[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 53 (Thursday, March 23, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S917-S929]
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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume 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.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
S. 316
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the AUMF, negotiations to reach a deal
on AUMF passage continue here in the Senate. We had a number of votes
yesterday evening on Republican amendments, and I expect we are going
to see a few more later today.
Senate passage of the AUMF is now a matter of when, not if, and today
we are going to continue working to make sure it happens as soon as we
can. Americans want to see an end to endless Middle East wars. Passing
this AUMF is a necessary step to putting these bitter conflicts
squarely behind us.
I thank my colleagues for their work. I look forward to this bill's
passage very soon. We are allowing amendments, but we shouldn't just be
dilatory. We should move forward.
Extremism
At the start of this Congress, I urged Republicans in both the Senate
and the House to rid themselves of MAGA extremism and work with
Democrats for the good of the country and even for the good of their
own party. We believe MAGA Republicanism hurts their party, because so
many Americans on both sides of the aisle reject it.
Well, over 3 months later, Republicans have failed in so many ways to
abandon MAGA extremism. If anything, they have doubled down and
embraced it even more tightly--again, to the detriment of their country
and to the detriment of their party.
If you just want to know how extreme the GOP has become in the
majority, look no further than what is happening on the House floor
today and tomorrow. As early as this afternoon, House Republicans will
try resurrecting their doomed attempt to protect retirement investors
from considering governance ESG factors when making investment
decisions.
Republicans talk a lot about their love of free markets and letting
the private sector do its work, but their obsession--obsession--with
eliminating ESG would do the opposite. By turning ``ESG'' into a dirty
new little acronym, Republicans are trying to force their own views
down the throats of every company and every investor.
President Biden has already vetoed this nakedly partisan measure, and
it is clear the votes do not exist to override this veto in the House.
It won't even come close.
[[Page S918]]
So it is bad enough that House Republicans are wasting time on show
votes, but it is even more astonishing that this show vote, of all
things, is designed to restrict the private sector on purely
ideological grounds. It is a sad sign of how radicalized and divisive
the GOP has become over the past few years.
But that is not all. Today's potential vote on the ESG override is
the appetizer. Tomorrow's main course is even more horrifying.
As we speak, House Republicans are considering a sweeping piece of
legislation that would nationalize school policy, endanger billions in
nutrition funding, and accelerate the trend of book bans across the
Nation. The House Republicans' school control bill is Orwellian to the
core, and it will not see the light of day here in the Senate. If
passed, schools across the Nation would be forced to adhere to a
panoply of Federal regulations that take power away from parents and
school districts.
Again, let me repeat that. It would take power away from parents and
school districts, away from educators, and put it in the hands of
elected politicians. Again, the GOP that treasured small government and
local control is long since gone, replaced once again by hard-right
MAGA ideologues.
The bill could be devastating to our communities. According to one
report from CBO, schools that fail to comply with these MAGA mandates
would be excluded from Child Nutrition Programs, impacting over 9
million kids who rely on schools for their meals.
That is it. Punish the poor kids. Make sure they don't have a meal if
the school board doesn't comply with these extreme provisions.
The GOP would also expose school districts to even greater risks of
book banning, censorship, and intimidation. Last year alone, there were
over 2,500 book bans across the country on titles that oftentimes
aren't remotely offensive but would still draw the ire of the hard
right.
One school librarian in Pennsylvania--listen to this; it is
crushing--was reportedly forced to remove a poster quoting Holocaust
survivor Elie Wiesel for violating district policy--Elie Wiesel,
violating district policy.
What was the quote in question?
I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human
beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take
sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.
Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
That was removed.
What is going on here with the extreme right? They are just losing
it. There is something deeply malicious going on within the hard right
when even the quotes of Holocaust survivors are seen as too ``woke'' or
``offensive.''
Again, rather than abandon the MAGA hard right, the Republican Party
as a whole seems to be doubling down.
Legislation like the GOP's radical school control bill would only
make matters worse, and I will assure the American people and school
children that if this bill is passed, it will meet a dead end when it
comes to the Senate.
Budget
Mr. President, finally, on the budget, in the aftermath of major bank
collapses, House Republicans have spent this week not calling for calm
but sowing chaos. Chaos seems to be their calling card.
Earlier this week, House GOP Members, including the chairman of the
House Budget Committee, said now is ``the best time'' to double down on
debt ceiling brinkmanship and hostage-taking.
They suggest, absurdly, that Democrats and Democratic policies are
somehow to blame for what went wrong with Silicon Valley Bank, and they
are trying to link the bank's collapse with the debt ceiling debate.
This is a stupendously bad idea. This is an idea that has no logic.
It has no linear thinking in it at all. It is just throwing things
together, throwing spaghetti on the wall. Threatening the full faith
and credit of the United States is never appropriate, but, at a time
when markets require stability, it is supremely reckless.
Republicans should remember that poor management and deregulation
under President Trump made these bank collapses possible. It wasn't
Democratic policies.
And I would remind my Republican colleagues of this very important
and telling fact: Inflation and interest rates are impacting
institutions everywhere, but the vast majority of banks that have been
properly managed are not in crisis.
So the Republican convoluted argument falls very, very flat. If this
environment is so bad for the banks, why aren't all banks affected? No,
it is the few that are mismanaged. It is the few that were not
regulated properly by the regulators.
So to link the collapses with the debt ceiling--to suggest that these
incidents should justify even more brinkmanship and hostage-taking--is
stunningly reckless.
Instead of trying to promote financial catastrophe, Republican
leaders should stop hiding from the American people, stop coming up
with diversions and subterfuges, and finally show us your plan.
Today is March 23. It has been long enough.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Trade
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this morning, the U.S. Trade Representative
is testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on President Biden's
2023 trade policy agenda, and I look forward to asking her about the
details of the Biden administration's plans--or lack thereof--to boost
trade opportunities for American workers, farmers and ranchers, and
businesses.
Trade has been a very low priority on the President's list throughout
the first 2 years of his administration. To name just one example, it
took the President a year and a half to nominate a confirmable chief
agricultural negotiator at the U.S. Trade Representative's office even
though agriculture is a U.S. industry that depends upon trade.
If the President has deemphasized trade, he has really deemphasized
trade--that is, removing trade and tariff barriers and increasing
market access for American producers. The administration is currently
negotiating exactly zero comprehensive free trade agreements; and its
so-called trade initiative frameworks are, largely, flowery rhetoric
with little to nothing in the way of tangible and durable benefits for
American workers.
Tariff reduction and increased market access--the hallmarks of free
trade agreements--are notably missing in action from the Biden
administration's trade initiatives. In fact, President Biden's Trade
Representative has openly said that the Indo-Pacific economic
framework--perhaps the President's signature trade initiative--was
designed not--not--to include tariff reduction.
So why is this a problem?
Well, first of all, it is a problem because trade is essential to our
economy. More than 41 million U.S. jobs depend on trade, and that
includes a lot of jobs at small businesses. In fact, 98 percent of U.S.
exporters are small businesses--a stat that includes many farmers and
ranchers in South Dakota and around the country--and ignoring or
deemphasizing trade puts those jobs in jeopardy.
But it is not just that our economy already depends on trade, it is
that trade, specifically free trade--trade characterized by low or no
tariffs and fewer market barriers--is a powerful engine of prosperity
and economic growth. To name just one example, U.S. farm and food
product exports grew from $46.1 billion in 1994 to more than $177
billion in 2021, largely due to greater market access opportunities for
American exporters.
Free trade helps create economic prosperity. It opens new jobs and
opportunities for American workers. It helps grow U.S. businesses and,
by extension, our economy. President Biden has tended to deemphasize
the benefits of trade for our economy and for American workers and has
suggested that trade and a robust U.S. manufacturing footprint are
somehow in competition. But increased trade actually helps domestic
manufacturing. Sixty percent of U.S. imports are intermediary goods or
[[Page S919]]
materials for use in American manufacturing. Removing unnecessary
barriers to trade in those goods would generally lower the prices for
those materials, which would help and not hurt manufacturing.
And while we are talking about lowering prices, I should note that
expanding U.S. free trade would promote lower prices for a lot of the
goods that Americans buy and would help ease some of the supply chain
problems we have been experiencing. That could help alleviate the
historic inflation crisis that the President and Democrats have helped
to create and improve the economic outlook for Americans. But while
economic benefits are a leading reason to prioritize increased trade,
they are far from the only reason.
Free trade agreements don't just provide an opportunity for economic
growth; they also provide an opportunity to develop important strategic
relationships and foster ties with our allies. Free trade agreements
don't just cement economic ties between countries; they cement
friendships. They also provide an opportunity to advance U.S.
priorities abroad--security priorities, economic priorities, diplomatic
priorities, and more.
As I said, the President has deemphasized trade during the first 2
years of his administration; but while the U.S. has been inactive in
the trade space, the rest of the world has not. For example, China
recently joined the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership--a
trade agreement that eventually will eliminate more than 90 percent of
tariffs on commerce in 15 member countries. China is also negotiating
or implementing a number of new trade agreements to add to those of
which it is currently a part.
And China is far from the only country pushing ahead with free trade
agreements while the United States is sitting on the sidelines. We may
be a world superpower, but we have just 14 free trade agreements
currently in effect with 20 countries, meaning that many of our goods
and services face significant tariff barriers in most places around the
globe. Now, by comparison, the European Union has 46 trade agreements
with 78 countries, meaning that European goods often have a leg up on
the global stage.
Under the Biden administration, the United States is getting left
behind when it comes to global trade, and if we don't meaningfully
reenter the trade arena, we are going to slip further and further
behind. I believe that an excellent way to reenter the trade arena
would be to conclude a free trade agreement with one of our closest
friends and allies, the United Kingdom--something that is long overdue.
Earlier this month, I introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Chris
Coons. It is called the Undertaking Negotiations on Investment and
Trade for Economic Dynamism Act, or the UNITED Act--the acronym. The
legislation is designed to advance a free trade agreement with the
United Kingdom. Our legislation would authorize the administration to
negotiate and conclude a trade agreement with the United Kingdom to
open export opportunities for businesses of all sizes, increase the
resilience of critical supply chains, and advance economic prosperity
for people in both of our countries.
At a time of financial and geopolitical turbulence, cementing our
relationships with our allies should be a top priority; and an
agreement with the United Kingdom--our Nation's fifth largest export
market and our largest services trading partner in the entire world--
would further strengthen the ties that bind our two nations while
resulting in economic gains for both British and American citizens.
Important groundwork toward a comprehensive free trade agreement has
already been laid, including the bilateral negotiations initiated by
President Trump's and President Biden's attempts to strengthen economic
cooperation through the U.S./UK Dialogue on the Future of Atlantic
Trade; and with the recently announced Windsor Framework, which
provides a pathway on post-Brexit trading arrangements in Northern
Ireland, the timing is right to kick-start negotiations.
An agreement with the United Kingdom would further strengthen the
ties that bind our two nations while resulting in economic gains for
both American and British citizens.
While the administration may have put trade at the bottom of its
priority list over the past 2 years, the President's Trade
Representative, Katherine Tai, seems to have at least kept the door
open to working on increased market access--that is, tariff reduction--
and real trade agreements. For the sake of our country, I hope the
administration will follow through.
The Biden administration may have gotten off to a very slow start on
the trade front, but it is not too late to turn things around. I
strongly urge the President to turn his focus to a more ambitious trade
agenda, one that will provide durable economic and security benefits to
American workers and businesses and advance American leadership in the
world.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
S. 316
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to
support S. 316. I congratulate and thank Senators Kaine and Young for
their leadership on this issue. It will give us an opportunity to
finally repeal the 1991 and the 2002 authorizations for the use of
military force in regard to Iraq.
We are not at war with Iraq, and we have seen--particularly with the
use of the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, which was
centered on Afghanistan--that it can be used by administrations well
beyond the intent of Congress. So it is our congressional
responsibility to remove these authorizations and to finally repeal
them.
I want to make it clear: I voted against both of the Iraq
authorizations when I was in the House of Representatives in 1991 and
2002. The 2002, particularly, was passed by false pretenses. It was
passed because of the belief that Iraq was involved in the attack on
our country on September 11 when, in fact, they were not. It was based
on the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction that could be
used against U.S. interests, and that was also false.
Today, the U.S. forces in Iraq are there by the invitation of the
government. There is no need for Congress to authorize the use of
military force in regard to Iraq. If there are any issues in regard to
protecting U.S. interests that may fall within Iraq that would require
the use by the President of the military, he has that authority under
article II of the Constitution, and he also has the authority given to
him by the War Powers Act to utilize that process if, in fact, it is
needed.
It is Congress's responsibility to declare war, clearly, in the
Constitution of the United States. It is our responsibility to
authorize when our men and women should be put in harm's way. We have a
responsibility to make sure that the authorizations for the use of that
force are in compliance with our security needs. And, clearly, we need
to eliminate the authorizations that we passed in 1991 and 2002, and we
are going to have the opportunity to do that.
It is very important that we pass those bills. As I said earlier, it
could be used by a future administration, by a President, to go well
beyond the intent of Congress. Maybe 5 or 10 years from now, a creative
use of that authorization could be used to introduce troops clearly
against the intent of Congress.
Now, why do I say that? Because it has happened before. Let me give
you a case in point. The 2001 authorization for the use of military
force, which was passed shortly after the attack on our country on
September 11, 2001, was aimed at going after the organizations in
Afghanistan that were partly responsible for the attack on our country.
Let me, if I might, read into the Record the 2001 authorization for
use of military force because I think Members of the Senate and
certainly the public would be very surprised to see the specific
language that was used in 2001 and how it has been misused by four
administrations.
It states ``That the President is authorized to use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he
determines
[[Page S920]]
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001.''
That is the language of the AUMF. Yet we have seen that being used
now by four Presidents far beyond the intent of Congress. They are
using them in countries and against organizations that didn't even
exist in 2001. It has been used in Yemen and Somalia, far from
Afghanistan. Presidents have used the 2001 authorization in places and
against organizations that we never imagined 22 years ago.
Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say: Well, these are
affiliates of organizations that existed in 2001. Well, the concept of
affiliate is nowhere in the authorization for use of military force
that Congress passed. It was used by legal counsel and administrations
to justify the use of force.
It is our responsibility to give that authority, and we didn't. Yet
Presidents are using this to justify the use of force. Presidents have
used the 2001 authorization in places and against organizations never
imagined by Congress. The notice under the War Powers Act has been
given to over 20 countries using the 2001 authorization, and military
activities have been used well beyond Afghanistan under that
authority--in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Niger--never
intended by Congress.
Congress needs to pass S. 316. Let me make that clear. We need to get
this bill passed to take off the books the Iraq authorizations that we
have, and then we need to repeal and replace the 2001 AUMF. It is our
responsibility.
President Biden agrees. Let me just quote from the President's
statement in support of S. 316. He says:
Furthermore, President Biden remains committed to working
with Congress to ensure that the outdated authorizations for
the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and
specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans
from modern terrorist threats. Toward that end, the
Administration will ensure that Congress has a clear and
thorough understanding of the effect of any such action and
of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and interests
around the world.
Chairman Menendez has also indicated and Senator Kaine has also
indicated and understand that we first must pass S. 316, and then we
need to take up the 2001 authorization for a repeal and replacement. I
will introduce legislation in the very near future that does exactly
that, that gives us the opportunity to carry out our responsibilities.
I have done this in previous Congresses. It will sunset the 2001
authorization with enough lead time for the administration and Congress
to pass, as President Biden has said, a narrow and specific framework
more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats.
That is our responsibility to do that.
We must take action on all fronts: Repeal the authorization that was
passed in 1991 and 2002 related to Iraq and then move with dispatch to
repeal and replace the 2001 authorization that was aimed mainly toward
Afghanistan.
With that, 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. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, later today, we are going to vote on an
amendment offered by my colleague Senator Lee, and this is a really
important amendment. And this is a really important debate for us to
have: the question of how long authorizations of military force should
last.
We are able to have this amendment vote because of the great work
that Senator Kaine and Senator Menendez have done to bring to an end
authorizations of military force that have been on the books for
decades, authorizations of military force that most Americans didn't
even know existed. So, first, I am grateful to my colleagues and to
Senator Young as well for having brought us to this moment where we can
make the collective decision, Republicans and Democrats, to take off of
the books these expired authorizations of military force that are
dangerous so long as they allow a President of the United States to
pervert the original meaning of the authorization of force--to go to
war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq--for other means and mechanisms.
I think this is really important, both spiritually to show that
Congress is still in the game of setting foreign policy alongside the
executive branch but, practically, because we have seen these
authorizations occasionally be sort of picked up, unearthed from the
grave, and used to justify military action that can't find a
justification in article II power or in other AUMFs. So I couldn't be
more supportive of the underlying measure.
But Senator Lee is asking us to look prospectively and to take a step
to not repeat the mistakes of the past. His amendment would suggest
that every future authorization of military force--and we pass very few
of them on this floor--would be limited to 2 years.
Full disclosure: I have introduced that legislation with Senator Lee
as part of a broader piece of legislation that he and I have introduced
to reform the War Powers Act, to reform our arms sales processes, and
to reform a President's emergency powers to try to right-size the
balance of authority between an outsized executive branch and, I think,
an underwhelming legislative authority.
I think Senator Lee's amendment is a good idea. The only reason I
wouldn't support it is if it jeopardizes the underlying bill; but if it
doesn't, then I am going to support Senator Lee's amendment, in part,
because I have introduced legislation to do the same thing alongside
him, but because I think it is time that we started putting this
Congress in the position to flex that muscle that is given to us in
article I, which is to be codeterminants of American foreign policy
alongside the executive branch.
Notwithstanding the good work of Senator Menendez and Senator Kaine,
we have, over the course of the last several decades, completely
outsourced that responsibility to set the national security policy to
an executive branch and a national security apparatus inside the
executive branch that has become bigger than the Founding Fathers'
wildest dreams.
There is a wonderful book by Walter Isaacson called ``The Wise Men.''
It is about the individuals who set up the post-World War II order, but
it is also an interesting examination of how things used to be when
Congress was doing its job: regularly passing legislation, setting the
parameters of American foreign policy.
One of the most extraordinary stories that is told in ``The Wise
Men'' is the story of Robert Lovett, who at the time, I believe, was
the Deputy Secretary or an Under Secretary at the Department of
Defense. He eventually went on to become Secretary of Defense. And on a
regular basis--I believe it was multiple times a week--Robert Lovett,
on his way home from work, would stop and have a drink or dinner with
Arthur Vandenberg, the then-Senate chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee. Every single week, multiple times, the administration would
send one of their most important policymakers to sit down with the
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to work together on setting
American national security policy in the wake of World War II.
Senator Menendez is a very powerful chairman, but I don't think he
gets that kind of deference from the administration because the
administration knows that they can make national security policy
largely without or around the U.S. Congress because we have made a
collective decision to outsource that responsibility.
Now, that has become convenient in a world in which our enemies are a
lot harder to define. They are shadowy. They are diffuse. They change
names.
It is an era where victory is just as hard to define. We don't have
peace treaties any longer with our enemies--our nonstate-actor enemies,
at the very least. So we have been content to just let the
administration decide whom we fight, when we fight them.
We have let the Department of Defense get so big that we can barely
track what they do. We don't even demand much information from them.
I learned last week that the Department of Defense sees very little
responsibility to engage Members of Congress when it comes to briefing
us on contract award decisions, despite the statute mandating that
Congress receive information when requested.
[[Page S921]]
There is just an imbalance of power, and it is created by our
decision to only have debates on national security policy every long,
random, infrequent ``once in a while.''
Senator Lee's amendment says this. If you are going to pass an
authorization of military force, every Congress, you have to come back
and debate that authorization of military force.
When you are talking about our most sacred responsibility--putting
the men and women who protect us in harm's way--I think we owe it to
them, I think we owe it to our voters, to make sure that those
authorizations of military force are not being expanded or perverted
beyond their initial scope.
The 2001 AUMF is still on the books. It is important because it is
our sole authorization of military force against extremist groups.
Let me tell you, I cover the Middle East on the Foreign Relations
Committee. There are still groups there that are thinking about
plotting attacks against the United States. We need to chase them. We
need to keep them on the run. But the 2001 AUMF has a scope and a size
today that would be shocking to most Americans. The 2001 AUMF, which
everybody at the time knew was about fighting al-Qaida and those that
harbored al-Qaida, which at the time was a fight in Afghanistan, has
been used to justify airstrikes, operation, and support for
counterterrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti, Libya, Pakistan,
Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Cuba, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Georgia, Kenya, Kosovo, Jordan, Lebanon, Niger, Nigeria, Philippines,
and Turkey.
I don't think anybody who voted for the 2001 AUMF believed, at the
time, that it was an authorization for military force and
counterterrorism operations in that many countries. And if we were
required to come back and have the debate on the 2001 AUMF, or other
AUMFs, we would be able to check with our public, to check with the
people we represent, and see if they still believe that it is necessary
to send American forces that far and wide.
Maybe some of the most disastrous military engagements of our
history, like the war in Iraq, would have come to an earlier close had
this Congress been required to debate those measures on a regular
basis, instead of just allowing those AUMFs to persist.
And so I come to the floor to, frankly, thank Senator Lee for
bringing this piece of our bigger bill before the Senate. I am going to
certainly consider voting for it. I want to make sure it doesn't
compromise the underlying legislation. These amendments are moving
fast.
But my last hope for our body is this: that this isn't the last time
that we have a debate on this floor about the scope of American
military operations abroad. We should repeal and rewrite the 2001 AUMF.
It is way too broad and cuts Congress out of some the most important
decisions about where our troops fight.
That is a complicated endeavor, but I know Senator Menendez is
committed to it. I know there are many Republican colleagues committed
to it.
But I think history has shown that without a forcing mechanism, it is
unlikely that Congress is going to make those very difficult decisions,
which is why a sunset on AUMFs is a worthy idea of consideration.
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. 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.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we are abdicating our constitutional duty.
Sometimes we do this when we delegate law-making power to the executive
branch. Sometimes we do this when we shirk in our responsibility to
declare war.
Today, I want to focus on the latter. By passing my amendment, we
have the opportunity to ensure that all Americans have a voice in
matters of war and peace.
For decades, Presidents of both parties have used authorizations for
use of military force to conduct military operations without meaningful
oversight or accountability to Congress.
The Founders jealously guarded war powers and the power to authorize
military force. They understood what it meant to be subjected to an
executive with unfettered military authority. And, indeed, this is one
of the essential distinguishing characteristics between our system of
government and that of England.
Prior to the American Revolution, our Founders became very familiar
with the British system, under which one person, the Monarch, could
take the entire country to war. It was up to Parliament, at that point,
to fund it and up to the people to fight it. But one person could take
the country to war.
The Founders understood this, and they understood that unchecked and
unaccountable wielding of military force is, in fact, the stuff of
Monarchs, of dictators and tyrants, which is exactly why the Founders
entrusted this authority only to the people's representatives, in the
branch of the Federal Government most accountable to the people at the
most regular intervals.
Throughout history, when Kings waged war, it was the people who
fought and died. One of the many things that makes our system of
government unique is this principle our Founders enshrined into our
Constitution, which gave every American a voice when they were faced
with the prospect of sending their sons and daughters to war.
Unfortunately, we have strayed from our founding principles.
My amendment, which can pass today, is a recognition that we, as
elected representatives, have a duty and an obligation to reclaim the
authority to declare war that rightfully belongs to the American
people. My amendment does precisely that. It implements a 2-year sunset
for all future authorizations for use of military force, absent renewal
by Congress.
In no way would my amendment hinder military planning or weaken our
national security posture. To the contrary, it would induce a proactive
approach rooted in the present day and time. It would reaffirm our
resolve and strengthen our military planning. It would show that we, as
representatives of the American people, are committed to conducting
military operations with oversight and accountability.
It accomplishes this by requiring a joint resolution of extension to
renew future AUMFs each Congress. Under this process, Congress may
choose to let an AUMF expire or renew it under a joint resolution of
extension with expedited procedures. This is a fast-track process,
requiring only a simple majority in the Senate, designed to make AUMF
renewals as easy and seamless as possible, so as not to hinder military
planning.
My amendment gives Congress the ability to review and reevaluate our
involvement in the wars and adjust them, if necessary, to better meet
the specific objectives of the conflict or engagement. This flexibility
and agility is nearly impossible under the current system, which has
opened the door for overly broad applications and interpretations of
existing AUMFs, sometimes past decades before the moment of a
particular conflict or engagement, which in turn leads to endless wars.
It would be a way for Congress to rein in this abuse without hindering
our ability to adequately respond to present-day national security
threats.
Now, some have argued that we don't enter into wars to withdraw; when
we must fight, we must win. But this argument has it exactly backward.
What could be stronger than a resolution reaffirming our commitment to
a given conflict?
And given that every Member of the House of Representatives is up for
reelection every 2 years and one-third of the Members of this body in
the Senate are up for election every 2 years, we resolve some of the
uncertainty that our partners and our adversaries might see, might
fear, might wonder about if, in fact, we are not regularly renewing
each AUMF in each Congress.
This is about accountability to the public. It is about the
republican form of government as a whole. It is about restoring
Congress's article I authority to declare war and authorize the use of
military force.
Let us do what we were elected to do: ensure that all Americans have
a voice in matters of great importance, especially when it comes to
matters of war and peace, and that no President has
[[Page S922]]
the power historically reserved for Monarchs, despots, and tyrants.
I implore my colleagues to pass this amendment and thus restore the
balance of powers mandated by the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment No. 22
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 22 and 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 Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 22.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for the termination of authorizations for use of
military force after two years)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR TIME LIMIT FOR AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF
MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General.--Any law authorizing the use of military
force that is enacted on or after the date of the enactment
of this Act shall terminate two years after the date of the
enactment of such law unless a joint resolution of extension
is enacted pursuant to subsection (b) extending such
authority prior to such termination date.
(b) Consideration of Joint Resolution of Extension.--
(1) Joint resolution of extension defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``joint resolution of extension'' means
only a joint resolution of either House of Congress--
(A) the title of which is as follows: ``A joint resolution
extending the [_________] for a two-year period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.'', with
the blank being filled with the title of the law authorizing
the use of military force that is being extended pursuant to
subsection (a); and
(B) the sole matter after the resolving clause of which is
the following: ``Congress extends the authority for the use
of military force provided under [_________] for a two-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this joint
resolution.'', with the blank being filled with the title of
the law authorizing the use of military force that is being
extended pursuant to subsection (a).
(2) Introduction.--A joint resolution of extension may be
introduced by any member of Congress.
(3) Floor consideration in house of representatives.--If a
committee of the House of Representatives to which a joint
resolution of extension has been referred has not reported
the joint resolution within 10 calendar days after the date
of referral, that committee shall be discharged from further
consideration of the joint resolution.
(4) Consideration in the senate.--
(A) Committee referral.--A joint resolution of extension
introduced in the Senate shall be referred to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
(B) Reporting and discharge.--If the Committee on Foreign
Relations has not reported the joint resolution within 10
calendar days after the date of referral of the joint
resolution, that committee shall be discharged from further
consideration of the joint resolution and the joint
resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
(C) Proceeding to consideration.--Notwithstanding Rule XXII
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order at any
time after the Committee of Foreign Relations reports a joint
resolution of extension to the Senate or has been discharged
from consideration of such a joint resolution (even though a
previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to
move to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution,
and all points of order against the joint resolution (and
against consideration of the joint resolution) are waived.
The motion to proceed is not debatable. The motion is not
subject to a motion to postpone. A motion to reconsider the
vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall
not be in order.
(D) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the
decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the
rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution of extension shall be decided
without debate.
(E) Consideration of veto messages.--Debate in the Senate
of any veto message with respect to a joint resolution of
extension, including all debatable motions and appeals in
connection with the joint resolution, shall be limited to 10
hours, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees.
(5) Rules relating to senate and house of
representatives.--
(A) Treatment of senate joint resolution in house.--In the
House of Representatives, the following procedures shall
apply to a joint resolution of extension received from the
Senate (unless the House has already passed a joint
resolution relating to the same proposed action):
(i) The joint resolution shall be referred to the
appropriate committees.
(ii) If a committee to which a joint resolution has been
referred has not reported the joint resolution within 2
calendar days after the date of referral, that committee
shall be discharged from further consideration of the joint
resolution.
(iii) Beginning on the third legislative day after each
committee to which a joint resolution has been referred
reports the joint resolution to the House or has been
discharged from further consideration thereof, it shall be in
order to move to proceed to consider the joint resolution in
the House. All points of order against the motion are waived.
Such a motion shall not be in order after the House has
disposed of a motion to proceed on the joint resolution. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion. The motion
shall not be debatable. A motion to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order.
(iv) The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the joint resolution and against its
consideration are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except 2 hours of debate
equally divided and controlled by the sponsor of the joint
resolution (or a designee) and an opponent. A motion to
reconsider the vote on passage of the joint resolution shall
not be in order.
(B) Treatment of house joint resolution in senate.--
(i) If, before the passage by the Senate of a joint
resolution of extension, the Senate receives an identical
joint resolution from the House of Representatives, the
following procedures shall apply:
(I) That joint resolution shall not be referred to a
committee.
(II) With respect to that joint resolution--
(aa) the procedure in the Senate shall be the same as if no
joint resolution had been received from the House of
Representatives; but
(bb) the vote on passage shall be on the joint resolution
from the House of Representatives.
(ii) If, following passage of a joint resolution of
extension in the Senate, the Senate receives an identical
joint resolution from the House of Representatives, that
joint resolution shall be placed on the appropriate Senate
calendar.
(iii) If a joint resolution of extension is received from
the House, and no companion joint resolution has been
introduced in the Senate, the Senate procedures under this
subsection shall apply to the House joint resolution.
(6) Rules of house of representatives and senate.--This
subsection is enacted by Congress--
(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively,
and supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is
inconsistent with such rules; and
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.
Vote on Amendment No. 22
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
McConnell).
The result was announced--yeas 19, nays 76, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]
YEAS--19
Blackburn
Braun
Cardin
Cruz
Gillibrand
Hawley
Lee
Lummis
Markey
Marshall
Merkley
Murphy
Paul
Sanders
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Tuberville
Vance
Welch
NAYS--76
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Duckworth
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Manchin
Menendez
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (SC)
[[Page S923]]
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--5
Cramer
Durbin
Feinstein
Fetterman
McConnell
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). On this vote, the yeas are 19, the
nays are 76. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the
adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 22) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Amendment No. 4
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
to consider Rubio Amendment No. 4; that there be 2 minutes for debate
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the amendment and 60
affirmative votes will be required for adoption, all without further
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up Senate amendment No. 4 on behalf
of Senator Rubio and ask that it be reported by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for Mr. Rubio,
proposes an amendment numbered 4.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a certification)
On page 2, line 10, insert ``30 days after the President
certifies to Congress that Iran has stopped providing
financial, technical, and material support to terrorist
organizations and other violent groups in Iraq and Syria''
after ``hereby repealed''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to speak against
this amendment.
This underlying bill is to repeal two war authorizations--one is 32
years old, and one is 20 years old. This amendment would turn 20- and
30-year-old wars into endless wars.
The amendment would say that no repeal could become effective until
the President certifies that Iran is no longer providing any material
or technical or financial support for bad activities in either Iraq or
Syria. So even if they are doing nothing in Iraq, the Iraq war still
isn't over as long as they are doing something in Syria.
Let's not turn 20- and 32-year-old wars into forever wars. The
American Legion opposes this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to
oppose it as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for all time to be yielded
back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Amendment No. 4
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is 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 Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
McConnell).
The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 63, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]
YEAS--32
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Capito
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
Hoeven
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Mullin
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
NAYS--63
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Braun
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Daines
Duckworth
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--5
Cramer
Durbin
Feinstein
Fetterman
McConnell
(Mr. PADILLA assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). On this vote, the yeas are 32,
the nays are 63.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to consider the Risch amendment, No. 43, and that the Senate vote
in relation to the amendment at 1:45 p.m. without further intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en
bloc: Calendar Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52; that the
nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations;
and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action
and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. I object, and I will give the reasons why. I am happy
to explain all of the holds on my nominations, and I am glad to see my
colleague, the Senator from Ohio, who will be here in just a moment to
support these efforts.
My friend from Colorado says this hold is unprecedented. It is not
unprecedented at all. In fact, there is very recent precedent. Just a
couple of years ago, the junior Senator from Illinois, a Democrat, held
more than 1,000 military nominations. The reason she held them was over
one single officer she wanted promoted.
My colleague from Colorado threatened to do the same thing just a few
weeks ago.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a news article from January 24.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From defensenews.com]
Colorado Dem Threatens To Hold Pentagon Nominees Over Space Command HQ
(By Bryant Harris)
Washington.--Republican lawmakers spent the last year
stalling President Joe Biden's defense nominees, but the
latest threat to filling the Pentagon's top jobs is coming
from the president's own party.
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., said he's threatening to
delay the six remaining Pentagon nominees because Defense
Secretary Lloyd Austin refuses to meet with him over the
Trump administration's decision to move U.S. Space Command
from its current location in Colorado Springs to Huntsville,
Alabama.
The potential roadblock comes after the Senate made
significant progress on its Pentagon confirmation backlog,
confirming at least four long-stalled Defense Department
nominees in December. Then on Monday, the Senate voted 60-35
to confirm Brendan Owens as assistant secretary of defense
for energy and installations in its first floor vote of the
year.
Bennet and fellow Colorado Democrat Sen. John Hickenlooper
joined Republicans in voting ``no'' on Owens because their
letters to Austin have gone unanswered.
``We simply have received no response,'' Bennet told
Defense News Tuesday. ``When the stakes are as high as they
are, when our national security is at risk, when [former
[[Page S924]]
President] Donald Trump made a political decision that
overruled the best advice of the Air Force's generals who
examined the question of where Space Command should be, I
think we should hear from the secretary of defense.''
Two years ago, during the final days of the Trump
administration, the Air Force announced Huntsville, Alabama--
the site of the Army's Redstone Arsenal and home to the
Missile Defense Agency--would serve as the new location for
Space Command headquarters, moving it from Colorado Springs.
The decision infuriated Colorado's congressional
delegation, who asked the Air Force to review the decision.
Several Colorado Democrats argued it was an act of political
retaliation because Biden won the swing state in the 2020
election.
A Defense Department Inspector General report in May found
the Air Force followed all relevant laws and Policies when
selecting Huntsville. But the report also found the rules
themselves may have been flawed, resulting in a less than
optimal decision.
A separate June report from the Government Accountability
Office found the Air Force did not follow best Practices when
making the basing decision.
Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall is reviewing both
reports' findings and will make a determination about whether
to revisit the basing process. SPACECOM Commander Gen. James
Dickinson said in early December he expects that decision
``shortly,'' but the service declined to provide a more
specific timeline to Defense News.
``We are engaging the senator on this,'' a senior defense
official told Defense News, speaking on the condition of
anonymity to discuss Bennet's threat on Pentagon nominations.
``More broadly, we continue to have conversations with
senators from both parties as we work to confirm our
nominees.''
`prerogative of senators'
Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., told
Defense News ``we can and we should rapidly resolve [Bennet's
and Hickenlooper's] desire for a meeting'' with Austin.
``And then I think they'll withdraw the holds,'' he added.
Any senator can block the expedited procedures generally
used to confirm Pentagon nominees with broad bipartisan
support. This forces Senate leaders to devote scarce hours of
floor time on the numerous procedural votes needed to confirm
these nominees.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., placed a blanket hold on all
Pentagon nominees in 2021 over Biden's hasty Afghanistan
withdrawal. Hawley had initially demanded Austin and other
top Biden administration officials resign, but ultimately
agreed to allow up-or-down votes on nominees such as Owens
after Congress passed Hawley's legislation banning TikTok on
federal devices.
Reed repeatedly denounced Hawley's blanket hold on the
chamber's floor last year, but drew a distinction between
Bennet's tactic and that of the Missouri Republican.
``That's a prerogative of senators,'' he said. ``Continuous
holds, I think, are just self-destructive because they take
away the talent the Department of Defense needs.''
Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the top Republican on the
Armed Services Committee, also defended the increasing
instances of individual senators holding up nominees as
leverage over the executive branch.
``It's a tool we have at our disposal,'' Wicker told
Defense News. ``It's part of our oversight abilities, and
sometimes it's important to get the attention of unelected
officials.''
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, also has holds on two Pentagon
nominees over a separate dispute with the Interior Department
regarding a mine project in his state. Those nominees are
Laura Taylor-Kale, tapped to serve as assistant secretary of
defense for industrial-base policy, and Radha Plumb,
nominated to be deputy undersecretary of defense for
acquisition and sustainment.
Ravi Chaudhary and Lester Martinez-Lopez are also awaiting
floor votes to respectively serve as assistant Air Force
secretary for energy, installations and the environment and
assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.
The Senate Armed Services Committee must also hold
nomination hearings for Nickolas Guertin to be assistant Navy
secretary for research, development and acquisition as well
as for Ronald Keohane to be assistant defense secretary for
manpower and reserve affairs before voting to advance them to
the floor.
Joe Gould and Courtney Albon contributed to this report.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. The headline reads: ``Colorado [Democrat] threatens
to hold Pentagon nominees over Space Command [Headquarters].'' That
Colorado Democrat happens to be my colleague opposite me as we speak.
He has given us emotion and opinion. Let's talk about the facts.
Last summer, the Supreme Court returned the decision to regulate
abortion to the States. In response, the Department of Defense claimed
that this was a threat to the readiness of our Armed Forces. They said
this without any evidence at all.
On July 15 of last year, Republican members of the Armed Services
Committee asked Secretary Austin how the Department came to this
conclusion. It wasn't until November that the Department scheduled a
briefing with Senate offices to give us some answers. However, minutes
before the briefing was scheduled to begin, the Department canceled.
On December 5, 2022, I sent a letter to Secretary Austin letting him
know I would hold all civilian and general and flag officer nominees
until we got some answers. Less than 24 hours later, we got answers.
The answers were disturbing.
We learned the Pentagon intended to go well beyond what has been
authorized by Congress. Federal law only allows the military to provide
abortions in three very narrow circumstances: rape, incest, and threat
to the life of the mother. Yet the Biden administration has turned the
DOD into an abortion travel agency. They did it by using just a memo.
The Biden administration wants abortion-on-demand for not just those
enlisted in our military but their family members as well. This would
expand the policy to millions of people. Now, the American taxpayers
are on the hook to cover nonchargeable paid time off and travel costs
for abortions for our military and their families. Again, nobody voted
for this. This goes beyond the law.
We still have a Constitution in this country to go by, and the
Constitution is clear: Congress makes the laws. The executive branch
enforces the laws.
Secretary Austin seems to think he can make a change in the law
without going through Congress. It would be irresponsible for the U.S.
Senate to allow an administration to walk all over the legislative
branch. Secretary Austin cannot change the law by memo. Congress cannot
be replaced by a post on the Department of Defense website.
In December, I warned the Department that I would hold their nominees
if they tried to force abortion-on-demand on our military, and they did
it anyway. The Department knew what the consequences would be. It was
clear. This was their choice.
I will continue to hold these nominees until the Department of
Defense follows the law or Congress changes the law. In the meantime,
we should do our job and vote. If these nominees are so important to
the Democrats, then the Democratic leader can find time to get them on
the floor.
Frankly, I wish Democrats were this concerned about our enlisted
servicemembers. We have a recruiting crisis in this country. The Army
missed its recruiting goal by 15,000 last year. That is an entire
division. One of the causes of this crisis is the policies of the Biden
administration.
At yesterday's Armed Services hearing, I talked about the Navy's
training materials. Many of these materials denigrate religious
Americans, who are the majority in this country.
Democrats seem a lot more worried about these nominations than about
our recruitment, the people who actually fight wars.
If Democrats are so worried about the nominations, then they can
bring them up for a vote. We have more than enough time to vote on
nominees. We have voted on plenty of nominees this year. That is about
the only thing the leader has let us do so far.
I will continue to come down here and lay out the facts for as long
as my colleague from Colorado wants to. We talked about this less than
a month ago. The facts have not changed. My position has not changed.
So I reserve the right to object.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from
Alabama coming back down here, and I am sorry for inconveniencing him,
but I think that we have had a difference of opinion about this that
really matters and is real.
First of all, I appreciate the fact that he read a rare headline
about my work here, but he mischaracterized what I did, which is to
hold only two civilian nominees at the Defense Department--two civilian
nominees. He has held every single--all flag officers, promotions of
uniformed flag officers from the Department of Defense. That has not
happened in the history of the U.S. Senate since 1789. And certainly my
hold of two civilians is not precedent for what he is doing.
[[Page S925]]
He talks about how the Defense Department can't change the rules on
its own. Nobody said the Defense Department changed the rules on its
own. I didn't see him come down here when the Defense Department said
they would pay for travel for LASIK. I didn't see him come down here
and complain when they said they would pay for travel for bunions. That
is not in the statute either. That is not our responsibility; that is
DOD's responsibility.
DOD, with a set of reasonable rules, is trying to deal with the
aftermath of Dodd, trying to help women in uniform access care. And I
believe the aftermath of Dodd created a real threat to our national
security and to our readiness. Women are the fastest growing population
in the military.
The Senator from Alabama said it exactly right: They are having huge
recruiting challenges. It is very hard for me to see how American women
who have had access for 50 years to a fundamental constitutional right
and have now had it stripped away by the Supreme Court of the United
States are going to enlist if they have no way to know whether or not
they are going to have access to reproductive care. And that is not me
saying it; the last time the Senator from Alabama and I, my friend,
were on the floor, he said there would be thousands and thousands of
people who would be affected by this--thousands and thousands. That is
a readiness issue.
As the Senator from Alabama knows very well, when people volunteer to
serve in our Armed Forces, they don't get to decide where they are
going to serve, but before Dodd, they had at least some assurance that
their fundamental rights would be protected, that their right to
reproductive health care or to abortion would be protected--not anymore
because the Supreme Court has ripped that right away. After Dodd, we
have seen the effect of that.
Eighteen States have banned abortion. Eighteen States have banned
abortion; 9, even in cases of rape and incest.
They passed or they have introduced restrictions to travel.
Alabama doesn't have exceptions for rape and incest, and a doctor can
go to prison in Alabama for 99 years if they perform an abortion.
There are even State legislatures down there that are trying to use
chemical endangerment statutes that are meant to deal with
methamphetamines to charge women who have accessed abortion.
In Texas--my friends in Texas--there are $10,000 bounties that are
being put out there to try to stop friends and neighbors from driving
their loved ones to the clinic.
Florida is trying to ban abortion at 6 weeks. One in three women in
this country who are pregnant don't know they are pregnant in 6 weeks.
I don't know if the Governor of Florida understands that--or maybe he
does understand it. I don't know which is worse.
After Dodd, it is not hard to see why women might think twice about
signing up.
Rand has said that there is going to be more attrition, that it is
going to hurt readiness. To help address these challenges, the Pentagon
announced three policies: a travel allowance so that people could
actually have help being paid to go from a State they hadn't asked to
go to, to one where they could have access to care; absence without
leave so they wouldn't be charged--you know, they are paid leave to be
able to address something that other people in the military don't have
to address; and more time to notify their commanding officers of what
happened. That is it. Those are the three things.
Those policies are so unreasonable in the mind of the Senator from
Alabama that he has done something that no Senator has ever done, which
is to put a blanket hold on all flag officers and their promotion in
the Department of Defense. And that is just the three modest things.
That has nothing to do with basing. It has nothing to do with how DOD
is going to address Dobbs in the future.
I don't think that people in these States who have not volunteered to
be in these States should have to be subject to the draconian laws of
these States and not have the opportunity, if they want to have the
opportunity, to travel and have their travel paid for, just as we do
with LASIK surgery. That is what he calls an ``abortion travel
agency''--the Senator from Alabama.
Again, we didn't hear about this when it was about LASIK. We didn't
hear about it when it was about bunions. We heard about it when it was
about a 50-year fundamental right on behalf of the American people.
This hurts our security. It hurts our readiness at a time when Russia
and China are combining together.
So I beg the Senator from Alabama to relent. We can have a
disagreement about--we will have a disagreement. I come from a State
that was one of the first States--the first State in America--to codify
a woman's right to choose before Roe v. Wade was decided. I come from a
State that was the first State in America to ratify a woman's right to
choose in the wake of the Dobbs decision. And he comes from a State
that views it very differently.
I respect his position on this, just like I do everybody in America
who disagrees with my position on this. What I don't respect is the
idea that we can't move past this blanket hold on every single flag
officer that is up for promotion just because the Senator doesn't agree
with the majority position that is reflected in the Department of
Defense's modest rules.
I know that the vote is coming, and, at this point, I will relent and
yield the floor.
I will just say to my friend from Alabama: I wish him luck, and I
wish Alabama luck tomorrow night. I look forward to the next time that
we are here addressing this fundamental disagreement because I believe
the American people are staggered by what the Dobbs Court has done. I
believe the American people are staggered by what has happened because
an originalist majority of the Supreme Court--something that was
unimaginable when I was graduating from law school, not that many years
ago--has now decided, if it was not a right in 1848, it is not a right
in the United States of America today.
I don't believe that is where the American people are, and I don't
believe that is where the Department of Defense is.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Social Security
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am speaking about Social Security.
Secretary Yellen spoke before the Senate Finance Committee last week,
and, to me, it was incredibly frustrating. When asked if the President
would be willing to work with Congress, she held up a piece of paper
and read that he stands ready to work with Congress, to meet with
Senators to find a solution to Social Security. We are speaking about
the President personally meeting with us. There is no evidence that is
true. That has not been our experience.
It has been well reported in the press that there is a bipartisan--
bipartisan, bipartisan--group of Senators working to find a solution to
save Social Security. The President knows this. We have been unable to
get an appointment with the President.
The reason we keep requesting a meeting with him is because we are
told that no deal will be made without his personal signoff. He has to
be the one who tells those who work for him that this is the deal he
wants. So if the President chooses to do nothing, that choice
guarantees that someone currently receiving Social Security will get a
24-percent cut in the benefits she receives.
Let me just emphasize that. I was on talk radio with KEEL in
Shreveport, LA. Erin McCarty says: Well, I will be OK.
I don't know how old she is, but she thinks that, because she is of a
certain age, she will not be affected.
No, current law is, if the President chooses to do nothing, Erin and
everyone else who would be currently receiving Social Security would
get a 24-percent cut in their current benefits. Someone who is
depending upon this income to pay her bills and buy her groceries, she
gets a 24-percent cut in the amount she is receiving.
There needs to be a choice between a massive, by law, 24-percent
benefit cut--again, current law--and a real plan, a real choice to
strengthen, to save, and to secure Social Security.
To reference President Reagan, this is a time for choosing. We can't
wait
[[Page S926]]
because the longer we wait, the more expensive and the more drastic the
solution becomes. And we shouldn't allow politicians to use Social
Security as a political weapon to beat people into submission to claim
that one side wishes to do something and they are going to rescue it
while offering nothing to stop this scheduled 24-percent cut. It may be
good politics, but it is irresponsible.
I will point out that President Biden's two Democratic predecessors,
Obama and Clinton, both offered serious plans to address this looming
Social Security fiscal cliff; President Biden, no plan, not in his
budget. In fact, when I asked Secretary Yellen if they had modeled any
of the things she was referencing as a solution, they have not modeled
it, which tells me they have not worked on it.
There should absolutely be a sense of urgency. He should feel it the
way that I feel it. I used to work in a hospital for the uninsured.
Many of my poor patients depended upon Social Security to pay their
rent, to buy their groceries, to pay their utilities. I know what a 24-
percent cut would mean to them.
By the way, on the solutions that we have been trying to come up
with--an approach, if you will, certainly not a final plan--there is a
lot of partial and inaccurate information. By the way, we did that on
purpose. The President has a right to have an imprint upon the final
thing that we come up with. So we have things which are, yes, we could
do it this way, but maybe do something else.
We do add something to it, though. We think it is a novel solution
that helps Social Security bridge the solvency and protects the
Americans that rely upon it.
We have added some things. One thing we have spoken about, perhaps
locally but not nationally, is that those who are most cut by a 24-
percent cut will be the police officers, firefighters, teachers, and
many other State and local government officials who are unfairly
penalized by two provisions in current law known as WEP and GPO. From
my perspective, repealing WEP and GPO should be part of any
conversation we have with the President, if he agrees to meet, and
should be part of any final proposal.
But Americans of all generations--the Silent Generation, baby
boomers, Gen X, Gen Z--they want to know that the program they paid
into their entire lives will be there when they need it.
It is a political truth that some issues are seen as a ``political
third rail.'' I say choosing to do nothing, which means choosing that
Social Security benefits will be cut by 24 percent, should be the third
rail. We can't be guided by the fear of politics. We should be guided
by the courage of our commitment to the American people and,
particularly, that American senior--that he or she will not get this
24-percent cut.
I ask once more: President Biden, please personally meet with a
bipartisan group of Senators. If I said something I shouldn't have to
Secretary Yellen, I will, at that point, apologize.
President Biden has a reputation as a dealmaker. Let's make a deal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Tribute to Jeff Sanchez
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a topic I have
been dreading for months, the departure from my office of my senior
adviser and close friend, Jeff Sanchez.
After 4 years of dedicated, tireless, outstanding service to me, the
people of Delaware, my family, and our country, Jeff is moving on to an
exciting new adventure.
He didn't want a big farewell party, but he is going to have to
endure, before he goes, the Congressional Record of the U.S. Senate
reflecting the contributions of this remarkable public servant.
Jeff is from California, a graduate from Chapman University. He spent
a decade on the Hill working for Steny Hoyer, Senator Patty Murray, and
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez.
In my office, he has risen quickly, four promotions in 4 years. He
became a central part of my senior team, giving me valued, strategic
advice on a whole range of issues, from policy and politics to
operations and communications. My team in DC and Delaware quickly came
to rely on Jeff.
While I have a lot of very positive and humorous input from them,
given the press of time, I will read just a few.
One staffer said:
[Jeff] was the air traffic officer for the office but also
[at times] the pilot guiding all staff to a smooth departure
with our member and a safe, comfortable landing.
Another staffer said:
Jeff is a Swiss Army knife. There is nothing this guy can't
do. Tireless worker. Great writer. Strategic thinker. Gets
the policy and the politics.
And my favorite:
When Jeff walks in[to] a room, everything just starts
working better.
His first role in my office was moving me. I mean, physically moving
me. I quickly became respectful of his skills. We have driven the
streets of DC and Delaware, from Georgetown to Capitol Hill. And while
he mostly stayed under the limit and obeyed traffic laws, when it came
to getting me to Union Station and getting me home, he was more Mario
Andretti than Uber. Sometimes my blood pressure was elevated, but we
always arrived safely and on time.
From the snows of Davos to the hills of San Francisco and from the
streets of Madrid, we traveled to remarkable places together. One of
the most striking things about Jeff is the more time you spend with
him, the more time you want to spend with him. As we got to know each
other better and spent time talking, during our drives, about our
families and our hopes for the future, we became closer, and I am so
grateful. Jeff has allowed me to offer what I hope has been meaningful
advice on life's challenges and opportunities.
I have lots of things to poke fun at Jeff. He has a mischievous wit,
his own share of quirky habits, and charming preferences. Like a
hobbit, he eats a first and second lunch, always from Cups. During late
nights when I was tied up here on the floor, he would turn down the
lights and deejay for our colleagues--something called Club Jeff. And
while he is a foodie, his highest culinary loyalty is Cheesecake
Factory.
Jeff's parents, Maria and Carlos, are wonderful people from Quito,
Ecuador. He is proud of them, and I hope you know, we are proud of you.
To Maria, Carlos, Shane, Ronald, his beloved nanny Eloysita, and
grandmother Rosa, it is important for you to hear that you raised an
amazing and incredible young man, whose integrity and work ethic
exceeds anything I have seen among others, and you are the base for his
success here in the Senate and in life.
I have been blessed to know Jeff, both professionally and personally,
and we have come through some of the most challenging and difficult
moments in our country's recent history together: President Trump's two
impeachments, Joe Biden's Presidential campaign, my own reelection to
the Senate, January 6, the whole Biden Presidency, and two of the most
legislatively frenetic years in history and a global pandemic.
During the pandemic, a core group of six of us came into my offices
day in and day out and worked hard. We spent a huge amount of time
together--hard days and long nights, working through that crisis.
Through the pandemic, Jeff was always there.
He has made me a better Senator and a better colleague. He is
responsible for and shares in my biggest successes, and his
contributions to me, to the country, and to our State are too numerous
to mention.
I will close with James 2:18:
Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show
you my faith by my works.
In a town that has its fair share of self-promoters, Jeff has devoted
himself to others and does so with humility, discretion, and poise. In
an institution where there is often a scramble to occupy the spotlight,
Jeff chose to labor behind the scenes and give credit to others. In a
culture where some feel entitled to professional awards, Jeff has
earned everything he has achieved many times over.
It was no surprise that once Jeff decided to look for new
opportunities, he has had many compelling options. I am proud of him
and the next steps he will take in his life.
When I shared the news that Jeff would be moving on from our team,
the three most important women in my life--and I don't mean Morgan,
Chelsea, and Trinity of our office, but I
[[Page S927]]
could; I mean my mother, my wife, and my youngest, Margaret--were so
sad to see him go because they have come to trust and admire him the
way so many of his colleagues do. He is genuinely a member of our
family, and we will deeply miss him.
While Jeff is leaving my office next week, he will always be a part
of that small group of people I most appreciate, admire, and respect. I
look forward to the lifetime of friendship I know we will share.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Amendment No. 43
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I would like to call up Risch first-degree
No. 1, also known as amendment No. 43.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Risch] proposes an amendment
numbered 43.
Mr. RISCH. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading
of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, line 10, delete ``hereby repealed'' and insert
``repealed effective 30 days after the Secretary of Defense
certifies to Congress that legal authorities permitting the
detention of terrorists and the litigation position of the
United States regarding the detention of terrorists held in
whole or in part under 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) would not be weakened by
such repeal''.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I rise today to present
this amendment as part of the process, as we process this repeal of the
2002 AUMF matter before the Senate right now.
This particular exercise that we are doing, the amendment process is
frequently fraught with political messaging. I am happy that so far the
amendments that we have been processing have not been that sort of
amendment and that is that it was intended to be a political message.
This one is not. Prior ones are not. The ones that are pending really
are not.
And the reason for that is what we are doing here in discussing the
2002 AUMF repeal is taken seriously by every single Member of this
body--Republican, Democrat, everyone is acting in good faith as they
process this.
This is one of the most important things each of us do as a U.S.
Senator, that being the question of committing our young men and women
to actual kinetic force on the field.
When this was put in place, it was considered deeply and seriously by
this body, and as we look to repeal it, the same is true. And I think
everyone is headed toward the same objective and that is to see that
this is done properly.
That is the purpose of this amendment to the actual repeal that is in
front of us. This amendment would conditionally repeal on a
certification from the Secretary of Defense that detention authorities
and the litigation position of the United States with respect to
detention would not be weakened.
And this is offered in good faith. It is offered because yesterday,
just as an example--yesterday we had a hearing with the Secretary of
State. And I asked him three questions about this, about whether they
actually use it, whether it was important, and whether repealing it
would weaken our position on detention and on litigation regarding
detention, and the Secretary of State said that it would.
So the purpose of this is to clear up what I think is a flaw here. It
certainly isn't intended by anyone. I think everyone would want us to
have as strong a position as we possibly could when we are in detention
or litigation. So this simply requires us to replace the language with
some other language, and then we would get the certification or a
determination by the lawyers.
So I offer it in good faith. I think it is an absolutely correct
thing to do if indeed the body is going to move to actually repeal the
2002 AUMF.
Again, I want to congratulate every Member of this body for working
on this very important issue in good faith. I think this moves the
issue further to a better position.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. I would seek permission to speak for a minute in
opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAINE. This is offered in good faith--and I appreciate my
colleague--but it is completely unnecessary for the following reason:
The White House and the Department of Justice have both stated, there
is no one currently detained pursuant to the 2002 authorization. It is
not being used as a ground for detaining anyone.
I was at the hearing yesterday, and my colleague from Idaho is
correct, Secretary Blinken talked about repeal of the 2001
authorization could affect detention and said we should not do a repeal
if there is not a replacement.
But the administration's position on the 2002 authorization is that
there are no military activities, including a single detention, where
we are using the 2002 as justification.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against the certification
requirement. Keep this bill a clean repeal of the 1991 and 2002
authorizations.
Vote on Amendment No. 43
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 43.
Ms. HASSAN. 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 Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
McConnell), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lummis
Marshall
Mullin
Murkowski
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--52
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Braun
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lee
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Cramer
Durbin
Feinstein
Fetterman
McConnell
Moran
Sanders
The amendment (No. 43) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The senior Senator from Texas.
Senate Legislative Agenda
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, every day, I hear from my constituents,
the people I represent in Texas--some of the 30 million people I have
the honor of representing--and they ask me why they aren't seeing more
solutions offered by the U.S. Congress to the problems that they
confront in their everyday lives.
Family budgets are being clobbered by inflation. People are spending
significantly more money just to get by on housing, groceries,
utilities, and other basic expenses. Inflation has remained at 5
percent or higher for each of the last 22 months. Of course, we have
seen it soar to the highest level in 40 years, but it consistently
outpaces wage growth, giving the average worker a pay cut, and folks--
too many of them--feel like they just can't catch a break.
[[Page S928]]
As if that weren't a big enough financial headache, some are now
questioning the stability of the U.S. banking system. In the last 2
weeks, two U.S. banks--big banks--have collapsed, and a group of major
banks has now launched a rescue mission to save another from meeting
the same fate. Texans are wondering: Are these isolated events or a
sign of worse things to come? The memories of the 2008 financial crisis
are fresh in many people's minds, and they are terrified that we will
soon find ourselves in familiar territory.
But families aren't just stressing about their finances; they are
also worried about their safety. The surge in violent crime that began
in 2020 hasn't let up. In many places, it is getting worse. Given the
wave of fentanyl overdoses, especially among teens, parents are
terrified that their child could become the next victim. They are
outraged that fentanyl and illegal drugs are flowing across the
southern border, and they want to know why more isn't being done to
stop it.
Of course, folks in Texas and across the country aren't just worried
about the illegal drugs that came across the border and took the lives
of 108,000 Americans last year. That is bad enough. They are also
worried about the flood of unchecked migration across the border. Over
the last couple of years, the Biden administration has broken nearly
every record in the books when it has come to border crossings. We have
seen a complete breakdown of law and order as thousands of migrants
cross the southern border each and every day. And, yes, my constituents
are baffled when they read news stories that say that some of the
migrants will have to wait 10 years before they can even begin
immigration court proceedings. With all of these problems, folks are
trying to understand, how did we get here, but, more importantly, they
want to know what are our leaders doing about it.
Across the country, each and every day our constituents are asking
for answers, and they want to see some action. Every day, I get phone
calls from folks back home or people who write to me about these
problems, whether it is inflation or crime or drugs or the border
crisis or one of many other topics.
They ask me: When will the U.S. Senate take action? Unfortunately, I
can't offer them much reassurance based upon the Democratic-led
Senate's track record so far this Congress.
No doubt about it, the majority gets to control the agenda here in
the Senate, whether it is at the committee level or here on the floor.
As a Member of the minority, there is not anything I can do under the
Senate rules to force the majority leader to take action on a
particular topic or to insist that a chairman of a committee that has
jurisdiction actually mark up legislation or hold hearings.
So, clearly, Democrats control the Senate. Their leadership continues
to put all of these important and pressing issues on the back burner.
Just look at what the Senate has done or, rather, look at what it has
not done since the beginning of this year. The Senate confirmed several
Federal judges and a handful of other nominees in the last 4 weeks. We
overturned a dangerous DC crime bill, which would have softened
penalties for criminals and endangered the lives of residents and
visitors to our Nation's Capital. We nullified a Department of Labor
rule that encouraged fiduciaries to support woke policies at the
expense of Americans' retirement accounts and pensions. That is the end
of the list.
Those are the only items the Democratic-controlled Senate has passed
in the last 4 weeks--nothing to address the border crisis, nothing to
combat inflation, nothing to stem violence, nothing to deal with the
drugs that are taking the lives of our sons and daughters all across
America.
The irony is, the two resolutions that did pass were Republican
priorities. These weren't even things that our Democratic colleagues
initiated. We were able, under the Senate rules, to force action,
fortunately, on those. But we have seen in one case that the President
has already vetoed one of those congressional review actions. Senator
Hagerty from Tennessee led the effort to overturn the dangerous DC
crime bill. Senator Braun from Indiana pushed to stop the
administration from gambling away Americans' retirement savings.
If you look at every vote the Senate has taken since the start of
this Congress, you won't find much more--lots of nominations, a
resolution designating January as National Trafficking and Modern
Slavery Prevention Month, which rightfully passed unanimously, but that
is about it. That is what the American people have gotten from this
Democratic majority in the Senate.
To be fair, it appears the Senate will soon vote on a bill to repeal
the authorization for use of military force in Iraq. We took that
procedural vote on this legislation last Thursday, which marked the
first time this Chamber voted to even consider a standard piece of
legislation this Congress--the first time. We voted on many nominations
and a few resolutions, but that was the first true piece of
legislation. It took 2\1/2\ months for our Democratic colleagues to put
a bill on the floor--2\1/2\ months.
At the start of the 116th Congress, Republicans held the majority in
the Senate. Members were sworn in on January 3, a Thursday. The
following Tuesday, the Senate voted on a bill related to U.S. policy in
the Middle East--sworn in on Thursday; Tuesday we were voting on
substantive legislation. That is what leadership looks like: Identify
your priorities; hold hearings; build consensus; put bills on the
floor; and let Members do what they came here to do, which is to
legislate, which is to address the priorities of the American people,
which are being ignored by this Democrat-led Senate.
When voters put your party in charge, you are expected to lead, but
that is not what we are seeing. As we witnessed over the past 2 years,
our friends across the aisle haven't used their majority to address the
problems facing American families. They have simply been missing in
action.
While inflation, crime, and the border crisis were raging, our
Democratic colleagues who controlled the Senate agenda, the House, and
the White House for the last 2 years had the power to pass just about
any bill they wanted to address these priorities of the American
people, but here is what the American people got instead: $2.6 trillion
in partisan spending bills, tax increases, handouts for labor unions,
subsidies for wealthy people to buy electric vehicles, and nothing to
address the concerns of working families.
Now that the Republicans hold the majority in the House, the era of
one-party rule has come to an end, which is, frankly, great news. This
new chapter of divided government requires Republicans and Democrats to
work together. Unfortunately, we can't make any progress in the Senate
or in the Congress unless the majority leader allows us to take up,
amend, and to vote on legislation--legislation that addresses the
priorities of our constituents, the people we represent.
I hope this sluggish pace, this snail's pace, will change. At some
point in the coming months, Congress will need to address the debt
ceiling. Given the current status of inflation and the instability of
the banking system, defaulting on our debts is the last thing we need
to do.
Given the current state of our fiscal house, it is also critical that
we pass regular appropriations bills on time and through regular order
in a transparent and open manner, unlike the bill the majority leader
put on the floor last December, an omnibus appropriations bill which
was the only way to fund the Federal Government because he would not
allow the Senate to do its work in a transparent and orderly sort of
way. So Members of the Senate had two choices: vote yes or vote no and
shut down the government.
We also need to pass an annual defense authorization bill--something
we have done for more than the last 60 years in each year--to make sure
that our military leaders have the certainty they need to address the
threats of today and prepare for the threats of tomorrow. I don't
recall a more dangerous time for our country and for the world than we
currently are living in; certainly, not in my time in the Senate,
probably not since World War II, where you have a major power--the
Russian Federation--invade a sovereign neighbor, as the Russians did in
Ukraine; you have North Korea shooting off long-range missiles with
nuclear weapons' capability; you have
[[Page S929]]
Iran seeking to build a bomb; and then you have China threatening to
invade a neighbor in Taiwan. So we need to pass that Defense
authorization bill.
The Federal Aviation Administration needs to be reauthorized by the
end of September; hopefully, addressing some of the near misses we have
seen in some of the air traffic recently. My friend Senator Cruz from
Texas is leading these efforts on our side of the aisle.
We also need to reauthorize the tools that we need--namely, section
702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--to know what our
enemies are doing, to prepare for those, and to deploy countermeasures.
We need to take action to address the humanitarian and security
crisis at the southern border, to bring down drug prices for consumers,
and to unleash the power of American energy.
We have seen what happened when Europe was dependent almost entirely
on Russian oil and gas and then when Putin weaponized that dependency,
what that meant to the countries of Europe as they scrambled for
alternative sources of energy. The United States, as an energy
producer, is part of the answer to that energy security problem, but we
can't solve that problem, we can't continue to provide good, well-
paying jobs for people who work in that industry, unless the government
is willing to get out of the way and take its boot off the neck of the
producers.
There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and I know the
Presiding Officer wants to be part of that solution. We need more
people in this Chamber, in this city, in this country who want to be
part of solving these problems, but we can't do it until the majority
leader who controls the Senate is willing to put bills on the floor
that actually address the priorities and concerns of the people we
represent. I hope he will give us that chance.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 25,
S. 316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of
military force against Iraq.
Charles E. Schumer, Robert Menendez, Tim Kaine, Tina
Smith, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeanne Shaheen, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Tammy Baldwin, Patty Murray, Michael F.
Bennet, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, Robert P.
Casey, Jr., Christopher Murphy, Catherine Cortez Masto,
Jack Reed, Brian Schatz.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call
for the cloture motion filed today, March 23, be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Business
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture
is invoked on S. 316 on Monday March 27, it be in order to consider the
following amendments: Sullivan, No. 33; R. Scott, No. 13; Ricketts, No.
30; Cruz, No. 9; Hawley, No. 40; and Johnson, No. 11; that, if offered,
the Senate vote in relation to the amendments at a time to be
determined by the majority leader following consultation with the
Republican leader on Tuesday, March 28, and that 60 affirmative votes
be required for the adoption of these amendments, without intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. So, Mr. President, before I finish the rest of the
business, I just want to explain to everyone what happened.
A few moments ago, we entered into an agreement that puts the Senate
on a path to repeal the Iraq AUMFs by early next week. By filing
cloture today, we set up a vote for this coming Monday. If cloture is
invoked, we will hold votes on additional amendments before final
passage.
This has been a good process here on the floor. I was asked by
several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to have a
reasonable amendment process and then we could move the bill forward. I
think we did, on a vote that got 70 Republican votes--or 70 total
votes, or close to 70, on cloture last week. We have 11 amendments, and
I think just about every Republican amendment that was asked for as of
today was accommodated.
So this is a good thing, and I hope it can be a model for the future.
We in the majority will allow amendments. Sometimes those votes are
tough to take, but at the same time, the minority will not just be
dilatory and allow us to move forward. That is what happened this week
on AUMF, and I hope it portends good things to come as we work together
to make this country an even better country.
Now back to other business.
____________________