[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S887-S903]
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--
                                Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session and the consideration of S. 316, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 316) to repeal the authorizations for use of 
     military force against Iraq.

  Pending:

       Schumer Amendment No. 15, to add an effective date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                Children's Online Privacy Protection Act

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, over the past several weeks, I have 
heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle voice concerns about an 
issue I have been raising for years--protecting children and teens from 
online dangers. Recently, much of that conversation has focused on the 
social media app TikTok.
  I want to be clear. TikTok poses serious and specific privacy 
problems. We are talking about a company that could expose American 
users', including young users', personal and sensitive information to 
the Chinese Government. The intelligence community has raised grave 
concerns that Beijing could potentially influence millions of American 
TikTok users with the platform's algorithms, spread malware to our 
smartphones, force the company to amass troves of data on users, and 
then demand that the information be handed over to the Chinese 
Communist Party.
  In other words, TikTok could collect your personal data without your 
consent and then target you with information that the Chinese 
Government wants you to see or potentially, even worse, monitor where 
you go and what you do.
  We already know that TikTok is currently on privacy probation with a 
Federal Trade Commission consent decree. They had to pay a $5 million 
fine for violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. That 
is my law. We should listen to those warnings, and we should do our job 
to legislate and regulate in response to these warnings.
  I am pleased to hear so much concern for the experiences of our young 
people online. This is the kind of formidable bipartisan movement to 
rein in the overreach of Big Tech that we needed in this Chamber 3 
months ago when lobbyists flooded to the Capitol to kill my Children 
and Teens' Online Privacy and Protection Act--COPPA 2.0--to raise 
protections up to age 16 for young people in our country in terms of 
the protection of their privacy.
  Here is the reality: Asserting that TikTok stands alone as the one 
platform that poses a serious surveillance threat to our Nation's young 
people is deliberately missing the Big Tech forest for the TikTok 
trees.
  It is in this dark, dank forest where even more dangers lurk. TikTok 
needs to be regulated immediately--we can agree on that--but it is 
absolutely not the only digital danger kids face today. There is no 
justification for starting and stopping there, because do you know who 
else is on privacy probation with the Federal Trade Commission in 
addition to TikTok? YouTube. Google's video platform also violated my 
law. The Federal Trade Commission fined it $170 million for invading 
kids under the age of 12 and their privacy. That is just a slap on the 
wrist to Google, $170 million. Oh, and Facebook too. The Federal Trade 
Commission fined Facebook $5 billion for violating users' privacy 
protections. Remember, TikTok was fined $5 million. Facebook has been 
fined $5 billion for violating privacy in our country.
  So, yes, we do have to address the TikTok threat, but what we really 
need to do is to take on all of Big Tech with a set of commonsense 
protections to stop the tsunami of privacy invasions kids face today 
online.
  America's children and teens are literally dying because of the 
impacts of social media platforms, and we must save them from drowning. 
In other words, I agree with my colleagues. Let's make sure kids are 
protected from Chinese surveillance; but at the end of the day, our 
moral obligation is to protect our youngest people from an entire 
industry that poses a direct and existential threat to their 
generation's well-being.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just announced that 1 
in 3 high school girls in the United States of America had seriously 
considered suicide in the last year--1 in 3 teenage girls seriously 
considered suicide in the last year. And over half of all teenage girls 
say that they are ``persistently sad or hopeless.'' Banning TikTok will 
not solve that problem.
  At least 1 in 10 girls in the United States attempted suicide in the 
past year. Can I say that again? At least 1 in 10 girls in the United 
States attempted suicide last year. Among LGBTQ+ youth, the number was 
1 in 5 who attempted suicide in the past year. Banning TikTok will not 
solve that problem.
  Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about 
their bodies, Instagram made them feel even worse. Banning TikTok will 
not solve that problem.
  And do you know where that latest statistic comes from? Instagram's 
parent company, Facebook. Just remember, about 22 million teens log 
into Instagram each and every day in America.
  Our children and our teenagers--they are sick, and Big Tech is the 
parasite preying upon them every single day in our country. These 
aren't Republican

[[Page S888]]

children. These aren't Democratic children. These are America's 
children.
  The truth is that a myopic focus on a single app is a major missed 
opportunity. Why would we act on only one company when we should and 
can act on all of these companies that are preying upon the children 
and teenagers in our country as we debate here on the Senate floor?

  Taking on TikTok alone will not solve the sinister surveillance that 
kids and teens face online every single day. Here is an example.
  Let's say Congress does ban TikTok in the United States or, perhaps, 
the Federal Government simply forces the app's Chinese parent company 
to sell or to divest. Would that stop China from tracking teens online? 
No, it wouldn't. We would still have no rules and no laws stopping the 
Chinese Government from simply buying sensitive information about young 
users, which data brokers already traffic during their normal course of 
business in the United States of America, because, right now, a 14-
year-old girl with bulimia or anorexia in our country has zero privacy 
rights online. Are we going to do something about that? Do we want to 
let that young girl continue to be made vulnerable by unscrupulous 
American or Chinese companies?
  If we are going to debate this issue, let's talk about it. Let's get 
right down to what this whole thing should be about: Big Tech should 
not control the agenda in terms of our protections for young teenage 
girls or boys in our Nation.
  She, that 14-year-old girl, cannot tell Instagram or Snapchat or 
YouTube: You may not collect, share, or sell my personal information. 
By the way, her parents can't tell those companies either. Banning 
TikTok will not change that. Banning TikTok does not stop the Chinese 
Government or its partners from simply buying the data we are afraid 
the company will hand over willingly.
  Is this threat somehow lessened if it is a transaction as opposed to 
part of a takeover? Of course not.
  Here is the truth: Right now, an entire generation is growing up with 
some of the most powerful companies in history that are tracking, 
targeting, and traumatizing them every single day in our country. Big 
Tech is knowingly and willfully fueling a youth mental health crisis in 
our Nation.
  You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the President of the 
United States. Listen to the Surgeon General of the United States. 
Listen to the American Academy of Pediatrics in our country. Experts 
all over our Nation are drawing a straight line from Big Tech's 
business model to the devastating impacts on young Americans' well-
being.
  Do you know what will help solve this problem? Data privacy 
protections for children and teenagers in our country if we want to 
really deal with the threat to our Nation when one in three teenage 
girls considered suicide last year. That is a threat to our Nation. 
When 1 in 10 teenage girls actually attempted suicide last year, that 
is a danger to our Nation. A lot of it is as a result of social media.
  Let's get down to this issue. Let's debate TikTok. Let's debate all 
of it in terms of threats to our country, because the data these tech 
companies collect about young users is the raw material--the inputs--
for powerful artificial intelligence systems. These algorithms take 
information about kids and teens and use it to push toxic content to 
those young people that they know will grab their attention and keep 
them scrolling on the app so they can sell more ads and make more 
money, and banning TikTok will not solve that problem.
  On the topic of algorithms, if we are worried about the Chinese 
Government using TikTok's algorithm to influence our elections and our 
democracy, we should also be worrying about how China uses Facebook and 
Twitter and Instagram and YouTube, as well, to undermine our democracy.
  Let's get at this. If we are going to debate all of this, let's put 
it out here finally. Let's just get Big Tech out of this debate and 
have 100 Senators talk about the real threats to teenagers and to our 
democracy. Let's have that debate. We already saw Russia manipulate 
Facebook in 2016. If we want to protect democracy, let's do it for 
every single social media platform in our country.
  Young people are particularly vulnerable to Big Tech's algorithmic 
practices. That is why, for more than a decade, I have been introducing 
legislation that would solve that problem. My update to the Children's 
Online Privacy Protection Act for kids under 12 and their parents 
online would give them a bill of rights for kids 16 and under in our 
Nation. The parents could just tell those companies: Stop tracking my 
child. Stop tracking my 14-year-old girl. Stop tracking my 15-year-old 
girl. If she goes online because she has bulimia or anorexia to get 
more information, you can't sell that information now to companies so 
that they can target that girl with more products or information when 
the parents are only talking to the family's physician.
  Let's give those families some rights. Let's stand up for those 
families against these tech companies that are monetizing the mental 
health of the children in our country. Let's stop those companies from 
putting profits over people, over teenagers.
  We came very close to passing key provisions from that legislation at 
the end of last year. My bill almost made it. Unfortunately, industry 
lobbyists--they stood in our way. They made it impossible for it to 
pass, because it destroys their business model of preying upon, making 
money off of, young people in our Nation. But we just can't be 
deterred.

  We have to be more determined than ever to get this done on behalf of 
the parents, the pediatricians, and young people who are demanding 
action. I know we can do it, and there are leaders in the House, in the 
Senate, in both parties, who want to get this done.
  So, yes, we must be clear-eyed about threats of Chinese surveillance. 
Yes, we must be clear-eyed about TikTok's national security risks. And, 
yes, we must be clear-eyed about the unique threats to young people in 
our country who are on that app.
  I would urge my colleagues: Lift your gaze. Take off your blinders. 
Be honest about what legislative proposals to ban TikTok can and cannot 
accomplish on behalf of our youngest and most vulnerable in our 
country.
  Our obligation, in this moment, is to end the sinister surveillance 
across all of the big tech behemoths that are fueling a youth mental 
health crisis in this country.
  TikTok poses a serious and unique problem, but we know the problem is 
much bigger and much more pernicious than just one single app, as bad 
as it is.
  We have a responsibility to take action, and I call on my colleagues 
to join, in a bipartisan fashion. As we debate TikTok, let's debate all 
of it. Let's pass the bill that protects the imminent threat to the 
mental health of the children and teenagers in our country every single 
day.
  We want to talk about TikTok and its longer term threats? Let's talk 
about the threat right now. Let's talk about how young people are being 
harmed.
  Let's pass that legislation at the same time. That is going to be my 
goal as this debate unfolds. It is to have votes on the floor of the 
Senate on the protection of the children and teenagers in our country 
from Chinese and American companies that are exploiting them every 
single day.
  I close with that number that I started with: One in three teenage 
girls in the United States contemplated suicide last year. One in 10 
teenage girls attempted suicide last year. We all know the role social 
media is playing in this. This is our moment to take on this entire 
industry globally to make sure that we protect the most precious 
resource we have, to protect the future of our country, and that is 
young people. They may be only 20 percent of our population, but they 
are 100 percent of our future. And, right now, they are being exploited 
by a single industry. Let's take on that industry.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from North 
Carolina.


                            Border Security

  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the situation at the border and to lend my voice to other Members who 
are going to speak about a border that needs to be secured.
  About 3 years ago, we had about one-half million illegal crossings. 
Two years ago, we had 2 million illegal

[[Page S889]]

crossings. Now, we are hearing that, in another 12 months--or in the 
last 12 months--almost 3 million illegal crossings. And it is likely to 
be that number or go higher.
  We have lost control of the border. Now, when you think, well, what 
does it mean? Because that is a great comment for somebody from some 
political stripe to make, but what does that really mean?
  When you get to that level of illegal crossings, you are inviting 
some of the worst crossings that could possibly happen.
  Now, let's keep in mind that there are a number of people who are 
escaping dangerous situations in their country of origin. There are 
people who probably, rightfully, should be in the United States or some 
safe third country because they are fleeing a dangerous situation in 
their country. Think Nicaragua. Think Ukraine.
  But we have reached a point to where we actually have a debate on the 
Senate floor about whether or not we need borders at all. Or we have 
other people who just say: Build a wall. Frankly, I think they are both 
wrong.
  I am not here to talk about building a wall that is over 1,000 miles 
long, that goes from the Pacific Ocean to the gulf. What I am talking 
about is securing the border. If you go down to the border, as I have, 
you would understand why. There are simply certain sections that you 
need to secure. You need to secure it so Border Patrol, which has 
primary responsibility for securing the border and orderly entry, can 
have control over the situation. They can't today.
  As a matter of fact, if they were all back on the line today and we 
haven't put together a viable border security strategy, they still 
couldn't do their job. But, now, with the numbers that we have coming 
across the border, they are not on the frontline. They are not 
interdicting cartels. They are not arresting and detaining what they 
call the Sinaloa air force. This is something amazing. We have engaged 
the Border Patrol officers in so many things that have nothing to do 
with securing the border that the cartel--one of the biggest ones, 
Sinaloa--has what the Border Patrol call their air force. They have 
literally seen them get in ultralight planes with six or seven people 
flying drugs into the United States, dropping the payload, and going 
back. They said that that has become a thing. It is not just an 
anecdote but another device that the Sinaloa cartel is using.
  How could they pay for the ultralights or their air force? They are 
making over $800 million a year in human trafficking. You don't cross 
the southern border without paying a toll, and that toll is paid to 
really a whole global network of people that find someone who wants to 
go to the United States. They say: You are from this country of origin, 
and this is what it is going to take to get you here.
  They even advertise in certain countries that they will get you to 
the United States illegally if you pay a toll. That toll could be 
$5,000, if you are from a Central American country, to $50,000 or 
$60,000 if you are from China. And we have had thousands even from 
China at the latest report--and a huge increase.
  So the lack of border security, the lack of controlling the border, 
is paying the very same cartels that are pumping our Nation full of 
poison that we call fentanyl. It is very likely that that air force I 
talked about was dropping some sort of an opioid, and even more likely, 
statistically--since 80,000 people a year are dying from fentanyl 
overdoses--that it was that poison. So we are allowing an unsecured 
border to enrich the cartel so they can poison Americans--80,000 a 
year. That is not a number that is in dispute.

  So we have to secure the border. And I have said it is not a 1,000-
mile-long wall. I mean, if you go to the border, as I have several 
times, it makes no sense to put a 30-foot wall on top of a 500-foot 
cliff. Right? If they have made it that 500 feet, they are probably 
going to make it the additional 30. But maybe--maybe--you need 
technology there to know that people are going through that path. It is 
highly unlikely.
  But there are other areas, and the last visit to Arizona was to an 
area called the Yuma Sector. It is in the western part of Arizona, 
headed to California. There is a gate there. It is only about 12 feet 
wide--a little bit less wide than the dais down there--that 3 years ago 
had 8,000 illegal crossings. Two years ago, it had 200,000 illegal 
crossings through a gate like that--not through a big, wide expanse of 
7 miles that is near that gate, but through a gate like that. Last 
year, there were 300,000 crossings.
  Thousands of people from Russia, thousands of people from China, and 
from a number of other countries are paying a toll to be delivered 
across the border. Many of them fly into Mexico City, get a transfer 
flight down to Mexicali, take a cab down to the border, and come across 
the border as long as they pay the cartel a toll.
  We have lost control of the border. We have Border Patrol law 
enforcement officers who are in the babysitting and bus business right 
now. We have less than half of the people who are sworn to protect our 
southern border doing jobs that have nothing to do with what they swore 
an oath for.
  We are turning a blind eye to the death and the destruction that is 
happening here in the United States and to all the people who are 
paying a toll and making the dangerous trek here to begin with.
  So, Madam President, you can't fix a problem until you know you have 
it, and our colleagues here in the Senate need to recognize that the 
border is a problem. And people like me--I don't come out here and do a 
fire-and-brimstone speech on ``I am a Republican and they are a 
Democrat; we are good, they are bad.''
  I have worked on several bipartisan bills, if people can agree with 
the nature of the problem and solve it. And this is a problem that is 
having deadly consequences. And this administration--President Biden--
has rolled back policies in his 2 years here that are making the 
problem worse. It is solvable, but the Members of the Senate need to 
recognize that we have a problem, and the Members of the Senate, on a 
bipartisan basis, need to come up with a solution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise today to join my esteemed 
colleague from the State of North Carolina to discuss the situation at 
the border. This is an ongoing crisis, and it needs to be addressed.
  Our Nation continues to face an unprecedented crisis at the U.S.-
Mexico border, and one that is due to the Biden administration's 
policies, pure and simple. It is a function of the Biden administration 
policies.
  It is amazing that we have had DHS Secretary Mayorkas in front of our 
committees, and we asked him: What are you doing to stem the flow of 
illegal immigration at the border?
  He sits there, and he tells us: Oh, we have operational control.
  That is absolutely ridiculous. It is absolutely wrong.
  For fiscal year 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, 
encountered almost 2.4 million individuals attempting to illegally 
cross the southern border. That is 2.4 million crossing illegally. That 
is operational control?
  And for him to sit there and look at us and say: Oh, yeah, we have 
control.
  And 2.4 million last year were crossing illegally. This is an 
increase of 37 percent from fiscal year 2021 and a 419-percent 
increase--four times as many--as in 2020.
  Additionally, since October, CBP has reported that over 1 million 
individuals from more than 140 different countries--from more than 140 
different countries--have been encountered attempting to illegally 
cross the southern border.
  Just last week, Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz told a House committee 
that the administration does not--repeat: does not--have operational 
control of the border. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said that the 
administration does not have operational control of the border.
  We have to hold this administration accountable. On both sides of the 
aisle, we have to hold this administration accountable for this border 
crisis.
  I have been down to the southern border on numerous occasions and 
have witnessed the crisis firsthand. I visited Del Rio, and Eagle Pass, 
as well as El Paso. I have been in McAllen, in the Rio Grande Valley, 
and I have seen this, both during the day and at night.

[[Page S890]]

  It is just not human trafficking. It is drug trafficking that affects 
every State, that affects everybody in our country.
  Our dedicated CBP officers and Border Patrol agents continue to work 
tirelessly to fulfil their mission of securing the border, with the 
additional responsibility of trying to address this humanitarian 
crisis.
  While the officers and agents on the frontlines do the best job that 
they can with the way they are hamstrung, they face an impossible task 
given the Biden administration's actions to continue to allow this 
crisis to go on. And it is their policies that are allowing the crisis 
to continue.
  As a Senator representing a northern border State, I am also 
concerned about the impact that this situation on the southern border 
has on our northern border, as well, in terms of security.
  The ongoing crisis at the southern border is creating significant 
challenges for northern border operations in the security of our 
country. Northern border personnel and resources continue to be 
exhausted because of the southern border crisis and pulling resources 
from the northern border to try to help with the southern border, and 
that is unacceptable.
  We need to address the ongoing crisis at our southern border, and we 
need to make sure that our northern border is secure as well. We need 
to not only have the resources there; we need to have a policy that 
actually works. We have great professionals, but they can't secure the 
border if the Biden administration won't let them.
  Border security is vital to our national security, and we need to 
secure our borders. President Biden's actions have incentivized 
migrants to take the dangerous journey to the U.S. border, like I say, 
from 140 plus different countries.
  To address our Nation's immigration crisis, we need to secure the 
border and that means finishing the border wall, and reinstate key 
immigration policies--reinstate key immigration policies--that were 
working to stop illegal immigration and move toward a merit-based 
immigration system.
  The administration needs to enforce our Nation's immigration laws. 
They have the laws. They need to enforce them, resume construction of 
the border wall, and ensure we have in place the necessary 
infrastructure, personnel, and technology to secure the border. It is 
their job. It is their job to protect this Nation, and you have to 
secure our border to protect this Nation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. RICKETTS. Madam President, my colleagues and I are here today to 
raise the alarm once again about the ongoing crisis at our southern 
border. This is an issue that is incredibly important to my 
constituents, and it should be a priority here in the U.S. Senate.
  As I said when I visited the border as a Governor and then again last 
month as a Senator, every State is a border State. It is not just me 
saying that; it is my colleagues, both as Governors and as U.S. 
Senators, saying that. That is because the States across the country, 
including my own State of Nebraska, are dealing with the consequences 
of this administration failing to secure our border.
  This crisis is a threat to all Americans for many reasons. Americans 
are being killed today because of what is going on at the border. The 
leading cause of death of Americans age 18 to 45 in 2020 and 2021 was 
fentanyl overdose. A majority of those drugs are coming to this country 
from overseas.
  Taryn Lee Griffith was a 24-year-old single mom who died in Nebraska. 
She died of a fentanyl overdose. She was out with friends and took a 
pill she thought was Percocet. It was laced with fentanyl, and that is 
what killed her. Taryn's youngest daughter was only 6 months old when 
this happened. Now her two daughters are going to have to learn about 
their mom from pictures and from stories from family.
  I think we can all agree that fentanyl is a scourge on this country. 
From 2014 to 2019, fentanyl mostly entered this country from overseas, 
being shipped internationally from the People's Republic of China. Now 
it is being shipped from the PRC to Mexico. There, it is manufactured 
in illegal labs and smuggled across our border.
  The Chinese Communist Party and the Mexican drug cartels are taking 
advantage of the fact that we have a weak border to surge a flow of 
illegal drugs--especially fentanyl--across our U.S. border. They have 
the blood of the Americans who have died on their hands because of 
this, and we must hold them accountable.
  With border agents and local law enforcement overwhelmed by the surge 
of illegal immigration, it is easier than ever for these cartels to be 
able to bring fentanyl into the United States.
  Because of this failed administration's policy, State law enforcement 
has been forced to step up. In my last 2 years as Governor when I was 
in Nebraska, we saw what happened compared to 2020. The State patrol 
confiscated 2 times as much methamphetamine, 3 times as much fentanyl, 
and 10 times as much cocaine. Last year alone, the DEA's Omaha Division 
seized 4.7 million doses of fentanyl.
  This administration's abandonment of its responsibility is an 
outrage. It is endangering American lives each and every day. Yet the 
President has not shown he is serious about tackling this problem. His 
budget requested $535 million for border security technology. Yet he 
wants to spend seven times that much--a whopping $3.9 billion--on the 
Department of Homeland Security's climate resilience program. These are 
misplaced priorities. I want to take care of the environment. We all 
do. I want us to be more resilient. But Americans are dying right now 
because of fentanyl coming across our border.
  Now, the President may not be serious about securing our border, but 
my colleagues and I are. When I was Governor, I worked with my fellow 
Governors to propose real solutions to this administration, and I am 
eager to work with my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate to do the 
same.
  If addressing this crisis isn't our job in the U.S. Senate, I don't 
know what is. Americans and Nebraskans are on the line. We need to give 
the Border Patrol what they need to fully enforce our laws and stop 
this influx of deadly drugs. Our constituents are counting on us. We 
need to take action. I urge all my colleagues to work with our 
conference to pass serious solutions to tackle this problem.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  (Mr. WARNOCK assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, thousands of miles separate Warsaw, IN, 
from America's southern border. That distance doesn't mean events on 
our southern border don't affect Hoosiers in Warsaw and communities 
across our State.
  Last month, I met with local law enforcement officials in the Warsaw 
area, and they shared some heart-wrenching stories with me. I heard 
about police arriving at a family's home. Both parents had overdosed, 
and one was unconscious--these terrible experiences right in front of 
their kids. They told me about emergency calls, the voice on the other 
end crying that a child had gone into cardiac arrest.
  In these situations and too many others, they suspected the same 
source: fentanyl. The fentanyl entering the United States through our 
southern border is hitting this northern Indiana community hard. It is 
hitting all of our communities.
  The opioid epidemic--and it is that--is the worst drug crisis in 
America's history. In the decade between 1999 and 2020, it killed over 
564,000 of our country men and women. The number of lives lost is so 
great, it brought America's life expectancy down to a 25-year low.
  Now, because of fentanyl, this crisis is growing worse. Two 
milligrams of this synthetic opioid are enough to kill, and it is 
killing more young Americans than cancer, more than car accidents, more 
than COVID. There is enough of it reaching our country to kill every 
single American many times over. Its point of origin is Mexico, and its 
point of entry into America is our southern border--the same border 
that 4.9 million illegal immigrants have crossed since President Biden 
took office.
  His administration argues that because large quantities of fentanyl 
have been seized at our official ports of entry, the overdose epidemic 
is somehow unrelated to the broken border.

[[Page S891]]

But if we don't know who is crossing our border, how do we know what 
they are bringing across it?
  The tragedy is not just taking place on our side of that border; 
President Biden's lax immigration policies send out a deadly 
``welcome'' sign to migrants in search of opportunity. Drawn to it, 
they fall in with or place their children in the hands of merciless 
human smugglers. They are packed into and suffocate in trucks. They 
attempt a treacherous crossing of the Rio Grande and end up swept away 
by its currents.
  The bodies of 890 migrants were discovered last year along the 
southern border. Police on the American side are diverted from law 
enforcement while recovering the bodies. Funeral homes in Mexico don't 
have enough refrigerators to store them in.
  America is a welcoming country. It is also a country of laws. The two 
are not incompatible. And what good is a country without a border? It 
has been said many times by many people, but I will say it again: A 
nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation. We can secure 
our border. We can demand to know who and what is crossing it while 
also welcoming those who seek to start better lives in America legally.
  Americans in places like Warsaw, IN, are looking at this chaos on our 
southern border in anger, and they are looking to us right here in the 
U.S. Senate for help. They are asking us to stop the flow of drugs 
poisoning our people; to enforce our immigration laws; to build a 
border barrier; to reinstate the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy; to do 
whatever it takes to end this crisis; to do what the President and too 
many in his party will not. Too much time and too many lives have been 
lost. So let's not let the American people down. Let's secure the 
border.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 S. 316

  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, most people run from battle, but our 
servicemembers run toward it. They watch their brothers and sisters get 
wounded. They miss births and funerals, school plays and college 
graduations. Then they come home bearing the wounds of war--both 
visible and otherwise.
  They will always do their job defending our country no matter the 
sacrifice. So they deserve to know that they have the moral support and 
legal backing of this great Nation.
  But for more than 20 years, Washington has failed to give them that. 
One of Congress's most solemn duties is deciding when and how we send 
Americans into combat by debating and passing the authorization for use 
of military force, documents that set the legal framework for military 
action that are supposed to define the mission of our Americans whom we 
send downrange.
  But, lately, too many in these Halls have shrugged off that duty, 
hiding behind outrageously outdated AUMFs that were used to launch the 
Gulf and Iraq wars, all the way back in 1991 and 2002.
  Scared of the political risks that come with bringing these wars back 
into the spotlight, staring down upcoming election days, Congress has 
shirked its responsibility to our troops, stretching, skewing the 
original intent of these documents.
  In doing so, we have left our troops without a clearly defined 
mission. And now they face an increasing risk that a future Commander 
in Chief may improperly interpret the law to send them into armed 
conflicts that these AUMFs were never intended to authorize. Our troops 
deserve better than that.
  If we choose to send our finest into battle, then we here in these 
Halls need to debate and vote to do so based on current conditions.
  Enough of being more worried about the political consequences than 
about our troops in harm's way. And until we muster up the courage to 
ask and answer the tough questions that will actually tell our 
servicemembers what they are fighting for, we won't be living up to 
their sacrifices.
  Instead, we will be leaving them in an endless loop, refusing to even 
look for an off ramp.
  Look, I know guys and gals, buddies whom I served with in Iraq who 
did six, seven rotations between Iraq and Afghanistan. They went in 
knowing that they would probably be back in a couple of years, living 
the hardships of combat deployments over and over again, risking the 
unimaginable, sunup and sundown, year in and year out, tour after tour, 
all because their country said that it needed them to.
  They deserve more from us than to be forced to wonder whether the 
same outdated AUMF that has already sent them overseas half a dozen 
times will be misused once again to put them in harm's way without 
Members of Congress even having a conversation to decide whether such 
sacrifice is warranted.
  This shouldn't be hard. Anyone who claims the mantle of patriotism 
can't keep demanding such sacrifices from our servicemembers or 
refusing to step up to our obligation, our responsibility, to have a 
public debate and vote when we ask our troops to go into combat.
  Are their lives not worth a vote? not even worth a discussion?
  To me, part of the problem lies in the growing disconnect between 
those who serve overseas and those who serve on the Hill.
  Right now in Washington, we just don't have as many Members of 
Congress with combat experience the way we did in the years after 
Vietnam--the era when those returning from war would put down their 
rucks, hang up their uniforms, and head to the Capitol Building to 
serve their country in a different kind of way; the era when John 
McCain and John Kerry would reach across the aisle to solve some of our 
Nation's biggest problems because both of them were more concerned with 
doing right by the troops who protected us than brandishing partisan 
labels.
  But now, far fewer veterans come to Washington, and the divide has 
sharpened, with those sitting in hallowed houses of power ever more 
removed from those sent off to battle.
  Well, I can tell you this: It is a whole lot easier to cover your 
eyes and avoid taking tough votes if you have never shed blood in the 
dust and grit and horror of a war zone, if you have never held your 
family close before heading off on yet another tour, kissing your loved 
ones for what you know could be the last time.
  But today, there are just a handful of us in the Senate who have been 
in combat. The same is true for our country at large, as the same 
families keep volunteering to serve generation after generation.
  In Vietnam, because of the draft, a boy from rural Missouri could 
have ended up in a fighting position next to someone from the upper 
echelons of New York society. Of course, the rich could get out of 
service then too. Our former President's bone spurs proved that. But in 
that bygone era, service touched nearly every corner of this country, 
regardless of tax bracket or race or education.
  Now, it falls onto the shoulders of the same families to volunteer 
time and again or it gets foisted upon those who have fallen on hard 
times: service as a means of escaping poverty.
  So the gap widens, with the vast majority of Americans never having 
served and having little idea what it is like, other than what they see 
from Hollywood.
  And so the disconnect yawns, with it becoming even easier for most of 
us to live our lives blissfully detached from the nightmarish reality 
of war.
  We have to do more to bridge this divide. True patriotism isn't 
measured by how long of a standing ovation one gives our military on a 
single day in November each and every year. Real, lasting, meaningful 
patriotism requires doing the hard work necessary to actually change 
our country, to make it a better, fairer place, where sacrifices aren't 
borne by just a few but instead carried by all.
  Our troops are willing to sacrifice anything--everything--for their 
country. They fought for us time after time, tour after tour after 
tour. It is time that we fight for them too.
  It is time that we repeal these decades-old AUMFs and start honoring 
our

[[Page S892]]

heroes in the way that they deserve, showing just an ounce of the 
courage that they show over and over again.
  God bless our troops in harm's way; God bless our veterans; and 
always, God bless the United States of America.
  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.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 416

  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I am here today to talk about the kids 
and parents of Jana Elementary School and to talk about the measure of 
justice they deserve for the ordeal they are facing now, for the ordeal 
they have been put through for months, and, frankly, for the ordeal 
they have suffered through years and years and years of lies from the 
Federal Government, of misdirection from the Federal Government, and, 
frankly, of outright falsehoods this community has had to endure.
  Jana Elementary School is a small school in the Hazelwood School 
District in Florissant, MO. That is the St. Louis area. In October of 
this last year, Jana Elementary was closed. Why? Because they woke up 
to find out their school was contaminated with radioactive material.
  Imagine being a parent and waking up to this headline: ``Missouri 
elementary school to close after report finds radioactive 
contamination.''
  Where was the radioactive contamination? you may ask. Well, it was on 
the playground. It was in the kitchen of the school. It was in the air 
ducts. And where did it come from? How did radioactive material get 
into an elementary school in the St. Louis area? Well, the answer is, 
it came from the Federal Government.
  Let me tell you a little story about the Hazelwood School District 
and about Florissant and about St. Louis, and it dates back to the 
1940s when the Federal Government used a site in St. Louis as one of 
the processing centers for the Manhattan Project. Well, when that 
project wrapped up in the late 1940s, the Federal Government collected 
the radioactive waste and transferred it. Out of the area? No. Just to 
the site of the St. Louis Airport, and there it sat for decades. By 
``sat,'' I mean it leached into the air. It leached into the soil. It 
leached into the groundwater.
  So what happened? Over the course of 25 years and more, this 
radioactive material got into the water of a creek called Coldwater 
Creek. It has been tested many times. Radioactive material has been 
found there numerous times. And where does that creek go? Well, all 
along the St. Louis area through numerous communities but also right by 
Jana Elementary School, right along the school grounds, right along the 
playground--a creek that is known to the U.S. Government to be 
contaminated with radioactive material that the U.S. Government allowed 
to be put into the water.
  This last fall, the school board quite reasonably took the step of 
saying: Hold on. We know it is in the water. We know this creek goes 
right by the playground of this school, within 1,000 feet of the 
building itself. Maybe we ought to test the building just to see if our 
kids are safe.
  So they did. Now, the U.S. Government wouldn't do it, I would just 
like to point out. No, it wasn't the Government that tested the 
building. The school board paid for it itself. The parents had to 
demand it. They went and got a third party to go and test the building, 
and what did they find? That this radioactive contamination wasn't just 
in the water. It wasn't just by the playground. It wasn't just within 
1,000 feet of the school. No. It was inside the building. It was in the 
dust that is in the building that these schoolchildren, elementary 
kids, are going to and playing in, the air they are breathing in every 
single day.
  So the school board didn't have any choice. I mean, they found 
radioactive contamination in their kids' building, so they shut down 
the school, and, you know, they told the parents: Guess what. There is 
radioactive contamination in the building. What are we going to do? We 
are going to shut down the school.
  I would just like to point out that these are working people. These 
people are not sitting around all day. They are out there working 
jobs--some of them, multiple jobs. Some of them are raising their kids 
on their own. So what do they hear in October? We are going to close 
the school. We are going to send your kids online for virtual learning.
  I remember one mother saying: There is no such thing as virtual 
learning. That just means they are not learning. That means they are 
home with me.
  What are the parents supposed to do? They are working. They are 
trying to provide for their family. Now you have the kids at home not 
learning. You have the parents unable to work. What was the solution 
after that? To bus the kids to different schools all over the area. Now 
they can't go to the school in their own neighborhood.
  And what has happened to the Jana Elementary building? Well, it just 
sits there because what is the Federal Government, which caused this 
contamination, doing about all of this? Nothing. No, nothing. The 
parents have gotten the runaround for months now from the Federal 
Government.
  When the reports came out that the building was contaminated, the 
parents and the school board asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
which is supposed to be in charge of cleaning up the site--they said: 
Would you test the building inside and see if you can verify these 
results?
  But the Army Corps said: No, we can't. We don't have any 
authorization. We can't do any further testing.
  So then the parents and the school board asked the Department of 
Energy. They said: Would you test this site? Would you see if you can 
verify the results? Would you do something about it?
  And the Department of Energy said, you guessed it: Oh, no, that is 
the Army Corps' problem.
  Now, I kid you not. The parents and the school board have written to 
the Army Corps, and they have written to the Department of Energy, and 
both of them have just pointed the finger at the other. It is not just 
the parents. I have done the same. I sat at a hearing just a few weeks 
ago with the Department of Energy's Deputy Secretary.
  I said to him: Sir, do you know about Jana Elementary in St. Louis, 
MO?
  He said he did.
  I said: You know it is closed, don't you?
  He said he did.
  I said: Will you authorize the testing and cleanup for this school?
  And his comment to me was: That is really a matter for the Army 
Corps.
  I said: The Army Corps says it is your problem.
  And he said: Well, I don't really understand their position on this.
  I don't understand this administration's position on any of it. So I 
am on this floor here today, on behalf of the parents and the kids of 
the school district, saying it is time to fix it.
  Now, I have written to the President about this. I wrote to President 
Biden after the Energy Secretary gave me the runaround. I said: Listen, 
it is time for this administration to step up. The Army Corps and the 
Department of Energy both work for the President. Fix this. Direct them 
to get their act together. Finish the testing, and clean up this school 
site.
  That was 2 months ago. I haven't heard a thing. The parents haven't 
heard a thing. The school board hasn't heard a thing. What they are 
told is: Just wait a little longer, just a little longer. We will get 
it together. Just wait a little more.
  Do you know that the residents of St. Louis have been told to wait a 
little longer for four and five decades now? Do you know what has 
happened in that time? They have seen their friends get cancer in their 
thirties and forties. They have seen an explosion of autoimmune 
diseases. Why do you think that is? Do you think maybe it has something 
to do with radioactive contamination in the water and in the soil and 
in the air, put there by the negligence of the U.S. Government? Do you 
think maybe that is why it is?
  Do you think that these people should have to wait any longer? I 
don't. I have introduced legislation that is

[[Page S893]]

very simple. We are not trying to rewrite the United States Code here. 
It is very simple. It gets justice for these kids. It would order the 
Federal Government to clean up the school--clean it up. If it can't be 
cleaned up, build a new one. It is just that simple--not complicated, 
not onerous, not overburdened with regulation. It gives relief. If the 
President won't act, we should act. Congress should act.
  Now, let's just tell the truth here. These parents--these working 
people in this region of St. Louis--they are not high-rolling donors. 
They don't give major money to the political parties. That doesn't mean 
they can be forgotten. You and I both know, if this had been Silicon 
Valley Bank--for heaven's sake--the President would have flown 
overnight personally to be there to do something about it. While the 
Silicon Valley billionaires get bailouts that will cost this country 
billions and billions and billions of dollars, the children and parents 
of Jana Elementary can't even get their school tested. They can't get a 
dime in remediation. That is wrong. That is unjust, and we can do 
something about it.
  We can send the message that no matter who you are, no matter where 
you work, no matter how poor you may be, the U.S. Senate will get 
something done for you. We ought to send that message today. We ought 
to send the message that we will not stand by while these kids are 
consigned to a second- and third-rate experience of education, while 
these parents are told to just wait a little longer, while their school 
is infested with radioactive contamination. We should send a message 
that we are going to do something about it.
  I will tell you this, and it is what I told the President, until he 
does something about it and until this body acts to get justice for 
these kids, I am going to hold every nomination to the Department of 
Energy--every single one of them--until we can get some justice done at 
Jana Elementary. I will come to this floor as long as it takes until we 
get relief for these kids and for these parents at Jana Elementary. I 
will not allow their situation to be forgotten, and I will not be told 
on their behalf to just wait another 50 years. They deserve justice 
today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 418 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I am 
interested in this, and Senator Hawley and I discussed this issue just 
today. This is the first I have learned of it--in the last 24 hours--
and I was pleased to have had a chance to have discussed it with him.
  Coincidentally, we are facing this at the Dover Air Force Base, which 
may be the finest Air Force base in the country. We have literally 
thousands of people--uniformed personnel and probably another 1,000 
civilian employees and a bunch of children--who are involved in a 
school that is being rebuilt and replaced on the base.
  I explained to Senator Hawley that we are facing something a little 
different from the one he is explaining, but it is one that reminds me 
that there are children's lives and health at stake, and their future 
is maybe not in the balance, but it is a matter of concern.
  We are facing, as I said, a situation that reminds me a little bit of 
this in Delaware in realtime. Our school construction issue at the 
Dover Air Force Base and the safety issues there that are related to it 
have led my staff--my Delaware staff--and me to work with the Army 
Corps of Engineers in order to make sure that the issues that are 
particular to the Dover Air Force Base and to our school at that base--
it is actually a replacement school--are addressed. So, again, I am 
more than just a little bit interested and concerned about the issues 
that are outlined here.
  My concern, in not spending like more than a few minutes in the last 
8 hours in trying to learn a little bit more about the issue here, is 
that I have learned that the drafting of Senator Hawley's bill, 
however, to some is confusing and raises some serious implementation 
concerns based on the initial feedback we have received from both the 
Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Energy as well as 
from the initial read of the legislation from members of my staff.
  Just a couple of points.
  First, the bill appears to overlap a number of authorities between 
these two Agencies, and the drafting of the text is not clear as to 
which Agency should be responsible for the remediation or the 
construction of a new school.
  Second, the Army Corps of Engineers is telling my staff that, from 
all of the testing done, the Agency determined the school to be safe, 
and the results have been corroborated by an independent third testing 
party.
  In having not been steeped in this for days or weeks but really for 
minutes, I need some time, and I think my staff would appreciate some 
more time to work with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department 
of Energy to understand how we can help Senator Hawley's constituents, 
including the very young ones who are involved in this.
  With that, I am going to object at this time to Senator Hawley's 
unanimous consent request in order to provide us with the time to work 
with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy on a 
solution for this problem that will lead to its resolution.
  With that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Carper's conversation 
with me earlier today when he committed to me that he wanted to work to 
get this issue resolved and get this situation for these parents and 
kids remedied so that they get the justice that they deserve.
  I just want to point out that Senator Carper may be the first person 
in the Federal Government whom I have talked to in months on this issue 
and who has actually said: Do you know what? I think we can do 
something about it.
  So I hope that we can, Senator.
  I would just say to the Army Corps, to the Department of Energy, to 
others in the Federal Government, and to the administration that would 
say, ``Delay, delay, delay. The school is safe. The grounds are OK. 
Take our word for it,'' the people of St. Louis have taken your word 
for it for 50 years. This is where we are now. These kids deserve 
relief. No child should be told: It is all right. There is a 
contaminated stream near your elementary school. It is OK. Go ahead. Go 
out and play there.
  No way.
  And I will say again, just because these kids and parents aren't rich 
and wealthy and well connected does not mean that they can be ignored. 
So I will continue to come to this floor and to insist on votes on 
nominees until we can get something done.
  I appreciate the good will of Senator Carper, and I look forward to 
working with him on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                             Bank Failures

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, families and businesses across the country 
are worried about the safety and stability of our banking system.
  Two weeks ago, Silicon Valley Bank--a bank that many people had never 
heard of--rocketed from relative obscurity to infamy when it suddenly 
and unexpectedly collapsed. The bank, which reported $212 billion in 
assets last quarter, is now known as the biggest bank failure since the 
2008 financial crisis. It is the second largest bank failure in 
American history.
  The American people quickly learned that Silicon Valley Bank had made 
some pretty risky investment decisions. When interest rates were low, 
it purchased long-term Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities. 
As the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to fight record inflation, 
the value of those investments tumbled. SVB attempted to stop the 
bleeding by selling $21 billion worth of assets at a loss of nearly $2 
billion. Well, it didn't take long for this entire house of cards to 
come tumbling down. When customers

[[Page S894]]

learned about its financial troubles, it caused a run on deposits. And, 
of course, no bank can withstand a run on its deposits where people 
demand to get paid back immediately when many of the investments that 
were made are longer term investments.

  Shortly after the Silicon Valley Bank implosion, Signature Bank, a 
regional bank in New York, collapsed as well. And, now, major banks 
have pledged to help rescue First Republic Bank from potentially 
succumbing to the same fate. My assumption is this isn't done out of 
the goodness of their hearts; but they realize if this contagion 
continues to spread across the country, it could imperil our entire 
economy.
  Given the potential implications of this situation, the 
administration and Federal regulators quickly jumped into damage-
control mode. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, otherwise 
known as FDIC, quickly announced that depositors at Silicon Valley Bank 
and Signature Bank would have full access to their funds, even above 
the insured deposits.
  Of course, under existing law, FDIC insures deposits only up to 
$250,000; but FDIC quickly announced that that cap on insurance would 
be lifted.
  President Biden also attempted to assure the American people that the 
banking system was safe. Secretary Yellen did the same. In a speech 
yesterday, she said the U.S. banking system ``remains sound.'' But the 
truth of the matter is that it is impossible to make guarantees when 
you are dealing with something as uncertain as human behavior and the 
wildfire-like spread of information across social media and elsewhere 
where people can, with a click of their phones, withdraw all their 
deposits from an institution. So while these are hopeful statements by 
the President and Secretary Yellen, it doesn't guarantee anything.
  The health of the banking system doesn't just depend on objective 
measures of financial health, but also on public perception and public 
confidence. Even a bank with a rock-solid financial ground wouldn't be 
able to withstand a run on deposits. That is not how the banking system 
is designed to operate. They have to keep a certain amount of reserves 
so they can respond quickly to a demand for deposits, but no bank is 
prepared to pay all depositors 100 percent of what they have deposited 
on demand.
  Fears of contagion are very real in the banking industry, which is 
why everyone is eager to understand what went wrong. When it comes to 
Silicon Valley Bank, which as one of my constituents described it, he 
said: Oh, that is Mark Zuckerberg's bank. Of course, it was guaranteed 
deposits above the insured amount.
  We need to make sure there is not cherry-picking when it comes to the 
policies that apply here, lest people think there is a double standard. 
For example, if you were a bank in Midland, TX, lending primarily to 
the oil and gas industry, do you think the FDIC and the Biden 
administration would step up and guarantee those deposits above the 
$250,000 mark? Well, that is an unanswered question, but there 
shouldn't be a double standard.
  The problem really is, it looks like there were multiple points of 
failure at Silicon Valley Bank. First is with the bank's management. 
Making these long-term investments in the face of rising interest rates 
because of the Federal Reserve's efforts to combat inflation, it is 
clear they failed to adjust their investment strategy to take into 
account the depreciation of the value of those longer term bonds. They 
either didn't recognize the impact that rates had on its assets or they 
simply were negligent or willfully ignored the reality. I am not sure 
what it was, but none of it was good. Given the fact that the bank was 
without a chief risk officer for more than a year, it seems clear that 
risk management was not Silicon Valley Bank's top priority.
  In addition to the bank's failures, there were also major regulatory 
failures. Reports indicate that the Federal Reserve raised concerns 
about Silicon Valley Bank's risk management multiple times over the 
past few years. The first red flag was raised in January of 2019, more 
than 4 years ago. Once that happens, the Fed is supposed to monitor the 
bank and ensure these problems are being addressed. We simply don't 
have information to confirm whether or not that happened; but based on 
where things stand now, it seems like it did not happen.
  While SVB executives and regulators carry some of the blame for the 
current banking system chaos, we cannot ignore the role played by the 
administration and by some of the policies that have been promoted by 
our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. As our country 
battled the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis, our Democratic 
colleagues alone, without any Republican votes, appropriated about 2.6 
trillion more dollars, using a budget resolution that did not require 
any Republican votes. It wasn't a bipartisan effort. This was strictly 
a spending spree by our Democratic colleagues under the benign headings 
of the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act--$2.6 
trillion. That was like gasoline on the inflation fire.
  Republicans warned our colleagues that this kind of spending would 
lead to more problems than solutions. There were a lot of warnings 
about what impact this kind of spending would have after dealing with 
the COVID crisis, what the impact would be on the economy, particularly 
with constrained supply chains and a smaller workforce. Putting that 
kind of financial stimulus into our economy was guaranteed to fan the 
flames of inflation.
  Well, as I said, the first round was a $1.9 trillion so-called 
American Rescue Plan, which our colleagues tried to brand as pandemic 
relief. But as the American people learned, less than 10 percent of 
that legislation was even remotely related to the pandemic, and the 
rest was exactly the type of things you would expect to see in a bill 
that was supported only by our Democratic colleagues--everything from 
funding for climate justice to backdoor money for Planned Parenthood.
  Leading economists warned at the time that this was not a recipe for 
economic recovery. Even Larry Summers cautioned that that package could 
``set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a 
generation.''
  Still, our colleagues couldn't be convinced to change course, show a 
little self-restraint, a little bit of prudence, a little bit of 
caution. They abused the rules of the Senate to pass the partisan 
spending bill that, again, only depended on Democratic votes. And, lo 
and behold, this is where we landed.
  Our country has experienced inflation at a level we have not seen in 
40 years. Prices have skyrocketed for gas, groceries, housing, and just 
about everything else. For some reason, our colleagues did not connect 
the dots between this reckless spending spree and the growing strain on 
our economy or its impact on the price of groceries or the price at the 
pump you pay for gasoline or diesel. So rather than tap the brakes, 
they opted to put the pedal to the metal.

  Well, the second bill was even more absurdly named the Inflation 
Reduction Act, which all the outside studies showed would not reduce 
inflation any time in the near term. Our colleagues wanted the American 
people to forget the fact that unchecked spending would help usher in 
this terrible inflationary pressure. And somehow, counterintuitively, 
they seemed to think that even more spending would solve the problem.
  Our colleagues' solution to inflation included handouts for wealthy 
people buying electric vehicles. Why in the world would you pay rich 
people to buy an electric vehicle when most working families couldn't 
afford one? They are handing out tax subsidies to rich people. And then 
there was the $80 billion supersizing of the IRS so it can squeeze 
every penny possible from working middle-class families and small 
businesses. You know this, to me, is just malpractice.
  We had the new IRS Commissioner in front of the Finance Committee, 
and we said, you know, when can we expect your plan on how to spend the 
$80 billion and this plan to hire 87,000 new IRS agents? And he said: 
Oh, it is coming.
  But our Democratic friends got it backward. Instead of saying: Here 
is the plan and how much does it cost to implement the plan, they said: 
Here is the money, you come up with a plan. Only in Washington, DC, 
does the world operate that way.
  But between those two bills, our colleagues spent roughly $2.6 
trillion on a partisan spending spree, just as some

[[Page S895]]

economists, including Democratic economists like Larry Summers--just 
like they predicted, these bills did nothing to reduce inflation; they 
made it worse.
  Of course, we know that the Federal Reserve has the responsibility to 
try to address inflation; and one of their few tools is to raise 
interest rates, to slow the economy down to increase unemployment in 
order to bring that inflation down.
  Higher borrowing costs slow down the economy and curb demand, but 
they also--it requires the United States to pay our bondholders who 
purchase our debt even more money for the debt we incur--now roughly 
around a trillion dollars in interest on a $31 trillion national debt.
  So over the last year, in order to combat inflation, the Federal 
Reserve has hiked interest rates nine times--nine times. We have 
witnessed the fastest series of rate increases since the early 1980s, 
but it still hasn't been enough to cool the red-hot inflation 
contributed to by our colleagues' reckless spending.
  While I appreciate the administration's effort to stop the contagion 
from spreading, I would like to see our colleagues acknowledge the 
circumstances that led us here. Despite warnings that trillions of 
dollars in spending would lead to record inflation, our colleagues 
seemed to just run through that red light anyway. As a result, this is 
something that, to be blunt, they own. It has driven up the cost of 
everything from basic expenses, like groceries and electricity.
  Then, of course, there are the subsequent interest rate hikes which 
have made it more expensive to buy a house or borrow money to buy a 
car, for example, or to finance your small business. That is a direct 
result of the inflationary pressures caused by excessive Washington 
spending. Again, it is like pouring gasoline on the fire.
  Now we know this same inflation has contributed to the failure of 
banks like Silicon Valley Bank. Admittedly, it is due, in part, to the 
mismanagement by the bank and the lack of appropriate supervision by 
regulators, but the reason why Silicon Valley Bank got in trouble in 
the first place is because the value of their Treasury bonds where they 
had invested some of their reserves kept going down because it is 
inversely proportionate to interest rates.
  Democrats kicked off an economic crisis, and now everybody is paying 
the price. I would like to know, as they look back on it now, whether 
they think it was worth it?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                                 Budget

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just came from an Appropriations 
subcommittee hearing, and our witness today was Secretary Janet Yellen. 
I always love when Secretary Yellen testifies because I learn so much 
from her.
  Today, among other subjects, we talked about the President's proposed 
budget, and I want to tell you some of the things I learned today from 
Secretary Yellen about the President's proposed budget.
  The President's proposed budget is $6.9 trillion. That is up from 
$6.4 trillion. So it is a proposed half-a-trillion-dollar increase.
  I learned that, since 2019 until today, and not including the 
President's new spending--I learned that since 2019 until today, the 
population in the United States has grown 1.8 percent.
  Do you know how much our budget has increased? Fifty-five percent, 
and that doesn't even count the additional half-a-trillion dollars' 
worth of spending that the President has just proposed.
  I also learned that the President is proposing $4.7 trillion--not 
billion, $4.7 trillion--in new taxes. It takes my breath way--$4.7 
trillion. We are going to run out of digits.
  And I also learned something else. You know, the President--and I say 
this gently and with respect--the President has been running all over 
hell and half of Georgia saying: My proposed budget decreases the 
deficit by $3 trillion.
  You probably heard him say that. I heard him say it the day before 
yesterday: My proposed budget will cut debt by $3 trillion.
  You know what I learned today about the President's proposed budget? 
Under his proposed budget, gross debt--that is all of America's debt, 
not just debt held by the public, but gross debt--all of our debt will 
rise under President Biden's budget from $32.7 trillion at the close of 
this year to $51 trillion by 2033. Only in Washington, DC--only in la-
la land--can you go around and say: My budget reduces the deficit and 
debt by $3 trillion, when it really increases it by $18 trillion--$18 
trillion.
  I have also learned a lot this week about Silicon Valley Bank. I 
think I spoke--I don't know--a week, maybe 10 days ago--gosh, we 
learned a lot in a week. One of the things that we have learned is that 
the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and President Biden's bailout of 
Silicon Valley Bank was the result of bad management by the bank 
officials but also by bad supervision.
  I talked a week or two ago about the risk that the management of SVB 
took. This is what I learned this week. I want to talk about the 
mistakes that were made by the Federal Government in supervising this 
bank.
  Fact No. 1, it is a fact that in January of 2019, the Federal 
Reserve, which is one of the banking regulators in charge of 
supervising the bank, issued a warning to the bank--this is 4 years 
ago--over its risk management systems. Four years ago, the Fed told 
Silicon Valley Bank that its system to control risk was not up to 
snuff.
  Fact No. 2, last fall, short sellers and private bank analysts said 
the same thing. What? Five months ago, 6 months ago?
  Fact No. 3, some of my colleagues have said: You know, we didn't have 
sufficient regulation.
  I don't know how you regulate greed. I don't know how you regulate 
stupidity. I am referring now to the management of the Silicon Valley 
Bank.
  But it wasn't a failure of regulation that caused Silicon Valley Bank 
to go under. It was the failure to enforce the rules that we already 
have.
  Here is the article from the Wall Street Journal. The Federal 
Reserve, one of the banking regulators in charge of Silicon Valley 
Bank, knew in January of 2019 that the bank was criticized for its risk 
control practices. And they were supposed to correct those risk control 
practices. Why didn't the Federal Reserve follow up?
  Now, I also learned that some of my colleagues are saying: Well, you 
know, this is all the fault of Congress. It is the fault of Congress 
because Silicon Valley Bank was not subject to a stress test.
  We, as you know--Democrats and Republicans--supported an amendment to 
Dodd-Frank back in 2018 that some say prevented the bank from being 
stress tested. That is not true. The bill that we passed in 2018 said, 
categorically and unequivocally--look at title 12, chapter II, 
subchapter A, part 252, subpart A, section 252.3. It said in our 
legislation that the Federal Reserve and the other banking regulators 
had the authority at any time to stress test Silicon Valley Bank. And 
they chose not to do it.
  Now, the other point being made by some of my colleagues is that, 
well, they weren't big enough to stress test. They had to be $100 
billion or more. That is not true. They were an over-hundred-billion-
dollar bank at the end of 2021. So they did qualify to be stress tested 
in 2022.
  One of the other things we learned is that in 2022 the Federal 
Reserve stress tested 34 banks. Silicon Valley Bank was not one of 
them, as I said. They could have been. Under the rules, they qualified. 
They were supposed to be. They were over $100 billion. And even if they 
had not been over $100 billion, the Federal Reserve could have said: We 
are going to stress test them anyway under our legislation because, 
back in January of 2019, we were worried about their risk control. But, 
for whatever reason--we are going to find out--the Federal Reserve 
chose not to stress test them.
  The Federal Reserve issued a report on its stress tests from 2022. 
Here it is. If the Federal Reserve had stress tested Silicon Valley 
Bank, Silicon Valley Bank would have passed. It would have passed. Do 
you know why? Because the Federal Reserve in its stress testing in 2022 
didn't stress test interest rate risk. They just stress tested credit 
risk. I just find that extraordinary.

  In 2022, we were experiencing raging inflation. The Fed was raising 
interest rates. The Fed understands that, when you hold a long 
government bond or a

[[Page S896]]

long treasury, its value decreases as interest rates go up. You would 
think that the first thing the Federal Reserve would stress test for 
was interest rate risk and duration risk. But it didn't. It didn't, and 
I am at a loss to understand.
  The Federal Reserve has announced--I think the Vice Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, Mr. Barr, has announced that he is going to be in 
charge of finding out what went wrong. And Mr. Barr is a fine person, 
and nothing I say today should be construed to suggest that he is not. 
But Mr. Barr has a conflict of interest. His own Agency contributed to 
the downfall of Silicon Valley Bank. It wasn't a question of something 
that Congress did or didn't do. Under the regulations we passed, we put 
the Federal Reserve in charge of checking these banks for duration or 
interest rate risk, and the Federal Reserve chose not to do so. Silicon 
Valley Bank is not the only one out there.
  And here is the problem with Silicon Valley Bank. It took in a whole 
bunch of deposits from a bunch of venture capitalists and paid them--
let's call it an x amount of interest--and then Silicon Valley Bank 
took that money and invested the money in long-term government bonds 
and treasuries, as the Federal Reserve encouraged them to. Go read all 
the Federal Reserve rules. They tell you: The safest assets if you are 
a bank are long-term securities issued by the Federal Government, 
treasuries and mortgage-backed securities.
  Silicon Valley Bank did that. But as the Federal Reserve is also 
supposed to know, as is the management of the bank, these long-term 
bonds--government or otherwise--as interest rates rise, fall in value. 
I mean, that is like banking 101. That is like Econ 101.
  And that is what happened to Silicon Valley Bank. They took all the 
deposits, paid x amount of interest, and bought treasuries and long-
term government bonds, making more interest. They were taking the 
profit, but they didn't account for interest rate risk. And, sure 
enough, when the Federal Reserve, which is supposed to be supervising 
the bank, raised interest rates, the value of those bonds and the value 
of those treasuries went down.
  And so, when all these depositors in Silicon Valley decided to take 
their money out, they panicked, and they all started talking to each 
other on social media, and they started taking their money out. Because 
of the decrease in the value of those long treasuries and mortgage-
backed securities, Silicon Valley Bank didn't have the money to pay 
them.
  Let me end like I began. President Biden's bailout was necessitated 
by two things: the greed and/or the stupidity of the management of this 
bank to buy long-term bonds--government-backed or otherwise--and not 
hedge against interest rate risks. And, No. 2, the bank's failure was 
the result of inadequate supervision by the Federal Reserve and the 
other banking regulators and the Biden administration. Congress had 
nothing to do with it. Our amendments to Dodd-Frank, which were 
approved by both Republicans and Democrats, had nothing to do with it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 S. 316

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this past Sunday marked the 20-year 
anniversary of the war in Iraq. I could not be prouder of our 
servicemembers who bravely have served our Nation overseas. I am deeply 
grateful for their service and their sacrifice, and I am committed to 
making sure we live up to our obligations to each and every one of 
them.
  As I have said many times, this is a war I never thought we should 
have started, and it is one we clearly should have ended long ago.
  I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to commemorate the 
anniversary of this war by officially ending this badly outdated war 
authorization at long last. I urge them to join me in taking the long-
overdue step of reasserting Congress's authority in decisions about war 
and peace by voting to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use 
of military force because when we send people to war, it should be a 
decision, not a status quo.
  The decision about whether or not to go to war and put the 
servicemembers' lives at risk is the most serious and most 
consequential issue we can debate here in the U.S. Senate. American 
lives, American security, and America's future are all at stake when 
our country decides questions of war and peace.
  When we first deliberated on whether to take action in Iraq, I wanted 
to know with absolute confidence we had done our due diligence before 
moving forward with the weighty decision to send our men and women into 
a dangerous conflict. That is why all those years ago I came to the 
floor to debate the very resolution that gave President Bush the 
authority he wanted to wage war in Iraq. I wanted to know what our 
goals were, what our plan was, what a victory and an exit strategy 
looked like, and what evidence we had that this was necessary.
  I will tell you, after hearing all the sides on whether to engage our 
military, one thing I still was not hearing was clear answers. I 
determined I could not support sending our men and women into harm's 
way on an ill-defined mission--a mission which ultimately cost us 
dearly in lives most importantly but also in dollars and in our 
standing around the world.
  Twenty years later, the mission in Iraq is over. Our troops have 
returned home, and Iraq's Government has evolved into a diplomatic 
partner. But those outdated legal authorizations remain on the books, 
leaving an open-ended basis for Presidents to misuse our military power 
for political gain.
  We have already seen how leaders can use them as a free pass to 
recklessly push for the misuse of military force. Just 3 years ago, 
without consulting Congress, former President Trump ordered missile 
strikes in Iraq against an Iranian military leader, which, among many 
things, jeopardized our relationships with key allies, risked the 
safety of U.S. servicemembers and civilians, and brought us perilously 
close to war. That is not how this should work. That is not how the 
Constitution says it should work. Our servicemembers deserve better 
than that.
  When and whether to engage in war is a choice that explicitly belongs 
to Congress and to the American people. If we don't assert that power, 
we risk leaving behind a dangerous precedent for the future. That is 
why I am voting to repeal these authorizations. Taking this step will 
make sure we are doing our part here in Congress to give questions of 
war the full consideration they deserve and make sure we are exhausting 
every diplomatic avenue before jumping into a full-blown war effort and 
putting servicemembers in harm's way. I saw the scars, physical and 
mental, that veterans like my dad took home from World War II, that 
veterans like my peers took home from Vietnam, and that veterans today 
have taken home from Iraq.
  This is one of the most important votes we can make, so let's act 
like it. Let's ensure every decision made to authorize the use of 
military force is responsible, is appropriate, and is constitutional.
  I hope that by repealing these outdated AUMFs, we will return to a 
place where Congress and, by extension, the American people can have a 
serious debate and ultimately decide whether or not we go to war. It is 
long past time for Congress to reassert its authority and oversight 
responsibility here.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Kaine and Young in 
getting this done.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 185

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the song ``Free Bird'' by Lynyrd Skynyrd 
became an anthem for those consumed by wanderlust. The music speaks to 
freedom, the right to explore and experience the world, and a simple 
truth that we are all connected.
  However, on October 25, 2021, the right to explore and experience the

[[Page S897]]

world was put on hold for many when the White House issued a 
proclamation suspending and limiting air travel by unvaccinated foreign 
travelers.
  This mandate levies a particularly heavy cost on State and local 
economies and American relationships. Continuing this mandate at a time 
when President Biden himself declared that the pandemic is over is 
unjustified, and it ignores the new risk calculus that is affording 
Americans a renewed sense of normalcy. You see, Americans are ready to 
move on. In fact, in many instances, they are moving on. Yet many are 
kept from doing so because of this policy and others like it.
  Right now, foreign travelers, including family members, friends, 
business relationships, and even international sports stars, are being 
kept off U.S. soil due to this draconian vaccine mandate.
  Mr. President, there are too many places we have got to see, but if 
we stay here with this vaccine mandate, things just couldn't be the 
same.
  So in the spirit of freedom, in the spirit of self-determination and 
sanity, I am here today to try to pass this--to try to seek to pass by 
unanimous consent the FREEBIRD Act, which will restore the right to 
explore and experience the world by allowing nonimmigrant, noncitizen 
travelers to be vaccinated only if they choose to do so, because this 
policy has separated loved ones for too long.
  It is time to end the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for foreign 
visitors, prohibit using Federal funds to carry out this requirement, 
and prevent the CDC from ordering future COVID-19 vaccine mandates for 
foreign travelers. This is just costing too much.
  In 2021 alone, Utah visitors spent nearly $11 billion visiting our 
great State, generating over 130,000 jobs and almost $2 billion in 
State and local tax revenue alone. A significant portion of that 
involves foreign travel. But international visitation rates are still 
lagging. By lifting this vaccine mandate, Utah and the United States 
stand to benefit from increased international travel.
  Our travel and tourism industry in the State of Utah dipped 
substantially after the pandemic hit us and hit us hard. Fortunately, 
it has recovered very nicely, but it has never recovered in the 
international travel sector to where it should be now, due in 
significant part to this particular mandate. It is not right. And it is 
not just costing us tourism; it is costing us meaningful connections 
that enrich and promote our shared humanity.

  Right now, 22-time Grand Slam champion and top tennis competitor 
Novak Djokovic is missing the ongoing Miami Open due to the foreign 
traveler vaccine mandate still in effect, regrettably, in the United 
States. He recently missed the Masters tournament in Indian Wells, CA, 
for the same reason.
  The U.S. Tennis Association, which does not impose COVID-19 
restrictions of its own, expressed its hope that the policy will end.
  This is an excellent example of how the United States and Americans 
in general miss out on relationships, business, and recreational 
opportunities. The United States is missing the action while Djokovic 
continues to play in countries that have ended their vaccine mandates, 
including in Monaco, Bosnia, and France. It is affecting his standing 
in world tennis competition. Just as importantly, it is affecting 
America's standing with the rest of the world.
  Perhaps some think that the joke is on Djokovic. The joke is not on 
Djokovic; the joke is on us, the United States of America, if we leave 
this senseless, meaningless policy in place that does no good. It 
accomplishes nothing, but it inflicts great harm at the same time.
  Right now, we have the opportunity--a great opportunity, a prime 
opportunity--to reverse course. Today, we can join the rest of the 
world, restore our personal and business relationships, boost our 
tourism, and reengage in the competitive spirit that brings nations 
together.
  It is time to end this mandate. It is time to be free as a bird. So I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 14, H.R. 185; further, that the Lee 
substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, that the 
bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, first of 
all, I am largely sympathetic to the intent of this. I think all of us 
are exhausted by COVID. Fortunately, we are really coming out of it. It 
has been exhausting, so I am ultimately hopeful that the 
administration--when this public health emergency is ended, which we 
expect will be very, very soon, that the vaccine mandate will go with 
it.
  Secondly, I am a big fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd's, so that is a pretty 
persuasive argument, but I don't regard him as infallible.
  Third, Vermont is a tourist State as well. Our skiing is a little 
tougher for, you know, tougher folks. You have that soft powder out 
there in Utah. But tourism really matters to us.
  So the concerns the Senator from Utah is expressing--I am 
sympathetic. Let me state the reason for my objection.
  This public health emergency is going to end. The administration is 
actively, day in and day out, in the process of taking the steps that 
are going to unwind this.
  My view is that this is an area where Executive responsibility has to 
be carried out in an orderly way, not just to address this question of 
ending the vaccine mandate, but there are other matters that are 
affected if this public health emergency is abruptly ended that may do 
harm to Vermont.
  Let me just be very specific. The telehealth provisions that were in 
legislation that allowed us to get access to healthcare should not end 
when the public health emergency ends. The necessity of trying to make 
some adjustment for premium assistance for folks who were able to get 
access to healthcare--it has really made a difference for people in 
Vermont. I don't want them to just go off the cliff.
  So these are all separate and distinct issues. But if we have a 
process where each legislator picks out an area within the public 
health emergency that he or she believes should be taken out, you are 
taking away the capacity for an orderly transition from the public 
health emergency to the post-COVID non-public health emergency.
  So, as sympathetic as I am to the points that the Senator from Utah 
makes, including about the vaccine at this point, because of my concern 
about the collateral consequences of stripping the administration, in 
effect, of the capacity to have that orderly unwinding, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the thoughtful words from my 
friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont. I have enjoyed working 
with him on the Judiciary Committee, and I always appreciate his 
insights and the thoughtful, respectful manner in which he communicates 
his message. I do think it is significant to point out a couple things 
in response to those arguments.
  I think it is unfortunate. We had an opportunity to end this today, 
and by ending it, we could open up travel and tourism in a way that we 
haven't been. We could join the ranks of civilized nations of the world 
that have seen what a barbaric piece of nonsense this sort of 
restriction is, and we can do it right now.
  Now, my friend and colleague from Vermont points out that it is 
important to remember that the public health emergency associated with 
the COVID-19 pandemic is set to come to an end. I assume he is 
referring to the May 11 deadline on which we are expecting for it to 
come to an end. I welcome that, and I look forward to that coming to an 
end. It is right for it to come to an end. One must ask, however, why 
must we wait until then to bring it to an end? President Biden has now 
long acknowledged that the emergent nature of the pandemic is itself 
over, is itself passed.
  I understand and respect concerns about not wanting to do things too 
abruptly that might affect, for example, telehealth. That is very 
important. That is why it is very important for me to point out here 
that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that would

[[Page S898]]

affect in any way the practice of telehealth--not directly, not 
indirectly, nothing, nada. There is zero language in this amendment 
that would in any way affect telehealth. Is there anything in here that 
would affect the other programs--any of them--that he mentioned? Not 
one thing. This is laser-focused on a single point-of-entry restriction 
on foreign visitors to the United States. That is it. Nothing else is 
affected by it.
  So if what we are saying is that we can't end any of this before we 
end all of the public health emergency, that makes no sense. It also 
makes no sense because, as far as we can tell, there is absolutely 
nothing about the international traveler restriction attached to this 
particular mandate that is tied to the public health emergency for the 
COVID-19 pandemic--nothing. They are not tied together. So there is no 
reason at all for us to not pass this today, right now, at this moment.
  Look, this has passed the House of Representatives. We could make 
this law. We could make this the law of the land by the end of the day 
today. The American people would be much better off for it.
  Who will be better off as a result of keeping it? It is a legitimate 
question to ask. Who benefits from this? I struggle to imagine who 
really benefits from it. Now, maybe one or two Federal bureaucrats save 
face over it because they put it in place. Perhaps they have some pride 
of authorship with it; they don't want it to end. Well, I hate to break 
it to them: They are not lawmakers. They don't have the job of making 
law. We do.

  So if this stays on the book, again, the joke is on us. The joke is 
not on Djokovic; it is on us.
  So I really am trying to understand why we would want to wait until 
May 11 or any other date on which the Federal pandemic emergency would 
come to an end. It makes no sense.
  To the degree that this involves an argument that I have heard time 
and time again when addressing COVID issues from several of our 
colleagues that we have to defer to the experts, defer to the science 
used by the experts in our Federal executive branch Agencies, I would 
ask this: Do you mean the same experts who told us that this virus came 
from bats? I am told that anyone who doubted the idea that it came from 
bats, that they were horrible people aimed at genocide or something.
  Do you mean the same experts who told the American people they 
couldn't let their little kids go to school?
  Do you mean the same experts who told America they had to mask their 
2-year-olds, apparently unaware of the fact that 2-year-olds don't 
respond fairly well to that? It makes me wonder whether any of those 
people have ever raised or even been around an actual 2-year-old.
  Do you mean the same experts who told us that masks would make all 
the difference and that if you were masked, you would live, and if you 
were unmasked, you would die?
  Do you mean the same experts who told us that if we got the vaccine, 
we would not get or be able to spread COVID-19? I can speak from 
personal experience. Having had COVID, then got vaccinated, then got it 
again, it didn't have that effect. And I know there are millions and 
millions of people like me who are in the same boat.
  Do you mean the same experts who continue to this day to insist that 
everyone else follow the restrictions imposed by those experts who were 
not elected by the American people and are not accountable to anyone 
who is elected by the American people?
  We have reached an epidemic in this country, an epidemic in which we 
have government being run by experts. Experts are great. I am glad we 
have access to them. They are not lawmakers. My copy of the 
Constitution, in the very first operative provision--the first article, 
the first section, the first clause of the Constitution says: ``All 
legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the 
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of 
Representatives,'' making clear that if you want to make a Federal law, 
you must go through Congress, not through an expert in some executive 
branch Agency.
  Article 1, section 7 makes clear how that happens. You can make a 
Federal law only if you pass something through the House and the same 
language through the Senate and then present it to the President for 
signature, veto or acquiescence. If you don't follow that formula, you 
don't have a Federal law.
  Tragically, since the mid-1930s, we have been on a bad trajectory, a 
bad course, a bad idea conceived in hell by the Devil himself in which 
we started delegating our lawmaking power. We hereby declare that we 
shall have good law in area X, and we hereby commit and delegate to 
commission Y the power to make and interpret and enforce and adjudicate 
laws, rules carrying the force of generally applicable Federal law. 
Make it so.
  The power to make laws, to be a lawmaker, is distinct from the power 
to make lawmakers. We are given by the Constitution and the people who 
elected us the power to do the former, not the latter. We make laws, 
not lawmakers.
  The only way these things were put in force to begin with was because 
we have excessively delegated our lawmaking power. Shame on us for 
doing that. It has remained in effect because the Federal court system, 
in my view, while occasionally stepping in, has been a little too lax, 
a little too reluctant to push back when we delegate our lawmaking 
power, which is itself a nondelegable duty. Shame on them for doing 
that, but shame on us again for the fact that when we act, we delegate 
to somebody. Somebody puts in place a ridiculous, indefensible set of 
policies--policies that would never pass this body, never become law 
here or in the House of Representatives. Why? Because they are stupid. 
They are silly. They are ridiculous. They are counterproductive. A 
policy that we would never enact, and if we were stupid enough to enact 
it, we would promptly repeal it.
  When it gets put in place by an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat 
using a stretched, distorted version of statutory text delegating them 
some other power, we have to sit here and take it. The American people, 
whom we serve, who hired us to make laws, have to sit there and take 
it. And we pretend: Sorry, there is nothing we can do. We have to wait 
until the experts end this problem that they themselves created.
  This has to stop. I am not going away. This issue isn't going away. I 
don't want to wait until May 11. I don't want to wait until those 
bureaucrats pull their heads out of wherever their heads happen to be 
at the moment.
  This is not going away, and I will be back.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 S. 316

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, so I don't know where we are headed in 
terms of votes tonight, but let me tell you where we are headed in 
terms of the bill before the Senate.
  I understand Saddam is gone and the authorization to use military 
force directed at him in 2002--it makes sense to me, quite frankly, 
believe it or not, to revisit that, but what we need to make sure we do 
is not leave our troops exposed that are in the fight today. This is 
2023.
  So Senator Schumer keeps talking about Bush lied, people died. Here 
is what I would say to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican 
colleagues: In the last 2 years, we have, I think, a little over 2,000 
American forces in Iraq, there to make sure ISIS doesn't come back, 
keep the place stable. After Obama pulled out of Iraq, the JV team 
became the varsity. ISIS basically took over most of Syria, destroyed 
Mosul, wiped out the Yazidi Community, raped, murdered, and pillaged, 
and we finally regained control of Iraq. We put troops back in--they 
should never have been taken out--and we need those troops to stay in 
Iraq, make sure ISIS doesn't come back.
  When they had a foothold in Raqqa, Syria, as well as Iraq, ISIS 
directed attacks at the United States and our allies in Europe, and all 
hell broke loose.
  So what I would want the body to understand--in 2023, Americans are 
serving in Iraq, and we owe it to them to

[[Page S899]]

make sure that we can use whatever military force necessary to protect 
them against Shiite militias operating in Iraq at the direction of 
Iran.
  Fifty-six attacks against American forces in the last 2 years under 
President Biden. They are trying to drive us out of Iraq. The Shiite 
militias are operating all over the country. I appreciate the 
partnership we have with the Government of Iraq, but we don't have a 
status of forces agreement.
  So I have an amendment that is very simple. It would replace the 2002 
AUMF with the following: An authorization to use military force to 
protect Americans stationed in Iraq against attacks by Shiite militias 
in Iraq. That is an ongoing problem. Let's not expose our troops to 
being attacked. Let's don't continue the narrative that we are pulling 
out of the Middle East, because you do so at your own peril.
  After the debacle in Afghanistan, everybody is wondering about 
America's resolve. So to all the people who talk about repealing the 
2002 AUMF because Saddam is gone, I actually understand that to a 
point, but what I hope you will understand is that the way you have 
written this, the people in Iraq today, the Americans serving, we don't 
have their backs, and we owe it to them to have their backs.
  We need to let the Iranian militias know, and others: If you attack 
Americans in Iraq, we are coming after you.
  And to those who say the AUMF needs to be repealed because it confers 
too much power on a President, we need to take that authority back as 
Congress, well, then, here is what I would say to you: Do we owe it to 
those serving in Iraq to provide authority from Congress that we will 
have your back if you are attacked by Shiite militias that are 
operating in Iraq?
  This is about Iraq. It is not about Iran.
  And I can't believe this body would not support an authorization to 
use military force to protect Americans stationed in Iraq who have been 
attacked over 56 times in the last 2 years by Shiite militias operating 
in Iraq.
  If we do that, shame on us.
  And to those who say: Well, the President has article II authority, 
he can do this on his own--you can't have it both ways. Is the goal to 
pull back power from the President, or is the goal to say the President 
has whatever power he needs in Iraq?
  What I want to do is be crystal clear. If the 2002 AUMF is repealed, 
we have a hole in our defense. We do not have congressional response or 
statement about what to do to protect over 2,000 Americans serving in 
Iraq who have been attacked 56 times.
  I have got a solution to that problem. If you repeal the 2002 AUMF, 
let's replace it with one tailored to the situation involving American 
forces being attacked by Shiite militias in Iraq, to be unequivocal to 
the Shiite militias and others: You attack Americans at your own peril.
  If we do not do that, you have tremendously exposed our troops. In 
your effort to wind down one war, you have created a threat to those 
who are fighting the war we are in now.
  And if you think al-Qaida has been defeated, you think they are not a 
threat to us and our partners in the Middle East, in Europe, you are 
really not following the news.
  General Kurilla, the CENTCOM commander, said last week that ISIS-K, 
the ISIS organization in Afghanistan, has regenerated to the point, 
within the next 6 months, they would have the ability to attack the 
United States without warning.
  And there are some amendments here to basically do away with the 2001 
AUMF that dealt with the attack on our Nation.
  So whatever political point you are trying to make about repealing 
the 2002 AUMF, here is what I want you to understand: The way you are 
doing it is putting American lives at risk in Iraq.
  If you can't muster the courage--the Congress can't--to say to Shiite 
militias: You attack our troops at your own peril, we have let those 
serving down. And I am very, very intent, using my voice in the Senate, 
to say that those who are in Iraq that have been attacked continuously 
by Shiite militias, I recognize the threat you face, and I am willing 
to do something about it.
  Not to pass this amendment exposes those in theater, in Iraq, to 
continual attack. It will embolden the Shiite militia because they 
think we pulled the plug on the place. It will continue a narrative 
that America is in retreat in the war on terrorism. It will make every 
problem in Afghanistan worse. And we have a chance to do something 
about it. Please take that opportunity.
  If we pass this amendment, we can at least say the following: To 
those in Iraq, we did not abandon you; we did not forget about you. We 
said clearly as a Congress that we have your back, and we made an 
unequivocal statement to the Shiite militias that are roaming around in 
Iraq: You attack our people, we are coming after you.
  And if we don't do that, we are sending a terrible message to our 
enemies and we are letting those who are serving in Iraq down.
  Iraq is moving toward democracy slowly but surely, inefficient, ugly 
at times. But 20 years later, there have been elections in Iraq; we 
have a government working with us that is surrounded in a very 
dangerous neighborhood.

  So to those who are wanting to repeal this AUMF, you have ignored a 
major threat. You are creating a problem to troops in the field. I am 
here to point it out to you, and I would love to work in a bipartisan 
fashion to make sure that those who are left in Iraq, that are serving 
there to make sure ISIS doesn't come back and to protect our interests 
in Iraq, that they will have the voice of Congress behind them. There 
will be an authorization to use military force to protect them against 
Shiite militias, and it is very specific, in Iraq, who have had a 
pattern of attacking our troops. And if we don't do this, we are 
sending the worst possible signal to our enemies. We are letting our 
troops down. And if there are further attacks, I told you so, because I 
know it is coming.
  Let's live in the real world. Al-Qaida is not defeated. ISIS is not 
defeated. They have been dealt a punishing blow in certain places, but 
if we take our eye off the ball, they are coming back here; and the 
easiest targets of all are those Americans in Syria and Iraq who are on 
the frontlines--a virtual wall between us and radical Islam that would 
kill us all if they could. I think we owe it to those that we send to 
Iraq--and the administration is right to keep them there. You are right 
to keep that residual force in Iraq as an insurance policy against the 
rise of ISIS, but you are wrong not having your voice lent to the cause 
that an authorization to use military force against Shiite militias--
that needs to be the law of the land. We owe it to those in Iraq. It is 
not a hypothetical problem--56 attacks in the last 2 years. And if we 
pull the plug on the AUMF in Iraq without dealing with the Shiite 
militia threat, we will send a horrible signal at the worst possible 
time.
  So I urge a ``yes'' vote for this amendment to replace the 2002 AUMF 
with a specific authorization to use military force against Shiite 
militias that are attacking Americans continuously in the last 2 years, 
to protect those that are on the frontlines of this fight. I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, today, the Senate debates removing the 
authority of the President to wage war in Iraq. Momentous as such 
debate might be, it is largely rendered symbolic by the fact that the 
war in Iraq has been over for more than a decade.
  Were this body serious about debating the authority of the President 
to wage war across Africa and the Middle East, we would today be 
repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
  Presidential administrations of both parties have used the 9/11 
authorization to justify war in over 20 countries, from Afghanistan to 
Libya to Syria to Somalia to Yemen. In fact, both parties have 
essentially argued that the 9/11 AUMF has no temporal or geographic 
limits at all.
  Repealing the Iraq war authorization will end no wars and save no 
lives.
  The bill before us ignores the pervasive, seemingly limitless 9/11 
proclamation, and it seeks, instead, to repeal the 1991 and 2002 
authorizations to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq--a regime that 
no longer exists.
  So we are missing the point here. We are going to repeal the one 
authorization they no longer use and leave the

[[Page S900]]

one in place that authorizes war everywhere, all the time.
  The public is told to celebrate the boldness of a Senate that will 
today end a war that has been over for over a decade, while ignoring an 
authorization of war that is really the only pertinent current 
authorization.
  Now, it is true that some unreconstructed neoconservatives still 
advocate for the 2002 authorization to make war against Saddam 
Hussein's Iraq, but no serious scholars believe that the Iraq war 
resolution has any bearing at all in a world where the current 
Government of Iraq is an ally, at least ostensibly, of the United 
States.
  Even more insensibly, some of these neocon throwbacks argue that a 
20-year-old authorization to counter Saddam Hussein's Iraq somehow has 
something to do with authorizing military force against Iran. It is 
nonsensical. The very argument is so strained that ordinarily one 
wouldn't even bother countering such a frivolous case except for the 
fact that many Senators insist on making it.
  We voted to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is dead and 
gone. His government is gone. The new government is an ally. The 
authorization means absolutely nothing. But yet some people argue on 
the floor: Oh, we have to have this in case we want to attack Iran.
  Have they ever heard of coming back here and asking for permission?
  Have they ever heard of saying we hold this power given to us by the 
Constitution and that we should be the ones to bestow the declaration 
of war to the President?
  The 2002 AUMF doesn't mention Iran. President Bush's March 2003 
speech to the Nation announcing his decision to invade Iraq does not 
mention Iran, and Iran and Iraq were enemies for over two decades prior 
to the invasion. In fact, the House report accompanying the 2002 AUMF 
refers to Iran but only as a victim of Saddam Hussein's aggression. 
Nothing--absolutely nothing--in the Iraq war authorization justifies 
hostilities against Iran.
  One would think that these brave ``armchair'' generals would relish 
the thought of actually debating a war and putting their vote, their 
imprimatur, their stamp of approval on their very own war. And yet they 
want to leave it to a previous generation and have no debate should we 
decide that we need to go to war with Iran. Instead, this plucky crowd 
of war advocates want a permanent authorization of war on the books so 
as not to be troubled with the tedium of debating new wars or waiting 
possibly 24 hours for the consent of Congress.
  It wasn't always so. While Henry Clay was not always the greatest 
opponent of war, he did find his voice when his son Henry Junior, was 
killed in the unnecessary Mexican-American War. In the spring of 1844, 
after hearing of Henry Junior's death at the battle of Buena Vista, 
Henry Clay put into words what every Founding Father had previously 
explained. He spoke these words in Lexington, KY:

       A declaration of war is the highest and most awful exercise 
     of sovereignty. The Convention, which framed our federal 
     constitution, had learned from the pages of history that it 
     had been often and greatly abused. It had seen that war had 
     often been commenced upon the most trifling of pretexts . . . 
     that such a vast and tremendous power ought not to be 
     confided to the perilous exercise of one single man. The 
     Convention, therefore, resolved to guard the war-making power 
     against these great abuses. . . . Whenever called upon to 
     determine upon the solemn question of peace and war, Congress 
     must consider and deliberate and decide upon the motives, 
     objects and causes of the war.

  That was Henry Clay in 1884.
  And yet, today, the best the present Congress can muster is to 
propose to end a war that ended long ago. In fact, we are told 
precisely that it is OK to repeal this particular authorization because 
the President isn't really using it.
  If you ask President Biden if we take away the 9/11 authorization, he 
would say: Oh, no, no. We are still using that one in about 20 
different countries.
  So we are going to repeal the one authorization he no longer cares 
about, and we are going to leave into place one that virtually--
Presidents of both parties have virtually said is unlimited in scope.
  It wasn't intended to be. If you read the authorization from 9/11, 
you will find that it is very specific.
  But today don't worry that we actually might rein in Presidential 
authority for war. Don't worry that today's repeal will actually end 
any current war anywhere. Don't worry. Don't worry about continuing to 
send our soldiers to the Middle East. Don't worry about continuing to 
send our soldiers to Somalia and Syria and Iraq.
  The argument for repeal is that, like most debates in Congress, the 
victory will be Pyrrhic and ignored and war will go on. The armament 
industry spread throughout the United States will continue to prosper.
  Don't worry. The vote today is easy. The vote today is mere 
symbolism.
  I will support that symbolism, but I will not pretend that it is 
brave or meaningful or that one American soldier's life will be saved. 
I will support the symbolism because that is all the bravery that this 
particular Senate considers to be possible. But I won't celebrate 
today's vote as anything more than symbolism.
  If there exists any desire to end America's forever wars, Congress 
should today strike a blow for peace by repealing the 2001 
authorization for war. After all, the 9/11 AUMF never intended to 
authorize worldwide war, all the time, everywhere, forever.
  The wording of the 9/11 AUMF was debated in 2001, a generation ago, 
and was precisely worded to authorize the President to make war on 
those who attacked us on 9/11 and those who harbored them--not a word 
about making war on associated forces, not a word about making war on 
their descendants, not a word about making worldwide war on religious 
extremism. But that is exactly what the 9/11 2001 AUMF has become--a 
catchall for a permanent war, everywhere, all the time.
  So if anyone in the Senate is really serious about regaining the 
power to declare war, about informing Presidents of both parties that 
the Constitution exclusively gave the power to declare war to Congress, 
I offer an amendment today that might actually bring an American 
soldier home, an amendment that might actually save an American 
soldier's life, an amendment that sends an actual signal to the 
President that congressional authority and resolve actually lives and 
breathes and will resist Presidential aggrandizement.
  Some Senators will argue that a vote to repeal the 9/11 military 
force proclamation for war--but they say: Well, we could do it, but 
only if we simultaneously replace it with another sweeping transfer of 
war-making power to future Presidents.
  Really? Is there not one defender of Congress's exclusive power to 
declare war?
  Is there no one else who will reject the abdication of Congress to 
constitutional responsibilities?
  Is there not anyone who will defend the notion that absenting 
perpetual authorization for war, we could survive on just the 
Constitution alone?
  For most of American history, for 225 years, we lived without a 
perpetual authorization of war. We addressed it as it arose and 
Congress voted--not a generation ago's Congress, the people currently 
elected would debate on one of the most important debates we ever have, 
whether to go to war. But most people here will say, no, we need to 
keep a proclamation from 9/11 that has nothing to do with the world 
today and nothing to do with the attack on 9/11. We need to keep it in 
place just in case so we could have troops everywhere.
  For most of our history, we survived without such a perpetual 
authorization. The Republic survived under the notion that America is 
reticent to make war; that we are a merchant nation conscious of the 
great prosperity economic freedom has brought us in the world and also 
conscious of the devastation and famine and brutality and the despair 
of war but also quite outspoken in our history that America won't be 
trifled with; that once awakened, once attacked, America can and will 
bring that mighty economic engine to life--the engine that defeated 
Hitler, the engine that defeated the Japanese Empire, and the engine 
that after 9/11 showed that America will not countenance, for any 
reason, an attack on our people.
  Couldn't we live under the Constitution again? Couldn't we show the 
confidence in our people, in our Congress, in our own individual self-
worth to let

[[Page S901]]

the world know that we don't want perpetual war; we don't want to be 
the policemen of the world; we don't want our Army stationed across the 
globe. But provoke us, attack us, and you will discover that we cherish 
our freedom, and we will fight for it; that our fight will be a 
constitutional one.

  When America was attacked at Pearl Harbor, the Congress reacted 
constitutionally within days to declare war. When America was attacked 
on 9/11, once again, Congress acted in a nearly unanimous fashion to 
declare war. Couldn't we obey the Constitution and declare war when 
necessary and not keep on the books a perpetual authorization of war?
  Only by eliminating these perpetual authorizations for war will 
Congress regain its constitutional prerogative to declare war. One 
generation should not bind another generation to war. The Congress that 
voted for the war in 2001 is no longer constituted, and many of those 
Members are no longer even living. Many of our soldiers were not even 
born when Congress authorized that war.
  So, today, I will offer the U.S. Senate a chance to repeal the 9/11/
2001 authorization for war, to reclaim our constitutional power, and 
send a message to the world that we are a nation of peace; that when 
provoked to war, the gentle giant that is America will respond lawfully 
according to the Constitution; that when war is absolutely necessary, 
America will obey the Constitution, which requires us to debate and 
vote upon war and not hide beneath another generation's deliberations.
  Today, we should rise above symbolism and repeal the 9/11 
authorization for war and show our respect for the Constitution, our 
fealty to the rule of law, and our sincere desire that peace, not 
perpetual war, be our legacy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak to the amendments that 
we are considering on the effort to repeal the 1991 and 2002 
authorization for the use of military force.
  As I have previously said, I welcome a broader discussion on the 2001 
authorization for the use of military force, but that is not before us 
today.
  Following repeal of the 1991 and 2002 AUMF, I hope that we can engage 
in what will likely be a robust debate about what authorities the 
administration does need and what the scope, potentially, of a 
replacement AUMF would be, but as yet we have not had that substantive 
discussion, and I don't believe it would be wise to repeal the 2001 
AUMF without engaging in that debate first, without having a hearing to 
understand what is the authority the administration needs to continue 
to protect America.
  The details matter here. We just finished a hearing at the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee with the Secretary of State. He testified 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the 2001 AUMF is 
still a vital authority that is being relied on. So we may disagree 
with how the 2001 AUMF has been maybe stretched by other executive 
branches and concerned as to how we will continue to use it, but an 
outright repeal, with nothing to replace it--nothing to replace it--is 
not a sound response that ensures our military has what it needs to 
execute missions of defense of U.S. interests.
  So I support a debate to replace the 2001 AUMF and to develop what 
should be the specifics of that replacement. But absent a framework to 
replace it with a new authority, how do we repeal it outright and leave 
the country naked? So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Paul 
amendment.I want to speak to Senator Graham's amendment.
  I share and appreciate Senator Graham's concern about the Iranian 
regime. Indeed, he and I have worked very closely on the issue of 
Iranian threats. I have spent the better part of my career addressing 
Iranian threats--its nuclear program, its support for global terrorism, 
its destabilizing its neighborhood through proxies and interference, 
and the threat that it poses to its own citizens. Yet the question 
before us is not whether Iran poses a threat to U.S. interests but 
whether the 2002 AUMF is necessary to counter those threats and if 
there is already sufficient legal authority to respond to any such 
threat. And the answer is pretty clear.
  The President is clear in his view--one shared by every recent 
administration--that he has sufficient authority under article II to 
defend U.S. interests and personnel against Iranian-backed militias. 
Indeed, the administration has actually taken military action a number 
of times to protect and defend our personnel against attacks from these 
groups and to deter future attacks.
  The fact is, the 2002 AUMF that we have been debating is superfluous 
to today's military efforts in the Middle East. The administration has 
the authorities it needs to address Iranian threats to our people and 
our interests.
  Now, I thought this debate was about ending the authorization for use 
of force that already exists, that no longer needs to exist, and that 
should be closed. Just as Congress has the power and the responsibility 
to declare and to give the authorization for use of military force, it 
should also end it. That is what this discussion is about. That is what 
this debate is about. That is what these votes are about--not to create 
a new authorization for force. That is what Senator Graham's amendment 
would do. I think that would be a lot more robust debate as to how and 
when and in what way we would give such authority.
  So I would urge my colleagues--as someone who has fought for the 
better part of these 25 years against Iran, I would take a back seat to 
no one as it relates to that fight--to, in fact, oppose that amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first let me salute our chair of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and our Member of the committee, the 
Senator from Virginia, for the great work they have done.
  We are trying to be very fair in the amendment process. We are trying 
to allow amendments to occur, but we want to try to move the bill along 
as well and not just do things for dilatory or extraneous purposes. So 
I am very glad we have agreed on these three amendments and hope we can 
agree on a few more and get things done.


                           Order of Business

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to 
consider the following amendments: Paul No. 2, Graham No. 14, Lee No. 
22; that if offered, the Senate vote in relation to the Paul and Graham 
amendments at 5:50 p.m. today, with 2 minutes for debate equally 
divided between votes; further, that the Senate vote in relation to the 
Lee amendment at a time to be determined by the majority leader, 
following consultation with the Republican leader, with 60 affirmative 
votes required for the adoption of the Paul and Lee amendments, all 
without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, very briefly, as I know we are about to 
begin the vote, the Paul amendment is just one that is based on a 
sentiment that I think many of us agree with--that the 2001 
authorization needs revision. He proposes to repeal it but not for 6 
months, giving us time to do the revision. I would vote against it but 
would look forward to working with him and others and the 
administration to find out what an appropriate revision should be. I 
don't think we should leave a gap.
  With respect to the Graham amendment--a colleague who is a good 
friend--the President has the ability to take action against Iranian-
backed militias in Iraq. The President is doing that every day, not 
based on the 2002 authorization.
  I agree with my colleague from New Jersey in that this is a debate 
about ending a war authorization that has gone on for 20 years, not on 
the floor, without committee action, coming up with a new authorization 
against a new enemy. If we need to do that, we can discuss it in 
committee.
  The good news is that the President has article II power to defend 
against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and is doing it every day.
  With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on both the Graham and Paul 
amendments.

[[Page S902]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                            Amendment No. 2

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2, and I ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be 
reported by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY 
                   FORCE.

       The Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 
     107-40; 115 Stat. 224; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is repealed 
     effective 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                            Amendment No. 14

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to call up my amendment No. 
14, and I ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 14.

  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To provide for more targeted authority under the 
  Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 
                                 2002)

       Strike section 2 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2. REDUCED AUTHORITY UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF 
                   MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.

       The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
     Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 
     U.S.C. 1541 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking the preamble;
       (2) in section 1, by striking ``Against Iraq Resolution of 
     2002'' and inserting ``Against Iranian backed Militias 
     Operating in Iraq'';
       (3) by striking section 2;
       (4) by redesignating sections 3 and 4 as sections 2 and 3, 
     respectively;
       (5) in section 2, as redesignated by paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``necessary and 
     appropriate in order to'' and all that follows through the 
     period at the end and inserting ``necessary and appropriate 
     to defend the national security of the United States against 
     Iranian-backed militias operating in Iraq.''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``alone either'' and all 
     that follows through ``regarding Iraq'' and inserting ``alone 
     will not adequately protect the national security of the 
     United States against the continuing threat posed by Iranian 
     backed militias operating in Iraq''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, including'' and all 
     that follows through ``September 11, 2001''; and
       (6) in section 3, as so redesignated--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking ``section 3'' and inserting ``section 2''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``, including'' and all that follows 
     through ``(Public Law 105-338)''; and
       (B) by striking subsection (c).


                        Vote on Amendment No. 2

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Paul amendment.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Heinrich) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 9, nays 86, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--9

     Baldwin
     Braun
     Cardin
     Lee
     Markey
     Paul
     Sanders
     Vance
     Warren

                                NAYS--86

     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Heinrich
     McConnell
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). On this vote, the yeas are 9, the 
nays are 86.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for this amendment, the 
amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                            Amendment No. 14

  Mr. GRAHAM. Colleagues, this is, to me, very important; I hope to 
you.
  There have been 56 attacks against soldiers stationed in Iraq--about 
2,000--by Shiite militias in Iraq. I can understand repealing the AUMF 
because Saddam is dead, but those in Iraq--American soldiers--are being 
attacked routinely by Shiite militias in Iraq.
  I am asking the Congress to tell the Shiite militias: You come after 
our troops, we are coming after you.
  Article II power exists nebulously. The strongest we can be as a 
nation is when the Congress and the President speak with a single 
voice. Speak with this voice to those who will kill Americans in Iraq: 
Shiite militias, we are coming after you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment is to create a new AUMF that does not currently exist. 
The President has article II powers, and we are defending against 
Iranian-backed militias in Iraq every day under article II.
  We do not need this. This is why both the American Legion and the 
Concerned Veterans for America oppose Graham 14.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's repeal the Iraq war authorization, not 
pass a new one.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 14

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Manchin
     Mullin
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker

                                NAYS--60

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Markey
     Marshall
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

[[Page S903]]


  


                             NOT VOTING--4

     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     McConnell
  The amendment (No. 14) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Minnesota.


                                 S. 316

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support of the legislation 
repealing the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force 
against Iraq. I am pleased about the vote.
  I want to thank Senator Tim Kaine and Senator Todd Young for leading 
this bipartisan legislation as well as Chair  Bob Menendez for moving 
it through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  With this bill, we are asserting Congress's constitutional power to 
determine when to begin and end wars. These AUMFs were passed 32 and 21 
years ago respectively. The Gulf war ended in a matter of months, and 
the Iraq war that began more than a decade later has been over for 12 
years. It is time for Congress to act.
  Open-ended AUMFs serve no strategic purpose and undermine Congress's 
authority to determine if and when to send our troops into battle, 
which is a major decision that we should make.
  On top of that, they come with great risk. It is far too easy for a 
Presidential administration to treat an AUMF as blanket permission to 
enter into or to stoke conflicts abroad. It doesn't matter which party 
is in the White House--our Constitution grants war powers to Congress.
  We also must recognize that the situation on the ground has changed. 
Iraq is now a sovereign democracy and America's strategic partner in 
the Middle East. If we want to work with them to advance stability in 
the region--and we should--what kind of signal does it send to have our 
laws identify Iraq as an enemy nation?
  Repealing the AUMFs will not halt our military's strategic operations 
in Iraq, and it will not harm our national defense; but it will offer a 
measure of closure to the veterans and servicemembers who sacrificed so 
much on the battlefield.
  I will not soon forget when I went to Baghdad and Fallujah and saw 
firsthand the bravery and commitment of our troops. The Minnesota 
soldiers I met over there--as, I am sure, the Presiding Officer met 
with New Hampshire soldiers--never once complained about their 
missions. Instead, they asked me to call their moms and dads at home to 
tell them they were OK.
  And not a day goes by that I don't think of that afternoon at the 
Baghdad Airport. By circumstance, we were getting on a plane. I saw a 
group standing, and I went over there. They were members of the Duluth 
National Guard, whom I have met many times since. They were there, 
saluting, as six caskets, draped in American flags, were loaded onto a 
plane to be flown home.
  Our troops did their jobs and more. Let's do ours. It is time to 
bring an end to the AUMFs and the war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________