[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3503-S3517]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2226, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2226) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2024 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Schumer (for Reed-Wicker) amendment No. 935, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Schumer amendment No. 936 (to amendment No. 935), to add an 
     effective date.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                S. 2226

  Mr. SCHUMER. First, I want to thank my colleagues for all of the good 
work so far on the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. We 
were very productive last week, and I hope this week can be equally so.
  Today, we will begin our work by holding two floor votes, one on 
Senators Cornyn and Casey's outbound investment screen amendment and 
then a vote on the Round-Tester farmlands amendment. Both of these 
amendments have been in the works for months, and I intend to vote in 
their favor. I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  I know there are concerns on both sides of the aisle with some of the 
text in both amendments. Senators Cornyn, Casey, Rounds, Tester, and I 
are all committed to working through these concerns in the conference 
process.
  Tomorrow, we will vote on the Warnock-Budd amendment designed to halt 
debt collector harassment of our servicemembers. Again, I appreciate 
the cooperation of Senators on both sides as we worked to lock in these 
votes.
  And today and tomorrow, Leader McConnell, Chair Reed, Ranking Member 
Wicker, and I will also work on assembling a second managers' package 
of amendments.
  I hope this effort is successful. It will require everyone to work 
together, and we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  Concurrently, we will also keep working on additional floor votes 
that we might need to finish the NDAA this week. We have a chance to 
show the American people that the Senate can work productively on our 
national defense, in stark contrast to the partisan race to the bottom 
that we saw over in the House.
  But the work isn't finished yet. We are going to keep negotiating a 
path forward, and the Senate will continue working on the NDAA until 
the job is done. I thank both sides for their efforts.


                       Business Before the Senate

  Mr. President, now on other Senate business, as we move forward with 
the

[[Page S3504]]

NDAA here on the floor, appropriators also continue working in 
committee. Last week, the Appropriations Committee marked up and 
approved three more bills, and, this week, they will hold another 
markup on Thursday. Just like the NDAA, I am proud to say the 
appropriations process has been largely bipartisan, precisely as it 
should be.
  And, finally, with so much going on this week, I want to remind my 
colleagues that we will be holding our third all-Senators briefing on 
AI, following up on our classified briefing earlier this month. I thank 
all of my colleagues for making the time to attend these AI briefings.
  Today, I also wish to recognize the efforts of the Judiciary 
Committee, which this afternoon is holding its own hearing on AI 
regulation. They join the work of many other committees that have moved 
quickly this year to begin focusing on AI in a very serious way.
  The Senate will continue ramping up our focus on AI policy when we 
begin hosting our Insight Forums later this fall.
  So, once again, thank you to my colleagues for their good work on 
this pressing matter.


                        Inflation Reduction Act

  Mr. President, now on the IRA and its 1-year anniversary. We are 
approaching the 1-year anniversary of the passage of the Inflation 
Reduction Act. The Inflation Reduction Act, known as the IRA, was one 
of the most consequential pieces of legislation passed in decades, and 
in just one year it is already paying huge dividends for the American 
people, for our economy, and for our environment.
  Since we passed the Inflation Reduction Act, costs are down for 
families. For the first time ever, we made it possible for Medicare to 
negotiate the price of prescription drugs. Vaccines are free for 
Medicare beneficiaries. A cap on out-of-pocket drug spending for 
seniors is just a few months away. No one will pay more than $2,000 a 
year for expensive drugs that they need to save their lives.
  And, of course, after a lot of hard work, we also capped the price of 
insulin for seniors on Medicare to $35--only $35--a month. Since then, 
Ely Lilly and Novo Nordisk have also lowered insulin costs for 
everybody.
  And we hope to build on all of this work with additional legislation 
later this year. Every American deserves to have affordable insulin, 
not just those on Medicare. Let's not forget that the patent for 
insulin expired a long time ago. It was invented in 1921 or 1922--I 
believe it was--by a Canadian inventor who sold the patent for only a 
dollar. So there is no need to have insulin at the exorbitant high 
price that it is for those not on Medicare.
  The Inflation Reduction Act has also helped countless Americans 
manage their energy costs. The tax credits and rebates on energy 
efficiency are helping Americans keep their homes warmer in the winter 
and cooler in the summer, all at a more affordable price, while at the 
same time reducing our carbon emissions.
  And a few weeks ago, we saw that inflation slowed down to just 3 
percent, the lowest it has been in over 2 years. In fact, since we 
passed the Inflation Reduction Act, inflation has been cut by more than 
half on an annual basis, and wage growth is still continuing to grow. 
It is now significantly above inflation, meaning workers are taking 
home more while spending less. That is the emblem of an economy that 
America needs.
  And, of course, the IRA is also paving the way for millions--
millions--of new good-paying green jobs. The IRA produced a boom in 
clean energy investment with nearly 80 new clean energy manufacturing 
facilities announced across the country.
  So when you put it all together, the Inflation Reduction Act is a 
shining example of the Democratic agenda in action: lower costs for 
families, higher wages for workers, and millions--millions--of new 
good-paying jobs for years to come.
  Democrats are proud of the progress we have made in implementing our 
agenda and will keep working until every American feels the benefits.


    Honoring Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson

  Mr. President, finally, on a sad anniversary, yesterday marked 25 
years since Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut of the 
Capitol Police were killed in the line of duty while defending the 
Capitol Building.
  It was a dark day in the history of the Capitol, and it would have 
been even darker if not for the heroics of Detective Gibson and Officer 
Chestnut. In the face of grave danger, they acted with extreme valor 
and courage, undoubtedly saving the lives of many others in the 
building that day.
  We are grateful for their sacrifice 25 years ago and grateful for the 
work the Capitol Police do every day to keep the Capitol Complex and 
those who work here safe.
  And we pray that their families have some degree of peace, even 
though they have huge holes in their heart with these terrible losses.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I need to begin my remarks today by 
acknowledging two solemn anniversaries.
  Yesterday marked 25 years since a deranged gunman shattered the calm 
of a summer afternoon here at the Capitol, 25 years since two brave 
members of the United States Capitol Police--Jacob Joseph Chestnut and 
Detective John Michael Gibson--paid the ultimate price to keep us safe.
  The senseless tragedy of July 24, 1998, robbed two families of 
beloved husbands and fathers. It deprived fellow officers of devoted 
colleagues and friends. But that day, the sacrifice of Officer Chestnut 
and Detective Gibson saved lives. They protected the lawmakers and 
staff who come here to work, the tourists who come here to encounter 
the heart of our democracy, and the institutions of Congress 
themselves. And they reminded an entire nation of the vital service the 
men and women of the Capitol Police render honorably every day.
  Time will not heal the pain of losing these fine men, but in a 
special way today, I know my colleagues join me in extending our 
sympathies to the families of Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson and to 
their comrades in the Capitol Police. America will never forget their 
service and sacrifice.


                           Kentucky Flooding

  Mr. President, tomorrow will mark 1 year since the brave people of 
Eastern Kentucky endured some of the worst flooding in the 
Commonwealth's history. Heavy rains and rising water caused mass 
evacuations and over 40 deaths, including a number of children. Roads 
turned to rapids, neighborhoods were swept away overnight, and families 
were left stranded.
  In communities like Lost Creek, where I stood with Jackson Mayor 
Laura Thomas, not a single home was left untouched. From Lost Creek to 
communities and counties like Pike, Letcher, Knott, and Breathitt, I 
saw similar scenes of devastation and heard the painful stories of 
families displaced by the floods. But in the face of devastation, 
Kentucky's first responders rushed to help neighbors in their time of 
need.
  As the full scope of the disaster became clear, I worked with leaders 
at FEMA to cut through redtape and encouraged a rapid Federal response. 
I made sure that Eastern Kentucky received big investments in recovery 
and that local leaders got more autonomy to restore communities, 
rebuild homes, and revitalize the economy.
  Last year's tragedy tested Eastern Kentucky's resolve, and today, 
there is still work to be done. But Kentuckians are resilient. We rise 
up to the big challenges. I will continue to work with folks in Eastern 
Kentucky to build their communities back even stronger than before.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, Democrats on the 
Judiciary Committee spent last Thursday considering the best way to 
reach from article I of the Constitution into article III and tell a 
coequal branch of government how to conduct its business.
  The pretext for this latest chapter in Democrats' war on the 
institution of the Supreme Court was ``ethics and

[[Page S3505]]

transparency.'' They had a supposedly urgent legislative bone to pick 
with Justices who take vacations and publish children's books. But for 
all our colleagues' heartburn over a textualist Court that won't 
reliably affirm their political preferences, for all of the baseless 
commotion about undue outside influence, Senate Democrats have proven 
themselves to be quite thoroughly influenced by the far left's most 
notorious dark money advocates and discredited causes.
  Here are some of the recent marching orders our colleagues have 
received from the activist left:
  ``Start taking on the court rhetorically as a political villain.''
  ``We'd like to amplify anyone who uses this corruption/legitimacy 
messaging.''
  ``Restrain MAGA justices immediately.''
  ``Rip the veil off.''
  Well, Mr. President, Senate Democrats have dutifully followed their 
orders. In their words:
  The Supreme Court is ``MAGA-captured.''
  We have a ``stilted, illegitimate'' Court.
  ``We need to expand the Court.''
  One Senator let the cat out of the bag, saying that this supposed 
``ethics'' inquiry is just a predicate to Court packing. Quote: ``I 
don't think we should foreclose that in an amendment.''
  Our colleagues understand what the far left expects of them. They 
know that their party's base has long since discarded any desire to 
achieve its goals from within our institutions. So last week, they 
rammed a blatant power grab through the Judiciary Committee as part of 
their effort to tear down a branch of government they can't control.
  Well, Senate Republicans are going to keep fighting this dangerous 
campaign at every step of the way, and in the meantime, our Nation's 
highest Court should continue to pay it no mind.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. President, now on one final matter, Russia's violence against 
civil infrastructure in Ukraine continues, but the consequences of this 
unilateral destruction extend far beyond Ukraine's borders.
  Just a week has passed since Vladimir Putin pulled out of the 
agreement that had allowed critical Ukrainian grain shipments to 
transit the Black Sea unharmed. But already, Russia has expanded from 
threatening vessels carrying the world's grain supply to attacking 
grain storage in Odessa and other coastal cities.
  Yesterday's attacks are the latest in the wave of violence against 
agricultural infrastructure that will punish the world's poorest and 
hungriest nations. Leaders in the developing world who have hesitated 
to cast blame in this conflict should take a careful look at Russia's 
unprovoked behavior.
  But Russia hasn't limited its nonmilitary targets to grain supplies. 
On Sunday, Russia struck Odessa's largest Orthodox cathedral with a 
deadly missile barrage. So much for Russian propaganda efforts to 
present the Kremlin as a defender of the faithful. Of course, Putin, 
like many of his Soviet predecessors, has already done so much to 
corrupt and control the Russian Orthodox Church that we should not be 
surprised by his disrespect for religious institutions.
  So let's be very clear. A regime that exploits the clerics as 
propagandists and agents of influence and that destroys historical 
houses of worship is not--not--a friend to believers.
  Now, as Ukraine's counteroffensive makes slow progress, the United 
States and our allies can be sure of a few things.
  First, our friends are using the munitions we have sent them, 
including the cluster munitions that are now hammering Russian 
positions in occupied Ukraine.
  Second, at every step of the way, the Biden administration's 
indecision and inaction have meant certain key capabilities have 
arrived late--late--to the battlefield.
  And, third, additional long-range firearms would help Ukraine put 
Russian invaders on the back foot as our friends have already 
demonstrated by successfully using British Storm Shadow cruise 
missiles.
  So the Biden administration needs to start moving at the speed of 
relevance--at the speed of relevance--and give our friends in Ukraine 
the lethal tools they need to finish their fight.
  For our part, as we work to provide for the common defense, the 
Senate must invest in a defense industrial base that can sustain 
America's support for Ukraine while equipping our own forces to deter 
further threats from Russia and China.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.


                      Honoring Officer Jake Wallin

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, tomorrow, thousands of people will gather 
at Scheels Arena in Fargo, ND, to pay a final tribute to a hero. I wish 
I could be there to celebrate his life as well. It was a life that was 
well lived while being far too short. Fargo Police Officer Jake Wallin 
was laid to rest on Saturday in the small Midwest town of Pequot Lakes, 
MN.
  Eleven days ago, on July 14, Officer Wallin was killed as he and 
fellow officers Andrew Dotas, Tyler Hawes, and Zachary Robinson 
responded to, really, a routine fender bender, where they were ambushed 
by an uninvolved assailant who was armed with several weapons, 1,800 
rounds of ammunition, and multiple homemade explosive devices--clearly 
intent on going on a murder spree. Officer Robinson, the last cop 
standing, swiftly responded to neutralize the threat, fatally shooting 
the hate-filled killer.
  Officer Wallin was murdered for simply being a cop, a peace officer, 
helping ordinary people in need of assistance--a life-long public 
servant gunned down simply because of the uniform and badge that he 
wore. He has been, is, and will forever be a hero to our community.
  Jake grew up in St. Michael, MN, and enlisted in the Minnesota 
National Guard after graduating from high school. He served our country 
on deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan before returning home and joining 
the Fargo Police Department in April of this year--3 months on the job.
  Like so many boys and girls, Jake wanted to be a police officer more 
than anything. In fact, his father Jeff said in an interview that he 
``could never have stopped him'' from joining the force. He always 
wanted a job with purpose behind it and said he didn't want to work 
behind a desk.
  He said, in fact:

       I want to be doing something I can tell myself at the end 
     of the day that I made a difference somehow.

  That, colleagues, is the quote of an American hero. We need more 
heroes like Jake who are ready to answer the call.
  In the time since Officer Wallin's passing, Fargo hardware stores 
have experienced a phenomenon that many outside Minnesota would find 
baffling. Across the city, stores are almost completely sold out of 
blue light bulbs as people have rushed out to purchase them and light 
their porches and their homes blue in support of Jake and the Fargo 
Police Department's officers.
  I wish every State were like North Dakota and every American had the 
same respect and admiration for our law enforcement officers. In our 
neck of the woods, we pass these values down to our children as we 
teach them the importance of law and order and as we hope to inspire 
them to, one day, be police officers like Officer Wallin--protecting 
and serving their communities.
  Our actions matter whether we want to acknowledge it or not. The end 
result of ruthless attacks on the men and women in uniform, whether 
with our words or actions or calls to defund the police, have never 
been clearer than in what transpired in Fargo just 11 days ago.
  We do not know the assailant's motives, but it is abundantly clear 
that he singled out the officers in his pursuit of a sick, twisted plan 
to wreak havoc in our community. He sought them out because of the job 
that they were doing.
  While we are slowly learning the details of this senseless, tragic 
day, we know Officer Wallin is a hero who died while serving his 
community. Heroes like Jake bravely respond to the call and serve 
without hesitating, without knowing what might be around the corner or 
at the end of the parking lot.
  Kris and I are praying for the recovery of fellow officers Andrew 
Dotas and Tyler Hawes, as well as bystander Karlee Koswick, the entire 
Fargo Police Department, and fellow officers

[[Page S3506]]

throughout our community, our State, and our country.
  We also pray that God's peace--the peace that Scripture tells us 
``passes all understanding''--will come to Jake's fiancee Winter, to 
his parents Jeff and Amy, to his brother Brady, and to his brothers and 
sisters in blue as they mourn this terrible loss.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jake Wallin's obituary be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Obituary

       Jake Ryan Wallin, 23, died in the line of duty as a Fargo 
     Police Officer on July 14, 2023.
       He was born November 23, 1999, in South Carolina, the son 
     of Jeff Wallin and Amy (Shuler) Wallin.
       Jake grew up in St. Michael and graduated from St. Michael-
     Albertville High School and Alexandria Technical and 
     Community College. He attended the American Military 
     University. He served in the Minnesota National Guard and was 
     deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq before returning stateside 
     to make his home in Fargo, ND. He became a Fargo Police 
     officer in April of 2023 and was on duty at the time of his 
     death.
       Jake wanted to live a life of purpose, where what he did 
     meant something at the end of the day. His short adult years 
     were spent in service to others. Not only to his country and 
     his community, he was also dedicated to and loved dearly, his 
     friends, family, fiancee, and his dog, Thor. His smile 
     brightened any room. His laughter was contagious. He enjoyed 
     life and all it had to offer. A life that was cut short doing 
     a job he loved.
       Jake is survived by his loving parents, Jeff and Amy 
     (Shuler) Wallin, his beloved brother Brady, all of Saint 
     Michael; his fiancee, Winter Malone, of Fargo; his 
     grandparents John and Carolee Wallin of Pequot Lakes, Minn., 
     and grandparents Jerry and Deborah Shuler, of Rock Hill, 
     South Carolina, along with his aunts, uncles, and cousins.
       A funeral service will take place at Pequot Lakes High 
     School at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, July 22, at 30805 Olson 
     Street, Pequot Lakes, MN 56472.
       A private service will be held graveside at Greenwood 
     Cemetery in Nisswa following the service.
       In lieu of flowers, please make donations to the Soldier's 
     6 at Soldiers6.com.
       Arrangements by Kline Funeral Home, Pequot Lakes, MN.

  Mr. CRAMER. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today and join my colleague Senator 
Cramer to pay tribute to a truly exceptional young man, Fargo Police 
Officer Jake Wallin.
  Tomorrow, the Fargo community will gather to honor Officer Wallin, 
who was tragically killed in the line of duty on July 14. The Senate's 
debate on the National Defense Authorization Act prevents both myself 
and Senator Cramer from being there in person. So we wanted to do what 
we could to pay our respects here to Officer Wallin on the Senate 
floor.
  As a member of the Minnesota National Guard, he served both in 
Afghanistan and in Iraq. His platoon captain had this to say of Officer 
Wallin:

       Jake was that individual that you could always trust. Any 
     time that you asked him to step up or do anything, there was 
     no hesitation.

  That dedication to service continued after his deployments to the 
Middle East. Following his time overseas, Jake made his home in Fargo, 
ND. He graduated from the Fargo Police Academy and joined the Fargo 
Police Department because, as he put it, ``I've always wanted to work 
in some sort of position that had purpose behind my job. Police officer 
is always what came to me.''
  Jake had only been on the job since April, but his impact on the 
community will not be forgotten. Police Chief Zibolski said that, even 
in his final moments, he was thinking of his fellow officers and trying 
to save the lives of those fellow officers.
  My wife Mikey and I send our sincerest condolences also to his 
parents Jeff and Amy, his brother Brady, his fiancee Winter, and all of 
Jake's loved ones.
  At the same time, we continue to pray for his fellow officers, 
especially Officers Andrew Dotas and Tyler Hawes, who were injured in 
the ambush. They were both shot as well. We are also grateful to 
Officer Zach Robinson, who was able to put an end to this horrific 
incident and whose bravery will never be forgotten. These peace 
officers have a long road to recovery and will continue to be in our 
prayers.
  This tragic event is a reminder of the dangers our law enforcement 
officials face each and every day and of the enormous debt we owe them 
and their families for the sacrifices they make to keep our communities 
safe. We are truly grateful to our peace officers--all of them--whether 
they are in North Dakota or anywhere across this amazing country. We 
truly value them. We owe them so much, and we are truly grateful to all 
of them.
  Particularly, we honor Officer Jake Wallin for making the ultimate 
sacrifice on our behalf. May God bless him and his family.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.


                        Tribute to Joel Brubaker

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to a good 
friend, a great confidant, and a strong leader: my chief of staff of 
over 18 years, Joel Brubaker.
  I am joined in the Galleries by many folks who have worked with him, 
who know him, and who love him just as I do.
  Joel started with me in the year 2005, when I was just entering my 
third term in the U.S. House. His experience in working with Bill 
Shuster and Bob Walker--both Pennsylvania Representatives from Joel's 
home State of Pennsylvania--prepared him well to head up a growing and 
aggressive congressional office from West Virginia.
  Joel's path to Capitol Hill started in Lancaster, PA. He was born 
there and was raised by his mother Eleanor. I haven't had the chance to 
meet Eleanor yet, but from what Joel has told me, she is a strong and 
independent woman.
  Joel is also the youngest of four boys. My husband and I have always 
said that, no matter what the problem is, big or small, Joel handles it 
exactly like the youngest of four boys would--calmly, for the most 
part, and like it is no big deal.
  After graduating from high school, Joel went to Gettysburg College 
and, later, picked up an MBA at American University.
  His talents as a legislative director for then-Congressman Shuster 
led me to realize that those very same talents were perfect for our 
office to help us make decisions, to hire people. And do you know what? 
The results speak for themselves.
  Last week, we had a gathering of well-wishers to send Joel off. The 
room was full--full--of folks from hockey players to former employees 
to coworkers to friends from West Virginia to neighbors and family, 
including my very own family, because our families are very much 
together. It was great to see so many individuals from all walks of 
life gathered in one place to wish Joel a good sendoff from a place 
that he truly loves.
  Speaking of things that Joel truly loves, he has quite a few 
favorites in his life. First of all, Katrina, his wife of many years--
who is one of my favorites too--and their two terrific children, Kat 
and Heath. Believe it or not, I remember Kat and Heath's births and 
their birthdays. Kat was a page here a couple of weeks ago, and we 
loved it. In fact, Katrina was 6 months pregnant with Kat when I 
interviewed Joel for the job of chief of staff, and now Kat is going to 
be away for her freshman year at Ole Miss.
  Ice hockey is another one of Joel's favorite things. Whether it is 
pond hockey in freezing New Hampshire, going to a Caps game, watching 
his kids play hockey, or the Capitol Members hockey game--which, I must 
admit, he is a star there--he just loves the game. And he has the 
lineup of framed jerseys in his office to prove it.
  Joel loves beef jerky; Chick-fil-A; Disney World and crazy rides; 
decorating his house outrageously for Halloween and Christmas--for 
those of you who live in Arlington, yes, that is his house--politics, 
especially West Virginia politics; and the Fourth of July. He always 
attends the national Independence Day celebration on the Capitol lawn.
  That brings me to another strong attribute that we will miss about 
Joel. Joel loves his country and our traditional American values. He 
has not--and never has been--one to shy away from talking about what a 
great country we have. And he is grateful. He is grateful for that.

[[Page S3507]]

  Joel has a great sense of integrity, and he is always careful--very 
careful--to make sure that we are all working within the boundaries of 
our office--and for me, especially, my oath of office. I appreciate his 
very keen sense of right and wrong, and I will miss the way we both see 
our duties through the same lens.
  Now, Joel is not perfect. He will not fly into our great State of 
West Virginia, and he hasn't for many years. Apparently, one flight was 
just a little bit too much for him over those mountains, so he began to 
name our airlines ``Air Fallujah.''
  He almost stayed overnight one time in my district office to fend off 
some very aggressive protesters, and he is known to have a camping-
style cot that is very unique that he used in our campaign office once 
upon a time. Rumor has it the cot still exists today, despite Katrina's 
best efforts to get rid of it.
  You could always tell you are getting under Joel's skin because his 
voice always raises an extra octave.
  Apparently, Joel and I had three disagreements over 18 years. But do 
you know what? He tells me--and I am pretty sure--I think I won all of 
them.
  Joel's sense of humor has carried us through tough times, hard 
campaigns, long days and nights, missed vacations, and challenges 
associated with larger and larger responsibilities.
  I personally will always appreciate his affection for both of my 
parents and his compassion for the difficulties of watching them 
decline. Our whole family will miss Joel, because we really are parts 
of each other's families.
  Joel has an enormous affection for West Virginia. He is a Mountaineer 
and holds the same sense of pride in our foundations and aspirations as 
if he had been there his whole life.
  As I have often said in my speeches, and I will say to him: The 
country roads of West Virginia will always welcome you home, Joel. Good 
luck. We will miss you. You will always be a big part of my life and 
our lives. Eighteen years is a long time, but it has all been great. 
Thanks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.


                       Nomination of Julie A. Su

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to express my support and 
appreciation for Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su and all she is 
doing to uplift workers and businesses across our country.
  Acting Secretary Su has been leading the Department of Labor for 
nearly 5 months. She previously served as Deputy Secretary of Labor. In 
both positions, she has shown her ability to bring people together--
labor and management--to resolve disputes. She did so to avert a 
freight railroad strike, and recently, as Acting Secretary, she helped 
avert a catastrophic strike at ports all across the west coast. Had 
major ports across our country come to a screeching halt, our country 
would have been subjected to massive supply chain disruptions, costing 
our economy billions of dollars.
  As Gene Seroka, director of the Port of Los Angeles, put it, Julie 
was ``a constant and reassuring voice of reason that helped to keep 
both sides at the bargaining table and focused on resolution.''
  As she often does, Julie got the job done without fanfare or 
attention. She didn't ask for credit or recognition; she simply did the 
job. And that is what she has done throughout her career, whether while 
fighting for undocumented garment workers in California or helping the 
Biden-Harris administration create more than 13 million jobs.
  Julie Su isn't a politician. She has dedicated her life to fighting 
for working people and leveling the playing field between labor and Big 
Business. She knows that the work of the Department of Labor isn't 
about her; it is about the millions of working people who keep our 
economy and our country moving forward.
  Now, Mr. President, when I first immigrated to this country, we just 
had one suitcase, and our first home was a boarding house where we 
shared a single bed sleeping sideways.
  My mother's perseverance eventually enabled her to get a job at the 
Honolulu Advertiser, our local newspaper. And while the job was 
nonunion when she was first hired, my mother and her coworkers 
ultimately came together to form a union. It was then that Mom's pay 
increased, providing the stability that allowed our family to buy our 
very first home, and, literally, we entered the middle class.
  Unions are critical at a time when economic disparity continues to 
grow. We are seeing a resurgence of labor organizing across our 
country. From Honolulu to Hollywood and far beyond, actors, writers, 
teamsters, and so many others are organizing to demand fair pay, decent 
treatment, and basic dignity. At a time like this, we need a Labor 
Secretary who can bring labor and management together. Julie Su is that 
person.
  Julie has broad support from businesses and labor alike, garnering 
the endorsement of groups including the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of 
Commerce, Small Business Majority, the AFL-CIO, and dozens of labor 
unions across the country. Given her experience, her qualifications, 
and those endorsements, it is hard to understand my colleagues' 
objections to her nomination, especially by those who voted to confirm 
her as Deputy Secretary of Labor in 2021.
  Over the last few months, Julie has endured lies about her record, 
condescending questions about her qualifications, and an unprecedented 
campaign by special interests--some big businesses--to deny her 
nomination. They are going so far as to put up anti-Julie Su billboards 
in a number of States, all to persuade certain Senators to not vote for 
her confirmation.
  In spite of this coordinated smear campaign, as far as I am 
concerned, Julie has a strong commitment to public service and to doing 
the job President Biden asked her to do. She will persevere.
  Like millions of working people all across our country, I am grateful 
for Julie's perseverance and her leadership. I hope my colleagues will, 
at some point soon, acknowledge her record of accomplishments, her 
ability to do the job, and support her nomination. Julie not only 
deserves our support; she has earned it. In the meantime, I know that 
she will continue to do her job, and our country will be better for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.


                              Hunter Biden

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I would like to address the 
unclassified, FBI-generated 1023 form that I made public last week. 
This is a 1023 that Director Wray refused to admit existed until I and 
Chairman Comer told him that we had read the document.
  The FBI provided a highly redacted version to the House Committee on 
Oversight and in the process ignored the Senate access to that 
document. That version redacted references to the alleged audio 
recordings between then-Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden, and the 
foreign national. It also redacted references to text messages and 
financial records that allegedly existed to prove the criminal act was 
done. Those redactions are an obstructive conduct by the United States 
Government. Why? Because this was an unclassified document. It is not 
even marked ``law enforcement sensitive.''
  By the way, Justice Department and FBI leaks exposed the source well 
before the 1023 became public.
  Now there have been allegations in the media that this 1023 consists 
of unverified information. That didn't stop the media's breathless 
reporting for years about the unverified and very famous Steele 
dossier. But the Justice Department and the FBI have not told us what 
they did to investigate the 1023 document. So since the FBI hasn't told 
us anything about their investigation of the 1023, if they did any, how 
does the media then know that it is unverified?
  From what I have seen, much of the media's reporting has missed the 
essential question. That essential question is this: Did the Justice 
Department and the FBI follow normal investigative process and 
procedures to run the information down or did they sweep this 
information under the rug?
  Now, we have had several media outlets interviewing law enforcement 
sources with knowledge of the 1023 who start to answer that very 
question, so I am going to refer to some of these reports from the 
media.
  One law enforcement source reported that ``this was a confidential 
human

[[Page S3508]]

source that had a long relationship with the FBI, had given information 
that was used in multiple other investigations unrelated to Burisma or 
the Bidens.''
  That law enforcement source said there was a ``fight for a month'' to 
get the FBI handler to reinterview the FBI source. That reinterview was 
necessary because a separate 1023 mentioned Hunter Biden, and that 
reinterview ultimately produced the 1023 that I made public last week.
  When seeing that, my first question was: Why the fight to reinterview 
the FBI source? That is the fight that supposedly took a month that I 
previously referred to. Then the law enforcement source said:

       We got that report back and we're, like, holy smokes, this 
     is something.

  The news reports also show that the Justice Department and FBI 
personnel were able to validate some claims in the 1023 report without 
compulsory process. For example, a news report quotes a law enforcement 
source:

       There were multiple meetings alleged overseas. Some of the 
     confidential human source's claims were corroborated against 
     the confidential human source travel records and contemporary 
     knowledge from the handler about him attending meetings with 
     Zlochevsky and other people present.

  The news report also notes that public records also validate some of 
the 1023 claims about Zlochevsky's efforts to buy into the American 
energy market. A separate news report, based on a law enforcement 
source with knowledge, says that Weiss's team was briefed on the 
validations, which then begs the question, What did the investigators 
do to investigate?
  Well, it has been reported that a law enforcement source believed 
U.S. Attorney Weiss was reluctant to pursue leads because of political 
sensitivities. More precisely, Weiss' team was concerned about 
investigating because it would involve then-Presidential candidate 
Biden. Well, that didn't stop the Justice Department when Trump was a 
candidate the first or second time.
  I would be remiss if I didn't mention a July 25, 2022, letter that I 
wrote to the Justice Department and FBI. That letter talked about the 
FBI shutting down verified and verifiable investigative avenues into 
Hunter Biden separate from the ongoing U.S. Attorney Weiss' 
investigation and the 1023. So it is clear that even if information is 
verified, the FBI has shut it down in the past if it relates to the 
Biden family.
  Former Attorney General Bill Barr has said that the 1023 was credible 
enough to be passed on to Delaware for ``further investigation.'' He 
has also said that a review was done to ensure the 1023 wasn't 
disinformation before passing it on.
  Director Wray, likewise, informed me and Chairman Comer of its 
credibility, noting that it is relevant to an ongoing investigative 
matter. This also took place in the phone call that Comer and I had 
with Wray. Wray also didn't say that it is part of Giuliani's 
information, and he didn't tell me and Comer that it is the product of 
any disinformation.
  Accordingly, I want to make clear what my oversight focus is and will 
be: holding the Justice Department and the FBI accountable to explain 
to the American people what they did to investigate and what they 
found. To do that, congressional oversight must focus on the Justice 
Department and the FBI's investigative process and whether the U.S. 
Attorney Weiss's scope includes bribery.
  Congress and the public must get answers to these questions: What did 
the Justice Department and FBI do to investigate the information 
contained in the 1023? Did the Justice Department and FBI follow normal 
investigative process and procedures or try to sweep it all under the 
rug because of political bias? More precisely, did the FBI and DOJ seek 
to obtain the evidence referenced in the document? Did the DOJ and FBI 
seek to interview individuals relating to the 1023? If not, why not? If 
so, one way or the other, what did they find?
  Here we are in July 2023, and we are talking about a June 2020 
document. The FBI can easily answer those questions. The fact that they 
haven't indicates to me that the Justice Department and FBI have not 
followed normal investigative protocol.
  Congress must also find out the true extent to which the August 2020 
assessment created by Brian Auten was used to shut down the Biden 
family investigative leads. For example, we know that the FBI had at 
one time over a dozen sources who provided potentially criminal 
information relating to Hunter Biden. Did the August 2020 assessment 
shut any of them down?
  In conclusion, as we prepare to celebrate National Whistleblower's 
Day, let's not forget that the only reason why Congress has been able 
to make this information public is because of brave and very patriotic 
whistleblowers who have approached my office.
  Remember this: To date, the Justice Department and the FBI have not 
disputed any of their allegations. Further, remember that it includes 
information relating to this 1023 that I made public, and some of this 
information goes back to October of last year. During that period of 
time, the Department of Justice and the FBI haven't disputed any of 
that information. And a perfect chance for Christopher Wray, Director 
of the FBI, to do that would have been in that telephone conversation 
that he had with Chairman Comer and me.
  Having given you all this information, that ought to tell you 
something about what the FBI is up to, what the DOJ is up to. And the 
information I have given you today ought to tell you that there is 
plenty out there in the media, and the media should not be questioning 
whether or not this information in the 1023 has any validity.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.


                         Tribute to Amy Kaplan

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize longtime friend 
Amy Kaplan, who retired this month after a long career of service.
  For the past 17 years, Amy has led the Jewish Federation of Cleveland 
as the vice president of external affairs. She has been a staunch 
advocate for Cleveland's vibrant Jewish community on a range of issues.
  I was speaking to the Ambassador from Israel today, Ambassador 
Herzog, about the vibrancy and the reach of the Cleveland Jewish 
community; how proud I was to have interacted with them for so many 
years.
  Amy, herself, followed in her parents' footsteps when she joined the 
Federation. Her mother was a staff member, and her father volunteered 
there often. Amy shares their commitment to their community and to 
their faith.
  Her work has made a difference for so many Clevelanders in the 
communities the Federation serves--those who are too often overlooked 
and those who too often don't have a voice in our government.
  She has worked with me and my staff to combat anti-Semitism, 
strengthen Federal resources for our seniors, and to protect Medicaid 
from cuts. She led advocacy efforts on bail reform, voting rights, and 
gun violence, and oversees the Federation's community relations work.
  Amy has ensured that the issues most important to the Cleveland 
Jewish community are on the agenda.
  She has been recognized over and over for her dedication to the 
community. She was named a ``Difference Maker'' by the Cleveland Jewish 
News, and she did it while caring for a family.
  I hope in retirement, Amy will get to spend even more time with her 
husband Ira and their children and grandchildren.
  Amy will be missed at the Federation. I am confident this won't be 
the end of her work with the Jewish community and won't be the end of 
her positive impact on Northeast Ohio.
  In his letter from the Birmingham jail, Dr. King wrote:

       Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability.

  Now, those were Dr. King's words, I would add, Progress rolls in 
because of advocates and activists like Amy Kaplan who listen, who 
learn, who work with communities to make a difference.
  Congratulations, Amy, on your well-earned retirement. Thank you, 
again, for your service to our community and to our State and wish you 
the best in your retirement. We look forward to working with your team 
to keep pushing for these important priorities and to make sure that 
Cleveland's and all of Ohio's Jewish community continues to have a 
voice in our government.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S3509]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Human Trafficking

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, this month, millions of Americans 
received a very rude awakening as they saw the horrors of human 
trafficking playing out on the big screen.
  I say that they had a rude awakening because until very recently, the 
fight against modern-day slavery has been an uphill battle on multiple 
fronts.
  Transnational criminal organizations have turned the buying and 
selling of human beings into a $150 billion-a-year enterprise, and 
current policy has made it almost impossible to catch them.
  Of course, the work being done on a Federal, State, and local level 
to help trafficking victims hasn't been made any easier by the 
astonishing number of people who insist that human trafficking is a 
myth or that things aren't nearly as bad as advocates make it out to 
be.
  That is some truly impressive spin. It is really quite disgusting. 
And right now, the American people are wondering why that is the 
message that, apparently, is driving this administration and, 
unfortunately, some of my Senate Democratic colleagues when we have so 
much evidence to the contrary.
  Human trafficking is an epidemic. Tennesseans have asked me, and they 
want to know, how could this happen in this country? How could this 
human trafficking issue have gotten to be so bad, and what are we going 
to do to stop it?
  I will tell you, the data does not lie. In the interest of setting 
the record straight, I want to start by offering to my colleagues a few 
statistics showing us just how bad things have gotten for the victims 
of human trafficking. That $150 billion-per-year figure that I 
mentioned a few moments ago doesn't come from me; it doesn't come from 
a nonprofit. This comes from this administration's Department of 
Homeland Security. That is their assessment. That is their number.
  If you want to look it up, I encourage you. Go to the report that DHS 
issued in January; you are going to find that stat on page 2 of that 
report. Yes, indeed. Selling of human beings, trafficking of human 
beings is, indeed, $150 billion-a-year business. And it is happening 
right here, every community, every State, all across this country. 
Should we accept that? Absolutely not.
  Here is another one for you: DHS also estimates that there are--get 
this number--30 million victims of sex trafficking and forced labor 
around the world. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation estimates that, 
on average in the United States, a child is bought or sold for sex 
every 2 minutes. Think about that. Every 2 minutes a child--a child--is 
bought or sold for sex every 2 minutes.
  This is what is going on. This is what is happening right here: 
modern-day slavery. You better believe it is modern-day slavery.
  In fiscal year 2022, DHS alone--just DHS--helped 765 confirmed 
victims of human trafficking. They initiated another 1,373 cases and 
made 3,655 arrests. As of this January, they had convicted 638 
traffickers and indicted another 1,045.
  In 2022, the number of investigations, arrests, indictments, and 
convictions all increased from the previous year, so it is safe to say 
the cartels and the traffickers, they are gaining ground. They are 
gaining power.
  And, again, this is not my educated guess. You can find every bit of 
that information on page 6 of the report that DHS put out in January of 
this year.
  So human trafficking is not a myth. Our concern is not overblown. 
These criminals--criminals--violent, vicious criminals are hiding in 
plain view in your cities, in your communities, in your States. They 
are selling human beings. They are setting a price. It is disgusting.
  In 2021, the National Human Trafficking Hotline received 525 reports 
from good Samaritans in Tennessee concerned about potential human 
trafficking. That year, advocates identified 152 confirmed cases 
involving 217 victims. That is 217 people identified by one 
organization in one State. Think about that one. And that stat is 2 
years old.

  Human trafficking has grown from a $500 million-a-year business about 
4 years ago to $150 billion-a-year business. And Tennessee is not the 
only one. There were 217 victims in Tennessee; Massachusetts had 143 
victims; Michigan identified 429 victims; California, 2,122 victims; 
Georgia, 1,065 victims. You know, the list goes on and on. Texas, 1,702 
victims. It is all there on the National Human Trafficking Hotline 
website.
  If you drill down to the local level, you are going to see it gets 
even worse, because this is where the survivors come for help. The 
Community Coalition Against Human Trafficking, which serves survivors 
in the Knoxville, TN, area, handled 408 referrals in 2022. The 
situation was dire, or so they thought. And, yes, indeed, it is.
  But guess what? This year it is worse. I know that other 
organizations around our State in Jackson, in Franklin, Chattanooga, 
Nashville, Memphis, Powell, Dayton, and Cleveland, they are all telling 
me the same story.
  I don't know how any serious person could look at these numbers and 
claim that the horror stories these advocates have heard are part of 
some elaborate conspiracy theory to say that human trafficking is not 
happening; to say that, well, it is a falsehood meant to distract. No, 
it is happening. The stats show it.
  Now, we do know for a fact that our wide-open southern border is 
enabling this disgusting practice. Many of the people who fall into the 
hands of the cartel smugglers are trafficked by their captors. Yes, 
indeed. Many are women. Many are children. They are physically, 
mentally, emotionally, and sexually abused as they make their journey 
to that southern border.
  But don't take my word for it; ask the Department of Homeland 
Security. Now, they know it is an issue, so they have allocated more 
than 60 million to the Counter Human Smuggler campaign and sent more 
than 1,300 personnel to the southern border and into Latin America to 
try and stop it.
  DHS has identified a problem at the border, so why can't Congress put 
politics aside and do the same thing and admit that these children, 
these women, need our attention and our help. This is a humanitarian 
crisis. This year, I have introduced two bills that would throw a 
wrench in the operations of these trafficking rings and help the border 
patrol and the local law enforcement regain some ground in this fight 
that they seem to be losing.
  The SAVE Girls Act would establish a $50 million grant program for 
States, localities, NGOs that work to prevent the smuggling and 
trafficking of young women and girls.
  We know that most of the innocent people who end up in the hands of 
sex traffickers are, indeed, young women and girls. And even if they do 
manage to escape, we see many of these women fall victim to domestic 
violence and to drug abuse.
  They are trapped in a system. If the Federal Government is not going 
to secure that border and stop this, it ends up with local entities. 
That is why the SAVE Girls Act would put resources into the hands of 
these local law enforcement agencies and NGOs who are trying to rescue 
and save these women and girls from this.
  Heightened border security is a necessity, but it won't save the 
women who have already been forced into servitude. And as I said, many 
of them are in your communities. They are hiding in plain sight.
  Having those funds locally will help to save them. But there are also 
things we can do directly at the border to pull young women out of the 
hands of traffickers before they disappear into the country.
  Last month, I reintroduced my End Child Trafficking Now Act, which 
would crack down on the practice of ``child recycling,'' which is 
horrendous. Absolutely disgusting.
  It would mandate DNA testing for migrants coming across the border 
with children. My bill would require up to a 10-year prison sentence 
for any person who lies about their familial relationship with a minor. 
If this sounds familiar, it is because it is an old policy that was 
very successful in the previous administration because of the data that 
was collected from that one pilot program. What we learned from that 
was that 30 percent of the children presenting at that southern 
border--30 percent--have no relation at all whatsoever to the adult who 
is bringing them to the border. These children are

[[Page S3510]]

enslaved. And what happens? That adult gets through, they send that 
child back to the cartel, and they attach them to another adult the 
cartel is trying to get into the country.
  Passing the End Child Trafficking Now Act and implementing DNA 
testing at that border would help save lives. This is something we 
should do on a bipartisan basis.
  The problem with human trafficking is intertwined with so many other 
issues that we are charged with handling every day. You can find 
connections to border policy, immigration law, criminal justice, and 
even to the NDAA and defense policies.
  As many of my colleagues know, I filed the End Child Trafficking Now 
Act in the form of an amendment to the NDAA, and I have asked for a 
floor vote on this issue. The U.S. Senate should be heard on this 
issue. So of course I ask for support of that amendment, but no matter 
what people decide to do on this, I would remind my Democratic 
colleagues that they cannot hide from this issue just because it would 
force them to ask some serious questions about the policies of this 
administration.
  The American people are figuring this out. Every 2 minutes, a child 
is trafficked and sold for sex. What they have seen this month has 
driven them to start asking questions, and I am so glad so many 
Tennesseans have paid attention to the media around this issue.
  The Nashville Anti-Human Trafficking Coalition normally welcomes 
about three new volunteers every week. Now, on average, 38 new 
volunteers per week are reaching out and saying: Tell me what I can do 
to help rid our community, our State, our Nation of this problem. I 
hope other organizations across the State and the country are seeing 
the same wave of support.
  Advocates who work with victims of sex and labor trafficking refer to 
this as modern-day slavery. If you look at the pictures and if you 
listen to these survivors who have been rescued tell their stories 
about their experience, you would see why. They have been raped, 
abused, stripped of their dignity. They live in fear. Many of them have 
been in bondage so long that they have lost their sense of self.
  These people deserve better from us and from this administration and 
our President. At the very least, they deserve a government that 
recognizes that, indeed, their lives are worth saving.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 931

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to respectfully request 
bipartisan support from my Senate colleagues on the Cornyn-Casey 
amendment No. 931, the Outbound Investment Transparency Act. This 
amendment would establish a program to provide visibility on U.S. 
investments going to the People's Republic of China and critical supply 
chains and technology sectors.
  Here is what the amendment does. The proposed amendment would 
establish a program led by the Department of the Treasury, in 
coordination with the Department of Commerce, that would require U.S. 
companies planning to invest in national security technology sectors in 
countries of concern to notify--notify--the Department of the Treasury 
before those deals are completed.
  This proposal has been vetted by industry, by the Senate Banking 
Committee, and by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 
Commission.
  Those are the fundamentals of this amendment.
  We all know that this year's Defense bill that we are going to be 
voting on today that we started last week tackles the toughest national 
security issues that face our Nation, and technological competition 
with the People's Republic of China is certainly at the top of that 
list.
  Right now, we are in competition with a communist government that 
doesn't play by the rules. The Chinese Government employs economic 
espionage, and it exploits the United States' open research and 
innovation to build up its own capabilities.
  U.S. companies are sending capital, intellectual property, and 
innovation to the People's Republic of China, fueling its advance in 
dual-use critical technological areas.
  A recent report by the National Security Advisor in the last 
administration, GEN H.R. McMaster, states as follows:

       Outbound investment harms U.S. strategic interests when it 
     facilitates inappropriate technology transfer, allows for 
     underinvestment in domestic capabilities, or undermines the 
     long-term competitiveness of American firms.

  Testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee--the committee on 
which both Senator Cornyn and I sit--noted that in 2020, U.S. 
companies' capital investment in China totaled over $200 billion just 
in artificial intelligence, so-called AI--$200 billion just in AI--over 
$21 billion in semiconductors, and over $50 billion in biotechnology. 
These numbers don't even account for the transfer of operational know-
how and intellectual property. You can't even quantify those values. We 
need a targeted response to these risks to our national security.
  Again, this amendment would require U.S. companies planning to invest 
in national security technology sectors in countries of concern to 
notify only--to notify the Department of the Treasury before those 
deals are completed. We need this type of outbound investment 
notification to understand just how much critical technology we are 
transferring to our adversaries via these capital flows. With this 
information in hand, we can begin to take control of our own economic 
future. By utilizing this information, we can make determinations as to 
how to protect U.S. talent, U.S. technology, and U.S. supply chains.
  This issue--and this is true of a lot of the Defense bill--this issue 
transcends party lines and gets to the heart of one of the most 
significant national security threats that we must confront.
  I want to thank Senator Cornyn for his strong bipartisan work on this 
issue over the last 3 years.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of amendment No. 931.
  Mr. President, 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. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Food Security

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, we are going to be voting on an amendment 
here in a few minutes that I want to rise in support of. It was 
introduced by my friend the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Rounds.
  This amendment aims to protect American food security against attacks 
by foreign adversaries--in particular, these four foreign adversaries: 
China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
  As many of you know, I am a third-generation farmer. I know firsthand 
that food security is national security. It is that plain. It is that 
simple. Allowing our foreign adversaries to invest in American farmland 
and agribusiness is a direct threat to our food supply.
  Preventing our adversaries, our enemies from acquiring land near 
sensitive military sites--sites like Air Force bases, like the one in 
Montana, Malmstrom Air Force Base--is a no-brainer, and now we need to 
protect the rest of our food system.
  This amendment will enable the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States--otherwise known as CFIUS--to review all significant 
agriculture-related foreign investments, and it will empower the Agency 
to prohibit future purchases of farmland by our foreign adversaries.
  Our amendment also includes commonsense provisions that protect the 
rights of U.S. citizens and permanent residents and small farmers and 
business owners.
  This is a critical step toward making sure we aren't handing over 
valuable American assets to foreign entities that want to replace us as 
the world's leading military and economic power.
  I would urge all of my colleagues in this room and the ones who are 
going to come to this room to support this commonsense solution that 
will protect our Nation's food supply and defend our country against 
folks who would like to see us cease to exist.

[[Page S3511]]

  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 931

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, is it timely for me to call up my 
amendment No. 931?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would do so 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 Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 931 to amendment No. 
     935.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for an investment screening mechanism relating to 
                            covered sectors)

       At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1083. PROTECTION OF COVERED SECTORS.

       The Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

              ``TITLE VIII--PROTECTION OF COVERED SECTORS

     ``SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     `appropriate congressional committees' means--
       ``(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Finance, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Ways and Means, the Committee on Financial Services, the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee 
     on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
       ``(2) Country of concern.--The term `country of concern' 
     means, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed in 
     accordance with section 806, a country specified in section 
     4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(3) Covered activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to such regulations as may be 
     prescribed in accordance with section 806, and except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), the term `covered activity' 
     means any activity engaged in by a United States person in a 
     related to a covered sector that involves--
       ``(i) an acquisition by such United States person of an 
     equity interest or contingent equity interest, or monetary 
     capital contribution, in a covered foreign entity, directly 
     or indirectly, by contractual commitment or otherwise, with 
     the goal of generating income or gain;
       ``(ii) an arrangement for an interest held by such United 
     States person in the short- or long-term debt obligations of 
     a covered foreign entity that includes governance rights that 
     are characteristic of an equity investment, management, or 
     other important rights, as defined in regulations prescribed 
     in accordance with section 806;
       ``(iii) the establishment of a wholly owned subsidiary in a 
     country of concern, such as a greenfield investment, for the 
     purpose of production, design, testing, manufacturing, 
     fabrication, or development related to one or more covered 
     sectors;
       ``(iv) the establishment by such United States person of a 
     joint venture in a country of concern or with a covered 
     foreign entity for the purpose of production, design, 
     testing, manufacturing, fabrication, or research involving 
     one or more covered sectors, or other contractual or other 
     commitments involving a covered foreign entity to jointly 
     research and develop new innovation, including through the 
     transfer of capital or intellectual property or other 
     business proprietary information; or
       ``(v) the acquisition by a United States person with a 
     covered foreign entity of--

       ``(I) operational cooperation, such as through supply or 
     support arrangements;
       ``(II) the right to board representation (as an observer, 
     even if limited, or as a member) or an executive role (as may 
     be defined through regulation) in a covered foreign entity;
       ``(III) the ability to direct or influence such operational 
     decisions as may be defined through such regulations;
       ``(IV) formal governance representation in any operating 
     affiliate, like a portfolio company, of a covered foreign 
     entity; or
       ``(V) a new relationship to share or provide business 
     services, such as but not limited to financial services, 
     marketing services, maintenance, or assembly functions, 
     related to a covered sectors.

       ``(B) Exceptions.--The term `covered activity' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) any transaction the value of which the Secretary of 
     the Treasury determines is de minimis, as defined in 
     regulations prescribed in accordance with section 806;
       ``(ii) any category of transactions that the Secretary 
     determines is in the national interest of the United States, 
     as may be defined in regulations prescribed in accordance 
     with section 806; or
       ``(iii) any ordinary or administrative business transaction 
     as may be defined in such regulations.
       ``(4) Covered foreign entity.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to regulations prescribed in 
     accordance with section 806, and except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the term `covered foreign entity' means--
       ``(i) any entity that is incorporated in, has a principal 
     place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a 
     country of concern;
       ``(ii) any entity the equity securities of which are 
     primarily traded in the ordinary course of business on one or 
     more exchanges in a country of concern;
       ``(iii) any entity in which any entity described in 
     subclause (i) or (ii) holds, individually or in the 
     aggregate, directly or indirectly, an ownership interest of 
     greater than 50 percent; or
       ``(iv) any other entity that is not a United States person 
     and that meets such criteria as may be specified by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury in such regulations.
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `covered foreign entity' does 
     not include any entity described in subparagraph (A) that can 
     demonstrate that a majority of the equity interest in the 
     entity is ultimately owned by--
       ``(i) nationals of the United States; or
       ``(ii) nationals of such countries (other than countries of 
     concern) as are identified for purposes of this subparagraph 
     pursuant to regulations prescribed in accordance with section 
     806.
       ``(5) Covered sectors.--Subject to regulations prescribed 
     in accordance with section 806, the term `covered sectors' 
     includes sectors within the following areas, as specified in 
     such regulations:
       ``(A) Advanced semiconductors and microelectronics.
       ``(B) Artificial intelligence.
       ``(C) Quantum information science and technology.
       ``(D) Hypersonics.
       ``(E) Satellite-based communications.
       ``(F) Networked laser scanning systems with dual-use 
     applications.
       ``(6) Party.--The term `party', with respect to an 
     activity, has the meaning given that term in regulations 
     prescribed in accordance with section 806.
       ``(7) United states.--The term `United States' means the 
     several States, the District of Columbia, and any territory 
     or possession of the United States.
       ``(8) United states person.--The term `United States 
     person' means--
       ``(A) an individual who is a citizen or national of the 
     United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence in the United States; and
       ``(B) any corporation, partnership, or other entity 
     organized under the laws of the United States or the laws of 
     any jurisdiction within the United States.

     ``SEC. 802. ADMINISTRATION OF UNITED STATES INVESTMENT 
                   NOTIFICATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The President shall delegate the 
     authorities and functions under this title to the Secretary 
     of the Treasury.
       ``(b) Coordination.--In carrying out the duties of the 
     Secretary under this title, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) coordinate with the Secretary of Commerce; and
       ``(2) consult with the United States Trade Representative, 
     the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the 
     Director of National Intelligence.

     ``SEC. 803. MANDATORY NOTIFICATION OF COVERED ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Mandatory Notification.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to regulations prescribed in 
     accordance with section 806, beginning on the date that is 90 
     days after such regulations take effect, a United States 
     person that plans to engage in a covered activity shall--
       ``(A) if such covered activity is not a secured 
     transaction, submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a 
     complete written notification of the activity not later than 
     14 days before the anticipated completion date of the 
     activity; and
       ``(B) if such covered activity is a secured transaction, 
     submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a complete written 
     notification of the activity not later than 14 days after the 
     completion date of the activity.
       ``(2) Circulation of notification.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, upon receipt of a 
     notification under paragraph (1), promptly inspect the 
     notification for completeness.
       ``(B) Incomplete notifications.--If a notification 
     submitted under paragraph (1) is incomplete, the Secretary 
     shall promptly inform the United States person that submits 
     the notification that the notification is not complete and 
     provide an explanation of relevant material respects in which 
     the notification is not complete.
       ``(3) Identification of non-notified activity.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a process to identify covered 
     activity for which--
       ``(A) a notification is not submitted to the Secretary 
     under paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) information is reasonably available.
       ``(b) Confidentiality of Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     information or documentary material filed with the Secretary 
     of the Treasury pursuant to this section shall be

[[Page S3512]]

     exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and no such information or documentary material 
     may be made public by any government agency or Member of 
     Congress.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Deng Xiaoping often repeated a Chinese 
proverb:

       Hide Your strength. Bide your time. Never take the lead.

  As a result of that strategy, which worked beyond anybody's 
imagination, whether by the People's Republic of China or the Chinese 
Communist Party, America slumbered during the economic rise of the 
People's Republic of China. American companies invested. Chinese 
students studied here and then went home to use their new education to 
compete against us while intellectual property theft, forced technology 
transfers, and cyber crime emanating from the People's Republic of 
China have become rampant.
  Well, I think it is fair to say that the colossus that is America has 
finally awakened from its slumber and realized what a challenge China 
is to us and to world peace.
  Today, the market value of American investments in the PRC numbers in 
the trillions of dollars. Those are American companies that invested in 
China that helped them to grow their economy. It is no exaggeration to 
say that we have helped to build their economy into a near-peer status 
and helped them to finance a military that threatens us and our allies 
in the Indo-Pacific.
  What this amendment does that Senator Casey and I have been pursuing 
is to seek transparency. We need to understand as policymakers exactly 
what is going on. We are not asking for any sort of limitation on 
investments in the PRC. It just makes sense to me that we should know 
what is going on so that we can consider whether there are any policy 
options that we ought to embrace.
  We policymakers need to know what American companies are doing to 
help finance an aggressive, authoritarian adversary. What we do know 
about this and what we do about this is a debate for another day. 
First, we need to know the facts.
  I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense 
amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 931

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), and the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--6

     Blackburn
     Braun
     Lee
     Paul
     Sinema
     Tillis

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Budd
     Durbin
     Scott (SC)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). On this vote, the yeas are 91, 
the nays are 6.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 931) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 813

  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 813 and ask 
that it be reported by number.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S3512, July 25, 2023, in the second column, the 
following appears: Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I call up my 
amendment No. 813 and ask that be reported by number.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. 
President, I call up my amendment No. 813 and ask that be reported 
by number.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Rounds], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 813.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include the 
Secretary of Agriculture on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
 United States and require review of certain agricultural transactions)

       At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert the following:

     SEC. 1083. REVIEW OF AGRICULTURE-RELATED TRANSACTIONS BY 
                   COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 
     U.S.C. 4565) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in clause (i), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (II) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(iii) any transaction described in clause (vi) or (vii) 
     of subparagraph (B) proposed or pending on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this clause.'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(vi) Any other investment, subject to regulations 
     prescribed under subparagraphs (D) and (E), by a foreign 
     person in any unaffiliated United States business that is 
     engaged in agriculture or biotechnology related to 
     agriculture.
       ``(vii) Subject to subparagraphs (C) and (E), the purchase 
     or lease by, or a concession to, a foreign person of private 
     real estate that is--

       ``(I) located in the United States;
       ``(II) used in agriculture; and
       ``(III) more than 320 acres or valued in excess of 
     $5,000,000.'';

       (iii) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``subparagraph 
     (B)(ii)'' and inserting ``clause (ii) or (vii) of 
     subparagraph (B)'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (D)--

       (I) in clause (i), by striking ``subparagraph (B)(iii)'' 
     and inserting ``clauses (iii) and (vi) of subparagraph (B)'';
       (II) in clause (iii)(I), by striking ``subparagraph 
     (B)(iii)'' and inserting ``clauses (iii) and (vi) of 
     subparagraph (B)'';
       (III) in clause (iv)(I), by striking ``subparagraph 
     (B)(iii)'' each place it appears and inserting ``clauses 
     (iii) and (vi) of subparagraph (B)''; and
       (IV) in clause (v), by striking ``subparagraph (B)(iii)'' 
     and inserting ``clauses (iii) and (vi) of subparagraph (B)''; 
     and

       (v) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``clauses (ii) and 
     (iii)'' and inserting ``clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), and 
     (vii)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Agriculture.--The term `agriculture' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203).'';
       (2) in subsection (k)(2)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (H), (I), and (J), as 
     subparagraphs (I), (J), and (K), respectively; and
       (B) inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H) The Secretary of Agriculture (nonvoting, ex 
     officio).''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Prohibition With Respect to Agricultural Companies 
     and Real Estate.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, if the Committee, in conducting a review and 
     investigation under this section, determines that a 
     transaction described in clause (i), (vi), or (vii) of 
     subsection (a)(4)(B) would result in control by a covered 
     foreign person of or investment by a covered foreign person 
     in a United States business engaged in agriculture or private 
     real estate used in agriculture, the President shall prohibit 
     such transaction.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The President may waive, on a case-by-case 
     basis, the requirement to prohibit a transaction under 
     paragraph (1), not less than 30 days after the President 
     determines and reports to the relevant committees of 
     jurisdiction that it is vital to the national security 
     interests of the United States to waive such prohibition.
       ``(3) Defined terms.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Covered person.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided by clause (ii), the 
     term `covered person'--

       ``(I) has the meaning given the term `a person owned by, 
     controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of 
     a foreign adversary' in section 7.2 of title 15, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2024), except that each reference to `foreign 
     adversary' in that definition shall be deemed to be

[[Page S3513]]

     a reference to the government of a covered country; and
       ``(II) includes an entity that--

       ``(aa) is registered in or organized under the laws of a 
     covered country;
       ``(bb) has a principal place of business in a covered 
     country; or
       ``(cc) has a subsidiary with a principal place of business 
     in a covered country.
       ``(ii) Exclusions.--The term `covered person' does not 
     include a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence to the United States.
       ``(B) Covered country.--The term `covered country' means 
     any of the following:
       ``(i) The People's Republic of China.
       ``(ii) The Russian Federation.
       ``(iii) The Islamic Republic of Iran.
       ``(iv) The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, China and Russia are our near-peer 
adversaries, and North Korea and Iran are no friends of the United 
States.
  In just a few minutes, we will vote on an amendment that I proposed 
with Senator Tester that would ban China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran 
from purchasing American farmland or ag businesses.
  In recent years, our country has seen, firsthand, attempts by our 
near-peer competitors to acquire land adjacent to our military bases.
  In 2020, a Chinese-linked company planned to build a wind energy farm 
project near Del Rio, TX, only miles away from Laughlin Air Force Base, 
where U.S. pilots are trained.
  In 2022, a Chinese-linked company attempted to build a corn milling 
plant on farmland near a sensitive Air Force base outside Grand Forks, 
ND. Treasury later determined that they did not have the proper 
jurisdiction to take action in this case, which demonstrates the need 
for this amendment.
  My amendment would require the Committee on Foreign Investment of the 
United States, CFIUS, to prohibit China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran 
from purchasing ag land and ag businesses in the United States and make 
modest reforms to the CFIUS process to improve our country's ability to 
protect our national security.
  I want to thank my friend from Montana, Senator Tester, for his hard 
work on the amendment and our original bill, the PASS Act.
  I would also like to thank our cosponsors on this amendment: Senators 
Daines, Kennedy, Lummis, Kramer, Hoeven, Ernst, Britt, Brown, and Cruz.
  This is a commonsense provision that will make our homeland more 
secure.
  I yield my time.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 813

  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  There being none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  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. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 91, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                               YEAS--- 91

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--7

     Hirono
     Markey
     Murphy
     Padilla
     Paul
     Warren
     Welch

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Durbin
     Scott (SC)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). On this vote the yeas are 91, the 
nays are 7.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 813) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                       Remembering Lowell Weicker

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today to speak 
in tribute to the late Lowell Weicker, a U.S. Senator from Connecticut 
and Governor from my State--a giant in Connecticut politics but on the 
national scene as well. He, sadly, passed away.
  I will be introducing a resolution, with my colleague Senator Murphy, 
honoring him for his service to our country, and I hope that it will be 
enacted overwhelmingly--in fact, unanimously--by the Senate shortly.
  The most common thing said about Lowell Weicker after his passing was 
that he was larger than life. Certainly, he was a big man in stature. 
He was tall, strong, forceful, and remarkable in his physical presence. 
He was larger than life in his fearless and relentless championing of 
what he believed was right and in serving people. He might have been a 
big man physically, but he cared about everyone. No matter how small 
they might be in power or wealth, everyone deserved a champion, in 
Lowell Weicker's view.
  He had a long history of service to this country. He began in the 
U.S. Army in 1953, and he served through 1955, reaching the rank of 
first lieutenant. He went on to serve in the town of Greenwich, where I 
live, as the first selectman and then represented Connecticut as a 
Member of the House of Representatives and then for three terms as a 
U.S. Senator.
  He is probably best known here for standing up to the President of 
his own party, Richard Nixon. During Watergate, he had the political 
courage and fortitude to say no to corruption and to persevere against 
attacks within his own party as he insisted, as a matter of conscience 
and conviction, that a President who violated the law should be held 
accountable. He was the first Republican Senator to call for the 
resignation of Richard Nixon as President. It was an act of political 
bravery and, more importantly, a dedication to public service and the 
rule of law. It was a message to the American people that nobody is 
above the law and that nobody can defy the Constitution of this great 
country, not even the President.
  Although we talk a lot about it now, in his day, for him to take that 
position and call for the resignation of a President of his own party 
was also an act of potential political destruction. It was very much 
against his self-interest, but he stood strong, he persevered, and 
history has vindicated him. Beyond vindication, it has honored him for 
that courage.
  He was also a champion of many other causes and people. Throughout 
his tenure, he was a strong advocate for the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disabilities 
in everyday activities. One example is his standing for new laws that 
protected people. He was a champion of public health, of preventing 
cuts in funding for the National Institutes of Health, of supporting 
scientific medical research efforts, of securing funding for AIDS and 
HIV treatment.
  After he left the Senate under circumstances that might have 
discouraged a lot of people from remaining in public service, he came 
back--and it was one of his finest hours--as Governor of the State of 
Connecticut.
  I was sworn in as attorney general of our State on the same day that 
he became Governor, and we served together for 4 years. We had what 
could be called a close working relationship, not always totally 
amicable or not always in agreement, but I knew about Lowell Weicker 
that what he told me was what he believed. I returned that approach, 
and he respected me for it even when we disagreed. He understood that 
the attorney general of the State, at

[[Page S3514]]

least in Connecticut, was not the Governor's lawyer; he was the 
people's lawyer. He is elected separately, and he has to do what he 
thinks is right.
  For me, it was always the ultimate tribute to his belief in the rule 
of law that he respected the attorney general of Connecticut for 
whatever legal opinion I would give, whatever litigation I would bring, 
or whatever positions I would take based on the law. And he was, again, 
a champion of social services to the people who needed them, of 
education, of the kind of fairness in our criminal justice system that 
distinguishes us in our respect for legal rights.
  He is probably best known for securing passage of a State income tax. 
It was incredibly unpopular. Everybody in our State who was around at 
the time will remember well how he refused to go around the back way to 
exit the capitol, even though there was an angry crowd, even though 
they were going to deluge him with invectives and worse. But he was 
going out to face that crowd, to confront them, to speak with them, to 
listen to them.
  He was responsible for enabling the State of Connecticut to retain 
those essential services that people needed because he cared, and he 
listened.
  He also signed a ban on assault weapons, the first time in 
Connecticut's history. We now have had one since then. I defended it in 
court when it was challenged on constitutional grounds. I tried the 
case in a Litchfield County courthouse, a 10-day trial with evidence. I 
tried it myself because I thought it was so important. We won, and then 
I argued it when the outcome was appealed. And we won again in the 
State supreme court. Nobody was happier in the State of Connecticut 
with that result when our ban on assault weapons was upheld in the 
1990s.
  He was a model of courage for me, a role model in standing up, 
speaking out for conviction and conscience, even when others disagreed, 
especially when others disagreed.
  He did immense good for Connecticut. He left a legacy that is lasting 
and large that will inspire people for decades and generations to come.
  I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Claudia, all of his 
children--a number of them good friends of mine--and to his 
grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
  I hope my colleagues will join me unanimously in honoring Lowell 
Weicker, U.S. Senator, Governor of our State.
  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.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                         Afghan Adjustment Act

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the importance 
of passing the Afghan Adjustment Act as an amendment to the National 
Defense Authorization Act, which is pending before the U.S. Senate.
  This is our moment. We have been working on this for 2 years--2 
years--while people who have stood with our military have been in 
limbo, 2 years when they don't know what their future will hold. This 
is their time.
  This bipartisan legislation that I lead with Senator Lindsey Graham 
is also cosponsored by Senator Coons; Senator Moran, who is the ranking 
Republican on the Veterans' Affairs Committee; Senator Blumenthal; 
Senator Murkowski; Senator Shaheen; Senator Wicker, who is the ranking 
Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee; Senator Durbin, who 
is the chair of the Judiciary Committee; of course, Senator Graham, who 
is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee; Senator Tillis and 
Senator Mullin, with many others who support this bill.
  Mr. President, this bill strengthens our national security. It does 
right by Afghans who worked alongside our troops. And from a broader 
national security perspective, as we look at the many purposes of the 
bill before us, this amendment shows the world that when the United 
States of America makes a promise, we keep it. We keep our covenant.
  Nearly 80,000 Afghans who sought refuge in our country, who are in 
our country, are currently in limbo, including many who risked their 
own lives and their families' safety to protect our servicemembers. 
Among them are translators, humanitarian workers, and courageous 
members of the Afghan military who stood shoulder to shoulder with our 
troops.
  We were right to help those people flee the Taliban and come to the 
United States, and it now falls on us to uphold the covenant we made to 
them and give them the stability and the security that they need to 
rebuild their life.
  We know this has worked before. I know this. I have one of the 
biggest Hmong populations in the United States of America. They came 
after a war in really sad circumstances for our country and for them, 
but they have rebuilt their lives. They are now police officers in 
Minnesota. They are teachers. They are lawyers. They are legislators.
  That is what we did after the revolution in Cuba. That is what we 
did. We took people and we gave them a status that allowed them to 
succeed in our country.
  But in this case, we actually asked them to serve with our military, 
to put their lives at risk, to gather intelligence for our military.
  Who do you think is going to want to help us in the future if we 
don't keep our covenant, if we don't keep our promise?
  The bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act creates a more thorough system 
for Afghan allies to apply for permanent legal status. It requires that 
applicants go through a vetting that is just as rigorous as the vetting 
they would have gone through if they came to the United States as 
refugees.
  They get this. They are already here.
  So one of the reasons that Senator Graham, especially, and Senator 
Wicker are so interested in this bill is it actually provides more 
security because of the vetting that will occur that otherwise would 
not occur. This vetting standard is a standard that eight former Trump 
and George W. Bush administration national security officials called 
the ``gold standard'' of vetting.
  Senator Graham and I worked closely with Republicans, including 
Senator Moran, and the Department of Defense to strengthen the bill's 
vetting standards. That is what is before us with this amendment--
keeping our covenant and doing the vetting. Both ways you look at it, 
it is good for national security.
  In addition, our legislation updates the Special Immigrant Visa 
Program to include groups that should never have been excluded from the 
program in the first place, including the female tactical teams of 
Afghanistan, who did so much to support our troops. The entire purpose 
of the Special Immigration Visa Program is to provide residency for 
those who have supported the United States abroad. It is clear to me 
that these brave women should qualify just as many of the men did.
  The Afghan Adjustment Act is supported, as I noted, by a bipartisan 
group of 11 cosponsors. But get this: This bill has earned the backing 
of more than 60 organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
or, as we know them, the VFW, and the American Legion. This is one of 
their top priorities right now, as well as for some of our most revered 
military leaders, including Admirals Mike Mullen, William McRaven, and 
James Stavridis; and Generals Richard Myers of the Air Force, Joseph 
Dunford of the Marine Corps, and Stan McChrystal of the Army.
  I think the Presiding Officer knows a few of these people, and he 
knows how they have served our country.
  That is why, if you are not going to listen to me, listen to them. 
Listen to the leading veterans groups in this country that know how 
important it is for us to pass this bill. We must uphold our covenant.
  That means bringing well-earned certainty to Afghans who are already 
here--an example, Nangialy, who began working alongside U.S. troops as 
an interpreter in 2007.
  I want to be clear about what it meant for an interpreter to work 
alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan. What did it mean? When the 
Taliban ambushed our soldiers with bullets, they ambushed their 
interpreters too.

[[Page S3515]]

They weren't just sitting in an office being interpreters and just 
sitting there and whispering in their books. They were out on the 
battlefield with our military. When the Taliban ambushed the soldiers, 
they ambushed the interpreters. When our troops were targeted with 
IEDs, the interpreters were targeted too.
  That is what Nangialy risked, but he did it anyway. Why? To use his 
words, ``same goals, same target, and same achievement.''
  Now, it wasn't just the interpreters. There is another Afghan who 
wants to remain anonymous because his family is still back in 
Afghanistan. That is the risk we are putting people in when they are in 
this very unclear status. He was a helicopter fighter pilot with the 
U.S. military. He worked with our troops to combat the Taliban in 
remote areas of Afghanistan for 8 years. On one mission, he was shot in 
the face by flying bullets. Miraculously, he survived because the 
bullet passed through his cheek and open mouth. He shed blood in our 
fight, and we should not let another day go by without keeping the 
covenant we made to him.
  Another story: An Afghan intelligence sergeant who also wants to 
remain anonymous, who helped carry out several operations against the 
Taliban and ISIS with our military. In 2018, while working alongside a 
U.S. Special Forces group, he was caught in an IED explosion and lost 
both of his legs.
  Let me repeat that.
  His fight with our troops cost him both of his legs. Doesn't he 
deserve better than complete uncertainty and a refusal of our 
government to even give him a status, a provisional status, and never 
knowing if he is going to have to be sent back there? That is what we 
are doing?
  Our servicemembers and veterans understand this is imperative. I know 
every Member in this Senate has been approached by members of our own 
military about this. On Veterans Day, on Memorial Day, when you are 
walking in a parade, they come up and they tell a story about someone 
who stood with them whom they got to know. Maybe that person is still 
somewhere in hiding in Afghanistan, but most likely, some of them are 
in our country, which is a good thing. But, right now, they are in our 
country--let me repeat. They are in our country, living in our country, 
but we, right now, are refusing to give them the status that we have 
given past people who helped us in conflicts. That is embarrassing.
  Some of the most vocal advocates of the Afghan Adjustment Act have 
been military groups. A coalition of more than 30 military groups, 
including the American Legion and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 
America, penned a letter calling on congressional leadership to pass 
this bill.
  They wrote this to the leaders of both Houses on both sides of the 
aisle:

       America's veterans served with Afghans for two decades in 
     Afghanistan. We fought side-by-side with them, and we saw 
     firsthand their courage and dedication. They risked their 
     very lives to help us and made significant contributions to 
     our mission.

  Again, this is 30 military groups, including the Iraq and Afghanistan 
Veterans of America, the American Legion, Blue Star families, Honor the 
Promise, the Black Veterans Project--and I could go on and on and on.
  What else did they write?
  They write:

       We call on Congress to pass legislation that would allow 
     Afghan parolees who are being evacuated from Afghanistan to 
     have an opportunity to seek lawful permanent residence in the 
     United States.

  Again, these are people who have this SIV status.
  Then they go on:

       We urge you to support the Afghan Adjustment Act as soon as 
     possible. We promised to stand by our allies who, often at 
     risk to themselves and their families, served in uniform or 
     publicly defended women's and democratic rights. The U.S. 
     government made a similar promise.

  This is a letter from the 30 military groups of our country. They 
say:

       The U.S. government made a similar promise; keeping it 
     assures that the American commitments will be honored.

  This is 30 military organizations telling us what it was like to 
serve alongside our Afghan allies. Most of us in this Chamber don't 
know that experience. We don't know how much they owe those Afghan 
interpreters--those people who gathered the intelligence. We don't 
know. We would go on congressional trips there, but we weren't there on 
the battlefield; they were. So maybe, for a change, we should listen to 
what they have to say about what they saw. They know that many of these 
people are here right now, but we just can't get out of our petty 
politics to try to at least give them the status that they deserve.
  Many of our Nation's national security experts have also called on 
Congress to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, accurately pointing out 
that doing so is both a moral imperative and necessary for our national 
security.
  Here is a portion of a letter that was sent to congressional 
leadership by the following experts: Rick ``Ozzie'' Nelson, former 
Director, Office of Combating Terrorism; National Security Council 
staff under George W. Bush. He was also a U.S. Navy helicopter pilot 
and Afghan veteran; Gus Coldebella, former Acting General Counsel with 
the Department of Homeland Security; Michael Neifach, former Principal 
Legal Advisor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the Homeland 
Security Council staff under George W. Bush; Elizabeth Neumann, former 
Assistant Secretary for Threat Prevention and Security Policy for the 
Department of Homeland Security and former Deputy Chief of Staff for 
the Department of Homeland Security; Stewart Verdery, former Assistant 
Secretary for Policy and Planning for the Department of Homeland 
Security; Ross Ashley, former Assistant Administrator for the Federal 
Emergency Management Association, former Virginia Air National 
Guardsmen and U.S. Air Force Reserves; Hans Miller, former Deputy 
Assistant Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration; 
and Lynden Melmed, former Chief Counsel of U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services.
  What does this letter say?
  This letter says this:

       The rationale for the Afghan Adjustment Act is clear. 
     First, it follows through on our nation's commitment to its 
     wartime allies by providing at risk Afghans and their 
     families--including many that supported U.S. military and 
     diplomatic efforts for the past 20 years--a path to permanent 
     status in the United States.
       Second, it sends a clear message to current and future 
     allies--

  And this is so key and it isn't kind of the first thing you think 
about here--

     --those that are necessary for U.S. servicemembers and 
     diplomats to perform their missions in pursuit of national 
     security--that the United States is a reliable and trusted 
     partner and it stands by the democratic ideals that it 
     professes.

  This is why Senator Graham and I have worked on this bill for so many 
years. This is why we have the ranking Republicans on Veterans', on 
Judiciary, and on Armed Services supporting the bill.
  When I first got to the Senate, honestly, I thought that would be 
enough to get this done; that that would be enough to bless this and 
give it the gold standard, just as all of these former Bush and Trump 
and Obama and current Biden officials have given it their stamp; that 
this is a good vetting process; that it is certainly a lot better than 
having people sit here in limbo after they have served our country.

  Here is another letter from former Ambassadors to Afghanistan because 
it is not just military groups and national security experts. Eight 
former U.S. Ambassadors to Afghanistan called on us to pass the Afghan 
Adjustment Act. These experts served under Presidents George W. Bush, 
Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, and each has an intimate 
understanding of the sacrifices made by our Afghan allies.
  Remember, it is these diplomats, it is these military leaders who 
have asked these Afghans for their help. Regardless of what people 
think about what happened with the withdrawal--regardless of people's 
views on this--can't we just agree on one thing; that we should stand 
with the people who stood with us?
  This is what the Ambassadors to Afghanistan under George W. Bush, 
Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have said:

       Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, the task of American 
     diplomacy will be much more difficult. If the United States 
     does not act to support its allies by passing the Afghan 
     Adjustment Act, in the future, our allies will be less likely 
     to support the U.S. missions if they see that our Afghan 
     partners are abandoned.

[[Page S3516]]

       In diplomacy, our words will have lost meaning, and in the 
     unfortunate event of future conflict--

  This is the Ambassadors writing, not me, Ambassadors who went to 
serve in Afghanistan and who took on that assignment under four 
different Presidents.
  They are writing, if we don't do this, ``[i]n diplomacy, our words 
will have lost meaning, and in the unfortunate event of future 
conflict, what incentive would local allies have to support our 
troops?''
  A good question.
  Finally, I want to share some words from a group of more than three 
dozen of our Nation's most esteemed military leaders. They are retired 
military leaders. As I mentioned, they are Gen. Joseph F. Dunford of 
the U.S. Marine Corps; ADM Mike Mullen of the U.S. Navy; Gen. Richard 
Myers of the U.S. Air Force; ADM Jim Stavridis of the U.S. Navy; GEN 
Peter W. Chiarelli of the U.S. Army; GEN Stan McChrystal of the U.S. 
Army; GEN David McKiernan of the U.S. Army; ADM William H. McRaven of 
the U.S. Navy; GEN Austin S. Miller of the U.S. Army; GEN John W. 
Nicholson, Jr., of the U.S. Army; GEN M. David Rodriguez of the U.S. 
Army; GEN Curtis Scaparrotti of the U.S. Army; GEN Raymond A. Thomas 
III of the U.S. Army; GEN Joseph Votel of the U.S. Army; Gen. Mark 
Welsh of the U.S. Air Force; Lt. Gen. John A. Bradley of the U.S. Air 
Force; LTG Jeff Buchanan of the U.S. Army; LTG Stephen Fogarty of the 
U.S. Army; LTG Benjamin C. Freakley of the U.S. Army; LTG Ben Hodges of 
the U.S. Army; LTG John F. Mulholland, Jr., of the U.S. Army; LTG 
Leopoldo A. Quintas, Jr., of the U.S. Army; LTG Mark C. Schwartz of the 
U.S. Army; LTG John C. Thomson of the U.S. Army; LTG Francis Wiercinski 
of the U.S. Army; MG Edward Dorman III of the U.S. Army; Maj. Gen. Dawn 
Dunlap of the U.S. Air Force; MG Paul Eaton of the U.S. Army; Maj. Gen. 
Buck Elton of the U.S. Air Force; Maj. Gen. Walter D. Givhan of the 
U.S. Air Force; MG William Hix of the U.S. Army; MG James B. Linder of 
the U.S. Army; MG Mark MacCarley of the U.S. Army; MG Mark R. Quantock 
of the U.S. Army; MG Edward Reeder of the U.S. Army; MG Patrick J. 
Reinert of the U.S. Army; MG Jefforey Smith of the U.S. Army; MG Tammy 
Smith of the U.S. Army; MG James ``Boe'' Young of the U.S. Army; BG 
Steve Anderson of the U.S. Army; BG Norvell Coots of the U.S. Army; BG 
Gary M. Jones of the U.S. Army; BG Richard C. Kim of the U.S. Army; and 
Brig. Gen. Chad T. Manske of the U.S. Air Force.
  Those are only the ones who signed the letter. So I will just ask my 
colleagues--and perhaps we should listen to those who have led our 
forces in times of war. When they say that these people stood with them 
and when they say that if we do nothing and just let them be in limbo--
and we know, just a few weeks ago, one of them was murdered in the 
State of Virginia, in the middle of the night, because he was working 
as a Lyft driver--is that what we are going to do? Are we just going to 
leave them in limbo or are we going to stand with them as the top 
leaders in our military have suggested?
  They have been resolute in their support, not just of doing something 
about this, but of this bill, of this amendment. We worked with the 
military for years on this amendment. They have signed their names to 
this letter. What does the letter say specifically?
  It says:

       If Congress fails to enact the [Afghan Adjustment Act], the 
     United States will be less secure.

  OK. There you go. We can just stand here and not want to deal with 
this because everyone wants to go home for August or we can actually 
vote on this amendment. That is all we are asking. We want to vote on 
this amendment.
  They write:

       If Congress fails to enact the [Afghan Adjustment Act], the 
     United States will be less secure. As military professionals, 
     it was and remains our duty to prepare for future conflicts. 
     We assure you that in any such conflict, potential allies 
     will remember what happens now with our Afghan allies. If we 
     claim to support the troops and want to enable their success 
     in wartime, we must keep our commitments today. The [Afghan 
     Adjustment Act]--

  And this isn't me talking. This is all the top brass, the top 
military, who led us in times of war.
  They write:

       The [Afghan Adjustment Act] will go a long way.
       Additionally, without the fixes applied by the [Afghan 
     Adjustment Act]--

  This is them writing, not me--

     our immigration system will be less capable, not more 
     capable, of properly processing and vetting applicants.

  To break from their letter, that was the point I made earlier about 
why Senator Wicker and Senator Graham and Senator Moran were so focused 
on making sure that this was the gold standard of vetting in this bill.
  Back to the letter:

       The enhancements that the Afghan Adjustment Act adds to the 
     security screening process of those who were evacuated are of 
     critical importance to our national security.

  Listening?
  Even if you don't agree with me on the security of our country 
overall in standing with our allies, at the very least, look at that. 
Shouldn't we be vetting people who were evacuated? Hmm. Maybe that 
would be a good idea. That is what they say in this letter.
  Three dozen military flag officers think that without the Afghan 
Adjustment Act, our Nation will be less secure. Our soldiers will face 
new obstacles in finding allies on the battlefield, and our immigration 
system will be less capable of vetting applicants. Those are plenty of 
good reasons to support this amendment and why we have leading 
Senators--both on the Democratic side and Republican side--on this 
critical amendment. So that is it.
  We have the leading people who head the committees in this very 
Chamber supporting this bill. That is how much work that Senator Graham 
and I have done to get them on board. We have got them on this.
  We have got military and veterans groups. We have national security 
leaders. We have retired U.S. Ambassadors to Afghanistan under four 
different Presidents: Obama, Trump, Biden, and George W. Bush. And we 
have all of the top brass retired military officers, whose names I just 
read off.
  They are not debating which bill or which amendment because we have 
been working on it for 2 years. They know exactly what we should do, 
and it is this bill, the Afghan Adjustment Act.
  All of our colleagues have had at least a year to look at this bill. 
So I don't want to hear that. I don't want to hear that, ``Oh, we have 
got to look at this more.'' Give me a break. This bill has been out 
there for a very, very long time. There is absolutely no reason we 
shouldn't have a vote.
  If people want to vote against the American Legion, and the VFW, and 
all the top brass of the military, and all the Ambassadors who served 
under those Presidents, that is fine. That is their right. But we need 
to have a vote. That is the only way we can show that we are keeping 
our covenant.
  Until we get this done, we are essentially asking our Afghan allies--
people who took bullets in the face, who lost limbs--to rebuild their 
lives on top of a trapped door that could fall out from under them at 
any second. Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, all of it--their jobs, 
their homes, their safety--could disappear.
  By including the amendment in the NDAA, we can strengthen the 
national security of our country by making our vetting program more 
thorough--such a top priority of many of our colleagues--while finally 
doing right by our Afghan allies who sacrificed for us.
  Let's put aside the politics and the distractions. There are a lot of 
good things in this bill. We have got a lot of votes on big things and 
little things so far. Where is this? Who is going to object to at least 
allowing this vote? They can vote against it if they want, some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but don't deny us a vote.
  By ``us,'' who am I talking about? Yeah, the Afghans who are here who 
sacrificed for us, the top military, the Ambassadors, the military in 
this country who have come up and talked to each and every one of us 
about this bill, American soldiers who are begging us to do something 
about it. That is ``us.''
  The way I see it, this defense bill is about three things: one, our 
Nation's security; two, setting a moral example for the world; and, 
three, showing people everywhere that when America

[[Page S3517]]

makes a promise, a covenant, it will be kept. The Afghan Adjustment 
Act, the amendment that Senator Graham and I have put forth, advances 
all of these objectives.
  Pass this amendment. Show the world that our word, show our own 
military that our word and our covenant matters.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________