and we must take our country back in 2024 reelecting president donald j trump. [applause] and while i'm certainly honored to serve as house republican congress. >> we believe the last few minutes of these remarks from elise step on it to keep our 40 year commitment to coveringcongress . you can see the rest of this on c-span.org and we take you live to the senate where lawmakers are continuing to work on a bill to reveal testing authorizations forthe use of military force against iraq . i on c-span2.

>>

voice concerns about an issue i've been raising for years, protecting children and teens from online dangers. recently, much of that conversation has focused on the social media app tiktok. i want to be clear. tiktok poses serious and specific privacy problems. we're talking about a company that could expose americans' users, including young users' person and sensitive -- personal and sensitive information to the chinese government. the intelligence community has raised grave concerns that beijing could potentially influence millions of american tiktok users with the platt -- platform's algorithms, spread mall ware to our smrt phones,

force the company to amass troves of data on users and then demand that information be handed over to the chinese communist party. in other words, tiktok could collect your personal data without your consent and then target you with information that the chinese government wants you to see. or potentially even worse, monitor where you go and what you do. we already know that tiktok is currently on privacy probation with the federal trade commission consent decree. they had to pay a $5 million fine for violating the children's online privacy protection act. that's my law. we should listen to those warnings, and we should do our job to legislate and regulate in response to these warnings. i'm pleased to hear so much concern for the experiences of our young people on-line.

this is the kind of formidable bipartisan movement to rein the overreach of big tech that we have needed in this chamber three months ago when lobbyists flooded to the capitol to kill my children and teens online privacy and protection act, copper 2.020 raise the age to 18 in terms of the protection of their privacy. here's the reality. asserting that tiktok stands alone as to one platform that poses a serious surveillance threat to our nation's young people is deliberately missing the big tech forest for the tiktok trees. it is in this dark, dank forest where even more dangers lurk. tiktok needs to be regulated immediately. we can agree on that, but it is

absolutely not the only digital danger kids face today. there is no justification for starting and stopping there. because do you know who else is on privacy probation with the federal trade commission in addition to tiktok? youtube, google's video platform also violated my law. the federal trade commission fined it $170 million for invading kids under the age of 12 and their privacy, and that's just a slap on the wrist to google, $170 million. oh, and facebook, too. the federal trade commission fined facebook $5 billion for violating users' privacies protections. remember, tiktok was fined $5 million. facebook has been fined $5

billion for violating privacy in our country. so, yes, we do have to address the tiktok threat. but what we really need to do is to take on all of big tech with a set of commonsense protections to stop the tsunami of privacy invasions kids face today online. america's children and teens are literally dying because of the impacts of social media platforms, and we must save them from drowning. in other words, i agree with my colleagues. let's make sure kids are protected from chinese surveillance, but at the end of the day, our moral obligation is to protect our youngest people from an entire industry that poses a direct and existential threat to their generation's well-being. the centers for disease control and prevention just announced that one in three high school

girls in the united states of america had seriously considered suicide in the last year. one in three table girls -- teenage girls seriously considered suicide in the last year. and over half of all teen aij girls say they are, quote, consistently sad or hopeless. banning tiktok will not solve that problem. at least one in ten girls in the united states attempted suicide in the past year. can i say that again? one in ten girls in the united states attempted suicide last year. among lgbtq youth, the number was one in five attempted suicide in the past year. banning tiktok will not solve that problem. 32% of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their

bodies, instagram made them feel even worse. banning tiktok will not solve that problem. and do you know where that latest statistic comes from? instagram's parent company facebook. just remember about 22 million teens log on to instagram each and every day in america. our children, our teenagers, they're sick, and big tech is the parasite preying upon them every single day in our country. these aren't republican children. these aren't democratic children. these are america's children. and the truth is the myopic focus on a single app is a major missed opportunity. why would we act on only one company when we should and can act on all of these companies preying upon the children and

teenagers in our country as we debate here on the senate floor? taking on tiktok alone will not solve the sinister surveillance that kids and teens face online every single day. here's an example. let's say congress does ban tiktok in the united states or perhaps the federal government simply forces the app's chinese parent company to sell or to divest. would that stop china from tracking teens online? no, it wouldn't. we would still have no rules and no laws stopping the chinese government from simply buying sensitive information about young users which data brokers already traffic during their normal course of business in the united states of america. because right now, a 14-year-old girl with bulimia or anorexia in our country has zero privacy rights online.

are we going to do something about that? do we want to let that young girl continue to be made vulnerable by unscrupulous american or chinese companies? if we're going to debate this issue, let's talk about it. let's get right down to what this whole thing should be about. big tech should not control the agenda in terms of our protections for young teenage girls or boys in our nation. so he cannot tell that 14-year-old girl, instagram, snap chs chat or youtube you may not collect or sell my personal information. by the way, her parents can't tell those companies either. banning tiktok will not change that. beeningtiktok does not stop the chinese government or its partners from simply buying the data we're afraid the company will hand over willingly. is this threat somehow lessened

if it's a transaction or opposed -- a part of a takeover? of course not. here's the truth. right now an entire generation is growing up with some of the most powerful companies in history tracking, targeting and traumatizing them every single day in our country. big tech is knowingly and willfully fueling a youth mental health crisis in our nation. you don't have to take my word for it. listen to the president of the united states. listen to the surgeon general of the united states. listen to the academy of pediatrics in our country. experts all over our nation are drawing a straight line from big tech's business model to the devastating impacts on young americans' well-being. you know what will help solve this problem? data privacy protections for children and teenagers in our country. if we want to really deal with a

threat to our nation, when one in three teenage girls considered suicide last year, that's a threat to our nation. when one in ten teenage girls actually attempted suicide last year, that's a danger to our nation. and a lot of it is as a result of social media. let's get down to this issue. let's debate tiktok. let's debate all of it in terms of threats to our country because the data these tech companies collect about young users is the raw material, the inputs for powerful artificial intelligence systems. these algorithms take information about kids and teens and they use it to push toxic content to those young people that they know will grab their attention and keep them scrolling on the app so they can sell more ads and make more

money. and banning tiktok will not solve that problem. and on the topic of algorithms, if we're worried about the chinese government using tiktok's algorithm to influence our elections and our democracy, we should also be worrying about how china uses facebook and twitter and instagram and youtube as well to undermine our democracy. let's get at this. if we're going to debate all this, let's put it out here finally. let's just get big tech out of this debate and have a hundred senators talk about the real threats to teenagers, to our democracy. let's have that debate. we already saw russia manipulate facebook in 2016. if we want to protect democracy, let's do it for every single social media platform in our country. and young people are particularly vulnerable to big

tech's al go rhythmic -- algo rhythmic practices. that's why for more than a decade i've been introducing legislation to solve that problem. my update to the children's on-line protection act for kids under 12 and their parents online, we'll give them a bill of rights for kids 16 and under in our nation and the parents could just tell those companies stop tracking my child, stop tracking my 14-year-old girl, stop tracking my 15-year-old girl. if she goes online because she has bulimia or anorexia to get more information, you can't sell that information now to companies that are going to target that girl with more products or information when the patients are only talking to the family's physician. let's give those families some rights. let's stand up for those families against these tech companies who are monetizing the mental health of the children in our country.

to stop those companies from putting profits over people, over teenagers. we came very close to passing key provisions from that legislation at the end of last year. my bill almost made it. unfortunately industry lobbyists, they stood in our way. they made it impossible for it to pass because it destroys their business model of preying upon, making money off of young people in our nation. but we just can't be deterred. we have to be more determined than ever to get this done on behalf of the parents, the pediatricians, and young people who are demanding action. i know we can do it. and there are leaders in the house, in the senate, in both parties who want to get this done. so, yes, we must be clear-eyed about threats of chinese surveillance. yes, we must be clear-eyed about

tiktok's national security risks. and, yes, we must be clear-eyed about the unique threats to young people in our country who are on that app. but i would urge my colleagues, lift your gaze. take off your blinders. be honest about what legislative proposals to ban tiktok can and cannot accomplish on behalf of our youngest and most vulnerable in our country. our obligation in this moment is to end the sinister surveillance across all of the big tech behemoths that are fueling a mental health crisis in this country. tiktok poses a serious and unique problem, but we know the problem is much bigger and much more pernicious than just one single app, as bad as it is. we have a responsibility to take action, and i call on my colleagues to join in a

bipartisan fashion, as we debate tiktok, let's debate all of it. let's pass the bill that protects the imminent threat to the mental health of the children and teenagers in our country every single day. we want to talk about tiktok and its longer-term threats, let's talk about the threat right now. let's talk about how young people are being harmed. let's pass that legislation at the same time. that's going to be my goal as it unfolds. it is to have votes on the floor the senate on the protection of children and teenagers in our country, from chinese and american companies that are exploiting them every single day. i close was that -- i close with that number that i started with. one in three teenage girls in the united states contemplated suicide last year. one in 10 teenage girls attempted suicide last year.

we all know the role that social media is playing in this. this is our moment to take on this entire industry globally to make sure that we protect the most precious resource we have, to protect the future of our country, and that is young people. they may be only 20% of our population, but they're 100% of our future, and right now they're being exploited by a single industry. let's take on that industry. madam president, i yield back. mr. tillis: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you it madam president. i come to the floor today talk about the -- to talk about the situation at the border and to lend my voice to others that are going to speak about a border that needs to be secured. about three years ago we had about one half million illegal

crossings. two years ago we had 2 million illegal crossings. now we're hearing in another 12 months 0er in the last 12 months -- or in the last 12 months, almost 3 million illegal crossings. and it's likely to go higher. we have lost control of the border. so when you think what does it mean, because that's a great comment for somebody to make. but what does that really mean? when you get to that level of illegal crossings, you're inviting some of the most crossings that could possibly happen. now, let's keep in mind, there are a number of people that are escaping dangerous situations in their country of origin. there are people who probably rightfully should be in the united states or a safe country

because they're fleeing a situation in their country. think nicaragua, think ukraine. but we've reached a point to where we actually have a debate on the senate floor about whether or not we need borders at all, or we have other people that will just say build a wall. and, frankly, i think they're both wrong. i'm not here to talk about building a wall that's over a thousand miles long, that goes from the pacific ocean to the gulf. what i'm talking about is securing the border. and if you go down to the border, as i have, you would understand why there are simply certain sections that you need to secure. you need to secure it so that border security who has responsibility can have control. if they were all back on the line today and we had put together a viable border security strategy, they still couldn't do their job. but now with the numbers that we have coming across the border,

they're not on the front line. they're not interducting -- interdicting cartels. they're not arresting the sinaloa air force. we have engaged the border patrol officers in so many things that have nothing to do with securing the border that the cartels, one of the biggest ones, sinaloa, has what the border patrol call their air force. they've literally seen them get in ultra light planes with six or seven people flying drugs into the united states, dropping the payload and going back. they said that that's become a thing. it's not just an anecdote but another device that the sinaloa cartel is using. now, how could they pay for the ultra lights, or their air force? because they're making over $800 million a year in human trafficking. you don't cross the southern border without paying a toll, and that toll is paid to really

a whole -- played to really a whole global network of people that want to go to the united states. this is what it's going to take to get you here. they even advertise that they'll get you to the united states if you pay a toll. and that toll can a $5,000 if you're from a central american country to $50,000 or $60,000 if you're from china. and we've had thousands even from china, the latest report, and a huge increase. so the lack of border security, the lack of controlling the border is paying the very same cartels that are pumping our nation full of poison that we call fentanyl. it's very likely that that air force i talked about was dropping some sort of an opioid, and even more likely statistically since 80,000 people a year are dying from fentanyl overdoses that it was that poison. so we're allowing an unsecure

border to enrich the cartels so they can poison americans, 80,000 a year. that's not a number that's in dispute. so we have to secure the border. and i've said is it's not a 1,000-mile long wall. if you go to the border, it makes no sense to put at wall. but maybe you need technology there to know that people are going through that path. it's highly unlikely. but there are other areas -- and i'll use one -- the last visit to arizona was -- it's called the yuma sector, the western part of arizona headed to california. there is a gate there that's only about 12 feet wide. a little bit less wide than the dais down there that years ago had 8,000 illegal crossings. two years ago it had 200,000

illegal crossings through a gate like that not through a big, wide expanse of seven miles. but through a gate like that t and last year 300,000 illegal crossings. thousands of people from russia, thousands of people from china and a number of other countries are paying a toll to be delivered across the border, many of them flying to mexico city, get a transfer flight down to mexicali, take a cab down to the border and come across the border. as long as they pay the cartel a toll. we have lost control of the border. we have border patrol law enforcement officers that are baby sitting and in the bus business right now. we have less than half the people that are sworn to protect our southern border doing jobs that have nothing to do with what they swore an oath for. and we're turning a blind eye to the death and the destruction that's happening here in the united states and to all the people who are paying the toll and making the dangerous trek here to begin with.

so, madam president, you can't fix a problem until you know you have it, and our colleagues here in the senate need to recognize that the border is a problem. and people like me -- i don't come out here and do a fire and brimstone speech on i'm a republican, they're a democrat, we're good, they're bad. i have worked on the one hand several bipartisan bills that -- i have worked on several bipartisan bills that people can agree with the nature of the problem and solve it. and this is a problem that's having deadly consequences, and this administration, president biden has rolled back policies in his two years here who are making the problem worse. it's solvable but the members of the senate need to recognize we have a problem and the members of the senate on a bipartisan basis need to come up with the solution. thank you, madam president.

mr. hoeven: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. i rise today to join my he is schemed colleague from the state of north carolina to discuss the situation at the border. this is an ongoing crisis, and it needs to be addressed. our nation continues to face unprecedented crisis at the u.s.-mexican border and one that's due to the biden administration's policies, forward and simple. -- pure and simple. it is a function of the biden administration policies. it is amazing, we've had dhs secretary mayorkas in front of our committees, and we ask him, what are you doing to stem the flow of illegal immigration at the border, and he sits there and he tells us, oh, we have operational control. that's absolutely ridiculous. it's absolutely wrong. for fiscal year 2022, u.s.

customs and border protection, cbp, encountered almost 2.4 million individuals attempting to illegally cross the southern border. let's -- 2.4 million. crossing illegally. that's operational control? and for him to sit there and look at us and say, oh, yeah, we have control. 2.4 million last year crossing i will loo legally. -- illegally. that is an increase of 37% from fiscal year 2021 and a 419% increase -- four times as many -- as in 2020. additionally, since october cbp has reported that over one million individuals from over 140 different countries, from over 140 different countries, have been encountered attempting to illegally cross the southern border. just last week border patrol

chief raul ortiz told a house committee that the administration does not -- does not -- have operational control of the border. border patrol chief rule ortiz said that the administration does not have operational control of the border. we have to hold this administration accountable on both sides of the aisle. we have to hold this administration accountable for this border crisis. i've been down to the border on numerous occasions. i've visited del rio and eagle pass, el paso, mcalen and the -- mcallen and the rio grande valley, both at day and at night. and it is not just human trafficking, it is drug trafficking. that affects it ever state. that affects everybody in our

country. our border patrol antiquities continue to work to fulfill their mission of securing the border with the additional responsibility of trying to address this humanitarian crisis. from the officers and agents on the front lines do the best job they can with the way they're hamstrung, they face an impossible task, given the biden administration's actions to continue to allow this crisis to go on, and it's their policies that are allowing the crisis to continue. as a senator representing a northern border state, i am also concerned about the impact that this situation on the southern border has on our northern border as well in terms of security. the ongoing crisis at the southern border is creating significant challenges for northern border operations and security of our country. northern border personnel and resources continue to be exhausted because of the southern border crisis and pulling resources from the northern border to try to help at the southern border, and that is unacceptable.

we need to address the ongoing crisis at our southern border, and we need to make sure that our northern border is secure as well, and we need to not only have the resources there, we need to have a policy that actually works. we have great professionals, but they can't secure the border if the biden administration won't let them. border security is vital to our national security, and we need to secure our borders. president biden's actions have incentivized migrants to take the dangerous journey to the u.s. border, from 140-plus different countries. to address our nation's immigration crisis, we need to secure the border. that means finishing ■the border wall, reinstate key immigration policies, reinstate key immigration policies that were working to stop illegal immigration, and move towards a merit-based immigration system.

the administration needs to enforce our nation's immigration laws. they have the laws. they need to enforce them, resume construction of the border wall and ensure we haven't placed -- have in place the necessary infrastructure and technology to secure the border. it's their job. it's their job to protect this nation, and you've got to secure our border to protect this nation. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: thank you, madam president. mr. ricketts: my colleagues and i are here to raise again the ongoing crisis at the southern border. this is incredibly important to my constituents and should be important to the united states senate.

when i visited the border as a governor and again as a senator, every state is a border state. it's not just me saying that. that's because states across the country, including my own state of nebraska, are dealing with the consequences of this administration failing to secure our border. this crisis is a threat to all americans for many reasons. americans are being killed today because of what's going on at the border. the leading cause of death of americans age 18 to 45 in 20 and 21 was fentanyl overdose. a majority of those drugs are coming to this country from overseas. griffith was a 24-year-old single mom that died in nebraska. she died of a fentanyl overdose. she was out with friends and

took a pill she thought was percocet. it was laced with fentanyl. and that's what killed her. terran's youngest daughter was only six months old when this happened. now her two daughters are going to have to learn about their mom from pictures and from stories from family. i think we can all agree that fentanyl is a scourge on this country. from 2014 to 2019, fentanyl mostly entered this country from overseas, being shipped internationally from the people's republic of china. now it is being shipped from the prc to mexico. there it is manufactured in illegal labs and smuggled across our border. the chinese communist party and the mexican drug carlings -- cartels are taking advantage of the fact that we have a weak border to surge a flow of

illegal drugs, especially fentanyl, across our u.s. border. they have the blood of the americans who have died on their hands because of this, and we must hold them accountable. with border agents and local law enforcement overwhelmed by the surge of illegal immigration, it's easier than ever for these cartels to be able to bring fentanyl into the united states. because of this failed administration's policy, state law enforcement have been forced to step up. in my last two years of governor, when i was in nebraska, we saw what happened compared to 2020. the state patrol confiscated two times as much methamphetamine, three times as much fentanyl, and ten times as much cocaine. last year alone omaha's dea division seized -- i should say the dea division in omaha seized

4.7 million doses of fentanyl. this administration's abandonment of its responsibility is an outrage. it is endangering american lives each and every day. and yet the president has not shown he is serious about tackling this problem. his budget requested $535 million for border security technology, yet he wants to spend seven times that much, a whopping $3.9 billion, on the department of homeland security's climate resilience program. madam president -- sorry, mr. president now, these are misplaced priorities. i want to take care of the environment. we all do. i want us to be more resilient. but americans are dying right now because of fentanyl coming across our border. now the president may not be

serious about securing our border, but my colleagues and i are. when i was governor, i worked with my fellow governors to propose real solutions to this administration, and i'm eager to work with my colleagues here in the u.s. senate to do the same. if addressing this crisis isn't our job in the united states senate, i don't know what is. americans and nebraskans are on the line. we need to give the border patrol what they need to do to fully enforce our drugs and stop this influx of deadly drugs. our constituents are counting on us. we need to take action. i urge all my colleagues to work with our conference to pass serious solutions to tackle this problem. and with that, thank you, mr. president. i yield back.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: thousands of miles separate war saw, indiana from america's southern border. that distance doesn't mean events on our southern border don't affect hoosiers in war saw and communities across our state. last month i met with local law enforcement officials in the war saw area and i heard about police arriving in a family's home. both parents overdosed. one was unconscious. all had these terrible

experiences right in front of their kids. they told me about emergency calls, the voice on the other end crying that a child had gone into cardiac arrest. in these situations and too many others, they suspected the same source -- fentanyl. the fentanyl entering the united states through our southern border is hitting this northern indiana community hard. it's hitting all of our communities. the opioid epidemic -- and it is that -- is the worst drug crisis in america's history. and the decade between 1999 and 2020, it killed over 564,000 of our country men and women. the number of lives lost is so great, it brought america's life expectancy down to a 25-year low. and now because of fentanyl, this crisis is growing worse. two milligrams of this synthetic

opioid are enough to kill, and it's killing more young americans than cancer, more than car accidents, more than covid. there is enough of it reaching our country to kill every single american many times over. its point of origin is mexico, and its point of entry into america is our southern border. the same border that 4.9 million illegal immigrants have crossed since president biden took office. his administration argues that because large quantities of fentanyl have been seized at our official ports of entry, that the overdose epidemic is somehow unrelated to the broken border. but if we don't know who's crossing our border, how do we know what they're bringing across it? the tragedy is not just taking place on our side of that border. president biden's laks

immigration policy sends out a deadly welcome sign to migrants in search of opportunity. drawn to it, they fall in with or place their children in the hands of merciless human smugglers. they're packed into and suffocate in trucks. they attempt a treacherous crossing of the rio grande and end up swept away by its currents. the bodies of 890 migrants were discovered last year along the southern border. police on the american side are diverted from law enforcement while recovering the bodies. funeral homes in mexico don't have enough refrigerators to store them in. america is a welcoming country. it's also a country of laws. the two are not incompatible. and what good is a country without a border? you know, it's been said many

times, madam president, by many people, but i'll say it again. a nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation. we can secure our border. we can demand to know who and what is crossing it while also welcoming those who seek to start better lives in america legally. americans in places like warsaw, indiana are looking at this chaos on our southern border in anger, and they're looking to us right here in the united states senate for help. they're asking us to stop the flow of drugs, poisoning our people, to enforce our immigration laws, to build a border barrier, to reinstate the remain in mexico policy, to do whatever it takes to end this crisis, to do what the president and too many in his party will not. too much time and too many lives

have been lost, so let's not let the american people down. let's secure the border. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

>> i had the opportunity to speak with senator mcconnell.

he's in good spirits,doing well and anxious to get back here . this week we are talking about the 1991 in 2002 au and asked for authorization for the use of military force. there's legislation that would repeal both of those and while i personally think they serve an important legal and residential function when it comes to more diversity of opinion among republicans on this subject what we do is we got to have a strong national defense that and america's got to continue to provide leadership in the war on terror. the other thing we agree on is an important policy matter that we need to make sure we have a robust process. there are a number of amendments that close members on our side. issues around the aumf so i

hope will have a robust discussion around those issues. the foundation is being considered by committees, not on the floor off the floor this week and there are a number of our committees taking looks at various aspects of that one thing republicans agree on is the president's budget spends two months, taxes too much, harvesting must honor one's our most important priority which is national security. so our members will be that you are in a a very expensive way over the course of the next few weeks as a residence but is considered by also said the democrats who have been instead of attacking house republicans for not passing a budget had not put a budget together either and we welcome the opportunity they want to on the president's budget because the american people find out

once they do their going to a . >> what this president is doing to the united states is your personally back families are the stress at the foundation is in distress. he is bad and others online people are with basically the highest costs and expenses of living that they faced before. and when it comes to industries is restricted after in the last year or so that i have in two generations ago and the lighting budgets: is more of the same taxing, spending, borrowing last week was confirmed under joel weisman presidency is working families and is up 15 percent from here today office. so what we're seeing our

families paychecks being wiped out today. racine their retirement savings are being left out in the future. so we have numbers of the cabinet l at times this week trying to defend joe biden's bloated budget. we have the secretary of health and human services this morning and finance, see this afternoon in a foreign relations me. they are both executing programs for administration is radical and reckless class the yelling was here and she wrongly so this meeting so they was doing all he could. he he's not doing all he can feel the pain and problems and heartache facing american families of the democrats are gobbling down.

the taxes and the spending and joe biden and the democrats attachment the american people in terms of their votes, dreams and the pain and suffering under joel weisman's economy. >> in a world where we talk much about a number of our adversaries and significance to our country we need to recognize china is our number one class. the chinese communist party is everywhere if not just in the indo pacific region. it is in our own backyard and be seen as many examples. 1, the chinese have been purchasing valuable land across the united states of america have all the chinese bones farmlands, is nearly the size of my own seat i. that's all lots of land, folks.

number two the chinese are sending precursors to fentanyl into mexico so whether they are manufacturing is smiling it into the unitedstates for sending it into mexico and getting it over and over and more , they are in every community in the united states with their fentanyl. as well they are my data collected through progress and apps like tiktok but we need to be wary of what they're doing so where is affecting our community, our national security, whether it's acting our families and was to continue to fight against this chinese influence and will my colleagues will do the same this past weekend i joined

prison gulf of mexico to talk to the president of mexico lopez on the we had meeting with on sunday where the issues uses once well-being what other issues the relationships way that we can work together there asked you countries to life on several fronts certainly on the issue we were very frank with you about our concerns all the lanes about country people he would go directly and forcefully to the chinese government to try to stop the flow disrupt the flow of the precursor come into the port, into mexico across our killing in my case or on west virginia's last year alone is

we this was important statements by the president for all of us to work on issues my migration, title 42 will go away in may was going to the already chaotic border between the united states and mexico? how can we mexico, and mexico no boss we got into a lot of workforce issues and the human trafficking but again, we tried to be positive in terms of trying to find solutions rather than just possibly identify the problems we have in that we see at that border because they are massive. the other issue was theissue . to be on on shortening alive

our jobs back into the united states, certainlysuccumb . us mca was and signed by president trump and it is resulting in very good and positive economic impacts both in mexico and in this country and its canada is the partnership we see so i appreciate senator cornyn put the code altogether. it was very effective and i'd also like to give a good shout out to our incredible ambassador salazar in mexico. he's not only an excellent human being is just a fine public servant to really lead us i think to make some tremendous conversations and tremendous that would better be better understanding between the two countries . >> just this past week president biden demonstrated how far left he's willing to go. he vetoed a bipartisan bill

that would have protected montanans retirement savings just to satisfy the less agenda. this is an important issue to think about our seniors across america who worried about their retirement savings accounts and their iras to focus, the focus should be on increasing the return on investment not appeasing these far left fringe groups. it is about share holders when you invest in a company you want the highest return on that investment and not have love focus on high return being tainted by distractions of the est movement. and we're seeing how radical and far left this movement is. back home in montana can't believe you have people here in washington driven by this agreement a summation of the

far left coming for gas stoves, the president clamoring for grabbing guns. i was censored on my twitter account because of a beautiful hunting picture i had of my wife and myself and an antelope and now they're coming forretirement savings as well . these left radical women's are a threat to our way of life in places like montana. >> would you be comfortable being his 2024 nominee? >> hypothetical question that's a long ways off and we've got a number of candidates looking at, some are already in that race so i don't think it's in any republican's best interest right now to speculate about what might happen in the primary but i expect it will

be a very robustconversation . >> the house will consider this parental bill of rights i wonder if there's any effort in a budget or something like that as it seems to be important for republicans to try to give them something related to that. >> one thing i can tell you is our members are very interested in the role parents have in their children's education and upbringing and i think that issue has been raised and a lot of heavily democratic states and in fact governors, democrat legislators across this country who in many ways i think have undermined the rights of parents to put

their kids first and foremost when it comes to their education so i don't know what that looks like a parents bill of rights but my guess is we have some vehicle over here that is open to amendment. i wouldn't be surprised if we have members who want to address the issue, idon't know what that looks like on the hospital . i think the house

pgh ms. duckworth: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. pgh ms. duckworth: i ask unanimous consent that the without objection, be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. pgh ms. -- ms. duckworth: most people run from battle, but our service members run tiger woods it. they -- towards it.

they come home bearing the wounds of war, both visible and otherwise. they will always do their job defending our country no matter the sacrifice, so they deserve to know that they have the moral support and legal backing of this great nation, but for more than 20 years, washington has failed to give them that. one of congress's most solemn duties is deciding when and how we send americans into combat by debating and passing the authorization for use of military force. documents that set the legal framework for military action that are supposed to define the mission of our americans that we send downrange. but lately too many in these halls have shrugged off that duty, hiding behind outrageously outdated aumf's that were used to launch the gulf and iraq wars in 1991 and 2002. scared of the political risks that come with bringing these

wars back into the spotlight, staring down upcoming election days, congress has shirked its responsibility to our troops, stretching, skewing the original intent of these documents. and in doing so, we've left out troops without a clearly defined mission and now they face an increasing risk that a future commander in chief may improperly interpret the law to sthenld into armed conflicts that these aumf's were never intended to authorize. our troops deserve better than that. if we dallas to send our finest into battle, then we here in these halls need to debate and vote to do so based on current conditions. enough of being more worried about political consequences than about our troops in harm's way. and until we muster up the courage to ask and answer the tough questions that will actually tell our servicemembers what they are fighting for, we won't be living up to their sacrifices. instead we'll be leading them

into an endless loop refusing to even look for an off-ramp. look, i know guys and gals, buddies whom i served with in iraq would did six, seven rotations between iraq and afghanistan. they went in knowing that they probably would be back in a couple of years living the hardships of combat deployments over and over again, risking the unimaginable sun up and sundown, year in and year out, tour after tour, all because their country said that it needed them to. they deserve more from us than to be forced to wonder whether the same outdated aumf that has already sent them overseas half a dozen times will be misused once again to put them in harm's way without members of congress even having a conversation to decide whether such sacrifice is warranted. this shouldn't be hard. anyone who claims to mantle a

patriotism can't keep demanding sacrifices from our servicemembers while refusing to step up to our obligation, our responsibility to have a public debate and vote when we ask our troops to go into combat. are their lives not worth a vote? not even worthy of discussion? to me part of the problem lies in the grows disconnect between those who serve and those who oversee and those who serve on the hill. right now in washington we just don't have many members of congress with combat experience the way we did in the years after vietnam. the era when those returning from war would put down -- head to the capital to serve their country. the era when john mccain and john kerry would reach across the aisle to solve some of our nation's biggest problems because both of them were more concerned with doing right by the troops who protected us than brandishing partisan labels. but now far fewer veterans come

to washington and the divide has sharpened. with those sitting in hollowed houses of power ever more removed from those sent off to battle. well, i can tell you this. it's a whole lot easier to cover your eyes and avoid taking tough votes if you've never shed blood in the dust and grit and horror of a war zone. if you've never held your family close before heading off on yet another tour, kissing your loved ones for what you know could be the last time. but today there are just a handful of us in the senate who have been in combat. the same is true for our country at large as the same families keep volunteering to serve generation after generation. in vietnam because of the draft, a boy from rural missouri could have ended up fighting next to someone from the upper echelons of society. the rich could get out of service too. our former president's bone spurs prove that. but in that bygone era, service

touched nearly every corner of this country regardless of tax bracket or race or education. now it falls on to the shoulders of the same families to volunteer time and again or it gets foisted upon those who have fallen on hard times, service as a means of escaping poverty. so the gap widens with the jas majority of americans never having served and having little idea of what it's like other than what they see from hollywood. and so the disconnect yawns with its -- with it becoming even easier for most of us to live our lives blissfully detached from the nightmare's reality of war. we have to do more to bridge this divide. true patriotism isn't measured by how long of a standing ovation one gives the military on a single day in november on each and every year. real, lasting meaningful patriotism requires doing the hard work necessary to actually change our country, to make it a

better, fairer place where sacrifices aren't born by just a few but instead carried by all. our troops are willing to sacrifice anything, everything for their country. they fought for us time after time, tour after tour after tour. it's time that we fight for them, too. it's time that we repeal these decades old aumf's and start honoring our heroes in the way that they deserve showing just an ounce of the courage that they show over and over again. god bless our troops in harm's way. god bless our veterans. and always god bless the united states of america. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: >>.

[inaudible] okay, good afternoon everybody. and first i want to thank senators stabineau, warner and kelly for joining us and we passed our hundred 18 yards today though i feel very good about that. let me talk a little bit about banking. first, in regards to banking, i believe president biden and secretary yellen, chairman powell did a good job in quenching the contagion weall worry about but they have to stay vigilant and continue their hands on approach . there are currently many people on the table worth

considering but of course everyone will need bipartisan support to pass. raising the 250 thousand dollar fdic is a serious proposal and should be carefully studied. cost should be paid by the banks, not by the taxpayer and it's important because it will strengthen smaller banks and prevent depositors from putting their money into larger banks but on the other hand is a moral hazard which would have significant impacts on our economy in the long run so in short, this is not an easy question and will require careful consideration. but one thing is certain, a good part of this failure and there are other causes as well but a good part of the failure was regulatory and we need a much stronger regulatory regime. what we do not need is our house republicans sewing

chaos by threatening to call an absurd late linking the banking crisis to default, dangerously linking the banking crisis to default. what we need is called, stability, careful consideration of the facts undermining the full faith and credit of the us is never a good idea in the aftermath of a major bank collapse is supremely reckless. but that is precisely what some house republicans including the chairman of the house budget committee are doing right now. during the annual retreat the house budget committee chair and other republicans said now is quotes, the best time to double down on debt ceiling brinkmanship as news of svb's collapse remains at the front of mind. there threatening a global economic crisis over the deck limit at the same time we have this problem in the

banking industry and of course as we know they are still refusing to show the american people their plans. it's ridiculous, it's reckless. instead of making radical comments that threaten more financial turmoil republicans should work with democrats to make sure the default never happens, with brinksmanship, not with hostage taking. that means raising the debt ceiling with no strings attached. this is a big week for one of the biggest accomplishments of the last congress and perhaps of our generation, the chips in science. . >> quiet. thank you. >> the administration released a proposed rule to implement the chips national security guard rails insuring president she can't benefit from increased investment from project production in the us. when i crafted this bill i

worked to put in these guardrails to make certain that companies receiving chips incentives use that funding to expand auction in the us not in china. we wanted to make sure they got money from the government to build here they can use their access money to go build in china the guardrails are put on by commerce and treasury will have worked well. our very good and very strong and will work well. the organizations implementation of these guardrails will restrict the ccp access to cutting-edge technology and this week also included the recent guidance to implement the chips guide pc. we work hard to include these critical itc in the chips in science. and administrations with implementation of the itc is appreciated and will deliver on's of billions of dollars in microchip investments. even more is to come on further guidance are out programming, workforce and the release of applications for funds by commerce in the days ahead.

this is a good week for chips , for science, for american jobs. where working closely with the administration to implement this critical program without delay. it's too vital for our amenities and our future. were ahead. >> i'm going to make a few comments about the chips bill, thank you for your leadership on that legislation, senator stabineau and senator kelly will speak on the chips bill as well . we started this in june 2020 because we had seen particularly from the intelligence community and national security standpoint the slow you motion literally in 25+ years where america's position as a leading innovator and manufacturer of semiconductor chips, chips michael to any device that has an on and off switch have fallen from 37 percent of the

market down to about 12 percent. that same timeframe we seen dramatic increase in prc manufacturing and innovation of chips and we seen a migration of literally every cutting-edge check that our armed services and manufacturers all being made inside so the chips in science at wound its way through the process. i think it is safe to say without this legislation there would never have been another semi conductor manufacturing facility in america. now we had already half dozen such announcements may and many more. my last comment is this, that there were critical in the chips act to be supplemented by the investment tax credit and senator schumer to the leadership role on that. we now have the commerce department and others starting to put the guardrails in place to make sure these american dollars

don't end up benefiting additional expansion in china. it is so critically important we get the implementation of chips right. because i believe that that's a issue of national security going forward that goes well below tanks, gunships and planes. it includes who controls the semiconductor chips, was going to deal with artificial intelligence and synthetic biology advanced energy, all areas where i believe we with our allies are going to get to compete with a communist party in china that is extraordinarily aggressive and interesting and can steal. we put an end to that, the chips act is the first step down and were going to have to make other investments on cutting-edgetechnologies and with alternate over . >> thank you very much and i'm also excited to talk

about what we did in the chips and science act. i first want to back up though and say in total in the last two years with president biden's leadership our democratic majority in the senate as well as the democratic majority in the house we have been able to do extraordinary things in every part of people's lives to support this, to support children and families, to support seniors and people are now seeing thebenefits as these have been implemented . from more rural high-speed internet in our communities where we have more schools, medicine, small businesses we have farmers be to connect in a way that allows them to be more successful to the $35 on insulin, for our seniors and because of building the all of us pushing on the companies that make insulin we are now seeing that they are moving forward with a $35

or others as well, we're going to lack like that in to make sure they can go backwards on that but we are moving forward in so many ways . that affect people's lives and excitingly, we are bringing jobs home, that's really what the chips and science act is all about. it's exciting to see a new renaissance in american manufacturing , making things here . i remember during the auto rescue in the debate in 2009 republican colleagues say it doesn't matter whereit may . you can get cheap vehicle it doesn't matter where as made but it doesn't matter where it's made about jobs and it also matters every component part is made when we went into the pandemic over half of thechips with the on the sleepwear meeting one company in taiwan . the get those checks. that made a difference. it matters so it's exciting to see the vision the vision over all that we have a america, bringing jobs home investing in the future that includes the tax cuts not

just investment tax credits but we're now seeing you get a tax credit if you make it here. the production tax credit is what causes the patterns, the solar, the wind, the electric vehicles to be built in america so this is a vision that is working for people in our country and i'm very proud of all the component parts and where rebuilding the american semi conducting industry and as senator warner said we are focusing on americans national security. so this is a vision. there are a number of parts. it's working for people and we want to keep it going, investing in american families and america's future . >> thank you. let me talk a little bit about what this means for our economy and national

security. i want to elaborate on what senator schumer and senators warner said. great for our economy. it's going to help us grow our economy, strengthens our national security but what it does also is provides a lot of really good paying jobs that do not require a four-year degree. that's a big deal in the state of arizona. the tsmc investment in arizona, the recently announced will go from 12 billion to $40 billion creating thousands and thousands of good paying jobs you can actually raise a family on that do not require afour-year degree i want to let elaborate on these rs . senator schumer mentioned them and senator stabineau as well i believe because it's important to recognize this is not a blank check that any company isgetting . and the guardrails are

significant. first any company that gets more than $100,000 in federal support will be prohibited from building you new factories or making advanced micro's microchips in china for 10 years. that's significant. secondly the guardrails will also crackdown on expanding reduction capabilities of legacy chips in china to ensure no federal dollars are indirectly subsidizing an investment in china. lastly, these guardrails will prevent both companies and researchers from partnering with researchers in china or researchers who are funded by the chinese government. this will help and make sure that american innovation is not

round. it was in the kitchens of the school. it was in the air ducts. and where did it come from? how did radioactive material get into an elementary school in the st. louis area? work the answer is, it came from the federal government. met me tell you just a little -- let me tell you just a little story about the hazelwood school district and about floricent. it dates about a being to the 1940's when the united states government used a sight for the manhattan project. when that project wrapped up in the late 1940's, the federal government collected the radioactive waste and transferred it out of the area -- no, just to the site of the st. louis airport -- and there it sat for decades. and by sat, i mean it leached

into the air, it leached into the soil, it leached into the groundwater. and so what happened? over the course of 25 years on the one hand more, this radioactive material got into the water of a creek called coldwater creek. it's been tested many times, radioactive material found there numerous times. and where does that creek go? through numerous communities but also right by jana elementary school, right along the school grounds, right along the provided. a creek that is known to the united states government to be contaminated with radioactive material that the united states government allowed to be put into the water. this last fall the school board, quite reasonably, took the step of saying, hold on. we know that it's in the water. we no that this creek goes right by the provided of this school,

within a thousand feet of the school itself. maybe we ought to test the building just to see if our kids are safe. and so they did. now, the u.s. government would not do it i'd like to point out. it wasn't the government that tested the building. the school board paid for it itself. the parents had to demand it. they went and got a third party to go and test the building. and what did they find? that this radioactive contamination wasn't just in the water, it wasn't just by the pretty good, it wasn't just -- by the playground, it was inside the building. it was in the dust that is in the building. that these schoolchildren, elementary kids, are going to and playing in the air that they are breathing in every single day. and so the school board didn't have any choice. they found radioactive contamination in their kids' building, shows they shut down the school. and they told the parents.

guess what? there's radioactive contamination in the building. what are we going to do? we're going to shut down the school. these are working people. these people are not sitting around all day. they're out there working jobs, some of them multiple jobs, some of them raising the kids 0en their own. so what do they hear in october? we're going to close your school. we're going to send your kids online for virtual learning. i remember one mother saying, there is no such thing as virtual learning. that just means that they're not learning. what are the parents supposed to do? they're working, trying to provide for their family. now you got the kids at home, not learning. what was the solution after that? to bus the kids to different schools all over the area. now they can't go to school in their own neighborhood. what's happened to the jana elementary building? it just sits there because what is the federal government that caused this contamination, what are they doing?

nothing. about all of this? nothing. no, nothing. the parents have gotten the run-around for months now from the federal government. when the reports came out that the building was contaminated, the parents and the school board asked the u.s. army corps of engineers, who are supposed to be in charge of cleaning up this site, they said would you test the building inside and see if you can verify these results. but the army corps said no, we can't. we don't have authorization. we can't do any further testing. then the parent and the school board asked the department of energy. they said would you test this site? would you see if you can verify the results? would you do something about it? and the department of energy said, you guessed it. they said, oa -- oh no, that's the army corps' problem. the parents of the school board is written to the army corps, they have written to the department of energy and both have pointed the finger at the other. it's not just the parents.

i've done the same. i sat at a hearing just a few weeks ago with the department of energy, deputy secretary. i said to him, sir, do you know about jana elementary in st. louis, missouri? he said he did. i said you know it's closed, don't you? he said he did. i said will you authorize testing and cleanup for this school? and his comment to me was that's really a comeart for the army corps. i said the army corps said it's your problem. ep said -- he said i don't understand their position on this. i don't understand this administration's position on any of it. so i'm on this floor today on behalf of of the parents of the school district says it is time to fix it. i've written to the president about this. i wrote to president biden after the energy secretary gave me the run around, and i said listen, it is time for this administration to step up. the army corps and the department of energy both work for the president. fix this.

direct them to get their act together. finish the testing and clean up this school site. that was two months ago. i haven't heard a thing. the parents haven't heard a thing. the school board hasn't heard a thing. what they're told is just wait just a little longer, just a little longer. we'll get it together. just wait a little more. do you know the residents of st. louis have been told to wait a little longer for four and five decade now. do you know what's happened in that time? they've seen their friends get cancer in their 30's and 40's. they've seen an explosion of auto immune diseases. why do you think thaz -- that is? do you think it may have something to do with radioactive contamination of water in the and in the air put there by the negligence of the united states government? do you think maybe that's why it is? do you think that these people should have to wait any longer? i don't. i've introduced legislation that

is very simple. we're not trying to to rewrite the u.s. code here. it's very simple. it gets justice for these kids. it would order the federal government to clean up the school. clean it up. if you -- if it can't be cleaned up, build a new one. just that simple. not complicated, not onerous, not overburdened with regulation. it gives relief. if the president won't act, we should act. congress should act. now let's just tell the truth here. these parents, these working people in this region of st. louis, they're not high-rolling donors. they don't give major money to the political parties. that doesn't mean they can be forgotten. you and i both know if this had been silicon valley bank, for heaven's sake the president would have flown in yeefer night to be there -- overnight to do

something about it while they get billions and billions and billions of dollars, the children and parents of jana elementary can't even get their school tested. they can't get a dime in remediation. mr. president, that is wrong. that is unjust, and we can do something about it. we can send a message that no matter who you are, no matter where you work, no matter how poor you may be, the united states senate will get something done for you. we ought to send that message today. we ought to send the message that we will not stand by while these kids are consigned to a second- and third-rate experience of education while these parents are told just wait a little longer while their school is infested with radioactive contamination. we should send the message we're going to do something about it. i'll tell you this. it's what i told the president. until he does something about it and until this body acts to get

justice for these kids, i'm going to hold every nomination to the department of energy, every single of them until we can get some justice done at jana elementary. and i will come to this floor as long as it takes until we get relief for these kids and for these parents at jana elementary. i will not allow their situation to be forgotten, and i will not be told on their behalf just wait another 50 years. they deserve justice today. and so i ask unanimous consent that the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of s. 418 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president.

i'm interested. senator hawley and i have discussed this issue just today. this is the first i've learned of it in the last 24 hours, and i was pleased to have a chance to discuss it with him. coincidentally, we are facing at the dover air force base, believed to be maybe the finest airlift base in the country, where we have literally thousands of people, uniformed personnel and probably another thousand civilian employees, and a bunchl of children who are involved in a school that is being rebuilt and replaced on the base. i explained to senator hawley, we face -- it's a little different from the one he is explaining, but one that reminds me that there are children lives, health at stake, and their future is maybe not in the balance, but it's a matter of concern. we are facing, as i said, a situation that reminds me a little bit of this in delaware in real time.

our school construction issue at the dover air force base and safety issues there that are related to it have led my staff, my delaware staff and me to work with the army corps of engineers in order to make sure that the issues that are particular to dover air force base and the school at the base, it's actually a replacement school, make sure that they are addressed. again, i'm more than just a little bit interested but concerned about the issues that are outlined here. my concern, with not spending more than a few minutes in the last eight hours trying to learn a little bit more about the issue here, is i've learned that the drafting of senator hawley's bill is confusing and raises some serious implementation concerns based on the initial feedback we received

from both the army corps of engineers and the u.s. department of energy, as well as from the initial read of the legislation from members of my staff. just a couple of points. first, the bill appears to overlap a number of authorities between these two agencies, and the drafting of the text is not clear on which agency should be responsible for the remediation or construction of a new school. second, the army corps of engineers is telling my staff that from all the testing done, the agency determined the school to be safe and the results have been corroborated by an independent third testing party. and having not been steeped in this for days or weeks, but really for minutes, i need this time, and i think my staff would appreciate some more time to work with the army corps of engineers and the department of energy to understand how we can help senator hawley's constituents, including the very young ones, that are involved in this.

with that, i'm going to object at this time to senator hawley's unanimous consent request in order to provide us with the time to work with the army corps of engineers and the department of energy on a solution for this problem that will lead to its resolution. and with that, i object. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, i appreciated senator carper's conversation with me earlier today where he committed to me that he wanted to work to get this resolution, to get this issue resolved and to get this situation for these parents and kids remedied so that they get the justice that they deserve. i just want to point out that senator carper may be the first person in the federal government that i've talked to in months on this issue who has actually said you know what? i think we can do something about it. so i hope that we can, senator. and i would just say to the army corps and to other, the department of energy and to others in the federal government

and the administration, who would say delay, delay, delay, the school is safe, the grounds are okay, take our word for it, the people of st. louis have taken your word for it for 50 years. this is where we are now. these kids deserve relief. no child should be told it's all right, there's a contaminated stream near your elementary school, it's okay. go ahead and play there. no way. and i say again just because these kids and parents aren't rich and wealthy and well connected does not mean that they can be ignored. so i will continue to come to this floor and to insist on votes on nominees until we can get something done. and i appreciate the goodwill of senator carper, and i look forward to working with him on this issue. i yield the floor. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, families and businesses across the country are worried about the safety and stability of our banking system. two weeks ago silicon valley bank, a bank that many people

had never heard of, rocketed from relative obscurity to infamy when it suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed. the bank which reported $212 billion in assets last quarter is now known as the biggest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis. it's the second largest bank failure in american history. the american people quickly learned that silicon valley bank had made some pretty risky investment decisions. when interest rates were hoe they purchased long-term treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities. the value of those investments tumbled. svb attempted to stop the bleeding by selling $21 billion worth of assets at a loss of

nearly $2 billion. well, it didn't take long for this entire house of cards to come tum being down when -- tumbling down. when customers learned about its financial troubles, it caused a run on deposits. of course, no bank can withstand a run on its deposits where people demand to get paid back immediately when many of the investment that were made are longer term investments. shortly after the silicon valley bank implosion, signature bank, a regional bank in new york, collapsed as well. and now major banks have pledged to help rescue first republic bank from potentially succumbing to the same fate. my assumption is this isn't done out of the goodness of their heart, but they realize that if this contagion continues to spread across the country it could imperil our entire economy. given the potential implications of this situation, the

administration and federal regulators quickly jumped into damage control mode. the federal deposit insurance corporation, otherwise known as fdic, qiskly announced that depos -- quickly announced that depos tors -- depos tores would have full access to funds, even above the insured deposits. of course, under existing law, fdic insures deposits only up to $250,000, but fdic quickly announced that that cap on insurance would be lifted. president biden also attempted to assure the american people that the banking system was safe. secretary yellen did the same. ins a speech yesterday, she said the u.s. banking system remains sound. but the truth of the matter is

it's impossible to make guarantees when you're dealing with something as uncertain as human behavior, and the wildfire-like spread of information across social media and elsewhere, where people can with a click of their phone withdraw all their deposits from an institution. so while these are hopeful statements by the president and secretary yellen, it doesn't guarantee anything. the health of the banking system doesn't just depend on objective measures of financial health, but also on public perception and public confidence. even a bank with a rock-solid financial ground wouldn't be able to withstand a run on deposits. that's not how the banking system is designed to operate. they have to keep a certain amount of reserves so they can respond quickly to a demand for deposits, but no bank is

prepared to pay all depositors 100% of what they have deposited, on demand. fears of contagion are very real in the banking industry, which is why everyone's eager to understand what went wrong. when it comes to silicon valley bank, which as one of my constituents described it, he said, oh, that's mark zuckerburg's bank. of course, it was guaranteed deposits above the insured amount. we need to make sure there's not cherry-picking when it comes to the policies that apply here, lest people think there's a double standard for example, if you were a bank in midland, texas, lending primarily to the oil and gas industry, do you think the fdic and the biden administration would step up and guarantee those deposits above the $250,000 mark? well, that's an unanswered

question, but there shouldn't be a double standard. the first problem, the problem really is it looks like there were multiple points of failure at silicon valley bank. first is with the bank's management, making these long-term investments in the face of rising interest rates because of the federal reserve's efforts to combat inflation, it's clear they failed to adjust their investment strategy to take into account the depreciation of the value of those longer term bonds. they either didn't recognize the impact rates had on its assets or they simply were negligent or willfully ignored the reality. i'm not sure what it was, but none of it was good. given the fact that the bank was without a chief risk officer for more than a year, it seems clear that risk management was not

silicon valley bank's top priority. in addition to the bank's failures there were also major regulatory failures. reports indicate that the federal reserve raised concerns about silicon valley bank's risk management multiple times over the past few years. the first red flag was raised in january of 2019, more than four years ago. once that happens, the fed is supposed to monitor the bank and ensure these problems are being addressed. we simply don't have information to confirm whether or not that happened, but based on where things stand now it seems like it did not happen. while svb executives and regulators carry some of the blame for the current banking system chaos, we cannot ignore the role played by the administration and by some of the policies that have been promoted by our colleagues on

the democratic side of the aisle. as our country battled the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis, our democratic colleagues alone, without any republican votes, appropriatated about $2.6 trillion more dollars, using the budget resolution that did not require any republican votes. it wasn't a bipartisan effort. this was strictly a spending spree by our democratic colleagues under the benign heading of american rescue plan and the inflation reduction act. $2.6 trillion. that was like gasoline on the inflation fire. republicans warned our colleagues that this kind of spending would lead to more problems than solutions. there were a lot of warnings about what impact this kind of spending would have after dealing with the covid crisis, what the impact would be on the

economy, particularly with constrained supply chains and a smaller workforce. putting that kind of financial stimulus into our economy was guaranteed to fan the flames of inflation. well, as i said, the first round was $1.9 trillion so-called american rescue plan, which our colleagues tried to brand as pandemic relief. but as the american people learned, less than 10% of that legislation was even remotely related to the pandemic, and the rest was exactly the type of things you'd expect to see in a bill that was supported only by our democratic colleagues. everything from funding for climate justice to back-door money for planned parenthood. leading economists warned at the time that this was not a recipe

for economic recovery, even larry summers cautioned that this package could, and i quote, set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation, closed quote. still, our colleagues couldn't be convinced to change course, show a little self-restraint, a little bit of prudence, a little bit of caution. they abused the rules of the senate to pass the partisan spending bill that, again, only depended on democratic votes. and, lo and behold, this is where we landed. our country has experienced inflation at a level we've not seen in 40 years. prices have skyrocketed for gas, groceries, housing, and just about everything else. for some reason, our colleagues did not connect the dots between this reckless spending spree on the growing strain on our economy or the impact on the

price of groceries or the price at the pump you pay for gasoline or diesel. rather than tap the brakes, they opted to put the pedal to the metal. well, the sect bill was even more absurdly named inflation reduction act, which all the outside studies showed would not reduce inflation anytime in the near term. our colleagues wanted the american people to forget the fact that unchecked spending would help usher in this terrible inflationary pressure, and somehow counterintuitively they seemed to think that even more spending would solve the problem. our colleagues' solution to inflation includedded handouts for wealthy people buying electric vehicles. why in the world would you pay rich people to buy an electric

vehicle, when most working families couldn't afford one? or handing out tax subsidies to rich people? and then there was the $80 billion supersizing of the irs. so it can squeeze every penny possible from working middle-class families and small businesses. this to me is just malpractice. we had the new irs commissioner in front of the finance committee, and we said when can we expect your plan on how to spend the $80 billion and this plan to hire 87,000 new irs agents? he said oh, it's coming. but our democratic friends got it backward. instead of saying here's the plan and how much does it cost to implement the plan, they said here's the money, you come up with the plan. only in washington, d.c. does

the world operate that way. but between those two bills, our colleagues spent roughly $2.6 trillion on a partisan spending spree, just as some economists, including democratic economists like larry summers, just like they predicted, these bills did nothing to reduce inflation. they made it worse. of course, we know that the federal reserve has the responsibility to try to address inflation. one of their few tools is to raise interest rates to slow the economy down, to increase unemployment, in order to bring that inflation down. higher borrowing costs slow down the economy and curb demand, but they also -- it requires the united states to pay our bond holders who purchase our debt

even more money for the debt we incur, now roughly around a trillion dollars in interest on a $31 trillion national debt. so over the last year, in order to combat inflation, the federal reserve hiked interest rates nine times. nine times. we witnessed the fastest series of rate increases since the early 1980's, but it still hasn't been enough to cool the red-hot inflation contributed to by our colleagues' reckless spending. well, i appreciate the administration's effort to stop the contagion from spreading, i'd like to see our colleagues acknowledge the circumstances that led us here. despite warnings of trillions of dollars in spending would lead to record inflation, our colleagues seemed to just run through that red light anyway.

as a result, this is something that, to be blunt, they own. ity driven up the -- it's driven up the cost of everything from basic expenses, like groceries and electricity. of course, there are the subsequent interest rate mikes, which made it more expensive to -- rate hikes, which made it more expensive to buy a house or borrow money to buy a car or finance a small business. that's the direct result of the inflationary pressures caused by excessive washington spending. again, like pouring gasoline on the fire. now we know this same inflation has contributed to the failure of banks like sick con -- like silicon valley bank. admittedly due in part to the mismanagement of the bank and

lack of appropriate supervision by reg raters -- regulators, but the reason silicon valley bank got in trouble is the value of trair treasury bonds where they invested some of their reserves kept going down because it's inversely proportional to interest rates. democrats kicked off an economic crisis. and now everybody is paying the price. i'd like to know, as they look back on it now, whether they think of it was worth it. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i just came from an appropriations subcommittee

hearing and our witness today was secretary janet yellen and i always love when secretary yellen it was because i learn -- testifies because i learn so much from her. today, among other subjects, we talked about the president's proposed budget. and i want to tell you some of the things i've learned today from secretary yellen about the president's proposed budget. the president's proposed budget is $6.9 trillion. that's up from $6.4 trillion. so it's a proposed half a trillion trillion dollar increase. i learned that since 2019 until

today, and not including the president's new spending -- i learned since 2019 until today the population in the united states has grown 1.8%. do you know how much our budget has increased? 55%. and that doesn't even count the additional half a trillion dollars worth of spending that the president has just proposed. i also learned that the president is proposing 4.7 trillion -- not billion -- $4.7 trillion in new taxes. it takes my breath away. $4.7 trillion. we're going to run out of digits. and i also learned something

else. you know, the president, and i say this gently and with respect, the president has been running all over hell and half of georgia saying my proposed budget decreases the deficit by $3 trillion. you probably heard him say it. i heard him say it the day before yesterday. my proposed budget will cut debt by $3 trillion. you know what i learned today about the president's proposed budget? under his proposed budget, gross debt, that's all of america's debt, not just debt held by the public, but gross debt, all of our debt will rise under president biden's budget from $32.7 trillion at the close of this year to $51 trillion by

2033. only in washington, d.c., only in lala land can you go around and say my budget reduces the deficit and debt by $3 trillion when it really increases it by $18 trillion. $18 trillion. i've also learned a lot this week about silicon valley bank. i think i spoke, mr. president, i don't know, a week, maybe ten days ago. gosh, we've learned a lot in a week. one of the things that we have learned is that the -- the failure of silicon valley bank and president biden's bailout of silicon valley bank was the result of bad management by the

bank officials, but also by bad supervision. i talked about a week or two ago about -- about the -- the risk that the management of silicon valley svb bank took. but today, this is what i learned this week, i want to talk about the -- the mistakes that were made by the federal government in supervising this bank. fact number one, it is a fact that in january of 2019 2019, te federal reserve, which is one of the banking regulators in charge of supervising the bank, issued a warning to the bank. this was four years ago -- over its risk management systems. four years ago the fed told

silicon valley bank that its system to control risk was not up to snuff. fact number two. last fall short sellers and private bank analysts said the same thing. what, five months ago? six months ago? fact number three. some of my colleagues have said, you know, we didn't have sufficient regulation. i don't know how you regulate greed. i don't know how you regulate stupidity, but i'm referring now to the management of silicon valley bank. but it wasn't a failure of regulation that caused silicon

valley bank to go under. it was the failure to enforce the rules that we already have. i just explained to you -- here's the article from "the wall street journal." the federal reserve, one of the banking regulators in charge of silicon valley bank knew in february -- i'm sorry, in january of 2019, the bank was criticized for its risk control practices. and they were supposed to correct those risk-control practices. why didn't the federal reserve follow up? i also learned some of my colleagues said, well, you know, this is all the fault of congress. it's the fault of congress because silicon valley bank was not subject to a stress test. we, as you know, democrats and republicans, supported an amendment to dodd-frank back in

2018 that some say prevented the bank from being stress tested. that's not true. the bill that we passed in 2018 said categorically and uneye equivocally, -- unequivocally, look at title 2, chament did -- chapter 2, 252.3. it said in our legislation that the federal reserve and the other banking regulators had the authority hat any time -- authority at any time to stress test silicon valley bank and they chose not to do it. now, the other part -- point, rather, being made by some of my colleagues is that, well, they weren't big enough to stress test. they had to be a hunld a hundren

dollars or more. that's not true. they were over a hundred billion-dollar bank at the end of 2022. so they did qualify to be stress tested in 2022. one of the other things we learned, mr. president, is that in 2022, the federal reserve stress tested 34 banks. silicon valley bank was not one of them, as i said. they could have been under -- under the rules they qualify. they were supposed to be. they were over a hundred billion dollars, even if they weren't, the federal reserve could have said we're going to stress test them anyway because of our legislation. because back in january of 2019, we were worried about their risk control. but for whatever reason we're going to find out the federal reserve chose not to stress test

them. the federal reserve issued a report on its stress test from 2022. here it is. if the federal reserve had stress tested silicon valley bank, silicon valley bank would have passed. it would have passed. you know why? because the -- the federal reserve in its stress testing in 2022 didn't stress test interest rate risks. they just stress tested credit risk. i just find that extraordinary. in 2022, we were -- we were experiencing raging inflation. the fed was raising interest rates. the fed understands that -- that when you hold a -- a long

government bond or a long treasury that its value decreases as interest rates go up, you would think that the first thing the federal reserve would stress test for was interest rate risk and duration risk, but it didn't. it didn't. and i am at a loss to understand it. mr. president, now the federal reserve has announced, i think the vice chairman of the federal reserve, mr. barr, announced he is going to be in charge of finding out what went wrong. mr. barr is a fine person and nothing i say today should be construed to suggest that he is not. but mr. barr has a conflict of interest. his own agency contributed to the downfall of silicon valley bank. it wasn't a question of something that congress did or

didn't do. under the regulations we passed, we put the federal reserve in charge of checking these banks for duration or interest rate risk, and the federal reserve chose not to do so. silicon valley bank is not the only one out there. and here's the problem with silicon valley bank. it took in a whole bunch of deposits from a bunch of venture capitalists and paid them, let's call it a -- an x amount of interest and then silicon valley bank took that money and invested the money in long-term government bonds and treasuries. as the federal reserve encouraged them. go read all of the federal reserve rules. they'll tell you, the safest

assets if you're a bank you can own are long-term securities issued by the federal federal government. treasuries an mortgage-back -- and mortgage-backed securities. so silicon valley bank did that. but as the federal reserve is also supposed to know, as is the management of the bank, these long-term bonds, government or otherwise, as interest rates rise, they fall in value. i mean, that's like banking 101. that's like econ 101. that's what happened to silicon valley bank. they took all of the deposits, paid x amount of interest and bought long-term government bonds, made interest, taking the profit, but they didn't account for interest rate risk. and sure enough, when the federal reserve, which is

supposed to be supervising the bank, raised interest rates, the value of those bonds and the values of those treasuries went down. andand so when all of these depositors in silicon valley decided to take their money out, they panicked. they all started talking to each other on social media and they started taking their money out because of the decrease of the treasuries and mortgage-backed security silicon valley bank didn't have the money to pay. let me end like i began. president biden's bailout was necessary stated -- was they s. tated -- necessitated by two things, the greed or stupidity of the management of this bank to buy long-term bonds,

government-backed or otherwise and not hedge against its interest rate risk and number two, the bank's failure was the result of inadequate supervision by the federal reserve and the other banking regulators in the -- and the biden administration. couldn't had nothing to do with it. our amendments to dodd-frank, which were approved by both republicans and democrats had nothing to do with it. thank you, mr. president. i -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

[background noises] afternoon, everybody. had the opportunity a number of my colleagues have speak with senator mcconnell. he's in good spirits doing well and just to get back here and we are anxious to have him back. this week we are talking about 1991 and 2002 ums authorizing use of military force. legislation would repeal both of

those and while i personally -- . the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, this past sunday marked the 20-year verse of the war in iraq -- 20-year anniversary of the war in iraq. i could not be prouder of our servicemembers who have bravely served overseas. i am committed to making sure we live up to our obligations to each and every one of them. but as i have said many times, this is a war i never thought we should have started. and it's one we clearly should have ended among -- long ago. so i come to the floor to urge my colleagues to commemorate the anniversary of this war by officially ending this badly outdated war authorization at long last. i urge them to join me in taking the long overdue step of reasserting congress' authority in decisions about war and peace by voting to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force.

because, mr. president, when we send people to war, it should be a decision, not a status quo. mr. president, the decision about whether or not to go to war and put servicemembers' lives at risk is the most serious and most consequential issues we can debate here in the united states senate. american lives, american security, america's future are all at stake when our country decides questions of war and peace. and when we first deliberated on whether to take action in iraq, i wanted to know with absolute confidence we had done our due diligence before moving forward with the weighty decision to send our men and women into a dangerous conflict. that is why all those years ago i came to the floor to debate the very resolution that gave president bush the authority he wanted to wage war in iraq. i wanted to know what our goals were, what our plan was, what a

victory and an exit strategy looked like, and what evidence we had that this was necessary. and i will tell you, after hearing all sides on whether to engage our military, one thing i still was not hearing was clear answers. i determined i could not support sending our men and women into harm's way on an ill-defined mission, a mission which ultimately cost us dearly in lives most importantly, but also in dollars and in our standing around the world. 20 years later, the mission in iraq is over, our troops have returned home, and iraq's government has evolved into a diplomatic partner. but those outdated legal authorizations remain on the books, leaving an open-ended basis for presidents to misuse our military power for political gain. and we have already seen how leaders can use them as a free pass to recklessly pass for the

misuse of military force. just through years ago, without consulting congress, former president trump ordered missile strikes in iraq against an iranian military leader which, among many things, jeopardized our relationships with key allies, risked the safety of u.s. servicemembers and civilians, and brought us perilously close to war. that's not how this should work. that is not how the constitution says it should work. our servicemembers deserve better than that. when and whether to engage in war is a choice that explicitly belongs to congress and to the american people. and if we don't assert that power, we risk leaving behind a dangerous precedent for the future. that is why i'm voting to repeal these authorizations. taking this step will make sure we're doing our part here in

congress to give questions of war the full consideration they deserve and make sure we're exhausting every diplomatic avenue before jumping into a full-blown war effort and putting servicemembers in harm's way. i saw the scars, physical and mental, that veterans like my dad took home from world war ii, that veterans like my peers took home from vietnam, that persistentst -- that veterans today have taken home from iraq. this is one of the most important votes we can make, so let's act like this. let's ensure every decision made to authorize the use of military force is reresponsible, is appropriate, and is constitutional. i hope that by repealing these outdated aumf's, we return to a place where congress and, by extension, the american people can have a serious debate and ultimately decide about whether or not we go to war.

it is long past time for congress to reassert its authority and oversight responsibility here, so i urge my colleagues to join me, senators kaine and young inest going this done. thank you -- in getting this done. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the song "free bird" by lynyrd skynyrd -- the presiding officer: the senate is? a quorum call. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized are. mr. lee: mr. president, the song "free birdings" by lynyrd skynyrd became an anthem. the music speaks to the right to experience the world and a simple truth that we're all connected. however, on october 25, 2021, the right to explore and experience the world was put on hold for many when the white house issued a proclamation suspending and limiting air travel by unvaccinated foreign travelers. this mandate leaf advise a if i can -- levies a particularly

heavy cost on american relationships. continuing this mandate at a time when president biden himself declared that the pandemic is over is unjustified and it ignores the new risk calculus that is affording americans a new sense of normalcy. you see, americans are ready to move on. and in fact in many instances they are moving on, and yet many are kept from doing so because of this policy. and others like it. right now foreign travelers, including family members, friends, business relationships, and even international sports stars are being kept off u.s. soil due to this draconian vaccine mandate. mr. president, there are too many places we've got to see, but if we stay here with this vaccine mandate, things just couldn't be the same. so in the spirit of freedom, in

the spirit of self-determination and sanity, i am here today to try to pass this, to try to seek to pass by unanimous consent the free bird act which will restore the right to explore and experience the world by allowing nonimmigrant, noncitizen travelers to be vaccinated only if they choose to do so. because this policy has separated loved ones for too long. it's time to end the covid-19 vaccination requirement for foreign visitors, prohibit using federal funds to carry out this requirement, and prevent the cdc from ordering future covid-19 mandates for foreign travelers. it's just costing too much. now, in 2021 alone, mr. president, utah visitors spent nearly $11 billion visiting our great state,

generating over 130,000 jobs and almost $2 billion in state and local tax revenue alone. a significant portion of that involves foreign travel, but international visitation rates are still lagging. by lifting this vaccine mandate, utah and the united states stand to benefit from increased international travel. our travel and tourism industry in the state of unfortunate dipped substantially after the pandemic hit us. it hit us hard. fortunately it's recovered very nicely but never recovered in the international travel sector tor -- to where it should be now due in significant part to this particular mandate and it's not right. it's not just costing us

tourism. it's costing us meaningful connections that enrich humanity. right now 22-time grand slam champion and top tennis competitor novak djokovic is missing the ongoing miami open due to the ongoing vaccine mandate still in effect. he missed the masters tournament in california for the same reason. the u.s. tennis association, which does not impose covid-19 restrictions of its own, expressed its hope that the policy will end. this is an excellent example of how the u.s. and americans in general miss out on relationships, business, and recreational opportunities. the u.s. is missing the action while djokovic continues to play

in countries that have ended their vaccine mandates, including in monoca, bosnia, and france. it's affecting his standing in world tennis competition. just as importantly, it's affecting americans' standing with the rest of the world. perhaps some think that the joke is on djokovic. the joke is not on djokovic. the joke is on us, the united states of america, if we leave this senseless, meaningless policy in place that does no good. it accomplishes nothing, but it inflicts great harm at the same time. right now we have the opportunity, a great opportunity, a prime opportunity to reverse course. today we can join the rest of the world, restore our personal

and business relationships, boost our tourism, and reengage in the competitive spirit that brings nations together. it's time, mr. president, to end this mandate. it's time to be free as a bird. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 14, h.r. 185. further that the lee substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: objection a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: reserving the right to object. mr. president, -- mr. president, first of all, i'm largely sympathetic to the

intent of this. i think all of us are exhausted by covid. fortunately we're really coming out of it. it's been exhausting. so i'm ultimately hopeful that the administration, when this public health emergency has ended, which we expect will be very, very soon, the vaccine mandate will go with it. secondly, i'm a big fan of lynyrd skynyrd, so that's a pretty persuasive argument, but i don't regard him as infallible. third, vermont is a tourist state as well. our skin is a little tougher for, you know, tougher folks. you've got that soft powder out there in utah, but tourism really matters to us. so the concerns that the senator from utah is expressing, i'm sympathetic with. let me state the reason for my objection. this public health emergency is going to end. the administration is actively

day in and day out in the process of taking the steps that are going to unwind this. my view is that this is an area where executive responsibility has to be carried out in an orderly way not just to address this question of ending the vaccine mandate, but there are other matters that are affected if this public health emergency is abruptly ended that may do harm to vermont. and let me just be very specific. the telehealth provisions that we're in legislation, that allowed us to get access to health care should not end when the public health emergency ends. the necessity of trying to make some adjustment for premium assistance for folks who are able to get access to health care -- and it's really made a difference for people in vermono

just go off the cliff. so these are all separate and distinct issues. but if we have a process where each legislator picks out an area within the public health emergency that he or she believes should be taken out, you're taking away the capacity for an orderly transition from the public health emergency to the postcovid non-public health emergency. as sympathetic as i am to the points that the senator from utah makes, including about the vaccine at this point, because of my concern about the collateral consequences of stripping the administration in effect of a capacity to have that orderly unwinding, i object. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i

appreciate the thoughtful words from my friend and colleague, the senator from vermont. i enjoy working with him on the judiciary committee, and i always appreciate his insights and the thoughtful, respectful manner in which he communicates his message. i do think it's significant to point out a couple of things in response to those arguments. i think it's unfortunate. we had an opportunity to end this today, and by ending it we could open up travel and tourism in a way that we haven't been. we could join the ranks of civilized nations of the world who have seen what a barbaric piece of nonsense this sort of restriction is. and we could do it right now. now my friend and colleague from vermont points out that it's important to remember that the public health emergency associated with the covid-19 pandemic is set to come to an end. i assume he's referring to the

may 11 deadline in which we're expecting for it to come to an end. i welcome that. i look forward to that coming to an end. it's right for it to come to an end. one must ask, however, why must we wait until then to bring it to an end. president biden has now long acknowledged that the emergent nature of the pandemic is itself over, is itself passed. but even if we weren't -- and i understand and respect concerns about not wanting to do things too abruptly that might affect, for example, telehealth. that's very important. that's why it's very important for me to point out here there's absolutely nothing in this bill that would affect in any way the practice of telehealth, not directly, not indirectly. nothing, nada. there is zero language in this amendment that would in any way affect telehealth.

nor is there anything in here that would affect the other programs, any of them that he mentioned. not one thing. this is laser focused on a single point of entry restriction on foreign visitors to the united states. that's it. nothing else is affected by it. so if what we're saying is we can't end any of this before we end all of the public health emergency, that makes no sense. it also makes no sense because as far as we can tell, there is absolutely nothing about the international travel restriction attached to this particular mandate that is tied to the public health emergency for the covid-19 pandemic. nothing. they are not tied together. so there's no reason at all for us to not pass this today, right now, at this moment. this has passed the house of representatives. we could make this law. we could make this law of the land by the end of the day today. the american people would be much better off for it.

who will be better off as a result of keeping it? it's a legitimate question to ask. who benefits from this? i struggle to imagine who really benefits from it. now maybe one or two federal bureaucrats save face over it because they put it in place. perhaps they've got some pride of authorship with it, they don't want it to end. well, i hate to break it to them. they're not lawmakers. they don't have the job of making law. we do. so if this stays on the book, again joke's on us. the joke is not on djokovic. it's on us. i really am trying to understand why we would want to wait until may 11 or any other date on which the federal pandemic emergency would come to an end. it makes no sense. to the degree that this involves an argument that i've heard time and time again when addressing covid issues from several of our colleagues that we've got to

defer to the experts, defer to the science used by the experts in our federal executive branch agencies, i would ask this. do you mean the same experts who told us that this virus came from bats and told anyone who doubted the idea that it came from bats that they were horrible people? do you mean the same experts that told the american people they couldn't let their little kid go to school? do you mean the same experts who told america that they had to mask their two-year olds, apparently unaware of the fact that two-year olds don't respond very well to any of that. it makes me wonder whether any of those people have ever raised or even been around an actual two-year-old. do you mean the same experts who told us that masks would make all the difference and if you were masked you would live, if you were unmasked you would die. do you mean the same experts who told us that if we got the vaccine we would not get or be able to spread covid-19? i can speak from personal

experience having had covid, veteran got vaccinated, then got it again, it didn't have that affect. and i know there are millions and millions of people like me who are in the same boat. do you mean the same experts who continue to this day to insist that everyone else follow the restrictions imposed by those experts who were not elected by the american people, not accountable to anyone who is elected by the american people? madam president, we've reached an epidemic in this country, an epidemic in which we've got government being run by experts. experts are great. i'm glad we have access to them. they are not lawmakers. my copy of the constitution in the very first operative provision, the first article, the first section, the first clause of the constitution says all legislative powers here granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives, making clear that if you want to make a federal law, you must go through congress, not through

an dispert in some -- expert in some be be executive branch agency. you can make a federal law if you pass it through the house and the senate and pass it to the president for acquiescence. if you don't follow that formula, you don't have a federal law. since the mid 1930's we've been on a bad trajectory, a bad course, a bad idea conceived in hell by the devil itself in which we start delegating lawmaking powers. we declare we should have -- we delegate to commission why the power to make and interpret and enforce and adjudicate laws, rules carrying the force of generally applicable federal law make it so. the power to make laws, to be a lawmaker is distinct from the power to make lawmakers. we are given by the constitution, the people who elected us the power to do the

former, not the latter. we make laws, not lawmakers. the only way these things were put in force to begin with was because we have excessively delegated our law-making powers. shame on us for doing that. it's remained in effect because the federal court system, in my view, while occasionally stepping in, has been a little too lax, a little too reluctant to push back when we delegate our law-making power which is itself a nondelegable duty. shame on them for doing that. but shame on us again for the fact that when we act, we delegate to somebody. somebody puts in place a ridiculous, indefensible set of policies, policies that would never pass this body, never become law here or in the house of representatives. why? because they're stupid. they're silly. they're ridiculous. they're counter productive.

a policy that we would never enact, and if we were stupid enough to enact it, we would repeal it. when it gets put in place by an unelected bureaucrat using a stretch, a stretched, distorted version of statutory text delegating them some other power, then we have to sit there and take it, the american people who we serve, who hired us to make laws, have to sit there and take it and we pretend sorry, there's nothing we can do. we've got to wait until the experts end this problem that they themselves created. madam president, this has got to stop. i'm not going away. this issue isn't going away. i don't want to wait until may 11. i don't want to wait until those bureaucrats hold their heads out of wherever their heads happen to be at the moment. this is -- this is not going away and i will be back. thank you, madam president.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i'd like to take a few minutes -- i don't know if we're going -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. thank you very much. i don't know where we're headed in terms of votes tonight, but let me tell you where we're

headed in terms of the -- the bill before the senate. i understand sdam is -- sadam is gone and the military force used in 2002, it makes sense to me, believe it or not, to revisit that. but what we need to do is make sure not to leave our troops exposed that are in the fight today. this is 2023. so senator schumer keeps talking about bush lied, people died. this is what i would say to my democratic colleagues and my republican colleagues. in 2002 we had troops there to make sure that isis doesn't come back. after obama pulled out of iraqi, the j.c. took over, mosul was

taken over and we finely regained control of iraqi. we put troops back in that should never have been taken out and we need those troops to stay in iraq to mick sure isis doesn't come back. when they had a foothold in iraq, isis directed attacks at the united states and our allies in europe and all hell broke loose. what i would want the body to understand, in 2023, americans are serving in iraq and we owe it to them to make sure that we can use whatever military force that is necessary to protect them against scheidt -- shiite s operating in iraq. 56 attacks against american as forces. they're trying to drive us out

of iraq. the shiite militias are operating all over the country. i have an amendment that is very simple. it would replace the 2002 awch with the following, an authorization to use military force to protect americans stationed in iraq against attacks by shiite militias in iraq. that is an ongoing problem. let's do not expose our troops to being attacked. let's don't continue the narrative that pulling out because you do so at your own peril. after the debacle in afghanistan, everybody is wondering about america's resolve. everybody talking about repealing the aumf because sadam is gone, i understand that to a point. but what i understand is the way

you've written this, the people in iraq today, the americans serving, we don't have their backs and we owe it to them that we have their backs. we have to let the iranian militias know that if you attack iraq, we're coming after you. for those who say the aumf confers too much power on a president, we need to take that authority back as a congress. here's what i say to you, do we owe it to those serving in iraq to have authority in congress that we will have your back if you are attacked by shiite militias operating in iraq. this is not about iraq. it's about iran. i cannot believe this body would not support an authorization to use military force to protect americans stationed in iraq who have been attacked over 56 56 ts in the last two years by shiite

militias operating in iraq. if we do that, shame on us. for those who say the president has article 2 authority, he can do this on his own. you can't have it both ways. is the goal to pull back power from the president or is the goal to say the president has whatever power he needs in iraq? what i want to do is be crystal clear. if the 2002 aumf is repealed, we have a whole in our defense. we do not have congressional response or statement about what to do to protect over 2000 americans serving in iraqi iraqo have been attacked 56 times. if you repeal the aumf, let's replace it to one tailored to the situation involving american forces being attacked by shiite militias in iraq to be unee

unequivocal to the shiite militias and others that you attack americans at your own peril. if you do not do that, you have exposed our troops and you have created a threat to those fighting the war we're in now. if you think that al qaeda has been defeated and they're not a threat to us and our partners in the middle east and europe, you're not following the news. the centcom commander said last week that isis-k, the isis organization in afghanistan has regenerated to the point within the next six months, they would have the ability to attack the united states without warning. and there are some amendments here to basically do away with the 2001 2001 2001 aumf that deh the attack on our nation. so whatever political points

you're trying to make about repealing the 2002 aumf, here's what i want you to understand, the way you are doing it is putting american lives at risk in iraq. if you can't muster the courage, the congress can't, to say to shiite militias you attack troops at your own peril, we have left those serving down and i am very, very intent using my voice in the senate to say that those who are in iraq who have been attacked continuously by shiite militias, i recognize the threat you face and i'm willing to do something about it. not to pass this amendment exposes those in theater in iraq to continual attack. it will emboldened the shiite militia because they will think we pulled the plug on the place. it will continue a narrative

that america has retreated in the war on terrorism and it will make every problem in afghanistan worse, and we have a chance to do something about it. please take that opportunity. if we pass this amendment, we can at least say the following, to those in iraqi, we did not abandon you, we did not forget about you. we said clearly, as a congress, that we have your back and we made the unequivocal statement to the shiite militias that are roaming around in iraq, you attack our people, we're coming after you. and if we don't do that, we are sending a terrible message to our enemies and letting those serving in iraq down. iraq is moving toward democracy slowly but surely, inefficiently at times, but 20 years later, there have been elections in iraq and we have americans

working in a dangerous neighborhood. for those wanting to repeal this aumf, you have ignored a major threat. you are creating a problem to troops in the field. i am here to point it out to you and i would love to work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that those who are left in iraq that are serving there to medication sure that isis doesn't come back -- to make sure that isis doesn't come back and are serving our interests in iraq, there will be the authorization to use military force to fight shiite militias in iraq who have been attacking our troops, and if we don't do this, we are sending the worst possible signals to our enemies, we're letting our troops down, and if there are further attacks, i told you so. because i know it's coming. let's live in the real word.

al qaeda is not defeated, isis is not defeated. they have been dealt a blow, but if we take our eye off the ball, they will come back here and the easiest targets are those on the front lines and a radical is ism that would kill us all if they could. i think the administration is right to keep that residual force in iraq as an insurance policy against the rise of isis. but you're wrong not having your voice lent to the cause that the authorization to use military force against shiite militias, that needs to be the law of the land. we owe it to those in iraq. it's not a hypothetical problem. 56 attacks in the last two years and if we pull the plug on the

aumf and iraq without dealing with -- without dealing with the shiite militia threat will send a horrible signal at the worse possible time. i urge a yes vote for this amendment to replace the 2002 aumf with a specific authorization to use military force against shiite militias that are attacking americans continuously in the last two years to protect those that are on the front lines of this fight. i urge a yes vote.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: today the senate debates removing the authority of the president to wage war in iraq. momentous as such debate might be, it is largely rendered symbolic by the fact that the war in iraq has been over for more than a decade. were this body serious about debating the authority of the president to wage war across africa and the middle east, we would today be repealing the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. presidential administrations of both parties have used the 9/11 authorization to justify war in over 20 countries, from afghanistan to libya to syria, to somalia to yemen. both parties have essentially argued that the 9/11 aumf has no

geographic limits at all. repealing the iraq war authorization will end no wars and save no lives. the bill before us ignores the pervasive, seemingly limitless 9/11 proclamation. and isand it seeks to repeal th1 and 2002 authorization to make war against iraq. a regime that no longer exists. we will repeal the one authorization they no longer use and leave the one in place that authorizes war everywhere all the time. the public is told to celebrate the boldness of the senate that will today end a war that has been over for over a decade while ignoring an authorization of war that is really the only pertinent current authorization. now, it is true that some

unreconstructed new conservatives still advocate for the 2002 authorization to make war against disam sadam's iraq,o scholars believe it has any resolution at all where the current iraq government is an ally of the united states. even more, some of these neocon throw backs argue that this somehow has something to do with awrdzing military force -- authorizing military force against iran. it's nonsensical. the very argument is so strained that ordinarily one wouldn't even bother countering such a frivolous case except for the fact that many senators insist on making it. we voted to go agt saddam's iraq.

the authorization means absolutely nothing and yet some people are arguing on the floor oh, we have to have this in case we want to attack iran. have they ever heard of coming back here and asking for permission? have they ever heard of saying we hold this power given to us by the constitution and that we should be the ones to bestow the declaration of war to the president. the 2002 aumf doesn't mention iran. president bush's march 2003 speech to the nation announcing his decision to invade iraq does not mention iran, and iran and iraq were enemies for over two decades prior to the invasion. in fact, the house report accompanying the 2002 aumf refers to iran but only as a victim of saddam hussein's aggression. nothing, absolutely nothing in the iraq war authorization justifies hostilities against iran. one would think that these brave

arm chair generals would relish the thought of actually debating a war and putting their vote, their imprimatur, their stamp of approval on their very own war and yet they want to leave it to a previous generation and have no debate should we decide that we need to go to war with iran. instead this plucky crowd of war advocates wants a permanent authorization of war. on the books so as not to be troubled with a teed yum of debating new wars or waiting possibly 24 hours for the consent of congress. it wasn't always so. while henry clay was not always the greatest opponent of war, he does find his voice when his son, henry jr. was killed in the unnecessary mexican american war. in the spring of 1884, after hearing of henry jr.'s death at the battle of boin visa, henry clay put into words what every

founding father had previously explained. he spoke these words in lexington, kentucky. a declaration of war is the highest and most awful exercise of sovereignty. the convention which framed our federal constitution had learned from the pages of history that it had been often and greatly abused. it had seemed that war had often been commenced amongst the most trifling of pretexts, that such a vast and tremendous power ought not to be confided to the perilous exercise of one single man. the convention therefore resolved to guard the war making power against these great abuses. whenever called upon to determine upon the solemn question of peace and war, congress must consider and deliberate and decide upon the motives, objects, and causes of the war. that was henry clay in 1844.

and yet today the best the present congress can muster is to propose to end a war that ended long ago. in fact, we were told precisely that it's okay to repeal this particular authorization because the president isn't really using it. if you ask president biden if we take away the 9/11 authorization, he'll say oh, no, we're still using that one in about 20 different countries. so we're going to repeal the one authorization he no longer cares about and we're going to leave in place one that virtually presidents of both parties has virtually said is unlimited in scope. that wasn't intended to be. if you read the authorization from 9/11, you'll find that it's very specific. but today don't worry that we might actually rein in presidential authority for war. don't wear that today's appeal will actually end any current war anywhere. don't worry. don't worry about continuing to

send our soldiers to the middle east. don't worry about continuing to send our soldiers to somalia and syria and iraq. the argument for repeal is that like most debates in congress, the victory will be peeric and ignored and war will go on. the armament industry spread throughout the united states will continue to prosper. don't worry. the vote today is easy. the vote today is mere symbolism. i will support that symbolism but i will not pretend that it is brave or meaningful or that one american soldier's life will be saved. i will support the symbolism because that is all the bravery that this particular senate considers to be possible. but i won't celebrate today's vote as anything more than symbolism. if there exists any desire to end america's forever wars, congress should today strike a blow for peace by repealing the

2001 authorization for war. after all, the 9/11 aumf never intended to authorize worldwide war all the time everywhere forever. the wording of the 9/11 aumf was debated in 2001, a generation ago, and was precisely worded to authorize the president to make war on those who attacked us on 9/11 and those who harbored them. not a word about making war on soargted forces -- associated forces. not a word about making war on their descendants. not a word about making worldwide war on religious extremism. but that's exactly what the 9/11, 2001, aumf has become. a catchall for permanent war everywhere all the time. so if anyone in the senate is really serious about regaining the power to declare war, about

informing presidents of both parties that the constitution exclusively gave the power to declare war to congress. i offered an amendment today that might actually bring an american soldier home, an amendment that might actually save an american soldier's life, an amendment that sends an actual signal to the president, the congressional authority and resolve actually lives and breathes and will resist presidential aggrandizement. some senators will argue that a vote to repeal the 9/11 military force proclamation for war, but they say well, we could do it but only if we simultaneously replace it with another sweeping transfer of war-making power to future presidents. really? is there not one defender of congress' exclusive power to

declare war? is there no one else who will reject the abdication of congress to constitutional responsibilities? is there not anyone who will defend the notion that absent a perpetual authorization for war, we could survive on just the constitution alone? for most of american history, for 225 years we lived without a perpetual authorization of war. we addressed it as it arose and congress voted. not a generation ago's congress, the people currently elected would debate on one of the most important debates we ever had whether to go to war. but most people here will say no, we need to keep a proclamation from 9/11 that has nothing to do with the world today and nothing to do with the war or the attack on 9/11. we need to keep it in place just in case so we can have troops everywhere. for most of our history, we survived without such a perpetual authorization. the republic survived under the

notion that america is reticent to make war. that we are a merchant nation conscious of the great prosperity, economic freedom has brought us and the world and also conshe's owe conscience of the devastation and brutality and despair of war but also quite outspoken in our history that america won't be trivled with, that once awakened, once attacked, america can and will bring that mighty economic engine to life, the engine that defeated hitler, the engine that defeated the japanese empire, and the engine that after 9/11 showed that america will not countenance for any reason an attack on our people. couldn't we live under the constitution again? couldn't we show the confidence in our people, in our congress, in our own individual self worth to let the world know that we don't want perpetual war, we don't want to be the policeman

of the -- policemen of the world, we don't want our army stationed across the globe. but provoke us, attack us, and you will discover that we cherish our freedom and will fight for it. that our fight will be a constitutional one. when america was attacked on pearl harbor -- at pearl harbor, the congress acted constitutionally within days to declare war. when america was attacked on 9/11, once again congress acted in a nearly unanimous fashion to declare war. couldn't we obey the constitution and declare war when necessary and not keep on the books a perpetual authorization of war? only by eliminating these perpetual authorizations for war will congress regain its constitutional prerogative to declare war. one generation should not bind another generation to war. the congress that voted for the war in 2001 is no longer constituted and many of those

members are no longer even living. many of our soldiers were not even born when congress authorized that war. so today i will offer the u.s. senate a chance to repeal the 9/11, 2001 authorization for war, to reclaim our constitutional power and send a message to the world that we are a nation of peace. that when provoked to war, the gentle giant that is america will respond lawfully according to the constitution, that when war is absolutely necessary, america will obey the constitution which requires us to debate and vote upon war and not hide beneath another generation's deliberations. today we should rise above symbolism and repeal the 9/11 authorization for war and show our respect for the constitution, our fealty to the rule of law, and our sincere desire that peace, not perpetual

war, be our legacy. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until may 5, 2023. andrew jeraki, nick searco, leon cheminev and henry beck. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i rise to speak to the amendments that we are considering on the effort to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force. as i have previously said, i

welcome a broader discussion on the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, but that is not before us today. following repeal of the 1991 and 2002 aumf's, i hope that we can engage in what will likely be a robust debate about what authorities the administration does need and what the scope potential lil of a replacement -- of a replacement aumf would be. as of yet we have not had that substantive discussion. and i don't believe it would be wise to repeal the 2001 aumf without engaging in that debate first, without having the hearing to understand what are the authorities the administration needs to continue to protect america. the details matter here. we just finished a hearing at the senate foreign relations committee with the secretary of state. he testified before the senate

foreign relations committee that the 2001 aumf is still a vital authority that is being relied on. so we may disagree with how the 2001 aumf has been maybe stretched by other executive branches and concerns as to how we will continue to use it, but an outright repeal with nothing to replace it, nothing to replace it is not a sound response and ensures our military has what it needs to execute missions and defense of u.s. interests. so i supported a debate to replace the 2001 aumf and to develop what should be the specifics of that replacement. but absent a framework to replace it with a new authority, how do we repeal it outright and leave the country naked. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the paul amendment. i see the distinguished leader

on the floor so i'll yield to him at this time. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: -- our chair of the senate foreign relations committee and our member of the committee, the senator from virginia, for the great work they have done. we are trying to be very fair in the amendment process. we are trying to allow amendments to occur. but we want to try to move the bill along as well and not just do things for dilatory or extraneous purposes. so i'm very glad we agreed on these three amendments and hope we can agree on a few more and get things done. i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the following amendments. paul number 2, graham number 14, lee number 22. that if offered the senate vote in the relation to the paul and graham amendments at 5:50 p.m. today with two minutes for debate equally divided between votes. further, that the senate vote in relation to the lee amendment at a time to be determined by the majority leader following

consultation with the republican leader with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption of the paul and lee amendments all without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from new jersey. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mend mends --. mr. menendez: madam president, let me continue. i should be relatively brief to get to the vote. i want to speak to senator graham's amendment. i share and appreciate senator graham's concern about the

iranian regime. indeed he and i have worked very closely on the issue of iranian threats. i've spent the better part of my career addressing iranian threats, it's nuclear program, support for global terrorism, it's destabilizing its neighborhood with proxies and interference and the threat that it poses to its own citizens. yet the question before us is not whether iran poses a threat to u.s. interest, but whether the 2002 aumf is necessary to counter those threats, and if there is already sufficient legal authority to respond to any such threat. and the answer is pretty clear. the president is clear in his view, one shared by every recent administration, that he has sufficient authority under article 2 to defend u.s. interests and personnel against iranian-backed militias. and indeed the administration has actually taken military action a number of times to

defend and protect our personnel against attacks from these groups and to deter future attacks. the fact is the 2002 aumf that we have been debating is superfluous to today's military efforts in the middle east. the administration has the authority it needs to address iranian threats to our people and our interests. now i thought this debate was about ending the authorization of use of force that already exists, that no longer needs to exist, and that should be closed, just as congress has the power and the responsibility to declare and to give the authorization of use of military force, it should also end it. that's what this discussion is about. that's what this debate is about. that's what these votes are about. not to create a new authorization for force. that's what senator graham's amendment would do. i think so would be a lot more robust debate as to how and when

and in what way we would give such authority. i would urge my colleague, as someone who has fought for the better part of these 25 years against iran, will take a back seat to no one as it relates to that fight, that in fact we oppose that amendment. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. senator -- hold on just a second. the senator from new jersey. mends mend i ask unanimous consent that --. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that my remarks appear uninterrupted in the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: madam president, i know we're about to begin the vote. the paul amendment is one that is based on a a sentiment that i think many of us agree with, that the 2001 authorization needs revision. he proposes to repeal it but not for six months, giving us time to do the revision. i would vote against it but

would look forward to working with him or others and the administration to find out what an appropriate revision would be. i don't think we should leave a gap. with respect to the graham amendment, my colleague is a good friend. the president has the ability to take action against iranian-backed militias in iraq. the president is doing that every day not based on the 2002 authorization. i agree with my colleague from new jersey. this is about ending a war authorization that's gone on for 20 years, not on the floor without committee action coming up with a new authorization against a new enemy. if we need to do that, we can discuss it in committee. but the good news is the president has article 2 power to defend against iranian-backed militias in iraq and is doing it every day. with that, i would urge a no vote on the the graham and paul amendments. mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i call up my amendment number 2 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment will be reported by number. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 2.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, --. mr. paul: madam president, i'd like to call up my amendment --. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i'd like to call up my amendment number 14 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. graham, proposes an amendment numbered 14. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the paul amendment. 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 yeas are 9. the nays are 86. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. could we have order in the chamber, please. please take your conversations out of the chamber. the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: this is to me very important. i hope to you. there have been 56 attacks against soldiers stationed in iraq, about 2000 by shiite militias in iraq. i can understand repealing the aumf because saddam is dead but those in iraq, american soldiers soldiers, are being attacked by

shiite militias in iraq. i'm asking the congress to tell the shiite pa alicias, you come after our troops, we're coming after you. now, article 2 power exists nebulously. the strongest we can be as a nation when the congress and the president speaks with a single voice. speak with this voice. to those who will kill americans in iraq, shiite militias, we're coming after you. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment is to create a new aumf that does not currently exist. the president has article 2 powers and we are defending against iranian-backed militias in iraq every day under article 2 we do not need this. that's why both the american legion and concerned veterans of america oppose graham 14. i urge a no vote. let's repeal the iraq war

authorization, not pass a new one. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 36. and the nays are 60. the amendment is not agreed to.

,

ms. klobuchar: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minute membership. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i rise in support of the legislation repealing the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force against iraq. i am pleased about the vote. i want to thank senator tim kaine and senator todd young for leading this bipartisan legislation, as well as chair bob menendez for moving this through the senate foreign relations committee. with this bill we are asserting congress' constitutional power to determine when to begin and end wars. these aumf's were passed 32 and 31 years ago, respectively. the gulf war ended in a matter of months, and the iraq war that began more than a decade later has been over for 12 years. it's time for congress to act.

open-ended aumf's serve no strategic purpose and undermine congress' authority to determine if and when to send our troops into battle, which is a major decision. -- that we should make. on top of that, they come with great risk. it is far too easy for for a presidential administration to treat anosmias blanket permission to enter into or stoke conflicts abroad. it the doesn't matter which party is in the white house. our constitution grants war powers to congress. we also must recognize that the situation on the ground has changed. iraq is now a sovereign democracy and america's strategic partner in the middle east. if we want to work with them to advance stability in the region -- and we should -- what kind of signal does it send to have our laws identify iraq as an an enemy nation? repealing the aumf's will not halt or military strategic operations in iraq and it will

not harm our national defense, but it will offer a measure of closure to the veterans and servicemembers who sacrificed so much on the battlefield. i'll not soon forget when i went to baghdad and fallujah and saw first senior senator hand the bravery and commitment of our troops. the minnesota soldiers i met over there this as i'm sure you, madam president, met with new hampshire soldiers, they never once complained about their missions. instead, they asked me to call their moms and dads at home to tell them they were okay. and not a day goes by that i don't think of that afternoon at the baghdad airport. by circumstances, we were getting on a plane. i saw a group standing. i went over there and there were members of the duluth national guard. they were there saluting as six caskets draped in american flags were loaded onto a plane to be flown home. our troops did their jobs and

more. let's do ours, and it is time to bring an end to the aumf's and end the war. so thank you very much, madam president. and i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minute membership. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, march 23. that 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 calendar number 25, s. 316. further, that at 11:30 a.m., the senate vote on the lee amendment, number 22, as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. klobuchar: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the lawmakers are working on a bill to repeal existing authorizations for the use of military force against iraq. earlier lawmakers to confirm gordon gallagher to use district court judge for colorado. insiders returned watch live coverage right here in cspan2.

lexi stands at washington journal every day we are taking your calls alive on the air on the news of the day and will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning the proposed parents bill of rights act with virginia republican bob good. the congressman delicious facing former president donald trump it x out policy reporter ashley gold previous testimony by tiktok ceo. testified by the house energy and commerce committee on the company's privacy and data practices. watch washington journal lime and >> easter thursday morning on c-span report on c-span now our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone call, facebook comments text messages and tweets. ♪ testifies for the house energy

and commerce committee on privacy and data security practices, the platform's impact on kids and the relationship with a chinese company started watching her life thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three-point c-span our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. thisear's grand prize winners student cam video contest eighth graders at doctor thinking junior middle school in germantown, maryland for their documentary was made dated data privacy in its world world prewash the grand price and all documentaries online@student cam.org. it's no british prime minister answering questions from members of the house of commons on a range of issues including trade agreement impacting northern ireland and the european union. seleucus and the prime