Business meeting to consider S.545

Good morning. Welcome everybody. Before I get to the agenda, I'd like to address this week's Arctic Frost hearing. First, this committee is not going to give in to the Democrats' ill-advised strategy to bring Jack Smith in before the our investigative record is entirely ready. Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had this to say about my recent document production: the facts to roll out about Jack Smith, quote, those facts are getting uglier, end of quote. Second, my Democrat colleagues and the partisan media continue to sing a sob story about fired partisan DOJ, DOJ and FBI personnel. So I want to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that many of the fired personnel retaliated against my whistleblowers during the Biden administration. And then I didn't hear a single peep from my Democrat colleagues then about these whistleblowers' lives being upended and destroyed. And I believe part of the 16 people that I helped get justice in the last year were some of these personnel. Not all of those people wanted their jobs back, but they wanted their national security clearance, they wanted back pay, and some of them wanted their jobs back and got their jobs back. But when their lives were being upended, I never heard anything from the other side. Third and lastly, this committee today is investigating government weaponization because my Democrat colleagues didn't lift a finger during the Biden administration. These were four years of uninterrupted, consistent, and sustained political attacks on Republicans by the previous administration. This committee's work exposing that political corruption will continue. Now to today's agenda, we have three bills and two nominations. Brian Gootkin, Marshal, Montana; James Stuart, Marshal, Minnesota. We'll also vote on three bills today, continuing our debate on Combating Illicit Xylazine Act, H.R. 2159, Count the Crimes to Cut Act, and Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2025. And I think that we have things worked out so we'll be able to get those bills out. I want to take a moment to talk about the Combating Illicit Xylazine Act, which I led with Senator Cortez Masto, and I want to thank her for taking the lead on that. We began considering this important bill last week, and I hope to complete the committee's work on that bill today. Our bill simply classifies this highly toxic drug as Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act while protecting its legitimate use for agriculture by veterinarians serving farmers and ranchers. I explained last week that this critical and emphasized bipartisan legislation has a wide range of support from law enforcement, the agriculture community, and from the victims. It's been a priority of both the Biden and the Trump administrations, and it's cosponsored by 14 Democrats and 18 Republicans. We heard the tragic stories of families devastated by this poison last week. We're here today for those same families. Last week, it became clear that the committee needed a few additional works to clarify language. We want to ensure that our bill solves an important problem while also promoting transparency. We've taken the last seven days to work with members on both sides of the aisle to reach an agreement on some clarifying language. This new language is explicit about what documents we expect to be produced by HHS and by DEA. My staff and I engaged multiple offices on both sides of the aisle, and we did it in good faith, and I think we had the same good faith from the people we were talking to. And I was glad to work with Senators Whitehouse, Coons, and now Senator Booker on a revised manager's amendment that I think achieves the right balance. I want to be crystal clear, however, about the intent of this manager's amendment. This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to submit their scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations for xylazine. They will submit this along with the DEA's law enforcement, DEA's regulatory, and DEA's abuse evaluation in a combined, public, and prompt report to Congress. This way, the information available to the public will closely mimic the data that would have been published in the Federal Register if xylazine was administratively scheduled. And I told you last week why legislation was necessary because by regulation they couldn't protect the legal use by veterinarians of this product. It's important for the American people to see drug scheduling information from both the DEA and HHS because that is how Congress intended that process to work. Congress granted DEA the authority to schedule drugs in consultation with the Secretary of HHS. Now the important point, if the HHS scientific and medical evaluation was released alone, it would not provide the public with a complete picture because it is just one part of the administrative process. So the manager's amendment will release this information because it's in its proper context with the combined views of the two relevant agencies. The committee wants to see the analysis from HHS. I want to see it, but I also want to see the analysis of the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is the other half of the equation. That's what the manager's amendment does that I called up last week, and that's what the new language now spells out with absolute clarity. Senator Durbin.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Last week, the United States lost a great man who devoted his life in service to our nation. In 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, Robert Mueller chose to enlist in the Marine Corps. He served as a rifle platoon leader. Years later, he said that of all of his accomplishments in his life, he was, quote, most proud the Marine Corps deemed me worthy of leading other Marines. He earned a Bronze Star for valor when his platoon was ambushed, suffering multiple casualties, and he rescued a wounded Marine. He earned a Purple Heart after being wounded by enemy fire while leading the platoon to rescue soldiers who were pinned down by the enemy. After his military service, Robert Mueller became a lawyer and spent most of the rest of his life in public service. A lifelong Republican, he served for many years as a prosecutor and senior Justice Department official under Democratic and Republican presidents alike. In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Mr. Mueller to serve as Director of the FBI. In 2011, President Obama asked to extend his term by two years. The vote to do that was extraordinary; it was 100 to nothing in favor of Mr. Mueller on the floor of the Senate. Director Mueller led the FBI at a tumultuous time, an historic moment, helping to secure our nation after the worst terrorist attack in our history. He, more than any single individual, was responsible for modernizing the FBI to combat the threats of the 21st century. After 9/11, I was proud to work with him on a bipartisan basis to help update the FBI's antiquated computer system. We didn't always agree, but I always respected him. He was a patriot, a person of honesty and integrity. In 2017, Director Mueller answered the call to service one last time. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, appointed Mr. Mueller to serve as Special Counsel to investigate Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. This to Donald Trump was an unforgivable sin. As a result, when Mr. Mueller died last week, President Trump responded with the following words: good, I'm glad he's dead. This is not the first time the President has attacked an American war hero. We all remember what he said about our former colleague John McCain. But we cannot pretend that this cruel and un-American behavior is normal. Given his contempt for Robert Mueller, it is no surprise that President Trump would pick the current leader of the FBI, Kash Patel. By any measure, Kash Patel does not have the experience, judgment, or temperament of Robert Mueller. Mr. Patel falsely claimed the FBI was planning the January 6 attack on the Capitol for a year, falsely claimed that. And he produced a song by January 6 rioters who violently assaulted our police officers. He compiled, Mr. Patel compiled an enemies list of public servants he called government gangsters in his book. He singled out Bob Mueller for particular scorn, calling him, quote, an utter swamp creature. But Patel has one quality that authoritarians prize above all: a willingness to do whatever he is asked to do, regardless of what the law requires. To no one's surprise, Mr. Patel has spent the last year weaponizing the world's preeminent law enforcement agency to serve the interest of one person, President Trump. This makes us all less safe as a nation. He has fired dozens of career law enforcement agents simply because they were assigned to work on investigations of President Trump's misconduct. Patel has installed MAGA loyalists as political appointees in key career positions. He imposed loyalty tests, requiring FBI officials to undergo polygraph exams about whether they have ever criticized Patel himself. And he has commandeered FBI aircraft to support his jet-setting lifestyle. Most recently, Director Patel reportedly fired at least six FBI agents because they were assigned work related to President Trump's mishandling of classified documents. These terminations were seemingly to save face with President Trump after Patel's embarrassing experience chugging beer at the Olympic Games. Several of the fired agents were part of a global counterintelligence squad whose responsibilities included investigating espionage and cyber threats from Iran. They were fired. In other words, Director Patel has weakened the FBI's ability to counter Iranian threats at the exact time when the threats are the highest. This committee has spent many years debating the merits of the Mueller report. But surely we can agree, President Trump's attack on this honorable man is unacceptable and pathetic. And Kash Patel's efforts to undo Director Mueller's legacy and weaponize the FBI have gone too far. Mr. Chairman, I noted that you're calling S. 545, the xylazine bill, and I ask consent to be added as a cosponsor.

You will be added as a cosponsor. Let's switch to the bill. Okay. Now we're going to go to the legislation because we don't have all the members here to vote on nominees.

Mr. Chairman?

Senator from California.

It's Senator Booker.

Senator, I'm sorry. Booker and then Schiff.

Yeah, I appreciate New Jersey should usually come before the great state of California, but I give deference to you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank you and particularly Senators Kennedy and Senators Hawley last week for just asking the basic questions in many ways. You all listened to my concerns during last week's markup. The debate in my opinion that we had last week is really this committee at its best. Members raising concerns, engaging on substance, not political rhetoric, and working for a really good outcome. And I'm just grateful for my colleagues for what happened last week and their willingness just to ask basic questions. I hope going forward we that these are the kind of debates we can have, especially when on issues and matters of such concern. And I just want to again thank your staff. They really leaned in with my staff this week to come up with a requirement, as you said earlier, that the Department of Justice publish the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations that HHS submitted to DEA in 2024. And it's a meaningful step in the right direction. I just want to be clear for my colleagues that while this change makes the bill better, it will ensure what I've been asking for literally for four years, but it really doesn't fix a fundamental problem that we don't get the HHS scientific evaluation until 30 days after the bill is passed. I just want to be clear that under the Controlled Substances Act, HHS conducts an eight-factor analysis examining abuse potential, pharmacological effects, scientific knowledge, patterns of abuse, risk of public health, dependence liability, and then is supposed to submit their evaluation and scheduling recommendation to the DEA. These scientific and medical findings are binding on the DOJ and DEA. If the DEA disagrees with the recommendation, it actually has a path. It can prove HHS, provide HHS with additional evidence, request a reevaluation, hold hearings, and solicit public comment. If the rulemaking process, in that rulemaking process, DEA must give HHS's scientific and medical determination the quote of the law we passed is significant deference. The Controlled Substances Act does not allow the DEA to undertake a de novo assessment of HHS's scientific findings at any point in the process. And so this is what happened with the xylazine. The DEA began that process, it requested the evaluation from HHS, and HHS returned a recommendation based on its scientific and medical evidence that xylazine meets the criteria for schedule five, the least restrictive schedule, schedule five. Rather than go through the process dictated by Congress's law, rather than present new evidence or request a reevaluation, hold hearings, the DEA came to us. It came to Congress to place xylazine on schedule three, but they never gave us the report. And so that's my frustration, sir. We've taken a big step forward. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle helped me to finally ensure that we get the report. But this whole process has been turned upside down. We're making decisions here today without seeing by law what we should have had, which is the full breath of scientific evidence. So this is a good chapter for me. I trust my colleagues when this bill goes through 30 days later that we'll get a bipartisan push to make sure that that report is released. But I again say that we are doing this all backwards. We're not incorporating the scientific evidence into our decisions, and that to me is is disappointing. But I again, I am grateful. Last week was really a sign of just bipartisan, non-political inquiry, and I respect and thank you and your staffs, Senator Hawley, Senator Kennedy, for asking just basic questions. And thank you.

Thank you, Senator Booker, for your cooperation with us to move this bill along. Now Senator Schiff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be very brief. I just want to address the comments you made regarding bringing Jack Smith before the committee, which I fully support. I also fully support making sure that we can ask the right questions and get full answers from Mr. Smith when he testifies. The Justice Department recently released documents indicating a couple things. One was that some of the documents the President brought to Mar-a-Lago, some of the classified documents, were so highly classified that literally only a handful of people in the country had authorization to see them, presumably because the sources and methods used to gather that information was so important to protect that literally about six people were authorized to see it. But even more concerning is evidence that these documents reveal that a motivation for bringing many of these classified documents to Mar-a-Lago was that the documents, these classified documents, implicated the President's business interests. Now judging from when Smith became came before the House committee, he was not able to answer a lot of questions about the Mar-a-Lago investigation because that second volume of his report has not been released. I would urge the committee to weigh in with the court in Florida that is withholding that report so that we have access to that report so that we can ask Mr. Smith questions about that whole investigation without being in a position where, as in the House case when they questioned him, he was forced to say I can't answer those questions because of the court order. So if we can weigh in and seek the either the public release of that volume two or at least the in camera release to this committee so that we can appropriately ask Smith questions about the President's motivation in bringing those documents to Mar-a-Lago and any questions that you and other members have about the conduct of the investigation. But we may be very frustrated in our questioning of Mr. Smith unless we can get that report, that second volume, released, and I wanted to make that request as a committee that we seek to intervene to to make sure we have access to that report. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Will you have your staff follow up with Josh of my staff?

We sure will. Thank you.

We'll go to the legislation. Let's do the voice vote. We're still waiting on two. Let's do this voice vote next. We're going to have to switch. You want me to do this one first? Yeah, we're still waiting on two. We're we're going to take the Count Against Crime to Cut Act up first. The bill's Senate companion is led by Senators Lee and Coons with Senator Booker, Welch, and Cruz as cosponsors. If any of the bills would like to say a few words about the bill, now is the time to do it.

Mr. Chairman? Chairman? I'd like to. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. You know, one of the most solemn and weighty matters that a government faces and one of the most significant powers that it has involves the authority to enforce standards of human conduct through criminal prohibitions and accompanying criminal penalties. That power, of course, has to be exercised reasonably, carefully, with prudence, and with restraint. The ability to deprive individuals of property, liberty, and even life must never be taken lightly. Contrary to this principle, our federal criminal code has become a sprawling expanse. It's grown into a an inscrutably complex behemoth of innumerable criminal prohibitions and penalties. In fact, a few years ago, a few of us tried to ascertain the total number of federal crimes here on the books, and the people at the Congressional Research Service, whose job it is to research these things, got back to us and said that the answer is unknown and unknowable, but the figure stands at least one at least 300,000 when you take into account everything in the code and also in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Count to Crime and so as a result of all this, the the criminal code has become impossible for everyday Americans to navigate this Byzantine labyrinth of potential criminal liability. So this bill, the Count the Crimes Act, would begin to address the issue by requiring the Department of Justice and regulatory agencies to provide a report to Congress of all federal criminal statutory and regulatory offenses, including the elements of each offense, potential criminal liabilities, prosecution data from over the last 15 years, and of course mens rea requirements. Those are the requirements that talk about the state of mind, the level of intent one has to have had in order to commit a crime. The Department of Justice and agencies would also be required to establish publicly accessible online indexes of these offenses so that Americans can review them, study them in in easy-to-understand accessible way. Importantly, this bill will not eliminate or modify the criminal code. It does not itself do any of that. It it would only provide information to Congress and to the general public to increase transparency and facilitate future attempts at reform of the code. But to be clear, this one does not change a single criminal prohibition. Count the Crimes to Cut recently passed in the House of Representatives by a voice vote, and it's endorsed by a number of organizations, including the National District Attorneys Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which is a very good balance of prosecution and defense team. And Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record letters of support from the National District Attorneys Association, from Right on Crime, and my friend Brett Tolman over there, and a coalition of conservative and criminal justice advocacy groups.

Without objection, so ordered. Senator Coons and and one second if I can just finish one more thought on that.

Very grateful to Senator Coons for his partnership and his leadership on this legislation. And I'd also like to thank Senators Cruz, Booker, Wicker, Welch, and Padilla for their support as cosponsors and Chairman Grassley for getting this to markup. Thank you, sir. Count the Crimes to Cut is bipartisan legislation. It's uncontroversial legislation that I hope will receive broad support from this committee and swift passage on the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Coons and then we'll vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to co-lead this bill with Senator Mike Lee and our other cosponsors. Over decades, Congress has proven very capable of adding additional crimes to respond to new issues and concerns, but we rarely if ever step back and consider which crimes should be cut. And that's raised real concerns of overcriminalization, passing statutes that sweep more broadly than we should and over-federalization, which is when federal prosecutors are tasked with addressing issues best handled by states. This has very broad support, as Senator Lee said. The House Judiciary Committee has noted that a more thoughtful federal criminal code could ensure federal resources enhance rather than supplant state-level enforcement and preserve the effectiveness of state-level criminal control. The National District Attorneys Association endorsed this as well as many other groups. And as Senator Lee said, it does not, this bill does not itself modify the criminal code. It simply sets up a future conversation that I'm eager to be a part of. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting it on markup. Thank you, Senator Lee, for working together on this.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that I be added as a cosponsor.

Senator Klobuchar will be added as a cosponsor. Anybody else want to cosponsor? Senator Graham, Senator Blumenthal, and Cornyn. Okay. Now we're ready for a vote. You want to be added? Yeah, Senator Durbin to be added as well. Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no. The ayes have it and the bill will be reported to the floor. Now let me ask you, is our intention, we're ready to go? Okay. We're going to now go to the xylazine bill legislation. I think I've said enough about it. I won't repeat those things that are here in front of me.

Mr. Chairman, my staff is yelling at me that I forgot to introduce to the record a number of letters. May I do that without objection?

For the xylazine bill?

Yes, sir.

Without objection.

Thank you, sir.

I'll now call up a revised manager's amendment. Does anyone wish to speak? Well, without objection, the manager's amendment will be adopted. Anybody want to speak? Oh, just a minute. I want to make very clear here, this is amendment number SIL26483. Without objection, it will be adopted.

I just want to make sure we have a roll call vote on the final passage of the bill.

Are we ready for a roll call vote? The clerk, Senator Cruz.

I would just ask to be added as a cosponsor to the bill.

You will be added. I thought last week you asked that and I said yes. Okay. Okay. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

Aye.

Mr. Whitehouse.

Aye by proxy.

Ms. Klobuchar.

Aye.

Mr. Coons.

Aye.

Mr. Blumenthal.

Aye.

Ms. Hirono.

Aye by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No.

Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Welch.

No by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

Aye.

Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 19, the nays are three.

Favorable majority, the bill will be reported. Now we go to the nomination of Brian Gootkin to serve U.S. Marshal Montana. On favorably reporting the nomination, the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

No by proxy.

Ms. Klobuchar.

No.

Mr. Coons.

No.

Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono.

No by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No.

Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Welch.

No by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

No.

Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.

The nominee getting a majority will be reported. Now we call up James Stuart, U.S. Marshal Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes.

One second. I'd like to give brief remarks. I support this nominee. He was recommended by a committee formed by Congressman Emmer and both Senator Smith and I have submitted our blue slips. Mr. Stuart has extensive law enforcement experience. He currently serves as the executive director of the Minnesota Sheriffs' Association and had previously been with the Anoka County Sheriff's Office for nearly 30 years. And he was elected sheriff from 2011 to 2023 and he's been active in a lot of national law enforcement organizations. I know he's eager to take on this job and I would appreciate people's support for him. Thank you.

On reporting the nomination, the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

Aye.

Mr. Whitehouse.

Aye by proxy.

Ms. Klobuchar.

Aye.

Mr. Coons.

Aye.

Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono.

Aye by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No.

Mr. Padilla.

Aye.

Mr. Welch.

Aye by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

Aye.

Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 20, the nays are two.

Majority of the committee, Mr. Stuart will be reported. Now we have one final item on the agenda. The bill entitled 2934, Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act. If any of the bill's sponsors would like to say a few words. Senator Cornyn.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for putting on this on today's markup. I want to thank Senator Padilla for partnering with me on this, Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2025. I've had the pleasure of working with Senator Padilla on a number of bills, including one that we hope to pass the Senate this afternoon. And just demonstrates that people from almost diametrically opposed political orientation philosophies coming from states of Texas and California can find common ground on important topics. So I thank him for his willingness to work together on this. American businesses are being unfairly targeted in foreign jurisdictions, particularly Russian courts, for their good faith compliance with U.S. sanctions and export controls, which United States imposed in response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Acting in good faith, U.S. companies wound down their operations and ceased work in Russia to comply with these measures. As a result, numerous lawsuits have been brought against U.S. companies in Russian courts, with some facing potential damages of hundreds of millions of dollars. Under current law, Russian litigants can use these court decisions as a basis to sue American companies in the U.S. or in international courts of arbitration. American companies that rightfully stopped doing business in Russia following Putin's invasion should not be punished or subjected to Russian lawfare. The Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2025 will close a critical loophole used by Russian courts to retaliate against U.S. companies for sanctions compliance, effectively ending Russian lawfare on American businesses. So I look forward to a successful markup here today and ask for the committee's support. Thank you.

Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, one small area of disagreement with my partner in this legislation, Senator Cornyn. He suggests that we may be diametrically opposed. We both represent border states. We both love Mexican food. Both California and Texas is home to cowboy culture, some of the best in the country. Big fans of football, basketball, baseball, you name it. So we have a lot more in common than you might think given our party registration.

Okay, 10 percent. Okay.

But seriously, on the bill before us, Mr. Chairman, I thank Senator Cornyn actually for his leadership on this critical issue. It is one of a number that we have been able to work together on over the years. Now, this bill reflects a straightforward principle. American individuals and American businesses should not be punished for complying with the laws of the United States. Plain and simple. Our bill addresses not a hypothetical problem but a very real problem. When the United States imposes sanctions or export controls to defend our national security and uphold international norms, American individuals and businesses must often suspend or terminate contracts with foreign entities in order to comply with the laws of the United States. Our foreign adversaries, however, have increasingly sought to exploit this dynamic and weaponize federal courts and arbitration tribunals for that matter to harass American companies in response. And foreign courts have issued judgments penalizing American entities for doing exactly what we are requiring of them to do by law. For example, Russian courts have issued substantial and often exorbitant penalties against American financial institutions, technology companies for adhering to U.S. sanctions. It's simply unfair and directly undermines our legal system and the effectiveness of our sanctions regime. And so put simply, Americans should not be forced to choose between complying with the laws of the United States and facing legal consequences abroad that follow them back home. And to underscore the importance and the urgency of this, I'll call your attention to the fact that the House Judiciary Committee is also advancing companion legislation identical to the language before us today simultaneously. So we're moving significantly, moving swiftly, moving quickly. We want to further highlight the importance of this bipartisan and bicameral effort and I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill. Thank you.

Without objection, we'll do the bill by voice vote. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no. Unanimous it sounds like, so the bill will be reported. Meeting adjourned.