[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  But the outdated practice of changing our clocks twice a year has 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Millions--I mean, millions--of Americans are ready to end the outdated 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.)

                          ____________________