[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 55 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S943-S946]
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 legislative clerk read as follows:

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



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S943, March 27, 2023, second column, the following 
appears: A bill (S. 316), to repeal the authorizations of use of 
military force against Iraq.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: A bill (S. 316), 
to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against 
Iraq.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Pending:

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

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip is recognized.


                        Covenant School Shooting

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today, yet another American community is 
in shock and grief after yet another American mass shooting. This 
morning, a shooter entered the Covenant School in Nashville, TN, 
reportedly armed with two assault rifles and a handgun.
  This is an elementary school for students in preschool through the 
sixth grade. The children are as young as 3 and 4 years old.
  Upon entering the school, the shooter opened fire, killing at least 
three staff members and three students.
  I cannot begin to imagine what the families and school community are 
feeling at this moment. We send our prayers and condolences, and we are 
certainly grateful to the first responders who were dispatched to the 
school within minutes and ran toward the sound of gunfire.
  But, once again, thoughts and prayers are not enough. These mass 
shootings, especially targeting little children, are happening with 
sickening regularity in this Nation. This could be the 129th mass 
shooting since this year, 2023, began--129 mass shootings in America, 
and we are fewer than 90 days into this calendar year. That is more 
than one mass shooting a day.
  What is a mass shooting? Four victims either shot or killed in an 
incident.
  Last year, Congress took some important steps on gun safety reform 
with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and the Violence Against 
Women Act reauthorization. The Judiciary Committee that I serve on has 
done a lot of work on those measures, and I am happy to support both of 
them.
  But as today's shooting in Nashville, TN, demonstrates, there is more 
work to be done. The fact that this is a daily occurrence in America is 
unconscionable.
  We are going to learn more details in the hours and days ahead about 
what actually happened in Nashville, but we already know what must be 
done to keep our children and communities safe from deadly shootings. I 
strongly--strongly--support bills that ban assault weapons from 
civilian use and close gaps in our background check system.
  I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers would even envision what we are 
allowing today in the name of words that they wrote in the Second 
Amendment to the Bill of Rights. To think that these weapons--the one 
that was used in Highland Park, in my home State of Illinois, on the 
Fourth of July, last year--the man discharged 83 rounds in 60 seconds. 
Tell me that the Founding Fathers had that in mind when they wrote the 
Second Amendment. I don't believe it.
  Today, the early reports are that assault weapons may be involved 
again. We will wait until we see the actual facts coming in, but it 
would be no great surprise if that is the case. It would be a grave 
disappointment.
  I urge my colleagues to come together on a bipartisan basis. We can't 
say that we have solved this problem or even addressed it seriously 
when the incidents like the one that happened today in Nashville, TN, 
continue in America.

[[Page S944]]

  We need to pass more reforms to keep guns out of dangerous hands and 
keep our children safe.


                                 S. 316

  Madam President, it is good to be back. I was gone last week, 
fighting off my second round of COVID. It was not serious, thank 
goodness. I had good medical care, and my wife had to show a great deal 
of patience with my sticking around the house for too many days. But I 
am glad to be back, and I want to say a word about the issue that is 
pending on the floor of the Senate because it has meant a lot to me 
throughout my congressional career.
  It was just over 20 years ago, in this Chamber, that Congress voted 
to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. I remember that 
vote as clearly as if it were yesterday.
  It was a little more than a year after the vicious terrorist attacks 
of 9/11. Our Nation still felt deeply about what had happened to 3,000 
innocent Americans.
  All evidence pointed to Afghanistan-based al-Qaida as the culprit in 
that horrific 9/11 attack. Yet, within days of 9/11, some in Washington 
decided to beat a different drum, not against al-Qaida or Afghanistan 
but against Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein.
  Then-Vice President Cheney warned repeatedly that Hussein was 
actively pursuing ``weapons of mass destruction,'' including nuclear 
weapons. The Vice President was adamant. He said there was ``no 
doubt''--his words, ``no doubt''--that Hussein was amassing them to use 
against the United States.
  Former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle argued preposterously that 
Iraqis could finance their nation's postwar rebuilding from its oil 
wealth and said he had ``no doubt that they will.''
  And then-President George W. Bush, who claimed war was his last 
choice, provocatively tried to link al-Qaida with Saddam Hussein, a 
dubious claim that was naturally echoed by then-Secretary of Defense 
Donald Rumsfeld.
  Rumsfeld even tried to claim the war in Iraq would last--listen to 
this--``five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't 
going to last any longer than that.'' So said the Secretary of Defense, 
Donald Rumsfeld.
  Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President 
Cheney insisted that Iraqis would be welcoming the U.S. military as 
``liberators.''
  When asked about reports that a war with Iraq would require hundreds 
of thousands of troops, Wolfowitz casually dismissed the warning as 
``way off the mark.''
  The American people were summarily deceived and misled by the 
political leaders in Washington.
  Then came the war. It didn't last weeks, as we were promised. It 
lasted for most of the next decade.
  More than 150,000 American troops have served in Iraq. No nuclear 
weapons or other weapons of mass destruction were ever found. We were 
never greeted as liberators. The Iraqi oil didn't pay for the damage of 
the $2 trillion cost of the war. American taxpayers paid for it.
  More than 4,500 U.S. servicemembers died in that conflict in Iraq. 
Another 32,000 were wounded, many of them grievously.
  My colleague in the Senate, Tammy Duckworth, is one of those who was 
seriously injured. It is what brought her to my attention when I 
invited her to listen to a State of the Union Address. Her heroism 
brought her to my attention politically. I am honored that she is still 
serving here in the Senate.
  Countless Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the ensuing civil war 
that erupted after Saddam Hussein was toppled.
  I had voted, 1 year before the beginning of the Iraq war, to support 
the use of military force in Afghanistan. It made sense. They generated 
al-Qaida, al-Qaida generated 9/11, and it was time for us to answer. 
That is where those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks were located.
  But I was never convinced that our sons and daughters should be sent 
to war in Iraq. That is why I was one of 23 Senators--1 Republican and 
22 Democrats--who voted against the 2002 Iraq authorization for use of 
military force, known as the AUMF.
  History has shown that my concern and misgivings, along with my 
colleagues--23 of us--were tragically correct. I doubt few here in 
Washington, at the time, could have imagined this AUMF would still be 
referred to and referenced for U.S. military action over 20 years 
later.
  Even more incredibly, the 1991 Gulf war AUMF that was supposed to 
expel Iraq from Kuwait is still in effect more than 30 years later. To 
allow such resolutions to remain in effect decades after the wars they 
authorized is more than just a clerical oversight; it is a threat to 
our national security. It is an open-ended invitation for conflict. 
That is why today's action of repealing these two AUMFs is long 
overdue.

  I want to thank my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, Senator Tim 
Kaine of Virginia and Senator Todd Young of Indiana, for leading the 
effort. I am honored to cosponsor it.
  In the end, the debate before us isn't about whether Iraq posed a 
threat to Kuwait in 1991 or to the United States in 2001. It is not 
even about the ultimate merits of those conflicts. This long overdue 
debate on the Senate floor this week is, instead, about Congress's 
responsibility when it comes to war and about the use of open-ended 
authorizations to send military forces. Our Constitution is clear on 
this question and on many others too. Article I, section 8 says: The 
power to declare war is an explicit power of the Congress.
  The Founding Fathers got that right as far as I am concerned. We 
should never send our sons and daughters or anyone's sons and daughters 
into war without the consent of the American people through Congress. 
Our Founding Fathers were wise in making sure this awesome power of 
declaring war didn't rest in the hands of a Monarch or even in a 
President by himself but with the people's elected Representatives. I 
have made this same argument in the House and the Senate regardless of 
who was President, a Democrat or a Republican--whether it was President 
Bush in Iraq or President Obama in Syria or in Libya.
  We should not leave these Iraq AUMFs or any authorizations like them 
in force in perpetuity. Doing so allows too much room for unforeseen 
consequences and too great of a chance that the authorizations will be 
stretched beyond their original intent. It makes the possibility of 
going to war just too easy. It creates a dangerous disconnect between 
the people's elected representatives and one of the most solemn 
decisions of democratic self-government. If some AUMFs, like the one 
used to respond to the al-Qaida attack on the United States, which I 
supported, need updating, we also need to meet that responsibility here 
in Congress.
  Let me be clear. Nothing we are doing here prevents an American 
President from acting in self-defense or in the face of imminent 
threats to our American Nation. Repealing these AUMFs doesn't preclude 
Congress from debating and possibly passing another AUMF to address 
future threats, but repealing these outdated authorizations for the use 
of force will help make sure that such AUMFs are not used for other 
possible wars without their having explicit congressional approval. 
Repealing these AUMFs will close open-ended war authorizations that 
should be revisited and debated by Congress as required by the 
Constitution.
  I strongly support the legislation before us to repeal these 
authorizations and to ensure that future AUMFs are not allowed to 
remain in place. I plan on reintroducing my legislation that sunsets 
any AUMF after 10 years. If the continued use of military force is 
justified beyond a decade, Congress should do it expressly by vote and 
debate so that the American people can be witness to this decision and 
part of it. We should no longer abdicate our responsibility by relying 
on a resolution that has long since served its intended purpose.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.

[[Page S945]]

  



                        Covenant School Shooting

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we are just learning of the horrific, 
truly heartbreaking shooting at a school in Nashville earlier today--
six people, three children.
  I still have the pictures of the kids at Sandy Hook--the little 
children there who were shot dead--in mind.
  Well, six people, including three children, were shot and killed in 
their own school. Six people, three children, won't be coming home 
today to their families, to their friends, to their lives.
  We are holding in our hearts the families of the loved ones, of those 
affected by this horrible tragedy, and thank the first responders who 
were on the scene.


                                 Israel

  Madam President, now on Israel, I welcome the news that the judicial 
legislation proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his 
government have been suspended. The bond between the United States and 
Israel is rooted in our shared democratic values and fealty to the rule 
of law. When I was in Israel 4 weeks ago, I shared that message 
directly with the Prime Minister.
  I echo the call of President Herzog to find a compromise. It is a 
good step that the legislation is put on hold, and I strongly urge 
Israeli leaders, I urge Prime Minister Netanyahu: Come to a compromise 
before pushing forward again.
  Isaac ``Bougie'' Herzog has the trust of all parties and is the right 
person to come up with the compromise. I urge both sides to work with 
him. At a time when Israel faces real dangers, particularly from Iran, 
the last thing Israel needs is divisiveness at home. Let us hope they 
can come to a compromise.


                Authorizations for Use of Military Force

  Madam President, on AUMF, this afternoon, the Senate will vote on 
cloture on AUMF repeal, bringing us one step closer to finally 
repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq AUMFs. Once cloture is invoked this 
afternoon, we will hold a few more votes on additional Republican 
amendments. Senators should then expect to vote on final passage of the 
Iraq AUMF repeal as soon as tomorrow.
  Repealing the Iraq AUMFs has been a good and reasonable process here 
on the floor. We had a strong bipartisan vote on cloture last week. We 
are allowing Republican amendments. Most importantly, we aren't being 
dilatory because this is something a majority of Senators want to get 
done.
  I hope this can be a method, a pattern of what we do in the future. 
We are willing to allow amendments, but we must move forward and cannot 
be dilatory and cannot have amendments so extraneous that they just bog 
down the whole process. What happened on this AUMF bill is a good model 
for us for the future to get things done with bipartisan cooperation.
  On this bill, I want to thank Senators Kaine and Young, the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and 
all the cosponsors of this legislation for their work on this measure.


                          Military Nominations

  Madam President, now on the hold on senior military nominations, 
defense readiness is impossible without military commanders in place to 
execute our national defense strategy. Senators have regularly worked 
together to confirm routine military nominees quickly, ensuring no 
lapses in the work of our military. But right now, 160 military 
promotions--160--these are not political. These are men and women who 
have worked their way up through the ranks and deserve a promotion to 
general, to colonel, et cetera. But 160, including five three-star 
generals, are on hold because the senior Senator from Alabama is 
holding them up because he can't get his way on blocking 160,000 women 
within the military from receiving healthcare.
  Blocking military choices is unprecedented--unprecedented, hasn't 
happened before--and it could weaken our national security. And the 
number of those who are blocked is going to grow even larger as new 
nominees are reported out of the committee, which they do regularly.
  Among the general and flag officers on hold by the Senator from 
Alabama include commanders for U.S. naval forces in the Pacific, the 
Middle East, and the U.S. military representative to the NATO Military 
Committee--something really important at a time when war rages in 
Ukraine. The commanders of the 5th and 7th Fleets are the commanders of 
U.S. naval forces confronting the likes of Iran and China. They are 
being held up singlehandedly by the Senator from Alabama.
  It shouldn't have to be said, but the Senator from Alabama's hold on 
hundreds of routine military promotions is reckless. It damages the 
readiness of our military and puts American security in jeopardy.
  Now, look, all of us feel very strongly, passionately, at times about 
certain political issues, certainly as strongly as the Senator of 
Alabama feels about this one, but if every single one of us objected to 
the promotion of military personnel whenever we feel passionately or 
strongly about an issue, our military would simply grind to a halt.
  The Senator from Alabama's actions risk permanently politicizing the 
confirmation of military personnel for the first time ever, and that 
would cause immense damage to the military's ability to lead and 
protect us. I can't think of a worse time for a MAGA Republican to pull 
a stunt like this, as threats against American security and against 
democracy are growing all around the world.
  I urge Members of his own party to prevail on the Senator from 
Alabama to stand down in this unprecedented and dangerous move and 
allow these critical, nonpolitical, nonpartisan military nominees to go 
through.


                        Medicaid and the Budget

  Madam President, on Medicaid and the budget, today, the Governor of 
North Carolina is signing legislation to expand Medicaid eligibility 
following the passage of a bipartisan compromise through the North 
Carolina General Assembly last week. Once signed, as many as 600,000 
North Carolinians will soon enjoy healthcare coverage previously denied 
to them.
  House Republicans should follow the example of their State-level 
counterparts and work with Democrats to expand services like Medicaid, 
not cut them. They should join Democrats to strengthen healthcare for 
all Americans, not threaten extreme cuts like the House GOP has been 
doing for months.
  In the American Rescue Plan, Democrats passed a major new incentive 
to get holdout States to expand Medicaid to cover their low-income 
citizens. We should build on this work.
  Now, House Republicans have bent over backwards claiming Social 
Security and Medicare are off the table, but what are their plans for 
Medicaid? Republicans have been disturbingly evasive about whether or 
not they want to cut Medicaid, and so Americans, unfortunately, remain 
in the dark.
  If a moderate State like North Carolina is expanding Medicaid with 
bipartisan support, what the heck are MAGA Republicans doing 
threatening to cut it? It shows how difficult it will be for House 
Republicans to put together a plan that gets 218 votes.
  So we repeat: Leader McCarthy, today is March 27. It is nearly 3 
months. Where is your plan? Is Medicaid on the GOP chopping block? Are 
the MAGA Republicans pulling the Republican Party here in the House 
further to the right even as North Carolina, a moderate State, in a 
bipartisan way passes legislation to expand Medicaid? Will tens of 
millions of Americans find out that their benefits will be curtailed or 
eliminated?
  Let me say again, instead of obsession about ideological spending 
cuts that harm millions of people, Republicans should work with 
Democrats to strengthen vital healthcare services. We should do that 
while also agreeing to lift the debt ceiling together, without 
brinksmanship or blackmail or hostage-taking.


                              Student Debt

  Madam President, on student debt, this morning, House Republicans 
introduced legislation to overturn President Biden's historic student 
loan debt relief program, denying millions of Americans the critical 
student debt relief they need.
  It is hard to believe that, at a time when millions of Americans are 
struggling with student debt, Republicans are showing how callous and 
uncaring they are by trying to block debt relief that will literally 
transform the lives of so many for the better.
  Republicans have tried to paint President Biden's plan as a tuition 
bailout and a giveaway to high earners. A giveaway to high earners? 
Republicans ignore the facts.

[[Page S946]]

  Under President Biden's plan, 90 percent--nearly 90 percent of relief 
dollars would go to out-of-school borrowers making less than $75,000 a 
year. This is a party that cuts taxes on the very wealthy but then says 
that this is a bailout and a giveaway to high earners, when 90 percent 
of the people who get it--nearly 90 percent--make less than $75,000 a 
year? Who are they kidding? What hypocrisy.
  Under President Biden's plan, no one in the top 5 percent of incomes 
will receive a penny in debt relief, even though Republicans were happy 
to give them huge tax breaks a few years back and still want to do 
that.
  Rather than help the privileged few, President Biden's plan would 
benefit Americans who need it most: students of color, poor Americans, 
children of immigrants, working and middle-class families. These are 
the people who would suffer from the Republicans' terrible proposal.


                                 H.R. 1

  Madam President, on H.R. 1--I have a lot to talk about today--
Republicans recently rolled out their partisan, unserious, so-called 
energy package they dubbed ``H.R. 1.'' Let's call H.R. 1 what it is: a 
wish list for Big Oil masquerading as an energy package.
  Republicans' so-called energy package would gut important 
environmental safeguards on fossil fuel projects. It would lock 
Americans into expensive, erratic, and dirty energy sources. It omits 
long-overdue reforms for accelerating the construction of transmission.
  A serious package would help America transition to clean, affordable 
energy, not set us decades back like the Republican proposal. A serious 
energy package would include transmission to help bring clean energy 
projects online, not leave it untouched--untouched--even though 
everyone agrees transmission is needed, but the Republican proposal 
doesn't mention it.
  So let me make it again very clear. House Republicans' so-called 
energy bill is dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate. We will work in good 
faith on real permitting reform talks--bipartisan, bicameral--but this 
proposal is a nonstarter.


                             Vladimir Putin

  Madam President, finally, on the GOP embrace--the embrace of some--of 
Putin, yesterday, reports came out that Vladimir Putin announced Moscow 
would deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus as well as position 
nuclear-armed Iskander hypersonic missiles within Belarus, with a range 
of 300 miles.
  In the past, Putin's conduct over the last year would have won swift 
and unequivocal condemnation from both parties, but today, an 
increasingly vocal minority within the hard right is more comfortable 
defending and excusing Putin rather than condemning him. One Republican 
Governor from a Southern State even referred to the Ukraine war as ``a 
territorial dispute.'' I have to wonder what he would have said if he 
were around in the 1930s. We know what happened then when many refused 
to stand up to aggression. A world war resulted.
  This isn't hard. Vladimir Putin is a threat to American national 
security and democracy, and MAGA Republicans who fail to condemn him 
are only empowering him in the long run.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________