[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 21, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S841-S847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
REPEALING THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ--
Motion to Proceed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 316,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 25, S. 316, to repeal the
authorizations for use of military force against Iraq.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Sunshine Protection Act
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, on a lighter note than the majority
leader's, I would like to talk about something a little different.
A couple of weekends ago, Americans across the country lost an hour
of sleep to ``spring forward'' and reset their clocks for what we call
daylight savings time. I am willing to bet losing that hour might have
caused some friends back home in Alabama to have been late for church
that day.
But the outdated practice of changing our clocks twice a year has
many more consequences than the inconvenience of running behind, and
Congress should make this year the last time we ever change our clocks
by passing the Sunshine Protection Act.
Over the past 2 years, I have received many, many calls from people
across Alabama to make daylight savings time permanent. Many
Alabamians, including parents, seniors, farmers, citizens, and mental
health professionals, have all reached out to my office in support of
days of more sunshine in the evening--but not just Alabamians.
Millions--I mean, millions--of Americans are ready to end the outdated
practice of springing forward and falling back.
The idea of daylight savings time was originally known as wartime, W-
A-R. It was first introduced as a temporary measure to conserve energy
and better utilize resources during World War I. Now, nearly 100 years
later, Americans' energy consumption has rapidly, rapidly changed.
While adjustments to our clocks might have made sense when it first
began, it does not make sense for modern times today.
That is why I joined Senator Marco Rubio and a bipartisan group of my
colleagues to reintroduce the Sunshine Protection Act to make daylight
savings time permanent. The bill would provide an extra hour of
sunlight in the afternoon, which would be most notable during the dark
and cold winter months.
Many studies have proven that extra sunlight in the evening can lead
to improvements in mental health, physical fitness, economic growth,
and overall well-being. It is a simple way we could positively impact
the day-to-day life of all Americans and finally get something done
that a lot of people really care about.
Shifting clocks can disrupt sleep patterns, but a permanent daylight
savings time will help Americans maintain a consistent sleep schedule.
Studies have suggested that the disruption of sleep patterns associated
with the shift in time has increased the risks of cardiovascular
disease and physical injuries. Northwestern Medicine found that the
``fall back'' and ``spring forward'' comes with a 9-percent spike in
fatal car accidents and a 24-percent higher risk of heart attacks.
Additionally, the long-term effects linked to daylight saving time
include weight gain, headaches, and depression. The time switch in the
fall increases seasonal affective disorder every year.
A study published in 2017 found that the transition from daylight
saving time to standard time increased--increased--the number of
hospital visits for depression by 11 percent.
Permanent daylight saving time with extra sunlight in the evening
will also encourage more physical activity, allow more time for people
to go on walks, participate in recreational activities, and attend
outdoor events. Kids will be able to enjoy more time outdoors after
school with friends year-round, and older Americans will have more
access to vitamin D.
Longer daylight hours in the evening have proven to stimulate
economic activity, as well, because people are more likely to shop,
dine out, and participate in other activities.
COVID lockdowns, which were very recent, and their crippling economic
effect throughout the country underscore how valuable our small
businesses are for local economies and our entire Nation as a whole.
The agriculture industry is also greatly affected by daylight saving
time, as more sunshine during working hours means more time to work on
their crops, which could translate into a more profitable bottom line.
It could also decrease expensive energy consumption on farms by
reducing the need for artificial lighting and heating.
It is estimated that the time change costs the U.S. economy more than
$400 million in lost productivity annually.
Alabama, along with 17 other States, has already passed legislation
to end the outdated practice of changing our clocks--17. However, the
Federal Government must act to make those laws go into effect.
Congress should listen--should listen--to the people and pass the
Sunshine Protection Act to make daylight saving time permanent before
we readjust our clocks again next fall. The change would improve our
health, bolster our economy, benefit our farmers, and put America on
the path to a brighter future.
It is time for America to move forward and stop falling back.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Nomination of Phillip A. Washington
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Phil Washington,
President Biden's nominee to serve as the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, the top job at the FAA.
The FAA has been in the news far too often lately, from the software
meltdown of a critical safety system in January that resulted in the
first U.S. ground stop of aircraft since September 11 to recent,
numerous near-misses of airliners on runways. These incidents are a
stark reminder of why it is essential to have an FAA Administrator with
decades of deep and real aviation experience, especially experience in
aviation safety. After all, the FAA's primary mission is to keep the
flying public safe.
This mission is so important that Congress has explicitly mandated,
by statute, that the FAA Administrator must ``have experience in a
field directly related to aviation.'' This is not a patronage job; this
is an aviation safety job. And it is, frankly, irresponsible to entrust
the role of protecting the lives of millions of Americans who fly in
the hands of a person who needs on-the-job training. Unfortunately,
that is exactly what we have with President Biden's FAA nominee, Phil
Washington.
I am deeply disappointed that the Biden White House decided to treat
a critical safety position as a political spoil system, to reward a
political ally rather than to ensure an experienced safety professional
to keep us all safe. And as a result of the Biden White House playing
politics with this critically important position, the FAA has lacked a
Senate-confirmed leader for a year now.
[[Page S842]]
Phil Washington is objectively, indisputably unqualified to lead the
FAA. For two decades, he worked at mass transit agencies, where he was
in charge of buses and trains, not planes. That experience might
qualify him to serve at the Federal Transit Administration or on the
board of Amtrak. Those would be reasonable nominations given Mr.
Washington's experience. But buses and trains have nothing to do with
airplanes.
The indisputable fact is that Mr. Washington has zero aviation
experience and, in particular, zero aviation safety experience. Mr.
Washington has never flown an airplane. He has never been a military
pilot. He has never been a commercial airline pilot. He has never
worked at an airline. He has never worked at an airline manufacturer.
He has never served as an air traffic controller. He has never worked
for a company that repairs airplanes.
The only aviation experience that Mr. Washington has is limited, for
the last 20 months, to working at the Denver airport as the CEO.
However, in that job, his primary responsibility is the physical plant
there. It is the airport's shopping. It is its dining. It is its
parking. It is its buildings. He doesn't have responsibility for
aviation and aviation safety. In particular, as Mr. Washington admitted
at his confirmation hearing, the pilots don't work for him, the
mechanics don't work for him, and the air traffic controllers don't
work for him. His job is not in aviation safety.
Aviation is a field involving highly technical issues. To understand
these issues, to lead the FAA, the head of the Federal Aviation
Administration needs to have extensive knowledge, experience, and
expertise in aviation. This shouldn't be a controversial statement,
and, historically, the head of the FAA has had decades of real, serious
experience in aviation safety.
The FAA Administrator is supposed to be a nonpartisan position for an
aviation expert. I don't want a Democrat FAA Administrator or a
Republican FAA Administrator. I want someone who has some idea how to
keep the damn planes in the sky. That is why the term of office is 5
years for this position--because it is not a position that is suitable
to partisan patronage, but rather you need nonpartisan experts.
FAA Administrators typically stay on the job even when the White
House changes hands. This is a job for someone with specialized
knowledge needed to ensure the safety of the flying public.
I will readily admit, I am wildly unqualified to be FAA
Administrator. No one in their right mind would put me in charge of
this Agency because I don't have any idea how to fly a plane. I
certainly don't know what needs to be done to ensure that they are
flying safely. The sad thing is, Mr. Washington doesn't know any more
than I do when it comes to this critical, specialized role.
Mr. Washington's nomination hearing confirmed what is abundantly
clear in his resume: that he lacks any aviation experience. At his
hearing, he was unable to answer basic aviation questions, including
safety questions about aircraft certification, about pilot licensing,
about airports.
I asked Mr. Washington about what caused the two tragic accidents
with the 737 MAX. He was forced to answer to say he didn't know. Sadly,
I believe him. But that is an enormous problem, given that 346 souls
were lost in those two horrific crashes. An FAA Administrator who
doesn't know what happened is not qualified to do the job.
One of the newest members of the committee, Senator Ted Budd, is a
pilot. I would commend the Presiding Officer, I would commend anyone,
go watch Senator Budd's questioning of Phil Washington. Senator Budd
asked him basic questions a pilot should know, basic questions such as
how close airplanes are allowed to get on runways. I will be honest. I
have no idea. I am not a pilot; I am not an air traffic controller; and
I am not running the FAA. But it is pretty stunning that the person
nominated to run the FAA has no idea either. That person should know
how to do his job.
And I will point out it wasn't just Republicans who raised these
questions. At the confirmation hearing, multiple Democrats raised
serious questions about Mr. Washington's lack of qualifications to lead
the FAA.
As a result, State and local aviation groups from all across the
country, including pilot groups from Arizona, from Montana, from New
Mexico, from Minnesota, from New Hampshire--all are opposed to this
nomination. One of them, the Montana Pilots Association, has said that
Mr. Washington is ``singularly unqualified to serve as FAA
administrator.''
And, unfortunately, the problems with Mr. Washington's nomination
don't end with his lack of aviation experience. There are also serious
concerns regarding outstanding allegations that Mr. Washington engaged
in misconduct during his time as the head of the Los Angeles Metro. He
has been named in multiple search warrants in an ongoing criminal
public corruption investigation, and he has been the subject of
multiple whistleblower complaints.
One search warrant was executed just last September, not very long
ago. It contained allegations that Mr. Washington pushed forward
lucrative no-bid contracts to a politically connected nonprofit to run
a sexual harassment hotline that was hardly ever used and that he did
so in order to stay in the good graces of a powerful politician on L.A.
Metro's board.
The allegations are the kind of local corruption, sadly, we see far
too often across this country in both parties. But a whistleblower who
exposed the details of this alleged pay-to-play contracting scheme
claims to have been retaliated against by Mr. Washington. After Mr.
Washington left the L.A. Metro, the agency settled these claims with
the whistleblower for $625,000. I practiced law for a long time. You
did as well. A $625,000 check is not a nuisance check. It is not a go-
away check. It is indicative that there is real there, there.
Whistleblowers don't get settlements for more than a half million
dollars if their claim is baseless.
During my 11 years in the Senate, I have seen lots of nominees. I
cannot recall seeing even a single other nominee who was currently
entangled in an ongoing public corruption criminal investigation while
his nomination was pending.
The week before his confirmation hearing, my staff contacted the
California attorney general's office about the status of this
investigation. Despite Mr. Washington's insistence that he has done
nothing wrong, the attorney general's office stated, No. 1, that there
is an ongoing criminal investigation into this public corruption
scheme; No. 2, that Mr. Washington has a ``material involvement in the
case''; and, No. 3, that the investigation is months from being
completed.
It is important to note that the law enforcement officers involved in
this investigation--from the L.A. County sheriff to the California
attorney general--are all Democrats. There is no issue of partisan
targeting. There is no Republican who has it out for Phil Washington.
This is a Democrat sheriff and a Democrat attorney general in
California who are investigating Mr. Washington right now for public
corruption.
Even more amazingly, when my staff spoke with the California attorney
general's office, the AG's office told us that at the time they spoke,
they were not aware of anybody from the White House, from the FBI, or
from the Senate who had even contacted them to ask about Mr.
Washington's ongoing involvement in the investigation.
That is truly stunning. That is, frankly, just not caring. It is
inexplicable to me that a President, that a White House, would choose
to nominate someone who is materially involved in a current ongoing
public corruption investigation. Just imagine how damaging it would be
to the FAA if Mr. Washington were confirmed and then months later he
were to find himself indicted for public corruption. That would do real
damage to an Agency that needs serious trust and leadership.
The FAA's mission to keep the flying public safe is far too important
to have anyone other than a highly experienced aviation expert at the
helm.
Fortunately, the FAA right now is being run by Acting Administrator
Billy Nolen, who unlike Mr. Washington has decades of aviation
experience. Mr. Nolen has worked as a pilot; he is a seasoned aviation
safety executive; and he has been in senior leadership roles at the
FAA.
[[Page S843]]
At the nomination hearing and at the hearing that followed the next
week with Acting Administrator Nolen, I suggested an obvious solution.
President Biden has already named an Acting Administrator who is
qualified and knows how to do the job. For those who are concerned
about racial diversity, both Mr. Washington and Mr. Nolen are both
African American. The difference is, Mr. Nolen has decades of
experience in aviation safety, and Mr. Washington has none.
The Presiding Officer serves with me on the Commerce Committee. You
are the newest member to join the committee. Welcome to the committee.
We are glad to have you.
I don't believe Mr. Washington's nomination is going to go forward
successfully. I do not believe the votes are there. I would suggest to
the Presiding Officer and to every Democrat on the committee and in
this Chamber, if you agree with me, pick up the phone and call the
White House. Say: Hey, look, don't spend time on a nomination when the
votes aren't there. Let's go with someone who knows how to do the job,
who is qualified.
I stated at the last hearing, if Mr. Nolen were nominated--and to be
clear, I don't know Mr. Nolen. I don't have a dog in the fight other
than I would like someone who knows how do this job. But I stated
publicly at that hearing that if Mr. Nolen were nominated, that I
assumed he would be confirmed quickly and with very significant
bipartisan support. That should be our objective for a job like this.
And let me say this. You know, all 100 of us get on an airplane a
lot. It is part of the job serving in the U.S. Senate. I was on a plane
this morning. I suspect the Presiding Officer was either this morning
or yesterday on a plane. We have millions of Americans who fly every
year, who get on planes, who get on planes with their husbands, with
their wives, get on planes with their children. And, tragically, one of
the inevitable realities with that many people flying is that safety is
always an issue, and there will be, at some point, a catastrophic
crash. We don't know when. We want to do everything we can to prevent
it, but we know at some point another plane will crash.
Let me suggest to the Members of the Senate, if, God forbid, that
were to happen in the next 2 years--and I pray that it does not--I can
tell you, I certainly wouldn't want to be a Senator who voted to
confirm an Administrator of the FAA who has never flown a plane, who
doesn't know anything about aviation safety, and has no idea why the
plane crashed. I don't know how I would go home and explain to 30
million Texans that, well, you know, my political party nominated him,
and so I went with party loyalty and voted to confirm the guy, even
though he didn't have the experience to do the job.
I don't believe Mr. Washington is going to be confirmed. Personally,
I respect his military service. When he testified before the committee,
he seemed like a decent and capable man. But he is also a man who
doesn't know anything about airplanes. And if there is any job in the
entire Federal Government where you need to know not just something
about airplanes, a lot about airplanes, it is to be the Administrator
of the FAA. We need a Senate-confirmed leader in this job quickly. And
I would urge the President to withdraw this nomination and nominate
either Acting Administrator Nolen or, if not him, somebody like him,
with decades of real experience, so that we can have a Senate-confirmed
leader with the knowledge and judgment and expertise to do everything
humanly possible to keep your family safe and my family safe and to
keep the flying public safe. We have a responsibility. We have a
responsibility to do this right.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
U.S.-Mexico Relations
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my State, the great State of Texas, shares
1,200 miles of common border with America's southern neighbor. Along
the border, you will see big cities, small towns, rural farms, and
ranches. You will find successful businesses that depend on free-
flowing, legitimate trade and travel with our southern neighbor. You
will meet countless people who are proud of the strong ties our country
has with Mexico and many who have relatives on both sides of the
border. These influences can be seen throughout our State, from the
names of cities, like San Antonio, to the food we eat, to the music we
enjoy and the diversity of people in our communities.
A strong U.S.-Mexico relationship has been a boon to Texas, but it is
also vital to the rest of the country. Mexico is our second largest
trading partner for both imports and exports. It is a major market for
American energy, machinery, chemicals, and agricultural products. We
import everything from transportation equipment to avocados. It is not
uncommon for certain products, such as automobiles, to cross the border
multiple times throughout the production process before eventually
making their way to consumers in the United States.
A strong relationship with Mexico is important to our economy, but
Mexico isn't just a trading partner. It is not just about the economics
between our countries. Mexico is also a necessary and vital security
partner because our countries share, in total, a 2,000-mile border and
work together to protect the safety and security of our communities on
both sides of the border. It is critical that we work in a
complementary fashion.
The United States has supported Mexico's efforts to counter cartel
violence and root out corruption in its judicial system. Mexico, in
turn, has worked with the United States to ensure orderly migration and
stop illicit drugs from coming into our country. Obviously, what we are
doing is not nearly enough on either side of the border.
Over the years, our security cooperation has promoted safety and
security in both countries. As the American people are seeing every
day, the Mexican Government is, unfortunately, failing to meet its side
of the responsibilities. We can see that because people coming through
Mexico, coming to the United States, have come in unprecedented
numbers, which is a devastating humanitarian and public safety crisis.
Then there are things like fentanyl and other dangerous drugs that are
being manufactured in clandestine labs in Mexico and smuggled across
our border every day.
Of course, these same criminal organizations are terrorizing law-
abiding citizens in Mexico through their violence and their territorial
disputes. Earlier this month, an out-of-control cartel violence
incident harmed American citizens who were visiting Mexico. Four
Americans were caught in a deadly shootout and kidnapped, and two of
those individuals were killed.
In the face of these growing problems, the Mexican Government has not
shown, in my view, enough willingness to work together to address these
problems. Make no mistake, this is not something we can do or they can
do alone; we have to do it together.
The Government of Mexico hasn't expressed adequate concern, in my
opinion, over the cartel violence, the drug trafficking, or the
migration crisis. Unfortunately, in public, Mexican President Lopez
Obrador underplayed the security problems in his own country. I believe
he knows differently based on the conversations we had when the TV
cameras were not present. He has falsely claimed that Mexico is safer
than the United States. We know that is not true. He said that Mexico
was not responsible for the fentanyl coming into our country. We know
that is also not true. It is a well-known fact that the vast majority
of illicit fentanyl comes to the United States from Mexico,
manufactured by precursor chemicals coming from China.
Well, here is the disparity between what you see in public to the TV
cameras and what actually happens on the ground. Just weeks before
claiming Mexico doesn't have a fentanyl problem, the Mexican Government
raided what its army described as the ``highest-capacity synthetic drug
production lab on record.'' That is what the Mexican Army, SEDENA,
said. It seized nearly 630,000 fentanyl pills, along with hundreds of
pounds of powdered fentanyl and methamphetamines.
At that time, President Lopez Obrador said the lab seized by elements
of the Mexican Army--that that lab had a value of roughly $80 million,
but just a few weeks later, the same government said it had no record
of fentanyl production in Mexico.
It doesn't take a detective or an investigative journalist to see
that the
[[Page S844]]
Mexican Government is not taking these problems seriously enough, and
it is to the detriment of their own citizens. Throughout Mexico, law-
abiding citizens are being terrorized by these cartels. Migrants, we
know, are being extorted and abused by the very people who are
smuggling them up through Mexico into the United States. We know that
communities across this country are experiencing waves of drug overdose
or what some call fentanyl poisoning from the drugs that are smuggled
from Mexico into the United States.
Frankly, the Lopez Obrador administration is not doing nearly enough
to work together with us on this problem that we share in common, sadly
to say. Given the severity of these challenges, there is a clear need
for action. But we have to proceed carefully because while Mexico
ultimately has many problems, it is our southern neighbor, and our
economies are interconnected through the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade
agreement, the successor to NAFTA. We know that its success, Mexico's
success, will ultimately benefit the United States in terms of a better
economy, more prosperity, more trade, more jobs. Our countries are
inextricably linked together in terms of security and prosperity, and
we need to find a productive path forward.
Countering cartel violence will require more cooperation with the
Mexican Government. Stopping the fentanyl epidemic will require
Mexico's cooperation. Addressing the border crisis will require
Mexico's cooperation.
Although it may make us feel good at times, we can't just simply lash
out in anger or say, we are going to do this, knowing that maybe it
might get you a hit on TV, but it doesn't actually solve any problems.
We need to make strategic decisions together with Mexico that will lead
to real change.
As the Presiding Officer knows, we had a bipartisan congressional
delegation to Mexico this weekend to learn more about the ongoing
security challenges so we can figure out with our Mexican counterparts
what kinds of changes need to be made and what exactly those changes
would look like.
We had 12 Members of Congress--House and Senate--join the trip. From
the Senate, we had Senator Moran, Senator Lee, Senator Capito, Senator
Coons, Senator Murphy, Senator Sinema, Senator Welch, and myself. From
the House, we had a bipartisan delegation: Congressman Cuellar,
Congressman Tony Gonzales, Congresswoman Escobar, and Congresswoman
Salazar.
Suffice it to say, between the 12 of us--Democrats and Republicans,
House and Senate--we have varying political views and many differences
of opinion on a host of topics, but on this weekend trip to Mexico, we
all agree the ongoing crisis in Mexico is unsustainable and something
needs to change. We wanted to visit Mexico so we could learn for
ourselves what the facts are, not as they are spun by either elected
officials or by the media. Before you solve a problem, you have got to
understand the full scale of what you are up against, and that was the
goal of this trip.
We got briefings from American intelligence officials, leaders from
the Drug Enforcement Administration, and others about their work in
Mexico. The U.S. Embassy in Mexico is the largest Embassy in the world
and employs 3,400 people and 9 consulates in the main Embassy in Mexico
City.
We spent some time with our outstanding Ambassador, Ken Salazar, a
former colleague of ours in the Senate who went on to be Secretary of
the Interior and now serves as our Representative in Mexico.
Ambassador Salazar was delighted we could come visit because he knows
firsthand the challenges that Mexico faces and the challenges that the
U.S.-Mexico relationship create and the importance of finding solutions
to those differences and those challenges.
I want to thank President Lopez Obrador, even though I have said some
critical comments here about how he has misrepresented the security
situation in Mexico and the United States. I want to thank him publicly
for meeting with us for a total of 4 hours. We not only met with Lopez
Obrador; we met with the entire Cabinet. That would be as if a
delegation, let's say, from Mexico of 12 senators and House of Deputies
members came up and sat down with President Joe Biden and his Cabinet
for 4 hours. It was an unprecedented exchange of information and points
of view, and I think it demonstrated the Mexican Government's desire to
have a closer working relationship with the U.S. Congress and the
United States of America.
At the top of the list of the things we have talked about were the
ongoing security challenges, which have had a deadly impact on both
countries. Members of our delegation didn't pull any punches. We did it
respectfully, but we forcefully presented our frustration with the
ongoing cartel violence, the drug trafficking, and unchecked migration.
That is what friends do, Mr. President; we have frank exchanges even
when we disagree. We are friends with Mexico, and we have to work this
out together, and we have to start with a common understanding of what
the facts and the challenges are.
We told President Lopez Obrador that his administration must do more
to address these challenges, and we emphasized that the failure to do
so will have a negative impact on our historically strong and important
partnership.
There are many ways to improve the security cooperation between our
countries, and our delegation stressed our willingness to work with
President Lopez Obrador's administration and the Government of Mexico
to support their efforts to defeat the cartels.
Overall, our conversations with the Mexican President were extremely
candid and tough, but they were respectful--respectful of not only the
high office that President Lopez Obrador holds but also of the fact
that we were dealing with the head of a sovereign country.
We have seen the positive impact in my State of a strong relationship
with Mexico, but it also redounds to the benefit of the Nation. And as
I said earlier, the better Mexico does by defeating the cartels, by
interdicting the drugs and the precursors that come from other parts of
the world, the better the quality of life, the safety and security will
be for the people who live in Mexico--the Mexican people--and it will
also be to our benefit here in the United States.
Ultimately, what I believe both countries want are a safe and
prosperous country, and we can do this together. Our close ties are
extremely beneficial to both countries, and I hope President Lopez
Obrador took our good faith and candid comments about the failures to
deal with security and migration to heart. We certainly expressed our
views, as I said, in a candid, a civil, and respectful way, but I think
we delivered the message clearly, and I hope he will take that to
heart.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Women's History Month
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 36th annual
Women's History Month.
This year in Maryland, we have some special advancements to
celebrate. In Maryland, voters chose Brooke Lierman as the first-ever
woman independently elected to a statewide office as our new
comptroller. Marylanders also elected Aruna Miller as our second female
Lieutenant Governor and first woman of color and immigrant elected to
statewide office in Maryland.
Here in the U.S. Congress, we have the highest percentage of women
serving in history--28 percent across both the House of Representatives
and here in the Senate. They build on the legacy of pioneers like
former Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. She was the first Democratic
woman to win a seat in both the House and the Senate and until recently
held the record as the longest serving female Senator, having now been
surpassed by Senator Feinstein of California.
As the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
Women belong in all places where decisions are being made.
Equal Rights Amendment
Mr. President, I was proud to testify recently at the Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the Equal Rights Amendment, the
ERA. At the most basic level, the ERA is a continuation of the
centuries-long process of expanding what is meant by ``We the People.''
The main clause of the amendment simply states:
[[Page S845]]
Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by
the United States or by any State on account of sex.
The vast majority of Americans will hear this and think, Of course,
this should be part of our Constitution.
In fact, many Americans believe that it is already part of our
Constitution. It has been overwhelmingly supported by the American
public, regardless of political affiliation. A poll conducted by the
Pew Research Center in the spring of 2020 found that 78 percent support
the Equal Rights Amendment being added to the Constitution. A separate
poll from AP-NORC similarly found three-quarters of Americans in
support of the ERA, with large majorities of both Democrats and
Republicans in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment.
In addition, 22 States, including my home State of Maryland, have
established State-level ERAs. Six more have some form of explicit
prohibition against sex discrimination in their constitution. Other
States are actively in the process of adding the ERA. For example, in
January, the New York State Legislature sent a State-level ERA to the
voters for consideration on their 2024 ballot. So we already have it in
the majority of the constitutions among States. It is time that it be
added to the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, 85 percent of countries have explicit prohibitions against
governmental discrimination on the basis of sex. The United States is
the only--the only--industrialized democracy that does not include an
explicit provision in their Constitution. We want the United States to
continue to be the gold standard when it comes to women's equality,
opportunity, and protection against discrimination. Our inaction on
this issue is an outdated barrier to our credibility on the global
stage.
When Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the
States for ratification, it included a 7-year time limit for the States
to ratify in the preamble of the resolution proposing the Equal Rights
Amendment to the States. This deadline was later extended for 3 years
until 1982, but a total of 35 of the 38 States ratified the amendment
by the extended date of 1982. There is nothing in the Constitution that
provides for a time limit on a ratification of a constitutional
amendment.
In 2017, Nevada activists, led by State Senator Pat Spearman,
reignited the push for the ERA through the first State ratification
since 1977. Illinois followed in 2019. Virginia became the 38th and
final State required by the Constitution to ratify the ERA in 2020.
Since then, the only major remaining barrier has been the ambiguity
caused by the fact that the three final ratifications occurred after
the time set in the original resolution passed by Congress.
With Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, I introduced a joint
resolution to resolve that ambiguity--to remove that last barrier.
Thirty eight States have ratified; it should be part of our
Constitution. It would remove the arbitrary deadline that Congress once
set and to recognize the ERA as validly ratified by the required 38
States. Our S.J. Res. 4 is cosponsored by 52 U.S. Senators, including
Senator Collins and all Senate Democrats and Independents.
This action is well within the Congress's broad power over the
amendment process laid out in article V of our Constitution. As the ERA
Coalition put it, this is the first time in our history that an
amendment has fulfilled all ratification requirements under article V
and has not been recognized.
There is precedent both for constitutional amendments to be ratified
after significant periods and for Congress to pass resolutions to
recognize amendments as validly ratified. There is simply no
constitutional reason nor court ruling that bars us from taking this
step. I point out to my colleagues that the 27th Amendment to the
Constitution which deals with congressional pay increases was ratified.
It took over 200 years to ratify it, and it is now part of the
Constitution of the United States.
There are many reasons why it is important that we do act. The
reality is that women still face serious challenges on account of sex
and that our existing legal framework does not always provide a
sufficient remedy.
As the 28th Amendment, the ERA would serve as a new tool--for
Congress, for Federal Agencies, and in the courts--to advance equality
in the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual
harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protection of the
LGBTQ+ individuals.
The ERA would serve as a constitutional backstop for existing and new
legislation. It would also signal to the courts that they should apply
a more rigorous level of review to laws and government policies that
discriminate on the basis of sex. Enshrining this protection in the
Constitution also ensures enduring protections for all Americans across
the country.
Through this action, we can finish the work started by the
generations before us in order to secure the future of the generations
to come. Our strength is in our values, and no value is more American
than equality. There should be no time limit on equality.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
National Defense
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this month, during this year's first open
hearing for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, national
security and military leaders gave a worldwide threat assessment of our
country and of our way of life.
They described threats to our homeland, to our key allies, to our
trading routes, to data privacy, and to our infrastructure, including
crucial space assets.
There was a common theme in the concerns that we heard from our
military and national security leaders; but, also, from what I have
heard, these things are confirmed by Kansans and Americans.
The People's Republic of China is our greatest foreign threat to
democracy, to our peace, and to our prosperity. At no time--this is not
just a throwaway line. At no time in my life have I been more concerned
about the enormity of the challenges our country faces.
The Chinese Communist Party, led by President Xi Jinping--the most
powerful leader of the CCP since Chairman Mao--is on a determined,
calculated mission to overtake the United States in fields that will
shape the 21st century.
Beijing is intent that rather than the United States of America
influencing world events in a way that favors and bends toward our
principles of a free and open world, they want China's authoritarian
model and they want the world bent their way.
China and its supporters would have the world move away from the
principles that have advanced global prosperity and toward the basic
belief that underwrites an autocratic authority, where the weaker are
destined to be ruled by the stronger.
We have seen this with China's political, economic, and direct
provision of nonlethal support to Russia, as Russia wages an unprovoked
war on Ukraine.
China operates the world's most advanced techno-surveillance state
that consolidates its power by monitoring, controlling, and subjecting
their people. And China is engaged in an ambitious, expansive plan to
export this model and the means of accomplishing it beyond their
borders.
The threat is to us and to those like us and to the rest of the
world. They want media, Big Tech, sports teams, and businesses to toe
the CCP line, to be ignorant of--or at least silent on--the gross
violations of basic human decency against the Uighurs, against Hong
Kong, and elsewhere across their country in response to COVID.
The CCP pursues a world, including America, under the thumb of their
power.
In a speech in April of 2020, Xi noted his intentions to increase
global supply chain dependencies on China, with an aim of controlling
key supply chains and being able to then use those supply chain
dependencies to threaten and to, ultimately, cut off foreign countries
during a crisis.
[[Page S846]]
As of the latest worldwide threat assessment, China produces 40
percent of the world's key vaccines and medical ingredients; and by
2025, it is estimated that it is on track to control 65 percent of the
important lithium-ion battery market--used in phones and cars and
almost every other device and appliance--and fabrication of one in five
semiconductors in the world.
China does not want the 21st century to be another American-led
century. They want the century to be one that witnesses the replacement
of American leadership with the leadership of the Chinese Communist
Party.
Two-thirds of global trade flows by ocean through the regions around
the South Pacific--what the Department of Defense calls the Indo-
Pacific. The goods that Americans export and the imports that we depend
upon require a safe and reliable trade zone.
For decades, the U.S. military, at great expense, have kept the
oceans and airways safe and open. By those means, Americans have kept
the global commons safe for the benefit of our own peace and prosperity
and for the benefit of the world.
When America is militarily strong and our sovereignty secure, we can
shape and influence the terms of international commerce, international
behavior. The way we do business is the standard, and that reflects our
principles and leaves our fingerprints on the world.
Maintaining a strong U.S. economy requires trade agreements with
partners who adhere to agreed-upon rules ranging from market access to
the protection of intellectual property.
Our failure to participate in such agreements or update them to meet
the realities of the 21st century opens the door to greater Chinese
influence. This is a call for this administration and this Congress to
react and respond differently than we have done to date on trade and
trade agreements.
It is to our benefit and that of our trading partners to tie more of
the world to the United States and its economy and reap the benefits of
a vibrant international commerce. A stable Europe in which we
coordinate closely with our partners on military and economic
challenges is necessary to thwart China's rising influence.
America remains a coalescing force in Europe. Yes, I want Europeans
to do more in Europe, but America remains a coalescing force, and our
contributions have been essential to supporting Ukraine in its defense
against Russian aggression. With our continued assistance and an
increasing European leadership and resources, Ukraine will be able to
continue to push back Russian forces and preserve its sovereignty. A
defeat of Ukraine by Russia further emboldens China.
Separately, our commitment to NATO remains and must remain resolute,
and any threat to NATO territory must be met and will be met
decisively.
Our intelligence community assesses that it will take years for
Russia to rebuild its conventional military capabilities. NATO allies
must use this window, this opportunity to strengthen their defenses and
assume more responsibility for their security as we necessarily
increase support for allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific. It is
important for us to be able to pay attention to the Pacific, and we
expect and hope our European allies to be able to take a closer look
and watch the issues facing Europe today and in the future.
Despite its failures in Ukraine, we cannot ignore that Russia remains
a threat. Russia possesses a massive nuclear arsenal, and Moscow has
significant cyber, anti-satellite, and underwater capabilities.
Strikingly, China views Russia as an essential partner in the
struggle against democratic values. As I speak now, President Xi is in
Moscow meeting with President Putin, strengthening the relationship in
pursuit of offering an alternative to American leadership, and by
``American,'' I mean something more than just the country of the United
States of America; American values and Americans' care and concern for
people around the globe.
The threats to American freedom, to world freedom and world security
and prosperity, are not all challenges we face from foreign militaries.
We also require vigilance on our border. All States really are border
States, and when we fail to enforce this Nation's geographic
sovereignty, we harm our Nation. There is no nation, in fact, without
borders. Perhaps there is no greater tragic effect of our current
failed border policies than the fentanyl and other drugs, sent from
China to Mexico, coming across our borders.
We also must produce and we must manufacture goods here in the United
States. The United States cannot be reliant upon our adversaries. We
cannot hope for something to be delivered in the future in times of
crisis. We have to be reliant on ourselves for our critical supplies of
medicine, of food, of technology, and energy. We have to learn from our
earlier errors discovered during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes
prioritizing American manufacturing and educating a technically skilled
workforce. That is why we must fully and faithfully implement the CHIPS
and Science Act that was signed into law last year.
A democratically and economically stronger America will be a more
respected America. It is not enough to enlist and maintain the support
of wealthy democracies in our vision of a free and open world. Our
diplomats must be able to compete to convince countries that have grown
skeptical of American leadership that we have not lost our way.
As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Kansan, wrote, ``We
must better communicate the good that we do.'' This includes our
generosity to countries after natural disasters and our support in
fighting global hunger. Each of us here and Americans across the
country know that our Nation faces many challenges, but if we can have
the eyes to see the thread that runs through those challenges, we will
recognize that we have a determined adversary who is waging a new cold
war.
Our domestic disagreements run deep, but the myriad of challenges we
face from abroad should help us see the need to work together in this
Senate, in this Congress, with this administration, and across the
country, to work together to urgently address the threats we face. We
need to be the democracy that remains the shining light on the hill. We
need to be the role model Nation. Our divisions among ourselves and
allegations that divide us only harm our ability to lead in this world,
to meet the challenges we face from our adversaries.
We have a great inheritance. This country remains the best place on
Earth to live. We live in a nation founded on principles, and those
principles are of human equality, of the rights of men and women. We
understand that basic rights come from God, not from government, but
that government is here and is instituted for the purpose to secure and
preserve those rights.
We ought to debate, argue, and discuss everything that our country
faces together, but the ultimate outcome has to be one of common
purpose, of preserving the freedoms that were created by our Founding
Fathers in a Constitution that is sacred and making certain that those
who have forgone their lives on behalf of us in previous battles, that
their honor is preserved and their lives they lost were not lost in
vain.
When America is strong and secure, we ensure that Americans are free
and prosperous and that the entire world has a greater chance to join
us, to remain with us in the pursuit of those freedoms and that
prosperity.
I have a personally renewed determination to work with all of my
colleagues to steward the privilege and responsibility that have been
bestowed upon me by Kansans and all of us by our fellow citizens so
that this century remains an American century, with liberty and human
well-being better secured for all around the globe.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able
to complete my remarks in full before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
S. 316
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, 20 years ago, in the early, overcast
hours
[[Page S847]]
of March 19, 2003, American stealth bombers and Navy cruise missiles
hit Baghdad in the first strikes of the Iraq war.
When I think about that war today, I think about the costs--the costs
to the Iraqi people, who suffered so terribly, including the families
of the hundreds of thousands killed in the insurgency, and the
sectarian and ethnic violence that followed the U.S. invasion.
I think of the costs to the brave American servicemembers who
answered the call, who didn't ask whether it was right or wrong but
just answered the call--almost 5,000 who made the ultimate sacrifice--
and to the tens of thousands more who were wounded; to the countless
sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones who had
to grieve those they lost and care for those who came home wounded,
with scars both visible and invisible, changed by combat forever.
I think about the financial costs--almost $2 trillion that could have
gone to rebuilding America's infrastructure, caring for America's sick
and aging, and educating our next generation.
I also think about the costs of something very close to my heart,
which is the cause of freedom and the fight for democratic values.
Our Nation's democracy, as Ronald Reagan said, was a shining city on
a hill, an example to the world of something to aspire to; but the Iraq
war undermined our credibility with our partners and allies, with our
enemies, and with millions of American citizens who were against it.
For too many around the world, the Iraq war made a mockery of U.S.
support for democracy and freedom.
Today, I proudly remember my vote on the floor of the House of
Representatives back in 2002. Life in America was tense in the wake of
9/11. Everything we stood for had been attacked on our own soil--just
miles from where I still live. Those of us who resisted the march to
war were called naive or worse, but some of us knew what we had to do.
We felt the weight of history on our shoulders, and we voted against
the war.
I spent a lot of time in reviewing the documents that were available
to Members of the House. I saw no clear and present danger, no imminent
threat, and, above all, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. And
I understand. If the cause is right and America needs it, I will send
my son and daughter; but if the cause is not right, I won't send my son
and daughter nor will I vote to send anyone else's sons and daughters
into harm's way.
Two decades later, we have the chance to make history again but, this
time, for the better. We have the chance to repeal the 1991 and 2002
AUMFs and honor the legacy of those who fought and those we lost--to
end a war we are no longer waging; to exercise Congress's war powers--
the most solemn duty of this body--because Saddam Hussein has been dead
for 20 years and his regime is gone; because the Iraq of 2023 is,
obviously, not the Iraq of 2003; because Kuwait has been a secure,
sovereign, and committed U.S. partner for over three decades; and
because the threats that these authorizations address no longer exist.
The United States is no longer an occupying force. Iraq is now a
strategic partner. It is time to confront the challenges of the region
and of the world together. Repealing these authorizations is an
important step forward. It removes an irritant in the bilateral
relationship, and it cements our partnership. It helps Iraq move
forward, independent and more integrated with its Arab neighbors.
So, Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support, in the
strongest terms possible, the repeal of the 1991 and 2002
authorizations for use of military force against Iraq once and for all.
Let's mark the 20th anniversary this week of the Iraq war by paying
tribute to the Iraqis who have suffered, to the Americans we lost, and
to the American families who have provided unconditional support for
those who have served every day for the last 20 years.
We will never forget the sacrifices they made in defense of the
values we hold most dear. Let's honor those values by doing what
Congress is supposed to do. When there is a need, it declares war, and
when that is over, it is time to end the declaration and the
authorization. That is what we have the power to do today.
With that, I yield the floor.
Vote on Motion to Proceed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
proceed.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin),
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) and the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
McConnell).
The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]
YEAS--67
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Braun
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Daines
Duckworth
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NAYS--28
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Capito
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
Hyde-Smith
Kennedy
Lankford
Mullin
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
NOT VOTING--5
Barrasso
Durbin
Feinstein
Fetterman
McConnell
The motion was agreed to.
(Mr. WARNOCK assumed the Chair.)
____________________