reliability, value and choice. now, more than ever, it all starts with great internet. >> wow. >> wow supports c-span, as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> and the senate's back this morning to continue debate on a bill to repeat the authorization for use of military force against iraq. senators have already begun the process of considering aamendments and today they'll vote on another offer by utah senator mike lee that would impose a two year limit on use of military force. other votes are also possible. we take you live now to the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, the reverend dr. barry black, will open the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, our refuge and strength. we thank you that you have set the star of hope in our life's sky, that in the darkness we can see your brightness, that in times of shadow we can enjoy yor guidance. lord, we confess today our deep inner need for a fresh inflow of your spirit. remind us daily that human flesh is as fleeting as fading flower. teach our lawmakers to number their days, to

labor not simply for time but fr eternity. lord, give them the wisdom to believe that nothing can separate them from your love. we pray in your loving name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 23, 2023. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael g.

warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved, morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 316 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 25, s. 316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against iraq.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: on the aumf, negotiations to reach a deal on aumf passage continue here in

the senate. we had a number of votes yesterday evening on republican amendments, and i expect we're going to see a few more later today. senate passage of aumf is now a matter of when, not if. and today we're going to continue working to make sure it happens as soon as we can. americans want to see an end to endless middle east wars. passing this aumf is a necessary step to putting these bitter conflicts squarely behind us. i i thank my colleagues for their work. i look forward to this bill's passage very soon. we are allowing amendments, but we shouldn't just be dilatory. we should move forward. maga extremism -- at the start of this congress, i urged republicans, in both the senate and house, to rid themselves of maga extremism and work with democrats for the good of the country and even for the good of their own party. we believe maga republicanism hurts their party, because so

many americans both sides of the aisle reject it. well, over three months later, republicans have failed in so many ways to abandon maga extremism. if anything, they have doubled down and embraced it even more tightly. again, to the detriment of the country and their party. if you just want to know how extreme the gop has become in the majority, look no further than what's happening on the house floor today and tomorrow. as early as this afternoon, house republicans will try resurrecting their doomed attempt to prevent retirement investors from considering governance esg factors when making investment decisions. republicans talk a lot about their love of free markets and letting the private sector do its work. but their obsession, obsession with eliminating esg would do the opposite. by turning esg into a dirty new little acronym, republicans are trying to force their own views down the throats of every

company and every investor. president biden has already vetoed this nakedly partisan measure, and it's clear the votes do not exist to override this veto in the house. won't even come close. it's bad enough house republicans are wasting time on showboats, but even more astonishing of that this showboat, of all things, is designed to restrict the private sector on purely ideological grounds. it's a sad sound how radicalized and divisive the gop has become over the past few years. but mr. president, that's not all. today's potential vote on the esg overried is the -- override is the appetizers. tomorrow's main course is more horrifying. as we speak, house republicans are considering a sweeping piece of legislation that would nationalize school policy, endanger billions in nutrition funding and accelerate the trend of book bans across the nation.

the house republicans' school control bill is orwellian to the core and will not see the light of day here in the senate. if passed, schools across the nation would be forced to adhere to a panoply of federal regulations that take power away from parents and school districts. let me repeat that. it would take power away from parents and school districts. away from educators and put it in the hand of elected politicians. again, the gop, that treasured small government, local control, is long since gone. replaced, once again, by hard-right maga ideologues. the bill could be devastating to our communities. according to one report from cbo, schools that fail to comply with these maga mandates would be excluded from child nutrition programs, impacting over nine million kids who rely on schools for their meals. that's it, punish the poor kids, make sure they don't have a

meal, if the school board doesn't comply with these extreme provisions. the gop would also expose school districts to even greater risks of book bannings, censorship and intimidation. last year alone, there were over 2500 book bans across the country, on titles that oftentimes aren't remotely offensive, but which still draw the ire of the hard right. one school librarian in pennsylvania, listen to this, it's crushing, was reportedly forced to remove a poster quoting holocaust survivor eli wiesel for violating district policy. what was the quote? quote, i sword never to be silent wherever and whenever human beings suffer humiliation. we must always take sides, neutrality helps the oppressor,

never the victim. silence hurts the tormenter, never the tormenter. that was removed. what is going on here? with the extreme right. they're just losing it. there's something deeply malicious going on when the hard right -- within the hard right, there's something deeply malicious going on within the hard right when even the quotes of holocaust survivors are seen as too woke or offensive. again, rather than abandon the maga hard right, the republican party as a whole seems to be doubling down. legislation, like the gop's radical school-control bill, would only make matters worse, and i will assure people, the american people, the schoolchildren, that this bill if passed will meet a dead end when it comes to the senate. timely objection -- finally on the budget, in the aftermath of major bank collapse, house republicans spent this week not

calling for calm, but sowing chaos. chaos seems to be their calling card. earlier this week, house gop members, including the chairman of the house budget committee, said now is, quote, the best time to double down on debt ceiling brinksmanship and hostage taking. they suggest absurdly that democrats and democratic policies are somehow to blame for what went wrong with silicon valley bank, and they're trying to arbitrarily link the bank's collapse with the debt ceiling debate. this is a stupendously bad idea. this is an idea that has no logic. has no linear thinking in it at all. it's just throwing things together, throwing spaghetti on the wall. threatening the full faith and credit of the united states is never appropriate, but at a time when markets require stability it's supremely reckless. republicans should remember that poor management and deregulation

under president trump made these bank collapses possible. it wasn't democratic policies. and i would remind my republican colleagues of this very important and telling fact. inflation and interest rates are impacting institutions everywhere, but the vast majority of banks that have been properly managed are not in crisis. so, the republican convoluted argument falls very, very flat. if this environment is so bad for banks, why aren't all banks affected? no, it's the few who are mismanaged. it's the few who are not regulated properly by the regulators. so to link the collapses with the debt seeing, to suggest that these incidents should justify even more brinksmanship and hostage taking is stunningly reckless. instead of trying to provoke financial catastrophe,

republican leaders should stop hiding from the american people, stop coming up with diversions and subterfuges and finally show us your plan. today is march 23. it's been long enough. i yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: >> there are so many things we can talk about that i don't have time for but right now, we are in a very important position in a very important time in history. and the parallels to 1959 when i go to poland they say it's hitler invading poland all over again. they have doubts with in their backyard, they remember the war crimes in ukraine.

i went to butch's you see the mass grave site and i went to kyiv and i will be going to asia. those two threats, the european theater liberated from tyranny, a strong supporter of freedom and democracy are now threat. now they want to change the map from what the greatest generation saw and we cannot allow that to happen. we're all americans. and i believe most in this committee agree with that. but i do have to point out my concerns i think we will have more time to address that.

i want to just close withthis . we had a marine sergeant vargas anders testified before this committee he had a suicide bomber in his sights before the bomb went off. he met with his team, met with his intelligence team describing the suicide bomber , got the identification, the science, they pushed it up the chain of command and the response was i do not have authority to engage. and the question was asked who has the authority. i don't know, i'll have to see. and guess what, nobody got the call. then hours later the bomb went off killing 15 service men and women, 140 afghan

he's. >> .. >> and i'll never forget giving her a hug and she said i'm that this tragedy could have been prevented, my daughter could still be alive today. but for the negligence of what happened in afghanistan that day. day. i do want to recognize her, christie, the mother of marine sergeant nicole g was killed.

she is in this room today. and let me just say to her and all the veterans of that conflict, you did not get wounded in vain, you did not die in vain. what you did was worth it. because you protected america for 20 years from attacks. i would ask christie, if you could stand so you can be recognized. now, i was told she was going to be here. there she is. [applause] >> let me just close by saying i

will not rest, christie, until we get answers, until people are held accountable for what happened to your daughter and the other servicemen and women and the afghans. i will not rest until we get answers. and we will come if we have to go all the way up the chain of command to do it. with that i now recognize the ranking member mr. risch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank again, begin by thanking sector lincoln for appearing to discuss the biden administration proposed international affairs budget for fiscal year 2024. let me also thank you, mr. secretary, for the house foreign affairs committee, for your focus on diplomacy. that's what this committee is all about, the arms committee deals with defense and dod.

and we know the significance and importance of diplomacy going alongside the defense department, with the defense department and what the state department of what we could discuss today has to do with the responsibility that the department of state has. and i am extremely glad to see that the administration's budget request prioritized diplomacy and development, ensuring that we have the tools necessary to lead on the global stage and leverage the united states soft power, soft power which better positions the united states to address global challenges, deepen our alliances, and advance our u.s. interests. the fact of the matter, mr. secretary, had not president

biden led when we talk about particularly ukraine, led by having our allies join with us, if we had jumped out there by ourselves putin would have been right. we would've been divided. nato would not be strong. the eu would not be where it is all working politically together to fight back m call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: this morning the u.s. trade representative is testifying before the finance committee on president biden's 2023 trade policy agenda and i look forward to asking her about the details of the biden administration's plan for farmers and ranchers and

businesses. trade has been a low priority on the president's list throughout the first two years of his administration. it took the president a year and a half to nominate a confirmable chief agricultural negotiator at the u.s. trade representatives office, even though agriculture is a u.s. industry that depends upon trade. and, mr. president, the president has deemphasized trade. he has really deemphasized trade. that is removing trade and tariff barriers and increasing market access for american producers. the administration is negotiating exactly zero comprehensive free trade agreements and it's so-called trade initiative frame works are largely flowery rhetoric with nothing in the way of tangible and durable benefits for american workers. tariff reduction and increased

market access, the hallmarks of free trade agreements are notably missing in action from the biden administration's trade initiatives. in fact, president biden's trade representative said that the indo-pacific framework, perhaps the president's signature trade initiative was designed not to include tariff reduction. so why is this a problem? well, first awful, mr. president, it's a problem -- first of all, mr. mr. president, it's a problem because trade is essential for our economy. more than one million jobs depend on trade, and that includes a lot of small business. 98% of the jobs are small businesses, a staff that includes many farmersed and ranch -- farmers an ranchers in south dakota and ignoring this puts those jobs in jeopardy. it is not just that our economy depends on trade, it is the

trade and the free trade characterized by no tariffs and fewer market barriers is a powerful engine of prosperity and economic growth. to name one example, u.s. farm and food product exports grew from $46.1 billion in 1994 to more than $1,777,000,000,000 in 2021. largely due to greater access opportunities for american exporters. free trade helps create economic prosperity. it opens new jobs and opportunities for american workers. and it helps grow u.s. businesses and by extension our economy. president biden has tended to deemphasize the economy for our american workers and sucts that trade and a -- and suts that trade are somehow in

competition. an increased trade actually helps domestic manufacturing. 60% of u.s. imports are intermediary goods in americans manufacturing. removing unnecessary barriers to trade and those goods would lower the prices for those materials which would help and not hurt manufacturing. and while we're talking about lowering prices, i should note expanding u.s. retrade would promote a lot of lower prices for a lot of the goods americans buy and that could help alleviate the current historic inflation crisis and improve the economic outlook for americans. while economic benefits are a leading reason to prioritize increased trade, they are far from the only reason. free trade agreements don't just provide an opportunity for economic growth. they also provide an opportunity to develop important strategic

relationships and foster ties with our allies. it doesn't just cement economic ties between countries, they cement friendships and provide an opportunity to advance priorities abroad, security priorities, economic priorities, diplomatic priorities and more. the president has deemphasized trade during the first two years of his administration. but while the u.s. has been inactive in the trade space, the rest of the world has not. for example, china recently joined the regional comprehensive economic partnership, a trade agreement that event eventually will elime more than 90% of commerce in 15-member countries. china is implementing a number mf new trade agreements to add to those of which it is currently a part. and china is far from the only country pushing ahead with free

trade agreements while the united states is sitting on the sidelines. we may be a world superpower, but we have just 14 free trade agreements currently in effect with 20 countries, meaning that many of our goods and services face significant tariff barriers in most places around the globe. now, by comparison, the european union has 46 trade agreements with 78 countries, meaning that european goods often have a leg up on the global stage. under the biden administration, the united states is getting left behind when it comes to global trade and if we don't meaningfully reenter the trade arena, we're going to slip further and further behind. mr. president, i believe that an excellent way to reenter the trade arena would be to conclude a free trade agreement with one of our closest friends and allies the united kingdom,

something that is long overdue. earlier this month i introduced a bipartisan bill with senator chris coons. it's called the undertaking negotiations on investment and trade for economic dynamism act or the united act. but the legislation designed to advance a free trade agreement with the united kingdom, our legislation would authorize the administration to conclude a trade agreement with the united kingdom to open export opportunities for businesses of all sizes, increase the resilience of critical supply chains and promote prosperity for both of our countries, at a time of financial turbulence, cementing our relationships with our allies should be a top priority. and an agreement with the united kingdom, our nation's fifth largest export market and our

largest services trading partner in the entire world would further strengthen the ties that bind your our two nations while resulting in economic gains for british and american citizens. important groundwork toward a comprehensive free trade agreement has already been laid, including the bilateral negotiations initiated by president trump and president biden's attempt to strengthen economic cooperation through the u.s.-u-u.k. dialogue and the windsor framework, which provides a pathway on post brexic trading, the time is right now. this would result in economic gains for both american and british citizens. mr. president, while the administration may have put trade at the bottom of its

priority list over the past two years, the president's' trade representative, katherine tai seems to have at least kept the door open to working on increased market access. that is tariff reduction and real trade agreements. for the sake of our country, i hope the administration will follow through. the biden administration may have gotten off to a very slow start on the trade front, but it is not too late to turn things around, and i strongly urge the president to turn his focus to a more ambitious trade agenda, one that will provide durable economic and security benefits to american workers and businesses and advance american leadership in the world. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> mr. chairman, thank you very, very much. can you, to ranking member meeks, all the members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the administration's proposed fy '24 budget for the state department and the agency for international development. let me say at the outset that i joined both of you, every member of this committee, in saluting

all of our veterans of afghanistan, saluting those who lost their lives, gave their lives so that their fellow citizens could enjoy a greater measure of security, and particularly the presence of sergeants mother here today. i am humbled in your presence. i think of the 13, i think of the americans lost their lives over 20 years in afghanistan serving and protecting our country. i think of the 20,000 plus wounded and i think of so many others who served and have injuries of a different kind, including members of my state department team here and i join you, mr. chairman. i join you, ranking member meeks. i think i turn every member of the committee being determined that we look not only look but draw the lessons from 20 years including the last year in

afghanistan. we do meet at an inflection point. the post-cold war world is over. there's an intense competition underway to determine what comes next. the united states has a positive vision for the future, a world that is free, open, secure and that is prosperous. the budget we put before you will in our judgment advance that vision and delivered on the issues that matter most to the american people. by preparing us to meet to make major sets of challenges that are distinct but also overlapping. the first set of pope our strategic competitors, the immediate acute threat posed by russia's autocracy and aggression most destructively through the reward of aggression against ukraine, , and the long-term challenge from the people's republic of china. the second set is posed by a series of the shared global tests including the climate crisis, migration, food and energy insecurity, pandemics, all of which directly impact the lives and livelihoods of americans and people around the

world. with this committee's leadership and support across to mcstay department authorization bill the united states is in a stronger geo-political bush and then we were two years ago to address these challenges. we have drawn enormous power from investments we've made an economic strength the of technological edge here at home including through the infrastructure investment and jobs are, chips and science act, the inflation reduction act. our unmatched network of allies and partnerships has grown stronger. fact they've never been stronger. we are expanding our presence in critical regions like the indo-pacific. we are leading unprecedented coalitions including the number of new ones to confront aggression and to address humidity in crisis around the world. with the president's budget request for the two department and usaid meet this moment head-on. the budget will sustain our security economic energy and humidity can support for ukraine to ensure that president putin's war remains a strategic failure. the budget will strengthen our -- to compete the prc.

president biden is firmly committed to advancing a free open indo-pacific which is why this proposal asks for an 18% increase in a budget for that reason over fy 23. budget contains both a discretionary and mandatory proposals for new innovative investment to outcompete china including white has a presence in ensuring what we and her fellow democracies have to offer including things like maritime security, disease surveillance, clean energy in for surgery, digital technology, is more than the alternative being proposed to them. budget will help us push back on advancing authoritarianism and democratic backsliding by strengthening democracies around the world including for supporting independent media, countering corruption, defending free and fair elections. and it will allow us to pay our contribution to international organizations because of the united states needs to be at the table wherever and whenever new international rules that affect the livelihoods of our people are debated and decided. the budget will allow us to continue leading the world and

some of these challenges in food and energy security to climate health crisis. on that last point where celebrating the 20th anniversary of that far. i think one of the greatest achievement in american foreign policy over the last decade -- pepfar. it's helped save 25 million lives around the world. this budget will help us continue to fight against hiv aids while advancing health security more broadly through a new bureau of global health security at diplomacy which a look forward to working with congress to establish this year. the budget will answer our efforts to modernize the state department including by expanding our training float, updating technology, carrying out diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility issues including to make overseas missions more accessible. i'm grateful for the progress we've made together including congress is supporting updating the secure embassy construction and counterterrorism act and accountability review board to give us more flexibility to open a new missions and to better manage the risks that our people face. we know there's more to do and we look forward to working with

congress and this committee to accelerate modernization efforts so that the department can better attract, retain, as well as support our first rate workforce as a advance our interests in what a very complex and fast moving world. finally the budget will further a personal pottery for me i know that is shared by the leadership and members of this committee, and that is supporting enduring welcome whole of government effort you resettle us get alis. keeping her promise to those who served the u.s. remains an unwavering priority for this budget will help us make good on that commitment. mr. chairman, when i begin the official i committed to working to really restore partnership between executive branch and congress when it comes to our foreign policymaking. i'm determined to continue to work with you and the ranking member and members of this committee to do that and i very much look forward to the postcard nation over the coming year. grateful for the chance to appear you before today and answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. let me say, we had a very

powerful, compelling hearing on the events in afghanistan at the end when the aggregate was compromised and a suicide bomber went off and people were killed. and i think the american people deserve answers. and they want people to be held accountable for that. we haven't had a public hearing specific on afghanistan until the one we had just two weeks ago. and where testimony that quite frankly i was not even aware of, that the suicide bomber was, that we had him in our sites. the sniper had him and decoded been taken out and the threat could've been eliminated, and lies could've been saved. this is why we have asked you

for documents. so i want to go through the document requests we have made on january 12 i sent to you this letter requesting documents related to the afghanistan withdrawal. we did not get that at the time did not get that production. so on january 302000, we requested three specific items to be delivered february 7. most importantly the dissent cable. as you know, 23 of our state department officials at the embassy in kabul took the extraordinary measure to raise their dissent to the policy that you and your administration were effectuating. i think the american people need to see this. we need to know what their

dissent was. why were they objecting to your policy in the failed withdrawal from afghanistan? sent another letter on march 3, and another one on march 20. in fact, chairman meeks requested this dissent cable. august 2021 letter, that again no response. yet, here we are today. i do, the other, the after action report, i want to thank you for that production and i know the ambassadors after action review is going to be presented in three weeks. but we need this dissent cable at a think the american people deserve to see at, to know what was, what in the world was going on in those critical weeks.

especially after the testimony of sergeant tyler andrus. he deserves to know. christie shamblin deserves to know what the dissent was. i have the subpoena. it's right here. and i prepared to serve this. now, we've had discussions and i think, you do, as a former federal prosecutor you want to work things out but when you can't, you have to go forward with a subpoena and arrest warrant and indictment. so i'm going to give you until the close of business on monday to produce that dissent cable to this committee and this congress so the american people can see

what the employees at the embassy in kabul were thinking about your policy that they dissented from. do you have in response? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and first, i want to make clear that we are working to provide all the information that this committee is looking for, and that its oversight responsibilities give it the authority to secure. as you noted we just produced the embassy action plan, thousands of pages that go along with that. we are committed to making available and sharing the substance of the after action review within the next three weeks. you were that from the white house. as dissent channel cable, i preach everything you're saying and let me put this very briefly and perspective for members of the committee who may not follow this. this tradition of having a

dissent channel is one that is cherished in the department and goes back decades. it's a unique way for anyone in the department to speak truth to power as they see it without fear or favor. and they do by the regulations we established for these cables in a privileged and confidential way. it is vital to me that we to suy colleagues to support s. 316. i congratulate and thank senator kaine and young for their leadership on this issue. it will give us an opportunity to finally repeal the 1991 and the 2002 authorization for the use of military force in regards to iraq. we are not at war with iraq, and we've seen, particularly with the use of the 2001 authorization for the use of military force which was centered on afghanistan, that

it can be used by administrations well beyond the intent of congress. so it's our congressional responsibility to remove these authorizations and to finally repeal them. i want to make it clear, i voted against both of the iraq authorizations when i was in the house of representatives in 1991 and 2002. the 2002 particularly was passed by false pretenses. it was passed because of the belief that iraq was involved in the attack on our country on september 11, when in fact they were not. it was based on the fact that this he had weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the u.s. that was also false. today we're there by the invitation of the government. there is no need for congress to authorize the use of military force in regards to iraq.

if there are any issues in regards to protecting u.s. interests that may fall within iraq, that would require the use of the president of military, he has that authority under article 2 of the constitution and he also has the authority given to him by the war powers act to utilize that process if, in fact, it is needed. it's congress' responsibility to declare war. clearly in the constitution of the united states. it's our responsibility to authorize when our men and women should be put in harm's way. we have a responsibility to make sure that the authorizations for the use of that force are in compliance with our security needs, and clearly we need to eliminate the authorizations that we passed in 1991 and 2002 and we're going to have the opportunity to do that. it's very important we pass those bills. it clearly, what i said earlier, could be used by a future administration, by a president

to go well beyond the intent of congress. maybe five, ten years from now, a creative use of that authorization could be used to introduce troops clearly against the intent of congress. now, why do i say that? because it's happened before. let me give you a case in point, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, which was passed shortly after the attack on our country on september 11, 2001, was aimed at going after the organizations in afghanistan that were part of responsible -- partly responsible for the attack on our country. let me, if i might, read into the record the 2001 authorization for the use ever military force, because i think members of the senate and certainly the public would be very surprised to see the specific language that was used in 2001 and how it's been

misused by four administrations. it states that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed and aided the terrorist attacks that occurs on september 11, 2001. that's the language of the aumf. and yet, we have seen that being used now by four presidents far beyond the intent of congress. they're using them in countries, against organizations that didn't even exist in 2001. it's been used in yemen and somalia, far from afghanistan. presidents have used the 2001 authorization in places and against organizations that we never imagined 22 years ago. now, i've heard some colleagues say well, these are affiliates of organizations that existed in 2001. well, the concept of affiliate is nowhere in the authorization

of the use of military force that congress passed. it was used by legal counsel and administrations to justify the use of force. it's our responsibility to give that authority, and we didn't, and yet presidents are using this to justify the use of force. presidents have used the 2001 authorizations in places and against organizations never imagined by congress. the notice under the war powers act has been given to over 20 countries, using the 2001 authorization. military activities have been used well beyond afghanistan, under that authority, in iraq, syria, libya, yemen, somalia, and niger. never intended by congress. congress needs to pass s. 316. let me make that clear. we need to get that bill passed to take off the books the iraq authorizations that we have.

and then we need to repeal and replace the 2001 aumf. it's our responsibility. president biden agrees. let me just quote from the president's statement in support of s. 316. he says, furthermore, president biden remains committed to working with congress to ensure that the outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting americans from the modern terrorist threats. towards that end, the administration wants to ensure congress has a clear and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action and of the threats facing u.s. forces, personnel, and interests around the world. chairman menendez and senator kaine indicated and understand we must first pass s. 316, then take up the 2001 authorization for repeal and replacement. i will introduce legislation in the very near future that does

exactly that, that gives us the opportunity to carry out our responsibilities. i've done this in previous congresses. it will sunset the 2001 authorization with enough lead time for the administration and congress to pass, as president biden has said, a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting americans from modern terrorist threats. that's our responsibility to do that. we must take action on all fronts. repeal the authorization that was passed in 1991 and 2002 related to iraq, then move with dispatch to repeal and replace the 2001 authorization aimed mainly towards afghanistan. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> devastating consequences and unhappy as well to layout in detail for members of this committee what wishes consequences being. >> thank you, mr. secretary. yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey am mr. smith. >> thank you very much, mr. cha. i have four questions. welcome to the committee. the zero draft w.h.o. pandemic treaty that the administration and others are pushing to get, put into effect at the w.h.o. starts off with a harsh criticism of the united states and international community by calling it a catastrophic failure of international, of the community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus pandemic. i have read the treaty. i'm concerned about it.

article four pays lip service to sovereignty fns language that says however, activities within their jurisdiction or control to not cause damage to their people's and countries so, therefore, w.h.o. would be empowered to step in. we're talking about a man who has been put into that position by the people's republic of china. he was their candidate and obviously showed terrible, terrible judgment in the beginning and even to this day in recognizing the origins of the w, of covid-19. article ten says that 20%, the united states would be obligated to provide 20% of her medical supplies including tests, antiviral vaccines and medications and the like to w.h.o. for them, they say we want it comes you have to give it i treaty obligation. the sovereignty issue is the biggest in my opinion. you are pushing for it. next year is probably when it

may get adopted. will it be sent to the senate for ratification or are you planning on using the executive agreement which i think that's a terrible way to do things. i do go to the senate for ratification. secondly yesterday i chaired a hearing on daniel ortega is ever worsening dictatorship in nicaragua. the dayof before, so two days a, a journalist alwyn jensen ficer:t objection. murphy thank you very much. later today, we'll vote on an amendment offered by -- mr. murphy: thank you very much. later today we'll vote on an amendment by by colleague, senator lee. this is an important amendment and debate for us to have. the question of how long authorizations of military force should last. we are able to have this amendment vote because of the great work that senator kaine and senator menendez have done to bring to an end

authorizations of military force that have been on the books for decades, authorizations of military force that most americans didn't even though existed. so first, i am grateful to my colleagues and to senator young as well for having brought us to this moment where we can make the collective decision, republicans and democrats, to take off of the books these expired authorization for the use of military forces that are dangerous, so long as they allow a president of the united states to pervert the original meaning of the authorization of force to go to war against saddam hussein in iraq for other means and mechanisms. i think this is really important, both spiritually to show that congress is till in the game of setting -- is still in the game of setting foreign policy, alongside the executive branch, but practically because we've seen these authorizations

occasionally picked up, unearthed from the grave and used to justify military action that can't find a justification in article 2 power or in other aumf's. so i couldn't be more supportive of the underlying measure. but senator lee is asking us to look prospectively and to take a step to not repeat the mistakes of the past. his amended would -- his amendment would subject every future authorization of military force, and we pass very few of them on this floor, would be limited to two years. full disclosure, i've introduced that legislation with senator lee. it's part of a broader piece of legislation that he and i have introduced to reform the war powers act, to reform our arm sales processes, and to reform a president's emergency powers, to

try to right-size the balance of authority between an outsized executive branch and i think an underwhelming legislative authority. i think senator lee's amendment is a good idea. the only reason i wouldn't support it is if it jeopardizes the underlying bill. but if it doesn't, then i'm going to support senator lee's amendment, in part because i've introduced legislation to do the same thing alongside him, but because i think it's time that we started putting this congress in the position to flex that muscle that is given to us in article 1, which is to be co-determinants of american foreign policy, alongside the executive branch. notwithstanding the good work of senator menendez and senator kaine, we have, over the course of the last several decades,

completely outsourced that responsibility to set the national security of this policy to the executive branch and national security apparatus inside the executive branch that has become bigger than the founding fathers' wildest dreams. there's a wonderful book by walter isakson, called "the wisemen." it's about the individuals who set up the post-world war ii order. it's also an interesting examination of how things used to be when congress was doing its job, regularly passing legislation, setting the parameters of american foreign policy. one of the most extraordinary stories told in "the wise men" is the story of robert love it everyone t, who at the time i believe -- robert lovett, at the time deputy or under secretary of defense, went on to become secretary of defense. on a regular basis, i believe it was multiple times a week, robert lovett, on his way home

from work, would stop and have a drink or dinner with arthur vandenberg, the then senate chairman chairman of the foreign relations committee. every single week, multiple times, the administration would send one of their most important policymakers to sit down with the chairman of the foreign relations committee to work together on setting american national security policy in the wake of world war ii. senator menendez is a very powerful chairman, but i don't think he gets that kind of deference from the administration, because the administration knows that they can make national security policy largely without or around the united states congress, because we have made a collective decision to outsource that responsibility. now that is convenient in a world in which our enemies are hard to define, they change names, be an era where victory s

just as hard to define. we don't have peace treaties anymore with our non-state actor enemies. we've been content to let the administration decide who we fight, when they fight them. we let the department of defense get so big, we barely track what they do. we don't even demand much information from them. i learned last week that the department of defense seized very little responsibility to engage members of congress when it comes to briefing us on contract award decisions despite the statute mandating that congress receive information when requested. there's just an imbalance of power and it is created by our decision to only have debates on

national security policy every long random, infrequent once in a while. senator lee's amendment says this. if you're going to pass an authorization of military force, every congress, you have to come back and debate that authorization of military force. when you're talking about our most sacred responsibility, putting the men and women who protect us in harm's way, i think we owe it to them, i think we owe it to our voters to make sure that those authorizations of military force are not being expanded or perverted beyond their initial scope. the 2001 aumf is still on the books. it's important because it's our sole authorization of military force against extremist groups. and let me tell you, i covered the middle east on the foreign relations committee, there are still groups there thinking about plotting attacks against

the united states. we need to ■chase them we need to keep them on the run. but the 2001 aumf has a scope and a size today that would be shocking to most americans. the 2001 aumf, which everybody at the time knew was about fighting al qaeda and those who harbored al qaeda, which at the time was a fight in afghanistan, has been used to justify air strikes and support for counterterrorism in afghanistan, iraqi, libya, pakistan, somalia, syria, yemen, cuba, cameroon, ethiopia, georgia, kenya,

kosovo, jordan, lebanon, nigh zeroa -- nigeria and turkey. i don't think anyone who voted for the 2001 aumf believed it was authorization for military force and counterterrorism operations in that many countries, and if we were required to come back and have the debate on the 2001 aumf or other aumf's, we would be able to check with our public, to check with the people we represent and see if they still believe it is necessary to send american forces that far and wide. maybe some of the most disooserus engagements in our history like the war in iraq would have come to a close if the congress had been required to debate that. and so i come to the floor to, frankly, thank senator lee for

bringing this piece of our bigger bill before the senate. i will certainly consider voting for it. i want to make sure it doesn't compromise the underlying legislation. these amendments are moving fast. but my last hope for our body is this, that this isn't the last time that we have a debate on this floor about the scope of american military operations abroad. we should repeal and rewrite the 2001 aumf. it is way too broad and cuts congress out of some of the most important decisions about where our troops fight. and that's a complicated endeavor, but i know senator menendez is committed to it. i know there are many republican colleagues committed to it, but i think history has shown that without a forcing mechanism, it's unlikely that congress is going to make those very difficult decisions, which is why a sunset on aumf's a worthy

idea of consideration. i yield the floor. mr. murphy: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorumquorum call: quorum call:

mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, we're abdicating our constitutional duty. sometimes we do this when we delegate lawmaking power to the executive branch. sometimes we do this when we shirk in our responsibility to declare war. today i want to focus on the latter. by passing my amendment, we have the opportunity to ensure that

all americans have a voice in matters of war and peace. for decades presidents of both parties have used authorizations for the use of military force to conduct military operations without meaningful oversight or accountability to congress. the founders jealously guarded war powers and the power to authorize military force. they understood what it meant to be subjected to an executive with unfettered military authority. and, indeed, this is one of the essential distinguishing characteristics between our system of government and that of england. prior to the american revolution, our founders became very familiar with the british system under which one person, the monarch, could take the entire country to war. it was up to parliament at that point to fund it and up to the

people to fight it, but one person could take the country to war. our founders understood this and they understood unchecked and unaccountable wielding of military force is the stuff of monarchs, dictators and tyrants, which is why the -- it was trusted only to the people's representatives in the branch most accountable to the people. throughout history, when kings waged war, testify the people who fought and died. one of the many things that makes our system of government unique was this principle, our founders enshrined into our constitution, that gave every american a voice when they were faced with the prospect of sending their sons and daughters to war. unfortunately, we strayed from our founding principles. my amendment, which can pass today, is a recognition that we,

as elected representatives, have a duty, an obligation to have the authority to declare war that rightfully belongs to the american people. my amendment does precisely that. it implements a two-year sunset for all future authorizations for the use of military force absent renewal by the congress. in no way would my amendment hinder i military plans or weakn the national security policy. to the contrary, it would induce a proactive approach rooted in the present day and time. it would reaffirm our resolve and strengthen our military planning, it would show that we, as representatives of the american people, are committed to conducting military operations with oversight and accountability. now, it accomplishes this, mr. president, by requiring a joint resolution of extension to renew future aumf's each

congress. under this process, congress may choose to let an aumf expire or renew it under a joint resolution of extension with expedited procedures. this is a fast-tracked process requiring only a simple majority in the senate designed to make aumf renewals as easy and seamless as possible so as not to hinder military planning. my amendment gives congress the ability to review and reevaluate our involvement in wars and adjust them if necessary to better meet the specific objectives of the conflict or engagement. this flexibility and agility is nearly impossible under the current system which has opened the door for overly broad applications and interpretations of existing aumf's. sometimes passed decades before the moment of a particular conflict or engagement, which,

in turn, leads to enless wars. -- endless wars. it would be a way for congress to rein in this abuse without hindering our ability to adequately respond to present day national security threats. now, some have argued that we don't enter into wars to withdraw when we must fight, we must win. but this argument has it exactly backwards, what could could be conjure than a resolution reaffirming our commitment to a conflict. given every member of the house of representatives is up for reelection every two years, one-third of this body in the senate are up for reelection every two years, we reserve some of the -- might wonder about if in fact we are not regularly renewing each aumf in each congress.

mr. president, this is about accountability to the public. it's about the republican form of government as a whole. it's about restoring congress's article 1 authority to declare war and authorize the use of military force. let us do what we were elected to do, ensure that all americans have a voice in matters of great importance, especially when it comes to matters of war and peace. and that no president has the power historically reserved for monarchs, despots and tyrants. i implore my colleagues to pass this amendment and thus restore the balance of powers mandated by the united states constitution. mr. president, i call up my amendment number 22 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number.

the clerk: the senator from utah, mr. lee, proposes an amendment numbered 22. the presiding officer: the question is 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: on this vote, the yeas are 19, the nays are 79. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider rubio amendment number 4, that there be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and a 60-affirmative votes will be required for adoption, all without further intervening action action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. mr. kaine: -- mr. thune: mr. president, i call up amendment number 4 on behalf of senator rubio and ask

that it be reportedly number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. thune for mr. rubio proposes an amendment numbered 4. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: i want to take a minute to just speak against this amendment. this is an underlying bill to repeal two war authorizations. one is 32 years old. one is 20 years old. this amendment would turn 20- and 30-year-old wars into endless wars. the amendment would say that no repeal could become effective until the president certifies that iran is no longer providing any material or technical or financial support to bad activities in either iraq or syria. so even if they're doing nothing in iraq, the iraq war still isn't over as long as they're doing something in syria. let's not turn 20- and 32-year-old wars into forever wars. the american legion opposes this amendment. i would urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

and i ask for consent for time to be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the amendment. the yeas and nays -- is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote: doreenicapósvc10

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 32. the nays are 63. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the

adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the risch amendment number 43 and the senate vote in relation to the amendment at 1:45 p.m. without further intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar numbers 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: thank you. i object and i'll give the reasons why. i'm happy to explain all the holds on my nominations and i'm glad to see my colleague, the senator from ohio, who will be here in just a moment to support these efforts. my friend from colorado says this hold is unprecedented. it's not unprecedented at all. in fact, there's very recent precedent just a couple of years ago the junior senator from illinois, a democrat, held more than 1,000 military nominations. the reason she held them was over one single officer she

wanted promoted. my colleague from colorado threatened to do the same thing just a few weeks ago. mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a news article from january 24. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: thank you. the headline reads colorado democrat threatens to hold pentagon nominees over space command headquarters. that colorado democrat happens to be my colleague opposite me as we speak. he has given us emotion and opinion. let's talk about the facts. last summer the supreme court returned the decision to regulate abortion to the states. in response the department of defense claimed that this was a threat to the readiness of our armed forces. they said this without any evidence at all. on july 15 of last year,

republican members of the armed services committee asked secretary austin how the department came to this conclusion. it wasn't until november that the department scheduled a briefing with senate offices to give us some answers. however, minutes before the briefing was scheduled to begin, the department canceled on december 5, 2022, i sent a letter to secretary austin letting him know i would hold all civilian and general and flag officer nominees until we got some answers. less than 24 hours later, we got answers. the answers were disturbing. we learned the pentagon intended to go well beyond what was -- has been authorized by congress. federal law only allows the military to provide abortions in three very narrow circumstances. rape, incest, and threat to the

life of the mother. yet the biden administration has turned the dod into an abortion travel agency. they did it by using just a memo. the biden administration wants abortion on demand for not just those enlisted in our military but their family members as well. this would expand the policy to millions of people. now taxpayers, the american taxpayers are on the hook to confollowing chacialghts agent ow ow ow ow for abortions for our military and their families. again, nobody voted for this. this goes beyond the law. we still got a constitution in this country to go by. and the constitution is clear. congress makes the laws. the executive branch enforces the laws. secretary austin seemed to think he can make a change in the law

without going through congress. it would be irresponsible for the united states senate to allow an administration to walk all over the legislative branch. secretary austin cannot change the law by a memo. congress cannot be replaced by a post on the department of defense website. in december i warned the department that i would hold their nominees if they tried to force abortion on demand on our military. and they did it anyway. the department knew what the consequences would be. it was clear. this was their choice. i will continue to hold these nominees until the department of defense follows the law or congress changes the law. in the meantime, we should do

our job and vote. if these nominees are so important to the democrats, then the democrat leader can find time to get them on the floor. frankly, i wish democrats were this concerned about our enlisted servicemembers. we've got a recruiting crisis in this country. the army missed the recruiting goal by 15,000 last year. that's an entire division. one of the causes of this crisis is the policies of the biden administration. at yesterday's armed service hearing, i talked about the navy's training materials. many of these materials denigrated religious americans who are the majority of this country. democrats seem a lot more worried about these nominations than about our recruitment, the people who actually fight wars. democrats are so worried about the nominations, then they can

bring them up for a vote. we have more than enough time to vote on nominees. we voted on plenty of nominees this year. that's about the only thing the leader has let us do so far. i will continue to come down here and lay out the facts for as long as my colleague from colorado wants to. we talked about this less than a month ago. the facts have not changed. my position has not changed and so i reserve the right to object. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate very much the senator from alabama coming back down here. i'm sorry for inconveniencing him, but i think that we have had a difference of opinion about this that really matters and is real.

first of all, i appreciate the fact that he's read al rare headline about my work here, but he mischaracterized what i did which is to hold only two civilian nominees of the defense department, two civilian nominees. he has held every single, all flag officers, promotions of uniform flag officers from the department of defense. that is not happened in the history of the united states senate since 1789, and certainly my hold of two civilians is not precedent for what he's doing. he talks about how the defense department can't change the rules on its own. nobody said the defense department changed the rules on its own. i didn't see him come down here when the defense department said they'd pay for travel. i didn't see him come down and complain when they said they would pay for travel for bunions. that's not in the statute

either. that's not our responsibility. that's dod's responsibility, and dod with a set of reasonable rules is trying to deal with the aftermath of dobbs, trying to help women in uniform access care. and i believe that the aftermath of dobbs has created a real threat to our national security and to our readiness. women are the fastest growing population in the military. the senator from alabama said it exactly right. they are having huge recruiting challenges. it is very hard for me to see how american women that have had access for 50 years to a fundamental constitutional right have now had it stripped away by the supreme court of the united states are going to enlist if they have no way to know whether or not they're going to have access to reproductive care. and that's not me saying it.

the last time the senator from alabama and i, my friend, were on the floor, he said this would be thousands of thousands of people that would be affected by this, thousands and thousands. that is a readiness issue. when people, as the senator from alabama knows very well, when people volunteer to serve in our armed forces, they don't get to decide where they're going to serve but before dobbs they had at least some insurance that -- some assurance that their fundamental rites would be protected that their right to reproductive health care, to abortion would be protected and not anymore because the supreme court has ripped that right away. and after dobbs, we've seen the effect of that. 18 states have banned abortion. 18 states, mr. president, have banned abortion. nine even in cases of rape and incest. they passed or they've introduced restrictions to

travel. alabama doesn't have exceptions to rape and incest. and a doctor can go to prison in alabama for 99 years if they perform an abortion. they're -- there are even state legislatures down there that are trying to use chemical endangerment statutes that are meant to deal with methamphetamines to charge women that have accessed abortion. in texas, my friends in texas, there are $10,000 bounties that are being put out there to try to stop friends and neighbors from driving their loved ones to the clinic. and florida is trying to ban abortion in six weeks. one in three women in this country who are pregnant don't know they're pregnant in six weeks. i don't know if the governor of florida understands that. or maybe he does understand it. i don't know which is worse. and after dobbs it's not hard to

see why women might think twice about signing up. rand has said there's going to be more attrition, that it's going to hurt readiness and to help address these challenges, the pentagon announced three policies. a travel allowance, mr. president, so that people could actually have help being paid to go from a state they hadn't asked to go to to one where they could have access to care. absence without leave so they wouldn't be charged. you know, their paid leave to be able to address something that other people in the military don't have to address and more time to notify their commanding officers of what happened. that's it. those are the three things. and those policies are so unreasonable in the mind of the senator from alabama, that he's done something that no senator has ever done which is put a blanket hold on all flag officers and their promotion in

the department of defense. and that's just the three -- that has nothing to do with -- it has nothing to do with how dod is going to address docks in the future -- dobbs in the future. i don't think that people in these states who have not volunteered to be in these states should have to -- have to be subject to the draconian laws of their state. and to not have the opportunity if they want to have the opportunity to travel and have their travel paid for just as we do with lasix surgery. that's what he calls an abortion abortion, travel agency, the senator from alabama. again, we didn't hear about it when it was about lasix and we didn't hear about it when it was bunion. we heard it when it was about a

50-year right of the american people. it hurts our security. it hurts our readiness at a time when russia and china are combining together. i beg the senator from alabama to relent. we can have a disagreement about -- we will have a disagreement. i come from a state, i come from a state that was one of the first states, the first state in america to codify a woman's right to choose before roe v. wade was decided. i come from a state that was the first state in america to ratify a woman's right to choose in the wake of -- in the wake of the dobbs decision. and he comes from a state that views it very differently. i respect his position on this just like i do everybody in america who disagrees with my position on this. what i don't respect is the idea that we can't move past this blanket hold on every single flag officer that's up for promotion just because the senator doesn't

agree with the majority position that is reflected in the department of defense's modest rules. i know, mr. president, that the vote is coming, and i have -- and i at this point will relent and yield the floor and i would just say to my friend from alabama, i wish him luck, and i wish alabama luck tomorrow night, and i look forward to the next time that we're here addressing this fundamental disagreement because i believe the american people are staggered by what the dobbs court has done. i believe the american people are staggered by what has happened because an originalist majority of the supreme court, something that was unimaginable when i was graduating from law school not that many years ago, has now decided, if it's not a right in 1848, it's not a right in the united states of america today. i don't believe that's where the

american people are, and i don't believe that's where the department of defense is. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. requests requests mr. president, secretary yellen -- mr. cassidy: mr. president, secretary yellen spoke before the committee last week. we're speaking about the president personally meeting with us. there's no evidence that that is true. that has not been our experience. now, it's been well reported in the press that there is a bipartisan -- bipartisan, bipartisan group of senators working to find a solution to save social security. the president knows this.

we've been unable to get an appointment with the president. and the reason we keep requesting a meeting with him is because we're told that no deal will be made without his personal sign-off. he has to be the one who tells those who work for him that this is the deal he wants. so if the president chooses to do nothing, that choice guarantees that someone currently receiving social security will get a 24% cut in the benefits that she receives. now, let me just emphasize that. i was on talk radio this morning with keil in shreveport, louisiana. aaron thinks because -- erin thinks that because she is of a certain age she will not be affected. no, the current law is that if the president chooses to do nothing, erin and everybody else who would currently be receiving social security would get a 24% cut in their current benefits.

someone who is dependent upon this income to pay their bills, buy their groceries, she gets a 24% cut in the amount she is receiving. so there needs to be a choice between a massive, by law 24% benefit cut, and a real plan, a real choice to strengthen, to save, and to secure social security. to reference president reagan, this is a time for choosing. we can't wait because the longer we wait, the more expensive and drastic the solution becomes. and we shouldn't allow politicians to use social security as a political weapon to beat people into submission, to claim that one side wishes to do nothing and they're going to rescue it but offering nothing to stop this scheduled 24% cut. it may be good politics. it is irresponsible. now, i will point out that president biden's two democratic

predecessors -- obama and clinton -- both offered serious plans to address this looming social security fiscal cliff. president biden? no plan. not in his budget. and in fact when secretary yellen, when i asked her if they had modeled any of the things that she was referencing as a solution, they've not modeled it, which tells me they've not worked on it. there should absolutely be a sense of urgency. he should feel it the way that i feel it. i used to work in a hospital for the uninsured. many of my poor patients, they depended upon social to pay their rent, to buy their groceries, to pay their utilities. i know what a 24% cut would mean to them. now, by the way, on the solutions that we've been trying to come up with, an approach, if you will, certainly not a final plan, there's a lot of partial and inaccurate information. and, by the way, we did that on

purpose. the president has a right to have an imprint upon the final thing that we come up with. so we have things which are -- yes, we could do it this way but maybe do something else. but we do add something to it, though. we think this is a novel solution that helps social security bridge the solvency and protects the americans who rely upon it. and we add some things. one thing that we've spoken of perhaps locally but not nationally is that those who are most cut by a 24% cut will be the police officers, the firefighters, the teachers, and many other state and local government officials who are unfairly penalized by two provisions in current law known as weapon gpo. from my perspective, repealing weapon gpo should be part of any conversation we have with the president if he agrees to meet and should be part of any final proposal. but americans of all

generations, the silent generation, the boomers,the gen x, the millennials, the gen z, they want know that the program they've paid into their entire lives will be there when they need it. some political issues are seen sasse a third rail. i say choosing to do nothing, which means choosing that social security benefits will be cut by 249%, should be the -- by 24%, should be the third rail. we can't be guided by the fear of politics. we should be guided by the cutting edge of our commitment to the american people and particularly that american senior that he or she will not get this 24% cut. i ask once more, president biden, please personally meet with a bipartisan group of senators. if i said something i shouldn't have to secretary yellen, i will at that point apologize. president biden has a reputation as a dealmaker. let's make a deal. with that, i yield.

mr. coons: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i rise today to speak on a topic i have been dreading for months, the departure of my senior advisor and close friend, jeff sanchez. after four years of dedicated is the, to me, the people of delaware, my family and my country, jeff is moving on to an exciting new adventure. he didn't want a big farewell party, but he is going to have to endure before he goes the congressional record of the united states senate reflecting the contributions of this remarkable public servant. jeff is from california, a graduate of chapman university, and he spent a decade on the hill working for steny hoyer, for senator patti murray, for congresswoman linda sanchez. in my office, he's risen quickly, four promotions in four years, became a central part of my senior team, giving me valued, strategic advice on a a

whole range of issues from policy and politics to operations and communications. my team in d.c. and delaware quickly came to rely on jeff, and while i have a lot of very positive and humorous input from them, given the press of time, i'll read just a few. jeff, one staffer said, was the air traffic controller of the office but also at times the pilot, guiding all staff to a smooth departure with a safe and comfortable landing. jeff, another staffer said is a swiss army knife. there's nothing this guy can't do. ústh policy and the politics. my favorite, when jeff walks into a room, everything just works better. his first role in my office was moving me -- and i mean physically moving me. and i quickly became respectful of his skills. we have driven the streets of d.c. and delaware from georgetown to capitol hill, and while he mostly stayed under the

limit and obeyed traffic laws, when it came toest going me to -- came to getting me to union station & gate l me home, we always arrived safely on time t from the snows of davos to the hills of san francisco, to the streets of madrid, we've traveled to remarkable places. one of the most striking things about jeff is the more time you spend with him, the more time you want to spend with him. we spent time talking about our families and our hopes for the future. we became closer and i am so grateful. jeff has allowed me to offer what i hope has been meaningful advice on life's challenges and opportunities. lots of things to poke fun of at jeff. he has a lot of wit. he eats a first and second lunch, always from cups. during late nights when i was tied up here on the floor, he would turn down the lights and

dj -- something called club jeff. his highest loyalty is cheesecake factory. his parents are wonderful people from ecuador. he is proud of them and we are proud of you. to his beloved nanny, eloisa is and grandmother, it is important for you to hear that you raced and important and amazing young man whose integrity and work ethic exceeds anything i've seen among others. you are the base for his success in in the senate and in life. i've been blessed to know jeff both professionalland personally. and we've come through some of the most challenging and difficult moments 0 -- moments in our country's history together. president trump's two impeachments, joe biden presidential campaign, my own reelection to the senate, january 6. the whole biden presidency and two of the most frenetic years

in senate history hand a global pandemic. during the pandemic, a core group of six of us came into my offices and worked hard. we spent a huge amount of time together working through that crisis. through that pandemic, jeff was always there. he's made me a better senator and a better colleague. he is responsible for and shares in my biggest successes and his contributions to me, to the country and our state are too numerous to mention. i'll close with james 2:8. show me your faith apart from your works. i will show you my faith by my words. in a town that has its fair share of self-promoters, jeff as devoted himself to others and does so with humility, discretion, and poise. in an institution where there is a scramble to occupy the spotlight, jeff chose to labor behind the scenes and give credit to others. in a culture where some feel entitled to professional rewards, jeff has earned everything he's achieved many times over. it's no surprise to me that once

jeff decided to look for new opportunities, he's had many compelling options and i'm proud of him and of the next steps he will take in his life. when i shared the news that jeff would be moving on from our team, the three most important women in my life -- and i don't mean morgan and chelsie and trinity of my office -- i mean my mother, my wife and our youngest, were so sad. he is general -- he is genuinely a member of our family. he will be always a part of that small core group of people i most appreciate, admire, and respect. i look forward to the lifetime of friendship. will be mr. president, thank you. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, i'd like to call up risch

first-degree one. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. risch proposes amendment numbered 43. on page 2 -- mr. risch: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent we dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: mr. president, fellow senators, i rise today to present this amendment as part of the process, as we process this repeal of the 2002 aumf matter before the senate right now. this particular exercise that we're doing frequently -- the amendment process was frequently fraught with political messaging. i'm happy that so far on the amendments that we've been processing have not been that sort of amendment, and that is

it was intended to be a political message. this one is not. the prior ones have not, the ones that are pending really are not. and the reason for that is what we're doing here in discussing the 2002 aumf repeal is taken seriously by every single member of this body -- republican, democrat, everyone is acting in good faith as they process this. this is one of the most important things each of us do as a united states senator. that being the question of committing our young men and women to actual kinetic force on the field. when this was put in place, it was considered deeply by this, and seriously by this body. and as we look to repeal it, the same is true. and i think everyone is headed toward the same objective, and that is to see that this is done

properly. that is the purpose of this amendment to the actual repeal that's in front of yous. this amendment would condition repeal onsetterification from the secretary of defense authorities on the litigation position of the united states with respect to detention would not be weakened. this is offered in good faith. it is offered because yesterday, just as an example, yesterday we had a hearing with the secretary of state, and i asked him three questions about this, about whether they actually use it, whether it was important, and whether repeal of it would weaken our position on detention and on litigation regarding detention. the secretary of state said that it would. so the purpose of this is to clear up what i think is a flaw here. it certainly isn't intended by anyone. i think everyone would want us to have as strong a position as

we possibly could when we're in detention or litigation. this simply requires us to replace the language with some other language, and then we get this certification. or a determination by the lawyers. so i offer it in good faith. i think it is an absolutely correct thing to do, if indeed the body is going to move to actually repeal the 2002 aumf. again, i want to congratulate every member of this body for working at this very important issue in good faith. i think this moves the issue further to a better position. with that, i yield the floor. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: i seek permission to speak for a minute in opposition. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. kaine: this is offered in good faith, and i appreciate my colleague, but it is completely unnecessary for the following reason. the white house and the department of justice have both stated there is no one currently

detained pursuant to the 2002 authorization. it is not being used as a ground for detaining anyone. i was at the hearing yesterday, and my colleague from idaho is correct, secretary blinken talked about repeal of the 2001 authorization could affect detention and said we should not do a repeal if there's not a replacement. but the administration's position on the 2002 authorization is that there are no military activities, including a single detention where we were using the 02 as justification. i would urge my colleagues to vote against the certification requirement, keep this bill a clean repeal of the' 91 and' 02 authorizations. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment number 43. is there a sufficient second? this appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 41. the nays are 42. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, every day i hear from my constituents, the people i represent in texas, some of the 30 million people i have the honor of representing, but they ask me why aren't they seeing more solutions offered by the united states congress to the problems that they confront in their everyday lives. family budgets are being clobbered by inflation. people are spending significantly more money just to get by on housing, groceries, utilities, and other basic

expenses. inflation has remained at 5% or higher for each of the last 22 months. of course, we've seen it soar to the highest level in 40 years. but it consistently outpaces wage growth giving the average worker a pay cut. and folks, too many of them feel like they just can't catch a break. as if that wasn't a big enough financial headache, some are now questioning the stability of the u.s. banking system. in the last two weeks, two u.s. banks, big banks, have collapsed. and a group of major banks has now launched a rescue mission to save another from meeting the same fate. texans are wondering are these isolated events or the sign of worse things to come. the memories of 2008 financial

crisis are fresh in many people's minds, and they're terrified that we'll southbound find ourselves -- that we'll soon find ourselves in familiar territory. but families aren't just stressing about their finances. they're also worried about their safety. the surge in violent crime that began in 2020 hasn't let up. in many places it's getting worse. and given the wave of fentanyl overdoses, especially among teens, parents are terrified that their child could become the next victim. they are outraged that fentanyl and illegal drugs are flowing across the southern border, and they want to know why more isn't being done to stop it. of course, folks in texas and across the country aren't just worried about the illegal drugs

that came across the border and took the lives of 108,000 americans last year. that's bad enough. they're also worried about the flood of unchecked migration across the border. over the last couple of years, the biden administration has broken nearly every record in the books when it comes to border crossings. we've seen a complete breakdown of law and order as thousands of migrants cross the southern border each and every day. and, yes, my constituents are baffled when they see news stories when they read that some will have to wait ten years before even beginning immigration court proceedings. so with all of these problems, folks are trying to understand, how did we get here?

but, more importantly, they want to know what are our leaders doing about it? across the country, each and every day our constituents are asking for answers, and they want to see some action. every day i get phone calls from folks back home or people who write to me about these problems, whether it's inflation or crime or drugs or the border crisis or one of many other topics. they ask me, when will the united states senate take action and, unfortunately, i can't offer them much reassurance based upon the democratic-led senate's track record so far this congress. make no doubt about it, the majority gets to control the agenda here in the senate, whether it's at the committee level or here on the floor.

and as a member of the minority, there's not anything i can do under the senate rules to force the majority leader to take action on a particular topic or to insist that a chairman of a committee that has jurisdiction to actually mark up legislation or hold hearings. so clearly democrats control the senate. their leadership continues to put all of these important and pressing issues on the back burner. just look at what the senate has done -- or, rather, look at what it has not done since the beginning of this year. well, the senate confirmed several federal judges and a handful of other nominees in the last four weeks. we overturned a dangerous d.c. crime bill, which would have softened penalties for criminals and endangered the lives of residents and visitors to our

nation's capital. we nullified a department of labor ruling that required fiduciaries to support woke policies at the expense of americans' retirement accounts and pensions. that's the end of the list. those are the only items the democratic-controlled senate has passed in the last four weeks. nothing to address the border crisis, nothing to combat inflation, nothing to stem violence, nothing to deal with the drugs that are taking the lives of our sons and daughters all across america. now, the irony is the two resolutions that did pass were republican priorities. these weren't even things that our democratic colleagues initiated. we were able, under the senate rules, toss force action -- to force action fortunately on those, but we've seen in one case the president has already

vetoed one of those congressional review actions. senator hagerty from tennessee led the effort to overturn the dangerous d.c. crime bill. senator braun from indiana stopped to keep the administration from gambling away america's retirement savings. if you look at every vote the senate has taken since the start of this congress, you won't find much more. lots of nominations, a resolution designating january as the gentleman trafficking and modern -- but that's about it. that's what the american people have gotten it this democratic majority in the senate. now, to be fair, it appears the senate will soon vote on a bill to repeal the authorization for

use of military force in iraq. we took that procedural vote on this legislation last thursday, which marked the first time this chamber voted to even consider a standard piece of legislation this congress. the first time. we voted on many nominations and a few resolutions, but that was the first true piece of legislation. so it took two and a half months for our democratic colleagues to put a bill on the floor, two and a half months. at the start of the 116th congress, republicans held the majority in the senate. members were sworn in on january 3, a thursday. the following tuesday the senate voted on a bill related to u.s. policy in the middle east. sworn in on thursday, tuesday we were voting on substantive legislation.

that's what leadership looks like. identify your priorities, hold hearings, build consensus, put bills on the floor, and let members do what they came here to do, which is to legislate. which is to address the priorities of the american people which are being ignored by this democrat-led senate. so when voters put your party in charge, you're expected to lead, but that's not what we're seeing. as we witnessed the past two years, our friends across the aisle haven't used their majority to address the problems facing american families. they've simply been missing innages -- missing in action. while inflation, crime, and the border crisis are raging, our

democrat colleagues who control the senate agenda and the house and the white house for the past two years had just about everything they needed to pass these priorities. but here's what the american people got instead -- $2.6 trillion in partisan spendings bills, tax increases, handouts for labor unions, subsidies for wealthy people to buy electric vehicles, and nothing to address the concerns of working families. now, the republicans hold the majority in the house. the era of one-party rule has come to an end, which is frankly great news. this new chapter of divided government requires republicans and democrats to work together. unfortunately, we can't make any progress in the senate or in the

congress unless the majority leader allows us to take up, amend, and to vote on legislation, legislation that addresses the priorities of our constituents, the people we represent. so i hope this sluggish pace, this snail's pace, will change. at some in the coming months, congress will need to address the debt ceiling. given the current status of inflation and the instability of the banking system, defaulting on our debt is the last thing we need to do. given the current state of the our fiscal house, it's also critical that we pass regular appropriations bills on time and through regular order, in a transparent, open manner, unlike the bill the majority leader put on the bill last december, an

omnibus appropriations bill, which was the only way to fund the federal government because he would not allow the senate to do its work in a transparent and orderly way. so members of the senate had two choices -- vote yes or vote no and shut down the government. we also need to pass an annual defense authorization bill, something we've done for more than the last 60 years in each year. to make sure that our military leaders have the certainty they need to address the threats of today and prepare for the threats of tomorrow. i don't recall a more dangerous time for our country and for the world than we currently are living in, certainly not in my time in the senate, probably not since world war ii. where you have a major power or, the russian federation, invade a

sovereign neighbor, as the russians did in ukraine; you have north korea shooting off long-range missiles with nuclear weapons capability; you have iran seeking to build a bomb; and then you have china threatening to invade a neighbor in tie juan. so -- in taiwan. so we need to pass that defense authorization bill the federal aviation administration needs to be reauthorized by the end of september, hopefully addressing some of the new misses we've -- the near misses we've seen in some of the air traffic recently. and my friend, senator cruz from texas, is leading these efforts on our side of the aisle. we also need to reauthorize the tools that we need; namely,

section 102 of the foreign surveillance act, know what our enemies are doing to prepare for those and deploy countermeasures. we need to take action to address the humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border, to bring down drug prices for consumers and to unleash the power of american energy. we've seen what happens when europe was dependent almost entirely on russian oil and gas, and then when putin weaponized that dependency what this meant to the countries of europe as they scrambled for alternative sources of energy. the united states is an energy producer and is part of the answer toss that energy security -- and is part of the answer to that energy security problem. but we can't solve that problem, we can't continue to provide

good, well-paying jobs for people that work in that industry unless the government is willing to get out of the way and take its boot off the neck of the producers. so, mr. president, there's a lot of work that needs to be done, but i know the presiding officer wants to be part of that solution. we need more people in this chamber, in this city, in this country who want to be part of solving these problems, but we cans do it -- but we can't do it until the majority leader that controls the senate is willing to put bills on the floor that actual lay address the priorities and concerns of the people we represent. i hope he will give us that chance. i yield the floor, and i'd note the absence of a remain corporate -- the observes of a

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

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i send -- i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 25, s. 316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against iraq, signed by 17 senators as follows.

mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion filed today, march 23, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on s. 316 on monday, march 27, it be in order to consider the following amendments. sullivan number 33, r. scott 13, ricketts 30, cruz 9, hawley 40, johnson 11. that if offered, the senate vote in relation to the amendments at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the republican leader on tuesday, march 28. and that 60 affirmative votes be required for the adoption of these amendments without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: so, mr. president -- the presiding officer: so ordered. mr. schumer: before i finish the rest of the business, i want to explain to everyone what happened. a few moments ago we entered into an agreement that puts the senate on a path to repeal the

iraq aumf's by early next week. by filing cloture today, we set up a vote for this coming monday. if cloture is invoked, we will hold votes on additional amendments before final passage. this has been a good process here on the floor. i was asked by several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to have a reasonable amendment process, and then we could move the bill forward. i think we did on a vote that got 70 republican votes -- 70 total votes on, or close to 70 on cloture last week. we have 11 amendments. i think just about every republican amendment that was asked for as of today was accommodated. so this is a good thing, and i hope it can be a model for the future. we in the majority will allow amendments. sometimes those votes are tough to take. but at the same time the minority will not just be dilatory and allow us to move forward. that's what happened this week on aumf, and i hope portends good things to come as we work together to make this country

even a better country. so, now back to other business. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. 122 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 122 commemorating the 360th anniversary of the north carolina national guard. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders.

the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on march 27, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour 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 the filing deadline for first-degree amendments be at 3:30 p.m. and the cloture motion filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of -- period. following the remarks of senator cornyn. the presiding officer: cornyn has spoken. mr. schumer: cornyn has spoken.

thus spake cornyn. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday.