[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S108-S115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                   NATIONAL STALKING AWARENESS MONTH

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 13, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 13) raising awareness and encouraging 
     the prevention of stalking by designating January 2023 as 
     ``National Stalking Awareness Month''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                              E-Cigarettes

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have served in the House and Senate for 
a number of years. One of the issues that has always been of interest 
to me is tobacco. I lost my father to lung cancer when I was 14 years 
old. He was 53. Two packs of Camels a day, and he died of lung cancer. 
I have thought about that a lot throughout my life.
  When I was elected to the House of Representatives, I decided to 
start asking a few questions about tobacco and government subsidies and 
government policies. It was not the most popular position I ever took 
within the House of Representatives. There was generally a rule--or at 
least a custom--of never raising the issue. I did. It resulted in a 
decision by the House of Representatives that surprised almost 
everyone.
  I introduced an amendment to ban smoking on airplanes. It was opposed 
by not only my own party leadership but the leadership of the 
Republican Party. Yet we prevailed. It turned out that the Members of 
the House of Representatives represented one of the largest frequent 
flier clubs in America, and they were sick and tired of secondhand 
smoke in airplanes.
  I called on Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey to be my ally on 
this side of the Rotunda, and he was successful in passing the 
legislation with me, which was signed into law.
  People started asking obvious questions about secondhand smoke: If it 
is dangerous in an airplane, why is it not dangerous on the train, the 
bus, at a hospital, in an office building, in a restaurant?
  So, to my surprise, this measure to make clean air more prevalent on 
airplanes ended up being a tipping point in American history on tobacco 
policy. Everything started changing--and fast. Lives were saved. People 
were discouraged from smoking. Tobacco companies, which had been 
untouchable to that point, were not only touchable, they were 
vulnerable. And they had to sit down and devise a new policy to make 
money.
  Now, the premise of tobacco was to entice young people to start 
smoking at an early age, and the chemicals in tobacco, like nicotine, 
were addictive. People knew, in the tobacco industry, that if you could 
drag kids into smoking at an early age and get them addicted, they 
might face a lifetime with that addiction and, ultimately, die from it, 
but they would have loyal customers to the tobacco companies, and they 
would continue to make money.

  When we started raising questions about tobacco, the tobacco 
companies needed an alternative. They found it. Do you know what it 
was? It was e-cigarettes and vaping. The tobacco companies made big 
investments in these companies--selling them as a new marketable 
product that was a lot safer--though, it wasn't--and creating 
addictions among children by advertising and selling fruit-flavored, 
bubble gum-flavored vaping devices that looked an awful lot like 
something you would carry around for your computer.
  Visit a high school in America today in your State or visit a junior 
high or a middle school, for that matter. Ask the teachers and 
administrators what the prevalence is of vaping and e-cigarettes among 
the kids in these schools. You will be shocked to learn that kids 
mistakenly believe that these are harmless; yet they are extremely 
addictive--e-cigarettes and vaping.
  So I contacted the Food and Drug Administration, which has the legal 
authority to regulate these products, and said: What are you going to 
do about it? Well, they weren't quite sure what to do about it. That is 
why I have come to the floor today--to tell you, up-to-date, what was 
just announced.
  The decade-long delay from the Food and Drug Administration to 
properly regulate vaping and e-cigarettes is in a league of its own in 
the modern history of that Agency. You see, under the law known as 
premarket review, no tobacco product--and vaping is a tobacco product 
using tobacco chemicals like nicotine--is permitted on store shelves 
unless the producer, the manufacturer, proves--listen--proves to the 
Food and Drug Administration in advance, prior to selling the product 
on the market, that it is ``appropriate for the protection of public 
health.''
  For years, the Food and Drug Administration, despite this charge 
under the law, has ignored it. Instead, they sit back as millions--
millions--of e-cigarettes in fruit, mint, candy flavors, even with 
cartoon images, are illegally flooding the market and addicting 
America's children. The Food and Drug Administration watched as this 
happened. It was so bad that in year 2019--4 years ago--a Federal judge 
intervened, ruling that the Food and Drug

[[Page S109]]

Administration ``decided not to enforce the premarket review provisions 
at all.''
  In other words, the court found what I have just said to be the fact. 
The law said you need approval ahead of time before you can sell this 
product. The industry--the tobacco industry, the e-vaping industry--
ignored it and sold these products nationwide, addicting these children 
and ignoring their responsibilities under the law.
  So, in 2019, this Federal court ordered the Food and Drug 
Administration to enforce the law, to review all e-cigarette 
applications, as the law requires, and gave them a deadline--a 
deadline--to get it done that was almost 2 years later, September 9, 
2021. That was more than 16 months ago, and, still, the Food and Drug 
Administration has not finished its job. In that time, while the FDA 
has dithered, dallied, and delayed, more than 1 million of America's 
kids have started vaping.
  How could our Federal regulators be so passive and so ineffective?
  Then, on Tuesday, this last Tuesday, in a stunning filing to the 
Federal judge, the Food and Drug Administration disclosed that it will 
take another 6 months--another 6-month delay--to fulfill the public 
health duty announced by the court years ago and that the Food and Drug 
Administration will not finish reviewing applications for the most 
popular e-cigarettes until the end of 2023--another outrageous delay.
  I don't think I have ever heard of a Federal Agency defying a court 
order for 2 years. I am going to leave it up to the Federal court to 
assess this development.
  How can this Federal Agency knowingly, willingly, ignore this court 
order to protect America's children? How can they ignore the fact that 
the law requires their approval of a product before it goes on the 
shelf? And these products are being sold across America without that 
approval.
  To this Senator, the Food and Drug Administration's deference to the 
tobacco industry, at the risk of 1 million more children getting 
addicted to nicotine over the next year, is just plain outrageous and 
indefensible.
  The Food and Drug Administration has one choice, three words: Follow 
the law. Immediately halt these unauthorized sales of these e-
cigarettes on the market--not next year, not next month--immediately, 
today. Otherwise, this Agency and the people who guide it bear a 
responsibility for the result, and that result is the addiction of 
children to a product which will harm their health. Otherwise, the Food 
and Drug Administration is complicit in endangering the health of 
America's kids.
  Think about that for a second. An Agency created over a century ago 
to protect American consumers is, in fact, failing to protect the most 
vulnerable American consumers--our children.
  The Food and Drug Administration has the authority today, before the 
end of this business day, to order these vaping products off the 
market--period.
  Do it. Don't wait until some attorney talks you out of it at the Food 
and Drug Administration. Protect America's kids. Tell the tobacco 
industry: Sorry. The party is over. You must prove that what you sell 
is in the interest of public health. We are going to protect kids first 
and deal with the lawyers later. End the free pass. Follow the law. Do 
not allow these tobacco companies one more day of preying on our 
children.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 126 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               Farm Bill

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, 2023 will be a big year on the 
agriculture front as we work to draft the next farm bill.
  Farm bills are always a major priority for me given the essential 
place agriculture holds in South Dakota, and I have been gearing up now 
for the 2023 farm bill since last year when I began holding a series of 
roundtables with agriculture producers to hear firsthand what farmers' 
and ranchers' priorities are right now and what they need from the 2023 
farm bill.
  I introduced multiple bills last Congress that I hope to get included 
in this year's legislation, including bills to strengthen and improve 
the Conservation Reserve Program, and address the needs of South Dakota 
livestock producers--and of producers around the country.
  Livestock production has long been an integral part of South Dakota's 
agriculture heritage, including cattle ranching in our West River 
communities; and one of my priorities for this year's farm bill is to 
address some of the challenges facing South Dakota's livestock 
producers in getting their products to Americans' tables.
  The last few years have revealed vulnerabilities in our food supply 
chain that have had an outsized impact on livestock producers. Early in 
the pandemic, some meat processing plants were temporarily closed, and 
these closures led to bottlenecks in processing and delays to process 
livestock. The results were supply shortages and empty cases at the 
grocery stores--shortages that weren't caused by a shortage of 
livestock but by a lack of processing capacity to get meat ready for 
sale.
  Between processing bottlenecks and meatpacker concentration, it has 
become clear that livestock producers need more processing options. One 
way we can reduce producers' dependence on the big packers is to expand 
smaller meatpackers' processing capacity. That is why I am currently 
working to reintroduce my Strengthening Local Processing Act.
  My bill would help small processors invest in the infrastructure 
necessary to expand their capacity as well as direct Federal dollars to 
education and training programs that will bolster the industry's 
workforce and build the next generation of meat processors and 
butchers.
  My bill would also allow more State-inspected meat products to be 
sold across State lines, which would open up new markets for small meat 
processors and the farmers and ranchers who supply them.
  If there is one thing that can be said for sure about South Dakotans, 
it is that we take our beef seriously. With almost 14,000 beef 
operations and 3.8 million head of cattle in our State, it is safe to 
say cattle production is alive and well in South Dakota and helping to 
fill dinner plates all across America.
  And something I consistently hear from folks around the State is that 
we need to reform our beef labeling system. South Dakotans, like many 
Americans, simply want to know where their food--and their beef, in 
particular--is coming from. And that can be pretty hard to do under our 
current system. Under our current system, beef that is neither born nor 
raised in the United States but is simply finished here can be labeled 
``Product of the U.S.A.,'' even if the only American thing about the 
beef is the plastic it is wrapped in--if that.
  This is unfair to American cattle producers, and it is misleading to 
consumers. Congress has repeatedly tried to address this issue in the 
past. The 2002 and 2008 farm bills included mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling for beef, but the World Trade Organization ruled against the 
United States, and Congress ultimately repealed this requirement, which 
I opposed.
  But that doesn't mean we should give up on transparency and labeling. 
That is why this week I reintroduced my bipartisan American Beef 
Labeling Act to require the U.S. Trade Representative to develop a 
World Trade Organization-compliant means of reinstating mandatory 
country-of-origin labeling for beef.
  When you see a label on your beef, you should be able to trust that 
it means what it says. And I plan to get my American Beef Labeling Act 
included in the 2023 farm bill so that consumers can be confident that 
any beef labeled ``Product of the U.S.A.'' really came from American 
cattle producers.
  Whether it is a farm bill year or not, South Dakota farmers and 
ranchers are always at the top of my mind here in the Senate. As a 
longtime Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am fortunate to 
have a platform that

[[Page S110]]

allows me to address the needs of South Dakota ag producers. And I am 
looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Ag Committee and 
in the Senate as a whole to deliver a farm bill that addresses the 
challenges facing South Dakota farmers and ranchers and farmers and 
ranchers around the country.
  Agriculture is a tough industry. It is backbreaking work in all 
weather, living with the constant risk that a storm or a drought or an 
early freeze can wipe out herds or crops--sometimes in an instant. Then 
add market fluctuations, processing, transportation challenges, and our 
current inflation crisis--it is not an easy life.
  But despite its many challenges, it is a proud tradition. And through 
it all, our Nation's farmers and ranchers persevere. I am proud to 
represent South Dakota's farmers and ranchers here in the U.S. Senate. 
I will do everything I can to ensure that this year's farm bill meets 
their needs and does everything it can to make their life a little 
easier so that they can continue to feed our Nation and the world.
  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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              National Human Trafficking Prevention Month

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, January is National Human Trafficking 
Prevention Month, and it is a great opportunity to improve awareness 
about the scourge of human trafficking and redouble our efforts to end 
it.
  Throughout my career, I have worked with law enforcement, nonprofits, 
and advocates of all stripes to try to crack down on human trafficking 
and strengthen support for human trafficking survivors. These experts 
have helped me identify steps that we together can take in Congress to 
end modern slavery.
  I am proud that one of those bills was signed into law earlier this 
month. The Abolish Trafficking Reauthorization Act, which I introduced 
with Senator Klobuchar, the Senator from Minnesota, is officially the 
law of the land. This law extends critical support to survivors of 
human trafficking, provides resources for law, funds prevention 
research, and promotes increased reporting to prevent human 
trafficking. It is a step in the right direction in our fight to end 
modern slavery, and I was glad to discuss the importance of this law 
with advocates and experts in Texas just a couple of weeks ago.
  On January 11, National Human Trafficking Awareness Day, I had the 
pleasure of sitting down with some remarkable people in Dallas who are 
leading the fight. We gathered at the Letot Residential Treatment 
Center, which provides a full range of services to human trafficking 
survivors, specifically girls between the age of 13 and 17. Letot 
offers safe shelter, which I have learned is perhaps the most important 
thing, a safe place for these survivors to actually live. But it also 
provides education, job training, and mental healthcare to these young 
victims to help them find a clear path forward one day at a time.
  I had visited the same facility a few years ago to learn about the 
work they do, and I was encouraged to note their continued impact in 
Dallas County, one of our largest counties in Texas.
  I also learned about the dedicated work of New Friends New Life, 
which helps exploited girls, women, and their children to rebuild their 
lives and to move forward toward a brighter future. The organization 
also promotes a men's advocacy group, which raises awareness and 
mobilizes men to take action against sex trafficking and exploitation.
  In addition to learning more about the impact of these organizations, 
I was able to hear from local law enforcement, including Dallas 
District Attorney John Creuzot. John noted that Texas is No. 2 in the 
Nation when it comes to human trafficking and added that Dallas is a 
major hotspot because it is at the crossroads of so many interstate 
freeways.
  Rescuing victims of human trafficking, disrupting trafficking 
operations, and pursuing justice is a major focus for law enforcement. 
For sex trafficking in particular, they are working with groups like 
Traffick911 to free young people from this terrible life. I am blown 
away by the incredible work being done in North Texas to support 
survivors and ensure justice is served. What I heard from these 
survivors really underscored how critical these efforts are.
  One of the women I heard from was Dr. Tanya Stafford, an inspiring 
and passionate advocate for survivors of human trafficking. Tanya told 
us she was only 13 when her mother sold her to a man for drugs. You 
heard that right. When she was 13 years old, her own mother sold her to 
a man for drugs. Then, for 10 years, she was hidden in plain sight 
until, finally, a neighbor intervened. As Tanya put it, ``she saw 
something, she said something, and she did something.''
  Every single day, concerned neighbors and friends call tip lines and 
help victims like Tanya escape from human trafficking. Incredible 
organizations like Letot Residential Treatment Center and New Friends 
New Life help these victims of human trafficking rebuild their lives. 
Law enforcement and groups like Traffick911 help to free victims from 
human trafficking.
  The brave survivors are what have impressed me most of all. To have 
these survivors talk about their own personal story, with all of the 
potential for embarrassment that suggests, speaks to me to the courage 
of these survivors, who are willing to use their own personal example 
to help save others from a similar fate.
  It was inspiring to hear them talk about overcoming the incredible 
trauma and adversity. Their stories are a reminder of why it is so 
important for us to continue this fight, and that includes everything 
from awareness and education to legislating here in Congress. There is 
no better time than Human Trafficking Prevention Month to build on 
these efforts.
  I want to thank the experts, the advocates, and the survivors, as 
well as all of our Senate and congressional colleagues who are leading 
on this fight.


                    Respect for Child Survivors Act

  Madam President, the day after my conversation in Dallas, I traveled 
to Houston, another one of our major metropolitan areas, to discuss a 
new law that will have a big impact on child sexual abuse victims. The 
seed for this legislation was first planted in September 2021, when the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on the repeated 
failures of the FBI's investigation into the Larry Nassar case.
  U.S. gymnasts delivered powerful testimony about the FBI's 
mishandling of their investigation and inspired a bipartisan push to 
fix the broken process that failed them and countless other victims.
  Again, Senator Klobuchar and I worked with law enforcement, victims' 
rights groups, and all our colleagues here in the Senate to identify 
reforms that would actually make a difference. Those discussions 
eventually led to the Respect for Child Survivors Act, which was signed 
into law earlier this month. This law mandates the use of multiple 
disciplinary teams, or MDTs, in FBI interviews with child victims.
  Just by way of footnote, most of these kinds of cases are 
investigated at the local or State level, and, frankly, most local 
level law enforcement have worked with the child advocacy centers 
around Texas and around the country to try to minimize the repetition 
of the trauma on these child victims and to help preserve testimony 
needed to convict their abuser. But the FBI has a much bigger portfolio 
and, generally, is not trained in how to deal with these victims of 
sexual assault, particularly child victims. Now this new law mandates 
training for the FBI.
  These MDTs, the multiple disciplinary teams, that they will now work 
with, include mental health and medical professionals, caseworkers, and 
other individuals who advocate for a child's well-being. The primary 
goal, of course, is to protect these young victims and ensure that they 
are not retraumatized during the investigation, which is going to be 
intrusive by its very nature.
  There is a mountain of evidence, thank goodness, that this approach 
actually works. During the discussion in Houston, I sat down with a 
full range of

[[Page S111]]

experts on this topic at the Children's Assessment Center, which is a 
pioneer in the successful use of MDTs. For more than 30 years, it has 
cared for sexually abused children and, in the process, established the 
gold standard for the right way to protect victims of child sexual 
abuse.
  The folks I spoke with and listened to that day stressed the 
importance of this approach. For example, Houston Police Lieutenant 
John Colburn said that the partnership between law enforcement and the 
Children's Assessment Center makes a ``tremendous difference.'' He said 
that children are able to share their experiences in a more comfortable 
way, and law enforcement can take peace in the knowledge that these 
incredibly difficult conversations are happening with trauma-informed 
experts who are equipped to handle them properly.
  That is why this legislation is important.
  One of the individuals we heard from was Rebecca Whitehurst, a former 
U.S.A. gymnast and one of the hundreds of survivors of the Larry Nassar 
episode.
  She said:

       It is deeply gratifying to know that you have listened to 
     our voices and learned from our experience to ensure that 
     systems improve and that justice is served.

  Rebecca concluded her comments by saying:

       Children should be totally protected from those who [would] 
     harm them, and those who [would] fail them should be held 
     accountable.

  I couldn't say it better myself.
  With this new law on the books, I am confident that the FBI will be 
better prepared to handle similar investigations in the future with 
compassion and efficiency and ultimately bring perpetrators to justice.
  This was all possible because of the brave gymnasts who testified 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee a year and a half ago. They 
showed tremendous courage by speaking out, by talking about personal, 
intimate matters that were necessarily embarrassing to them, but they 
overcame that, knowing that they could well make a difference for some 
future gymnast or some other child sexual assault victim in the future. 
I hope they will take some comfort in knowing that their stories 
brought about this change.
  We need to ensure that the FBI's mistreatment of these victims and 
their reports is not repeated in the future, and this law will help 
make sure that goal is accomplished.
  Like so many of us--we learn from our constituents. We learn from men 
and women who take the time to share their experiences with us, and I 
am grateful to those who did so in Dallas and Houston and, again, 
especially the survivors. They are doing incredible work to root out 
human trafficking and support survivors and ensure that justice is 
served.
  I am proud of what we were able to accomplish last Congress to 
strengthen their efforts, but there is still more work for us to do. I 
appreciate all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both 
sides of the Capitol who have worked together on these efforts in the 
past, and I am eager to accomplish even more this Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.


                              Debt Ceiling

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express concerns other 
colleagues on this side of the aisle have as well, that in the midst of 
what is the most robust economic turnaround and growth in a generation, 
with wages up and unemployment down and almost 11 million new jobs 
created, most of those small businesses--we love that in Michigan. I 
know the Presiding Officer does in Maine as well. With all of the 
positive indicators and with all of our efforts to bring down costs, 
because that is the big thing for people right now, bringing down their 
costs--and this month, the good news is a $35 cap on insulin for anyone 
on Medicare. A senior citizen who is a diabetic--a $35 cap on insulin.
  We need to do more to bring down costs, but instead of joining with 
us, the new House Republican majority has decided, well, let's see, 
when things are turning around for the American people, I know--let's 
crash the economy. Let's say we are not going to pay our bills. Let's 
cause interest rates to go up. Let's cause people to be hurt, maybe 
jeopardize people getting their Social Security, Medicare, veterans' 
benefits, or paying the military. This makes absolutely no sense.
  I know it is difficult, this antiquated thing called the debt 
ceiling, because, really, it is about whether or not we are going to 
pay our bills. So we decide as a family we are going to get a mortgage, 
and then 2 years into it, we decide, you know, I think we are going to 
stop paying the mortgage. I don't want to pay my bills anymore on that. 
And we just stop paying bills. I mean, our country can't just make 
commitments to families, to veterans, to the military, to seniors, to 
children, to other countries, and say: Nah, I think we will just stop 
paying our bills. It is outrageous, it is irresponsible, and the 
consequences, as we know, will literally crash our economy.
  So what do the Republicans say they want to do? In return for not 
crashing the economy, in return for the United States meeting its 
obligations and paying its bills, what do they want to do? What do they 
say that somehow we have to agree to?
  Well, the first thing they have already done, which is an extension 
of how their focus is very much on keeping money in the pockets of the 
wealthy and the well connected, the very first bill--they are talking 
debt. Oh, we have so much debt. We have all this debt. The first thing 
they do, the very first bill, very first week, may have been the first 
day--I am not sure--after the 15 votes to create a Speaker, they turn 
around and they pass a bill that will add $114 billion to the national 
debt--$114 billion to the national debt. Why? Because they think that 
if you are a wealthy tax cheat, you should be able to continue doing 
it. So they want to take away the capacity for the IRS, for 
investigators to go after the tax cheats.

  Now, they are OK if you are going after a poor person who is on the 
earned income tax credit. In fact, they are OK with the fact that the 
most audited county in the United States right now is in Mississippi, 
Humphreys, MS. Forty percent of the residents are poor, Black 
residents, and they have the highest audit rate. They are on the earned 
income tax credit. Now, that is OK, but don't go after our buddies--oh 
no. They are the ones with all the accountants and the attorneys. You 
know, we have seen it play out with the former President of the United 
States. Do everything you can not to have to pay your fair share of 
taxes.
  Now, we as Democrats know that everybody should have to pay their 
fair share, and, in fact, in the Inflation Reduction Act, we made a big 
step on that point where the corporations are not paying. But what do 
they want? OK, protect tax cheats.
  Then they say: Well, we have to cut Social Security and Medicare. We 
can't afford that anymore.
  A great American success story. Lifted over half the country's 
retirees out of poverty. A great American success story--brought to you 
predominantly by Democrats, I should say--but they say: Let's cut 
Social Security and Medicare before we pay our bills, because we have 
too much debt. Even though we can add to the debt for rich people, we 
need to cut Social Security and Medicare.
  Then the one that is like on top of everything else, when they all 
ran on how costs were too high in the election--I mean, we are the ones 
fighting to bring down energy costs, $1,000 per family back in their 
pockets, $35 cap on insulin for seniors right now--right now, happening 
right now.
  So what do they say we should do to deal with the debt they are 
talking about? Oh, let's have a 30-percent sales tax increase. Let's 
increase the cost of an automobile by $10,000. That is pretty personal 
to me, coming from Michigan. We make a lot of those vehicles. We are 
pretty proud of making those vehicles. People drive those vehicles. A 
$10,000 increase on somebody--try to have a car to get the kids to 
school, get people to work, and so on. Increase the cost of a house. We 
don't know what all of this is. Food, electric bills, transportation--
we don't know what it is.

[[Page S112]]

  But now we are at a point where they want to say: We are not paying 
our bills unless you do what we want. So now the question is, OK, pass 
the bills. Show us what you have got. You want this? Vote on it. Vote 
on it. Pass your agenda. You already voted on step 1, adding to the 
deficit about $114 billion. So you have all these other ideas that will 
hurt seniors and children and the majority of Americans, hard-working 
Americans, but if that is what you think, if that is really what you 
think, then pass the bills. Pass the bills.
  So what they really don't want to tell you while they are talking 
about all of this and talking about how we have a high national debt, 
which we do, and we need to come together and continue to do things to 
address that, what they don't tell you--the dirty little secret is that 
almost 30 percent of the national debt was accumulated during 4 years 
of President Trump, that they voted for, and most of that was a huge 
tax cut for the wealthy and well connected.
  Now, they were willing to pay the bills--raised the debt ceiling 
three times during the Trump years--because it was about giving their 
buddies, the wealthy and well connected, a big tax cut. The truth of 
the matter is, if there hadn't been that tax cut, if we had truly 
required wealthy tax cheats to pay their fair share of taxes, if we had 
done those two things, we wouldn't even have to raise the debt ceiling 
right now. We wouldn't have to do that. There wouldn't be a need.
  So they do this shell game here. So it is tax cuts for the wealthy, 
don't let their wealthy buddies have to pay their fair share of taxes, 
and then turn around and argue that they are going to crash the 
economy, not pay our bills, unless we cut Social Security and Medicare 
and add a 30-percent sales tax and a whole range of other things.
  This is not our priority. We certainly, as Democrats, do not believe 
that this should be the priority of the American people.
  By the way, when we talk about it, I forgot to mention that the other 
half of the story is that while they were doing this, in the last 2 
years, the deficit fell by $1.4 trillion under President Biden--$1.4 
trillion--while we have invested in people, rebuilding the country, 
bringing jobs home, invested in those things that will create 
opportunity for everybody to succeed. While we have been investing in 
people--not the powerful, not focused on profits but people--while we 
have been doing that, we have also been focused on bringing the deficit 
down.
  So I hope our colleagues on the other side of the building and the 
other side of the aisle will take a step back here from the brink and 
understand the dangerous situation they are putting us in with not 
being willing to pay the bills, with crashing the economy, all for a 
radical, radical MAGA agenda that will hurt the majority of the 
American people.
  They want to debate that agenda separately from crashing the economy. 
Let's pay our bills, and if they want to debate that and they want to 
pass bills and send them over to us, that is the legislative process. 
They can do that, and we will have that debate. And we will send them 
bills that make sure wealthy tax cheats pay their fair share, just like 
we did in the Inflation Reduction Act with a 15-percent minimum 
corporate tax. And we will continue to put people first, not just the 
wealthy and the powerful in this country.
  It is a very different vision. It is a very different view of how you 
grow the economy. It is a very different view of whom we are fighting 
for, whom we are working for.
  I am glad to be on this side. I am glad to be on this side with the 
majority of the people. And I would argue what we have done the last 2 
years, putting people first, investing in people and bringing jobs home 
and rebuilding the economy and investing in science and bringing down 
costs and continuing to focus on that, as well as the deficit, has 
worked. This is not just rhetoric. It actually has worked. It actually 
has worked.
  So I hope our Republican colleagues, particularly in the House, will 
join us in those things that will actually move America forward.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Holocaust Remembrance Day

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, tomorrow, January 27, is the 77th 
anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, which is located in German-
occupied Poland. January 27 has been designated by the United Nations 
as Holocaust Remembrance Day.
  At Auschwitz-Birkenau were the most notorious of the atrocities 
committed during World War II in concentration, labor, and death camps 
run by the Nazis in Germany during World War II. Six million Jews were 
murdered during World War II and 5 million others--Romas, Afros, 
Germans, gay men and women, people with disabilities, and others--who 
were just disliked by the Nazi regime. Eleven million people perished 
as a result of these atrocities.
  Our responsibility? To remember, to never forget what happened during 
World War II--what was committed--and to do everything in our power to 
make sure that these types of atrocities never happen again. We owe 
that to support the survivors so that their heroism is not forgotten, 
and we need to support Holocaust education.
  I want to thank my colleagues in the appropriations process. We have 
made funds available to help the survivors of the Holocaust and to 
provide for Holocaust education.
  ``Never again'' is what we need to achieve. We have not achieved it 
to date. We can look back at the atrocities committed in Rwanda or we 
could take a look at what is happening today with the Uighurs or with 
the Rohingyas or with the Yazidis--we see atrocities being committed 
around the world--or we could take a look at what is happening in 
Ukraine, perpetrated by Russia--the atrocities and war crimes that are 
being committed by the Russians.
  So, on this day of remembrance, it is important for us to understand 
where we are and to take steps to protect us against atrocities.
  I serve on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Board as the Senate 
representative. That is an institution that is dedicated to compiling 
information about the Holocaust, making it available through education 
and other opportunities for people to understand what happened, and to 
have a mission to prevent atrocities in the future.
  I also serve as the Senate Chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. The 
U.S. Helsinki Commission is best known for its commitment to advance 
human rights globally. I am proud of the work that we have done in 
Holocaust education and in fighting the rise of anti-Semitism.
  I also serve as the Special Representative of the Organization for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly on Anti-
Semitism, Racism and Intolerance.
  I mention all of that because I want to share with you the concerns, 
the warning bells, that have gone off as to the rise of hate in our own 
community and around the world that should be of concern to all of us.
  In 2021, there was the highest number of instances of anti-Semitism 
in the United States in its history. We broke the record in 2021. 
According to the ADL, there was a 60-percent increase in 2021 over 2020 
in anti-Semitic activities. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
has issued a warning about the heightened potential for violent 
domestic attacks. These anti-Semitic activities are deadly. I need not 
remind us all of the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, in 2018, 
where 11 people were murdered by anti-Semitic activity. There are 25 
percent of Jews who live in America who fear violence caused by anti-
Semitism.
  I have had a chance to visit a lot of countries as a Member of the 
U.S. Senate and as a former Member of the House. I try to visit 
synagogues when I travel abroad, and it is understood that there will 
be security in front of the synagogue buildings when I attend the 
services, but I always felt comfortable in the United States that that 
would not be necessary. It is now necessary for synagogues to have 
security here in the United States and for mosques and other areas that 
are vulnerable to violence caused by hate.
  We are also at risk today in our own democratic institutions. Anti-
Semitism and hate is fueled by conspiracy

[[Page S113]]

theories, the replacement theory, which is based upon the old-age, 
anti-Semitic trope. That leads directly to violence. It is also a 
threat to our democratic institutions. Conspiracy theories about 
election deniers led up to the January 6 attack on this sacred 
building. We fight for the peaceful--we believe in the peaceful 
transfer of power, and we saw violence trying to prevent the peaceful 
transfer of power, which is critically important to our democratic 
institutions.
  Mr. Putin's campaign, in part, is based upon anti-Semitism. He says 
he wants to denazify Ukraine. Ukraine has a Jewish President, I would 
like to remind my colleagues. We all have a responsibility to fight 
anti-Semitism and any form of hate in our community.
  In 2004, I participated in the Berlin Conference, which was the first 
major international conference in recent times to coordinate strategies 
to fight anti-Semitism. What came out of that conference was that 
leaders have a responsibility to lead. Our words mean something. When 
there is violence in our community, we need to speak out against it. If 
any minority group is unsafe, we are all unsafe. We need to form 
coalitions to fight all forms of intolerance in our community.
  On November 29 of last year, I convened a roundtable discussion.
  I want to thank Senator Rosen and Senator Blumenthal for joining me 
and Congressman Veasey from the House of Representatives.
  We brought together representatives from the Department of Homeland 
Security, from the Department of Justice, from the White House, and 
from the Department of State. We had representatives from the Anti-
Defamation League and from the American Jewish Committee.
  I want to compliment the Second Gentleman, Doug Emhoff, for holding a 
similar discussion in the White House.
  What came out of those discussions is that we need a whole-of-
government approach in order to stop the tide--the rise--of hate and 
violence in our community. So I was so pleased that President Biden, on 
December 12, established an interagency group, led by the Domestic 
Policy Council, to increase and better coordinate U.S. Government 
efforts to counter anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and related forms of 
fear and discrimination.
  We need a coordinated strategy. We all need to be part of that 
coordinated strategy. This is not 1 day a year; it is every day--365 
days a year. We all need to be engaged. We all have a responsibility to 
join together in a coordinated strategy so that ``never again'' means 
never again.
  So, on this day of remembrance, as we acknowledge the liberation of 
the Auschwitz death camps, let us also rededicate ourselves to doing 
everything in our power so we really can say ``never again.''
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Unanimous Consent Request--S. 63

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent to 
discharge and pass the American Vehicle Security Act, a bill I 
introduced with Senator Braun yesterday.
  Let me explain what we are trying to do and what we have done by 
passing the IRA. China has cornered the EV supply chain market: 80 
percent of the world's battery materials processing comes from China; 
60 percent of the world's cathode production comes from China; 80 
percent of the world's anode production comes from China; and 75 
percent of the world's lithium ion battery's cell production comes from 
China.
  Now, for the first time in the history of this great country of ours, 
in the transportation mode that gave inspiration to the whole world--
whether it be cars, trains, and planes--did not depend on foreign 
supply chains for their motivation. It did not, in any way at all, 
depend on it.
  Now we are moving rapidly into the EV markets--and I think 
recklessly--as we were going into that before we were able to supply 
and be held captive by China, literally. So anything the IRA bill did 
was saying this: If you are going to get the $7,500 credit--which I had 
a hard time understanding why the automotive industry needed it so 
desperately, because people were willing to wait a year to get the 
product. And we had supply chains with chips, and we fixed that; we had 
supply chains still with this--and they are telling me: Well, we can't 
do that. We just can't get there. And I said: You know what? They told 
us that we couldn't get there on the vaccine for COVID; it would take 5 
years. We got there in 9 months. You can do it if you intend to do it, 
and if you want to do it, you will do it.
  So what we did, we said: Fine, $3,750 credit you will be able to earn 
for the discount on that vehicle if the critical minerals are sourced 
from North America or our free trading agreement countries so we don't 
have the risk of being held hostage. These are countries that we deal 
with and we have relationships, and it is a free trade back and forth. 
China, we don't; Russia, we don't. We see what happens to the world 
when that happens.
  So this was the purpose of it. And the other 3,750 is if you 
manufacture the battery in North America because of our NAFTA agreement 
in the USMC that we have had for an awful long time. It doesn't disrupt 
the flow back and forth.
  That way, we are guaranteed that we are going to have a manufacturing 
base and continue the long heritage and the long, basically, support 
that we have that we can have control of our own destiny in our 
transportation mode. That is all. That is all this bill was doing.
  The bill has been characterized so many different ways, but it is 
truly an energy security manufacturing bill. And I can assure you, just 
coming back and talking to the Europeans, they are extremely challenged 
and upset that, basically, America--the United States--with one leap, 
jumped over everybody into first place and is so far ahead of doing 
something and bringing manufacturing back, being self-sufficient, and 
self-dependent.
  That is what this does. And we fixed that. We fixed all of that. And 
then the Treasury, failing to issue guidance, it puts more 
requirements. And what they are doing is, they issued guidance by law. 
The bill said, by December 31. They are in violation. So they don't 
have the guidance ready, and they had plenty of time to do it. But they 
are now continuing to let the $7,500 credit go without any concerns at 
all about the critical mineral requirements.
  It is just not what the legislation is about. It is not what we all 
voted for. Every Democrat voted for this. And now, all of a sudden, we 
are saying we are not going to pay attention to the rules. Regulations 
don't mean anything. Just go ahead and let them do what they want to 
do.
  Well, I am sorry, that is not the way it is. And that is not the way 
it should be.
  So being the birthplace of Henry Ford, who put mass production back 
in and put the automobile in everyone's affordability range and, 
basically, transitioned who we are as a country and how we move 
around--we are an automotive powerhouse. We have always been an 
automotive powerhouse. And the sooner that we are able to source our 
own supplies that we need for our mode of transportation, we will 
maintain that power.
  That is what the IRA has done. That is the intent of the IRA. I have 
asked the IRS to follow the law, follow the rule, follow the 
legislative intent, and, basically, the bill that we passed. And they 
are defying that. And this bill would correct that. That is all we are 
asking.
  With that, I yield to my friend from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today--Joe has gone over this, I 
think, very clearly; I support him in just sticking with the letter of 
the law. He said China produces 75 percent of the world's lithium-ion 
batteries; we, only 7 percent. China controls 80 percent of the 
facilities that convert critical minerals into usable battery parts.
  Making things in America is not just about promoting our own 
manufacturing--which we need to do better generally--it is also about 
not funding

[[Page S114]]

the human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist Party.
  And to give them even more of a leg up, when you see what they have 
done trying to fit into the world economic chain, where they still 
steal intellectual property, they do things that take them out of the 
norm that we are all familiar with.
  This is just simply to fix something that was recently passed in a 
reconciliation bill. I didn't vote for the reconciliation package 
because of disagreements with it in general. I do that on a lot of 
things, even when I like components of what is in something if it 
doesn't have that fiscal responsibility to go along with it.
  So whether you agree with me or Senator Manchin about trying to do 
things here in America whenever we can and not to end up supporting our 
main geopolitical enemy in the process, I think you have to be careful.
  Senator Manchin mentioned, also, we just recently did it and it is 
clear, and the IRS was sleeping at the wheel. This should not have come 
down to where we are right here, even having to argue about it. It is 
the letter of the law.
  I have got, in my own home State, Stellantis and Samsung making a big 
investment in Kokomo, IN, for this very issue of getting our own foot 
into this kind of business. What is it going to do? What is the message 
going to be sending to them?
  Allison Transmission is conducting R&D efforts on electrifying their 
own components. I think it sends a bad message if we are given the 
letter of the law, going to make exemptions, even when it might not be 
expedient for other concerns.
  I think this is a type of investment that we need to make sure stays 
here. We recently put it in law to do so. It may delay a little bit, 
not give the speed at which some want to move. But when you look at 
everything we have talked about--the fact that it gives more to the 
Chinese economy when you look at what they are doing on the world 
stage--it is going to send a bad message to people in our own country 
about making the investments. And, clearly, in my own State, there is a 
vested interest.
  So I am with Senator Manchin on this. We ought to stick with what we 
just passed, not let the IRS get by with being delinquent on what they 
should have done in the first place.
  With that, I yield back to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, maybe I can help a little bit with 
clearing it up. Everyone thinks that all of a sudden, that at the end 
of the year, the first of the year, that the automobile industry in the 
United States, in order to get any credit at all, had to have 100 
percent of the sourcing done from North America or free trade country 
agreements, such as Australia, Chile--different people that have a 
tremendous amount of resources--but those are going to China now for 
processing.
  The first year is 40 percent. All we are saying is we ought to at 
least be able to source 40 percent the first year from the favored 
trading countries we have and ourselves to get us into this. And then 
it goes up 10 percent every year. Most reasonable, most reasonable. Why 
the IRS did not do that their job, I can't tell you, unless their 
intent was never to try to comply with what we passed. They have known 
all along what this bill was, unless they just basically drug their 
feet intentionally and not only this--let me just tell you the other 
thing I couldn't really believe. They would pick and choose. They 
didn't basically just say: Well, I am sorry. We don't have rules and 
regulations. So it can't go into effect. Or we are going to leave it 
like it was at $7,500. No, no, no, they chose. They like what we did 
with putting a cap on what your salary could be in order to get to 
$7,500. They used that. That wasn't there before. They used that part 
of it.

  They like the cap of where we said what price of a vehicle would 
qualify: for a sedan, $55,000 and under; for a truck, $85,000.
  They would pick and choose--cherry-pick. But they said: We are just 
going to continue to give the $7,500 if they apply to different 
categories--nothing about sourcing material, nothing about us jump-
starting to be basically self-sufficient in the manufacturing of 
batteries in the United States of America, but also sourcing, so we 
would never run short and be held hostage by China or someone else.
  I am old enough and you are old enough and most of us in this room 
are old enough to remember 1974, when we stood in line to get gas to go 
work. I am not going to stand in line to wait for a battery to come 
from China for me to go to work. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 63, a bill to adjust the 
effective date of application of certain amendments made with respect 
to the credit for new clean vehicles; that the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration, and 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. Is there objection?
  Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. First of all, let me say that I take a backseat to no 
one on wanting to get out of China. There is no question about that. I 
authored the ``Buy America'' provisions with Senator Braun that are in 
the infrastructure bill. We have a ``Made in America'' offer. We are 
bringing jobs home. We are making sure that we are putting Michigan and 
American businesses and workers first--absolutely.
  I also agree and Senator Manchin has--he and I have worked together 
on the clean energy manufacturing tax credits, 48C, which is critical; 
the advanced battery production tax credits; the things Senator Braun 
talked about that are bringing jobs to Indiana from the Inflation 
Reduction Act; and the credits that we have done for batteries and 
solar and wind and manufacturing and so on. They were all in that bill, 
which I was proud to help author and to support those efforts.
  I support when Senator Manchin has said to those in other countries 
that if you want to benefit from our tax structure, move your plants to 
America. I said that myself. I am all for that.
  This particular credit is confusing. It was not well vetted. It is 
not supported by anyone in the industry who believes that they have the 
capacity immediately, right this minute, to meet the complicated 
formulas. They would love to. We would love it if we didn't have to 
worry about lithium from China. They are working feverishly. In fact, 
there is a free-trade agreement with Chile coming before this body. 
They have lithium deposits that would be very, very helpful to us. I 
strongly support being able to make them part of the free-trade 
agreements in the legislation so that we can get the lithium from 
there, as well as other parts of the world.
  But we are not there yet.
  This does not create any path for success for American automobile 
workers, for American automobile companies, for suppliers, for 
consumers who are interested in being able to purchase electric 
vehicles and benefit from a credit, which, by the way, every other 
country has, including China. They have their own consumer credit.
  So this is a situation where we disagree on how this was put 
together, how it is written, how the effect of it is in terms of the 
dates and so on.
  But I have to say, on behalf of Treasury, which was given thousands 
of regulations they have to write by December 31, that it is not 
unreasonable that they took the time to listen and be thoughtful about 
how they did it, and they announced that they would be bringing these 
rules forward in March. That is not an unreasonable thing. It affects a 
huge industry, a foundational industry.
  Henry Ford is from Michigan. We are proud to have Henry Ford from 
Michigan. By the way, he and Thomas Edison first tried to create an 
electric vehicle. That was the first choice until we decided, as 
Congress, to invest in oil and gas subsidies that took them in a 
different direction.
  The bottom line: It is not unreasonable, what Treasury is doing, the 
path they are on. They have been given, I believe, an incredibly 
complicated task to try to figure out how this consumer credit will 
work for consumers and for the companies and workers. I don't disagree 
with the goals talked about. I don't disagree with anything that has

[[Page S115]]

been said, except that it doesn't relate to what is happening in this 
credit, which doesn't work on a practical level. I am for whatever 
support and flexibility that we can provide to achieve what are the 
stated goals.
  So on behalf of American automobile companies, all the auto workers 
and American consumers, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Would the Senator yield for a minute?
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes.
  Mr. MANCHIN. The only thing I would say to that is this: The 
subsidies we were giving for EVs had expired under the old piece of 
legislation for American manufacturers. They all hit their 200,000 cap, 
right?
  Ms. STABENOW. Not all.
  Mr. MANCHIN. General Motors hit it. Ford hit it.
  Ms. STABENOW. Ford didn't hit it.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I thought they hit it.
  Ms. STABENOW. They haven't hit it, no.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I am understanding that they did. OK, we will work on 
that. It was very close that they did.
  That was over for them. They have no more. It was over. It was over. 
They were done. If we didn't do anything, they were done. The only 
people who had access to our market, if we had not done this bill, was 
all European manufacturers. All the manufacturers in the United States 
already hit their caps. So I am saying it was over. We gave them new 
life into this.
  All we are saying is, Can't we at least get manufacturing in the 
United States where we are not depending on foreign supply chains, 
especially China? That is the difference. I mean, they knew the bill. 
They didn't like the bill. They built their whole model around--you 
would think that car manufacturing in America is going to go broke if 
they don't get the $7,500 credit from the U.S. Treasury.
  And there are people waiting a year.
  I said: Let me tell you something. If you are waiting a year to get a 
product because you like it and it is good and you make it better than 
any place in the world, I don't think that is what you are making the 
decision on, because they have already lost it. China could have 
flooded the market. We stopped all of that from happening.
  We just have a difference. We just have a difference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. First of all, China cannot flood the market because we 
are not going to be able to meet these criteria in terms of being able 
to get the credit. They have their own credit, and there is no reason 
they are not going to be able to flood the U.S. market. I have a 
difference of opinion about what this actually means.
  This is what I would say. We have had three parts of the stool on 
supporting moving forward on a new electric transportation model. One 
is charging stations that we did in the infrastructure bill. It is 
really important to have charging stations. No. 2 is helping to create 
production through the battery and clean energy tax credits and so on. 
Third is helping to bring costs down at the beginning until volume 
comes up.
  Now, the reason people are waiting for cars is because of the lack of 
chips. I mean, they are waiting because of that, and we addressed that 
as well.
  The truth is, what was put in place on this piece was complicated. It 
doesn't work for several years for American companies. It doesn't stop 
China. It doesn't stop anybody else from coming into our market. They 
can come into our market. It stops our companies from fully benefiting 
from a piece of this with consumers. That is very important.
  Thank you very much. I object.


                               S. Res. 13

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the resolution designating 
January as National Stalking Awareness month will be voted on and pass 
the Senate. I thank my colleague and friend Senator Amy Klobuchar for 
her work and dedication to this subject. Approximately 1 in 6 women and 
1 in 17 men in the U.S. have experienced stalking at some point in 
their lives.
  This bipartisan resolution sends a clear message: We will not stand 
for this egregious conduct. Millions of our fellow Americans have been 
victims of stalking. Oftentimes, their stories involve years-long 
episodes, drastic changes to their lives to secure their safety and, 
sadly, other criminal activity by stalkers. This month is a time for us 
all to reflect on the pervasiveness of stalking and the serious 
hardships and dangers faced by victims.
  As stated in the resolution, I also want to thank the advocates who 
are on the frontlines of this issue and stand ready to assist victims 
and provide them with the resources and support they need and deserve.
  The work of advocates raising awareness, of law enforcement and 
courts taking preventive and punitive action and of serviceworkers in 
providing help to victims are all worthy of our thanks.
  Our work doesn't stop here. I am once again recommitting to the fight 
against stalking, trafficking, and other conduct that targets our most 
vulnerable populations.

                          ____________________