as a failure and responsibly when it comes to the number of black people who now get covid? >> great question. earlier this week jen talked about the wartime. >> we take you back live now to the u.s. senate which today is working on a science and technology research bill with a few votes this afternoon on amendments of that legislation. live coverage of the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. a senator: are we in quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we're not. mr. cassidy: i rise today expressing frustration of many of my constituents. during the covid-19 pandemic, we've had federal agencies and employees not working at all. not from home, not in the office. period. have not had a lick of work for over 14 months. in april, the senate finance committee had a hearing entitled the social security administration during covid: how the pandemic hampered access

to benefits and strategy for improving service delivery. following the hearing, in response to my concerns of seniors in my state with issues getting their social security benefits not being sufficiently served due to field and local offices being closed my office got a letter from commissioner andrew saul. the letter states i urge you to encourage the unions to continue engaging in meaningful dialogue with management that includes a focus on the very best service to the public. that is a nice way of saying we need the union's help to get the unions to the table so we can get federal employees back to work. now we're talking about mandatory services. reopening social security offices for in-person visits in a postvaccine world.

to assist elderly americans, my grandparents, your grandparents , having issues with their benefits, this isn't happening because government employees are not showing up. it brings to mind an old quote from an old governor in louisiana, earl long. when they asked governor long how many people do you have working at the capitol, and he looks off into space. he goes working? about two. now in this case, that's the way it's going with this. the situation at the department of veterans affairs in connection with the national archives, and specifically the national personnel records center, is even worse. according to the national archives, the backlog of veterans' records grew to more than 499,000 requests in april of 2021. they estimate it will take 18 to

24 months to clear once the national personnel records center is staffed at full capacity. i just want to make this point. we've got 499,000 ignored document requests from veterans. the people who have served our country are not being served in their current life. despite the widespread availability of vaccines and the recent relaxation of covid-19 guidelines from the u.s. incidents incidents -- centers for disease control, the national record center moved to phase 2 in march twunt. in phase 2 the national record center has 25% of staff on site. there is supposedly two employees on shift two shifts a day, six days a week, but they

are only processing emergency requests. for example, immediate burials, hospitalizations, and for the homeless. in the veterans administration we led a push to enable national records center employees to get vaccines from the v.a.'s allotment in an attempt to increase staffing. in the latest information provided to my staff, only 36 national personnel records center employees took advantage of this availability. this is 36 out of 600. these aren't just numbers on a poster. there are real consequences. there are people's lives. my constituent, mr. albert deplantis, 69 years old of lake charles, louisiana. mr. deplantis when he was in the navy -- and there you see him now -- he served our country during vietnam, stationed upon the u.s.s. piram. he has diabetes type 2, atrial

fib layings and hypertension due to agent orange. he needs treatment for his heart condition but he cannot get the medical records he needs because the national personnel records center is not processing the needed military record during covid-19, the one that the v.a. needs to make this happen. now, his application for medical treatment for his heart condition -- this is a heart condition, by the way -- was received by the v.a. in december 2019. that is 2019. in an early response, the v.a. provided a possible date of completion of march 23, 2021. now from 2019 december to march 23, 2021, that date has come and gone, but mr. duplantis' application is stuck in limbo until the v.a. receives ■hi military records from the national personnel records center. let me repeat. a treatment for heart disease has been held up since 2019

because of the inaction of the national personnel records center. we're over one year into the pandemic. we've had access to vaccines. the masks are off, and still records are not being processed. and federal employees are sitting at home collecting a paycheck without working. we're talking since march of last year. we're now in may of this year, have not shown up for work one day, nor have they worked from home. and we have a man who can't get his records for heart disease. this is unacceptable. with vaccines widely available, there is no sense, no excuse for mandatory work not being done. if you're not willing to do your job, you shouldn't have a job. this great american went to war for our freedom, but federal employees won't go to the office

to file his paperwork. there are other veterans besides mr. duplantis unable to receive medical treatment and other benefits they're entitled to. this weekend we will observe memorial day, a time when we honor and mourn the men and women of the u.s. military that died during their service to this great country. this is a reminder of the sacrifice willingly risked and unfortunately it occurred, and they did this, they signed up for this without flinching. we should repay our veterans and do more for them just by doing a job that should be done. madam president, the national personnel records center needs to get their house in order. they need to go back to work. our veterans deserve better. mr. duplantis deserves medical treatment. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, i have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval of the minority and majority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: madam president, i rise at this moment to oppose the amendment that's going to be offered by my colleague and friend from louisiana, senator kennedy. this amendment would endanger the lives of thousands, if not millions of innocent people and prolong this terrible coronavirus pandemic. i'm sure that's not the intention of the senator from louisiana, but that's what his effort would do. his amendment would gut a critical tool to help stop the spread of the pandemic globally

as well as stem the economic fallout that would hurt us here in america. the international monetary fund has a fund with the ability to release money in what's called special drawing rights. foreign exchange reserve assets that it maintains. this can be exchanged by member nations for hard currency in times of crisis. this is exactly what was done in 2009 amid the global economic crisis and what's being considered now amid the pandemic and related economic downturn. the amendment, which i'm going to offer, has the support of american business, labor, and global health and poverty groups for good reason. the special drawing rights are a no-cost way for the americans to help poor nations buy the vaccines they need to save lives and to stop the spread of this coronavirus. and it also would help aid in economic recovery. isn't that exactly what we

should be doing at this moment? this pandemic doesn't know any boundaries. this virus doesn't pick and choose good nations and bad nations. our ability to protect the hard-fought gains against the pandemic here in the united states, after all that we have been through, ultimately depends on getting it under control around the world so variants and strains don't attack us anew. i know what we've been through. if we ignore the reality, the fact is this pandemic came roaring at us from a city in china that most americans have never heard of, and now we've got to decide whether we are going to to take it on directly. you don't tell the fire department it to not help with the fire at your neighbor's house in a time of crisis. sadly that's exactly what the kennedy amendment would do. and the one part that he's missing that is so critical is it's a take it or leaving it on the -- leave it on the special drawing rights.

you can't pick or choose the nations that might not receive or benefit to buy vaccines. we can use other mechanisms or persuasions to achieve that goal. senator kennedy's approach would cut off special drawing rights for friendly nations as well as those who are not friendly. and that to me is shortsighted. the way the i.m.f. process works, we cannot dictate which countries receive the benefits. because of the minority position in the special drawing rights fund, we either stop the special drawing rights completely or let them go forward. so the united states should stand for public health, stand for people to be spared the suffering and death of this coronavirus and move forward with humanitarian aid that will help the world. the treasury department is working with our allies to halt the ability of any rogue nation that might want to exchange special drawing rights for hard

currency and pushing transparency measures for how many special drawing rights are spent. as such, i'm offering a substitute amendment which makes it clear that we want to make certain that nations do not misuse these funds, but unlike the kennedy amendment it would move forward and provide resources for countries desperately in need of vaccines to save lives. i further support the treasury's efforts to make sure that the s.d.r. allocation is used to help to stem the pandemic. i urge my colleagues to vote for my substitute amendment and to oppose the amendment being offered by the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: madam president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to durbin amendment number 2014. mr. kennedy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: madam president, i love senator durbin. i hate his amendment.

here's why. these s.d.r.'s are not free money. they're not free money. they're like a crypto coin. the i.m.f. issues the crypto coin to all the countries that are members of the i.m.f. and these countries take that crypto coin. guess what they do? they come to the united states of america and say we want to exchange our crypto coin for dollars. and guess what? we don't have the dollars because we're dead broke. so we have to borrow the dollars to give to the chinas and the venezuelas and all the countries that hate us in exchange for their crypto coins. now that's just a natural fact. if you check the record, you'll find the countries that really need the money to to vaccine nature their people, -- vaccinate their people, about 10% of the money is going to them. the rest is going to all the larger countries like china, like venezuela, like the countries in europe.

virtually no money gets sent to the people who need it. this isincredibly an inefficient way to do it. mr. durbin: madam president, i have one minute? these special drawing rights of the international monetary fund is the only way the poorest nations on earth could have the money to buy vaccines to save their people. that's what it boils down to. what senator kennedy says, well, some of this money might get in the wrong hands. pray it doesn't. i pray they administer it properly and i think they will. but how would you like to have on your conscience that our amendment vote on the floor is the end for vaccines for some of the poorest countries on earth. i would not want that on my conscience. support my amendment which makes it clear where americans do stand when it comes to this issue. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: has every senator voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the kennedy amendment, numbered 1710, and the senate will be in order.

mr. kennedy: madam president, could we have order in the senate? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. andmr. kennedy: madam president, the international monetary fund issues special drawing rights and a special drawing right is like a crypto coin. it's not worth anything. it's only worth something if you exchange it for real money and the biden administration decided to encourage i.m.f. to issue all of these crypto coins, and guess what they are all doing? they are bringing the crypto coins to the united states of america and saying, we want dollars, give me dollars for the crypto coins. we don't have dollars p in our checking account so we have to borrow the money. all my bill would do is say we're not going to issue special drawing rights to perpetrators of genocide or state sponsors of

terrorism, in other words, no china, no premoney to china, no -- no free money to china, syria, or iran. it is ludicrous for us to borrow money to give dollars in exchange for crypto coins for china, syria, or iran. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. the senate will be in order. mr. durbin: there is one fundamental flaw in what you heard from senator kennedy and let me read it to you, the united states retains the right to refuse to purchase special drawing rights from any country. it's voluntary and it's up to us to do it and we don't purchase it from a lot of countries. we can deny drawing rights to countries -- why do we care if some country far away had a vaccine, how far away was wuhan

china? we have to put an end to the crisis. vote dependence the kennedy amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. kennedy: yeas and nays, madam chair. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? on this vote the yeas are 51. the nays are 49.

under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. kennedy: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. madam president, i want to spend a few minutes today saying goodbye to a friend. louisiana weeps right now. governor charles e. roman iii passed away last week. he went by buddy. he served for -- our state from 1988 to 1992. before that he served a number of terms in congress.

i guess, madam president, i'm biased because buddy brought me to the dance, if you will. i was sitting in my office in new orleans practicing law, earning a good living, you know, thinking about happy hour on a friday afternoon and governor rromer had just been elected and asked me to work as his legal counsel and i stayed for four years. i liked governor service and have been in and out of it ever since. buddy was extremely -- i say was but i'm going to say is because he lives with us. he is one of the most complex, interesting people i've ever m met. he was immeasurably talented. he was raised on a cotton farm. it wasn't really a farm because his parents and his family, they were all so accomplished, they

put together a cotton farm with their own sweat and blood and some free enterprise capital and about 10,000 acres in north louisiana. that's a lot of -- that's a big farm in louisiana. but the kids all worked, including buddy. they didn't have a television. mr. budgeie, his dad, ms. adaleine, his mom, would require the kids to read books in their free time. i'd never see him without a book. i'd ride with him to do a speech, and he'd have a book in the car. and he'd read it going up there. he went to harvard when he was 16. he would have gone sooner. harvard offered him a position. but his mom and dad said you're too young. you got to stick around. and he stayed at harvard for graduate school. budde was -- buddy was -- how can i put this?

buddy was one of the first real intellectual governors that we ever in -- ever had in louisiana. i am not putting down any of our other governors. you don't rise to that position without being intelligent. but buddy truly believed in the worth of education. i've used his words often. he used to say, kennedy, the future of louisiana is education. i.t. not the price of oil -- it's not the price of oil. it's not the unemployment rate. it's not who the governor is. it's education. and he'd say that time and time again. during his four years -- when he became governor, we had a $7 billion budget. we had a $1 billion deficit. that's what he was left with.

roemer balanced the budget. it wasn't easy, but he did it. and then he implemented fiscal reforms that dramatically, totally changed our way of budgeting louisiana for generations to come. because of buddy's efforts. he announced in louisiana -- and this was heresy at the time -- i'm going to find out wit of our teachers can teach, and, by god, i'm going to pay them. but he also said, i'm also going to find out which of our teachers can't teach. and i'm either going to teach them how or tell him to find a new line of work. boy, was that revolutionary. and he did it. he totally rewrote our campaign finance laws. when buddy became governor, there was no reporting of campaign money. somebody -- if you're running for office, somebody could bring you a suitcase full of cash.

$200,000, and it was perfectly legal. you didn't have to report it, and if you -- if you got the money on a thursday, if you decided 0en a friday -- on a friday you weren't going to run, you were through with the race, you could keep it! you could keep it. buddy completely rewrote all of that. now you have to report ever penny in, every penny out. there's a cap on contributions. no cash. and we enforce it. it changed our politics dramatically. i tell you one quick story that epitomizes the buddied i knew -- the buddy i knew. there was a central piece of his education program -- i won't bore you with the details. it had to do with higher education, and it was key to our future. and we really needed to pass it.

and i was handling -- lobbying it for the governor, and we needed one more vote in the senate, one more vote. to pass this landmark bill. and this one senator, he said, kennedy, i'll vote for it if you'll have the governor give me this project. so i was all excited. i went back to see the governor. i said, governor, i think i have it all put together. it was a road project. he said, call over to our department of transportation and see what they come up with. the folks at the department of transportation said, yes, we can do t but if we do it we'll all go to jail. so i said, oh, man. i go back and i tell governor roemer -- and i was young, but i was passionate, and i said, governor, we can't do it. he said, i agree. we're not going to to do that. i said, listen, this is so important. this particular senator lies to us all the time.

let me just lie to him. let me just go to him and tell him, we'll do it. we'll get his vote and i'll go back to him later and the say, we changed our mind. the end does justify the means. i'll never forget it. buddy says, no. we're not doing that. and i argued with him, but he -- he just said, look, kevin, i made my decision. we're not doing it that way. i'm going to really miss buddy. he wasn't a perfect guy. i told him one time shall i said, governor, if i were back in law practice in the private sector and you came to me as a private client, i'd represent you, but i would quadruple my hourly rate. he could be -- he was so smart, but he could be very opinionated. tip o'neill gave buddy his -- sort of his slogan phrase.

tip o'neill described then-congressman roemer, often wrong, never in doubt. but i'm going to really miss buddy. all he ever wanted to do was change louisiana. and he did. he wasn't reequity willed. but he did. -- he wasn't reelected. but he did. but buddy always understood, this was his barometer of success. he used to tell him, kennedy, here's how you know when you're doing a good job -- if you're making the right people mad. he used to say, if nobody is mad at you and if the right people like what -- the wrong people like what you're doing, you're not doing your job. so he did make people mad. and it cost him his reelection. but he changed louisiana. and louisiana weeps. and when i count my blessings, i count buddy roemer twice.

thank you, madam chair. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

is

quorum call:

a senator: thank you, mr. president.

i ask for unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. lummis: thank you, mr. president. i'm excited to announce the founding of the senate financial innovation caucus with my friend and cochair, the senator from arizona, and i am delighted, mr. president, that you also have joined our caucus. we're grateful for your participation and look forward to working with you. one of my top priorities and a legacy i hope to leave in this chamber is to ensure the united states remains a global leader in financial services for future generations. the u.s. dollar is the world's unquestioned reserve currency. since the second world war, this leadership role has given our country enormous

advantages, including affordable credit and trade finance. china is not hiding its ambition to knock the u.s. dollar down a peg by offering a competitor payment system that sidesteps the united states. this year the chinese government launched a pilot program for their digital yewaun. they expect to release the digital currency at the 2022 olympics. a video released by china in december of 2020 overwhelm stated it will allow china to, quote, actively participate in reforming world economic governance, end quote and is, quote, one of the building blocks of china's move toward world market status and greater involvement in setting the framework of the global economy

economy, end quote. china does not share the same values as our country relating to fair competition. this chilling reality is one of the many reasons the united states must advance financial innovation, and do so now. china is serious about the future. chinese president xi stated in 2018 that financial innovation is the new industrial revolution. in another part of the world, digital assets are protecting many venezuelans during their current economic crisis and ensuring corrupt government officials cannot seize or devalue their hard-earned savings. the u.s. government is also using digital assets to achieve its foreign policy objectives and to provide humanitarian aid to venezuelan groups faster than

traditional channels. we must work hard today to ensure the next generation of americans enjoy the opportunity and prosperity made possible by responsible innovation. failure to do so could have astronomical impacts on the freedoms and privileges that are essential to the american dream. i have been encouraged by early signs from the biden administration that they understand the existential threat of china and the promise of financial innovation. china's moves alone should create a sense of urgency in this chamber to take action. but it is not just a threat from china that should motivate us. in addition to protecting the united states position, as the world leader in the financial system, proper regulations for financial innovation will have lasting effects in the financial

industry in several ways. notably, financial inclusion and inertia. financial innovation encompasses topics as diverse as faster payment and equity settlement, financial inclusion, digital assets distributed ledger technology, consumer protection, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. this area has remained bipartisan, following in the interested of many other -- in the tradition of many other financial service issues. the financial innovation caucus is committed to the tradition of bipartisanship and will create a lasting legacy by doing so. innovation is core to the american identity and innovation isn't confined to one party. our job here is to create a framework that allows innovation to take root.

regulatory certainty fosters entrepreneurial innovation. a lack of regulatory clarity, on the flip side, strangles regulation, restrains entrepreneur shp. in many cases financial innovators are simply hungry to know the rules of the road and how they fit into existing law. we need a right-sized regulatory framework for financial technology that both enables new market opportunities and emphasizes consumer protection. the innovator too often loses when competing against business giants with lobbying arms. together we can craft regulations that foster innovation, not stifle or unnecessarily direct it. we also need a new consumer protection framework for emerging tech which promotes access and innovation but ensures appropriate guardrails are in place.

innovators are the lifeblood of america. each new idea strengthens our future. innovators have done hard work in coming up with ideas which will bring underserved populations into the financial system, reduce systemic risk, and strengthen our competitive nature on the global stage. yet there's only so much innovators can accomplish due to our maze of financial regulations. american innovators need clear rules of the road so they can responsibly turn innovation into reality. it's our obligation as government officials to create a framework that clearly enables responsible innovation rather than stifling it. we must do a great deal more in the coming years to clarify and modernize our financial laws. citibank, goldman sachs, avante bank and trust, state

street, deutsche bank, cracken and other large financial institutions are now doing much more than dipping their toes into this realm. they are diving into the financial technology and digital asset markets. financial innovation is here to stay. younger generations are turning to and prioritizing technology for their investments. in february, cnbc reported that there may be as many as 100,000 millionaires from the appreciation of digital assets like bitcoin. these technologies if harnessed wisely see no color, no creed, and no sex. but financial innovation is not limited to regulating digital assets. this caucus will also focus on issues like faster payments, including a united states central bank digital currency and fed now, which have real potential to allow all americans to receive their paychecks

instantly. the lack of realtime payments costs disadvantaged americans millions in overdraft fees each year and will reduce many americans' reliance on high-interest loans. it also traps large amounts of capital for companies which could be deployed more productively. tackling these issues will help bring millions of unbanked or underbanked americans into our financial system. mr. president, in wyoming, we live by the doctrine that you have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. what you earn is a direct result of your hard work. all americans should have access to their hard-earned money and investments whenever they would like. we can and should use innovation technologies to reduce settlement times in our payment networks and capital markets and to reduce systemic risk and

improve transparency. threats to the world economic system coupled with the benefits financial innovation can create is why today alongside many of my colleagues from both parties, we are founding the senate financial innovation caucus. the caucus is a bipartisan group committed to promoting responsible innovation to help the u.s. financial industry truly meet 21st century challenges of a globally interconnected economy and to harvest technology to make markets more inclusive, vibrant, and safe for all americans. after all, financial innovation is critical in our pursuit to ensure equal access to financial institutions and opportunities. it is my hope that the work done by the financial innovation caucus will deliver comprehensive legislation to clarify, regulate and protect

america's edge in the financial industry when it comes to innovation. we live in a digital world. technology is now ingrained in our everyday lives. our laws should reflect this shift and should not hinder innovation. only together can we secure the united states role in the future of finance. so let's go to work. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the united states is at a crossroads

in our strategy to counter the threat posed by communist china. and it's vital that we place ourselves in a position to compete with china, to be sure, but it's equally important that we consider just what kind of game we're playing. and just what kind of competitor we aspire to be. the bill before us, the endless frontier act, aims at china -- no doubt these are important components of any strategy to counter china. but unfortunately it goes about it in the exact wrong way trying to beat china at its own game and taking us across a frontier that we ought never traverse. in fact, models of some of china's own bad strategies are emulated in this legislation,

strategies that are in exact opposition action direct opposition to american principles and american ways of life. let's consider some of the hallmarks of communist china. in every aspect the chinese regime grows and centralizes the power of government at the expense of free citizens and free markets, an experiment that has expanded into dangerous and even deadly territory. take, for example, china's record on human rights. china has gone so far as to enslave and subject the tibetan and wee gar -- week gar people, to forced labor, and torture. their infamous one-child policy has brutally and barbarically forced peoples to undergo i.u.d. implantation, complete sterilization and abortion. it has a long, dark history of

religious persecution and of silencing dissidents. under president xi jinping, chinese authorities have detained millions of muslims and arrested thousands of christians. they've seized control of tibetan monasteries and closed or demolished dozens of buddhists temples. they've even practiced forced organ harvesting of members of the falun gong religion or consider china's actions in the realm of foreign policy. in true imperialist form, china is pushing its belt and road initiative, a massive predatory infrastructure project stretching from east asia to europe, designed to massively expand china's coercive economic and political influence. it has spread confucius institutes across american

college campuses, entangling american universities with chinese state policies and turning them into mega phones to repeat chinese propaganda. in multilateral organizations, china continuously undermines long-standing democratic norms, instituting policies that instead benefit the chinese communist party's authoritarianian values and it has held a tight cronyious, commanding control grip over its economy, heavily subsidizing industries and constantly picking winners and losers. well, china has picked up some steam through some of these actions. we cannot ignore whatever momentum it may have acquired, its dubious successes, at minimal sustainability over the long run. china under the control of the communist party has in reality one of the least efficient economies in the entire world.

in terms of g.d.p. per capita, it's quite the opposite of being at the top of the barrel. in fact, it's way down right next to cuba and kazakhstan. it turns out the political corruption and state-owned enterprises come with some financial dead weight too. the financial cost alone of enslaving, sterilizing, and brainwashing 12.8 million ui uighurs and other groups is steep. even the moral cost is far worse and infinitely steeper. killing future's generation, potential through abortion is also as foolish as it is inhumane. as a result of its decades-long abortion and one child or two-child policies, china is on track to lose a third of its workforce and age faster than any society in history.

the ratio of workers to retirees in china which is currently 8-1 is projected to whittle down to 2-1 in the coming decades. with only two employees for every retiree, china's pension system which is already showing signs of buckling will inevitably crack under pressure. it's true that china is aggressive and it's true that china is really big, but it's not ironclad in its position of global strength to put it mildly. as its population ages, more and more, and more of its land falls into wasted, polluter, squaller -- polluted squaller, it will have neither the inhabitants nor the resources to continue on its current course of perceived economic prosperity. mr. president, there's nothing about china's principles or about china's trajectory that we should try to emulate, not in

the least. in nearly every way imaginable, the chinese regime consolidates power to trample the rights of individual men and women and quash free expression, the free exercise of religion and free enterprise. nothing could be more antifet cal to the american system of government and the american way of life. in fact, it's precisely the opposite formula that has made us the world's strongest and most prosperous nation. the founders gave us the constitution precisely for the purpose of disbursing and limiting pow we are, dispersing and limiting power within the federal government. and to keep government in general as close and accountable to the people as possible. and they give us a bill of rights precisely to safeguard individual liberty and protect our most cherished freedoms.

empowering ordinary men and women to preach and live out their deepest beliefs in the public square, to gather and speak freely, to bear arms, and to petition the government in redress of grievances. you see, the beauty of this design is that it opens up the space for two separate but mutually reinforcing institutions that are at the heart of our vision of freedom and that are absolutely key to our success, a free enterprise economy and a voluntary civil society. these systems work in tandem for everyone because they impel everyone to work together, harnessing individuals self-interest to the common go and ultimately that of the nation. it is the free market system that prizes human ingenuity, rewarding people for putting their god-given talents and

their own exertions and resources in the service of their neighbors. the free market impels us to ask what problems need to be solved, what can i do to improve other people's lives. it's the free market that created the wealth that liberated americans of american families from sub-- subcitizens tans farming, opening up opportunities for the pursuit of happiness, never known before or since in government-directed economies. these are blessings that never will be known in an economy dominated by a government. in america, it's also always been understood that the family is the building block of society, worthy of protecting and empowering, and it's been the cooperation between families, church, neighborhoods, clubs, and voluntary associations that have knit together the american social fabric and made it strong.

in other words, the beauty of the american system is opening up the space for everyday citizens to build creative, productive, meaningful, and happy lives together. these are the hallmarks of the american system of government, and these are the things that we ought to preserve moving forward. but unfortunately, mr. president, the bill before us attempts not to double down on our successes but to pivot to the so-called successes of china by federally hijacking research and development and crowding out the private incentives that bring successful ideas to market. it is a flawed and ultimately foolish strategy. first in our free and democratic society, we'll never martial the will to ramp up the taxes and spend china into the ground, nor should we try.

second, history has proven time and time again that centralized planning is a losing game. the u.s. is already tried the industrial policy experiment, picking winners and losers and causing great harm in the process. in fact, that's exactly how we've ended up with the terrible protectionist policies like trade wars and the jones act. the strategy of the endless frontier act, however, is rooted in the mistaken belief that our markets have failed us and the only means by which we can jumpstart our economy and crit innovation is by trust -- -- trusting in federal bureaucrats. what would it do in relt? well -- reality? well, it would green light $54 billion in spending beyond our budget caps with additional authorizations of $190 billion, and it would put this massive

amount of money towards more government bureaucracy, producing a system where the government picks winners and losers in industry creating artificial demand for inefficient technologies, crowding out the good research and development that the private sector already does, and increasing our manufacturing costs. if we are to compete with china and maintain our leadership and technology, what instead should be our path forward? what should we do instead of passing this law that tries to compete with china using strategies that work only for china and will never work here and must never work here? well, we ought to do what america does and always has done best. instead of chilling innovation and competition, we ought to decentralize power and champion

trust in the private sector. we ought to decrease regulation, not invest in regulatory bodies. we ought to simplify and cut taxes, not offshore our jobs. we ought to use our criminal -- our critical minerals, not let them languish. we ought to partner with our allies, not restrict fair trade. we ought to harvest timber, not organs. we ought to defund -- we ought to defend families and not diminish them. we ought to encourage entrepreneurship, not crony capitalism. we ought to strengthen market, not government. two paths lie before us, mr. president. i urge my colleagues to choose the better part and reject this bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i'd ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i wanted to rise today to talk about a matter that's come before the senate in the bill that we're considering, the united states innovation and competition act. i rise to talk about a particular amendment that i've been working on. it's amendment number 1853. of course i urge the senate to act quickly to approve this

amendment, to protect our supply chains that are critical to united states national security. i wanted to explain what the origin of this amendment has been. it goes all the way back to the beginning of the pandemic, the worst public health crisis in over 100 years in our nation. and, at that time, as so many americans remember, we watched in horror as access to masks, gloves, government government s- masks, gloves, government shutdowns and even more sophisticated equipment like -- masks, gloves, gowns, and even more sophisticated equipment like that necessary for a response, all of a sudden it dried up. the reason why we had such a shortage of supplies and personal protective equipment

and the was -- and the like was that supply chains were delayed and those supply chains originated in china, which we know is a country where the government is run by the chinese communist party. that same ruling party and that ghost even tightened restrictions -- government even tightened restrictions on masks and other personal protective equipment. so we learned the hard way you the very hard way, just how dependent our supply chains are on goods originating in china. we learned how dependent we are on the chinese government's whims because it is a fact that they control the companies that produce and export the critical supplies we depend upon.

this amendment, amendment 1835, which by the way is bipartisan in ways you don't see very much of in the senate these days -- three democrats and three republicans coming together on this bipartisan amendment -- it's an effort to enhance our national security at its core. that's what it's about. enhancing our national security. but, unfortunately, mr. president, corporate forces are blocking it. they're even blocking a vote on it. they don't apparently want to see a vote on this bill, and they also don't want to include it in an agreement between both sides when the bill is about to be completed in a so-called managers' package as part of the bill. we just want to get it done because i'm interested in -- and my five cosponsors are interested in from both parties -- protecting national security. what we read today in a

publication "politico" pro -- i'm holding up a copy here. i'll just make reference to it. i don't think we need to add all of it to the record. but here's the lead, the lead for "politico" pro this morning. the lead says this. trade groups representing some of the country's largest corporations are staunchly opposing a senate proposal that would subject u.s. companies to a federal review before they can make certain investments in china or relocate critical manufacturing capabilities there. and then the body of the report, when it gets down to reporting in detail what -- who's opposing this amendment and what they're saying, it stays this amendment has, quote, riled up big business, unquote. riled up big business.

just imagine that. big corporations riled up because a bipartisan group of senators is coming together to protect national security, and they're riled up. they don't seem to support us in this. here's what one of the organizations that would go on the record -- of course, you have a lot of big corporations that are hiding behind trade groups, trade associations, i should say. they don't have the guts to stand up and oppose this. they're hiding behind organizations here's one of the organizations and i'm quoting anna ashton, vice president of government affairs at the u.s.-china business council. here's what they have to say. quote, we long have said that national security should not be defined in a vague way -- a vague way. we're not vague in this. we're very clear. and then she goes on to criticize it. so what are we talking about here?

we're talking about an effort to protect u.s. national security because, not just in the context of the pandemic but, more broadly, we've had corporations for more than a generation now off-shoring work and business to china and other places. because they're seeking cheaper production and labor costs, these companies have been moving production of manufactured goods overseas, often to china. when you move your supply chain overseas, you're at the mercy of the laws and regulations of the country you move to, and in this case, you're at the mercy of the chinese communist party. now, this isn't a big problem when off-shoring goes to allied or liberal democracies -- allied or liberal democratic countries.

but it does become a problem when the off-shoring goes to foreign adversaries like china and russia that don't play by the rules. so how do we solve the problem? how do we ensure that the panic and the powerlessness that we all experienced way back in the spring of 2020 and beyond, how do we make sure that doesn't happen again? how do we make sure that the most powerful nation in the world, the most powerful nation in human history, is not at the mercy of the chinese communist party or the russian federation or any other country, at their mercy -- not just generally but at their mercy for something as simple as personal protective equipment, gowns and gloves and

masks. how do we make sure we're never in that predicament again? well, one of the things is to screen outbound investment. we've had a screen for inbound investment. we've had a committee that does that since the mid-70's. you will we're doing is putting in place an outbound investment screen. so that outbound investment screen will make sure that our national security interests are not compromised. and we don't want to create further dependency on supply chains that are located in the countries where the country is a foreign adversary. so this amendment, 1853, is modeled after legislation that i authored a few years ago, the national critical capabilities defense act. where we've reintroduced a bipartisan bill with senator cornyn, the senior senator from

texas. i mentioned earlier that this is three democrats, three republicans on this amendment. senator cornyn, as i made reference to; senator stabenow, democrat from michigan; senator rubio, republican senator from florida, senator kaine, democrat from virginia; and senator tillis, republican senator from north carolina. they have all supported an amendment that would establish this process to screen outbound investments and the off-shoring of critical supply chains to foreign adversaries like china and russia, to ensure the resiliency of critical u.s. supply chains. it would require companies disclose before -- before they offshore -- not critical capabilities to foreign adversaries, plural. so this is a commonsense

approach to deal with a problem that preexisted the pandemic but came into sharp focus when we were totally at the mercy of the chinese communist party. the review process is designed to identify vulnerabilities, to provide a suite of recommendations to the president and it emphasizes remedial action, such as support to domestic industries like increased research and development investment, utilization of manufacturing institutes, among others. the proposal encourages supply chain diversity. the bill is limited in scope, only covering foreign adversaries like china and russia. it's limited in its purview. it looks only at national critical capacities. the amendment establishes an interagency committee led by the united states trade representative to oversea the review -- oversee the review process for capacities that are deemed critical, unquote, --

quote, critical, unquote, to u.s. national security. now, this committee would focus on outbound investment or notify shoring of these -- or off-shoring of these critical capacities, supply chains, domestic production. i would note the committee would not -- would not review outbound investments to allied countries or any country not on the affirmative list. the amendment would establish a process to conduct ongoing evaluation of critical supply chains. in shorted the amendment would ensure the united states can respond to the need of our nations and those who may call upon us in times of crisis. but here's the problem. this commonsense bipartisan amendment in a town that doesn't do a lot of bipartisanship is being opposed by corporate interest. powerful corporate interest are

opposed to this amendment and in some cases are actively working against it to shut it down. there's been a whisper campaign by corporate lobbists to kill this bipartisan amendment that protects our national security. they are lobbying against an amendment -- against an amendment that will ensure the u.s. has better visibility on supply chain vulnerabilities so we can respond to the needs of our nation and those who call upon us in these times of crisis. if a company wants to offshore semiconductors to china, need to know about it and the president could block it if that activity is a risk to national security. yet, business interests like the united states chamber of commerce and the u.s.-china business council are organizing against this commonsense proposal. and as i mentioned earlier, these group of big corporations

are hiding behind their trade associations to do the work that they are doing. they are fearmongering and they are spreading misinformation and this -- this effort is -- is not surprising because often you have that in washington. we have interests that come together, even in the face of something that would help our national security. our nation and workers pay dearly when companies prioritize their bottom line over supply chain resiliency and security. when the offshore jobs in technology to foreign adversaries like china, our country pays for that. pays dearly. i mentioned the u.s.-china business council and their opposition. the association for businesses, that's what this is, the association for businesses in

china, businesses in china and they are opposing it. so they've got a basic choice to make sheer, not -- here, not just that organization, but any company. it's a simple choice. you can choose national security in a commonsense way to do that in a bipartisan amendment or you can just choose profits in places controlled by foreign adversaries. it's a real simple choice. this is not complicated. they will try to make it complicated, but it's not. let me start to address some of their -- some of their arguments. i mentioned earlier that the industry said that covered projects are defined, quote, in a vague way. in a vague way. that's what they say. that's not true. we provide specific -- specifics on personal protective equipment, medical equipment

that -- goods that are critical to the electricity grid. we expect a robust rule-making process and everybody knows that, when you pass a bill like this, rulemaking follows. we specifically state that rulemaking needs to provide specifics for firms to understand what and when -- what they need to disclose and when they need to disclose it. we limit review exclusively to foreign adversaries like china and russia. if a u.s. firm is offshoring critical capacities to a foreign adversary, the u.s. government should know about it. but, again, that only applies to outbound investment to foreign adversaries. we're not talking about outbound investment to germany, we're not talking about outbound investment to canada or as australia, we're talking about china and russia here.

we took business comments and edits from business groups around the country. we tried to ensure it was specific to threats while also providing flexibility for the administration to adapt and to adjust. so what is big business really opposing? they are opposing better visibility on when they offshore these critical capacities to a -- in this case a chinese communist party, a communist country who happens to be a foreign adversary on so many areas of our bilateral relationship. they are opposing better visibility on engagement of a government that is involved in gross human rights abuses. the old expression, sunlight is the best disinfectant applies here. why would we allow a united states company to take an action that compromises our national

security and disaster preparedness. so we engage in good faith in taking reasonable comments from these big business associations. businesses offshoring critical capacities to foreign adversaries should be everyone's concern, not just the concern of six senators in the senate and some others who have spoken in favor. big name brand companies don't want their names attached to this effort. that's why they are hiding behind their trade associations. but i want to be clear with them and clear to those who are listening. we know who you are. we know what companies are behind this and we know what you're doing and i'm going to continue to work to pass this amendment or if it ends up in a bill form, we're going to pass it. because we're going to take steps here in the united states senate in a bipartisan fashion to protect u.s. national security in this fashion. we're not going away so if these

business groups think they are making progress today, we're going to defeat you so just get ready for it because we're going to defeat you. now, i'll hold some comments that i was going to make about some others who are opposing this. i'll limit my comments today. mr. president -- madam president, i want to conclude with this thought. a lot of members of this body talk really tough about china, they act tough with china, they give a lot of speeches, you know, there's a lot of hot air about china, they go on television and talk about it, but then sometimes when it comes to taking on big interest, they cut and run. i would hope that those three republican senators aren't the only senators on their side who are willing to stand up for this

critical national security issue. again, it's a real simple choice. it's national security or getting profits at the mercy of a chinese communist party. so we're asking for a vote on this amendment and, madam president, i would yield the floor. mrs. gillibrand: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: madam president, i rise to once again call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider the military justice improvement

and increasing prevention act, which would ensure people in the military who have been subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve. i rise on behalf of the supporters of this bill, including a bipartisan filibuster-proof group of 65 senators, major veteran service organizations, and the veterans that they represent. every day we delay a vote on this bill is another day that their voices are being silenced. our legislation makes the commonsense reform that our veterans and our service members have asked for. it takes the decision on whether to prosecute serious crimes out of the chain of command and moves it to independent, trained military prosecutors.

this will create a system that is free of bias and capable of fairly trying these complex crimes. this legislation, as i mentioned, is supported by the nation's major veterans service organizations. these organizations recognize that this reform would build a military justice system worthy of the service of our members, a system that delivers justice, consequences, and convictions. this bill is supported by the iraq and afghanistan veterans association, their c.e.o. jeremy butler said, i quote, the status quo with our military chain of command's response to military sexual assault is not working and this continuing threat to our military requires this commonsense solution to protect our service members. it's supported by the american legion, which recognizes that

this legislation will, quote, improve the system by which the department of defense investigates and prosecutes reported cases of military sexual trauma so that it is on par with the civilian system. it's supported by protect our defenders, retired general don christianson, the president of protect our defenders said, quote, every year generals come before congress and tell congress that sexual assault is a cancer in the force. this is a readiness issue. this is a force protection issue. this is an issue that drives out good men and women every year who want to serve. this reform will finally see the justice that our members deserve and the pres vengs they -- prevention they deserve. it's supported by the vietnam veterans of america and the national president wrote, after decades of hearing that the military will not tolerate military sexual assaults and that it has zero tolerance of

such, the numbers continue to climb. vietnam veterans of america believe it is time to make change to the process if real action is to be taken in its attention to the victims and the violence, fear of reporting sexual assault is a barrier at -- their legal counsel and defense counsel should be no less than a civilian receives our our court system. this bill is supported by the veteran of foreign wars which accounts for more than 1.5 million veterans as members, it's supported by common defense, it's supported by swan, the civilian women's action network, it's supported by the national alliance to end sexual violence annual the national coalition to end sexual violence. these are veterans, these are fellow constituents, fellow americans, and these are people who put their lives on the line for this country and seen first

hand the way the furnt military justice -- current military justice system serves our members. they know better than anyone else what change needs to be made and they are asking to pass this bill. do not silence their voices. let this vote come to the floor. ms. ernst: madam president, i rise in support of my colleague and calling for the military improvement. this is a movement whose time has come for serious debate and consideration on the senate floor. for eight years the senate armed services committee on which senator gillibrand and i sit, has worked on countless efforts to seek justice for victims of sexual assault all within the chain of command.

many of these were good provisions pushed by myself and others to reduce the barriers in reporting sexual assaults. provisions focused on both prevention and professionalization of military courts handling sexual assault cases, and efforts toll improve the -- to improve the culture and ensure all enlistees receive sexual assault prevention training before attendance at their initial training. this is just to name a few. what has brought me here today supporting this effort with senator gillibrand and senator grassley with 64 cosponsors in the senate is that while these efforts were well intentioned, our plague continues. that is not okay with me as a combat veteran, a former commander, and sexual assault

survivor myself. if our military is going to face the threats of the decades ahead, we will need a force that is free from the threats in its own ranks. as i mentioned, this legislation has 64 bipartisan cosponsors and more than 50% of committee members' support. it is the right bill at the right time, and we must not delay any further. so i join with senator gillibrand and a call for consideration of this bill, and i yield back to the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1520, and the senate proceed to its consideration, that there be two hours of debate equally divided

in the usual form and that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president, reserving my right to object. mr. reed: for the reasons i articulated on monday, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. gillibrand: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ernst: thank you, madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that steven voline, a legislative defense fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ernst: thank you, madam president. madam president, just 1% of the

u.s. population serves in the defense of our great nation. america owes an immeasurable debt of gratitude to this small number of citizens who give so much to protect our freedoms and our way of life. may is military appreciation month, so on behalf of the people of iowa and me personally, i want to thank each and every one of the women and men of our armed forces and their families. we may celebrate you in may, but we appreciate you every single day. you are the ones that we call upon to defend our nation from our foreign adversaries and rogue actors who intend to harm us. you are the ones we called upon when covid-19 seeped into our borders and shut down america.

you stood guard to ensure our way of life succeeds. thank you for being the greatest fighting force on the face of the planet. after 23 years of my own military service, with great pride, i now get to watch as my daughter soon embarks on her career as an army officer. libby, thank you for your willingness to serve and the sacrifices you have committed to. while serving in the military, military, -- military is one of the most rewarding experiences, it is not easy. as we approach memorial day, we must all take time to remember the service members and their families who have paid the ultimate price, laying down their lives for our great nation. iowa has lost 158 of our sons

and daughters in iraq and afghanistan. two in panama or grenada, seven in the first persian gulf war, and 867 in vietnam. our korean and world wars numbers were in the thousands. while i won't be able to individually honor all of these heroes, today i'd like to echo a few names in remembrance of iowans we lost in the defense of our nation. marine gunnery sergeant jeffrey e.boer jr. is from the tiny farm town of ocean. he was 39 years old when he was killed on april 10, 2003, after a seven-hour gun battle in front of a baghdad, iraq, mosque.

gunnery sergeant boer served a 20-year career as an army ranger and then a marine. he was assigned to first battalion fifth marine regiment, camp pendleton, california, at the time of his death. he was the first iowan killed by enemy fire in operation iraqi freedom, and he was posthumously awarded the silver star. gunnery sergeant boer left behind his wife laurie who is also a native of iowa. army sergeant james c. carney, iii. i know him as jamie. he was an iowa national guardsman from emmerson, which is ten miles from where i grew up. and i knew jamie before he

enlisted in the iowa army national guard. he was very excited about his enlistment, and he told me about his excitement and how he felt that he had found a place that truly rewarded him. he was 22 years old when he died on november 1, 2004, in solerno, afghanistan, from injuries he sustained when his convoy was attacked by enemy forces using rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire in afghanistan. sergeant carney was assigned to first battalion 168th infantry in glenwood, iowa, at his death. he was posthumously promoted to the rank of sergeant and awarded a bronze star with a b. device

for valor. he was the first iowan killed in operation enduring freedom, and our community misses jamie to this day. navy petty officer second class jamie jenke was a naval reservist and a native of iowa falls. she is beautiful, isn't she? she was 30 years old when she was killed on june 5, 2006, in al-anbar province, iraq, when a roadside bomb struck the humvee that she was riding in. she was assigned to the naval mobile construction battalion 25 based in fort mccoy, wisconsin, at her death. she was posthumously awarded the navy marine corps commendation medal with v. for valor. she left behind her daughter

kayla. she was the first woman killed in operation iraqi freedom from iowa. lance corporal adam franklin wolfe is from elden. he was 25 years old when he was killed on june 20, 2014, in helmand province, afghanistan, when a vehicle-born improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. he was assigned to the second combat engineer battalion, second marine division, second marine expeditionary force, from camp le jeune, north carolina. he is iowa's most recent fatality. his twin brother and family survive him. another group of strength and resiliency i want to acknowledge today is our gold star families.

they are the ones left behind in battle and in war. we owe it to the heroes who gave their all to protect and care for their families and their communities. to every gold star family, thank you. thank you for the sacrifices you have made and continue to make every day. i assure you you are not alone or forgotten. i would like to take just a brief moment of silence in honor of those we lost in combat or due to everlasting combat injuries. ms. ernst: thank you. madam president, i yield back the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that megan malara, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. we know that many soph our biggest competitors around the world spend billions propping up state-owned enterprises investing in the research and development. they've also gotten pretty good at using our ideasers monetizing them to compete, sometimes cheat, using them to compete

against american businesses while paying their workers less and giving those workers fewer protections and rights. china is often the worst offender. ohio workers know all too well what happens when they're forced to compete with chinese companies that break the rules, are propped up by the chinese government. we're working to change this this week -- that this week. i want the technologies that drive u.s. economic growth and manufacturing, from semiconductors to hydrogen buses to the next generation jet engine to be developed in america and put people to work in good-paying jobs in our country. this is something we should all agree on. it's what we're doing to -- working to do with this whence bipartisan bill. this package is packed with investment in research and development, in technology and high-tech domestic manufacturing. it will again set us up to lead the world. it supports american manufacturing and innovation.

it supports american workers, the engine behind our success. it includes my build america, buy america act to strengthen our buy america rules and ensure that american tax dollars go towards american-made products to create american jobs. this provision is the result of bipartisan bearp. i'd like to thank my colleague from my state, senator portman, also senators peters and stabenow from michigan, senator baldwin from wisconsin, senator braun from indiana for their work. our legislation would apply buy-america rules to all taxpayer-funded infrastructure and public works projects. when we ensure our tax dollars are spent on american products, these tax dollars go further in the economy. we employ more workers who spend on local businesses and lift everyone up. and when we say buy america, we mean buy america, not import a steel slab from china, make it into a pipe, and stamp on it made in america. we need to make sure these rules

are thorough, tough, and effective. that's exactly what this provision does. this bill also gives our country new -- gives our country tough new tools to crack down on china's cheating. in the banking and housing committee, ranking member toomey and i worked together on an amendment to take on chinese espionage against our economy. the amendment is the product of months of bipartisan negotiation. i thank senator toomey and his bipartisan staff. the presiding officer, senator ossoff, is a new member of that committee and has contributed greatly on this and other projects we've done. our plan directly confronts action by china's government and chinese firms that hurt american workers and companies by stealing their valuable intellectual property. these measures were developed by senator van hollen. they require mandatory imposition of powerful new sanctions on chinese actors who steal u.s. trade secrets. the united states government --

the united states remains a global center for research, for development, for innovation, and for years people have been stealing our ideas. china is the worst offender, we know that. the chinese government and the companies it props up engage in systematic and growing espionage against our business and our workers. the theft of trade secrets costs the united states as much as $540 billion every year. our plan would give the president new tools to go after chinese actors who target our country with cyberattacks. americans have all seen over the past few weeks how serious cyberattacks are, how they can disrupt our entire economy. we need strong tools to punish these attackers and the countries that finance and support them. sanctions are just one new tool this package includes to increase american competitiveness. we will build on the success of our bipartisan revitalize american manufacturing innovation act to create more manufacturing innovation hubs around the country.

back in 2014, i worked with republican senator roy blunt and the obama administration to pass the revitalize american manufacturing innovation act. this landmark bill created a national network of advanced manufacturing hubs. it was one of the biggest steps we have taken as a country in a long time to make our manufacturing more competitive. america makes in youngstown, the first of its kind, the first in this program, started as a pilot program back nine years ago, it became the first hub in that network. i thank my colleagues for their work on this. i thank especially, too, members of my staff who are on the floor today. abigail duggan and megan malera for the work they have done and thank my colleagues for moving forward on this very important act. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: mr. president, over the weekend, the state department, our state department, imposed visa restrictions on several thrown and aeratrean government officials. they claim these officials have not done enough to end the hostilities in the tigre area. the tigre area is in the northern part of ethiopia. it's an area that is one of the very old parts of that couldn't independent. first we need to be clear. everyone, especially the ethiopian government, wants nothing more than a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the tigre, but this action puts the terrorist organization, the t.p.l.f., that's a terrorist organization, on equal status with our ethiopian government. now, that's unacceptable, and it's wrong. it's outrageous. that we would have them in the same -- in the same issue, as if

they are somehow equals. let me say something to be 100% clear, to make sure no one can misunderstand this. that is that humanitarian atrocities are wrong and have no place in our world. i'm proud that prime minister abi of ethiopia has clearly stated that any atrocities are not condoned by the government and those responsible will be held accountable. that's going to happen. to truly understand this issue and why putting the ethiopian government on equal footing with the tplf is so offensive and downright wrong, you need to understand how we got here. indulge with me in just a little bit of history. now, i know the changes ethiopia has seen over the last decade. since since 2005, i have visited ethiopia 19 different times.

engaging and developing relationships with prime ministers, cabinet ministers, legislators, business people, aid workers, and everyone else in between. i say this to show i know ethiopia probably better than anyone else in this chamber, but more than that, i know its history. ethiopia is the oldest independent country in all of africa, but one that is newly democratic. that comes with problems, and we understand that. the current controversy and why we are here today started back in the 197 1990's with a man named magistu. from 1974-1991, magistu was the leader of the communist party in ethiopia. of this was the controlling party at the time. it is a communist party.

they ran ethiopia. it was a terrible time for ethiopia. that was during one of the worst famines they ever had on that continent, or actually anywhere. it killed over a million people. that might be the most significant famine in history in terms of deaths. then in 1991, the communists were booted out. at the time that this took place, one person who was responsible for getting rid of the communists and the communist threat in antelope was a guy named mellis. he was a member of the tigrean political party. we got to know him quite really. he is the one who got communism out of that part of the world. he ended up as prime minister. this is really the election that a lot of people don't like, and they forget about the fact that he was the prime minister who

actually got rid of the communists in ethiopia. so he became a prime minister. he started to build democracy. he died in 2012. i got to know him quite well during his lifetime. i saw the progress that he made and the advances that they made. he was then replaced by another prime minister whose name was hale miriam. he game prime minister and he pushed for democracy. miriam worked diligently and improved things under his tenure. ethiopia established the independent ethiopian human rights committee that reported on violence and human rights, was tremendously successful. they didn't just establish it. they acted on it. they came out with a -- with a report and acted on it to hold

perpetrators accountable and to make the improvements that were being made at that time. our relationship wasn't just government to government. it was brother to brother. in february of 2017, prime minister hailemariam suggested that since the provinces were all fighting at one time and at that time there were nine provinces in ethiopia. each providence -- we suggested on the phone with members of the senate here in washington and the house prayer group in the house of representatives that what we ought to do is follow the recommendation of eisenhower. we're talking about former general eisenhower, president eisenhower. he was a great, great president of the united states. this is right after world war ii. he said -- and this is a quote.

i'm quoting eisenhower now. he said the problems of this world are so great that we will never resolve the problems until we learn to sit down and pray together. and so we decided let's all get the governors, the prime minister, members of the house and members of the senate and the rest all together, and we will pray with them. we did this. in fact, we had five senators with me at that time, and we went over. the problem was only two of the governors showed up out of nine, so it didn't work. eight months later, we had occasion to be back there, and we put together the same thing, but we talked to them to let them know. we talked to the governors at that time. the nine governors that were in ethiopia. so we -- we got them, explaining what it was all about, and the governors who had been fighting with each other, been fighting

with hailemariam. all pray together, and we joined in prayer with 18 members of the u.s. house of representatives. we were joined with them by phone. the prime minister and all of us, never the -- members of the senate and others who were there, we all rejoiced and embraced each other. that's really significant. the nine governors had never been together before. they didn't like each other. they had never been in the same room before. most of the people didn't live in cities, and that made this effort that much more difficult. the vast majority of people who live there are in rural communities, and that made this widespread change in development a longer and more difficult path. in ethiopia, the tribal faction also played a great rule. if you go from province to province, that used to be from tribe to tribe.

they historically have not gotten along until this time, so it made it more difficult because the factions and all of that, but it worked. we unified them together, and that was unlike anything that has ever happened. one of the governors who was there at that time was named dr. you might remember that name because he was now the prime minister of ethiopia. and i have often said that dr. abiy is arguably the most educated, the smartest guy that i have seen in that position in the entire continent of africa. he was -- he was just a tremendous person. we got them together, and at a leader's breakfast, we put something together where he told the story of his journey in faith in jesus. this is dr. abiy. we met a year later where we prayed and talked about how

the -- to unify the country in peace, not conflict. it is from these meetings that i know abiy is committed to democracy, committed to the future of ethiopia. he's showing that with his actions as well, abiy was elected prime minister in 2018 after active and spirited protests against the existing ruling party, the ethiopian people's revolutionary democratic front which had run the country for almost 30 years. abiy was elected by a country looking for fresh leadership. he immediately took steps to create positive change. he promised unity and reconciliation, and against all odds, he delivered. he passed liberal democratic reforms. he freed political prisoners and journalists. abiy even did what was once

believed impossible. he negotiated a peace treaty with eritrea after decades of a long cold war and was recognized with a nobel peace prize for his work. he was the recipient of a nobel peace prize for all the wonderful work that he had done. that was in africa. it was a leading operation. so how does all of this play into the situation before us today? the ethiopia -- the ethiopian people's democratic front, the previous ruling party is dominated by people from the area up north we talked about before, one of the regional provinces. when abiy set up a new governing body and focused on governing for the whole ethiopia and not just a few politically powerful regions, the tplf wasn't happy. that's the terrorist group. they felt like they were losing

the outsized influence that they had held for decades and decades. they also weren't happy about the peace deal, the tplf were ruling ethiopia in the 1990's when the bitter eritrea ethiopia conflict was going o. decades later they still feel aggrieved and didn't want peace. the result? they started acting out. in 2019 they started to refuse to participate in the new government and the new ruling party. they expressed their frustration in more overt and destabilizing ways. they held their own regional parliamentary elections in september during the height of the corona pandemic instead of agreeing with the other provinces and the prime minister that they should be postponed

because of the pandemic. the militia affiliated with the tplf -- that's the terrorist group -- that has been designated by the ethiopian parliament as a terrorist group attacked an ethiopian army base near makella on november 4 and stole weapons there. let me restate this plainly. a regional party, tplf, attacked a government military base. the government rightfully responded and the regional terrorist group is well equipped and has been fighting back and continue the conflict for a long period of time now. that's what's going on right now. that's the situation we find ourselves in. that is why it is astounding to me that our government continues to treat this situation with both sides being equal when clearly they are not. one side is the democratically

elected government and the other side is a disgruntled faction that is reacting with violence because they are no longer in power. it's a terrorist group. and again, the ethiopian government has been clear that they do not condone any of the reported atrocities, and they will hold anyone who commits atrocities accountable. we, the united states, need to continue to engage ethiopia and try to understand how -- what -- how what we're seeing today is a product years in the making. it's not a simple matter of two aggrieved parties. it is t prime minister abiy working to protect a unified peaceful, stable ethiopia. we should be talking to him about how we can help him restore peace, not slapping sanctions on his government, an

action that does nothing but demonstrate that we can't or won't appreciate the history and the regional differences that lead to this situation. and i want to close by speaking to prime minister abiy and our friends in ethiopia directly. brother, i'm with you. those of us who understand the history of what you are facing and you're working to support, we are with you, prime minister abiy. with that i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: