. Miraculously, he survived because the
bullet passed through his cheek and open mouth. He shed blood in our
fight, and we should not let another day go by without keeping the
covenant we made to him.
Another story: An Afghan intelligence sergeant who also wants to
remain anonymous, who helped carry out several operations against the
Taliban and ISIS with our military. In 2018, while working alongside a
U.S. Special Forces group, he was caught in an IED explosion and lost
both of his legs.
Let me repeat that.
His fight with our troops cost him both of his legs. Doesn't he
deserve better than complete uncertainty and a refusal of our
government to even give him a status, a provisional status, and never
knowing if he is going to have to be sent back there? That is what we
are doing?
Our servicemembers and veterans understand this is imperative. I know
every Member in this Senate has been approached by members of our own
military about this. On Veterans Day, on Memorial Day, when you are
walking in a parade, they come up and they tell a story about someone
who stood with them whom they got to know. Maybe that person is still
somewhere in hiding in Afghanistan, but most likely, some of them are
in our country, which is a good thing. But, right now, they are in our
country--let me repeat. They are in our country, living in our country,
but we, right now, are refusing to give them the status that we have
given past people who helped us in conflicts. That is embarrassing.
Some of the most vocal advocates of the Afghan Adjustment Act have
been military groups. A coalition of more than 30 military groups,
including the American Legion and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America, penned a letter calling on congressional leadership to pass
this bill.
They wrote this to the leaders of both Houses on both sides of the
aisle:

America's veterans served with Afghans for two decades in
Afghanistan. We fought side-by-side with them, and we saw
firsthand their courage and dedication. They risked their
very lives to help us and made significant contributions to
our mission.

Again, this is 30 military groups, including the Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America, the American Legion, Blue Star families, Honor the
Promise, the Black Veterans Project--and I could go on and on and on.
What else did they write?
They write:

We call on Congress to pass legislation that would allow
Afghan parolees who are being evacuated from Afghanistan to
have an opportunity to seek lawful permanent residence in the
United States.

Again, these are people who have this SIV status.
Then they go on:

We urge you to support the Afghan Adjustment Act as soon as
possible. We promised to stand by our allies who, often at
risk to themselves and their families, served in uniform or
publicly defended women's and democratic rights. The U.S.
government made a similar promise.

This is a letter from the 30 military groups of our country. They
say:

The U.S. government made a similar promise; keeping it
assures that the American commitments will be honored.

This is 30 military organizations telling us what it was like to
serve alongside our Afghan allies. Most of us in this Chamber don't
know that experience. We don't know how much they owe those Afghan
interpreters--those people who gathered the intelligence. We don't
know. We would go on congressional trips there, but we weren't there on
the battlefield; they were. So maybe, for a change, we should listen to
what they have to say about what they saw. They know that many of these
people are here right now, but we just can't get out of our petty
politics to try to at least give them the status that they deserve.
Many of our Nation's national security experts have also called on
Congress to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, accurately pointing out
that doing so is both a moral imperative and necessary for our national
security.
Here is a portion of a letter that was sent to congressional
leadership by the following experts: Rick ``Ozzie'' Nelson, former
Director, Office of Combating Terrorism; National Security Council
staff under George W. Bush. He was also a U.S. Navy helicopter pilot
and Afghan veteran; Gus Coldebella, former Acting General Counsel with
the Department of Homeland Security; Michael Neifach, former Principal
Legal Advisor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the Homeland
Security Council staff under George W. Bush; Elizabeth Neumann, former
Assistant Secretary for Threat Prevention and Security Policy for the
Department of Homeland Security and former Deputy Chief of Staff for
the Department of Homeland Security; Stewart Verdery, former Assistant
Secretary for Policy and Planning for the Department of Homeland
Security; Ross Ashley, former Assistant Administrator for the Federal
Emergency Management Association, former Virginia Air National
Guardsmen and U.S. Air Force Reserves; Hans Miller, former Deputy
Assistant Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration;
and Lynden Melmed, former Chief Counsel of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
What does this letter say?
This letter says this:

The rationale for the Afghan Adjustment Act is clear.
First, it follows through on our nation's commitment to its
wartime allies by providing at risk Afghans and their
families--including many that supported U.S. military and
diplomatic efforts for the past 20 years--a path to permanent
status in the United States.
Second, it sends a clear message to current and future
allies--

And this is so key and it isn't kind of the first thing you think
about here--

--those that are necessary for U.S. servicemembers and
diplomats to perform their missions in pursuit of national
security--that the United States is a reliable and trusted
partner and it stands by the democratic ideals that it
professes.

This is why Senator Graham and I have worked on this bill for so many
years. This is why we have the ranking Republicans on Veterans', on
Judiciary, and on Armed Services supporting the bill.
When I first got to the Senate, honestly, I thought that would be
enough to get this done; that that would be enough to bless this and
give it the gold standard, just as all of these former Bush and Trump
and Obama and current Biden officials have given it their stamp; that
this is a good vetting process; that it is certainly a lot better than
having people sit here in limbo after they have served our country.

Here is another letter from former Ambassadors to Afghanistan because
it is not just military groups and national security experts. Eight
former U.S. Ambassadors to Afghanistan called on us to pass the Afghan
Adjustment Act. These experts served under Presidents George W. Bush,
Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, and each has an intimate
understanding of the sacrifices made by our Afghan allies.
Remember, it is these diplomats, it is these military leaders who
have asked these Afghans for their help. Regardless of what people
think about what happened with the withdrawal--regardless of people's
views on this--can't we just agree on one thing; that we should stand
with the people who stood with us?
This is what the Ambassadors to Afghanistan under George W. Bush,
Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have said:

Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, the task of American
diplomacy will be much more difficult. If the United States
does not act to support its allies by passing the Afghan
Adjustment Act, in the future, our allies will be less likely
to support the U.S. missions if they see that our Afghan
partners are abandoned.

[[Page S3516]]

In diplomacy, our words will have lost meaning, and in the
unfortunate event of future conflict--

This is the Ambassadors writing, not me, Ambassadors who went to
serve in Afghanistan and who took on that assignment under four
different Presidents.
They are writing, if we don't do this, ``[i]n diplomacy, our words
will have lost meaning, and in the unfortunate event of future
conflict, what incentive would local allies have to support our
troops?''
A good question.
Finally, I want to share some words from a group of more than three
dozen of our Nation's most esteemed military leaders. They are retired
military leaders. As I mentioned, they are Gen. Joseph F. Dunford of
the U.S. Marine Corps; ADM Mike Mullen of the U.S. Navy; Gen. Richard
Myers of the U.S. Air Force; ADM Jim Stavridis of the U.S. Navy; GEN
Peter W. Chiarelli of the U.S. Army; GEN Stan McChrystal of the U.S.
Army; GEN David McKiernan of the U.S. Army; ADM William H. McRaven of
the U.S. Navy; GEN Austin S. Miller of the U.S. Army; GEN John W.
Nicholson, Jr., of the U.S. Army; GEN M. David Rodriguez of the U.S.
Army; GEN Curtis Scaparrotti of the U.S. Army; GEN Raymond A. Thomas
III of the U.S. Army; GEN Joseph Votel of the U.S. Army; Gen. Mark
Welsh of the U.S. Air Force; Lt. Gen. John A. Bradley of the U.S. Air
Force; LTG Jeff Buchanan of the U.S. Army; LTG Stephen Fogarty of the
U.S. Army; LTG Benjamin C. Freakley of the U.S. Army; LTG Ben Hodges of
the U.S. Army; LTG John F. Mulholland, Jr., of the U.S. Army; LTG
Leopoldo A. Quintas, Jr., of the U.S. Army; LTG Mark C. Schwartz of the
U.S. Army; LTG John C. Thomson of the U.S. Army; LTG Francis Wiercinski
of the U.S. Army; MG Edward Dorman III of the U.S. Army; Maj. Gen. Dawn
Dunlap of the U.S. Air Force; MG Paul Eaton of the U.S. Army; Maj. Gen.
Buck Elton of the U.S. Air Force; Maj. Gen. Walter D. Givhan of the
U.S. Air Force; MG William Hix of the U.S. Army; MG James B. Linder of
the U.S. Army; MG Mark MacCarley of the U.S. Army; MG Mark R. Quantock
of the U.S. Army; MG Edward Reeder of the U.S. Army; MG Patrick J.
Reinert of the U.S. Army; MG Jefforey Smith of the U.S. Army; MG Tammy
Smith of the U.S. Army; MG James ``Boe'' Young of the U.S. Army; BG
Steve Anderson of the U.S. Army; BG Norvell Coots of the U.S. Army; BG
Gary M. Jones of the U.S. Army; BG Richard C. Kim of the U.S. Army; and
Brig. Gen. Chad T. Manske of the U.S. Air Force.
Those are only the ones who signed the letter. So I will just ask my
colleagues--and perhaps we should listen to those who have led our
forces in times of war. When they say that these people stood with them
and when they say that if we do nothing and just let them be in limbo--
and we know, just a few weeks ago, one of them was murdered in the
State of Virginia, in the middle of the night, because he was working
as a Lyft driver--is that what we are going to do? Are we just going to
leave them in limbo or are we going to stand with them as the top
leaders in our military have suggested?
They have been resolute in their support, not just of doing something
about this, but of this bill, of this amendment. We worked with the
military for years on this amendment. They have signed their names to
this letter. What does the letter say specifically?
It says:

If Congress fails to enact the [Afghan Adjustment Act], the
United States will be less secure.

OK. There you go. We can just stand here and not want to deal with
this because everyone wants to go home for August or we can actually
vote on this amendment. That is all we are asking. We want to vote on
this amendment.
They write:

If Congress fails to enact the [Afghan Adjustment Act], the
United States will be less secure. As military professionals,
it was and remains our duty to prepare for future conflicts.
We assure you that in any such conflict, potential allies
will remember what happens now with our Afghan allies. If we
claim to support the troops and want to enable their success
in wartime, we must keep our commitments today. The [Afghan
Adjustment Act]--

And this isn't me talking. This is all the top brass, the top
military, who led us in times of war.
They write:

The [Afghan Adjustment Act] will go a long way.
Additionally, without the fixes applied by the [Afghan
Adjustment Act]--

This is them writing, not me--

our immigration system will be less capable, not more
capable, of properly processing and vetting applicants.

To break from their letter, that was the point I made earlier about
why Senator Wicker and Senator Graham and Senator Moran were so focused
on making sure that this was the gold standard of vetting in this bill.
Back to the letter:

The enhancements that the Afghan Adjustment Act adds to the
security screening process of those who were evacuated are of
critical importance to our national security.

Listening?
Even if you don't agree with me on the security of our country
overall in standing with our allies, at the very least, look at that.
Shouldn't we be vetting people who were evacuated? Hmm. Maybe that
would be a good idea. That is what they say in this letter.
Three dozen military flag officers think that without the Afghan
Adjustment Act, our Nation will be less secure. Our soldiers will face
new obstacles in finding allies on the battlefield, and our immigration
system will be less capable of vetting applicants. Those are plenty of
good reasons to support this amendment and why we have leading
Senators--both on the Democratic side and Republican side--on this
critical amendment. So that is it.
We have the leading people who head the committees in this very
Chamber supporting this bill. That is how much work that Senator Graham
and I have done to get them on board. We have got them on this.
We have got military and veterans groups. We have national security
leaders. We have retired U.S. Ambassadors to Afghanistan under four
different Presidents: Obama, Trump, Biden, and George W. Bush. And we
have all of the top brass retired military officers, whose names I just
read off.
They are not debating which bill or which amendment because we have
been working on it for 2 years. They know exactly what we should do,
and it is this bill, the Afghan Adjustment Act.
All of our colleagues have had at least a year to look at this bill.
So I don't want to hear that. I don't want to hear that, ``Oh, we have
got to look at this more.'' Give me a break. This bill has been out
there for a very, very long time. There is absolutely no reason we
shouldn't have a vote.
If people want to vote against the American Legion, and the VFW, and
all the top brass of the military, and all the Ambassadors who served
under those Presidents, that is fine. That is their right. But we need
to have a vote. That is the only way we can show that we are keeping
our covenant.
Until we get this done, we are essentially asking our Afghan allies--
people who took bullets in the face, who lost limbs--to rebuild their
lives on top of a trapped door that could fall out from under them at
any second. Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, all of it--their jobs,
their homes, their safety--could disappear.
By including the amendment in the NDAA, we can strengthen the
national security of our country by making our vetting program more
thorough--such a top priority of many of our colleagues--while finally
doing right by our Afghan allies who sacrificed for us.
Let's put aside the politics and the distractions. There are a lot of
good things in this bill. We have got a lot of votes on big things and
little things so far. Where is this? Who is going to object to at least
allowing this vote? They can vote against it if they want, some of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but don't deny us a vote.
By ``us,'' who am I talking about? Yeah, the Afghans who are here who
sacrificed for us, the top military, the Ambassadors, the military in
this country who have come up and talked to each and every one of us
about this bill, American soldiers who are begging us to do something
about it. That is ``us.''
The way I see it, this defense bill is about three things: one, our
Nation's security; two, setting a moral example for the world; and,
three, showing people everywhere that when America

[[Page S3517]]

makes a promise, a covenant, it will be kept. The Afghan Adjustment
Act, the amendment that Senator Graham and I have put forth, advances
all of these objectives.
Pass this amendment. Show the world that our word, show our own
military that our word and our covenant matters.
I yield the floor.

____________________