[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1027-S1030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. HIRONO (for herself and Mr. Schatz):
  S. 554. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a 
study on the establishment of, and the potential land that could be 
included in, a unit of the National Forest System in the State of 
Hawaii, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study on the 
establishment of, and the potential land that could be included in, a 
unit of the National Forest System in the State of Hawaii.
  The U.S. Forest Service currently oversees more than 150 National 
forests that receive Federal funding for watershed protection, wildlife 
conservation, enhancement of recreational access, wildfire prevention, 
among other things. Despite having unique forest ecosystems found 
nowhere else in the Nation, Hawaii is currently among the few States 
that do not have a National Forest. If warranted, a National Forest 
designation in Hawaii could provide additional Federal research and 
management resources.
  This bill directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary, 
acting through the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, to conduct a study 
in coordination with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural 
Resources, and in consultation with the Hawaii Department of 
Agriculture as well as other State and local stakeholders, on the 
islands of Hawaii, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui.
  This study would, among other things, assess unique vegetation types, 
opportunities to improve and protect forest resources, secure favorable 
water flows, and opportunities for visitor use.
  The Secretary of Agriculture is given three years to conduct the 
study and report the results to Congress. Information from that report 
will then inform which lands in Hawaii, if any, would be suitable for 
inclusion in a National Forest. This bill is supported by the Hawaii 
Department of Land and Natural Resources.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 557. A bill to establish a pilot program for native plant species, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native 
Plant Species Pilot Program Act. I am pleased to be partnering with 
Senator Cantwell on this initiative. Our bipartisan bill would create a 
new pilot program at the National Park Service to support the use of 
native plants, and would direct the Park Service to review existing 
data and study the cost-effectiveness of using native plants.
  Native plants are species found naturally in regions and can add 
beauty and value to our National Park System. Benefits range from using 
less water and pesticides, purifying the air, and recharging 
groundwater in wetlands. By using native species, the Park Service can 
also improve habitat for wildlife and restore important species of 
birds and butterflies to their natural environment.
  In Acadia National Park, native plants are an important part of the 
ongoing conservation efforts undertaken by Superintendent Kevin 
Schneider and all those who work to encourage the use of native plants. 
Acadia National Park protects more than 900 plant species, including 
some that are globally, nationally, and locally rare.
  Acadia is home to the vibrant rhodoras that flower along wetland 
edges in the spring and stunning wood lilies that bloom on the mountain 
tops

[[Page S1028]]

in August, helping to attract the more than 3.5 million visitors a year 
to the seventh most-visited national park in the United States. The 
Wild Gardens of Acadia, located at Sieur de Monts, are a collection of 
more than 400 native plants maintained almost exclusively by park 
volunteers and represent the natural plant communities found within 
Acadia National Park. This partnership project with Friends of Acadia 
allows visitors to easily step through the park's myriad habitats and 
learn about the splendor of Acadia's native plant species. The Wild 
Gardens celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2021.
  Native plants, however, face many threats, such as non-native pests, 
non-native plants, diseases, and a changing climate. Today, almost one 
quarter of Acadia National Park's species are non-native to the park. 
The red spruce, iconic to Acadia, is projected to lose a substantial 
amount of its habitat in coming decades because of climate change. In 
addition, invasive pests, such as the Emerald Ash Borer and the hemlock 
woolly adelgid are affecting northern forests and have expanded into 
Maine. Hemlock woolly adelgid recently infested hemlock trees just 
outside of the park on Mount Desert Island.
  Our bipartisan bill has earned endorsements from the Garden Club of 
America, Friends of Acadia, Scenic America, and the Native Plant Center 
at Westchester Community College. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation to help protect the natural landscapes at our national 
parks for years to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Rounds):
  S. 569. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 
certain National Forest System land to the State of South Dakota, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 569

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gilt Edge Mine Conveyance 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     approximately 266 acres of National Forest System land within 
     the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Boundary, as generally depicted 
     on the map.
       (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Gilt 
     Edge Mine Conveyance Act'' and dated August 20, 2020.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest 
     Service.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means State of South Dakota.

     SEC. 3. LAND CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the terms and conditions 
     described in this Act, if the State submits to the Secretary 
     an offer to acquire the Federal land for the market value, as 
     determined by the appraisal under subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall convey the Federal land to the State.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The conveyance under subsection 
     (a) shall be--
       (1) subject to valid existing rights;
       (2) made by quitclaim deed; and
       (3) subject to any other terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of 
     the United States.
       (c) Appraisal.--
       (1) In general.--Before submitting an offer under 
     subsection (a), the State shall complete an appraisal to 
     determine the market value of the Federal land.
       (2) Standards.--The appraisal under paragraph (1) shall be 
     conducted in accordance with--
       (A) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisitions; and
       (B) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (d) Map.--
       (1) Availability of map.--The map shall be kept on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate office of 
     the Forest Service.
       (2) Correction of errors.--The Secretary may correct any 
     errors in the map.
       (e) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the State shall pay to the Secretary an 
     amount equal to the market value of the Federal land, as 
     determined by the appraisal under subsection (c).
       (f) Survey.--The State shall prepare a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary of the exact acreage and legal 
     description of the Federal land to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a).
       (g) Costs of Conveyance.--As a condition on the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the State shall pay all costs 
     associated with the conveyance, including the cost of--
       (1) the appraisal under subsection (c); and
       (2) the survey under subsection (f).
       (h) Proceeds From the Sale of Land.--Any proceeds received 
     by the Secretary from the conveyance under subsection (a) 
     shall be--
       (1) deposited in the fund established under Public Law 90-
     171 (commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a); 
     and
       (2) available to the Secretary until expended, without 
     further appropriation, for the maintenance and improvement of 
     land or administration facilities in the Black Hills National 
     Forest in the State.
       (i) Environmental Conditions.--Notwithstanding section 
     120(h)(3)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9620(h)(3)(A)), the Secretary shall not be required to 
     provide any covenant or warranty for the Federal land 
     conveyed to the State under this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Padilla):
  S. 572. A bill to provide for the water quality restoration of the 
Tijuana River and the New River, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the 
``Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act.''
  For over two decades, cleaning up the Tijuana River Valley has been 
one of my top priorities for Southern California. The wastewater, trash 
and sediment that continues to flow into San Diego and Imperial 
Counties is an alarming danger to public health and our economy. 
Although we have made recent strides in cleaning up this pollution, 
there is much work remaining.
  That's why I am proud to introduce this important legislation, once 
again, to help address this decades-long issue. I am very pleased 
Senator Padilla has joined me as an original cosponsor and I look 
forward to working with him on this important issue.
  Polluted water from the Tijuana and New Rivers flows north across the 
border into the United States causing unsanitary water conditions, 
pollution and beach closures across Southern California. It also 
jeopardizes military training exercises for Navy Seals in Camp 
Pendleton.
  Three-quarters of the 1,700-square-mile Tijuana River watershed lies 
in Mexico. However, the watershed, along with all its pollutants, 
drains into San Diego County and the Tijuana River Valley.
  In addition to jeopardizing human health and safety, two of the most 
drastic effects from this cross-border water pollution are harm to 
wildlife and damage to the tourism industry, integral to Southern 
Californian communities. As the coronavirus pandemic continues to 
threaten our nation's health and economy, it is critical we work to 
address the pollution in the region so California can welcome visitors 
back to their beaches when it is safe to do so.
  The beaches in the region are central to San Diego's tourism economy. 
In recent years, beaches in the communities of Coronado and Imperial 
Beach were closed for more than 200 days in a single year due to 
pollution.
  Health and safety of residents and workers are also at risk. In 
recent years, local Border Patrol union officials reported that 80 
officers suffered from contamination, rashes, infections, chemical 
burns and lung irritation due to toxic cross-border flows.
  In addition, pollution from Mexico harms sensitive areas that provide 
critical habitat for more than 300 species of birds as well as marine 
animals like leopard sharks and bottlenose dolphins. The region is home 
to multiple parks and public lands, including the Tijuana River's 
National Estuarine Research Reserve, the River Mouth State Marine 
Conservation Area and River Valley Regional Park Preserve.
  The harmful effects of pollution in the Tijuana River Valley on our 
residents, businesses, economy and environment are simply unacceptable.
  In February 2020, the Government Accountability Office issued a 
comprehensive report, ``International Boundary Water Commission: 
Opportunities Exist to Address Water Quality Problems.'' My office 
worked closely with the GAO to utilize their findings to craft 
meaningful change through this legislation.

[[Page S1029]]

  Simultaneously, we were able to secure $300 million in the U.S.-
Mexico-Canada trade agreement to address pollution in the Tijuana River 
Valley Watershed.
  With significant funding and detailed findings by the GAO 
investigation, we developed this legislation in concert with federal, 
state and local agency input. As beaches in both the United States and 
Mexico continue to close due to high levels of pollution, it is as 
imperative as ever to advance a solution that engages all stakeholders.
  The Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act includes key 
reforms to advance concrete solutions.
  One of the problems is that no one agency is in charge of this 
problem. A whole range of agencies--EPA, International Boundary and 
Water Commission, State Department, Department of Homeland Security, 
Customs and Border Protection, Defense Department--all have 
jurisdiction or interest in this international issue.
  What we need is one agency in charge, taking input from the others so 
decisions can be made. This approach is similar to other large, 
regional environmental challenges like the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, 
Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. Here in California, we have also seen 
great success with this model of interagency coordination at Lake 
Tahoe.
  Here's how the bill would work:
  The EPA would be officially named the agency with overall control of 
this effort.
  The EPA, along with its federal, state and local partners, would be 
directed to identify a list of priority projects. It also would be 
authorized to accept and distribute funds to build, operate and 
maintain those projects.
  The bill would permanently authorize the Border Water Infrastructure 
Program to manage storm water runoff and water reuse projects.
  State and local authorities would also be authorized to contribute 
funding to federal projects, which is currently not allowed.
  The International Boundary and Water Commission would be authorized 
to mitigate storm water from Mexico and the pollution that comes with 
it and is required to construct, operate and maintain projects on the 
priority list developed by the agencies within the U.S. that improve 
water quality.
  We need a new and comprehensive approach to this issue that has 
plagued border communities for too long. This bill creates a formal 
process to consider effective, long-term solutions and additional 
wastewater infrastructure to mitigate cross-border pollution and I hope 
the Senate can move on this bill quickly.
  I want to thank California Environmental Protection Agency, 
California Natural Resources Agency, San Diego and Imperial counties, 
cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado, Mayor of Chula Vista, Mary 
Casillas Salas, the City of San Diego and the Port of San Diego for 
supporting this legislation. These communities, and others, have been 
negatively impacted by this issue for far too long.
  It's past time that we finally solve this problem to safeguard local 
health and economic growth.
  Once again, I thank Senator Padilla for his cosponsorship. Thank you, 
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Murphy, Ms. 
        Collins, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. 
        Baldwin, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Warnock):
  S. 578. A bill to improve the health and safety of Americans living 
with food allergies and related disorders, including potentially life-
threatening anaphylaxis, food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome, 
and eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, and for other purposes; 
considered and passed.

                                 S. 578

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Food Allergy Safety, 
     Treatment, Education, and Research Act of 2021'' or the 
     ``FASTER Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. FOOD ALLERGY SAFETY.

       (a) In General.--Section 201(qq)(1) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(qq)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``and soybeans'' and inserting ``soybeans, and 
     sesame''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any food that is introduced or delivered for 
     introduction into interstate commerce on or after January 1, 
     2023.

     SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that 
     includes--
       (1) descriptions of ongoing Federal activities related to--
       (A) the surveillance and collection of data on the 
     prevalence of food allergies and severity of allergic 
     reactions for specific food or food ingredients, including 
     the identification of any gaps in such activities;
       (B) the development of effective food allergy diagnostics;
       (C) the prevention of the onset of food allergies;
       (D) the reduction of risks related to living with food 
     allergies; and
       (E) the development of new therapeutics to prevent, treat, 
     cure, and manage food allergies; and
       (2) specific recommendations and strategies to expand, 
     enhance, or improve activities described in paragraph (1), 
     including--
       (A) strategies to improve the accuracy of food allergy 
     prevalence data by expanding and intensifying current 
     collection methods, including support for research that 
     includes the identification of biomarkers and tests to 
     validate survey data and the investigation of the use of 
     identified biomarkers and tests in national surveys;
       (B) strategies to overcome gaps in surveillance and data 
     collection activities related to food allergies and specific 
     food allergens; and
       (C) recommendations for the development and implementation 
     of a regulatory process and framework that would allow for 
     the timely, transparent, and evidence-based modification of 
     the definition of ``major food allergen'' included in section 
     201(qq) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     321(qq)), including with respect to--
       (i) the scientific criteria for defining a food or food 
     ingredient as a ``major food allergen'' pursuant to such 
     process, including recommendations pertaining to evidence of 
     the prevalence and severity of allergic reactions to a food 
     or food ingredient that would be required in order to 
     establish that such food or food ingredient is an allergen of 
     public health concern appropriate for such process; and
       (ii) opportunities for stakeholder engagement and comment, 
     as appropriate, in considering any such modification to such 
     definition.
       (b) Publication.--The Secretary shall make the report under 
     subsection (a) available on the internet website of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. 
        Whitehouse):
  S. 579. A bill to make a technical correction to the ALS Disability 
Insurance Access Act of 2019; considered and passed.

                                 S. 579

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. RETROACTIVE ACCESS TO SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY 
                   BENEFITS INDIVIDUALS WITH AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL 
                   SCLEROSIS (ALS).

       (a) In General.--Section 2(b) of the ALS Disability 
     Insurance Access Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-250) is amended 
     by striking ``applications for disability insurance benefits 
     filed after the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting 
     ``applications for disability insurance benefits approved 
     after the date that is 5 months before the date of enactment 
     of this Act''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the ALS 
     Disability Insurance Access Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-250).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 580. A bill to reauthorize the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
``Affordable Housing Redevelopment Act,'' which I introduced today.
  I want to thank Senator Padilla for joining me on this important 
bill, and Representatives Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson for leading a 
companion measure in the House of Representatives.
  Established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program was created by Congress to help 
provide assistance to communities hit hard by the recession by funding 
the acquisition and rehabilitation of troubled residential properties.

[[Page S1030]]

  The program helped States, local governments, and nonprofit 
organizations acquire properties and rehabilitate or repurpose them as 
long-term affordable housing.
  Between 2008 and 2019, Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds have 
facilitated the construction or rehabilitation of more than 50,000 
homes, and the program has generated $1.8 billion in return income, 
allowing communities to stretch Federal investments even further.
  Today, more than 7.4 million units of affordable housing are needed 
across the U.S. to meet the needs of low-income renters. In my home 
State of California, more than 1.4 million units are needed to address 
the State's affordable housing shortage.
  Due to financial burdens and loss of income resulting from the COVID-
19 pandemic, millions of people in the United States are at risk of 
eviction or foreclosure, and the need for more affordable housing is 
expected to increase dramatically.
  In addition to making long-term investments in building new 
affordable housing in the United States, it is also critically 
important to focus resources on more immediate solutions, such as 
acquiring and rehabilitating existing buildings.
  Acquisition and rehabilitation provides two distinct advantages: it 
lowers per-unit construction costs and makes affordable housing units 
available to low-income households much faster.
  The ``Affordable Housing Redevelopment Act'' would reauthorize and 
expand the Neighborhood Stabilization Program to help State and local 
governments purchase blighted, vacant, abandoned, foreclosed, or 
surplus properties, and convert them into affordable housing. Eligible 
projects would include mixed-use development and conversions of non-
residential office and retail properties.
  All new units would have to serve households whose income does not 
exceed area median income, and at least 25 percent of units would serve 
households whose income does not exceed 50 percent of area median 
income. Long-term affordability requirements would apply in all cases.
  The bill would authorize $1.5 billion in discretionary appropriations 
to be allocated as a competitive grant program administered by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  This bill provides a targeted and cost effective way for the Federal 
government to help communities build more affordable housing, while 
also stimulating local economies and creating jobs.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. Thank you, 
Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Booker, Mr. Markey, 
        Mr. Murphy, Ms. Warren, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, 
        Ms. Smith, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Schatz, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Ossoff, and Ms. Baldwin):
  S. 582. A bill to prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for 
any violation of Federal law, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 582

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Death Penalty 
     Prohibition Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no person may be sentenced to death or put to death on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act for any violation 
     of Federal law.
       (b) Persons Sentenced Before Date of Enactment.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person 
     sentenced to death before the date of enactment of this Act 
     for any violation of Federal law shall be resentenced.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Young, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Lee, Mr. 
        Coons, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Durbin):
  S.J. Res. 10. A joint resolution to repeal the authorizations for use 
of military force against Iraq, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce in the 
Senate, with my colleagues Senators Young, Duckworth, Lee, Coons, 
Grassley, Durbin and Paul a bipartisan resolution to repeal the 1991 
and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. 
This legislation will formally end the authorizations for the Gulf and 
Iraq wars--30 and 19 years, respectively, after these AUMFs were first 
passed, reasserting Congress' vital role in not only declaring wars, 
but in ending them. The repeal of these authorizations also recognizes 
the strong partnership the United States now has with a sovereign, 
democratic Iraq.
  The United States is no longer at war with Iraq and our legal 
frameworks should reflect this reality as much as our policy 
frameworks, to include the Strategic Framework Agreement that Iraq and 
the United States signed in November 2008, which affirms the 
establishment of a long-term relationship of cooperation and 
friendship, based on the principle of equality in sovereignty and the 
rights and principles that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
  Since 2014, U.S. troops have been in Iraq, alongside Iraqi forces, at 
the Government of Iraq's request for assistance in combating the 
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Current Administration 
officials, including President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, 
Secretary of Defense Austin and Commander of the United States Central 
Command, General McKenzie, have routinely emphasized that United States 
military forces remain in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of 
Iraq and in respect to its sovereignty. Recent presidential 
administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to 
``reinforce'' any legal authority to combat ISIS provided by the 2001 
AUMF and is not independently required to authorize any such 
activities. As such, repealing the 1991 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF would 
not affect ongoing United States military operations. It would however, 
prevent the future misuse of the Gulf and Iraq War authorizations and 
strengthen Congressional oversight over war powers.
  It is past time to repeal both AUMFs and formally mark the end of the 
Iraq War that resulted in a devastating loss of life and wounded tens 
of thousands of our troops. It makes no sense that two AUMFs remain in 
place against a country that is now a close partner. They serve no 
operational purpose, run the risk of future abuse by the President, and 
help keep our nation at permanent war.
  I am proud to join this group of Senators in introducing a bill to 
repeal these outdated and unnecessary authorizations. I hope we can 
continue to find bipartisan compromise on these tough war power issues 
to include revising and replacing the 2001 AUMF.

                          ____________________