Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, July 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Kim nomination; further, that the cloture motion on the Kim nomination ripen at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, unfortunately, rates of suicide have risen to epidemic levels in the United States, with suicide now the tenth leading cause of death in the country. On average, there are 129 suicides every day, roughly one every eleven minutes, a staggering statistic. That is why I am pleased to be introducing the Suicide Prevention Lifeline Improvement Act with Senator Moran to help turn the tide on this increasingly dire situation.

This legislation would provide $568 million in new funding over five years for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, delivering an infusion of new funds to help improve call capacity, make improvements to the Lifeline, and make the switch to a new, easy-to-remember, three- digit number, 9-8-8. The Lifeline has long been underfunded, but we have worked on a bipartisan basis to more than double the funding over the last three years. However, much more is needed, and this new legislation will help build on these efforts to ensure that the Lifeline is able to answer the calls of those seeking help.

In 2019, 47,500 Americans lost their lives to suicide. That same year, there were 1.4 million suicide attempts. We must renew our efforts on suicide prevention. In 2004, working with my colleague, former Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, we authored the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. This law authorized new youth suicide prevention programs in honor of Senator's Smith son, who tragically died by suicide just a couple of weeks short of his 22nd birthday. For over a decade, these programs have funded college campus, state, and tribal efforts to prevent suicide among our youth and young adult populations, who are particularly at risk of suicide. During this time, youth suicide rates have decreased significantly in my home state of Rhode Island. However, nationwide, suicide rates have skyrocketed.

That is why we must renew our attention and focus on suicide prevention, including by increasing funding for, and improving access to, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. This effort is critical to ensuring that when people in crisis call looking for help, someone will be there on the

other end of the line to offer hope and counseling. Last Congress, I was able to work with my former colleague Senator Gardner, and Senators Baldwin and Moran on legislation to designate the Lifeline as an easy to remember, three-digit number, 988. This common-sense law will make it easier for people across the country to access the Lifeline when they really need it. I am glad that the bill was signed into law last year, paving the way for every state to implement the switch to 9-8-8 by July 2022. This upcoming deadline, however, makes it all the more important that we provide more funding for the Lifeline.

I am pleased to once again have the opportunity to partner with Senator Moran on suicide prevention efforts. I look forward to working together with our colleagues, as well as stakeholders supporting these efforts, to pass this critical legislation.

Mr. President, unfortunately, rates of suicide have risen to epidemic levels in the United States, with suicide now the tenth leading cause of death in the country. On average, there are 129 suicides every day, roughly one every eleven minutes, a staggering statistic. That is why I am pleased to be introducing the Suicide Prevention Lifeline Improvement Act with Senator Moran to help turn the tide on this increasingly dire situation.

This legislation would provide $568 million in new funding over five years for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, delivering an infusion of new funds to help improve call capacity, make improvements to the Lifeline, and make the switch to a new, easy-to-remember, three- digit number, 9-8-8. The Lifeline has long been underfunded, but we have worked on a bipartisan basis to more than double the funding over the last three years. However, much more is needed, and this new legislation will help build on these efforts to ensure that the Lifeline is able to answer the calls of those seeking help.

In 2019, 47,500 Americans lost their lives to suicide. That same year, there were 1.4 million suicide attempts. We must renew our efforts on suicide prevention. In 2004, working with my colleague, former Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, we authored the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. This law authorized new youth suicide prevention programs in honor of Senator's Smith son, who tragically died by suicide just a couple of weeks short of his 22nd birthday. For over a decade, these programs have funded college campus, state, and tribal efforts to prevent suicide among our youth and young adult populations, who are particularly at risk of suicide. During this time, youth suicide rates have decreased significantly in my home state of Rhode Island. However, nationwide, suicide rates have skyrocketed.

That is why we must renew our attention and focus on suicide prevention, including by increasing funding for, and improving access to, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. This effort is critical to ensuring that when people in crisis call looking for help, someone will be there on the

other end of the line to offer hope and counseling. Last Congress, I was able to work with my former colleague Senator Gardner, and Senators Baldwin and Moran on legislation to designate the Lifeline as an easy to remember, three-digit number, 988. This common-sense law will make it easier for people across the country to access the Lifeline when they really need it. I am glad that the bill was signed into law last year, paving the way for every state to implement the switch to 9-8-8 by July 2022. This upcoming deadline, however, makes it all the more important that we provide more funding for the Lifeline.

I am pleased to once again have the opportunity to partner with Senator Moran on suicide prevention efforts. I look forward to working together with our colleagues, as well as stakeholders supporting these efforts, to pass this critical legislation.

I object, Madam President.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, today I am joining Senator Collins in introducing the Green Retrofits Act of 2021, which seeks to boost energy efficiency in multifamily residential homes across the Nation.

The legislation would accomplish this goal through two complimentary paths. First, the bill would authorize a public-private partnership program to make energy efficiency upgrades to properties currently receiving assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Second, it would direct the Secretary of HUD to create a program to distribute grants and loans for energy efficiency and home health upgrades in multifamily homes.

One of the most important investments we can make for our environment and our economy is in energy efficiency. Indeed, building a cleaner, more efficient energy system will increase America's global competitiveness, support job growth, and save families and businesses money through reduced energy consumption--all while reducing our carbon footprint. Further, investments in efficiency can be undertaken quickly and provide immediate benefits.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Association, more than half of energy consumption in U.S. households is for two basic needs: heating and cooling. As our constituents in Maine and Rhode Island know all too well, these bills can get quite high during New England winters, and no one should be forced to choose between staying warm in the winter and buying groceries and medicine for their families. Improving the efficiency of building components such as heating, cooling, and lighting systems will help households lower their energy bills, reduce health and safety risks, and improve the quality of life for residents.

Our legislation is supported nationally by the National Center for Healthy Housing, and in my state by the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources and Rhode Island Housing. These state agencies have both made significant strides in clean energy and energy efficiency policy and I am glad this legislation will provide more resources to bolster those efforts.

With our economy still recovering from the pandemic, and the threat of climate change continuing to mount, it is more important than ever that we take steps to reduce costs for American families and decrease energy consumption.

I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, today I am joining Senator Collins in introducing the Green Retrofits Act of 2021, which seeks to boost energy efficiency in multifamily residential homes across the Nation.

The legislation would accomplish this goal through two complimentary paths. First, the bill would authorize a public-private partnership program to make energy efficiency upgrades to properties currently receiving assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Second, it would direct the Secretary of HUD to create a program to distribute grants and loans for energy efficiency and home health upgrades in multifamily homes.

One of the most important investments we can make for our environment and our economy is in energy efficiency. Indeed, building a cleaner, more efficient energy system will increase America's global competitiveness, support job growth, and save families and businesses money through reduced energy consumption--all while reducing our carbon footprint. Further, investments in efficiency can be undertaken quickly and provide immediate benefits.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Association, more than half of energy consumption in U.S. households is for two basic needs: heating and cooling. As our constituents in Maine and Rhode Island know all too well, these bills can get quite high during New England winters, and no one should be forced to choose between staying warm in the winter and buying groceries and medicine for their families. Improving the efficiency of building components such as heating, cooling, and lighting systems will help households lower their energy bills, reduce health and safety risks, and improve the quality of life for residents.

Our legislation is supported nationally by the National Center for Healthy Housing, and in my state by the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources and Rhode Island Housing. These state agencies have both made significant strides in clean energy and energy efficiency policy and I am glad this legislation will provide more resources to bolster those efforts.

With our economy still recovering from the pandemic, and the threat of climate change continuing to mount, it is more important than ever that we take steps to reduce costs for American families and decrease energy consumption.

I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object to the Senator's request for the reasons that I have previously stated.

As the Senator from New York acknowledged, on July 2, President Biden announced that he ``strongly supports'' the recommendations put forth by Secretary Austin based on the work of the Independent Review Commission that would reform how the military prosecutes sexual assault-related crimes. Subsequent to the President's statement, the administration forwarded to the committee their legislative proposals to implement this reform.

I support and commend the President, the Secretary, and the IRC leadership and staff for their work, and I look forward to working with them and the administration and my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, to enact this historic and momentous change to the Department of Defense.

Sexual assault is an unconscionable crime and a pervasive problem in the military and in American society. While the military has taken steps to try to stop sexual assault in the ranks, it simply hasn't been enough. I strongly agree with the President's statement that ``sexual assault in the military is doubly damaging because it also shreds the unity and cohesion that is essential for the functioning of the U.S. military and to our national defense.''

While this change will be important, enhancing prevention, education, and command climate and culture will also be vital. If this reform to the UCMJ is the only thing we do, then I think that it will not be successful on its own. We need to prevent these crimes, not simply prosecute them.

I understand that my colleague from New York, Senator Gillibrand, disagrees with the proposed scope of this reform. Nevertheless, I want to acknowledge her leadership on this issue. She has fought for 8 years for this reform, and that day, with respect to sexual assault, is coming. Indeed, just as a footnote, the legislation that is being advanced would include every crime incident to a sexual assault, so that if a

victim is subject not just simply to sexual assault but to other crimes in that incident, all those crimes are to be tried together. So the need to import crimes like murder and arson and other nonsexual related crimes is, in my view, not going to accomplish the goals that I think this Senate has been focused on, particularly over the last 6 months or so.

I intend to include the administration's proposals in next week's markup at the annual Defense bill, subject to amendment. I think that is important to know--subject to amendment, that the UC as proposed would not allow amendments. It would not allow colleagues on the floor to come up and say: I have a better idea. We will do that in the committee, as we have always done it in the committee or at least tried to do it in the committee.

I look forward to working with Senator Gillibrand and my other colleagues in the committee as we consider, debate, and vote on this and other proposals, but I still must reiterate my objection to the unanimous consent request.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me commend the stirring and thought- provoking words of my colleague from Maine, Senator King, about our responsibility with respect to those who aided and assisted us in Afghanistan and the status of this Special Immigrant Visa Program.

I think we have to begin with the decision to leave, which puts these individuals at risk. In many respects, President Biden's hands were tied from the outset with regard to our policy in Afghanistan. He inherited a flawed agreement from the Trump administration, which required the United States to withdraw all military forces by May 1 in exchange for the Taliban's agreement not to attack the U.S. and coalition forces and to constrain al-Qaida from using Afghanistan as a safe haven.

It does not appear that the Taliban has observed many of the conditions of this agreement, but we have observed the condition of leaving promptly. The President originally set a date of September 11, but military personnel have been able to rapidly redeploy, and within weeks, we should be moving all of our military personnel.

The manner in which this agreement was reached was also deeply flawed. It was negotiated exclusively between the Trump administration and the Taliban, keeping our allies, even the Afghan Government, out. President Trump's go-it-alone, rush-to-the-exits mentality led to a deal where the Taliban emerged as the key benefactor while the United States and our allies won very little. And while the Taliban has held the condition of not attacking the United States or its allies, as I indicated before, the remaining conditions were virtually unenforceable. By any measure, the Taliban has clearly violated the spirit of the agreement as overall violence inside Afghanistan has steadily increased over the last year. The Taliban has also not made clear that it will constrain al-Qaida as required by the agreement.

During this transition period, the Taliban has gained enormous momentum on the battlefield. As the Washington Post recently reported, Taliban commanders, motivated by their battlefield gains, have ``overrun a number of Afghan bases, even as U.S. air support for the Afghan army has dwindled, and set up numerous checkpoints along the main highways leading in and out of Kabul.''

At least 24 Afghan commandos and police officers were killed in an ambush by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan just last week.

It appears that the Taliban's tactics will only continue to intensify as the transition of U.S. and coalition personnel continues, especially as our airstrikes decline. According to the New York Times, there have been multiple instances where the Taliban, taking advantage of the situation, has been able to negotiate the surrenders of Afghan forces. By their count, since May 1, at least 26 outposts and bases have surrendered after such negotiations.

Violence has increased against the civilian population as well, including a horrific attack against a school outside of Kabul, chillingly timed to target teenage girls leaving class.

The Taliban's steady gains are contrasted with peace talks in Doha that appear to be going at a glacial pace. With these dynamics, the Taliban has no strategic interest to sit down and discuss power sharing. The government of Afghanistan appears to hold a much weaker hand in these negotiations, having proven unable to govern in a way that earns the confidence of the people.

These concerning political and security developments are playing out against the backdrop of regional players that should have high incentives to cooperate to ensure stability and security of Afghanistan. However, nations like Iran, Russia, and China may in fact be working at cross-purposes to the U.S. interests, and others, such as Pakistan, could be using their influence in a much more constructive manner than they are today.

Taken together, these dynamics create a highly challenging landscape. If not addressed deliberately, they could cause a cascade of instability both inside Afghanistan and across the region. To mitigate such an outcome, we must exercise caution and plan prudently.

And again, echoing the comments of Senator King, this brings me to one of the most immediate and pressing consequences of the situation. How do we help those whose lives were put on the line because they assisted the United States?

There are many press reports of the Taliban threatening Afghan civilians who helped us. USA Today profiled one Afghan interpreter who explained: ``If the U.S. forces leave Afghanistan . . . I cannot guarantee for one minute what's going to happen with me, with my family.''

These threats cannot be ignored. We must demonstrate that we have the capacity to protect those who have a target on their backs because of their association with the United States. More than that, we must ensure that we continue to secure the irreplaceable assistance of the people who willingly risk their lives to help the United States the next time our servicemembers are in a conflict in a distant land. If we set the example of leaving those who assisted us behind, who will assist us in the future?

Currently, the processing of Afghan candidates through Special Immigration Visas or SIVs, which the State Department says is the primary focus, may prove too little, too late. While

the backlog of candidates is 18,000 today, it is unclear how many potential SIV candidates will feel compelled to apply as conditions change on the ground. Processing applications has been further complicated by a long vetting process, declining security conditions, and a recent spike in COVID cases across Afghanistan, which has forced the Embassy to shut down visa interviews. In order to handle the demand, we must add at least 20,000 additional visas for the next fiscal year and do so immediately and find other ways to further streamline the process, as Senator King described.

We may also come to find that the SIV category does not encompass all those Afghans who would likely be targeted by the Taliban. We should be identifying others who may be at risk and start planning to ensure the safety of those who would seek asylum as a consequence of a potential Taliban takeover or if control of the country fractures.

Now is the time to think about creative solutions and, importantly, understand what will be necessary to ensure that we live up to our moral obligations. I know full well that the United States is capable of this. We have been publicly assured by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, and Commander of Central Command, General McKenzie, that the military can carry out such an evacuation, if directed to do so. We have successfully conducted evacuations of refugee populations in the past, including a significant number of Vietnamese refugees in 1975, Iraqi Kurds in 1996, and Kosovo Albanians in 1999. It is imperative that we deliver upon our promises now.

Providing safe harbor for these Afghans who are most vulnerable is front of mind, but we must also ensure that there is a farsighted planning process across the board to ensure success following the transition of our military forces. And I would like to quickly highlight several key questions.

First, can the United States and its allies and partners continue to constrain the threat from terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS that would seek to use Afghanistan as a base for operations?

The Biden administration has discussed its intent to conduct over- the-horizon operations, but we need to ensure that we have accounted for this complexity and are postured for success.

Second, how will the United States continue to distribute and oversee aid to the Afghan Government and Afghan security forces? The Afghan Government remains unable to generate enough revenue to independently fund its military operations, instead relying almost solely on foreign contributions.

We must have robust mechanisms in place to ensure the aid is provided and goes to the intended places.

Third, how can the international community assist the Afghan security forces with maintaining readiness, particularly air power--after all international contractors depart the country? Again, that is another term of the Doha agreement. After 20 years, we have not created a cadre of individuals inside Afghanistan who can independently conduct high- level maintenance on its aircraft, which raises serious questions about how the Afghans can continue air operations without international contracting support.

Fourth, does the international community have real leverage to affect Taliban behavior through political and diplomatic channels? Now is the time to understand what levers are available to mitigate a potentially disastrous situation for the people of Afghanistan, and particularly that of women and girls.

Fifth, will NGOs be able to continue activities to benefit the people of Afghanistan? There appears to be a lack of coordination, including by the Department of Defense, to ensure deconfliction methods are appropriately transitioned to the Afghan Government, which puts humanitarians at risk and could delay the delivery of lifesaving assistance to populations living in hard-to-reach areas.

The time to address these challenges is now. I urge the Biden administration to continue to work through these pressing issues, and I call upon Congress to assist where we can. The consequences of inaction are too great to risk. We must rapidly increase the number of SIV visas, and we must, along with the administration, plan for all the contingencies that I have outlined.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, once again, I object to the Senator's request for reasons I have previously stated. But in addition, on Tuesday night, Secretary of Defense Austin released a statement stating that he had received the Independent Review Commission's recommendations and that the administration will work with Congress to remove the prosecution of sexual assault and related crimes from the military chain of command, a recommendation I agree with. I made that clear for weeks now.

And this statement makes it clear that the argument before us is not about removing sexual assault or crimes connected to sexual misconduct from the chain of command. The argument is about removing felonies like barracks larceny, destruction of government property of a significant value, and crimes that have been handled by the military chain of command effectively for years and years and years.

In addition, Secretary Austin notably praised the comprehensive nature of the IRC's assessment across all four lines of effort, not just military justice reforms, but, as importantly, prevention, climate and culture, and victim care.

The necessity to approach this issue in a holistic and comprehensive manner is vitally important if we want to actually reduce the incidence of sexual assault in the ranks. We would be naive to believe we can simply prosecute ourselves out of this problem. That isn't how this will work.

Accountability is important, but it must be part of a larger reform, and I hope we can all agree that it is far preferable to prevent a sexual assault than simply to prosecute one.

Finally, I want to highlight Secretary Austin's statement that the Department will need new resources and authorities to implement these recommendations. It must work with Congress to secure additional authorities and relief where needed, as well as additional personnel, funding, and sufficient time to implement them.

And so, as I have said a number of times already, I intend to include the administration's recommendations that derive from the President's Independent Review Commission in the markup of the defense bill, subject to amendment.

Colleagues who have dedicated themselves for many years to issues of national defense and are knowledgeable of the UCMJ will have an opportunity to make amendments, to make suggestions, to debate this bill in detail, and then the result will be reported to the floor of the Senate, and all Senators will have such an opportunity. That is what we have done traditionally, particularly when it comes to significant changes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And with that, I would reiterate my objection to the Senator from New York's request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brittany Fifer, a Coast Guard fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. President, I would also ask unanimous consent that Savannah Johnston, an American Political Science Association fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor until we recess in August.

Madam President.

Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague from New York for her work to move this issue forward. But once again, I would object to the request for the reasons I have previously stated.

In addition, today the ranking member of the committee, Senator Inhofe, released the written views of each member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which he had requested on Senator Gillibrand's proposed legislation.

I understand that some in our body might discount these views of senior military leadership, and that is their prerogative. But I do believe it is important that their voices be part of the public discourse. They have dedicated their lives to the service of this Nation. They have led troops in combat. They have experienced all of the issues that face commanders and face subordinates. They have a unique, I think, position within the system. In addition, the military will have to implement whatever system Congress devises, and it will require their expertise and skill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Senator Inhofe

Madam President, I won't quote from this letter at length now, but I would just point out that the Chiefs are open-minded about changing the way we prosecute sexual assault and harassment within the ranks. So am I. In fact, I think that is something that I hope becomes clear in our progress legislatively moving forward. But they nevertheless stress the importance of ensuring that any change Congress enacts must be carefully tailored to address the problems we are trying to solve, and the critical problem we are trying to solve is sexual assault, sexual harassment, any kind of crime dealing with sexual misconduct.

In addition, adequate time and resources must be afforded for implementing any of the changes that we propose. The nature and the magnitude of change we are contemplating here is complex; we have to make sure we do this right.

Further, we have heard over the past few years from the leadership of the military service Judge Advocate Generals' Corps, who have uniformly opposed these changes in nature and scope. These are the military lawyers, the very military justice experts to whom this bill would invest authority currently reserved to commanders. I believe we should listen to them as well and move prudently and deliberately to address the problem at hand.

So, as I have said a number of times already, I intend to include the administration's recommendations that derive from the President's Independent Review Commission in the markup of the Defense bill, subject to amendment, not to move the bill on the floor without the chance for my colleagues in the committee to have their voices heard. These ladies and gentlemen have dedicated themselves to military policy for many years. They are experts in different dimensions of this issue, and they will add significantly to the debate.

To simply take a bill and send to it the floor without amendments I think is not the way to proceed. I anticipate a bill that will be strengthened through debate and discussion and deliberation by the committee.

With that, I would reiterate my objection to Senator Gillibrand's request.