[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1007-S1016]
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, 4,487--4,487. That is the number of 
American servicemembers who perished in Iraq by the time the last 
combat troops departed in 2011, over a decade ago. Joining them are 
over 32,000 American servicemembers and civilians wounded in action and 
tens of thousands more who struggled--many to this very day--with 
everything from toxic burn pit exposure to PTSD.
  It is with these brave servicemembers and civilians in mind and their 
families and all who have been impacted by the war in Iraq that the 
Senate, today, votes to repeal the Iraq authorizations for use of 
military force from 2002 and 1991. The United States and Iraq--the 
entire world--have changed dramatically since 2002, and it is time the 
laws on the books caught up with those changes.
  These AUMFs have outlived their use. These repeals will not harm our 
servicemembers abroad nor will they hinder our ability to keep 
Americans safe. Every year we keep these AUMFs on the books is another 
chance for a future administration to abuse them. War powers belong in 
the hands of Congress so we have an obligation to prevent future 
Presidents from exploiting these AUMFs to bumble us into a new Middle 
East conflict.
  I am glad that repealing these AUMFs has been a bipartisan effort, 
and I hope this process can be--it should be--a blueprint for how the 
Senate works over the next few years. We will have amendments without 
being dilatory. We will have debate without stall tactics. We will 
continue to look assiduously, diligently for other opportunities to 
advance bipartisan bills.
  There are many Members and staff I wish to thank for making today's 
vote possible because this effort has been years--years--in the making.
  First, thank you to Chairman Menendez, of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, as well as Senator Kaine. To watch him work on 
this bill, not only day in and day out, not only month in and month 
out, but year in and year out because he had a such firm belief that it 
was the right thing to do, was a joy. Thank you also to Senator Young, 
who worked very hard to make this happen and who brought so many of his 
colleagues along.

[[Page S1008]]

  I want to thank staff who did the great work here too: Megan Bartley, 
Andrew Keller, Elisa Catalano Ewers, JC Jain, Nick Barbash, Lauren 
O'Brien, Brandt Anderson. And, of course, there is my staff. I have 
been blessed with the greatest staff in the world as you will hear 
about soon enough, about one of them: Lane Bodian, Meghan Taira, and 
Mike Kuiken.
  The American people are tired of endless wars in the Middle East. We 
owe it to our servicemembers and our veterans, as well as to their 
families and all communities impacted by the war, to repeal these AUMFs 
today. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote later this morning.


                       Fire Grants and Safety Act

  Mr. President, on fire grants, as I said a minute ago, we are trying 
to move on bipartisan legislation that really matters to the average 
American person. One of these is going to be the Fire Grants and Safety 
Act. Later today, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on the motion 
to proceed to the Fire Grants and Safety Act.
  This bipartisan legislation would make sure that both SAFER and AFG--
two Federal grant programs that are paid and that volunteer 
firefighters rely on--remain available. If we don't extend these 
grants, they will expire in a few months and leave our firefighters 
without access to the resources they need to keep our communities safe.
  Our firefighters, paid and volunteer, are brave. They risk their 
lives for us. They run to danger, not away from it. We need to ensure 
they have the equipment and personnel necessary to do their jobs for 
their own safety and the safety of those they protect. We need this 
especially in smaller, more rural, more suburban areas where there 
often isn't enough revenue to afford more resources.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes so we can move forward quickly on 
this legislation.


                              Debt Ceiling

  Now, Mr. President, on the debt ceiling, we are almost a quarter of 
the way through 2023, and House Republicans have still failed to answer 
the most important question of their majority.
  What is your plan?
  What is the plan of House Republicans' to raise the debt ceiling? We 
hear a new explanation, seemingly every day, from some new corner of 
the Republican Conference, but none of it adds up to what Republicans 
need most--a clear, detailed, and serious plan.
  Even this week, Speaker McCarthy has, in desperation, tried another 
new and obviously failing approach. He laid out a new round of vague 
conditions, each one more amorphous than the last, and none of them 
with any specifics. Then he pulled a huge number out of the sky--$4 
trillion--without telling us where, when, or how we would get to it. 
That is not a plan. Everyone knows that.
  Republicans have been utterly flailing. One day, they say they will 
release a budget. Then they say they can't release a budget. One corner 
of the party says certain programs are off the table. Then another 
group of Republicans suggest the opposite. House Republican leadership 
is doing everything except the one thing they must do: Show the 
American people your plan, House Republicans. Show us your plan.
  So when Speaker McCarthy points fingers at Democrats, all he is 
doing--it is so obvious--is trying to deflect from problems he has in 
his own conference. That is what is going on every time we hear a new 
idea, read a new letter, or hear a new set of talking points from the 
Republicans. They are far too divided to unite around a single 
proposal. The MAGA wing is pulling in one direction, and those in the 
middle are pulling another way. There is no consensus in the Republican 
House caucus.
  The solution to the debt ceiling, however, is staring the Republicans 
in the face. Do what we have done before, Democrats and Republicans, 
under President Trump and under President Biden. Stop the 
brinksmanship. Stop threatening default. Work with Democrats on a clean 
extension of the debt ceiling. No more kicking the can down the road.
  Speaker McCarthy, where is your plan?
  Democrats and Republicans worked together, as I said, under President 
Trump. Even when the Republicans had the majority and the Democrats 
could have blocked it, we didn't. We knew our responsibilities to the 
people of America, who would be so devastated by a lapse in the debt 
ceiling and that their interest rates, their car costs, their home 
costs, and so much else would go up.
  Well, we did this before by working together in a bipartisan way, 
without brinksmanship, without hostage-taking, and we should do it 
again this year.


                           Women's Healthcare

  Mr. President, nominations on hold.
  For years, for years--decades--both parties have cooperated in the 
Senate to confirm military promotions, nonpolitical. It is simply the 
military doing its job and promoting people who deserve it. We have 
worked and cooperated to confirm those promotions to ensure our 
military's work continues unimpeded and our national security remains 
strong.
  But, today, one Member--only one Member, the Senator from Alabama 
Senator Tuberville--is now blocking more than 180 military promotions 
because he objects to women in the military accessing reproductive 
care. In doing so, the senior Senator from Alabama is putting the 
security of America in jeopardy, and he risks permanently politicizing 
the confirmations of routine military promotions.
  As Secretary Austin warned yesterday--this is our Secretary of 
Defense, who is a former four-star general--``not approving the 
recommendations for promotions actually creates a ripple effect 
throughout the force that makes us far less ready than we need to be.''

  `` . . . far less ready than we need to be,'' Senator Tuberville. 
This is our national security. That is what Austin said.
  Now, the senior Senator from Alabama claims that his hold has nothing 
to do with the Supreme Court's decision on Dobbs. Of course, it does. 
It has everything to do with it. He is telling women in the military 
they are not allowed to make their own decisions about their health.
  That is wrong. I assure the Senator that our women in the military 
are more than capable of making those decisions for themselves, and I 
assure the Senator that the vast majority of Americans do not agree 
with him that he should make the choices for women in the military, who 
risk their lives for us, about their health.
  It is disappointing. It is disappointing to see that more of my 
colleagues on the other side have yet to call out the Senator from 
Alabama's reckless stunt. I thank those who, indeed, have raised their 
voices, but we need more. Republicans, who claim to be such great 
supporters of our military, must announce the harm the Senator from 
Alabama is causing.
  All of us on both sides feel deeply passionate about issues from time 
to time. I respect that Senator Tuberville, whose views dramatically 
differ from mine, has deep feelings about this.
  Well, Senator Tuberville, I have deep feelings on certain issues--so 
do the other 99 Senators--but we don't hold up military promotions and 
risk our national security because of those deep feelings.
  If every one of us did what the Senator from Alabama is doing, the 
military would collapse. So we ought to move forward. I implore my 
Republican colleagues to speak out and prevail on the Senator from 
Alabama so we can get these promotions confirmed, get our military 
operating to its full capacity, and continue working to protect the 
Nation.


                       Tribute to Gerry Petrella

  Mr. President, in tribute to one of the greatest staffers, certainly, 
whom I have ever had and I think that the Hill has had in a very long 
time, I would quote Tina Turner: ``Simply the best.''
  I will spare him and his parents, who are in the Gallery, my singing 
it, although we did talk about doing karaoke together at some point.
  Well, that is what they will say--what they already say about the 
person whom I wish to honor here today at the end of my remarks.
  It is never, never easy to say goodbye to a member of your team. We 
in ``Schumer Land,'' as we call our group, have such a close-knit 
staff. We are friends. We are pals. We have each other's backs. We 
protect each other. It is a beautiful thing. Even when people leave, 
they are still part of our family,

[[Page S1009]]

and we see them all the time. We saw many of them last night as we said 
goodbye to Gerry at a local pub--an appropriate place, I might say, to 
do that.
  So it is never easy to say goodbye to a member of your team, but it 
is even harder when that person has worked with you--or put up with you 
depending on whom you ask--for 15 years. It is still harder when that 
person happens to be Gerry Petrella. His real name is Gerard Anthony 
Petrella, reflecting his Irish and Italian roots. I have nicknames for 
some of my staffers. They just pop up. He has always been Gerald even 
though his name is Gerard. I think it is 15 years he has been Gerald. 
It hasn't stuck with anyone but me, but it is there.
  Well, it is with immense gratitude--sorrow as well--that I close 
today by saying thank you, thank you, and bidding farewell to one of 
the very best to ever do it here in the Senate--our policy director, 
Gerry.
  I met Gerry when he was a staffer for a local town official.
  I said: Boy, this guy is good.
  And we are always on the lookout, myself and my two great chiefs, 
whom I am so grateful for, Mike Lynch and Martin Brennan--two tough 
Irish guys who have kept this Jewish kid going forward for a long time. 
Anyway, we always are looking out for good staff, and when we saw this 
guy, we said: We have got to get him.
  Brennan sat down with him and said: Oh, he is good.
  I sat down with him. He reminded me, last night, that I had him drive 
to come talk to me before the Super Bowl of the Giants and Patriots--
the first one. They won two, I remind my friends from Massachusetts and 
New England. I met him, and I said oh boy. So Gerry began running our 
Long Island office.

  He did an amazing job, an amazing job. So good, that after he had 
done 4 years there--whatever Gerry does, he works his heart out. He 
never burns himself out because he has got incredible energy. But he 
works his heart out. It was time for a change. So we asked him to come 
be our director--a new position--of economic development here in 
Washington. The number of jobs, the number of projects, the number of 
things he created was just amazing.
  Then, of course, he became our policy director. When I became the 
leader, he became the policy director of the whole Senate. He did 
amazing things there, as I have said before.
  Rarely, rarely can you say when someone leaves, no matter what else 
they do in their lives, they have so benefited millions of Americans, 
many of whom have seen the benefits already--$35 insulin for Medicare--
and many more who will see those benefits for years to come. They may 
not know it was Gerry Petrella who did it, but we do. We do. He changed 
the world.
  His work was so important. We had the greatest 2 years that this 
Senate has seen. We led the country, we led the party, we led everybody 
in doing this with the BIF, and the IRA, and the CHIPS and Science 
bill, and the PACT Act, and the gun bill, and so much else--marriage 
equality. They wouldn't have happened without Gerry Petrella. That is 
about the greatest compliment you can pay to someone.
  So, Gerry, thank you. Thank you for never giving up on me after all 
these years. Thank you for coming to the office every single day and 
pushing, pushing, pushing.
  He is not only brilliant, he not only comes with good ideas, but he 
is a jackhammer--rat-a-tat-tat. He keeps pushing and pushing and 
pushing until he gets it done.
  So thank you for doing that, for setting the tone of our team, for 
defining our vision, for laying out a strategy and executing in good 
times and bad. Thank you for working to the bone to find a path forward 
to pass our agendas, especially when it seemed out of reach. Thank you.
  And I don't want to neglect the fact that he has deep feelings on so 
many different issues, and he had the luxury and the ability to get 
those done. So I also thank Gerry for staying true to himself and his 
values as he worked in the maelstrom that is Senate legislating on such 
important bills.
  Gerry is a man on fire with love for his country, love for the 
issues, love for the work.
  Thank you, Gerry.
  Thank you to Gerry's parents, who, as I mentioned, are here in the 
Gallery.
  Thank you to George, who had both of his parents often in the office 
for many long hours--cute little George--and our great legislative 
director, Meghan Taira.
  Gerry, thank you for all these great years. You will always be in our 
family. You will always have a place here in the Senate. My very best 
on the next wonderful chapter in your life. God bless you.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.


                        Covenant School Shooting

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the events this week in Nashville, TN, are 
still fresh in our minds. The thought that a shooter went on the campus 
of a Christian school, a school for children--little children--this 
person who went on that campus blasted her way into the building and 
then took the lives of three 9-year-old children and three adults, who 
were the principal and staff at the school.
  It is heartbreaking to think that we are reliving the scene over and 
over again, where our children who are sent by their loving parents off 
to school, lunches in hand, never came home--never came home.
  We don't know all the details yet of the shooter or the weaponry 
which she owned at the time or used in the event, but we do know that 
there were weapons that we are very familiar with. One, of course, is 
the AR-15, the military-style assault weapon that has, sadly, become so 
popular in America.
  This morning's Washington Post had an editorial which touched me 
personally and I wanted to share this morning on the floor. I will 
quote from it. The editorial board wrote:

       These attacks are always heart-wrenching. But they're not 
     surprising anymore--neither the massacres themselves nor the 
     weapons used to carry them out. Ten of the 17 deadliest mass 
     killings in the United States since 2012 involved AR-15s. The 
     names of the towns and cities where these tragedies took 
     place have become familiar: Newtown, San Bernardino, Las 
     Vegas, Parkland, Uvalde and beyond.

  The Washington Post spells out the specific cities each year where 
these mass shootings took place with AR-15s and the number of people 
who were killed. I am going to read the names of these communities into 
the Record, as they should be:
  Las Vegas, NV, 2017. An AR-15 weapon was used. Sixty people were 
killed.
  Orlando--Pulse--FL, 2016. An MCX rifle. Forty-nine people killed.
  Newtown, CT, Sandy Hook Elementary School, 2012. The shooter had an 
AR-15. The shooter killed 27 people, including those beautiful little 
children.
  Sutherland Springs, TX, 2017. Another AR-15. Twenty-five people 
killed, including a pregnant woman.
  Uvalde, TX, 2022. Another AR-15 military assault rifle. Twenty-one 
people killed.
  Parkland, FL, 2018. Another AR-15, killing 17 people.
  San Bernardino, CA, 2015. An AR-15 there killed 14 people.
  Aurora, CO, 2012. Another AR-15 killed 12.
  Pittsburgh, 2018. An AR-15 killed 11.
  Boulder, CO, 2021. An AR-15 killed 10.
  Buffalo, NY, 2022. An AR-15 killed 10.
  They cut the list off at 10 deaths in a mass shooting involving these 
military-style assault weapons, so they didn't include Highland Park, 
IL, but I want to make a record of that.
  Fourth of July 2022. An AR-15-style weapon. Seven killed and dozens 
wounded, including an 8-year-old boy who will be paralyzed for life.
  These are the realities of the AR-15 as it is being used. It was 
designed to do just this: kill massive numbers of people, of human 
beings.
  One in twenty U.S. adults owns at least one AR-15. Think of that. One 
out of every twenty Americans owns at least one AR-15. That is roughly 
16 million people storing roughly 20 million guns designed to mow down 
enemies on the battlefield with brutal efficiency. That is the reality 
the Washington Post reports.
  The rise in production of the AR-15 is stunning. AR-15s accounted for 
1.2 percent of all manufactured guns in 1990--1.2 percent--and 23.4 
percent of the guns produced in America in 2020. Thirty years later, 
almost one out of every four guns produced in the United States is an 
AR-15 military-style assault rifle.

[[Page S1010]]

  The AR-15 is materially different than traditional handguns. The 
rifle fires very small bullets at very fast speeds. The projectiles 
don't move straight and smooth through human targets like those of a 
traditional handgun--our image of a bullet hole in a movie. Their 
velocity turns them unstable upon penetration so that they tumble 
through flesh and vital organs.
  Mr. President, I thought long and hard about reading the next two or 
three sentences of the Washington Post editorial on the floor of the 
Senate. I am not going to read them because they spell out in a few 
words but in graphic detail what happens to the body of a child when it 
is struck by one of these military-style assault weapons. I can't bring 
myself to think that one of those parents might be listening to this 
Senate proceeding and have to relive the horror of the moment. But 
suffice it to say, what happens is devastating and horrible to any 
human body but certainly to the body of a small child.
  Mr. President, think of Sutherland Springs, where the shooter, armed 
with the AR-556 Ruger, fired off 450 military-grade bullets within 
minutes, killing 25 people, including a pregnant woman.
  Think of Dayton, where the gunman needed only 32 seconds to hit more 
than two dozen people with 41 bullets. That is because he was equipped 
with a 100-round drum magazine. Even a 30-round magazine, which is now 
the industry standard today, would have forced him to reload at least 
once. A 15-round magazine would have forced him to reload twice. The 
Washington Post's analysis of the time that would have taken reveals 
that lives could have been saved, potentially six of the nine who were 
killed, because of the high-capacity magazine that was attached to the 
gun.
  There should be a ban on these high-capacity magazines. It is hard to 
imagine that you can listen to these numbers and the devastation of 
these weapons and imagine someone rationalizing that when our Founding 
Fathers sat down so long ago to write the Second Amendment, they 
envisioned what we are facing today in Nashville, TN, and in Highland 
Park, IL, and in 131 different instances of mass shootings so far this 
year. And less than 90 days have passed in this calendar year--over 131 
mass shootings. And as I go through the list here of those involving 
AR-15s, the numbers of casualties and deaths are astounding.
  This should be shameful to this great Nation, to think that the 
United States of America accepts this as part of our constitutional 
right, our constitutional responsibility, to own a mass killing weapon 
like the AR-15; that virtually one out of four of all guns manufactured 
in this country today are AR-15 weapons. Are we out of our minds to let 
this happen, to let children in Nashville, children in Connecticut, 
children be victimized or anyone be victimized by these at a Fourth of 
July parade or wherever it happens to be?
  I listened to my colleagues yesterday. One of them brought this up in 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, challenging Secretary Mayorkas of the 
Department of Homeland Security as to whether he supported an assault 
weapon ban. He said he did. I do too.
  The Senator then said to him: Well, define an assault weapon for me.
  Well, it is an interesting challenge. We did define it when we banned 
assault weapons for a period of time and saw the number of mass 
shootings decline dramatically in our country. But, of course, the 
producers of these weapons changed them just enough to be outside the 
definition. So there is no question that we are dealing with a moving 
definition, and we have to be open to the reality of it. But is this 
beyond us as a nation, to define a weapon in a way that we can 
legitimately regulate it?
  Who should own an AR-15? I obviously would say the military. That is 
what they were designed for. Police, in extraordinary situations, might 
need them--I can see that--some specialized law enforcement agencies. 
But why in the world does an individual American need an AR-15, 
particularly with a high-capacity magazine? It isn't for hunting; that 
is for certain. It is hardly for self-defense. It can't be much for 
sport. What is the rationale behind this?
  Then you look at the Supreme Court and the recent Bruen decision. You 
wonder, What are they thinking? What is going through the mind of 
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as he is arguing that somehow the 
AR-15 military assault weapon that is killing so many Americans and 
groups was envisioned by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the 
Second Amendment? They were dealing with powdered wigs and flintlock 
rifles. They certainly had no idea what a high-capacity magazine can do 
to a large group of people, as we have seen so many times over and 
over.
  Well, what are we going to do about it? is the obvious question. 
Senator, nice speech. What is next? Well, I will tell you what is next. 
The American people are next. If they are fed up with the situation, as 
I am--and I know many are--they have to make it a condition when they 
come to vote for Members of Congress.
  Currently, the House of Representatives is under the control of the 
Republican Party. The likelihood that they will consider any gun safety 
legislation is minimal. We now have a scant majority in the Senate but 
not enough to break a filibuster over an issue. So we have limited 
opportunities.
  What it takes is a decision by the American people to put an end to 
this madness. The people they elect to the House and Senate--there have 
to be simple questions asked for people to understand where they are 
going to stand when issues of gun safety come before them.
  I will just tell you, Mr. President, that as chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, I am sorry we don't have the votes now to act. We 
need to do it--not just for the great people of this Nation but also 
for their children and grandchildren.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have come to speak on a different topic, 
but I want to commend my friend the Senator from Illinois for his 
comments. I agree with him.
  Just yesterday, my colleague and dear friend Senator Kaine and I met 
with four of the families who were part of one of that litany of 
shootings, in Virginia Beach, where a mentally deranged individual came 
in and brutally murdered 12--mostly city employees and a few folks who 
were there to try to get city services. The anguish, pain, and hurt of 
these four families 4 years after the fact reflect the kind of anguish 
and hurt that the families in Nashville are feeling and so many 
countless others.
  I commend the Senator again and agree that it is incumbent upon us to 
do our job. Thoughts and prayers are not enough.
  I thank him for his comments.


                                 S. 316

  Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning where, after 2 weeks 
of consideration and debate--and I have not been part of all that 
debate. I would like to say I had been because then I could use an 
excuse of why my voice sounds so crummy this morning. But after 2 weeks 
of debate and literally the way the Senate used to function, with votes 
on a whole host of amendments, the Senate shortly is poised to take a 
truly notable action: voting to repeal not one but two authorizations 
for use of military force, finally taking these outdated 
authorizations--dating all the way back to 2002 and the previous one, 
back to 1991--off the books.
  This is an important step for Congress in reclaiming its 
constitutional duties with regard to authorizing the use of U.S. forces 
in combat. I want to give credit to the Biden administration for 
supporting this repeal and to the bipartisan majority in Congress who 
have brought this measure to the brink of passage here in the Senate.
  As we come to the floor, getting ready to take this vote, we would 
not have gotten here, I can assure you, without the steadfast 
leadership of Senator Kaine and Senator Young. These two have been 
partners on this effort since 2019.
  For Senator Young, given his service as a marine in the decade right 
in the middle of these two authorizations, I know that this fight is 
personal for him, and I appreciate his tireless work on this. And 
starting off on that fight, it was a little more challenging, perhaps, 
on his side of the aisle, but he has been relentless. He has, through 
the

[[Page S1011]]

power of his passion and conviction, convinced a number of his 
colleagues to join this event.
  This will go down, I believe, as one of Senator Young's most 
significant accomplishments, accomplishments that I have worked with 
him on as well--for example, the CHIPS bill last year, the science 
bill--where he also provided enormous leadership, and I thank him for 
that.
  But I would be remiss here today if I didn't spend the balance of my 
2 or 3 minutes on the efforts of my great, great friend of 43-plus 
years Tim Kaine, who I think we would all agree that without his 
efforts, we wouldn't be here today.
  For the decade--or a little more than a decade that Senator Kaine has 
served in this Chamber, he has been the leading voice--and a lot of 
times the only voice, much to the chagrin sometimes of folks in my 
party, much to the chagrin sometimes of the Obama administration--in 
working to push this Senate to live up to its constitutional duty--that 
duty, which is one of the most solemn ones we have, which is the 
exercise, the power to declare war and, ultimately, to commit our young 
men and women--fellow Americans--into combat.
  Now, this is also very personal to Tim. We both have the honor of 
representing the State that has probably the highest concentration of 
military and veterans of any State in the country. Tim also brings the 
experience of being a father of a marine. I remember watching Matt grow 
up--our families have been friends--and when he chose to go into the 
marines, I don't think we were surprised, but the way he distinguished 
himself in that duty, serving abroad in deployments to Africa and 
elsewhere and then serving back here in this country, you could always 
tell how proud Tim and Anne felt about Matt's service. But you could 
also feel the extra burden of responsibility he felt to make sure what 
he owed not only to Matt but what he owed to, literally, every young 
American who served in our military.
  So this has been something that--this push has really been one of the 
guiding principles that has directed Tim throughout his whole career in 
the Senate. I think back to initially him raising these issues in the 
Foreign Relations Committee back in 2013, saying it was time for 
Congress not to simply take a passive role or be a Monday morning 
quarterback--or, more likely, a Sunday morning quarterback--on the news 
shows about our constitutional responsibility in weighing in on 
conflicts that were taking place around the world that went well beyond 
the original authorizations of these AUMFs. He constantly would try to 
bring up this issue--again, many times being the only voice--and I know 
how much he respected President Obama--many times going against the 
position of the Obama administration. Now, other folks might have, at 
some point, whether it was Democratic leadership at the White House or 
his fellow Members, said, you know: Can't you get off this? This makes 
us all feel a little uncomfortable.
  And my friend Tim Kaine, it is hard to work with him. We are a great 
partner. I am the glass ``three-quarters empty guy''; he is the glass 
``overfilling with confidence and hope guy.'' But even that constant 
hope and belief, there had to be times during this decade of fighting 
on this when he had to have lost a little bit of faith--could this 
actually get done?
  But that relentless optimism, that belief based in his faith, that if 
you keep on something, that people will ultimately do the right thing. 
And at the end of the day, that dogged determination, all that has come 
about in these last 2 weeks, is a testament to that kind of hard work.
  I have watched it at times when he kept, year after year, kind of 
banging his head against the wall--and, again, there are a lot of us, 
sometimes even I felt this way--well, you know, maybe we should do it 
next year; maybe this is not the right time; maybe there is some other 
reason where, you know, this can wait a little while; it is not on the 
front of mind. But, for Tim Kaine, it was always front of mind. Working 
now with our friend Todd Young--but his prior partners, great Senators 
who I had the opportunity to work with, Bob Corker and Jeff Flake--he 
has been just relentless.
  And this profile and courage--profile in doing the right thing--is a 
great testament to the people of Virginia and, frankly, to the people 
in our Nation that this Senator keeps his eye on the ball.
  Now, when I told Senator Kaine I might want to make these comments, 
he said: But, Mark, we are not at the finish line; we still have to get 
it through the House.
  Well, I think you are going to have a remarkable vote in a few 
minutes due to the work of Senator Young and Senator Kaine. And that 
overwhelming majority that is going to be posted here today, I think, 
will propel this action in the House. And I am very glad to see that 
the Speaker of the House has indicated that he will bring this 
legislation up.
  There are more debates to be had and more votes to wrestle down and 
more amendments when it gets to the House; but, at the end of the day, 
this bill is going to become the law of the land. Congress is going to 
take back its Constitutional responsibility over the power to declare 
war and to put our troops in harm's way.
  It wouldn't have happened without the great work of Senator Todd 
Young. This debate wouldn't even have still been alive, still vibrant, 
still forcing us to do our job without the relentless, tireless work of 
a great public servant, a great Virginian, a great American--my friend 
Tim Kaine.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Republican whip.


                  Personal Health Investment Today Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as the winter season drew to a close, South 
Dakota's high school and college athletes were busy. And from 
basketball and wrestling to track and field, they have a lot to be 
proud of. The University of South Dakota Coyotes swept the men's and 
women's Summit League titles for indoor track and field for the first 
time in program history. Black Hills State made a Final Four run in the 
Division II men's basketball tournament. And South Dakota State 
wrestler Tanner Sloan came in second at the NCAA tournament as the 
Jackrabbits wrestling team notched its second highest finish as the 
Division I program.
  As I traveled around South Dakota this month, I was able to see many 
of our student athletes compete. I saw Lower Brule take on White River 
in the high school boys' basketball semifinals in Aberdeen. I caught 
the girls' Class B, State B basketball tournament in Huron, where I got 
to see my hometown Jones County Coyotes cap off their historic season. 
And I was at the Summit League tournament in Sioux Falls as the South 
Dakota State women began their run for the tournament title.
  Being back in a high school gym--seeing student athletes playing hard 
and working together for the good of their team--always brings back 
good memories. And it makes me reflect on how sports have shaped my 
life. In addition to instilling important values like teamwork, 
humility, and service, playing sports taught me the importance of 
staying active and made me a lifelong fitness enthusiast.
  The benefits of living an active life are well-documented. Regular 
physical activity is associated with greater physical well-being, 
longer lifespans, and improved mental health. Staying active can help 
prevent a host of chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, 
various types of cancer, heart disease, and depression. And for those 
who do develop chronic conditions, exercise can help to manage them. 
For example, according to Mayo Clinic, physical activity can help 
prevent heart disease from getting worse and lower your risk of dying 
from the disease--or, to name another example, exercise's benefits for 
managing anxiety and depression are well-known.
  In fact, one study found that exercise may be more effective than 
medication when it comes to managing anxiety and depression. And the 
health benefits of exercise can also help individuals save money on 
healthcare as they age.
  One study found--and here I quote a New York Times article:

       People who start to exercise before or during middle age 
     typically save anywhere between $824 to $1,874 annually on 
     healthcare costs after retirement, and the earlier they start 
     their workouts, the greater those savings can be.


[[Page S1012]]


  That is from a study conducted by the New York Times.
  Unfortunately, despite exercise's significant health and even 
financial benefits, a lot of American adults and children either don't 
exercise at all or don't get enough exercise. There are a number of 
reasons for that, of course, but one disincentive to exercising can be 
the cost of some exercise equipment and programs.

  Some of the tools that can help people be more active--like a gym 
membership or fitness equipment--can be too costly for some Americans. 
Even registration for youth sports leagues can be expensive, making it 
harder for some families to take advantage of these activities' health 
benefits. That is why I recently introduced the Personal Health 
Investment Today Act--it will be called the PHIT Act--with Senator 
Murphy.
  The PHIT Act would allow Americans to use a portion of the money in 
their pretax health savings account or flexible spending account for 
fitness-related expenses. It wouldn't cover things like an expensive 
new putter or fees at a country club. But it would allow individuals to 
use up to $1,000--or $2,000 for married couples--from their HSA or FSA 
to invest in preventive health tools like exercise equipment or a gym 
membership--investments that can result in meaningful long-term health 
benefits as well as healthcare savings.
  The PHIT Act would also allow families to use these pretax dollars 
for youth sports registration fees and some of the gear that kids need 
to participate in sports. The typical family pays hundreds of dollars a 
year for registration and equipment for youth sports.
  Many families say sports can be a strain on their budgets, something 
that has only become more pronounced as inflation has gone up. And, 
unsurprisingly, some families have had to reduce their kids' level of 
participation in sports because of the cost.
  As I said earlier, I learned a lot by playing sports while I was 
growing up, and I am sure I am not alone. Youth sports are one of the 
best ways to build lifelong healthy habits. They help kids build strong 
friendships and learn important skills and values that they carry 
throughout their lives. And the PHIT Act would help reduce some of the 
cost barriers that many families face when it comes to getting their 
kids involved in sports.
  With more and more of our life spent with technology, we can't 
overestimate the value of spending time disconnected from screens and 
being active. Fortunately, no matter how well my bracket is doing, 
watching March Madness always makes me eager to ``lace `em up,'' as 
they say, and get on the court myself. Although, I will be honest, I 
spend, these days, more time trying to keep up with my grandkids than I 
do working on my jump shot.
  But whether you are playing in a rec league or with your kids, going 
to a gym or making a walk or a run as part of your routine, staying 
active throughout your life is an important part of staying healthy. 
And with the warmer weather inching closer every day, it is a great 
time to get active.
  The PHIT Act is a commonsense way to help encourage more Americans to 
invest in tools that make fitness goals easier to attain. And I will 
continue to work to pass the PHIT Act and promote healthy living for 
more Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled votes: Myself, 
for up to 10 minutes; Senator Kaine, for up to 10 minutes; Senator 
Risch, for up to 5 minutes; Senator Menendez, for up to 5 minutes; and 
Senator Schumer, for up to 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 S. 316

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, the great 
Senator from Virginia, Senator Tim Kaine, on the floor of the Senate 
today. And as we await this final vote--final passage of the repeal of 
the Authorizations for Use of Military Force in 1991, the Gulf war, 
and, in 2002, the Iraq war--I reflect on just how much work it took to 
get here, how much persistence. And I thank Senator Kaine for sticking 
it out.
  A lot has happened over the last couple of decades.
  A lot has happened over the last couple of decades. Twenty years ago, 
American soldiers were fighting that war in Iraq. Today, they are still 
there. They are advising Iraq's army at the invitation of the current 
government. Twenty years ago, Iraq was our enemy. Today Iraq is a 
strategic partner, an ally in advancing stability across the Middle 
East. A lot has changed in the last 20 years; and, yet, according to 
our laws, today we are still at war with Iraq.
  This isn't just the result of an oversight. It is an intentional 
abdication of this body, of its constitutional role in America's 
national security. Allowing it to continue is a strategic mistake. It 
is a mistake that disrespects the sacrifices of our soldiers and their 
Iraqi partners as well. It is one that could endanger their work across 
the Middle East, and it is central to our national security that we set 
this right.
  Here is why.
  Iran has designs on a path to the Mediterranean Sea. The world's 
leading exporter of terror wants to build a route to move manpower and 
materiel to its proxies all across the region. Once it reaches the sea, 
it will establish a foothold to threaten Europe. This terrorism 
thoroughfare would run through Syria, through Lebanon, and, of course, 
through Iraq. Iran has sent many thousands of soldiers into Syria to 
prop up Dictator Bashar Al Assad and co-opted regions of that war-torn 
nation. Lebanon's institutions are weak. Hezbollah, with Iran's 
backing, dominates many sectors of the governments and the country.
  Iraq cannot follow this path. It cannot become a satellite of Iran, 
and Iran cannot be permitted unrestricted access across the region.
  Our advisers are fortifying and working with the Iraqi Army to 
prevent this dangerous future.
  But we are undertaking this vital mission with a nation we are still 
technically at war with. The authorizations for both the 1991 Gulf war 
and 2002 Operation Iraqi Freedom are both still on the books. These 
authorizations for long-ended wars passed almost entirely by Members of 
Congress long-retired. These authorizations are outdated. They are a 
detriment to our national security strategy, and they are an abdication 
of Congress's constitutional role in declaring and, yes, ending wars.
  In the centuries before our revolution, Kings waged wars--wars that 
their subjects fought. Reflecting on this history, our Founding Fathers 
placed the power to make war not with the executive, but with this 
branch, the legislative branch. And it is here in our Congress, in the 
people's Congress, they determine that debate and deliberation and 
consensus should precede a decision to go to war or to avert it.
  You see, the Framers placed this great responsibility in our hands--
our hands. And we let it slip right through them. By allowing these 
authorizations to live on long past their purpose, we have forfeited 
the power to make and to oversee wars to the White House. Presidents of 
both parties--of both parties--have employed specious legal reasoning 
and used them as a justification for military interventions wholly 
unrelated to their original missions.
  So here is the choice before us: We repeal these authorizations; we 
restore a part of our system of checks and balances; or we let them 
live on, extending a permanent blank check for Presidents to bypass 
Congress in authorizing military action. That is the choice.
  By doing the former, we not only take a step towards realigning the 
function of our government with its Constitution, we also send an 
important message to Prime Minister Sudani that our interests are 
shared; our nations are allies; that we will continue to partner with 
Iraq to train and equip its Army in their fight against ISIS; and that 
we oppose Iran's violation of Iraq's sovereignty and its ambitions of 
regional dominance--ambitions that endanger the world far beyond the 
Middle East.
  And let us not forget that in case of urgent national security 
emergencies, even after repealing these authorizations, Presidents can 
still, as they can now, invoke their article II war powers.
  In closing, I just want to underscore the heroic legislative 
efforts--the heroic leadership--that my colleague Tim

[[Page S1013]]

Kaine has shown throughout this long effort to get this legislation on 
the floor to persuade those around the country that this should remain 
a first-order priority; to persuade people in both parties that this 
merits our time and our attention; that these repeal efforts are 
important not just to this generation, but to future generations.
  Thank you to Senator Kaine and his team.
  I want to thank my team--my amazing national security team and 
legislative team--for their hard work on this effort, as well.
  I want to reiterate something I know that Senator Kaine agrees with: 
that repealing these war authorizations will give a greater voice to 
those whom we represent. We live with the possibility every day that 
our men and women in uniform could be called away to fight, to 
sacrifice their very lives for our freedom. We dread for that moment to 
come. But if it does, we must be certain that the American people are 
united behind the decisions we make here and that our intentions are 
clear to our military commanders.
  By reclaiming our war powers, by restoring the open, civil, but 
passionate debates about matters of war and peace, we will do exactly 
that. And our Nation and its allies will be stronger and safer because 
of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the United States invaded Iraq following 
congressional authorization exactly 20 years ago, March 19 and 20, 
2003.
  In that war, nearly 4,500 Americans lost their lives and more than 
31,000 American troops were wounded--some grievously--who will carry 
that wound for the rest of their lives. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi 
civilians were killed.
  I rise thinking about all of them as we come close to a vote to 
declare these wars are over.
  It wasn't too long into the war when criticism of the decision to go 
to war began. There is no criticism of the heroism of the American 
troops who served ably, who did so well, who protected their 
colleagues, who protected civilian life the best they could. But there 
began to be criticism of the rationale for the war.
  Two of the rationales for this war were that Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction. That was very convincing to many colleagues here. It 
turned out not to be true. And another of the rationales that was 
occasionally advanced was that Iraq had participated in the 9/11 
attack. That proved not to be true.
  So much of the analysis of the Iraq war, looking backward over 20 
years and lessons learned, has focused upon the rationales advanced 
that turned out not to be true.
  But there was another challenge; and today is an effort, in many 
ways, to try to fix that challenge. And the challenge was this: We 
rushed into it. There were 4,500 who died; 31,000 who were wounded, the 
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
  What we have to contemplate is the reality that we rushed into a 
war--this body rushed into a war. The Iraq war resolution was filed in 
the House in early October 2002, assigned to a committee, and came out 
of the House in a week. The resolution was pending in the Senate--no 
committee action, no committee opportunity for inquiry, amendment, 
debate. It was pending in the Senate for 3 days--3 days.
  The Senate voted to go to war--a war that has had massive 
consequences--with a total of 3 days of analysis. Taking the time to be 
the greatest deliberative body in the world does not guarantee that we 
will get everything right. But short-circuiting a decision, especially 
a decision of such magnitude as to whether the United States should go 
to war, maximizes the chance that we, as fallible humans, will get it 
wrong.
  I believe many of the challenges that we faced in the Iraq war began 
with that rush. I am very dedicated to the proposition--and I have been 
since I came here--that the United States and the article I branch of 
Congress, we should never be pushed into a war and we should never be 
rushed into a war.
  The repeal of the 1991 and 2002 AUMF has been on the floor of the 
Senate for 2 weeks, not 3 days. The repeal has been pending before the 
body since 2019. It has had two different markups in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee where members got chances to offer amendment and 
debate and vote twice. The effort over the last 13 days has involved 11 
votes on amendments in this body. In the declaration of war, there were 
only five amendment votes.
  We have given dramatically more time in this body to the question of 
whether we end two wars--one declared in 1991 and one declared in 
2002--than was given to the momentous question of whether we should 
start a war.
  I think that is a lesson that we should all absorb and learn from. I 
want to thank my colleagues who have been so helpful in this regard. 
Senator Young has been such an able colleague in this path from the 
very day he came into this body and was assigned to the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee; his bona fides, having worked with a great Member 
of the Senate, Senator Lugar; and his marine service made him somebody 
who grabbed this issue immediately.
  I want to thank the Senate Foreign Relation Committee's leadership, 
Senators Menendez and Risch, both of whom have cooperated to try to 
give this the attention and deliberation it deserves. I will say this 
about Senator Risch: We have had disagreements along the way, but here 
is a man who knows how to disagree without being disagreeable--
curmudgeonly, yes, but not disagreeable.
  I also want to thank Senator Schumer for being committed to make this 
happen.
  Also to Senator Warner for his pep talks when I would get down about 
how come I am not able to convince anybody. He would give me pep talks, 
and I appreciated his comments.
  I appreciate the outside groups that weighed in in significant ways--
American Legion, Concerned Veterans for America, Friends Committee on 
National Legislation, and so many others.
  I very much want to thank my staff, many of whom are here, who have 
worked with me on this and, probably like Senator Warner at some 
points, wondered why I was so obsessed about it. Can't we move on and 
do something else? I learned early, I am not going to get my way by 
looks, so I better get it by persistence. And this has been one of 
those efforts where persistence has helped.
  And the passage of 20 years, and even the anniversary--the 20th 
anniversary, has kind of opened a reflective moment where I think we 
are moving in the right direction.
  Last thing I want to say is this: This is, obviously, very important 
to me, personally, on this topic, coming from a State that is so 
military in our focus and proudly so, being the father of a marine--
that makes a difference to me. But even if this debate were about 
another topic, I am so glad that we just spent time deliberating, for 
gosh sake, instead of rushing to a war in 3 days. We had a very robust 
process of full committee consideration, of full Senate floor debate, 
of amendments--some that were easy and some that were really hard; some 
that were really close and some that weren't so close.
  We showed that we can operate in what I have never really experienced 
in the time I have been here, but what I have had glimpses of in this 
debate: We can operate according to sort of a regular order--the way we 
should do things. And regular order is kind of a phrase; who knows what 
that means?
  It means deliberation when we are making important decisions, 
allowing the committees to take their time to do the work, allowing 
committee members to shape a bill, getting the bill on the floor, 
giving it the time it deserves. That is what the Senate has been known 
for since 1787.
  We have declined in our ability or, perhaps, our willingness to do it 
the old-fashioned way, but when we do it the old-fashioned way and we 
deliberate, we make better decisions. And I am proud to have been part 
of a decision-making process that has enabled all 100 Senators to 
participate in a meaningful way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for S. 316, a 
bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against 
Iraq. Sending America's sons and daughters to fight in foreign lands 
has serious consequences. Those who volunteer for military service, as 
well as their families, agree to

[[Page S1014]]

carry things with them for their lifetimes--sometimes difficult and 
painful things--all at the behest of the U.S. government and on behalf 
of the American people.
  I am grateful for and thank those servicemembers who bravely 
conducted themselves in Iraq with honor, restraint, and in accordance 
with American values and ideals. With that important preface, let me 
say clearly: I opposed the Iraq war. I opposed the Iraq war before I 
was elected to Congress, while I was a Member of the House of 
Representatives, and I oppose it today.
  I believe that by any objective measure, the 2002 U.S. invasion of 
Iraq was among the greatest foreign policy disasters in my lifetime. 
Not only did it cause death and immense suffering of thousands of 
Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but it also ignited a 
series of regional tensions and tertiary conflicts that have carried on 
for decades.
  Both the Gulf War and the 2002 invasion of Iraq required legal 
authorities. The Iraq authorizations of military force were legally 
necessary and largely supported at the time. However, very practically, 
we no longer need an authorization for use of military force against a 
country we now regard as a partner and to which we provide hundreds of 
millions of dollars in economic and military aid. This bill recognizes 
the positive evolution of our relations with the Government of Iraq. We 
will continue to work with our Iraqi partners to limit our military 
presence and narrowly define the actions our servicemembers are 
authorized to take. It is also important to note that this resolution 
will have no impact whatsoever on current U.S. military operations.
  Some opponents of this bill have suggested that repealing the 
authorizations for use of force will embolden our adversaries or 
exhibit America's weakness. To the contrary, whether one supported or 
opposed the invasions of Iraq 31 and 20 years ago, it is important to 
repeal these antiquated relics of history.
  As national security threats arise, they should be properly 
addressed. The President can request congressional authorization for 
the use of military force with properly debated justifications, after 
which, Members of Congress will vote their conscience and America's 
will. This bill does nothing to restrict presidential powers of this 
nor future Presidents. America will defend herself--always. However, it 
is critical that America's use of force be thoughtful and deliberate, 
informed by accurate intelligence, and used only when necessary to 
preserve and protect our vital national security interests.
  Over the years, I have consistently voted to repeal the Iraq 
authorizations for use of military force. I commend my colleagues, 
Senators Kaine and Young, for their tenacity and determination to see 
these repeals through. I also strongly support a review of the 2001 
authorization for use of military force which has been the legal basis 
for actions far beyond what was ever intended after the attacks of 9/
11.
  For the task at hand, however, I urge all Senators to support S. 316, 
a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against 
Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, thank you very much and thank you to 
Senator Kaine.
  I will start with this. There are a lot of things he said that I 
agree with, and, particularly, that part about him not getting very far 
with his looks and instead using persistence. I think he is absolutely 
correct in that regard.
  Senator Kaine has been a true, committed, good-faith warrior on this 
issue, as has Senator Young, and some of the things that were said out 
here are absolutely accurate and deserve to be underscored and things 
that I agree with.
  First of all, I really appreciate Senator Kaine pointing out the fact 
that the deliberations on this particular repeal of the AUMF to get the 
rule off of the books regarding war has taken a whole lot longer and a 
lot more deliberation than the actual passage of it to get into the 
war.
  It is easy to stand here and say that people were wrong who did this 
20 years ago. I don't know how many are left. There is only a handful, 
maybe half a dozen, who were on this floor at the time they voted for 
it. In their defense, of course, they had information that was very 
different than the information that we have today, which is 
unfortunate, because, as you have pointed out, there has been a lot of 
harm done as a result of this.
  So we should start with that, and that is that one of the most 
important things we do here in Congress is deliberating whether or not 
to send our sons and daughters into harm's way in war. There is nothing 
more somber than that, and to those who actually fought in this war, 
the view that America has toward them of appreciation for their taking 
up the arms when we asked them to do so cannot be overstated. It is a 
tremendous sacrifice that they have made, and we owe them a lot.
  Having said that, I come back to what Senator Kaine has said for a 
long time. If that vote were held today, I think it would be unanimous 
that we not pull the trigger as was done 20 years ago. But that was 
then and this is now, and the information is very different.
  So to the men and women in uniform, their service was honorable. Less 
than 1 percent of Americans raise their hands to answer the Nation's 
call when this happens, and we have to commend them for that.
  While I support the repeal of the 1991 Gulf war authorization, I 
don't support the repeal of this 2002 AUMF at this time. This needs to 
be repealed; there is no question about it. It should be replaced by 
something, and that is one of the real problems here, because the 
debate to do that has been ongoing for as long as I have been here, and 
we have been unable to land on the same point to get it done. Again, we 
mostly agree, but there is handful of disagreements on it. So with 
that, I cannot vote for it at this time.
  Part of the problem--well, there are two problems here: One is the 
fluidity in Iraq at this time, and the second one Senator Young 
properly and clearly outlined what the ambitions of Iran are. The 
fluidity in Iraq and the ambitions of Iran are the two reasons why I am 
opposed to repealing at this time.
  Iraq itself is a less-than-perfect security partner. All of us on 
Foreign Relations have dealt with that issue over and over again, as we 
have had ups and downs there. They are a less-than-perfect partner.
  I have serious concerns about the influence of the Iranian-aligned 
militias, which I know my friends do also. These are real problems. 
Across multiple administrations--both Republican and Democrat 
administrations--the 2002 AUMF has been used to address threats 
emanating from Iraq.
  Specifically, multiple administrations have relied on its authority 
to address the threat from Iran-backed militias, and Iran is clearly 
the problem here. I have been in the room when these decisions were 
made. I have participated in those decisions, and the 2002 AUMF was a 
factor in those decisions.
  Should the statutory authority fall away, we are only left with the 
President's constitutional article II powers to protect Americans. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some on my side of the 
aisle are quick to point out that the President's constitutional 
authorities are used as an excuse to support repeal, what we are doing 
here. But those constitutional authorities are unfettered and really 
unrestrained as far as the President is concerned.
  So by repealing this, instead of reasserting congressional authority, 
we are actually ceding solely to the President, the executive branch, 
which no one in this room wants to do.
  Further repeal signals finality and an end to hostilities but, the 
Iranian-backed militias continue to attack us. Iran has long sought to 
eject the United States from Iraq, but Iran and its proxies have 
attacked American troops and diplomats over 80 times just since 
President Biden took office and with only a few U.S. responses.
  It is clear that Iran doubts American resolve. I stand here today to 
say to Iran: Have no doubts. We do have resolve.
  Just last week, we lost yet another American in Syria at the hands of 
an Iranian-supported militia. It is objectionable that the 
administration didn't notify Congress of this attack until after we 
completed debate on relevant amendments and had adjourned for the week.

[[Page S1015]]

  I know my colleagues who are on the other side of this issue probably 
have the same bad feelings about that that I do. This was not right, to 
withhold this information from us.
  The Biden administration talks about defending our interests and 
deterring Iran. The administration launched a strike in retaliation for 
killing that American last Thursday, but in response the Iran-backed 
militias simply conducted an even larger attack against us.
  The truth is the administration is failing and has failed in its 
attempts to deter Iran, and today we are in not a very good position in 
that regard. That is why this repeal sends an additional dangerous 
message at a poor time and further weakens U.S. engagement in the 
region.
  It is clear the region sees the Biden administration sitting on the 
sidelines. This repeal will only add fuel to the narrative that the 
United States is disengaging from the region, which we hear all the 
time. We should remember that great power competition is global, not 
just in Asia and the Pacific, though, of course, those issues have 
raised their ugly head in recent years.
  I also remain unconvinced that the administration has conducted any 
meaningful consultations with Iraq, Israel, or other partners on the 
repeal of this authority and how those reactions may affect U.S. 
burdens and commitments in the region. Consultation with our partners 
is always important.
  Finally, turning to detention authority, for years the 2002 AUMF has 
been cited as authority for detention for known captured terrorists. 
Last week, I put forward an amendment that would require the Secretary 
of Defense to certify that repeal of this authority would not harm 
detention authority or the U.S. litigation positions against detained 
terrorists. If a court were to find that the 2001 AUMF did not provide 
legal authority for detention, which has not been settled at this 
point, supplemental legal authorities like the 2002 AUMF would be 
absolutely critical.

  I sincerely would like to support this repeal--I really would. And I 
hope to be here when we do get to repeal at some point down the line, 
but now is not the time for it. The realities on the ground convince me 
I cannot support repeal at this time. We have got to deal with the 
world as it is, and, as a result of that, I am compelled to vote no.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President, and thank you for all those who 
have worked on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this vote that we are about to take 
today has deep personal significance for me and for many others. For 
me, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I finally 
have come full circle from my vote in the House of Representatives 21 
years ago when I did not support the 2002 AUMF.
  I have, for my 31 years in Congress, had a standard. If the cause is 
right and the Nation needs it, then I will vote to send my son and 
daughter into war, and I will vote to send anyone else's sons and 
daughters into war. But if the cause is not right and the Nation truly 
doesn't need it, not only will I not send my son and daughter into war, 
I won't vote to send anyone else's sons and daughters into war.
  And, at that time, as a Member of the House, I did my due diligence 
with all the evidence that was available, and I saw no clear and 
present danger, no imminent threat to the United States, and, above 
all, no evidence--underline ``evidence''--of weapons of mass 
destruction. So I voted no. I was in the minority at the time, and it 
was, in many respects, a tough vote, but it was the right vote.
  It is significant for some of my fellow Senators who also themselves, 
many, have fought in the war in Iraq, and I echo what Senator Risch, 
the ranking member said. When our sons and daughters answer the call, 
they don't say: Is this the right or wrong war?
  They just say: I am here to serve.
  And so we honor their service, both in the Iraq war and in the Gulf 
war before it. And I think what we do today, actually, is the ultimate 
way in which we honor it. It is significant for those whose sons and 
daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and loved ones have fought, 
and it is significant because, for the first time in five decades, when 
Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, we are ending a war--
the first time in five decades.
  So, today, I want to speak about what we are accomplishing together 
as we turn the page on that war and that chapter of American foreign 
policy. It has taken 21 long years for this body to reevaluate the 
adoption of the 2002 AUMF, and, today, we are working together--and 
this is the ultimate expression of what this body should be; working 
together, Democrats and Republicans--to support repeal.
  And I want to salute the majority leader, Senator Schumer, for giving 
us the time on the floor and a process for which the weightiness of 
what we are doing could be fully considered, and I salute him for doing 
so.
  That makes this historic vote a bipartisan vote. With this vote, we 
make clear that the Iraq of 2023 is not the Iraq of 2003. Far from 
being a menace to the region, today's Iraq is a willing U.S. partner 
that seeks closer integration with its Arab neighbors.
  With this vote, we can show the world that the United States is a 
strong partner, that we are not an occupying force, that we engage with 
partner countries when their interests are aligned with ours.
  This vote shows that, while we still face challenges and threats to 
U.S. interests--and I agree with my colleague about the challenges of 
Iran. No one has fought harder for over two decades on the question of 
meeting the challenge of Iran, but this is not about Iran. This is 
about Iraq. Saddam Hussein is gone. The Iraq of 2002 is not the Iraq of 
2023.
  This vote shows that, while we still face challenges and threats to 
U.S. interests, the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military 
force do not address those threats and are not necessary for the United 
States to defend against them.
  This vote shows that Congress is prepared to claw back our 
constitutional role in deciding how and when our Nation goes to war and 
also when it should end wars. It also protects against future 
administrations abusing authorizations that outlive their mandate but 
remain on the books.
  We can take our responsibilities once again to call if the Nation 
needs it and the President comes and says: I need an authorization for 
the use of force because country X is challenging the national security 
of the United States. We can do that. But we should not allow any 
President to use an authorization that was never intended for country X 
or the circumstances of that to be the excuse to go to war without 
coming to Congress. So I see it differently than my colleague.
  To be clear, this vote has nothing to do with Iran and in no way 
diminishes our ability to protect U.S. interests against Iranian 
aggression.
  It has taken a long time to get here. I want to commend my colleague 
Senator Kaine, who has been a constant clarion call of our 
responsibility and pricked the conscience of the committee and the 
Senate on several occasions to get to this point, and also Senator 
Young, who has been joining him in that effort, for their stalwart 
commitment to get this done and to see this through to such a momentous 
conclusion.
  This is a defining moment. I urge all my colleagues to vote to repeal 
the 1991 and 2002 authorizations to use military force in Iraq. We owe 
it to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and to their families. We 
owe it to the servicemembers who again may be called upon to fight. We 
owe it to them to demonstrate that we take our solemn duty seriously 
and to do what is right.
  I am proud that we are taking this step today. We should all be proud 
of the history we are making together to pass this legislation with a 
strong bipartisan vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleagues, our 
chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez; 
Senator Kaine, who has worked on this bill not for days and not for 
months but for years and never gave up hope; Senator Young; Senator 
Risch; and so many others--thank you, Senator Young--who worked so hard 
to make this day happen.
  Twenty years after the start of the Iraq war, the Senate finally, 
finally, finally declares today the time has come

[[Page S1016]]

to repeal the legal authorities that began that war in the first place.
  This is bipartisan, and that is one of the beauties of this. 
Democrats and Republicans joined to say that it has been long enough, 
that the Iraq war has long been over. These authorizations for the use 
of force against Iraq are no longer necessary for our security.
  Make no mistake, this vote repealing the Iraq war powers is one for 
the history books.
  The American people, as we know, are tired of endless wars in the 
Middle East. Every year we keep these AUMFs on the books is another 
chance for future administrations to abuse them.
  We owe it to the over 4,000 who died in Iraq, to their families, to 
our servicemembers who served there, to our veterans, and all of the 
communities impacted by the war--we owe it to all of them to act.
  There is a very good chance that both Chambers can pass these AUMF 
repeals before the end of this year so this bill can be signed into 
law. This is not just going to be a one-House action. We have good 
support in the House of Representatives, the President is for it, and 
the odds are high that this much needed legislation will become law.
  Again, I hope this process can be a blueprint for how the Senate 
works over the next few years. We sat down with our Republican 
colleagues--and, of course, it is the right of the minority to offer 
amendments--and came to an agreement. The amendments were not dilatory. 
The amendments were not gotcha. They were sincere attempts to change 
the bill. But by allowing amendments, we allowed this bill to go 
forward, and we would like that to be a metaphor for the future.
  We will look diligently, assiduously for opportunities to continue 
the Senate working successfully on bipartisan legislation in the 
future.
  I yield the floor.


                             Vote on S. 316

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is expired, amendment No. 15 is withdrawn, and the bill is considered 
read a third time.
  The amendment (No. 15) was withdrawn.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

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

                                NAYS--30

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coons
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     McConnell
  (Applause.)
  The bill (S. 316) was passed as follows:

                                 S. 316

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE 
                   AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION.

       The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
     Resolution (Public Law 102-1; 105 Stat. 3; 50 U.S.C. 1541 
     note) is hereby repealed.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE 
                   AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.

       The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
     Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 
     U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________