[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[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]]
____________________