Condemning the coercive actions of the People's Republic of China against Japan in response to statements regarding Taiwan and reaffirming the United States commitment to its allies in the Indo-Pacific region.

— 573 — Department of Justice ENDNOTES 1. Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73 (1789), https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/docs/Judiciary_ Act_1789.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 2. An Act to Establish the Department of Justice, Public Law No. 41-97, 16 Stat. 162 (1870), https://www.justice. gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/10/23/act-pl41-97.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 3. John F. Fox, Jr., “The Birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “History,” July 2003, https://bit.ly/3G4LmD0 (accessed February 3, 2023). 4. Trafalgar Group, “Nationwide Issues Survey August 2022,” pp. 19, 22, and 25, https://www.thetrafalgargroup. org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/COSA-FBI_DOJ-Opinion-Full-Report-0824.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 5. John Solomon, “FBI Email Chain May Provide Most Damning Evidence of FISA Abuses Yet,” The Hill, December 5, 2018, https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may-provide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisa- abuses-yet/ (accessed February 3, 2023); Post Editorial Board, “The FBI Knew RussiaGate Was a Lie—But Hid That Truth,” New York Post, June 11, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/the-fbi-knew-russiagate-was-a-lie- but-hid-that-truth/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 6. John Solomon, “Collusion Bombshell: DNC Lawyers Met with FBI on Russia Allegations Before Surveillance Warrant,” The Hill, October 3, 2018, https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bombshell-dnc- lawyers-met-with-fbi-on-dossier-before/ (accessed February 3, 2023); Eric Tucker, “Ex-FBI Lawyer Admits to False Statement During Russia Probe,” AP News, August 19, 2020, https://apnews.com/article/election-2020- b9b3c7ef398d00d5dfee9170d66cefec (accessed February 3, 2023). 7. Jesse O’Neill, “FBI Pressured Twitter, Sent Trove of Docs Hours Before Post Broke Hunter Laptop Story,” New York Post, December 19, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/fbi-reached-out-to-twitter-before-post-broke- hunter-biden-laptop-story/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 8. Memorandum from Attorney General Merrick Garland to Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; and United States Attorneys, “Subject: Partnership Among Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement to Address Threats Against School Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and Staff,” October 4, 2021, https:// www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download (accessed February 3, 2023) (cited hereafter as Garland Memorandum, October 4, 2021). 9. Dillon Burroughs, “25 States Have Now Left National School Boards Association as Nebraska Departs,” Daily Wire, June 13, 2022, https://www.dailywire.com/news/25-states-have-now-left-national-school-boards- association-as-nebraska-departs (accessed February 3, 2023). 10. Brianna Herlily, “FBI Met Weekly with Big Tech Ahead of the 2020 Election, Agent Testifies,” Fox News, December 3, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent- testifies (accessed February 3, 2023); Allie Griffin, “Latest ‘Twitter Files’ Show FBI Bullied Executives Over Not Reporting ‘State Propaganda’ Enough, New York Post, December 18, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/18/ latest-twitter-files-show-fbi-questioned-executives-over-users-spouting-state-propaganda/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 11. Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD), “In the end, the FBI's influence campaign aimed at executives at news media, Twitter, & other social media companies worked: they censored & discredited the Hunter Biden laptop story. By Dec. 2020, Baker and his colleagues even sent a note of thanks to the FBI for its work,” Twitter, December 19, 2022, 1:35 PM), https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604908212628598784 (accessed February 3, 2023). 12. Press release, “Eleven Charged with FACE Act Violations Stemming from 2021 Blockade of Mount Juliet Reproductive Health Clinic,” U.S. Department of Justice, United States Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Tennessee, October 5, 2022, https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdtn/pr/eleven-charged-face-act-violations- stemming-2021-blockade-mount-juliet-reproductive (accessed February 3, 2023); Kaelan Deese, “DOJ Official Touts Prosecution of Anti-Abortion Advocates While Vandalized Pregnancy Centers Await Justice,” Washington Examiner, December 14, 2022, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/doj-official- admits-to-prosecuting-pro-life-advocates (accessed February 3, 2023); S. 636, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, Public Law No. 103-259, 103rd Congress, May 26, 1994, https://www.congress.gov/103/ statute/STATUTE-108/STATUTE-108-Pg694.pdf (accessed February 5, 2023). — 574 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 13. Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman, “Almost Half of Federal Cases Against Portland Rioters Have Been Dismissed,” The Wall Street Journal, updated April 15, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/almost-half- of-federal-cases-against-portland-rioters-have-been-dismissed-11618501979 (accessed February 3, 2023); Just the News Staff, “Antifa-led Portland Rioter Charged with Assault Police [sic] Has Case Dismissed After Community Service,” Just the News, updated December 30, 2021, https://justthenews.com/government/ courts-law/antifa-led-portland-rioter-charge-assault-police-has-case-dismissed-after (accessed February 3, 2023). 14. Press release, “Justice Department Sues Texas Over Senate Bill 8: Complaint Alleges Senate Bill 8 Violates the Constitution by Effectively Banning Most Abortions,” U.S. Department of Justice, September 9, 2021, https:// www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-texas-over-senate-bill-8 (accessed February 3, 2023). 15. Dorian Geiger, “DOJ Warns States Over Blocking Access to Gender-Affirming Treatment,” Axios, March 31, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/03/31/doj-warns-states-blocking-gender-affirming-care (accessed February 3, 2023). 16. Joyce White Vance, “The Justice Department Is Suing Georgia. Don’t Expect Garland to End There,” The Washington Post, June 29, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/29/merrick-garland- suing-georgia-voting/ (accessed February 3, 2023); David Nakamura and Devlin Barrett, “Justice Dept. Sues Texas Over State Redistricting Maps, Citing Discrimination Against Latinos,” The Washington Post, December 6, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/texas-maps-garland-latinos- justice/2021/12/06/4011ce78-56aa-11ec-9a18-a506cf3aa31d_story.html (accessed February 3, 2023); Holmes Lybrand and Paul LeBlanc, “Justice Department Sues Arizona Over New Election Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship,” CNN, updated July 5, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/politics/arizona-election-law- justice-department/index.html (accessed February 3, 2023). 17. Zachary Pottle, “America’s Fentanyl Crisis Is Getting Worse,” Addiction Center, August 26, 2022, https://www. addictioncenter.com/news/2022/08/americas-fentanyl-crisis/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 18. Emily Jacobs, “Merrick Garland Speaks at DOJ Before Swearing-in by VP Kamala Harris,” New York Post, updated March 11, 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/merrick-garland-speaks-at-doj-before-swearing-in- by-kamala-harris/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 19. Eliot H. Lumbard, “State and Local Government Crime Control,” Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 43, Issue 6 (1968), pp. 899–907, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?httpsredir=1&article=3119&context=ndlr (accessed February 3, 2023). 20. Emma Colton, “Chip Roy Demands DOJ Explain Light Sentence for Floyd Riot Arsonist Who Killed Father of 5,” Fox News, February 10, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chip-roy-light-sentence-george-floyd- arsonist-riots-2020 (accessed February 3, 2023); Chris Enloe, “DOJ Asked for Lenient Sentence for 2020 Rioter Who Burned Down Pawn Shop, Killing One Man. Prosecutors Even Cited MLK,” Blaze Media News, January 29, 2022, https://www.theblaze.com/news/doj-lenient-sentence-rioter-arson#toggle-gdpr (accessed February 3, 2023); Chris Pandolfo, “House Republicans Release 1,000-Page Report Alleging Politicization in the FBI, DOJ,” Fox News, November 4, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-release- 1000-page-report-alleging-politicization-fbi-doj (accessed February 3, 2023); Brooke Singman, “Cruz Slams ‘Politicized’ Biden DOJ for Appointing Trump Special Counsel: ‘Absolutely Disgraceful,’” Fox News, November19, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cruz-slams-biden-doj-appointing-special-counsel-investigate- trump-absolutely-disgraceful (accessed February 3, 2023). 21. 8 U.S. Code § 1324 (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324 (accessed March 9, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1325 (Improper entry by alien), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ text/8/1325 (accessed February 5, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1326 (Reentry of removed aliens), https://www.law. cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1326 (accessed February 5, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1327 (Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1327 (accessed February 5, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1328 (Importation of alien for immoral purpose), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1328 (accessed February 5, 2023; press release, “In Brief Filed with Supreme Court, AFL Hammers Biden Administration’s Termination of MPP—Cites Alarming Statistic That Biden Administration Has Already Released More Than 750,000 Illegal Aliens into the United States from the Border,” America First Legal Foundation, April 14, 2022, https://aflegal.org/ in-brief-filed-with-supreme-court-afl-hammers-biden-administrations-termination-of-mpp-citing-alarming- statistic-that-biden-administration-has-already-released-more-than-750000-ille/ (accessed February 5, 2023).

— 703 — Department of the Treasury l The U.S. should also examine increasing or decreasing its ownership levels in these institutions in order to achieve maximum leverage. CHINA AND OTHER GEOPOLITICAL THREATS Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States should realign its priorities to meet the United States’ current foreign policy threats, especially from China. On October 20, 2022, the Treasury Department, which chairs CFIUS, adopted the first-ever CFIUS Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines50 on the committee’s national security risk mitigation requirements. However, there are no clear rules that guide CFIUS on mitigation monitoring, nor is there a published penalty sched- ule to standardize accountability when CFIUS pursues a civil money penalty for violators. In addition, Treasury—as chair of the committee—runs an opaque pro- cess that biases committee procedure toward corporate interests and away from national security interests. Finally, the committee’s jurisdiction does not extend over greenfield investments that Chinese state-owned enterprises have historically pursued in the United States, which leaves America vulnerable to an instrument of Chinese economic statecraft. Given these issues, the next steps for CFIUS should be to develop a more coherent—and transparent—mitigation monitoring program to complement the enforcement guidelines, give CFIUS agencies in charge of national security con- cerns an equal voice at the table, and petition Congress to amend the law to cover Chinese greenfield investments. CFIUS should publish a penalty schedule for violations of CFIUS reporting and mitigation requirements. Publishing a penalty schedule for CFIUS violations will reduce the discretion of the committee to waive penalties or impose mere “wrist slap” costs on violators of the law. Additionally, a standardized penalty schedule would likely increase the deterrence of CFIUS enforcement by reducing the per- ception among parties to covered transactions that they can avoid enforcement by the committee or secure special exceptions based on appeals to the commit- tee’s discretion. As a legal matter—and in application by CFIUS—mitigation monitoring has developed as the Wild West. There are no clear rules that guide the entire com- mittee on mitigation monitoring, nor is there the same level of oversight or accountability within and among the agencies as applies when CFIUS reviews a transaction or when it pursues a civil money penalty. Indeed, it is a credit to transaction parties and the professionalism of the governmental officials and con- tractors who conduct mitigation monitoring on behalf of the government that, by and large, mitigation monitoring has worked adequately during the last several decades. But dependency on the personality and capabilities of individuals creates unnecessary risk both for CFIUS and for transaction parties. — 704 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should make the Department of Defense (DOD) a CFIUS co-chair with the Department of Treasury. Making DOD an official CFIUS co-chair along with Treasury will establish a balanced committee process by elevating national security interests to an equal stature. The committee is currently imbalanced toward the interests of corporate America because Treasury is the sole chair of CFIUS and, in practice, runs a process that is not fully transparent and which biases it from the national security interests represented by DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC). For example, Treasury representatives will consult with the Commerce Depart- ment and the United States Trade Representative—which tend to favor permitting covered transactions to occur with little to no mitigation requirements—and these representatives will then obscure the results and purposes of such sidebar meet- ings from DOD and IC representatives. This hampers DOD, IC, and sometimes even State Department representatives from full participation in the process or from advocating national security interests as well as they should. Greenfield Investments. Congress should close the loophole on greenfield investments and require CFIUS review of investments in U.S.-based greenfield assets by Chinese-controlled entities to assess any potential harm to U.S. national and economic security. In the 2018 Foreign Risk and Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA),51 one important category of foreign transactions left out of the bill was greenfield investments, particularly by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Greenfield investments by Chinese SOEs pose a unique threat, and they should be met with the highest scrutiny by all levels of government. Greenfield investments result in the control of newly built facilities in the U.S., and they were not addressed in FIRRMA primarily because governors and state governments embrace them. That is understandable; they typically bring the promise of creating American jobs. However, the goal of such Chinese SOEs is to siphon assets, technological innovation, and influence away from U.S. businesses in order to expand the global presence of the Chinese Communist Party. While the Chinese government keeps its domestic markets largely insulated from foreign influence, it regularly invests in the U.S. and other countries under the “green- field” model. Firms fully owned by China’s Communist regime are increasingly buying land, building factories, and taking advantage of state and local tax breaks on American soil. Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. Recent experience has demonstrated that the U.S. cannot depend on the rapid development and deployment of untested, academically developed finan- cial actions, stratagems, and weapons on an ad hoc basis.

— 703 — Department of the Treasury l The U.S. should also examine increasing or decreasing its ownership levels in these institutions in order to achieve maximum leverage. CHINA AND OTHER GEOPOLITICAL THREATS Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States should realign its priorities to meet the United States’ current foreign policy threats, especially from China. On October 20, 2022, the Treasury Department, which chairs CFIUS, adopted the first-ever CFIUS Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines50 on the committee’s national security risk mitigation requirements. However, there are no clear rules that guide CFIUS on mitigation monitoring, nor is there a published penalty sched- ule to standardize accountability when CFIUS pursues a civil money penalty for violators. In addition, Treasury—as chair of the committee—runs an opaque pro- cess that biases committee procedure toward corporate interests and away from national security interests. Finally, the committee’s jurisdiction does not extend over greenfield investments that Chinese state-owned enterprises have historically pursued in the United States, which leaves America vulnerable to an instrument of Chinese economic statecraft. Given these issues, the next steps for CFIUS should be to develop a more coherent—and transparent—mitigation monitoring program to complement the enforcement guidelines, give CFIUS agencies in charge of national security con- cerns an equal voice at the table, and petition Congress to amend the law to cover Chinese greenfield investments. CFIUS should publish a penalty schedule for violations of CFIUS reporting and mitigation requirements. Publishing a penalty schedule for CFIUS violations will reduce the discretion of the committee to waive penalties or impose mere “wrist slap” costs on violators of the law. Additionally, a standardized penalty schedule would likely increase the deterrence of CFIUS enforcement by reducing the per- ception among parties to covered transactions that they can avoid enforcement by the committee or secure special exceptions based on appeals to the commit- tee’s discretion. As a legal matter—and in application by CFIUS—mitigation monitoring has developed as the Wild West. There are no clear rules that guide the entire com- mittee on mitigation monitoring, nor is there the same level of oversight or accountability within and among the agencies as applies when CFIUS reviews a transaction or when it pursues a civil money penalty. Indeed, it is a credit to transaction parties and the professionalism of the governmental officials and con- tractors who conduct mitigation monitoring on behalf of the government that, by and large, mitigation monitoring has worked adequately during the last several decades. But dependency on the personality and capabilities of individuals creates unnecessary risk both for CFIUS and for transaction parties.