Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was unavoidably absent on Tuesday, January 9, 2024, for rollcall vote No. 2. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation for John A. Kazen, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southen District of Texas, rollcall vote No. 2; PN1020.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this explanation reflects the status of negotiations and disposition of issues reached between the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a conference committee. I ask unanimous consent that the explanatory statement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 be printed into the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in joining a number of my colleagues to pay tribute to the legacy of Senator Dianne Feinstein. In the last couple of days since her unfortunate passing, much has been said about my friend Dianne. She was a trailblazer who helped pave the way for generations of women seeking public office. As the first female mayor of San Francisco, she was elected to the Senate in 1992, the so-called Year of the Woman, and she helped triple the number of female Senators from two to six. Think about that. That was just in 1992. Although we still have a long way to go as we march toward true representation in this body, today there are four times that many women sitting in this Chamber, and, as many of them have already noted from the floor, it is in part because of the legacy of Dianne Feinstein. Dianne was propelled into office because she believed in the power of public service to improve people's lives. It is why, having witnessed the devastating effect of gun violence firsthand--literally coming up on the murder of then-Supervisor Harvey Milk--she was such a champion of gun safety. Believing that weapons of war had no place on our streets, she authored and shepherded into law the assault weapons ban. Although I acknowledge that my own record on this issue has been somewhat complicated, I am convinced that this country would be far better and would be far safer if that assault weapons ban was restored today. In this and so many other ways, Senator Feinstein was long ahead of the curve. She was a lifelong champion of equality, civil rights, immigrants, and the gay community. She was proud to call herself an environmentalist long before that term was even used. Much has been said about her legacy on these issues, but as the current chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I want to call particular attention to her leadership on national security. Let me cite right now that I have been in pretty regular contact with my dear friend, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the former Senator from North Carolina, Richard Burr, who also wanted, through me, to express his condolences as well. Among her many firsts, Senator Feinstein was the first woman to chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. She served as chairman from 2009 to 2015 and vice chairman from 2015 to 2017. During her time as chair of the committee, the Senator led the drafting and subsequent enactment of six consecutive authorization bills following a 6-year span where we didn't do the IAA. These bills are crucial tools to exercise oversight of the U.S. intelligence community. They authorize funding for intelligence activities and add or amend legislation affecting the IC. But perhaps one of her greatest legacies was her unflinching investigation into the brutal detention and interrogation methods used by the CIA in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. As part of that report, which, I can tell you as a member of the committee at that point, without her persistence, her diligence, would not have gone through, as a part of that effort, the report that came out of her investigation into CIA methods was a report that--committee staff examined more than 6.3 million pages of records. They wrote a 6,700-page report, backed up by 38,000 footnotes, and eventually released a public, 500-page, declassified, executive summary detailing a host of brutal practices used against detainees, without--and this was hard for those of us who supported the IC--without yielding actionable intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks. In doing so--again, I was a witness to this--Chairman Feinstein went toe-to-toe with the CIA, went toe-to-toe with Presidents of two different parties and others who were determined to bury that part of the CIA's history. She made sure that we had a full reckoning. I joined the committee in 2011, 2 years into Dianne's tenure as chair. From her, I learned about both the intel, the necessity that this committee be independent, that it needs to be bipartisan, and that our role in oversight was critically important. In so many ways, I am proud of the fact that under Senator Burr and now under my tenure as leadership, we call ourselves the Senate Intelligence Committee--the most bipartisan, fully functioning committee not only in the Senate but in the whole Congress. On a personal note, I remember--and I have such greater appreciation for this now--when I was the new guy on the committee, I sat at the far end of the dais. My particular interests were in satellites and overhead. Whenever we had a hearing on the essential role that NGA, NRO, and other Agencies play, in terms of overseeing the oversight of our satellite imagery, and the fact that I felt we were sometimes investing way too much in legacy systems, Dianne would always let me go the extra minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes in terms of my questioning. That is a type of courtesy and understanding that I have tried to emulate in my role as chairman. Sometimes, at the end of a long hearing, if you are the guy or the gal at the end of the dais in your chair, you like things to be wrapped up fairly quickly. She was always courteous. She was always understanding. She allowed me the lane where I slowly developed some level of expertise. And I stand here today proud of my work on that committee. But I learned so much from her about how to operate--how to operate with integrity, how to operate in a bipartisan fashion, and with always the eye on the ball that the work that the men and the women of the intelligence community does is absolutely critical. But it is also equally critical for those of us in Congress who are entrusted with the oversight responsibility of that community that we do our job as well. Like so many of my colleagues, we have lost a mentor. I lost a friend, and the Senate has lost a giant. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, thank you for the courtesy of allowing me to speak again. I just spoke about Dianne Feinstein. Later today, the House is potentially acting on legislation. One of the things Dianne was always clear-eyed about was our national security threats and the challenges posed by autocratic nation-states like Russia. I implore my friends in the House--a House that just this week, by a vote of 330-plus, said they did not want to walk away from Ukraine, our commitment at this moment, our military support, our diplomatic support, our State Department support at this critical junction in this world. Well, in a crass, crass move, Republican House leadership is not only trying to remove all assistance for Ukraine but literally trying to prevent our Defense Department, our State Department, and other Agencies from transferring already-existing funds to those necessary areas that are going to be most in jeopardy if we walk away from Ukraine at this moment in time. I implore those who have said time and again that we need to stand up for Ukraine not to walk away at this moment in time. The truth is, what happens today, as European elections over the next few weeks with forces that are not in support of democracy's continued fight against the autocracy that Putin represents, the brutal dictatorship that Putin represents--they will be watching. I hope that we stand firm, as so many of us in this body alone, north of 85 Senators, have come to the floor at one point or another or in voting have said they want to stand with the people of Ukraine in their strong fight. We are going to have to address that question later today as we sort through these final hours before the imminent and totally avoidable shutdown happens at midnight tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to thank my good friend the Senator from Oklahoma, who is also a member of the Intelligence Committee, a subject of which I am going to speak to, and I appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to go first. Today, Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about someone who has been an essential part of the Senate community for many, many years. I am proud to note that earlier this week--as a matter of fact, on Tuesday evening--with the support from the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senate unanimously confirmed the nomination of Mike Casey to serve as Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. We know, at a time when the United States is facing tremendous foreign intelligence and security threats, it is important to have a Senate- confirmed leader as the head of the NCSC, which is charged with protecting against insider threats, supply chain risks, and other counterintelligence issues. The truth is, the position has been vacant since the end of the last administration. So, as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am glad that we will finally now have a Senate-confirmed leader in place to lead the efforts to protect against foreign threats, to protect U.S. critical infrastructure, to advance the counterintelligence and security mission, and--maybe most importantly--to be on constant call of the Senate Intelligence staff to make sure that efforts to reform security clearances is at the top of the agenda. But while I recognize that this is a great step for our country and our national security, it is a real loss to me personally, to members on both sides of the aisle on the Intelligence Committee, and to our staff, because we are losing Mike Casey, who has been the staff director for the last 8 years. And while he doesn't look Medicare- eligible, the truth is, he has been working up here for 28 years, starting in the House of Representatives and, eventually, joining the staff of the House Armed Services Committee before Senator Feinstein brought him over to the upper Chamber as staff director for the Senate Intel Committee in 2016. I have worked extraordinarily closely with Mike over my years as a member of the committee but particularly when I bumped up to the position of vice chair. I think a lot about our kind of bonding and, in many ways, I think of the committee's bonding when, under the able leadership of then-chairman Richard Burr, the committee took on the responsibility of the investigation into the outside interference of the 2016 national elections. Our staff and, at that point, the majority committee's staff worked so seamlessly together. While we got a lot of grief from folks all across the political spectrum--and a lot of this was due to Mike Casey--one of the things that I was most proud of was, as a variety of people came before the committee to testify on what could have been, otherwise, a totally partisan matter as it was in the House of Representatives, witness after witness said they didn't know, as they were being questioned, whether they were being questioned by majority or minority staff. A lot of that was due to Mike Casey's leadership. The truth, as well, is that Mike--I had to push him at times. You know, he used to think that the job of the Intelligence Committee was basically just to do oversight on the 17, 18, 19--depending on the week--number of IC Agencies that we oversee. He didn't realize that, actually, the IC's responsibility--and I know sometimes the Presiding Officer and I have had clashes--was literally everything that touched technology in our country. Again, Mike, while sometimes reluctant, has stepped up to that task. And I am proud of the fact that it was our committee that initially worked on the CHIPS bill and that it was our committee that first pointed out some of the challenges with 5G and Huawei as well as some of the more recent work. One of the ways we were able to do that--and we have got a lot of the committee staff behind us--is because, literally, Mike Casey knew everyone in the IC and the DOD. He knew where they were. He knew where the bodies were buried, both literally and figuratively, and could make sure that, as we tried to go off into other directions, that basic core function of oversight was never, never undermined. Again, he did this always--after a little nudging--in a bipartisan way. I am extraordinarily proud of that and proud of the service that he has provided in educating me on a lot of issues that I was not that familiar with as I came on to the committee and in keeping our Intel Committee staff together. That bipartisan nature has continued under his leadership in our workings with Vice Chair Rubio and his team as well. So, while we say goodbye to Mike, we also wish him well as he embarks on his critical new role. As Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, Mike will face many of the same challenges we have wrestled with on the Intelligence Committee. As we all know, the truth is that national security is no longer simply about who has got the most tanks and guns and ships and planes. It really is about who is going to lead in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, 5G, cyber security, synthetic biology. All of these are areas in which Mike, in his new job, will also have to point out threats, both external and internal, to America's leadership. He will--as I mentioned, he is committed--respond to our staff member John Rosenwasser at any moment, day or night, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, to make sure that we finally finish security clearance reform and make sure, in terms of insider threats, that we don't see repeats of what has happened, unfortunately, too many times. So while Mike Casey might be leaving our staff, it is safe to say he will not be leaving my speed dial. We will miss you, Mike. Most importantly, I give him these final words of advice: Don't screw it up. I yield the floor to my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff, Max Slaiman, today.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was absent on Wednesday May 31, 2023, for rollcall vote No. 134. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 45, providing for the congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Waivers and Modifications of Student Loans''. Mr. President, I was absent on Wednesday May 31, 2023, for rollcall vote No. 135. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on H.J. Res. 45, providing for the congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Waivers and Modifications of Student Loans''.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was absent on Tuesday, May 30, 2023, for rollcall vote No. 133. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation for Darrel James Papillion, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Mr. President, I was absent on Wednesday, May 31, 2023, for rollcall vote No. 134. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 45, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans''. Mr. President, I was absent on Thursday, June 1, 2023, for rollcall vote No. 135. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on H.J. Res. 45, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans''.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today in recognition of the retirement of Alan Kohler. Alan leaves the FBI as Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, a challenging post he has held since 2020. Over his long and impressive career with the FBI, Alan has continuously worked on our most pressing national security issues. It is a career that has truly lived up to the FBI's motto of ``Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.'' As part of its history, the Senate Intelligence Committee has worked to ensure the intelligence community works seamlessly across its many Agencies and with our allies to protect Americans. That is a goal Alan Kohler committed his life's work to, whether he was serving overseas as legal attache in the United Kingdom to coordinate efforts with our closest ally or developing new means of integrating and cooperating across Agencies like the Counterintelligence Task Force he established during his time as Assistant Director, his accomplishments have inspired junior agents and personnel to break through Agency stovepipes in defense of our Nation. Alan's faithful service to the Bureau spanned three decades, through some of our Nation's darkest days. He joined the FBI in 1996 and was assigned to work counterintelligence cases in the Washington field office, right in the wake of and in the midst of some of the most damaging espionage cases the U.S. has faced. In the days after the attacks on September 11, Alan bravely served on the evidence recovery team at the Pentagon in Arlington, VA. After transferring to the New York field office in 2006, Alan Kohler worked cases that led to the arrest of 10 Russian illegals in 2010, earning the Attorney General Award for Exceptional Service and changing the way Americans understood the intelligence activities of our adversaries. He was also fortunate enough to be assigned as assistant special agent in charge of the Norfolk field office where he was responsible for all of the FBI's counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and crisis management programs for that community. In 2017, after Russia's unprecedented interference in our elections, Alan established the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force, an entity we on the Senate Intelligence Committee continue to rely on to collect on and report threats to the very foundation of our democracy. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have relied on Alan's integrity to provide the committee with honest and timely information, even when it was not easy for him to do. He consistently demonstrated professionalism in all our engagements and modeled a constructive relationship between the executive and legislative branches. It was a professionalism born of his commitment to safeguard our Nation. I am certain Alan will find ways to continue to serve as he enjoys his very well-earned retirement. I would also like to recognize his family who has supported him throughout his tremendous career.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have come to speak on a different topic, but I want to commend my friend the Senator from Illinois for his comments. I agree with him. Just yesterday, my colleague and dear friend Senator Kaine and I met with four of the families who were part of one of that litany of shootings, in Virginia Beach, where a mentally deranged individual came in and brutally murdered 12--mostly city employees and a few folks who were there to try to get city services. The anguish, pain, and hurt of these four families 4 years after the fact reflect the kind of anguish and hurt that the families in Nashville are feeling and so many countless others. I commend the Senator again and agree that it is incumbent upon us to do our job. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. I thank him for his comments.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to thank my friend--is it 43 years?--Senator Kaine for his comments. I apologize to the Presiding Officer and folks up front that I didn't hear all his comments. So you may be hearing from me a bit of repetition of what Tim has already said, but I think, in terms of Judge Ballou, who Senator Kaine has already mentioned, a little bit of repetition might be appropriate. I also join with Senator Kaine in urging all my colleagues, in about 8 minutes, to support President Biden's choice to serve as a U.S. District Court judge for the Western District of Virginia. He really is--Bob Ballou is a pillar of the Virginia legal community. I want to start with where Senator Kaine left off. He went through our whole vetting process under the Trump administration. And the fact that someone has, at least in terms of our criteria, I think, qualified as an extraordinarily competent, well-suited individual under both President Trump and President Biden is a real credit. And I give the White House credit for moving forward and putting his name forward. I think Senator Kaine has already mentioned the fact that he got bipartisan support in committee, something that, unfortunately, is becoming rarer and rarer; but, as probably has already been indicated, this is the kind of individual who has both the legal acumen and the temperament, I think, to be a great judge. He is a Virginia native, originally from Roanoke, a two-time UVA graduate. Following his time at UVA and UVA Law School, he originally clerked for Judge Peter Beer of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Following this brief stint outside of Virginia, he returned to private practice in Richmond and Roanoke, where he litigated complex civil issues. In 2011, he was selected by the article 3 judges of the Western District to support as a magistrate judge. Over the past 12 years, Judge Ballou has continued earning the respect and admiration of those article 3 judges that, hopefully, after the next few days, he will actually serve with and, I think, will do, again, a great job. He will be replacing retiring Judge Jones. Senator Kaine and I both have had the pleasure--and I think Senator Kaine actually may have practiced with him occasionally. But they are big shoes to fill, and he will do that. Again, as has been mentioned, Judge Ballou has been really known as a magistrate judge for his temperament, the fact that lawyers who appear in his courtroom indicate that he works diligently, he always has an open mind, and he has a real sense of fairness. He loves Southwest Virginia. His father had served as a State court judge. He has been very involved in community and charitable activities throughout the whole region. This is, I think, a man whose time has come. I wish he would have been already on the bench. We will have a chance to rectify that with our move to cloture today and then, hopefully, in a couple of days later, his confirmation as a judge from the Western District of Virginia. So I heartily join my friend Senator Kaine and urge the confirmation of Judge Ballou as a judge to the Western District of Virginia. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today in joining my other colleagues, organized by my friend the Senator from Hawaii, to ask my colleagues to vote against the resolution, which I think we will be taking up literally in the next 10 minutes, which would strip away a commonsense Department of Labor rule that simply provides fiduciaries-- remember who we are talking about: fiduciaries, people who are responsible, under ERISA plans, to think about their beneficiaries over the long term. We are trying to make sure that those fiduciaries who are charged with maintaining retirement plans have the ability to adequately account for environmental, social, and governance factors. I know some of my colleagues have come on the floor and said this is an attempt by the Department of Labor to somehow mandate the retirement investments of hard-working Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, we look at profit and loss, we look at cash reserves, and we look at financial accounting. But the idea that environmental, social, and governance factors can't even be looked at is an interference in the business cycle that really kind of goes beyond the pale. I am often regarded--I have to acknowledge this--in my caucus as sometimes being a Member who has the most experience with capitalism, the most experience with business. I absolutely believe in our system. There is nothing better. But the idea that today--and I don't want to copy some of the comments that have been made, but the idea that today, a lot of folks who have never been able to read a balance sheet are going to come in and tell paid fiduciaries what they can consider or what they can't consider in terms of the long-term economic returns for their beneficiaries--I wonder if things have gotten a little topsy- turvy here. I can imagine if some people were saying ``Well, we need to make sure we have this rule in place'' or ``Overrule this rule'' or ``Put this binding in place'' if you are talking about day traders or if you are talking about a hedge fund that only looks at the next quarter's results--the kind of short-term capitalism that too often, I think, is eating at the core of our great system. But if we are going to look at long-term returns, we ought to take and have to take into consideration factors--in many cases, factors that may not have been as relevant 30, 50, 70 years ago. Some are going to say we can't look at those. Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle have decided to take away a useful term, a useful set of analyses, something that has been asked for by these pension funds, by these beneficiaries, and instead try to turn it into a political issue. Let me recall back 75 years ago. If you look at the Fortune 500 and the companies that were involved in that Fortune 500, about roughly 75 to 80 percent of those companies' assets were tangible assets. What does that mean? It means it was their plant. It was their equipment. It was their machinery. Fast-forward--and a lot of this is due to great innovation in the technology field--and those same Fortune 500 companies are dramatically different than the companies named 60, 70 years ago. If you look at their balance sheets today, 75, 80 percent of their assets are intangible assets. What are intangible assets? Intangible assets are things like intellectual property, and that is coming about from a healthy workforce. But more than anything else, it is the men and women who work at these firms. Virtually every CEO I have heard from in the last 10 years has said: My biggest asset is my workforce. The idea that somehow--because ESG is not just E; it is also S, and that falls into workforce--the idea that somehow a pension fund can't look at workforce retention, workforce quality, workforce characteristics as a measure of what they want to invest in, to me, is a little whacky. Let me actually call on a reference sort person, whom I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge, and that was President Trump's Chairman of the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Jay Clayton, whom I had a very good working relationship with. He said that human capital disclosures can and should inform investment decisions. Chair Clayton said: Our current disclosure requirements date back to a time when companies relied significantly on plant, property, and equipment to drive value. Today, human capital represents an essential driver of performance for many companies albeit in different ways. So under Mr. Trump's SEC, there was a rulemaking process that started to make sure that human capital components can be an appropriate focus of reviews, particularly for companies and entities that want to invest for the long term. I am concerned that this approach we are taking today might indirectly preclude those fiduciaries who represent pension funds, long-term investors--they are no longer going to be able to actually look at this critical criteria around human capital. The other thing is, the Department of Labor rule--and I know a lot of my colleagues have spoken to this and talk about: Well, what about the environment? I think we all would recognize or most of us would recognize the fact that climate change is real and poses a rapidly growing threat to the long-term feasibility of investments made on behalf of hard-working Americans. While this Department of Labor rule won't direct our Armed Forces, I think it is really important to understand that the FFRDCs, the federally funded research and development corporations--the RANDs, the MITREs, the CNA, which does naval work analysis, federally funded--if we are going to apply these same kinds of Department of Labor prohibitions on our Armed Forces, we couldn't allow the CNA to look at the long-term effects on the Navy--and I don't want to give away a secret here, but they have been looking at this issue for over 20 years--that they couldn't make those kinds of predictions about what effect sea level rise would have on our Navy. I tell you, we are blessed in the Commonwealth of Virginia to have the world's largest Navy base, in Norfolk, and I can assure you, virtually every year or every other year, we have to raise the piers, literally spend hundreds of millions of dollars to raise the piers to make sure that Navy base can still be utilized. So if it is a smart enough, good enough requirement that the Navy and our Armed Forces are looking at the E of ESG, why would we preclude the private sector from doing that? I think the Department of Labor's rule on ESG is both practical and necessary. I think those funds that chose not to abide by it, that is their right. That is what capitalism is all about--making choices. But the notion that we are going to somehow come in and impose requirements on the market and take away long-term investors' ability to consider human capital, to consider the effects of climate change, and I have not even touched--I know we are going to have to go to a vote--on issues around corporate governance, all which can lead to, longer term, better returns. If this was a rule about day traders and quarter-to- quarter hedge fund folks, I might get it. But in terms of protecting the long-term value creation in long-term sustainable capitalism, I think this effort today sadly misses the mark and will do a great deal of damage. I urge my colleagues, when the vote comes, to vote against the CRA. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of procedure of the Select Committee on Intelligence be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today in support of Mr. Jamar Walker, whom President Biden has nominated to serve as a U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. Jamar is a fellow Virginian and outstanding public servant. For the last decade, he has been an invaluable asset to Virginia's legal community, bringing both his zeal for public service and his personal life story. Jamar is a Virginia native, originally from our Eastern Shore. If you ever look at a map of Virginia, you see this strip that may not be completely connected. It literally goes from Virginia to Maryland and Delaware. It is a strip of land that is very rural. Jamar is from that part of our Commonwealth. He is a two-time graduate of the University of Virginia. Following his time at both UVA as an undergrad and UVA Law, Jamar began his career in public service clerking for the Honorable Raymond Jackson in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, whose same seat he has actually--if we approve him tonight--been nominated to fill. And for the past 7 years, Jamar has dedicated his professional career in the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he currently serves as the Acting Chief of the Financial Crime and Public Corruption Unit. A testament to his ability to try complex cases, Jamar has received five service awards from the FBI for his excellent work in public correction, wire fraud, and bank fraud cases. His commitment to the Commonwealth spans far beyond his day job. Jamar has volunteered for countless collegiate mock trial tournaments and returned to his alma mater time and again to speak out on guest panels. Once sworn in, Jamar will also be the first openly gay Federal district judge in Virginia. Jamar's community-oriented mindset, career qualifications, and numerous accolades make him an exceptional nominee for the Eastern District of Virginia, a district that is known as the ``rocket docket'' in terms of moving cases quickly through. His experience, particularly in the U.S. Attorney's office, is well-suited to deal with the ``rocket docket.'' I know he will serve with distinction and make both our country and our Commonwealth proud. I urge my colleagues, when this vote starts in about 10 minutes, to support his nomination. He came out in a bipartisan vote from the Judiciary Committee. He is an exceptional young man, and I know will do a great job. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this explanation reflects the status of negotiations and disposition of issues reached between the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a conference committee. I ask unanimous consent that the explanatory statement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 be printed into the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, my apologies to the distinguished senior Senator from Maine. Senator Burr knows the one thing he was also extraordinarily critical of was whenever members of the Intel Committee were late to an Intel meeting, and we have one at 2:30. So, Senator Burr, I hope I have your ability, and Senator Collins will give me a rundown on her comments today.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, it is with a mixture of sorrow and pride that I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend the senior Senator from North Carolina. I was thinking about the fact that Senator Blunt, who is sitting in front of you, we were here for his farewell speech the other day, and our good friend Rob Portman, who is behind you, we will be here for his--we are losing a lot of great Members this Congress, and the folks who are going to follow them will not replace them. They have got big shoes to fill. I mean, we are celebrating Richard's 18 years in the Senate and 10 years in the House--28 years of doing this stuff. Senator Burr and I first got to know each other actually through a mutual friend early on in my Senate career in kind of a strange set of circumstances. I had become really good friends with Saxby Chambliss, and Saxby and Richard were running buddies. I would run along with them sometimes. And John Thune, as you know, Richard is a pretty open-minded guy. But I got to acknowledge, and I shouldn't probably do this in front of everyone, but I am not sure he initially took to me that well. Now, my staff has occasionally called me slightly intense, and Richard has more than a few times asked whether I was getting my daily meds to stay on that equilibrium. So much for that. But in contrast, Richard Burr is a low-key kind of guy. As Senator Thune has already mentioned, and every Senator has made mention or noticed or made fun of his lack of socks. We have seen the migration of his Thing from outside the Russell Building to maybe its permanent resting place now in the garage at Hart. I park next to it almost every day, and I hope that you will leave it there in perpetuity. But despite where we started off, with us being a little bit of an odd couple, we have formed an enormously strong partnership, and for me it was, more importantly, a strong friendship. For 5 years, Richard preceded me as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He had been on the Intelligence Committee since he came to Congress. I have learned so, so much from him, not only on the substance, which is terribly important, but there are a whole series of issues and extraordinarily important work where I never really got up to speed because I trusted his judgment. But really what he did is he set the tone for how the committee ought to operate--a committee that frankly doesn't get as much attention as most because so much of what we do is behind closed doors. The reason why the Senate Intelligence Committee has stayed bipartisan, the reason why it is so productive, the reason why we get year after year an intelligence authorization bill out virtually unanimously--never more than one or two votes against--has a lot to do with Richard Burr. My friend whom he served with in the House, the dean of the Virginia delegation, Congressman Bobby Scott, has often referred to, around Virginia, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is an ``oasis of dignity.'' I think that is a pretty darn good description. And that dignity would not have come about without Richard Burr's leadership. He has made mention of his staff. I want to echo that, particularly those folks I have had the opportunity to work with on the Intelligence Committee staff. This does not have to be the case. This is not always the model, and I won't make more than a passing reference to HIPSCI in that comparison. If you don't have--you have to have not only Members agreeing, you have to have staff agreeing, and sometimes staff come with their notion that we have got to start with conflict. That was never the way that Richard chaired the committee. He knew my staff as well as he knew his own. Nowhere was that more evident than when he took on one of the greatest challenges and one where we kind of got battle-hardened together on the Russia investigation. And one of the things I know he had pride in and I had pride in, there were an awful lot of folks who had to be interviewed. And without exception, folks who interviewed didn't know whether the interviewees were Republicans or Democrats. It was that kind of professionalism and the notion that we were going to follow the truth, and I think that work product will clearly stand the test of time. The other thing that I think Richard taught me, and this was something that he has been just relentless about, is to recognize the courage and the patriotism of the men and women who work in the intelligence community. They are never going to get the recognition. Public officials get the recognition but not the men and women who serve in our military. But no matter where you travel with Senator Burr, there were generally two things that you could guarantee would take place. One is that at some moment during the trip he would find a way to get a couple hours at wherever the local bazaar was and go buy stuff until Brooke finally said: No more rugs ever again. But what was equally important that he taught me, and he taught all of us on the committee who has come in after, is that when you are out in the field, you make sure you go see the station and not just the station chief but make sure you see all the members of the station and personally meet them and thank them. And in every hearing that we have had--and I have tried to continue this tradition--and we may not get along and we may not agree with the briefers--but at the end of that hearing, no matter how tough it may have been, he thanks the briefers, he thanks the folks who are in the back row, oftentimes not getting to the front table, and he makes sure to say: Go back and tell the men and women you work with back at headquarters, back at station, how much we respect you and will have your back. He has shared with me a little bit in these last few weeks the kind of outpouring of support that he has had from intelligence community members both here and around the world, and we are going to have him back in January with the leadership in the intelligence community to celebrate that again. The other thing that is a little unusual about Senator Burr--and I will say this for a few of our friends in the press--is that most of us actually like to talk to the press--or at least do it. This has never been high on Senator Burr's list. I have never seen anybody manage with complete politeness to give more nonanswers to the questions in the hallway as the press pool follows after him on so many occasions, but it is because it is all about the work. Others have mentioned and he has mentioned that he was and has been the leading voice on disease preparedness. If we had listened more to him earlier on on things like COVID, I think part of this tragedy could have been even further averted. I mentioned already the Russia investigation. We both took incoming on that. Both of our sides wanted us to do it differently. He said: We are going after the truth. I can assure you, there is no one I would rather be in a foxhole with than Richard Burr because when the incoming kept coming in, he said: Let's buckle down, do the work. He empowered the staff to do that in a way that was remarkable, and, again, that product will stand the test of time. I am sad to lose a colleague. I think his admonitions to us were great. I think his recognition--again, this is so Richard Burr in that he has got so many staff here, and he put the staff not in a passing reference but as one of the major themes of his speech. We all would not be here without the kind of men and women who have supported you and who support each of us who have the honor of standing on this floor. I am going to be really sad to at least lose the daily back-and-forth as a friend. He is a little bit quirky. He is not shy about giving somebody grief. I am not sure there will ever be another Senator with the same tastes in footwear or sockwear or lack thereof. He clearly has been one of the Senate's true characters in the best sense of the word. I have had the occasion to get to know Brooke and his kids. I have seen lots and lots of pictures of the grandkids, and I am glad some of them live in Richmond. We will visit there and on the Outer Banks. He has a great next chapter in front of him. I think he is going to continue to contribute to this Nation in the business world. I look to see where that path leads, and I look to making sure this friendship that we have built will be maintained long into the future, into our each increasing dotages in going forward. With that, I yield the floor and salute my dear friend Richard Burr.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 378 due to a commitment in Henrico, VA, related to the events surrounding the funeral of former Representative Donald A. McEachin. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation for Mia Roberts Perez, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rollcall vote No. 378, PN2367. I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 379 due to a commitment in Henrico, VA, related to the events surrounding the funeral of former Representative Donald A. McEachin. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on Kai N. Scott, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rollcall vote No. 379, PN2366. I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 380 due to a commitment in Henrico, VA, related to the events surrounding the funeral of former Representative Donald A. McEachin. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation for Kai N. Scott, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rollcall vote No. 380, PN2366. I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 381 due to a commitment in Henrico, VA, related to the events surrounding the funeral of former Representative Donald A. McEachin. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation for John Frank Murphy, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rollcall vote No. 381, PN2368. I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 382. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on Jeffery Paul Hopkins, of Ohio, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, rollcall vote No. 382, PN2438. I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 383. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the confirmation for Jerry W. Blackwell, of Minnesota, to be United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, rollcall vote No. 383, PN2266.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of PN1691, Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, to be Ambassador of the United States to Brazil, and that the nomination be placed on the calendar.

Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and, again, hope that we can move on this ambassadorship and many others to make sure that our country is well represented not only in South America but around the world going forward. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a dedicated and well-qualified individual who has been nominated by President Biden to fill an increasingly important role. That person is Elizabeth Bagley, who has been nominated to be the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil. Elizabeth Bagley has been involved in public service for decades. Twenty-eight years ago, as a matter of fact, she appeared before the U.S. Senate, then being considered as President Clinton's nominee to be Ambassador to Portugal. She went on to serve in that role from 1994 to 1997, which was a period of growth and positive development in this important bilateral relationship. For the service in Portugal, she received distinguished awards from the Portuguese Navy and Air Force as well as the Grand Cross of Prince Henry the Navigator, which is the President of Portugal's highest civilian commendation. She is also the recipient of the Global Democracy Award from the International Women's Democracy Center, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, and the 2013 Secretary of State's Distinguished Honor Award. In 2013, she served as Alternative Representative of the United States to the United Nations, and prior to that was the first Special Representative to the Secretary of State for Global Partnerships. In her years of diplomatic service, she has also worked as a senior adviser to Secretaries Kerry, Clinton, and the late Madeleine Albright. President Biden has nominated her to an especially critical role, and that is to be our Nation's Ambassador to Brazil--the largest economy in South America, a country that is going through dramatic transitions right now. As a matter of fact, Brazil will be inaugurating its new President at the beginning of January. And I believe--frankly, it has been an embarrassment that we have gone almost 2 years without an Ambassador to Brazil--I believe it is critically important that Ambassador Bagley be in Brasilia, having been presented her credentials in time for the inauguration of the new Brazilian President. As a matter of fact, in terms of north-south relations, our relations with Brazil are as critical as virtually any nation in the Southern Hemisphere. We have got lots and lots of work to do on this important relationship, and it is important that we move forward. Originally, I was going to come down and ask UC to both have Elizabeth Bagley discharged from committee and also confirmed now on the floor. Working with my Republican friends, I appreciate the fact that I believe they are going to allow us to move forward on the discharge from committee but not move forward on Ms. Bagley's confirmation as Ambassador. I know there may be some holds on all north-south Ambassadors at this point, but I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is a talented, well-suited, appropriately experienced individual. This relationship between the United States and Brazil is absolutely critical now perhaps more than ever, and I hope that we can find some level of accommodation to move past the action we take today and make sure that Elizabeth Bagley is confirmed as our country's Ambassador to Brazil so that she can be in Brasilia by the time the new administration in Brazil comes into power in early January under President Lula.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend the Senator from Ohio for always being willing to speak out on behalf of important people all across the country. I agree with him that organized labor for literally decades has always protected working people. We need to bear that in mind as we sort through the issues that confront us on a regular basis. So I thank him for his comments. Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act Mr. President, I rise today to actually celebrate a major accomplishment for thousands of Americans who have been trapped for, many times, decades in exploitative joint student loans. This is an issue that is actually near and dear to me because I have been working on it for 7 years, since hearing from a constituent way back in 2015. Sara from Northern Virginia was part of a group of student loan borrowers who entered into something called a joint consolidation loan, which allowed married couples to combine their student debt into a single loan. The truth was, though, that sounded good, but Congress didn't allow anyone to unwind those loans in the event of a divorce or an abusive relationship. So finally, in 2006, Congress got rid of the whole program. But when they got rid of the whole program, they didn't retroactively create an option for those folks who had entered into these joint consolidation loans between 1993 and 2006. So when my constituent Sara had divorced from her husband when she was living in Texas, she was still responsible for this loan. So all of the debt that had originally been his suddenly fell upon her shoulders. The divorced husband stopped paying the debt. Yet she was still responsible, and she, Sara, had to continue facing the consequences. Now, she was a single mom of two, a public school teacher. Sara was financially on the hook for her defaulting husband's student debts. Her credit suffered dramatically. She even thought she was going to lose her teacher's license. Now, she did a lot--great researcher. I talked to her a couple times. After looking for a way out, she found that the only way to fix this problem was for an act of Congress. Well, she contacted my office, and we found out that this was not a one-off circumstance, but, literally, there were thousands of Americans all across the country who had fallen into this trap. A lot of them were domestic violence survivors, who, even though they had gotten out of an abusive relationship, were still stuck with paying off the debts of their abuser. Many of these were people who were victims of financial abuse and, again, completely responsible for a loan, in many cases, that they had never even taken out. Others were unable to save for retirement, for their kids. We had a lot of teachers who were otherwise eligible for the public service loan forgiveness programs, but because they had entered into the joint consolidated student loans, they suddenly weren't eligible. So we did some research and spent some time looking into it. In 2017, I introduced the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act to solve this problem and find a way for, oftentimes, innocent borrowers to get out of these consolidations. Now, starting back in 2015--I have got to acknowledge, it took 7 years. Something that was this much of a no-brainer shouldn't have taken that long, but I am proud to be here today and report that we did get it through Congress on a bipartisan basis. Here in the Senate, I am grateful for a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am grateful for the Presiding Officer. We actually passed it on a unanimous basis, and in the House we passed it with a broad bipartisan coalition. That is a testament to what a critical, commonsense fix this is--one that will actually change the lives of thousands of Americans, literally, overnight. Now, since we introduced this law the first time, my office has heard from so many Americans who are desperate to get this done. I remember hearing from Chris from Indiana, who said he spent over 16 years thinking about this loan every day and waking up at night trying to create a strategy to pay this loan off. He got back to us and he said: For the first time, I may be able to put my mind at peace. We heard from Sharon, who is a seventh grade teacher, whose former partner was totally unresponsive on meeting their obligations on this joint consolidation. Now, she said: I don't have to do this anymore. I get to live my life. She gets to actually retire this year because, once President Biden signs this law, it will immediately relieve her of this obligation. Or Jessica, who said: I am finally about to be free . . . of one last way my ex controls me. Again, I can't imagine entering into this arrangement and then getting out of a relationship, often sometimes an abusive relationship, and that ex still trying to control this person by not meeting their share of the obligations. It just was wrong. Next, Amy, who falls into the category of otherwise--because, I believe, she was a teacher, she was able to get public service loan forgiveness and worked for years on something she should qualify for, but if you had entered into one of these joint consolidations, you didn't get this benefit. So Amy said: I've never been able to take advantage of a single debt- relief program. This bill will change that, obviously in terms of public service loans but also in terms of some of the proposals that President Biden has put forward. All these people have been asking for is a chance to not unduly bear the joint burden of a program that even the Congress and the Federal Government decided in 2006 wasn't fair, but when we unwound it, we didn't unwind it, literally, for thousands of people who had fallen into this program between 1993 and 2006. Now, we are through the House. We are through the Senate. We still have to hit one thing. And while the White House has indicated that the President supports this legislation, we have to get it signed right away because, when we think about these teachers and nurses and other folks who met their goal of what they have to qualify in critical areas to qualify for public student debt forgiveness, you know, the truth is, if they are going to get that benefit this year, they have got to make that application by October 31. So before Halloween, these folks and countless others are waiting for them to simply apply for a right that, in many cases, they should have been granted 5, 10, 15 years ago. And as I said, many of the folks in this category are public school teachers. They are government workers. They are nurses. They all have met the otherwise, oftentimes, stringent requirements for public service loan forgiveness, but this law has to be a law in time for them to be able to timely apply for this relief before Halloween. So I am hoping--the President has indicated he supports this bill, but the President has got to sign this law as soon as possible so borrowers can finally experience freedom from financial and domestic abuse, freedom to control their own financial future, and freedom to enjoy the exact same benefits that other teachers and public servants have across the country. I would like to close by saying that, this week, I actually had a chance to call Sara, who originally brought this issue to my attention. She told me that, without this law, and even if she had continued making all of her monthly payments for her divorced husband, it would have been impossible for her to get rid of this debt in her lifetime. She would literally have been tied to her ex-husband, and she left Texas to get away from that ex-husband, to move to Virginia. She would literally be tied to that former spouse for the rest of her life. For Sara and for literally thousands of other borrowers impacted by this program, it is time for the President to sign this law and provide these borrowers the relief they deserve. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.