[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3563-S3571]
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 PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                                S. 2226

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last week, we saw an important step to 
recognize the legacy of our nuclear weapons program and live up to our 
obligations to the people and communities still touched by that work. 
And, no, I am not talking about a movie. The new release may focus on 
part of the story, but there is another important chapter I will not 
let us overlook or forget, one that takes place in my home State of 
Washington, one that is not over yet. That is Hanford, where men and 
women in my State are diligently now doing the hard, dangerous work of 
cleaning up one of the most hazardous nuclear waste sites on the 
planet.
  As some of my colleagues may know, during World War II, the Federal 
Government established the Hanford Site in Central Washington State to 
produce the plutonium our Nation needed for nuclear weapons. Hanford 
wasn't just where they made the plutonium; it is also where they left 
177 tanks, 56 million gallons of highly toxic radioactive waste. For 
decades now, workers have been doing the critically important work and 
very dangerous work of cleaning up that site.
  I have fought for decades to make sure the Federal Government lives 
up to its moral and legal obligation to support our Hanford workers and 
clean up the Hanford Site, and I am still fighting to make sure we live 
up to those obligations today. That is why I meet regularly with 
workers from Hanford to hear about the challenges they are facing and 
the help they need. It is exactly why I have been pushing so hard to 
get my Beryllium Testing Fairness Act passed, and I was thrilled that 
the Senate voted overwhelmingly last week--96 to 2--to add this to the 
annual Defense bill.
  My legislation makes sure that workers are getting support to deal 
with one of the most dangerous threats they face at Hanford--beryllium 
exposure. This is a serious health risk that can cause severe 
respiratory disease, irreversible scarring of the lungs, and lung 
cancer.
  Now, Congress passed legislation in 2000 providing care to those who 
have made incredible sacrifices by working on our nuclear arsenal. I 
fought to make sure this covered the medical costs for those with 
chronic beryllium disease and provided cash benefits to people who have 
been diagnosed with that disease. But here is the thing: Not everyone 
who needs those critical medical benefits for beryllium exposure can 
get them today. That is because the diagnostic standard is outdated and 
out of line with current science.
  Right now, to qualify for advanced medical monitoring, you have to 
show an abnormal blood test. But if your blood test is borderline for 
beryllium sensitization, that doesn't count toward your diagnosis at 
all--even when you are plainly experiencing the effects of beryllium 
exposure or even if it is your third such borderline result. That is 
not right, and by the way, it is not consistent with today's science.
  Workers in America who are cleaning up one of the most toxic and 
radioactive nuclear sites on the planet should not have to jump through 
cumbersome and unnecessary hoops and have the care they need delayed or 
denied all because the standard is outdated. That is why my bill will 
update that statute and bring it in line with an OSHA rule that was 
finalized actually under the last administration so that three 
borderline tests count as conclusive and more workers can get the care 
they need.
  Let me take a step back to make clear why this policy matters. Less 
than a year ago, when I met with Hanford workers to talk about my bill 
and to hear their stories, I heard from one worker whose name was Tina. 
She talked about her friends and neighbors, people who power the work 
at Hanford. She talked about how a colleague's mom got beryllium 
disease, and then she retired. After many years of working at the site, 
she is now not chasing her grandkids around. She can't. She doesn't 
have the lung capacity to run around and play with her grandchildren. 
It is heartbreaking, and it is not an uncommon story in the Tri-Cities. 
That is why this bill matters.
  Yes, it is technical. Yes, it may not seem like a big difference if 
you are not involved in this kind of work day to day. But this bill 
will make sure we don't lose precious time getting workers the support 
they need to manage this awful disease.
  I am glad we are on track to get this passed into law now, and there 
is a lot more I want to get done to make sure we are living up to the 
obligation to take care of those workers. But this is meaningful, 
important progress. They may not be telling the stories of these 
workers on the silver screen yet, but as long as I am in the Senate, 
you can bet their voices will be heard in the Halls of our Nation's 
Capitol.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3564]]

  

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in 1793, in his annual address to Congress, 
George Washington noted:

       If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; 
     if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful 
     instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that 
     we are at all times ready for war.

  Or in the words of another President nearly 200 years later:

       We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only 
     invites aggression.

  The United States has a well-deserved reputation for strength, and 
aggressors think twice before tangling with the U.S. military. But 
strength has to be maintained, and we have not done a good job, or 
good-enough job, of that lately.
  Five years ago, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission 
released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to the point 
where we might struggle to win a war against a major power like China. 
While we have made some progress since then at rebuilding our 
readiness, we are still a long way from where we need to be.
  Recent U.S. war games envisioning a United States-China conflict 
following an attack on Taiwan have had grim results, showing enormous 
military and economic costs on both sides. One news story on these war 
games noted:

       And while the ultimate outcome in these exercises is not 
     always clear--the U.S. does better in some than others--the 
     cost is [clear]. In every exercise the U.S. uses up all its 
     long-range air-to-surface missiles in a few days, with a 
     substantial portion of its planes destroyed on the ground.

  Let me just repeat that last line:

       In every exercise the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-
     to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion 
     of its planes destroyed on the ground.

  I don't need to tell anyone that that is a profoundly concerning 
position for us to be in. China is growing increasingly aggressive in 
the Indo-Pacific and has also adopted an increasingly aggressive 
posture toward the United States, and it is investing heavily in its 
military.
  If we want to deter China aggression, we have to ensure that our 
military is strong enough to make China want to avoid challenging us. 
We can't accomplish that if we would run out of key munitions in a few 
days of combat.
  While China has to be a major focus when it comes to our defense 
policy, it is far from the only threat out there. Russia's war of 
aggression in Ukraine is all the reminder that we need that Russia is 
not a peaceful nation. North Korea launched two missiles just this 
Monday. Iran continues to pursue its aggressive nuclear agenda, 
threaten Israel, and attempt to seize ships in the Persian Gulf. And 
the list goes on; which brings me to this year's National Defense 
Authorization Act, which the Senate expects to wrap up this week.
  I am pleased to report that this year's NDAA makes real progress on 
the readiness front. It bolsters our security posture in the Indo-
Pacific and deepens our ties with Taiwan. It rejects the President's 
dangerous plan to shrink the U.S. Navy and authorizes investment in new 
ships. It also contains multiple measures to increase our supply of 
munitions, including the addition of six critical munitions to the 
Pentagon's multiyear procurement program.
  Two of these munitions--Tomahawk missiles and MK-48 torpedoes--play 
an important role in our ability to deter China.
  On the European front, the bill invests in Russia deterrence by 
continuing support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, 
and it bolsters oversight to ensure U.S. funding is being used 
appropriately.
  The NDAA also holds NATO members accountable for investing in their 
own defense by prioritizing our links with partners who meet the 
commitment to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense.
  This year's bill also ensures that our military keeps its focus on 
defense and not divisive Democratic social initiatives by limiting so-
called diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy.
  Above all, I am proud to report that this year's bill authorizes full 
funding for the next steps of the B-21 mission--the Air Force's new 
long-range strategic bomber which will revolutionize our long-range 
strike capabilities and be hosted at South Dakota's own Ellsworth Air 
Force Base.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again: If we don't get 
national security right, the rest is conversation. If there is one area 
in which we can't fail, it is providing for the defense of our Nation.
  This year's National Defense Authorization Act is not sufficient to 
address all of our Nation's readiness issues, but it makes an important 
down payment on boosting our preparedness. And I look forward to 
supporting it later this week.
  I hope that we will continue to have a robust amendment process so 
that other important ideas can be considered and all Members have a 
chance to make their voices heard. And I hope that Congress will 
continue to make investing in our military a top priority.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Immigration

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Monday, President Biden's Department of 
Justice filed suit against my State, Texas, over our efforts to secure 
our border. Of the 2,000-mile southern border, Texas has a 1,200-mile 
border with Mexico; and, of course, that has been the epicenter of the 
humanitarian and public safety crisis that we have seen get nothing but 
worse over the last 2 years.
  It is almost laughable, if it wasn't so serious. The administration 
filed suit over what it called humanitarian concerns, which is more 
than a little ironic. This is the same administration whose policies 
have ushered in an unprecedented humanitarian and public security 
crisis at the southern border.
  I have talked previously about the 300,000 children--unaccompanied 
children--who have been placed with sponsors in the interior of the 
United States by the Biden administration during the last 2\1/2\ years 
and the fact that the administration has lost track of at least 85,000 
of those 300,000 children. When they were contacted or attempted to be 
contacted by the Office of Refugee Resettlement and Health and Human 
Services, 30 days after they were placed with a sponsor, there was no 
answer and no followup by the administration.
  This is the same administration that turned a blind eye when 
countless young migrants were being exploited on American soil. The New 
York Times has run two investigative pieces pointing out that, 
essentially, the administration doesn't know where any of these 300,000 
unaccompanied children are--whether they are going to school, whether 
they are getting their healthcare attended to, whether they are being 
recruited into gangs or sexually abused or otherwise neglected. They 
don't know, and, apparently, they don't care because, if they did care, 
then they would make the effort to find out and do something about it.
  Vice President Harris was designated as the administration's border 
czar during this unprecedented crisis, which has taken a devastating 
toll on migrants, law enforcement, and border communities, and it has 
affected every city in the country, from New York to Washington, DC, to 
Chicago. Every State, in a sense, has been affected by the border 
crisis and has become a border State in that sense.
  Vice President Harris, despite her effort to do anything to address 
this crisis at the border, has had the audacity to criticize Governor 
Abbott's actions as ``inhumane,'' ``outrageous,'' and ``un-American.'' 
Of course, she can't be bothered to actually go to the border and find 
out what is happening there on her own.
  Now, there are a lot of misconceptions about the border. People who 
haven't been there haven't learned for themselves or from the experts 
at Border Patrol and the nongovernmental organizations that do their 
best to try to take care of these people. Vice President Harris simply 
hasn't bothered to learn, yet she has the audacity to criticize 
Governor Abbott for doing what he has to do because of the failure of 
the Biden administration to do its job. The unavoidable reality is we 
wouldn't be in this situation if it

[[Page S3565]]

weren't for President Biden abdicating his responsibilities.
  This is an international border, as we all know. That, by definition, 
is the Federal Government's responsibility, but the Biden 
administration has simply, as I said, abdicated its responsibilities, 
with tragic consequences. Unlike President Biden, Governor Abbott took 
action. His constituents--my constituents--30 million Texans, insisted 
upon it, and he put measures in place to try to deter migrants from 
attempting the dangerous journey from their home across the border into 
the United States.
  We know, particularly now with temperatures in the triple digits, 
that migrants face a brutal environment: heat, dangerous waters, 
treacherous terrain. And, sadly, many migrants do not survive the 
journey.
  Does President Biden understand that, last year alone, at least 748 
people died making their way across the southern border?
  I know he has never been to Brooks County, which is the location of 
one of the interior checkpoints where the coyotes will drive people up 
from the stash houses along the border, short of the checkpoint, and 
tell the migrants, ``Get out of the vehicle, and here is a gallon jug 
of water''--and maybe a candy bar--``and meet me on the top side, on 
the north side of the border checkpoint,'' in order to evade the 
interior checkpoints.
  Well, Brooks County had so many migrants who died under those 
circumstances, making that trek around the checkpoint, that they didn't 
have the money to actually bury the bodies, and so we actually had to 
try to provide some additional resources to help them do that.
  Again, the hypocrisy of the Biden administration complaining about 
the State trying to do its best to deal with a vacuum when it comes to 
Federal responsibility is absolutely ridiculous. So 748 people, we 
know, died trying to come across the southern border, and they are 
complaining about efforts to try to deter or dissuade people from 
making that dangerous trip in the first place. That is what Governor 
Abbott is trying to do and being criticized by the very people who are 
not doing their job.
  If the President is unhappy with the actions Texas has taken, there 
is a clear solution: Do your job. If the President and his 
administration did their job, there would be no need for the State to 
use its resources and its tax dollars to do the job that the Federal 
Government should be doing. Until then, Governor Abbott has every right 
to use the powers available to him to keep our State safe, to protect 
our citizens. That is his right as an elected head of a sovereign 
State.
  I want to make a point of thanking all the countless Federal, State, 
and local law enforcement officers as well as the National Guardsmen 
from Texas, the Department of Public Safety, and others who have been 
deployed to the border for their tireless work to protect our State and 
our country. They deserve our commendation and our appreciation, not 
criticism, particularly when it is so misguided and unfair.
  The Biden administration may not appreciate the efforts of the State 
of Texas, but the vast majority of us see, understand, and are grateful 
for everything Texas guards, local law enforcement, DPS, and others are 
doing to keep our country safe.


                                S. 2226

  Mr. President, on another matter, the Senate is in the process of 
fulfilling one of its most important responsibilities, and that is 
protecting the safety and security of our Nation by advancing the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  I want to commend Senator Reed and Senator Wicker, the chairman and 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, for their leadership on 
this bill and for maintaining the bipartisan process that has 
historically guided this legislation.
  Congress has managed to overcome partisan differences to pass a 
Defense authorization bill for each of the past 62 years. That is quite 
an accomplishment, and I hope we can build on that record of success 
again this year.
  Our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee compiled a strong 
bill, and I am glad the Senate now has an opportunity to try to improve 
it further by offering and voting on various amendments.
  Yesterday evening, the Senate adopted a bipartisan amendment I 
introduced with Senator Casey, the Senator from Pennsylvania, to 
strengthen our ability to counter threats from China. It does this by 
providing greater visibility into certain investments American entities 
are making in China and other countries of concern. Our amendment 
received overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed by a vote of 91 to 
6, which is incredibly rare these days.
  I want to express my gratitude to Senator Casey and all of our 
colleagues who worked together--particularly on the Banking Committee 
and others--and thank them for supporting this amendment and working 
with us to overcome this initial hurdle.
  We know when this bill goes to conference with the House of 
Representatives, there will be other discussions about this topic, but 
it is important that we have a strong vote on this outbound investment 
transparency provision because we need to know what American companies 
are doing to help grow the economy of our chief competitor on the 
planet, which is using that strong economy, by the way, to arm itself 
and threaten its neighbors in the region. We need to know--and this 
legislation will allow us to know--exactly what is going on so we can 
consider whether other policy provisions are necessary.
  We know the House passed its own version of the NDAA last month, but 
it didn't include any provisions on this outbound investment issue. So 
I am confident in the coming weeks Members of the House and the Senate 
will need to iron out the differences between our two versions. And it 
is absolutely critical that this outbound investment transparency that 
the Senate so enthusiastically supported be part of that final 
conference report.
  We all know the Chinese Communist Party has become increasingly 
aggressive in its efforts to gain power and influence. Through 
intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and predatory 
lending practices like the Belt and Road Initiative, China has grown 
its economic power and is using these same methods to pursue global 
military dominance.
  In China, there is no bright line separating the military and 
civilian sectors. This is part of an intentional strategy known as 
Military-Civil Fusion, which promotes the development of dual-use 
technologies. In other words, it can used in the private sector, and it 
can be used by the People's Liberation Army.
  In short, the Chinese Communist Party is investing in technologies 
that bolster both its military strength and its economic power. And 
unfortunately, many American entities are fueling the success of 
Chinese Military-Civil Fusion, maybe even without knowing really what 
they are doing.
  In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, an open 
hearing--an unusual open hearing--I heard some concerning figures that 
illustrate just how big this problem is.
  At the end of 2020, U.S. investments in Chinese companies had a total 
market value of $2.3 trillion. That is foreign investments from the 
United States into the People's Republic of China worth $2.3 trillion 
in 2020. That included $21 billion in semiconductors, $54 billion to 
Chinese military companies, and a whopping $221 billion in artificial 
intelligence.
  There has been a lot of discussion here in the Senate and in 
Washington, DC, about what is the future of artificial intelligence. 
Well, American companies have been investing a lot of money in China 
and helping them develop their artificial intelligence capabilities. 
And we know this authoritarian country, under the leadership of 
President Xi, does not have benign intentions. We need to be very 
careful about exactly how much and in what sectors the American 
business community is investing in China when they are our No. 1 global 
competitor.
  Intentionally or not, American companies are bankrolling the Chinese 
Communist Party's military rise. They are pouring huge amounts of 
capital into capabilities that could be used against the United States 
and certainly against our allies.
  These few data points are deeply concerning. But the truth is, these 
are just a few pieces of the puzzle. We can't see the full picture, but 
we need to.

[[Page S3566]]

  Currently, there are no requirements for companies to report billion-
dollar investments in Chinese companies. The full extent of U.S. 
investments could be much larger and more concerning, but we simply 
don't have the information.
  That is exactly why Senator Casey and I offered this amendment and 
why the Senate adopted it so overwhelmingly, 91 to 6. A strong 
bipartisan support for this amendment is evidence that this bill 
strengthens our national security without impacting the free market. We 
are not interested in decoupling from China, as some people have 
advocated. And I think Secretary Blinken and Secretary Yellen, who have 
used the word ``derisking''--it is an appropriate use of that term. We 
are trying to derisk our economies in our two countries so, hopefully, 
it will never come to any open conflict.
  We want to make sure that we are strong enough to deter China from 
ever even thinking about invading Taiwan, for example.
  But as our colleagues know, the requirement of providing notice of 
U.S.-based investments in China does not apply to every investment 
under the Sun--the one we just voted on. It is a highly targeted 
amendment and only applies to sensitive technologies like 
semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and hypersonics.
  These are the technologies and capabilities that pose the greatest 
national security risk to the United States of America. And to be 
clear, it does not stop investments from happening or interfere with 
other investments by American companies in the People's Republic of 
China. It simply requires companies or other entities to share 
information about investments in certain technologies.
  This is all about transparency. It will help the United States see 
and understand the threats from China and other countries of concern so 
we can act accordingly.
  Some of our colleagues said: Well, we need to do more. I agree. But I 
think this is an important first step. And certainly when we say 
politics is the art of the possible, this is what is possible now. And 
I would hope, with additional information that is generated from these 
transparency measures, we can make a decision at some later point 
whether different policy needs to be applied. But for now, this 
represents an important first step.
  The reality is, things like sanctions to restrictions, to an outright 
ban on investments don't have the political support on both sides of 
the aisle in both Chambers that they need in order to become law. So 
rather than adopt an all-or-nothing approach, which will end up leaving 
us with nothing, we decided to again engage in the art of the possible. 
And this amendment demonstrates that that is achievable.
  The outbound investment provision promotes our national security, 
protects the free market, and it provides much greater visibility into 
the threats posed by our most formidable potential adversaries. 
Outbound investment transparency is absolutely crucial to our ability 
to understand what is happening in China and to counter any threats.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House as well to fight to 
preserve this language during the conference process.
  But, in closing, let me just again thank Chairman Reed and Ranking 
Member Wicker and all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee 
for all the work that has gone into this bill so far. I know we are not 
through. We are going to have a number of votes today and tomorrow. But 
they provided us a strong foundation and a strong base to build on. And 
I am glad those of us who are not on the Armed Services Committee have 
a chance to offer our suggestions and improve the bill by the amendment 
process.

  With that, 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, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I will be joined shortly by Senator 
Moran, who is the ranking Republican on the Veterans' Committee, and 
Senator Blumenthal, who has always been such a strong leader on many 
issues related to veterans. We are here to talk about an amendment that 
is before the Senate this week on the National Defense Authorization 
Act. This is our moment. This is our moment.
  I came to the floor last night and spoke on this, and I am here 
again. And I am here not just on behalf of all the cosponsors of this 
important amendment, which includes Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the 
lead Republican on the amendment as well as, of course, the ranking 
Republican, the highest Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee; 
Senator Coons; Senator Moran; Senator Blumenthal; Senator Murkowski; 
Senator Shaheen; Senator Wicker, who I note is the ranking Republican 
on the Armed Services Committee; Senator Durbin, the chair of the 
Judiciary Committee; Senator Tillis; and Senator Mullin.
  Of course, this bill is supported by many, many other Senators--in 
fact, the majority of the U.S. Senate, which sounds to me like when you 
have the numbers, you should be able to have a vote, and that is what I 
am asking for today.
  I am pushing this because this is our moment. We have had 2 years to 
show the world whether or not we are going to stand with those who 
stood with us. For 2 years, we have worked on this bill. Our colleagues 
have had plenty of time to look at it. They have had input. It was 
introduced last year.
  But you know who else is watching? Our military is watching. Every 
single one of the Senators in this Chamber have been approached by a 
member of our military, whether it is on Veterans Day, whether it is on 
Memorial Day, whether it is just walking down the street. Those who 
served in Afghanistan have come to us and said: Hey, I wouldn't be here 
today if this guy hadn't stood with me on the battlefield or if this 
interpreter hadn't helped me out or if this guy had not put his family 
on the line to gather intelligence.
  And they have all asked us the same thing, and that is to not leave 
these courageous Afghans, who stood with our military, in limbo. We did 
not leave the Hmong and the Vietnamese who came over to our country. 
After that withdrawal and evacuation, we did not leave them in limbo. 
They were given a legal status, which allowed them to work, which 
allowed them to pursue citizenship at some point. I know because I have 
the biggest population of Hmong, next to California, in my State.
  What do they do now, generations later? They are police officers. 
They are firefighters. They are teachers. They are elected officials. 
They are pillars of our communities.
  That is what we do. That is what we did when so many Cubans came over 
to this country. We didn't just leave them in limbo. We included them 
in the fabric of life of our country, and we are the richer for it.
  But this, these Afghans--so many of them vouched for by the top 
leaders in our military--they took bullets for us, literally, and we 
must stand by them.
  The decision we make right now of whether we live up to the covenant 
we made to our Afghan allies is going to reverberate militarily and 
diplomatically for longer than any of us will serve in this body 
because the next time we are in a conflict and we ask people to serve 
and to put themselves at risk and put their families at risk, do you 
think they are not going to hear that 80,000 people are in complete 
limbo if we don't do something about this?
  This bill strengthens our national security. And I will give you a 
long list of generals in a moment, very famous leaders in our military 
who support this bill. It does right by our Afghans who worked 
alongside our troops. And it shows the world that when the United 
States of America makes a promise, when we make a covenant, that we 
keep it.
  Nearly 80,000 Afghans who sought refuge in our country after that 
evacuation are in limbo. They are in our country. Let me repeat this. 
They are here now. So we can choose to have some order here and have a 
vetting process, which is why so many of my more conservative 
colleagues are supporting this bill, are on this bill--because right 
now that process isn't in place. So this will allow us to vet people 
and then create some order so that

[[Page S3567]]

they have a provisional status in this country and they don't worry 
that they are going to be sent back to live under the rule of the 
Taliban, which certainly so many of them would be killed. Among them 
were brave translators, humanitarian workers, courageous members of the 
Afghan military who stood shoulder to shoulder with our troops.

  We were right to help these people come to the United States. And now 
it falls on us to uphold the covenant we made to them and help provide 
them with the stability and the security they need to rebuild their 
lives here. We may have disagreements--of course we do; our country 
does on Afghanistan--but those need to be put aside right now to talk 
about what we are going to do about the covenant that we made to these 
people.
  The bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act creates a more thorough system, 
as I noted, for our Afghan allies to apply for permanent legal status. 
It requires that applicants go through vetting that is just as vigorous 
as the vetting they would have gone through if they came to the United 
States as a refugee, a standard that eight former Trump and George W. 
Bush administration national security officials have called the gold 
standard of vetting. Remember, there is no vetting right now. This is 
the way you get the vetting. Senator Graham and I worked closely with 
Senator Moran and others in this Chamber and the Department of Defense 
to make sure that the bill's vetting provisions met that gold standard.
  In addition, our legislation updates a Special Immigrant Visa 
Program, also known as SIV, to include groups that should never have 
been excluded from the program in the first place, including members of 
the Female Tactical Team of Afghanistan, who had our troops' backs as 
they pursued missions hunting down ISIS combatants on unforgiving 
terrain and freeing prisoners from the grips of the Taliban.
  The entire purpose of the Special Immigration Visa Program is to 
provide permanent residency to those who have supported the United 
States abroad. And it is clear to anyone that looks at this that these 
brave women should qualify.
  The Afghan Adjustment Act is supported by a bipartisan group of 
Senators, as I just noted--11 cosponsors with many others that have 
pledged their support. Many others. And it has earned the backing of 
more than 60 organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars--
that is the VFW--and the American Legion.
  This bill is a top priority for these two leading veterans groups. 
They have contacted, literally, every Senator about the importance of 
passing this bill. And I hope people will listen.
  Who else is this supported by? Some of our Nation's most revered 
military leaders, including Admirals Mike Mullen, William McRaven, 
James Stavridis, and Generals Richard Myers of the Air Force, Joseph 
Dunford from the Marine Corps, and Stan McChrystal from the Army.
  We can decide that the thoughts of these military leaders aren't 
important to us. We can decide they don't know what they are doing. I 
think it is kind of the opposite, that maybe we should be listening to 
them when they tell us this must happen.
  Here are some of the stories:
  Mahnaz, a commander of the Afghan National Army's Female Tactical 
Platoon, who worked closely with our military to facilitate 
conversations between our soldiers and the Afghan women they crossed 
paths with in the field.
  Ahmad, a pilot whose helicopter was shot down, not once, but twice. 
Ahmad is in legal limbo. Speaking of his work with our troops, he said:

       In the face of danger, we were united, we were relentless, 
     we were resilient.

  Another pilot who wants his name not known because he is in fear of 
what will happen to his family who are still back in Afghanistan, he 
spent 10 years helping American soldiers identify Taliban positions in 
the mountains of Afghanistan. He said his job was to ``capture the bad 
guys like al-Qaida and Taliban.''
  Or there is Nangialy, an Afghan interpreter who put his life on the 
line to support our troops. Why? To use his words:

       Same goal, same target, and same achievement.

  A helicopter fighter pilot who also asked that his name not be 
revealed, who worked with our troops to combat the Taliban in remote 
areas of Afghanistan for 8 years--8 years--all the while thinking there 
was a covenant that he was going to be able to come to this country and 
people were going to protect him if needed. He survived being shot in 
the face by flying bullets.
  There is the story of Reggie, another Afghan interpreter. Remember, 
being an interpreter in Afghanistan wasn't a desk job. You weren't 
sitting in a conference room whispering to your boss what the words 
were of someone whose language you don't understand. This meant working 
shoulder to shoulder with our troops while they were on foreign soil. 
Where the troops went, the interpreter went. If the troops got ambushed 
by bullets, the interpreter got ambushed by bullets. If the troops got 
bombed, the interpreter got bombed. That is a risk Reggie took every 
day.
  On August 8, 2012, Reggie was working on patrol with a group of 
servicemembers including Army CPT Florent Groberg. Suddenly, a suicide 
bomber approached. Groberg acted fast and protected other members of 
his unit by shoving the bomber aside. But the vest still detonated, 
leaving Groberg and Reggie bloody and fighting for every breath. The 
explosion left Reggie with 23 pieces of shrapnel lodged in his own 
body. But even still, he used the energy he had to go to Groberg's aid 
and help him stop the bleeding.
  To this day, as a result of the attack, Reggie has problems with his 
left ear and can't control some of his body. That is what he sacrificed 
for our troops. That is the depth of his covenant.
  Reggie and Captain Groberg survived that attack, but, tragically, 
several men did not. One of the men we lost that day was U.S. Air Force 
Maj. Walter David Gray. He left behind his kids and his wife Heather. 
In August 2021, 9 years after the attack, Heather learned from an NPR 
reporter that Reggie was being targeted by the Taliban in Afghanistan. 
She wrote about that experience in an essay for the Dallas Morning 
News. These are her words:

       Turmoil is a good way to describe the emotions I felt when 
     I listened to the radio interview. It was Reggie in 
     Afghanistan . . . describing his service as a linguist to our 
     military and the danger his family was in if they didn't get 
     out.

  She went on:

       Reggie served with my husband, Maj. Walter David Gray, in 
     the Air Force and was with him when David and three others 
     were killed by suicide bombers in the Kunar Province on 
     August 8, 2012. After listening, I called my friend Captain 
     Florent Groberg who . . . confirmed that the man we were 
     hearing on the radio was indeed ``our guy.''
       With that confirmation, my family spun into action, working 
     with others, both stateside and in Afghanistan, to get 
     Reggie, his wife, and their four young children through the 
     gauntlet outside [the] airport and onto a military plane.

  It would be nearly November before Reggie's family was resettled in 
Ft. Worth where the brother lives.
  Heather's story continues. She wrote:

       My family traveled 4 hours to Ft. Worth to meet them . . . 
     As we worked alongside each other assembling furniture, 
     Reggie showed me scars from the battle that killed my 
     husband. As he recounted stories of the many battles in which 
     he fought alongside our servicemembers, a car backfired 
     outside and he instinctively lowered to the floor . . . A few 
     weeks later, I brought my current husband and kids up to 
     spend Thanksgiving with Reggie's family. Despite the language 
     barrier and our different religions and cultures, we 
     celebrated as one big family, because that is what we are.

  Reggie is among the Afghan allies who need Congress to pass the 
Afghan Adjustment Act.
  She added this:

       Every time we see Reggie, he reminds my children that their 
     father died a hero.

  This story of these Afghans has too many heroes to even keep track 
of, and it is our job now to stand to their level, to simply pass this 
amendment so they are put out of legal limbo--an amendment that is 
cosponsored with conservative Republican Senators; an amendment 
cosponsored by the lead Republican on the Veterans Committee, on the 
Armed Services Committee, and on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  I know my colleague Senator Moran is here and is ready to speak soon. 
I welcome him here. I also saw Senator Blumenthal. I have more words 
when they have completed their remarks, including the important letters 
we have

[[Page S3568]]

seen from the leading veterans groups, the leading military generals--
some of whose names I have read--including the support that we have 
gotten from those that served in Afghanistan in our own military.
  I thank Senator Moran and his leadership on the PACT Act and so many 
other bills for being here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that I heard this 
morning from Senator Klobuchar and appreciate her leadership and 
efforts to see that the Afghan Adjustment Act becomes law. I think I am 
followed by my colleague on the Veterans Committee, Senator Blumenthal 
from Connecticut.
  This has been a bipartisan effort to make certain that legislation 
was drafted, introduced, and that lives were protected and changed. 
From my perspective, one of the saddest days--or few days--of my time 
as a U.S. Senator was when the United States withdrew from 
Afghanistan--not necessarily the withdrawal but the manner in which it 
occurred and the number of people--some Americans, many of them Afghans 
who helped Americans during our time in Afghanistan--who were left 
behind and the manner in which those who were able to escape, what they 
had to endure in many instances to do so.
  As we approach the second anniversary of this disastrous withdrawal 
from Afghanistan, many of those Afghans who escaped to the United 
States now face--continue to face--uncertainty in their lives--
uncertainty as their original parole status is set to expire soon. Most 
of that status for their legal presence in the United States expires 2 
years from their arrival to the United States. And in many instances, 
that is now the month of August 2023.
  I joined my colleague Senator Klobuchar in introducing the Afghan 
Adjustment Act to make certain that Afghans who sought refuge in the 
United States are able to apply for a permanent legal residency after 
undergoing additional vetting.
  This amendment, this legislation, is now an amendment pending on the 
National Defense Authorization Act. I hope we are able to have a vote 
on this amendment--that it is included, the vote occurs, and I hope 
that vote is successful.
  This amendment establishes a pathway for Afghan partners to begin a 
more certain and, perhaps, new life.
  The rushed and chaotic withdrawal created a potential loophole for 
bad actors to be admitted to the United States. So if you are 
interested in our national security--which I know we all are--this 
amendment establishes a critical vetting process to reduce the threats 
to that national security. Failing to pass this amendment, failing for 
this bill to become law, means that none of the refugees will undergo 
the necessary additional vetting. Undergoing that vetting then can 
create the opportunity for certainty in the lives of those Afghan 
refugees who are here.
  For two decades, countless Afghans stood by our servicemembers and 
risked their lives and their families' lives to support our troops in 
Afghanistan. This withdrawal and the current circumstance resulted in 
more than 1,000 contacts with my office asking for help in getting 
someone out of Afghanistan, someone who served side by side with a 
soldier from Fort Riley--our hometown pastor's daughter and husband--
missionaries, Christian missionaries in Afghanistan--looking for help 
to get out of Afghanistan--those people who are Christians in that 
country.
  The vast majority of people who are in this uncertain stage were 
people who, either through our domestic operations, our opportunity to 
try to stabilize Afghanistan, or our military--they are the ones who 
are now living a life of uncertainty and potential return or removal 
from the United States.
  Under the present regulations, our Afghan allies admitted under 
temporary humanitarian status can only attain permanent legal status 
through our overburdened, nonworking, dysfunctional, asylum system or 
the long-winded special immigrant visa process. As a result, thousands 
face this troubling uncertainty as they strive to create a new life 
here.
  Recently, in the town we live in, Manhattan, KS, a block party was 
created to host Afghan residents of our community. It was pleasing to 
see the Afghan culture celebrated, and it was pleasing to see the 
community support their new neighbors.
  It is always a good thing to see when people come together. The 
practical help offered to our Afghans is priceless, but all that 
community support and assistance will do little good if we don't pass 
the opportunities that the Afghan Adjustment Act provides these 
individuals.
  The amendment before us today will help provide certainty to many of 
our Afghan partners and work to help other Afghan partners who are 
stranded in other countries. So we have the challenge of Afghans in the 
United States who soon will have no legal status, and we have those who 
are still trying to get out of Afghanistan. And, finally, we have those 
who have escaped Afghanistan to another country but can't yet migrate 
any further. Those people are stranded. They need our assistance.
  We also need to make sure that our vetting requirements protect our 
national security. This legislation does both. It protects our national 
security and increases our opportunity to treat individuals--human 
beings--in a humanitarian way.
  I thank Senator Klobuchar for her invitation for me to join her here 
today in this bipartisan effort. Senator Klobuchar mentioned a number 
of veterans organizations and veterans who endorsed this legislation 
and, thus, this amendment.
  This issue was brought to me most directly by the Iraqi and Afghan 
veterans of America who support this legislation and who brought 
information and encouragement to me to help see that this legislation 
is passed. But it is also supported by Blue Star Families, by the 
American Legion, the VFW, and many other veterans and veterans 
organizations.
  Those who served our country--those Americans who served our 
country--care about those who helped save their lives in Afghanistan, 
and they would like to see the U.S. Senate take the steps that we are 
asking be taken today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague 
from Kansas and engage in this bipartisan colloquy for a measure that 
truly has bipartisan support. My thanks to Senator Klobuchar for her 
leadership as well. And I am going to be followed by Senator Coons, who 
has dedicated himself to civil rights and liberties around the world.
  This issue is one that rises above politics. Every so often in this 
body, we are able to rise above politics, never often enough for many 
of us. But here is an opportunity to put down a marker, to make a 
statement, to show with our votes that a great Nation keeps promises. 
America is the greatest Nation in the history of the world. We need to 
keep our promises. And I know about those promises, not only as a 
member of the Armed Services Committee who has visited Afghanistan 
several times but also as a father. My two sons served during this 
period of time. My oldest son Matthew was an infantry officer in the 
Marine Corps, in Helmand Province. My second son is a Navy SEAL. And 
let me just put it very bluntly: As a dad, as a public official, as an 
American citizen, I want Americans who are deployed overseas to be 
helped by people in the country that we are fighting to serve. Not only 
in America and our self-interest here, but also abroad when our troops 
are deployed and put in harm's way, they depend on exactly the kind of 
Afghan allies whom we promised we would not abandon.
  And if we want to count on those kinds of allies all around the 
world--not only in Afghanistan and Iraq and that part of the world, but 
in Africa, in South America--we need to keep our promises. If we lose 
that credibility and trust, our troops will be in danger. Our sons and 
daughters will be at risk when they depend on those interpreters, the 
guards, the guides, the security aides, and all of the kinds of allies 
that we enlist--Afghan allies--who put their lives on the line and now 
have targets on their backs if they were ever to return.
  It is bad enough that many of those allies are still in Afghanistan 
and at risk of torture and murder, but we need

[[Page S3569]]

to keep faith with the Afghan refugees who have come to this country. I 
want to salute the veterans, as did my colleague Senator Moran. They 
have been heroes in this fight. Their championing this cause has made a 
tremendous difference, and I thank them for recognizing that there is a 
moral imperative here. That is the reason that our promise needs to be 
kept.
  And I will just close--and there is much more that I could say, but I 
know colleagues would like to comment, as well, in the limited time we 
have--by saying that these families, these Afghan refugees, are coming 
to this country, and they are flourishing here. They are contributing 
to their communities. They have jobs that matter. They are learning our 
language. They are imparting to our people the rich cultural heritage 
that they bring with them, the tastes and the colors of their country, 
as well as their incredible history. They are enriching the United 
States of America. We need to keep them here, and we need to give them 
the security and sense of permanency that is essential for them to 
continue to flourish.
  They can't have jobs, they can't put their children in schools, and 
they can't keep housing if they are in limbo. So as a practical matter, 
we must move. We should have done it last session. We have the 
opportunity now. It is an obligation. Let's vote on this amendment to 
enable our Afghan allies to stay in this country as they deserve and 
need to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, just about 2 years ago, roughly 76,000 
Afghans--those who served alongside American forces during two decades 
of conflict--and their families were evacuated here to the United 
States on military planes and given 2 years of humanitarian parole. The 
Biden administration has worked to extend that parole, but we have to 
ask ourselves: To what end?
  These are our allies, those who served and fought alongside our 
troops, those who supported our mission and our engagement in 
Afghanistan and who worked an incredible array of jobs--interpreters, 
medics, security guards, mechanics, intelligence officers, journalists, 
bomb technicians, and pilots.
  And I know that today one family in Newark, DE, is waiting urgently 
to hear that we have taken up and passed this amendment to the National 
Defense Authorization Act. The head of household served as a bomb 
technician, as an EOD specialist in the Afghan forces, and I had the 
chance to have the blessing of meeting the mother of a Delaware soldier 
whose life he saved.
  I have heard over and over from our veterans, from our veterans' 
families, from Afghans and from their families that we have to pass 
this bill so that they have certainty, so that the strengths and 
talents that they have brought to our country they can use to put down 
roots and to have a foundation on which to build a family in peace in 
our Nation.
  An interpreter--an Afghan interpreter--now living in North Carolina 
has said:

       Permanent residency is linked to everything. What will 
     happen [to my family] if our status fails? How will I provide 
     for my family [in this new country]?

  Another interpreter living now in Nebraska describes their current 
situation as being ``trapped like in a prison.''
  This uncertainty, this lack of clear status, harms the ability of our 
Afghan partners and friends to advance their careers, to put down 
roots, to start their new lives here in America with confidence. This 
uncertainty must end.
  These are folks who believe in the promise of America and who came 
here confident we would keep our word. On my phone, I was just looking 
a moment ago at a family celebration that I joined with Sher and Shkira 
in Newark, DE. I don't want to give more details on them, other than to 
say that I remember that they and their children are waiting and 
watching to see what we will do here in the Senate.
  I want to thank my colleagues Senators Klobuchar, Moran, and 
Blumenthal and many others--Senators Graham, Shaheen, Murkowski, 
Durbin, Wicker, and Tillis--who have been cosponsors of this bill from 
the last Congress. It also has support from the Iraq and Afghanistan 
Veterans of America, Blue Star Families, the American Legion, and many 
other veterans groups; and from some of the most prominent leaders in 
the American military: Mike Mullen, Jim Stavridis, Stan McChrystal, 
William McRaven. Forgive me for skipping their titles and ranks, but 
some of the most respected leaders in our military have endorsed this 
legislation.
  If you are worried, as some of our colleagues have said, that the 
folks brought here by the American military were not thoroughly vetted, 
this is the way to address it. It requires in-person interviews, 
oversight, and consultations that will ensure that everyone currently 
here comes back in for one more in-person interview, vetting, and 
clearing.
  It also expands the opportunities for SIV visas for Afghan 
combatants. It helps those still stuck in a hell outside our country. 
That would allow families to be reunited.
  At the end of the day, I just have to thank two people and make one 
plea. I have to thank the family in Delaware who continues to inspire 
me and push me to support Senator Klobuchar in her tireless work to get 
this bill the vote it deserves. I want to thank my colleague Senator 
Klobuchar for hearing the voices of American veterans, for hearing the 
voices of Afghans now in our country who deserve legal status, and I 
join her in demanding a vote on this amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much to Senator Coons for his strong 
words and for focusing on what matters here, which is the people of our 
own country, the military and those who support them, who believe that 
this situation is simply untenable, that these Afghans who have stood 
with us risk, at any moment, being deported--not right now because of 
an order that President Biden has in place.
  But that is not the only problem about uncertainty. The problem is 
they can't go on with their lives as has happened with past evacuees--
after Cuba, I noted; after Vietnam. They are part of the fabric of life 
in the United States of America now.
  So let's hear what some of these security experts have to say. I am 
going to read a portion of a letter that a group of them sent to 
congressional leadership.
  They said this. These aren't my words. This is theirs:

       The bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act honors our nation's 
     commitment to its wartime allies by providing a path to 
     permanent status for Afghan evacuees. It also ensures that 
     these evacuees are properly and scrupulously vetted prior to 
     considering them for such status.
       The status quo leaves tens of thousands of evacuees in 
     legal limbo while failing to put to rest security concerns 
     raised in the Office of Inspector General reports.

  So we can just pretend that report doesn't exist. We can just do 
nothing. How can that be the answer?
  (Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)
  How can the answer be to just put our heads in the sand while they 
put their lives at risk for us in the sands of Afghanistan? That is why 
we have to vote on this amendment.
  They go on to say--the security experts who worked for a number of 
Republican and Democratic Presidents: ``No action is not an option--we 
urge you to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act.''
  I want to repeat that last point: ``No action is not an option.''
  Here is another letter of support from the former Ambassadors to 
Afghanistan. Eight former U.S. Ambassadors--think about this: They 
actually served in Afghanistan, and a number of us--probably nearly 
everyone in this Chamber who was around during that time, which is many 
of us, has visited with these Ambassadors during one President or 
another. These Ambassadors served under Presidents George W. Bush, 
Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. Each has an intimate 
understanding of the stakes for getting this right.
  They wrote together:

       We are a group of retired Ambassadors, all of whom served 
     as Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, who 
     have dedicated our professional lives to furthering America's 
     interests in the world. We are writing today because we are 
     convinced that

[[Page S3570]]

     the Afghan Adjustment Act furthers those interests. The need 
     is urgent and time is short. . . . Without the Afghan 
     Adjustment Act, the task of American diplomacy will be much 
     more difficult. . . . [I]n the future our allies will be less 
     likely to support the U.S. missions if they see that our 
     Afghan partners are abandoned. In diplomacy, our words will 
     have lost meaning. . . . We urge you to pass the Afghan 
     Adjustment Act without delay.

  I have spoken a lot about the Afghan stories today, as have my 
colleagues--Senator Coons, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Moran--
because this is all personal for those of us who meet with our military 
and hear the stories of those who saved their lives and who put their 
lives on the line. But this is also about U.S. interests abroad and the 
bigger story of our national security, about keeping our covenants when 
we make promises, about expecting other people in other lands in future 
conflicts to be willing to put themselves and their families at risk to 
stand with our soldiers. Who is going to want to do that again if they 
hear that we made promises over decades, and then, when those brave 
people came to our country, we left them in legal limbo?
  You heard the sad, tragic story out of Virginia a few weeks ago where 
an Afghan who had served as an interpreter, who was working two jobs--
in legal limbo--was murdered as a Lyft driver in the middle of the 
night. Those are the stories.
  If people see that brinksmanship in Congress outweighs the promises 
we made overseas, how can we lead?
  Finally, I want to share some words from a group of more than three 
dozen of our Nation's most esteemed military leaders, including Gen. 
Joseph Dunford, U.S. Marine Corps; Admiral Mike Mullen, U.S. Navy; Gen. 
Richard Myers, U.S. Air Force; Admiral Jim Stavridis, U.S. Navy; GEN 
Peter Chiarelli, U.S. Army; GEN Stan McChrystal, U.S. Army; GEN David 
McKiernan, U.S. Army; Admiral William McRaven, U.S. Navy; GEN Austin 
Miller, U.S. Army; GEN John Nicholson, Jr., U.S. Army; GEN M. David 
Rodriguez, U.S. Army; GEN Curtis Scaparrotti, U.S. Army; GEN Raymond A. 
Thomas III, U.S. Army; GEN Joseph Votel, U.S. Army; and Gen. Mark 
Welsh, U.S. Air Force.
  I read the complete list last night, and I will do it again because 
that gives you a sense of the kind of people I think we should be 
listening to. Maybe it is worth my colleagues'--a minute of their time 
to sit back and look at the people who are supporting this bill who 
lead our military or have led our military. They have been resolute in 
their support for the Afghan Adjustment Act, and the letter they sent 
to congressional leadership makes that clear.
  In their words--these are their words, not mine:

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

  Let's read that again.

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

  My colleague Senator Moran outlined why. It is about the fact that 
there is no vetting in place, and this puts the vetting in place. Most 
importantly, it is about the fact that to keep our Nation's leadership 
and to be true to our covenant, we have to be true to our word.
  Finally, we have the stories of people who, if allowed to flourish in 
this country, will go on to do great things. So it is on us.
  This is what else they wrote:

       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] will go a long way.
       Additionally, without the fixes--

  These are their words--

     applied by the Afghan Adjustment Act, our immigration system 
     will be less capable, not more capable, of properly 
     processing and vetting applicants. 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.

  Mr. President, this is a harrowing warning from our military's top 
brass.
  Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, our soldiers will face new 
obstacles in finding allies on the battlefield, because in the past, we 
kept our covenants. We kept them. We kept them no matter if the 
Congress was Democratic or Republican or the President was Democrat or 
Republican. We kept our commitments.
  All I am asking is that we have a vote--along with my colleagues--on 
this amendment. And I will repeat: the leading Republicans on 
Judiciary, Armed Services, and the Veterans' Committee--Senator Moran, 
who is here today--are cosponsors of this amendment and are asking for 
a vote. We have Senator Durbin, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, 
asking for a vote. We have dozens and dozens of Senators who want to 
get this done. We need this vote. We have Republicans, Democrats, 
military and veterans groups, national security leaders, retired U.S. 
Ambassadors to Afghanistan, and flag officers all on the same page. 
They are not debating the nuances of every little word because that 
bill has been out there now for 2 years.

  We have strengthened it vastly in response to our colleagues. We have 
made changes to it, and it is ready to go, just like our Afghan allies 
have been ready to go because they have been here for nearly 2 years, 
waiting for us to keep our covenants--ones who have taken bullets to 
the face, ones who have lost legs. They are in our country waiting for 
us to keep our covenant.
  Until we get this done, we are essentially asking our allies--those 
who took shrapnel across the body, those who took bullets to their 
faces--to rebuild their lives on top of a trapdoor that could fall out 
from under them at any second. Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, all 
of it--their jobs, their homes, their safety, their families--could 
disappear.
  By including this amendment in the NDAA, we can strengthen the 
national security of our country by making our vetting program more 
thorough. You heard Senator Moran talk about that. It was a huge issue 
with Senator Graham, and we worked together to build the gold standard, 
which, as I mentioned, has been supported by leaders under every single 
one of the last four Presidents.
  So let's put aside the politics and distraction. Let's do what is 
right for our national security, for our global reputation, and for 
Afghan allies who shed blood alongside our troops on the battlefield.
  This Defense bill is about what? No. 1 and foremost, our Nation's 
security. So ask yourselves, those in the Gallery who have been 
listening for the past hour to our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle who support this bill, does this amendment support our national 
security? Of course it does. The top ranks, those who were in charge in 
Afghanistan, have told us that it does.
  No. 2, this bill that we are voting on this week and all the series 
of amendments--it should set a moral example for the world. That is 
what the United States did through World War I and through World War 
II. We set a moral example for the world. That is what this amendment 
does too. It sets a moral example for the world.
  No. 3, we must show people everywhere that when America makes a 
promise, when America makes a covenant, it must be kept.
  The Afghan adjustment amendment advances all those objectives.
  I am asking my colleagues simply for a vote. If they want to vote 
against it, it is fine. They can vote against the generals and the VFW 
and the American Legion. They all have differences. That is fine. But 
why would we deny those who took bullets for us even the ability to 
have a vote in what should be and has been called the Nation's greatest 
deliberative body?
  Let's be as great as we are supposed to be, which means standing by 
our values and showing the world that our word, that America's 
covenant, matters.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 199

  Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 199 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Warnock] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 199.

  The amendment (No. 199) is as follows:

[[Page S3571]]

  


    (Purpose: To provide enhanced protection against debt collector 
               harassment of members of the Armed Forces)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     DIVISION ____FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES FOR SERVICEMEMBERS

     SEC. ___01. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``Fair Debt Collection 
     Practices for Servicemembers Act''.

     SEC. ___02. ENHANCED PROTECTION AGAINST DEBT COLLECTOR 
                   HARASSMENT OF SERVICEMEMBERS.

       (a) Communication in Connection With Debt Collection.--
     Section 805 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1692c) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Communications Concerning Servicemember Debts.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `covered 
     member' means--
       ``(A) a covered member or a dependent as defined in section 
     987(i) of title 10, United States Code; and
       ``(B)(i) an individual who was separated, discharged, or 
     released from duty described in such section 987(i)(1), but 
     only during the 365-day period beginning on the date of 
     separation, discharge, or release; or
       ``(ii) a person, with respect to an individual described in 
     clause (i), described in subparagraph (A), (D), (E), or (I) 
     of section 1072(2) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(2) Prohibitions.--A debt collector may not, in 
     connection with the collection of any debt of a covered 
     member--
       ``(A) threaten to have the covered member reduced in rank;
       ``(B) threaten to have the covered member's security 
     clearance revoked; or
       ``(C) threaten to have the covered member prosecuted under 
     chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code 
     of Military Justice).''.
       (b) Unfair Practices.--Section 808 of the Fair Debt 
     Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692f) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) The representation to any covered member (as defined 
     under section 805(e)(1)) that failure to cooperate with a 
     debt collector will result in--
       ``(A) a reduction in rank of the covered member;
       ``(B) a revocation of the covered member's security 
     clearance; or
       ``(C) prosecution under chapter 47 of title 10, United 
     States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).''.

     SEC. ___03. GAO STUDY.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
     a study and submit a report to Congress on the impact of this 
     division on--
       (1) the timely delivery of information to a covered member 
     (as defined in section 805(e) of the Fair Debt Collection 
     Practices Act, as added by this division);
       (2) military readiness; and
       (3) national security, including the extent to which 
     covered members with security clearances would be impacted by 
     uncollected debt.

  Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, servicemembers report being harassed by 
predatory debt collectors at a higher rate than the civilian 
population. Predatory and unscrupulous debt collectors send messages to 
commanding officers with their private financial information, all in an 
effort to harass our men and women in uniform--the best among us 
standing up for us. They harass servicemembers by threatening rank 
reduction--the debt collectors--revocation of security clearance, or 
punishment under the military justice code.
  These threats cannot be carried out by the debt collectors, and these 
practices are manipulative, and they undermine our national security by 
distracting our servicemembers from focusing on their mission and 
caring for their families. In fact, a 2014 Army Reserve review found 
that the second leading contributing factor to servicemember suicide 
was financial stress.
  This amendment reinforces the existing protections provided to all 
Americans but especially those who are putting their lives on the line 
to protect all of our families and our communities by restricting 
predatory debt collection practices aimed specifically at our 
servicemembers.
  This bipartisan amendment costs nothing. It has broad support among 
the Nation's military and veteran community. They believe, as I do, 
that debt collectors should not be able to weaponize servicemembers' 
services. It even has the support--listen--the support of reputable and 
responsible debt collectors themselves, the very industry it would 
affect.
  I want to thank Senators Budd, Cornyn, Tillis, Lummis, and Brown for 
their partnership on this, and I look forward to the support of my 
colleagues in passing this bipartisan amendment to protect our Nation's 
servicemembers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 199

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. WARNOCK. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), 
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     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
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     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)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--2

     Paul
     Wicker
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Whitehouse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The yeas are 95, the nays 
are 2.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 199) was agreed to.

                          ____________________