distant relatives, shop remotely and learn online, all for free, but are these really free services? corporations like meta and google use numerous users to collect vast amounts of personal data. we've found that they tracked user's precise locations, messages you send, purchases you make and plethora of personal data and companies can give this to advertisers who show us personalized ads. >> this would be like someone following you every single day as you walk down the street, watching what you do, where you go, for how long, and with whom you're with. >> from all of us at c-span, we'd like to express our gratitude to the teachers, parents, and mentors who supported and encouraged their students throughout the competition. congratulations to all of the winnere sure to stay

tuned. the top 21 winning entries will on c-span starting 1st. u ca also watch every winning student cam documentary anytime online at student cam.org. >> the senate is back this morning to consider the nomination of jessica clark to be a judge for the southern district of new york. senators also are planning to vote on whether to consider legislation from senators tim kaine on todd young that would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force against iraq. that vote will require the vote of 60 senators to move forward. and now live to the floor of the senate c-span2.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who made us in your image, thank you for your sustaining power. because of you, we receive the gift of heartbeats each day. great is your faithfulness. lord, enable us to see your divine image in every human being. bless our lawmakers. bring to the surface the goodness within each of them.

keep them safe as you give them the wisdom to do your will on earth, even as it is done in heaven. lord, give us all insights into your will and the courage to do it. we pray in your matchless name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed and, under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. jessica g.l. clarke of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york.

test.

mr. schumer: madam president.

the president pro tempore: majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: now, almost 20 years to the day that u.s. military operations began in iraq, the united states senate begins the process of repealing the iraq aumf's, the ones of 2002 and 1991, putting the final remnants of those conflicts squarely behind us. the united states, the nation of iraq, and the entire world have changed dramatically since 2002, and it's time the laws on the books catch up with these changes. the iraq war has itself been long over. this aumf outlived its purpose and we can no longer justify keeping it in effect. while the iraq war was the cause of so much bitterness in the past, i'm glad that repeal these aumf's has been a genuinely bipartisan effort. i expect we'll have a number of amendment votes on the floor once this amendment is before us, and i want to thank senators kaine and young, chairman menendez, ranking member risch,

and all the senate foreign relations committee and the cosponsors of this legislation. again, this is a bipartisan process, both parties in this chamber voiced support for repeal. president biden has voiced support for repealing this aumf. and in june of 2021, our house colleagues voted 268-161 to repeal, with 49 republicans in support. i hope this year, on the 20th anniversary of the start of the iraq war, both chambers will finally speak in one voice and send an aumf repeal to the president's desk. americans are tierdz of endless -- tired of endless wars in the middle east. many americans have come of age without remembering the early years of the iraq war. every year we leave these aumf's on the books is another year a future administration can abuse them, and congress, the rightful dispenser of war powers, cannot allow this to continue. i want to make this clear,

repealing this aumf will in any way not hinder our national defense, nor will it hurt the efforts of our troops deployed overseas. in fact, the repeal is an important step for strengthening our relationship with iraq. once again, thank you to all my colleagues for their good work on this resolution, and i urge everyone on both sides to vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed in a few hours. on the clark nomination, today, madam president, on the clarke nomination, the senate will confirm a highly qualified judicial nominee from new york who i was very proud to recommend, jessica g.l. clarke, to serve as a u.s. district judge for the southern district of new york. ms. clarke had all the opportunities in the world to enter private practice in new york, instead she chose the path of public service. she worked in the department of justice's civil rights division and new york civil rights

bureau. she's a great civil rights lawyer. i'm certain she will make an excellent member of the federal bench. it would have been difficult to imagine someone like ms. clarke being nominated to the federal bench a generation ago, but because of her talent and dedication to the rule of law she's rightfully taking her place on the bench today. our courts will be better for it, and i look forward to supporting her confirmation and urge my colleagues to vote in her favor. now, on insulin, the exponential spike in the cost of insulin is one of the most unjust and widespread health care bad trends in the past few decades. this drug, discovered a century ago and which is exceedingly cheap to produce, has seen its price surge in recent years, sometimes faron $300 for -- far beyond $300 for a month's supply. it's cruel, it's unjust and causes anguish for so many, but it is also for so many a reality.

senate democrats took a major step towards basic fairness last year by capping the cost of insulin for people on medicare by $35 a month. since democrats took action, big pharma has taken note. eli lilly announced a few weeks ago they will cap the cost at $35 a month, as well as dramatically dropping the overall price. and just this week, novo in novk also decided to drop their price in a similar manner. madam president, today i call on the third big drug maker of insulin, sanofi to end their practice of insulin prices at sky high levels so americans can pay for diabetes treatment without going broke. ly send sanofi a letter soon expressing my desire and america's strong desire for them to drop the price of insulin. lowering insulin costs for all

patients is the right thing to do, and i hope sanofi makes the correct decision to lower their prices very soon, just like eli lilly and novo nordisk have done. all of us know somebody with diabetes. put yourselves in their shoes and imagine the sheer agony of struggling to afford this basic drug, just so you can live a decent and healthy life, so you don't have to worry about going blind or maybe having a leg amputated. just so you can live at all. no american should have to go through that, ever, ever, but too many do. in the senate, i hope both parties can build on the work last year to cap patient insulin costs at $35 a month for everyone. we did it for medicare. we can do it for everyone else. we hope we get that done on a bipartisan basis. lowering insulin prices isn't a democratic issue or a republican issue. it's purely american. and i hope we can get something

done, but today, the most immediate thing that can happen is for sanofi to listen to the voice of millions of americans and make the right choice to lower the price they charge for insulin for all patients. now, on energy, yesterday speaker mccarthy and house republicans rolled out a bipartisan, unserious and dead-on-arrival so-called energy package they laughably labeled as h.r. 1. it's not difficult to see that the republican proposal is nothing more than a wish list for big oil, masquerading as an energy package. no serious energy package would gut important environmental safeguards on fossil fuel projects, while leaving out necessary permitting reforms needed to bring transmission and clean energy projects online. rather than prepare for the future, republicans' big-oil wish list would lock america into expensive, erratic and dirty energy sources. the republicans' so-called energy plan would set us back

decades in our transition to clean, affordingable energy. shows -- affordable energy. it shows the influence big oil has on the republican house caucus, because it seems this package was almost written by big oil. so let me be clear, the house republicans' so-called energy bill is dead on arrival in the senate. dead on arrival. and i would say to my colleagues, we can still get something done. fortunately, many democrats and republicans understand that we need bipartisanship in order to produce a real new york y package. as we speak, there are talks happening in good faith about the possibilities of a permitting deal. i strongly, strongly support both sides working together to arrive at a real energy bipartisan package, not the partisan wish list republicans have introduced. any genuine energy package must include a permitting deal that will ease america's transition

to clean energy while also ensuring that clean energy is reliable, accessible, and most importantly affordable. transmission is vital to getting clean energy from where it's produced to where people live, but the republicans' h.r. 1 proposal completely ignores this issue, to its detriment and its demise. until republicans recognize that permitting reform is an essential step toward laying the foundation for a clean energy future, no proposal or package they put forward will be taken seriously. finally, on drones, air defense and israel, yesterday, it was reported that israel approved export licenses for anti-drone jamming systems that could help ukraine counter iranian drones used by russia. they're doing terrible damage, often aimed brutally at civilians who don't have a military consequence.

during our codel's recent visit to israel, my eight colleagues and i pressed the israeli government to take action along these lines. we stressed that supporting ukraine against putin is essential for the security of all democracies. the decision by the israeli government to approve export licenses for anti-drone jamming systems is very good news. i urge israel to do more to help our friends in ukraine. president zelenskyy has repeatedly asked for air defense systems that can counter missile barrages putin is sending into ukraine. i believe it's critical that israel respond to this request favorably. i yield the floor, note the absence -- no, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip is rex nized. mr. durbin: madam president, when the constitution was written, there were some fundamental principles included, one of them said that any

declaration of war in the united states had to have the approval of the american people through their elected representatives in the congress. it was an awesome responsibility, an important one. i think it was the right responsibility given to the people through their elected representatives. after world war ii there were several engagements by the american military without such declaration of war. those were, of course, controversial and debated. but i'm sure you recall, and i do too, october of the year 2002, when this senate was called on with the house of representatives to consider the invasion of iraq and the authorization of use of military force for that purpose. we may have forgotten by now, 20 years later, but i remember very vividly the fearsome national debate over whether this nation, having been hit on 9/11, needed

to invade iraq. the rationale was weapons of mass destruction were present in iraq, threatening not only nations in the middle east which were our friends and allies, but even threatening the united states of america. that threat, weapons of mass destruction, was beaten into our heads day after day, but many of us were skeptical. the vote came on the floor of the senate, i recall, in october of 2002. it happened late at night, and at the end of the day there were 23 of us, one republican and 22 democrats, who voted against that authorization for the use of military force in iraq. i look back on it, as i'm sure others do, as one of the most important votes that i ever cast. it was not only a decision about going to war, but it was a false argument that weapons of mass destruction were threatening anyone.

after invading and making the comment of american military force, along with our allies, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in iraq. it was a lie. perpetrated by those who wanted to drag the united states into the middle east for a long-term commitment and a dubious threat to our country. the repeal of this authorization of use of military force does not mean that the united states has become a pacifist nation. it means that the united states is going to be a constitutional nation, and the premise of our founding fathers will be respected. if there is cause for us to use military force in the future, we should properly follow the constitution and let the american people have their own voice in this process, through their elected representatives in congress. i am a cosponsor and fully support the the removal of the authorization of use of military force and believe it's consistent with the vote many of us cast in 2002 against that

premise. madam president, on a separate issue, americans woke up with a bad case of deja vu last week. we witnessed the biggest bank collapse since 2008. this time thankfully president biden and federal regulators stepped in swiftly to minimize damage caused by the failure of silicon valley bank. their actions helped protect the financial security of americans across the country, including small business owners in my own home state who banked at svb and needed to make payroll. but there's an important lesson here. it's the same lesson we learned after the great recession and even the great depression before it. the financial industry cannot be trusted to police itself, period. we need cops on the beat in our banks not just for the biggest wall street banks, but for banks that families entrust with their life savings and

paychecks. banks like svb want to have it both ways. during boom times, they disparage anything to do with government and regulation. but as soon as things get rocky or go bust, they come crying to uncle sam for a bailout. we've seen it over and over. not this time. president biden made it clear this week, american taxpayers won't be bailing out svb. the president also emphasized that our banking system is safe because of the actions regulators have taken. americans should feel confident that their deposits will be there if they need them. but we can't stop there. we need to take action to prevent these financial meltdowns from happening in the first place. after the great recession in 2008, congress passed the dod-frank act, the strongest bank regulation since the depression. there were a lot of big banks

whining and crying about too much government regulation, but we learned our lesson in the great recession and passed that bill in the house and senate and signed into law. in 2018 the former president signed into law that rolled back critical parts of the bill. and i'm speaking of course of president trump. he decided dodd-frank went too far in his estimation roonld back some of the protections. and dramatically the trump administration dramatically lowered capital and liquidy requirements for mid-sized banks like svb. in other words, then-president trump's regulatory rollback paved the way for the svb collapse. that's why on tuesday i joined with my colleagues and the leadership of senator elizabeth warren in reintroduce -- introducing legislation to restore criflt -- critical

dodd-frank protection. importantly, svb wasn't the only bank that got in trouble this weekend. two other banks, silver gate capital and signature bank also failed. silver gate and signature were two of the most crypto-friendly institutions and did extensive business with the cryptocurrency industry, an industry that is rife with instability, fraud, and volatility. so the collapse of silver gate and signature is really just the latest example of the risk crypto poses to our economy. for months i have been sounding the alarm on crypto. yes, i am a crypto skeptic. the senate agriculture committee on which i serve held multiple hearings in recent months on cryptocurrency and proper regulation of the industry. at those hearings i'm warned about the contagion and risk if crypto was more fully integrated

into the broader financial system. this weekend proved that those fears were not unfounded. the fears were confirmed by the failure of these two banks. this asset class, cryptocurrency is unwieldy, unstable, unregulated, and we cannot allow it to spread risk across our financial system. frankly, it's already gone too far, and now we need to be honest about crypto. it is a dangerous, risky investment that needs more transparency, more accountability and strict regulation. the burden is on congress to act madam president, i ask consent that the remarks i'm about to make be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. behind the scenes of our nation's courtrooms and jails, you'll find some of our most dedicated public servant. they are america's public defense lawyers. they work long hours for low

pay. and even less attention and acclaim to protect the most american ideal -- equal justice under the law. it's thanks to their service that every single citizen in this cnt is guarantee -- country is guaranteed the right to legal counsel. this saturday we have a chance to honor them. it's national public defender day, and this year national public defender day also marks a major milestone in legal history. it's the 60th anniversary of the supreme court's decision in the landmark case gideon v. wayne write. there were days before the gideon decision when the constitutional right to legal counsel was not protected. that means in some states, if you were charged with a crime but couldn't afford a lawyer, you were on your own. that's exactly what happened to a man named clarence gideon in

the summer of 1961. at the time he was down on his luck, struggling with a disease of addiction on the streets in panama city, florida. early one morning in june he was arrested for a burglary. the evidence against him? a witness claimed that they saw him steal from a local pool hall. the police arrested him based on that accusation alone. when mr. gideon appeared in court, he told the judge he couldn't afford a lawyer and asked for an appointed attorney. the judge denied the request. he told mr. gideon the court could only appoint a counsel to defendants facing the death penalty. in other words, mr. gideon was denied his 6th amendment right to counsel which has been enshrined in our constitution since the enactment of the bill of rights because he wasn't accused of a very serious crime. well, mr. gideon didn't need a law degree to know that something was wrong here, so he picked up a pen and a sheet of paper and wrote a letter to the

united states supreme court. and with that letter he changed history. the supreme court agreed to hear his case and finally appointed him an attorney and not just an average attorney. future supreme court justice abe fortas. fast forward to march of 1963, the court issued its decision. all nine justices ruled unanimously in favor of mr. gideon. in the majority opinion, justice hugo black said lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. and he concluded, and i quote, that the noble ideal of fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. in the six decades since gideon generations of public defenders stepped up to assure that no one

is denied their constitutional right to a legal counsel and for our most vulnerable neighbors in particular, public defenders are an indispensable protection. they have protected the rights of low-income and indigent americans. they have helped defendants access resource and services to get their lives on track and they worked day in and day out to secure sentences that are humane and proportional. public defenders provide a service to all of us by strengthening the integrity of our system of justice. think about this. the united states has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. so when defendants are denied adequate legal representation, they can end up behind bars for crimes they did not commit or receive excessive, even inhumane sentences for those they did commit. that is a subversion of justice that violates fundamental values

and treats human as if they are objects. all of us owe a debt of gratitude to the public defenders fighting against these injustices. madam president, i ask the remainder of my remarks be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: it comes to the actions of government, it's often legislation that grabs the headlines but it is equally important to be aware of presidential regulatory power. presidents have a tremendous amount of power to affect our economy through regulation. president biden has made aggressive use of regulatory four push his agenda and to burden our economy in the process. president biden's big spending habits are well-known. the $1.9 trillion american rescue plan spending spree that he signed into lurks the trillions of dollars in new government spending that he's proposed and pushed for over the course of his administration, but his carelessness with taxpayer dollars is not limited to legislative initiatives. president biden has also pushed through regulations costing almost $360 billion. and requiring 220 million hours

of paperwork. 220 million hours of paperwork. now, that's a big compliance burden, mr. president. and a good reminder of the fact that regulations have consequences. consequences for individual americans, consequences for american businesses, and consequences for our commitment of take the biden administration's proposed rule to require contractors to disclose their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and in some cases not only their own direct and indirect emissions but also related emissions over which the contractor has no control. this rule is not only impracticable, it is unclear how contractors would even begin to gauge emissions over which they have no control, but it's likely to be both costly and burdensome. by the government's own reckoning, the rule would cost affected small businesses more than $00 million over -- $600

million over the first ten years and the national federation of independent business notes that the actual cost is likely to be much higher. when compliance costs like this, why would any small business want to apply for a federal contract? and this is just one of a number of costly regulations the biden administration has put in place or is attempting to put in place to advance its extreme environmental agenda. a new rule from the environmental protection agency that will require a drastic reduction in nitros objection side emissions is not only likely to substantially raise the price of new trucks, it could drive some smaller trucking companies out of business entirely, which would be problematic at any time but especially problematic given the supply chain problems that we're still experiencing. a proposed rule to prohibit cooktops that consume more than a certain amount of energy per year would make half the gas stoves currently sold in the

united states illegal and could threaten manufacturers with substantial losses to say nothing of the way it could limit options for americans. a substantial number of whom opt for gas stoves. but then there's the obama era waters of the use rule that president biden's environmental protection agency has resurrected. the wotus rule would give the federal government sweeping jurisdiction over most water features on private property, including things like irrigation ditches, ephemeral extremes and even prairie potholes. the supreme court is currently considering a case concerning -- i should say considering a case concerning the federal government's authority over the clean water act, the outcome of which nullifies for makes obsolete much of the biden wotus rule. but if the wotus rule goes into effect, farmers, ranchers and other private landowners could see parts of their land rendered useless for months.

they could also be faced with huge compliance costs and the value of their land could plummet. there are also the biden administration's oil and gas regulations, which are likely to cost all americans money by driving up energy prices. despite the need to develop american energy and economic, and i would add national security imperative, this week president biden announced that he is closing off a substantial part of the arctic to oil and gas development. now, i'm pleased that he did approve the willow project this week. he has undercut that approval with these new restrictions. the president's decision to close off a substantial part of the arctic will not only restrict areas for energy exploration and development, it's likery to -- likely to discourage further exploration and development even in unrestricted areas with a correspondingly harmful effect on energy prices. if that weren't enough, yesterday, the epa piled on with another rule that targets electricity production and

industry in 23 states and threatens to shut down essential power sources that help guarantee a reliable supply of electricity to american homes and businesses. the high energy prices americans have experienced so far under the biden administration, up to a staggering 37% under his watch, could become a permanent feature of american life if the president continues with policies designed to discourage conventional new york ranger production -- conventional energy production. so far i focused on the biden administration's environmental administration, but of course, his environmental agenda is not the only extreme agenda president biden is pushing through regulations. for example, he's also using the regulatory power to push his extreme abortion agenda. the comment period reese lint closed for a proposed new lotion that -- legislation.

in defiance of federal law, which prohibits the v.a. from providing abortion services, the biden administration implemented a rule to use taxpayer dollars to provide abortion counseling and services to individuals served by the v.a. while presidential administrations have tremendous power to push their agendas and purd our economy through regulation, there are things congress can to to push back against troubling exercises of regulatory power. one is through the congressional review act, which allows congress to block regulation it is it can gather a sufficient number of votes. republicans have put forward a number of congressional review act measures, or what we call cra's to block some of the biden administration's most problematic regulations. republicans in the house of representatives joined a handful of democrats recently, approved a cra to block the waters of the united states rule. we will seen take up this

measure here in the senate. i also expect us to take up a measure in the near future to prevent taxpayer dollars to go to fund abortions at the v.a. thanks to senator capito, we've blocked one problematic biden administration regulation so far this year. senator capito announced her intention to challenge a federal highway administration memo which the government accountability office determined to be a rule discouraging states from pursuing highway expansion projects and prioritizing funding for projects that reduce emissions. rather than waiting for a congressional vote, the federal highway administration withdrew the memo. issuing a revised version without the problematic language. a win for infrastructure investments in rural areas of our country. we're likely to have an uphill battle in congress when it comes to blocking other problematic biden administration regulations, but republicans in both houses are committed to

doing everything we can to protect americans. i'm also introducing legislation today to help prevent economically damaging regulations from going into effect in the first place. my bill, the regulatory transparency act, requires federal agencies to conduct a more transparent and objective analysis of the impact of proposed regulations would have on the economy, especially on small businesses. it would also require agencies to justify the need for the regulation and consider other less burdensome ways of meet going the same goal. importantly, it would require agencies to consider whether a sunset date for the regulation would be appropriate, which could help reduce the long-term buildup of irrelevant or outdated federal regulations. mr. president, there's a lot more that i could say about the regulations the biden administration has implemented or is trying to put in place, but i'll stop here. suffice it to say that president biden has made use of the

regulatory system to advance an agenda ha will negatively -- that will negatively affect our nation, and i will continue to do everything i can to push back against the biden administration's dwm troubling -- many troubling regulations and to protect our economy and the american people from the regulatory burden the administration has put in place. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. young: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: mr. president, the founders of our country understood the dangers of concentrating military power in the hands of a single individual. they'd seen how dangerous this can be, thanks to their experience with king george iii. in fact, the specifically charges against the king in our declaration of independence, as so many know, lay out a long train of abuses by the military.

when it came time to draft the constitution of the united states, the framers had to strike a balance between giving the president the flexibility to respond to attacks and imminent threats and safeguarding against military adventurism. so they gave congress, they gave this body, the power to declare war. the practices of our early presidents recognized a distinction between defensive military action, over which the president has control, under article 2 of the constitution, and offensive operations, which must be approved by congress in advance. fast forward to today. this process has broken down. and for the last three decades, this body has often neglected

what is arguably its most important responsibility. i think many americans will be surprised to learn that these authorizations for use of military force, or aumf's, especially the 1991 gulf war resolution, are still on the books. today, these are, in the words of my friend tim kaine, who joins me on the floor today, zombie resolutions. they have fulfilled their purpose, and now they should be removed from our law. importantly, the repeal of the 1991 and 2002 resolutions would affect no current military operations. so, the issue for us to consider is both what these aumf's

actually do authorization and what they could be used to authorize in the future. it's been well over a decade since any administration has cited the 2002 aumf to authorize any military action. however, leaving these authorities on the books creates an opportunity for abuse by the executive branch and bypasses congress on the most important issue we consider as a body, which is how and when to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way. on the topic of iran, as it relates to this effort, i share the views of so many of my colleagues on the need to counter iran. i really do. but reimagining a more than 20-year-old authorization that was passed to combat a totally different enemy is not the way to do it.

practically, repeal of the 1991 and 2002 aumf's is very important because the message that we send to our partner iraq. and to our other partners in the region and beyond. let us be clear -- saddam hussein is dead. and we're no longer worried about the threat posed by iraq and as stated in this aumf, which we propose repealing. iraq has faced pressure from iran for the past 20 years. the presence of the 1991 and 2002 aumf's hasn't changed that. going forward, as iraq continues to face iranian coercion and violence, we mustn't stand -- we must increase our resolve to

stand with them as partners, not as our enemy. repealing these authorizations will help us do just that. so, this legislation is the rare issue that brings together supporters of all political persuasions. doesn't fall on party lines. certainly doesn't fall along ideological or philosophical or geographical lines. in addition to bipartisan congressional support from across the political spectrum, this important effort has earned the support of a number of outside groups, just a few of them are the american legion, concerned veterans for america, heritage action, and freedom works. later this morning we will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to this important bill. we don't need to debate extensively whether or not we

even proceed to consideration, and therefore i urge a yes vote as we work together to reclaim these important authorities and arrest the trend of giving away our war powers to an unchecked executive. i yield the floor. mr. president. mr. kaine: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i and senator menendez be permitted to complete our remarks prior to the opening of the first vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: mr. president, second, i i ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellows kiley gasher, christine acook and kumi roe be granted floor privileges for the duration of their fell powe ships in -- fellowships in my office. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: to my colleague from

indiana, i'm honored to be on the floor with you as we advance to a vote not conducted in the senate since 1971, a vote to repeal a war authorization. we will start the first procedural steps to formally end the iraq war. right now, we still have not one, but two, active war authorizations against the government of iraq that is no longer an enemy but, in the biblical phrase, we've beaten the sword into a plowshare. iraq is now a strategic partner of the united states. the bill that senator young and i have worked on in close coordination with other colleagues would repeal both authorizations. it's a clean and simple bill, barely a page long. it is -- it has attracted bipartisan support, as my colleague mentioned, not only in the senate and house, but from stakeholder groups who care about americans' military and national security and the health and fate of our troops and

veterans and their families. it is a very, very broad ideological spectrum of america that supports this bill. it's a rare coalition. and it speaks to how painfully evident it is that the repeal of these authorizations is long, long overdue. this sunday, march 19, marks the 20th anniversary of the united states' invasion of iraq in march of 2002. that war ended 12 years ago. the persian gulf war of 1991, operation desser storm, ended 30 years -- operation desert storm, ended 30 years ago. i thank my friend from new jersey, the chair of the senate foreign relations committee did senator menendez, for his long-standing support for this repeal effort. i want to thank my colleague from indiana for partnering with me for years, and his indefatigable effort to move us to this day. i also acknowledge the ranking member of the foreign relations, senator risch, who does not support my bill, who voted against it in committee, but who

has worked in a cooperative way on the committee, both in the 117th congress and the 118th congress to make sure that this bill would be heard, that there would be a robust process for amendments in committee, and now that it can be heard on the floor. the discussion over congress' role in determining how and when the united states utilizes its military power, having that discussion is so important, maybe even more important than ultimately how people vote on this bill, because too often the article 1 branch has deferred on matters of war, peace, and diplomacy to the article 2 branch, to the executive, even though these powers are some of the most specific and somber powers granted to congress in article 1 of the constitution. be congress must exercise this

over diplomacy and that's what this bill and this debate is about. i think we need to repeal the iraq war authorizations, first, to recognize reality. an enemy that we were trying to push out of kuwait in 1991, an enemy whose government we voted to topple in 2002, that enemy no longer exists. iraq today is an american security partner of incredible importance. defense secretary austin just visited iraq last week, had productive meetings with the new prime minister, prime minister al sadani. those meetings included iraq's request that we stay. we have about 2,200 troops right now, that we stay to encounter isis and other terrorist threats that threaten not only iraq but other nations in the region.

iraq is asking us to stay so we can help them check iranian aggression in the region. secretary austin talked about the value of the strategic partnership with iraq. iraq is no longer a force for chaos. iraq is now a force for regional stability, and the u.s. is their partner of choice. why would we want two war authorizations against a nation that has become a partner of choice? our servicemembers have the courage to put their lives on the line, and many, and everyone in this chamber knows families, knows servicemembers who served in iraq, who were injured in iraq. many of us know families of those who were killed in iraq. they had the courage to do their job. how dare we as congress not have the courage to simply say after 20 years this war is over, the job is done.

this is partly a way of thanking those who borne the battle here at home. we owe it to our servicemembers to fulfill our constitutional obligations and vote to end endless wars. repeal also sends a powerful message to adversaries of the united states today. repeal says you may be an adversary of the united states today, and we know we have challenges around the world today with russia or china or iran or north korea. but the repeal of this authorization sends the message, you may be our adversary today, just as iraq once was, but the u.s. specializes throughout our history, the u.s. specializes in turning adversaries into partners, allies, and friends. look at the u.s.-germany relationship. we fought two wars against germany in the 20th century. the relationship now is so

powerful, and that powerful relationship is helping as we try to protect ukraine from an illegal invasion by russia. look at japan. we fought a war against japan, a devastating war, attacked by japan in 1941. and yet now japan is one of our closest allies in the world. look at vietnam. when vietnam invites the uss john mccain to make a port call in vietnam to celebrate the relationship that has been built between our two nations, a relationship that still has some challenges, but a relationship that few could have predicted during the vietnam war, we send a message to the entire world that the u.s. will turn a sword into a plowshare, will be a spear into a pruning hook. we will embrace diplomacy. and that's a message that the u.s. adversaries of today should

draw from action to repeal this war. the biden administration has reissued a statement of administration policy on this particular bill, stating that they fully support it. let me just read briefly from it the administration notes that the united states conducts no ongoing military activities that rely primarily on the 2002 aumf and no ongoing military activities that rely on the 1991 aumf activities as a domestic basis. repeal of these authorizations would have no impact on current u.s. military organses -- operations and would support this administration's commitment to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our iraqi partners. that partnership, which includes coopers -- cooperation with the iraqi security forces continues at the invasion of the government of iraq to advise,

assist and enable them. the great seal of the united states, which you can see here on the wallpaper around this chamber, was created early in our nation's history, and it shows an eagle holding 13 arrows in one tallinn, those 13 -- talon, those 13 to represent the first american states, and an olive branchl in the other talon. the design was chosen very intentionally. the arrows signify the united states' military capacity might and will. the olive branch signifies the american desire to be a peace-making, diplomatic nation. on the seal of the united states, the eagle is facing toward the olive branch, facing toward the olive branch because we want everyone to know how we define ourselves as a nation that, yes, we will have the

military capacity to defeat enemies if we must. but as a nation, our preference permanently and always is to seek peace and diplomatic solutions with all the nations of the world. after 20 years, it's time to repeal the iraq war authorizations. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this procedural vote today. it will begin a robust and fulsome debate that will go into next week. senator young and i and our colleagues are committed that debate shall include opportunities for members to offer amendments. that is being worked on by democratic and republican leadership. we haven't had a discussion of this kind for nearly six decades. it's good that we're going to give it the time and attention it deserves. and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the cloture motion later this morning. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, as senators, our gravest responsibility is to use -- i should say authorize the use of military force, because that is a decision about life and death, a decision about sending our sons and daughters into harm's way. more than 20 years ago we voted on whether to authorize the use of military force against iraq.

decades later we have a chance to formally end that war and claw back an outdated authority. when authorizations for military force have outlived the purpose that cock intended -- that congress intended we should repeal them. we should repeal them to ensure that congress determines when to send americans into harm's way so that our laws reflect current threats and protect u.s. interests, and to guard against future executive abuse. now it's taken a long time to get here. i want to commend senator kaine and young, two esteemed members of the senate foreign relations committee who have been pursuing repeal of the 1991 and 2002 aumf's against aircraft for years, and i -- against iraq for years and i applaud their relentless focus on this issue. as we mark the 20th anniversary of the invasion of iraq, we cannot ignore its heavy toll. it destabilized the middle east, it empowered iran.

it turned al qaeda into a regional franchise. but some estimates, it killed more than a half a million iraqis. it was a war our partners in the region did not support, and it damaged american leadership on the global stage. but most gravely, it cost our nation nearly 5,000 lives, americans who fought bravely and served their nation, didn't ask the question whether it's right or wrong, just answered the call. now i'm proud to have voted against going to war with iraq in 2002 when i served in the house. i believe history has proven that was the right call. but that is not the question before us today. the iraq of 2023 is far different than the iraq of 2003. today iraq is a critical strategic partner. we fight isis together. we protect american personnel and american assets together. this relationship also goes far

beyond security. we are partnering on health, education, and climate change. we're working to stabilize global energy markets together. repealing these outdated authorizations would cement this important relationship with serious bilateral diplomacy. it will help iraq chart a course for the future that is independent and more closely integrated with its arab neighbors. it also removes a major iranian talking point, however false, that the united states is a colonial power in iraq. now there are real threats in this part of the world. we must be clear-eyed about those. but the answer to those threats is not the 1991 or 2002 aumf. now i know when we get to amendments, my colleagues will offer amendments to this bill. they will try to delay repeal. they will argue we need these authorizations to respond to iranian-led and iranian-backed

attacks. they may even offer amendments to expand these authorizations and give the president even broader authority. but i urge my colleagues to remember this. the president is clear in his view that he has the authority under the 2001 aumf and the constitution for defensive military operations against isis or iranian threats against u.s. personnel and interests. in fact, the president has responded to iranian-led and iranian-backed attacks repeatedly and has done so without, without relying on the 2002 aumf. now take it from me as someone who has worked for decades to confront the challenge of iran, i know well the threat that iran poses to us and to our allies in the region. we cannot be naive about their intentions. and we need to have the

political will to respond how and when we deem necessary. but repeal will have no impact on our ability to defend u.s. interests against iran. none whatsoever. after 20 years, this is a defining moment. congress needs to repeal these authorizations for the use of military force to reassert our constitutional role on war powers. we should not just declare war. we need to be able to end them as well. and let's be clear. this is not some theoretical debate. this is about the lives of our service men and women who may be called upon to fight and make the ultimate sacrifice. in our democracy, those decisions must be made by congress. i'm proud we're stepping up to have the difficult debates that we should have and i look forward to passing this bill

with a strong bipartisan vote as it passed out of the senate foreign relations committee which has jurisdiction over the authorizations of uses of military force. that bipartisan vote there i think will be reflected in the bipartisan vote in the house. i urge my colleagues to vote to repeal these authorizations and in the first instance to start by doing so by voting to have cloture. amr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that joshua krekman be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 118th congress. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 27, jessica clarke, of

new york, to be district judge for the southern district of new york. the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of jessica g.l. clarke, of new york, to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york shall be brought to a to close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 49. the nays are 45. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, may we have some order. the presiding officer: could we have order in the senate. the senate will come to order. the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, almost 20 years to the day since the start of the iraq war, the united states senate is beginning the bipartisan process of repealing the iraq aumf of

2002. repealingrepealing umf is a necy step toward putting the final remnants of the iraq war squarely behind us. every year we leave this aumf on the books as another year of future administration can abuse it. congress, the rightful dispenser of war powers cannot allow this to continue. repealing the aumf and the aumf of 1991 as well will not hinder our national defense, nor will it hurt the efforts of our troops deployed overseas. americans are tired of endless wars in the middle east. i hope this year on the 20th anniversary of the start of the iraq war, both parties in both chambers will speak with one voice. i want to certainly thank senators kaine and young as well as our chair and ranking member of the foreign relations committee who have done such a good job on this issue bringing it to where we are today. i yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 25, s. 316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against iraq signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against iraq shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 27. three-fourths of the senate duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to proceed. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 25, s. res. 316 a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of

military force against iraq. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume executive session. the question is on the nomination. the presiding officer: the chair withdraws that statement. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i rise today to highlight a new rule by the state department that honors a 15-year-old portland girl whose life was cut short by a hit-and-run driver in 2016. the girl's name is falon smart, and the name accused of manslaughter in her hit-and-run death was a saudi national. subsequent reporting by my hometown paper, the oregonian, uncovered the saudi national likely fled the country with the assistance of the saudi government.

and the papers reporting later d that the saudi justice was not, repeat not an isolated example when its nationals face criminal charges in our country. our paper found 17 cases in the u.s. and canada of saudi nationals who fled justice while facing criminal charges. these cases, some go back decades, are not for parking tickets. the charges against the saudi men including rape, manslaughter, and felony hit and run. in oregon alone, journalists identified seven cases of saudi nationals absconding justice. their crimes included first degree manslaughter, unlawful firearm possession, intoxicated driving, third degree felony assault, and multiple sex crimes, including sexual abuse, first degree rape and and numerous cases of first degree encouraging child sex abuse. in montana two saudi nationals

fled after accusations of sexual assault. in ohio, two saudi nationals fled after being accused of third degree involuntary manslaughter and beating people with weapons at a college bar. in oklahoma a saudi national fled after being convicted of first degree rape. pennsylvania saudi national fled after being accused of attempted rape. in utah, a saudi national fled after being convicted of rape. in washington state three saudi nationals fled after respective accusations of rape, sexual assault of a child and beating and stabbing a classmate. in wisconsin a saudi national fled after being accused of two counts of sexual assault. in most of these cases local law enforcement confiscated the passports of the accused criminals and said -- set bail at thresholds the individuals were unlikely to be able to pay themselves. yet we now know that many of these individuals somehow made

bail and quickly received the resources and travel documents necessary to board a plane and leave only to resurface in saudi arabia rain. how did they leave the country without a passport? based on this evidence, it appears that the saudi government was assisting their citizens in evading prosecution in the united states. i repeatedly pressed customs and border protection, u.s. marshal service, federal bureau of investigation and the state department to explain what they knew about this pattern of cases. despite all my efforts to get some archeses, the trump administration failed to even acknowledge the disturbing pattern and explain what if anything was being done to stop it. that's why in 2019 i authored and got passed a law to declassify and fbi report on this issue. the fbi report contended that the saudis were assisting fugitives and they would not stop whisking away criminals

until the u.s. government directly addressed the issue with the kingdom of saudi arabia and u.s. cooperation on ksa cooperations ceasing the activity. so in a sentence, you have foreign nationals in our country facing the most serious criminal charges and our supposed saudi ally helping flee the american justice system. that's a disgrace and in my view it demanded action. once president biden was sworn in, his administration assured me that american diplomats in riyadh had raised this issue with saudi officials at the highest level, but that was just the start. the state department further pledged to meet and future in place a new policy named for fallon -- salim smart where a foreign official has provided assistance to foreign nationals in evading prosecution in the united states by absconding from

the united states. this rule came after i put a hold on michael ratney's nomination to serve as u.s. ambassador to saudi arabia. i did it to raise to profile this issue and get commitments from the state department. i lifted my hold on that nomination and mr. ratney has been confirmed. i want to thank secretary blinken for agreeing to take concrete actions that are going to deter other foreign officials from assisting fugitives on american soil. i plan to watchdog the state department's implementation of the new policy to ensure there's real accountable for foreign officials who prevent justice. prevent justice from being carried out in the manslaughter of fallon smart and other horrendous crimes across the country. there is no way to bring fallon smart back to her family and no punishment to yield the family's grief and loss but today is a

good day on the march to justice for fallon smart and so many others. the fallon smart rule sends a strong message that there's no place in our country for foreign officials who help criminal suspects evade the law. i'm going to continue to bird dog this, closely watching the administration to make sure it enforces the fallon smart rule whenevers there's evidence that foreign diplomats are undermining the american justice system. i promise never to be silent whenever saudi arabia tries to cleanse ints bloodstained hands in the fight for u.s. justice in the hit-and-run death of fallon smart. her death at the hands of the saudi national on hawthorne boulevard in southeast portland near our home must never be forgotten and i can tell you the work to hold the saudi officials accountable in this case will not ever be forgotten. unfortunately, despite all the

progress in achieving the fallon smart rule, some federal bureaucrats in this administration continue to defer to the interest of dictators in the middle east. that callous attitude by federal immigration officials has had devastating impact at home in oregon for two people who have done everything right to contribute to their adopted communities. the names of these two standout or gonions are -- or gonians, matah and his wife, dr. amal yousef. in the saga of this couple's unconscionable wait for asylum has also been detailed by indepth reporting in the oregonian newspaper. it began more than a decade ago. martah was the youngest member of tehran's parliament and had been tortured weeks owned by saudi-led security forces. the couple fled with their

children to the united states for refuge and applied in good faith for asylum. more than ten years later their case somehow remains, quote, winding in america. our country of course has always taken great pride in prigg refuge for people fleeing the worst abuses in their native countries. it's a path to freedom that the wyden family knows more than a little about. my parents fled the nazis in the 30's for safety in america. i am the proud first generation son of those receive fews both of whom worked every day to contribute to our country. as has been well documented in the oregonian, this bah lane ran couple is doing the same thing in oregon as my parents and uncounted millions of immigrants have done for centuries here. namely this couple is making every available effort while raising their three children to make their new communities even better places to live and work. martah works for a dental group in portland and dr.on sef --

yousef provides essential health care practicing as a physician in dougs will county. my office has run into a bureaucratic morass again and again from unresponsive immigration officials closing their eyes and ears to all the evidence of how this exemplary oregon family is owed better. just as i pledge to seek justice for fallon smart and to make sure this administration follows the fallon smart rule, i am today putting this administration on notice that i will be just as dogged in pursuing a just solution for this bahrainy family. simply put, this family should not have to endure this brute -- endure more than ten years of waiting to know it can continue contributing to a better oregon, free of fear from deportation at a moment's notice. and i intend to be relentless in

helping this family as we did with fallon smart achieve security and justice that they so deserve. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, over the past few decades the united states has experienced a steady drop in domestic semiconductor manufacturing. now, i guess we all might be forgiven for not being experts in what advanced microcircuits are all about. but the truth is these microcircuits or semiconductors are part of our everyday plierve -- lives in ways we don't fully appreciate, everything from your smartphone to the most advanced weapons we are providing to ukraine to defeat russian aggression, to the joint strike fighter, the f-35. all of these require large number of these many circuit processors or semiconductors. well, over these last few decades, we've gone from producing 37% of the world's chips to -- in 1990 to just 12%

today. in other words, we're more dependent than ever on supply chains of semiconductors in order to keep our economy going and to defend ourselves from a national security perspective. this obviously is a concerning trend and one of the things we learned about during covid is that this idea of globalization that just because somebody can make something cheaper in china, let's say, than in the united states, that that answered all the questions, that that checked all the boxes. well, you might say the same thing about europe, dependency on russian oil and gas once mr. putin decides to invade ukraine, they realize they are captive of the russian federation when it came to their basic energy needs. well, the same thing is happening in other places, including semiconductors.

30 years ago china manufactured none of the world's chips, but today it commands nearly a quarter of the global market. and just off the coast of mainland china, you'll find a global powerhouse when it comes to chip making. taiwan, taiwan manufacturers 92% of the most advanced semiconductors in the world. and given china's aggressive threats against taiwan, that's a blinking red light. but expwrus like the -- but just like the europeans found it's going to take a while for them to diversify their energy sources from russia, it's going to take a while for us to get diversity in sources so we don't only rely on imported chips from the middle east -- excuse me, from the far east. for a long time this has been recognized as a problem and of course people said, well, something needs to be done.

but that something wasn't at the top of everyone's priority list. but then of course the pandemic hit, as i said, and we found ourselves dependent on everything from masks or personal protective equipment, which was all made in china and we couldn't get it when we needed it when the pandemic hit, and now we became more aware of our vulnerabilities when it comes to these supply chains. my constituents in texas and i'm sure those in michigan and new jersey and elsewhere were shocked to see empty car lots, for example, because backorders of semiconductors because of the short -- or the disrupted supply chain, they couldn't even make cars which are, of course, more and more dependent upon these microelectronics. suddenly consumers who never needed to know what a semiconductor was found themselves impacted by this

global shortage. so in many ways this was a wake-up call that we didn't even know we needed, and it's not the last. if you start looking around at other things like rare earth elements, things like the active ingredients in pharmaceuticals, we're dependent on china to produce those and that is another vulnerability we need to address. but if china were to act on its threats to invade taiwan and block the world's access to these advanced semiconductor, empty car lots would be the least of our worries. without chips we wouldn't be able to maintain the energy grid or communication systems. we couldn't build rocket or f-35 for our military and our national security missions would take a hit, both on the ground and in cyberspace. so clearly the time had come to

make advanced chip manufacturing in america a top priority. in june of 2020, senator warner, the senior senator from virginia and i, introduced the chips for america act to incentivize chip chipmakers to build or expand their operations here in america. given this significance of this effort to our national security, the senate adopted a resolution -- excuse me, adopted this bill to the defense authorization act with a vote of 96-4. six months after it was abused, the chips act became law and a year and a half later it was fully funded by the bipartisan chips and science act. it took a little over two years from when senator warner and i introduced the legislation before it was authorized and it

will take another couple of years before the funding we provided is granted by the commerce department to incentivize the manufacturing here. but as in so many other areas, permitting, bureaucratic delays, it will be a while before we can relieve our dependence on imported semiconductor supply chains. this ought to be a wakeup call, as i said, to our other dependencies, one that had been nurtured by the people's republic of china and where they have actively undermined development of diverse alternatives are from other parts of the world. two years is a long time from a bill being filed until it becomes law, but that's actually not an unusual pace. it takes a while for this body to act and we're not known for our speed. so the fact that we were able to

stand up the chips program and fully fund it fishily shows -- officially shows how critical this investment is and how a bipartisan consensus believed that time was not on our side and we needed to act without delay. well, despite bipartisan support for the chips program, it has not been immune from criticism. some spr criticized it -- have criticized it as industrial policy and compared to the chinese economy intervention in the chinese economy. there's a big difference between propping up favorite industries in order to protect your domestic industries as china does -- there's a big difference between that and safeguarding an essential supply chain vital to our economy and national security. one of congress's most fundamental responsibilities is to provide for the common

defense. it involves timely defense bills and appropriations, but we no electoral college live in a world where those tasks alone can cut it. authorizing the manufactur and purchase of -- manufacture and purchase of f-35, the most stealth strike fighter in america's air force, authorizing that or appropriating the money for that is meaningless if we don't have the electronics to manufacture it, including semiconductors, supporting artificial intelligence or quantum computing or 5 g is useless if we can't get access to the technology we need. so we no longer have the luxury of endless supplies of chips that we have to adjust accordingly and the chips program is one way we have done that. from the beginning of this process, i've had the pleasure

of working closely with the commerce secretary row raimondoi congratulate secretary raimondo for the great work she and her team at the come commerce depart has done and they have been partners of the passage of the chips and science act. but i am concerned and i've communicated that to her about some of the components of the application guidance that the commerce department released last month. the department outlined the application process from eligibility to time lines. it provided details about the types of incentives available and the way it could be used and laid out extensive information applicants must provide, for example, a detailed financial model for proposed projects and clear execution plans. so far so good. the department needs to understand the viability and

lasting impact of each of these projects before awarding these financial incentives. again, bringing that informing back to america's shores. that's how we ensure each project will benefit our national security, which was the main purpose of the legislation. congress laid out additional requirements that have nothing to do with that goal or the congressional intent. one example is the child care mandate. so who could be against a child care mandate? well, my fear is is this is just the beginning of unauthorized additional requirements that the biden administration is going to impose for people to be able to compete for the grant funding. the department of commerce said it requires applicants that request funding over a specific amount to provide a plan for

access to child care. these requirements were not in the statute. that wasn't even part of our congressional debate. and as a practical matter, i'm pretty confident that these sophisticated companies are going to provide a generous package of incentives to their future workforce, including probably child care. but even "the new york times," when they saw these extra requirements, described these strings as, quote, ambitious and unusual. if a country -- if a company wants to offer child care to its employees, if it needs to do so to compete for the kind of workforce it wants, that's great. many semiconductors, of course, companies already do so. the market for highly skilled employees is extremely competitive and companies recognize they need to offer benefits to attract the best

candidates. that's the beauty of the free market. but if the commerce department wants to consider that information when reviewing applications, that's fine, but there's a big difference between taking into consideration an mandating it. -- and mandating it. we know some of the debate on capitol hill about child care, we've been down this road before, some in this chamber would like to outlaw faith-based organizations from providing that child care or require if they're going to take the federal money, they're going to have to hire a workforce that doesn't believe in the same things that they do. that's how we go from what seems to be a relatively innocuous requirement into big trouble and into the executive branch trying to legislate new requirements that were not part of the underlying legislation.

recent reporting indicates that companies of all types are preparing to make the play for chips funding. this isn't limited to chip manufacturers. we're talking to every industry under the sun. so-called ecosystems built around these fabs or manufacturing facilities. the director of general economics at the cato institute explained why companies that don't make chips could be making a play for funding. for one thing, i think it should be obvious, this money, people are attracted to the opportunity of qualifying for these grants for this funding. but the director of general economics at cato pointed to the commerce department's unrelated requirements as a suggestion that the administration isn't prioritizing national security. in other words, this should not be a trojan horse to pass other

policy priorities under the guise of protecting our national security. and we don't want other perhaps even more concerning requirements to be added which were not part of the legislation that congress passed or part of legislative intent. companies that do not manufacture chips now believe they have a shot at funding as long as they meet the other unrelated requirements. i want to be absolutely clear that that cannot be the case. in oshed for the -- in order for the chips program to succeed, in order to protect our economy and national security, this needs to be a merit-based application process with no additional requirements imposed as a condition to receive these grants that was certainly not at part of legislative intent or even the debate here in congress. it should not be used as a

trojan horse to get other policy priorities when congress had no such intent. so these decisions to make these grants should not depend on relationships with labor unions or other factors, it should be based solely on how each project will shore hup this vulnerable -- show up this vulnerable supply chain. we can't have a process where free child care will over national security. that is fine if these companies want to do so. i dare say many will if not all will do so. this is concerning because this is it a slippery slope to try to show horn policies that would distract the commerce department and the u.s. government for doing what needs to be done when it comes to semiconductor manufacturing. the chips program received

strong bipartisan support and should remain far above the political fray. the ultimate goal is to boost domestic chip manufacturing, and i'm glad to say we're beginning to move in the right direction. samsung from south korea and taiwan semiconductor manufacturing company is growing a presence in arizona, intel is putting down roots in ohio and mi cron is expanding in -- micron is expanding in new york. these are just a few and i expect more to come after the chips program is up and running. we're cementing our reputation with new and expanded chip fabs. governor greg abbott is looking to have more chip manufacturers

in the lone star state. he's been working with representative greg bonan and others to bring new comuc businesses to texas. the texas legislature introduced the texas chips act which would support all chip-related activity in the state from research and development to design and manufacturing. i appreciate their leadership on this front and i'm eager to see the positive impact on the chips incentives in all of our states and across the nation. these are a few of the investments that will support our jobs, economy and national security. the chips program is key to that success and i hope the administration will avowed attaching controversial and additional requirements that could impede its success. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. booker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i'd like to ask consent, i know we have an order to vote at 1:45, to be able to speak. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. booker: i have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval, thankfully, of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. booker: mr. president, this saturday, march 18, will mark the 60th anniversary of the unanimous and landmark supreme court decision in gideon v. wane wright that everyone has the right in court regardless of feltsdz, they have a -- wealth, they have a right to to the pubc

defense system that we know today. before gideon was decided, people accused of crime were on their own, having to go through cross-examination of witnesses and every part of the criminal prosecution, they had to do it themselves while facing government prosecutors who had the legal upper hand. clarence earl gideon was a 51-year-old with an eighth grade education who ran away in middle school. he was a drifter who spent time in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes, but history would know him as someone so that everyone without accused of a crime has a fair right to a fair crime.

he was a. rested for stealing $5 in beer in panama city, florida. as james baldwin would write at the same time as gideon's arrest, anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor. gideon, who had spent much of his life in poverty was too poor to hire an attorney and asked the trial court to appoint one for him. the court denied his request. saying that only indigent defenders facing the death penalty are entitled to a lawyer. gideon assumed the burden of defending himself at trial, becoming his own lawyer. he made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses. he presented witnesses in his own defense. he declined to testify himself and made arrangements, made arguments emphasizing his

innocence. despite his valiant efforts, the jury found gideon guilty of this $5 theft, and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. but gideon felt he had been fundamentally deprived of his due process righted. determined to prove his innocence, gideon penciled -- penciled -- a five-page hand handwritten petition asking the nine justices of the supreme court to consider his case, and against all odds, the supreme court granted gideon's petition. gideon would tell the supreme court, it makes no difference how old i am or what color i am or which church i belong to. -- if any. the question is, i did not get a fair trial. the question is very simple -- i requested the court appoint me an attorney, and the court refused. in the court's unanimous

decision, they held that reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversarial system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court who is too poor to hire a lawyer cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. gideon's case was sent back to the lower court where he had a lawyer to denim. it took the jury only one hour to come to a verdict and acquit him. from that time on, the public defense system as we know it today came into existence. folks who couldn't afford a lawyer 60 years ago are now guaranteed basic legal protection. public defenders play a sacrosanct role in our society s every one of america's public defenders embarks on the noble work that is the cornerstone of

our legal system, ensuring that every -- ensuring that every system has right to a fair trial, every citizen has access to justice within the justice system. yet the promise of gideon, the promise of this decision still remains unfulfilled. the public defense system is under such strain that in many places it barely functions. justice black declared that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. but the too often across our country, adequate legal representation is a luxury only afforded to those who are wealthy enough to hire a lawyer. despite their important and essential work to the cause of justice, public defenders carry crushing caseloads that strain their ability to meet their legal and ethical obligations to provide effective representation. according to a 2019 brennan center report, only 27% of

county-based and 21% of state-based public defender offices have enough attorneys to adequately handle their caseloads. there are counties and states in america where public defenders are responsible for more than 200 cases at one time. the quality of public defenders also varies from state to state, town to town, case to case. compared to prosecutors and other attorneys, public defenders are woefully underresourced and underpaid. that's why today, with my friend and colleague from illinois, senator durbin, i'm introducing the providing quality defense act to provide funding to local governments to hire more public defenders so that those accused of crimes can receive adequate representation. the bill will provide funding to increase salaries for public defenders so that they can have pay parity with the prosecutions

that they face -- with the prosecutors that that he face. it will require the department of justice to conduct evidence-based studies and make recommendations for appropriate caseloads for public defenders and for adequate compensation. public defenders don't just represent their clients with zealous advocacy; they get to know their clients and see the impacts of convictions on their families and loved ones. the experience is invaluable and helps to inform sentencing should there be a conviction. however, unlike the majority of state sentencing commissions, the u.s. sentencing commission, and independent -- an independent agency tasked with establishing sentencing policies and practices for the federal court, lacks a representative from a public defender background who would bring an essential perspective on the criminal justice system. today again, along with senator durbin, i am reintroducing this sentencing commission improvements act to add a member

of the u.s. sentencing commission with a public defender background who will bring a new and valuable perspective to the commission. i urge my colleagues to support both of these bills which will bring us one step closer to a justice system that is fairer, more humane, and more just. such a criminal justice system is part of the legacy of a so-called drifter, a 51-year-old who spoke truth to power, who challenged a system that seemed impossible to beat, who challenged the very idea of what it means to have a just justice system. if the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice, then gideon is one of the arc benders. thank you. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume executive session. the question is on the nomination. the yeas and nays have been

requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: .

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the ayes are 48, the nays are 43, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the

senate's action. the presiding. the presiding the president pro tem. mrs. murray: i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. there are so many challenges facing us as a nation today, as we all know, but there is one overriding concern that i have. if we want our country to thrive and grow and be strong and be a democracy far into the future so we can solve the problems and challenges we face, then we must protect our democracy. democracy, it is the core principle of america. the idea that we are a country where we can debate and we can have free speech, continue that our voices matter. americans must be able to trust

and believe that all of us here, no matter our opinions or our beliefs, have a shared view that our democracy is sacred, that we all understand what that means and that we have a responsibility as leaders to preserve it. a democracy where we make decisions, we use our voices, we debate, we vote, but we never use brute force to get what we want. if we allow brute force to win the day, that, mr. president, would be the end of our democracy. look, we agree and we disagree. we use our words to debate policy, we are passionate about what we believe in. but we all also understand that not everything is debatable, that there is a reality in our world that we must understand and acknowledge and learn from

so we can move forward as a country and make sure we never repeat the mistakes of the past. and i am talking about what happened on january 6, 2021. on that day an attempt was made to overthrow an election, to use brute force and violence to change the outcome. we must agree, as a country, that using brute force to overturn this democracy is something that we can never allow. and, be in fact, if we want to solve any of those challenges in front of us, we need to have a strong democracy, period. that is why i have to speak out today about what is happening with the release of the january 6 tapes and the total misuse by a fox news personality to distort and change the truth of

what happened that day. as my colleagues know, i was here during the worst of the january 6 insurrection. when i say here, i mean here in the capitol building. i didn't happen to be on the floor when most senators were here. i had to lock down in a room. i heard the crashes as the invuksists -- insurrectionists stormed the building, i heard them banging on my door trying to get in, trying to do harm. i know first hand that january 6 was a dark, violent chapter in our nation's history. so imagine my shock and my anger to hear a prime time fos fox nes host trying to downplay this

horrific event, that these are people on a sightseeing tour. i have taken constituents on a tour of the capitol. i'm sure the presiding officer has. we all know you don't bring gas masks on a tour, you don't bring pepper spray on a tour, you do not bring bats or knives or tasers. they actually had zip tie handcuffs in their possession. tourists don't leave broken glass in the windows. they don't leave blood of capital police officers on the floor. tourists don't leave with stolen lap to be -- laptops. they don't put up gallows outside. for fox news to let tucker carlson try and paper over this by showing a few minutes of footage which, by the way, to be clear, even that footage is showing people who walked past gates, barricades, blaring

alarms, police lines in total disregard of the law to go somewhere where it was abundantly clear they should not. but to show that footage and pretend that it shows the full story while ignoring the reality of the footage of offices being ransacked, equipment being stolen, windows broken, ignoring the footage of white supremacists parading these halls with confederate flags and zip tie handcuffs, ignoring the footage of capitol police being swarmed, beaten and battered. officers suffered cracked ribs and severe brain injuries. one officer lost an eye. other officers took their lives in the after fact -- aftermath. to try and paper over all of this as a sightseeing tour, mr. president, there just aren't words that do my anger justice.

and the ones that get close are simply not suitable for this senate floor. now, i'm glad some republican senators have joined democrats in calling out how dangerous and disingenuous this kind of coverage or perhaps more appropriately cover-up is. but honestly, there is a lot more that needs to be said about how we got here. new documents from the dominion lawsuit made clear fox news knowingly let hosts spread lies about the election and let them inflame the public with baseless conspiracies. now, i think my colleagues and the reporters who cover me know i am not one to criticize the need came lightly. i do not cry foul or bias or fake news at coverage that i don't like. we live in a country with free speech and free press, thank

goodness. we have many different points of view, and that all informs a robust debate in our democracy so people can effect change with their voices and their votes, not violence. but there is a basic premise that debate rests on, a basic responsibility inherent in these important rights. honesty. for our democracy to work, for our great debates to guide it effectively, the people who inform our public, the free press that we so rightly cherish and protect needs honest brokers. let me be clear when i say honest, i'm thought saying reporters have to be utterly objective or neutral or personal. i'm not saying that to be a hundred percent right all the time. no one is. but they have to tell the truth.

they have to the least try to tell the truth. they owe that to the people that they cover and the viewers who trust them. that shouldn't be too much to ask. truly it is the barest of minimums. it is the lowest bar. and yet as the dominion lawsuit is showing, fox news has been utterly failing to meet it. in fact, they have been actively pushing lies and disinformation in the most cynical way possible. the depositions and discovery have shown plain as day fox news personalities were spreading dangerous lies, promoting shameless liars, and what's more, fox knew it. we aren't talking about a difference of an opinion or an honest mistake. we are talking about fraud in prime time. they repeatedly brought on sidney powell to spout baseless

conspiracies about dominion voting machines all the while tucker carlson told his producer powell was lying. he told his colleague laura ingram powell was highing. ingraham texted and told him the conspiracy was b.s. ingraham herself said powell was a, quote, complete nut. senior vice president shaw said powell was clearly full of it. lou dobbs, producer, told them it was complete b.s. only for the show to have powell on three days later. i mean, the list of people at fox news who knew president biden fairly won that election, knew these fraud claims were baseless goes on and on and in fact it goes straight to the top. richard murdoch, owner of fox news, call rudy giuliani's lies about the election really crazy

stuff. and yet as he admitted under oath, fox news hosts endorsed those conspiracies and he let it happen. even though he could have done more to step in and stop it. instead of putting the big lie under scrutiny, fox put it in prime time. and when reporters with the network tried to be accurate, tried to tell the truth, tried to set straight the lies their own network was spreading, they were reprimanded. carlson who told his colleagues powell was lying called for a fox reporter to be fired for fact-checking a tweet about the dominion conspiracy. shaw, the senior vice president who said powell was full of it, labeled an anchor a brand threat for cutting away from an accurate trump white house press conference. another reporter was scolded for

fact-checking powell, giuliani press conference which leaders at fox acknowledged was rife with dangerous conspiracies. let's be clear. this was the number one cable news outlet in america stifling the truth. this is so dangerous and we cannot, we absolutely cannot accept this. and, mr. president, let's not forget the nature of those lies. they weren't just small white lies or debatable points. these were wild, sprawling conspiracies which were repeatedly deburvegged, including -- debunked including by fox's own fact-checkers which were actually designed to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. designed to undermine the cornerstone of our democracy, the public's faith in our free and fair elections. and they did.

mr. president, on january 6, a violent mob spurred by the lies of the fox spread stormed this capitol. and now as i detailed earlier, fox hosts are lying about that. fox news is discoloring our past when we should be learning from it, when we should be learning from it. mr. president, it is important to consider the scope of those lies as well. this wasn't one anchor saying something dubious and network executives looking the other way. fox engaged in a top-down deliberate and coordinated effort to push out lies to its viewers. we cannot ignore that. tucker carlson can selectively edit as much footage as he wants, but i refuse to let him succeed in rewriting history and

lying to the american people about the january 6 insurrection. america has already seen what tucker carmson failed -- tucker carlson failed to show. windows being smashed in, officers being pushed and beaten and battered and pepper sprayed. the floor of the house and senate overrun by white sup prem sis -- supremacists in tactical gear. a gallows on the hill, a mob chanting hang mike pence. mr. president, i was here. with one locked door between me and the violent mob shouting kill the infidels. and when the dust settled, i walked with my colleagues through the halls littered with broken glass, the officers that had -- offices that had been ransacked and i stood here with my colleagues to cast the vote insurrectionists had stormed the building to stop. i will never forget that.

who could? and i will never forget and i will never let our country forget it either despite what fox news has done and is doing to try and rewrite this chapter of our nation's history. this is not houla legitimate mat news -- not how legitimate news agencies work. how are viewers supposed to trust them? how am i supposed to trust that they will represent my positions fairly? now, i will say, mr. president, there are reporters at fox who are committed to the basic principles of objective journalism and the truth and i respect them. and many reporters at local fox affiliates are doing their best to report the honest truth to viewers in my home state of washington and around the country. but you know what? even if i trust them to try and work in good faith, how do i trust they will not get overruled by the same executives who oversaw this election

disinformation operation? so, mr. president, i think it's important to say it's also worth noting that the lies about the election and insurrection may be the most egregious and dangerous examples right now, but there are many other ways the dishonesty at fox news is poisoning the debate for important conversations and debate. how are we supposed to debate climate change when half the conversation is fact-free denialism? how are we supposed to discuss public health when deadly vaccine misinformation is given, one of the world's biggest mega phones? here's the honest truth. public figures and other media outlets need to grapple with this. tucker carlson is determined to make sure fox news is not news at all. fox is a political vehicle for

robert murdoch and his right-waing causes. it is a -- right-wing causes. it is a political entity that will gladly push disinformation and lies if it means profits and political gain. let's just call it what it is. so until fox does a complete 180 to fix this, until tucker carlson apologizes and issued -- issues a comprehensive correction, until mr. murdoch and his executives stop with the lies and election conspiracy theories, and by the way, they'll have to give a real reason if we want them to believe it, until that happens, we should not pretend that murdoch and carlson are going to allow fox news to be news at all. i certainly won't. and i don't say this lightly, but i encourage my colleagues to do the same. mr. president, the essence of

our democracy is at stake because what i was reminded on january 6 is that democracy doesn't happen just because we have it. our democracy is only as strong as our commitment to it. we have to work for it. we have to make sure that it remains with us. and that, mr. president, is why i am on the floor speaking out today because, mr. president, i will fight for our democracy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from ohio. mr. brown: easy, mr. president. thank you. i first want to compliment the president pro tempore of the senate and her leadership for now 30-plus years and her courage. she saw january 6 more up close than most of us did. i believe you were with your husband in your office and heard those sounds and had those -- i

assume had those fears. i appreciate your courage then and how you've talked about it in specific terms and with your just genuineness really matters so thank you for that, patty. mr. president, we've spent the past month responding to two crises in the lives of ohioans, one in east palestine, a community on the pennsylvania border, a community that rail traffic runs through almost hourly, daily certainly and one to our banking system. i want to explore both. mr. president, they have -- what happened in east palestine in ohio and what happened on the far west coast of our country in the silicon valley in california have one thing in common. they both follow the wall street business model. obsessed with short-term profits at the expense of everything and everyone else. they were aided and abetted by corporate lobbyists and the

politicians that do their bidding. and, mr. president, a student of history is sitting in the presiding officer's chair, and we both know that much of the history of this country for the last 150 years, two of the most powerful lobbyists, two of the most -- two of the strongest, most aggressive, most involved companies -- the railroads and banks -- have far too often had their way. they've had their way with congress. they've had their way with regulators and always, always workers in new jersey and workers in ohio pay the price. these two -- these two industries -- railroads and banks -- aided and abetted by corporate lobbyists who do their bidding always, as i said, weakening rules to protect the people whom we are elected to serve. and now working people in ohio and around the country pay that price. the nation now knows, east palestine, a tight-knit community, about 5,000 people in a county of about 100,000 people

-- you can almost see the pennsylvania-ohio border. so senator casey has been very involved in this, too, with me, as has senator vance, the freshman republican member from ohio. east palestine is in columbiana county. in my lifetime -- a few decades ago, but in my lifetime, columbiana county manufactured at least 80% -- more than 80% of the cook ware of the ceramics in this country, plates and glasses and all of a sudden of those kinds of things. 80% was made in in that one little county in ohio. when i was there -- i have a been there a number of times, i am going back next tuesday -- i talked to the sheriff on my last visit there. he said the last pottery closed just two or three weeks ago. they now slings make zero percent of the cook ware now. when i was a student at -- when

i was in junior high at johnny appleseed jr. high, that was really its name, i went to school with the autoworkers at general motors, steelworkers at empire, detroit. machinists at tapan stove, sheet metal workers and plumbers appeared pipe fitters and operating engineers. those jobs essentially disappeared because this congress and, mr. president, down the hall in the house of representatives, this senate and in house of representatives, aided ad abetted by presidents from george bush sr. through clinton through george bush jr. through obama through trump, every one of those presidents sold us out, sold our manufacturing workers out because corporations lobbied congress for trade agreements that made it easier for them to shut down production in mansfield, ohio and toledo, ohio and youngstown and east

palestine, and move overseas so they could get cheap labor. that's what happened. at the same time, our country, our corporate executives that sold us out, our country built up china manufacturing, china industry so that now china's military is a threat to us, all because of corporate greed. well, and all because of this wall street business model. so back to east palestine, it's the kind of place that's too often forgotten or exploited or both by corporate america. now these ohioans, because of this train running off the tracks, because the $10 million-a-year salary of the ceo of norfolk southern, they cut more than a third of their workforce, they laid off. when you lay off a third of your workforce, and you are a railroad, what do you think happens? of course they compromised on safety, of course they didn't have enough workers inspectorring track. of course they weren't able to inspect ahead of time what

happened to those wheel bearings. and believe it or not, and i almost can't believe this but i have heard it enough times i know it is true -- the railroads want to be able under the law to have one operator on their trains. these railroads are 200 cars often. we had another derailment in springfield, ohio, since east palestine. more than 200 cars. they want to have only one operator. so you're going to have one engineer, one human being run a train with 200 cars. that's all driven by corporate greed, it's driven by let's lay off workers so we can report to wall street that our stock price went up, and then i get -- as a ceo, when i do stock buybacks, i get more money. so here's what happened. we know when the train ran the track in east palestine. it spewed these chemicals in the air. we know about this. it makes citizens wonder, is the water safe to drink, is the air

tsay safe to breathe, will -- what happens to the value of my home? all because of a train derailment caused by a corporate culture -- when i was in east palestine -- i am going again early next week -- when i was last there a woman in town who owns a small cattle farm four miles from farm, she sales half a beef every -- you know when -- every year or two a number of local clients, a number of local friends buy her beef and she said to me, she said, you know, since this derailment, i'm starting to get calls from my friends saying, is it safe to eat this beef? is it safe to eat this is now i don't know what to tell them. authorities don't know what to tell them. but you can bet, those buyers

are going to go somewhere else to buy this beef. they're not going to take the chance. so it is one thing after another. norfolk southern -- -- but again or, norfolk southern decided to make its corporate wealthier. it boosted its stock price by cutting corners on safety. so senator vance and i, a republican from ohio, i, a democrat from ohio, have come together to introduce our railway safety act to make trains safer as they go through communities like east palestine. we're working with senator cantwell, the chair of the commerce committee, to move this legislation forward quickly. we know already that -- we know the train companies, the railroads are already swapping in to lobby our recession, to say, oh, this is big government. you don't want these rules, you don't want these regulations. they want to have one engineer pertain. they don't want to tell the state of ohio when they bring hazardous material in. they don't want to pay for

training, hazmat workers, firefighters. in east palestine, one fire chief is paid, 22 firefighters are volunteers. they don't have the training, the equipment to fight these kind of hazardous material fires. so the railroads continue to fight against the rules. they have, unfortunately, too many people in this body who say, i'm against government regulations. i don't trust government. well, you shouldn't trust the railroads, for sure. so is, mr. president, that's what's happened in east palestine, ohio, when a company has that kind of influence over workers, over communities, over congress, and over the regulators in washington. it's the same story with silicon valley bank. let's scroll back a little. for as long as we've had big banks, they've had too much power. that's how we got the financial crisis in 2008 that permanently set back an entire generation of young americans.

but of course wall street didn't change its ways from 15 years ago. wall street banks spent the ensuing years lobbying to roll back the safeguards that congress passed in the wake of the banking crisis of 15 years ago. the now-defunct silicon valley bank spent hundreds of thousands of dollars pushing for exemptions for banks like theirs. the ceo -- i believe his name is gregg becker -- the ceo was here lobbying for weaker rules saying my bank is safe. i don't know -- i don't need any rules or regulations. well, kind of didn't work that way. he talked about the low-risk profile of our activities and business model. low-risk profiles is what he said. we know actually it had nothing to do with that. he wanted to maximize profit, risks be damned. look what happened. the paychecks of thousands of ohioans and people from new jersey and california and all were at stake last weekend because of the silicon valley

executives, because of their greed, because of their arrogance, and because of their incompetence. when we let executives in big corporations run the economy, workers and their families always, always pay the price. whether i.t. with the greed of -- whether it's the greed of silicon valley executives, whether it's the greed of norfolk southern, whether it is the greed of the big drug companies or big oil, or big farmer, all all of them, there is a pretty simple question at stake in everything we do. it's whose side are you on? do you stand with lobbyists oregon communities like east palestine? do you stand with venture cappists? do you stand with wall street or the workers? it is the same fight over and over. we know we need to respond to this latest in the long line of financial industry failures. we know we need to respond to this long line of abuses by the railroads in terms of safety. i hope my completion will put

partisanship aside and senator vance and i are doing on rail safety to stand with the people whom we serve. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from ohio.

mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative business and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for it up ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i understand there are three bills at the desk. i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk read the titles of the bills for the first time en bloc. the clerk: s. 870, a bill to amend the federal fire prevention and control act of 1974 and so forth. h.r. 502, an act to amend title 38 united states code to ensure that the secretary of veterans affairs repays members of the armed forces and so forth and for other purposes. h.r. 815, an act to amend title 38 united states code to make certain improvements related to the viability of veterans to receive reburdensome for emergency treatment furnished through the veterans community

care program and for other purposes. mr. brown: i now ask fora second reading and object to my own request, all en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be read a second time on the next legislative day. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned for a pro forma session with no business being conducted at 8:40 a.m. on friday, march 17 -- 8:45 a.m. on friday, march 17. when the senate adjourns on friday, it stand ajourneyed until 3:00 p.m. on tuesday, march 21. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate

resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 25, s. 316 postcloture. further, that the postcloture debate time on the motion to proceed be considered expired at 5:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: mr. president, if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of senator cantwell. the presiding officer: without objection. test.

test. they'd seen how dangerous

that in the text that experience with king george the third. in fact the specific charges against the king in our declaration of independence is so many know layout a long train of abuses by the when it came time to draftthe constitution of the united states , the framers had to strike a balance between getting the president the flexibility to respond to attacks and regarding his military adventurism so they gave congress, gave this body

the power to declare war. as of early presidents recognize the distinction between defenses military action over which the president has control. under article 2 of the constitution at offenses operations which must be approved by congress in advance fast-forward him this body was arguably it's important responsibility. i think the americans would be surprised to learn these authorizations for use of military for aumf's are still on the books. today these are in the words of my ...

abortion providers in seattle who told me about their growing fear and confusion among patients since roe loose been overturned. the medical director at a clinic told me in the past nine months it has become routine for patients to ask whether it's okay to even talk about abortions in the exam room. patients have been more hesitant to say where they live in fear of legal retaliation. mind you, this is in a state where the people in the state voted to have abortion rights protected in a vote in 1991. this assault on women's reproductive health is already having an impact on women, from even keeping them talking about their options with their health care providers. anti-abortion extremists are turning attention to medicaid abortion. the fda approved mifepristone that is safer in some people's minds, it says, as tylenol,

and today more than half of all abortions and the procedures in the united states, including 55% of those in the state of washington, are performed through this medication. so this drug is not only safe and legal to use, but it also makes the abortion more accessible. but we know that this access could be threatened through areas like telehealth, where a patient doesn't have to travel long distances to see a provider. the access is important for the planned parenthood clinics. the medical director of planned parenthood told me the story of a patient who traveled thousands of miles from her home state to washington to get abortion care. she couldn't afford a hotel room so she stayed with a friend and the patient had to take off time from work to help this trip. after all this effort the woman had a miscarriage while waiting in the waiting room. people shouldn't have to travel

all the way across the country just for the kind of health care they deserve. this is why the court case on medicaid abortion is so dangerous. should one judge in texas decide to overturn the fda's approval of the safe drug more than two decades ago, it would effectively ban the drug on a nationwide basis. the kind of things that are already happening to intimidate or not provide this in the pharmacies in our state is alarming. this ruling would mean that in every state, including those like mine who have already expressed their opinion with a codification of roe v. wade, could have some of their health care denied. the ruling would mean that in washington state where abortion is expressly been under our state law for 30 years, a person who needs or elects to terminate their pregnancy could no longer safely do it at their home if they can't get access to this drug. so indeed we will continue to

fight for these issues. we want women in america to have access. this judge's decision in texas could cost people in our state. it could cost them time to travel, it costs the time of health care, and certainly we're seeing an uptick in the number of people coming to washington to get access to care. we're also seeing people upping the ante in places like spokane where trying to publicly humiliate people coming to clinics by protesting. this is not a way to run health care, and we can't have a judge in texas deciding what fda and scientists nearly a quarter of a century ago said was a safe procedure. we know that this depriving women, even in states where the rights are guaranteed, it is impacting their access to safe and legal abortions. there is a reason why we have an fda and the science, and they continue to -- we need to

continue to listen to them. let's be clear, we're not going to let a decision like this go unchallenged. people will not stop getting pregnant. and if this one judge decides to substitute his opinion for the fda's, women will continue to look for this drug, and they will look for safe options. i hope that we, mr. president, can continue to educate people on how this is affecting people in states that are already voted by law to protect a woman's right to choose. this is eroding our rights. it's impacting our providers. and it is basically telling young women we're not sure if you're going to able to get access to this drug. i hope the courts will not go down this errant path, and i hope that we here will get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote with us to clarify and protect a woman's right to choose at a federal level. i thank the president, and i

yield the floor. the presiding officer: the united states senate stands adjourned until 8:45 a.m. >> american history tv, .

exploring the events that tell the american story. the calvin coolidge presidential foundation and library of congress marked the centennial of the 30th presidents as ascension to the office after a war in the hardings sudden-death . here are discussions about coolidge's development and legacy . with keynote address mike pence and 8 pm on lectures in history west virginia university professor william gordy talks about the formation of west virginiaand its entry into the union during the civil war . exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturday on c-span2 and find a fu schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org. >> we are funded by these

television companies and more including comcast . >> comcast is partnering with 1000 committee centers to create wi-fi enabled lists soaked children from low income families can get the skills they needo be ready for anything . comcast supports c-span2 as a public service with these other televisionproviders giving you a front row seat to democracy . >> now to a discussion on aviation safety which features transportation secretary pete buttigieg, billy nolan and national transportation safety board chair for collins be highlighting near collisions on airport runways . >>