DESIGNATING THE OUTSTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS IN NORTH OGDEN, UTAH, AS THE MAJOR BRENT TAYLOR VET CENTER OUTSTATION; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 22
(Senate - February 05, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S847-S858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DESIGNATING THE OUTSTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS IN 
   NORTH OGDEN, UTAH, AS THE MAJOR BRENT TAYLOR VET CENTER OUTSTATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, on November 3, 2018, this country lost a 
true American hero: MAJ Brent Taylor of Ogden, UT, who gave the 
ultimate sacrifice while deployed in Afghanistan.
  As North Ogden's mayor, Major Taylor died as he lived: going above 
and beyond the call of duty to his country, to his State, and his 
family.
  Major Taylor, who is pictured here with his family, began his 
military service in 2003, following the attacks of September 11. He 
joined the Army National Guard just 3 days after becoming engaged to 
his wife Jennie.
  During his time in the National Guard, Major Taylor distinguished 
himself in multiple specialties, including intelligence and military 
police. In 2006, he received a commission as a second lieutenant from 
the Brigham Young University ROTC, while graduating as a member of the 
National Society of Collegiate Scholars. Major Taylor was continuously 
ready to take up the call to arms and deployed four times on missions 
to Iraq and to Afghanistan. He held a variety of roles in those 
deployments, including platoon leader, combat adviser, and chief of 
staff to the Special Operations Advisory Group.
  Throughout his distinguished tours of service, he also received 
several awards for courage and for leadership, including a Bronze Star 
in honor of his ability to calmly and safely lead those he was assigned 
to lead through multiple miles of treacherous territory and a Purple 
Heart for the wounds he received during an explosives attack on his 
vehicle.
  His love of his country and his State was also very evident, perhaps 
most evident beyond the circumstance in which he wore the uniform. 
Major Taylor gave his time and his energy to his community, serving 
tirelessly as a member of the North Ogden City Council, from 2010 to 
2013, and then as the mayor of North Ogden, after being elected to that 
post in 2013. He was known for being a hands-on leader and someone who 
was attentive to and constantly beloved by every member of his 
community.
  After being reelected as the mayor of North Ogden in 2017, Major 
Taylor took a leave of absence from the mayor's office and headed back 
to the battlefield, deploying once again to Afghanistan. When he 
announced his leave of absence to the people of North Ogden, he told 
them he felt called to serve his country and that ``service is what 
leadership is all about.''
  Major Taylor faithfully served his church and his family too. He had 
a deep love of God and of his church. He was a devoted husband to 
Jennie and a loving father to their seven children, pictured here: 
Megan, Lincoln, Alex, Jacob, Ellie, Jonathan, and Caroline.
  Following his tragic passing, in an attack on November 3 of this last 
year, Major Abdul Rahmani, an Afghani pilot with whom Major Taylor 
worked, sent a letter to Major Taylor's wife Jennie, describing the 
great impact Major Taylor had on his life. He said: ``Your husband 
taught me to love my wife [Hamida] as an equal and treat my children as 
treasured gifts, to be a better father, to be a better husband, and to 
be a better man.''
  Further, he said: Major Taylor ``died on our soil, but he died for 
the success of freedom and democracy in both our countries.''
  In every aspect of his life, Major Taylor was a shining example of 
patriotism, of sacrifice, and of service. It is only right that we 
honor his extraordinary life. To that end, it would only be a fitting 
tribute to rename the Ogden Veterans Center in Utah as the Major Brent 
Taylor Vet Center Outstation.
  Today Jennie Taylor is joining Congressman    Rob Bishop as his 
honored guest for the State of the Union Address tonight, to honor 
Major Taylor's life and to honor his great legacy--the legacy he leaves 
behind to his family, to his community, and to all who knew him and 
served with him. I urge my colleagues to pass legislation commemorating 
that.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 49 and 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 49) to designate the outstation of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs in North Ogden, Utah, as the 
     Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Thereupon, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to 
consider the bill.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 49) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was 
read the third time, and passed, as follows:

                                 S. 49

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Major Brent Taylor began his military service following 
     the attacks of September 11, 2001. He joined the Army 
     National Guard in 2003, three days after his engagement to

[[Page S848]]

     his wife, Jennie. Five of his brothers would eventually serve 
     in the Armed Forces following the deadly attacks.
       (2) During his time in the Army National Guard, Major 
     Taylor distinguished himself in service to the United States 
     and the State of Utah. He received a commission as a second 
     lieutenant from the Brigham Young University Reserve Officer 
     Training Corps in 2006, while graduating as a member of the 
     National Society of Collegiate Scholars.
       (3) During his impressive career with the Utah National 
     Guard, Major Taylor distinguished himself in multiple 
     specialties, including Intelligence and Military Police. One 
     of his earliest assignments included analyzing foreign 
     language documents in support of the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency. He also led document exploitation efforts in multiple 
     European and South American languages for a variety of 
     intelligence community customers. Major Taylor also managed a 
     team that assessed security vulnerabilities at high-profile 
     facilities across the United States, all while maintaining a 
     successful private sector career in Utah.
       (4) Major Taylor was continuously ready to take up a call 
     to arms from the United States and deployed four times in 
     support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. His deployed 
     duties varied from Platoon Leader and Combat Advisor to Chief 
     of Staff to the Special Operations Advisory Group, 
     responsible for leading a joint task force advising and 
     assisting an elite Afghan special operations unit.
       (5) Throughout his deployments, Major Taylor distinguished 
     himself on several occasions, earning a multitude of awards 
     including the Bronze Star. The citation credits the ability 
     of Major Taylor to think calmly and decisively to keep his 
     subordinates safe while traversing 600,000 miles of roads in 
     Iraq, laden with improvised explosive devices (commonly 
     referred to as ``IED'') and ripe for ambush.
       (6) During one particularly harrowing mission, Major 
     Taylor's vehicle was struck by an IED. Although he survived 
     the attack, the wounds he received earned him the Purple 
     Heart.
       (7) Major Taylor's amazing record of service was not 
     limited to the battlefield. In 2010, he served as a member of 
     the North Ogden City Council and, in 2013, Major Taylor was 
     elected mayor. His steadfast leadership led to the city being 
     recognized as ``Business Friendly'' by the Governor of Utah, 
     and as one of the safest, freest cities in the United States 
     by several organizations. His initiatives included 
     improvements to public works and infrastructure, attracting 
     businesses to the area, developing a local community center, 
     and increasing transparency. His action led his constituents 
     to reelect Major Taylor in 2017.
       (8) In 2018, Major Taylor placed himself on a leave of 
     absence from his mayoral duties in order to deploy to 
     Afghanistan, explaining to his constituents, ``Service is 
     what leadership is all about.''.
       (9) While serving in Afghanistan, a dear colleague, Afghani 
     Lieutenant Kefayatullah, was killed shortly before the Afghan 
     elections. Major Taylor wrote, ``The strong turnout at that 
     election, despite the attacks and challenges, was a success 
     for the long-suffering people of Afghanistan, and for the 
     cause of human freedom. I am proud of the brave Afghan and 
     U.S. soldiers I serve with. Many American, NATO and Afghan 
     troops have died to make moments like this election 
     possible.''. He also extolled the American public to embrace 
     its civic duty, stating, ``I hope everyone back home 
     exercises their precious right to vote. And that whether the 
     Republicans or Democrats win, that we all remember that we 
     have far more as Americans that unites us than divides us.''.
       (10) Tragically, on Saturday, November 3, 2018, Major 
     Taylor was killed in an attack in Afghanistan. He was 
     survived by his wife, Jennie, and his seven children, Megan, 
     Lincoln, Alex, Jacob, Ellie, Jonathan, and Caroline.
       (11) The impression that Major Taylor left was indelible. 
     An Afghan officer who had served with Major Taylor penned a 
     letter to his wife, stating, ``Your husband taught me to love 
     my wife Hamida as an equal and treat my children as treasured 
     gifts, to be a better father, to be a better husband, and to 
     be a better man.''. That officer further commented that, ``He 
     died on our soil but he died for the success of freedom and 
     democracy in both of our countries.''.
       (12) It is only well and fitting that, as a tribute to the 
     amazing life of Major Taylor, Congress name a facility in 
     honor of Major Taylor's shining example of service and 
     sacrifice.

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF MAJOR BRENT TAYLOR VET CENTER 
                   OUTSTATION IN NORTH OGDEN, UTAH.

       (a) Designation.--The outstation of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs located at 2357 North 400 East Washington 
     Boulevard, North Ogden, Utah, shall after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Major 
     Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation''.
       (b) Reference.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to 
     be a reference to the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center 
     Outstation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                                  S.1.

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, our country was founded upon the concept 
and in the midst of a great boycott. At the time, we were boycotting 
British goods and, most specifically, British tea. There is likely 
nothing more American than to protest, to dissent, and to boycott.
  In fact, our Founding Fathers--many of them, including Sam Adams and 
the Sons of Liberty--gathered in 1773, dressed as Indians, and dumped 
90,000 pounds of British tea into the harbor. Some of our Founding 
Fathers were actually involved with trying to smuggle and import Dutch 
tea to get around the rules and to get around having to be so dependent 
on England.
  But this was a boycott. The sad thing today is that we will be 
debating whether or not to place limitations on the First Amendment 
right to boycott, and we will do it because the vast majority of this 
body disagrees with the concept of what the people are boycotting over.
  I would argue that it doesn't matter what the issue is. In fact, the 
First Amendment is to protect issues of speech and issues of boycott 
that you may disagree with.
  I am not particularly enamored with--in fact, I don't favor--the 
boycott of Israel. I think Israel has been a good ally. Yet the freedom 
of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom to protest, and the 
freedom to boycott are fundamentally American. How can we give that up 
so easily? How can we just say: Oh, well, it is a good ally, and we 
don't want anybody boycotting them. We are just going to amend the 
First Amendment because we don't like this boycott.
  Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew 
what we were doing today.
  I stand today at Henry Clay's desk. This desk has been passed down to 
the Senator from Kentucky ever since he left the Senate in 1850. In 
1809, before he arrived here, there was a boycott of British goods. In 
fact, there was an official embargo that Jefferson had put on when we 
were upset with what the British were doing on the high seas with 
confiscating our ships, and we decided to have an organized embargo, a 
boycott.
  In Kentucky, Henry Clay was still in the State legislature, and he 
proposed a rule saying that the legislators themselves should not wear 
British clothing. It was opposed by a guy named Humphrey Marshall, who 
was a cousin of the fourth Chief Justice John Marshall. They got into 
heated words, at which time Henry Clay, wearing his American homespun 
clothing, was confronted by Humphrey Marshall, who came in wearing what 
was described as garish English imports, and he called Henry Clay a 
demagogue for passing this legislation.
  Well, Henry Clay gave it right back and called him a liar, at which 
point the words accelerated, and they were about to come to blows when 
a massive 6-foot-6-inch German-American legislator jumped in between 
them and stopped the fight from ensuing on the floor.
  Henry cooled down. Henry Clay decided to apologize. He apologizes to 
the body and gives his apology, and Marshall jumps up and shouts back, 
``It is the apology of a poltroon,'' which is an old-fashioned word for 
coward.
  Things didn't get much better after that, and Henry Clay challenged 
him to a duel. It was illegal--and still is illegal--to have a duel in 
Kentucky. So they went across the river in Louisville and fought a 
duel, at which time Henry Clay was wounded in the thigh.
  In those days, even though the laws were against dueling, you were 
often rewarded for dueling by getting a promotion. So the State 
legislature, within a week or two, elected Henry Clay to go to the U.S. 
Senate to represent them.
  So not only are boycotts a big part of our history, but this 
particular boycott actually elevated Henry Clay to the U.S. Senate to 
become one of the most famous Senators in our history.
  As for other famous boycotts, there was a boycott of the buses in 
Montgomery in 1955 and 1956. The boycott went on for 382 days. It was 
set off, as you will recall, by Rosa Parks' refusing to be seated in 
the back of the bus. But this boycott was about speech, and it was 
about law, and it was about justice.
  Now, people would say: Well, I agreed with that boycott. That is OK. 
It is OK

[[Page S849]]

to have good boycotts that I agree with, but it is not OK to have 
boycotts I disagree with.
  I will make this argument. If today this body votes to encourage this 
idea that legislatively we should penalize people who boycott, I will 
argue today that--guess what--if you can penalize boycotts you disagree 
with, you may well find some day that people are penalizing boycotts 
that you agree with. If you have the power to disallow boycotts you 
don't like, you are now granting to the government the power to ban 
boycotts that you may well like.
  The thing is this: Should the majority get to decide, well, that is a 
good boycott and that is a bad boycott, and you can say certain types 
of speech as long as I agree with you?
  No, the freedom of speech--the First Amendment--is about allowing 
language you don't like. It is about allowing boycotts you may not 
like.
  If you go through our history, our history is replete with boycotts, 
from the Boston Tea Party to the boycott around the War of 1812 of 
British goods, to the bus boycott in Montgomery--boycott after boycott. 
It is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment.
  You don't believe me? Listen to the Supreme Court. In NAACP vs. 
Claiborne Hardware, Blacks were protesting a Whites-only store that 
wouldn't allow service or allow sales to Blacks. They boycotted the 
store, and guess what. The Supreme Court said, 8 to 0, that you can 
boycott, particularly if your boycott is based on speech or it is based 
on a political viewpoint.
  Now, while I don't agree with people who want to boycott Israel, if 
you live in our country, or wherever you live, and you don't like their 
policies, do you not have a right to boycott? Are we somehow going to 
take away your right to boycott because we disagree with what you are 
boycotting over?
  I have a short list here of a few different things that we have 
boycotted over, and they range, interestingly, on both sides of the 
coin. Most recently, people on the left who don't like President Trump 
have boycotted Ivanka Trump's fashion brand.
  A year or two ago, Christians boycotted Disney over what they 
considered to be liberal movies or movies they didn't appreciate 
because of the families depicted.
  In North Carolina, liberals boycotted the North Carolina transgender 
bathroom law.
  People have boycotted Chick-fil-A because the CEO was opposed to 
same-sex marriage.
  The Dixie Chicks criticized George W. Bush, and they were boycotted.
  It doesn't matter whether you agree with any of these boycotts. 
Boycotts are speech. How could we possibly boycott someone's speech? 
But that is what is going on.
  About 20 States have passed these laws, and what we are now 
considering before our body is putting our imprimatur--our stamp of 
approval--which we are going to put on these States that are penalizing 
boycotts.
  So who are some of the people that we are going to penalize?
  In Texas, there is a speech pathologist who has lost her job. She was 
working for the school system. She has been in this country 30 years. 
Her name is Bahia Amawai. She has been here 30 years. She is a U.S. 
citizen. She speaks three languages. She works with children with 
autism, disabilities, and speech impediments.
  Her contract was not renewed because they told her she had to sign a 
pledge that she will not boycott Israel. She also had to sign a pledge 
that she would never do anything economically or refrain from any 
action--buying a product--with anyone who does business in Israel or 
does business in an area they call the Israeli-controlled territory.
  There has been a dispute for 30 or 40 years over the West Bank, 
whether the Palestinians should have more autonomy, whether it should 
be a country, whether it should be a province of Israel, whether they 
should vote, whether they should not vote. This is a political debate.
  This woman has an opinion that she doesn't want to sign this pledge. 
She no longer works.
  We heard on the floor from one of my colleagues yesterday. He said: 
Well, it is the government's money. The government's money shouldn't be 
used to allow a boycott.
  Well, if you are a teacher and you get a salary, is that still the 
government's money after you have done your job and you have your 
paycheck? Should a teacher be prevented from boycotting or expressing 
their speech through an economic action or, really, through an economic 
inaction by not buying something?
  It is the whole idea of ``not.'' A boycott is not even doing 
anything. A boycott is refusing to buy someone's product.
  How could we possibly be in favor of that? How could we have such 
clouded judgment that this body, which has such historic importance, is 
going to vote to place a ban on freedom of speech? How could that 
possibly happen in our country?
  This woman has been denied her job. It is her main job. She worked 
for the school district. She had a contract. Her contract has been 
denied because she refuses to sign a pledge saying she will not buy a 
product from somebody that she disagrees with politically.
  How did we get here? How can we possibly even be considering such 
absurd limitations on the First Amendment?
  This one is even worse. In Arkansas, the newspaper, the Arkansas 
Times, routinely takes ads. That is how newspapers make money. One of 
the groups that advertises with them is the State university. The State 
university will no longer advertise with this newspaper unless they 
fine them first or give them some kind of penalty. They will not 
advertise with them unless the newspaper signs a statement saying that 
they will not be critical of policies in Israel.
  How could we possibly say to a newspaper that you can't do business 
with the State if you criticize a policy in Israel? How could that 
possibly be the American way?
  The vast majority of the people here, like sheep, will fall all over 
themselves today to vote to try to limit your right to boycott.
  People say you don't have a right to a job, but what if you are with 
a State? What if you are a teacher and that is whom you have always 
worked for and you have worked for the government? Can we start placing 
rules because the government pays you on what your political viewpoint 
is?
  Arkansas says: Well, the newspaper can do it, but they would have to 
pay a 20-percent penalty.
  So if you have certain viewpoints or you refuse to bow down to the 
government and bow down to the opinion the government tells you is 
appropriate, we will let you work for the government, but you get 
penalized 20 percent.
  Imagine when this becomes another view, when this becomes some other 
issue you are interested in. Probably the most famous boycott in 
history other than the Montgomery bus boycott over segregation was the 
anti-apartheid boycott that ultimately led to a change of government 
and a change of policy. That wasn't done with automatic weapons. That 
wasn't done with tanks. That wasn't done with planes and bombs. That 
was done by good old-fashioned protest, peaceful protest, by agreeing 
not to buy something.
  Can you imagine the State is putting into place laws that punish you 
for not buying something, for refusing to buy something from someone? 
It is galling. Will this be declared unconstitutional? Nobody knows for 
sure other than the men and women of the Supreme Court, but in NAACP v. 
Claiborne Hardware, eight to zero they said it was unconstitutional to 
ban or limit any boycott if that boycott is about speech or political 
views. Well, clearly that is what this is about--political views.
  In two of the States that have passed these laws--Kansas and 
Arizona--there have already been protests and court cases.
  In Kansas, there is a woman by the name of Esther Koontz. She is a 
Mennonite, and she is a math teacher. She has been a math teacher for 
about a decade. She has a contract with the school system to teach 
other teachers about teaching math and science. She said she couldn't 
in good conscience sign a pledge saying she would never boycott any 
group who originated out of Israel. What happened to her? She was fired 
or she couldn't continue in the job she had been in for I think a 
decade. Her case went to court. Guess

[[Page S850]]

what. The court said it is unconstitutional. You cannot limit behavior. 
You cannot limit employment with the government based on one's 
political views. So on the first challenge, it was struck down as 
unconstitutional.
  We go to Arizona. For political reasons, Mikkel Jordahl boycotts 
consumer goods made in Israel. This is America. You don't have to agree 
with what he is doing, but in America, you have the right to protest. 
You have the right to boycott. For 12 years, he has been doing legal 
services for the local county jail. They brought in his contract, and 
in his contract, they said: You have to pledge that you will no longer 
support any activities that agree with your political viewpoint that 
you don't like Israel's policy. He went to court. Guess what the court 
said. The law is unconstitutional.
  These laws have gone to Federal court twice--once in Kansas and once 
in Arizona--and have been struck down. So what is this august body 
going to do? We are going to take it right up, and we are going to say: 
By golly, keep passing these unconstitutional laws in the States. We 
got your back.
  It has already been struck down twice by two Federal district courts. 
The Supreme Court has said that the concept of limiting boycotts is 
unconstitutional. The First Amendment says that Congress can't pass a 
law limiting speech, and here, we are going to pass a law encouraging 
the limitation of speech.
  One of the famous boycotts was obviously the Montgomery bus boycott. 
The anti-apartheid boycotts were famous as well, but even if you go 
further back in our history to about the time of the Boston Tea Party 
and beyond--another boycott--you find that people were boycotting the 
slave trade. There were people boycotting buying sugar out of the 
Caribbean because they didn't want to have any of that money going to 
supporting the slave trade.
  I would argue that the right to boycott is about as fundamental a 
right as we have in America. It is a big part of the First Amendment. 
It is an important part of the First Amendment. It is a fundamental 
aspect of freedom to be able to dissent, to protest, even when 
everybody thinks you are wrong. That is what America is about--that you 
have the right to protest and that the government will not squelch your 
speech.
  How did we get to this point where flippantly today we are going to 
encourage States to put limitations on the First Amendment? I don't 
know how we got here.
  When we look at the First Amendment--and some will say: Well, you 
know, this is just the State government. We are just allowing States' 
rights.
  Well, here is the thing about States' rights: Ever since the civil 
rights era, we have decided that the Bill of Rights applies to the 
States. The 14th Amendment, going all the way back to the time of the 
Civil War, incorporated the 1st Amendment. Many of the boycotts have 
actually been in favor of civil rights. Just because this one is a 
boycott about something else that you may or may not like or may or may 
not support doesn't mean we should place limitations on it.
  If we begin to do this--it is a road that some may say is paved with 
good intentions--we will be headed toward a time where speech will be 
regulated by our government, where the idea of dissent and the idea of 
protest will be judged on whether people think or the majority of the 
body thinks that the protest is in order, whether the majority of the 
body thinks you should be allowed to protest. How un-American. I can't 
think of anything more un-American than trying to limit the ideas and 
actions of a boycott.
  I remember when I was in college, the women of the Southern Baptist 
Convention said they didn't like pornographic magazines out in the open 
where kids could see them. They didn't even ask the legislature for a 
law. They actually did better than asking the legislature for a law; 
they simply marched out in front of all the convenience stores. They 
did it for about a month. Guess what. Convenience stores decided they 
didn't like people protesting and everybody talking about them, so they 
put the magazines behind the counter. That is the American way. Nobody 
forced them to do it; they did it under public protest and public 
pressure.
  The idea that we want to pass a law today that says to the States: 
Oh, we like the First Amendment, but if we don't like what they are 
saying and we don't like what they are protesting, it is OK to punish 
these people. It is OK to say to the woman in Texas who feels very 
strongly about this issue in Israel that she can't be employed anymore 
by the school district because of her political views.
  I can't imagine that this is isn't going to be struck down by the 
Supreme Court. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, the Supreme Court was 
unanimous--eight to zero.
  How did we get here?
  I would say that I hope my colleagues will listen to the debate and 
that there will be a spirited debate on the First Amendment, but don't 
hold your breath. You can see there is no one here other than me. They 
won't listen. The hope is that the American people will listen and say: 
How did we vote to send people to Washington who are so careless with 
the Constitution that they are willing to vote to ban boycotting, that 
they are willing to vote for something that has already been struck 
down by two Federal district courts, something that has already been 
ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are going to go ahead and 
vote anyway because they don't like this particular boycott?
  The First Amendment isn't about popular speech; the First Amendment 
is about protecting unpopular speech.
  My hope is that across America, people are listening and that they 
will call their representatives today, call their Senators and say: How 
could you? How dare you take the First Amendment, crumple it up, and 
say ``Oh, today we are going to limit the First Amendment to only 
boycotts we approve of. We are going to limit it to speech we approve 
of.'' What a disgrace. What a terrible day in our history, that we are 
going to take the First Amendment, crumple it up, stomp on it, and 
simply say: Oh, we are afraid of that speech, so we are going to ban 
it.
  I think it has the opposite effect. I think it only encourages the 
protest.
  What I would say to my colleagues is, think long and hard today 
before you vote to place limitations on the First Amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Michigan.


              Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 103

  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote 
on S. 1, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act.
  This legislation contains several important bills to enhance defense 
cooperation with our partners who share the goal of fighting terrorism 
and promoting peace and prosperity.
  For example, the bill includes the U.S.-Jordan Defense Cooperation 
Extension Act, which extends an existing defense cooperation program 
with Jordan that is set to expire later this year.
  In the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning, we heard from 
the Commander of U.S. Central Command responsible for the Middle East, 
GEN Joseph Votel. He testified:

       Jordan is one of our most committed partners in the Middle 
     East and one of the most critical voices of modern Islam in 
     the region. We must be careful to not take this vital 
     partnership for granted.

  Jordan hosts over 750,000 refugees and contributes to the fight 
against ISIS. This bill will enhance our cooperation, while enhancing 
security and supporting vital humanitarian efforts being conducted by 
this very important American ally.
  The legislation also includes the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection 
Act. This bill is named after a Syrian Army defector who exposed 
photographs of torture and execution by the Syrian regime. His photos 
are evidence of the war crimes and extensive human rights abuses 
committed by Bashar al-Assad.
  The Caesar bill will impose sanctions on individuals who support 
Assad. These sanctions will limit the ability of the Assad government 
to attack innocent civilians.
  However, the bill before us is not perfect. I am concerned by title 
IV of this package. Title IV should have had a full debate in the 
Banking Committee before it ever reached the floor.

[[Page S851]]

  I believe there are serious questions about how this bill will impact 
the First Amendment rights of individuals who contract with State or 
local governments in a professional capacity but choose to boycott 
Israel in their personal capacity. These questions are even more 
complicated when the individual in question is a sole proprietor, a 
member of a small firm, or is receiving a small State contract.
  Many of these questions are the result of the manner in which State 
and local governments have designed and implemented disclosure 
requirements. That is why I have introduced an amendment, Peters No. 
103, which would limit application of State and local government laws 
related to contracting.
  This amendment would not allow a State or local government to enforce 
measures to restrict contracting with firms of 10 or fewer employees, 
contracts with a value of $100,000 or less, or any contract with a sole 
proprietor.
  This amendment would clarify that it is not the intention of the bill 
to restrict the First Amendment right of any individual to protest--
including through boycott--in their personal capacity.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment, that amendment No. 103 be reported by number, and that the 
amendment be agreed to without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, reserving the right to object, first of 
all, I want to agree with my distinguished colleague and friend from 
Michigan as to almost everything he said, with the exception of article 
IV.
  This BDS provision is a really important provision, and I understand 
what he is attempting to do with the exemptions. I understand he is 
putting them in for the small businesses, but having said that, we 
really believe this should apply across the board. Once we start the 
exempting process, it is going to be very difficult to stop. So given 
that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I am incredibly disappointed that we 
could not include my amendment today.
  I believe this is an important issue and that it must be clarified. 
Ultimately, because of the many other critical provisions included in 
this bill related to foreign policy in the Middle East, I will support 
this bill today, but I also understand it is unlikely that the House of 
Representatives will address this bill in its current form.
  I am sending a letter to the House of Representatives explaining my 
concerns with title IV, and I encourage them to adopt the provisions of 
my amendment that I attempted to put forward today.
  With that, I would also like to yield some time to my colleague from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of 
the Peters amendment, as well as other amendments that Senator Peters 
has put forward, and I thank him very much for his leadership.
  To me, this is common sense. I am very disappointed that this will 
not be included in this bill. I will join Senator Peters in advocating 
in the House for this clarification and other changes that will make it 
very clear about an individual's right to be able to have freedom of 
speech in all of its forms.
  It is very unfortunate today that we could not have adopted this 
commonsense approach that would have made this bill, I think, stronger 
than it is now.
  I thank Senator Peters for his hard work on this.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I rise to complete, I hope, the lengthy 
work we have done on S. 1--the first bill we introduced this year.
  It is from the Foreign Relations Committee, and it is a bipartisan 
piece of legislation which many people have had input into. It is a 
conglomerate of several pieces of legislation that we have worked on 
for a considerable period of time, and all of those I know are 
supported in a bipartisan way.
  I would like to walk through the five parts of this very briefly. The 
first one, of course, is the United States-Israel Security 
Authorization Assistance Act of 2019. That is one we spent a 
considerable period of time on.
  Without a doubt, Israel is one of the best friends we have in the 
world. Certainly, in the neighborhood they live in, which is a very 
dangerous neighborhood, they need our help. We work with them very 
closely in many respects--in many national security respects, with 
people who aren't out in the public realm and who will probably never 
be out in the public realm, but they are important for the security of 
Israel.
  The second is the Jordan Defense Authorization Act. I think all of us 
are aware, again, that Jordan is a great friend to have in the Middle 
East. Like Israel, it lives in a very dangerous neighborhood. Jordan 
has stood by us through thick and thin and through many challenges we 
have had. Jordan also has, in its great humanitarian view, taken in a 
number of refugees there.
  As we work with Jordan, it is a cooperative effort to help them as 
they sustain these populations of displaced people who hopefully will 
be able to return at some point in time.
  Thirdly, the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019 is also 
included in this piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation 
that I think my friend from Michigan described quite aptly. It is named 
after an individual who is very brave and who brought out a lot of 
evidence of acts that people knew and suspected were happening. He 
brought them out into the public.
  This is a bill that will use America's power to sanction, and it will 
refresh some of the sanctions we have already put in place. It is just 
an excellent way to attempt to persuade Bashar al-Assad that he is 
going in a very wrong direction, hurting his people as he is.
  The Combating BDS Act of 2019 is an act that has some controversy to 
it. Again, the goals have already been discussed on the floor for many 
days and at considerable length. Without going into all of the details, 
it is designed to see that the BDS activity is tamped down and that it 
is not appropriate to use against our friend Israel.
  Lastly, the most recent addition, of course, was the McConnell 
amendment that has been added. This amendment has been badly 
mischaracterized by the national media for a number of days now.
  I keep reading where the national media writes that the U.S. Senate 
rebuked--they used the word ``rebuked''--President Trump. Nothing could 
be further from the truth.
  In fact, when President Trump was running for office, he said his 
bottom line was to attempt to get us out of some of these entanglements 
that we have had.
  One, of course, is Afghanistan, which has been on our mind for 17 
years. The other was Syria. He rolled out the idea that we shouldn't be 
considering that. This system worked exactly the way the Founding 
Fathers intended for it to work. When it comes to foreign relations, 
when it comes to these kind of matters, it is a joint operation between 
the first and the second branches of government--between the 
legislative and the executive branches of government.
  After the President put this on the table as the leader of the 
Nation, people began to talk. It was greatly debated both in this 
body--in the U.S. Senate--in the House of Representatives, and within 
the administration itself. What has happened with this piece of 
legislation is, first of all, it commends the President for all of the 
things he has been able to do in Syria and getting ISIS contained to a 
very small area that remains. It also lays out the challenges we face 
and commits to joining the President as we go forward and as we 
continue the work that is ahead of us in the Middle East.
  This is a great piece of legislation. I commend it to my fellow 
Senators.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.


                        Vote On Amendment No. 98

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
98 offered by the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  The amendment (No. 98) was agreed to.

[[Page S852]]

  



                        Vote on Amendment No. 97

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
97 offered by the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), as amended.
  The amendment (No. 97), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the passage of S. 1, as 
amended.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--23

     Baldwin
     Booker
     Brown
     Carper
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Leahy
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Paul
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Shaheen
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
  The bill (S. 1), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                  S. 1

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 
     2019''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

 TITLE I--ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN UNITED STATES-ISRAEL SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
                       AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2019

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Appropriate congressional committees defined.

               Subtitle A--Security Assistance for Israel

Sec. 111. Findings.
Sec. 112. Statement of policy regarding Israel's defense systems.
Sec. 113. Assistance for Israel.
Sec. 114. Extension of war reserves stockpile authority.
Sec. 115. Extension of loan guarantees to Israel.
Sec. 116. Transfer of precision guided munitions to Israel.
Sec. 117. Sense of Congress on rapid acquisition and deployment 
              procedures.
Sec. 118. Eligibility of Israel for the strategic trade authorization 
              exception to certain export control licensing 
              requirements.

         Subtitle B--Enhanced United States-Israel Cooperation

Sec. 121. United States-Israel space cooperation.
Sec. 122. United States-Israel enhanced partnership for development 
              cooperation in developing nations.
Sec. 123. Authority to enter into a cooperative project agreement with 
              Israel to counter unmanned aerial vehicles that threaten 
              the United States or Israel.

        Subtitle C--Ensuring Israel's Qualitative Military Edge

Sec. 131. Statement of policy.

    TITLE II--UNITED STATES-JORDAN DEFENSE COOPERATION EXTENSION ACT

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings.
Sec. 203. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 204. Reauthorization of United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation 
              Act of 2015.
Sec. 205. Report on establishing an enterprise fund for Jordan.

        TITLE III--CAESAR SYRIA CIVILIAN PROTECTION ACT OF 2019

Sec. 301. Short title.

    Subtitle A--Additional Actions in Connection With the National 
                    Emergency With Respect to Syria

Sec. 311. Measures with respect to Central Bank of Syria.
Sec. 312. Sanctions with respect to foreign persons that engage in 
              certain transactions.

             Subtitle B--Assistance for the People of Syria

Sec. 321. Codification of certain services in support of 
              nongovernmental organizations' activities authorized.
Sec. 322. Briefing on strategy to facilitate humanitarian assistance.

                     Subtitle C--General Provisions

Sec. 331. Suspension of sanctions.
Sec. 332. Waivers and exemptions.
Sec. 333. Implementation and regulatory authorities.
Sec. 334. Rule of construction.
Sec. 335. Sunset.

                  TITLE IV--COMBATING BDS ACT OF 2019

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Nonpreemption of measures by State and local governments to 
              divest from entities that engage in certain boycott, 
              divestment, or sanctions activities targeting Israel or 
              persons doing business in Israel or Israeli-controlled 
              territories.
Sec. 403. Safe harbor for changes of investment policies by asset 
              managers.
Sec. 404. Sense of congress regarding certain ERISA plan investments.
Sec. 405. Rule of construction.
Sec. 406. Clarification of deadline for report on establishing an 
              enterprise fund for Jordan.
Sec. 407. Form of report on the cooperation of the United States and 
              Israel with respect to countering unmanned aerial 
              systems.
Sec. 408. Sense of Senate on withdrawals of United States forces from 
              Syria and Afghanistan.

 TITLE I--ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN UNITED STATES-ISRAEL SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
                       AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2019

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Ileana Ros-Lehtinen United 
     States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 
     2019''.

     SEC. 102. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

       In this title, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

               Subtitle A--Security Assistance for Israel

     SEC. 111. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel 
     major non-NATO ally status.
       (2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed 
     a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States 
     military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the 
     course of this understanding would equal $30 billion.
       (3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced 
     Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-150; 22 
     U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the 
     United States ``to help the Government of Israel preserve its 
     qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional 
     political transformation'' and stated the sense of Congress 
     that the United States Government should ``provide the 
     Government of Israel defense articles and defense services 
     through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air 
     refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and 
     specialized munitions''.
       (4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed 
     into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act 
     of 2014 (Public Law 113-296) which stated the sense of 
     Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the 
     United States and declared it to be the policy of the United 
     States ``to continue to provide Israel with robust security 
     assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome 
     Missile Defense System''.
       (5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 129 Stat. 1135) 
     authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative 
     missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, 
     including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to 
     procure the David's Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 
     3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.
       (6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel 
     signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the 
     importance of continuing annual United States military 
     assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs 
     in a way that enhances Israel's security and strengthens the 
     bilateral relationship between the two countries.
       (7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United 
     States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant 
     assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in 
     fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant 
     assistance would be at a level of

[[Page S853]]

     $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest 
     single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration 
     of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of 
     the United States to Israel's security.
       (8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United 
     States support for funding for cooperative programs to 
     develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile 
     defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in 
     fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of 
     $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.

     SEC. 112. STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING ISRAEL'S DEFENSE 
                   SYSTEMS.

       It shall be the policy of the United States to provide 
     assistance to the Government of Israel in order to support 
     funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and 
     procure missile, rocket, projectile, and other defense 
     capabilities to help Israel meet its security needs and to 
     help develop and enhance United States defense capabilities.

     SEC. 113. ASSISTANCE FOR ISRAEL.

       Section 513(c) of the Security Assistance Act of 2000 
     (Public Law 106-280; 114 Stat. 856) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2002 and 2003'' and 
     inserting ``2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 
     2027, and 2028''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``equal to--'' and inserting ``not less 
     than $3,300,000,000.''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B).

     SEC. 114. EXTENSION OF WAR RESERVES STOCKPILE AUTHORITY.

       Section 514(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2321h(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``2013, 
     2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019'' and inserting 
     ``2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023''.

     SEC. 115. EXTENSION OF LOAN GUARANTEES TO ISRAEL.

       Chapter 5 of title I of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117 Stat. 576) 
     is amended under the heading ``Loan Guarantees to Israel''--
       (1) in the matter preceding the first proviso, by striking 
     ``September 30, 2019'' and inserting ``September 30, 2023''; 
     and
       (2) in the second proviso, by striking ``September 30, 
     2019'' and inserting ``September 30, 2023''.

     SEC. 116. TRANSFER OF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS TO ISRAEL.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h), the President is 
     authorized to transfer such quantities of precision guided 
     munitions from reserve stocks to Israel as necessary for 
     legitimate self-defense and otherwise consistent with the 
     purposes and conditions for such transfers under the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.).
       (b) Certifications.--Except in case of emergency, not later 
     than 5 days before making a transfer under this section, the 
     President shall certify in an unclassified notification to 
     the appropriate congressional committees that the transfer of 
     the precision guided munitions--
       (1) does not affect the ability of the United States to 
     maintain a sufficient supply of precision guided munitions;
       (2) does not harm the combat readiness of the United States 
     or the ability of the United States to meet its commitment to 
     allies for the transfer of such munitions;
       (3) is necessary for Israel to counter the threat of 
     rockets in a timely fashion; and
       (4) is in the national security interest of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 117. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RAPID ACQUISITION AND 
                   DEPLOYMENT PROCEDURES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the President should 
     prescribe procedures for the rapid acquisition and deployment 
     of precision guided munitions for United States 
     counterterrorism missions, or to assist an ally of the United 
     States, including Israel, that is subject to direct missile 
     threat.

     SEC. 118. ELIGIBILITY OF ISRAEL FOR THE STRATEGIC TRADE 
                   AUTHORIZATION EXCEPTION TO CERTAIN EXPORT 
                   CONTROL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Israel has adopted high standards in the field of 
     export controls.
       (2) Israel has declared its unilateral adherence to the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australia Group, and 
     the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
       (3) Israel is a party to--
       (A) the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the 
     Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be 
     Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, 
     signed at Geneva October 10, 1980;
       (B) the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of 
     Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of 
     Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva June 17, 
     1925; and
       (C) the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear 
     Material, adopted at Vienna October 26, 1979.
       (4) Section 6(b) of the United States-Israel Strategic 
     Partnership Act of 2014 (22 U.S.C. 8603 note) directs the 
     President, consistent with the commitments of the United 
     States under international agreements, to take steps so that 
     Israel may be included in the list of countries eligible for 
     the strategic trade authorization exception under section 
     740.20(c)(1) of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, to the 
     requirement for a license for the export, reexport, or in-
     country transfer of an item subject to controls under the 
     Export Administration Regulations.
       (b) Report on Eligibility for Strategic Trade Authorization 
     Exception.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report that describes 
     the steps taken pursuant to section 6(b) of the United 
     States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (22 U.S.C. 
     8603 note).
       (2) Form.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall be 
     provided in unclassified form, but may contain a classified 
     portion.

         Subtitle B--Enhanced United States-Israel Cooperation

     SEC. 121. UNITED STATES-ISRAEL SPACE COOPERATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Authorized in 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration (NASA) supports and coordinates United States 
     Government research in aeronautics, human exploration and 
     operations, science, and space technology.
       (2) Established in 1983, the Israel Space Agency (ISA) 
     supports the growth of Israel's space industry by supporting 
     academic research, technological innovation, and educational 
     activities.
       (3) The mutual interest of the United States and Israel in 
     space exploration affords both nations an opportunity to 
     leverage their unique abilities to advance scientific 
     discovery.
       (4) In 1996, NASA and the ISA entered into an agreement 
     outlining areas of mutual cooperation, which remained in 
     force until 2005.
       (5) Since 1996, NASA and the ISA have successfully 
     cooperated on many space programs supporting the Global 
     Positioning System and research related to the sun, earth 
     science, and the environment.
       (6) The bond between NASA and the ISA was permanently 
     forged on February 1, 2003, with the loss of the crew of STS-
     107, including Israeli Astronaut Ilan Ramon.
       (7) On October 13, 2015, the United States and Israel 
     signed the Framework Agreement between the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of 
     America and the Israel Space Agency for Cooperation in 
     Aeronautics and the Exploration and Use of Airspace and Outer 
     Space for Peaceful Purposes.
       (b) Continuing Cooperation.--The Administrator of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall continue 
     to work with the Israel Space Agency to identify and 
     cooperatively pursue peaceful space exploration and science 
     initiatives in areas of mutual interest, taking all 
     appropriate measures to protect sensitive information, 
     intellectual property, trade secrets, and economic interests 
     of the United States.

     SEC. 122. UNITED STATES-ISRAEL ENHANCED PARTNERSHIP FOR 
                   DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN DEVELOPING NATIONS.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It should be the policy of the 
     United States to partner with Israel in order to advance 
     common goals across a wide variety of sectors, including 
     energy, agriculture and food security, democracy, human 
     rights and governance, economic growth and trade, education, 
     environment, global health, and water and sanitation.
       (b) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Secretary of State, 
     acting through the Administrator of the United States Agency 
     for International Development in accordance with established 
     procedures, is authorized to enter into memoranda of 
     understanding with Israel in order to enhance coordination on 
     advancing common goals on energy, agriculture and food 
     security, democracy, human rights and governance, economic 
     growth and trade, education, environment, global health, and 
     water and sanitation with a focus on strengthening mutual 
     ties and cooperation with nations throughout the world.

     SEC. 123. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE PROJECT 
                   AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL TO COUNTER UNMANNED 
                   AERIAL VEHICLES THAT THREATEN THE UNITED STATES 
                   OR ISRAEL.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On February 10, 2018, Iran launched from Syria an 
     unmanned aerial vehicle (commonly known as a ``drone'') that 
     penetrated Israeli airspace.
       (2) According to a press report, the unmanned aerial 
     vehicle was in Israeli airspace for a minute and a half 
     before being shot down by its air force.
       (3) Senior Israeli officials stated that the unmanned 
     aerial vehicle was an advanced piece of technology.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) joint research and development to counter unmanned 
     aerial vehicles will serve the national security interests of 
     the United States and Israel;
       (2) Israel faces urgent and emerging threats from unmanned 
     aerial vehicles, and other unmanned vehicles, launched from 
     Lebanon by Hezbollah, from Syria by Iran's Revolutionary 
     Guard Corps, or from others seeking to attack Israel;
       (3) efforts to counter unmanned aerial vehicles should 
     include the feasibility of utilizing directed energy and high 
     powered microwave technologies, which can disable vehicles 
     without kinetic destruction; and
       (4) the United States and Israel should continue to work 
     together to defend against all

[[Page S854]]

     threats to the safety, security, and national interests of 
     both countries.
       (c) Authority To Enter Into Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized to enter into 
     a cooperative project agreement with Israel under the 
     authority of section 27 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2767), to carry out research on, and development, 
     testing, evaluation, and joint production (including follow-
     on support) of, defense articles and defense services, such 
     as the use of directed energy or high powered microwave 
     technology, to detect, track, and destroy unmanned aerial 
     vehicles that threaten the United States or Israel.
       (2) Applicable requirements.--The cooperative project 
     agreement described in paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) provide that any activities carried out pursuant to the 
     agreement are subject to--
       (i) the applicable requirements described in subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), and (C) of section 27(b)(2) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2767(b)(2)); and
       (ii) any other applicable requirements of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) with respect to the use, 
     transfers, and security of such defense articles and defense 
     services under that Act;
       (B) establish a framework to negotiate the rights to 
     intellectual property developed under the agreement; and
       (C) include appropriate protections for sensitive 
     technology.
       (d) Report on Cooperation.--
       (1) Report required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees (as that term 
     is defined in section 101(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code), the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and 
     the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives a report describing the cooperation of the 
     United States with Israel with respect to countering unmanned 
     aerial systems that includes each of the following:
       (A) An identification of specific capability gaps of the 
     United States and Israel with respect to countering unmanned 
     aerial systems.
       (B) An identification of cooperative projects that would 
     address those capability gaps and mutually benefit and 
     strengthen the security of the United States and Israel.
       (C) An assessment of the projected cost for research and 
     development efforts for such cooperative projects, including 
     an identification of those to be conducted in the United 
     States, and the timeline for the completion of each such 
     project.
       (D) An assessment of the extent to which the capability 
     gaps of the United States identified pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A) are not likely to be addressed through the cooperative 
     projects identified pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (E) An assessment of the projected costs for procurement 
     and fielding of any capabilities developed jointly pursuant 
     to an agreement described in subsection (c).
       (2) Limitation.--No activities may be conducted pursuant to 
     an agreement described in subsection (c) until the date that 
     is 15 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense 
     submits the report required under paragraph (1).

        Subtitle C--Ensuring Israel's Qualitative Military Edge

     SEC. 131. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States to ensure that Israel 
     maintains its ability to counter and defeat any credible 
     conventional military, or emerging, threat from any 
     individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-
     state actors, while sustaining minimal damages and 
     casualties, through the use of superior military means, 
     possessed in sufficient quantity, including weapons, command, 
     control, communication, intelligence, surveillance, and 
     reconnaissance capabilities that in their technical 
     characteristics are superior in capability to those of such 
     other individual or possible coalition states or non-state 
     actors.

    TITLE II--UNITED STATES-JORDAN DEFENSE COOPERATION EXTENSION ACT

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``United States-Jordan 
     Defense Cooperation Extension Act''.

     SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) In December 2011, Congress passed section 7041(b) of 
     the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74; 
     125 Stat. 1223), which appropriated funds made available 
     under the heading ``Economic Support Fund'' to establish an 
     enterprise fund for Jordan.
       (2) The intent of an enterprise fund is to attract private 
     investment to help entrepreneurs and small businesses create 
     jobs and to achieve sustainable economic development.
       (3) Jordan is an instrumental partner in the fight against 
     terrorism, including as a member of the Global Coalition To 
     Counter ISIS and the Combined Joint Task Force - Operation 
     Inherent Resolve.
       (4) In 2014, His Majesty King Abdullah stated that 
     ``Jordanians and Americans have been standing shoulder to 
     shoulder against extremism for many years, but to a new level 
     with this coalition against ISIL''.
       (5) On February 3, 2015, the United States signed a 3-year 
     memorandum of understanding with Jordan, pledging to provide 
     the kingdom with $1,000,000,000 annually in United States 
     foreign assistance, subject to the approval of Congress.

     SEC. 203. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Jordan plays a critical role in responding to the 
     overwhelming humanitarian needs created by the conflict in 
     Syria; and
       (2) Jordan, the United States, and other partners should 
     continue working together to address this humanitarian crisis 
     and promote regional stability, including through support for 
     refugees in Jordan and internally displaced people along the 
     Jordan-Syria border and the creation of conditions inside 
     Syria that will allow for the secure, dignified, and 
     voluntary return of people displaced by the crisis.

     SEC. 204. REAUTHORIZATION OF UNITED STATES-JORDAN DEFENSE 
                   COOPERATION ACT OF 2015.

       Section 5(a) of the United States-Jordan Defense 
     Cooperation Act of 2015 (22 U.S.C. 2753 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``During the 3-year period'' and inserting 
     ``During the period''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and ending on December 31, 2022'' after 
     ``enactment of this Act''.

     SEC. 205. REPORT ON ESTABLISHING AN ENTERPRISE FUND FOR 
                   JORDAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     establishment of the United States Development Finance 
     Corporation, the President shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a detailed report assessing the 
     costs and benefits of the United States Development Finance 
     Corporation establishing a Jordan Enterprise Fund.
       (b) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--In this section, 
     the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

        TITLE III--CAESAR SYRIA CIVILIAN PROTECTION ACT OF 2019

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Caesar Syria Civilian 
     Protection Act of 2019''.

    Subtitle A--Additional Actions in Connection With the National 
                    Emergency With Respect to Syria

     SEC. 311. MEASURES WITH RESPECT TO CENTRAL BANK OF SYRIA.

       (a) Determination Regarding Central Bank of Syria.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine, under 
     section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, whether 
     reasonable grounds exist for concluding that the Central Bank 
     of Syria is a financial institution of primary money 
     laundering concern.
       (b) Enhanced Due Diligence and Reporting Requirements.--If 
     the Secretary of the Treasury determines under subsection (a) 
     that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that the Central 
     Bank of Syria is a financial institution of primary money 
     laundering concern, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Federal functional regulators (as defined in section 509 of 
     the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809)), shall impose 
     one or more of the special measures described in section 
     5318A(b) of title 31, United States Code, with respect to the 
     Central Bank of Syria.
       (c) Report Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after making a 
     determination under subsection (a) with respect to whether 
     the Central Bank of Syria is a financial institution of 
     primary money laundering concern, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report that includes the reasons for the 
     determination.
       (2) Form.--A report required by paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.
       (3) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on 
     Financial Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.

     SEC. 312. SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO FOREIGN PERSONS THAT 
                   ENGAGE IN CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) Imposition of Sanctions.--
       (1) In general.--On and after the date that is 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President 
     shall impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) with 
     respect to a foreign person if the President determines that 
     the foreign person, on or after such date of enactment, 
     knowingly engages in an activity described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Activities described.--A foreign person engages in an 
     activity described in this paragraph if the foreign person--
       (A) knowingly provides significant financial, material, or 
     technological support to, or knowingly engages in a 
     significant transaction with--
       (i) the Government of Syria (including any entity owned or 
     controlled by the Government of Syria) or a senior political 
     figure of the Government of Syria;
       (ii) a foreign person that is a military contractor, 
     mercenary, or a paramilitary force knowingly operating in a 
     military capacity

[[Page S855]]

     inside Syria for or on behalf of the Government of Syria, the 
     Government of the Russian Federation, or the Government of 
     Iran; or
       (iii) a foreign person subject to sanctions pursuant to the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.) with respect to Syria or any other provision of law 
     that imposes sanctions with respect to Syria;
       (B) knowingly sells or provides significant goods, 
     services, technology, information, or other support that 
     significantly facilitates the maintenance or expansion of the 
     Government of Syria's domestic production of natural gas, 
     petroleum, or petroleum products;
       (C) knowingly sells or provides aircraft or spare aircraft 
     parts that are used for military purposes in Syria for or on 
     behalf of the Government of Syria to any foreign person 
     operating in an area directly or indirectly controlled by the 
     Government of Syria or foreign forces associated with the 
     Government of Syria;
       (D) knowingly provides significant goods or services 
     associated with the operation of aircraft that are used for 
     military purposes in Syria for or on behalf of the Government 
     of Syria to any foreign person operating in an area described 
     in subparagraph (C); or
       (E) knowingly, directly or indirectly, provides significant 
     construction or engineering services to the Government of 
     Syria.
       (3) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     in implementing this section, the President should consider 
     financial support under paragraph (2)(A) to include the 
     provision of loans, credits, or export credits.
       (b) Sanctions Described.--
       (1) In general.--The sanctions to be imposed with respect 
     to a foreign person subject to subsection (a) are the 
     following:
       (A) Blocking of property.--The President shall exercise all 
     of the powers granted to the President under the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.) to the extent necessary to block and prohibit all 
     transactions in property and interests in property of the 
     foreign person if such property and interests in property are 
     in the United States, come within the United States, or are 
     or come within the possession or control of a United States 
     person.
       (B) Aliens ineligible for visas, admission, or parole.--
       (i) Visas, admission, or parole.--An alien who the 
     Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security (or 
     a designee of one of such Secretaries) knows, or has reason 
     to believe, has knowingly engaged in any activity described 
     in subsection (a)(2) is--

       (I) inadmissible to the United States;
       (II) ineligible to receive a visa or other documentation to 
     enter the United States; and
       (III) otherwise ineligible to be admitted or paroled into 
     the United States or to receive any other benefit under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).

       (ii) Current visas revoked.--

       (I) In general.--The issuing consular officer, the 
     Secretary of State, or the Secretary of Homeland Security (or 
     a designee of one of such Secretaries) shall, in accordance 
     with section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1201(i)), revoke any visa or other entry documentation 
     issued to an alien described in clause (i) regardless of when 
     the visa or other entry documentation is issued.
       (II) Effect of revocation.--A revocation under subclause 
     (I)--

       (aa) shall take effect immediately; and
       (bb) shall automatically cancel any other valid visa or 
     entry documentation that is in the alien's possession.
       (2) Penalties.--The penalties provided for in subsections 
     (b) and (c) of section 206 of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) shall apply to a person 
     that violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or 
     causes a violation of regulations promulgated under section 
     333(b) to carry out paragraph (1)(A) to the same extent that 
     such penalties apply to a person that commits an unlawful act 
     described in section 206(a) of that Act.
       (3) Exception relating to importation of goods.--
       (A) In general.--The requirement to block and prohibit all 
     transactions in all property and interests in property under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall not include the authority to impose 
     sanctions on the importation of goods.
       (B) Good defined.--In this paragraph, the term ``good'' 
     means any article, natural or man-made substance, material, 
     supply or manufactured product, including inspection and test 
     equipment, and excluding technical data.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Admitted; alien.--The terms ``admitted'' and ``alien'' 
     have the meanings given those terms in section 101 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).
       (2) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means a 
     person that is not a United States person.
       (3) Knowingly.--The term ``knowingly'', with respect to 
     conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has 
     actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the 
     circumstance, or the result.
       (4) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence to the United States; or
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States 
     or any jurisdiction within the United States, including a 
     foreign branch of such an entity.

             Subtitle B--Assistance for the People of Syria

     SEC. 321. CODIFICATION OF CERTAIN SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF 
                   NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS' ACTIVITIES 
                   AUTHORIZED.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     section 542.516 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (relating to certain services in support of nongovernmental 
     organizations' activities authorized), as in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall--
       (1) remain in effect on and after such date of enactment; 
     and
       (2) in the case of a nongovernmental organization that is 
     authorized to export or reexport services to Syria under such 
     section on the day before such date of enactment, apply to 
     such organization on and after such date of enactment to the 
     same extent and in the same manner as such section applied to 
     such organization on the day before such date of enactment.
       (b) Exception.--
       (1) In general.--Section 542.516 of title 31, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as codified under subsection (a), shall 
     not apply with respect to a foreign person that has been 
     designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 
     219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189), 
     or otherwise designated as a terrorist organization, by the 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with or upon the request 
     of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security.
       (2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall apply with respect 
     to a foreign person on and after the date on which the 
     designation of that person as a terrorist organization is 
     published in the Federal Register.

     SEC. 322. BRIEFING ON STRATEGY TO FACILITATE HUMANITARIAN 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall brief the 
     appropriate congressional committees on the strategy of the 
     President to help facilitate the ability of humanitarian 
     organizations to access financial services to help facilitate 
     the safe and timely delivery of assistance to communities in 
     need in Syria.
       (b) Consideration of Data From Other Countries and 
     Nongovernmental Organizations.--In preparing the strategy 
     required by subsection (a), the President shall consider 
     credible data already obtained by other countries and 
     nongovernmental organizations, including organizations 
     operating in Syria.
       (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on 
     Financial Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.

                     Subtitle C--General Provisions

     SEC. 331. SUSPENSION OF SANCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The President may suspend in whole or in 
     part the imposition of sanctions otherwise required under 
     this title for periods not to exceed 180 days if the 
     President determines that the following criteria have been 
     met in Syria:
       (1) The air space over Syria is no longer being utilized by 
     the Government of Syria or the Government of the Russian 
     Federation to target civilian populations through the use of 
     incendiary devices, including barrel bombs, chemical weapons, 
     and conventional arms, including air-delivered missiles and 
     explosives.
       (2) Areas besieged by the Government of Syria, the 
     Government of the Russian Federation, the Government of Iran, 
     or a foreign person described in section 312(a)(2)(A)(ii) are 
     no longer cut off from international aid and have regular 
     access to humanitarian assistance, freedom of travel, and 
     medical care.
       (3) The Government of Syria is releasing all political 
     prisoners forcibly held within the prison system of the 
     regime of Bashar al-Assad and the Government of Syria is 
     allowing full access to the same facilities for 
     investigations by appropriate international human rights 
     organizations.
       (4) The forces of the Government of Syria, the Government 
     of the Russian Federation, the Government of Iran, and any 
     foreign person described in section 312(a)(2)(A)(ii) are no 
     longer engaged in deliberate targeting of medical facilities, 
     schools, residential areas, and community gathering places, 
     including markets, in violation of international norms.
       (5) The Government of Syria is--
       (A) taking steps to verifiably fulfill its commitments 
     under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, 
     Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on 
     their Destruction, done at Geneva September 3, 1992, and 
     entered into force April 29, 1997 (commonly known as the 
     ``Chemical Weapons Convention''), and the Treaty on the Non-
     Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, 
     and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 
     (21 UST 483); and
       (B) making tangible progress toward becoming a signatory to 
     the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, 
     Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) 
     and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, done at 
     Washington, London, and Moscow April 10, 1972, and entered 
     into force March 26, 1975 (26 UST 583).

[[Page S856]]

       (6) The Government of Syria is permitting the safe, 
     voluntary, and dignified return of Syrians displaced by the 
     conflict.
       (7) The Government of Syria is taking verifiable steps to 
     establish meaningful accountability for perpetrators of war 
     crimes in Syria and justice for victims of war crimes 
     committed by the Assad regime, including by participation in 
     a credible and independent truth and reconciliation process.
       (b) Briefing Required.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     President makes a determination described in subsection (a), 
     the President shall provide a briefing to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on the determination and the 
     suspension of sanctions pursuant to the determination.
       (c) Reimposition of Sanctions.--Any sanctions suspended 
     under subsection (a) shall be reimposed if the President 
     determines that the criteria described in that subsection are 
     no longer being met.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit the authority of the President to 
     terminate the application of sanctions under section 312 with 
     respect to a person that no longer engages in activities 
     described in subsection (a)(2) of that section.
       (e) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on 
     Financial Services, the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

     SEC. 332. WAIVERS AND EXEMPTIONS.

       (a) Exemptions.--The following activities and transactions 
     shall be exempt from sanctions authorized under this title:
       (1) Any activity subject to the reporting requirements 
     under title V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     3091 et seq.), or to any authorized law enforcement, national 
     security, or intelligence activities of the United States.
       (2) Any transaction necessary to comply with United States 
     obligations under--
       (A) the Agreement regarding the Headquarters of the United 
     Nations, signed at Lake Success June 26, 1947, and entered 
     into force November 21, 1947, between the United Nations and 
     the United States;
       (B) the Convention on Consular Relations, done at Vienna 
     April 24, 1963, and entered into force March 19, 1967; or
       (C) any other international agreement to which the United 
     States is a party.
       (b) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--The President may, for periods not to 
     exceed 180 days, waive the application of any provision of 
     this title with respect to a foreign person if the President 
     certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that 
     such a waiver is in the national security interests of the 
     United States.
       (2) Briefing.--Not later than 90 days after the issuance of 
     a waiver under paragraph (1), and every 180 days thereafter 
     while the waiver remains in effect, the President shall brief 
     the appropriate congressional committees on the reasons for 
     the waiver.
       (c) Humanitarian Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--The President may waive, for renewable 
     periods not to exceed 2 years, the application of any 
     provision of this title with respect to a nongovernmental 
     organization providing humanitarian assistance not covered by 
     the authorization described in section 321 if the President 
     certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that 
     such a waiver is important to address a humanitarian need and 
     is consistent with the national security interests of the 
     United States.
       (2) Briefing.--Not later than 90 days after the issuance of 
     a waiver under paragraph (1), and every 180 days thereafter 
     while the waiver remains in effect, the President shall brief 
     the appropriate congressional committees on the reasons for 
     the waiver.
       (d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on 
     Financial Services, the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

     SEC. 333. IMPLEMENTATION AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Implementation Authority.--The President may exercise 
     all authorities provided to the President under sections 203 
     and 205 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 
     (50 U.S.C. 1702 and 1704) for purposes of carrying out this 
     title.
       (b) Regulatory Authority.--The President shall, not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     promulgate regulations as necessary for the implementation of 
     this title.

     SEC. 334. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to limit the 
     authority of the President pursuant to the International 
     Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or any 
     other provision of law.

     SEC. 335. SUNSET.

       This title shall cease to be effective on the date that is 
     5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                  TITLE IV--COMBATING BDS ACT OF 2019

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Combating BDS Act of 
     2019''.

     SEC. 402. NONPREEMPTION OF MEASURES BY STATE AND LOCAL 
                   GOVERNMENTS TO DIVEST FROM ENTITIES THAT ENGAGE 
                   IN CERTAIN BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, OR SANCTIONS 
                   ACTIVITIES TARGETING ISRAEL OR PERSONS DOING 
                   BUSINESS IN ISRAEL OR ISRAELI-CONTROLLED 
                   TERRITORIES.

       (a) State and Local Measures.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a State or local government may adopt and 
     enforce measures that meet the requirements of subsection (c) 
     to divest the assets of the State or local government from, 
     prohibit investment of the assets of the State or local 
     government in, or restrict contracting by the State or local 
     government for goods and services with--
       (1) an entity that the State or local government 
     determines, using credible information available to the 
     public, knowingly engages in an activity described in 
     subsection (b);
       (2) a successor entity or subunit of an entity described in 
     paragraph (1); or
       (3) an entity that owns or controls or is owned or 
     controlled by an entity described in paragraph (1).
       (b) Activities Described.--An activity described in this 
     subsection is a commerce-related or investment-related 
     boycott, divestment, or sanctions activity in the course of 
     interstate or international commerce that is intended to 
     penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit 
     commercial relations with Israel or persons doing business in 
     Israel or Israeli-controlled territories for purposes of 
     coercing political action by, or imposing policy positions 
     on, the Government of Israel.
       (c) Requirements.--A State or local government that seeks 
     to adopt or enforce a measure under subsection (a) shall meet 
     the following requirements:
       (1) Notice.--The State or local government shall provide 
     written notice--
       (A) in the case of a measure relating to divestment or 
     investment, to each entity to which the measure is to be 
     applied; and
       (B) in the case of a measure relating to contracting, of 
     the restrictions imposed by the measure to each prospective 
     contractor before entering into a contract.
       (2) Timing.--A measure relating to divestment or investment 
     shall apply to an entity not earlier than the date that is 90 
     days after the date on which written notice is provided to 
     the entity under paragraph (1).
       (3) Opportunity for comment.--In the case of a measure 
     relating to divestment or investment, the State or local 
     government shall provide an opportunity to comment in writing 
     to each entity to which the measure is to be applied. If the 
     entity demonstrates to the State or local government that 
     neither the entity nor any entity related to the entity as 
     described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) has 
     knowingly engaged in an activity described in subsection (b), 
     the measure shall not apply to the entity.
       (4) Disclosure in contracting measures.--The State or local 
     government may require, in a measure relating to contracting, 
     that a prospective contractor disclose whether the 
     prospective contractor or any entity related to the 
     prospective contractor as described in paragraph (2) or (3) 
     of subsection (a) knowingly engages in any activity described 
     in subsection (b) before entering into a contract.
       (5) Sense of congress on avoiding erroneous targeting.--It 
     is the sense of Congress that a State or local government 
     should not adopt a measure under subsection (a) with respect 
     to an entity unless the State or local government has made 
     every effort to avoid erroneously targeting the entity and 
     has verified that the entity engages in an activity described 
     in subsection (b).
       (d) Notice to Department of Justice.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than 30 days after adopting a measure described in 
     subsection (a), the State or local government that adopted 
     the measure shall submit written notice to the Attorney 
     General describing the measure.
       (2) Existing measures.--With respect to measures described 
     in subsection (a) adopted before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the State or local government that adopted the 
     measure shall submit written notice to the Attorney General 
     describing the measure not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Nonpreemption.--A measure of a State or local 
     government that is consistent with subsection (a) is not 
     preempted by any Federal law.
       (f) Prior Enacted Measures.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section or any other provision of law, and except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), a State or local government may 
     enforce a measure described in subsection (a) adopted by the 
     State or local government before the date of the enactment of

[[Page S857]]

     this Act without regard to the requirements of subsection 
     (c).
       (2) Application of notice and opportunity for comment.--
     Enforcement of a measure described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     subject to the requirements of subsection (c) on and after 
     the date that is 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (g) Rules of Construction.--
       (1) Authority of states.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to abridge the authority of a State to issue and 
     enforce rules governing the safety, soundness, and solvency 
     of a financial institution subject to its jurisdiction or the 
     business of insurance pursuant to the Act of March 9, 1945 
     (59 Stat. 33, chapter 20; 15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) (commonly 
     known as the ``McCarran-Ferguson Act'').
       (2) Policy of the united states.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to alter the established policy of the 
     United States concerning final status issues associated with 
     the Arab-Israeli conflict, including border delineation, that 
     can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the 
     parties.
       (h) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Assets.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``assets'' means any pension, retirement, annuity, 
     or endowment fund, or similar instrument, that is controlled 
     by a State or local government.
       (B) Exception.--The term ``assets'' does not include 
     employee benefit plans covered by title I of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Entity.--The term ``entity'' includes--
       (A) any corporation, company, business association, 
     partnership, or trust; and
       (B) any governmental entity or instrumentality of a 
     government, including a multilateral development institution 
     (as defined in section 1701(c)(3) of the International 
     Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(3))).
       (3) Investment.--The term ``investment'' includes--
       (A) a commitment or contribution of funds or property;
       (B) a loan or other extension of credit; and
       (C) the entry into or renewal of a contract for goods or 
     services.
       (4) Knowingly.--The term ``knowingly'', with respect to 
     conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has 
     actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the 
     circumstance, or the result.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and 
     any other territory or possession of the United States.
       (6) State or local government.--The term ``State or local 
     government'' includes--
       (A) any State and any agency or instrumentality thereof;
       (B) any local government within a State and any agency or 
     instrumentality thereof; and
       (C) any other governmental instrumentality of a State or 
     locality.

     SEC. 403. SAFE HARBOR FOR CHANGES OF INVESTMENT POLICIES BY 
                   ASSET MANAGERS.

       Section 13(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 
     U.S.C. 80a-13(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) knowingly engage in any activity described in section 
     402(b) of the Combating BDS Act of 2019.''.

     SEC. 404. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CERTAIN ERISA PLAN 
                   INVESTMENTS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a fiduciary of an employee benefit plan, as defined in 
     section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(3)), may divest plan assets from, or 
     avoid investing plan assets in, any person the fiduciary 
     determines knowingly engages in any activity described in 
     section 2(b), if--
       (A) the fiduciary makes that determination using credible 
     information that is available to the public; and
       (B) the fiduciary prudently determines that the result of 
     that divestment or avoidance of investment would not be 
     expected to provide the employee benefit plan with--
       (i) a lower rate of return than alternative investments 
     with commensurate degrees of risk; or
       (ii) a higher degree of risk than alternative investments 
     with commensurate rates of return; and
       (2) by divesting assets or avoiding the investment of 
     assets as described in paragraph (1), the fiduciary is not 
     breaching the responsibilities, obligations, or duties 
     imposed upon the fiduciary by subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)).

     SEC. 405. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe upon 
     any right protected under the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States.

     SEC. 406. CLARIFICATION OF DEADLINE FOR REPORT ON 
                   ESTABLISHING AN ENTERPRISE FUND FOR JORDAN.

       For purposes of section 205(a), the term ``establishment of 
     the United States Development Finance Corporation'' means the 
     end of the transition period, as defined in section 1461 of 
     the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development 
     Act of 2018 (division F of Public Law 115-254).

     SEC. 407. FORM OF REPORT ON THE COOPERATION OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES AND ISRAEL WITH RESPECT TO COUNTERING 
                   UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS.

       The report required under section 123(d) shall be submitted 
     in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

     SEC. 408. SENSE OF SENATE ON WITHDRAWALS OF UNITED STATES 
                   FORCES FROM SYRIA AND AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The foreign terrorist organization al Qaeda, 
     responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, maintains 
     a presence in Afghanistan.
       (2) The Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham, better known by 
     its acronym ISIS, flourished in the chaos unleashed by the 
     civil war in Syria and at one point controlled extensive 
     territory in Iraq and Syria.
       (3) Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their affiliates have murdered 
     thousands of innocent civilians.
       (4) Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their affiliates have proven 
     resilient and have regrouped when the United States and its 
     partners have withdrawn from the fight against them.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--The Senate--
       (1) acknowledges that the United States military and our 
     partners have made significant progress in the campaign 
     against al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham 
     (ISIS), and honors the contributions and sacrifice of the 
     members of the United States Armed Forces who have served on 
     the front lines of this fight;
       (2) recognizes the continuing threat to the homeland and 
     our allies posed by al Qaeda and ISIS, which maintain an 
     ability to operate in Syria and Afghanistan;
       (3) expresses concern that Iran has supported the Taliban 
     in Afghanistan and Hizballah and the Assad regime in Syria, 
     and has sought to frustrate diplomatic efforts to resolve 
     conflicts in these two countries;
       (4) recognizes the positive role the United States and its 
     partners have played in Syria and Afghanistan fighting 
     terrorist groups, countering Iranian aggression, deterring 
     the further use of chemical weapons, and protecting human 
     rights;
       (5) warns that a precipitous withdrawal of United States 
     forces from the on-going fight against these groups, without 
     effective, countervailing efforts to secure gains in Syria 
     and Afghanistan, could allow terrorists to regroup, 
     destabilize critical regions, and create vacuums that could 
     be filled by Iran or Russia, to the detriment of United 
     States interests and those of our allies;
       (6) recognizes that al Qaeda and ISIS pose a global threat, 
     which merits increased international contributions to the 
     counterterrorism, diplomatic, and stabilization efforts 
     underway in Syria and Afghanistan;
       (7) recognizes that diplomatic efforts to secure peaceful, 
     negotiated solutions to the conflicts in Syria and 
     Afghanistan are necessary to long-term stability and 
     counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East and South Asia;
       (8) acknowledges the progress made by Special 
     Representative Khalilzad in his efforts to promote 
     reconciliation in Afghanistan;
       (9) calls upon the Administration to conduct a thorough 
     review of the military and diplomatic strategies in Syria and 
     Afghanistan, including an assessment of the risk that 
     withdrawal from those countries could strengthen the power 
     and influence of Russia and Iran in the Middle East and South 
     Asia and undermine diplomatic efforts toward negotiated, 
     peaceful solutions;
       (10) requests that the Administration, as part of this 
     review, solicit the views of Israel, our regional partners, 
     and other key troop-contributing nations in the fight against 
     al Qaeda and ISIS;
       (11) reiterates support for international diplomatic 
     efforts to facilitate peaceful, negotiated resolutions to the 
     on-going conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan on terms that 
     respect the rights of innocent civilians and deny safe havens 
     to terrorists;
       (12) calls upon the Administration to pursue a strategy 
     that sets the conditions for the long-term defeat of al Qaeda 
     and ISIS, as well as the protection of regional partners and 
     allies, while ensuring that Iran cannot dominate the region 
     or threaten Israel;
       (13) encourages close collaboration between the Executive 
     Branch and the Legislative Branch to ensure continuing 
     strong, bipartisan support for United States military 
     operations in Syria and Afghanistan; and
       (14) calls upon the Administration to certify that 
     conditions have been met for the enduring defeat of al Qaeda 
     and ISIS before initiating any significant withdrawal of 
     United States forces from Syria or Afghanistan.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the 
     use of military force.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I request permission to speak for up 
to 1 minute regarding this vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S858]]

  

                          ____________________