Floor Statements

I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I love your booming voice.

I just want to come to the floor very quickly. I look forward to working with Chairman Wyden so we can forge even stronger economic ties between the United States and Taiwan. As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Democratic cochair of the Senate-Taiwan caucus, I can tell you that such efforts are deeply important to U.S. businesses and our economic and national security.

I reviewed the United States-Taiwan 21st Century Trade First Agreement Implementation Act. It reasserts important Congressional prerogatives with which I agree, and I appreciate Chairman Wyden's leadership in this regard.

I want to just add this point: If we truly want to help our businesses and if we are committed to taking our economic ties with Taiwan to the next level, we have to pass the Taiwan tax agreement.

Taiwan has made clear that they want a tax agreement with the United States, and U.S. businesses want a tax agreement with Taiwan, but there is a gap in the law that means there can be no agreement unless there is some new legislation. The Taiwan Tax Agreement Act eliminates this gap. It sets into motion an agreement with Taiwan that matches the substance of the commitments we have with our partners around the world, and it does so consistent with our Taiwan Relations Act.

I know that Chairman Wyden has also another aspect of this, and I look forward to working together so we can come to a mutually agreeable conclusion to achieve it.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, I rise to call upon the administration to take urgent action, as we did in 2012-2013, to pressure Rwanda to end its support for United Nations sanctioned M23 rebels and stop destabilizing eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, and to stress the need for DRC to hold credible, on-time elections in December 2023.

According to the final report by the U.N. Group of Experts for the DRC, Rwandan support for the M23 extends from the highest levels in Kigali, including the Minister of Defense, an alarming allegation. Rwandan troops now are fighting alongside the M23 inside DRC, and the Rwandan Government is providing the M23 with weapons, uniforms, and equipment. M23 has killed hundreds of Congolese civilians over the past year, including the November 29 massacre of more than 170 men, women, and children in the village of Kishishe. With Rwandan support, M23 downed a U.N. helicopter, killing U.N. peacekeepers, recruited child soldiers, and displaced more than 1 million Congolese in eastern DRC. Incidents of sexual violence targeting internally displaced persons are also skyrocketing. On June 13, Human Rights Watch reported that, ``Rwanda-backed M23 rebels in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo have committed unlawful killings, rape, and other apparent war crimes since late 2022.''

There is overwhelming evidence of Rwandan support for M23, and M23 has repeatedly failed to adhere to ceasefire agreements brokered by the East African Community. Despite this, the United States, the United Nations, and other members of the international community have been slow to respond. The last time Rwandan President Paul Kagame supported M23 rebels in eastern DRC, in 2012, the United States suspended Foreign Military Financing--FMF--for Rwanda, a decision that prompted several European donors to also suspend or redirect assistance away from Rwanda. The U.S. also imposed additional security assistance restrictions under the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, CSPA. President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Sherman, and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Carson all engaged directly with the leaders of DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda to end the conflict and pressure Kagame to cease his support for M23.

Our response to the current M23 crisis has been, by comparison, woefully inadequate. Although Secretary of State Blinken travelled to the region in August 2022 to discuss the instability in eastern DRC, the United States did not publicly call on President Kagame to end Rwanda's support for M23 until October 2022, months after the first U.N. Group of Experts report documented Rwanda's actions. We have not imposed any new sanctions on M23 leaders or Rwandan officials implicated in gross violations of human rights in eastern DRC, nor have we completely cut security assistance and military-to-military engagement to Rwanda. In fact, as recently as May of this year, Rwanda participated in the African Land Forces Summit sponsored by the U.S. Army Chief of Staff. In February 2023, the United States invited members of the Rwandan Defense Force to participate in a multinational exercise in Kenya called Justified Accord, where the U.S. reportedly provided Rwanda cyber capability training. The decision to provide cyber-related training to Rwanda is particularly difficult to comprehend in light of 2021 reports by Freedom House and Amnesty International. According to the Amnesty report, ``Rwanda used NSO Group's spyware to potentially target more than 3,500 activists, journalists and politicians.'' The Freedom House report states that ``Rwandans abroad experience digital threats, spyware attacks, family intimidation and harassment, mobility controls, physical intimidation, assault, detention, rendition, and assassination.'' The United States cannot continue to support Rwandan efforts to serve as peacekeepers in some parts of Africa while the very same Rwandan military is fomenting violence and instability next door in DRC.

In addition to disrupting the lives of more than 1 million people in eastern DRC, Rwanda's support for M23 is also undermining efforts to prepare for elections. The last elections were so poorly managed that the United States sanctioned the leadership of the National Independent Electoral Commission--CENI--a precedent that should serve as a warning to future electoral commissions across Africa. While CENI is under new leadership, procurement and management of the voter registry seem as opaque now as they were before. This is a problem. It is important for CENI to be transparent about its spending and its management of the voter registry. Contrary to its actions in 2018, the DRC should welcome international election observers and do everything it can to help, not hinder, domestic election observers.

Even if all of those shortcomings are addressed, violence in the east may disenfranchise voters by preventing them from registering to vote or casting a ballot on election day. Credible and

timely elections are crucial to the future stability of the DRC and in the interest of the United States, the region, and the international community. The U.S. and its partners must increase pressure on Rwanda to end its destabilization campaign and must encourage the CENI and the Congolese Government to do all they can to hold timely, credible elections in December 2023.

Although the situation is dire, it is not hopeless. There are steps that the United States can take. First, the State Department must complete a review of its Rwanda policy, which it committed to undertake in response to a letter I sent last July. As I also requested in July, the Department should continue suspending security assistance until Rwanda ceases support for the M23. This suspension should apply to security cooperation and exchanges with Rwanda at all levels. The U.S. should impose sanctions on Rwandan Government officials implicated-- either directly or indirectly--in human rights violations or corruption, to include the theft of minerals or other resources from eastern DRC.

And there are steps the Congolese must take. I encourage President Tshisekedi and DRC officials to do more to combat corruption in their country, particularly within the judiciary and the armed forces, and to lift the ``state of siege'' in eastern DRC. It is clear that conditions for civil society have improved under President Tshisekedi, but much more should be done to ensure that Congolese are able to criticize their government freely, particularly in eastern DRC. I am troubled by multiple reports that journalists have been arrested, including by national intelligence agency operatives, for reporting on what is happening in the east. There have also been disturbing reports that the DRC Government or individual DRC military officers are enlisting the support of rebel groups or militias to help combat M23. If these reports are true, it is incumbent upon President Tshisekedi to put an end to such efforts. Finally, I urge CENI and President Tshisekedi to ensure that international organizations are able to obtain accreditation and visas in a timely manner, so that they are able to support domestic election observation efforts without impediment.

The situation in eastern Congo is not going to fix itself. It requires a collective effort--from us, from our partners, from the U.N., and from the Congolese. I urge us all to act.

Mr. President, this year marks the 20th anniversary of diplomatic ties between the United States and Chile and 20 years since Congress approved a free-trade agreement between our two countries.

In April, I led a codel to Chile. I had a chance to meet with Chile's leaders and American businesses operating there. We were a bipartisan group. I went with Senator Kaine, Senator Hagerty, and Congressman Tony Cardenas.

We met with tech companies. We met with insurance companies. We met with mining companies--you name it. Do you know what every single one of them said to us? Do you know what they all wanted from the U.S. Senate? To approve the Chile tax treaty.

They said, if the United States doesn't ratify the treaty, they will continue to be at a huge disadvantage. The world is changing--we are undergoing an energy transition--and without this treaty, we are going to fall behind on critical minerals and manufacturing of the future.

And they are right. China already has a tax treaty with Chile. If the United States wants to level the playing field for American businesses and deepen our ties with Chile, we need to act.

Chile is one of our strongest democratic partners in the Americas, and the Chileans want us to ratify the treaty as well. We heard that message loud and clear when we spoke to the President and senior Members of Chile's Senate. We heard it from the Speaker of the Chilean Congress, and we heard it directly from President Gabriel Boric, a strong democratic leader who seeks closer ties with the United States.

We live in a world with increased global competition and in a contest between democracy versus

authoritarianism. The United States needs to be strategic about how we deepen our relationships with key democratic partners like Chile and President Boric. We must avoid unnecessary delays that undercut our competitiveness.

Remember, we signed this agreement in 2010--that was 13 years ago-- and this would be only our third bilateral tax treaty in all of Latin America. China is not waiting around. So, if we want to be competitive, we need to move forward with the same determination, and the Chile tax treaty is an incredible opportunity in that regard.

Chile is an important market for U.S. goods and manufacturing, including aircraft, vehicles, and machinery. Chile is a leading producer of copper, and Chile has the second largest lithium reserves in the world. This critical mineral is the building block for many modern technologies.

As global demands skyrocket in the coming years--by as much as nearly 4,000 percent--this tax treaty will make it easier for U.S. businesses to be competitive in this emerging sector.

U.S. businesses and their Chilean counterparts want predictability and consistency in tax treatment. As they continue to scale up operations and as the United States and Chile forge even stronger economic ties, they want to know that they won't be taxed twice on the same income in two different countries. That is why the Chile tax treaty has overwhelming support from the U.S. private sector.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has expressed its resounding support for the treaty. It has support from U.S. companies across a range of industries and sectors. And the treaty enjoys strong bipartisan support as is evidenced by the fact that it passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a nearly unanimous vote of 20 to 1.

By approving this treaty, we not only give the Senate's stamp of approval right now, but we have high hopes for where this treaty will take our two nations in the future.

While we are debating this tax treaty, I do want to take a minute to speak about how we engage on treaties more broadly. Treaties are a shared constitutional responsibility of the Senate and the executive branch. Nonetheless, as we worked last year to move the Chile tax treaty through the Senate, the Biden administration withdrew from our tax treaty with Hungary without consulting with the Senate or providing advance notice, let alone having approval. It is deeply disappointing that Presidents of both parties have advanced these types of unilateral actions and omissions in the past.

Let me be clear. Such actions are completely inconsistent with our constitutional structure. I have asked the President to commit, at a minimum, to meaningful consultations with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prior to terminating any treaty. Without such a commitment, I will work to address this issue in future resolutions of advice and consent, as well as in legislation, and I will continue to work to make sure the Senate protects our constitutional prerogative on treaties. Abiding by our Constitution--standing up for our democratic values and institutions--this is what binds us with close partners like Chile.

It was in 1823 that this very Senate confirmed our first diplomatic representative to Chile. This established, for the first time, official relations between our two young nations. We took that action then because our countries were determined that the rest of the world take us seriously as independent states.

Our shared values and ambitions have given us 200 fruitful years of working together--in science and technological innovation, on immigration visas and academic exchanges, and, yes, on the question of critical minerals and renewable energy, which this treaty will take to new heights.

This treaty will advance U.S. interests by building partnerships that will position our country, our economy, and our manufacturing sector for the future.

I appreciate the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. We had some issues originally. We worked together, and we came to a conclusion that is satisfactory to all. I urge my colleagues to vote to advance this treaty and to ultimately vote to provide advice and consent to its ratification.

With that, I yield the floor.

Vote on Veto Message

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to make my full statement prior to the vote.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to vote for cloture for Elizabeth Allen, the President's nominee for Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

When we think about Russia's illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine or China's coercive economic practices, we have to realize we are in competition with more than just conventional militaries or economic prowess. We are in a battle over what kind of world we want to live in. And we want to live in a world where people are free to speak their minds, free to start a business, free to worship as they choose and marry the person they love. These are

the fundamental freedoms that shape the United States and the values that drive our foreign policy.

When it comes to explaining American values and our foreign policy to the world, one of the best tools we have is our public diplomacy programs.

At a time when our adversaries are pouring billions of dollars into propaganda, targeted disinformation and misinformation campaigns--often about the United States--we need an empowered Bureau of Global Public Affairs to tell the truth about U.S. foreign policy. We need to highlight the millions of dollars Americans invest in public health, infrastructure projects, and humanitarian relief around the world.

We need programs like the International Leadership Visitor Program that exposes rising leaders from across the world to America's systems of governance and democracy, leaders who share our vision of a free and open world.

We need programs that bring foreign students to American universities, not only affirming the excellence of our higher education system but bringing billions of dollars into the U.S. economy.

I could go on.

Our public diplomacy tools are simply the best bang for our buck when it comes to making sure we expose people around the world to American values, culture, and the truth about our foreign policy efforts.

We need capable, qualified leadership at the Department of State to lead these efforts. That is why we must confirm Ms. Allen as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy without delay. As the current senior official for public diplomacy and public affairs at the Department of State, she has already advanced numerous objectives.

As a highly quality professional with a distinguished career and extensive experience in both public and private sectors, Ms. Allen is a nominee who will hit the ground running.

She began her career at the Department of State at the Office of Global Issues and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. She served with distinction in the Obama-Biden administration for 8 years, including as White House Deputy Communications Director and Deputy Assistant to the President.

As she talked about during her confirmation hearing, she comes from a family who knows what it means to serve the American people--the granddaughter of two veterans--two veterans--of World War II, the daughter of parents who value public service regardless of party.

Ms. Allen understands the importance of making institutional changes to better educate our diplomats and integrate public diplomacy tools into policymaking.

I urge this body to support cloture on Ms. Allen's nomination so we can get her confirmed without delay and spread the good word of American foreign policy throughout the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today in opposition to a cruel and misguided attack on millions of student loan borrowers in New Jersey and across the country. I understand that some of my colleagues are intent on overturning President Biden's signature policies no matter the cost or the consequence. But to overturn his landmark student debt relief program just to score political points, to force borrowers to pay back their loans with interest and stick it to the administration, well, that, to me, is just cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

How else can you describe a proposal that would strip away one of the most important economic lifelines borrowers have relied on? Other than cruel, what else can you call a resolution that rips away benefits for up to 43 million Americans who stand to benefit from President Biden's relief plan?

I remind my colleagues that the pause on student loan repayments has saved borrowers an average of over $233 per month, an amount that is particularly crucial for our Nation's teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters who rely on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

For a moment, I would like to focus on the impact this resolution has on them, because for these public service employees, $233 can mean the difference between making it to the end of the month or not. Make no mistake. Repealing this relief especially hurts public sector workers all across the country--the very people who go to work every day to care for us, protect us, educate our kids and keep us safe.

Is this body really trying to claw back benefits from thousands of everyday heroes in our communities? Is this really what my colleagues set out to do?

For years, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program has enjoyed bipartisan support because it is essential to the promise of America. After all, if you take out loans in support of an education for a career benefiting others, then you deserve to see your balance forgiven after 120 payments or 10 years, as outlined under the law.

For many individuals, the economic challenges of COVID and the reforms that occurred as a result were the first time that they were able to enjoy the program's benefits. This harmful proposal erases that progress and, once again, imposes the burden of debt on hard-working teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters. This proposal is a slap in the face to them and to their shot at the American dream--full stop.

It is a slap in the face for Public Service Loan Forgiveness borrowers and for the full universe of Americans who stand to benefit from student loan relief, which is why I encourage all of my colleagues to ask themselves: Is this vote--this misguided proposal--the kind of message you feel proud to send? When the history books are written about this moment in time, do you want to stand on the side of the 43 million Americans who have played by the rules and stand to benefit from long overdue student loan forgiveness, or do you want to stand on the side of those who punish hard-working Americans for trying to get ahead? That, to me, is the stark moral decision that is before this Chamber.

With your vote, you can choose to support the borrowers you represent by rejecting this plan, or you can blindside them, rolling back nearly 8 months of interest benefits they have earned and deserve.

In no uncertain terms, this resolution increases the yoke of student loan debt and sets up borrowers to fail. That is not something that I want to vote for, and it is not something that any Member of this Chamber should want to vote for. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.