 The senator from Iowa To the supreme leader in Iran all of them are watching to see what the United States how it responds When our friends and our allies become victims of authoritarian aggression Will we brush these conflicts aside as mean meaningless regional quarrels? Or will we lock arms with our friends and allies and commit to defeating evil in all its forms? I'm glad that the overwhelming consensus in Congress is that the only Possible option is to respond with strength Last week the House of Representatives passed to build a strength in America support for Israel while cutting wasteful government spending That legislation provided 14.3 billion dollars in aid to Israel and I'm disappointed that President Biden First thing out of the chute threatened to veto the bill and senator Schumer went so far as to call it a joke $14.3 billion for Israel while it's under a perhaps an existential threat By Iran and its proxies and the majority leader of the United States Senate calls that 14.3 billion dollars a joke. I don't think there's anything funny About the strong desire that most of us have to support our ally While protecting the long-term financial health of our country The nation's debt has skyrocketed over the last few years and now exceeds 33.6 trillion dollars The interest on that debt alone will cost Americans taxpayers more than 677 billion this year alone Increasingly we are seeing The amount of money we have to pay to the bondholders that own our debt Creep up to approach the amount of spending we we provide for the Department of Defense And we know this is going to get worse and worse Until it gets better Congress simply cannot continue to spend and spend with no regard to the consequences. I Know years ago Admiral Mullen who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Said something that I at the time I found a little odd. He said our greatest national security threat is our national debt but as we've come to see those are wise words because as the Interest we have to pay to those who own our debt Continues to grow with the size of that debt that means less and less money is available for priorities here at home and for priorities to help prevent wars and aggression around the world so Nowhere is this more apparent now than with the six hundred and seventy seven Billion dollars that we're paying not for some Program that we can agree is all important here at home or provide border security or to help arm Ukrainians in their fight for survival against the Russian invasion that money is gone to the bondholders the people who own that debt and We just cannot continue down that path without further endangering as Admiral Mullen wisely said years ago This has created a national security threat that we cannot ignore as well So we have an obligation To make tough decisions to right the ship and this is as good an opportunity as any to start making progress So despite the majority of the leader leader's current refusal to allow a vote on the house bill That's his current position one. I hope will change The fact remains we do need to take action The Senate must find a path forward to strengthen our support for Israel and Ukraine While making meaningful steps to address the out-of-control crisis at our southern border Senate Republicans are discussing ways to do this in a thorough and thoughtful manner and I expect that to be Remain a focus of our work for the next couple of weeks This is an important and long overdue debate But it cannot distract from our other fundamental responsibilities to support our nation's security We have other long-standing tasks that need to be completed starting with the National Defense Authorization Act That bill passed the Senate in July with an overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 86 to 11 This year's defense bill helps replenish our defense stockpiles something that we have been exposed or Inadequacy of our defense industrial base and our ability to replenish Those stockpiles is very much in question and needs to be addressed this year's National Defense Authorization Act does that It also supports modernization efforts across the board from the nuclear triad to next generation weapons And it will help us regain a credible military deterrent by investing in modernized aircraft weapons and facilities These were the important goals when the National Defense Authorization Bill passed the Senate three months ago, and they're even more critical now Despite the fact that the Senate and the House each passed a version of the NDAA as it's called We've yet to formally begin the conference process where those differences can be worked out and Where that bill can be signed into law This legislation should have reached the president's desk earlier But we're now a month past the due date and watching a new war unfold in the Middle East So it's absolutely critical that we get the NDAA conference process moving as soon as possible As the Senate and the House prepare to iron out the differences between the two bills There are two items in particular that I've been fighting to include one is called outbound investment Transparency which was included in the Senate bill, but not the House bill Senator Casey from Pennsylvania and I Offered our bipartisan bill as an amendment to the defense authorization bill here in the Senate And it was adopted by a vote of 91 to 6 The reason this measure receives such strong bipartisan support Is because it provides much needed visibility into a looming national security threat we know that American investors have been sending capital intellectual property and some of our Cutting-edge innovation to China by investing in that country But unfortunately as we've learned the Chinese Communist Party which controls that country Basically is using that investment from American investors to fuel its economic and military rise at the end of 2020 US investments in Chinese companies total 2.3 trillion dollars in market value Includes 21 billion dollars in semiconductors 21 billion dollars in artificial intelligence. Those are Enterprises that are being funded by US investment in China Which is now turning out to be our near-peer competitor and a threat to stability not only in Asia, but worldwide Intentionally or not American companies are investing in products and capabilities that one day could be turned against us a Recent investigation by Newsweek Covered another grave cause for concern Private US entities aren't the only ones fueling China's rise Taxpayer-funded research is being exploited by the Chinese Communist Party The scientists who is now at the forefront of China's artificial intelligence development Received at least a hundred million dollars in federal grants US federal government grants through the Pentagon and the National Science Foundation He received this amount of funding from American taxpayers as he built up a parallel research system in China The United States simply stated cannot continue to bankroll China's economic and military rise And that's why this outbound investment transparency Provision that senator Casey and I have authored and which is included in the Senate version of the NDAA is so important This legislation requires US companies to notify the Department of Treasury of certain investments in China and other countries of concern This is a targeted measure It only applies to sensitive technologies like semiconductors artificial intelligence Hypersonics and other capabilities that could ultimately be used against the United States and It to be clear this is not stop investments from happening or interfere with the free market. It is strictly about Transparency, it's about visibility It will help us as policy makers see and understand the threats from China and other countries of concern so we can respond accordingly I don't care how much American investors want to build a Burger King or Starbucks in China But I do care if they are investing in cutting-edge technology It is going to be used to compete against the United States either economically or militarily The second provision I'm fighting to include is an extension of something called Lynn Lee Peace authority which expired at the end of september This provision was created by legislation. I introduced with senator cardin from maryland Which is modeled after a similar Similarly named program in world war two But this is called the ukraine democracy defense. Lynn lisak and it was signed into law in may of last year It was rooted in the same principle as the world war two provision Which allowed the united states to supply great britain and other allies with military resources during world war two President roosevelt at the time vowed to transform the united states Into the arsenal of democracy as he called it and the lin lisak is how he did it As I said senator cardin and I introduced this bipartisan legislation to remove some of the big bureaucratic hurdles That prevent us or slow us down from providing ukrainian forces with the weapons. They need when they need them Given the level of aid being provided by congress for ukraine the biden administration hasn't explicitly Use that authority granted under that bill But it doesn't mean it's not needed now ukraine is committed to doing what it needs to do to defeat This invasion by russia But it will need additional assistance from the united states and our other allies In order to succeed We all know that ukraine's arsenal is shrinking And it's asked the united states and other democracies around the world for additional aid But the path forward as we all know Is extremely muddy There's broad bipartisan support for the fact that america should support ukraine, but there's growing concern over the cost Of that assistance And that's why this legislation is so important Lin lease is not a blank check It gives the administration the option to lease or rent Defense articles to crane just like we did great britain in world war two This legislation will allow us to answer ukraine's call to provide more of what they need And ensure it's done in a fiscally responsible way Over the last several months the us has provided ukraine with unprecedented defense aid Javelins stingers grenade launchers small arms tanks ammunition and much more These weapons have allowed the brave ukranians to punch above their weight Against the russian army, which was once thought to be the strong among the strongest in the world Additional american and allied assistance is vital to ukraine's ultimate success And we need to reauthorize the lin lease authority as part of the defense authorization act This provision was included also in the house's ndaa and i urge my colleagues in the senate To fight for its inclusion in the final version of the bill Madam president given the threats democracies are facing around the world There could not be a more important time to prioritize america's defense The national defense authorization act, which i believe has been signed into law for 60 plus years in a row Should have already been signed into law before the end of september Given the threats we face around the world. It's absolutely crucial that we finish the job as soon as possible madam president i Note that no other senator wishes to speak. So i asked uh note the absence of a quorum the clerk will call the roll his bald one Q&A back and forth with people that asked questions on how it would function This is one of the answers from the administration talking about what's happening currently at our border They said such a high rate of migration risks overwhelming the department's ability to effectively process detain and remove as appropriate the migrants encounters This puts an enormous strain on already strained resources Risk overcrowding and already crowded u.s border patrol stations and border and border ports of entry in ways that pose significant health and safety concerns and create a situation in which large numbers of migrants Only a small portion of whom are likely to be granted asylum are subject to extreme exploitation by the networks that support their movements north I'd be glad to have written that myself The administration sees the same thing that everyone else who looks at the border sees If you take an honest assessment of what's happening Our system is being exploded by cartels and people from around the world are answering ads that are on tick talk And messaging services saying i can get you into the united states if you pay me enough money That's why 45 000 people from india came last year Requesting asylum in the united states because it's easier to get in to pay the cartels than it is go through the legal process And we're incentivizing illegal activity And this body knows it For a nation of laws We should prioritize the law We should be open to legal immigration But we should be opposed to illegal immigration And what's happening to enrich deadly dangerous criminal cartels in northern mexico Again the administration In their public statement They've made this statement just a few months ago the current asylum system in which most migrants who are initially deemed legible to pursue their claims Ultimately are not granted asylum in the subsequent immigration court proceedings That's contributed to a growing backlog of cases awaiting review by asylum officers and immigration judges. What do they say? The system is broken because it's packed with people who do not actually qualify for asylum Coming in to flood the system and request asylum We all see the challenge now the question is are we going to do something about it? Republicans in the senate this past weekend released a very simple proposal to deal with what we all know are the problems Closing the loopholes in the law that have been exploited And yes, it deals with asylum and yes, it deals with withholding because those are the areas that are being exploited We see it the administration sees it. The question is do democrat senators see it. That's really the issue now Everyone else seems to see it and admit to it So what did we propose? We proposed some pretty straightforward things One is what's called safe third country transit These are individuals like I take the 45,000 people that came from india last year They fly through four or five countries including dangerous countries like france To be able to land here and to be able to then cross the border and to say I need to find asylum Almost everyone sees that as an exploitation And it's not just us There's almost no other country that does what we do This whole issue about picking and choosing where I want to request asylum is not how asylum really works You see asylum under international law most people in this body know it Asylum and refugee has the same definition in international law A refugee doesn't pick nine different countries and then pick the one that they want They flee to the next safe place. That's the same international rule for asylum If you were to request asylum right now in canada Cross the border into canada and request asylum. You know what the first question they would ask you? The first question they would ask you is did you just cross from the united states? If you answered yes, they would then say did you request asylum there and where you denied? If they say I didn't request asylum canada would turn you right back around and that's Not Just canada That's most of the eu if you went to austria, belgium, bulgaria, croatia the check republic to france to germany To hungary to ireland to luxembourg to the netherlands of slovakia slovenia to the uk if you went to any of those They would ask what country did you transit through before you got here And did you request in where you denied asylum before you came in? If you said I didn't request asylum in the places I translated from they would turn you around because that's not an unreasonable thing When you go through five other countries and then request asylum in the last one You're actually trying to immigrate to that country not requesting asylum under international law You're trying to pick the place and by the way, I don't blame them for picking america. It's the greatest country in the world But that's economic opportunity. That's not asylum So the question is can we incentivize those individuals to not try to run a loophole through our system? But to actually go through the legal process and request to come here is the legal immigrant We'd love to see people from all over the world as we always have coming to united states legally Just not exploiting the loophole in the asylum law. That's the wrong way to be able to do it The bill that republicans have proposed is also deals with streamlining the process Right now it could take up to 10 years just to get a hearing with an immigration judge Under a standard that most people know and the administration has admitted people won't qualify for asylum at the end Why is that? Because when you come across the border you encounter border patrol or cbp or an asylum officer They do an initial screening and the screening is far lower than the actual standard So you may qualify under the screening standard But everyone knows you're not going to actually qualify for the actual standard for asylum So there's Two simple things that can be done here one is make the screening standard equal to the actual standard To say we all know this is what you've got to achieve So screen for that. Is it reasonable? Is it even 51 chance that you're going to be able to get to that standard? If it is then you come in if you're not then you're screened out The second thing is we actually have three different screenings many people don't know this But we screen for asylum and then we separately screen for what's called withholding and then we separately screen for convention against torture Those three different screenings may be at three different times sometimes across a decade of time And everyone knows if you don't qualify for the first one You're not likely would not going to qualify for the other two either but you can request it And you can run that loophole And then you're in the united states and the cartels literally teach people exactly what to say In their last step so that they can exploit that loophole So let's actually have the screening standard at the same standard that you're going to have to get to And let's screen for all three of those things at the same time. That actually sounds like government efficiency I know we're not good at that as a nation But if we screen for all three of those things at the same time It allows somebody to get due process. We don't want someone not to get due process Someone who's a victim of torture. We want to make sure that they have the opportunity to be able to go through that process But why wouldn't we do all three of those at the same time rather than across 10 years of waiting for multiple different hearings? Republicans also propose something pretty simple right now. The law says that if you've committed a felony Then you're not eligible for asylum But the problem with that is there are some crimes that are not considered a felony at the earliest days And we're still allowing in let me give you a for instance What if you've had three duis? What if you're dealing meth What if you're in a gang and a member of a gang and they can show it What if you have a domestic violence conviction? If you have a domestic violence conviction, you can't own a firearm in america, but you could get asylum in america Where we literally invite people to be able to come in that we already know have domestic violence convictions So we're making it pretty simple. We're saying hey, listen, let's keep the standard where it is for a felony But let's actually prevent the loopholes. Why would we invite someone into the country that we know has had multiple dui convictions? Why would we do that? It's not safe for our streets Do any one of you want to sit down with a dad? And say your daughter was killed in a dui because we were loose on our asylum rules I would assume not I'm not asking for something extreme again. It's typical for many places around the world That this is how to be done. All we're trying to do is to be able to fix the loopholes and to be able to secure our nation This proposal that we put forward keeps families together And I know there's going to be an immediate thing about this is about separating families of the border Actually, no, it's very explicit That if families travel together families stay together For their hearing to be able to make sure that we're protecting that family, but we're also raising a simple question We all know we have all seen the stories and for those of us that have gone to the border We have seen with our own eyes Children traveling with adults that we're all parents and we can see clear enough. That's not really your child Where children are literally used as a free pass to be able to get into the country and to be able to expedite We'd like to be able to protect those children and make sure children are actually not used to be a free pass into the country There's a way to be able to prevent that and to be able to protect those families That are actually real families at the same time We do a couple of the things We also raised just a very simple statement about the border patrol Many people here may or may not know But the border patrol can't can't actually get over time if you're a certain level If you're other federal law enforcement, you do get over time But if you're border patrol, you're not so these guys may work a hundred hours in two weeks But for those additional hours, they're working They don't actually get overtime pay. That's not right So what happens is border patrol has a hard time with retention not because their job is incredibly difficult But because once they get to a certain level Their families encourage them and say why don't we do another federal law enforcement somewhere else Still say in federal law enforcement, but we can actually earn overtime pay at that point rather than actually be punished For staying in the border patrol and trying to be able to serve. Why don't we fix that? Why don't we fix some of the training issues that have come up? Why don't we actually try to respond to those things? Why don't we provide the opportunity for the by administration to be able to lay out a strategy for how to secure the border We're not writing it. Just give them the opportunity to be able to do it And here's one thing that's been interesting. I've already heard a push back from We have a section where we talk about the border wall What's interesting is what we've actually proposed is we actually fulfill the border wall portion that president biden has already said he's going to do We actually just want to put in writing so the president can't just say orally. I want to do this We have to actually put it in writing to be able to do it. That's a reasonable thing to be able to do Listen, we're not asking for crazy stuff We're asking what americans are asking for just secure the border. We want to be a nation That welcomes immigrants, but we also want to be a nation that honors the law We can do both That's what we're setting in front of this body to say when we're talking about the supplemental Let's actually talk about not just securing israel and securing ukraine and securing taiwan Let's also secure the united states of america That i yield the floor The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture cloture motion We the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate Do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 372 Monica m. Bertignoli of massachusetts to be director of the national institutes of health Signed by 17 senators By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived the question is Is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of monica m? Bertignoli of massachusetts to be the director of the national institutes of health shall be brought to a close The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule the clerk will call the roll Ms. Baldwin, mr. Barrasso, mr. Bennett. This is blackburn. Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Booker. Mr. Boseman Mr. Braun. Mrs. Britt Mr. Brown Mr. Bud. Ms. Butler Ms. Cantwell Mrs. Capito Mr. Carden Mr. Carper Mr. Casey Mr. Cassidy Ms. Collins Mr. Coons Mr. Corning Ms. Cortez Masto Mr. Cotton Mr. Kramer Mr. Crapo Mr. Cruz Mr. Danes Ms. Duckworth Mr. Durbin Ms. Ernst Mr. Fetterman Mrs. Fisher Mrs. Jill around Mr. Graham Mr. Grassley Mr. Haggerty Ms. Hassan Mr. Hawley Mr. Heinrich Mr. Hickenlooper Ms. Hirono Mr. Hoven Mrs. Hyde-Smith Mr. Johnson Mr. Kane Mr. Kelly Mr. Kennedy Mr. King Ms. Klobuchar Mr. Langford Mr. Lee Mr. Lujan Ms. Lummis Mr. Manchin Mr. Markey Mr. Marshall Mr. McConnell Mr. Menendez Mr. Merkley Mr. Moran Mr. Mullen Ms. Murkowski Mr. Murphy Mrs. Murray Mr. Ossoff Mr. Padilla Mr. Paul Mr. Peters Mr. Reed Mr. Ricketts Mr. Rich Mr. Romney Ms. Rosen Mr. Rounds Mr. Rubio Mr. Sanders Mr. Schatz Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schumer Mr. Scott of Florida Mr. Scott of South Carolina Mrs. Shaheen Ms. Sinema Ms. Smith Ms. Stabenow Mr. Sullivan Mr. Tester Mr. Thun Mr. Tillis Mr. Tuberville Mr. Van Hollen Mr. Vance Mr. Warner Mr. Warnock Ms. Warren Mr. Welch Mr. Whitehouse Mr. Wicker Mr. Wyden Mr. Young