[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S975-S982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
REPEALING THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ--
Resumed
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 316, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 316) to repeal the authorizations for use of
military force against Iraq.
Pending:
Schumer amendment No. 15, to add an effective date.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
S. 316
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday, by a large bipartisan vote of
65 to 28, the Senate invoked cloture on legislation repealing the Iraq
AUMFs of 2002 and 1991. We will continue voting on amendments over the
course of today, and Members should expect the final passage on
repealing the Iraq AUMFs as soon as tomorrow.
I want to thank both sides of the aisle for their cooperation and
bipartisanship. This has been a reasonable process here on the floor,
with votes on amendments brought forth by our Republican colleagues. I
hope this process can serve as a blueprint for how the Senate can work
into the future and in the next few months for sure. We will have
amendments without being dilatory. We will have debate without bogging
down the process. We will look for opportunities to advance bipartisan
bills as we did over the past 2 years.
So, again, I hope this AUMF portends good things to come. I hope it
can serve as a blueprint for how the Senate can work in this session of
Congress as we work together to make our country a better place.
I want to thank Senators Kaine and Young, Chairman Menendez, and all
of the cosponsors of this legislation for their good work.
Women's Healthcare
But, unfortunately, there are disturbing trends here in the Senate,
and one of the most disturbing is what the Senator from Alabama is
doing to weaken our national security. For a long time, both parties
have worked together to quickly confirm the routine promotions of
generals and flag officers without partisan bickering, without needless
delay. Confirming military promotions is one of the most important
responsibilities of the Senate--a charge that rises far above normal
political fights. But, today, one Member--one Member, the Senator from
Alabama--is blocking the routine promotions of 160 generals and flag
officers because he objects to women within the military getting access
to reproductive care.
It is very simple. The senior Senator from Alabama wants to make the
healthcare decisions for the women of our military, and the Senator
from Alabama is holding up scores of military nominees, who have not
done anything to be treated this way, until he gets his way.
The women of our military are more than capable of making their own
decisions when it comes to their health. They do not need the senior
Senator from Alabama making decisions on their behalf, and they
certainly do not need any Senator throwing a wrench in the
functioning--the vital functioning--of our military when they, our
military, work every day to keep us safe.
So the Senator from Alabama risks permanently injecting politics into
the confirmations of routine military promotions. The Senator from
Alabama
[[Page S976]]
risks permanently injecting politics into the confirmations of routine
military promotions. And that would risk our entire national security.
For what? So he can push the MAGA hard line on blocking women's choice,
which is something that most women in this country--that most people in
this country--reject? That is beyond the pale.
Now, let's be clear. The Senator from Alabama's delay of 160 routine
military promotions is reckless. It puts Americans' security in
jeopardy. The 160 nominees who are on hold, all of whom have worked to
earn their promotions and all of whom we need to protect our security,
include 5 three-star generals, commanders for the U.S. naval forces in
the Pacific and Middle East--leaders who are confronting the likes of
China and Iran--and the U.S. Military Representative to the NATO
Military Committee, which is especially important right now as Russia
continues its war in Ukraine.
So let me say it again. This level of obstruction of routine military
promotions is a reckless departure from the Senate norm. None of us
want to live in a world where military appointments get routinely
politicized, and that is just what the Senator from Alabama is
doing. He is inflicting unnecessary damage to our military leadership.
It would paralyze the Senate if all of us had to take one rollcall vote
after another just to confirm routine, apolitical, qualified generals
and other flag officers.
I know that Members of both sides of the aisle feel passionately at
times about certain issues. We all do. But if every one of us went to
the floor and said that we are holding up every general, every admiral,
every flag officer until we get our way, our military would come
crashing down, would be in shambles, and our national security would be
in jeopardy. But that is just what the Senator from Alabama is doing.
The obstruction is dangerous--dangerous--for our national security.
I urge my colleague from Alabama to think about it. Why shouldn't a
Member on this side block military appointments? Why shouldn't any
other Member on that side on things they believe in just as
passionately as he believes in his issue of choice? The proper place to
take it up is on the floor of the Senate and the House as a legislative
proposal, not as hostage-taking and taking hostage of our generals and
admirals and people who deserve a promotion.
I urge my colleagues, my Republican colleagues on the other side, to
speak out and to certainly speak to the Senator from Alabama and tell
him how reckless this is. Several of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, to their everlasting credit, have voiced their concerns with
the Senator from Alabama's action. Our colleagues, our Republican
leadership, should convince him to stand down and let these military
promotions go through.
Debt Ceiling
Mr. President, now on the debt ceiling, this morning, Speaker
McCarthy stated in an interview that he sent a letter to President
Biden demanding the two sit down to talk about the debt ceiling. He has
been saying that for a very long time, but for a very long time, he has
not shown us any plan.
To date, Speaker McCarthy has failed to unite his conference behind a
single proposal that can win 218 votes. We are hearing a lot of
contradictions and U-turns by the Republican caucus in the House and
lots of outlandish proposals that would harm a lot of Americans, but as
far as a plan goes, the Republican leadership still has none. When the
Speaker is asked about specifics for his plan, all we get is crickets.
All we get is crickets.
Republicans have been flailing. One day there is a term sheet. Then
there is having a budget. Then there is not having a budget. Now there
is a supposed amorphous $4 trillion number. But the only thing missing
is a real plan. You can't just pick a number out of the sky and say
this is a plan. Of course it is not. You can't just put a number on the
floor of the House and try to get it to pass.
So when Speaker McCarthy points fingers at Democrats, all he is doing
is deflecting from problems he has in his own conference--that those on
the MAGA right want to pull one way and those who are more mainstream
want to pull another way, and he can't bring the two of them together.
Speaker McCarthy says he wants to sit down with the President, but if
he comes to the President's office with no specific plan, no specific
details about what the Republicans want to cut, what are they going to
talk about? The weather? If the two sit down, the Speaker would have
nothing to say because for 3 months he has been missing the one thing
that he needs most: an initial plan that can unite 218 votes.
We Democrats have had a plan--House, Senate Democrats. Pass it
without brinkmanship, without hostage-taking. Do what we have done
under President Trump and President Biden in the past when we have
reached the limit of the debt ceiling.
We say to Speaker McCarthy: Where is your plan? If the two were to
sit down, the Speaker would have nothing to say because for 3 months he
has been missing an initial plan that can unite 218 votes.
During today's interview, the Speaker also claimed multiple times
that his party is considering $4 trillion in cuts.
Great. Fill out the specifics, where the $4 trillion exactly comes
from. Put it on the floor, Mr. Speaker. Show us the plan. Have a vote.
We need specifics. You can't say you are for $4 trillion in cuts if you
can't point to specifics.
If the Speaker truly has a proposal, he should lay it out. This isn't
about some amorphous, vague number; it is about having a plan. This is
the central problem with Speaker McCarthy's approach. It is not even
possible to meet with the President and have a true meeting if he can't
guarantee he will keep his conference together.
That is why Republicans should drop their brinkmanship, drop the
hostage-taking, work with Democrats on a clean, bipartisan extension of
the debt ceiling, and remove this cloud that is hanging over our
economy that is imposed by Speaker McCarthy's brinkmanship.
Lower Energy Costs Act
Mr. President, on H.R. 1, the House is expected to vote this week on
Republicans' partisan, unserious, so-called energy package they call
H.R. 1. All it takes is a brief glance at H.R. 1 to realize it is just
a big giveaway to Big Oil, pretending to be an energy package.
House Republicans' so-called energy package would gut important
environmental safeguards on fossil fuel projects. It would lock America
into expensive, erratic, and dirty energy sources while setting us back
more than a decade on our transition to clean energy.
Everyone admits we have to do something about the carbon that is
causing global warming. We have seen all the changes that it has caused
all across the country. And they want to move back 10 years at the
behest of Big Oil?
It is a plan that has no support with the American people--very
little--the oil interests, yes, but just about nobody else. It falls
woefully short on long-overdue and much needed reforms for accelerating
the construction of transmission to bring clean energy projects online.
Transmission is hugely important to increasing access to clean energy,
but the Republican plan falls woefully short on this front as well.
I want to make clear that H.R. 1 is dead on arrival in the Senate. It
is another exercise. You can go back to the MAGA supporters back home,
the big oil companies you are walking in lockstep with, and say: See,
we put this on the floor, but it is not going to get anything done.
We are not going to waste our time on a bill that sets America back
decades in our transition to clean energy.
A serious clean energy package would help ease America's transition
to clean energy while ensuring that clean energy is reliable,
accessible, and most importantly, affordable.
Fortunately, many Democrats and Republicans understand that we need a
bipartisan, bicameral approach to produce a serious energy package.
Everyone knows there is going to have to be give on both sides to get
it done. We on our side will continue working in good faith on real
permitting reform talks.
But, House Republicans, H.R. 1 is, very simply put, a nonstarter.
Student Loans
Mr. President, on the student debt CRA, yesterday, Republicans
introduced legislation that would end the pause on payments and
overturn President Biden's historic student loan debt
[[Page S977]]
relief program, denying the millions of Americans with student debt the
critical relief they need.
Republicans talk a big game about helping working families, but they
are once again showing how callous and uncaring they are by blocking
that relief that would immediately improve the lives of millions of
families burdened with student debt.
Republicans call President Biden's plan a ``giveaway to high
earners.'' That is just false. That is just malicious. That is just
nasty. Under President Biden's plan, nearly 90 percent of relief
dollars would go to out-of-school borrowers making less than $75,000 a
year.
Republicans, look at the facts. Let me repeat it. Under President
Biden's plan, 90 percent--nearly 90 percent of debt relief dollars
would go to out-of-school borrowers making less than $75,000 a year.
Under President Biden's plan, no one in the top 5 percent of incomes
will receive a penny in debt relief. President Biden's plan is not a
giveaway to high earners. In fact, there are a lot of very, very
wealthy people who never want to see the government help anybody except
themselves who seem to push this idea of getting rid of the President's
plan.
President Biden's plan is a ladder up to the middle class for
millions of Americans who need it most. Rather than help the privileged
few, the Biden plan would benefit students of color, poor Americans,
children of immigrants, and working and middle-class families across
the country. These are the Americans who bear the brunt of the student
debt crisis. They are the ones hurt by Republican legislation.
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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Defense Foreign Policy
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, providing for the common defense is one of
the core responsibilities of the Federal Government. It is, in fact, a
primary reason why the Federal Government exists. In fact, the
Constitution states:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each
of them against Invasion.
So how do we do that? How do we protect our Nation and ensure that
Americans can live in peace and safety? The answer can be summed up in
one word: ``strength.''
As Ronald Reagan said, ``We know only too well that war comes not
when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is
then that tyrants are tempted.'' Or to put it in the words of another
President, our first, speaking 200 years earlier, ``To be prepared for
war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.'' That is
from President George Washington.
We secure peace by maintaining our strength. So what does that mean
in practice? At its most basic level, of course, it means maintaining a
strong military and national intelligence apparatus. It means ensuring
that our military is well-funded, sufficiently manned, and fully
equipped to meet current and future threats. Unfortunately, we are not
doing the best job at that right now.
We have military services that are struggling to meet recruiting
targets. There is a persistent pilot shortage, and in a number of
cases, we have too few mission-capable aircraft. Under the President's
budget, Navy ships would be retired faster than we can replace them in
our limited shipyards. War-gaming analysis suggests we would run out of
certain long-range and precision munitions in conflicts with a great
power much sooner than any American should be comfortable with. On top
of that, last month, the spectacle of a Chinese spy balloon flying over
U.S. military bases made it clear that there has been an alarming gap
in NORAD's--the North American Aerospace Defense Command--monitoring of
U.S. airspace.
Our current situation isn't being helped by the fact that the
President is deemphasizing investment in our military. The budget he
just introduced for next year requests a massive hike in nondefense
spending compared to a mere 3.2-percent increase for defense.
In fact, the supposed increase in defense spending isn't really an
increase at all. The increase the President is proposing fails to keep
pace with current levels of inflation, which means that his defense
spending hike is really a defense spending cut--and not for the first
time.
In November of 2018, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy
Commission released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to
the point where we might struggle to win a war against a major power
like Russia or China. The Commission noted that we would be especially
vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts.
We have made some progress since then, but we are definitely not
there yet. We have to make continued investment in our military and our
readiness a priority. We need to be prepared to meet any threat because
that will allow us to deter almost any threat.
Reducing investment in our military--as the President has proposed--
would leave us in a situation where we could have difficulty defending
our Nation or our Nation's interests if attacked.
It is worth noting, too, that while the President deemphasizes
funding for our military, hostile powers are not doing the same.
China recently announced that it is increasing its defense budget by
7.2 percent this year, after increasing it 7.1 percent last year.
We need to continue to reinvest in our military, address recruitment
challenges, and ensure that our men and women in uniform--and our
intelligence personnel--have what they need to meet and deter the
threats of the 21st century.
The most basic requirement of national strength is a strong military.
And that isn't the only requirement. Investment in our military and
national security apparatus needs to be accompanied by commitments to
border security, energy security, and more. Border security--and here,
I am talking not just about physical security at our borders but also
enforcement of our immigration laws--is an essential part of keeping
our Nation secure.
Porous borders--or lax immigration enforcement that allows things
like visa overstays--are an invitation to criminals, terrorists, and
others who would seek to harm our country.
The fact that 16 individuals on the terror watch list were
apprehended attempting to cross our southern border illegally in
February alone should be all the reminder we need that people who do
not wish us well are seeking to enter our country.
And we need to ensure that we are enforcing our immigration laws and
maintaining our borders to stop them.
I also referenced energy security as a component of national strength
and security.
What does energy security mean? It means developing our domestic
energy resources--both conventional and renewable--to ensure a stable
and reliable supply of energy that does not depend on imports from
hostile countries.
The energy challenges and soaring costs countries like Germany have
faced over the past year owing to their heavy reliance on Russian
energy are a timely reminder of the importance of developing domestic
energy supplies.
Depending on imports from hostile nations or unstable regions not
only enriches those nations, it places us in a position of
vulnerability.
So far, I have talked about what we should be doing domestically to
build the kind of strength that will protect our Nation and deter
aggressors. But security is not just a matter of working at home to
strengthen our military and secure our borders. We also need to engage
globally--to build relationships with allies, support free nations, and
stand against hostile actions by hostile countries.
Now, standing against hostile actions or hostile nations doesn't mean
fixing every country's problems or getting militarily involved in every
conflict around the globe. We are not--and cannot be--police officer to
the world.
But an isolationism that would recede from any world event unless it
directly and immediately affects us is dangerous and contrary to our
national security interests because sooner or
[[Page S978]]
later, world events--particularly those that involve powerful and
hostile nations--do affect us.
We ignore the importance of security challenges, like Ukraine, at our
peril. Putin is already making it clear his ambitions don't end with
Ukraine. He is also occupying territory in Georgia and, seemingly,
working on asserting Russian influence in Moldova and the Balkans.
A Putin victorious in Ukraine would be on the doorstep of four former
Soviet satellite states--now NATO members whom we are bound by treaty
to protect--and he would likely be emboldened. War could spread, which
would compound the existing humanitarian catastrophe cost, cost U.S.
lives, and spell economic disaster not only for European countries but
for the United States, which trades heavily with Europe.
For the sake of our own security, we cannot afford to sit by and
ignore the Ukrainian conflict. Helping Ukraine fight its fight degrades
Russia's capability and helps ensure that the United States and NATO
troops won't have to fight a war with Russia. And it sends a clear
message to Russia and other nations with imperial ambitions that
aggression will not go unanswered away.
I would also note that along with isolationism, we need to be wary of
the tendency to focus on one global threat to the exclusion of others.
China, which is flexing its military and economic power and threatening
the safety of Taiwan, should rightly be a major focus right now.
But it cannot be the only one. For those who, for example, contend
that U.S. support for Ukraine is a distraction from the threat that
China represents, I would argue that the outcome in Ukraine and
upholding Ukraine's sovereignty has significant implications for China
and Taiwan.
It appears Japanese Prime Minister Kishida would agree, as he
traveled to Kyiv 1 week ago--a trip not undertaken lightly given that
Japan is neighbors with Russia, China, and North Korea.
We know that Chinese leader Xi Jingping is watching the West's
response to the war in Ukraine closely. And our support--and NATO's
support--of Ukraine can send a powerful message to General Secretary Xi
that he should think twice before making any move across the Taiwan
Strait.
In addition to confronting the dangers posed by great powers, we also
need to continue to maintain focus on threats in the Middle East and
Africa, including ISIS and Iran and their proxies.
In the past week, there have been multiple strikes on American forces
in Syria, with attacks tracing back to Iran-backed militia groups. And
we need to continue to make it clear that hostile action against
Americans--like last week's attacks--will not be tolerated.
Iran is fomenting unrest in the Middle East, moving closer to
enriching weapons-grade uranium, and sending drones to Russia to
support its war on Ukraine. Meanwhile, it is looking likely that Russia
will supply Iran with modern fighter jets, making Iran an even more
deadly presence in the Middle East.
We cannot afford to ignore Iran any more than we can ignore China,
Russia, or any other serious threat to peace and stability. We need to
remain engaged on the global stage--always pursuing peace but always
ready to respond to those who would jeopardize it.
Above all, we can't be afraid to call evil by its name. Ronald Reagan
never declared war on the Soviet Union. But he helped bring down the
Evil Empire, in part, by not being afraid to speak with moral clarity.
There will always be threats to peace and security. And it must be
our job to ensure that the United States always has the strength to
meet them. There is no surer way of preserving the peace or protecting
the heritage of freedom that we have been given.
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. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
SOIL Act
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I wanted to be able to come back to the
floor to talk about the SOIL Act. The SOIL Act is a bill that I
introduced last year that deals with Chinese ownership of land in the
United States.
Since I have introduced this bill, several of my colleagues here in
this room have also introduced other bills that are similar to it.
Good. That means people are paying attention to this and the
conversation is starting. I am all for as many ideas as we can get out
here on how to be able to solve this because the most basic principle
that we have right now is, if we miss an obvious trend that is
happening here, it is to our economic peril.
This chart has just a very simple number on it. In 2020, Chinese
entities owned almost 200,000 acres of land in the United States. One
year later, they are at almost 400,000 acres in the United States--in 1
year. This is from 2020 to 2021. This trend is happening all over the
country, and we are certainly seeing it in my State of Oklahoma.
When I travel around my State, I hear people talk about the border; I
hear people talk about the economy; and I often will hear people say:
Hey, there is a lot of foreign ownership going into land right now in
Oklahoma, and it is dramatically affecting the price of real estate,
the price of agricultural land but also what is happening on that land.
Now, my State may be a little bit different than some others or it
may be that the same thing is happening in your State.
About half a decade ago, my State did medical marijuana legalization.
It was a decision of the voters of my State to be able to say they want
to get access to medical marijuana for those who need it. The problem
is that Chinese entities and Chinese criminal organizations and Mexican
cartels immediately flooded the market in our State, and we have seen a
rapid rise in marijuana in our State, much of it done in the illegal
market. It is not just happening for the ``medical'' side in our State;
it is being distributed all over the country from my State.
Just a few months ago, I was looking on different worldwide news
sources and was shocked to see in the BBC News headlines for that day a
story about my State on the global news headlines about a group of
Chinese nationals who were shot execution-style in a grow operation in
Oklahoma. The individual who executed them was on the run and then was
arrested in Florida a couple of days later. He was also a Chinese
national.
Chinese criminal organizations have moved into my State in mass
numbers. The year after marijuana was legalized in my State for
``medical'' purposes, we had more land sales to foreign entities in
Oklahoma than any other State in America as Chinese criminal
organizations and Mexican cartels immediately moved in to be able to
set up shop in distribution nationwide.
Many people said they didn't think it was legal for foreign entities
to be able to own land in the United States. Well, there is a gap,
actually, in our law. It is an issue that I want us to be able to deal
with on how we are going to challenge this issue.
Let me give you just another perspective beyond just the Chinese side
of things--another perspective on this. Ten years ago, 321,000 acres in
Oklahoma were owned by a foreign entity--10 years ago. Today, it is
1.67 million acres in my State are owned by a foreign entity--from
321,000 to 1.67 million acres. There is a rapid transition that is
happening. Foreign entities are rapidly buying up land. I will tell
you, if you are a farmer and rancher, they would say, you know, there
are some things God is just not making more of, and one of them is
land. You can't just give that up.
This is a problem. It is a problem nationally. It is not just a
problem in the marijuana industry; it is a problem nationally. It is a
problem dealing, quite frankly, with our national security. We
currently have a 1-mile buffer around all of our military installations
that you can't own land if you are a foreign entity within 1 mile
around our military installations. We now believe that is not nearly
enough.
Quite frankly, foreign nationals from many countries like China are
buying up the land around our critical infrastructure, around our
telecom infrastructure, around military bases,
[[Page S979]]
around government offices. They are not buying it because they are
looking for another place to invest. They are buying it to set up shop
for their own operations and their own spying and their own control of
our economy. We should pay attention to this.
As we deal with different entities, like data or healthcare entities,
they have to go through a process. It is called the CFIUS process. It
is that process, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States--the abbreviation you will hear for Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States is CFIUS. That process includes
entities like the Treasury, Commerce, Defense, the intelligence
community--they all have to be involved if a foreign entity wants to be
able to buy, let's say, a telecom company or they want to buy a lot of
big data around a hospital, whatever it may be. It has to go through
that process on that.
Agricultural land is not in that though. There is no review for that.
So there is no prioritization for foreign investment of our land, even
where it is, so this has become an ``out of sight, out of mind'' issue.
The bill that I have called the SOIL Act does a mandatory review of
CFIUS of that process--the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States--for agricultural land and the entity. That is in two
categories: if they are a national security threat--that country is a
national security threat--or they are what is called a nonmarket
economy.
Let me explain what those two things are. The national security
threat is pretty straightforward. That is China, Russia, Iran, and
North Korea. If China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea want to buy land
around the edge of one of our military bases, right outside that 1-mile
buffer, if they want to buy lots of land around our infrastructure or
telecom, it is not for our good. We should have a review of that.
The second thing is a nonmarket economy. This is an economy that is
run by the government, not by private business.
Again, China would fall squarely into this as a communist nation. You
cannot run an investment business--especially a foreign entity outside
of China--without it running through the Communist Party in China, so
they are a nonmarket economy.
One of the most basic parts about this is, if you are going to buy
any kind of land in the United States and you are from one of those
countries that is a nonmarket economy or that is a national security
threat, we should have a mandatory review of that so they could
actually do that kind of purchase. But we just want to know why, where,
how much, what is the purpose of this, and we can ask those practical
questions of it.
The SOIL Act that I have also tries to close some of the loopholes
that are in our Federal law. Let me talk through a couple of those.
Currently, we have a foreign entity--let's say a Chinese entity--that
is doing an ag purpose there, they would still be available for
agricultural subsidies in the United States. Well, that needs to be
closed.
We shouldn't do agricultural subsidies for any entity that is a
foreign entity coming into the United States doing investment, so it
closes that loophole. It closes all of the disclosure loopholes dealing
with agricultural landholdings.
Right now if you have a landholding that is around 10 acres, then you
don't have to disclose it. Well, a lot of these operations are less
than 10 acres, and there is a lot that you can do on 10 acres if that
10 acres also happens to be right on our critical infrastructure, right
on our telecom, or maybe it is also doing a criminal operation.
Also this deals with issues of long-term leases. Entities would come
in and say, well, we are not really buying the land, we are just doing
a 99-year lease. Well, that is the equivalent of actually owning the
land, and so it gets around that loophole.
It also beefs up our enforcement for those who violate our foreign
investment laws. It also requires annual reporting, for China and
Russia in particular.
Listen, I am not trying to stop foreign investments into the country.
If BMW wants to be able to come do manufacturing here in the United
States for their cars or Nissan or any number of manufacturing products
that are here from all over the world, they are welcome to be here.
They are welcome to do foreign investment.
But when Iran is buying up a big chunk of land, we should ask the
question why they are doing that. And, currently, we don't even have a
process to do that. When China is snapping up land by the hundreds of
thousands of acres, we should ask the question: Why is China buying
hundreds of thousands of acres of American land all of a sudden? What
is the goal?
We should ask that question; and, currently, we don't have a process
to do that. So let's fix that. The SOIL Act gets on top of that issue
and says we see the trend. Let's not just watch this go sideways; let's
actually engage. And let's protect our national security, and let's
protect our national interest.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Covenant School Shooting
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, yesterday the Nation witnessed a murderous
rampage at an elementary school, a small Christian school in Nashville,
TN. Tragically, three small children, 9 years old, lost their lives;
three employees of this school lost their lives. And even as I am on
this floor now, Nashville police are releasing the body cam footage of
the officers who responded with heroic speed and heroic courage to the
deranged individual who made her way into that school and was executing
students and teachers one by one.
Those officers deserve to be praised; they deserve to be thanked;
they deserve to be honored for what they did and for the lives that
they saved.
We must also tell the truth about what happened yesterday in
Nashville. This murderous rampage, this taking of innocent life was a
horrific crime; but, more specifically, it was a hate crime. A crime
that, according to Nashville police, specifically targeted--that is
their word--targeted the members of this Christian community, the
members of this religious institution, its students, its educators, its
employees.
Let's be clear, Federal law prohibits the targeting of violence
against any American on the basis of religious affiliation or religious
practice or religious belief.
But that is, according to police, exactly what we saw happen
yesterday. The members of this community were singled out because of
their religious affiliation. And now, three young children are dead,
and three educators are dead because of their affiliation with this
religious institution, because of their beliefs, because of their work,
because of their service. That is a crime under Federal law, and it
must be treated as such.
Today I have called on the director of the FBI and the Secretary of
Homeland Security to open a Federal investigation, a Federal hate crime
investigation, into what happened in Nashville. We need the facts. We
need to know about the premeditated crime. We need to know about what
this shooter did and intended to do. We need to know about the
influences. What kind of violent rhetoric motivated this shooter? Were
there others involved?
This contagion of hateful rhetoric and violence must not be allowed
to spread, and that is why we need all Federal resources, according to
Federal law, devoted now on the ground in Nashville to get the facts
and to stop the violence from spreading further.
And I call on this body, every Member of this body, to condemn, in
the clearest of terms, this hate crime against this community in
Nashville. Today, I will introduce a resolution explicitly condemning
this massacre as the hate crime that it is and calling upon this body
to condemn hateful rhetoric that leads to violence. Hateful rhetoric
against religious believers, religious institutions, religious
communities that leads to violence.
This isn't speculation; this is a tragic fact. It is happening before
our eyes, and we must condemn it. And I would call on those corporate
partners who
[[Page S980]]
are so quick to weigh in on social issues, now, make your voice heard.
Condemn this violence as the hate crime that it is. Stand with this
community in Nashville. This is a time to be heard. This is a time to
be clear about what has happened and is unfolding before our very eyes.
And let's just be crystal clear, rhetoric about days of vengeance and
genocide, rhetoric directed against religious believers of whatever
background--whether they are Presbyterians like the students and
teachers and employees targeted yesterday or some other Christian
affiliation or Orthodox Jews or Catholics or whatever the religious
background--it is a crime under Federal law to target and commit acts
of violence against Americans because of their religious beliefs,
because of their religious affiliation, because of their religious
practices.
This should not happen in the United States of America, and now we
must act to see that it does not spread.
And so I hope the Senate will soon take up my resolution. I hope that
every Member of this body will be clear about what has happened in
Nashville and will be clear in standing against the violence, in
standing against the hate, in standing against the rhetoric, in
standing with this community that needs now our support, that needs now
our encouragement and condolences, yes, but also needs our action.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 11
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, last December, the World Health Assembly
established an intergovernmental negotiating body to draft a new
convention on pandemic prevention and preparedness.
At its fourth meeting last month, the negotiating body accepted a
draft of this new convention that would give the World Health
Organization broad new powers in managing future pandemics. If
accepted, it would cement the World Health Organization at the center
of a global system for managing future pandemics, and it would erode
U.S. sovereignty.
Let me just list a few of the examples of some of the provisions of
this draft--and I will call it a treaty. Currently, it would require a
substantial new U.S. financial commitment to an international body
without proportional voting power.
It would require the U.S. to give the World Health Organization 20
percent of vaccines and other pandemic-related products produced during
future pandemics. It includes a heavy emphasis on the transfer of
intellectual property rights to the World Health Organization.
It gives the World Health Organization a leading role in fighting
misinformation and disinformation, and as the Twitter files reveal,
that leads to censorship and the suppression and abridging of freedom
of speech.
It also promotes a global one-health approach to healthcare,
including harmonizing regulation under WHO guidance. The WHO has not
earned this power--far from it. At a critical moment in late 2019 and
early 2020, the WHO utterly failed to detect the emerging COVID-19
pandemic and delayed in forming its member states. Instead, it was
kowtowing to Beijing.
Unfortunately, there are indications that the Biden administration is
considering joining this new convention by executive agreement and
avoiding the Senate. We should not let this happen. An agreement of
such magnitude needs to be submitted to the Senate for advice and
consent. This is not a partisan issue; this is about reclaiming the
Senate's prerogatives on international agreement.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 11 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson] proposes an
amendment numbered 11.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require any convention, agreement, or other international
instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached
by the World Health Assembly to be subject to Senate ratification)
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 3. ANY WORLD HEALTH AGENCY CONVENTION OR AGREEMENT OR
OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT RESULTING FROM
THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATING BODY'S FINAL
REPORT DEEMED TO BE A TREATY SUBJECT TO ADVICE
AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``No WHO
Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On December 1, 2021, at the second special session of
the World Health Assembly (referred to in this section as the
``WHA'') decided--
(A) to establish an intergovernmental negotiating body
(referred to in this section as the ``INB'') to draft and
negotiate a WHO convention (referred to in this section as
the ``Convention''), agreement, or other international
instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and
response, with a view to adoption under article 19 or any
other provision of the WHO Constitution; and
(B) that the INB shall submit a progress report to the
Seventy-sixth WHA and a working draft of the convention for
consideration by the Seventy-seventh WHA, which is scheduled
to take place beginning on March 18, 2024.
(2) On February 24, March 14 and 15, and June 6 through 8
and 15 through 17, 2022, the INB held its inaugural meeting
at which the Director-General proposed the following 5 themes
to guide the INB's work in drafting the Convention:
(A) Building national, regional, and global capacities
based on a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach.
(B) Establishing global access and benefit sharing for all
pathogens, and determining a global policy for the equitable
production and distribution of countermeasures.
(C) Establishing robust systems and tools for pandemic
preparedness and response.
(D) Establishing a long-term plan for sustainable financing
to ensure support for global health threat management and
response systems.
(E) Empowering WHO to fulfill its mandate as the directing
and coordinating authority on international health work,
including for pandemic preparedness and response.
(3) On July 18 through 22, 2022, the INB held its second
meeting at which it agreed that the Convention would be
adopted under article 19 of the WHO Constitution and legally
binding on the parties.
(4) On December 5 through 7, 2022, the INB held its third
meeting at which it accepted a conceptual zero draft of the
Convention and agreed to prepare a zero draft for
consideration at the INB's next meeting.
(5) In early January 2023, an initial draft of the
Convention was sent to WHO member states in advance of its
formal introduction at the fourth meeting of the INB. The
draft includes broad and binding provisions, including rules
governing parties' access to pathogen genomic sequences and
how the products or benefits of such access are to be
distributed.
(6) On February 27 through March 3, 2023, the INB held its
fourth meeting at which it--
(A) formally agreed to the draft distributed in January as
the basis for commencing negotiations; and
(B) established an April 14, 2023 deadline for member
states to propose any changes to the text.
(7) Section 723.3 of title 11 of the Department of State's
Foreign Affairs Manual states that when ``determining whether
any international agreement should be brought into force as a
treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty,
the utmost care is to be exercised to avoid any invasion or
compromise of the constitutional powers of the President, the
Senate, and the Congress as a whole'' and includes the
following criteria to be considered when determining whether
an international agreement should take the form of a treaty
or an executive agreement:
(A) ``The extent to which the agreement involves
commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole''.
(B) ``Whether the agreement is intended to affect state
laws''.
(C) ``Whether the agreement can be given effect without the
enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress''.
(D) ``Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements''.
(E) ``The preference of the Congress as to a particular
type of agreement''.
(F) ``The degree of formality desired for an agreement''.
(G) ``The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for
prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of
concluding a routine or short-term agreement''.
(H) ``The general international practice as to similar
agreements''.
(c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) a significant segment of the American public is deeply
skeptical of the World Health Organization, its leadership,
and its independence from the pernicious political influence
of certain member states, including the People's Republic of
China;
(2) the Senate strongly prefers that any agreement related
to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response adopted by
the World Health Assembly pursuant to the work of the INB be
considered a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the
Senate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring;
(3) the scope of the agreement which the INB has been
tasked with drafting, as outlined by the Director-General, is
so broad that any application of the factors referred
[[Page S981]]
to in subsection (b)(11) will weigh strongly in favor of it
being considered a treaty; and
(4) given the level of public distrust, any relevant new
agreement by the World Health Assembly which cannot garner
the two-thirds vote needed for Senate ratification should not
be agreed to or implemented by the United States.
(d) Applicability of Senate Advice and Consent
Constitutional Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any convention, agreement, or other
international instrument on pandemic prevention,
preparedness, and response reached by the World Health
Assembly pursuant to the recommendations, report, or work of
the International Negotiating Body established by the second
special session of the World Health Assembly is deemed to be
a treaty that is subject to the requirements of article II,
section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States,
which requires the advice and consent of the Senate, with
two-thirds of Senators concurring.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, it
declares any pandemic convention produced by the intergovernmental
negotiating body to be a treaty requiring Senate advice and consent.
I had a similar amendment on the Iranian agreement a few years ago.
It is far past time that the Members of this body reclaim our
Constitutional authority at ratifying these incredibly serious treaties
and no longer allow the administration to go ahead and negotiate
agreements that can have a dramatic impact on our sovereignty and
bypass the Senate entirely.
So, again, a very simple amendment, it would deem any amendment a
treaty and require that it be ratified by the Senate, and I urge all my
colleagues to support my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not
because my colleague from Wisconsin is completely wrong about the need
for WHO accountability. The facts he stated are facts that are
troubling. But the bill that is on the floor is a bill to repeal the
Iraq war authorizations of 1991 and 2002. The bill has nothing to do
with global health or the WHO.
The Senate has not repealed a war authorization since 1971--52 years.
This is a historic debate.
When we authorized the wars in Iraq, the Gulf war and the invasion of
2003, we did it in authorizations that didn't include extraneous
amendments. The Senate deemed these important enough that other
matters, even if they were important, were not added onto the
declarations of war.
I strongly believe we should take up this repeal, keep it limited
precisely to the question on the floor--should we repeal the Iraq war
authorizations--and not add in extraneous matter, even if that matter
has some merit.
And for that reason, I would ask my colleagues to vote against the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, there is nothing in my amendment that
would harm what the Senator from Virginia tried to accomplish in
repealing the authorization for use of military force. So my amendment
can be accepted and have no impact whatsoever on the legislation before
the floor or the body.
Vote on Amendment No. 11
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
11.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker
NAYS--49
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
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
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--4
Coons
Feinstein
Fetterman
McConnell
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). On this vote, the yeas are
47, 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. 11) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up
to 4 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the votes on the
remaining amendments today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 30
Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 30 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Ricketts] proposes an
amendment numbered 30.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a certification)
Amend section 2 to read as follows:
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.
(a) Repeal.--The Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116
Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed 30 days
after the President certifies to Congress that Iraq, Israel,
and other United States partners and allies in the region
have been meaningfully consulted on the ramifications of
repeal.
(b) Description of Risks.--The certification submitted
under subsection (a) shall include a detailed description of
how Iraq, Israel, and other United States partners and allies
in the region perceive the risks and benefits of a repeal.
Mr. RICKETTS. This amendment is very simple. It is less than 150
words long. So I ask that you take some time to consider it.
What it does is ask the administration to check in with our allies in
the Middle East--Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE--and let them know
what we are doing with this amendment.
I agree in principle that we ought not let these things hang out
there for 20 years, but I am concerned about the timing because, in my
trip to the Middle East last month, what I heard from our allies is
that it looks like we are withdrawing from the Middle East. And what
that does is it emboldens Iran, it emboldens China, and it encourages
our allies in the Middle East to start looking to hedge their bets from
America and start, maybe, bringing in the Chinese as part of their
security arrangements. And I think that is bad for our country, and,
certainly, I think we can all agree we do not want China to be leading
a world order here; that the United States is the best for providing
peace and prosperity.
What this amendment does is just ask the administration to check in
with our allies, issue a report back to Congress, and, in 30 days after
Congress, then the AUMF would expire. So I just ask that everybody
please consider that.
With that I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
support the notion of dialogue, of course, with our strategic partners
and allies, but the purpose of this AUMF repeal is for Congress to
reclaim war powers and not outsource them to the Executive but also not
outsource them to other nations.
When we passed the Iraq war authorization in 2002, there was no
requirement that it only went into effect if we
[[Page S982]]
then went out and had dialogue with other nations. Why would we declare
war unilaterally but then say the only way to repeal it is following
dialogue with other nations?
Our allies and partners are very aware of this bill. It has been on
the floor for 2 years. There have been floor debates about it in the
House. There have been two separate markups in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. They are very aware of it.
All of us meet with Ambassadors. All of us meet with
Parliamentarians. If nations in the region felt that there was any
danger to this, they would have let us know. I will conclude and just
say that the American Legion also strongly opposes this amendment. I
would ask my colleagues to oppose it as well.
Vote on Amendment No. 30
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 65, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]
YEAS--31
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Capito
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Mullin
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
NAYS--65
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Braun
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--4
Coons
Feinstein
Fetterman
McConnell
(Mr. WARNOCK assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). On this vote, the yeas are 31, and
the nays are 65.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 30) was rejected.
____________________