Congressional Record

United States

of America

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE

118

CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

S2373

Vol. 170 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2024 No. 46

House of Representatives

The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Friday, March 15, 2024, at 11 a.m.

Senate

HURSDAY

, M

ARCH

14, 2024

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was

called to order by the Honorable R

APH

AEL

G. W

ARNOCK

, a Senator from the

State of Georgia.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of-

fered the following prayer:

Let us pray.

Eternal God, who sustains those who

obey You, You have been good to us be-

yond our deserving. You have sur-

rounded us with the beauties of the

Earth and the glories of the skies.

Today, make us alert to Your provi-

dential movements. If our minds are

closed to Your truth, open them. If our

hearts are hardened, soften them. If

our ears are deaf to the cries of the op-

pressed, unstop them.

Lord, revive our Senators. Give them

a desire to establish new thresholds of

hope, peace, and freedom in our Nation

and world. Be near to our lawmakers

all their days. May they rest in the

green pastures of your peace and thrive

beside the still waters of Your wisdom.

We pray in Your mighty Name.

Amen.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Presiding Officer led the Pledge

of Allegiance, as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the

United States of America, and to the Repub-

lic for which it stands, one nation under God,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will please read a communication

to the Senate from the President pro

tempore (Mrs. M

URRAY

The senior assistant legislative clerk

read the following letter:

U.S. S

ENATE

RESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

Washington, DC, March 14, 2024.

To the Senate:

Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3,

of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby

appoint the Honorable R

APHAEL

G. W

ARNOCK

a Senator from the State of Georgia, to per-

form the duties of the Chair.

ATTY

URRAY

President pro tempore.

Mr. WARNOCK thereupon assumed

the Chair as Acting President pro tem-

pore.

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. Under the previous order, the

leadership time is reserved.

CONCLUSION OF MORNING

BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. Morning business is closed.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. Under the previous order, the

Senate will proceed to executive ses-

sion to consider the following nomina-

tion which the clerk will report.

The senior assistant legislative clerk

read the nomination of Dennis B.

Hankins, of Minnesota, a Career Mem-

ber of the Senior Foreign Service,

Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Am-

bassador Extraordinary and Pleni-

potentiary of the United States of

America to the Republic of Haiti.

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. The majority leader is recog-

nized.

ISRAEL

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise

to speak today about what I believe

can and should be the path forward to

secure mutual peace and lasting pros-

perity for Israelis and Palestinians. I

speak for myself, but I also speak for

so many mainstream Jewish Ameri-

cans, a silent majority whose nuanced

views on the matter have never been

well-represented in this country’s dis-

cussions about the war in Gaza.

My last name is S

CHUMER

, which de-

rives from the Hebrew word ‘‘shomer’’

or guardian. Of course, my first respon-

sibility is to America and to New York.

But as the first Jewish majority leader

of the U.S. Senate and the highest

ranking Jewish elected official in

America ever, I also feel very keenly

my responsibility as a ‘‘Shomer

Yisreol’’—a guardian of the people of

Israel.

Throughout Jewish history, there

have been many shomrim and plenty

who are far greater than I claim to be.

But, nonetheless, this is the position in

which I find myself now—at a time of

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:07 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.000 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

® Pdnted on recycled papfil

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2374 March 14, 2024

great difficulty for the State of Israel,

for the Jewish people, and for non-Jew-

ish friends of Israel. So I feel an im-

mense obligation to speak and to act.

I speak as a member of a community

of Jewish Americans that I know very

well. They are my family, my friends.

Many of them are my constituents.

Many of them are Democrats, and

many are deeply concerned about the

pursuit of justice, both in New York

and around the globe. From the Tal-

mud—‘‘Tikkun Olam,’’ the call to ‘‘re-

pair the world’’—has driven Jews

around the globe to do what is right.

We love Israel in our bones. What

Israel has meant to my generation

within living memory of the Holocaust

is impossible to measure. The flow-

ering of the Jewish people in the

desert, from the ashes of the Holocaust

and the fulfillment of the dream of a

Jewish homeland after nearly 2,000

years of praying and waiting represents

one of the most heartfelt causes of my

life. And unlike some younger Ameri-

cans, I remember how hard it was to

achieve that dream. I remember

clutching my transistor radio to my

ear in James Madison High School,

1967, during the Six-Day War, won-

dering if Israel would be pushed into

the sea.

If the events of the last few months

have made anything clear, it is that

Israel is surrounded by vicious en-

emies, and there are many people

around the world who excuse and even

support their aims to expel and kill

Jews living in their hard-won land of

refuge.

I will never underestimate the grave

threats Israel faces and has faced for

the entirety of its existence, nor will I

ever underestimate the oppression the

Jewish people have endured for mil-

lennia.

It is precisely out of that long-

standing connection to and concern for

the state of the people of Israel that I

speak today about what I view are the

most pressing existential threats to

Israel’s long-term peace and pros-

perity.

After 5 months of suffering on both

sides of this conflict, our thinking

must turn urgently to how we can

achieve lasting peace and ensure pros-

perity and security for both the Jewish

people and the Palestinian people in

the Middle East.

I believe that to achieve that lasting

peace, which we so long for, Israel

must make some significant course

corrections, which I will outline in this

speech.

But, first, let’s not forget how we ar-

rived at this critical moment. What

Hamas did on October 7 was brutal be-

yond imagination. I have sat with the

families of those killed in the assault.

I have seen the footage and heard the

stories of innocents murdered and

raped and of heartless cruelty. And as

long as I live, I will never forget these

images—this pure and premeditated

evil.

Many of my family members were

killed by Nazis in the Holocaust. Octo-

ber 7 and the shameless response to

support that terrorist attack by some

in America and around the globe have

awakened the deepest fears of the Jew-

ish people: that our annihilation re-

mains a possibility. Today, over 130

hostages remain captive in Gaza. I am

anguished by the plight of so many

hostages still being trapped deep inside

Hamas’s network of tunnels. I pray for

them and for their families who have

inspired me with their tenacious advo-

cacy to ensure their loved ones are not

forgotten. Many of them are Ameri-

cans: Jonathan Dekel-Chen, Hersh

Goldberg-Polin; and some are my con-

stituents in New York: Omer Neutra,

Keith Siegel, and Itay Chen, who we

tragically learned this week was bru-

tally killed on October 7 while serving

near the Gaza border. Hamas still holds

his body. His father gave me this pin,

which I am wearing in remembrance of

him. As well as those of Americans

Judi Weinstein and Gad Haggai.

I have sat with many of these fami-

lies. I have wept with them. Each day

that their loved ones don’t come home

carries enough anguish and grief to

last a lifetime.

I am working in every way I can to

support the Biden administration’s ne-

gotiations to continue to free every

last one of the hostages. I urge every

actor at the table—the Israelis, the

Biden administration, the Qataris, the

Egyptians, and anybody else at the

table—to continue doing everything

possible to get a deal. Hamas has been

given a deal already. They should say

yes. It is no time to waste.

My heart also breaks at the loss of so

many civilian lives in Gaza. I am an-

guished that the Israeli war campaign

has killed so many innocent Palestin-

ians. I know that my fellow Jewish

Americans feel the same anguish when

they see the images of dead and starv-

ing children and destroyed homes.

Gaza is experiencing a humanitarian

catastrophe—entire families wiped out,

whole neighborhoods reduced to rubble,

mass displacement, children suffering.

We should not let the complexities of

this conflict stop us from stating the

plain truth: Palestinian civilians do

not deserve to suffer for the sins of

Hamas, and Israel has a moral obliga-

tion to do better. The United States

has an obligation to do better. I believe

the United States must provide robust

humanitarian aid to Gaza and pressure

the Israelis to let more of it get

through to the people who need it.

Jewish people throughout the cen-

turies have empathized with those who

are suffering and who are oppressed be-

cause we have known so much of that

ourselves. As the Torah teaches us,

every human life is precious; every sin-

gle innocent life lost, whether Israeli

or Palestinian, is a tragedy that, as the

Scripture says, ‘‘destroys an entire

world.’’

What horrifies so many Jews espe-

cially is our sense that Israel is falling

short of upholding these distinctly

Jewish values that we hold so dear. We

must be better than our enemies, lest

we become them.

Israel has a fundamental right to de-

fend itself, but as I have said from the

beginning of this war, how it exercises

that right matters. Israel must

prioritize the protection of civilian

casualties when identifying military

targets. I have repeatedly called upon

the Israeli government to do so.

But it also must be said that Israel

is, by no means, the only one respon-

sible for the immense civilian toll. To

blame only Israel for the deaths of Pal-

estinians is unfair, one-sided, and often

deliberately manipulative. And it ig-

nores Hamas’s role in this conflict.

Hamas has knowingly invited an im-

mense civilian toll during this war.

Their goal on October 7 was to provoke

a tough response from Israel by killing

as many Jews as possible in the most

vicious manner possible—by raping

women, executing babies, desecrating

bodies, brutalizing whole communities.

Since then, Hamas has heartlessly

hidden behind their fellow Palestinians

by turning hospitals into command

centers and refugee camps into missile-

launching sites. It is well documented

that Hamas soldiers use innocent

Gazans as human shields. The leaders

of Hamas, many of whom live lives of

luxury in places far away from the pov-

erty and misfortune of Gaza, do not

care one iota about the Palestinians

for whom they claim to nobly fight.

It bothers me deeply that most media

outlets covering this war and many

protesters opposing it have placed the

blame for civilian casualties entirely

on Israel. All too often in the media

and at protests, it is never noted that

Hamas has gone to great lengths to

make themselves inseparable from the

civilian population of Gaza by using

Palestinians as human shields. Too

many news agencies, television sta-

tions, and newspapers give Hamas a

pass by hardly ever discovering the

shameful practice that is central to

their fighting strategy.

And this has led to an inaccurate per-

ception of the harsh realities of this

war. I believe stories that justifiably

mention loss of innocent Palestinian

life should also note how Hamas uses

civilians as human shields. It almost

never happens.

And I believe that every protest that

justifiably decries the loss of innocent

Palestinian women, men, children

should also denounce Hamas for their

central role in the bloodshed. When

protesters decry the loss of Palestinian

life but never condemn this perfidy, or

the loss of Israeli lives, it confounds

and deeply troubles the vast majority

of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans

alike who support the State of Israel.

Given that Hamas launched their at-

tacks on October 7 to provoke Israel,

given that Hamas sought the ensuing

civilian toll in Gaza, given that Hamas

wanted both Israelis and Arabs to be at

each others’ throats, tensions on both

sides have dramatically intensified.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.003 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2375 March 14, 2024

And, now, as a result of those in-

flamed tensions in both Israeli and Pal-

estinian communities, people on all

sides of this war are turning away from

a two-state solution, including Israel’s

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu,

who in recent weeks has said out loud

repeatedly what many have long sus-

pected by outright rejecting the idea of

Palestinian statehood and sovereignty.

As the highest ranking Jewish elect-

ed official in our government and as a

staunch defender of Israel, I rise today

to say unequivocally: This is a grave

mistake for Israel, for Palestinians, for

the region, and for the world.

The only real and sustainable solu-

tion to this decades-old conflict is a ne-

gotiated two-state solution, a demili-

tarized Palestinian State living side by

side with Israel in equal measures of

peace, security, prosperity, dignity,

and mutual recognition.

Both Jews and Palestinians have

long historic claims to this land. Con-

trary to the unfounded, absurd, and of-

fensive claims by some that the Jewish

people are ‘‘colonizers’’ in their ances-

tral homeland, Jewish people have

lived in the Holy Land continuously for

more than three millennia—3,000 years.

For centuries, Jews have made aliyah

and gone to the land of Israel to live

and settle. For centuries, at Passover,

Jews at every corner of the globe have

prayed: ‘‘Next year in Jerusalem.’’

A Jewish homeland in Israel is no

20th-century contrivance. Israel is our

historic home, a home for people op-

pressed for centuries.

Now, the Palestinians too have lived

on the land for generations, and, in

past centuries, they have formed their

own distinct culture, identity, cuisine,

and literature. The idea espoused by

some that ‘‘there is no such thing as

Palestinians’’ is inaccurate, offensive,

unhelpful.

The only just solution to this predic-

ament is one in which each people can

flourish in their own state, side by

side. But for a two-state solution to

work over the long term, it has to in-

clude real and meaningful compromises

by both sides.

For example, too many Israelis who

say they want a two-state solution

don’t acknowledge how the amount and

extent of expanding settlements ren-

ders that a virtual impossibility. And

too many Palestinians who say they

want a two-state solution don’t ac-

knowledge how their insistence on an

unequivocal ‘‘right of return’’ is a fatal

impediment to progress. Both ways of

thinking are impeding the peace proc-

ess.

And there are others on the left who

view a two-state solution with skep-

ticism as an ideal that will never hap-

pen, a far-off goal that allows for the

continuation of the status quo in Gaza

and the West Bank, where Palestinians

face unique obstacles compared to

their Israeli counterparts. As a result,

they reject a two-state solution in

favor of one state, where Palestinians

and Israelis would supposedly live in

democratic peace, side by side.

I can understand the idealism that

inspires so many young people, in par-

ticular, to support a one-state solution.

Why can’t we all live side by side and

house by house in peace? I count at

least two reasons why this wouldn’t

work and why it is unacceptable to

most Jewish people.

First, this combined state could take

an extreme turn politically, putting

Jewish Israelis in peril. This state

would be majority Palestinian, and, in

the past, some Palestinians have voted

to empower groups like Hamas, which

seeks to eradicate the Jewish people.

It is longstanding American policy to

support democracy overseas, but in

this hypothetical single state, democ-

racy could cost Israeli Jews their safe-

ty if extremists were to take control of

this new state of affairs to ultimately

achieve their true aim: the violent ex-

pulsion of Jews from the Holy Land.

Now, this is no abstract fear. Thou-

sands of years of Jewish history show

that when things go badly, the people

of the country in which Jews live, even

in a democracy, all too often turn on

them as convenient scapegoats.

There is no guarantee this wouldn’t

happen again in a single Israeli-Pales-

tinian state. To have Palestinian vot-

ers be the protectors of Israeli Jews

would be a bridge too far to accept.

Second, and even more important,

the Jewish people have a right to their

own state. It is so troubling to me that

many people, especially on the left,

seem to acknowledge and even cele-

brate this right to statehood for every

group but the Jews.

If a national homeland for all peoples

of the world has been the driving goal

of the anticolonial movement of the

last century, then why are only Jews

seemingly penalized for this aspira-

tion?

Jews have a human right to their

own state, just as any other people do,

Palestinians included.

As I have said, there are also some

Israelis who oppose even a two-state

solution, with a demilitarized Pales-

tinian State, because they fear that it

might tolerate or be a harbor for fur-

ther terrorism against a Jewish State.

I understand these fears, but the bit-

ter reality is that a single state, con-

trolled by Israel, which they advocate,

guarantees certain war forever and fur-

ther isolation of the Jewish commu-

nity in the world, to the extent that its

future would be jeopardized.

Let me elaborate. They say the defi-

nition of insanity is doing the same

thing over and over and expecting a

different result. If Israel were to not

only maintain the status quo but to go

beyond that and tighten its control

over Gaza and the West Bank, as some

in the current Netanyahu administra-

tion have suggested—in effect, creating

a de facto single state—then what rea-

sonable expectation can we have that

Hamas and their allies will lay down

their arms? It would mean constant

war.

On top of that, Israel moving closer

to a single state entirely under its con-

trol would further rupture its relation-

ship with the rest of the world, includ-

ing the United States. Support for

Israel has declined worldwide in the

last few months, and this trend will

only get worse if the Israeli Govern-

ment continues to follow its current

path.

I appreciate that so many Israelis

cannot contemplate the possibility of

two states right now because they re-

main so traumatized and so angry by

what Hamas did on October 7—the bru-

tality, the viciousness, the sexual as-

sault, the imprisonment, and the abuse

of hundreds of hostages. I am, of

course, sympathetic to this point of

view. I am upset; I am angry, too.

We will never forget what happened

on October 7. But even while we carry

that anguish in our hearts, we have to

think ahead to the future—the me-

dium, the long term—how we can en-

sure that something like October 7

never happens again. We cannot let

anger or trauma determine our actions

or cloud our judgment.

A two-state solution may feel

daunting, especially now, but I believe

it is the only realistic and sustainable

solution—on the basis of security, on

the basis of prosperity, on the basis of

fundamental human rights and dignity.

But in order to achieve a two-state

solution, the reality is that things

must change. Right now, there are

four—four—major obstacles standing in

the way of two states, and until they

are removed from the equation, there

will never be peace in Israel and Gaza

and the West Bank.

The four major obstacles are Hamas

and the Palestinians who support and

tolerate their evil ways, radical right-

wing Israelis in government and soci-

ety, Palestinian Authority President

Mahmoud Abbas, and Israeli Prime

Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. I will

explain each in detail.

The first major obstacle to peace is

Hamas and the Palestinians who sup-

port and tolerate their evil ways.

Hamas is for the destruction of Israel,

and, in past decades, it undermined any

hope for peace at every turn.

It was Hamas who began its vicious

campaign of suicide bombings against

innocent Israelis to derail the nascent

peace process in Oslo. It was Hamas

who assassinated more moderate Pales-

tinian political representatives in Gaza

in 2007. It is Hamas who has held Gaza

under repressive, undemocratic rule for

close to two decades. And it is Hamas

who targeted those brave Gazans who

have spoken out against its actions or

tried to bridge the divide between

Israelis and Palestinians.

Jewish Americans and Israelis alike

have been appalled and hurt at efforts

to rebrand Hamas, which is designated

by the United States as a terrorist or-

ganization, as noble resistance or free-

dom fighters. Attempts to excuse their

horrific actions against both Israelis

and Palestinians are morally repug-

nant.

A permanent ceasefire, effective im-

mediately, would only allow Hamas to

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.005 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2376 March 14, 2024

regroup and launch further attacks on

Israeli civilians. There can never be a

two-state solution if Hamas has any

significant power.

However, a temporary ceasefire, such

as President Biden has proposed, which

would allow for the return of hostages

and humanitarian relief for suffering

Palestinians, is quite different and is

something I support.

But any proposal that leaves Hamas

with meaningful power is unacceptable

to me and most Israelis. So it goes

without saying that Hamas cannot

have any role in a future Gaza, if we

are to achieve peace.

The same goes for the minority of

Palestinians who support Hamas and

those who demonstrate other forms of

extremism, even if they are not card-

carrying members—the Gazans who

ventured into Israeli territory on Octo-

ber 7 to loot and pillage, the people in

the West Bank who flooded the streets

and cheered from afar the cold-blooded

killing of mothers and children.

This is appalling behavior, and while

it may fall short of terrorism, it has no

place in a peaceful future for Israel and

Palestinians, and it ought to be de-

nounced by the Palestinian public and

their leaders who believe in a more sus-

tainable future beyond the cycle of re-

venge.

The second major obstacle to peace is

radical, rightwing Israelis in govern-

ment and society. The worst examples

of this radicalism are Finance Minister

Bezalel Smotrich and Ministry of Na-

tional Security Itamar Ben Gvir.

Minister Smotrich has in the past

openly called for the subjugation and

forced displacement of all Palestinians

in the West Bank. In the current crisis,

he has used inflammatory rhetoric and

called for punitive restrictions on Pal-

estinian farmers in the West Bank dur-

ing the olive harvest. He has prevented

the transfer of funds to the Palestinian

Authority, and he has opposed the pro-

vision of any humanitarian assistance

to Gaza, going so far as to stop agreed-

upon shipments of flour.

Minister Ben Gvir is no better. When

he was a young man, he was barred

from the Israeli military service for his

extremist views. Last year, in a move

only intended to antagonize the Mus-

lim population, he visited the Temple

Mount with his supporters, as a brazen

show of force toward Palestinians. And

during this current conflict, he has fa-

cilitated the mass distribution of guns

to far-right settlers, exacerbating in-

stability, fueling violence.

There is a nastiness to what Min-

isters Smotrich and Ben Gvir believe

and how they use their positions of au-

thority and influence, an eagerness to

inflame and provoke that is profoundly

irresponsible and self-destructive.

In my conversations with Israeli

leaders, I have urged them to do more,

to clamp down on the unacceptable vig-

ilante settler violence in the West

Bank. And I have supported the Biden

administration’s efforts to impose con-

sequences for extremist settler vio-

lence.

But the unfortunate reality is that

this violence is openly supported by

Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, and

as long as they hold their positions of

power, no true progress will be made.

While not equivalent, extremist Pal-

estinians and extremist Israelis seek

the same goal, from the Jordan River

to the Mediterranean Sea, they aim to

push the other from the land. Ministers

Smotrich and Ben Gvir may not say

they want to kill all Palestinians out-

right, but they are clear in their desire

to displace them from their homes and

replace them with Israeli settlers. This

is also abhorrent. As long as these two

hold their positions of power, peace

will be difficult, if not impossible, to

achieve.

The third major obstacle to peace is

the President of the Palestinian Au-

thority, Mahmoud Abbas, who is be-

holden to his narrow political inter-

ests, to the detriment of both the West

Bank and Gaza. Over the years, Presi-

dent Abbas has evaded the democratic

process, declining to hold future elec-

tions for over a decade and failing to

empower future leadership. Despite his

long tenure leading the Palestinian Au-

thority, he has achieved few of his self-

proclaimed goals.

The Palestinian Authority remains

corrupt and continues to incite insta-

bility through the martyr payment

system. Palestinians are no more pros-

perous, no safer, no freer than they

were when Abbas first took power. As a

result, President Abbas has lost the

trust of the Palestinian people.

Furthermore, he is a terrible role

model and spiritual leader. In the past,

he has participated in outright Holo-

caust denial, attempting to justify

Nazi actions. This embrace of anti-

Semitism extended to his refusal for

weeks to condemn the loss of Israeli ci-

vilian life on October 7.

Should Abbas remain, Palestinian

people can have no assurance that a

Palestinian State would be able to en-

sure their safety or prosperity, nor can

they have any belief that the govern-

ment would be free of corruption.

For there to be any hope of peace in

the future, Abbas must step down and

be replaced by a new generation of Pal-

estinian leaders who will work towards

attaining peace with the Jewish State.

Otherwise, the West Bank will con-

tinue to suffer, and Hamas or some

similarly extreme organization will

continue to maintain a foothold in

Gaza.

The Palestinian Authority, under

new leadership, must undertake a re-

form process and emerge as a revital-

ized PA that can viably serve as the

basis for a Palestinian State with the

trust of the Palestinian people.

The fourth major obstacle to peace is

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin

Netanyahu, who has all too frequently

bowed to the demands of extremists

like Minister Smotrich and Ben Gvir

and the settlers in the West Bank.

I have known Prime Minister

Netanyahu for a very long time. While

we have vehemently disagreed on many

occasions, I will always respect his ex-

traordinary bravery for Israel on the

battlefield as a younger man. I believe

in his heart he has as his highest pri-

ority the security of Israel.

However, I also believe Prime Min-

ister Netanyahu has lost his way by al-

lowing his political survival to take

precedence over the best interests of

Israel. He has put himself in coalition

with far-right extremists like Min-

isters Smotrich and Ben Gvir, and as a

result, he has been too willing to tol-

erate the civilian toll in Gaza, which is

pushing support for Israel worldwide to

historic lows. Israel cannot survive if it

becomes a pariah.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has also

weakened Israel’s political and moral

fabric through his attempt to co-op the

judiciary, and he has shown zero inter-

est in doing the courageous and vision-

ary work required to pave the way for

peace, even before this present conflict.

As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it

has become clear to me that the

Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the

needs of Israel after October 7. The

world has changed radically since then,

and the Israeli people are being stifled

right now by a governing vision that is

stuck in the past.

Nobody expects Prime Minister

Netanyahu to do the things that must

be done to break the cycle of violence,

to preserve Israel’s credibility on the

world stage, and to work towards a

two-state solution. If he were to dis-

avow Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir

and kick them out of his governing co-

alition, that would be a real meaning-

ful step forward, but regrettably there

is no reason to believe Prime Minister

Netanyahu would do that. He won’t dis-

avow Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir

in their calls for Israelis to drive Pal-

estinians out of Gaza and the West

Bank. He won’t commit to a military

operation in Rafah that prioritizes pro-

tecting civilian life. He won’t engage

responsibly in discussions about a day-

after plan for Gaza and a longer term

pathway to peace.

Hamas and the Palestinians who sup-

port and tolerate their evil ways; rad-

ical, rightwing Israelis in government

and society; President Abbas; Prime

Minister Netanyahu—these are the

four obstacles to peace. If we fail to

overcome them, then Israel and the

West Bank and Gaza will be trapped in

the same violent state of affairs they

have experienced for the last 75 years.

These obstacles are not the same in

their culpability for the present state

of affairs, but arguing over which is the

worst stymies our ability to achieve

peace. Given the complexity and grav-

ity of this undertaking, many different

groups—many different groups—have a

responsibility to see it through.

The Palestinian people must reject

Hamas and the extremism in their

midst. They know better than anybody

how Hamas has used them as pawns,

how Hamas has tortured and punished

Palestinians who seek peace.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.006 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2377 March 14, 2024

Quite frankly, I haven’t heard

enough Palestinian leaders express an-

guish about Hamas and other extreme

elements of Palestinian society. I im-

plore them to speak up now, even when

it may be hardest, because that is the

only true way to honor the lives of all

those lost—by transcending the enmity

and bloodshed and working together in

good faith for a better future.

Once Hamas is deprived of power, the

Palestinians will be much freer to

choose a government they want and de-

serve. With the prospect of a real two-

state solution on the table and, for the

first time, genuine statehood for the

Palestinian people, I believe they will

be far more likely to support more

mainstream leaders committed to

peace.

I think the same is true for the

Israeli people. Call me an optimist, but

I believe that if the Israeli public is

presented with a path to a two-state

solution that offers a chance at lasting

peace and coexistence, then most

mainstream Israelis will moderate

their views and support it.

Part of that moderation must include

rejecting rightwing zealots like Min-

isters Smotrich and Ben Gvir and the

extremist Israeli settlers in the West

Bank. These people do not represent a

majority of the Israeli public. Yet,

under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s

watch, they have had far too much in-

fluence.

All sides must reject ‘‘from the river

to the sea’’ thinking, and I believe they

will if the prospects for peace and a

two-state solution are real.

Beyond the Israeli and Palestinian

people and their leaders, there are oth-

ers who bear a serious responsibility to

work towards a two-state solution.

Without them, it cannot succeed.

Middle Eastern powers like Saudi

Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,

Egypt, Jordan, and other mainstream

Arab states can have immense power

and influence with the Palestinians.

Working with the United States, they

must responsibly deploy their clout,

their money, and their diplomacy to

support a new, demilitarized Pales-

tinian State that rejects terror and vi-

olence. I believe they have the leverage

to do this with the support of the ma-

jority of the Palestinian people, who

want what any other people want:

peace, security, prosperity.

I believe there is enough strength in

the Arab world to get President Abbas

to step down and to support a gradual

succession plan for responsible Pales-

tinian leaders to take his place.

Hamas has so wrecked society in

Gaza that it will take outside involve-

ment of Arab countries to help rebuild

something better and more sustain-

able. It may take some time to identify

such leaders, but with the considerable

resources of the Arab world backing

them, I believe these leaders can and

will emerge, knowing that they have

support.

The outlines of a deal between Saudi

Arabia and Israel that were reported

before October 7 still make a great deal

of sense and can be the catalyst for the

creation of a viable Palestinian State.

Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations

should continue to pursue normaliza-

tion with Israel, and this should be the

foundation of a grand bargain in the

Middle East that will finally make

meaningful Palestinian statehood a re-

ality.

For our part, the United States—the

world’s superpower—must work to-

gether with our allies to bring our im-

mense diplomatic and financial power

to bear on this situation. We can be a

partner to a grand bargain in the Mid-

dle East by deepening our relationship

with the Saudis and other Arab nations

to induce them to make a deal—but

only if they actively guide Palestinians

to a more peaceful future.

On the Israeli side, the U.S. Govern-

ment should demand that Israel con-

duct itself with a future two-state solu-

tion in mind. We should not be forced

into a position of unequivocally sup-

porting the actions of an Israeli Gov-

ernment that include bigots who reject

the idea of a Palestinian State.

Israel is a democracy. Five months

into this conflict, it is clear that

Israelis need to take stock of the situa-

tion and ask: Must we change course?

At this critical juncture, I believe a

new election is the only way to allow

for a healthy and open decision-making

process about the future of Israel, at a

time when so many Israelis have lost

their confidence in the vision and di-

rection of their government. I also be-

lieve a majority of the Israeli public

will recognize the need for change, and

I believe that holding a new election

once the war starts to wind down would

give Israelis an opportunity to express

their vision for the postwar future.

Of course, the United States cannot

dictate the outcome of an election, nor

should we try. That is for the Israeli

public to decide—a public that I believe

understands better than anybody that

Israel cannot hope to succeed as a pa-

riah opposed by the rest of the world.

As a democracy, Israel has the right to

choose its own leaders, and we should

let the chips fall where they may. But

the important thing is that Israelis are

given a choice.

There needs to be a fresh debate

about the future of Israel after October

7. In my opinion, that is best accom-

plished by holding an election.

If Prime Minister Netanyahu’s cur-

rent coalition remains in power after

the war begins to wind down and con-

tinues to pursue dangerous and inflam-

matory policies that test existing U.S.

standards for assistance, then the

United States will have no choice but

to play a more active role in shaping

Israeli policy by using our leverage to

change the present course.

The United States’ bond with Israel

is unbreakable, but if extremists con-

tinue to unduly influence Israeli pol-

icy, then the administration should use

the tools at its disposal to make sure

our support for Israel is aligned with

our broader goal of achieving long-

term peace and stability in the region.

I believe this would make a lasting

two-state solution more likely.

Now, I know that there are many on

both sides who question how we can

discuss peace at a moment like this. So

many Gazans are displaced from their

homes and struggling to meet their

most basic needs. Many are still bury-

ing and mourning their dead. Entire

families have been wiped out. In Israel,

everyone knows someone who was

killed on October 7. So many Israelis

feel that people around the world have

no respect for the grief and rage un-

leashed by Hamas’s vicious attack.

So is there real hope for peace and a

two-state solution? In the face of this

atrocity, who could blame even the

most hopeful among us for hardening

their hearts, for giving up on the possi-

bility of peace, for giving in to the

hate?

I seek my inspiration in the example

of leaders who have come before us and

worked for peace in the face of extreme

circumstances. Some of Israel’s great-

est warriors and security experts have

been staunch advocates for peace be-

cause they understand better than any-

body that it is essential to Israel’s se-

curity. David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak

Rabin, Ehud Barak—all of them sought

peace with the Palestinians.

On the Palestinian side, we don’t

have to look very far back to see a

model of responsible leadership: Salam

Fayyad, the former Prime Minister of

the Palestinian Authority, who was

clear in his condemnation of violence

against the Israelis.

For the Arab leaders of today, may

they find inspiration in Anwar el-Sadat

of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan,

who had the courage and vision to seek

peace with Israel.

Before October 7, things were moving

in the right direction. The United Arab

Emirates and Saudi Arabia both were

on the path to normalization with

Israel and with conditions that would

greatly benefit the lives of the Pales-

tinian people. Many believe that Iran

motivated Hamas to disrupt this proc-

ess, and indeed there have been set-

backs since October 7, but recent talks

between Arab and American leaders

suggest the desire is stronger than ever

now to find a path forward.

Arab leaders cannot lose their stom-

achs for peace now at this critical in-

flection point. They must continue to

pursue the path to normalization of re-

lations with Israel. The United States

should use all of its power and influ-

ence to bring them to the table and

make them cooperate constructively.

If my speaking out today has any ef-

fect, it will probably have greater in-

fluence on the Israeli and Jewish side

of things. But if this conflict is to be

resolved, we need comparable Pales-

tinian and Arab leaders to also speak

responsibly to their people about the

path forward to peace. Now is the time

for courageous leadership.

After Israelis and Palestinians have

experienced so much horror and loss of

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.007 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2378 March 14, 2024

life, to not have something meaningful

come out of this war would be doubly

tragic.

History will look back on what we do

here. Are we prepared together to have

the courage to make an all-out push to

bring about peace once and for all, to

bring to this conflict what Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr., called the ‘‘fierce ur-

gency of now’’ to end the cycles of

tragedy and pain?

I have always said that when horrific

things happen, some turn inwards and

let their grief consume them, while

others light a candle and turn their

grief into power. They are able to see

hope in the darkness.

In Scripture, we read about how God

created the world from an infinite void,

that out of the greatest darkness can

come the greatest light. I hope and

pray that from the brutal slaying of

Israelis by Hamas and the harrowing

civilian toll in Gaza, that a two-state

solution where Jews and Palestinians

can live in peace will prevail.

I know I am not alone in this prayer.

There are right now Palestinians in

Gaza, some of whom are still pulling

dead family members from the rubble,

who are defying Hamas and their mur-

derous ideology and calling for a path-

way to peace. There are right now

some families of the victims of October

7 in Israel who have been calling for

peace, asking their government to

transcend this cycle of bloodshed and

revenge. If they can find in their hearts

a path to peace, then surely we can

also.

From the ashes, may we light the

candles that lead to a better future for

all.

I yield the floor.

RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

UJA

). The Republican leader is rec-

ognized.

Mr. M

CONNELL. Mr. President, the

Jewish State of Israel deserves an ally

that acts like one. The people of Israel,

at home and in captivity, deserve

America’s support; and Israel’s unity

government and security cabinet de-

serve the deference befitting a sov-

ereign democratic country.

The primary obstacles to peace in

Israel’s region are genocidal terrorists,

like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic

Jihad, who slaughter innocent people

and corrupt leaders of the Palestinian

Authority, who have repeatedly—re-

peatedly—rejected peace deals from

multiple Israeli Governments.

And foreign observers who cannot

keep these clear distinctions straight

ought to refrain from weighing in. It is

grotesque and hypocritical for Ameri-

cans who hyperventilate about foreign

interference in our own democracy to

call for the removal of a democrat-

ically elected leader of Israel. This is

unprecedented. We should not treat fel-

low democracies this way at all.

Things that upset leftwing activists

are not a Prime Minister’s policies;

they are Israel’s policies. Make no mis-

take, the Democratic Party doesn’t

have an anti-Bibi problem; it has an

anti-Israel problem. Israel is not a col-

ony of America whose leaders serve at

the pleasure of the party in power in

Washington. Only Israel’s citizens

should have a say in who runs their

government. This is the very definition

of democracy and sovereignty. Either

we respect their decisions or we dis-

respect their democracy.

UKRAINE

Now, Mr. President, on another en-

tirely different matter, this week,

Vladimir Putin himself responded to

reports of weakening Western resolve

to stand with Ukraine and of ammuni-

tion shortages on the frontlines.

Here is what Putin had to say:

It would be ridiculous for us to start nego-

tiating with Ukraine just because it’s run-

ning out of ammunition.

The chilling reality here is abun-

dantly clear: Withholding critical

weapons has not helped manage Putin’s

escalation—it has only emboldened

him.

The administration that hesitated

and wrung its hands through the early

days of Russian escalation actually

emboldened Putin, and it ought to be a

lesson to those who insist—without

firm footing in its strategy or logic—

that withholding lethal assistance

would somehow hasten an acceptable

negotiated settlement to the conflict.

I have said too many times to count

that America’s adversaries only speak

the language of power. But our col-

leagues don’t have to take my word for

it. Just take it straight from the dic-

tator’s mouth. Vladimir Putin is not

playing for a tie. He is not headed for

the negotiating table. He will not stop

at Ukraine. He has told us, and he has

shown us many times.

Whether or not you are willing to

take the architect of the neo-Soviet

Empire at his word, the facts remain

the same: Equipping Ukraine for bat-

tlefield success is the surest way to

help our friends resolve this war from a

position of strength.

Backing Ukraine as it degrades our

common adversary’s military also

strengthens America’s interests, and

investing in our own military and our

own defense industrial capacity at the

same time just makes common sense.

It is time for the House to take up the

Senate-passed national security sup-

plemental and finish the job.

(The remarks of Mr. M

ONNELL

per-

taining to the introduction of S.J. Res.

65 are printed in today’s R

ECORD

under

‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and

Joint Resolutions.’’)

NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS

Mr. M

CONNELL. Mr. President, on

another matter, I would like to speak

briefly on a practice in our Nation’s

courts that has confounded administra-

tions of both parties with increasing

frequency over the past decade. It is

the issuance of nationwide injunctions.

Time after time, district judges will

respond to a case challenging a Federal

law by preventing its application not

just to the parties before them or with-

in their jurisdictions but nationwide.

During the last administration, At-

torneys General Sessions and Barr

issued policy and litigation guidance

on the issue to try and pare it back.

Senator C

OTTON

introduced a bill to

eliminate the practice by statute; and

Chairman G

RAHAM

was eager to move

the Cotton bill, but Senate Democrats

were not. In fact, their star witness in

support of nationwide injunctions is

now a Federal judge in the District of

Columbia.

Rather than working with Repub-

licans to eliminate a practice that

gores the oxen of both parties, it turns

out our colleagues prefer to preserve it

just for themselves.

Now that nationwide injunctions are

being used against the Biden adminis-

tration, liberal allies in the academy

and in the media have started to ‘‘tar-

get single judge divisions,’’ where they

think conservative plaintiffs are likely

to get favorable ratings from sympa-

thetic judges.

The Democratic leader even wrote to

the Judicial Conference demanding ac-

tion against the scourge of judges who

don’t rule in favor of the Biden admin-

istration. In other words, he urged the

Conference to keep the injunctions and

just restrict the access to conservative

judges.

It seems the Judicial Conference

took the bait. On Tuesday, they in-

structed district courts to assign all

cases seeking to invalidate State or

Federal law randomly across the dis-

trict in which they were brought. This

will have no practical effect in the

venues favored by liberal activists, but

Democrats are salivating at the possi-

bility of shutting down access to jus-

tice in the venues favored by conserv-

atives.

What will this do in practice? It

means the young woman challenging

Texas abortion laws in Austin can now

be forced, for no good reason, to have

her case heard in El Paso. A veteran

defending his Second Amendment

rights in Youngstown can be sent to

Toledo to have his day in court. In

Kentucky, a coal miner challenging

labor regulations in London could find

his case handed to a judge in Cov-

ington—all to prevent so-called judge

shopping.

But didn’t Chief Justice Roberts say,

‘‘There are not Obama judges or Trump

judges’’? What exactly is the problem

that demands such a drastic solution?

Here is what this policy won’t do: It

won’t solve the issues caused by na-

tionwide injunctions. If Democrats are

right about the practical effects of this

policy, any remaining incentive they

have to work with Republicans on this

issue will vanish—‘‘Nationwide injunc-

tions for me, but not for thee.’’

Needless to say, if Republicans see a

Federal judiciary that is using its pro-

cedural independence to wade into po-

litical disputes, any incentive we may

have to defend the procedural inde-

pendence will vanish as well.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.009 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2379 March 14, 2024

This was an unforced error by the Ju-

dicial Conference. I hope they will re-

consider, and I hope district courts

throughout the country will instead

weigh what is best for their jurisdic-

tions, not half-baked ‘‘guidance’’ that

just does Washington Democrats’ bid-

ding.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma-

jority whip.

(The remarks of Mr. D

URBIN

per-

taining to the submission of S. 3961 are

printed in today’s R

ECORD

under ‘‘Sub-

mitted Resolutions.’’)

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Re-

publican whip.

PRESIDENT BIDEN

’

S BUDGET

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, President

Biden released his budget on Monday,

and, predictably, it was filled with the

same old, tired, tax-and-spending pro-

posals—so much spending and so many

taxes.

All told, the President’s budget

raises taxes by a staggering $5 trillion.

You heard that right—$5 trillion. His

corporate tax hike and capital gains

tax proposals would both raise rates

higher than those in communist China.

Many small businesses would see a

hefty tax hike under the President’s

proposal, and most Americans would

see an income tax hike, as his budget

would allow current income tax rates

to expire after 2025—so much for the

President’s commitment to not raising

taxes for anyone making under $400,000.

Something President Biden and

Democrats never seem to understand is

that raising taxes has consequences.

The corporate tax hike that President

Biden would like you to believe will be

borne by CEOs and CFOs—in fact, that

tax hike would hit working Americans

hard.

Studies have shown that workers

bear a huge percentage of the burden of

corporate income taxes. Impacts aren’t

just limited to workers employed by

corporations. Corporate tax hikes can

hit all Americans in the form of higher

prices for goods and services.

Or take President Biden’s proposed

tax hike on gas and oil, which would be

on top—on top—of the energy tax hikes

he has already imposed. Taxing energy

can drive up the cost of Americans’ en-

ergy bills and make it more expensive

every time Americans have to fill up

their cars—not exactly a desirable out-

come when Americans have already

seen huge increases in energy prices

under President Biden.

As I said, all of those tax hikes are

accompanied by a lot of new spending

proposals as President Biden continues

his mission to increase the size—and

the intrusiveness—of the Federal Gov-

ernment. His budget includes massive

new spending programs and big in-

creases for government departments

and Agencies like the IRS.

Yet even as the President uses budg-

et gimmicks and accounting tricks to

blow through the nondefense spending

cap for 2025, he makes no attempt to

use any of his budgeting sleight of

hand to address the serious readiness

problems facing our military.

The President spent ample time in

his State of the Union Address talking

about the dangerous world in which we

live, and he is right. Yet his budget

makes little attempt to ensure that

our military is equipped to meet that

dangerous world. We have military

services well below their recruitment

targets. We are behind on shipbuilding

and ship maintenance. There is a per-

sistent pilot shortage. In a number of

cases, we have too few mission-capable

aircraft. And we are not doing an ade-

quate job of maintaining the kind of

supply we need of munitions. Yet

President Biden is happy to blow

through the nondefense spending cap

but can’t find an extra dollar in his

budget for our military. It says a lot

about the President’s priorities.

It is also worth noting that the Presi-

dent’s budget makes absolutely no at-

tempt to ensure that Social Security is

protected for current and future retir-

ees. With Social Security on track to

run out of money to pay full benefits in

2033, you would think that the Presi-

dent would be focused on safeguarding

this program rather than creating new

government programs that have to be

funded. But, clearly, you would be

wrong.

This year, the interest on our na-

tional debt is projected to cost more

than any government expenditure ex-

cept Social Security. Let me just re-

peat that. This year, the interest on

our national debt is projected to cost

more than any government expenditure

except Social Security. That is just the

interest on our debt. When the interest

alone on your national debt is the sec-

ond highest line item in your budget,

you know you are on an unsustainable

fiscal path. And it is the height of fis-

cal irresponsibility for the President to

be proposing massive new government

programs when we are going into debt

just to afford the ones we already have.

I could go on. I could talk about the

President’s request for $8 billion to

hire an additional 50,000 Americans for

his Climate Corps, like so-called ‘‘cli-

mate resilience workers,’’ or I could

talk about the President’s attempt to

force American taxpayers to pay for

abortions or the eye-wateringly large

funding increase the President wants

for the IRS.

But I will stop here. And I hope—I

hope—my colleagues will agree that,

for the sake of the American people,

the President’s budget should be dead

on arrival here in the Congress.

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. BUDD. Mr. President, I ask unan-

imous consent that the order for the

quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST

—

7511

Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, there have

been more than 9 million illegal alien

border crossings on President Biden’s

watch. At the same time, there has

been a 57-percent decrease in arrests of

criminal illegal aliens and a 67-percent

decrease in deportation of criminal

aliens.

This complete lack of enforcement of

existing law has caused unimaginable

human suffering across our country.

One such tragedy occurred last month

in Athens, GA. An illegal alien from

Venezuela brutally murdered 22-year-

old nursing student Laken Riley on the

campus of the University of Georgia.

What makes this story all the more

devastating was that the killer could

have been stopped but wasn’t.

So how on Earth was this tragedy

even allowed to take place? Well, here

is the timeline. The killer illegally en-

tered the United States in September

of 2022 in El Paso, TX. He was caught,

but then he was paroled into the coun-

try. He then made his way to New York

City, where he was arrested for child

endangerment in 2023, but then he was

released. He then fled to Georgia,

where he committed several petty

crimes like theft and shoplifting. He

was not detained by ICE. Then came

the tragedy of February 22, where he

preyed on an innocent young woman

jogging around a university campus.

This was allowed to take place be-

cause of the open border policies of

President Biden. It took place because

executive Agencies are given discretion

to determine what crimes trigger a de-

tainer to be issued to take an illegal

alien into custody. The ‘‘discretion

loophole’’ has got to be closed. And

that is why we are here today: to make

sure these tragedies never happen

again.

In Laken’s honor, Senator K

ATIE

RITT

of Alabama and I have teamed

up to introduce the Laken Riley Act.

This bill would require ICE to issue de-

tainers and take into custody illegal

aliens who commit crimes like theft

and shoplifting. The legislation also

empowers state attorneys general to

sue the Secretary of Homeland Secu-

rity for taking actions on immigration

that harm their States or their citi-

zens.

The bottom line: If this bill were in

place before February 22, Laken Riley

would be alive today.

The House of Representatives passed

this bill last week in a bipartisan—

again, a bipartisan—vote of 251 to 70,

including 37 Democrats. In a time of di-

vision and polarization, the Laken

Riley Act brought both sides together.

It is our hope that we can learn from

this horrific situation and make some

positive change. So let’s pass the

Laken Riley Act today.

Mr. President, I would like to yield

to my colleague from Indiana.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Indiana.

Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, on Feb-

ruary 22, a 22-year-old nursing student

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.012 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2380 March 14, 2024

named Laken Riley went for a morning

run on a popular trail. Despite doing

everything right—informing her

friends of her expected return time and

sharing her location with them—Laken

never made it home. Her life was stolen

by an illegal alien who should have

never been in the country.

The President’s open border policies

are solely behind it. Remember, before

he came in, we were at record lows.

Now, we are at record highs. We are

even talking about categories we didn’t

have before, like ‘‘got-aways.’’ It is a

national security risk that has come

into this country when, currently,

monthly, 50,000 to 60,000 people never

confront the Border Patrol—not to

mention the 200,000 to 300,000 who do.

This individual had been arrested in

New York for a felony. The loss of

Laken Riley was an avoidable tragedy

inflicted by President Biden and his

policies. These policies allow illegal

aliens like Laken Riley’s killer to

roam free even after committing

crimes.

The Laken Riley Act demands the

immediate deportation of illegal aliens

when they are arrested for a crime. It

makes sense.

For those with concerns about due

process, remember, we are talking

about individuals with zero legal right

to be in the United States in the first

place. Retainers for ICE deportation

should already be issued in these cases

but aren’t, in many cases, due to sanc-

tuary city status.

We should honor Laken Riley’s mem-

ory by assuring that no other family

ever has to endure this heartache.

Pass the Laken Riley Act.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from North Carolina.

Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, I would

like to further yield to my colleague

from Kansas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Kansas.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I

would like to start by thanking Sen-

ator B

UDD

for leading this very impor-

tant issue to the Senate floor.

We rise today to honor and pay our

respects to the late Laken Riley and

her family and to mourn with her fam-

ily.

Today, we call on this Chamber to

come together to ensure this never

happens again.

Laken Hope Riley. Laken Hope Riley

was a beautiful young woman in the

prime of her life. She was brutally

murdered in broad daylight while jog-

ging on the University of Georgia’s

campus.

Her alleged murderer, a Venezuelan

illegal alien, was one of 2 million peo-

ple paroled by Joe Biden—one of 2 mil-

lion. Ironically, he was welcomed here

on United States soil by this President

and his egregious open border policies.

He was stopped by the U.S. Border

Patrol in 2022 when he crossed into

Texas illegally, but because of the

Biden administration’s unlawful mass

parole of illegal aliens, he was per-

mitted into our country. From Texas,

he moved to New York, where he was

arrested by the New York Police De-

partment last year for acting in a man-

ner to injure a child and for a motor

vehicle violation. But he was quickly

released and never turned over to ICE

for deportation. Instead, he was re-

leased by police before a detainer could

ever be issued by DHS, and he was al-

lowed to roam freely.

Then he journeyed on to Athens, GA.

And now we understand that the al-

leged assailant was a member of a vio-

lent Venezuelan gang.

How can we ever identify who those

people are when 10,000 people are cross-

ing our border every day? How can the

Border Patrol possibly vet these people

in a proper manner?

Just like so many other unvetted mi-

grants living in the country right now,

this man was handed the American

dream—the American dream that

Laken Riley should be living right

now.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from North Carolina.

Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, it is for

the reasons articulated by my friend

and colleague from Kansas and my

friend and colleague from Indiana that,

as in legislative session, I ask unani-

mous consent that the Senate proceed

to the immediate consideration of Cal-

endar No. 341, H.R. 7511; that the bill be

considered read a third time and

passed; and that the motion to recon-

sider be considered made and laid upon

the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection?

The majority whip.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserv-

ing the right to object, the death of

Laken Riley was a horrible crime—hor-

rible crime—and a heartbreaking loss.

This 22-year-old American nursing stu-

dent at Augusta University in Georgia,

I am certain, would have made Amer-

ica a better place with her life and con-

tribution to our country. But, instead,

she was taken from us on February 22,

2024.

A suspect has been arrested and may,

ultimately, be tried for this crime.

That is as it should be. That is how we

follow the law in the United States.

But when you look at the request be-

fore us, it gives me pause. We can all

agree that noncitizens who are con-

victed of violent crimes should be de-

tained and removed from the United

States. Sadly, the measure before us

does nothing to address this issue.

Under current law in the United

States of America, noncitizens who

enter the country illegally, violate the

terms of their status, or have their

visas revoked can be detained by offi-

cials from Immigration and Customs

Enforcement—better known as ICE—as

they should be. Current law also re-

quires the detention of individuals with

serious criminal convictions and those

who have committed murder, rape, or

any—any—crime of violence or theft

offense with a term of imprisonment of

at least 1 year, as they should be.

The law also gives ICE the discretion

to detain or release a noncitizen in any

case where a noncitizen has been

charged with a crime, as they should

be. To make this decision, ICE must as-

sess the individual circumstances of

the case and ensure the Agency’s lim-

ited resources are used effectively to

focus on protecting our national secu-

rity and public safety, as they should

be.

Remember, the vast majority of Re-

publicans, including the sponsors of

this measure, recently blocked a na-

tional security supplemental bill that

would have given ICE more funding to

detain undocumented immigrants who

might pose a threat to our country.

The sweeping approach in the bill be-

fore us would eliminate the Agency’s

discretion to prioritize the most dan-

gerous individuals and require ICE to

treat those arrested for shoplifting the

same as those convicted of violent

crimes. Let me repeat that—require

ICE to treat those arrested for shop-

lifting the same as those convicted of

violent crimes. This would overwhelm

ICE’s capacity and facilities and make

our Nation less, not more, safe.

For example, this proposal before us

would require ICE to detain every im-

migrant who is arrested for shoplifting,

even if the charges are ultimately

dropped and don’t lead to a conviction.

Remember, this bill does not require a

charge or a conviction. Tell me, does it

make sense to treat a noncitizen ar-

rested for shoplifting the same as

someone convicted of murder? I think

we all know the answer to that ques-

tion.

This bill goes into another area

which hasn’t been discussed much—

which is hard to imagine—but this bill

would grant State attorneys general

the standing to sue Federal immigra-

tion authorities if a State disagrees

with immigration enforcement deci-

sions made by the Federal Govern-

ment. I think, on its face, it is uncon-

stitutional.

For example, this bill would give a

State attorney general the standing to

challenge the use of parole authority—

for example, like Uniting for Ukraine,

which allowed Ukrainians to flee

Putin’s war to come to the United

States—if a State can prove it had an

impact of $100 for the Federal Govern-

ment to make that decision.

Laken Riley’s murder was a tragedy.

We must do everything we can to pre-

vent crimes like this from happening.

But this legislation would make our

system less safe.

The reality is that most immigrants

in the United States are law-abiding

individuals who are seeking a better

life in this country. Many studies have

shown that immigrants are less likely

to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.

Mr. President, you know personally

from your own experience in Congress

that it has been more than 30 years

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.014 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2381 March 14, 2024

since we have seriously considered an

immigration reform bill. We had a

chance, didn’t we, just a few weeks

ago? There was a bipartisan group—and

the White House was part of it—that

wanted to sit down and change the im-

migration and border security laws of

the United States.

The Republican effort in this regard

was led by J

AMES

ANKFORD

, a conserv-

ative, respected Republican from Okla-

homa, and on our side, Senators M

PHY

and S

INEMA

, who negotiated for

weeks, week after week, to come up

with a proposal. The notion was to fi-

nally address the border security of the

United States in a comprehensive, bi-

partisan, realistic way. It was con-

troversial. There were some parts of it

that I didn’t care for at all. But I

thought this was a good-faith, bipar-

tisan effort.

We were assured that because the Re-

publican Senators had chosen Senator

ANKFORD

as their negotiator, that it

at least would entertain some support

on the Republican side. We called the

measure on the floor, and it failed be-

cause the Republicans would not join

the Democrats in engaging in this bi-

partisan effort.

The issues raised this morning by

Senator B

UDD

could have been re-

solved, perhaps, if we would have had

that kind of bipartisan negotiation,

but it didn’t happen.

I had my concerns about the deal,

but it certainly should have moved for-

ward.

When it came to a vote, the vast ma-

jority of Republicans opposed it at the

request of former President Donald

Trump, who urged a ‘‘no’’ vote, who

wanted the measure to stop and not be

considered and moved forward and said:

Go ahead and blame me for it.

Well, I am blaming you for it, and I

am blaming those who stepped away

from this bipartisan opportunity.

Donald Trump has made clear that

he does not want a solution to our

challenges at the border; he wants an

issue for the November election. So we

stepped away from it—the only real-

istic chance to have a bipartisan solu-

tion.

I urge my colleagues to reject Donald

Trump’s advice. Let’s get back to the

table. Let’s consider the issues raised

by the Senator this morning and other

issues that are important and make a

bipartisan decision to move forward to

solve this problem.

I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec-

tion is heard.

The Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, I am deep-

ly disappointed in my Democratic col-

leagues for objecting to a bill that, had

it been in place, Laken Riley’s life

would have been spared. The Demo-

cratic Party’s commitment to open

borders is causing otherwise prevent-

able tragedies to occur again and again

and again.

But while we are here, let me address

some of the counterarguments that we

have heard.

One contention is that this bill would

apply to individuals merely accused of

a crime, robbing them of due process.

Well, the fact that illegal aliens are

freely roaming around the country in

and of itself is illegal. If they then

commit another crime, authorities are

well within their rights to detain them.

The law that this bill would

strengthen already requires detention

for those who have been involved in

various acts, such as drug trafficking,

prostitution, and other vices, regard-

less of whether or not they have been

convicted.

Opponents of this bill don’t just have

a problem with this bill; they have a

problem with well-established laws on

the books.

Another argument that I have heard

is that this bill would violate the Con-

stitution’s standing requirements to

file lawsuits.

The Supreme Court in the United

States v. Texas provided a clear road-

map for Congress to authorize lawsuits

against the executive branch for failing

to enforce the law. The bill follows

that roadmap and upholds the Con-

stitution’s separation of powers.

The bill authorizes a state attorney

general or other authorized officer to

bring a lawsuit against executive

branch officials for failure to enforce

immigration laws in a manner that

harms such State or its residents. The

bill authorizes a Federal court to grant

appropriate injunctive relief. This bill

does not prejudge the result of any case

or tie a judge’s hands. The bill simply

ensures that States are given their day

in court to protect their citizens

against the harmful, lawless, open bor-

der policies of the Biden administra-

tion.

I simply don’t believe that another

American family needs to experience a

tragedy like the one that befell the

Riley family. I am going to continue to

work with my colleague from Alabama,

Senator B

RITT

, and all my colleagues

to push this legislation until it passes

this Chamber.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Maryland.

NOMINATION OF DENNIS HANKINS

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it has

been almost a year since President

Biden nominated Dennis Hankins to be

the U.S. Ambassador to Haiti. In that

time, Haiti has gone from a tenuous

political situation into a security and

humanitarian catastrophe.

Vicious gangs, armed largely with

weapons trafficked from the United

States, have plunged the country into

chaos. They have burned government

buildings. They have attacked police

stations. While the Prime Minister was

out of the country to facilitate an

international peacekeeping mission,

gangs led a massive jailbreak, releas-

ing nearly 4,000 prisoners. Mr. Presi-

dent, 15,000 Haitians have been forced

to flee their homes. Almost half of the

population is facing a food insecurity

crisis. And this is within a very short

distance of the United States of Amer-

ica. Thousands have been murdered,

hundreds kidnapped. According to U.N.

officials, gangs have used collective

rapes to instill fear, punish, subjugate,

and inflict pain.

We are on the verge of having a failed

state roughly 800 miles from our

shores.

Secretary Blinken was in Kingston

this week to help broker a political

agreement with other partners in the

region—an agreement for a political

path forward that includes the creation

of a transitional Presidential council

following the resignation of the Prime

Minister.

I am pleased that we are finally vot-

ing on Ambassador Hankins’ nomina-

tion so he can start doing the job he

was nominated for, but it has taken us

way too long to get to this point. I am

pleased that we are voting on his nomi-

nation. It should have been done well

before now.

I mentioned this week my meeting

with General Richardson, our

SOUTHCOM commander, as to how

critical it is in our hemisphere and

around the world to have confirmed

Ambassadors to speak on behalf of

America.

We want to have a strong voice on

what is happening in Haiti, but how

can we have that if we don’t take ad-

vantage of having a confirmed Ambas-

sador? I am glad we are correcting that

today. This nomination has been held

up for reasons that have nothing to do

with Haiti and nothing to do with the

qualifications or experience of the

nominee.

U.S. leadership matters, especially in

a country so close to our border. We

need Senate-confirmed Ambassadors on

the ground who can work with Haitian

leaders and diplomats in the region to

lay the groundwork for a transitional

unity government.

We need someone who understands

the depths of the humanitarian suf-

fering, which, if not addressed, will

lead to thousands of Haitians seeking

refuge at our southern border.

Most importantly, we need someone

who can help coordinate once the Ken-

yan-led Multinational Security Sup-

port Mission is in place, which will be

critical to restoring security. We need

that multinational security force in

place, but we need our voice to make

sure they can be successful.

In Haiti—in this region and through-

out the world—we need to have con-

firmed Ambassadors. Ambassador

Hankins has more than two decades of

Foreign Service experience. He has

served in some of the most complex,

crisis-prone situations in the world, in-

cluding in Haiti.

In 2015, he was confirmed as Ambas-

sador to Guinea by unanimous con-

sent—unanimous consent. He was pre-

viously confirmed. He has the experi-

ence and the vision to guide this proc-

ess forward and advance U.S. national

interests.

I want to call on my colleagues to

support the administration’s out-

standing funding request for Haiti. Not

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.016 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2382 March 14, 2024

only do we need to get the Ambassador

confirmed, but we need to have our

contributions available so that the

multinational force that Kenya is lead-

ing can be deployed and we can start to

restore order in Haiti so that a transi-

tional government has a possibility of

restoring the order necessary to avoid

the current crisis and be able to ad-

dress the humanitarian needs and sta-

bility that the people of Haiti so badly

need. But it starts with us confirming

the Ambassador, and we have a chance

to do that with this next vote.

I am pleased that we have this oppor-

tunity today, and I urge my colleagues

to support this nomination.

VOTE ON HANKINS NOMINATION

With that, I ask unanimous consent

that the vote that was supposed to

start at 12 noon start immediately.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The question is, Will the Senate ad-

vise and consent to the Hankins nomi-

nation?

Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and

nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a

sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient sec-

ond.

The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk

called the roll.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the

Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. M

KEY

) and the Senator from New Hamp-

shire (Mrs. S

HAHEEN

) are necessarily

absent.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators

are necessarily absent: the Senator

from Arkansas (Mr. B

OOZMAN

), the Sen-

ator from Arkansas (Mr. C

OTTON

), the

Senator from North Dakota (Mr.

RAMER

), the Senator from Montana

(Mr. D

AINES

), the Senator from Okla-

homa (Mr. M

ULLIN

), the Senator from

Florida (Mr. R

UBIO

), the Senator from

South Carolina (Mr. S

COTT

), and the

Senator from Alaska (Mr. S

ULLIVAN

The result was announced—yeas 89,

nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Ex.]

YEAS—89

Baldwin

Barrasso

Bennet

Blackburn

Blumenthal

Booker

Braun

Britt

Brown

Budd

Butler

Cantwell

Capito

Cardin

Carper

Casey

Cassidy

Collins

Coons

Cornyn

Cortez Masto

Crapo

Cruz

Duckworth

Durbin

Ernst

Fetterman

Fischer

Gillibrand

Graham

Grassley

Hagerty

Hassan

Hawley

Heinrich

Hickenlooper

Hirono

Hoeven

Hyde-Smith

Johnson

Kaine

Kelly

King

Klobuchar

Lankford

Lee

Luja

Lummis

Manchin

Marshall

McConnell

Menendez

Merkley

Moran

Murkowski

Murphy

Murray

Ossoff

Padilla

Paul

Peters

Reed

Ricketts

Risch

Romney

Rosen

Rounds

Sanders

Schatz

Schmitt

Schumer

Scott (FL)

Sinema

Smith

Stabenow

Tester

Thune

Tillis

Tuberville

Van Hollen

Vance

Warner

Warnock

Warren

Welch

Whitehouse

Wicker

Wyden

Young

NAYS—1

Kennedy

NOT VOTING—10

Boozman

Cotton

Cramer

Daines

Markey

Mullin

Rubio

Scott (SC)

Shaheen

Sullivan

The nomination was confirmed.

(Mr. KING assumed the Chair.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ETERS

). Under the previous order, the

motion to reconsider is considered

made and laid upon the table, and the

President will be immediately notified

of the Senate’s action.

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the Senate will re-

sume consideration of the following

nomination, which the clerk will re-

port.

The legislative clerk read the nomi-

nation of Nicole G. Berner, of Mary-

land, to be United States Circuit Judge

for the Fourth Circuit.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Alaska.

TRIBUTE TO DALLAS SEAVEY

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

am here today for a really fun update.

Some of you have been here before

when I have had occasion to speak

about the Last Great Race. The Last

Great Race in Alaska is really all

about the Iditarod.

I note the presence of my friend from

Vermont, who was sitting where the

Presiding Officer is last year, and he

was so captivated by the story of the

Iditarod. He said: Lisa, when you come

back and you give the great announce-

ment, let me know.

So I am pleased to be able to regale

you with yet another Iditarod.

This is an extraordinary tradition—

51 years in Alaska—where dogs and

mushers have left the starting in the

Willow, Wasilla area to head north on

an almost 1,000-mile—and in some

years, an over 1,000-mile race—test of a

musher and K–9 against all of the ele-

ments.

And it is always a bit exciting, but

this year, I am really excited to be able

to announce that we have made history

yet again with the Iditarod Trail Sled

Dog Race. Dallas Seavey has won for

the sixth time in a row. This is the

first time any musher has ever won

more than five Iditarods. This extraor-

dinary young man from an extraor-

dinary mushing family has made his-

tory in a way that is absolutely worth

celebrating.

Again, for those who are not familiar

with the Iditarod, it is about a 1,000-

mile sled dog race. It goes from the An-

chorage area, where we host the cere-

monial start—I was there a couple of

weeks ago—and then they begin their

actual race the following day, on Sun-

day.

They proceed all the way up to

Nome, and this is not easy terrain. You

are going over mountains. You are

going over ice on the ocean. You are

going over rivers. The terrain is chal-

lenging, and, certainly, the tempera-

tures are challenging. This year has

been a test for all of our mushers. On

certain parts of the trail, they were

seeing temperatures down in the nega-

tive 40 degrees. When you get yourself

moving behind a dog team and get that

wind in your face, it is no pleasant

journey by any stretch of the imagina-

tion. It is tough. It tests the mushers.

It tests the canine athletes. But it is

an extraordinary, extraordinary race

that was based off of a relay effort to

get diphtheria serum to Nome during

an outbreak in the 1920s. We no longer

carry the diphtheria serum, but we

carry strong messages about, again,

the role of working dogs, the role that

mushers and their teams have had in a

State like Alaska.

I want to speak a little bit about the

Seavey family because, as we are cele-

brating and recognizing Dallas’s ex-

traordinary achievements, having won

now six Iditarods, it is important to

know that he comes to this race with

the Iditarod literally in his veins.

The family tradition started back in

1973. This was the very first Iditarod,

and Dallas’s grandfather participated

in that race. Dan Seavey ran the very

first Iditarod. He ended up placing

third—pretty respectable, absolutely—

but he stayed with it. He stayed with

the Iditarod, and he raced in four addi-

tional Iditarod races.

Then there is Dan’s son, Mitch

Seavey, who took the reins from his

dad. He started his own racing kennel,

and Mitch went on to win three

Iditarods himself. He raced in a total of

28 different Iditarods. That is a lot of

racing. That is a commitment to the

race.

Mitch had four sons, three of which

have taken on the Iditarod themselves.

The oldest, Danny Seavey, raced three

times in the Iditarod; Tyrell Seavey, he

has raced twice; and then, of course,

Dallas, who has competed in a total of

14 Iditarods. I think it is also worth

noting that Dallas’s wife, Jen, has also

herself competed in the Iditarod. So

this is a family, again, who is extraor-

dinarily committed and dedicated to

dog racing and, particularly, with the

Iditarod.

I think it is somewhat unique to

know that it was just a couple of years

ago that Dallas and Mitch—his dad—

were competing in the same race. How

many different sports activities, com-

petitions—intense competitions—do

you see a father and a son as competi-

tors? It is really quite remarkable how

the Seaveys came to this race and how

they have committed to it.

When Dallas started racing in the

Iditarod, he was the youngest compet-

itor when he entered the race. It was

just 2 weeks before his 18th birthday.

So he started pretty young and has

stayed in it since 2005.

At 25, he became the youngest com-

petitor to win the Iditarod. He also

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:07 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.017 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2383 March 14, 2024

holds the record for the fastest Iditarod

ran. This was set back in 2021. In that

race—the fastest race ever—he com-

pleted that race in 7 days, 14 hours, and

51 seconds—7 days to race 1,000 miles.

So, now, with his sixth win, he has

overtaken another five-time champion,

Rick Swenson, for the most Iditarod

championships of all.

Dallas is going to be inducted into

the Alaska Sports Hall of Fame this

year, which, again, is certainly appro-

priate, given all of his accomplish-

ments.

One of the things that is so great

about the Iditarod, one of the things

that is so great about these mushers, is

they will tell you: It is not about me.

I am the individual who is standing on

the sled. I am making sure that they

are getting the water, the food, the

rest that they need. But this is about

the mushers. This is about the canine

athletes.

Dallas gives due credit to the lead

dogs that got him through the race:

Arrow, Sebastian, and occasionally,

one of his older dogs, Prophet. He kind

of joked. He says: You know, just about

every dog on my team could be that

leader—except one. Frank, apparently,

is the name of the one. Dallas says: Not

that he won’t do it. He will run right

up there. I just don’t trust him. He

would rather pee on things. That is

Frank. He runs in the back.

So we all have different challenges

with friends and people who we work

with. And sometimes the people who

we work with are not people, but they

are dogs. Frank is exactly in the place

that he needs to be.

There is never an Iditarod where

there isn’t a story that captivates—

captivates—the news. The weather was

significant. I mentioned the 45 below.

You come to a place on the ocean

where they are going across ice. There

is an area where it is so windy they

call it the blow hole. There are ac-

counts of several of the mushers not

being able to see their hands in front of

their face, much less the dogs in front

of them. The markers on the trail are

gone. The winds are so intense that it

blows the sleds and the mushers off the

trail. This is not easy stuff. That is to-

ward the later end of the trail.

One of the incidents that got every-

one’s attention was just about at the

first 100 miles. Our champion, Dallas

Seavey, is coming down the trail, and

there is a blind spot, a blind corner,

that he comes around. And right there,

in front of him, in the middle of the

trail, is a moose. Moose and sled dogs

and teams do not get along well. The

moose are ornery and cranky. The dogs

are looking at them and barking at the

moose. It is not a good combo. Dallas

knows that this is not good. But the

moose kind of gives the first half of the

team—he has 16 dogs in harness. The

moose kind of gives the first half of the

team the go-ahead but then turns

around and starts charging the latter

half of his team.

We have had dogs that have been se-

verely injured and have died on the

trail because of moose attacks. They

are just ferocious and cranky, particu-

larly this time of year when the snow

has been so deep and it is just hard for

the moose to walk. So Dallas does what

he needs to do. He dispatches the

moose. He has a revolver, and he takes

it out of the sled.

There are actually rules of the

Iditarod that tell you what you have to

do if you encounter an animal that you

need to take out that is threatening

yourself or your team. The rules re-

quire that if it is an edible animal, you

have to gut it properly and notify the

authorities at the next checkpoint.

Remember, this guy has won five

Iditarods. He wants to win the sixth.

He has got a mission, and gutting a

moose was not necessarily part of his

travel plan. But he gets out his knife,

and he guts the moose. In his own

words, he doesn’t do the best job that

he could, but he does an acceptable job.

He then moves on.

Keep in mind, he is one man with 16

dogs that are in a bit of a tizzy because

you’ve got a moose on the trail; you

have heard a gun; you now have blood.

They are in the middle of a race. They

want to go. Dallas Seavey is not going

to be able to haul that moose off the

trail. So he leaves the moose on the

trail. He goes up to the checkpoint

ahead and notifies them that there is a

moose on the trail.

Three mushers come behind, the

same blind corner. They come around

the corner. The dogs see this thing in

the trail and leap over it like horses

going over a jump. The sleds are flying.

The stories of the mushers about it

being almost surreal to be using this

moose like a speed bump.

Anyway, the story ends that the

moose was taken to the village and

shared with the villagers. So it was

good use of the moose. But it is one of

those things that you think: Wow, only

in Alaska.

What has not been shared as much as

the dispatch of the moose, however,

was the very first musher to come

around that same blind corner and see

the moose in the trail. He was able to

stop his team quick enough—Jessie

Holmes. Jessie sees the moose. He

needs to get the moose off the trail. He

punches the moose in the nose.

Now, I don’t know whether that is

bravado; I don’t know whether the

moose just looked like he needed a

punch in the nose. But, anyway, Jessie

was able to move past the moose safely

with his team.

These are some of the things that

make the stories interesting and amaz-

ing. A lot of people swear like that is

the craziest thing ever. Why would you

do it?

I think it is important to note that

Dallas not only won in 9 days, 2 hours,

16 minutes, and 8 seconds, he did so—he

finished ahead of Matt Hall, who came

in in 9 days, 6 hours, and 57 minutes. So

Dallas was 4-hours-plus ahead, and he

did that with a 2-hour penalty that he

received from the Iditarod for not prop-

erly gutting the moose. So the Seavey

stories continue.

Dallas’s time—again, think about it.

Think about it, my friends. We do some

things around here where we say this is

a long slog. When you are standing be-

hind a sled, when you are running next

to your team, when you are guiding

them through not only extreme, bitter

temperatures but howling winds, to be

on your feet for about 9 days, 2 hours,

16 minutes, and 8 seconds—Dallas fin-

ished with a total of 10 dogs in harness.

Their average speed was 4.42 miles, so

they are clipping along. It is a tough,

tough, tough endeavor.

There are some stories from other

mushers that you hear. A rooky

musher, Josi Thyr—she is still on the

trail right now. But she was having

trouble staying awake going across the

frozen Yukon, so she switched her sled

up to a version where she could kind of

sit down. She is on the flat of the river,

and you are literally falling asleep be-

hind your dogs. That is trust. That is

trust, when you know your animals can

take you, guide you, while you get a

few minutes catnap. But it is tough

when you are doing that.

I mentioned Josi as a woman there. I

think another history-making fact for

this year’s Iditarod is that four women

finished in the top 10 of the Iditarod.

This was the most ever women in the

race’s history to finish in the top 10.

We had Paige Drobny, who came in

fourth; Mille Porsild, who finished sev-

enth; Amanda Otto, eighth; and Jessie

Royer, who finished tenth. The top 20

for the Iditarod has seven women this

year.

A lot of times you think, in order to

do this extreme sport, in order to han-

dle a dozen dogs, in order to take all of

this on, you have to be some tough,

burly guy. Women are doing an ex-

traordinary and exceptional job.

One of my dear friends and a long-

time musher, DeeDee Jonrowe, mushed

33 separate Iditarods. DeeDee is about 5

foot 2 and maybe 100 pounds, blonde

hair, and blue eyes—a great, beautiful

woman, 70 years old. She didn’t mush

the Iditarod this year, but she did the

snowmachine trail all the way up. Just

go out for a 1,000-mile snowmachine

ride. Tough women, let me tell you.

There were 16 rookies in the race this

year. Four of those rookies have

dropped out, 2 have finished, 10 are still

racing. So right now, as we speak,

there are 11 mushers still out on the

trail. Seven mushers total have

dropped out, and 20 mushers have fin-

ished the race so far. So it is an ex-

traordinary endeavor.

As the rest of the teams finish up, we

are praying for their safety, and I am

sure they are praying for a little bit of

a nap when they come in. But con-

gratulations and commendations to ev-

erybody who participates in this. There

are no losers. They are all winners.

From the mushers to the dogs to the

amazing volunteers—very few paid

staff, but the volunteers who come,

whether it is to put on the banquets,

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.021 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2384 March 14, 2024

whether it is to be dog handlers,

whether it is to help make sure that

there is straw for teams in certain lo-

cations, the Iditarod Air Force—which

is an all-volunteer Air Force that helps

move everything along the way—the

veterinarians who come from all

around the country to volunteer a

week of their time to make sure that

the dogs’ care is taken care of, those in

the communities who come out, who

sponsor gourmet meals for the first-

place person to come into Cripple, or in

Unalakleet, the pizza place that is

called Peace on Earth, where if I want

to make sure that a particular musher

gets a nice, hot pizza when they come

into Unalakleet, I can call up. They

will write a nice message on the box

and give it to the musher when they

come in— so it is everybody coming to-

gether to make this extraordinary

event possible.

Nothing better captures the grit, the

determination, the ruggedness, the per-

severance, the spirit, or just the sheer

audacity of Alaskans. So I am de-

lighted to be able to come and cele-

brate Dallas Seavey and the Iditarod

once again.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Delaware.

AMERICORPS WEEK

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, vol-

unteerism and service have long de-

fined the very heart of the American

spirit.

It was Alexis de Tocqueville, in the

middle of the 19th century, at really

the dawn of the modern American Re-

public, who observed that it was the

willingness to take initiative, to get

engaged, to roll up your sleeves and get

to work helping to build your commu-

nity that distinguished the people of

this new continent from the Old World.

And I will say I have seen it myself.

I am here to celebrate the 30th anni-

versary of America’s national service

program, something called

AmeriCorps. It was created in a bipar-

tisan effort at the end of the George W.

Bush administration and at the begin-

ning of the Bill Clinton administration.

There was a concerted bipartisan effort

to recognize that models around the

country that showed the impact on

young Americans of spending a year of

their lives in service to others were

worth expanding and replicating.

This week, actually, happens to be

AmeriCorps Week—March 10 to March

16—and we are celebrating 30 years of

service.

I have just introduced a bipartisan

and bicameral resolution with Senator

ASSIDY

, Congresswoman M

ATSUI

, and

Congressman G

RAVES

. And, as I men-

tioned, AmeriCorps has been bipartisan

from the start, and I look forward to

continuing its future in a bipartisan

way.

I have long had a connection to

AmeriCorps, going back to one of the

first national direct AmeriCorps pro-

grams that I ran with the ‘‘I Have a

Dream’’ Foundation in the mid-1990s.

When I was working for ‘‘I Have a

Dream,’’ we had 150 AmeriCorps mem-

bers serving in 10 cities, doing after-

school programming and summer pro-

gramming for children from disadvan-

taged backgrounds. It is one of many

ways in which young Americans par-

ticipating in AmeriCorps have contrib-

uted to their community, have devel-

oped their skills, and have earned

money for college.

Years later, when I was a county ex-

ecutive, I launched the New Castle

County Emergency Services Corps to

help strengthen the volunteer fire serv-

ice in my home community. There are

dozens of volunteer fire companies in

Delaware, and they have often served

as the backbone not just of the first re-

sponder community but of every com-

munity.

I grew up in a very small town named

Hockessin, and that siren going off in

the middle of the night from our volun-

teer fire company was a reminder to

me of the call that is at the very foun-

dation of our Nation, to get up in the

middle of the night, to jump in your

truck, and to drive down to the fire

hall and to take on the risk of serving

and saving your neighbor.

Recruiting, training, and supporting

AmeriCorps members through the ‘‘I

Have a Dream’’ Program was one of the

most rewarding opportunities in my

life. I, actually, for many years, served

on the commission that directs and

oversees AmeriCorps in Delaware, and

it was through that service that I met

my wife.

Over 1 million Americans have served

in AmeriCorps since 1994. Delaware,

today, alone has more than 361 tradi-

tional AmeriCorps members and more

than 900 AmeriCorps seniors, and they

do a wide range of things: from tutor-

ing children to responding to disasters,

improving and rebuilding housing,

helping veterans, and much more.

Let me briefly mention two currently

serving members of AmeriCorps in

Delaware:

Sharron, an adult literacy instructor

who works with Literacy Delaware,

teaches English to our newest Ameri-

cans. She spoke of the joy an immi-

grant mother felt when the school ad-

ministrator called to tell her about her

son—and to communicate something

positive about his progress in school—

and she could understand everything

for the first time, as she was coming to

master English without an interpreter.

Shristi, an academic coach at

TeenSHARP, a college access program

for underrepresented high school stu-

dents, spoke of how fulfilling it was to

help young men and women in Dela-

ware, just as she herself had benefited

from similar mentoring and tutoring.

These two examples are a reminder of

what more than 1 million AmeriCorps

members over 30 years have experi-

enced—that service brings America to-

gether. It helps us bridge our divides.

AmeriCorps has organized, for dec-

ades now, an annual 9/11 Day of Service

that brings people of all backgrounds

together to be reminded of what citi-

zenship means in our Nation: service to

others.

As we reflect on 30 years, I think it

needs to be a call for all of us to engage

in the work of service; to take up the

challenge of reauthorizing, strength-

ening, and expanding AmeriCorps as a

program; and to recognize that the best

thing we can do for our Nation is to get

committed to each other through na-

tional service.

Congratulations to all who have

served in AmeriCorps over the last 30

years and to the millions more Ameri-

cans whose future will be enlivened,

brightened, and strengthened through

the opportunity to serve.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Indiana.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the following

Senators be permitted to speak prior to

the scheduled vote: Y

OUNG

for up to 5

minutes, B

ARRASSO

for up to 7 minutes,

TABENOW

for up to 5 minutes, and

ARDIN

for up to 3 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, during

his State of the Union Address last

week, President Biden spoke about

solving the ongoing humanitarian cri-

sis at our southern border, and he men-

tioned the name of Laken Riley. Laken

Riley, as my colleagues know, lost her

life—lost her life—because of that hu-

manitarian crisis.

Laken was a 22-year-old college stu-

dent. She was murdered by an illegal

alien last month. The illegal alien had

been previously cited for theft and

shoplifting but was released.

Those who knew her described Laken

as a shining light and kindhearted. Her

calling in life was to care for others,

and she was on her way to answering

that calling, studying nursing at Au-

gusta University, when she was mur-

dered—murdered by a Venezuelan na-

tional who crossed our border illegally.

To Laken’s family and friends: Your

fellow Americans grieve with you. We

are saddened by your loss. We pray and

we hope that, in time, you will find

comfort. We should all find comfort in

the example that Laken leaves behind.

But let me not be the first to say—let

me add my voice to the chorus of

voices in emphasizing that words of

condolence are not enough. It is far

better for us to honor Laken’s life by

doing everything—everything—within

our power to ensure that no other fam-

ily endures this or a similar tragedy.

So to President Biden, who said after

his speech that he shouldn’t have re-

ferred to Laken’s murderer as an ‘‘ille-

gal,’’ and to any of my colleagues who

are offended by the use of that term:

Let us dispense with misplaced out-

rage. Let’s stop playing political word

games. Let’s speak as plainly as pos-

sible. The man who killed Laken Riley

broke the law when he walked across

our southern border. He shouldn’t have

been in our country. He was an illegal

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:07 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.022 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2385 March 14, 2024

immigrant. Had our border not been

broken, had our immigration laws not

been continually ignored, he wouldn’t

have been in Georgia, and Laken Riley

would still be alive.

The man who killed Laken Riley was

arrested in El Paso. He was then wel-

comed into the country with little obli-

gation other than to follow the honor

system, to show up for an appointment

with Immigration and Customs En-

forcement, which he failed to do.

This is but one ripple in a wave—a

wave—of illegal immigrants drawn to-

ward and allowed into our border by

design. In his first 100 days in office,

President Biden signed 94 Executive or-

ders to dismantle—dismantle—his

predecessor’s border policies for the

simple reason that those policies actu-

ally reduced illegal immigration. He

ended the ‘‘Remain in Mexico’’ policy.

He scaled back border enforcement. He

revived catch-and-release. He halted

deportations. He allowed title 42 to

sunset. He abused our parole system,

allowing millions of people into this

country without proper vetting, over-

whelming not just our law enforcement

and communities along the border but

also cities far from it, cities in my

home State of Indiana. Last December

alone, 300,000 people were processed at

the southern border—an alltime high.

Mr. President, I would request 2 more

minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, 9 million

illegal immigrants have crossed our

border during President Biden’s Presi-

dency. If only those among us would

have spent as much time worrying

about securing our southern border as

they do about finding inoffensive terms

to describe the man who illegally

crossed it and then murdered Laken

Riley.

For over 3 years, I have urged the

Biden administration to reverse its

border policies. Record levels of illegal

crossings are a national security issue.

We know that. But they are also a

crime and drug use issue in the State

of Indiana and across the country,

tragically evidenced by Laken Riley’s

death. The chaos this administration’s

policies have caused isn’t confined to

Texas, nor is it confined to Arizona.

Every State is a border State.

I appreciate the good-faith efforts of

some of my colleagues—Senator

ANKFORD

most notably but others—to

find bipartisan solutions to strengthen

our border security. I will remain hope-

ful that we in Congress can find the

path to improving our border security

laws and to actually enforcing them.

But the occupant of the Oval Office is

not powerless to act.

At times, President Biden presents

himself as a border hawk, waiting on

Republicans to give him the tools to

end the crisis he created. We should

note: The President has routinely

pushed the constitutional limits of his

office in pursuit of political and policy

goals, but now—now—he claims, when

it comes to the border crisis, he is

hemmed in from taking action by Con-

gress.

Despite the tough talk, we regular

Americans would be forgiven for con-

cluding that this administration wants

the crisis on our southern border to

continue.

Prove us wrong, Mr. President. Fix-

ing the border begins with you.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Wyoming.

ISRAEL

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President,

every year on this floor, a Senator

reads George Washington’s Farewell

Address. This year, Senator C

ARDIN

who is retiring from this body, was

given the honor of reading the address.

It is so that we in the Senate remem-

ber the lessons from George Wash-

ington.

So let’s reflect on what is in George

Washington’s Farewell Address, and it

is this quote:

Foreign influence is one of the most bane-

ful foes of republican government.

Well, the majority leader of the U.S.

Senate certainly knows that because 4

years ago, he quoted these very same

words. Yet he ignored them totally

today in this body, when it comes to

our ally Israel.

Hours ago, the senior Senator from

New York crossed the line by calling

for a new government in Israel. Let’s

be clear: Israel is a democracy. It

makes its own choice about who they

want to lead them. It doesn’t need to

have a Senator from New York’s inter-

ference.

The Senator also made the out-

rageous statement that the Prime Min-

ister of Israel—in the words of the Sen-

ator from New York—is an ‘‘obstacle to

peace.’’

This is exactly backward. It is the

terrorists, the rapists, the murderers of

Hamas who are the obstacles to peace.

Let us be clear: Demonizing our

friends is not going to protect them

from the brutality of Hamas. It only

works to alienate our allies and puts

our common goals of peace further out

of reach.

Israel deserves an ally that the peo-

ple of Israel can trust, most especially

when they are battling terrorism.

The Senators on both sides of the

aisle in this body have affirmed that

Israel has every right to defend itself.

We must also respect Israel’s right as a

democracy to choose its own destiny.

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Mr. President, now, on a separate

matter, I come to the floor to speak

about President Biden’s State of the

Union speech. The speech is likely a

preview of his 2024 acceptance speech

at the Democrat convention this sum-

mer in Chicago.

From start to finish, it was the

angriest, most partisan, most divisive,

and most vindictive State of the Union

that I can recall.

President Biden used his most impor-

tant speech in 50 years to launch a di-

rect attack on half of America. He

shouted, lied about them, belittled

their concerns. And if people had the

gall to disagree with him, he screamed

that they were the enemies of democ-

racy.

President Biden said all of this to

hide his disastrous record of failures.

Three years ago, President Biden

said:

Without unity, there is . . . only bitterness

and fury.

Last Thursday night, what we saw

from President Biden was bitterness

and fury.

To me, this was an insult to every

American. The President showed no re-

spect for the American people, for our

institutions, or for the truth. Instead,

we heard an hour of dismissals, denials,

distortions, and deceptive spin.

President Biden has only himself to

blame. It is his disastrous policies that

caused us to be in the mess that we

find ourselves.

President Biden said:

The state of our union is strong and get-

ting stronger.

Well, that may be his opinion, but it

is not what the American people be-

lieve. Prices are up 18 percent today

compared to the day that he took of-

fice.

President Biden said he needs new

laws to secure the border. That is not

true, either. President Biden has the

power to secure the border, and he

knows it. He simply lacks the back-

bone.

During his first 100 days, the Presi-

dent took 94 Executive actions that

threw our border wide open. He stopped

building the wall. He turned ‘‘detain

and deport’’ into ‘‘catch and release.’’

And more than 9 million illegal immi-

grants have poured across our southern

border since Joe Biden became Presi-

dent.

Now, that includes hundreds of terror

suspects and thousands of hardened

criminals. This is dangerous for our

country. Yet Joe Biden can’t say that.

Since his speech last Thursday, he

has spent more time groveling for

using the term ‘‘illegal’’ immigrant

than apologizing for not knowing the

name of Laken Riley. People all across

the country remember her as the 24-

year-old nursing student who was mur-

dered by an illegal immigrant.

President Biden also claimed our

global alliances are stronger than they

ever were. That is not true. Since Joe

Biden became President, America has

lost its standing in the world. Our al-

lies don’t trust us. Our enemies don’t

fear us.

By every metric, we are worse off

today than we were the day Joe Biden

took office. Seven in 10 Americans say

that our Nation is heading in the

wrong direction. No amount of scolding

or lecturing by the President is going

to change that. No amount of yelling

will cover up President Biden’s endless

failures to lower prices.

Yelling by President Biden is not

going to restore confidence in the

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.025 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2386 March 14, 2024

American dream, which his own infla-

tion eroded. Angry blame-shifting by

President Biden is not going to stop

the flood or reverse the flood of the 9

million illegal immigrants and illegal

border crossings, nor will it protect in-

nocent Americans from the illegal im-

migrant crime.

Families in my home State of Wyo-

ming and all across America are fed up

with the Biden blame game. Americans

are not imagining that their grocery

bills are higher than they ever were be-

fore. The bills actually are higher.

Americans aren’t imagining that the

border is more dangerous than ever be-

fore. It is more dangerous.

And watching President Biden’s

speech, it is clear to the people across

Wyoming and to like-minded Ameri-

cans that the President doesn’t listen.

Fortunately, Senate Republicans are

listening. You heard it last week from

the junior Senator from Alabama. Her

response was remarkably positive. Un-

like President Biden, she offered a

bright vision for the future of our Na-

tion. The Senator said:

Together, we can reawaken the heroic spir-

it of a great nation.

And she is right.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Michigan.

PRESIDENT BIDEN

’

S BUDGET

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first,

I just want to say for the record that it

has been 36 days since Republican col-

leagues voted down the strongest bor-

der security bill in decades. So that is

a reality.

But what I wanted to speak about

was the President’s budget. When he

was growing up, President Biden’s dad

used to say this: Don’t tell me what

you value. Show me your budget, and I

will tell you what you value.

Well, President Biden’s budget just

came out, and I will tell you what he

values. President Biden values invest-

ing in the middle class so that families

are able to work hard and get ahead

and build a better life for their chil-

dren. He values ensuring that teachers

and firefighters aren’t paying more

taxes than billionaires. And he values

Social Security and Medicare, pro-

grams that have lifted up millions of

older Americans out of poverty—a

whole generation—a great American

success story.

Meanwhile, we have the Republican

nominee, the former President, in a

CNBC interview vowing to cut Medi-

care and Social Security.

Show me your budget, and I will tell

you what you value.

The Biden budget invests in growing

our middle class, continuing the poli-

cies that have made our economy the

strongest in the world.

Since President Biden and Vice

President H

ARRIS

took office, the econ-

omy has added about 15 million new

jobs, the most ever in the first term of

a President.

The unemployment rate has stayed

below 4 percent for 2 years in a row. We

haven’t seen that in more than 50

years.

Wages are up. The stock market is

up. New small businesses are up.

Meanwhile, the Republican agenda

slashes investments in our families

while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Republicans like to talk about cut-

ting the deficit. Meanwhile, President

Biden is doing it. His budget would re-

duce the deficit by $3 trillion by mak-

ing the wealthy pay their fair share

and cracking down on tax cheats.

The Biden budget lowers costs for

families in a number of ways. It invests

in affordable childcare so that working

families aren’t scrambling to find qual-

ity care at a price they can afford. It

increases affordable housing and helps

American families buy their first home

and achieve their dream. Meanwhile, it

makes higher education more afford-

able and cuts the burden of student

debt, and it continues to lower pre-

scription drug costs, helping people af-

ford the medications they need.

And, best of all, it restores the ex-

panded child tax credit, which was en-

acted as part of the American Rescue

Plan. The expanded child tax credit

helped cut child poverty in half in 2021.

And President Biden’s budget brings it

back, giving families some breathing

room.

We also know that families are con-

cerned about our national security.

The Biden budget invests in a secure

border through technology that detects

fentanyl, more Border Patrol officers,

more immigration judges, and more

asylum officers so decisions can be

made quickly on who should be allowed

to remain in the country.

And, finally, the Biden budget pro-

tects and strengthens Social Security

and Medicare. These aren’t just govern-

ment programs. They are a promise

that, after a lifetime of hard work, you

will be able to retire in dignity.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue,

through their Presidential nominee, to

focus on cutting programs that break

that promise.

Show me your budget, and I will tell

you what you value. A thriving middle

class, safe communities, security for

our seniors, and ensuring that the

wealthy pay their fair share—that is

what the President values.

We have come a long way. It is time

to build on our progress.

I yield the floor.

CLOTURE MOTION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the motion to invoke

cloture.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

LOTURE

OTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accord-

ance with the provisions of rule XXII of the

Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby

move to bring to a close debate on the nomi-

nation of Executive Calendar No. 461, Nicole

G. Berner, of Maryland, to be United States

Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit.

Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin,

Brian Schatz, Mazie K. Hirono, Tina

Smith, Gary C. Peters, Amy Klo-

buchar, Raphael G. Warnock, Catherine

Cortez Masto, Alex Padilla, Mark R.

Warner, Tim Kaine, Sheldon White-

house, Martin Heinrich, Christopher A.

Coons, Margaret Wood Hassan, Peter

Welch.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unan-

imous consent, the mandatory quorum

call has been waived.

The question is, Is it the sense of the

Senate that debate on the nomination

of Nicole G. Berner, of Maryland, to be

United States Circuit Judge for the

Fourth Circuit, shall be brought to a

close?

The yeas and nays are mandatory

under the rule.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the

Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. M

KEY

) and the Senator from New Hamp-

shire (Mrs. S

HAHEEN

) are necessarily

absent.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators

are necessarily absent: the Senator

from Arkansas (Mr. B

OOZMAN

), the Sen-

ator from Arkansas (Mr. C

OTTON

), the

Senator from North Dakota (Mr.

RAMER

), the Senator from Montana

(Mr. D

AINES

), the Senator from Okla-

homa (Mr. M

ULLIN

), the Senator from

Utah (Mr. R

OMNEY

), the Senator from

Florida (Mr. R

UBIO

), the Senator from

South Carolina (Mr. S

COTT

), the Sen-

ator from Alaska (Mr. S

ULLIVAN

), and

the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.

ICKER

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 48,

nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Ex.]

YEAS—48

Baldwin

Bennet

Blumenthal

Booker

Brown

Butler

Cantwell

Cardin

Carper

Casey

Coons

Cortez Masto

Duckworth

Durbin

Fetterman

Gillibrand

Hassan

Heinrich

Hickenlooper

Hirono

Kaine

Kelly

King

Klobuchar

Luja

Menendez

Merkley

Murphy

Murray

Ossoff

Padilla

Peters

Reed

Rosen

Sanders

Schatz

Schumer

Sinema

Smith

Stabenow

Tester

Van Hollen

Warner

Warnock

Warren

Welch

Whitehouse

Wyden

NAYS—40

Barrasso

Blackburn

Braun

Britt

Budd

Capito

Cassidy

Collins

Cornyn

Crapo

Cruz

Ernst

Fischer

Graham

Grassley

Hagerty

Hawley

Hoeven

Hyde-Smith

Johnson

Kennedy

Lankford

Lee

Lummis

Manchin

Marshall

McConnell

Moran

Murkowski

Paul

Ricketts

Risch

Rounds

Schmitt

Scott (FL)

Thune

Tillis

Tuberville

Vance

Young

NOT VOTING—12

Boozman

Cotton

Cramer

Daines

Markey

Mullin

Romney

Rubio

Scott (SC)

Shaheen

Sullivan

Wicker

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. B

LER

). On this vote, the yeas are 48, the

nays are 40.

The motion is agreed to.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma-

jority leader.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.026 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2387 March 14, 2024

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I

ask unanimous consent that all time

be considered expired and the con-

firmation vote be at 5:30 p.m. on Tues-

day, March 19.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I

move to proceed to legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I

move to proceed to executive session to

consider Calendar No. 465.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the nomination.

The senior assistant legislative clerk

read the nomination of Edward Sunyol

Kiel, of New Jersey, to be United

States District Judge for the District

of New Jersey.

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. SCHUMER. I send a cloture mo-

tion to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clo-

ture motion having been presented

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the

clerk to read the motion.

The senior assistant legislative clerk

read as follows:

LOTURE

OTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accord-

ance with the provisions of rule XXII of the

Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby

move to bring to a close debate on the nomi-

nation of Executive Calendar No. 465, Edward

Sunyol Kiel, of New Jersey, to be United

States District Judge for the District of New

Jersey.

Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin,

Brian Schatz, Mazie K. Hirono, Tina

Smith, Gary C. Peters, Amy Klo-

buchar, Raphael G. Warnock, Catherine

Cortez Masto, Alex Padilla, Mark R.

Warner, Tim Kaine, Sheldon White-

house, Martin Heinrich, Christopher A.

Coons, Margaret Wood Hassan, Peter

Welch.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Mr. SCHUMER. I move to proceed to

legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I

move to proceed to executive session to

consider Calendar No. 463.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the nomination.

The senior assistant legislative clerk

read the nomination of Eumi K. Lee, of

California, to be United States District

Judge for the Northern District of Cali-

fornia.

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. SCHUMER. I send a cloture mo-

tion to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clo-

ture motion having been presented

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the

clerk to read the motion.

The senior assistant legislative clerk

read as follows:

LOTURE

OTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accord-

ance with the provisions of rule XXII of the

Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby

move to bring to a close debate on the nomi-

nation of Executive Calendar No. 463, Eumi

K. Lee, of California, to be United States

District Judge for the Northern District of

California.

Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin,

Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie K. Hirono,

Alex Padilla, Margaret Wood Hassan,

Tim Kaine, Tammy Duckworth, Thom-

as R. Carper, Tina Smith, Jeff Merkley,

Catherine Cortez Masto, Martin Hein-

rich, Christopher Murphy, Debbie Sta-

benow, Brian Schatz, Chris Van Hollen.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous con-

sent that the mandatory quorum calls

for the cloture motions filed today,

March 14, be waived.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Maryland.

ISRAEL

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Presi-

dent, during his State of the Union Ad-

dress last week, President Biden once

again rightly pointed out that Israel

has the right and I would say the duty

to defend itself in the aftermath of the

brutal Hamas terror attack of October

7 that left approximately 1,200 brutally

murdered and 240 taken hostage. There

must be no more October 7s.

President Biden also described the

ongoing humanitarian disaster taking

place in Gaza today. Over 31,000 Pal-

estinians have been killed—over two-

thirds of them women and children—

and likely thousands more unac-

counted for, buried beneath the rubble.

Gaza has become a hellhole of human

suffering. Humanitarian organizations

that have operated worldwide for dec-

ades say they have never witnessed a

more terrible situation.

Among those suffering in Gaza are

not only over 2 million innocent Pales-

tinian civilians but also over 130 hos-

tages still held by Hamas, including

Americans.

Earlier this week, I met with some of

the families of Israeli hostages whose

loved ones were kidnapped and are still

being held captive, as well as one brave

woman who was held hostage and re-

leased during the November pause.

Every day that they are separated

from their loved ones, not knowing

what will happen to them next, is a day

of unimaginable mental anguish and

torment. That is why we must

prioritize the release of the hostages

and end the suffering of Palestinian ci-

vilians. The only way to do that is to

secure an immediate cease-fire and re-

lease all of the remaining hostages.

That must happen, but until it hap-

pens, we must do everything in our

power to protect innocent civilians and

end the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

Today, four out of five of the

hungriest people on Earth are in Gaza.

Hundreds of thousands of them are on

the verge of starvation, and over 23

children have crossed that grisly

threshold and have died of starvation.

Cindy McCain, the Director of the

World Food Programme, has warned of

an imminent famine. Injured children

are having their limbs amputated with-

out anesthesia. Sewage is spilling onto

the streets, and humanitarian officials

are seeing spikes in the spread of var-

ious preventable diseases, like diar-

rhea, among children.

Two weeks ago, the world got a

glimpse of a horrible scene: Over 100

starving Palestinians were killed as

they reached for food from trucks. In

the aftermath of that horrible event,

President Biden has ordered airdrops of

food supplies. I support that decision

because when people are starving,

every parcel of food counts. But air-

drops are just a drop in the ocean of

need, so I was also glad to see the

President order the building of a tem-

porary port to help deliver more aid by

ship. But that port will likely not be

ready for at least 60 days, and even

then, it will not be sufficient to meet

the humanitarian need.

All of these extraordinary efforts to

deliver aid by air and by sea are being

undertaken when we know that during

the prewar period, when there was al-

ready a near blockade of Gaza, about

500 trucks still crossed daily through

the Kerem Shalom crossing into Gaza.

And those 500 trucks crossed every day

when the need was far less acute than

it is right now.

So the obvious question is, Why?

Why in the world should we have to re-

sort to these extraordinary and more

expensive means to deliver insufficient

amounts of food and aid by air and sea

when we could bring in sufficient

amounts of food and aid by truck much

more efficiently through Egypt’s Rafah

crossing and the multiple crossing

points into Gaza from Israel?

The answer is because this is a man-

made disaster.

The starvation in Gaza is not the re-

sult of food scarcity caused by drought

or other natural disasters that we see

in many parts of the world. This has

been caused primarily because the

Netanyahu government has used a se-

ries of tactics to restrict the amount of

aid entering into Gaza. Anyone with

eyes to see or ears to hear knows that.

Members of the Netanyahu govern-

ment, like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir,

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2388 March 14, 2024

have made no secret of their inten-

tions. In October, after the war began,

Ben-Gvir said:

So long as Hamas does not release the hos-

tages, the only thing that should enter Gaza

is hundreds of tons of Air Force explosives—

not one ounce of humanitarian aid.

Smotrich used his power as Finance

Minister to block a shipment of flour

that could feed 1.1 million people for a

month in Gaza. The shipment was fi-

nally released 2 days ago after having

been blocked for 5 weeks at least, all

while people were starving.

At one point, Prime Minister

Netanyahu said his government was al-

lowing just the ‘‘minimum’’ amount

needed, and that was at a time when he

and others denied that there was even

a humanitarian disaster in Gaza; de-

nied that there was a scarcity of food

in Gaza; denied that there was hunger

in Gaza.

This is why President Biden has

called out those restrictions and why

he said in his State of the Union Ad-

dress:

Humanitarian assistance cannot be a sec-

ondary consideration or a bargaining chip.

The President said that his adminis-

tration is going to ‘‘insist that Israel

facilitate more trucks and more routes

to get more and more people the help

they need—no excuses.’’

More than 5 weeks ago, on February

2, 25 Senators sent a letter to President

Biden, calling for the Netanyahu gov-

ernment to implement five specific ac-

tions to significantly increase the

amount of humanitarian aid entering

Gaza. To date, none of them have been

fully implemented.

That is why many of us have called

on President Biden to immediately in-

voke and implement the Humanitarian

Aid Corridor Act, which is section 620I

of the Foreign Assistance Act. Now

that NSM—National Security Memo-

randum—20 is in place, which is based

on an amendment that 19 of us pro-

posed to the National Security Act, it

is essential—essential—that the Biden

administration enforce its terms to get

humanitarian aid delivered where it

needs to go. When people are starving,

patience is not a virtue.

It needs to be said that getting hu-

manitarian aid into Gaza is only half

the battle. The other half and the more

dangerous half is distributing the aid

once it is inside of Gaza. It doesn’t do

any good if you can’t safely transport

the food to the people who are starv-

ing. In other words, you need a safe dis-

tribution system for aid inside Gaza.

Now, the organization that is the pri-

mary distributor of assistance within

Gaza has been an entity called the

United Nations Relief and Works Agen-

cy, known by its shorthand as UNRWA.

Americans may have not heard much

about UNRWA, so I want to say a little

bit about why UNRWA exists and what

it does in Gaza and elsewhere. But be-

fore I do that, I want to jump to why

this is a pressing issue right now.

The future of UNRWA is an urgent

matter right now because Prime Min-

ister Netanyahu and his extreme right-

wing allies want to get rid of it not

just in Gaza but everywhere that it op-

erates. And guess what. Prime Minister

Netanyahu and folks on the far right in

his government have wanted to abolish

UNRWA not just since October 7 but

since at least 2017. In fact, in 2018,

Prime Minister Netanyahu actually

changed official Israeli policy with re-

spect to UNRWA, saying that they

wanted to cut off all funding to

UNRWA, even at a time that his secu-

rity team warned that it could create

instabilities throughout the region if

that happened.

Now we have Republican Members of

the House and Senate who are jumping

on this bandwagon and saying they

want to abolish UNRWA. And how do

they want to do this? By inserting a

provision in the State, Foreign Oper-

ations, and Related Programs appro-

priations bill, which is being consid-

ered and debated right now as we gath-

er here, to cut off all U.S. funding for

UNRWA. That is what they want to do.

So let’s go back to why UNRWA was

created in the first place.

In 1949—a year after the establish-

ment of the State of Israel—the United

Nations formed a new agency to pro-

vide vital services for over 700,000 Pal-

estinian refugees who were displaced

during the first Arab-Israeli war. Back

then, the idea was that UNRWA would

provide services to Palestinian refu-

gees until a just and durable solution

to their plight was found. As we know

all too well, over 73 years have passed

without a resolution to that conflict,

which is why UNRWA’s mission re-

mains essential. Among other services,

UNRWA provides schools and primary

health services to Palestinian refugees

and their descendants in Jordan, Leb-

anon, Syria, the West Bank, and in

Gaza.

I hope we all agree that the Pales-

tinian people deserve to live in dignity.

The way to do that is to ensure that

they also have self-determination in a

homeland of their own, just like every

Israeli deserves dignity and self-deter-

mination in the Jewish and democratic

State of Israel.

President Biden and I and many oth-

ers believe that the only viable, long-

term solution to this conflict is a two-

state solution, and President Biden has

put that idea forward as the best way

to create some light at the end of this

very dark tunnel. UNRWA was really

intended to be a bridge until such a

resolution was reached.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated

very clearly that he is opposed to a

two-state solution. He was opposed to

the Oslo Accords, and he has been a se-

vere opponent of the two-state solu-

tion. And as I said earlier, he also

wants to eliminate UNRWA, which

today is an organization of over 300,000

employees providing services to Pal-

estinians in three countries and, as I

said, also in the West Bank and Gaza.

Mr. President, 13,000 of those 30,000

UNRWA staff operate in Gaza—many of

them as teachers. Since the war start-

ed with the brutal Hamas attacks on

Israel of October 7, UNRWA’s schools

in Gaza have shut down; and as a

United Nations agency, it has deployed

its resources to supply humanitarian

relief to the civilian population there.

It is the main vehicle for distributing

humanitarian assistance in Gaza. It

won’t do any good to get humanitarian

assistance into Gaza if you dismantle

the U.N. organization principally re-

sponsible for delivering that aid to peo-

ple in Gaza.

This morning, I met with chef Jose

Andres, and I applaud him for his ef-

forts and the efforts of the World Cen-

tral Kitchen around the world, includ-

ing in Israel and in Gaza. He said:

Support for UNRWA is vital. If you want to

feed people you need to support UNRWA.

We may have a temporary port, but

when the ship gets to the port, some-

one has to transfer that food and other

assistance from the ship to the people

who need it in Gaza, and UNRWA is the

principal distributor of assistance. If

you talk to the World Food Programme

and others, they say very clearly they

cannot replace that capacity that

UNRWA has.

In late January, the Netanyahu gov-

ernment alleged that up to 14 of

UNRWA’s 13,000 employees participated

in the horrific October attacks against

Israel. These are, of course, very seri-

ous allegations, and UNRWA has taken

them seriously. All agree that any in-

dividuals involved in that horror must

be held accountable, and even though

the Netanyahu government has not

provided UNRWA with the underlying

evidence, UNRWA immediately fired

the alleged perpetrators.

The U.N. Secretary General also took

swift action and announced the launch

of a full and independent investigation,

led by the U.N.’s highest investigative

body, into the allegations; and that is

ongoing. At the same time, President

Biden suspended all U.S. contributions

to UNRWA pending the outcome of

that investigation. A number of other

countries followed suit, as did the EU.

But, since then, two things have

changed. First, the Netanyahu govern-

ment has not shared the underlying

evidence with UNRWA nor, as reported

by The Wall Street Journal, has it

shared the raw evidence with the

United States. In fact, I urge every one

of my Senate colleagues to read the

classified report prepared by the DNI,

and I especially urge my colleagues to

read the intelligence assessments

about the many other claims the

Netanyahu government has made

against UNRWA—and there have been

many. I am sure that many of my col-

leagues are unaware of the fact that

UNRWA has long provided both Israel

and the United States with the names

and identities of all its employees for

full review and vetting. Now, Israel, of

course, has far more extensive intel-

ligence capabilities than UNRWA; but,

apparently, they have never previously

raised complaints about any of the

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.035 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2389 March 14, 2024

UNRWA employees on the lists given

to them.

Second, the EU and many countries

that initially suspended their financial

support for UNRWA have since re-

stored their contributions because they

have acknowledged the desperation in

Gaza and the irreplaceable nature of

UNRWA. In fact, even prior to these al-

legations, UNRWA had asked the U.N.

Secretary General to convene an Inde-

pendent Review Group to assess wheth-

er UNRWA was doing everything with-

in its power to ensure neutrality.

So, again, UNRWA in Gaza—an orga-

nization with a staff of 13,000 people—is

delivering essential life-sustaining aid

to over 2 million people. And what the

EU and these other countries that have

restored UNRWA funding recognize is

that it is inhumane to cut off assist-

ance to 2 million people because of the

atrocious, alleged acts of 14. Punish the

14. Don’t punish 2 million innocent

Gazans, and that is why I believe that

President Biden should restore this as-

sistance now.

The notion that UNRWA is, some-

how, a front group for Hamas is a total

lie—pure and simple. The individual

dispatched by President Biden to be

the U.S. humanitarian coordinator in

the region is a veteran diplomat, Am-

bassador David Satterfield. He has re-

peatedly debunked claims made by

members of the Netanyahu government

that humanitarian aid provided by

UNRWA has been diverted to Hamas.

Specifically, he said the following:

I have not received any allegations, evi-

dence or reports of any incidence of Hamas

diversion or theft of U.S. or other assistance

or fuel from UN delivered assistance from

any of our partners or from the Government

of Israel since the humanitarian assistance

resumed in Gaza October 21.

Not a single report from Israeli Gov-

ernment officials or anybody else about

Hamas diverting aid that was being

transported by UNRWA or other U.N.

agencies.

My colleagues, you should all know

that the individual overseeing oper-

ations on the ground in Gaza today is

an American named Scott Anderson.

He is a 21-year Army veteran from

South Dakota. He is a no-nonsense guy.

I urge every Senator to talk to him.

The notion that Scott Anderson is part

of a front organization for Hamas is

patently absurd.

The truth is that before the war

started, Prime Minister Netanyahu did

not pretend that he wanted to dis-

mantle UNRWA on the grounds that it

was a proxy for Hamas. He has long

wanted to eliminate UNRWA not only

in Gaza but everywhere else that it

supports education for Palestinian

schoolchildren and healthcare for Pal-

estinians, like in the West Bank and

Jordan. As I said, he has been trying to

do that since at least the year 2017.

And now he has Republicans in Con-

gress joining him and calling for the

defunding of all U.S. support for

UNRWA, not only in Gaza but through-

out the region.

Attempts to discredit UNRWA and

the U.N. have gotten so bad that 18

heads of all the major U.N. humani-

tarian and refugee agencies, together

with NGOs like Save the Children and

CARE, signed a statement calling for a

‘‘halt to campaigns that seek to dis-

credit the United Nations and non-gov-

ernmental organizations doing their

best to save lives.’’ It is making it

harder for them to save lives.

If you want to take a combustible

situation in the West Bank and make

it even worse, then close down schools

for kids there. Take away any chance

of an education. Snuff out any hopes

they may have for a brighter future.

Really?

If you want to create instability in

Jordan, shut down UNRWA schools and

services there. Why do we all think

that King Abdallah has warned us

about the consequences of shutting

down UNRWA?

Here is the crazy thing about this

moment: Prime Minister Netanyahu

has seized on the lies about UNRWA

being a proxy for Hamas in Gaza to

achieve his long-term goal of shutting

down UNRWA everywhere.

And what adds insult to injury is

that UNRWA has not perpetuated

Hamas in Gaza, but Prime Minister

Netanyahu himself has done exactly

that. Let me explain.

You know, there is a lot of talk here

in the U.S. Senate about the malign ac-

tors who have supported Hamas over

the years. One of them is a very malign

actor, Iran.

Now, Iran did not create Hamas, nor

does Iran exercise command and con-

trol over Hamas. But it does support

Hamas because, like Iran, Hamas has

the despicable goal of eliminating

Israel. That is why Iran has supported

Hamas.

But what we rarely, if ever, discuss is

the inconvenient truth that, until the

unexpected horror of the Hamas attack

on October 7, Prime Minister

Netanyahu himself saw it as in his in-

terest to keep Hamas in control in

Gaza.

Don’t take my word for it. He told us

in his own words back in 2019 at a

Likud Party meeting where he said:

Anyone who wants to prevent the creation

of a Palestinian state needs to support

strengthening Hamas. This is part of our

strategy to divide the Palestinians between

those in Gaza and those in Judea and Sama-

ria.

Prime Minister Netanyahu:

Anyone who wants to prevent the creation

of a Palestinian state needs to support

strengthening Hamas.

Mr. President, I would like to have

printed in the R

ECORD

a piece that ap-

peared in Haaretz, in October of last

year, entitled ‘‘A Brief History of the

Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance.’’ I ask

unanimous consent that it be printed

in the R

ECORD

There being no objection, the mate-

rial was ordered to be printed in the

ECORD

, as follows:

[From the Haaretz, Oct. 20, 2023]

A B

RIEF

ISTORY OF THE

ETANYAHU

-H

AMAS

LLIANCE

(By Adam Raz)

For 14 years, Netanyahu’s policy was to

keep Hamas in power; the pogrom of October

7, 2023, helps the Israeli prime minister pre-

serve his own rule.

Much ink has been spilled describing the

longtime relationship—rather, alliance—be-

tween Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas. And

still, the very fact that there has been close

cooperation between the Israeli prime min-

ister (with the support of many on the right)

and the fundamentalist organization seem-

ingly evaporated from most of the current

analyses—everyone’s talking about ‘‘fail-

ures,’’ ‘‘mistakes’’ and ‘‘contzeptziot’’ (fixed

conceptions). Given this, there is a need not

only to review the history of cooperation but

also to conclude unequivocally: The pogrom

of October 7, 2023, helps Netanyahu, and not

for the first time, to preserve his rule, cer-

tainly in the short term.

The MO of Netanyahu’s policy since his re-

turn to the Prime Minister’s Office in 2009

has and continues to be, on the one hand,

bolstering the rule of Hamas in the Gaza

Strip, and, on the other, weakening the Pal-

estinian Authority.

His return to power was accompanied by a

complete turnaround from the policy of his

predecessor, Ehud Olmert, who sought to end

the conflict through a peace treaty with the

most moderate Palestinian leader—PA

President Mahmoud Abbas.

For the last 14 years, while implementing

a divide-and-conquer policy vis-a-vis the

West Bank and Gaza, ‘‘Abu Yair’’ (‘‘Yair’s fa-

ther,’’ in Arabic, as Netanyahu called him-

self while campaigning in the Arab commu-

nity before one recent election) has resisted

any attempt, military or diplomatic, that

might bring an end to the Hamas regime.

In practice, since the Cast Lead operation

in late 2008 and early 2009, during the Olmert

era, Hamas’ rule has not faced any genuine

military threat. On the contrary: The group

has been supported by the Israeli prime min-

ister, and funded with his assistance.

When Netanyahu declared in April 2019, as

he has after every other round of fighting,

that ‘‘we have restored deterrence with

Hamas’’ and that ‘‘we have blocked the main

supply routes,’’ he was lying through his

teeth.

For over a decade, Netanyahu has lent a

hand, in various ways, to the growing mili-

tary and political power of Hamas.

Netanyahu is the one who turned Hamas

from a terror organization with few re-

sources into a semi-state body.

Releasing Palestinian prisoners, allowing

cash transfers, as the Qatari envoy comes

and goes to Gaza as he pleases, agreeing to

the import of a broad array of goods, con-

struction materials in particular, with the

knowledge that much of the material will be

designated for terrorism and not for building

civilian infrastructure, increasing the num-

ber of work permits in Israel for Palestinian

workers from Gaza, and more. All these de-

velopments created symbiosis between the

flowering of fundamentalist terrorism and

preservation of Netanyahu’s rule.

Take note: It would be a mistake to as-

sume that Netanyahu thought about the

well-being of the poor and oppressed

Gazans—who are also victims of Hamas—

when allowing the transfer of funds (some of

which, as noted, didn’t go to building infra-

structure but rather military armament).

His goal was to hurt Abbas and prevent divi-

sion of the Land of Israel into two states.

It’s important to remember that without

those funds from Qatar (and Iran), Hamas

would not have had the money to maintain

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.036 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2390 March 14, 2024

its reign of terror, and its regime would have

been dependent on restraint.

In practice, the injection of cash (as op-

posed to bank deposits, which are far more

accountable) from Qatar, a practice that

Netanyahu supported and approved, has

served to strengthen the military arm of

Hamas since 2012.

Thus, Netanyahu indirectly funded Hamas

after Abbas decided to stop providing it with

funds that he knew would end up being used

for terrorism against him, his policies and

his people. It’s important not to ignore that

Hamas used this money to buy the means

through which Israelis have been murdered

for years.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. After all, so long

as Hamas was in control in Gaza, how

could anyone ask Israel to accept a

Palestinian State that included Gaza

and the West Bank? It is a fair ques-

tion.

So what are some of the ways in

which Prime Minister Netanyahu has

enabled Hamas to maintain its control

in Gaza? Well, another thing we have

heard a lot about around here is the

money from Qatar that went to Hamas.

It is well established that every penny

of that money flowed from Qatar to

Hamas with the concurrence of Prime

Minister Netanyahu and Israel. That

has been the testimony of witnesses in

both the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee and the Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs Committee. It has

also been well documented in numerous

news sources.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-

sent to have printed in the R

ECORD

CNN article entitled ‘‘Qatar sends mil-

lions to Gaza for years—with Israel’s

backing.’’

There being no objection, the mate-

rial was ordered to be printed in the

ECORD

, as follows:

[From CNN, Dec. 12, 2023]

ATAR SENT MILLIONS TO

AZA FOR

EARS

—

WITH

SRAEL

’

ACKING

. H

ERE

’

HAT

NOW

BOUT THE

ONTROVERSIAL

EAL

(By Nima Elbagir, Barbara Arvanitidies,

Alex Platt, Raja Razek, Nadeen Ebrahim,

and Uri Blau)

Since the October 7 Hamas attack on

Israel, the Gulf state of Qatar has come

under fire by Israeli officials, American poli-

ticians and media outlets for sending hun-

dreds of millions of dollars in aid to Gaza,

which is governed by the Palestinian mili-

tant group. But all that happened with

Israel’s blessing.

In a series of interviews with key Israeli

players conducted in collaboration with

Israeli investigative journalism organization

Shomrim, CNN was told Prime Minister Ben-

jamin Netanyahu continued the cash flow to

Hamas, despite concerns raised from within

his own government.

Qatar has vowed not to stop those pay-

ments. Qatari minister of state for foreign

affairs Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Al-Khulaifi

told CNN’s Becky Anderson on Monday that

his government will continue to make pay-

ments to Gaza to support the enclave, as it

has been doing for years.

‘‘We’re not going to change our mandate.

Our mandate is our continuous help and sup-

port for our brothers and sisters of Palestine.

We will continue to do it systematically as

we did it before,’’ Al-Khulaifi said.

Israeli sources responded by pointing out

that successive governments had facilitated

the transfer of money to Gaza for humani-

tarian reasons and that Netanyahu had acted

decisively against Hamas after the October 7

attacks.

Here’s what we know about those pay-

ments and Israel’s role in facilitating them.

WHEN DID THE QATARI PAYMENTS START

In 2018, Qatar began making monthly pay-

ments to the Gaza Strip. Some $15 million

were sent into Gaza in cash-filled suitcases—

delivered by the Qataris through Israeli ter-

ritory after months of negotiation with

Israel.

The payments started after the Palestinian

Authority (PA), the Palestinian government

in the Israeli occupied West Bank that is a

rival of Hamas, decided to cut salaries of

government employees in Gaza in 2017, an

Israeli government source with knowledge of

the matter told CNN at the time.

WHAT DID ISRAEL KNOW ABOUT HAMAS

’

OCTOBER 7 ATTACK

The PA opposed the Qatari funding at the

time, which Hamas said was meant for the

payment of public salaries as well as medical

purposes.

Israel approved the deal in a security cabi-

net meeting in August 2018, when Netanyahu

was serving his previous tenure as premier.

Even then, Netanyahu was criticized by his

coalition partners for the deal and for being

too soft on Hamas.

The prime minister defended the initiative

at the time, saying the deal was made ‘‘in

coordination with security experts to return

calm to (Israeli) villages of the south, but

also to prevent a humanitarian disaster (in

Gaza).’’

Ahmad Majdalani, an Executive Com-

mittee member at the Palestine Liberation

Organization in the West Bank, accused the

United States of orchestrating the payment.

The US was aware of the Qatari payments

to Hamas, a former senior State Department

official involved in the region told CNN on

condition of anonymity due to the sensi-

tivity of the matter.

Qatar was prepared to provide funds to the

Gaza Strip through Hamas as early as the

2014 Israel-Hamas war to alleviate the hu-

manitarian crisis there, the official said, and

the US at the time left it up to the Israelis

to decide whether they would permit this.

‘‘We deferred completely to the Israelis as

to whether this was something they wanted

to do or not,’’ the official said.

WHY DID ISRAEL BACK THE PAYMENTS

Israeli and international media have re-

ported that Netanyahu’s plan to continue al-

lowing aid to reach Gaza through Qatar was

in the hope that it might make Hamas an ef-

fective counterweight to the PA and prevent

the establishment of a Palestinian state.

PA officials said at the time the cash

transfers encouraged division between Pales-

tinian factions.

Major General Amos Gilad, a former senior

Israeli Defense Ministry official, told CNN

the plan was backed by the prime minister,

but not by the Israeli intelligence commu-

nity. There was also some belief that it

would ‘‘weaken Palestinian sovereignty,’’ he

said. There was also an illusion, he added,

that ‘‘if you fed them (Hamas) with money,

they would be tamed.’’

Shlomo Brom, a former deputy to Israel’s

national security adviser, told the New York

Times that an empowered Hamas helped

Netanyahu avoid negotiating over a Pales-

tinian state, saying the division of the Pal-

estinians helped him make the case that he

had no partner for peace in the Palestinians,

thus avoiding pressure for peace talks that

could lead to the establishment of an inde-

pendent Palestinian state.

The former State Department official said

that after the 2014 war, Israel felt it was bet-

ter off with Hamas controlling Gaza as op-

posed to multiple Islamist groups, or leaving

it in a political vacuum.

‘‘It was our impression that the Israelis

were comfortable with keeping Hamas in

power in a weakened form,’’ the official said.

‘‘Our understanding was that Hamas was the

lesser of a whole bunch of bad options in

Gaza,’’ the official added, noting that at

least the competing PA could keep Hamas

out of the West Bank.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent to have printed

in the R

ECORD

a New York Times arti-

cle from December of last year entitled

‘‘’Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli plan

that propped up Hamas.’’

The sub headline is ‘‘Prime Minister

Netanyahu gambled that a strong

Hamas (but not too strong) would keep

the peace and reduce pressure for a

Palestinian state.’’

There being no objection, the mate-

rial was ordered to be printed in the

ECORD

, as follows:

[From New York Times, Dec. 10, 2023]

‘B

UYING

UIET

’: I

NSIDE THE

SRAELI

LAN

HAT

ROPPED

AMAS

(By Mark Mazzetti and Ronen Bergman)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gam-

bled that a strong Hamas (but not too

strong) would keep the peace and reduce

pressure for a Palestinian state.

Just weeks before Hamas launched the

deadly Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, the head of

Mossad arrived in Doha, Qatar, for a meeting

with Qatari officials.

For years, the Qatari government had been

sending millions of dollars a month into the

Gaza Strip—money that helped prop up the

Hamas government there. Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only toler-

ated those payments, he had encouraged

them.

During his meetings in September with the

Qatari officials, according to several people

familiar with the secret discussions, the

Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a

question that had not been on the agenda:

Did Israel want the payments to continue?

Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently

decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea

said yes. The Israeli government still wel-

comed the money from Doha.

Allowing the payments—billions of dollars

over roughly a decade—was a gamble by Mr.

Netanyahu that a steady flow of money

would maintain peace in Gaza, the eventual

launching point of the Oct. 7 attacks, and

keep Hamas focused on governing, not fight-

ing.

The Qatari payments, while ostensibly a

secret, have been widely known and dis-

cussed in the Israeli news media for years.

Mr. Netanyahu’s critics disparage them as

part of a strategy of ‘‘buying quiet,’’ and the

policy is in the middle of a ruthless reassess-

ment following the attacks. Mr. Netanyahu

has lashed back at that criticism, calling the

suggestion that he tried to empower Hamas

‘‘ridiculous.’’

In interviews with more than two dozen

current and former Israeli, American and

Qatari officials, and officials from other Mid-

dle Eastern governments, The New York

Times unearthed new details about the ori-

gins of the policy, the controversies that

erupted inside the Israeli government and

the lengths that Mr. Netanyahu went to in

order to shield the Qataris from criticism

and keep the money flowing.

The payments were part of a string of deci-

sions by Israeli political leaders, military of-

ficers and intelligence officials—all based on

the fundamentally flawed assessment that

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.010 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2391 March 14, 2024

Hamas was neither interested in nor capable

of a large-scale attack. The Times has pre-

viously reported on intelligence failures and

other faulty assumptions that preceded the

attacks.

Even as the Israeli military obtained bat-

tle plans for a Hamas invasion and analysts

observed significant terrorism exercises just

over the border in Gaza, the payments con-

tinued. For years, Israeli intelligence offi-

cers even escorted a Qatari official into

Gaza, where he doled out money from suit-

cases filled with millions of dollars.

The money from Qatar had humanitarian

goals like paying government salaries in

Gaza and buying fuel to keep a power plant

running. But Israeli intelligence officials

now believe that the money had a role in the

success of the Oct. 7 attacks, if only because

the donations allowed Hamas to divert some

of its own budget toward military oper-

ations. Separately, Israeli intelligence has

long assessed that Qatar uses other channels

to secretly fund Hamas’ military wing, an

accusation that Qatar’s government has de-

nied.

‘‘Any attempt to cast a shadow of uncer-

tainty about the civilian and humanitarian

nature of Qatar’s contributions and their

positive impact is baseless,’’ a Qatari official

said in a statement.

Multiple Israeli governments enabled

money to go to Gaza for humanitarian rea-

sons, not to strengthen Hamas, an official in

Mr. Netanyahu’s office said in a statement.

He added: ‘‘Prime Minister Netanyahu acted

to weaken Hamas significantly. He led three

powerful military operations against Hamas

which killed thousands of terrorists and sen-

ior Hamas commanders.’’

Hamas has always publicly stated its com-

mitment to eliminating the state of Israel.

But each payout was a testament to the

Israeli government’s view that Hamas was a

low-level nuisance, and even a political

asset.

As far back as December 2012, Mr.

Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli jour-

nalist Dan Margalit that it was important to

keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to

the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr.

Netanyahu told him that having two strong

rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pres-

sure on him to negotiate toward a Pales-

tinian state.

The official in the prime minister’s office

said Mr. Netanyahu never made this state-

ment. But the prime minister would articu-

late this idea to others over the years.

While Israeli military and intelligence

leaders have acknowledged failings leading

up to the Hamas attack, Mr. Netanyahu has

refused to address such questions. And with

a war waging in Gaza, a political reckoning

for the man who has served as prime min-

ister for 13 of the last 15 years, is, for the mo-

ment, on hold.

But Mr. Netanyahu’s critics say that his

approach to Hamas had, at its core, a cynical

political agenda: to keep Gaza quiet as a

means of staying in office without address-

ing the threat of Hamas or simmering Pales-

tinian discontent.

‘‘The conception of Netanyahu over a dec-

ade and a half was that if we buy quiet and

pretend the problem isn’t there, we can wait

it out and it will fade away,’’ said Eyal

Hulata, Israel’s national security adviser

from July 2021 until the beginning of this

year.

SEEKING EQUILIBRIUM

Mr. Netanyahu and his security aides slow-

ly began reconsidering their strategy toward

the Gaza Strip after several bloody and in-

conclusive military conflicts there against

Hamas.

‘‘Everyone was sick and tired of Gaza,’’

said Zohar Palti, a former director of intel-

ligence for Mossad. ‘‘We all said, ‘Let’s for-

get about Gaza,’ because we knew it was a

deadlock.’’

After one of the conflicts, in 2014, Mr.

Netanyahu charted a new course—empha-

sizing a strategy of trying to ‘‘contain’’

Hamas while Israel focused on Iran’s nuclear

program and its proxy armies like Hezbollah.

This strategy was buttressed by repeated

intelligence assessments that Hamas was

neither interested in nor capable of launch-

ing a significant attack inside Israel.

Qatar, during this period, became a key

financier for reconstruction and government

operations in Gaza. One of the world’s

wealthiest nations, Qatar has long cham-

pioned the Palestinian cause and, of all its

neighbors, has cultivated the closest ties to

Hamas. These relationships have proved val-

uable in recent weeks as Qatari officials

have helped negotiate for the release of

Israeli hostages in Gaza.

Qatar’s work in Gaza during this period

was blessed by the Israeli government. And

Mr. Netanyahu even lobbied Washington on

Qatar’s behalf. In 2017, as Republicans

pushed to impose financial sanctions on

Qatar over its support for Hamas, he dis-

patched senior defense officials to Wash-

ington. The Israelis told American law-

makers that Qatar had played a positive role

in the Gaza Strip, according to three people

familiar with the trip.

Yossi Kuperwasser, a former head of re-

search for Israel’s military intelligence, said

that some officials saw the benefits of main-

taining an ‘‘equilibrium’’ in the Gaza Strip.

‘‘The logic of Israel was that Hamas should

be strong enough to rule Gaza,’’ he said, ‘‘but

weak enough to be deterred by Israel.’’

The administrations of three American

presidents—Barack Obama, Donald J. Trump

and Joseph R. Biden Jr.—broadly supported

having the Qataris playing a direct role in

funding Gaza operations.

But not everyone was on board.

Avigdor Lieberman, months after becom-

ing defense minister in 2016, wrote a secret

memo to Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli mili-

tary chief of staff. He said Hamas was slowly

building its military abilities to attack

Israel, and he argued that Israel should

strike first.

Israel’s goal is ‘‘to ensure that the next

confrontation between Israel and Hamas will

be the final showdown,’’ he wrote in the

memo, dated Dec. 21, 2016, a copy of which

was reviewed by The Times. A pre-emptive

strike, he said, could remove most of the

‘‘leadership of the military wing of Hamas.’’

Mr. Netanyahu rejected the plan, prefer-

ring containment to confrontation.

HAMAS AS

‘

AN ASSET

’

Among the team of Mossad agents that

tracked terrorism financing, some came to

believe that—even beyond the money from

Qatar—Mr. Netanyahu was not very con-

cerned about stopping money going to

Hamas.

Uzi Shaya, for example, made several trips

to China to try to shut down what Israeli in-

telligence had assessed was a money-laun-

dering operation for Hamas run through the

Bank of China.

After his retirement, he was called to tes-

tify against the Bank of China in an Amer-

ican lawsuit brought by the family of a vic-

tim of a Hamas terrorist attack.

At first, the head of Mossad encouraged

him to testify, saying it could increase fi-

nancial pressure on Hamas, Mr. Shaya re-

called in a recent interview.

Then, the Chinese offered Mr. Netanyahu a

state visit. Suddenly, Mr. Shaya recalled, he

got different orders from his former bosses:

He was not to testify.

Mr. Netanyahu visited Beijing in May 2013,

part of an effort to strengthen economic and

diplomatic ties between Israel and China.

Mr. Shaya said he would have liked to have

testified.

‘‘Unfortunately,’’ he said, ‘‘there were

other considerations.’’

While the reasons for the decision were

never confirmed, the change in tack left him

suspicious. Especially because politicians at

times talked openly about the value of a

strong Hamas.

Shlomo Brom, a retired general and former

deputy to Israel’s national security adviser,

said an empowered Hamas helped Mr.

Netanyahu avoid negotiating over a Pales-

tinian state.

‘‘One effective way to prevent a two-state

solution is to divide between the Gaza Strip

and the West Bank,’’ he said in an interview.

The division gives Mr. Netanyahu an excuse

to disengage from peace talks, Mr. Brom

said, adding that he can say, ‘‘I have no part-

ner.’’

Mr. Netanyahu did not articulate this

strategy publicly, but some on the Israeli po-

litical right had no such hesitation.

Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right politician

who is now Mr. Netanyahu’s finance min-

ister, put it bluntly in 2015, the year he was

elected to Parliament.

‘‘The Palestinian Authority is a burden,’’

he said. ‘‘Hamas is an asset.’’

SUITCASES FULL OF CASH

During a 2018 cabinet meeting, Mr.

Netanyahu’s aides presented a new plan:

Every month, the Qatari government would

make millions of dollars in cash payments

directly to people in Gaza as part of a cease-

fire agreement with Hamas.

Shin Bet, the country’s domestic security

service, would monitor the list of recipients

to try to ensure that members of Hamas’s

military wing would not directly benefit.

Despite those assurances, dissent boiled

over. Mr. Lieberman saw the plan as a capit-

ulation and resigned in November 2018. He

publicly accused Mr. Netanyahu of ‘‘buying

short-term peace at the price of serious dam-

age to long-term national security.’’ In the

years that followed, Mr. Lieberman would

become one of Mr. Netanyahu’s fiercest crit-

ics.

During an interview last month in his of-

fice, Mr. Lieberman said the decisions in 2018

directly led to the Oct. 7 attacks.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. But Prime Min-

ister Netanyahu’s role in keeping

Hamas in control in Gaza did not end

there.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-

sent to have printed in the R

ECORD

New York Times piece, again, from De-

cember of last year headlined: ‘‘Israel

found the Hamas money machine years

ago. Nobody turned it off.’’

There being no objection, the mate-

rial was ordered to be printed in the

ECORD

, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Dec. 16, 2023]

SRAEL

OUND THE

AMAS

ONEY

ACHINE

EARS

. N

OBODY

URNED

(By Jo Becker and Justin Scheck)

Israeli security officials scored a major in-

telligence coup in 2018: secret documents

that laid out, in intricate detail, what

amounted to a private equity fund that

Hamas used to finance its operations.

The ledgers, pilfered from the computer of

a senior Hamas official, listed assets worth

hundreds of millions of dollars. Hamas con-

trolled mining, chicken farming and road

building companies in Sudan, twin sky-

scrapers in the United Arab Emirates, a

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.013 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2392 March 14, 2024

property developer in Algeria, and a real es-

tate firm listed on the Turkish stock ex-

change.

The documents, which The New York

Times reviewed, were a potential road map

for choking off Hamas’s money and thwart-

ing its plans. The agents who obtained the

records shared them inside their own govern-

ment and in Washington.

Nothing happened.

For years, none of the companies named in

the ledgers faced sanctions from the United

States or Israel. Nobody publicly called out

the companies or pressured Turkey, the hub

of the financial network, to shut it down.

A Times investigation found that both sen-

ior Israeli and American officials failed to

prioritize financial intelligence—which they

had in hand—showing that tens of millions

of dollars flowed from the companies to

Hamas at the exact moment that it was buy-

ing new weapons and preparing an attack.

That money, American and Israeli officials

now say, helped Hamas build up its military

infrastructure and helped lay the ground-

work for the Oct. 7 attacks.

‘‘Everyone is talking about failures of in-

telligence on Oct. 7, but no one is talking

about the failure to stop the money,’’ said

Udi Levy, a former chief of Mossad’s eco-

nomic warfare division. ‘‘It’s the money—the

money—that allowed this.’’

At its peak, Israeli and American officials

now say, the portfolio had a value of roughly

half a billion dollars.

Even after the Treasury Department fi-

nally levied sanctions against the network in

2022, records show, Hamas-linked figures

were able to obtain millions of dollars by

selling shares in a blacklisted company. The

Treasury Department now fears that such

money flows will allow Hamas to finance its

continuing war with Israel and to rebuild

when it is over.

‘‘It’s something we are deeply worried

about and expect to see given the financial

stress Hamas is under,’’ said Brian Nelson,

the Treasury Department’s under secretary

for terrorism and financial intelligence.

‘‘What we are trying to do is disrupt that.’’

That was what Israel’s terrorism-finance

investigators hoped to do with their 2018 dis-

covery. But at the top echelons of the Israeli

and American governments, officials focused

on putting together a series of financial

sanctions against Iran. Neither country

prioritized Hamas.

Israeli leaders believed that Hamas was

more interested in governing than fighting.

By the time the agents discovered the ledg-

ers in 2018, the prime minister, Benjamin

Netanyahu, was encouraging the government

of Qatar to deliver millions of dollars to the

Gaza Strip. He gambled that the money

would buy stability and peace.

Mr. Levy recalled briefing Mr. Netanyahu

personally in 2015 about the Hamas portfolio.

‘‘I can tell you for sure that I talked to

him about this,’’ Mr. Levy said. ‘‘But he

didn’t care that much about it.’’

Mr. Netanyahu’s Mossad chief shut down

Mr. Levy’s team, Task Force Harpoon, that

focused on disrupting the money flowing to

groups including Hamas.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I want to quote

from Mr. Levy, who is quoted in that

article. He was the Mossad chief in

charge of economic policy. He says: ‘‘I

can tell you for sure that I talked to

him’’—referring to Prime Minister

Netanyahu—‘‘about this. But he didn’t

care that much about it.’’

The article goes on to point out that

Mr. Netanyahu’s Mossad chief shut

down Mr. Levy’s team, the task force

called Harpoon that focused on dis-

rupting the money flowing to groups

including Hamas.

So let’s go back to why Prime Min-

ister Netanyahu and his extreme right-

wing allies, like Smotrich and Ben

Gvir, wanted to keep Hamas in place in

Gaza. It is because, as they have said,

their primary goal was to avoid the es-

tablishment of a Palestinian State.

And so long as they could keep the Pal-

estinians divided, they could avoid a

united national movement for such a

state. And so long as Hamas was in

control of Gaza, it proved a useful foil

against recognizing a Palestinian State

that included the West Bank and Gaza,

until the horror of October 7.

The corollary of not threatening

Hamas’s control of Gaza has been to

systematically weaken the Palestinian

Authority in the West Bank. The ter-

rible irony, of course, is that while

helping perpetuate Hamas—which was

dedicated to the destruction of Israel

and is dedicated to the destruction of

Israel—Prime Minister Netanyahu and

his allies have undermined the Pales-

tinian Authority and the PLO, which,

for over 30 years, since the Oslo Ac-

cords, have recognized Israel’s right to

exist and have sought to coexist with

Israel.

Their strategy: Keep Hamas in place;

undermine the Palestinian Authority.

In fact, even today, during the war in

Gaza, Finance Minister Smotrich is

withholding an even greater share of

the PA’s own funds, and, since coming

to power, the Netanyahu government

has advanced even more settlements

and allowed even more outposts deeper

in the West Bank. And, of course, that

further undermines the legitimacy of

the PA in the eyes of the Palestinian

people by exposing their total inability

to stop those actions, even as they, the

PA, help provide to Israel with security

in certain areas of the West Bank.

So Prime Minister Netanyahu has ad-

vanced the strategy of weakening the

Palestinian Authority and facilitating

Hamas in order to prevent Palestinians

from being able to live in dignity in a

state of their own. And the reason—the

reason—that Prime Minister

Netanyahu and the far-right extremists

in his government, like Smotrich and

Ben Gvir, don’t want a Palestinian

State in the West Bank is that they

want it all for themselves in what they

envision as a ‘‘Greater Israel.’’

If you have Palestinians in the West

Bank or who stay in the West Bank,

you can’t implement the vision of a

‘‘Greater Israel’’—their version of one

state.

So we come full circle. UNRWA was

established to be a bridge to provide

services, like education, to Palestinian

refugees after they were displaced. I

am sure its founders did not expect it

to be around for so long, but that is be-

cause they likely never envisioned

that, 74 years later, the conflict that

gave rise to UNRWA would remain un-

resolved.

But it is unresolved, and now Prime

Minister Netanyahu has openly op-

posed President Biden’s call to resolve

it, ultimately, by enacting a real two-

state solution that would include nor-

malization of relations between Israel

and Saudi Arabia and the other Arab

countries that have yet to recognize

Israel—important security needed for

the Jewish State of Israel.

And at the same time that Prime

Minister Netanyahu wants to torpedo a

two-state solution to resolve the con-

flict, he also wants to pursue his long-

term goal of ending the organization

that was not born out of that conflict,

UNRWA, and eliminating the services

that it currently provides to Pales-

tinian refugees.

The United States should not be

complicit in this scheme. We should

not be a party to defunding UNRWA in

Gaza, which is, right now, playing a

critical role in the delivery of des-

perately needed food and humanitarian

assistance to starving people. Nor

should we be complicit in defunding

the essential services UNRWA provides

in places like the West Bank, Jordan,

and other places.

I support reforming UNRWA but not

eliminating it. The question of

defunding UNRWA is, at this very mo-

ment, the biggest unresolved issue in

the Foreign Operations appropriations

bill. I call upon responsible Members of

Congress in the Senate and the House

to ensure that the United States does

not defund UNRWA.

Members of Congress who argue for

the elimination of UNRWA have never

bothered to drive a short distance from

Jerusalem to visit an UNRWA school

and hear young students talk about

their dreams to be doctors, engineers,

and educators, like some of us have

done. There is hope in these schools,

not hate, and, frankly, that is what we

should be able to do here in the U.S.

Senate.

We should be on the side of hope. We

should not be a party to more people

starving in Gaza. We should not be a

party to the closing of schools for Pal-

estinian students in the West Bank,

Jordan, and other countries. And the

United States should not be a party to

creating even more instability in the

Middle East.

Like many of my colleagues, and like

President Biden, I believe the only way

to create some light at the end of this

dark tunnel is to find a path that en-

sures security for the Israeli people and

dignity and self-determination for the

Palestinian people.

That is why I stand with our col-

league Senator S

CHUMER

and his impor-

tant and timely comments this morn-

ing that rejecting the idea of Pales-

tinian statehood and sovereignty is a

‘‘grave mistake’’ for regional security

and especially for the security of

Israelis and Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has said

that a two-state solution would be a

big reward—reward, he says—for

Hamas, but the opposite is true. Hamas

has one plan: the destruction of the

State of Israel and replacing the Jew-

ish democratic state with one of their

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:07 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.012 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2393 March 14, 2024

own. They want one state. A two-state

solution is contrary to everything

Hamas stands for and all it seeks to

achieve, so, far from being a reward, it

would be a denial of their goal of one

state under Hamas control.

We all know that the road ahead will

be long, and it will be hard. In the

aftermath of the horrific Hamas at-

tacks of October 7 and the current hu-

manitarian disaster in Gaza, it is hard

to imagine a time of peace and sta-

bility. That will only come when Pales-

tinian leaders who fully embrace the

right of Israel to exist in security and

Israeli leaders who recognize that Pal-

estinians must have a viable state of

their own both make the necessary

risks for peace.

So let us push for an immediate

cease-fire and a release of all the hos-

tages, and then let us create a flicker

of hope in this moment of darkness.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

OOKER

). The Senator from South

Carolina.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, at a

later date, I will respond to my col-

league from Maryland about UNRWA.

But just to let people know who are

following this today, I am the ranking

Republican on the State, Foreign Ops

Appropriations Subcommittee, and I

work very well with Senator C

OONS

Senator V

OLLEN

is on the com-

mittee. There will not be one dime for

UNRWA in any bill I support, period.

And that is not just me; that is Sen-

ator C

OLLINS

. She is the ranking mem-

ber who worked very well with Senator

ATTY

URRAY

to get the supplemental

moving. Why is that? Because we be-

lieve UNRWA is compromised.

I will come and show you the text-

books that UNRWA uses in the Pales-

tinian community to teach the de-

struction of the Jewish people. I will

show you texts from people in charge

of UNRWA on the ground celebrating

October 7.

The case has been made over here

that UNRWA is no longer a credible or-

ganization worth American taxpayer

dollars to fund—not one penny for

UNRWA.

Helping the Palestinian people begins

with changing the way they are taught

in school. After we defeated the Ger-

mans and the Japanese, it took us a

long time to deradicalize a population

that was taught from birth to be rad-

ical. So what I hope will happen over

the course of time is that new people in

charge of the Palestinian community

in the West Bank and Gaza will stop

teaching the death of the Jews, trying

to give the Palestinian children a more

hopeful life. I hope that happens one

day soon.

The reason I came to the floor is I

have been asked—probably like the

Presiding Officer has—

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the Senator

from South Carolina yield for a ques-

tion?

Mr. GRAHAM. Let me finish. We will

come and debate. I have a plane to

catch.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We really should

debate because I don’t know any evi-

dence at all for your—

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from South Carolina has the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. We will come down,

and we will have a discussion about ev-

erything I said. Let me finish my

thought.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from South Carolina has the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. We will have a

very vigorous discussion about how

wrong you are to empower this group

that has been perpetrating all of the

wrong things, not the right things.

Now, having said all that—

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gen-

tleman yield on that?

Mr. GRAHAM. Let me finish my

thought.

Senator S

CHUMER

, whom I have

worked with on immigration, on a

bunch of things—I have tried to be bi-

partisan when it comes to foreign pol-

icy. My colleague, the President of the

Senate, has been one of my best friends

in trying to find a way forward to get

Saudi and Israel to recognize each

other. That would be a big blow to

Iran.

I have been asked, like everybody in

the body: What do you think about

Senator S

CHUMER

’s speech?

I am dumbfounded. I have always re-

spected him. I disagree with him politi-

cally. What he said today was earth-

shatteringly bad. The majority leader

of the U.S. Senate is calling on the peo-

ple of Israel to overthrow their govern-

ment.

Whether you like Bibi or not is not

the question. The question is, Is it ap-

propriate for anybody in this body tell-

ing another country to take their gov-

ernment down? We are going to have

an election here. I hope we take the

Biden government down through the

election process, but that is for us to

decide.

This has been very hurtful. I have

been on the phone almost all day try-

ing to explain to people what happened,

and I don’t have a good explanation.

We are trying to get Saudi Arabia to

recognize the one and only Jewish

State. That is no easy thing for the

Crown Prince to do given this environ-

ment.

We are trying to get Israel to take a

leap of faith here that it doesn’t have

to be this way all the time, to do some

things that would allow the Pales-

tinian community to reorganize.

Seventy-five percent of the Israeli

people do not support a two-state solu-

tion now. They have been terribly

wounded. There is no support by any

politician in Israel—Gantz, Lapid, any-

body—to unilaterally declare a Pales-

tinian State.

Five Presidents of the United States

have said that if there is ever a Pales-

tinian State, it will come through di-

rect negotiations, without conditions,

between the parties.

In the Trump administration, Jared

Kushner had a plan to establish a Pal-

estinian State that Prime Minister

Netanyahu actually agreed with.

The point here is, what should Amer-

ica be doing now? America should be

helping Israel without qualification.

We should be trying to find a way to

ease the suffering of the Palestinian

people, and the best way to do that is

to destroy Hamas. The reason so many

Palestinians have been killed is be-

cause Hamas uses them as human

shields.

We live in a world that is literally

upside down. We are having prominent

Democratic Members—people I re-

spect—calling on the Israeli people to

take their government down. I can’t

believe it. I thought it was a joke. I

thought somebody was pranking me

this morning. This is a departure in a

very serious way about how the United

States interacts with its allies. I think

it has done enormous damage to very

delicate negotiations. I hope that Sen-

ator S

CHUMER

will revisit this.

I don’t know who he is trying to

please by saying that, but they are not

worth pleasing. I don’t know who you

are trying to please by saying that the

Israeli Government needs to cease to

exist as it is today and the Israeli peo-

ple need to find somebody better, in

the eyes of Senator S

CHUMER

I am not asking the Israeli people to

elect somebody I like; I am asking

them: Whenever you have an election,

elect somebody you like. I am not ask-

ing the people of Israel to bow to my

view of how to settle this matter after

the largest loss of Jewish life since the

Holocaust. I want to give uncondi-

tional, unqualified support to the peo-

ple of Israel to destroy Hamas.

After World War II, if anybody had

suggested to America that we need to

take our foot off the gas when it came

to destroying the Nazis and the Japa-

nese, you would have been run out of

town. What won the Oscar? A film

called ‘‘Oppenheimer’’ talking about

how the atomic bomb was created and

used by our country to destroy two cit-

ies in Japan to end the war.

You have to understand—and the

Presiding Officer does; you have done

your homework—you have to under-

stand that October 7, to the Israeli peo-

ple, is Pearl Harbor and 9/11 on

steroids. It is not just a tit-for-tat with

Hamas; it was an attempt by Hamas to

break the back of the Jewish people, to

brutally rape and murder in a fashion

they want the world to see.

So the Israeli perspective on what to

do is similar to what we thought we

should do after World War II: total,

complete victory; everybody mobilize

and do what you have to do to end the

war, to take the Nazis down; and the

Imperial Japanese Army—destroy it

unequivocally.

Millions of people were killed in

World War II. War is literally hell. But

when you have been attacked the way

we were on Pearl Harbor and 9/11, you

have to respond forcefully. You have to

make sure it never happens again. And

the only way Israel can do this is to de-

stroy the military capability of Hamas.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.042 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2394 March 14, 2024

So why did this happen? I believe

that the great Satan, which is Iran,

wanted this to happen to prevent a rec-

onciliation between Saudi Arabia and

the State of Israel, ending the Arab-

Israeli conflict. A nightmare for the

Ayatollah is that the Arabs and the

Jews make peace and economically in-

tegrate, leaving them behind.

Israel has signed agreements with six

of their Arab neighbors under Bibi’s

leadership.

When I go, I meet with Lapid, I meet

with Gantz, and I meet with Bibi. I

meet with everybody because it is not

about Bibi; it is not about Gantz; it is

about our relationship. If it is Gantz or

Lapid next time, I will meet with

them. I know them all. Mr. Lapid and

I are very good friends. I have known

Bibi for 25 years. It is about, what

should we do to help our friends in

Israel?

Nothing would please me more than

to find a way to end this war sooner

rather than later and get back on track

for their normalization process, but we

cannot expect Israel to stop now. It is

like putting 80 percent of a fire out—

the 20 percent is going to start it all

over again.

We are down to six brigades, orga-

nized military units that Hamas has to

wreak havoc on the Palestinian people

and the State of Israel. It is nonnego-

tiable: Hamas will be destroyed mili-

tarily.

I am hoping, in the middle of all this

chaos, we can still find a way for Saudi

Arabia and Israel to normalize. That

would be the ultimate death blow, I

think, to the Iranian ambitions in the

region. Part of that deal, as the Pre-

siding Officer knows, would be the Pal-

estinians would have a better life even-

tually; that Saudi Arabia and UAE

would invest heavily into Gaza and the

West Bank; new, younger, less corrupt

people running the place, trying to find

a pathway forward where the Palestin-

ians and Israel can coexist in a way

that is beneficial for all.

That can never happen until Hamas

is destroyed. If Hamas is still in place,

they will kill everybody who wants to

make peace with Israel. They did it be-

fore. They have no desire, as Senator

OLLEN

said, of recognizing the

Jewish State.

But I will close where I began. What

Senator S

CHUMER

said on the floor of

the Senate is taking the country and

the Senate down the wrong road. This

is not something any of us should be

saying—calling on a government to be

toppled, basically, by its own people.

At the end of the day, Bibi is not the

problem. The problem is radical Islam

wanting to kill every Jew they can

find. The problem is Iran, which has its

mission to destroy the Jewish State

and to purify Islam.

I could spend hours talking about the

Biden-Obama policy of empowering the

Ayatollah, but that is not for today.

So what I would say to what Senator

CHUMER

said today—my response to

Senator S

CHUMER

: I am disappointed.

You have done a lot of damage, my

friend, and you need to fix this.

With that, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

President pro tempore of the U.S. Sen-

ate.

APPROPRIATIONS

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we

have now at long last passed our first

six funding bills for fiscal year 2024.

While we are still now working around

the clock on the final six bills, I am

hopeful we will pass them in a timely,

bipartisan way very soon. But I do

want to take a moment to step back

and really dive into the six bills that

we did pass last week and what they

mean for my home State of Wash-

ington.

I come to work every day focused on

how I can use my voice here to help

folks back home. When I sit down at

any negotiating table, I bring with me

the stories of every parent who is

struggling to afford childcare or gro-

ceries or rent; every farmer and fisher

whose livelihood depends on our crops,

our salmon, and our environment;

every researcher focused on making

the next big breakthrough; every

mayor focused on improving our infra-

structure; and every young person who

is concerned about climate change and

our most basic rights.

And I take those voices that I hear at

home in Washington State—the people

I meet—into every room I enter and

write their concerns into every bill I

negotiate. It is a responsibility I take

very seriously, especially as chair of

the Appropriations Committee.

And I am thrilled to say the legisla-

tion that we passed last Friday—the

bill I wrote with my colleagues—in-

cludes more than a billion dollars I

helped secure for local projects and

programs in Washington State and de-

livers a historic $3 billion investment

for the Hanford site cleanup.

I have practically been a broken

record in saying the Federal Govern-

ment has a moral and legal obligation

to properly fund the cleanup at Han-

ford. Our work is far from done. But

with this historic $3 billion invest-

ment, we are moving in the right direc-

tion.

And as long as I am Appropriations

chair, I am going to make sure we keep

up that momentum. No matter what,

we are not going to shortchange the

vital cleanup mission at Hanford.

We are facing a housing crisis. And it

has been especially hard on families in

Washington State. That is why I fought

hard to make sure that bill protected

and strengthened programs that help

families afford the cost of housing and

help keep families in their homes.

At the Federal level here, that means

homeless assistance grants, eviction

prevention grants, and Native Amer-

ican Housing Block Grants, rental as-

sistance programs, programs that help

people develop economic independence

and help keep kids with their parents,

and vital investments to maintain our

Nation’s affordable housing supply.

But it is not just funding for key na-

tional efforts that help Washington

State. I am especially proud to have se-

cured funding through congressionally

directed spending for the Aurora senior

housing development for seniors in Se-

attle, which will have 90 housing units.

That is a great start, but I know we

have a lot more work to do when it

comes to tackling the housing crisis.

And I will keep pushing for progress

with my colleagues every day.

In addition to the roof over their

heads, families need food on the table.

I held a roundtable in Seattle a few

weeks ago, talking with experts and

even a mom who depended on WIC; and

as I told them, I take this personally.

I remember what it was like when

my family fell on tough times and we

had to rely on food stamps. Making

cuts that leave our kids hungry was

never an option for me, which is why I

fought tooth and nail to make sure

that bill fully funded WIC, which serves

over 130,000 moms and kids just in my

home State of Washington.

And we fully funded the brandnew

permanent summer nutrition program

I established—Summer EBT—which

will now help feed half a million kids

in Washington State alone this sum-

mer.

Plus, I secured $1.8 million for the

South Kitsap Helpline. This is a re-

source for struggling families to help

expand food distribution. In the richest

country in the world, there is no reason

to leave our families hungry. It is real-

ly that simple.

Now, another important need for

working families in Washington State,

like in every other State, is childcare.

I hear about the childcare crisis every-

where I go.

We are still negotiating the bill that

funds the actual Federal investments

in childcare. But guess what. For par-

ents to have access to childcare, we

need physical childcare centers close to

where people live.

So a big priority of mine in the last

package was working with local orga-

nizations to help them build or expand

their childcare centers. And so through

Congressionally Directed Spending, we

are going to be constructing an early

learning center in the Meridian School

District and another in Lewis County

that will serve 80 students a year;

building 17 early childhood education

classrooms at the Cora Whitley Family

Center in Tacoma; and relocating a

Head Start facility for the Spokane

Tribe Indians.

We also provided new funding to de-

sign child development centers to ex-

pand access to childcare for our mili-

tary families, something I know we

need more of.

I remain focused on protecting and

strengthening the Child Care Develop-

ment Block Grant now as we negotiate

the next set of bills.

And I will always work to pass my

Childcare for Working Families Act,

but I will keep fighting alongside that

for every step of progress we can make.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.043 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2395 March 14, 2024

In addition to investments to support

our families, I worked hard to pass

funding for local projects that support

our cities and our communities. Con-

gressionally Directed Spending I se-

cured will help Grant County upgrade

security at its district court, Bain-

bridge Island build a brandnew visitors

center at the Japanese American Ex-

clusion Memorial, and the Indian

American Community Services in Kent

rebuild a community hub that will

offer everything from small business

support to early learning services.

Funds I secured will also support city

efforts to improve public safety and

make our justice system work better

for everyone. And for the first time

ever, the funding bill we passed in-

cludes $10 million for a new grant pro-

gram to increase access to sexual as-

sault nurse exams.

I worked very hard alongside Wash-

ington State advocate Leah Griffin.

She bravely shared her story with me

about her sexual assault. And we

worked together to pass a new law and

fund programs to help survivors get the

care and exams they need to pursue

justice—from a story Leah came to my

office with, to a conversation I had

with her directly, to years of advocacy

and coalition building on the Hill to-

gether, to passing a new law—and now

funding a new program to help sur-

vivors.

It is so important to me that my con-

stituents know anyone can make a dif-

ference and have a voice in their gov-

ernment. And Leah’s story and her

voice made a difference. I am so proud

of her.

I also worked to secure local funding

for projects like a public safety radio

network in Kittitas and Okanogan

Counties and mental and therapeutic

court programs in Spokane, Tacoma,

and Stevens County.

I was just in Tacoma talking to city

officials and others about the partner-

ships they are building around mental

and behavioral healthcare. And I am

overjoyed to be able to help and tell

them the good news that new Federal

resources are on the way to support

their efforts.

As another example, I secured a half

a million dollars for CHOOSE 180. This

is an organization in Burien that is fo-

cused on mentoring youth and helping

them stay out of trouble and build a

brighter future for themselves.

I visited last month, and I got to

hear firsthand from amazing young

adults who participated in that pro-

gram. This organization is changing

lives for the better. And I am so proud

of the work that they are doing.

Infrastructure, critically important.

In the bills we passed last week, there

are many, many important invest-

ments to help build our cities, update

their infrastructure, make the streets

in downtowns work better for pedes-

trians, commuters, and families. And

that includes safety and accessibility

improvements and funding for infra-

structure projects in my home State of

Washington—in Cle Elum, in Pierce

County, in Spokane, in Seattle, in the

Heights District development project

in Vancouver, and Walla Walla, as well

as road projects being undertaken by

the Lummi Nation and the Makah In-

dian Tribe.

Speaking of pedestrians and com-

muters, we cannot forget about the in-

vestments in public transit in this bill.

I am thrilled to say I secured new funds

in this bill for Sound Transit light rail

extension projects to Ballard, West Se-

attle, and Lynnwood.

And I have to say, House Republicans

wanted to cut funding for public tran-

sit in their bill to a level where the

Lynnwood Link simply would not have

had the Federal dollars it needed to get

done.

I made sure we stood firm on funding

the Capital Investment Grants pro-

gram. And because of that, we are now

going to deliver the full Federal fund-

ing this program needs to get across

the finish line.

There is also funding in this bill for

upgraded bus shelters in Pierce Coun-

ty, a regional transit facility on

Whidbey Island. And let’s talk about

our ferries. When it wasn’t easy enough

under the toplines in this bill—they

were tough—I was able to secure mil-

lions in additional funding for the Fed-

eral Passenger Ferry Grant Program

and include, for the first time ever,

language to make sure Washington

State Ferries can now apply for the

rural ferry grant program.

I can’t talk about ferries without

talking about our harbors and our

ports and our waterways. This package

includes a historic $2.77 billion for the

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and

new language I have worked hard to

get in to make sure Washington State

ports get their fair share for those

funds.

There are also other crucial invest-

ments in our waterways and water in-

frastructure; millions for maintenance

and repairs to the locks of Lake Wash-

ington Ship Canal—better known by

everyone back home as the Ballard

Locks—and preconstruction work at

Tacoma Harbor; to say nothing of the

bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds

that are pouring into our communities.

It is so important to all of us.

There is also funding for wastewater

treatment projects at Soap Lake,

Snoqualmie Pass, and to help the Dis-

covery Clean Water Alliance return

more clean water to the Columbia

River.

I also worked to protect our State’s

incredible natural beauty and re-

sources by fighting off devastating cuts

and policy riders that House Repub-

licans wanted to make to critical envi-

ronmental and conservation programs.

This bill that we passed will help our

State conserve new public lands, in-

cluding in San Juan Island National

Historical Park, the Willapa National

Wildlife Refuge, and the Okanogan-

Wenatchee National Forest to protect

the Yakama and Wenatchee water-

sheds. And there are funds for the Mt.

Adams Forest project.

I also secured full funding for essen-

tial Federal wildfire programs and pro-

tected a hard-earned pay raise for our

brave Federal firefighters.

And, of course, there are investments

to protect and restore our salmon pop-

ulations, because everyone knows how

essential salmon are to our economy at

home and our current culture in Wash-

ington State. So I fought hard for in-

vestments in this bill to support salm-

on, on top of everything I have already

mentioned.

Under tough constraints, I managed

to either protect or build on Federal

investments in Puget Sound restora-

tion efforts; the Yakima Basin inte-

grated plan; the Northwest Straits Ini-

tiative that I created; the National Ma-

rine Fisheries Service, including hatch-

ery operations; and Pacific Coastal

Salmon Recovery Fund.

Last year, I joined leaders from the

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, local en-

vironmental advocates, and experts to

track evasive European green crab.

This is something I never heard of be-

fore the last few years. But they are

now invading Washington waters, and I

learned more about the threat that

they pose to our native species. And I

am very glad to say we now have fund-

ing to help fight that invasive green

crab and language calling for a coordi-

nated Federal approach to this threat.

Another crucial investment: a much-

needed $50 million down payment for

the fish passage project at the Howard

Hanson Dam. And I am so glad the

President’s fiscal year ’25 budget that

just came out requested $500 million to

build that fish passage facility. And

you can bet I will be working to fund

that request and finish the job in next

year’s funding bills.

Of course, how we manage our water

resources doesn’t matter to just our

fish. It is also critical to our commu-

nities and farmers, which is why I am

pleased we could also include funds in

this bill to improve drinking water sys-

tems in Dupont and Mattawa and sup-

port bridge replacement in Adams and

Grant Counties as part of the Odessa

Groundwater Replacement Project,

which is critical to improving irriga-

tion for our farmers and matters so

much to our State’s economy.

And I fought hard to secure other

critical investments to support our

farmers as well.

Last year, I visited WSU for the

groundbreaking of their new Plant

Sciences Building, which will be at the

forefront of responding to challenges

Washington State farmers are facing

right now.

And I am thrilled to build on that

progress by delivering investments in

this bill to support researchers at

WSU, UW, and the USDA center in

Prosser, WA, as they tackle issues like

little cherry disease, livestock resil-

iency, pollution from tires, pulse crop

quality, and more.

Of course, when it comes to cutting-

edge research, agriculture is just one of

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.044 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2396 March 14, 2024

the many fields for where I am very

proud to see Washington State re-

searchers leading the way. Whether it

is quantum computing in Bothell,

clean energy in Tri-Cities at PNNL, or

aerospace work in Kent and across

western Washington, this bill will pro-

pel the innovation that is happening in

my State.

And through Congressionally Di-

rected Spending, this bill will help fund

new scientific equipment at Gonzaga’s

Bollier Center for Integrated Science

and Engineering, Evergreen State Col-

lege in Olympia, and Western Wash-

ington University’s Advanced Tech-

nology Laboratory—not to mention

funding for WSU to upgrade its elec-

tron microscope and develop a new nu-

clear hot cell facility; and for UW’s

Tidal-Powered Ocean Observation

project in its new lab in Tacoma.

I couldn’t leave the floor today with-

out talking about the critical invest-

ments in this bill that we made for our

veterans and our servicemembers. As

chair of the MILCON-VA subcommittee

and the proud daughter of a World War

II veteran, I worked hard to make sure

our funding bill lived up to our Na-

tion’s commitment to every man and

woman who serves in uniform.

This bill fully funds our veterans’

medical care and delivers record in-

vestments to tackle veteran homeless-

ness, strengthen mental health serv-

ices, and support women veterans’

healthcare needs.

I also worked hard to secure funding

for new barracks and a parachute rig-

ging facility at Joint Base Lewis-

McChord; build storage tanks and fuel

supply at Point Manchester; update

electrical infrastructure at Puget

Sound Naval Shipyard; and advance

other projects across Washington State

bases like equipment, maintenance,

and training facilities.

I also made sure our Senate bill re-

allocated $19 million to build 88 new

homes at Smokey Point for our serv-

icemembers and their families who are

stationed at Naval Station Everett. I

am proud to have gotten this through

our final bill to help address a major

need for more military houses in Sno-

homish County.

When it comes to support for our vet-

erans and our VA facilities, I pushed to

make sure this bill contains funding to

help the American Lake VA Medical

Center upgrade its facilities so they

can provide quality care and for fund-

ing for the Tahoma National Cemetery

and its work to ensure we honor the

veterans we have lost.

Mr. President, I just covered a lot of

ground, so I will wrap things up. The

bottom line is: While these first six

funding bills are not the bills I would

have written on my own, they do pro-

tect absolutely critical programs and

make needed investments in Wash-

ington State and every State in Amer-

ica. Again, let’s be clear: We are not

done yet. I am working to make sure

we see similar results for people in

Washington State and across the coun-

try in the remaining six bills that we

are working on right now, this minute.

I am going to keep bringing the con-

cerns I bring with me to every negoti-

ating room for my constituents and

work to get solutions to help them

with every bill that I pass.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ETTERMAN

). The Senator from Texas.

ISRAEL

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was

shocked to hear the comments of the

Senate majority leader this morning

excoriating our closest ally, the only

democracy in the Middle East. You

know, we don’t appreciate it when

other countries tell us how we ought to

govern our country. I am sure that

feeling is reciprocated by our Israeli al-

lies.

Here is what the former Ambassador

of Israel said on social media:

Regardless of my opinion of Netanyahu

and his fitness to serve, Senator S

CHUMER

’

call for new Israeli elections is deeply dis-

respectful of our democracy and sovereignty.

Israel is an ally, not a vassal state. Along

with the U.S., we’re one of the few countries

[that have never] known a non-democratic

government, and the only democracy never

to have known a moment of peace. We [cer-

tainly] deserve that respect.

I think Ambassador Oren is exactly

right. The majority leader’s speech this

morning was deeply disrespectful of

our ally, which is, indeed, as I said, a

sovereign nation and a democracy.

I traveled to Israel and Saudi Arabia

and Jordan in January with five other

members of the Senate Intelligence

Committee. We met in Jordan and then

in Saudi Arabia with Mohammed bin

Salman and then with Prime Minister

Netanyahu and the Defense Minister

Gallant in Israel.

Of course, war involves collateral

damages to innocent people. But the

people responsible for initiating that

war in Israel was Hamas, a proxy of the

Iranian regime—one of many. And for

somehow to say now, 5 months after

that horrible attack on October 7, that

Israel ought to stay its hand and allow

Hamas potentially to reconstitute in

Gaza is not only deeply disrespectful, it

undermines the ability of the Israelis

to do what they must do, which is de-

stroy that threat.

I know 3 months after the attack on

October 7, when I was in Israel, when I

heard some of my colleagues say we

need to have a cease-fire—well, I know

if Hamas had not started the shooting,

that Israel would not have started and

we would not find ourselves with all of

these casualties on both sides.

But we know that Iran is the head of

the octopus and the tentacles reach far

and wide. We all learned more about

world geography and how the world

works in recent years since America—

we thought we were safe on our own

continent, and we had an ocean to pro-

tect us on each side. But 9/11 was a re-

minder that not even Americans are

safe from the hand of terrorists.

And Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of

terror—no doubt about it. They spon-

sor the Houthis in Yemen. They help

Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. They

help Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in

Lebanon on the northern border. Israel

is under attack by people who want to

wipe that country and those people off

the face of the Earth. Of course, they

have a right to defend themselves. Of

course, they need to eliminate the ter-

rorist threat that killed so many inno-

cent civilians on October 7.

And so for the majority leader to

come here and say, ostensibly as a sup-

porter of Israel, that we don’t like the

current government; that the Israeli

people need new elections and to select

new leaders; and oh, by the way, you

need to quit being so tough on the ter-

rorists known as Hamas—it is shocking

to me.

We need to stand with Israel. They

need to be able to finish the job, not

because they want to, but because they

must in order to continue to exist.

OFFICE OF REFUGEE RELOCATION

Mr. President, also today, I was

shocked to hear the Secretary of

Health and Human Services, Secretary

Becerra, say that when it comes to the

400,000 unaccompanied children that

have come to America, come to our

shores and been placed with sponsors

by the Office of Refugee Relocation

under Health and Human Services—he

said: We don’t have any responsibility

to those children after they are placed

with sponsors.

Just to remind everybody, under cur-

rent law, if an unaccompanied child

shows up at the border—smuggled to

the border by criminal organizations

that get rich smuggling migrants to

the border—they are then turned over

by the Border Patrol to Health and

Human Services Office of Refugee Relo-

cation. They then identify a sponsor

for that child in the interior of the

United States. Sometimes it is a fam-

ily member; sometimes it is not.

There has been precious little vetting

of the households in which those chil-

dren are ultimately placed. And the

New York Times, in 2023, wrote several

investigative articles documenting the

fact that the Biden administration had

simply lost those children. In 85,000

cases where the reporters contacted

the sponsors of these children, there

was never an answer.

Secretary Becerra said this morning:

I don’t have the authority to do any-

thing after we turn them over to the

sponsor.

I said: OK. You can’t tell us where

these children are? You can’t tell us

are they going to school? Are they

being trafficked for sex? Are they being

forced into child labor in violation of

the laws that are designed to protect

children as has been documented by

the New York Times and one of the

Senate’s own investigating commit-

tees?

He said: It is not my job.

Frankly, my conclusion is he simply

doesn’t care about the welfare of these

400,000 children living in communities

all across America. We don’t know

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.045 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2397 March 14, 2024

whether they have been forced into

gangs or whether they dropped out of

school. Secretary Becerra and Presi-

dent Biden don’t know, and they don’t

care.

PRESIDENT BIDEN

’

S BUDGET

Mr. President, on another matter,

more than 5 months into the current

fiscal year, the Senate has finally

made some progress on government

funding. Just so anybody listening un-

derstands where we are, we are actu-

ally doing the work that we were sup-

posed to do last year before the end of

the fiscal year, which is September 30.

So we are actually dealing with spend-

ing bills from 2023 in 2024 because we

didn’t do the work then. So now, here

we are stacked up, lurching from po-

tential shutdown to shutdown with

various fiscal cliffs. We avoided one of

those cliffs last week when we passed 6

of the 12 annual appropriations bills for

fiscal year 2024.

These bills, as well as the six unfin-

ished bills, should have been signed

into law before the end of September

last year. Instead, the monumental

task of funding the government has

lingered in purgatory in the Senate as

the majority leader has chosen to

spend this Chamber’s limited time vot-

ing on nominations. As a result, we had

to pass one stopgap spending bill after

another to prevent the government

from shutting down. And now the next

funding deadline is just over 1 week

away.

Unless Congress passes six more

funding bills by midnight next Friday,

portions of the government will shut

down and countless public servants will

be left without a paycheck and the

American people unnecessarily incon-

venienced. Well, that includes Amer-

ican troops that will be left without a

paycheck. It includes the Border Pa-

trol. It includes Customs and Border

Patrol officers and other law enforce-

ment, many of whom will have to work

without pay if that occurs.

I am deeply disappointed we find our-

selves with this state of affairs nearly

halfway through the current fiscal

year. This is Washington dysfunction

at its worst. This is the basic job of

governing.

I do hope we will be able to make

some serious progress in the next 2

weeks to fund the government and

wrap up our work on fiscal year 2024

appropriations that we should have

done last year so now we could work on

next year’s before the end of the fiscal

year in September.

Earlier this week, President Biden

submitted his budget request for fiscal

year 2025, which begins in October. It is

no secret that this massive document

is on the train to nowhere, but that

doesn’t mean it is totally worthless.

After all, a person’s budget includes

valuable information.

Dating back to his time as a Member

of the Senate, President Biden has

often repeated a favorite expression of

his father’s. His dad would tell him:

Don’t tell me what you value; show me

your budget, and I will tell you what

you value.

Someone could tell you they care

about supporting those who are less

fortunate or saving for the future, but

one will look at the budget and tell

that you really have other priorities.

The same is true for the Federal Gov-

ernment. It is easy for leaders to say

they value a strong military, just like

it is easy to say we stand with Israel

while undercutting our ally.

I have worked here long enough to

know you can’t just listen to what peo-

ple say; you have to watch what they

do.

President Biden’s budget provides an

unvarnished view of what he values,

and in countless ways—in countless

ways—it contradicts what he has said

to the American people. It is a moun-

tain of reckless, burdensome tax hikes

and far-left priorities with a $7.3 tril-

lion pricetag—trillion.

Just like President Biden, this budg-

et request is completely detached from

the needs of our country. There is no

better example than the President’s

border budget.

Since he took office, our country has

grappled with a completely unprece-

dented crisis at the border, part of

which I spoke about a moment ago.

In 3 years, Customs and Border Pro-

tection has encountered more than 7.2

million migrants at the border. That is

higher than the total for the entire 12

years of the Trump and Obama admin-

istrations.

When this many individuals cross the

border every day, the entire system be-

comes overwhelmed. We don’t have

enough Border Patrol to respond to the

overwhelming number of people com-

ing across the border every day. We

don’t have the facilities to detain them

for the amount of time needed to proc-

ess their asylum claims. We certainly

don’t have enough resources to return

individuals with no legitimate reason

to remain in the United States back to

their home country.

We need more personnel, facilities,

and resources to address this crisis, as

well as changes in policy, but the over-

arching issue that needs to be fixed is

the recordbreaking pace of migration.

Everybody knows that if a pipe breaks

in your home, your top priority

wouldn’t be to buy more buckets; it

would be to turn off the water. That is

what we need to do here. We need to

address the wave of humanity that

keeps coming and coming and will keep

coming and coming. Unfortunately,

President Biden’s budget wouldn’t

make any meaningful changes to that.

The only way to stop this unprece-

dented flow of migration is by discour-

aging people from coming in the first

place. That is called deterrence. The

Border Patrol calls it consequences.

When there are no consequences with

coming here through illegal channels,

then people are going to keep coming.

President Biden needs to make it clear

that anyone who does not have a legal

basis to remain in the United States

will be detained and deported. Those

are the operative words here, ‘‘detain

and deport,’’ or ‘‘repatriate,’’ if you

prefer.

The Biden administration needs to

detain every person who crosses the

border without legal authority and re-

turn every single person who doesn’t

have a legal basis to remain in the

United States. The President’s budget,

which shows what he values, doesn’t

provide the resources to do that.

One example is a request for deten-

tion beds. That is part of the ‘‘detain’’

element that I mentioned. The admin-

istration has asked for 34,000 beds for

Immigration and Customs Enforce-

ment. That may sound like a lot, but

with the volume of people coming

across the border, those beds fill up

quickly.

For example, during the first 4

months of the fiscal year, we averaged

about 240,000—nearly a quarter of a

million—migrants each month. That is

about 8,000 crossings each day. If we

are generous and assume that Immi-

grations and Customs Enforcement ac-

tually acquires all 34,000 beds and that

they are empty on day one, those beds

would be filled in less than 5 days.

Migrants who are placed in expedited

removal and who are seeking asylum

are supposed to complete a credible

fear screening—a process that typically

took about 13 days last year. If the ad-

ministration wanted to do things by

the book—that means follow the law—

we would need the capacity to hold

every single person who crossed the

border for 2 weeks just to figure out

whether they are making a credible

claim for asylum and then a longer pe-

riod in which to evaluate those claims.

To reemphasize the point, that is just

to figure out if an asylum claim is

plausible on its face before an immi-

gration judge determines whether it is

supported by any evidence. At current

levels, that means we would need more

than 100,000 beds just to figure out

whether migrants were making facially

plausible claims, without even deter-

mining whether those claims are sup-

ported by real evidence.

As I said, the winning formula is de-

tain-and-deport, not catch-and-release,

which is the Biden border policy. The

President’s budget doesn’t provide

nearly enough resources for things like

removal flights either.

Given the unprecedented pace of ille-

gal border crossings during the Biden

administration and the rate at which

new migrants are arriving, certainly

they see the welcome mat waiting for

them—not a red light, not a blinking

yellow light, but a green light. ‘‘Come

on in’’—that is the message that is

being sent.

ICE needs a dramatic funding in-

crease for air charter flights, for exam-

ple, and it needs enough resources to

return migrants to their home coun-

tries, but the administration has once

again failed to give the Agency the re-

sources it needs to carry out its mis-

sion.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.047 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2398 March 14, 2024

Our Border Patrol and our Immigra-

tions and Customs Enforcement offi-

cers can’t do the job we have asked

them to do because the Biden adminis-

tration has undercut them in endless

ways. This is hardly a surprise. The ad-

ministration has constantly treated

Immigrations and Customs Enforce-

ment like a corrupt, criminal group in-

stead of a vital law enforcement Agen-

cy, which is exactly what they are.

Vice President H

ARRIS

, the President’s

own border czar, once compared ICE to

the Ku Klux Klan. How outrageous is

that from a supposedly responsible

public servant, the Vice President of

the United States?

This administration has never been

serious about the border, and its budg-

et continues to prove that. Instead, the

President’s budget focuses on man-

aging the crisis—not fixing it, not solv-

ing it, but managing it.

Rather than establish deterrence by

eliminating catch-and-release and in-

stituting detain-and-deport, the admin-

istration is just building up more re-

sources to try to avoid the public rela-

tions disaster when we see people sleep-

ing in the streets in places like Del

Rio, El Paso, and Laredo, just to name

a few places.

The Biden administration has asked

for $4.7 billion for a ‘‘contingency

fund’’ that could kick in when condi-

tions warrant extra capacity, but real-

ly, despite the efforts to try to gloss

over what they are doing, this is really

about facilitating the recordbreaking

flow of migrants into our country.

Once again, President Biden has

proven that he has no desire—zero—to

stop the flow of people into the coun-

try. Instead, he wants to make that

process more efficient, as if 7.2 million

aren’t enough. But with his poll num-

bers in the tank, President Biden keeps

saying he wants to address the border

crisis, but he has no one to blame but

himself. Yes, this is a manmade crisis,

and that man is Joe Biden.

This is not the plan of someone who

is interested in making a real and an

honest attempt to solve a problem.

This isn’t a good-faith attempt to

achieve operational control at the bor-

der, enforce the law, and deter illegal

immigration. Unfortunately, it is just

more of the same—more of the same

policies that created the mess we are in

right now.

President Biden may say he values a

secure border, but his budget reveals

his true values, and that is that he does

not.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Delaware.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before I

address recycling and composting, I

just want to say something with re-

spect and affection to my friend from

Texas.

About a month ago, Democrats and

Republicans joined together here on

this floor to pass bipartisan legislation

to provide for better—much better—se-

curity at the border and to make sure

that folks from other countries who

have a desire to work, the ability to

work, are not a threat to our safety or

security—that they could be provided

an opportunity to help make this a bet-

ter country.

It was a bipartisan vote, Democrats

and Republicans. So I just want to

commend the Republicans who joined

the Democrats in voting for it. The leg-

islation has died in the House, at least

for now, and my hope is that the House

will see fit to join us in the Senate to

pass commonsense, much needed bor-

der security legislation.

RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING

Mr. President, having said that, I

came here today to talk about the pas-

sage in the Senate earlier this week of

the Recycling and Composting Ac-

countability Act and the Recycling In-

frastructure and Accessibility Act of

2023—two pieces of bipartisan legisla-

tion that, if enacted, will improve our

Nation’s recycling and our Nation’s

composting systems.

As a number of our colleagues know,

I care a lot about recycling, and I care

a lot about composting. I have ever

since I was a kid. In fact, I think in our

home in Wilmington, DE, we have recy-

cled everything in recent years, from a

dehumidifier in our basement to a Ford

Explorer out in our driveway. We recy-

cle a whole lot more. We do it every

week. I know a lot of other folks in our

neighborhood and a lot of other folks

in our State do as well. But in our

country, we can always do everything

better. We can always do things better

when we need to.

Through my time in the U.S. Senate,

I have looked for and I have found

many opportunities for bipartisan sup-

port of policies that boost recycling

and that boost composting. As my col-

leagues on this floor have heard me say

many, many times, bipartisan solu-

tions are lasting solutions. I believe

that with every fiber of my being.

To that end, earlier this Congress,

Senator C

APITO

, ranking member of the

Senate Committee on Environment and

Public Works, along with Senator J

OHN

OOZMAN

from Arkansas and I, worked

to advance bipartisan legislation

through our committee, through the

Committee on Environment and Public

Works, that would strengthen our Na-

tion’s recycling, composting, and sus-

tainability efforts.

Moreover, we know that recycling is

a win-win. Why do I say that? It not

only benefits our environment, but it

also creates economic opportunity. It

creates a lot of jobs, a whole lot of

jobs, not just in Delaware but in every

State across the country.

When enacted, the Recycling and

Composting Accountability Act and

the Recycling Infrastructure and Ac-

cessibility Act of 2023 will address sev-

eral of the challenges that America’s

recycling efforts currently face, includ-

ing the lack of good data, including

limited access to recycling programs in

many parts—too many parts—of our

country.

To increase the amount of high-qual-

ity data available on recycling efforts

across America, Senator B

OOZMAN

and

I developed legislation called the Recy-

cling and Composting Accountability

Act. Our bill would improve the Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency’s ability

to gather data on this Nation’s recy-

cling systems and explore opportuni-

ties for implementing a national

composting strategy.

Some people might say: What is

composting, and why is that impor-

tant? Well, I am excited about the idea

of a national composting strategy be-

cause implementing such a strategy

will help us reduce food waste, which is

responsible for over half—that is

right—over half of our planet-warming

methane emissions that emanate from

landfills.

I will say that again. I am excited

about the idea of national composting

strategy. Why? Because implementing

such a strategy will help us reduce food

waste. Food waste is responsible for

over half—that is right—over half of

our planet-warming methane emissions

that emanate from landfills. To in-

crease access to recycling programs,

Senator C

APITO

, Senator B

OOZMAN

, and

I introduced the Recycling Infrastruc-

ture and Accessibility Act of 2023. Why

did we do that? To create a pilot pro-

gram at EPA to help expand recycling

services in underserved areas.

Many Americans in rural and under-

served communities want to recycle

and they want to compost, but they are

unable to do so because they live in

areas that lack the necessary recycling

infrastructure, including curbside pick-

up or community collection centers.

In comparison to our neighbors, how

are we doing? I have a friend, and I

asked him how he is doing. He said:

Compared to what?

Well, why don’t we compare our-

selves to Canada and maybe Germany?

Well, compared to Canada, we have a

lot of work to do. For example, British

Columbia, our neighbors to the north,

up there, they are currently recycling

86 percent of their residential waste—86

percent. Across the pond over in Ger-

many, they are recycling almost half—

48 percent, to be exact—of their waste.

Yes, 48 percent. I wish I could say we

are doing as well, but unfortunately,

today in America, our national recy-

cling rate is not even a third but just

under that—32 percent. We can do bet-

ter than that. We have to do better

than that.

These two bills will help us to im-

prove our recycling efforts to meet the

goal set by the EPA to increase the

U.S. recycling efforts—bring it up to 50

percent by the year 2030.

I think people, given a choice, would

like to recycle. They would like to

compost. We have to make it easy for

them to do so.

Both of the bills that I have men-

tioned are the result of true collabora-

tion and reflect a bipartisan commit-

ment to exploring and addressing our

Nation’s recycling and composting

challenges and opportunities.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.048 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2399 March 14, 2024

We have a moral duty to leave behind

a cleaner, healthier planet for future

generations, and that is a belief I know

is shared by most Americans.

Now that the Senate has passed both

of these bills, I welcome all of our

House colleagues to join us in this ef-

fort.

I want to say to the Presiding Offi-

cer, our colleague from the Common-

wealth of Pennsylvania, a member of

the Senate Committee on Environment

and Public Works—I want to thank

him for being part of the effort that

has enabled us to bring this legislation

to the floor, I believe without opposi-

tion and with total, bipartisan support

of Democrat and Republican Members.

Hopefully, we will be able to con-

vince our friends over in the House

that we come up with some pretty good

ideas over here in the Senate from time

to time, and these are a couple of

them.

I yield the floor.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to legislative session for a pe-

riod of morning business, with Sen-

ators permitted to speak therein for up

to 10 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

TRIBUTE TO JON D. LEVY

∑ Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I

wish to recognize the outstanding ca-

reer of Chief Judge Jon D. Levy of

Portland, ME, and congratulate him on

a well-deserved retirement from the ju-

diciary. Jon is retiring after nearly

three decades of service on both

Maine’s State and Federal courts. I

have had the privilege of knowing Jon

since my time as Governor and his

dedication and outstanding service on

the bench has continued to impress me

over the years.

Jon was born in New York and at-

tended Syracuse University before pur-

suing his study of law at West Virginia

University College of Law. After earn-

ing his JD, Jon worked as a law clerk

for the U.S. District Court, Southern

District of West Virginia, and as spe-

cial monitor for the Southern District

of Texas. In 1982, Jon and his wife—in

search of coastline—came to Maine and

ultimately settled in York, where Jon

practiced family law until 1995.

In 1995, Jon first came to my atten-

tion as an outstanding legal practi-

tioner, and he was one of my first judi-

cial appointments as Governor to the

Maine District Court. After only a

handful of years, Jon became chief

judge of the Maine District Court, an

upward trajectory he would repeat

throughout his career. In 2002, I ap-

pointed Jon to the Maine Supreme

Court as an associate justice, becoming

the first in Maine’s history to go di-

rectly from the district court to the su-

preme court without prior service on

the superior court. A remarkable feat,

but one that Jon deserved.

In 2014, President Obama nominated

him to the U.S. District Court for the

District of Maine, and he was con-

firmed with over three-quarters of the

Senate’s support. Jon served with dis-

tinction and always with the utmost

respect and dedication to the institu-

tion. He retires in May as our chief

judge.

It has been a privilege to know Jon

and call him my friend, and I am sure

he will be dearly missed on the bench.

I hope that Jon’s analytical, decisive

intellect and genuine respect for the

law will inspire others to follow in his

footsteps. I wish Jon all the best in his

next chapter of life and give him my

sincerest thanks; he truly is a judge’s

judge, and Maine is lucky to call him

one of our own.∑

REMEMBERING GEORGE E.

‘‘COTTON’’ FLETCHER

∑ Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President,

I rise to honor the life of George E.

‘‘Cotton’’ Fletcher. Cotton Fletcher

was born in St. Petersburg, FL, and

shortly after moved to Newberry, FL,

where he led family enterprises and

created jobs for hard-working Florid-

ians, including a 2,000-acre farm, the

Newberry Fletcher Farm Equipment

dealership, a cattle ranch, and a fam-

ily-run sawmill in west Gainesville.

Later he turned to property develop-

ment as the president and CEO of the

Fletcher Family of Companies.

Mr. Fletcher also dedicated his life to

service. He served in the U.S. Navy and

the Air Force, retiring as a major from

the Air Force Reserves. His service

continued beyond the military, serving

53 years on the Alachua General Hos-

pital Board, which later became Santa

Fe Healthcare and included the found-

ing of Haven Hospice in Gainesville,

FL. He also served on the Florida Lot-

tery Commission, the Gainesville Area

Chamber of Commerce, and as a Paul

Harris Fellow Rotary Member.

He is survived by his children Cheryl

Hartley (Robert), Cindy Thompson,

Deborah Diamond, and Blake Fletcher

(Ashley); his sister-in-law Mary Fletch-

er, son-in-law Lester Thompson; 12

grandchildren Matthew, Bryce, An-

drew, Ross, Myles, Chelsea, Ryan,

Bella, Reagan, Landon, Greyson,

Brady; and 6 great-grandchildren

Brendan, Parker, Catherine, Emory,

Claire, Ellie.∑

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the

United States were communicated to

the Senate by Ms. Kelly, one of his sec-

retaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

In executive session the Presiding Of-

ficer laid before the Senate messages

from the President of the United

States submitting sundry nominations

which were referred to the appropriate

committees.

(The messages received today are

printed at the end of the Senate pro-

ceedings.)

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

At 10:03 a.m., a message from the

House of Representatives, delivered by

Mrs. Alli, one of its reading clerks, an-

nounced that the House has passed the

following bill, without amendment:

S. 1278. An act to designate the Federal

building located at 985 Michigan Avenue in

Detroit, Michigan, as the ‘‘Rosa Parks Fed-

eral Building’’, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the

House has passed the following bills, in

which it requests the concurrence of

the Senate:

H.R. 6276. An act to authorize the Adminis-

trator of General Services and the Director

of the Office of Management and Budget to

identify the utilization rate of certain public

buildings and federally-leased space, and for

other purposes.

H.R. 7521. An act to protect the national

security of the United States from the threat

posed by foreign adversary controlled appli-

cations, such as TikTok and any successor

application or service and any other applica-

tion or service developed or provided by

ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the con-

trol of ByteDance Ltd.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

The message further announced that

the Speaker has signed the following

enrolled bills:

S. 206. An act to require the Commissioner

of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to

regularly review and update policies and

manuals related to inspections at ports of

entry.

S. 1858. An act to amend the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As-

sistance Act to establish a deadline for ap-

plying for disaster unemployment assist-

ance.

The enrolled bills were subsequently

signed by the President pro tempore

(Mrs. M

URRAY

MEASURES REFERRED

The following bills were read the first

and the second times by unanimous

consent, and referred as indicated:

H.R. 6276. An act to authorize the Adminis-

trator of General Services and the Director

of the Office of Management and Budget to

identify the utilization rate of certain public

buildings and federally-leased space, and for

other purposes; to the Committee on Envi-

ronment and Public Works.

H.R. 7521. An act to protect the national

security of the United States from the threat

posed by foreign adversary controlled appli-

cations, such as TikTok and any successor

application or service and any other applica-

tion or service developed or provided by

ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the con-

trol of ByteDance Ltd; to the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.050 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2400 March 14, 2024

ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED

The Secretary of the Senate reported

that on today, March 14, 2024, she had

presented to the President of the

United States the following enrolled

bills:

S. 206. An act to require the Commissioner

of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to

regularly review and update policies and

manuals related to inspections at ports of

entry.

S. 1858. An act to amend the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As-

sistance Act to establish a deadline for ap-

plying for disaster unemployment assist-

ance.

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER

COMMUNICATIONS

The following communications were

laid before the Senate, together with

accompanying papers, reports, and doc-

uments, and were referred as indicated:

EC–3768. A communication from the Board

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm

Credit Administration, transmitting the Ad-

ministration’s proposed fiscal year 2025

Budget and Performance Plan; to the Com-

mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and For-

estry.

EC–3769. A communication from the Alter-

nate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office

of the Secretary, Department of Defense,

transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of

a rule entitled ‘‘Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement: DFARS Buy Amer-

ican Act Requirements (DFARS Case 2020–

D019)’’ (RIN0750–AL74) received in the Office

of the President of the Senate on March 5,

2024; to the Committee on Armed Services.

EC–3770. A communication from the Assist-

ant Secretary of the Securities and Ex-

change Commission, transmitting, pursuant

to law, the report of a rule entitled ‘‘Disclo-

sure of Order Execution Information’’

(RIN3235–AN22) received in the Office of the

President of the Senate on March 11, 2024; to

the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs.

EC–3771. A communication from the Sec-

retary of the Securities and Exchange Com-

mission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the

report of a rule entitled ‘‘The Enhancement

and Standardization of Climate-Related Dis-

closures for Investors’’ (RIN3235–AM87) re-

ceived in the Office of the President of the

Senate on March 11, 2024; to the Committee

on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

EC–3772. A communication from the Sanc-

tions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign

Assets Control, Department of the Treasury,

transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of

a rule entitled ‘‘Global Magnitsky Sanctions

Regulations’’ received in the Office of the

President of the Senate on March 11, 2024; to

the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs.

EC–3773. A communication from the Sanc-

tions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign

Assets Control, Department of the Treasury,

transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of

a rule entitled ‘‘North Korea Sanctions Reg-

ulations’’ received in the Office of the Presi-

dent of the Senate on March 5, 2024; to the

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban

Affairs.

EC–3774. A communication from the Asso-

ciate General Counsel for Legislation and

Regulations, Office of Housing, Department

of Housing and Urban Development, trans-

mitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule

entitled ‘‘Indexing Methodology for Title I

Manufactured Home Loan Limits’’ (RIN2502–

AJ52) received during adjournment of the

Senate in the Office of the President of the

Senate on March 4, 2024; to the Committee

on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

EC–3775. A communication from the Dep-

uty Director of Congressional Affairs, Bu-

reau of Industry and Security, Department

of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law,

the report of a rule entitled ‘‘Allied Govern-

ments Favorable Treatment: Revisions to

Certain Australia Group Controls; Revisions

to Certain Crime Control and Detection Con-

trols’’ (RIN0694–AJ29) received during ad-

journment of the Senate in the Office of the

President of the Senate on March 4, 2024; to

the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs.

EC–3776. A communication from the Man-

agement Analyst of the Division of Regula-

tions, Jurisdiction, and Special Park Uses,

National Park Service, Department of the

Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the

report of a rule entitled ‘‘Civil Penalties In-

flation Adjustment’’ (RIN1024–AE85) received

in the Office of the President of the Senate

on March 5, 2024; to the Committee on En-

ergy and Natural Resources.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees

were submitted:

By Mr. PETERS, from the Committee on

Homeland Security and Governmental Af-

fairs, with an amendment in the nature of a

substitute:

S. 3613. A bill to require Facility Security

Committees to respond to security rec-

ommendations issued by the Federal Protec-

tive Service relating to facility security, and

for other purposes (Rept. No. 118–160).

S. 3648. A bill to amend the Post-Katrina

Management Reform Act of 2006 to repeal

certain obsolete requirements, and for other

purposes (Rept. No. 118–161).

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND

JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolu-

tions were introduced, read the first

and second times by unanimous con-

sent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr.

ENNET

S. 3934. A bill to require the Secretary of

Health and Human Services to establish a

demonstration project to increase access to

biosimilar biological products under the

Medicare program; to the Committee on Fi-

nance.

By Mr. MARSHALL (for himself, Mrs.

LACKBURN

, and Mrs. H

YDE

-S

MITH

S. 3935. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of

Health and Human Services from finalizing,

implementing, or enforcing the proposed

rule, entitled ‘‘Safe and Appropriate Foster

Care Placement Requirements for Titles IV–

E and IV–B’’; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. SCHMITT (for himself and Ms.

UCKWORTH

S. 3936. A bill to require the Administrator

of the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-

ministration and the Administrator of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-

tration to seek to engage the authorities of

Taiwan with respect to expanding coopera-

tion on civilian space activities, and for

other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign

Relations.

By Mrs. HYDE–SMITH:

S. 3937. A bill to require the appropriate

Federal banking agencies to establish a 3-

year phase-in period for de novo financial in-

stitutions to comply with Federal capital

standards, to provide relief for de novo rural

community banks, and for other purposes; to

the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs.

By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr.

AINE

S. 3938. A bill to designate the community-

based outpatient clinic of the Department of

Veterans Affairs in Lynchburg, Virginia, as

the ‘‘Private First Class Desmond T. Doss

VA Clinic’’; to the Committee on Veterans’

Affairs.

By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and

Mr. B

ARRASSO

S. 3939. A bill to amend title XVIII of the

Social Security Act to improve the way

beneficiaries are assigned under the Medi-

care shared savings program by also basing

such assignment on primary care services

furnished by nurse practitioners, physician

assistants, and clinical nurse specialists; to

the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr.

EINRICH

, Mr. W

ELCH

, Ms. S

MITH

, Mr.

EED

, Ms. B

ALDWIN

, and Ms. R

OSEN

S. 3940. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 to provide for a first-time

homebuyer credit, and for other purposes; to

the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. B

UDD

, Mr.

RUZ

, and Mr. S

COTT

of Florida):

S. 3941. A bill to repeal the wage require-

ments of the Davis-Bacon Act; to the Com-

mittee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions.

By Mr. WELCH (for himself, Ms. C

LINS

, Mr. S

CHUMER

, Mr. S

ANDERS

, Mr.

ING

, and Mrs. G

ILLIBRAND

S. 3942. A bill to amend the Farm Security

and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to include

maple syrup under the seniors farmers’ mar-

ket nutrition program; to the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr.

ULLIVAN

S. 3943. A bill to require a plan to improve

the cybersecurity and telecommunications

of the U.S. Academic Research Fleet, and for

other purposes; to the Committee on Com-

merce, Science, and Transportation.

By Mr. VANCE (for himself, Mr. R

UBIO

Mr. S

CHMITT

, Mr. H

AWLEY

, and Mr.

OTTON

S. 3944. A bill to establish the William S.

Knudsen Commission for American Defense-

Industrial Mobilization, and for other pur-

poses; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. VANCE:

S. 3945. A bill to restrict the Chinese Gov-

ernment from accessing United States cap-

ital markets and exchanges if it fails to com-

ply with international laws relating to fi-

nance, trade, and commerce; to the Com-

mittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Af-

fairs.

By Mr. CRUZ (for himself and Mr. C

NYN

S. 3946. A bill to designate the facility of

the United States Postal Service located at

1106 Main Street in Bastrop, Texas, as the

‘‘Sergeant Major Billy D. Waugh Post Of-

fice’’; to the Committee on Homeland Secu-

rity and Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Ms.

UTLER

S. 3947. A bill to amend the Fair Labor

Standards Act of 1938 to reduce the standard

workweek from 40 hours per week to 32 hours

per week, and for other purposes; to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions.

By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and

Mr. P

ETERS

S. 3948. A bill to amend the Defense Pro-

duction Act of 1950 to better address certain

transactions by foreign entities of concern,

and for other purposes; to the Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

By Ms. BUTLER (for herself, Ms.

MITH

, Mr. M

ARKEY

, Mr. C

ASEY

, Mr.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.027 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2401 March 14, 2024

ELCH

, Mr. P

ADILLA

, Mr. M

ERKLEY

Mr. B

OOKER

, and Ms. B

ALDWIN

S. 3949. A bill to amend title V of the Pub-

lic Health Service Act to ensure protections

for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

youth and their families; to the Committee

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

By Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. C

PER

, Mr. C

ORNYN

, Mr. W

ARNER

, Mr.

COTT

of South Carolina, and Mr.

ENENDEZ

S. 3950. A bill to provide States with sup-

port to establish integrated care programs

for individuals who are dually eligible for

Medicare and Medicaid, and for other pur-

poses; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. CASEY:

S. 3951. A bill to amend title XVIII of the

Social Security Act to provide for adjust-

ments to the Medicare part D cost-sharing

reductions for low-income individuals; to the

Committee on Finance.

By Ms. HASSAN (for herself and Mr.

OUNG

S. 3952. A bill to increase rates of college

completion and reduce college costs by ac-

celerating time to degree, aligning sec-

ondary and postsecondary education, and im-

proving postsecondary credit transfer; to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions.

By Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr.

ELCH

, Mr. M

ERKLEY

, and Mr.

ETERS

S. 3953. A bill to make demonstration

grants to eligible local educational agencies

or consortia of eligible local educational

agencies for the purpose of increasing the

numbers of school nurses in public elemen-

tary schools and secondary schools; to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions.

By Mr. HEINRICH (for himself, Mr.

ISCH

, Mr. L

, and Ms. C

ORTEZ

ASTO

S. 3954. A bill to amend the Geothermal

Steam Act of 1970 to promote timely explo-

ration for geothermal resources under geo-

thermal leases, and for other purposes; to

the Committee on Energy and Natural Re-

sources.

By Ms. ERNST:

S. 3955. A bill to require the heads of Fed-

eral agencies to submit to Congress an an-

nual report regarding official time author-

ized under title 5, United States Code, and

for other purposes; to the Committee on

Homeland Security and Governmental Af-

fairs.

By Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr.

ROWN

, Mr. M

ARSHALL

, Mr. R

ICKETTS

Mr. S

COTT

of Florida, and Ms. B

ALD

WIN

S. 3956. A bill to include phosphate and

potash on the final list of critical minerals of

the Department of the Interior; to the Com-

mittee on Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr.

UBIO

, Mr. H

ICKENLOOPER

, Mr.

ANKFORD

, Mr. O

SSOFF

, Mr. C

ASSIDY

Mr. V

OLLEN

, and Mr. C

ORNYN

S. 3957. A bill to require the Director of Na-

tional Intelligence to develop a strategy to

improve the sharing of information and in-

telligence on foreign adversary tactics and

illicit activities affecting the ability of

United States persons to compete in foreign

jurisdictions on projects relating to energy

generation and storage, and for other pur-

poses; to the Select Committee on Intel-

ligence.

By Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr.

UBIO

S. 3958. A bill to require the Interagency

Working Group on Toxic Exposure to con-

duct research on the diagnosis and treat-

ment of health conditions of descendants of

individuals exposed to toxic substances while

serving as members of the Armed Forces,

and for other purposes; to the Committee on

Veterans’ Affairs.

By Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. K

ING

Mrs. F

ISCHER

, and Mr. T

ESTER

S. 3959. A bill to require the Transpor-

tation Security Administration to stream-

line the enrollment processes for individuals

applying for a Transportation Security Ad-

ministration security threat assessment for

certain programs, including the Transpor-

tation Worker Identification Credential and

Hazardous Materials Endorsement Threat

Assessment programs of the Administration,

and for other purposes; to the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

By Mr. COONS (for himself and Mr.

ILLIS

S. 3960. A bill to amend title 35, United

States Code, to provide a good faith excep-

tion to the imposition of fines for false asser-

tions and certifications, and for other pur-

poses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. L

Ms. H

IRONO

, Mr. D

AINES

, Mr. W

YDEN

Ms. L

UMMIS

, Ms. B

ALDWIN

, Mr. H

EIN

RICH

, Ms. W

ARREN

, Mr. M

ARKEY

, Mr.

ESTER

, Mr. S

ANDERS

, and Mr.

ELCH

S. 3961. A bill to amend the Foreign Intel-

ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to reform

certain authorities and to provide greater

transparency and oversight; to the Com-

mittee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. VANCE:

S. 3962. A bill to provide for greater ac-

countability in enhanced end-use moni-

toring, and for other purposes; to the Com-

mittee on Foreign Relations.

By Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. C

RUZ

, and

Mr. S

ULLIVAN

S. 3963. A bill to clarify that noncommer-

cial species found entirely within the borders

of a single State are not in interstate com-

merce or subject to regulation under the En-

dangered Species Act of 1973 or any other

provision of law enacted as an exercise of the

power of Congress to regulate interstate

commerce; to the Committee on Environ-

ment and Public Works.

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. B

ALD

WIN

, and Mr. V

OLLEN

S. 3964. A bill to amend title 23, United

States Code, with respect to the highway

safety improvement program, and for other

purposes; to the Committee on Environment

and Public Works.

By Mr. OSSOFF:

S. 3965. A bill to appropriate funds to U.S.

Customs and Border Protection for the de-

ployment of nonintrusive inspection tech-

nology at the southern land border of the

United States; to the Committee on Appro-

priations.

By Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. L

, Mr.

CHMITT

, Mr. B

UDD

, Mr. M

ARSHALL

Mr. C

ORNYN

, Mrs. H

YDE

-S

MITH

, Mr.

HUNE

, Mr. C

RAPO

, Mr. C

RAMER

, Mr.

COTT

of South Carolina, Mr. S

LIVAN

, Mr. L

ANKFORD

, Mr. R

ISCH

Mrs. B

LACKBURN

, Mrs. F

ISCHER

, Mrs.

RITT

, Mr. M

ORAN

, and Ms. L

UMMIS

S.J. Res. 64. A joint resolution providing

for congressional disapproval under chapter 8

of title 5, United States Code, of the rule

submitted by the Federal Communications

Commission relating to ‘‘The Infrastructure

Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and

Elimination of Digital Discrimination’’; to

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation.

By Mr. M

CONNELL (for himself, Mrs.

APITO

, Mr. B

ARRASSO

, Mrs. B

LACK

BURN

, Mr. B

OOZMAN

, Mr. B

RAUN

, Mrs.

RITT

, Mr. B

UDD

, Mr. C

ASSIDY

, Ms.

OLLINS

, Mr. C

ORNYN

, Mr. C

OTTON

Mr. C

RAMER

, Mr. C

RAPO

, Mr. C

RUZ

Mr. D

AINES

, Ms. E

RNST

, Mrs. F

ISCHER

Mr. G

RAHAM

, Mr. G

RASSLEY

, Mr.

AGERTY

, Mr. H

OEVEN

, Mrs. H

YDE

MITH

, Mr. J

OHNSON

, Mr. K

ENNEDY

Mr. L

ANKFORD

, Mr. L

, Ms. L

UMMIS

Mr. M

ARSHALL

, Mr. M

ORAN

, Mr.

ULLIN

, Ms. M

URKOWSKI

, Mr. P

AUL

Mr. R

ICKETTS

, Mr. R

ISCH

, Mr. R

NEY

, Mr. R

OUNDS

, Mr. S

CHMITT

, Mr.

COTT

of Florida, Mr. S

COTT

of South

Carolina, Mr. S

ULLIVAN

, Mr. T

HUNE

Mr. T

ILLIS

, Mr. T

UBERVILLE

, Mr.

ICKER

, and Mr. Y

OUNG

S.J. Res. 65. A joint resolution providing

for congressional disapproval under chapter 8

of title 5, United States Code, of the rule

submitted by the Environmental Protection

Agency relating to ‘‘Reconsideration of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particulate Matter’’; to the Committee on

Environment and Public Works.

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND

SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions

and Senate resolutions were read, and

referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Ms.

UTLER

S. Res. 588. A resolution recognizing March

14, 2024, as ‘‘Black Midwives Day’’; to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions.

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms.

UCKWORTH

, Mr. W

YDEN

, Ms. S

TABE

NOW

, Mrs. M

URRAY

, Mr. K

AINE

, Mr.

ELCH

, Mr. M

ERKLEY

, Mr. S

ANDERS

and Mr. M

ENENDEZ

S. Res. 589. A resolution honoring Wadee

Alfayoumi, a 6-year-old Palestinian-Amer-

ican boy, murdered as a victim of a hate

crime for his Palestinian-Muslim identity, in

the State of Illinois; to the Committee on

the Judiciary.

By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr.

AINE

, Mr. M

ARKEY

, Mr.

ICKENLOOPER

, Ms. S

MITH

, Mr. C

ASEY

and Ms. B

ALDWIN

S. Res. 590. A resolution designating March

15, 2024, as ‘‘Long COVID Awareness Day’’; to

the Committee on the Judiciary.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

160

At the request of Ms. E

RNST

, the

name of the Senator from Alabama

(Mrs. B

RITT

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 160, a bill to require U.S. Immi-

gration and Customs Enforcement to

take into custody certain aliens who

have been charged in the United States

with a crime that resulted in the death

or serious bodily injury of another per-

son, and for other purposes.

173

At the request of Mr. B

LUMENTHAL

the name of the Senator from Hawaii

(Mr. S

CHATZ

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 173, a bill to amend chapter 44 of

title 18, United States Code, to require

the safe storage of firearms, and for

other purposes.

363

At the request of Mrs. F

ISCHER

, the

name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.

ORNYN

) was added as a cosponsor of S.

363, a bill to award a Congressional

Gold Medal, collectively, to the indi-

viduals and communities who volun-

teered or donated items to the North

Platte Canteen in North Platte, Ne-

braska, during World War II from De-

cember 25, 1941, to April 1, 1946.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.021 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2402 March 14, 2024

610

At the request of Ms. S

INEMA

, the

name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.

ERKLEY

) was added as a cosponsor of

S. 610, a bill to amend the Federal

Credit Union Act to modify the fre-

quency of board of directors meetings,

and for other purposes.

728

At the request of Mrs. M

URRAY

, the

name of the Senator from California

(Ms. B

UTLER

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 728, a bill to amend the Fair

Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide

more effective remedies to victims of

discrimination in the payment of

wages on the basis of sex, and for other

purposes.

1034

At the request of Ms. L

UMMIS

, the

name of the Senator from Nebraska

(Mr. R

ICKETTS

) was added as a cospon-

sor of S. 1034, a bill to amend title 23,

United States Code, to establish a com-

petitive grant program for projects for

commercial motor vehicle parking, and

for other purposes.

1094

At the request of Ms. K

LOBUCHAR

, the

name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.

URKOWSKI

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 1094, a bill to provide a temporary

safe harbor for publishers of online

content to collectively negotiate with

dominant online platforms regarding

the terms on which content may be dis-

tributed.

1189

At the request of Mrs. C

APITO

, the

name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.

RAPO

) was added as a cosponsor of S.

1189, a bill to establish a pilot grant

program to improve recycling accessi-

bility, and for other purposes.

1231

At the request of Mr. M

ENENDEZ

, the

name of the Senator from Rhode Island

(Mr. W

HITEHOUSE

) was added as a co-

sponsor of S. 1231, a bill to prohibit

disinformation in the advertising of

abortion services, and for other pur-

poses.

1274

At the request of Mrs. F

ISCHER

, the

name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.

ORNYN

) was added as a cosponsor of S.

1274, a bill to permanently exempt pay-

ments made from the Railroad Unem-

ployment Insurance Account from se-

questration under the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

1985.

1302

At the request of Mr. M

ENENDEZ

, the

names of the Senator from Nevada (Ms.

OSEN

) and the Senator from Georgia

(Mr. W

ARNOCK

) were added as cospon-

sors of S. 1302, a bill to amend title

XVIII of the Social Security Act to

provide for the distribution of addi-

tional residency positions, and for

other purposes.

1631

At the request of Mr. P

ETERS

, the

name of the Senator from Maine (Mr.

ING

) was added as a cosponsor of S.

1631, a bill to enhance the authority

granted to the Department of Home-

land Security and Department of Jus-

tice with respect to unmanned aircraft

systems and unmanned aircraft, and

for other purposes.

1979

At the request of Mrs. G

ILLIBRAND

the name of the Senator from Rhode Is-

land (Mr. W

HITEHOUSE

) was added as a

cosponsor of S. 1979, a bill to amend

title 9 of the United States Code with

respect to arbitration of disputes in-

volving age discrimination.

2048

At the request of Mr. B

LUMENTHAL

the name of the Senator from Wash-

ington (Mrs. M

URRAY

) was added as a

cosponsor of S. 2048, a bill to repeal the

Protection of Lawful Commerce in

Arms Act, and provide for the

discoverability and admissibility of

gun trace information in civil pro-

ceedings.

2515

At the request of Mr. C

ARDIN

, the

name of the Senator from Hawaii (Ms.

IRONO

) was added as a cosponsor of S.

2515, a bill to amend the Internal Rev-

enue Code of 1986 and the Small Busi-

ness Act to expand the availability of

employee stock ownership plans in S

corporations, and for other purposes.

2692

At the request of Mr. T

ESTER

, the

name of the Senator from Alabama

(Mrs. B

RITT

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 2692, a bill to amend the Financial

Institutions Reform, Recovery, and En-

forcement Act of 1989 to establish a

Portal for Appraiser Credentialing and

AMC Registration Information, and for

other purposes.

2825

At the request of Mr. C

ORNYN

, the

names of the Senator from Missouri

(Mr. H

AWLEY

), the Senator from North

Dakota (Mr. C

RAMER

), the Senator

from Wyoming (Mr. B

ARRASSO

), the

Senator from Missouri (Mr. S

CHMITT

the Senator from Idaho (Mr. R

ISCH

the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.

ICKETTS

), the Senator from West Vir-

ginia (Mrs. C

APITO

), the Senator from

North Dakota (Mr. H

OEVEN

), the Sen-

ator from Oklahoma (Mr. L

ANKFORD

the Senator from Florida (Mr. S

COTT

)

and the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs.

ISCHER

) were added as cosponsors of S.

2825, a bill to award a Congressional

Gold Medal to the United States Army

Dustoff crews of the Vietnam War, col-

lectively, in recognition of their ex-

traordinary heroism and life-saving ac-

tions in Vietnam.

2861

At the request of Mrs. G

ILLIBRAND

the names of the Senator from New

Jersey (Mr. B

OOKER

), the Senator from

New Hampshire (Ms. H

ASSAN

), the Sen-

ator from Iowa (Mr. G

RASSLEY

) and the

Senator from Oregon (Mr. M

ERKLEY

)

were added as cosponsors of S. 2861, a

bill to award a Congressional Gold

Medal to Billie Jean King, an American

icon, in recognition of a remarkable

life devoted to championing equal

rights for all, in sports and in society.

2890

At the request of Mr. H

OEVEN

, the

names of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.

ARSHALL

) and the Senator from Min-

nesota (Ms. S

MITH

) were added as co-

sponsors of S. 2890, a bill to amend the

Consolidated Farm and Rural Develop-

ment Act to modify limitations on

amounts of farm ownership loans and

operating loans, and for other pur-

poses.

3089

At the request of Mr. F

ETTERMAN

, the

name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.

ROWN

) was added as a cosponsor of S.

3089, a bill to amend the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2023, to expand the

replacement of stolen EBT benefits

under the supplemental nutrition as-

sistance program.

3348

At the request of Ms. B

ALDWIN

, the

name of the Senator from California

(Mr. P

ADILLA

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 3348, a bill to amend the Harmful

Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research

and Control Act of 1998 to address

harmful algal blooms, and for other

purposes.

3422

At the request of Mr. W

HITEHOUSE

the name of the Senator from Con-

necticut (Mr. B

LUMENTHAL

) was added

as a cosponsor of S. 3422, a bill to

amend the Internal Revenue Code of

1986 to create a carbon border adjust-

ment based on carbon intensity, and

for other purposes.

3502

At the request of Mr. R

EED

, the name

of the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.

OUNDS

) was added as a cosponsor of S.

3502, a bill to amend the Fair Credit

Reporting Act to prevent consumer re-

porting agencies from furnishing con-

sumer reports under certain cir-

cumstances, and for other purposes.

3515

At the request of Mr. C

RAPO

, the

name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.

CHATZ

) was added as a cosponsor of S.

3515, a bill to improve communication

between the United States Postal Serv-

ice and local communities relating to

the relocation and establishment of

Postal Service retail service facilities,

and for other purposes.

3627

At the request of Mr. B

ROWN

, the

name of the Senator from Maryland

(Mr. C

ARDIN

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 3627, a bill to amend the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act to require

a certain efficiency level for certain

distribution transformers, and for

other purposes.

3666

At the request of Mr. B

RAUN

, the

name of the Senator from New Mexico

(Mr. L

UJA

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 3666, a bill to amend the Agricul-

tural Foreign Investment Disclosure

Act of 1978 to establish an additional

reporting requirement, and for other

purposes.

3679

At the request of Mr. K

AINE

, the

names of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.016 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2403 March 14, 2024

URKOWSKI

), the Senator from Maine

(Mr. K

ING

), the Senator from Michigan

(Ms. S

TABENOW

) and the Senator from

West Virginia (Mrs. C

APITO

) were added

as cosponsors of S. 3679, a bill to reau-

thorize the Dr. Lorna Breen Health

Care Provider Protection Act, and for

other purposes.

3916

At the request of Mr. O

SSOFF

, the

name of the Senator from Rhode Island

(Mr. R

EED

) was added as a cosponsor of

S. 3916, a bill protecting the right to

vote in elections for Federal office, and

for other purposes.

3923

At the request of Mr. T

ILLIS

, the

name of the Senator from Alabama

(Mrs. B

RITT

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 3923, a bill to provide for the effec-

tive use of immigration detainers to

enhance public safety.

3927

At the request of Mr. T

ILLIS

, the

name of the Senator from Alabama

(Mrs. B

RITT

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 3927, a bill to provide a civil rem-

edy for individuals harmed by sanc-

tuary jurisdiction policies, and for

other purposes.

3929

At the request of Mr. B

ARRASSO

, the

name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.

RAPO

) was added as a cosponsor of S.

3929, a bill to prohibit the Secretary of

Agriculture from taking certain pro-

posed actions relating to a land man-

agement plan direction for old-growth

forest conditions across the National

Forest System.

3930

At the request of Mr. W

ARNOCK

, the

name of the Senator from California

(Mr. P

ADILLA

) was added as a cosponsor

of S. 3930, a bill to provide downpay-

ment assistance to first-generation

homebuyers to address

multigenerational inequities in access

to homeownership and to narrow and

ultimately close the racial homeowner-

ship gap in the United States, and for

other purposes.

3933

At the request of Mrs. B

RITT

, the

names of the Senator from Texas (Mr.

RUZ

), the Senator from Wisconsin

(Mr. J

OHNSON

), the Senator from Mis-

sissippi (Mrs. H

YDE

-S

MITH

), the Senator

from Indiana (Mr. Y

OUNG

), the Senator

from Iowa (Ms. E

RNST

), the Senator

from Alaska (Mr. S

ULLIVAN

), the Sen-

ator from Louisiana (Mr. C

ASSIDY

), the

Senator from Ohio (Mr. V

ANCE

) and the

Senator from Kansas (Mr. M

ARSHALL

)

were added as cosponsors of S. 3933, a

bill to require the Secretary of Home-

land Security to take into custody

aliens who have been charged in the

United States with theft, and for other

purposes.

RES

At the request of Mr. T

ESTER

, the

names of the Senator from North Da-

kota (Mr. H

OEVEN

) and the Senator

from Oklahoma (Mr. M

ULLIN

) were

added as cosponsors of S.J. Res. 62, a

joint resolution providing for congres-

sional disapproval under chapter 8 of

title 5, United States Code, of the rule

submitted by the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service relating to

‘‘Importation of Fresh Beef From Para-

guay’’.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and

Mr. S

ULLIVAN

S. 3943. A bill to require a plan to im-

prove the cybersecurity and tele-

communications of the U.S. Academic

Research Fleet, and for other purposes;

to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation.

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I

rise to introduce the Accelerating, Net-

working, Cyberinfrastructure, and

Hardwater for Oceanic Research, AN-

CHOR, Act. This bipartisan and bi-

cameral legislation would require the

National Science Foundation to plan

critical cyber security and internet up-

grades to essential oceanographic re-

search vessels.

This bill would direct the National

Science Foundation to report to Con-

gress on the costs, personnel, and

equipment necessary to upgrade the 17

ocean- and lake-going research vessels

in the Academic Research Fleet. These

ships and their submarines do research

around the world across topics as fun-

damental as climate change, marine

health, and national security. This re-

port is an important first step in mak-

ing needed upgrades to these research

vessels for improved science, cyber se-

curity, and telecommunications.

Around the world, researchers tra-

verse waters to better understand our

oceans. In Alaska, the R/V Sikuliaq reg-

ularly ventures into icy Arctic waters,

breaking ice up to 2.5 inches thick to

study remote polar ecosystems. In

California, the R/V Sally Ride explores

the deep ocean in the Pacific, charac-

terizing the toxic legacy of DDT bar-

rels dumped over 50 years ago. In the

Great Lakes, the R/V Blue Heron navi-

gates Lake Superior, conducting long-

term research on harmful algal blooms.

But these important research vessels

suffer from aging infrastructure. As

ships and submarines collect sensitive

data about our climate, foreign adver-

saries increasingly attack the weak-

ened cyber security defenses on re-

search vessels.

The upgrades planned in the AN-

CHOR Act are cost-effective, allowing

repairs in real time with remote ex-

perts that keep ships going on their

missions. Improved internet is also a

boost for crew morale, science effi-

ciency, and education. With faster

upload and download speeds, scientists

and crew members will be able to

transmit data to shore for processing,

make Zoom calls with classrooms on

land, and call loved ones or even men-

tal health providers during long

months at sea.

I want to thank Senator S

ULLIVAN

for introducing this important legisla-

tion with me in the Senate and Rep-

resentatives M

IKE

ARCIA

and H

ALEY

TEVENS

for leading the House com-

panion. I hope all of our colleagues will

join us in supporting this bipartisan

bill to improve our Nation’s oceano-

graphic research and security.

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr.

, Ms. H

IRONO

, Mr. D

AINES

Mr. W

YDEN

, Ms. L

UMMIS

, Ms.

ALDWIN

, Mr. H

EINRICH

, Ms.

ARREN

, Mr. M

ARKEY

, Mr.

ESTER

, Mr. S

ANDERS

, and Mr.

ELCH

S. 3961. A bill to amend the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to

reform certain authorities and to pro-

vide greater transparency and over-

sight; to the Committee on the Judici-

ary.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in

just a few weeks, an important but

controversial surveillance authority,

known as section 702 of the Foreign In-

telligence Surveillance Act, will ex-

pire. This extraordinary authority was

initially presented to Congress as a

temporary emergency counterterror-

ism tool more than 15 years ago. As is

often the case with temporary emer-

gency authorities, section 702 is now

used for a wide range of foreign intel-

ligence purposes, from countering Rus-

sia to stopping the flow of fentanyl

into the United States.

Just last month, the Federal Bureau

of Investigation revealed that data col-

lected using section 702 allowed the

Agency to foil several attacks in recent

years, including attacks that would

have crippled U.S. critical infrastruc-

ture and even threaten the lives of our

U.S. servicemembers. And the author-

ity has helped the U.S. uncover atroc-

ities committed by Russia during its

ongoing assault on Ukraine.

I have had demonstrations of the 702

authority, and there is no doubt in my

mind that it is a valuable tool for col-

lecting foreign intelligence. But this

authority raises serious constitutional

concerns, as it allows access not just to

communications by those who are for-

eigners but also to the vast databases

of Americans’ communications without

the customary search warrant required

by the U.S. Constitution.

This powerful tool—this effective

tool on foreign surveillance—has been

used, in my mind, improperly to spy on

American protesters, from Black Lives

Matter to MAGA loyalists.

The FBI has imposed new limits on

the authority of FBI agents to search

the communications of Americans. But

even after implementing these reforms,

the FBI still conducted over 200,000

warrantless searches of Americans in

just 1 year—more than 500 searches of

Americans per day.

Democrats and Republicans alike are

rightly concerned. Our Founders under-

stood the danger of unchecked govern-

ment surveillance and had the wisdom

and foresight to enshrine protections

for American citizens in the Constitu-

tion. The Fourth Amendment to our

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.018 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

---

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2404 March 14, 2024

Constitution protects Americans from

unreasonable search and seizure, par-

ticularly those without a warrant

based upon probable cause that had

been approved by a judge.

I have long raised concerns about

section 702’s lack of sufficient safe-

guards to protect these rights, and I

have consistently voted against the ex-

tension of section 702 without changes.

However, I have also said that I would

support section 702 if it includes suffi-

cient safeguards to protect Americans

from warrantless surveillance.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary

Committee, which has primary juris-

diction over FISA, I have evaluated

proposed reforms and carefully consid-

ered the administration’s views. I have

also heard from my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle. Existing legislative

proposals of the House and Senate go

too far for some and not far enough for

others.

That is why, today, I am introducing

what I hope will be a compromise bill

that tries to bridge this divide to pro-

tect both our security and our Con-

stitution and guaranteed freedoms.

The Security and Freedom Enhance-

ment Act, or SAFE Act, would enhance

our national security by reauthorizing

section 702 for 4 more years, while also

protecting Americans from warrantless

surveillance.

The SAFE Act would require the gov-

ernment to demonstrate to a court

that it has probable cause before read-

ing or listening to the private commu-

nications of Americans that have been

swept up by section 702. Basically, in

just a few words to describe the proc-

ess, if one of our intelligence or law en-

forcement Agencies suspects that a for-

eigner is engaged in conduct that is

threatening the security of the United

States, they call up the records of that

foreigner, and if it turns out that for-

eigner has communicated with an

American citizen, the question is, What

do you do next? Can you, in any way,

monitor that conversation or come up

with an investigation of the documents

of that American with or without a

warrant? That is the fundamental

question we are facing here. So the

search starts in the right direction, to

a foreign source, and ends up dealing

with an American—an American, obvi-

ously, who has constitutional rights.

The SAFE Act would require the gov-

ernment to demonstrate to a court

that it has probable cause, before read-

ing or listening to the private commu-

nications of Americans who have been

swept up in section 702. However, this

requirement will not prevent govern-

ment agents from searching 702 data-

bases to determine if foreign targets

are communicating with Americans,

nor will it prevent agents from access-

ing the communications of those for-

eign agents.

But if the government wants to re-

view the contents—the contents—of

Americans’ communication, it would

first be required to demonstrate to the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court that it has probable cause to do

that.

This would not be overly burdensome

because a warrant would only be re-

quired in cases where the government

actually reviews the content of Amer-

ican communications. They estimate

that the incidents of American content

are 1.58 percent of all 702 searches of

Americans.

The SAFE Act also would not require

a warrant in cases involving exigent

circumstances or cyber security at-

tacks to ensure that there will not be

any delay that jeopardizes our national

security.

This approach is based on rec-

ommendations by the independent Pri-

vate and Civil Liberties Oversight

Board, which we created after 9/11 to

ensure that our counterterrorism poli-

cies do not violate the constitutional

rights of the American people.

The persistent and widespread viola-

tion of existing limits on section 702

underscore the importance of court ap-

proval, which we will propose.

Better compliance measures within

the executive branch are helpful, but

they are no substitute for checks and

balances by the judicial branch, as the

Founders intended.

The SAFE Act, which I am intro-

ducing, is a sensible, moderate com-

promise between more robust reform

proposals that address a wide range of

surveillance concerns and bills that re-

authorize section 702 without ade-

quately addressing these concerns.

I know that compromise does not

come easy when it comes to this pol-

icy, but a reasonable middle ground

that protects our national security and

the rights of the American people is

possible. The SAFE Act is my offer in

compromise to achieve that goal.

With the April 19 sunset of section

702 fast approaching, I urge my col-

leagues on both sides of the aisle to

join me in supporting this compromise

for the good of the American people.

Madam President, I ask unanimous

consent that the text of the bill be

printed in the R

ECORD

There being no objection, the text of

the bill was ordered to be printed in

the R

ECORD

, as follows:

S. 3961

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America in

Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) S

HORT

ITLE

.—This Act may be cited as

the ‘‘Security And Freedom Enhancement

Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘SAFE Act’’.

(b) T

ABLE OF

ONTENTS

.—The table of con-

tents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I—PROTECTIONS FOR UNITED

STATES PERSONS WHOSE COMMUNICA-

TIONS ARE COLLECTED UNDER SEC-

TION 702 OF THE FOREIGN INTEL-

LIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978

Sec. 101. Query procedure reform.

Sec. 102. Quarterly reports.

Sec. 103. Accountability procedures for inci-

dents relating to queries con-

ducted by the Federal Bureau

of Investigation.

Sec. 104. Prohibition on reverse targeting of

United States persons and per-

sons located in the United

States.

Sec. 105. FISA court review of targeting de-

cisions.

Sec. 106. Repeal of authority for the resump-

tion of abouts collection.

Sec. 107. Extension of title VII of FISA; ex-

piration of FISA authorities;

effective dates.

TITLE II—ADDITIONAL REFORMS RE-

LATING TO ACTIVITIES UNDER THE

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEIL-

LANCE ACT OF 1978

Sec. 201. Application for an order under the

Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978.

Sec. 202. Criminal penalties for violations of

FISA.

Sec. 203. Increased penalties for civil ac-

tions.

Sec. 204. Agency procedures to ensure com-

pliance.

Sec. 205. Limit on civil immunity for pro-

viding information, facilities,

or technical assistance to the

Government absent a court

order.

TITLE III—REFORMS RELATING TO PRO-

CEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOREIGN IN-

TELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT

AND OTHER COURTS

Sec. 301. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court reform.

Sec. 302. Public disclosure and declassifica-

tion of certain documents.

Sec. 303. Submission of court transcripts to

Congress.

Sec. 304. Contempt power of FISC and

FISCR.

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE

BRANCH OVERSIGHT

Sec. 401. Periodic audit of FISA compliance

by Inspector General.

Sec. 402. Intelligence community parity and

communications with Privacy

and Civil Liberties Oversight

Board.

TITLE V—PROTECTIONS FOR UNITED

STATES PERSONS WHOSE SENSITIVE

INFORMATION IS PURCHASED BY IN-

TELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES

Sec. 501. Limitation on intelligence acquisi-

tion of United States person

data.

Sec. 502. Limitation on law enforcement

purchase of personal data from

data brokers.

Sec. 503. Consistent protections for demands

for data held by interactive

computing services.

Sec. 504. Consistent privacy protections for

data held by data brokers.

Sec. 505. Protection of data entrusted to

intermediary or ancillary serv-

ice providers.

TITLE VI—TRANSPARENCY

Sec. 601. Enhanced reports by Director of

National Intelligence.

TITLE VII—LIMITED DELAYS IN

IMPLEMENTATION

Sec. 701. Limited delays in implementation.

TITLE I—PROTECTIONS FOR UNITED

STATES PERSONS WHOSE COMMUNICA-

TIONS ARE COLLECTED UNDER SEC-

TION 702 OF THE FOREIGN INTEL-

LIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978

SEC. 101. QUERY PROCEDURE REFORM.

(a) M

ANDATORY

UDITS OF

NITED

TATES

ERSON

UERIES

ONDUCTED BY

EDERAL

REAU OF

NVESTIGATION

.—

(1) I

N GENERAL

.—The Department of Jus-

tice shall conduct an audit of a significant

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.013 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2405 March 14, 2024

representative sample of covered queries, as

defined in paragraph (6) of section 702(f) of

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of

1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a(f)), as redesignated and

amended by subsection (b) of this section,

conducted during the 180-day period begin-

ning on the date of enactment of this Act,

and during each 180-day period thereafter.

(2) C

OMPLETION OF AUDIT

.—Not later than

90 days after the end of each 180-day period

described in paragraph (1), the Department

of Justice shall complete the audit described

in such paragraph with respect to such 180-

day period.

(b) R

ESTRICTIONS

ELATING TO

ONDUCT OF

ERTAIN

UERIES BY

EDERAL

UREAU OF

VESTIGATION

.—Section 702(f) of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50

U.S.C. 1881a(f)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para-

graph (6);

(2) by inserting before paragraph (6) the

following:

‘‘(5) Q

UERYING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

.—For any

procedures adopted under paragraph (1) ap-

plicable to the Federal Bureau of Investiga-

tion, the Attorney General, in consultation

with the Director of National Intelligence,

shall include the following requirements:

‘‘(A) T

RAINING

.—A requirement that, prior

to conducting any query, and on an annual

basis thereafter as a prerequisite for con-

tinuing to conduct queries, personnel of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation successfully

complete training on the querying proce-

dures.

‘‘(B) A

DDITIONAL PRIOR APPROVALS FOR SEN

SITIVE QUERIES

.—A requirement that, absent

exigent circumstances, prior to conducting

certain queries, personnel of the Federal Bu-

reau of Investigation receive approval, at

minimum, as follows:

‘‘(i) Approval from the Deputy Director of

the Federal Bureau of Investigation if the

query uses a query term reasonably believed

to identify a United States elected official,

an appointee of the President or the gov-

ernor of a State, a United States political

candidate, a United States political organi-

zation or a United States person prominent

in such organization, or a United States

media organization or a United States per-

son who is a member of such organization.

‘‘(ii) Approval from an attorney of the Fed-

eral Bureau of Investigation if the query

uses a query term reasonably believed to

identify a United States religious organiza-

tion or a United States person who is promi-

nent in such organization.

‘‘(iii) Approval from an attorney of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation for 2 or

more queries conducted together as a batch

job.

‘‘(C) P

RIOR WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION

.—A re-

quirement that—

‘‘(i) prior to conducting a covered query,

personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-

tion generate a written statement of the spe-

cific factual basis to support the reasonable

belief that such query meets the standards

required by the procedures adopted under

paragraph (1); and

‘‘(ii) for each covered query, the Federal

Bureau of Investigation shall keep a record

of the query term, the date of the conduct of

the query, the identifier of the personnel

conducting the query, and such written

statement.

‘‘(D) A

FFIRMATIVE ELECTION TO INCLUDE

SECTION 702 INFORMATION IN QUERIES

.—Any

system of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-

tion that stores unminimized contents or

noncontents obtained through acquisitions

authorized under subsection (a) together

with contents or noncontents obtained

through other lawful means shall be config-

ured in a manner that—

‘‘(i) requires personnel of the Federal Bu-

reau of Investigation to affirmatively elect

to include such unminimized contents or

noncontents obtained through acquisitions

authorized under subsection (a) when run-

ning a query; or

‘‘(ii) includes other controls reasonably ex-

pected to prevent inadvertent queries of such

unminimized contents or noncontents.’’; and

(3) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated—

(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as

subparagraph (C); and

(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the

following:

‘‘(B) The term ‘covered query’ means a

query conducted—

‘‘(i) using a term associated with a United

States person or a person reasonably be-

lieved to be located in the United States at

the time of the query or the time of the com-

munication or creation of the information;

‘‘(ii) for the purpose of finding the informa-

tion of a United States person or a person

reasonably believed to be located in the

United States at the time of the query or the

time of the communication or creation of

the information.’’.

ROHIBITION ON

ARRANTLESS

CCESS

TO THE

OMMUNICATIONS AND

THER

NFORMA

TION OF

NITED

TATES

ERSONS AND

SONS

OCATED IN THE

NITED

TATES

.—Sec-

tion 702(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a(f)) is

amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)(A) by inserting ‘‘and

the limitations and requirements in para-

graph (2)’’ after ‘‘Constitution of the United

States’’;

(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting

the following:

‘‘(2) P

ROHIBITION ON WARRANTLESS ACCESS

TO THE COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMA

TION OF UNITED STATES PERSONS AND PERSONS

LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES

.—

‘‘(A) I

N GENERAL

.—Except as provided in

subparagraphs (B) and (C), no officer or em-

ployee of the United States may access com-

munications content, or information the

compelled disclosure of which would require

a probable cause warrant if sought for law

enforcement purposes inside the United

States, acquired under subsection (a) and re-

turned in response to a covered query.

‘‘(B) E

XCEPTIONS FOR CONCURRENT AUTHOR

IZATION

CONSENT

EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

AND CERTAIN DEFENSIVE CYBERSECURITY QUE

RIES

.—

‘‘(i) I

N GENERAL

.—Subparagraph (A) shall

not apply if—

‘‘(I) the person to whom the query relates

is the subject of an order or emergency au-

thorization authorizing electronic surveil-

lance, a physical search, or an acquisition

under this section or section 105, section 304,

section 703, or section 704 of this Act or a

warrant issued pursuant to the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure by a court of com-

petent jurisdiction;

‘‘(II)(aa) the officer or employee accessing

the communications content or information

has a reasonable belief that—

‘‘(AA) an emergency exists involving an

imminent threat of death or serious bodily

harm; and

‘‘(BB) in order to prevent or mitigate the

threat described in subitem (AA), the com-

munications content or information must be

accessed before authorization described in

subclause (I) can, with due diligence, be ob-

tained; and

‘‘(bb) not later than 14 days after the com-

munications content or information is

accessed, a description of the circumstances

justifying the accessing of the query results

is provided to the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Court, the congressional intel-

ligence committees, the Committee on the

Judiciary of the House of Representatives,

and the Committee on the Judiciary of the

Senate;

‘‘(III) such person or, if such person is in-

capable of providing consent, a third party

legally authorized to consent on behalf of

such person, has provided consent for the ac-

cess on a case-by-case basis; or

‘‘(IV)(aa) the communications content or

information is accessed and used for the sole

purpose of identifying targeted recipients of

malicious software and preventing or miti-

gating harm from such malicious software;

‘‘(bb) other than malicious software and

cybersecurity threat signatures, no commu-

nications content or other information are

accessed or reviewed; and

‘‘(cc) the accessing of query results is re-

ported to the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Court.

‘‘(ii) L

IMITATIONS

.—

‘‘(I) U

SE IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS

.—No

communications content or information

accessed under clause (i)(II) or information

derived from such access may be used, re-

ceived in evidence, or otherwise dissemi-

nated in any trial, hearing, or other pro-

ceeding in or before any court, grand jury,

department, office, agency, regulatory body,

legislative committee, or other authority of

the United States, a State, or political sub-

division thereof, except in a proceeding that

arises from the threat that prompted the

query.

‘‘(II) A

SSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

.—Not less

frequently than annually, the Attorney Gen-

eral shall assess compliance with the re-

quirements under subclause (I).

‘‘(C) M

ATTERS RELATING TO EMERGENCY

QUERIES

.—

‘‘(i) T

REATMENT OF DENIALS

.—In the event

that communications content or information

returned in response to a covered query are

accessed pursuant to an emergency author-

ization described in subparagraph (B)(i)(I)

and the subsequent application to authorize

electronic surveillance, a physical search, or

an acquisition pursuant to section 105(e),

section 304(e), section 703(d), or section 704(d)

of this Act is denied, or in any other case in

which communications content or informa-

tion returned in response to a covered query

are accessed in violation of this paragraph—

‘‘(I) no communications content or infor-

mation acquired or evidence derived from

such access may be used, received in evi-

dence, or otherwise disseminated in any in-

vestigation by or in any trial, hearing, or

other proceeding in or before any court,

grand jury, department, office, agency, regu-

latory body, legislative committee, or other

authority of the United States, a State, or

political subdivision thereof; and

‘‘(II) no communications content or infor-

mation acquired or derived from such access

may subsequently be used or disclosed in any

other manner without the consent of the per-

son to whom the covered query relates, ex-

cept in the case that the Attorney General

approves the use or disclosure of such infor-

mation in order to prevent the death of or

serious bodily harm to any person.

‘‘(ii) A

SSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

.—Not less

frequently than annually, the Attorney Gen-

eral shall assess compliance with the re-

quirements under clause (i).

‘‘(D) F

OREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSE

.—

‘‘(i) I

N GENERAL

.—Except as provided in

clause (ii) of this subparagraph, no officer or

employee of the United States may conduct

a covered query of information acquired

under subsection (a) unless the query is rea-

sonably likely to retrieve foreign intel-

ligence information.

‘‘(ii) E

XCEPTIONS

.—An officer or employee

of the United States may conduct a covered

query of information acquired under this sec-

tion if—

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2406 March 14, 2024

‘‘(I)(aa) the officer or employee conducting

the query has a reasonable belief that an

emergency exists involving an imminent

threat of death or serious bodily harm; and

‘‘(bb) not later than 14 days after the query

is conducted, a description of the query is

provided to the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Court, the congressional intelligence

committees, the Committee on the Judiciary

of the House of Representatives, and the

Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;

‘‘(II) the person to whom the query relates

or, if such person is incapable of providing

consent, a third party legally authorized to

consent on behalf of such person, has pro-

vided consent for the query on a case-by-case

basis;

‘‘(III)(aa) the query is conducted, and the

results of the query are used, for the sole

purpose of identifying targeted recipients of

malicious software and preventing or miti-

gating harm from such malicious software;

‘‘(bb) other than malicious software and

cybersecurity threat signatures, no addi-

tional contents of communications acquired

as a result of the query are accessed or re-

viewed; and

‘‘(cc) the query is reported to the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Court; or

‘‘(IV) the query is necessary to identify in-

formation that must be produced or pre-

served in connection with a litigation matter

or to fulfill discovery obligations in a crimi-

nal matter under the laws of the United

States or any State thereof.

‘‘(3) D

OCUMENTATION

.—No officer or em-

ployee of the United States may access com-

munications content, or information the

compelled disclosure of which would require

a probable cause warrant if sought for law

enforcement purposes inside the United

States, returned in response to a covered

query unless an electronic record is created

that includes a statement of facts showing

that the access is authorized pursuant to an

exception specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i).

‘‘(4) Q

UERY RECORD SYSTEM

.—The head of

each agency that conducts queries shall en-

sure that a system, mechanism, or business

practice is in place to maintain the record

described in paragraph (3). Not later than 90

days after the date of enactment of the

SAFE Act, the head of each agency that con-

ducts queries shall report to Congress on its

compliance with this procedure.’’.

(d) C

ONFORMING

MENDMENTS

.—

(1) Section 603(b)(2) of the Foreign Intel-

ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.

1873(b)(2)) is amended, in the matter pre-

ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘, in-

cluding pursuant to subsection (f)(2) of such

section,’’.

(2) Section 706(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Foreign In-

telligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.

1881e(a)(2)(A))i)) is amended by striking ‘‘ob-

tained an order of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court to access such informa-

tion pursuant to section 702(f)(2)’’ and insert-

ing ‘‘accessed such information in accord-

ance with section 702(b)(2)’’.

SEC. 102. QUARTERLY REPORTS.

Section 707 of the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881f) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) Q

UARTERLY

EPORTS

.—The Attorney

General, in consultation with the Director of

National Intelligence, shall submit to the

congressional intelligence committees, the

Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate,

and the Committee on the Judiciary of the

House of Representatives a quarterly report,

which shall include, for that quarter,

disaggregated by each agency that conducts

queries of information acquired under sec-

tion 702, the following information:

‘‘(1) The total number of covered queries

(as defined in section 702(f)(6)) conducted of

information acquired under section 702.

‘‘(2) The number of times an officer or em-

ployee of the United States accessed commu-

nications contents (as defined in section

2510(8) of title 18, United States Code) or in-

formation the compelled disclosure of which

would require a probable cause warrant if

sought for law enforcement purposes in the

United States, returned in response to such

queries.

‘‘(3) The number of applications for orders

relating to an emergency authorization de-

scribed in subclause (I) of section

702(f)(2)(B)(i) with respect to a person for

which communications contents or informa-

tion relating to such person were accessed

under such subclause and the number of such

orders granted.

‘‘(4) The number of times an exception sub-

clause (II), (III), or (IV) of section

702(f)(2)(B)(i) was asserted, disaggregated by

the subclause under which an exception was

asserted.’’.

SEC. 103. ACCOUNTABILITY PROCEDURES FOR

INCIDENTS RELATING TO QUERIES

CONDUCTED BY THE FEDERAL BU-

REAU OF INVESTIGATION.

(a) I

ENERAL

.—Title VII of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50

U.S.C. 1881 et seq.) is amended by adding at

the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 709. ACCOUNTABILITY PROCEDURES FOR

INCIDENTS RELATING TO QUERIES

CONDUCTED BY THE FEDERAL BU-

REAU OF INVESTIGATION.

‘‘(a) I

ENERAL

.—The Director of the Fed-

eral Bureau of Investigation shall establish

procedures to hold employees of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation accountable for vio-

lations of law, guidance, and procedure gov-

erning queries of information acquired pur-

suant to section 702.

‘‘(b) E

LEMENTS

.—The procedures estab-

lished under subsection (a) shall include the

following:

‘‘(1) Centralized tracking of individual em-

ployee performance incidents involving neg-

ligent violations of law, guidance, and proce-

dure described in subsection (a), over time.

‘‘(2) Escalating consequences for such inci-

dents, including—

‘‘(A) consequences for initial incidents, in-

cluding, at a minimum—

‘‘(i) suspension of access to information ac-

quired under this Act; and

‘‘(ii) documentation of the incident in the

personnel file of each employee responsible

for the violation; and

‘‘(B) consequences for subsequent inci-

dents, including, at a minimum—

‘‘(i) possible indefinite suspension of access

to information acquired under this Act;

‘‘(ii) reassignment of each employee re-

sponsible for the violation; and

‘‘(iii) referral of the incident to the Inspec-

tion Division of the Federal Bureau of Inves-

tigation for review of potentially reckless

conduct.

‘‘(3) Clarification of requirements for refer-

ring intentional misconduct and reckless

conduct to the Inspection Division of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation for inves-

tigation and disciplinary action by the Office

of Professional Responsibility of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation.’’.

(b) C

LERICAL

MENDMENT

.—The table of

contents for the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is

amended by inserting after the item relating

to section 708 the following:

‘‘Sec. 709. Accountability procedures for in-

cidents relating to queries con-

ducted by the Federal Bureau

of Investigation.’’.

EPORT

EQUIRED

.—

(1) I

NITIAL REPORT

.—Not later than 180

days after the date of enactment of this Act,

the Director of the Federal Bureau of Inves-

tigation shall submit to the Committee on

the Judiciary of the House of Representa-

tives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the

Senate, and the congressional intelligence

committees (as such term is defined in sec-

tion 801 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1885)) a report de-

tailing the procedures established under sec-

tion 709 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978, as added by subsection (a).

(2) A

NNUAL REPORT

.—Not later than 1 year

after the date of enactment of this Act, and

annually thereafter, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation shall submit to the Committee

on the Judiciary of the House of Representa-

tives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the

Senate, and the congressional intelligence

committees (as such term is defined in sec-

tion 801 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1885)) a report on

any disciplinary actions taken pursuant to

the procedures established under section 709

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

of 1978, as added by subsection (a), including

a description of the circumstances sur-

rounding each such disciplinary action, and

the results of each such disciplinary action.

(3) F

ORM

.—The reports required under

paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be submitted in

unclassified form, but may include a classi-

fied annex to the extent necessary to protect

sources and methods.

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION ON REVERSE TARGETING

OF UNITED STATES PERSONS AND

PERSONS LOCATED IN THE UNITED

STATES.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) is

amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘may not intentionally’’

and inserting the following: ‘‘may not—

‘‘(A) intentionally’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (A), as designated by

subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, by strik-

ing ‘‘if the purpose of such acquisition is to

target a particular, known person reasonably

believed to be in the United States;’’ and in-

serting the following: ‘‘if a significant pur-

pose of such acquisition is to target 1 or

more United States persons or persons rea-

sonably believed to be located in the United

States at the time of acquisition or commu-

nication, unless—

‘‘(i)(I) there is a reasonable belief that an

emergency exists involving an imminent

threat of death or serious bodily harm;

‘‘(II) the information is necessary to miti-

gate that threat;

‘‘(III) a description of the targeting is pro-

vided to the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Court, the congressional intelligence

committees, the Committee on the Judiciary

of the Senate, and the Committee on the Ju-

diciary of the House of Representatives in a

timely manner; and

‘‘(IV) any information acquired from such

targeting is used, received in evidence, or

otherwise disseminated solely in an inves-

tigation by or in a trial, hearing, or other

proceeding in or before a court, grand jury,

department, office, agency, regulatory body,

legislative committee, or other authority of

the United States, a State, or political sub-

division thereof, that arises from the threat

that prompted the targeting; or

‘‘(ii) the United States person or persons

reasonably believed to be located in the

United States at the time of acquisition or

communication has provided consent to the

targeting, or if such person is incapable of

providing consent, a third party legally au-

thorized to consent on behalf of such person

has provided consent;’’;

(2) in subsection (d)(1), by amending sub-

paragraph (A) to read as follows:

‘‘(A) ensure that—

‘‘(i) any acquisition authorized under sub-

section (a) is limited to targeting persons

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2407 March 14, 2024

reasonably believed to be non-United States

persons located outside the United States;

and

‘‘(ii) except as provided in subsection (b)(2),

targeting 1 or more United States persons or

persons reasonably believed to be in the

United States at the time of acquisition or

communication is not a significant purpose

of an acquisition; and’’;

(3) in subsection (h)(2)(A)(i), by amending

subclause (I) to read as follows:

‘‘(I) ensure that—

‘‘(aa) an acquisition authorized under sub-

section (a) is limited to targeting persons

reasonably believed to be non-United States

persons located outside the United States;

and

‘‘(bb) except as provided in subsection

(b)(2), a significant purpose of an acquisition

is not to target 1 or more United States per-

sons or persons reasonably believed to be in

the United States at the time of acquisition

or communication; and’’; and

(4) in subsection (j)(2)(B), by amending

clause (i) to read as follows:

‘‘(i) ensure that—

‘‘(I) an acquisition authorized under sub-

section (a) is limited to targeting persons

reasonably believed to be non-United States

persons located outside the United States;

and

‘‘(II) except as provided in subsection

(b)(2), a significant purpose of an acquisition

is not to target 1 or more United States per-

sons or persons reasonably believed to be in

the United States at the time of acquisition

or communication; and’’.

SEC. 105. FISA COURT REVIEW OF TARGETING

DECISIONS.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) is

amended—

(1) in subsection (h)(2)—

(A) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking

‘‘and’’ at the end;

(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the pe-

riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

‘‘(F) include a random sample of targeting

decisions and supporting written justifica-

tions from the prior year, using a sample size

and methodology that has been approved by

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court.’’; and

(2) in subsection (j)(1)—

(A) by striking ‘‘subsection (g)’’ each place

it appears and inserting ‘‘subsection (h)’’;

and

(B) in subparagraph (A), as amended by

subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, by in-

serting ‘‘, including reviewing the random

sample of targeting decisions and written

justifications submitted under subsection

(h)(2)(F),’’ after ‘‘subsection (h)’’.

SEC. 106. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR THE RE-

SUMPTION OF ABOUTS COLLECTION.

(a) I

ENERAL

.—Section 702(b)(5) of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

(50 U.S.C. 1881a(b)(5)) is amended by striking

‘‘, except as provided under section 103(b) of

the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act

of 2017’’.

(b) C

ONFORMING

MENDMENTS

.—

(1) F

OREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

ACT OF 1978

.—Section 702(m) of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50

U.S.C. 1881a(m)) is amended—

(A) in the subsection heading, by striking

‘‘R

EVIEWS

AND

EPORTING

’’ and inserting

‘‘

AND

EVIEWS

’’; and

(B) by striking paragraph (4).

(2) FISA

AMENDMENTS REAUTHORIZATION

ACT OF 2017

.—Section 103 of the FISA Amend-

ments Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Public

Law 115–118; 132 Stat. 10) is amended—

(A) by striking subsection (b) (50 U.S.C.

1881a note); and

(B) by striking ‘‘(a) I

ENERAL

.—’’.

SEC. 107. EXTENSION OF TITLE VII OF FISA; EXPI-

RATION OF FISA AUTHORITIES; EF-

FECTIVE DATES.

(a) E

FFECTIVE

ATES

.—Section 403(b) of the

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law

110–261; 122 Stat. 2474) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1) (50 U.S.C. 1881 note)—

(A) by striking ‘‘April 19, 2024’’ and insert-

ing ‘‘December 31, 2027’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘, as amended by section

101(a) and by the FISA Amendments Reau-

thorization Act of 2017,’’ and inserting ‘‘, as

most recently amended,’’; and

(2) in paragraph (2) (18 U.S.C. 2511 note), in

the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by

striking ‘‘April 19, 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘De-

cember 31, 2027’’.

(b) C

ONFORMING

MENDMENTS

.—Section

404(b) of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008

(Public Law 110–261; 122 Stat. 2476), is amend-

ed—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘A

PRIL 19

2024

’’ and inserting ‘‘D

ECEMBER 31

2027

’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘, as amended by section

101(a) and by the FISA Amendments Reau-

thorization Act of 2017,’’ and inserting ‘‘, as

most recently amended,’’;

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘, as

amended by section 101(a) and by the FISA

Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017,’’

and inserting ‘‘, as most recently amended,’’;

and

(3) in paragraph (4)—

(A) by striking ‘‘, as added by section 101(a)

and amended by the FISA Amendments Re-

authorization Act of 2017,’’ both places it ap-

pears and inserting ‘‘, as added by section

101(a) and as most recently amended,’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘, as amended by section

101(a) and by the FISA Amendments Reau-

thorization Act of 2017,’’ both places it ap-

pears and inserting ‘‘, as most recently

amended,’’.

TITLE II—ADDITIONAL REFORMS RELAT-

ING TO ACTIVITIES UNDER THE FOR-

EIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

ACT OF 1978

SEC. 201. APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER UNDER

THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SUR-

VEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

(a) R

EQUIREMENT FOR

WORN

TATEMENTS

FOR

ACTUAL

SSERTIONS

.—

(1) T

ITLE I

.—Subsection (a)(3) of section 104

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804) is amended by striking

‘‘a statement of’’ and inserting ‘‘a sworn

statement of’’.

(2) T

ITLE III

.—Subsection (a)(3) of section

303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1823) is amended by

striking ‘‘a statement of’’ and inserting ‘‘a

sworn statement of’’.

(3) S

ECTION 703

.—Subsection (b)(1)(C) of sec-

tion 703 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881b) is amended

by striking ‘‘a statement of’’ and inserting

‘‘a sworn statement of’’.

(4) S

ECTION 704

.—Subsection (b)(3) of section

704 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881c) is amended by

striking ‘‘a statement of’’ and inserting ‘‘a

sworn statement of’’.

(5) A

PPLICABILITY

.—The amendments made

by this subsection shall apply with respect

to applications made on or after the date

that is 120 days after the date of enactment

of this Act.

(b) D

ESCRIPTION OF

ECHNIQUES

ARRIED

EFORE

PPLICATION

.—

(1) T

ITLE I

.—Subsection (a) of section 104 of

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of

1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (8), by striking ‘‘; and’’

and inserting a semicolon;

(B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period

at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

‘‘(10) with respect to a target who is a

United States person, a statement summa-

rizing the investigative techniques carried

out before making the application;’’.

(2) A

PPLICABILITY

.—The amendments made

by this subsection shall apply with respect

to applications made on or after the date

that is 120 days after the date of enactment

of this Act.

EQUIREMENT FOR

ERTAIN

USTIFICA

TION

RIOR TO

XTENSION OF

RDERS

.—

(1) A

PPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF ORDERS

UNDER TITLE I

.—Subsection (a) of section 104

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804), as amended by this

Act, is further amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘(11) in the case of an application for an

extension of an order under this title for a

surveillance targeted against a United

States person, a summary statement of the

foreign intelligence information obtained

pursuant to the original order (and any pre-

ceding extension thereof) as of the date of

the application for the extension, or a rea-

sonable explanation of the failure to obtain

such information;’’.

(2) A

PPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF ORDERS

UNDER TITLE III

.—Subsection (a) of section

303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1823) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘; and’’

and inserting a semicolon;

(B) in paragraph (8), by striking the period

at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

‘‘(9) in the case of an application for an ex-

tension of an order under this title in which

the target of the physical search is a United

States person, a summary statement of the

foreign intelligence information obtained

pursuant to the original order (and any pre-

ceding extension thereof) as of the date of

the application for the extension, or a rea-

sonable explanation of the failure to obtain

such information;’’.

(3) A

PPLICABILITY

.—The amendments made

by this subsection shall apply with respect

to applications made on or after the date

that is 120 days after the date of enactment

of this Act.

(d) R

EQUIREMENT FOR

USTIFICATION OF

DERLYING

RIMINAL

FFENSE IN

ERTAIN

PLICATIONS

.—

(1) T

ITLE I

.—Subsection (a)(3)(A) of section

104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804) is amended by in-

serting before the semicolon at the end the

following: ‘‘, and, in the case of a target that

is a United States person alleged to be acting

as an agent of a foreign power (as described

in section 101(b)(2)(B)), that a violation of

the criminal statutes of the United States as

referred to in section 101(b)(2)(B) has oc-

curred or will occur’’.

(2) T

ITLE III

.—Subsection (a)(3)(A) of sec-

tion 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1823) is amended

by inserting before the semicolon at the end

the following: ‘‘, and, in the case of a target

that is a United States person alleged to be

acting as an agent of a foreign power (as de-

scribed in section 101(b)(2)(B)), that a viola-

tion of the criminal statutes of the United

States as referred to in section 101(b)(2)(B)

has occurred or will occur’’.

(3) A

PPLICABILITY

.—The amendments made

by this subsection shall apply with respect

to applications made on or after the date

that is 120 days after the date of enactment

of this Act.

(e) R

EQUIRED

ISCLOSURE OF

ELEVANT

FORMATION IN

OREIGN

NTELLIGENCE

VEILLANCE

CT OF

1978 A

PPLICATIONS

.—

(1) I

N GENERAL

.—The Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2408 March 14, 2024

seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol-

lowing:

‘‘TITLE IX—REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF

RELEVANT INFORMATION

‘‘SEC. 901. DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT INFORMA-

TION.

‘‘The Attorney General or any other Fed-

eral officer or employee making an applica-

tion for a court order under this Act shall

provide the court with—

‘‘(1) all information in the possession of

the Government that is material to deter-

mining whether the application satisfies the

applicable requirements under this Act, in-

cluding any exculpatory information; and

‘‘(2) all information in the possession of

the Government that might reasonably—

‘‘(A) call into question the accuracy of the

application or the reasonableness of any as-

sessment in the application conducted by the

department or agency on whose behalf the

application is made; or

‘‘(B) otherwise raise doubts with respect to

the findings that are required to be made

under the applicable provision of this Act in

order for the court order to be issued.’’.

(2) C

LERICAL AMENDMENT

.—The table of

contents for the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978 is amended by adding at

the end the following:

‘‘TITLE IX—REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF

RELEVANT INFORMATION

‘‘Sec. 901. Disclosure of relevant informa-

tion.’’.

(f) C

ERTIFICATION

EGARDING

CCURACY

ROCEDURES

.—

(1) C

ERTIFICATION REGARDING ACCURACY

PROCEDURES

.—Title IX of the Foreign Intel-

ligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as added by

subsection (e) of this section, is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 902. CERTIFICATION REGARDING ACCU-

RACY PROCEDURES.

‘‘(a) D

EFINITION OF

CCURACY

ROCE

DURES

.—In this section, the term ‘accuracy

procedures’ means specific procedures,

adopted by the Attorney General, to ensure

that an application for a court order under

this Act, including any application for re-

newal of an existing order, is accurate and

complete, including procedures that ensure,

at a minimum, that—

‘‘(1) the application reflects all informa-

tion that might reasonably call into ques-

tion the accuracy of the information or the

reasonableness of any assessment in the ap-

plication, or otherwise raises doubts about

the requested findings;

‘‘(2) the application reflects all material

information that might reasonably call into

question the reliability and reporting of any

information from a confidential human

source that is used in the application;

‘‘(3) a complete file documenting each fac-

tual assertion in an application is main-

tained;

‘‘(4) the applicant coordinates with the ap-

propriate elements of the intelligence com-

munity (as defined in section 3 of the Na-

tional Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003)),

concerning any prior or existing relationship

with the target of any surveillance, search,

or other means of investigation, and dis-

closes any such relationship in the applica-

tion;

‘‘(5) before any application targeting a

United States person (as defined in section

101) is made, the applicant Federal officer

shall document that the officer has collected

and reviewed for accuracy and completeness

supporting documentation for each factual

assertion in the application; and

‘‘(6) the applicant Federal agency establish

compliance and auditing mechanisms to ad-

dress, on an annual basis, the efficacy of the

accuracy procedures that have been adopted

and report such findings to the Attorney

General.

‘‘(b) S

TATEMENT AND

ERTIFICATION OF

CURACY

ROCEDURES

.—Any Federal officer

making an application for a court order

under this Act shall include with the appli-

cation—

‘‘(1) a description of the accuracy proce-

dures employed by the officer or the officer’s

designee; and

‘‘(2) a certification that the officer or the

officer’s designee has collected and reviewed

for accuracy and completeness—

‘‘(A) supporting documentation for each

factual assertion contained in the applica-

tion;

‘‘(B) all information that might reasonably

call into question the accuracy of the infor-

mation or the reasonableness of any assess-

ment in the application, or otherwise raises

doubts about the requested findings; and

‘‘(C) all material information that might

reasonably call into question the reliability

and reporting of any information from any

confidential human source that is used in

the application.

‘‘(c) N

ECESSARY

INDING FOR

OURT

DERS

.—A judge may not enter an order under

this Act unless the judge finds, in addition to

any other findings required under this Act,

that the accuracy procedures described in

the application for the order, as required

under subsection (b)(1), are actually accu-

racy procedures as defined in this section.’’.

(2) T

ECHNICAL AMENDMENT

.—The table of

contents for the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978, as amended by sub-

section (e) of this section, is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘Sec. 902. Certification regarding accuracy

procedures.’’.

(g) P

ROHIBITION ON

SE OF

ERTAIN

NFOR

MATION

.—Section 104 of the Foreign Intel-

ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.

1804) is amended by adding at the end the fol-

lowing:

‘‘(e) The statement of facts and cir-

cumstances under subsection (a)(3) may only

include information obtained from the con-

tent of a media source or information gath-

ered by a political campaign if—

‘‘(1) such information is disclosed in the

application as having been so obtained or

gathered;

‘‘(2) with regard to information gathered

from the content of a media source, the ap-

plication includes an explanation of the in-

vestigative techniques used to corroborate

the information; and

‘‘(3) with regard to information gathered

by a political campaign, such information is

not the sole source of the information used

to justify the applicant’s belief described in

subsection (a)(3).’’.

(h) L

IMITATION ON

SSUANCE OF

RDER

.—

Section 105(a) of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(a)) is

amended—

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and

inserting a semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(5) for an application that is based, in

whole or in part, on information obtained

from the content of a media source or infor-

mation gathered by a political campaign—

‘‘(A) such information is disclosed in the

application as having been so obtained or

gathered;

‘‘(B) with regard to information gathered

from the content of a media source, the ap-

plication includes an explanation of the in-

vestigative techniques used to corroborate

the information; and

‘‘(C) with regard to information gathered

by a political campaign, such information is

not the sole source of the information used

to justify the applicant’s belief described in

section 104(a)(3).’’.

SEC. 202. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS

OF FISA.

(a) I

ENERAL

.—Section 109 of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50

U.S.C. 1809) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1),

by striking ‘‘intentionally’’;

(B) in paragraph (1)—

(i) by inserting ‘‘intentionally’’ before ‘‘en-

gages’’; and

(ii) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end;

(i) by inserting ‘‘intentionally’’ before

‘‘disclose’’; and

(ii) by striking the period at the end and

inserting a semicolon; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(3) knowingly submits any document to

or makes any false statement before the

court established under section 103(a) or the

court established under section 103(b), know-

ing such document or statement to contain—

‘‘(A) a false material declaration; or

‘‘(B) a material omission; or

‘‘(4) knowingly discloses the existence of

an application for an order authorizing sur-

veillance under this title, or any information

contained therein, to any person not author-

ized to receive such information, except in-

sofar as such disclosure is authorized by

statute or executive order setting forth per-

missible disclosures by whistleblowers.’’; and

(2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘five’’ and

inserting ‘‘8’’.

(b) R

ULE OF

ONSTRUCTION

.—This section

and the amendments made by this section

may not be construed to interfere with the

enforcement of section 798 of title 18, United

States Code, or any other provision of law

regarding the unlawful disclosure of classi-

fied information.

SEC. 203. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR CIVIL AC-

TIONS.

(a) I

NCREASED

ENALTIES

.—Section 110 of

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of

1978 (50 U.S.C. 1810) is amended by striking

subsection (a) and inserting the following:

‘‘(a) actual damages, but not less than liq-

uidated damages equal to the greater of—

‘‘(1) if the aggrieved person is a United

States person, $10,000 or $1,000 per day for

each day of violation; or

‘‘(2) for any other aggrieved person, $1,000

or $100 per day for each day of violation;’’.

(b) R

EPORTING

EQUIREMENT

.—Title I of

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of

1978 is amended by inserting after section 110

the following:

‘‘SEC. 110A. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR

CIVIL ACTIONS.

‘‘(a) R

EPORT TO

ONGRESS

.—If a court finds

that a person has violated this Act in a civil

action under section 110, the head of the

agency that employs that person shall report

to Congress on the administrative action

taken against that person pursuant to sec-

tion 607 or any other provision of law.

‘‘(b) FISC.—If a court finds that a person

has violated this Act in a civil action under

section 110, the head of the agency that em-

ploys that person shall report the name of

such person to the court established under

section 103(a). Such court shall maintain a

list of each person about whom it received a

report under this subsection.’’.

SEC. 204. AGENCY PROCEDURES TO ENSURE

COMPLIANCE.

(a) A

GENCY

ROCEDURES TO

NSURE

OMPLI

ANCE

.—Title VI of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1871 et

seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol-

lowing:

‘‘SEC. 605. AGENCY PROCEDURES TO ENSURE

COMPLIANCE.

‘‘The head of each Federal department or

agency authorized to acquire foreign intel-

ligence information under this Act shall es-

tablish procedures—

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2409 March 14, 2024

‘‘(1) setting forth clear rules on what con-

stitutes a violation of this Act by an officer

or employee of that department or agency;

and

‘‘(2) for taking appropriate adverse per-

sonnel action against any officer or em-

ployee of the department or agency who en-

gages in a violation described in paragraph

(1), including more severe adverse personnel

actions for any subsequent violation by such

officer or employee.’’.

(b) C

LERICAL

MENDMENT

.—The table of

contents for the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978 is amended by inserting

after the item relating to section 604 the fol-

lowing:

‘‘Sec. 605. Agency procedures to ensure com-

pliance.’’.

EPORT

.—Not later than 90 days after

the date of enactment of this Act, the head

of each Federal department or agency that is

required to establish procedures under sec-

tion 605 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978, as added by subsection (a)

of this section, shall report to Congress on

the implementation of such procedures.

SEC. 205. LIMIT ON CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR PRO-

VIDING INFORMATION, FACILITIES,

OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE

GOVERNMENT ABSENT A COURT

ORDER.

Section 2511(2)(a) of title 18, United States

Code, is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (ii), by striking clause

(B) and inserting the following:

‘‘(B) a certification in writing—

‘‘

‘‘(I) by a person specified in section 2518(7)

or the Attorney General of the United

States;

‘‘(II) that the requirements for an emer-

gency authorization to intercept a wire, oral,

or electronic communication under section

2518(7) have been met; and

‘‘(III) that the specified assistance is re-

quired,’’; and

(2) by striking subparagraph (iii) and in-

serting the following:

‘‘(iii) For assistance provided pursuant to a

certification under subparagraph (ii)(B), the

limitation on causes of action under the last

sentence of the matter following that sub-

paragraph shall only apply to the extent

that the assistance ceased at the earliest of

the time the application for a court order

was denied, the time the communication

sought was obtained, or 48 hours after the

interception began.’’.

TITLE III—REFORMS RELATING TO PRO-

CEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOREIGN IN-

TELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT

AND OTHER COURTS

SEC. 301. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEIL-

LANCE COURT REFORM.

(a) R

EQUIREMENT FOR

AME

UDGE TO

EAR

ENEWAL

PPLICATIONS

.—Section 103(a)(1) of

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of

1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)(1)) is amended by add-

ing at the end the following: ‘‘To the extent

practicable, no judge designated under this

subsection shall hear a renewal application

for electronic surveillance under this Act,

which application was previously granted by

another judge designated under this sub-

section, unless the term of the judge who

granted the application has expired, or that

judge is otherwise no longer serving on the

court.’’.

(b) U

SE OF

MICI

URIAE IN

OREIGN

NTEL

LIGENCE

URVEILLANCE

OURT

CEEDINGS

.—

(1) E

XPANSION OF APPOINTMENT AUTHOR

ITY

.—

(A) I

N GENERAL

.—Section 103(i)(2) of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

(50 U.S.C. 1803(i)(2)) is amended—

(i) by striking subparagraph (A) and insert-

ing the following:

‘‘(A) shall, unless the court issues a finding

that appointment is not appropriate, appoint

1 or more individuals who have been des-

ignated under paragraph (1), not fewer than

1 of whom possesses privacy and civil lib-

erties expertise, unless the court finds that

such a qualification is inappropriate, to

serve as amicus curiae to assist the court in

the consideration of any application or mo-

tion for an order or review that, in the opin-

ion of the court—

‘‘(i) presents a novel or significant inter-

pretation of the law;

‘‘(ii) presents significant concerns with re-

spect to the activities of a United States per-

son that are protected by the first amend-

ment to the Constitution of the United

States;

‘‘(iii) presents or involves a sensitive inves-

tigative matter;

‘‘(iv) presents a request for approval of a

new program, a new technology, or a new use

of existing technology;

‘‘(v) presents a request for reauthorization

of programmatic surveillance; or

‘‘(vi) otherwise presents novel or signifi-

cant civil liberties issues; and’’; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘an in-

dividual or organization’’ each place the

term appears and inserting ‘‘1 or more indi-

viduals or organizations’’.

(B) D

EFINITION OF SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIVE

MATTER

.—Section 103(i) of the Foreign Intel-

ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.

1803(i)) is amended by adding at the end the

following:

‘‘(12) D

EFINITION

.—In this subsection, the

term ‘sensitive investigative matter’

means—

‘‘(A) an investigative matter involving the

activities of—

‘‘(i) a domestic public official or political

candidate, or an individual serving on the

staff of such an official or candidate;

‘‘(ii) a domestic religious or political orga-

nization, or a known or suspected United

States person prominent in such an organi-

zation; or

‘‘(iii) the domestic news media; or

‘‘(B) any other investigative matter involv-

ing a domestic entity or a known or sus-

pected United States person that, in the

judgment of the applicable court established

under subsection (a) or (b), is as sensitive as

an investigative matter described in sub-

paragraph (A).’’.

(2) A

UTHORITY TO SEEK REVIEW

.—Section

103(i) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(i)), as amend-

ed by paragraph (1) of this subsection, is

amended—

(A) in paragraph (4)—

(i) in the paragraph heading, by inserting

‘‘;

AUTHORITY

’’ after ‘‘D

UTIES

’’;

(ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (A),

(B), and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), re-

spectively, and adjusting the margins ac-

cordingly;

(iii) in the matter preceding clause (i), as

so redesignated, by striking ‘‘the amicus cu-

riae shall’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘the

amicus curiae—

‘‘(A) shall’’;

(iv) in subparagraph (A)(i), as so redesig-

nated, by inserting before the semicolon at

the end the following: ‘‘, including legal ar-

guments regarding any privacy or civil lib-

erties interest of any United States person

that would be significantly impacted by the

application or motion’’; and

(v) by striking the period at the end and

inserting the following: ‘‘; and

‘‘(B) may seek leave to raise any novel or

significant privacy or civil liberties issue

relevant to the application or motion or

other issue directly impacting the legality of

the proposed electronic surveillance with the

court, regardless of whether the court has re-

quested assistance on that issue.’’;

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (7)

through (12) as paragraphs (8) through (13),

respectively; and

lowing:

‘‘(7) A

UTHORITY TO SEEK REVIEW OF DECI

SIONS

.—

‘‘(A) FISA

COURT DECISIONS

.—

‘‘(i) P

ETITION

.—Following issuance of an

order under this Act by the court established

under subsection (a), an amicus curiae ap-

pointed under paragraph (2) may petition the

court to certify for review to the court es-

tablished under subsection (b) a question of

law pursuant to subsection (j).

‘‘(ii) W

RITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS

.—If

the court established under subsection (a)

denies a petition under this subparagraph,

the court shall provide for the record a writ-

ten statement of the reasons for the denial.

‘‘(iii) A

PPOINTMENT

.—Upon certification of

any question of law pursuant to this sub-

paragraph, the court established under sub-

section (b) shall appoint the amicus curiae to

assist the court in its consideration of the

certified question, unless the court issues a

finding that such appointment is not appro-

priate.

‘‘(B) FISA

COURT OF REVIEW DECISIONS

.—An

amicus curiae appointed under paragraph (2)

may petition the court established under

subsection (b) to certify for review to the Su-

preme Court of the United States any ques-

tion of law pursuant to section 1254(2) of title

28, United States Code.

‘‘(C) D

ECLASSIFICATION OF REFERRALS

.—For

purposes of section 602, a petition filed under

subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph

and all of its content shall be considered a

decision, order, or opinion issued by the For-

eign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of

Review described in section 602(a).’’.

(3) A

CCESS TO INFORMATION

.—

(A) A

PPLICATION AND MATERIALS

.—Section

103(i)(6) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(i)(6)) is

amended by striking subparagraph (A) and

inserting the following:

‘‘(A) I

N GENERAL

.—

‘‘(i) R

IGHT OF AMICUS

.—If a court estab-

lished under subsection (a) or (b) appoints an

amicus curiae under paragraph (2), the ami-

cus curiae—

‘‘(I) shall have access, to the extent such

information is available to the Government,

to—

‘‘(aa) the application, certification, peti-

tion, motion, and other information and sup-

porting materials, including any information

described in section 901, submitted to the

court established under subsection (a) in

connection with the matter in which the

amicus curiae has been appointed, including

access to any relevant legal precedent (in-

cluding any such precedent that is cited by

the Government, including in such an appli-

cation);

‘‘(bb) an unredacted copy of each relevant

decision made by the court established under

subsection (a) or the court established under

subsection (b) in which the court decides a

question of law, without regard to whether

the decision is classified; and

‘‘(cc) any other information or materials

that the court determines are relevant to the

duties of the amicus curiae; and

‘‘(II) may make a submission to the court

requesting access to any other particular

materials or information (or category of ma-

terials or information) that the amicus cu-

riae believes to be relevant to the duties of

the amicus curiae.

‘‘(ii) S

UPPORTING DOCUMENTATION REGARD

ING ACCURACY

.—The court established under

subsection (a), upon the motion of an amicus

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2410 March 14, 2024

curiae appointed under paragraph (2) or upon

its own motion, may require the Government

to make available the supporting docu-

mentation described in section 902.’’.

(B) C

LARIFICATION OF ACCESS TO CERTAIN IN

FORMATION

.—Section 103(i)(6) of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50

U.S.C. 1803(i)(6)) is amended—

(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘may’’

and inserting ‘‘shall’’; and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and in-

serting the following:

‘‘(C) C

LASSIFIED INFORMATION

.—An amicus

curiae designated or appointed by the court

shall have access, to the extent such infor-

mation is available to the Government, to

unredacted copies of each opinion, order,

transcript, pleading, or other document of

the court established under subsection (a)

and the court established under subsection

(b), including, if the individual is eligible for

access to classified information, any classi-

fied documents, information, and other ma-

terials or proceedings.’’.

ONSULTATION AMONG AMICI CURIAE

.—

Section 103(i)(6) of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(i)(6))

is amended—

(i) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as

subparagraph (E); and

(ii) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the

following:

‘‘(D) C

ONSULTATION AMONG AMICI CURIAE

.—

An amicus curiae appointed under paragraph

(2) by the court established under subsection

(a) or the court established under subsection

(b) may consult with 1 or more of the other

individuals designated by the court to serve

as amicus curiae pursuant to paragraph (1) of

this subsection regarding any of the informa-

tion relevant to any assigned proceeding.’’.

(4) E

FFECTIVE DATE

.—The amendments

made by this subsection shall take effect on

the date of enactment of this Act and shall

apply with respect to proceedings under the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

(50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) that take place on or

after, or are pending on, that date.

SEC. 302. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND DECLAS-

SIFICATION OF CERTAIN DOCU-

MENTS.

(a) S

UBMISSION TO

ONGRESS

.—Section

601(c)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1871(c)) is amend-

ed by inserting ‘‘, including declassified cop-

ies that have undergone review under section

602’’ before ‘‘; and’’.

(b) T

IMELINE FOR

ECLASSIFICATION

VIEW

.—Section 602(a) of the Foreign Intel-

ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.

1872(a)) is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘, to be concluded not later

than 180 days after the issuance of such deci-

sion, order, or opinion,’’ after ‘‘(as defined in

section 601(e))’’; and

(2) by inserting ‘‘or results in a change of

application of any provision of this Act or a

novel application of any provision of this

Act’’ after ‘‘law’’.

SEC. 303. SUBMISSION OF COURT TRANSCRIPTS

TO CONGRESS.

Section 601(c) of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1871(c)), as

amended by section 302 of this Act, is amend-

ed—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and

inserting a semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period

at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(3) for any matter at which a court re-

porter is present and creates a transcript of

a hearing or oral argument before the For-

eign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of

Review, a copy of each such transcript not

later than 45 days after the government’s re-

ceipt of the transcript or the date on which

the matter concerning such hearing or oral

argument is resolved, whichever is later.’’.

SEC. 304. CONTEMPT POWER OF FISC AND FISCR.

(a) I

ENERAL

.—Chapter 21 of title 18,

United States Code, is amended—

(1) in section 402, by inserting after ‘‘any

district court of the United States’’ the fol-

lowing: ‘‘, the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Court, the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Court of Review,’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘§ 404. Definitions

‘‘For purposes of this chapter—

‘‘(1) the term ‘court of the United States’

includes the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Court or the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Court of Review; and

‘‘(2) the terms ‘Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Court’ and ‘Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court of Review’ have the

meanings given those terms in section 601(e)

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1871(e)).’’.

(b) C

LERICAL

MENDMENT

.—The table of

sections for chapter 21 of title 18, United

States Code, is amended by adding at the end

the following:

‘‘404. Definitions.’’.

EPORT

.—Not later than 1 year after

the date of enactment of this Act, and annu-

ally thereafter, the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court of Review (as those terms

are defined in section 601(e) of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50

U.S.C. 1871(e))) shall jointly submit to Con-

gress a report on the exercise of authority

under chapter 21 of title 18, United States

Code, by those courts during the 1-year pe-

riod ending on the date that is 60 days before

the date of submission of the report.

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE

BRANCH OVERSIGHT

SEC. 401. PERIODIC AUDIT OF FISA COMPLIANCE

BY INSPECTOR GENERAL.

(a) R

EPORT

EQUIRED

.—Title VI of the For-

eign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50

U.S.C. 1871 et seq.), as amended by section

204 of this Act, is amended by adding at the

end the following:

‘‘SEC. 606. PERIODIC AUDIT OF FISA COMPLIANCE

BY INSPECTOR GENERAL.

‘‘Not later than June 30 of the first cal-

endar year that begins after the date of en-

actment of this section, and every 5 years

thereafter, the Inspector General of the De-

partment of Justice shall—

‘‘(1) conduct an audit of alleged or poten-

tial violations and failures to comply with

the requirements of this Act, and any proce-

dures established pursuant to this Act,

which shall include an analysis of the accu-

racy and completeness of applications and

certifications for orders submitted under

each of sections 105, 303, 402, 502, 702, 703, and

704; and

‘‘(2) submit to the Select Committee on In-

telligence of the Senate, the Committee on

the Judiciary of the Senate, the Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence of the

House of Representatives, and the Com-

mittee on the Judiciary of the House of Rep-

resentatives a report on the audit required

under paragraph (1).’’.

(b) C

LERICAL

MENDMENT

.—The table of

contents for the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978, as amended by section

204 of this Act, is amended by inserting after

the item relating to section 605 the fol-

lowing:

‘‘Sec. 606. Periodic audit of FISA compli-

ance by Inspector General.’’.

SEC. 402. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PARITY

AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH PRI-

VACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVER-

SIGHT BOARD.

(a) W

HISTLEBLOWER

ROTECTIONS FOR

BERS OF

NTELLIGENCE

OMMUNITY FOR

MUNICATIONS

ITH

RIVACY AND

IVIL

ERTIES

VERSIGHT

OARD

.—Section 1104 of

the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.

3234) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter before

subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘the Privacy

and Civil Liberties Oversight Board,’’ after

‘‘Inspector General of the Intelligence Com-

munity,’’; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1)(A), in the matter be-

fore clause (i), by inserting ‘‘the Privacy and

Civil Liberties Oversight Board,’’ after ‘‘In-

spector General of the Intelligence Commu-

nity,’’.

(b) P

ARITY IN

AY FOR

RIVACY AND

IVIL

IBERTIES

VERSIGHT

OARD

TAFF AND THE

NTELLIGENCE

OMMUNITY

.—Section 1061(j)(1)

of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism

Prevention Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 2000ee(j)(1))

is amended by striking ‘‘except that’’ and all

that follows through the period at the end

and inserting ‘‘except that no rate of pay

fixed under this subsection may exceed the

highest amount paid by any element of the

intelligence community for a comparable po-

sition, based on salary information provided

to the chairman of the Board by the Director

of National Intelligence.’’.

TITLE V—PROTECTIONS FOR UNITED

STATES PERSONS WHOSE SENSITIVE IN-

FORMATION IS PURCHASED BY INTEL-

LIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES

SEC. 501. LIMITATION ON INTELLIGENCE ACQUI-

SITION OF UNITED STATES PERSON

DATA.

(a) D

EFINITIONS

.—In this section:

(1) A

PPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CON

GRESS

.—The term ‘‘appropriate committees

of Congress’’ means—

(A) the congressional intelligence commit-

tees (as defined in section 3 of the National

Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003));

(B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the

Senate; and

House of Representatives.

(2) C

OVERED DATA

.—The term ‘‘covered

data’’ means data, derived data, or any

unique identifier that—

(A) is linked to or is reasonably linkable to

a covered person; and

(B) does not include data that—

(i) is lawfully available to the public

through Federal, State, or local government

records or through widely distributed media;

(ii) is reasonably believed to have been vol-

untarily made available to the general pub-

lic by the covered person; or

(iii) is a specific communication or trans-

action with a targeted individual who is not

a covered person.

(3) C

OVERED PERSON

.—The term ‘‘covered

person’’ means an individual who—

(A) is reasonably believed to be located in

the United States at the time of the creation

or acquisition of the covered data; or

(B) is a United States person.

(4) I

NTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

.—The term

‘‘intelligence community’’ has the meaning

given such term in section 3 of the National

Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003).

(5) S

TATE

UNITED STATES

PERSON

.—The terms ‘‘State’’, ‘‘United

States’’, and ‘‘United States person’’ have

the meanings given such terms in section 101

of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

(b) L

IMITATION

.—

(1) I

N GENERAL

.—Subject to paragraphs (2)

through (7), an element of the intelligence

community may not acquire a dataset that

includes covered data.

(2) A

UTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO COURT

ORDER

.—An element of the intelligence com-

munity may acquire covered data if the col-

lection has been authorized by an order or

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2411 March 14, 2024

emergency authorization issued pursuant to

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of

1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or title 18, United

States Code, by a court of competent juris-

diction covering the period of the acquisi-

tion, subject to the use, dissemination,

querying, retention, and other minimization

limitations required by such authorization.

(3) A

UTHORIZATION FOR EMPLOYMENT

LATED USE

.—An element of the intelligence

community may acquire covered data about

an employee of, or applicant for employment

by, an element of the intelligence commu-

nity for employment-related purposes, pro-

vided that—

(A) access to and use of the covered data is

limited to such purposes; and

(B) the covered data is destroyed at such

time as it is no longer necessary for such

purposes.

(4) E

XCEPTION FOR COMPLIANCE PURPOSES

.—

An element of the intelligence community

may acquire covered data for the purpose of

supporting compliance with collection limi-

tations and minimization requirements im-

posed by statute, guidelines, procedures, or

the Constitution of the United States, pro-

vided that—

(A) access to and use of the covered data is

limited to such purpose; and

(B) the covered data is destroyed at such

time as it is no longer necessary for such

purpose.

(5) E

XCEPTION FOR LIFE OR SAFETY

.—An ele-

ment of the intelligence community may ac-

quire covered data if there is a reasonable

belief than an emergency exists involving an

imminent threat of death or serious bodily

harm and the covered data is necessary to

mitigate that threat, provided that—

(A) access to and use of the covered data is

limited to addressing the threat; and

(B) the covered data is destroyed at such

time as it is no longer necessary for such

purpose.

(6) E

XCEPTION FOR CONSENT

.—An element of

the intelligence community may acquire

covered data if—

(A) each covered person linked or reason-

ably linkable to the covered data, or, if such

person is incapable of providing consent, a

third party legally authorized to consent on

behalf of the person, has provided consent to

the acquisition and use of the data on a case-

by-case basis;

(B) access to and use of the covered data is

limited to the purposes for which the con-

sent was provided; and

time as it is no longer necessary for such

purposes.

(7) E

XCEPTION FOR NONSEGREGABLE DATA

.—

An element of the intelligence community

may acquire a dataset that includes covered

data if the covered data is not reasonably

segregable prior to acquisition, provided that

the element of the intelligence community

complies with the minimization procedures

in subsection (c).

INIMIZATION

ROCEDURES

.—

(1) I

N GENERAL

.—The Attorney General

shall adopt specific procedures that are rea-

sonably designed to minimize the acquisition

and retention, and to restrict the querying,

of covered data that is not subject to 1 or

more of the exceptions set forth in sub-

section (b).

(2) A

CQUISITION AND RETENTION

.—The proce-

dures adopted under paragraph (1) shall re-

quire elements of the intelligence commu-

nity to exhaust all reasonable means—

(A) to exclude covered data not subject to

1 or more exceptions set forth in subsection

(b) from datasets prior to acquisition; and

(B) to remove and delete covered data not

subject to 1 or more exceptions set forth in

subsection (b) prior to the operational use of

the acquired dataset or the inclusion of the

dataset in a database intended for oper-

ational use.

(3) D

ESTRUCTION

.—The procedures adopted

under paragraph (1) shall require that if an

element of the intelligence community iden-

tifies covered data not subject to 1 or more

exceptions set forth in paragraphs (2)

through (6) of subsection (b), such covered

data shall be promptly destroyed.

(4) Q

UERYING

.—

(A) I

N GENERAL

.—Except as provided in

subparagraphs (B) and (C), no officer or em-

ployee of an element of the intelligence com-

munity may conduct a query of covered

data, including covered data already sub-

jected to minimization, in an effort to find

records of or about a particular covered per-

son.

(B) E

XCEPTIONS

.—Subparagraph (A) shall

not apply to a query related to a particular

covered person if—

(i) such covered person is the subject of a

court order or emergency authorization

issued under the Foreign Intelligence Sur-

veillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or

title 18, United States Code, that would au-

thorize the element of the intelligence com-

munity to compel the production of the cov-

ered data, during the effective period of that

order;

(ii) the purpose of the query is to retrieve

information about an employee of, or appli-

cant for employment by, an element of the

intelligence community, provided that any

covered data accessed through such query is

used only for such purpose;

(iii) the query is conducted for the purpose

of supporting compliance with collection

limitations and minimization requirements

imposed by statute, guidelines, procedures,

or the Constitution of the United States,

provided that any covered data accessed

through such query is used only for such pur-

pose;

(iv) the officer or employee of an element

of the intelligence community carrying out

the query has a reasonable belief that an

emergency exists involving an imminent

threat of death or serious bodily harm, and

that in order to prevent or mitigate such

threat, the query must be conducted before a

court order can, with due diligence, be ob-

tained, provided that any covered data

accessed through such query is used only for

such purpose; or

(v) such covered person or, if such person is

incapable of providing consent, a third party

legally authorized to consent on behalf of

the person has consented to the query, pro-

vided that any use of covered data accessed

through such query is limited to the pur-

poses for which the consent was provided.

PECIAL RULE FOR NONSEGREGABLE

DATASETS

.—For a query of a dataset acquired

under subsection (b)(7)—

(i) each query shall be reasonably designed

to exclude personal data of covered persons,

unless the query is subject to an exception

set forth in paragraph (4); and

(ii) any personal data of covered persons

returned pursuant to a query that is not sub-

ject to an exception set forth in paragraphs

(2) through (7) of subsection (b) shall not be

reviewed and shall immediately be de-

stroyed.

(d) P

ROHIBITION ON

SE OF

ATA

BTAINED

IOLATION OF

HIS

ECTION

.—Covered data

acquired by an element of the intelligence

community in violation of subsection (b),

and any evidence derived therefrom, may not

be used, received in evidence, or otherwise

disseminated in any investigation by or in

any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or

before any court, grand jury, department, of-

fice, agency, regulatory body, legislative

committee, or other authority of the United

States, a State, or political subdivision

thereof.

(e) R

EPORTING

EQUIREMENT

.—

(1) I

N GENERAL

.—Not later than 180 days

after the date of the enactment of this Act,

the Director of National Intelligence shall

submit to the appropriate committees of

Congress and the Privacy and Civil Liberties

Oversight Board a report on the acquisition

of datasets that the Director anticipates will

contain information of covered persons that

is significant in volume, proportion, or sensi-

tivity.

(2) C

ONTENTS

.—The report submitted pur-

suant to paragraph (1) shall include the fol-

lowing:

(A) A description of the covered person in-

formation in each dataset.

(B) An estimate of the amount of covered

person information in each dataset.

(3) N

OTIFICATIONS

.—After submitting the

report required by paragraph (1), the Direc-

tor shall, in coordination with the Under

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Se-

curity, notify the appropriate committees of

Congress of any changes to the information

contained in such report.

(4) A

VAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC

.—The Di-

rector shall make available to the public on

the website of the Director—

(A) the unclassified portion of the report

submitted pursuant to paragraph (1); and

(B) any notifications submitted pursuant

to paragraph (3).

(f) R

ULE OF

ONSTRUCTION

.—Nothing in this

section shall authorize an acquisition other-

wise prohibited by the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et

seq.) or title 18, United States Code.

SEC. 502. LIMITATION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT

PURCHASE OF PERSONAL DATA

FROM DATA BROKERS.

Section 2702 of title 18, United States Code,

is amended by adding at the end the fol-

lowing:

‘‘(e) P

ROHIBITION ON

BTAINING IN

CHANGE FOR

NYTHING OF

ALUE

ERSONAL

ATA BY

NFORCEMENT

GENCIES

.—

‘‘(1) D

EFINITIONS

.—In this subsection and

subsection (f)—

‘‘(A) the term ‘covered governmental enti-

ty’ means a law enforcement agency of a

governmental entity;

‘‘(B) the term ‘covered organization’ means

a person who—

‘‘(i) is not a governmental entity; and

‘‘(ii) is not an individual;

‘‘(C) the term ‘covered person’ means an

individual who—

‘‘(i) is reasonably believed to be located in-

side the United States at the time of the cre-

ation of the covered personal data; or

‘‘(ii) is a United States person, as defined

in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801);

‘‘(D) the term ‘covered personal data’

means personal data relating to a covered

person;

‘‘(E) the term ‘electronic device’ has the

meaning given the term ‘computer’ in sec-

tion 1030(e);

‘‘(F) the term ‘lawfully obtained public

data’ means personal data obtained by a par-

ticular covered organization that the cov-

ered organization—

‘‘(i) reasonably understood to have been

voluntarily made available to the general

public by the covered person; and

‘‘(ii) obtained in compliance with all appli-

cable laws, regulations, contracts, privacy

policies, and terms of service;

‘‘(G) the term ‘obtain in exchange for any-

thing of value’ means to obtain by pur-

chasing, to receive in connection with serv-

ices being provided for monetary or non-

monetary consideration, or to otherwise ob-

tain in exchange for consideration, including

an access fee, service fee, maintenance fee,

or licensing fee; and

‘‘(H) the term ‘personal data’—

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2412 March 14, 2024

‘‘(i) means data, derived data, or any

unique identifier that is linked to, or is rea-

sonably linkable to, an individual or to an

electronic device that is linked to, or is rea-

sonably linkable to, 1 or more individuals in

a household;

‘‘(ii) includes anonymized data that, if

combined with other data, can be linked to,

or is reasonably linkable to, an individual or

to an electronic device that identifies, is

linked to, or is reasonably linkable to 1 or

more individuals in a household; and

‘‘(iii) does not include—

‘‘(I) data that is lawfully available through

Federal, State, or local government records

or through widely distributed media; or

‘‘(II) a specific communication or trans-

action with a targeted individual who is not

a covered person.

‘‘(2) L

IMITATION

.—

‘‘(A) I

N GENERAL

.—

‘‘(i) P

ROHIBITION

.—Subject to clauses (ii)

through (x), a covered governmental entity

may not obtain in exchange for anything of

value covered personal data if—

‘‘(I) the covered personal data is directly or

indirectly obtained from a covered organiza-

tion; or

‘‘(II) the covered personal data is derived

from covered personal data that was directly

or indirectly obtained from a covered organi-

zation.

‘‘(ii) E

XCEPTION FOR CERTAIN COMPILATIONS

OF DATA

.—A covered governmental entity

may obtain in exchange for something of

value covered personal data as part of a larg-

er compilation of data which includes per-

sonal data about persons who are not cov-

ered persons, if—

‘‘(I) the covered governmental entity is un-

able through reasonable means to exclude

covered personal data from the larger com-

pilation obtained; and

‘‘(II) the covered governmental entity

minimizes any covered personal data from

the larger compilation, in accordance with

subsection (f).

‘‘(iii) E

XCEPTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWER DIS

CLOSURES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT

.—Clause (i)

shall not apply to covered personal data that

is obtained by a covered governmental entity

under a program established by an Act of

Congress under which a portion of a penalty

or a similar payment or bounty is paid to an

individual who discloses information about

an unlawful activity to the Government,

such as the program authorized under sec-

tion 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

(relating to awards to whistleblowers in

cases of underpayments or fraud).

‘‘(iv) E

XCEPTION FOR COST REIMBURSEMENT

UNDER COMPULSORY LEGAL PROCESS

.—Clause

(i) shall not apply to covered personal data

that is obtained by a covered governmental

entity from a covered organization in ac-

cordance with compulsory legal process

that—

‘‘(I) is established by a Federal or State

statute; and

‘‘(II) provides for the reimbursement of

costs of the covered organization that are in-

curred in connection with providing the

record or information to the covered govern-

mental entity, such as the reimbursement of

costs under section 2706.

‘‘(v) E

XCEPTION FOR EMPLOYMENT

USE

.—Clause (i) shall not apply to covered

personal data about an employee of, or appli-

cant for employment by, a covered govern-

mental entity that is—

‘‘(I) obtained by the covered governmental

entity for employment-related purposes;

‘‘(II) accessed and used by the covered gov-

ernmental entity only for employment-re-

lated purposes; and

‘‘(III) destroyed at such time as the cov-

ered personal data is no longer needed for

employment-related purposes.

‘‘(vi) E

XCEPTION FOR USE IN BACKGROUND

CHECKS

.—Clause (i) shall not apply to cov-

ered personal data about a covered person

that is—

‘‘(I) obtained by a covered governmental

entity for purposes of conducting a back-

ground check of the covered person with the

written consent of the covered person;

‘‘(II) accessed and used by the covered gov-

ernmental entity only for background check-

related purposes; and

‘‘(III) destroyed at such time as the cov-

ered personal data is no longer needed for

background check-related purposes.

‘‘(vii) E

XCEPTION FOR LAWFULLY OBTAINED

PUBLIC DATA

.—Clause (i) shall not apply to

covered personal data that is obtained by a

covered governmental entity if—

‘‘(I) the covered personal data is lawfully

obtained public data; or

‘‘(II) the covered personal data is derived

from covered personal data that solely con-

sists of lawfully obtained public data.

‘‘(viii) E

XCEPTION FOR LIFE OR SAFETY

.—

Clause (i) shall not apply to covered personal

data that is obtained by a covered govern-

mental entity if there is a reasonable belief

than an emergency exists involving an immi-

nent threat of death or serious bodily harm

to a covered person and the covered data is

necessary to mitigate that threat, provided

that—

‘‘(I) access to and use of the covered per-

sonal data is limited to addressing the

threat; and

‘‘(II) the covered personal data is destroyed

at such time as it is no longer necessary for

such purpose.

‘‘(ix) E

XCEPTION FOR COMPLIANCE PUR

POSES

.—Clause (i) shall not apply to covered

personal data that is obtained by a covered

governmental entity for the purpose of sup-

porting compliance with collection limita-

tions and minimization requirements im-

posed by statute, guidelines, procedures, or

the Constitution of the United States, pro-

vided that—

‘‘(I) access to and use of the covered per-

sonal data is limited to such purpose; and

‘‘(II) the covered personal data is destroyed

at such time as it is no longer necessary for

such purpose.

‘‘(x) E

XCEPTION FOR CONSENT

.—Clause (i)

shall not apply to covered personal data that

is obtained by a covered governmental entity

if—

‘‘(I) each covered person linked or reason-

ably linkable to the covered personal data,

or, if such covered person is incapable of pro-

viding consent, a third party legally author-

ized to consent on behalf of the covered per-

son, has provided consent to the acquisition

and use of the data on a case-by-case basis;

‘‘(II) access to and use of the covered per-

sonal data is limited to the purposes for

which the consent was provided; and

‘‘(III) the covered personal data is de-

stroyed at such time as it is no longer nec-

essary for such purposes.

‘‘(B) I

NDIRECTLY ACQUIRED RECORDS AND IN

FORMATION

.—The limitation under subpara-

graph (A) shall apply without regard to

whether the covered organization possessing

the covered personal data is the covered or-

ganization that initially obtained or col-

lected, or is the covered organization that

initially received the disclosure of, the cov-

ered personal data.

‘‘(3) L

IMIT ON SHARING BETWEEN AGENCIES

.—

An agency of a governmental entity that is

not a covered governmental entity may not

provide to a covered governmental entity

covered personal data that was obtained in a

manner that would violate paragraph (2) if

the agency of a governmental entity were a

covered governmental entity, unless the cov-

ered governmental entity would have been

permitted to obtain the covered personal

data under an exception set forth in para-

graph (2)(A).

‘‘(4) P

ROHIBITION ON USE OF DATA OBTAINED

IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION

.—

‘‘(A) I

N GENERAL

.—Covered personal data

obtained by or provided to a covered govern-

mental entity in violation of paragraph (2) or

(3), and any evidence derived therefrom, may

not be used, received in evidence, or other-

wise disseminated by, on behalf of, or upon a

motion or other action by a covered govern-

mental entity in any investigation by or in

any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or

before any court, grand jury, department, of-

ficer, agency, regulatory body, legislative

committee, or other authority of the United

States, a State, or a political subdivision

thereof.

‘‘(B) U

SE BY AGGRIEVED PARTIES

.—Nothing

in subparagraph (A) shall be construed to

limit the use of covered personal data by a

covered person aggrieved of a violation of

paragraph (2) or (3) in connection with any

action relating to such a violation.

‘‘(f) M

INIMIZATION

ROCEDURES

.—

‘‘(1) I

N GENERAL

.—The Attorney General

shall adopt specific procedures that are rea-

sonably designed to minimize the acquisition

and retention, and to restrict the querying,

of covered personal data, and prohibit the

dissemination of information derived from

covered personal data.

‘‘(2) A

CQUISITION AND RETENTION

.—The pro-

cedures adopted under paragraph (1) shall re-

quire covered governmental entities to ex-

haust all reasonable means—

‘‘(A) to exclude covered personal data that

is not subject to 1 or more of the exceptions

set forth in clauses (iii) through (x) of sub-

section (e)(2)(A) from the data obtained; and

‘‘(B) to remove and delete covered personal

data described in subparagraph (A) not sub-

ject to 1 or more exceptions set forth in

clauses (iii) through (x) of subsection

(e)(2)(A) after a compilation is obtained and

before operational use of the compilation or

inclusion of the compilation in a dataset in-

tended for operational use.

‘‘(3) D

ESTRUCTION

.—The procedures adopted

under paragraph (1) shall require that, if a

covered governmental entity identifies cov-

ered personal data in a compilation de-

scribed in clause (ii) of subsection (e)(2)(A)

not subject to 1 or more exceptions set forth

in clauses (iii) through (x) of such sub-

section, the covered governmental entity

shall promptly destroy the covered personal

data and any dissemination of information

derived from the covered personal data shall

be prohibited.

‘‘(4) Q

UERYING

.—

‘‘(A) I

N GENERAL

.—Except as provided in

subparagraphs (B) and (C), no officer or em-

ployee of a covered governmental entity may

conduct a query of personal data, including

personal data already subjected to minimiza-

tion, in an effort to find records of or about

a particular covered person.

‘‘(B) E

XCEPTIONS

.—Subparagraph (A) shall

not apply to a query related to a particular

covered person if—

‘‘(i) such covered person is the subject of a

court order or emergency authorization

issued under this title that would authorize

the covered governmental entity to compel

the production of the covered personal data,

during the effective period of that order;

‘‘(ii) the purpose of the query is to retrieve

information obtained by a covered govern-

mental entity under a program established

by an Act of Congress under which a portion

of a penalty or a similar payment or bounty

is paid to an individual who discloses infor-

mation about an unlawful activity to the

Government, such as the program authorized

under section 7623 of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 (relating to awards to whistle-

blowers in cases of underpayments or fraud),

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2413 March 14, 2024

provided that any covered personal data

accessed through such query is used only for

such purpose;

‘‘(iii) the purpose of the query is to re-

trieve information about an employee of, or

applicant for employment by, a covered gov-

ernmental entity that has been obtained by

the covered governmental entity for employ-

ment-related purposes, provided that any

covered personal data accessed through such

query is used only for such purposes;

‘‘(iv) the purpose of the query is to retrieve

information obtained by a covered govern-

mental entity for purposes of conducting a

background check of the covered person with

the written consent of the covered person,

provided that any covered personal data

accessed through such query is used only for

such purposes;

‘‘(v) the purpose of the query is to retrieve,

and the query is reasonably designed to re-

trieve, only lawfully obtained public data,

and only lawfully obtained public data is

accessed and used as a result of the query;

‘‘(vi) the officer or employee of a covered

governmental entity carrying out the query

has a reasonable belief that an emergency

exists involving an imminent threat of death

or serious bodily harm, and in order to pre-

vent or mitigate that threat, the query must

be conducted before a court order can, with

due diligence, be obtained, provided that any

covered personal data accessed through such

query is used only for such purpose;

‘‘(vii) the query is conducted for the pur-

pose of supporting compliance with collec-

tion limitations and minimization require-

ments imposed by statute, guidelines, proce-

dures, or the Constitution of the United

States, provided that any covered personal

data accessed through such query is used

only for such purpose; or

‘‘(viii) such covered person or, if such cov-

ered person is incapable of providing con-

sent, a third party legally authorized to con-

sent on behalf of the covered person has con-

sented to the query, provided that any use of

covered personal data accessed through such

query is limited to the purposes for which

the consent was provided.

‘‘(C) S

PECIAL RULE FOR COMPILATIONS OF

DATA

.—For a query of a compilation of data

obtained under subsection (e)(2)(A)(ii)—

‘‘(i) each query shall be reasonably de-

signed to exclude personal data of covered

persons, unless the query is subject to an ex-

ception set forth in subparagraph (B); and

‘‘(ii) any personal data of covered persons

returned pursuant to a query that is not sub-

ject to an exception set forth in clauses (ii)

through (iii) of subsection (e)(2)(A) shall not

be reviewed and shall immediately be de-

stroyed.’’.

SEC. 503. CONSISTENT PROTECTIONS FOR DE-

MANDS FOR DATA HELD BY INTER-

ACTIVE COMPUTING SERVICES.

(a) D

EFINITION

.—Section 2711 of title 18,

United States Code, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ‘‘and’’

at the end;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period

at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(5) the term ‘online service provider’

means a provider of electronic communica-

tion service, a provider of remote computing

service, any information service, system, or

access software provider that provides or en-

ables computer access by multiple users to a

computer server, including specifically a

service or system that provides access to the

Internet and such systems operated or serv-

ices offered by libraries or educational insti-

tutions; and’’.

(b) R

EQUIRED

ISCLOSURE

.—Section 2703 of

title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), in the first sentence,

by striking ‘‘a provider of electronic commu-

nication service’’ and inserting ‘‘an online

service provider’’;

(2) in subsection (c)—

(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter pre-

ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘a pro-

vider of electronic communication service or

remote computing service’’ and inserting

‘‘an online service provider’’; and

(B) in paragraph (2), in the matter pre-

ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘A pro-

vider of electronic communication service or

remote computing service’’ and inserting

‘‘An online service provider’’; and

(3) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘a pro-

vider of electronic communications service

or remote computing service’’ and inserting

‘‘an online service provider’’.

IMITATION ON

OLUNTARY

ISCLO

SURE

.—Section 2702(a) of title 18, United

States Code, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘a person

or entity providing an electronic commu-

nication service to the public’’ and inserting

‘‘an online service provider’’;

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘a person

or entity providing remote computing serv-

ice to the public’’ and inserting ‘‘an online

service provider’’; and

(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘a provider

of remote computing service or electronic

communication service to the public’’ and

inserting ‘‘an online service provider’’.

SEC. 504. CONSISTENT PRIVACY PROTECTIONS

FOR DATA HELD BY DATA BROKERS.

Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code

is amended by adding at the end the fol-

lowing:

‘‘(i) C

OVERED

ERSONAL

ATA

.—

‘‘(1) D

EFINITIONS

.—In this subsection, the

terms ‘covered personal data’ and ‘covered

organization’ have the meanings given such

terms in section 2702(e).

‘‘(2) L

IMITATION

.—Unless a governmental

entity obtains an order in accordance with

paragraph (3), the governmental entity may

not require a covered organization that is

not an online service provider to disclose

covered personal data if a court order would

be required for the governmental entity to

require an online service provider to disclose

such covered personal data that is a record

of a customer or subscriber of the online

service provider.

‘‘(3) O

RDERS

.—

‘‘(A) I

N GENERAL

.—A court may only issue

an order requiring a covered organization

that is not an online service provider to dis-

close covered personal data on the same

basis and subject to the same limitations as

would apply to a court order to require dis-

closure by an online service provider.

‘‘(B) S

TANDARD

.—For purposes of subpara-

graph (A), a court shall apply the most strin-

gent standard under Federal statute or the

Constitution of the United States that would

be applicable to a request for a court order

to require a comparable disclosure by an on-

line service provider of a customer or sub-

scriber of the online service provider.’’.

SEC. 505. PROTECTION OF DATA ENTRUSTED TO

INTERMEDIARY OR ANCILLARY

SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) D

EFINITION

.—Section 2711 of title 18,

United States Code, as amended by section

503 of this Act, is amended by adding at the

end the following:

‘‘(6) the term ‘intermediary or ancillary

service provider’ means an entity or facili-

ties owner or operator that directly or indi-

rectly delivers, transmits, stores, or proc-

esses communications or any other covered

personal data (as defined in section 2702(e) of

this title) for, or on behalf of, an online serv-

ice provider.’’.

(b) P

ROHIBITION

.—Section 2702(a) of title 18,

United States Code, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at

the end;

(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘and’’

at the end;

(3) in paragraph (3), by striking the period

at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(4) an intermediary or ancillary service

provider may not knowingly disclose—

‘‘(A) to any person or entity the contents

of a communication while in electronic stor-

age by that intermediary or ancillary service

provider; or

‘‘(B) to any governmental entity a record

or other information pertaining to a sub-

scriber to or customer of, a recipient of a

communication from a subscriber to or cus-

tomer of, or the sender of a communication

to a subscriber to or customer of, the online

service provider for, or on behalf of, which

the intermediary or ancillary service pro-

vider directly or indirectly delivers, trans-

mits, stores, or processes communications or

any other covered personal data (as defined

in subsection (e)).’’.

TITLE VI—TRANSPARENCY

SEC. 601. ENHANCED REPORTS BY DIRECTOR OF

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

(a) I

ENERAL

.—Section 603(b) of the For-

eign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50

U.S.C. 1873(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking the

semicolon and inserting ‘‘; and’’;

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through

(7) as paragraphs (6) through (10), respec-

tively;

(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-

lowing:

‘‘(3) a description of the subject matter of

each of the certifications provided under sec-

tion 702(h);

‘‘(4) statistics revealing the number of per-

sons targeted and the number of selectors

used under section 702(a), disaggregated by

the certification under which the person was

targeted;

‘‘(5) the total number of directives issued

pursuant to section 702(i)(1), disaggregated

by each type of electronic communication

service provider described in section

701(b)(4);’’;

(4) in paragraph (9), as so redesignated, by

striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;

(5) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated, by

striking the period at the end and inserting

a semicolon; and

(6) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(11)(A) the total number of disseminated

intelligence reports derived from collection

pursuant to section 702 containing the iden-

tities of United States persons, regardless of

whether the identities of the United States

persons were openly included or masked;

‘‘(B) the total number of disseminated in-

telligence reports derived from collection

not authorized by this Act and conducted

under procedures approved by the Attorney

General containing the identities of United

States persons, regardless of whether the

identities of the United States persons were

openly included or masked;

‘‘(C) the total number of disseminated in-

telligence reports derived from collection

pursuant to section 702 containing the iden-

tities of United States persons in which the

identities of the United States persons were

masked;

‘‘(D) the total number of disseminated in-

telligence reports derived from collection

not authorized by this Act and conducted

under procedures approved by the Attorney

General containing the identities of United

States persons in which the identities of the

United States persons were masked;

‘‘(E) the total number of disseminated in-

telligence reports derived from collection

pursuant to section 702 containing the iden-

tities of United States persons in which the

identities of the United States persons were

openly included; and

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2414 March 14, 2024

‘‘(F) the total number of disseminated in-

telligence reports derived from collection

not authorized by this Act and conducted

under procedures approved by the Attorney

General containing the identities of United

States persons in which the identities of the

United States persons were openly included;

‘‘(12) the number of queries conducted in

an effort to find communications or informa-

tion of or about 1 or more United States per-

sons or persons reasonably believed to be lo-

cated in the United States at the time of the

query or the time of the communication or

creation of the information, where such com-

munications or information were obtained

under procedures approved by the Attorney

General and without a court order, subpoena,

or other legal process established by statute;

‘‘(13) the number of criminal proceedings

in which the Federal Government or a gov-

ernment of a State or political subdivision

thereof entered into evidence or otherwise

used or disclosed in a criminal proceeding

any information obtained or derived from an

acquisition conducted under procedures ap-

proved by the Attorney General and without

a court order, subpoena, or other legal proc-

ess established by statute; and

‘‘(14) a good faith estimate of what per-

centage of the communications that are sub-

ject to the procedures described in section

309(b)(3) of the Intelligence Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (50 U.S.C.

1813(b)(3))—

‘‘(A) are retained for more than 5 years;

and

‘‘(B) are retained for more than 5 years be-

cause, in whole or in part, the communica-

tions are encrypted.’’.

(b) R

EPEAL OF

ONAPPLICABILITY TO

ERAL

UREAU OF

NVESTIGATION OF

ERTAIN

EQUIREMENTS

.—Section 603(d) of the For-

eign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50

U.S.C. 1873(d)) is amended—

(1) by striking paragraph (2); and

(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para-

graph (2).

ONFORMING

MENDMENT

.—Section

603(d)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-

lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1873(d)(1)) is

amended by striking ‘‘paragraphs (3), (5), or

(6)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (6), (8), or (9)’’.

TITLE VII—LIMITED DELAYS IN

IMPLEMENTATION

SEC. 701. LIMITED DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) D

EFINITION

.—In this section, the term

‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’

means—

(1) the congressional intelligence commit-

tees (as defined in section 3 of the National

Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003));

(2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the

Senate; and

(3) the Committee on the Judiciary of the

House of Representatives.

(b) A

UTHORITY

.—The Attorney General

may, in coordination with the Director of

National Intelligence as may be appropriate,

delay implementation of a provision of this

Act or an amendment made by this Act for

a period of not more than 1 year upon a

showing to the appropriate committees of

Congress that the delay is necessary—

(1) to develop and implement technical sys-

tems needed to comply with the provision or

amendment; or

(2) to hire or train personnel needed to

comply with the provision or amendment.

By Mr. M

CONNELL (for himself,

Mrs. C

APITO

, Mr. B

ARRASSO

Mrs. B

LACKBURN

, Mr. B

OOZMAN

Mr. B

RAUN

, Mrs. B

RITT

, Mr.

UDD

, Mr. C

ASSIDY

, Ms. C

LINS

, Mr. C

ORNYN

, Mr. C

OTTON

Mr. C

RAMER

, Mr. C

RAPO

, Mr.

RUZ

, Mr. D

AINES

, Ms. E

RNST

Mrs. F

ISCHER

, Mr. G

RAHAM

, Mr.

RASSLEY

, Mr. H

AGERTY

, Mr.

OEVEN

, Mrs. H

YDE

-S

MITH

, Mr.

OHNSON

, Mr. K

ENNEDY

, Mr.

ANKFORD

, Mr. L

, Ms. L

MIS

, Mr. M

ARSHALL

, Mr. M

ORAN

Mr. M

ULLIN

, Ms. M

URKOWSKI

Mr. P

AUL

, Mr. R

ICKETTS

, Mr.

ISCH

, Mr. R

OMNEY

, Mr.

OUNDS

, Mr. S

CHMITT

, Mr.

COTT

of Florida, Mr. S

COTT

South Carolina, Mr. S

ULLIVAN

Mr. T

HUNE

, Mr. T

ILLIS

, Mr.

UBERVILLE

, Mr. W

ICKER

, and

Mr. Y

OUNG

S.J. Res. 65. A joint resolution pro-

viding for congressional disapproval

under chapter 8 of title 5, United

States Code, of the rule submitted by

the Environmental Protection Agency

relating to ‘‘Reconsideration of the Na-

tional Ambient Air Quality Standards

for Particulate Matter’’; to the Com-

mittee on Environment and Public

Works.

Mr. M

CONNELL. Madam President,

on another matter, last week, in the

State of the Union Address, President

Biden bragged that he was taking ‘‘the

most significant action on climate ever

in the history of the world.’’

What he failed to mention is that his

radical climate policy almost always

comes at the expense of American

workers and job creators.

Just recently, the Biden administra-

tion rolled out yet another job-killing

mandate that would impose more uni-

lateral economic pain here at home.

This one goes well beyond the regu-

latory standards of most of our Euro-

pean allies, let alone our top strategic

competitor, China.

The EPA wants to tighten limits on

fine particulates in the air, known as

PM2.5, despite its own data showing

that concentrations have actually gone

down by over 40 percent in the last two

decades. The vast majority of these

emissions come from sources like

wildfires and dust from agriculture and

roads that are not easily contained

and, in some cases, impossible to con-

trol. We are talking about a climate

boogeyman conjured out of smoke and

dust.

The EPA’s new standard is so strict

that when it takes effect, 30 percent of

U.S. counties, including many in my

home State, would immediately find

themselves out of compliance, ground-

ing manufacturing growth to a halt.

Meanwhile, the job of actually imple-

menting the EPA’s new mandate will

fall to the States that are forced to in-

herit all the costs of this bad policy—

from offshore manufacturing jobs to

greater reliance on China to higher

prices when Americans can least afford

it.

In order to keep up with President

Biden’s new mandate, American manu-

facturers would be forced to import

raw materials, like concrete and steel,

for virtually any construction

project—the kind of projects that grow

our economy and support good-paying

jobs. In other words, the Biden admin-

istration is saying, in no uncertain

terms, that they are willing to make

our economy more—more—dependent

on foreign supply chains just to ap-

pease the green activists in this coun-

try.

So it is no surprise that State leaders

are pushing back on this ruling. Ken-

tucky Attorney General Russell Cole-

man is leading a lawsuit with West Vir-

ginia to challenge the EPA’s mandate;

and so far, nearly half of our States

have signed on. Unlike the Biden ad-

ministration, local and State leaders

understand just how damaging this

new rule would be for workers and for

job creators back home.

So today, I am happy to announce

that Senate Republicans stand ready to

do our part. Today, I am introducing a

resolution under the Congressional Re-

view Act that would prevent the EPA

from plowing ahead with this senseless

regulatory overkill.

I am thankful to more than 40 col-

leagues who have joined my resolution,

so far, as cosponsors. Senate Repub-

licans will continue to stand with

American workers and job creators, es-

pecially when the Biden administration

tries to make their work so much hard-

er.

Madam President, I ask unanimous

consent that the text of the bill be

printed in the R

ECORD

There being no objection, the text of

the bill was ordered to be printed in

the R

ECORD

, as follows:

S.J. R

. 65

Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America in

Congress assembled, That Congress dis-

approves the rule submitted by the Adminis-

trator of the Environmental Protection

Agency relating to ‘‘Reconsideration of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particulate Matter’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 16202

(March 6, 2024)), and such rule shall have no

force or effect.

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

SENATE RESOLUTION 588—RECOG-

NIZING MARCH 14, 2024, AS

‘‘BLACK MIDWIVES DAY’’

Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Ms.

UTLER

) submitted the following reso-

lution; which was referred to the Com-

mittee on Health, Education, Labor,

and Pensions:

S. R

. 588

Whereas recognizing March 14, 2024, as

‘‘Black Midwives Day’’ underscores the im-

portance of midwifery in helping to achieve

better maternal health outcomes by address-

ing fundamental gaps in access to high-qual-

ity care and multiple aspects of well-being;

Whereas the Black Midwives Day cam-

paign, founded in 2023 and led by the Na-

tional Black Midwives Alliance, establishes

March 14th as Black Midwives Day as a day

of awareness, activism, education, and com-

munity building;

Whereas March 14, 2024, is intended to in-

crease attention on the state of Black mater-

nal health in the United States, the root

causes of poor maternal health outcomes for

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.030 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2415 March 14, 2024

Black birthing people, and the need for com-

munity-driven policies, programs, and care

solutions;

Whereas the United States is experiencing

a maternity care desert crisis in which

2,200,000 women of childbearing age live in

maternity care deserts where they do not

have access to hospitals or birth centers of-

fering maternity care or obstetric providers;

Whereas maternity care deserts lead to

higher risks of maternal morbidity and mor-

tality as most complications occur in the

postpartum period when birthing people are

far away from their providers;

Whereas incorporating midwives fully into

the maternity care system in the United

States would reduce maternal health dispari-

ties and help to address the maternity care

desert crisis;

Whereas, despite the medicalization of

childbirth in the United States, the maternal

mortality rates in the United States are

among the highest in high-income countries,

increasing rapidly and disproportionately

higher among Black birthing people;

Whereas maternal health is intractably

linked to infant health, as the United States

infant mortality rate rose 3 percent from a

rate of 5.44 infant deaths per 1,000 live births

in 2021 to 5.60 infant deaths per 1,000 live

births in 2022, the largest increase in the in-

fant mortality rate in 2 decades;

Whereas Black birthing people in the

United States suffer from life threatening

pregnancy complications, known as ‘‘mater-

nal morbidities’’, twice as often as White

birthing people;

Whereas deaths from maternal morbidities

have devastating effects on Black children

and families, and the vast majority of mate-

rial morbidities are entirely preventable

through assertive efforts to ensure that

Black birthing people have access to infor-

mation, services, and supports to make their

own health care decisions, particularly

around pregnancy and childbearing;

Whereas the high rates of maternal mor-

tality among Black birthing people span

across income levels, education levels, and

socioeconomic statuses;

Whereas structural racism, gender oppres-

sion, and the social determinants of health

inequities experienced by Black birthing

people in the United States significantly

contribute to the disproportionately high

rates of maternal mortality and morbidity

among Black birthing people;

Whereas Black birthing people are more

likely to report experiences of disrespect,

abuse, and neglect when birthing in facility-

based settings as compared to White people;

Whereas Black families benefit from access

to Black midwives to receive culturally sen-

sitive and congruent care established

through trust and respect backed with the

wisdom of time-honored techniques and best

practices;

Whereas the work and contributions of

past and present midwives who have ushered

in new life have done so despite a history

fraught with persecution, enslavement, vio-

lence, racism, and the systematic erasure of

traditional and lay Black midwives through-

out the 20th century;

Whereas the decline of midwifery across

the southern United States reduced the num-

bers of Black midwives from thousands to

dozens throughout the 20th century, leaving

many communities without care providers;

Whereas some States have criminalized

and suppressed direct-entry midwives, de-

spite rising maternal mortality rates across

the United States;

Whereas the resurgence of Black midwifery

is a testament to the resilience, resistance,

and determination of spirit in the preserva-

tion of healing modalities that are practiced

all over the world;

Whereas the focus of Black midwifery on

holistic care, which involves caring for the

whole person, family and community, is

what makes a difference in midwifery;

Whereas midwifery honors the right to

bodily autonomy for the birthing person and

can be facilitated at home, in a birth center,

or hospital by working in tandem with

doulas, community health workers, obstetri-

cians, pediatricians, and other maternal, re-

productive, and perinatal health care pro-

viders;

Whereas the Midwifery Model of Care has

been proven to have better pregnancy out-

comes, including by reducing infant mor-

tality and morbidity, preterm births, reduc-

ing medical interventions, and providing the

birthing person continuous support;

Whereas, in 2022, the Committee on the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination (re-

ferred to in this preamble as ‘‘CERD’’) of the

United Nations expressed concerns regarding

the impact of systemic racism and inter-

secting factors on access to comprehensive

sexual and reproductive health services for

women, and the limited availability of cul-

turally sensitive and respectful maternal

health care, particularly for those with low

incomes, rural residents, individuals of Afri-

can descent, and indigenous communities;

Whereas CERD recommended that the

United States further develop policies and

programs to eliminate racial and ethnic dis-

parities in the field of sexual and reproduc-

tive health and rights, while integrating an

intersectional and culturally respectful ap-

proach in order to reduce the high rates of

maternal mortality and morbidity affecting

racial and ethnic minorities, including

through midwifery care;

Whereas, in 2023, the Human Rights Com-

mittee of the United Nations expressed simi-

lar concerns as CERD and further rec-

ommended that the United States take

measures to remove restrictive and discrimi-

natory legal and practice barriers to mid-

wifery care, including those affecting Black

and indigenous peoples;

Whereas a fair distribution of resources,

especially with regard to reproductive health

care services, is critical to closing the racial

disparity gap in maternal health outcomes;

Whereas an investment must be made in

robust, quality, and comprehensive health

care for Black birthing people, with policies

that support and promote affordable and ho-

listic maternal health care that is free from

gender and racial discrimination;

Whereas it is fitting and proper on Black

Midwives Day to recognize the tremendous

impact of the human rights, reproductive

justice, and birth justice frameworks have

on protecting and advancing the rights of

Black birthing people;

Whereas Black Midwives Day is an oppor-

tunity to acknowledge the fight to end ma-

ternal mortality locally, nationally, and

globally; and

Whereas Congress must mitigate the ef-

fects of systemic and structural racism to

ensure that all Black people have access to

midwives, doulas, and other community-

based, culturally matched perinatal health

providers: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) recognizes March 14, 2024, as ‘‘Black

Midwives Day’’;

(2) encourages the Federal Government and

State and local governments to take

proactive measures to address racial dispari-

ties in maternal health outcomes by sup-

porting initiatives aimed at diversifying the

perinatal workforce, increasing access to

culturally congruent maternal health care;

(3) commits to collaborating with relevant

stakeholders to develop and enact policy so-

lutions that promote health equity, address

systemic racism, and support the advance-

ment of Black midwifery;

(4) calls for increased funding for edu-

cation, training, and mentorship programs

that focus on promoting and sustaining

Black midwifery across all training path-

ways;

(5) encourages the Federal Government and

State and local governments to authorize

the autonomous practice of all midwives to

the full extent of their training;

(6) promotes TRICARE and Medicaid cov-

erage of maternity care provided by mid-

wives of all training pathways in the setting

of choice of the birthing person; and

(7) supports and recognizes the long-

standing and invaluable contributions of

Black midwives to maternal and infant

health in the United States.

SENATE RESOLUTION 589—HON-

ORING WADEE ALFAYOUMI, A 6-

YEAR-OLD PALESTINIAN-AMER-

ICAN BOY, MURDERED AS A VIC-

TIM OF A HATE CRIME FOR HIS

PALESTINIAN-MUSLIM IDENTITY,

IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms.

UCKWORTH

, Mr. W

YDEN

, Ms. S

TABE

NOW

, Mrs. M

URRAY

, Mr. K

AINE

, Mr.

ELCH

, Mr. M

ERKLEY

, Mr. S

ANDERS

and Mr. M

ENENDEZ

) submitted the fol-

lowing resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. R

. 589

Whereas Wadee Alfayoumi, a 6-year-old

Palestinian-Muslim-American boy, was loved

by his family and friends as an energetic,

loving, and joyous light who brought sun-

shine to his loved ones and classmates;

Whereas, on October 14, 2023, at 11:30 a.m.,

Wadee Alfayoumi was brutally stabbed 26

times by a hate-driven perpetrator and trag-

ically succumbed to his injuries;

Whereas Wadee Alfayoumi’s perpetrator

has been indicted for a hate crime by the

Will County, Illinois, grand jury, and the De-

partment of Justice has opened a hate

crimes investigation into the events leading

to Wadee Alfayoumi’s death, as there is evi-

dence the perpetrator yelled during the bru-

tal killing, ‘‘All Muslims must die and your

people must die’’ and has been observed to be

a consumer of media containing dehuman-

izing and hateful rhetoric that is anti-Mus-

lim and anti-Palestinian;

Whereas Wadee Alfayoumi was born and

raised in the United States, and his family

wanted the United States to provide them a

life of safety away from dehumanizing and

hateful rhetoric toward Palestinian people;

Whereas no one should be a target of hate

because of their ethnicity or religion, wheth-

er such ethnicity or religion is expressed ver-

bally or through how one dresses, such as

through the wearing of a hijab, keffiyeh, tur-

ban, mitpahat, tichel, shpitzel, sheitel,

kippah, or yarmulke;

Whereas dehumanizing misinformation and

disinformation fuel sentiments of hate that

result in violence against those who belong

or who are perceived to belong to a certain

ethnic or religious group;

Whereas the Palestinian community’s mi-

gration to the United States dates back to

the late 19th century;

Whereas the United States is home to one

of the largest Palestinian diasporas in the

world that is made up of lawyers, doctors,

teachers, business owners, law enforcement,

and others, all who contribute to the history,

arts, commerce, promise, and character of

the United States;

Whereas Wadee Alfayoumi shared a herit-

age, history, love, culture, tradition, and

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.031 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2416 March 14, 2024

brilliance belonging to the Palestinian peo-

ple and was a symbol of another great Pales-

tinian life full of promise;

Whereas Palestinian children, Israeli chil-

dren, children in the United States, and

those all across the globe deserve to live in

peace and be free from discrimination, hate

crimes, and violence; and

Whereas the recent Israel-Gaza conflict has

had a particularly devastating impact on

children in the region, including at one point

resulting in a Palestinian child dying every

10 minutes, according to the World Health

Organization: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate recognizes that—

(1) the United States lost the beautiful

light of Wadee Alfayoumi because of hate;

(2) it is the duty of elected officials and

media to tell the truth without dehuman-

izing rhetoric when informing the public of

factual information;

(3) freedom of speech and peaceful protest

are constitutionally protected and a funda-

mental cornerstone of democracy; and

(4) the United States has zero tolerance for

hate crimes, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism,

and anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab discrimi-

nation.

SENATE RESOLUTION 590—DESIG-

NATING MARCH 15, 2024, AS

‘‘LONG COVID AWARENESS DAY’’

Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr.

AINE

, Mr. M

ARKEY

, Mr. H

ICKENLOOPER

Ms. S

MITH

, Mr. C

ASEY

, and Ms. B

ALD

WIN

) submitted the following resolu-

tion; which was referred to the Com-

mittee on the Judiciary:

S. R

. 590

Whereas Long COVID is a systemic and

often debilitating and disabling long-term

outcome of an acute COVID-19 infection;

Whereas Long COVID has the potential to

worsen pre-existing health conditions and

can cause death months to years after an

acute COVID-19 infection;

Whereas there are more than 200 docu-

mented Long COVID symptoms, which can

vary from person to person and can include

fatigue, cognitive impairment, muscle or

joint pain, shortness of breath, heart palpita-

tions, sleep difficulties, mood changes, and

damage to organ systems and tissue;

Whereas Long COVID can trigger other in-

fection-associated chronic conditions such as

postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome

and other forms of dysautonomia, mast cell

activation syndrome, fibromyalgia, myalgic

encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome,

and many others;

Whereas there is no single diagnostic test

or protocol to confirm a Long COVID diag-

nosis;

Whereas many providers are unprepared to

identify, diagnose, or treat Long COVID due

to a lack of education and information, and

some providers refrain from making a Long

COVID diagnosis at all;

Whereas, according to estimates from the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

there are 22,000,000 adults and 1,000,000 chil-

dren currently living with Long COVID in

the United States, and there are likely more;

Whereas Long COVID disproportionately

affects racial and ethnic minorities, women,

the elderly, people with disabilities, and

those with lower incomes;

Whereas the Department of Health and

Human Services and the Department of Jus-

tice have issued guidance clarifying that

Long COVID can be considered a disability

under the Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.);

Whereas Long COVID has had a dev-

astating financial impact on individuals and

on the overall economy with an estimated

economic cost of $3,700,000,000,000 due to re-

duced quality of life, lost earnings, and di-

rect medical care spending for those who suf-

fer from Long COVID;

Whereas people with Long COVID are 10

percent less likely to be employed and those

who are employed work 50 percent fewer

hours than people without Long COVID;

Whereas there may be as many as 4,000,000

fewer workers in the United States work-

force due to the impact of the disease;

Whereas there are no approved cures for

Long COVID, and most of the treatments in-

volve addressing individual symptoms using

established therapies; and

Whereas investing in Long COVID research

and promoting the development of treatment

and diagnostic tools remain priorities to im-

prove the quality of life for those impacted

by Long COVID: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) designates March 15, 2024, as ‘‘Long

COVID Awareness Day’’;

(2) recognizes patients and their families

and caregivers who are affected by Long

COVID;

(3) commends the work of doctors and re-

searchers who continue to advance the study

of Long COVID; and

(4) encourages relevant Federal agencies—

(A) to expand research efforts to develop

effective treatments, diagnostics, and cures;

(B) to publish information on Long COVID

to educate the public and providers about

the impact of the condition; and

tients and their families and caregivers re-

ceive adequate support and care.

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO

MEET

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I

have five requests for committees to

meet during today’s session of the Sen-

ate. They have the approval of the Ma-

jority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph

5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Sen-

ate, the following committees are au-

thorized to meet during today’s session

of the Senate:

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

The Committee on Armed Services is

authorized to meet in open and closed

session during the session of the Sen-

ate on Thursday, March 14, 2024, at 9:30

a.m., to conduct a hearing.

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

The Committee on Finance is author-

ized to meet during the session of the

Senate on Thursday, March 14, 2024, at

10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

The Committee on Foreign Relations

is authorized to meet during the ses-

sion of the Senate on Thursday, March

14, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a

hearing.

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

EDUCATION

LABOR

AND PENSIONS

The Committee on Health, Edu-

cation, Labor, and Pensions is author-

ized to meet during the session of the

Senate on Thursday, March 14, 2024, at

10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Committee on Homeland Secu-

rity and Governmental Affairs is au-

thorized to meet during the session of

the Senate on Thursday, March 14, 2024,

at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I

ask unanimous consent that the privi-

leges of the floor be extended for the

balance of the day for my intern, Lucas

Rigsby.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask

unanimous consent that the following

law clerks of the Senate Judiciary

Committee be granted floor privileges

until March 21, 2024: Casey Adams,

Hannah Auten, Anna Pollard, and Pat-

rick Reyes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I

ask unanimous consent that the fol-

lowing members of my staff be granted

floor privileges for the remainder of

the Congress: Natasha Kieval, Cas-

sandra Worthington, Nicole Comisky,

and Ryan Smith.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

AUTHORIZING THE USE OF EMAN-

CIPATION HALL IN THE CAPITOL

VISITOR CENTER FOR A CERE-

MONY TO PRESENT THE CON-

GRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL COL-

LECTIVELY TO THE 23D HEAD-

QUARTERS SPECIAL TROOPS

AND THE 3133D SIGNAL SERV-

ICES COMPANY, KNOWN COLLEC-

TIVELY AS THE ‘‘GHOST ARMY’’

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to the immediate consider-

ation of H. Con. Res. 84, which was re-

ceived from the House and I understand

is at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the concurrent resolu-

tion by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk

read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84)

authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in

the Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony to

present the Congressional Gold Medal collec-

tively to the 23d Headquarters Special

Troops and the 3133d Signal Services Com-

pany, known collectively as the ‘‘Ghost

Army’’, in recognition of unique and highly

distinguished service during World War II.

There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the concurrent

resolution.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I fur-

ther ask that the concurrent resolution

be agreed to and the motion to recon-

sider be considered made and laid upon

the table with no intervening action or

debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The concurrent resolution (H. Con.

Res. 84) was agreed to.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.033 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2417 March 14, 2024

ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, MARCH 15,

2024

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that when the Sen-

ate completes its business today, it

stand adjourned to convene for a pro

forma session only, with no business

being conducted, at 9:25 a.m. on Friday,

March 15; that when the Senate ad-

journs on Friday, it stand adjourned

until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19; that

on Tuesday, following the prayer and

pledge, the morning hour be deemed

expired, the Journal of proceedings be

approved to date, the time for the two

leaders be reserved for their use later

in the day, and morning business be

closed; that upon the conclusion of

morning business, the Senate proceed

to executive session to resume consid-

eration of the Berner nomination

postcloture; further, that if any nomi-

nations are confirmed during Tuesday’s

session, the motion to reconsider be

considered made and laid upon the

table and the President be immediately

notified of the Senate’s action; finally,

that the cloture motions filed during

today’s session ripen on Wednesday,

March 20.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, if there

is no further business to come before

the Senate, I ask that it stand ad-

journed under the previous order fol-

lowing the remarks of my friend from

Iowa, Senator G

RASSLEY

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Iowa.

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I

come to the floor to give an update on

my oversight work. I often speak on

the floor about the importance of over-

sight. Now, my remarks today have

some history that goes back from now

back to 8 years ago, so it might not

seem very important today, but I speak

so the Defense Department won’t make

the same blunder they made over that

period of time. That blunder I am talk-

ing about is the mess-up with the JEDI

contract, a cloud contract.

The parable of the vineyard tells us

about corrupt tenants who tried to

steal someone’s harvest and keep it for

themselves. It is especially bad, then,

when public officials try to take the

fruit of the taxpayers’ vineyard for pri-

vate gain. We can’t ignore this sort of

corruption or it will surely get worse.

The 2019 planned Joint Enterprise

Defense Infrastructure contract—oth-

erwise known as JEDI—was an attempt

to move the entire Defense Department

to cloud, meaning cloud computing,

which happened to be a very, very ex-

pensive project. It was around $10 bil-

lion and was ultimately canceled, as it

should have been.

Ten billion dollars is a lot of tempt-

ing fruit, even by Washington, DC,

standards. Early on, there were allega-

tions that various Defense Department

officials were helping the big corpora-

tion of Amazon behind the scenes to

gain a contracting advantage. The alle-

gations caused the inspector general of

the Department of Defense to review

the matter.

My oversight work started in 2019.

My oversight has centered on conflicts

of interest on the one hand, and on the

other hand, the inspector general’s re-

view. It is a good-government oversight

inquiry.

I know Amazon didn’t end up getting

this particular contract, but that

doesn’t matter to my oversight and

what I am telling you today. Even at-

tempted efforts to steer a government

contract need to be exposed. That is

what the taxpayers deserve.

Sally Donnelly, a key person in my

investigation—happened to be a close

adviser to then-Secretary of Defense

James Mattis and former Amazon con-

sultant—is a central figure. Let me

make it very clear. Sally Donnelly was

a close adviser to the Secretary of De-

fense and a former Amazon consultant.

So that is the central figure of what I

am talking about today.

Throughout her time at the Defense

Department, Donnelly received pay-

ments from the sale of her consulting

business, which she sold right before

she entered government service. She

didn’t disclose precisely who purchased

her firm to either the Defense Depart-

ment, which she should have, or to the

inspector general, even when asked the

identity under oath.

In late 2022, I obtained new evidence

the inspector general failed to obtain

during its investigation. That evidence

was that the actual name of the com-

pany that purchased Donnelly’s firm

was VMAP—an acronym, V-M-A-P.

This company was a portfolio company

of C5 Capital, an Amazon-linked com-

pany.

The Defense Department inspector

general claimed in its 2020 report that

it found no evidence that Donnelly

‘‘had an ongoing or undisclosed finan-

cial relationship with C5 Capital or

Amazon and its affiliates that would

have required her to recuse.’’ The evi-

dence appears to show otherwise. There

was a financial relationship. Why the

inspector general didn’t find out about

it, I don’t know.

In two letters last year, I continued

to press Donnelly and her then-busi-

ness partner, Andre Pienaar, the CEO

of C5 Capital, for answers. Now, as you

might expect, both have refused to co-

operate with my oversight inquiry.

The inspector general report also

claimed to have found no evidence that

Donnelly had any role in the JEDI con-

tract or violated any of her ethical ob-

ligations.

For additional transparency, we need

to look at Defense Department records

from 2017 and 2018, when Donnelly

worked there, so you are going to hear

a lot of quotes from emails I got.

These records appear to show Don-

nelly working behind the scenes to

favor Amazon. Some of this informa-

tion was included in the inspector gen-

eral’s report. However, much of it was

not included even though the inspector

general had access to these government

records.

Kevin Sweeney, then-chief of staff to

Secretary of Defense Mattis, told the

inspector general that he thought Don-

nelly invited an Amazon vice president

responsible for public sector sales to a

London dinner with Secretary Mattis

in March of 2017. This dinner was short-

ly after Donnelly began working for

the Secretary of Defense. That Amazon

executive, Teresa Carlson, used the

dinner to invite the Secretary to later

meet Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

Secretary Mattis also revealed it was

Donnelly who suggested he travel to

meet tech leaders, including Amazon.

Now, following that London dinner,

Donnelly repeatedly pushed for the

meeting between Bezos and Mattis. The

inspector general report deflected by

saying the Secretary’s chief of staff,

not Donnelly, scheduled his meetings.

But that report cuts out part of an

email showing that the chief of staff

deferred to Donnelly on whether the

Secretary should meet with Amazon’s

CEO.

The inspector general’s report also

omitted a part of Donnelly’s email

where she said the Secretary should

meet Bezos because he was ‘‘the genius

of our age.’’

The inspector general’s report omit-

ted another email from an Amazon offi-

cial asking Donnelly for guidance on

the Secretary of Defense’s Seattle visit

to Amazon and what ‘‘landmines we

should avoid.’’ That same email asked

Donnelly to ‘‘put a bug in some ears’’

to help Amazon counter challenges

from the Defense Department’s Chief

Information Officer.

Donnelly responded on her govern-

ment email with inside advice, telling

the Amazon official to emphasize ‘‘se-

curity security security of [the]

cloud.’’

Now, just 3 days before the visit to

Seattle, a DOD official emailed Don-

nelly the agenda for Amazon’s presen-

tation, which included a ‘‘cloud over-

view’’ by the same Amazon official

that had asked her for advice.

An email sent from another Depart-

ment of Defense official to Donnelly

shortly after the Secretary’s visit

noted that discussion of cloud tech-

nology was the centerpiece of meetings

with Amazon and other tech leaders.

Donnelly also was informed by a DOD

official traveling with the Secretary,

on the very day of the Secretary’s visit

with Amazon’s CEO, on August 10, 2017,

that the visit ‘‘seemed to morph into

an Amazon Web Services sales pitch.’’

A followup email from that same of-

ficial informed her that after the visit,

the Secretary of Defense was ‘‘99.9%

there in terms of going to the cloud.’’

Despite all of this, when asked

whether the Defense Department cloud

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.051 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2418 March 14, 2024

was discussed during the meeting, Don-

nelly swore under oath on August 15,

2019: ‘‘I don’t know. I wasn’t there.’’

She also swore that she didn’t know

how long Bezos was present during the

visit. But the same Defense Depart-

ment official traveling with the Sec-

retary of Defense told her via email

that Bezos stayed for the Secretary’s

entire visit.

The inspector general, however,

found no ethics violation, claiming

Donnelly had no formal role in the pro-

curement.

Now, the evidence again appears to

say otherwise, and there is more.

An email, 2 weeks after the Sec-

retary’s Amazon visit from DOD offi-

cials, spoke of the need for a memo

from the Secretary to ‘‘crush the bu-

reaucratic impediments’’ Amazon had

been encountering.

In other words, there were a lot of

people in the Defense Department who

knew something was going on, and

they were trying to stop it. That is the

way I read that email. Of course, Don-

nelly and another DOD official were on

that email.

In response, that DOD official, with

Donnelly still copied, said: ‘‘Sally is al-

ready working angles’’ to crush those

impediments.

On September 13, 2017, merely weeks

later, the Deputy Secretary of Defense

issued a memo Department-wide crush-

ing those impediments by announcing

rapid cloud adoption through ‘‘a tai-

lored acquisition process.’’

Now, I suppose ‘‘tailored acquisition

process’’ has many definitions, but I

kind of read that, as suspicious as I

am, as trying to short-circuit the proc-

ess of contracting so some favorable

person can get it.

Now, Air Force procurement docu-

ments interpreted this memo as what I

just said, the Secretary’s intention to

award the contract to Amazon. Records

also show that after the Secretary’s

Amazon meeting, the head of the Dig-

ital Defense Service asked Donnelly for

permission to ‘‘let me lead cloud tiger

team.’’

Donnelly didn’t respond that she had

no role in the process. Instead, she told

the DOD official to ‘‘Do it quick!’’

Just a few weeks later, that official

was appointed to lead the first phase of

the JEDI contract.

Donnelly reportedly organized an-

other dinner in Washington in January

2018. Only four people were there: The

Secretary of Defense, Sally Donnelly,

Teresa Carlson, and the CEO of Ama-

zon. Carlson directly admitted to the

inspector general that the dinner’s pur-

pose was to continue the discussion

from the Secretary’s Amazon visit.

That visit, apparently, became a sales

pitch. Carlson sent Amazon Web Serv-

ices sales material to Donnelly’s gov-

ernment email for review just hours be-

fore that dinner.

Instead of taking this evidence head-

on, the inspector general report point-

ed to the Government Accountability

Office, or what we know as GAO around

here. The report claimed that the GAO

‘‘also reviewed whether Mrs. Donnelly

should have disqualified herself from

participating in the JEDI Cloud pro-

curement.’’

That same report also claimed the

GAO, in resolving a bid protest, agreed

with the Defense Department that

‘‘Ms. Donnelly wasn’t involved in any

way with the JEDI Cloud procure-

ment.’’

Attorneys for Donnelly and attorneys

for C5’s CEO made that very same

claim. However, there is one very big

problem. Donnelly wasn’t even men-

tioned in the GAO’s decision.

The GAO told my office late last year

that they have ‘‘no idea where the

statement in the DOD Inspector Gen-

eral report comes from.’’ The GAO also

told my office there is ‘‘simply no sup-

port for this statement from the deci-

sion itself or the record of the argu-

ments raised by the protester.’’

So not only did the inspector general

report omit critical evidence, that I

have described to Senators today, but

it blatantly misstates the work of an-

other government Agency. So we have

a big problem not only with conflict of

interest, but we have a problem with

the inspector general not doing its job

because the Inspector General Office’s

work in this matter is a disgraceful ex-

ample of government oversight.

Former Department of Defense Act-

ing Inspector General Sean O’Donnell

was so embarrassed by his Agency’s

work that he refused to even name the

staff who worked on this incompetent

report.

Robert Storch, the current inspector

general, has followed suit.

Donnelly has continued to refuse to

cooperate with this congressional in-

vestigation, yet—can you believe

this?—she still sits on the Defense

Business Board, providing advice to the

Secretary of Defense.

A portfolio company of C5 Capital,

according to its own public statements,

has gained cyber security business in

Ukraine. If that is supported by tax-

payers’ money, well, they shouldn’t get

a penny until the CEO cooperates with

Congress and clears this matter up.

Inspector General Storch must redo

the investigation and rewrite relevant

sections of this report, considering the

clear failures of the original report.

It is time to clear the air, time to

fight corruption, time to restore trust

in how you negotiate contracts and

how you fight conflicts of interest.

That is the history I have given you

today.

Yes, I know the JEDI contract is

dead, but right now, there are people in

the Defense Department who are still

pursuing contracts to make use of the

cloud for storage. Hopefully, lessons

learned from this report I have given

you and what took place in the JEDI

contract are lessons learned so they

won’t be repeated as DOD moves ahead.

These are multibillion-dollar con-

tracts.

We need to avoid conflicts of inter-

ests like this that I just have pointed

out to you. We need to make sure there

is good oversight of the expenditure of

taxpayers’ money, but that ought to

start with the people in the Depart-

ment of Defense itself. It ought to be

policed by the inspector general of the

DOD. That wasn’t done in this case in-

volving Donnelly. And, for sure, Con-

gress shouldn’t give up any of its con-

stitutional responsibilities to see that

taxpayers’ money is spent wisely.

I yield the floor.

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:25 A.M.

TOMORROW

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ate stands adjourned until 9:25 a.m. to-

morrow.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 5 p.m., ad-

journed until Friday, March 15, 2024, at

9:25 a.m.

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by

the Senate:

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

JENNIFER L. HOMENDY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE CHAIRMAN

OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS. (REAPPOINTMENT)

JENNIFER L. HOMENDY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER

OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2029. (REAPPOINT-

MENT)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

KELLY ADAMS–SMITH, OF NEW JERSEY, A CAREER

MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF

MINISTER–COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAOR-

DINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA.

PETER W. LORD, OF FLORIDA, A CAREER MEMBER OF

THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR,

TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENI-

POTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO

THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL, AND TO SERVE CONCUR-

RENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS

AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC

OF GUINEA–BISSAU.

JEREMEY NEITZKE, OF ILLINOIS, A CAREER MEMBER

OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUN-

SELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND

PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TO THE KINGDOM OF LESOTHO.

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE

UNITED STATES OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS DIREC-

TOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD, AND FOR APPOINTMENT IN

THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDI-

CATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE

AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS

601 AND 10506:

To be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. DUKE A. PIRAK

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE GRADE INDI-

CATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be major general

BRIG. GEN. AIDA T. BORRAS

IN THE MARINE CORPS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS TO THE GRADE

INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPOR-

TANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,

SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general

LT. GEN. JAMES F. GLYNN

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be rear admiral

REAR ADM. (LH) JOSEPH B. HORNBUCKLE

IN THE COAST GUARD

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD TO THE GRADE IN-

DICATED AS A PERMANENT COMMISSIONED OFFICER

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 9801 E:\CR\FM\G14MR6.052 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2419 March 14, 2024

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF TITLE 14, U.S.C., SEC-

TION 2101(A)(2):

To be commander

LINDEN M. DAHLKEMPER

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR

FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be major

APRIL B. STAHL

THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOR APPOINT-

MENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE REGULAR AIR

FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 531:

To be major

RICHARD G. BARFIELD

FRANTZ PIERRE–LOUIS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR

FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be colonel

JILL E. HOPKINS

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be major

JUSTIN J. DUPREE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be major

MATTHEW J. BARNES

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

MEDICAL SPECIALIST CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,

SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:

To be major

RAYMOND T. GILLEN

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be major

DANIEL L. PETTERSON

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be major

JUSTIN L. SANDERS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF

THE UNITED STATES OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO

THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12211:

To be colonel

TIMOTHY W. BLATTER

STEPHEN M. JOHNSTON

MATTHEW D. JUKKALA

JOHN M. KEELEAN

SCOTT P. MARMEN

DONNA M. RIDGEL

ELIZABETH A. ROXWORTHY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

MEDICAL SERVICE CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SEC-

TIONS 624 AND 7064:

To be colonel

SERENA T. MUKAI

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE

ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be colonel

HAROLD B. BENDER

TIMOTHY J. BOURQUIN

RYAN C. KRAUS

SCHAUN C. MYERS

MITCHELL W. NETHERY

CHARLES E. POORE III

RYAN D. SARENPA

HEATHER J. SIMON

ANDREW R. WERNER

ANGELA R. WHITE

YORLONDO S. WORTHAM

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE

ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be colonel

RUSSELL D. BOYD

VINCENT A. CUMMINGS

DAVID H. JONES

SCOTTY D. RIGGS

MARK A. TINSLEY

MICHAEL J. WILLER

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE

ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be colonel

ROBERT M. FARMER

CARY S. SNELLING

STEPHEN B. YARBER

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE

ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be colonel

TIMOTHY L. MITCHELL

IN THE MARINE CORPS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR TEMPORARY

APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,

SECTION 8287:

To be lieutenant colonel

DOUGLAS R. BURIAN

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MA-

RINE CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be colonel

ROMEO P. CUBAS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MA-

RINE CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be lieutenant colonel

JULIE N. MAREK

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be commander

LESLIE L. HUBBELL

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be commander

GEORGE L. BRIGHT

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR TEMPORARY

APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE

UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION

605:

To be commander

SCOTT M. BIRKEMEIER

MATTHEW D. BOUWENSE

STEVEN J. BRINKLEY

ETHAN COPPING

JEFFREY D. FELDMANN

JAMISON R. FIEBRANDT

MARCELLO J. FRIERSON II

SEAN D. GETWAY

MICHAEL S. GROW

MORRIS E. HAMPTON

CALVIN S. HARGADINE

MICHAEL E. HEATHERLY

THADDEUS M. HOKULA

CHRISTOPHER W. JOHNSON

DEVON B. KIBBONS

JORDAN A. KLEIN

EVAN S. LONG

MAYNARD C. MALIXI

CHRISTOPHER G. MARLEY

RENE J. MARTIN

PAUL W. MOODY

MATTHEW G. OMIRE

JOEL L. OVIEDO

AMERICO C. PEREZ, JR.

THEODORE R. PERSON

BRIAN R. PURVIS

SEAN L. ROCHA

TIMOTHY W. ROE

DALLAS B. SMITH

MATTHEW J. STEPKO

GEORGE T. THOMPSON III

ADAM T. VIEUX

JOHN L. VINCENT

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be lieutenant commander

BRYAN P. CLAYTON

GEORGE M. JOHNSON

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be lieutenant commander

EDWARD L. GUNGON

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR TEMPORARY

APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE

UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION

605:

To be lieutenant commander

DANIEL M. ARAKI

MICHAEL W. BARBER, JR.

CHRISTOPHER R. BOX

MATTHEW M. CAINE

JAMES J. CATINA

THUAN D. CHU

JONATHAN T. COLLINS

DAKOTA K. DEVERILL

JACOB A. DEWITT

ANTHONY B. DINH

JACOB E. DODGE

JAMES P. DUFFY

JACOB T. DWYER

DEREK R. EATON

JONATHAN R. FARLEY

DEVON L. FLORENDO

MATTHEW A. FLORES

TIMOTHY J. FLOTKOETTER

LUCAS C. FOGUTH

WILLIAM D. H. FOSTER

AMANDA R. GALLO

SAMUEL K. GATES

ADARSH A. GHOSH

ALFREDO GRANADOSANGEL

ZACHARY A. GRIMM

MICHAEL E. HAMP

DONAL P. HANLON

KEITH P. HANTLA

JOHN M. HENDERSON

EVAN M. HENDLER

CHRISTOPHER R. HOWIE

ZACHARY T. JOHNSON

WESTON T. KENNEDY

ISABEL K. KRAUSE

CHRISTOPHER J. LENT

ANALISE M. MARSHALL

ANTONIO O. MARTINEZCHAPEL

ANDREW G. MASTERS

MAXWELL J. MAZUROWSKI

DOUGLAS K. MCKENNA

JOHN W. MELLGARD

CHASE R. PIXA

DONALD H. PUENT III

KATHRYN E. RANSOM

NICHOLAS A. RIEMER

JUSTIN D. ROWAN

ADAM E. SCOTT

ALEXANDER H. SCOTT

BRIAN P. SEXSON

RYAN L. THOMAS

MELISSA B. TREMBLAY

JAKE VANRIPER

JENNA M. WESTERBERG

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR TEMPORARY

APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE

UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION

605:

To be captain

ANDRES J. AVILES

JONATHAN R. BAUGH

MATTHEW H. BEACH

CLINTON J. CHRISTOFK

JAMES L. CLARK III

ANDREW L. DOMINA

JUSTIN P. ECKHOFF

JAMES E. FULKS

PRESTON W. GILMORE

JASON N. GLAB

JUSTIN R. HARDY

WILLIAM J. HOWEY III

MICHAEL W. KESSLER

SAULOMON D. KING

DOMINIC J. KRAMER

JUNIOR C. LORAH

ALAN T. MARDEGIAN

RYAN T. MATTSON

MICHAEL S. MCGUIRE

CRYSTAL A. MILLER

ANDREW W. PITTMAN

JON B. QUIMBY

MICHAEL A. SAMMATARO

GORDON M. SCHRIVER

ANTONIA K. SHEY

RICHARD W. SKINNELL

ANTHONY G. STRANGES

JERIAHMI L. L. TINSLEY

JAMES G. TUTHILL III

ANTHONY M. WILSON

TRAVIS L. WOOD

ADAM I. ZAKER

IN THE COAST GUARD

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD TO THE GRADE IN-

DICATED AS A PERMANENT COMMISSIONED OFFICER

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF TITLE 14, U.S.C., SEC-

TION 2101(A)(2):

To be lieutenant commander

TAMMY BOLIN

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD TO THE GRADE IN-

DICATED AS A PERMANENT COMMISSIONED OFFICER

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF TITLE 14, U.S.C., SEC-

TION 2101(A)(2):

To be lieutenant commander

DEREK D. WILSON

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD TO THE GRADE IN-

DICATED UNDER TITLE 14 U.S.C., SECTION 2121(E):

To be captain

JENNIFER J. ANDREW

MATTHEW S. AUSTIN

MICHAEL W. BAIRD

PATRICIA M. BENNETT

TORREY H. BERTHEAU

BRIAN R. BETZ

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:07 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 9801 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.002 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES2420 March 14, 2024

MICHAEL D. BRIMBLECOM

MARY D. BROOKS

KEVIN A. BROYLES

BRADLEY A. BRUNAUGH

KENNETH J. BURGESS

JASON A. BUSTAMENTE

JOEL B. CARSE

AARON J. CASAVANT

ERIC W. CHANG

BRADLEY D. CONWAY

ALLISON B. COX

JONATHAN W. COX

BYRON A. CREECH

MICHAEL R. DARRAH

JESSICA S. DAVILA

ARTHUR M. DEHNZ

PHILLIP A. DELISLE

JARROD M. DEWITZ

JENNIFER R. DOHERTY

PATRICK A. DRAYER

LAUREN F. DUFRENE

STANLEY P. FIELDS

JASON S. FRANZ

MATTHEW A. GANS

LISA L. GARCEZ

CHRISTJAN C. GAUDIO

SARAH J. GEOFFRION

JASON D. HAGEN

JUAN M. HERNANDEZ

MICHAEL J. HUNT

RAYMOND D. JACKSON, JR.

KEVIN L. KAMMETER

LUANN J. KEHLENBACH

MARGARET D. KENNEDY

COREY M. KERNS

MATTHEW R. KOLODICA

RICHARD E. KUZAK

AMANDA M. LEE

CLAY D. MCKINNEY

BORIS MONTATSKY

SAMUEL R. NASSAR

ERIC G. PARA

CHRISTOPHER R. PARRISH

LUKE R. PETERSEN

JEFFREY R. PLATT

JASON T. PLUMLEY

BEAU G. POWERS

RANDY L. PRESTON

MILES R. RANDALL, JR.

KENT R. REINHOLD

KENNETH H. ROCKHOLD

THOMAS C. RODZEWICZ

ELIZABETH M. ROSCOE

JENNIFER M. RUNION

STACI K. RUTSCH

BRENT R. SCHMADEKE

JONATHAN D. SHUMATE

DANIELLE M. SHUPE

LUKE M. SLIVINSKI

BENJAMIN J. SPECTOR

ROBERT E. STILES

STEVEN D. STOWERS

KEITH O. THOMAS

JAROD S. TOCZKO

JORGE L. VALENTE

ALLISON M. WALLACE

MATTHEW J. WALTER

REBECCA A. WALTHOUR

RYAN A. WATERS

MATTHEW G. WEBER

CHARLES K. WILSON

CHRISTOPHER J. YOUNG

FOREIGN SERVICE

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE

FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO

BE A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, A CONSULAR OFFICER,

AND A SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

CORI A. ALSTON, OF TEXAS

ELIZABETH LOUISE ALTMAIER, OF VIRGINIA

TODD PAUL ANDERSON, OF VIRGINIA

DEBRA ANN BARBESSI, OF VIRGINIA

ALYSSA NICOLE BARCENAS, OF VIRGINIA

ERIN KATHLEEN BARRETT, OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRA LEE BRANDON BERNARDO, OF FLORIDA

ERIC J. BERNAU, OF VIRGINIA

JESSICA L. BIGKNIFE, OF VIRGINIA

ERIC ANDERSON BISHOP, OF VIRGINIA

WILLIAM TYLER BRENT, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUE S. CHAISONE, OF VIRGINIA

ADRIENNE M. CROZAT, OF VIRGINIA

CASEY A. DRISCOLL, OF VIRGINIA

JOYCE E. DUDLEY, OF MARYLAND

TAMARA L. EDMONSTON, OF VIRGINIA

HEIDI L. ELKINS, OF VIRGINIA

MARCUS B. FERGUSON, OF VIRGINIA

WILLIAM J. GEIS, OF VIRGINIA

JACOB ERIC GJESDAHL, OF WASHINGTON

ALFREDO L. GONZALEZ, OF FLORIDA

ADAM RICHARD HALL, OF ILLINOIS

JASON WILLIS HICKMAN, OF VIRGINIA

GRANT A. HOLYOAK, OF VIRGINIA

RICHARD A. HOUSTON, OF VIRGINIA

DYLAN SIMON HUNZIKER, OF WASHINGTON

JONATHAN MARTIN ISHEE, OF VIRGINIA

PAULETTE KAY JANUS, OF ILLINOIS

ALEXANDRA K. JOHNSON, OF HAWAII

JULIE MARIE KAUFFMAN, OF VIRGINIA

AMANDA E. KEFALAS, OF VIRGINIA

CRISTIN MICHELLE KIRSCHNER, OF VIRGINIA

JAMES O. KNABLE, OF MARYLAND

BETH A. KUCH, OF HAWAII

VANESSA D. LEWIS, OF VIRGINIA

JULIAN H. LIPSCOMB, OF PENNSYLVANIA

MATTHEW THEODORE LOWE, OF VIRGINIA

ERICA L. MAGNUSSON, OF VIRGINIA

ROBERT T. MCNEARY, OF ARKANSAS

CHIKONDI O. MSEKA, OF VIRGINIA

KATHLEEN P. MURPHY, OF VIRGINIA

ASEEBULLA A. NIAZI, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

BRANDON PALADINO, OF VIRGINIA

EDGAR R. PAREDES, OF VIRGINIA

THOMAS M. PHELAN, OF VIRGINIA

JENNIFER ANN PIERSON, OF TEXAS

ZACHARY DAVID POZUN, OF VIRGINIA

DANIEL K. RAYNES, OF VIRGINIA

ANDREW M. REEVES, OF VIRGINIA

JOHN ERIC RIES, OF VIRGINIA

JAMES E. ROBBINS, OF TEXAS

JOSEPH SANDS, OF VIRGINIA

CIERRA GENEVA SAYLOR, OF FLORIDA

CEDAR IMBODEN SIMMERS, OF FLORIDA

MATTHEW S. SIMON BARTHOLOMAUS, OF VIRGINIA

SARAH KIM SONG, OF VIRGINIA

JASON J. STEPHENSON, OF VIRGINIA

MARGARET HILLMANN WALROD, OF FLORIDA

JAMES J. WICKERSHAM, OF VIRGINIA

MARK A. WILSON, OF VIRGINIA

ROBERT WIMBERLEY, OF VIRGINIA

JORDAN E. YOUNES, OF VIRGINIA

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED CAREER MEMBER OF THE

FOREIGN SERVICE FOR PROMOTION INTO THE SENIOR

FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR:

JAMIE MARTIN, OF RHODE ISLAND

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE

FOREIGN SERVICE FOR PROMOTION INTO THE SENIOR

FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, AND A FOR-

EIGN SERVICE OFFICER, A CONSULAR OFFICER, AND A

SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

VASILLI A. ALAFOGIANNIS, OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL T. MCMAHON, OF VIRGINIA

JAMES T. SUOR, OF MARYLAND

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN

SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO BE A

FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, A CONSULAR OFFICER, AND

A SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

CAREYLOU S. ARUN, OF MARYLAND

ROSS R. BELLIVEAU, OF FLORIDA

CODY ALAN DIETRICH, OF VIRGINIA

ROBERT D. GAINES, OF ARIZONA

ANDREW J. GLASS, OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN J. GOLDFINGER, OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIOS LOULOUDAKIS, OF VIRGINIA

KOLBJORN T. NELSON, OF MINNESOTA

DANIEL T. PINT, OF NEW YORK

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED CAREER MEMBER OF THE

SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE FOR PROMOTION INTO THE SENIOR FOREIGN

SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF

COUNSELOR:

STEPHEN L. GREEN, OF TEXAS

JANEE P. PIERRE–LOUIS, OF OHIO

MEGAN A. SCHILDGEN, OF VIRGINIA

ILONA L. SHTROM, OF VIRGINIA

MICHELE RENEE SMITH, OF VIRGINIA

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN

SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO BE A

CONSULAR OFFICER, AND A SECRETARY IN THE DIPLO-

MATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

STEPHANIE RICHE BOLES, OF OREGON

DAVID JOSHUA BOLTON, OF TEXAS

ANNE MARIE BROOKS, OF VERMONT

ROGER WILLIAM CALDERONE, OF ILLINOIS

MATTHEW LENT CASE, OF MAINE

JENNIFER DAWN CHICOSKI, OF FLORIDA

MICHAEL RYAN ERICKSON, OF VIRGINIA

GARRETT MARTIN GEHRER, OF VIRGINIA

MICHAEL DAVID GODLEY, OF VIRGINIA

JESSICA MONIQUE GORDON, OF TEXAS

LEWIS AARON JONES, OF SOUTH DAKOTA

SHANAH SEYUN LEE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL EVAN MANGELSON, OF UTAH

ANASTASIA FEOFANOVA MUKHERJEE, OF SOUTH CARO-

LINA

CHARLES BLAKESLEY MURRAY, OF THE DISTRICT OF CO-

LUMBIA

NATHANIEL LELAND SEARS, OF NEW YORK

MICHAEL ABRAM SHVARTSMAN, OF FLORIDA

RUTH PATRICIA SOBERANES, OF ARIZONA

NATHAN SAMUEL STICKNEY, OF OREGON

BRENDON HAHNS THOMAS, OF MICHIGAN

ELISABETH ANN URFER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE

SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PRO-

MOTION WITHIN THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF CAREER–MIN-

ISTER:

KARL WILLIAM FICKENSCHER, OF VIRGINIA

STEPHANIE A. FUNK, OF FLORIDA

SEAN M. JONES, OF TEXAS

CLINTON DAVID WHITE, OF MARYLAND

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE

SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PRO-

MOTION WITHIN THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF MINISTER–

COUNSELOR:

ELIZABETH ARLEVA CHAMBERS, OF VIRGINIA

SHERI–NOUANE B. DUNCAN–JONES, OF WASHINGTON

JOHN L. DUNLOP, OF VIRGINIA

MICHAEL J. EDDY, OF NORTH CAROLINA

GABRIEL F. GRAU, OF FLORIDA

REBECCA A. LATORRACA, OF VIRGINIA

MARIA LISA ROSE P. MAGNO, OF VIRGINIA

RICHARD L. NELSON, OF TEXAS

ANUPAMA SPATIKA RAJARAMAN, OF TEXAS

JOEL SANDEFUR, OF MARYLAND

MATTHEW D. REES, OF MARYLAND

V. KATE SOMVONGSIRI, OF WASHINGTON

MARGARET ELIZABETH ENIS SPEARS, OF MARYLAND

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE

FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PROMOTION INTO

THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR:

CHRISTOPHER W. ABRAMS, OF NEW YORK

RANDY ALI, OF FLORIDA

JORGE MARCELO ARELLANO, OF NEW YORK

MICHAEL THOMAS BEHAN, OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLEE BELL, OF NEVADA

RICHARD A. BURNS, OF NORTH CAROLINA

SCOTT S. CAMERON, OF VIRGINIA

MARK JOSEPH CARRATO, OF OREGON

MATTHEW EVAN COHEN, OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JOSEPH DESISTI, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM-

BIA

JERI L. DIBLE, OF WASHINGTON

REBEKAH R. EUBANKS, OF ILLINOIS

BRIAN A. FRANTZ, OF WASHINGTON

FARHAD GHAUSSY, OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER A. GRAETZ, OF VIRGINIA

JOHN F. HANSEN, OF MONTANA

DANIEL ELIOT HARTER, OF VIRGINIA

GREGORY G. HOWELL, OF ARIZONA

MARK K. HYLAND, OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL KELLY, OF MISSOURI

EMILY COFFMAN KRUNIC, OF FLORIDA

TED LAWRENCE, OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH W. MACLEAN, OF FLORIDA

LEANNA L. MARR, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KEVIN DAVID MCGLOTHLIN, OF FLORIDA

ANDREW J. MCKIM, OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD R. MICHALSKI, OF OHIO

ERIN NICHOLSON, OF VIRGINIA

LAURA PALMER PAVLOVIC, OF VIRGINIA

PETER RILEY, OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER ANN SCHILDGE, OF VIRGINIA

ADAM PHINEAS SCHMIDT, OF CONNECTICUT

TODD M. SORENSON, OF TEXAS

SHANDA L. STEIMER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ELEANOR MARIE TANPIENGCO, OF VIRGINIA

RITU K. TARIYAL, OF FLORIDA

DAVID J. THOMPSON, OF VIRGINIA

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED CAREER MEMBERS OF THE

SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES DE-

PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR PROMOTION WITHIN

THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA, CLASS OF MINISTER–COUNSELOR:

RUSSELL DUNCAN, OF MARYLAND

MARK CLAYTON PRESCOTT, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

THE FOLLOWING–NAMED CAREER MEMBER OF THE

FOREIGN SERVICE FOR PROMOTION INTO THE SENIOR

FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR:

JOHN HURLEY, OF MARYLAND

CONFIRMATION

Executive nomination confirmed by

the Senate March 14, 2024:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DENNIS B. HANKINS, OF MINNESOTA, A CAREER MEM-

BER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MIN-

ISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAOR-

DINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF HAITI.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4637 Sfmt 9801 E:\CR\FM\A14MR6.005 S14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with SENATE

D253

Thursday, March 14, 2024

Daily Digest

Senate

Chamber Action

Routine Proceedings, pages S2373–S2420

Measures Introduced: Thirty-two bills and five res-

olutions were introduced, as follows: S. 3934–3965,

S.J. Res. 64–65, and S. Res. 588–590.

Pages S2403–14

Measures Reported:

S. 3613, to require Facility Security Committees

to respond to security recommendations issued by

the Federal Protective Service relating to facility se-

curity, with an amendment in the nature of a sub-

stitute. (S. Rept. No. 118–160)

S. 3648, to amend the Post-Katrina Management

Reform Act of 2006 to repeal certain obsolete re-

quirements, with an amendment in the nature of a

substitute. (S. Rept. No. 118–161)

Page S2400

Measures Passed:

Authorizing the Use of Emancipation Hall: Sen-

ate agreed to H. Con. Res. 84, authorizing the use

of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center

for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold

Medal collectively to the 23d Headquarters Special

Troops and the 3133d Signal Services Company,

known collectively as the ‘‘Ghost Army’’, in recogni-

tion of unique and highly distinguished service dur-

ing World War II.

Page S2416

Berner Nomination—Agreement: Senate contin-

ued consideration of the nomination of Nicole G.

Berner, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit

Judge for the Fourth Circuit.

Pages S2382–87

During consideration of this nomination today,

Senate also took the following action:

By 48 yeas to 40 nays (Vote No. EX. 93), Senate

agreed to the motion to close further debate on the

nomination.

Page S2386

A unanimous-consent agreement was reached pro-

vided that all time on the nomination be considered

expired, and Senate vote on confirmation of the

nomination at 5:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 19,

2024.

Page S2387

A unanimous-consent agreement was reached pro-

viding that Senate resume consideration of the nomi-

nation, post-cloture, at approximately 3 p.m., on

Tuesday, March 19, 2024; and that the motions to

invoke cloture filed during the session of Thursday,

March 14, 2024 ripen on Wednesday, March 20,

2024.

Page S2417

Kiel Nomination—Cloture: Senate began consider-

ation of the nomination of Edward Sunyol Kiel, of

New Jersey, to be United States District Judge for

the District of New Jersey.

Page S2387

A motion was entered to close further debate on

the nomination, and, in accordance with the provi-

sions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the

Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition

of the nomination of Nicole G. Berner, of Maryland,

to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth

Circuit.

Page S2386

Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Sen-

ate took the following action:

Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legisla-

tive Session.

Page S2387

Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Execu-

tive Session to consider the nomination.

Page S2387

Lee Nomination—Cloture: Senate began consider-

ation of the nomination of Eumi K. Lee, of Cali-

fornia, to be United States District Judge for the

Northern District of California.

Pages S2387–99

A motion was entered to close further debate on

the nomination, and, in accordance with the provi-

sions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the

Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition

of the nomination of Edward Sunyol Kiel, of New

Jersey, to be United States District Judge for the

District of New Jersey.

Page S2387

Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Sen-

ate took the following action:

Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legisla-

tive Session.

Page S2387

Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Execu-

tive Session to consider the nomination. Page S2387

Nomination Confirmed: Senate confirmed the fol-

lowing nomination:

By 89 yeas to 1 nay (Vote No. EX. 92), Dennis

B. Hankins, of Minnesota, to be Ambassador to the

Republic of Haiti.

Pages S2382, S2420

Nominations Received: Senate received the fol-

lowing nominations:

Jennifer L. Homendy, of Virginia, to be Chairman

of the National Transportation Safety Board for a

term of three years.

Jennifer L. Homendy, of Virginia, to be a Member

of the National Transportation Safety Board for a

term expiring December 31, 2029.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5627 Sfmt 0627 E:\CR\FM\D14MR4.REC D14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with DIGEST

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGESTD254 March 14, 2024

Kelly Adams-Smith, of New Jersey, to be Ambas-

sador to the Republic of Moldova.

Peter W. Lord, of Florida, to be Ambassador to

the Republic of Senegal, and to serve concurrently

and without additional compensation as Ambassador

to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.

Jeremey Neitzke, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to

the Kingdom of Lesotho.

1 Air Force nomination in the rank of general.

1 Army nomination in the rank of general.

1 Coast Guard nomination in the rank of com-

mander.

1 Marine Corps nomination in the rank of general.

1 Navy nomination in the rank of admiral.

Routine lists in the Air Force, Army, Coast

Guard, Foreign Service, Marine Corps, and Navy.

Pages S2418–20

Messages from the House: Page S2399

Measures Referred: Page S2399

Enrolled Bills Presented: Page S2400

Executive Communications: Page S2400

Additional Cosponsors: Pages S2401–03

Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:

Pages S2400–01

Additional Statements: Page S2399

Authorities for Committees to Meet: Page S2416

Privileges of the Floor: Page S2416

Record Votes: Two record votes were taken today.

(Total—93) Pages S2382, S2386

Adjournment: Senate convened at 10 a.m. and ad-

journed at 5 p.m., until 9:25 a.m. on Friday, March

15, 2024. (For Senate’s program, see the remarks of

the Acting Majority Leader in today’s Record on

page S2418.)

Committee Meetings

(Committees not listed did not meet)

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST AND

FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM

Committee on Armed Services: Committee concluded

open and closed hearings to examine the posture of

United States Northern Command and United States

Southern Command in review of the Defense Au-

thorization Request for Fiscal Year 2025 and the Fu-

ture Years Defense Program, after receiving testi-

mony from General Gregory M. Guillot, USAF,

Commander, United States Northern Command and

North American Aerospace Defense Command, and

General Laura J. Richardson, USA, Commander,

United States Southern Command, both of the De-

partment of Defense.

HHS BUDGET

Committee on Finance: Committee concluded a hearing

to examine the President’s proposed budget request

for fiscal year 2025 for the Department of Health

and Human Services, after receiving testimony from

Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human

Services.

PACIFIC ISLANDS REGION

Committee on Foreign Relations: Committee concluded

a hearing to examine United States strategy in the

Pacific Islands region, after receiving testimony from

Daniel J. Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary of State,

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs; Ely S.

Ratner, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pa-

cific Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary of De-

fense; and Michael Schiffer, Bureau for Asia Assistant

Administrator, United States Agency for Inter-

national Development.

INCREASING WILDFIRE THREAT

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Af-

fairs: Committee concluded a hearing to examine re-

sponding to the increasing wildfire threat, including

opportunities to improve Federal response, recovery,

and mitigation efforts, after receiving testimony from

Lori Moore-Merrell, U.S. Fire Administrator, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Department of

Homeland Security; Chris P. Currie, Director,

Homeland Security and Justice, Government Ac-

countability Office; David Wm. Fogerson, Nevada

Division of Emergency Management, Carson City;

Jamie Barnes, Utah Department of Natural Re-

sources Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands,

Salt Lake City; and Lucinda Andreani, Coconino

County Flood Control District, Flagstaff, Arizona.

32-HOUR WORK WEEK

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:

Committee concluded a hearing to examine workers

benefitting from new technology and increased pro-

ductivity, including S. 3947, to amend the Fair

Labor Standards Act of 1938 to reduce the standard

workweek from 40 hours per week to 32 hours per

week, after receiving testimony from Shawn Fain,

UAW, Detroit, Michigan; Juliet Schor, Boston Col-

lege, Newton, Massachusetts; Jon Leland, Kickstarter

and WorkFour, New York, New York; Liberty

Vittert, Washington University in St. Louis Olin

Business School, St. Louis, Missouri; and G. Roger

King, HR Policy Association, Arlington, Virginia.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5627 Sfmt 5627 E:\CR\FM\D14MR4.REC D14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with DIGEST

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST D255 March 14, 2024

House of Representatives

The House was not in session today. The House

will meet in Pro Forma session at 11 a.m. on Friday,

March 15, 2024.

Committee Meetings

No hearings were held.

Joint Meetings

AMERICAN LEGION AND VETERANS

SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

Joint Hearing: On Wednesday, March 13, 2024, Sen-

ate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs concluded a joint

hearing with the House Committee on Veterans’ Af-

fairs to examine the legislative presentation of The

American Legion and multiple veterans service orga-

nizations: JWV, TAPS, NCHV, MOAA, NACVSO,

NCAI, VVA, NGAUS, and FRA, after receiving tes-

timony from Daniel J. Seehafer, Chanin Nuntavong,

Patricia Harris, Julia Mathis, Autrey James, Tiffany

Ellett, John Bowen, and Joe Sharpe, all of the Amer-

ican Legion; Colonel Barry Lischinsky, USA (Ret.),

Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A.; Rebecca Har-

rison Mullaney, Tragedy Assistance Program for Sur-

vivors; Kathryn Monet, National Coalition for

Homeless Veterans; Commander Rene A. Campos,

USN (Ret.), Military Officers Association of Amer-

ica; Michael McLaughlin, National Association of

County Veterans Service Officers; Melvin Sheldon,

Jr., National Congress of American Indians; Jack

McManus, Vietnam Veterans of America; Major

General Francis M. McGinn (Ret.), National Guard

Association of the United States; and John S.

Handzuk, Fleet Reserve Association.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR FRIDAY,

MARCH 15, 2024

(Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated)

Senate

No meetings/hearings scheduled.

House

No hearings are scheduled.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5627 Sfmt 0627 E:\CR\FM\D14MR4.REC D14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with DIGEST

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — DAILY DIGEST

Congressional Record

The Congressional Record (USPS 087–390). The Periodicals postage

is paid at Washington, D.C. The public proceedings of each House

of Congress, as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are

printed pursuant to directions of the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate provisions of Title 44, United

States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, excepting very infrequent instances when

two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed one time. ¶ Public access to the Congressional Record is available online through

the U.S. Government Publishing Office, at www.govinfo.gov, free of charge to the user. The information is updated online each day the

Congressional Record is published. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office.

Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-Mail, [email protected]. ¶ To place an order for any of these products, visit the U.S.

Government Online Bookstore at: bookstore.gpo.gov. Mail orders to: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO

63197–9000, or phone orders to 866–512–1800 (toll-free), 202–512–1800 (D.C. area), or fax to 202–512–2104. Remit check or money order, made

payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or use VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, or GPO Deposit Account. ¶ Following

each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the Superintendent of Documents

in individual parts or by sets. ¶ With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from

the Congressional Record.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Record, U.S. Government Publishing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

D256 March 14, 2024

Next Meeting of the SENATE

9:25 a.m., Friday, March 15

Senate Chamber

Program for Friday: Senate will meet in a pro forma

session.

Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

11 a.m., Friday, March 15

House Chamber

Program for Friday: House will meet in Pro Forma ses-

sion at 11 a.m.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:41 Mar 15, 2024 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0664 Sfmt 0664 E:\CR\FM\D14MR4.REC D14MRPT1

dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with DIGEST