[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 26, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3477-S3488]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                   National Personnel Records Center

  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise today kind of expressing the 
frustration of many of my constituents. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 
we have had Federal Agencies and employees not working at all--not from 
home, not in the office, period. Have not had a lick of work for over 
14 months.
  In April, the Senate Finance Committee had a hearing entitled ``The 
Social Security Administration During COVID: How the Pandemic Hampered 
Access to Benefits and Strategies for Improving Service Delivery.''
  Now, following the hearing and in response to my concerns that 
seniors in my State with issues getting their Social Security benefits 
are not being sufficiently served due to field and local offices being 
closed, my office got a letter from Commissioner Andrew Saul. The 
letter states:

       I urge you to encourage the unions to continue engaging in 
     meaningful dialogue with management that includes a focus on 
     the very best service to the public.

  That is a nice way of saying: We need help getting the unions to the 
table so we can get Federal employees back to work.
  Now, we are talking about mandatory services, reopening Social 
Security offices for in-person visits in a postvaccine world to assist 
elderly Americans--my grandparents, your grandparents--having issues 
with their benefits. This isn't happening because government employees 
are not showing up.
  It brings to mind an old quote from an old Governor in Louisiana, 
Earl Long. They asked Governor Long: How many people do you have 
working at the capitol? And he looks off into space, and he goes: 
Working? About two.
  Now, in this case, that is the way it is going with this. The 
situation at the Department of Veterans Affairs, in connection with the 
National Archives and specifically the National Personnel Records 
Center, is even worse. According to the National Archives, the backlog 
of veterans' records grew to more than 499,000 requests in April of 
2021. They estimate it will take 18 to 24 months to clear once the 
National Personnel Records Center is staffed at full capacity.
  I just want to make this point. We have 499,000 ignored document 
requests from veterans. The people who have served our country are not 
being served in their current life.
  Despite the widespread availability of vaccines and the recent 
relaxation of COVID-19 guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, the National Personnel Records

[[Page S3478]]

Center only moved to phase 2 on March 29, 2021. In phase 2, the 
National Personnel Records Center has 25 percent of staff onsite. There 
are supposedly 200 employees per shift, 2 shifts a day, 6 days a week, 
but they are only processing emergency requests--for example, immediate 
burials, hospitalizations, and for the homeless.
  In the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we led a push to enable National 
Personnel Records Center employees to get vaccines from the VA's 
allotment in an attempt to increase staffing. In the latest information 
provided to my staff, only 36 National Personnel Records Center 
employees took advantage of this availability. This is 36 out of 600.
  Now, these aren't just numbers on a poster. There are real 
consequences. These are people's lives.
  My constituent Mr. Albert Duplantis, 69 years old, of Lake Charles, 
LA--there is Mr. Duplantis when he was in the Navy, and there you see 
him now. He served our country during Vietnam stationed on the USS 
Pyro.
  He has diabetes mellitus type II, atrial fibrillation, and 
hypertension--claimed as due to Agent Orange. He needs treatment for 
his heart condition, but he cannot get the medical records he needs 
because the National Personnel Records Center is not processing the 
needed military record during COVID-19, the one that the VA needs to 
make this happen.
  Now, his application for medical treatment for his heart condition--
this is a heart condition, by the way--was received by the VA in 
December 2019. That is 2019. In an early response, the VA provided a 
possible date of completion of March 23, 2021. Now, from 2019, 
December, to March 23, 2021, that date has come and gone, but Mr. 
Duplantis's application is stuck in limbo until the VA receives his 
military records from the National Personnel Records Center.
  Let me repeat. A treatment for heart disease has been held up since 
2019 because of the inaction of the National Personnel Records Center. 
We are over 1 year into the pandemic. We have had access to vaccines, 
the masks are off, and still records are not being processed. And 
Federal employees are sitting at home, collecting a paycheck, without 
working. We are talking since March of last year. We are now in May of 
this year. They have not shown up for work 1 day, nor have they worked 
from home, and we have a man who can't get his records for heart 
disease.
  This is unacceptable. With vaccines widely available, there is no 
excuse for mandatory work not being done. If you are not willing to do 
your job, you shouldn't have a job. This great American went to war for 
our freedom, but Federal employees won't go to the office to file his 
paperwork. There are other veterans besides Mr. Duplantis unable to 
receive medical treatment and other benefits they are entitled to.
  This weekend we will observe Memorial Day, a time where we honor and 
mourn the men and women of the U.S. military who died during their 
service to this great country. This is a reminder of the sacrifice 
willingly risked--and unfortunately it occurred--and they did this, 
they signed up for this, without flinching. We should repay our 
veterans and do more for them just by doing the job that should be 
done.
  The National Personnel Records Center needs to get their house in 
order. They need to go back to work. Our veterans deserve better. Mr. 
Duplantis deserves medical treatment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise at this moment to oppose the 
amendment that is going to be offered by my colleague and friend from 
Louisiana Senator Kennedy. This amendment would endanger the lives of 
thousands, if not millions, of innocent people and prolong this 
terrible coronavirus pandemic. I am sure that is the not the intention 
of the Senator from Louisiana, but that is what his effort would do. 
His amendment would gut a critical tool to help stop the spread of the 
pandemic globally, as well as stem the economic fallout that would hurt 
us here in America.
  The International Monetary Fund has a fund with the ability to 
release money in what are called Special Drawing Rights, foreign 
exchange reserve assets that it maintains. This can be exchanged by 
member nations for hard currency in times of crisis. This is exactly 
what was done in 2009 amid the global economic crisis and what is being 
considered now amid the pandemic and related economic downturn.
  The amendment, which I am going to offer, has the support of American 
business, labor, and global health, and poverty groups--for good 
reason. The Special Drawing Rights are a no cost way for Americans to 
help poor nations buy the vaccines they need to save lives and to stop 
the spread of this coronavirus. And it would also help aid in economic 
recovery.
  Isn't that exactly what we should be doing at this moment?
  This pandemic doesn't know any boundaries. This virus doesn't pick 
and choose good nations and bad nations. Our ability to protect the 
hard-fought gains against the pandemic here in the United States, after 
all that we have been through, ultimately depends on getting it under 
control around the world so variants and strains don't attack us anew.
  I know what we have been through. If we ignore the reality, the fact 
is, this pandemic came roaring at us from a city in China that most 
Americans have never heard of, and now we have to decide whether we are 
going to take it on directly.
  You don't tell the fire department to not help with the fire at your 
neighbor's house at a time of crisis. Sadly, that is exactly what the 
Kennedy amendment would do.
  And the one part that he is missing that is so critical is to take it 
or leave it on the Special Drawing Rights. You can't pick and choose 
the Nations that might or might not receive the benefits to buy 
vaccines.
  We can use other mechanisms and persuasion to achieve that goal, but 
I am sorry to say that Senator Kennedy's approach would cut off the 
Special Drawing Rights for friendly nations as well as those who are 
not friendly. And that to me is shortsighted.
  The way the IMF Special Drawing Rights process works, we cannot 
dictate which countries will receive the benefits. Because of our 
majority position at the IMF, we either stop the Special Drawing Rights 
completely or let them go forward.
  So the United States should stand for public health, stand for people 
to be spared the suffering and death of this coronavirus, and move 
forward with humanitarian aid that will help the world.
  The Treasury Department is working with our allies to halt the 
ability of any rogue nation that might want to exchange Special Drawing 
Rights for hard currency and pushing transparency measures for how any 
Special Drawing Rights are spent.
  As such, I am offering a substitute amendment that makes it clear 
that we want to make certain that nations do not misuse these funds. 
But unlike the Kennedy amendment, it would move forward and provide 
resources for countries desperately in need of vaccines to save lives.
  I further support the Treasury's efforts to make sure that the SDR 
allocation is used to help to stem the pandemic.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for my substitute amendment and to 
oppose the amendment being offered by the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to 
Durbin amendment No. 2014.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I love Senator Durbin. I hate his 
amendment. Here is why. These SDRs are not free money. They are not 
free money. They are like a cryptocoin. The IMF issues the cryptocoin 
to all the countries that are members of the IMF, and these countries 
take that cryptocoin, and guess what they do. They come to the United 
States of America and say: We want to exchange our cryptocoin for 
dollars. And guess what. We don't have the dollars because we are dead 
broke. So we have to borrow the dollars to give to the Chinas and the 
Venezuelas and all the countries that hate us in exchange for their 
cryptocoins.
  Now, that is just a natural fact, and if you check the record, you 
will find that as to the countries that really need the money to 
vaccinate their people, about 10 percent of this money is

[[Page S3479]]

going to them. The rest is going to all the larger countries, like 
China, like Venezuela, like the countries in Europe. Virtually no money 
gets sent to the people who need it. This is an incredibly inefficient 
way to do it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, do I have 1 minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Right.
  Mr. DURBIN. These Special Drawing Rights of the International 
Monetary Fund are the only way the poorest nations on Earth could have 
the money to buy vaccines to save their people. That is what it boils 
down to.
  But Senator Kennedy says: Well, some of this money might get into the 
wrong hands.
  I pray that it doesn't. I pray that they administer it properly, and 
I think they will. But how would you like to have on your conscience 
the fact that our amendment vote on the Senate floor is the end of the 
funds for vaccines for some of the poorest countries on Earth? I would 
not want that on my conscience.
  Support my amendment, which makes it clear where the Americans do 
stand when it comes to this issue.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2014

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). On this vote, the yeas are 50, 
the nays are 50.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2014) was rejected.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1710

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to 
Kennedy amendment No. 1710.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the International Monetary Fund issues 
special drawing rights. A special drawing right is like a cryptocoin--
it is not worth anything. It is only worth something if you exchange it 
for real money. The Biden administration decided to encourage the IMF 
to issue all of these cryptocoins, and guess what they are all doing? 
They are bringing the cryptocoins to the United States of America and 
are saying: We want dollars. Give me dollars for the cryptocoin.
  Yet we don't have any dollars in our checking account, so we have to 
borrow the money. There is no free lunch, and you don't get one now.
  All my bill would do would be to say that we are not going to issue 
special drawing rights to perpetrators of genocide or state sponsors of 
terrorism--in other words, no free money to China, no free money to 
Syria, and no free money to Iran. It is ludicrous for us to be 
borrowing money to give dollars to exchange for cryptocoins to China or 
Syria or Iran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there is one fundamental flaw in what 
you have just heard from Senator Kennedy, and let me read it to you:

       The United States retains the right to refuse to purchase 
     special drawing rights from any [country].

  It is voluntary--it is up to us to do it--and we don't purchase them 
from a lot of countries because of that.
  Let me tell you further that all we can do is stop the special 
drawing rights which are providing our currency to countries to buy 
vaccines. Why do we care whether some country far away had a vaccine? 
Well, how far away was Wuhan, China?
  We have to be in this together to try to put an end to this pandemic 
crisis. Vote to defeat the Kennedy amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1710

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
49.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1710) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Louisiana.


                   Remembering Charles E. Roemer III

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to just spend a few minutes 
today saying goodbye to a friend. Louisiana weeps right now. Gov. 
Charles E. Roemer III passed away last week. He went by ``Buddy.'' He 
served our State from 1988 to 1992. Before that, he served a number of 
terms in Congress.
  I guess I am biased because Buddy brought me to the dance, if you 
will. I was sitting in my office in New Orleans practicing law, earning 
a good living, you know, thinking about happy hour on a Friday 
afternoon, and Governor Roemer had just been elected and he asked me to 
come up to Baton Rouge and work as his legal counsel. And I did, and I 
stayed for 4 years. And I liked government service, and I have been in 
it, off and on, since then.
  Buddy was one of the--Buddy was an extremely--I say ``was.'' I am 
going to say ``is'' because he lives with us. But he was one of the 
most and is one of the most complex, interesting people I have ever 
met. He was immeasurably talented. He was raised on a cotton farm, but 
it wasn't really a farm because his parents and his family, they were 
all so accomplished.
  They put together a cotton farm with their own sweat and blood and 
some free enterprise capital of about 10,000 acres in North Louisiana. 
It is a big farm in Louisiana. But the kids all worked, including 
Buddy.
  They didn't have a television. Mr. Budgie, his dad, and Ms. Adeline, 
his

[[Page S3480]]

mom, would require the kids, in their free time, to read books. And, 
boy, it stuck with Buddy. I never saw him without a book. I would ride 
with him to go to a speech. He would have a book in the car, and he 
would read it driving over there.
  He went to Harvard when he was 16. He would have gone sooner. Harvard 
offered him a position, but his mom and dad said: You are too young. 
You have got to stick around.
  And he stayed at Harvard for graduate school.
  Buddy was--how can I put this?--one of the first real intellectual 
Governors that we ever had in Louisiana. I am not putting down our 
other Governors, now--I am not--because all of our Governors have been 
intelligent, just like in the Presiding Officer's State. You don't rise 
to that position without being intelligent. But Buddy truly believed in 
the power of ideas, and he truly believed in the worth of education.
  I have used his words often. He used to say: Kennedy, the future in 
Louisiana is education. It is not the price of oil. It is not the 
unemployment rate. It is not who the Governor is. It is education.
  And he would say that time and again.
  During his 4 years--when he became Governor, we had a $7 billion 
budget. We had a $1 billion deficit. That is what he was left with. 
Roemer balanced the budget. It wasn't easy, but he did. And then he 
implemented fiscal reforms that dramatically and totally changed our 
way of budgeting in Louisiana for generations to come, because of 
Buddy's efforts.
  He announced in Louisiana--and this was heresy at the time: I am 
going to find out which of our teachers can teach, and, by God, I am 
going to pay them.
  And he said: But I am also going to find out which of our teachers 
can't teach, and I am going to either teach them how or tell them to 
find a new line of work.
  Boy, was that ever revolutionary. And he did it.
  He totally rewrote our campaign finance laws. When Buddy became 
Governor, there was no reporting of campaign money. If you were running 
for office, somebody could bring you a suitcase full of cash--
$200,000--and it was perfectly legal. You didn't have to report it. And 
if you got the money on a Thursday, if you decided on a Friday you 
weren't going to run and you withdrew from the race, you could keep it. 
You could keep it.
  Buddy completely rewrote all of that. Now you have to report every 
penny in, every penny out. There is a cap on contributions. No cash. 
And we enforce it. It changed our politics dramatically.
  I will tell you one quick story that epitomizes the Buddy I knew.
  There was a central piece of his education program. I won't bore you 
with the details. It had to do with higher education. It was key to our 
future, and we really needed to pass it.
  I was handling it, lobbying it for the Governor, and we needed one 
more vote in the senate--one more vote to pass this landmark bill. And 
this one Senator said: Kennedy, I will vote for it if you will have the 
Governor give me this project.
  So I was all excited. I went back to see the Governor. I said: 
Governor, I think I got it put together.
  It was a road project.
  He said: Call him over to our department of transportation and see 
what they think.
  And the folks at the department of transportation said: Yes, we can 
do it, but if we do it, we will all go to jail.
  So I said: Oh, man.
  So I go back, and I tell Governor Roemer. I was young, but I was 
passionate, and I said: Governor, we can't do it.
  He said: I agree. We are not going to do that.
  I said: But listen. This is so important. This particular Senator 
lies to us all the time. Let me just lie to him. Let me just go to him 
and tell him we will do it. We will get his vote, and then I will go 
back to him later and say we changed our mind.
  The end does justify the means. I will never forget it.
  Buddy says: No, we are not doing that.
  And I argued with him, but he finally just said: Look, Kennedy, I 
made my decision. We are not doing it that way.
  I am going to really miss Buddy. He wasn't a perfect guy. I told him 
one time--I said: Governor, if I were back in law practice in the 
private sector and you came to me as a private client, I would 
represent you, but I would quadruple my hourly rate.
  He was so smart, but he could be very opinionated. Tip O'Neill gave 
Buddy sort of his slogan phrase. Tip O'Neill described then-Congressman 
Roemer one time. He said: Congressman Roemer--often wrong, never in 
doubt.
  But I am going to really miss Buddy. All he ever wanted to do was 
change Louisiana, and he did. He wasn't reelected, but he did.
  But Buddy always understood. This was his barometer of success. He 
used to tell me and say: Kennedy, here is how you know when you are 
doing a good job: if you are making the right people mad.
  He used to say: If nobody is mad at you and if the wrong people like 
what you are doing, you are not doing your job.
  So he did make people mad, and it cost him his reelection. But he 
changed Louisiana, and Louisiana weeps. And when I count my blessings, 
I count Buddy Roemer twice.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Financial Innovation Caucus

  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I am excited to announce the founding of 
the Senate Financial Innovation Caucus with my friend and cochair, the 
Senator from Arizona. I am delighted that you also have joined our 
caucus. We are grateful for your participation and look forward to 
working with you.
  One of my top priorities and a legacy I hope to leave in this Chamber 
is to ensure the United States remains a global leader in financial 
services for future generations.
  The U.S. dollar is the world's unquestioned reserve currency. Since 
the Second World War, this leadership role has given our country 
enormous advantages, including affordable credit and trade finance. 
China is not hiding its ambition to knock the U.S. dollar down a peg by 
offering a competitor payment system that sidesteps the United States.
  This year, the Chinese Government launched a pilot program for their 
digital yuan in multiple cities around China. They expect to completely 
release the central bank digital currency at the 2022 Winter Olympics.
  A video released by China state-controlled media in December of 2020 
openly stated that the digital yuan will allow China to ``actively 
participate in reforming world economic governance'' and is ``one of 
the building blocks of China's move toward world market status and 
greater involvement in setting the framework of the global economy.''
  China does not share the same values as our country relating to fair 
competition. This chilling reality is one of the many reasons the 
United States must advance financial innovation and do so now. China is 
serious about the future. Chinese President Xi stated in 2018 that 
financial innovation is ``the new industrial revolution.''
  In another part of the world, digital assets are protecting many 
Venezuelans during their current economic crisis and ensuring corrupt 
government officials cannot seize or devalue their hard-earned savings. 
The U.S. Government is also using digital assets to achieve its foreign 
policy objectives and to provide humanitarian aid to Venezuelan groups 
faster than traditional channels.
  We must work hard today to ensure the next generation of Americans 
can enjoy the opportunity and prosperity made possible by responsible 
innovation. Failure to do so could have astronomical impacts on the 
freedoms and privileges that are essential to the American dream.
  I have been encouraged by early signs from the Biden administration 
that they understand the existential threat of China and the promise of 
financial innovation. China's moves alone should create a sense of 
urgency in this Chamber to take action.
  But it is not just a threat from China that should motivate us. In 
addition to

[[Page S3481]]

protecting the U.S. position as the world leader in the financial 
system, proper regulations for financial innovation will have lasting 
effects in the financial industry in several ways, notably financial 
inclusion and entrepreneurship because financial innovation encompasses 
topics as diverse as faster payment and equities settlement, central 
bank digital currencies, financial inclusion, digital assets, 
distributed ledger technology, consumer protection, artificial 
intelligence, and machine learning. This area has remained bipartisan, 
following in the tradition of many other financial service issues.
  The Financial Innovation Caucus is rigorously committed to the 
tradition of bipartisanship and will create a lasting legacy by doing 
so. Innovation is core to the American identity, and innovation isn't 
confined to one party. Our job here is to create a framework that 
allows innovation to take root. Regulatory certainty fosters 
entrepreneurial innovation. A lack of regulatory clarity, on the flip 
side, strangles regulation, restrains entrepreneurship.
  In many cases, financial innovators are simply hungry to know the 
rules of the road and how they fit into existing law. We need a right-
sized regulatory framework for financial technology that both enables 
new market opportunities and emphasizes consumer protection. The 
innovator too often loses when competing against business giants with 
lobbying arms. Together, we can craft regulations that foster 
innovation, not stifle or unnecessarily direct it.
  We also need a new consumer protection framework for emerging tech, 
which promotes access and innovation but ensures appropriate guardrails 
are in place.
  Innovators are the lifeblood of America. Each new idea strengthens 
our future. Innovators have done hard work in coming up with ideas 
which will bring underserved populations into the financial system, 
reduce systemic risk, and strengthen our competitive nature on the 
global stage.
  Yet there is only so much innovators can accomplish due to our maze 
of financial regulations. American innovators need clear rules of the 
road so they can responsibly turn innovation into reality. It is our 
obligation as government officials to create a framework that clearly 
enables responsible innovation rather than stifling it. We must do a 
great deal more in the coming years to clarify and modernize our 
financial laws.
  Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Avanti Bank and Trust, State Street, 
Deutsche Bank, Kraken, and other large financial institutions are now 
doing much more than dipping their toes into this realm. They are 
diving into the financial technology and digital asset markets. 
Financial innovation is here to stay. Younger generations are turning 
to and prioritizing technology for their investments.
  In February, CNBC reported that there may be as many as 100,000 
millionaires from the appreciation of digital assets like Bitcoin. 
These technologies, if harnessed wisely, see no color, no creed, and no 
sex
  But financial innovation is not limited to regulating digital assets. 
This caucus will also focus on issues like faster payments, including a 
U.S. central bank digital currency and FedNow, which have real 
potential to allow all Americans to receive their paychecks instantly.
  The lack of real-time payments costs disadvantaged Americans millions 
in overdraft fees each year and would reduce many Americans' reliance 
on high-interest loans. It also traps large amounts of capital for 
companies, which could be deployed more productively. Tackling these 
issues will help bring millions of unbanked or underbanked Americans 
into our financial system.
  In Wyoming, we live by the doctrine that you have to pull yourself up 
by your bootstraps. What you earn is a direct result of your hard work. 
All Americans should have access to their hard-earned money and 
investments whenever they would like. We can and should use innovation 
technologies to reduce settlement times in our payment networks and 
capital markets and to reduce systemic risk and improve transparency.
  Threats to the world economic system, coupled with the benefits 
financial innovation can create, is why, today, alongside many of my 
colleagues from both parties, we are founding the Senate Financial 
Innovation Caucus. The caucus is a bipartisan group committed to 
promoting responsible innovation to help the U.S. financial industry 
truly meet 21st century challenges of a globally interconnected economy 
and to harvest technology to make markets more inclusive, vibrant, and 
safe for all Americans. After all, our financial innovation is critical 
in our pursuit to ensure equal access to financial institutions and 
opportunities.
  It is my hope that the work done by the Financial Innovation Caucus 
will deliver comprehensive legislation to clarify, regulate, and 
protect America's edge in the financial industry when it comes to 
innovation. We live in a digital world. Technology is now engrained in 
our everyday lives. Our lives should reflect this shift and should not 
hinder innovation. Only together can we secure the U.S. role in the 
future of finance. So let's go to work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                                S. 1260

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the United States is at a crossroads in our 
strategy to counter the threat posed by Communist China. It is vital 
that we place ourselves in a position to compete with China, to be 
sure, but it is equally important that we consider just what kind of 
game we are playing and just what kind of competitor we aspire to be.
  The bill before us, the Endless Frontier Act, aims to counter China 
primarily by boosting technology research and development. No doubt, 
these are important components of any strategy to counter China, but, 
unfortunately, it goes about it in the exact wrong way--trying to beat 
China at its own game and taking us across a frontier that we ought 
never to traverse. In fact, models of some of China's own bad 
strategies are emulated in this legislation, strategies that are in 
exact opposition--direct opposition--to American principles and 
American ways of life.
  Let's consider some of the hallmarks of communist China. In every 
aspect, the Chinese regime grows and centralizes the power of 
government at the expense of free citizens and free markets--an 
experiment that has expanded into dangerous and even deadly territory. 
Take, for example, China's record on human rights.
  China has gone so far as to enslave and subject the Tibetan and 
Uighur people to forced labor, reeducation, and torture. Under China's 
infamous one-child policy, it has brutally and barbarically forced 
families to undergo IUD implantation, complete sterilization, and 
abortion.
  It has a long, dark history of religious persecution and of silencing 
dissidents. Under President Xi Jinping, Chinese authorities have 
detained millions of Muslims and arrested thousands of Christians. They 
have seized control of Tibetan monasteries and closed or demolished 
dozens of Buddhist and Taoist temples. They have even practiced forced 
organ harvesting of members of the Falun Gong religion.
  Or consider China's actions in the realm of foreign policy.
  In true imperialist form, China is pushing its Belt and Road 
Initiative--a massive, predatory infrastructure project that stretches 
from East Asia to Europe--designed to massively expand China's coercive 
economic and political influence. It has spread Confucius Institutes 
across American college campuses, entangling American universities with 
Chinese state policies and turning them into megaphones to repeat 
Chinese propaganda. In multilateral organizations, China continuously 
undermines longstanding democratic norms, instituting policies that, 
instead, benefit the Chinese Communist Party's authoritarian values, 
and it has held a tight, cronyist, command-and-control grip over its 
economy--heavily subsidizing industries and constantly picking winners 
and losers.
  While China has picked up some steam through some of these actions, 
we cannot ignore that whatever momentum it may have acquired is of 
dubious success and minimal sustainability in the long run. You see, 
China, under the control of the Communist Party, has, in reality, one 
of the least

[[Page S3482]]

efficient economies in the entire world. In terms of GDP per capita, it 
is quite the opposite of being at the top of the barrel. In fact, it is 
way down, right next to Cuba and Kazakhstan.
  It turns out that political corruption and state-owned enterprises 
come with some financial dead weight too. The financial cost alone of 
enslaving, sterilizing, and brainwashing 12.8 million Uighurs and other 
oppressed groups is steep, even as the human cost of this moral 
depravity is far worse and infinitely steeper.
  Killing future generations' potential through abortion is also as 
foolish as it is inhumane. As a result of its decades-long abortion and 
one-child or two-child policies, China is on track to lose a third of 
its workforce and age faster than any society in history. The ratio of 
workers to retirees in China, which is currently 8 to 1, is projected 
to whittle down to 2 to 1 in the coming decades. With only two 
employees for every retiree, China's pension system, which is already 
showing signs of buckling, will inevitably crack under pressure.
  It is true that China is aggressive, and it is true that China is 
really big, but it is not ironclad in its position of global strength, 
to put it mildly. As its population ages more and more and as more of 
its land falls into wasted, polluted squalor, it will have neither the 
inhabitants nor the resources to continue on its current course of 
perceived economic prosperity.
  There is nothing about China's principles or about China's trajectory 
that we should try to emulate, not in the least. In nearly every way 
imaginable, the Chinese regime consolidates power to trample the rights 
of individual men and women and quash free expression, the free 
exercise of religion, and free enterprise. Nothing could be more 
antithetical to the American system of government and the American way 
of life. In fact, it is precisely the opposite formula that has made us 
the world's strongest and most prosperous nation.
  The Founders gave us a Constitution precisely for the purpose of 
dispersing and limiting power within the Federal Government and to keep 
government, in general, as close and accountable to the people as 
possible. And they gave us a Bill of Rights precisely to safeguard 
individual liberty and protect our most cherished freedoms--empowering 
ordinary men and women to preach and live out their deepest beliefs in 
the public square, to gather and speak freely, to bear arms, and to 
petition the government in redress of grievances.
  You see, the beauty of this design is that it opens up the space for 
two separate but mutually reinforcing institutions that are at the 
heart of our vision of freedom and that are absolutely key to our 
success: a free enterprise economy and a voluntary civil society.
  These systems work in tandem for everyone because they impel everyone 
to work together--harnessing individuals' self-interests to the common 
good of the community and, ultimately, that of the Nation. It is the 
free market system that prizes human ingenuity, rewarding people for 
putting their God-given talents and their own exertions and resources 
in the service of their neighbors.
  The free market impels us to ask: What problems need to be solved? 
What can I do to improve other people's lives?
  It is the free market that created the wealth that liberated millions 
of American families from subsistence farming, opening up opportunities 
for the pursuit of happiness never known before or since in government-
directed economies. These are blessings that never will be known in an 
economy dominated by a government.
  In America, it has also always been understood that the family is the 
building block of society, worthy of protecting and of empowering, and 
it has been the cooperation between families, churches, neighborhoods, 
clubs, and voluntary associations that have knit together the American 
social fabric and made it strong.
  In other words, the beauty of the American system is that of opening 
up the space for everyday citizens to build creative, productive, 
meaningful, and happy lives together. These are the hallmarks of the 
American system of government, and these are the things that we ought 
to preserve in moving forward
  Unfortunately, the bill before us attempts not to double down on our 
successes but to pivot to the so-called ``successes'' of China by 
federally hijacking research and development and crowding out the 
private incentives that bring successful ideas to market. It is a 
flawed and, ultimately, foolish strategy.
  First, in our free and democratic society, we will never marshal the 
will to ramp up taxes and spend China into the ground, nor should we 
try.
  Second, history has proven, time and again, that centralized planning 
is a losing game. The United States has already tried the industrial 
policy experiment of picking winners and losers and causing great harm 
in the process. In fact, that is exactly how we have ended up with the 
terrible protectionist policies like trade wars and the Jones Act.
  The strategy of the Endless Frontier Act, however, is rooted in the 
mistaken belief that our markets have failed us and that the only means 
by which we can jump-start our economy and create innovation is by 
trusting in Federal Government bureaucrats.
  So what would it do in reality?
  It would green-light $54 billion in spending beyond our budget caps, 
with additional authorizations of $190 billion, and it would put this 
massive amount of money toward more government bureaucracy, producing a 
system where the government picks winners and losers in industry, 
creating artificial demand for inefficient technologies, crowding out 
the good research and development that the private sector already does, 
and increasing our manufacturing costs.
  If we are to compete with China and maintain our leadership in 
technology, what, instead, should be our path forward? What should we 
do instead of passing this law that tries to compete with China by 
using strategies that work only for China and will never work here and 
must never work here?
  We have to do what America does and always has done best. Instead of 
chilling innovation and competition, we ought to decentralize power and 
champion trust in the private sector. We ought to decrease regulation, 
not invest in regulatory bodies. We ought to simplify and cut taxes, 
not offshore our jobs. We ought to use our critical minerals, not let 
them languish. We ought to partner with our allies, not restrict fair 
trade. We ought to harvest timber, not organs. We ought to defend 
families, not diminish them. We ought to encourage entrepreneurship, 
not crony capitalism. We ought to strengthen markets, not government.
  Two paths lie before us. I urge my colleagues to choose the better 
part and reject this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, thank you very much. I wanted to rise today 
to talk about a matter that has come before the Senate in the bill that 
we are considering, the United States Innovation and Competition Act. I 
rise to talk about a particular amendment that I have been working on. 
It is amendment No. 1853. Of course I urge the Senate to act quickly to 
approve this amendment to protect our supply chains that are critical 
to the national security of the United States.
  I wanted to explain what the origin of this amendment has been. It 
goes all the way back to the beginning of the pandemic, the worst 
public health crisis in over 100 years in our Nation. At that time, as 
so many Americans remember, we watched in horror as access to masks, 
gloves, gowns, and even more sophisticated equipment, like ventilators 
and other critical supplies--when all of that was necessary for 
pandemic response, all of a sudden, it dried up.
  The reason why we had such a shortage of supplies and personal 
protective equipment and the like was that supply chains were delayed, 
and those supply chains, of course, were originating in China, which we 
know is a country where the government is run by the Chinese Communist 
Party. That same ruling party and that government even tightened 
restrictions on the exports of masks and other personal protective 
equipment.
  So we learned the hard way, the very hard way, just how dependent our 
supply chains are on goods originating in China. We learned how 
vulnerable we

[[Page S3483]]

all are, our Nation was and is, to the Chinese Government's whims, 
really the whim of the Communist Party in China, because it is a fact 
that they control the companies that produce and export the critical 
supplies we depend upon.
  This amendment, amendment 1853, which, by the way, is bipartisan in 
ways that you don't see very much of in the Senate these days--three 
Democrats and three Republicans coming together on this bipartisan 
amendment. It is an effort to enhance our national security at its 
core. That is what it is about, enhancing our national security, but 
unfortunately corporate forces are blocking it. They are even blocking 
a vote on it. They don't, apparently, want to see a vote on this bill, 
and they also don't want to include it in an agreement between both 
sides when the bill is about to be completed in a so-called managers' 
package as part of the bill.
  We just want to get it done because I am interested in and my five 
cosponsors from both parties are interested in protecting U.S. national 
security.
  What we read today in a publication, POLITICO Pro, the morning trade 
edition--I am just holding up a copy of it here, and I will just make 
reference to it. I don't think we have to add all of it to the Record, 
but here is the lead for POLITICO Pro this morning. The lead says this:

       Trade groups representing some of the country's largest 
     corporations are staunchly opposing a Senate proposal that 
     would subject U.S. companies to a Federal review before they 
     can make certain investments in China or relocate critical 
     manufacturing capabilities there.

  And then in the body of the report, when it gets down to reporting in 
detail who is opposing this amendment and what they are saying, it says 
that this amendment has ``riled up big business.''
  ``Riled up big business.'' Just imagine that. Big corporations riled 
up because a bipartisan group of Senators is coming together to protect 
national security, and they are riled up. They don't seem to support us 
in this.
  Here is what one of the organizations that would go on the record--of 
course, you have a lot of big corporations that are hiding behind trade 
groups--trade associations, I should say. They don't have the guts to 
stand up and oppose this. They are hiding behind organizations.
  Here is one of the organizations, and I am quoting Anna Ashton, vice 
president of government affairs at the U.S.-China Business Council. 
Here is what they have to say:

       We long have said that national security should not be 
     defined in a vague way.

  ``Vague way.'' We are not vague in this. We are very clear. And then 
she goes on to criticize it.
  So what are we talking about here? We are talking about an effort to 
protect U.S. national security not just in the context of the pandemic 
but more broadly. We have had corporations for more than a generation 
now offshoring work and business to China and other places. Because 
they are seeking cheaper production and labor costs, these companies 
have been moving production of manufactured goods overseas, often to 
China. When you move your supply chain overseas, you are at the mercy 
of the laws and regulations of the country you move to, and in this 
case, you are at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party.
  Now, this isn't a big problem when offshoring goes to allied or 
liberal democracies, allied or liberal democratic countries, but it 
does become a problem when the offshoring goes to foreign adversaries 
like China and Russia that don't play by the rules.

  So how do we solve the problem? How do we ensure that the panic and 
the powerlessness that we all experienced way back in the spring of 
2020 and beyond--how do we make sure that doesn't happen again? How do 
we make sure that the most powerful Nation in the world, the most 
powerful Nation in human history, is not at the mercy of the Chinese 
Communist Party or the Russian Federation or any other country--at 
their mercy not just generally but at their mercy for something as 
simple as personal protective equipment, gowns and gloves and masks? 
How do we make sure we are never in that predicament again?
  Well, one of the things we need to do is have a process to screen 
outbound investment. We have had for the better part of 50 years a 
screen for inbound investment, OK? We have a committee that has done 
that since the midseventies. All we are doing here with this amendment 
is putting in place an outbound investment screen so that outbound 
investment screen will make sure that our national security interests 
are not compromised.
  We don't want to create further dependency on supply chains that are 
located in the countries--where the country is a foreign adversary.
  So this amendment 1853 is modeled after legislation that I authored a 
few years ago, the National Critical Capabilities Defense Act, where we 
have reintroduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Cornyn, the senior 
Senator from Texas.
  I mentioned earlier that this is three Democrats and three 
Republicans on this amendment--Senator Cornyn, as I made reference to; 
Senator Stabenow, Democrat from Michigan; Senator Rubio, Republican 
Senator from Florida; Senator Kaine, Democrat from Virginia; and 
Senator Tillis, Republican Senator from North Carolina. They have all 
supported an amendment that would establish this process to screen 
outbound investments and the offshoring of critical supply chains to 
foreign adversaries like China and Russia to ensure the resiliency of 
critical U.S. supply chains.
  It would require that companies disclose before--before--they 
offshore national critical capabilities to foreign adversary--foreign 
adversaries, plural. So it is a commonsense approach to deal with a 
problem that preexists the pandemic but came into sharp focus when we 
were totally at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party.
  The review process is designed to identify vulnerabilities and to 
provide a suite of recommendations to the President, and it emphasizes 
remedial action such as support to domestic industries, like increased 
research and development investment, utilization of manufacturing 
institutes, among others.
  The proposal encourages supply chain diversity, and the bill is 
limited in scope, only covering foreign adversaries like China and 
Russia. It is limited in its purview. It looks only at national 
critical capacities.
  The amendment establishes an interagency committee led by the U.S. 
Trade Representative to oversee the review process for capacities that 
are deemed ``critical'' to U.S. national security.
  This committee would focus on outbound investment or offshoring of 
these critical capacities, supply chains, domestic production, and 
manufacturing to foreign adversaries. I would note the committee would 
not--would not--review outbound investments to allied countries or any 
country not on the affirmative list.
  The amendment would also establish a process to conduct outgoing--I 
am sorry--ongoing evaluation of critical supply chains. In short, the 
amendment would ensure the United States can respond to the needs of 
our Nation and those who may call upon us in times of crisis.
  But here is the problem: This commonsense, bipartisan amendment, in a 
town that doesn't do a lot of bipartisanship, is being opposed by 
corporate interests. Powerful corporate interests are opposed to this 
amendment and, in some cases, are actively working against it to shut 
it down.
  There has been a whisper campaign by corporate lobbyists to kill this 
bipartisan amendment that protects our national security. They are 
lobbying against an amendment--against an amendment--that will ensure 
the United States has better visibility on supply chain vulnerabilities 
so we can respond to the needs of our Nation and those who call upon us 
in these times of crisis.
  If a company wants to offshore semiconductors to China, we need to 
know about it, and the President could block it if that activity is a 
risk to national security. Yet business interests like the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce and the U.S.-China Business Council are organizing against 
this commonsense proposal.
  And, as I mentioned earlier, these groups of big corporations are 
hiding behind their trade associations to do the work that they are 
doing. They are fearmongering, and they are spreading

[[Page S3484]]

misinformation. This effort is not surprising because often you have 
that in Washington. We have interests that come together, even in the 
face of something that would help our national security.
  Our Nation and workers pay dearly when companies prioritize their 
bottom line over supply chain resiliency and security. When they 
offshore jobs and technology to foreign adversaries like China, our 
country pays for that, pays dearly.
  I mentioned the U.S.-China Business Council and their opposition. The 
association for businesses--that is what this is--the association for 
businesses in China--businesses in China, and they are opposing.
  So they have got a basic choice to make here, not just that 
organization but any organization in any company. It is a real simple 
choice. You can choose national security and a commonsense way to do 
that, in a bipartisan amendment, or you can just choose profits in 
places controlled by foreign adversaries. It is a real simple choice. 
This is not complicated. They will try to make it complicated, but it 
is not.
  Let me start to address some of their arguments. I mentioned earlier 
that the industry says that covered products are defined in a ``vague 
way''--a ``vague way.'' That is what they say.
  That is not true. We provide specifics on personal protective 
equipment, medical equipment, goods that are critical to the 
electricity grid or disaster preparedness, and we expect a robust 
rulemaking process. Everyone knows that. When you pass a bill like this 
or a policy like this, rulemaking follows. We specifically and clearly 
state that rulemaking needs to provide specifics for firms to 
understand what and when--what they need to disclose and when they need 
to disclose it.
  We limit review exclusively to foreign adversaries like China and 
Russia. If a U.S. firm is offshoring critical capacities to a foreign 
adversary, the U.S. Government should know about it.
  But again, that only applies to outbound investment to foreign 
adversaries. We are not talking about outbound investment to Germany. 
We are not talking about outbound investment to Canada or Australia. We 
are talking about China and Russia here.
  So we took business comments, and we took edits from business groups 
around the country. We tried to ensure it was specific to threats while 
also providing flexibility for the administration to adapt and to 
adjust.
  So what is Big Business really opposing? They are opposing better 
visibility on when they offshore these critical capacities to a, in 
this case, Chinese Communist Party, a Communist country, that happens 
to be a foreign adversary in so many areas of our bilateral 
relationship. They are opposing better visibility on engagement with a 
government that is involved in gross human rights abuses and forced 
labor and oppression of its people.
  The old expression ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant'' applies 
here. Why would we allow a U.S. company to take an action that 
compromises our national security and disaster preparedness? So we 
engaged in good faith in taking reasonable comments from these big 
business associations. Businesses offshoring critical capacities to 
foreign adversaries should be everyone's concern, not just the concern 
of six Senators in the Senate and some others who have spoken in favor
  Big name-brand companies don't want their names attached to this 
effort. That is why they are hiding behind their trade associations. 
But I want to be clear with them and clear to those who are listening. 
We know who you are; we know what companies are behind this; and we 
know what you are doing.
  I am going to continue to work to pass this amendment or, if it ends 
up in a bill form, we are going to pass it because we are going to take 
steps here in the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, to protect U.S. 
national security in this fashion. We are not going away.
  So if these business groups think they are making progress today, we 
are going to defeat you. So just get ready for it because we are going 
to defeat you.
  Now, I will hold some comments that I was going to make about some 
others who are opposing this. I will limit my comments today.
  I want to just conclude with this thought. A lot of Members of this 
body talk really tough about China. They act tough with China. They 
give a lot of speeches. You know, there is a lot of hot air about 
China. They go on television and talk about it, but then sometimes when 
it comes to taking on big interests, they cut and run. I would hope 
that those three Republican Senators aren't the only Senators on their 
side who are willing to stand up for this critical national security 
issue.
  Again, it is a real simple choice. It is national security or getting 
profits at the mercy of a Chinese Communist Party. We are asking for a 
vote on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1520

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to once again call for this 
entire body to have the opportunity to consider the Military Justice 
Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act, which would ensure people in 
the military who have been subjected to sexual assault and other 
serious crimes get the justice they deserve.
  I rise on behalf of the supporters of this bill, including a 
bipartisan, filibuster-proof group of 65 Senators, major veterans 
service organizations, and the veterans they represent. Every day we 
delay a vote on this bill is another day that their voices are being 
silenced.
  Our legislation makes the commonsense reform that our veterans and 
our servicemembers have asked for. It takes a decision on whether to 
prosecute serious crimes out of the chain of command and moves it to 
independent, trained, military prosecutors. This will create a system 
that is free of bias and capable of fairly trying these complex crimes.
  This legislation, as I mentioned, is supported by the Nation's major 
veterans service organizations. These organizations recognize that this 
reform would build a military justice system worthy of the service of 
our members--a system that delivers justice, consequences, and 
convictions.
  This bill is supported by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 
America. Their CEO, Jeremy Butler said:

       The status quo with our military chain of command's 
     response to military sexual assault is not working and this 
     continuing threat to our military requires this commonsense 
     solution to protect our servicemembers.

  It is supported by the American Legion, which recognizes that this 
legislation will ``improv[e] the system by which the Department of 
Defense investigates and prosecutes reported cases of military sexual 
trauma so that it is on par with the civilian system.''
  It is supported by Protect Our Defenders. Retired Col. Don 
Christensen, the president of Protect Our Defenders said:

       Every year, generals come before Congress and tell Congress 
     that sexual assault is a cancer in the force. This is a 
     readiness issue. This is a force protection issue. This is an 
     issue that drives out thousands of good men and women every 
     year who want to serve. This [reform] will finally see the 
     justice that our members deserve and the prevention they 
     deserve.

  It is supported by the Vietnam Veterans of America. In a letter of 
support for this legislation, national president John Rowan wrote:

       After decades of hearing that the military will not 
     tolerate military sexual assaults and that it has zero 
     tolerance of such, the numbers continue to climb.

  Vietnam Veterans of America believes it is time to make real change 
to the process if real action is to be taken in its attention to the 
victims and the violence. Fear of reporting the crime of sexual assault 
is a barrier in addressing the justice these victims deserve. Their 
legal counsel and defense counsel should be no less than a civilian 
receives in our court system.
  This bill is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which 
accounts for more than 1.5 million veterans as members. It is supported 
by Common Defense. It is supported by SWAN, the Service Women's Action 
Network. It is supported by the Veterans Recovery Project. It is 
supported by the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the 
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
  These are veterans. These are our constituents, our fellow Americans, 
and these are people who have put their lives on the line for this 
country and seen firsthand the way the current

[[Page S3485]]

military justice system fails our servicemembers. They know better than 
anyone else what change needs to be made, and they are asking to pass 
this bill.
  Do not silence their voices. Let this vote come to the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I rise again today in support of my 
colleague in calling for consideration of the Military Justice 
Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. This is an effort whose time 
has come for serious debate and consideration on the Senate floor.
  For 8 years, the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which Senator 
Gillibrand and I sit, has worked on countless efforts to seek justice 
for victims of sexual assault, all within the chain of command. Many of 
these were good provisions pushed by myself and others to reduce the 
barriers in reporting sexual assaults. Provisions focused on both 
prevention and professionalization of military courts handling sexual 
assault cases and efforts to improve the culture and ensure all 
enlistees receive sexual assault prevention training before attendance 
at their initial training. This is just to name a few.
  What has brought me here today supporting this effort with Senator 
Gillibrand and Senator Grassley, with 64 cosponsors in the Senate, is 
that while these efforts were well-intentioned, our plague continues. 
That is not OK with me as a combat veteran, a former commander, and 
sexual assault survivor myself.
  If our military is going to face the threats of the decades ahead, we 
will need a force that is free from the threats in its own ranks. As I 
mentioned, this legislation has 64 bipartisan cosponsors and more than 
50 percent of committee members' support.
  It is the right bill at the right time, and we must not delay any 
further. So I join with Senator Gillibrand in a call for consideration 
of this bill.
  I yield back to the Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a 
time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the 
Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged 
from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its 
consideration; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided in the 
usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the 
Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REED. Madam President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Reserving my right to object. For the reasons I articulated 
on Monday, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered


                      Military Appreciation Month

  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, just 1 percent of the U.S. population 
serves in the defense of our great Nation. America owes an immeasurable 
debt of gratitude to this small number of citizens who give so much to 
protect our freedoms and our way of life.
  May is Military Appreciation Month, so on behalf of the people of 
Iowa and me personally, I want to thank each and every one of the women 
and men of our Armed Forces and their families.
  We may celebrate you in May, but we appreciate you every single day. 
You are the ones whom we call upon to defend our Nation from our 
foreign adversaries and rogue actors who intend to harm us. You are the 
ones we called upon when COVID-19 seeped into our borders and shut down 
America. You stood guard to ensure our way of life succeeds. Thank you 
for being the greatest fighting force on the face of the planet.
  After 23 years of my own military service, with great pride, I now 
get to watch as my daughter soon embarks on her career as an Army 
officer.
  Libby, thank you for your willingness to serve and the sacrifices you 
have committed to.
  While serving in the military is one of the most rewarding 
experiences, it is not easy. As we approach Memorial Day, we must all 
take time to remember the servicemembers and their families who have 
paid the ultimate price, laying down their lives for our great Nation.
  Iowa has lost 158 of our sons and daughters in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
2 in Panama or Grenada, 7 in the first Persian Gulf war, and 867 in 
Vietnam. Our Korean and world wars numbers were in the thousands.
  While I won't be able to individually honor all of these heroes, 
today I would like to echo a few names in remembrance of Iowans we lost 
in the defense of our Nation.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                    Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey E. Bohr

  Madam President, Marine GySgt Jeffrey E. Bohr, Jr., is from the tiny 
farm town of Ossian. He was 39 years old when he was killed on April 
10, 2003, after a 7-hour gun battle in front of a Baghdad, Iraq, 
mosque.
  Gunnery Sergeant Bohr served a 20-year career as an Army Ranger and 
then a Marine. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 
Camp Pendleton, CA, at the time of his death. He was the first Iowan 
killed by enemy fire in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he was 
posthumously awarded the Silver Star.
  Gunnery Sergeant Bohr left behind his wife Lori, who is also a native 
of Iowa.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                     Sergeant James C. Kearney III

  Madam President, Army SGT James C. Kearney III--I know him as Jamie. 
He was an Iowa National Guardsman from Emerson, which is 10 miles from 
where I grew up. I knew Jamie before he enlisted in the Iowa Army 
National Guard. He was very excited about his enlistment, and he told 
me about his excitement and how he felt that he had found a place that 
truly rewarded him.
  He was 22 years old when he died on November 1, 2004, in Salerno, 
Afghanistan, from injuries he sustained when his convoy was attacked by 
enemy forces using rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire in 
Afghanistan.
  Sergeant Kearney was assigned to 1st Battalion, 168th Infantry, in 
Glenwood, IA, at his death. He was posthumously promoted to the rank of 
sergeant and awarded a Bronze Star with a ``V'' device for valor. He 
was the first Iowan killed in Operation Enduring Freedom, and our 
community misses Jamie to this day.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                Petty Officer 2nd Class Jaime S. Jaenke

  Madam President, Navy PO2 Jaime Jaenke was a naval reservist and a 
native of Iowa Falls. She is beautiful, isn't she? She was 30 years old 
when she was killed on June 5, 2006, in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, when a 
roadside bomb struck the Humvee that she was riding in.
  She was assigned to the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 25, based 
in Fort McCoy, WI, at her death. She was posthumously awarded the Navy-
Marine Corps Commendation Medal with ``V'' for valor.
  She left behind her daughter, Kayla. She was the first woman killed 
in Operation Iraqi Freedom from Iowa.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                   Lance Corporal Adam Franklin Wolf

  Madam President, LCpl Adam Franklin Wolf is from Eldon. He was 25 
years old when he was killed on June 20, 2014, in Helmand Province, 
Afghanistan, when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated 
near his vehicle.
  He was assigned to the 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, 2nd Marine 
Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, from Camp Lejeune, NC.
  He is Iowa's most recent fatality. His twin brother and family 
survive him.


                      Honoring Gold Star Families

  Madam President, another group of strength and resiliency I want to 
acknowledge today is our Gold Star families. They are the ones left 
behind in battle and in war. We owe it to the heroes who gave their all 
to protect and care for their families and their communities.
  To every Gold Star family, thank you. Thank you for the sacrifices 
you

[[Page S3486]]

have made and continue to make every day. I assure you, you are not 
alone or forgotten.
  I would like to take just a brief moment of silence in honor of those 
we lost in combat or due to everlasting combat injuries.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                S. 1260

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we know that some of our biggest 
competitors around the world spend billions in propping up state-owned 
enterprises and investing in research and development. They have also 
gotten pretty good at taking our ideas, monetizing them, and using them 
to compete--and sometimes cheat--against American businesses while 
paying their workers less and giving those workers fewer protections 
and rights. China is often the worst offender.
  Ohio workers know all too well what happens to their jobs and their 
communities when they are forced to compete with Chinese companies that 
break the rules, pay poverty wages, and are propped up by the 
government. We are working to change that this week
  I want the technologies that will drive the next generation of U.S. 
economic growth and manufacturing--from semiconductors to hydrogen 
buses to the next-generation jet engine--to be developed in America and 
to put people to work in good-paying jobs in our country.
  This is something we should all agree on. It is what we are working 
to do with this comprehensive, bipartisan bill.
  This package is packed with investment in research and development, 
technology, and high-tech domestic manufacturing that will again set us 
up to lead the world. It supports American manufacturing and 
innovation. It gives businesses the tools to compete. It supports 
American workers--the engine behind our success.
  It includes my Build America, Buy America Act to strengthen our ``Buy 
American'' rules and ensure that American tax dollars go towards 
American-made products that create American jobs.
  This provision is the result of bipartisan partnership. I would like 
to thank my colleague from my State, Senator Portman, and also Senators 
Peters and Stabenow from Michigan, Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin, and 
Senator Braun from Indiana for their work.
  Our legislation would apply ``Buy American'' rules to all taxpayer-
funded infrastructure and public works projects. When we ensure our tax 
dollars are spent on American products, these tax dollars go further in 
the economy. We employ more workers who spend on local businesses and 
lift up everyone.
  When we say ``Buy American,'' we mean ``Buy American''--not import a 
steel slab from China, make it into a pipe, and stamp on it ``Made in 
America.'' We need to make sure these rules are thorough, tough, and 
effective. That is exactly what this provision does.
  This bill also gives our country tough new tools to crack down on 
China's cheating.
  Banking and Housing Committee Ranking Member Toomey and I worked 
together on an amendment to take on Chinese espionage against our 
economy. The amendment is the product of months of bipartisan 
negotiation. I thank Senator Toomey and his bipartisan staff.
  The Presiding Officer, Senator Ossoff, is a new member of that 
committee and has contributed greatly on this and other projects we 
have done.
  Our plan directly confronts action by the Chinese Government and 
Chinese firms that hurt American workers and companies by stealing 
their valuable intellectual property. These measures were developed by 
Senator Van Hollen. They require mandatory imposition of powerful new 
sanctions on Chinese actors who steal U.S. trade secrets.
  The United States remains a global center for research, development, 
and innovation, and for years, people have been stealing our ideas. 
China is the worst offender; we know that. The Chinese Government and 
the companies it props up engage in systematic and growing espionage 
against our businesses and our workers. The theft of trade secrets 
costs the United States as much as $540 billion every year.
  Our plan would give the President new tools to go after Chinese 
actors who target our country with cyber attacks. Americans have all 
seen over the past few weeks how serious cyber attacks are, how they 
can disrupt our entire economy. We need strong tools to punish these 
attackers and the countries that finance and support them.
  Sanctions are just one new tool this package includes to increase 
American competitiveness.
  We will build on the success of our bipartisan Revitalize American 
Manufacturing and Innovation Act to create more manufacturing 
innovation hubs around the country.
  Back in 2014, I worked with Republican Senator Roy Blunt and the 
Obama administration to pass the Revitalize American Manufacturing and 
Innovation Act. This landmark bill created a national network of 
advanced manufacturing hubs. It was one of the biggest steps we had 
taken as a country in a long time to make our manufacturing more 
competitive.
  America Makes in Youngstown--the first of its kind, the first in this 
program--started as a pilot program back 9 years ago. It became the 
first hub in that network.
  I thank my colleagues for their work on this. I thank especially two 
members of my staff who are on the floor today, Abigail Duggan and 
Megan Malara, for the work they have done. I thank my colleagues for 
moving forward on this very important act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma


                                Ethiopia

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, over the weekend, the State Department--
that is, our State Department--imposed visa restrictions on several 
Ethiopian and Eritrean Government officials. They claim these officials 
have not done enough to end the hostilities in the Tigray area.
  Now, the Tigray area is in the northern part of Ethiopia, and it is 
an area that is one of the very old parts of that continent.
  First, we need to be clear. Everyone, especially the Ethiopian 
Government, wants nothing more than a peaceful resolution to the 
conflict in the Tigray, but this action puts the terrorist organization 
TPLF--that is a terrorist organization--on equal status with the 
Ethiopian Government. Now, that is unacceptable, and it is wrong. It is 
outrageous that we have them in the same issue as if they are somehow 
equals.
  Let me say something to be 100 percent clear, to make sure no one can 
misunderstand this, and that is that humanitarian atrocities are wrong 
and have no place in our world. I am proud that Prime Minister Abiy of 
Ethiopia has clearly stated that any atrocities are not condoned by the 
government and those responsible will be held accountable. That is 
going to happen.
  To truly understand this issue and why putting the Ethiopian 
Government on equal footing with the TPLF is so offensive and downright 
wrong, you need to understand how we got here. Indulge with me in just 
a little bit of history.
  Now, I know the changes Ethiopia has seen over the last decade. Since 
2005, I have visited Ethiopia 19 different times, engaging and 
developing relationships with Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, 
legislators, businesspeople, aid workers, and everyone else in between. 
I say this to show that I know Ethiopia probably better than anyone 
else in this Chamber. But more than that, I know its history.
  Ethiopia is the oldest independent country in all of Africa but one 
that is newly democratic. That comes with problems, and we understand 
that.
  The current controversy and why we are here today started back in the 
1970s with a man named Mengistu. From 1974 to 1991, Mengistu was the 
leader of the Communist Derg. That is the Communist Party in Ethiopia. 
This was the

[[Page S3487]]

controlling party at the time. It is a Communist Party. They ran 
Ethiopia. It was a terrible time for Ethiopia. That was during one of 
the worst famines they ever had on that continent or actually anywhere. 
It killed over a million people. That might be the most significant 
famine in history in terms of deaths.
  Then, in 1991, the Communists were booted out. At the time that this 
took place, one person who was responsible for the getting rid of the 
Derg Communists and the Communist threat in Ethiopia was a guy named 
Meles. He was a member of the Tigrayan political party.
  Now, we got to know him quite well. He is the one who got communism 
out of that part of the world. He ended up as Prime Minister. This is 
really the election that a lot of people don't like, and they forget 
about the fact that he was the Prime Minister who actually got rid of 
the Communists in Ethiopia.
  So he became the Prime Minister. He started to build democracy. He 
died in 2012. I got to know him quite well during his lifetime, and I 
saw the progress that he made and the advances that they made.
  He was then replaced by another Prime Minister whose name is 
Hailemariam. Now he became Prime Minister, and he continued to push for 
democracy. Hailemariam worked diligently to improve things. Under his 
tenure, Ethiopia established the Independent Ethiopian Human Rights 
Committee that reported on violence and human rights problems, and it 
was tremendously successful. They didn't just establish it; they acted 
on it. They came out with a report and acted on it to hold perpetrators 
accountable and to make the improvements that were being made at that 
time. Our relationship wasn't just government-to-government; it was 
brother-to-brother.
  In February of 2017, Prime Minister Hailemariam suggested that since 
the provinces were all fighting at one time--and at that time, there 
were nine provinces in Ethiopia. Each province had a Governor. We 
suggested on the phone with the Members of the Senate here in 
Washington and the House prayer group in the House of Representatives 
that what we ought to do is follow the recommendation of Eisenhower. We 
are talking about former General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower. He 
was a great, great President of the United States. This was right after 
World War II. He said--this is a quote. I am quoting Eisenhower now. He 
said:

       The problems of this world are so great that we will never 
     resolve the problems until we learn to sit down and pray 
     together.

  So we decided, let's all get the Governors, the Prime Minister, 
Members of the House, Members of the Senate, and the rest all together, 
and we will pray with them. We did this. In fact, we had five Senators 
with me at that time, and we went over. The problem was, only two of 
the Governors showed up, out of nine, so it didn't work.

  Eight months later, we had occasion to be back there, and we put 
together the same thing, but we talked to them to let them know--we 
talked to the Governors at that time, the nine Governors who were in 
Ethiopia. So we got them and explained what it was all about. The 
Governors who had been fighting with each other and had been fighting 
with Hailemariam all prayed together, and we were joined in prayer by 
18 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. We were joined with 
them by phone, and the Prime Minister and all of us, Members of the 
Senate and others who were there, we all rejoiced and embraced each 
other.
  That was really significant. The nine Governors had never been 
together before. They didn't like each other. They never had been in 
the same room before. But most of the people didn't live in cities, and 
that made this effort that much more difficult. The vast majority of 
people who live there are in rural communities, and that made this 
widespread change in development a longer and more difficult path.
  In Ethiopia, the tribal factions also played a great role. If you go 
from province to province, that used to be from tribe to tribe, and 
they historically have not gotten along until this time. So it made it 
more difficult because of the factions and all of that, but it worked. 
We unified them together, and that was unlike anything that has ever 
happened.
  One of the Governors who was there at the time was named Dr. Abiy. 
You might remember that name because he is now the Prime Minister of 
Ethiopia. I have often said that Dr. Abiy is arguably the most 
educated, the smartest guy I have seen in that position in--of the 
entire continent of Africa. He is just a tremendous person.
  We got them together at a leaders breakfast. We put something 
together where he told the story of his journey in faith in Jesus. This 
is Dr. Abiy.
  We met a year later, where we prayed and talked about how to unify 
the country in peace, not conflict. It is from these meetings that I 
know Abiy is committed to democracy and committed to the future of 
Ethiopia. He is showing that with his actions as well.
  Abiy was elected Prime Minister in 2018 after active and spirited 
protests against the existing ruling party, the Ethiopian People's 
Revolutionary Democratic Front, which had run the country for almost 30 
years. Abiy was elected by a country looking for fresh leadership. He 
immediately took steps to create positive change. He promised unity and 
reconciliation, and against all odds, he delivered. He passed liberal 
democratic reforms, and he freed political prisoners and journalists. 
Abiy even did what was once believed impossible: He negotiated a peace 
treaty with Eritrea after decades of long cold war and was recognized 
with a Nobel Peace Prize for his work. He was the recipient of a Nobel 
Peace Prize for all the wonderful work he had done. That was in Africa. 
It was a leading operation.
  So how does all this play into the situation before us today? The 
Ethiopian People's Democratic Front--the previous ruling party--is 
dominated by people from Tigray, the area up north that we talked about 
before, one of the regional provinces.
  When Abiy set up a new governing body and focused on governing for 
the whole of Ethiopia, and not just a few politically powerful regions, 
the TPLF wasn't happy. That is the terrorist group. They felt like they 
were losing the outsized influence that they held for decades and 
decades.
  They also weren't happy about the peace deal with Eritrea, the TPLF, 
who were ruling Ethiopia in the 1990s when the bitter Eritrea-Ethiopian 
conflict was going on. Decades later, they still feel aggrieved and 
didn't want peace. The result, they started acting out.
  In 2019, they started to refuse to participate in the new government 
and the new ruling party. They expressed their frustration in more 
overt and destabilizing ways. They held their own regional 
parliamentary elections in September during the height of the 
coronavirus pandemic instead of agreeing with the other provinces and 
the Prime Minister that they should be postponed because of the 
pandemic.
  The militia affiliated with the TPLF--that is the terrorist group 
that has been designated by the Ethiopian Parliament as a terrorist 
group--attacked an Ethiopian army base in Mekelle on November 4 and 
stole weapons there.
  Let me restate this plainly. A regional party, TPLF, attacked a 
government military base. The government rightfully responded, and the 
regional terrorist group is well equipped and has been fighting back 
and continuing the conflict for a long period of time now.
  That is what is going on right now. That is the situation we find 
ourselves in, and that is why it is astounding to me that our 
government continues to treat this situation with both sides being 
equal when clearly they are not. One side is the democratically elected 
government, and the other side is a disgruntled faction that is 
reacting with violence because they are no longer in power. It is a 
terrorist group.
  And again, the Ethiopian Government has been clear that they do not 
condone any of the reported atrocities, and they will hold anyone who 
commits atrocities accountable. We, the United States, need to continue 
to engage Ethiopia and try to understand how what we are seeing today 
is a product years in the making. It is not a simple matter of two 
aggrieved parties. It is Prime Minister Abiy working to protect a 
unified, peaceful, stable Ethiopia.
  We should be talking to him about how we can help him restore peace, 
not slapping punitive sanctions on his government--an action that does 
nothing but demonstrate that we can't or won't

[[Page S3488]]

appreciate the history and the regional differences that lead to this 
situation.
  And I want to close by speaking to Prime Minister Abiy and our 
friends in Ethiopia directly: Brother, I am with you. Those of us who 
understand the history of what you are facing and what you are working 
to support, we are with you, Prime Minister Abiy.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________