[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.

                          ____________________