>> ...

>> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in on this monday afternoon. lawmakers work on legislation to repeal the 1991 2002 authorization for the use of military force against iraq. a procedural vote has been scheduled for 5:32 linden debate on the measure and a final vote is expected by the end of the week. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. >>

e served in iraq. no nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction were ever found. we were never greeted as liberators. iraqi oil didn't pay for the damage of the $2 trillion cost of the war, american taxpayers paid for it. more than 4,500 u.s. service members died in that conflict in iraq.

another 32,000 were wounded, many grievously. my colleague in the senate, tammy duckworth is one of those seriously entered. it's what brought her to my attention when i urged her to listen to a state of the union address and i'm honored that she serves with me here in the senate. countless of iraqi civilians lost their lives in the ensuing civil war that erupted after hussein was toppled. i voted one year before the iraq war to support the use of military force in afghanistan. it made sense, they generated al qaeda, that generated 9/11. it was time for us to answer. that's where those who masterminded the 9/11 attack was located. i was one of 23 senators, one republican and 22 democrats who voted against the 2002 iraq authorization for use of military force known as the

aumf. history has shown that my concern and misgivings, along with my colleagues, 23 of us, were tragically correct. i doubt few here in washington at the time could have imagined that this aumf would still be referred to and referenced for u.s. military action over 20 years later. more incredibly, the aumf that was supposed to expel iraq from qait is still in connect more than 30 years later. to allow such resolutions to remain in effect decades later, is more than a clerical oversight. it's an open-ended invitation for conflict. that is why today's action repealing these two aumf's is long overdue. i want to thank my colleagues on a bipartisan basis, senator tim kaine of virginia, senator young of indiana, for leading the effort.

i'm honored to cosponsor it. in the end, the dient for us isn't about whether -- the debate before us isn't about whether iraq -- it is not even about the ultimate merits of those conflicts. this long overdue debate in the senate floor this week is instead about congress' responsibility when it comes to war and the use of open-ended authorizations to sends military forces. our constitution is clear on one question, many others too, but certainly on one question, article 1, section 8 says the power to declare war is an explicit power of congress. the founding fathers got that right, as far as i'm concerned. we should never send our sons and daughters, or anyone's sons and daughters, into war without the consents of the american people through congress. our founding fathers werewise in making use of this awesome power, the declaration of war

didn't rest in the hands of a monarch or the president himself, but with the president's elected representatives. i've made the same argument in the house and senate, regardless who was president, a democrat or republican. whether president bush in iraq or president obama in syria or libya. we should not leave these iraq aumf's or any authorizations like them in force in perpetuity. doing so allows too much room for unforeseen consequences and too great of a chance the authorizations will be stretched beyond their original intent. it make the possibility of going to war just too easy. it creates a dangerous disconnect between the people's elected representatives and one of the most solemn decisions of democratic it self-government. if some aumf's like the one used to respond to the al qaeda attack on the united states, which i supported, need updating, we also need to meet that responsibility here in congress. let me be clear, nothing we're doing here prevents an american president from acting in

self-defense or in the face of imminent threats to our american nation. repealing these aumf's doesn't preclude congress from don'ting -- debating and -- debating and possibly passing another aumf. repealing the outdade the -- outdated authorizations will make sure they're not used for other possible wars without explicit congressional approval. repealing these aumf's will close open-ended war authorizations that should be revisited and debated by congress as required by the constitution. i strongly support the legislation before us to to repl these authorizations and to ensure future aumf's rnlts allowed to respain -- are not allowed to remain in place. i plan to reintroduce the legislation to sun set any aumf after ten years. if the use of force is justified beyond a decade, congress should do it expressly by vote and debate, so the american people

can be witness to this decision and part of it. we should no longer abdicate our responsibility by relying on a resolution that long since served its intended purpose. madam president, i yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

i want to commend the place responding within minutes and we

are monitoring the situation closely. we have to do more to stop gun violence, it's ripping our communities apart, looking at the soul of the nation and we need to do more to protect our schools. the shooter in this situation reportedly had to assault weapons and a pistol, two ak-47s by call on congress again to pass my assault weapons ban. it's about time we begin to make progress there's more to learn. i wanted to send my heart out to so many pairs other. i've been so many of these sites, virtually everyone and one of the things i know that you know you focus on just like in the military my son was in

iraq, so many members of the military coming back with post dramatic stress after witnessing violence and participating in it. these children, these teachers should be focusing on their mental health as well so i'm grateful -- anyway, sorry to start off that way but i can't begin without acknowledging what happened. >> another american community is in shock and grief after yet another american mass shooting. this money is shooter entered the school of national and second -- nashville tennessee. reportedly armed with two assault rifles and a handgun. this is an elementary school, students in preschool through the six grade children as young as three and four years old.

upon entering the school, killing at least three staff members and three students. i cannot begin to imagine families and the school community are feeling. we sent prayer and condolences and we are grateful for the first responders who were dispatched to the school within minutes and ran toward the sound of gunfire but once again, thoughts and prayers are not enough. these mass shootings, especially targeting little children are happening with sickening regularity. this could be that 129th mass shooting since this year, 2023. twenty-nine mass shootings in america and we are fewer than 90 days into this calendar year. that's more than one mass shooting a day, four victims

even shot or killed. last year congress took important steps on gun safety reform with bipartisan saver communities act in the violence against women act reauthorization judiciary committee i serve did a lot of work on these issues and was happy to support both of them. today's shooting demonstrates there's more work to be done. the fact that this is a daily occurrence in america is unconscionable. we are going to learn more and won't happen in nashville but what must be done to keep children and communities safe for debbie shootings. i strongly support in the closed gaps in our background checks. they would even envision what we are allowing the words they

wrote in the second amendment to the bill of rights. to think these weapons, the one used in highland park in my home state of illinois the fourth of july last year, he discharged 83 rounds in 60 seconds. tell me the founding fathers had that in mind when they wrote the second amendment. i don't believe it. today the reports are assault weapons made and we will wait until they see the facts coming in, it would be no great surprise if that is the case it would be a great disappointment. i urge my colleagues to come together on a bipartisan basis, we can't say we solve this problem or even address it seriously with incidents like the one that happened today in nashville, tennessee continue in america. we need to pass more reform to keep guns out of dangerous hands and keep our children safe.

thanks for back on the show. as far as how much time congress has left to do the major issues, what is that timeframe?

>> there's nothing pressing coming up in that time. but looking forward to a couple of months we have the debt limit situation would likely come to a head in the summer, not sure when, june, july, that time. >> in the short term as far as this week, the house looks at the energy legislation they introduced a couple weeks ago, remind people but the house is proposing. >> the house public and top legislation related to hr one which shows significance, a plan to release american energy. joe biden to democrats saying they are tampering megan energy, they were to ease the permitting process and ease on federal and state land, all of the above approach making it more difficult for the office to cancel an energy plan such as

biden's plan. >> they have as far as the elements hr one four gas exports for permitting related to critical minerals would repeal and limit the ability of the projects on the clean water act during the trump administration. as far as wide spread support, are they generally on board? other concerns? >> is going to be pretty wide in support, nothing too out of mainstream in the position, last week with the bill of rights i had a couple -- they voted against it in the hr one package but in terms of democrats senate majority leader chuck schumer said it is dead on arrival getting this past due congress. >> is the overall approach or

individual aspects where they could agree on these elements? >> there was some topic last congress but there's never enough consensus among democrats and republicans to reach that threshold. out of everything proposed, the permitting reform probably is the best chance to read a compromise but as we saw last congress, it's a hard challenge to get across the finish line. >> he mentioned the passage of parental rights bill last week, it will probably go nowhere in the senate, he said this will do the same, what is the plan for publicans are making with the initial bills bringing them forward if there's no chance in the senate? >> the one the majority, the voters say we are doing something, promise we would reform the way americans feel energy and its gas prices and

the cost of living, essential for the economic plan is we need to lower inflation and how do we do it? energy. republicans will say good policy but in the biden government the reality is. >> parents rights investing energy this week, what would be the next couple of months? >> for now these are low hanging fruit and we will see difficult fights in the future over border security, those are not a slamdunk, gop leaders have marked up the board of security and immigration package both in the judiciary committee, that's being postponed after the april recess so republic and surpassing the signature proposal and we come back after april recess getting down to the

harder work including immigration package and all eyes will turn to government spending. >> next : is with us until 8:30 a.m., if you want to ask about congress, call us and let us know (202)748-8000 for democrats. (202)748-8001 for republican. 2,027,488,002 for independence text (202)748-8003. republicans meet in orlando last week but they want to present the caucus especially the first few months under the leadership of speaker mccarthy. >> one of the main takeaways as they are in the majority. the scene in the source first week of january, it seems to be behind for publicans in this moment mccarthy with the leadership team talking to even the skeptics widespread anger or

disapproval so things are going better than the first week of january and optimism that has a majority the chairmanship sending out the, they feel they are getting enrolled now but i would caution now the harder stuff has to happen. we have to negotiate the spending deal by biden, i think there are maybe more. >> we saw republicans to release the budget in the light of releasing his, where for publicans on that? >> joe biden late in the budget so when they asked they would say they know rush and speaker mccarthy and said will release term sheet and in return for raising the debt limit and

asking about this on friday. he said he didn't know what they talked about so a little bit of confusion here this week and clarity but they are cracking for budget in orlando and said it is a complex process and will take a little while but we need a counterproposal in the coming months. >> the meaning of the list of demands, what is he looking for? >> republicans want to return fiscal year 2022 so that would equate to $130 billion cut where things are now in the want the white house to cut in federal spending, that's the main issue, the white house and democrats responding and they said that would amount to cutting money for working families, veterans and seniors so we will have to see the proposal and the response as well we can cut waste. >> this is from phoenix, arizona.

ryan on the independent line for , go ahead, ryan. >> good show, as always. a couple of comments i'd like to see them focus more on stuff like social security and focus on that kind of stuff, maybe social security so we have it. us consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, we're just learning of the horrific, truly heartbreaking shooting at a school in nashville earlier today. six people -- three children, still have the pictures of the kids at sandy hook, the little children there, that were shot dead in mind. six people including three children were shot and killed in their own school. six people, three children that won't be coming home today to their families, to their

friends, to their lives. we're holding in our hearts the families of the loved ones of those affected by this horrible tragedy and thank the first responders who were on the scene. now, on israel, i welcome the news that the judicial legislation proposed by israeli prime minister netanyahu and his government have been suspended. the bond between the united states and israel is rooted in our shared democratic values and fealty to the rule of law. when i was in israel four weeks ago, i shared that message directly with the prime minister. i he l. -- i echo the call of president herzog. it is a good step that the legislation put -- is put on hold. i strongly urge the leader, president netanyahu, come to a compromise before pushing forward again.

isaac herzog has the trust of all parties and is the right person to trust to come up with a compromise. i urge both sides to work with him at a time when israel faces dangers, particularly from iran, the last thing israel needs is divisiveness at home. let's hope they can come to compromise. aumf -- this afternoon the senate will vote on cloture on aumf repeal, bringing us one step closer to finally repealing the 1991 and 2002 iraq aumf's. one cloture -- once cloture is invoked this afternoon, we'll hold a few more votes on additional republican amendments. senators should then expect to vote on final passage of the iraq aumf repeal as soon as tomorrow. repealing the iraq aumf's has been good an reasonable process here on the floor. we had a strong, bipartisan vote on cloture last week. we're allowing republican

amendments and most importantly we aren't being dilatory because this is something a majority of senators want to get donald trump i hope this -- get done. i hope this can be a method, a pattern of what we do in the future. we are willing to allow amendments, but we must move forward and cannot be dilatory and cannot have amendments so extraneous that they just bog down the whole process. that's what happened on this aumf bill -- what happened on this aumf bill is a good model for us in the future to get things done with bipartisan cooperation. on this bill, i want to thank senators kaine and young, the chairman and the ranking members of the senate foreign relations committee, and all the cosponsors of this legislation for their work on this measure. now, the hold on senior military nominations -- defense readiness is impossible without military commanders in place to execute our national defense strategy. senators have regularly worked

together to confirm routine military nominees quickly, ensuring no lapses in the work of our military. but right now 160 military promotions -- 160 -- these are nonpolitical, these are men and women who have worked their way up through the ranks and deserve promotion to general, to colonel, et cetera. but 160, including five three-star generals, are on hold because the senior senator from alabama is holding them up because he can't get his way on blocking 160,000 women within the military from receiving health care. blocking military choices is unprecedented, unprecedented -- hasn't happened before -- and it could weaken our national security, and the number of those who are blocked is going to grow even larger as new nominees are reported out of the committee, which they do regularly.

among the general and flag officers on hold by the senator from alabama include commanders for u.s. naval forces in the pacific, the middle east, and the u.s. military representative to the nato military committee, something really important at a time when war rages in ukraine. the commanders of the fifth and seventh fleet are the commanders of u.s. naval forces confronting the likes of iran and china. they are being held up single-handedly by the senator from alabama. it shouldn't have to be said, but the senator from alabama's hold on hundreds of routine military promotions is reckless, it damages the readiness of our military and puts american security in jeopardy. now, look ... all of us feel very strongly, passionately at times about certain political issues, certainly as strongly as the senator from alabama feels

about this one. but if every single one of us objected to the promotion of military personnel whenever we feel passionately or strongly about an issue, our military would simply grind to a halt. the senator from alabama's actions risk permanently politicizing the confirmation of military personnel for the first time ever, and that would cause immense damage to the military's ability to lead and protect us. i can't think of a worse time for a maga republican to pull a stunt like this, as threats against american security and against democracy are growing all around the world. i urge members of his own party to prevail on the senator from alabama to stand down in this unprecedented and dangerous move and allow these critical, nonpolitical, nonpartisan military nominees to go through.

on medicaid and the budget -- today the governor of north carolina is signing legislation to expand medicaid eligibility. following the passage of a bipartisan compromise through the north carolina general assembly last week, one signed as many as 6,000 north carolinians will soon receive health care previously denied to them. house republicans should follow the example of their state-level counterparts and work with democrats to expand services like medicaid, not cut them. they should join democrats to strengthen health care for all americans, not threaten extreme cuts like the house gop has been doing for months. in the american rescue plans, democrats passed a major new incentive to get holdout states to expand coverage to low-income citizens. we should build on this work. now, house republicans have bent over backwards claiming social security and medicare are off the table.

but what are their plans for medicaid? republicans have been disturbingly evasive about whether or not they want to cut medicaid and so americans, unfortunately, remain in the dark. if a moderate state like north carolina is expanding medicaid with bipartisan support, what the heck are maga republicans doing threatening to cut it? it shows how difficult it will be for house republicans to put together a plan that gets 218 votes. society -- so, we repeat, leader mckathy, today is march 27. where is your plan? is medicaid on the chopping block? are the maga republicans pulling the republican party here in it the house further to it the right even as north carolina, a moderate state in a bipartisan way, passes legislation to expand medicaid? will tens of millions of americans find out that their

benefits will be curtailed or eliminated? instead of obsession about ideological spending cuts that harm millions of people, republicans should work with democrats to strengthen vital health care services, and we should do that while also agreeing to lift the debt ceiling together without brinksmanship or blackmail or hostage-taking. on student debt -- this morning, house republicans introduced legislation to overturn president biden's historic student loan debt relief program, denying millions of americans the critical student debt relief they need. it's hard to believe that at a time when millions of americans are struggling with student debt, republicans are showing how callous and uncaring they are by trying to block debt relief that would literally transform the lives of so many for the better. republicans have tried to paint president biden's plan as a tuition bailout and a giveaway to high earners.

a giveaway to high earners? republicans ignore the facts. under president biden's plan, 90% -- nearly 90% of relief dollars would go out -- would go to out-of-school borrowerrers making less than $75,000 a year. this is a party that cuts taxes on the very wealthy but then says that this is a bailout and a giveaway to high earners when 90% of the people who get it, nearly 90% make less than $75,000 a year? who are they kidding? what hypocrisy! under president biden's plan, no one in the top 5% of incomes will receive a penny of debt relief, even though republicans were happy to give them huge tax breaks a few years back and still want to do that. rather than help the privileged few, president biden's plan would benefit americans who need it most -- students of color, poor men's, children of immigrants, wogging and middle-dallas -- working and middle-class families. these are the people who would suffer from the president's

terrible proposal. h.r. 1, republicans recently rolled out their partisan, unserious, so-called energy package they dubbed h.r. 1. let's call it what it is. a wish list for big oil. republicans' so-called energy package would gut important environmental safeguards on fossil fuel projects. it would lock america into dirty and erratic energy sources. a serious package would help america transition to clean, affordable energy, not set us decades back, like the republican proposal. a serious energy package would include transmission to help bring clean energy projects online, not leave it untouched, even though everybody agrees transmission is needed but the republican proposal doesn't mention it. so met me take it again very

clear, house republicans' so-called energy bill is dead on arrival in the united states senate. we will work in good faith on real permitting reform talks, bipartisan, bicameral, but this proposal is a nonstarter. and finally, on the gop embrace -- the embrace of some of putin. yesterday reports came out that vladimir putin announced moscow will deploy tactical nuclear weapons in belarus, as well as position nuclear-armed hypersonic missiles within belarus with a range of 300 miles. in the past, putin's conduct over the last year would have won swift and unequivocal condemnation from both parties. but today an increasingly vocal minority within the hard right is more comfortable defending and execute -- excusing putin rather than condemning him. one republican governor from a southern state even referred to the ukraine war as, quote, a

territorial dispute, and i have to wonder what he would have said if he were around in the 1930's. we know what happened then when many refused to stand up to aggression. a world war resulted. this isn't hard. vladimir putin is a threat to american national security and democracy, and maga republicans who fail to condemn him are only empowering him in the long run. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to calendar 28, s. 870. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 28, s. 870, a bill to amend the federal fire prevention and control act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the united

states fire administration and firefighter assistance grant programs. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 28, s. 870, a bill to amend the federal fire prevention and control act of 1974, to authorize appropriations for the united states fire administration and firefighter assistance grant, 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 that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion filed today, march 27, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, just to inform the members, this is, i am moving to file cloture on this bill which would make sure that both the safer grants and the afg grants which

protect and help our paid and volunteer firefighters continues. it expires in a few months if we do nothing. our firefighters both paid and volunteer are brave. they risk their lives for us. they run to danger, not away from it. and they need both equipment and personnel so they can continue to do their jobs, particularly in smaller, more rural and more suburban areas where there's not the tax base to support the stuff that they need. i hope we can move forward quickly on this legislation. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

i'm glad to be back and i want to say a word about the issue pending on the floor of the senate because it meant a lot to me through my congressional career. with just over 20 years ago in this chamber that congress voted to authorize the use of military force against iran that vote as if it were yesterday. it was a little more than a year after the vicious

terrorist attacks of 9/11 and our nation still deeply about what happened to 9000 is all evidence pointed to afghanistan based al qaeda as the wedding days of night sunday in washington decided to be a different from, not against our high or afghanistan against impacts dictator saddam hussein. then mice president cheney said repeatedly he was pursuing weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. the vice president was adamant and he said there was no doubt hussein was amassing them touse against the united states . former pentagon advisor richard pearl argued foster is a iraqis can finance conditions much more read-only from its well.

he said he had no doubt they would then president george w. bush who claims the war was his last choice, provocatively tried to link al qaeda with saddam hussein. a dubiously was naturally plan to install also. roosevelt even tried to claim more in the last five days or five weeks or five months certainly isn't going to last any longer than said the second is gross. then you defense paul was vice president cheney insisted iraqis would be welcoming the united states military as a. when asked about reports that war would require hundreds of thousands ofamerican troops , wolfowitz casually dismissed the warning as way off the mark. american people were summarily deceived and misled by the political leaders in

washington. then came the war in last week's as we were promised, lasted for most of the decade . more than 150,000 american troops served in iraq. no new muffins were ever found. we were never greeted as liberators. iraqi oil didn't pay for the damage, the $2 trillion cost of war, narrative taxpayers pay for it thousand 500 us service #. more on a 32,000 were wounded, many of them previously . holly tammy duckworth was one of those seriously injured. is what brought her to my attention when i listen to the state of the union address and her parents and brought her to my attention politically and i'm honored she serves as countless iraqis civilians lost their lives in the civil war and

interrupted after don hussein was titled and one year but with the beginning of the war to support the use of net use in afghanistan. we generated al qaeda, it was time for us to answer that is where the 9/11 attacks were located this there should be war in iraq. that's why i joined 23 senators who voted against the 2002 iraq authorization for use of military force known as the au and f. history has shown my misgivings along with my colleagues were tragically correct. i doubt few in washington can imagine the au mf would still be referred to and referenced for us military action 20 years later. even more incredibly the aumf

is still in effect more than 30 years later. so to allow such resolutions to remain into effect decades after the war they authorized as a clerical oversight is a threat to our national security. it's an open ended invitation for conflict. that's why today's action repealing these 2 aumf's is way overdue. i want to thank my colleagues, senator tim kane of virginia, senator young of indiana leading the effort and i am proud to cosponsor it. the debate is not whether iraq posed a threat to kuwait or to the us in 2001. it is not even about the ultimate merits of this conflict . this debate on the senate floor is about congresses responsibility when it comes to open ended military force.

our constitution is clear on one question. many others too but certainly one question. article 1 section 8 says the power to declare waris an explicit power of congress . congress got that right as far as i'm concerned. we should never send sons and daughters into a war without the consent of the american people through congress. our founding fathers were wise in making use of this awesome power of declaration of war that didn't rest in the hands of a monarch or even a president but with the people's elected representatives . i've made the same argument in the house and senate regardless of who was president. whether it was president bush in iraq or president obama in syria. we should not leave these aumf's in force for perpetuity.

doing so allows too much room for unforeseen consequences and too great a chance the authorizations will be stretched the aunt their original intent. it makes going toward too easy. it encourages a disconnect between elected representatives and one of the most solid decisions of democratic government. these attacks which i supported, the updating we need to meet that responsibility here in congress. let me be clear nothing what we're doing prevents an american president from acting in self-defense in the face of immediate threats. repealing these doesn't preclude congress from debating and passing another aumf but repealing these updated authorizations from use of force will help make sure such aumf's are not used for other possible wars without approval.

repealing these would close open ended authorizations and should be debated by congress as required. so i strongly support the legislation before us to repeal these authorizations and to ensure future aumf's are not in place i plan to introduce legislation that sunsets any aumf. if the continued use of military force is justified beyond a decade congress should do it especially by vote. so the american people can be witness to this decision. we should no longer have to abdicate responsibility for by relying on resolutions that are long since servedits purpose . madam president i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum >> we're just learning about the horrific heartbreaking shootings at a school in nashville earlier today.

six people three children. still have the pictures of the kids at sandy. the little children who were shot dead. while six people including three children were shot and killed in their own school, six people, three children who won't be coming hometoday . to their families, their friends and to their lives. we're holding in our hearts the families of the loved ones of those affected by this horrible tragedy. in fact the first responders who were on the scene. now on israel. i welcome the news the judicial legislation proposed by israeli prime minister netanyahu had been suspended. the bonds between the united states and israel is rooted in our shared democratic values and fealty to the rule of law. when i was in israel four weeks ago i share that messagedirectly with the prime minister . i echoed the call for

president herzog to find a compromise. it is a good step that the legislation has put in a hold and i strongly urge its leaders and urge prime minister netanyahu coming to a compromise. >>

o become a strategic partner with the united states. in recent years our countries have worked together to end the occupation of isis in iraq. in december of 2017, iraq declared victory, though we've seen a resurgence of some of those terrorists recently. two years ago president biden welcomed iraqi -- the iraqi prime minister to the white house, a friendship that would have been unimaginable 20 or 30 years ago. put simply, iraq is a key partner in the middle east. our governments and militaries cooperate to promote security and prosperity for the iraqi

people. more broadly we work together to counter iran's maligned influence and continue to root out terrorism in the middle east. while there's still an american military presence in iraq, it looks dramatically different today than it did 10, 20, or 30 years ago. today our soldiers serve solely in an advise and assist role. they're there at the invitation of the iraqi government to support iraqi troops and military leaders as they defend their own security interest. in short, american forces are no longer there to counter threats from iraq. we are now to counter threats to iraq. that includes threats from iran, the number one state sponsor of international terrorism. with its hired henchman, terrorist groups or other adversaries that could disrupt

peace and stability in iraq. those who -- point to this evolution in our relationship as evidence that the aumf's are no longer needed. it has been 20 years since the u.s. invasion of iraq and they say the authorizations are outdated. our relationship has shifted, they argue, so it's time for those aumf's to go. unfortunately, it's not that simple. despite fact that iraq is now our partner, that doesn't mean it's time to abandon our security interest in the region. america still has very real adversaries in the middle east who would do us and our allies harm if they got the chance. today iran-backed militias operate in iraq, syria, lebanon, and other countries throughout the middle east. they are proxies of the iranian military with the goal of spreading iranian political

influence far and wide. this isn't just some warmonger conspiracy theory. there's clear and absolute linkage between the iranian regime and militias operating throughout the middle east. they are, in effect, hired guns, which is fighting to take territory which has been no-man's land since the draw down of u.s. forces in the middle east. in many cases they continue to target u.s. troops. just last thursday an iranian drone targeted a u.s. facility in syria, killing an american contractor and wownting -- wounding five american service members. the u.s. responded the following day by conducting an air strike against a militia. and within hours iran's proxies launched another attack on a u.s. military base in syria. despite the fact that we know a

great deal about these groups and their capabilities and the threat they pose to the middle east, we are limited in our efforts to counter their aggression. counterterrorism missions rely on the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, which was passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. since many iran-backed militia have not been designated as terrorist organizations, the 2001 aumf doesn't apply to them. that means we can only use the 2002 aumf to counter iranian-backed militia and other groups who pose threats to the stability of iraq and to u.s. national security interests. if we were to repeal the 2002 aumf, we limit the president's ability to target these groups. we, in effect, have withdrawn congressional consent. that applies to president biden today and it would apply to

future commanders in chief as well. in effect, this would tie their hands when it comes to countering threats posed by iran and its proxies. to state the obvious, we p can't dispose -- we can't dispose of any tools to protect the united states or our partners. three presidents have cited the 2002 aumf as an authorization for the use of military force. in 2003, president bush used his authority to justify the invasion of iraq. in other words, this was with congressional consent. in 2014, president barak obama cited the 2002 aumf to justify strikes against islamic state terrorists in iraq and syria. and then in 2020, former president trump relied on this authority to justify the strike that killed iranian general sue.

it would be absurd to toss this out the window today. congress -- this prompts a lot of questions about what comes next. without the 2002 aumf, the president would lose the ability to contain iran and its aggression. iran's influence in the region would swell and iranian-backed militia would terrorize syria and iraq with impunity. iran would be free to focus on its ma nan desire to -- it would finance more money to terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah. russian influence in syria would grow, giving them a launch pad to project power in the middle

east. our friends and allies no longer safe with america at their side could succumb to relationships with china, giving xi jinping a chance. this would create a power vacuum in the middle east that could be filled by iran, russia, and china. we would be ceding the region back to competition after working for years to promote stability. of course, there are costs to maintaining our position in the middle east, but the cost benefit analysis clearly shows we have to leave every authority in place to defend american and yield interest -- allied interest in the middle east. over the last few decades, america's relationship with iraq has changed for the better. it's a valuable partner. we work together to support

security for iraq and the region as a whole. the u.s. military works with iraqi forces to counter threats from iran and to reduce its influence in the region. these authorizations for the use of military force are key to our continued success and it also means that we will continue to work with the executive branch rather than have the executive branch rely strictly on the president's constitutional powers. they give the president of the united states the flexibility needed to counter these threats and the threats that they pose from iran. we would be doing iran a huge favor by repealing these aumf's. so suffice it to say, madam president, i oppose the effort to repeal this iraq war authorization, and i encourage my colleagues in the senate to join me in that opposition. madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: children. i still have the pictures of the kids at sandy who were shot dead in mind. while six people including three children were shot and killedin their own school , six people three children who

won't be coming home today. to their families, their friends, to their lives. we're holding in our hearts the families of the loved ones of those affected by this horrible tragedy the first responders on thescene . now on israel. i welcome the news the judicial legislation proposed by israeli prime minister netanyahu have been suspended . the bond between the united states and israel is rooted in our shared democratic values fealty to the rule of law. when i was in israel for years ago i share that message with the prime minister . i have an call of president herzog and i heard israeli leaders and i urged the prime minister to come to a compromise before pushing

forward again. isaac herzog has the trust of all parties and is the right person to come up with a compromise i heard both sides to work with him and at a time when israel faces dangers from around the last thing israel needs is divisivenessat home . let us hope they can come to a compromise. aumf. this afternoon the senate will vote on cloture on a repeal bringing us one step closer to repealing the 1991 and 2002 iraqi aumf, one cloture invoked this afternoon will hold a few more votes on additional republican amendments . senators should then expect to vote on final passage of the aumf as soon as tomorrow. repealing the aumf has been a reasonable process on the floor. we had a strong bipartisan vote last week and our roof

allowing republican amendments and most importantly art being dilatory to cause this is something a majority of senators want to get done. i hope this can be a method, a pattern of what we do in the future. we're willing to allow amendments but we must look forward and cannot be dilatory and cannot have an amendment so extraneous they just bog down the whole process. that's what happened on this bill to get things done with bipartisan cooperation. and on this bill i want to thank senators taine and young, chairman and ranking members of the senate foreign relations committee and all the cosponsors of this legislation. both hold on senior military nominations. defense readiness has been possible without military commanders in place to

execute our national defense strategy. senators have regularly worked together to confirm routine military nominees quickly, ensuring no lapses in the work of our military but right now 160 military promotions, 160, these are nonpolitical. these are men and women who worked their way through the ranks and deserve promotion to general, to colonel. but 160 including three, including five three-star generals are on hold because the senior senator from alabama is holding them up because he can't get his way on blocking 160,000 women within the military from receiving healthcare. blocking military choice is unprecedented. unprecedented, hasn't happened before and it could weaken our national security and the number of those who

are blocked is going to grow even larger asnew nominees are recorded . which they do regularly. among the general officers on hold by the senator from alabama include commanders for us naval forces in the pacific, the middle east and the us military representatives to the nato military committee, something really important at the time when war rages in ukraine. commanders of the fifth and seventh fleet on the commander of us naval forces confronting iran and china. there being held single-handedly by a senator from alabama. it shouldn't have to be this way but the senator from alabama's hold on hundreds of routine military promotionsis reckless . it damages the readiness of our military, american security injeopardy . now all of us feel very strongly, passionately at

times about certain political issues . certainly as strongly as the senator of alabama feels about this one every single one of us objected to the promotion of military personnel whenever we feel passionately or strongly about an issue our military would simply grind to a halt. the senator from alabama's actions are criminally politicizing the confirmation of military personnel for the first time ever that would cost him instead to the military's ability tolead . i can't think of a worse time for a maga republican to pull a stunt like this. threats against democracy are growing all around the world. i urged members of his party to prevail on the senator from alabama to stand down in this unprecedented and dangerous move and allow these critical nonpolitical, nonpartisan military nominees to go through.

on medicaid and the budget. today the governor of north carolina issigning legislation to expand medicaid eligibility . following the passage of a bipartisan compromise through the north carolina general assembly. one sign is as many as 600,000 north carolinians will enjoy health coverage previously denied. house republicans should follow the example of their counterparts work with democrats to expand services energy, not them. they should join democrats to strengthen health care for all americans, not threaten extreme cuts like the house gop has been doing for months . democrats passed a major incentive to get less seek to expand medicaid. we should build on this work.

now, house republicans have bent over backwards claiming social security and medicaid are off the table but what are their plans for medicaid? republicans have been disturbingly evasive about whether or not they want to cut medicaid so americans unfortunately remain in the dark. if a moderate state like north carolina is expanding medicaid with bipartisan support whatare republicans doing threatening to cut it ? it shows how difficult it will be for house republicans to put together a plan that gets 218 votes. so leader mccarthy today is march 27. it's nearly 3 months. where is your plan? is medicaid on the chopping block ? are the republicans pulling the republican party in the senate here in the house? further to the right even as north carolina a moderate state in a bipartisan way passeslegislation to expand

medicaid ? with tens of millions of americans find out their methods will be held or eliminated? let me say again. instead of this session about ideological spending cuts that harm millions of people, goods should work with democrats to strengthen vital health care services do that while agreeing to the debt ceiling all together without brinksmanship, blackmail or hostagetaking on student debt this morning house republicans induce legislation to overturn biases or to loan that relief program 9 million to 80 is hard to believe is is struggling with student debt and start showing how this uncaring they are trying to call off that relief that will transform the lives of so many. republicans have tried to

paint president biden's plan is a tuition they bail out on the lake to higher earners are republicans in the fact that under my 90 percent of dollars would go to a school already less $25,000 a year this is a taxes on thewealthy . but then says this is on a lot and a giveaway to hirers when 90 percent of the people nearly 90 percent make less than $75,000 a year? who make a left what hypocrisy under president biden plan no one one will receive a penny in that relief you know republicans were bdsm huge tax breaks rather than the president with a few president by his plan with the most. for americans, working middle-class families. these are the people who would suffer from federal hr

one i have a lot to today is the will that there partisan unserious so-called energy .hr one. let's call it what it is, a wish list for people masquerading as an energy package. republicans so-called safeguards on fossil fuel, americans too expensive and dirty energy sources omit long overdue reforms were accelerating the construction of transmission. a serious package with polymeric transition to clean not that asap proposal. serious package with ease transmission to help bring clean energy products online nicely is untouched. even though everyone agrees transmission is needed the republican proposal doesn't mention it so let me make it

again very clear house republicans energy bill is dead on arrival in the united states. we will work on perfect on real reform talks , bipartisan but this proposal is a nonstarter. finally on the gop race and race of cooking, yesterday report came out that did announce moscow will deploy tactical nuclear weapons in belarus as a physician nuclear arms hypersonic missiles within belarus a range of 300 miles in the past is, the last year has been switched on a mission from both parties today and increasingly vocal a r and one republican letter southern state even referred to the ukraine war as a

territorial dispute. i'm going to have to wonder what he would have said that he was around inthe 1930s . we know what happened then when they refuse to stand up to aggression this isn't hard. vladimir putin is national security maga republicans are only empowering him. i 4.

>> lawmakers working on a bill to repeal the military authorizations in iraq to limit debate on the measure and we're expecting a vote on final passage by the end of this week . live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. >>

>> this is nothing too out of the mainstream. last week we had five

republicans voted against this in the house and i don't expect to see any republicans voting against the package at this time in terms of democrats sure don't hold your breath ongetting this past . >> there's never enough consensus on democrats and republicans and everything proposed permitting reform has the best chance. three fourths, as we saw last congress they got to cross that. >> you mentioned the passage of a parental rights bill, it would go nowhere inthe senate and you said chances are this is the same .

what are the points republicans bring them forward if there is no chance . >> they want to say to their voters we are doing something . we promise we were going to reform we americans deal with energy. over the cost of living, the central point of the plan is we unleash american energy and the republicans will say is good policy but in a divided government that's the reality. >> a bill on parents rights last week, what other messaging bills can we expect ? >> i think for now these are the low hanging fruits. we'll see if i can in the future over border security. those bills are not a slamdunk. there was a mark of the border security grecian package in the homeland

security committee, that's being postponed until after the april recess so the ones they know they have the votes for could come back after the april recess and the harder work including the immigration package all eyes will turn to government spending. >> max with us until 8:30 asking questions on the republican perspective, 202 748, for democrats to to for a 8001 and for independence 242748 8002. what's the mood amongst the caucus these first few months under the speakership of mister murphy. >> they're in a good mood. they're in the majority. everyone saw the scene with

the speaker race. that seems to be the frame of mind republicans at this moment . even some of the freedom caucus tactics there does not seem to be widespread anger approval so things are going better and they looked at the first week of january there is widespread optimism that they have the majority. all the chairmanships and they're sending out subpoenas the feel like they're on our role i would caution that this happened but now it's the hard stuff, you have to raise the debt limit, initiate spending. >> we saw the president call for republicans to release their in light of releasing his. where are republicans on the question. >> job in the bucket they had the opportunity and when you ask doesn't know much biden

is still releasing his but it seems to be a discrepancy between speaker mccarthy releasing a term sheet and everything he wants to see the white house give in return for republicans voting to raise the debtlimit . so a little bit of confusion. hopefully they will provide more clarity but i spoke to him in orlando and he said it's a complex process but we expect counterproposal in the coming weeks. >> a list of demands. what kind of things is he looking for? >> a central thing is republicans want to return spending 2022 levels so that would point to around 130 number from where things are at the conversation you will agree on the issue right here at the white house and

democrats are responding to the money for working families and their response is we can cut waste. >> this is brian on our independent line. go ahead. >> good show as always. a couple of comments. i'd like to see them focus more on stuff that they actually, social security. they need to focus on that kind of stuff, reforming social security so we actually have it. those are just too often top of my head. instead of focusing on the past administration they were trying to force the green repeal for these electric

vehicles and then like the whole woke agenda which in some ways is good but mostly negative. mccarthy, i wasn't too fond of him went into it but i think he's doing well, doing good and i think they should focus on stuff we can control, not the craziness of the woke agenda and pushing electric vehicles and stuff way too fast. we need to pump the brakes and focus on stuff that's relevant that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. >> mister cohen. >> social security as you mentioned will be central to the stocks. republicans claim they don't want to cut medicaid orsocial security . by you watch social security he said republicans want to take awaythese programs . meanwhile republicans said that's not true the fight is

going to be over you get the sense of that republicans are calling not touching entitlement programs like medicare and social security cost people are portion of the. >> is the actual conversation going on when the deadline is for the debt ceiling? >> is a was deadline, the treasury department doesn't know when the treasury department will of extraordinary measures, that's the way people they said it will be sometime, i estimate around you can change sewer line by june or july. >> left except the initial conversation between caesar and president biden, celestine means you read about what to do about that and how is all about issues? >> since then sign, harvey has been a piece frustrated

with president joe lighted. after the first meeting was optimism both and there's, both men said they agreed to meet again nothing he says, i only. i need to see your budget first so is a stalemate now, they're not really going. be a bit concerning letting that they're leaving now are expected not to be in a meeting until 11 comes up. >> this is my in michigan, >> i think the debt ceiling should be stopped. i think the $1.7 million the democratic party did, that should be what the government needs to work on. i think what the democratic party did when nancy loc was

in control, everything should be taken back and replace because all this democratic party wants to do is take people and di them to diverse city equity and inclusion that's all against the white people because joe lied and believes all white people are against the government. >> we will leave it there. >> i think you look at the republicans report and all they can put it like the color i talked to budget year julie arrington the gop retreat he discussed the ways in which he wants to cut funding he mentioned diversey equity and inclusion. he said that there are a lot of programs which he thinks 90 percent you want to cut. that's the republican argument that the federal

government has grown bloated and they want to cut those. >> how can senate republicans look at what's happening on the side when it comes todebt ceiling issues ? >> we talk about this the only there's a way they're individually it was a taxi for now that will start to change the closer we get to that deadline is republicans is used in a continuing more concerned and insert themselves minority leader mitch will he was secure leader mccarthy take care. that change. >> ?this from you are in california on the position to raise the debt ceiling. >> this is an idea floated earlier in the year that's been shot as long as house

and i'm calling the most moderate but he's one of the leaders of the mainstream this is a center-right pragmatic has said no republicans will support the clean there will be a discharge resolution if there is a high, there's going to be acorresponding demand . >>

syria. an american contractor was killed, and god bless him and his family. and we retaliated and they retaliated back. and the bottom line is that our response to aggression is

woefully inadequate. 70-something attacks since 2021. clearly nobody feels afraid to attack our troops over there, and we need to create some deterrents that we don't have today. so i had an amendment that failed that would allow authorization to use military force to exist where the congress blesses the use of military force against shiite militias operating in iraq because they are a threat to troops we have stationed in iraq. the forces in syria, about 900 are there to finish the counter isis mission. and i hear people particularly on my side say we shouldn't be in seernl. you know -- doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is insanity. the last time we pulled all of our forces out of iraq, that was president obama with the support of then president

trump, the isis team took over great parts of syria and iraq, destroyed the city of mosul, launched attacks from syria isis directed at united states and europe throughout the world, killing thousands of people. president trump authorized our military to take down the caliphate, and this idea that if you lead they won't come back is stupid. you know nothing if you believe that. you may be tired of fighting radical islam. they're not tired of fighting you. i'd rather fight in their backyard than ours. they're going to destroy us if we don't destroy them. here's the good news. they're on the run as long as we keep some of our forces in place working with people in syria and iraq who do not want to live under isis rule will be relatively safe. if you pull all the troops out you're going to get the same outcome. people keep arguing this, you are doing a great disservice to the country and your arguments make zero sense.

you don't understand the enemy, you have no idea what this war is about. this is a religious struggle. they have declared war on every faith but their own. they want to purify islam in their own image, isis and al qaeda. they want to destroy the state of israel and eventually come after us. leaving them alone doesn't guarantee you much. in 2001, before 9/11, we didn't have one soldier in afghanistan. we didn't have an embassy etch -- embassy. the attack on 9/11 originated in afghanistan. when do you learn they are out to get you, when i say you, i mean americans. they have a world view that has no place for you. the good news is most people in the mideast are not buying what they're selling, but they're very lethal and dangerous left unattended. when you create the right mix of u.s. forces and local forces, you pretty well keep them on the run and keep them at bay.

so to those who suggest we shouldn't be in syria with 900 u.s. forces to prevent isis from coming back, you're setting the sustainable for a reemergence of isis. once is enough, folks. they destroyed the yazidis population, raped women by the thousands and created carnage all over syria and iraq and projected attacks against american western allies from a safe haven in syria. the theory of the case here is that we as congress immediate to take back -- need to take back authority and this authorization to use force needs to no longer be in place because the war against saddam hussain is over. we can argue about iraq being a good idea or bad idea. here's what i would say 20 years later. saddam being dead is a good thing from my point of view because he was a thug and dictator on steroids. and the people of iraq are on their second or third election.

it's been messy but they're moving in the right direction. and we have 2,500 troops back in iraq to make sure isis doesn't come back and destabilize the region and try to have some influence against the iranians. if you want to repeal the aumf, i think you owe it to the troops to follow it with something. so the people who want to do this say article 2, which is the inherent authority of the commander in chief, allows president biden to protect our troops in iraq. there's truth to that. but the whole idea is for us as a congress to have say in foreign policy, not sort of give a blank check. if you want to cancel the check to go after saddam because he's not around, i think you owe it to the troops to lend your voice, because the enemy sees this as retreat. no matter what you want the enemy to believe about what's going on here, all they understand is the american congress is making a step to get

out of iraq, and that's good news for them. after afghanistan, the disaster there, don't you think we should be more clear in our thought? the biden administration is right to keep the troops in iraq. excuse me -- afghanistan. they're wrong to take troops out of afghanistan -- excuse me. they're right to have troops in iernlg -- in iraq and syria but the congress is trying to be a bit hypocritical here. we want to cancel one authorization of use force and we don't have the courage apparently politically to say the military has our approval at a congress working with the president to go after shiite militias that are killing our forces in iraq and attacking them regularly. what does iran want? this is not an authorization to go after the iranian regime. it's an authorization to protect american forces in iraq from attacks in iraq coming from shiite militias.

what are they trying to achieve? they want to drive us out. if the 900 troops left syria tomorrow, assad would eventually conquer what's left of syria, and isis would fill that vacuum. you would have a conflict with turkey and the kurds. and all the people, the chairman of the armed services committee, a very smart guy, great friend. all the kurds who fought with us, they would be wiped out. so i'm glad the biden administration is going to stay in syria because we need those troops to keep isis from coming back and to work with our kurdish partners. but when it comes to iraq, they're trying to drive us out because iran wants us out of syria so their buddy assad can run the place. they want us out of iraq so the shiite radical elements in iraq can topple the iraqi government and the shiite militias would take authority away from the iraqi army, and they will have influence over iraq and syria. it is not in america's interest

to allow the ayatollah and iran to have more influence and more spaces to govern and more oil to generate revenue from. so if you don't get that, you're not really following what's going on. so no matter what you say about article 2, i hate to tell you isis probably doesn't follow our constitution that closely. the best thing we could do, if you want to repeal the 2002 aumf that was generated to get rid of saddam, replace it with something new, an authorization to use force to protect our troops that we all agree, or most of us agree should be in iraq to protect america from attacks by shiite militia. that amendment was rejected. and here's what you're doing. you're sending the signal by doing this that we're leaving. we're withdrawing, but we don't have the will as nation to see this thing through. there's nothing good comes from

this. you're openly admitting the president has authority to use force to protect our troops, but you're not going to lend your voice to that cause. and i don't understand that. if the congress, working with the president, said no matter who's president, you have the ability to use military force to protect our troops against shiite militias in iraq, that would make us stronger. the enemy would understand it better. our allies would understand it more clearly. and they're -- they've got to be wondering what the hell is going on here. the bottom line is you're setting in motion by not replacing the aumf with something specific the shiite militias attacking our troops regularly, you're setting in motion more danger for those in iraq and eventually syria. and i don't question your patriotism. i do question our judgment as a body. this is a very ill-conceived idea. it's going to juice up the enemy. it's going to confuse our

allies. and it could be easily fixed, but we choose not to. i don't know what the political environment is in america today, but the idea that the war is over with radical islam is insane. i've listened to people, some on my side, come down here and want to repeal the authorization to go after al qaeda and affiliated groups after 9/11. general korelli, the centcom commander said last week because of withdrawal from afghanistan, isis in afghanistan has the ability to strike us in this country within six months without warning. so can you imagine the damage to be done to american national security interests if we repeal the 2001 aumf? i'll close with this. while i understand theoretically why we want to replace the, get rid of the 2002 aumf because

saddam is gone, i don't understand why we're leaving this vacuum and this doubt. this is easily fixed. you're creating a narrative that's going to come back to haunt us. you think it's an accident within like two days of introducing this idea that they hit us in syria again? they're going to test us. and here's what i think. the biden administration is doing a lousy job, quite frankly rntion of instilling fear in the enemy. whether you like trump or not, people are afraid of him. and there's no fear. and here's what i'd like to have established. working with the administration, not against them, to send a clear signal, you kill americans at your own peril. we're not leaving. we're not going to let radical islam come back and do it all over again. i will be voting no. this is one of the most ill-conceived ideas after 9/11.

i'll yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you. i rise to suppress support for s. 316 and the repealing of the 1991 and 2022 -- 2000 -- 2002 authorization for the use of force. i commend senators kaine and young and i'm glad to be a cosponsor of it along with 43 of my colleagues. i voted against the 2002 aumf when it was introduced more than 20 years ago, and i can assure you that as we debated that bill at that time, no one would have believed that 20 years later we'd be on the floor debating its repeal. the war against saddam hussain is long over, and our bilateral relationship with iraq is fundamentally different today. in our current fight against

violent extremists, the biden administration has clearly stated it does not rely on the 2002 aumf as a basis for any ongoing military operations. let's remember what the 2002 aumf authorizes. the united states went to war, and i quote, to defend the national security of the united states against the continuing threat posed by iraq. the bush administration alleged falsely that iraq had amassed an arsenal of nuclear weapons. the bush administration officials also alleged that the iraq government had ties to the al qaeda terrorists that attacked the united states on september 11, 20001. these false pretenses and cherry-picked information provided the basis for congress to authorize the war in iraq in

2002, again an authorization i opposed. and this costly war of choice caused the united states irreparable harm. it caused us to take our eyes off violent extremist groups throughout the region and resurgent taliban in afghanistan. it also forced us to take our eyes off russia and china as they became peer competitors. as we spent billions of dollars investing in tactical vehicles to protect our troops in a counterinsurgency, as we spent billions of dollars to try to train afghan forces, the russians and chinese invested them in hypersonic vehicles and very sophisticated long-term

precision strike weapons. and the chinese have been building a whole navy since then. and we paid very little attention because we were preoccupied with iraq. and finally and ironically, it allowed iran to become one of the most powerful and dangerous forces in the region because it took out a block against their ambitions which had been saddam hussein in iraq. and as a result, we are paying today for thoserrors in -- errors -- those errors in judgment. i think it's only fitting that we recognize and repeal those aumf's. we have ongoing preparations to suppress violent extremists.

beginning on 9/11 and going forward, we have been fighting where they are anyone who has aspirations to use terrorist attacks against the united states homeland or our allies. that is a result of the 2001 aumf that essentially empowered our government to find, defeat terrorists anywhere they are that poses a threat to the united states and to our allies. repealing the 2002 aumf or an appropriate success to that statute remains essential to the counterterrorism operations and congress must continue to exercise robust oversight over its use. further, the biden administration has drawn a clear distinction between the two iraq aumf's that would be repealed

under s. 316 and the 2001 aumf. repeal of the two aumf's would have no impact on our current operations, and as a domestic legal basis no one relies solely on either the 1991 or 2002 aumf. leaving the 2002 aumf in place sends a harmful to iraq, where our forces remain, at the invitation of the government of iraq. iraq is a critical partner now in our fight against isis, in our fight against shiite militias who are attacking our forces in syria. we should not comiewb -- communo the iraq government that the united states reserves right to use force against them in the future. this is contrary to what our military forces need to counter isis operations.

further, keeping the 2002 aumf provides propaganda to iran. the iranian government is constantly seeking to convince iraqis, that tehran, -- we are -- we face a growing threat to iran, but this does not authorize the use of force against iran and it must not be relied on for that purpose now. finally, as laid out in the constitution, congress has the sole power to declare war. we must exercise that responsibility with the utmost care when it comes to matters of the use of military force. repealing aumf's that have served their intended purpose and are no longer applicable to current military operations is fully consistent with careful exercise of the senate's constitutional responsibilities. on that basis, i support s. 316

and the repeal of the 2002 and 1991 aumf's, and, again, i commend senator kaine for his leadership and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. and with that, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

just learning of the shooting in nashville today, people, three children who have the pictures at sandy hook, the children who were shot dead in mind. six people including three children were shot and killed in their own school. six people, three children will be coming home today. families, their friends and their lives. we are holding the hearts loved ones of those affected by this horrible tragedy and think first responders who were on the scene. now on israel. i welcome the news the judicial legislation by israeli

government have been suspended. the forms to the united states and israel rooted in shared democratic values and the rule of law. when i was in israel four weeks ago i shared that directly with the prime minister. i echo the goals of president herzog to find a compromise. a good step the legislation is put on hold. i strongly urge israeli leaders in prime minister netanyahu come to a compromise before pushing forward again. isaac has the trust of all parties and is the right person to come up with a compromise. i urge both sides to work and at a time when israel faces dangerous particularly around, the last thing is divisiveness left home. let us hope they can come to a compromise. a.m. you have this afternoon the senate will vote on closure on

repeal leaving one step closer to repeal the 1991 and 2002 a.m. to us. one -- once closure is invoked, will hold a few more votes on republican amendments. senators should expect to vote on final passage review as soon as tomorrow repealing it is a good and reasonable process here on the floor. we had strong bipartisan vote on the closure last week allowing for republican amendments and most important this is something majority of senators want to get done. i hope this can be a message, a pattern of what we do in the future earning to allow but we must move forward cannot have it so extraneous they bog down the process.

what happened on this bill is a good model to get things done with bipartisan cooperation. on this bill, thank senators came in him and the chairman and the foreign relations committee and cosponsors of the legislation for their work on this measure. the hold on senior military nominations, defense rating is impossible without literary commanders in place to execute our national defense strategy. senators regularly works together to confirm routine military nominees quickly, ensuring no access of the work of our military. right now 160 military promotions, 160, these are men and women who worked their way up through the ranks and deserve promotion. general, colonel, etc. but 160

including five, three-star generals are on hold because the senior senator from alabama is holding them up as he can't get his way on blocking the 160,000 women within the military from receiving healthcare. blocking military choice is unprecedented it could weaken our national security and the number of those locked in the nominees are reported of the committee which they do regularly. among the general officers on hold from alabama include commanders in the pacific and the committee, something really important at a time with more wages in ukraine. the commanders of u.s. naval forces confronting iran and

china are being held single-handedly by the senator from alabama. it shouldn't have to be that way but the senator from alabama hold hundreds of your 18 promotions reckless. the damages for military readiness and put american security jeopardy. all of us feel passionately at times about certain political issues about this one but if every single one of us objected to the promotion of military personnel whenever we feel passionately strongly about an issue, our military would grind to a halt. the senator from alabama actions permanently politicize the confirmation of military personnel for the first time ever that would cause immense damage to the military's ability

to lead and protect. i can't think of the worst time for moderate republican to pull a stunt like this as threats against american security and democracy all around the world. i urge members of his own party to prevail on the senate from alabama stand down in this unprecedented interest will allow these critical nonpolitical, nonpartisan military nominees to go through. medicaid and budget. today the governor of north carolina signs legislation to extend medicaid eligibility. following the passage of bipartisan compromise through north carolina general assembly last week, one signed as many as 600,000 north carolinians to enjoy healthcare coverage previously denied to them. house republicans should follow

the example state-level counterparts and work with democrats to expand services like medicaid, not cut them. they should join democrats to strengthen healthcare for all americans, not threaten extreme pets like the house gop has been doing for months. the american rescue plan, democrats passed the senate to get holdout states to expand medical. we should build on this work now house republicans have bent over backwards claiming social security and medicare part of the table but what are their plans for medicaid? vulcans have been disturbing evasive about whether or not they want to cut medicaid so americans remain in the dark. if a moderate state like north carolina expands medicaid with bipartisan support, what are moderate republicans doing to cut it? shows how difficult it will be for house republicans to put together a plan that gets to 18

votes. so we repeat. peter mccarthy, today is march 27, 3sk months. where is your plan? objection. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that i be allowed to complete my statement before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, the vote the senate is about to take is about what is right for our nation. it is part of exercising our most solemn duty as elected officials, it's a recognition that congresses not only has the power to declare war but also should have the responsibility to end war. it is a decision to turn the page on one of those chapters in our country's history. today's vote we can move closer to repealing two obsolete and outdated authorizations for the use of military force against iraq.

repealing these authorizations will demonstrate to the region and to the world that the united states is not an occupying force, that the war in iraq has come to an end, that we are moving forward working with iraq as a strategic partner. so i commend the senate for moving forward to take this critical step. i hope the senate will speak overwhelmingly in support of preserving congressional prerogatives as to when and under what circumstances we send our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters into harm's way. and clawing back authorities that have clearly outlived their purpose and scope. now, some of my colleagues have argued that repealing 20 and 30-year-old authorizations will weaken our ability to confront iranian aggression. some have offered amendments that would alter these authorizations. others have offered amendments that would expand these

authorizations. and a few have offered amendments that have, well, quite frankly, nothing at all to do with these authorizations. so let me address that point briefly. just in the last few days, the president directed targeted strikes against groups affiliated with iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps in syria. this was in response to iranian-backed drone attacks that killed a united states contractor and wounded five american servicemembers at a maintenance facility in syria. the president looked at the intelligence. he consulted his advisers. he ordered a strike. and he committed publicly to continue to defend against iranian aggression and to respond to attacks against u.s. forces. deso without -- he did so without relying on the 1991 or 2002 authorizations for use of military force against iraq.

this president has been clear in his view that he has sufficient authority to defend against threats to u.s. personnel and interests. if we're going to debate whether to provide the president additional authorities, then we should have that debate separately. but it should not be under the cloak of keeping old authorizations on the book, authorizations that are not needed to meet any current threat. they're not about the current threat. they're about a regime that's no longer alive and is gone for a better part of those 20 years. this is just a tactic to delay this repeal from going forward. nor should we turn a debate about repeal and a chance to take a historic step forward into a new backdoor authorization for the use of force against another country. so i urge my colleagues to stay focused on the facts.

repeal an authorization that is no longer used or needed, close this chapter on american foreign policy. let's finally, finally repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force against iraq. i urge my colleagues to vote to move forward with repeal of these aumf's and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the calendar number 25, s. 316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against iraq signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on s. 316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against iraq shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

if the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 65, the nays are 28. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having

voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. whowps whitehouse mr. president -- whowps whitehouse mr. president, i'm -- mr. whieshouse: -- mr. whitehouse: i'm here this evening to commemorate the passing of a remarkable individual. i only met her once, when i went to speak at a gathering of the united states district court for the district of columbia. but on march 16, at the age of

85, her honor judge gladys kessler passed away. she had been quite a trailblazer before she went on the court. she cofounded the women's legal defense fund, now known as the national partnership for women and families, and she served as the president of the national association of women judges. in her career she rendered a lot of very good decisions, but the most memorable one, and the one that exemplified some of the characteristics i admired the most about her, was the decision that she rendered exposing in detail a conspiracy by the tobacco industry to deceive the american public about the safety of tobacco.

the big tobacco scheme is one that we're, i think, pretty familiar with. you pay a lot of phony baloney for-hire scientists to produce studies making false claims about your product. you hire a web of p.r. experts and front groups to spread doubt and critique the actual real science that you don't like. and you have paid intermediaries relentlessly attack and try to smear your opponents. in the face of of this behavior, we had a remedy, the racketeer influence, the rico act. the united states department of justice filed a civil rico lawsuit against the major tobacco companies, and their

associated industry groups alleging that the companies, and i'll quote the complaint here, engaged in and executed and continued to engage in and execute a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of rico. the case took seven years, but in 2006 judge kessler wrote one of the most impressive opinions i've ever seen from a united states district court judge. it was 1,683 pages long. she went through the evidence that the united states department of justice had marshaled and organized it and laid it out in a way that was completely compelling, that completely crushed the defendant

tobacco companies to the point where when it was on appeal, the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit very powerfully upheld it. it is one of the powers of a district judge that, with the authority to find the facts and marshall the evidence properly, you can make virtually bomb-proof opinions. in 1,683 pages, judge gladys kessler did just that. she found the -- here's her quote, defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective, to maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public. in short, she added, they have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with

deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted. it was a testament, this opinion was, to judicial diligence. and it left a permanent, solid record for history of the campaign of fraud that the tobacco industry had run until that point. of course, in order for her to be able to render that decision, there had to be a plaintiff willing to bring the case. so kudos also to the united states department of justice back then for being willing to take on a defendant as powerful as the tobacco industry. then -- we forget that smoking

is not so much a thing. we forget how it had footholds in every state. how its enormous revenues allowed it to come into this building and manipulate the politics of the united states congress to the great detriment of the health of the american people. it goes without saying that there is an obvious parallel between the conduct of the tobacco industry leading up to judge kessler's decision and the conduct of the fossil fuel industry. in fact, experts point out that when judge kessler's decision shut down the fraud of the tobacco industry, some of the individuals and some of the organizations that were involved in that fraud simply rebooted themselves as new spirits in how to -- experts in how to deny climate science. i hope that we come to a point where today's department of justice has the diligence and the fortitude to go ahead with a similar action.

but today this is about judge kessler, a woman who saw something going very badly wrong and sat down and wrote a 1,600-page decision to put it right. i think it's a pretty terrific example, and i have a few bits of business, if i may, and then we'll open the floor to the other speakers. i first need to ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: and i ask unanimous consent that the committee an health and human services be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 123. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 123, recognizing the week of march 19 through march 25, 2023, as national poison prevention week, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is

discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. so ordered. mr. whitehouse: finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, march 28. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of calendar number 25, s. 316, postcloture. further, at 11:30 a.m., the senate vote in relation to the johnson amendment number 11 and ricketts amendment number 30. that the senate recess following the ricketts vote until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. further, at 29:30 p.m., the senate -- at-to-2:30 p.m., the

senate vote in relation to the cruz amendment and sullivan amendment. and the senate vote on relation to scott of florida amendment and hawley amendment number 40. all previous provisions in relation to the amendment votes remain in effect with two minutes for debate equally divided prior to each vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: if there is to further to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned following the remarks of senators cassidy, sullivan, rubio and brown. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: as ranking member of the committee that oversees the nomination, i thought it was important to express some concerns that have only grown his her previous nomination.

deputy secretary su is currently overseeing the development of anti-worker resolutions dismantling the gig economy. this does not inspire confidence in her current position, let alone confidence that she should be promoted. ms. su's record and in her previous position as secretary of the california labor and workforce development agency deserves scrutiny. like forward to a full hearing process for her nomination. in california, ms. su was a top architect of ab-5, a law that removed the flexibility of individuals to work as independent contractors. independent contractors -- we can call them freelancers, they make their own hours and choose the type of work they choose to do. i recently took a lyft. the driver told me he has uber, lyft and doordash on his phone.

he flips between the apps and chooses between the job from whichever one is available. he clears $500 a day. i got to pay your gas, your insurance. >> oh, yeah, i clear $500 day. mr. cassidy: if he's working five days a week, he's doing $10,000 a month. independent contractors are shielded from coerced unionization that could strip that flexibility away. this of course has made eliminating this classification a top priority for large labor unions who benefit from more workers being forced to pay mandatory union dues. it's important to note that ab-5 is extremely popular. 55% of union members supported is a measure to exempt grievers from ab-5678 the law is so flawed, the governor and state

legislature has had to pass multiple laws to exempt over 1 see occupations. the statutory exemptions are longer than the text of ab-5 itself. but ms. su has taken her support for this policy to the u.s. department of labor. during her tenure as deputy secretary of labor, essentially the agency's chief operating officer, the biden administration pushed to eliminate independent contractors via federal executive rule making. there was never any hope of getting ab-5 -- an ab-5 law through congress so they pursued their goals through regulation. if finalized, the new regulation strips 21 million americans of their ability to classify themselves as independent contractors and enjoy the flexibility this provides. this regulation would undermine the business model of services like uber, lyft and doordash

that provide valuable services and give drivers the ability and freedom to set their own hours and even hop between states. i got off the airport in new orleans and the guy picks me up, has got maryland plates a. oh, yeah, i moved here, like, six months ago. wanted to come down for jazz fest. i notified the different uber and lyft and now i'm down here working instead of back where i started. we're talking maximum flexibility. by the way, it's not just the uber and lyft drivers affect add. truckers are severely affected. many truckers are independent owner operators. they own their own tax reduction. this -- they own their own trucks. it could potentially impact the supply chain as trucking moves more than 70% of the goods in the united states annually. now, as a conservative from a

conservative state, but i think as an american from any state, i can say that we don't need the application of a law from one of the most liberal states to the entire nation. a law rejected in california is not a policy to be pursued on a federal level. we need to support the right of workers and their ability to choose what is best for them, not put them in a straitjacket to serve other people's goals. i also want to talk about the franchise model which employees over eight million americans. deputy secretary su has made public comments indicating that she will pursue attempts at dol to forcefully impose a joint employer classification on the almost 800,000 franchises operating in our communities the same as any other small business. saddling franchisers with liability for thousands of franchise ownerrers that

actually operate the small business would be a sure way to destroy the system of franchising. a model which mass allowed those underrepresented in the business community -- women, people of color -- to have the ability to live the american dream, becoming successful small business owners as they help create jobs lifting other workers out of poverty. no one is surprised that the joint employer rule is a major priority for large labor unions. it is easier for them to pressure one company to unionize to increase their union dues than to pressure thousands of independent businesses. the priority of the biden administration should not be to do whatever makes it easier to forcibly and coercively unionize workers while undermining the business models of the establishments they work for. it should be to increase individual freedom and opportunity. comes to mind, there's a fellow north of baton rouge, moved here

from west africa to attend lsu. after he attended lsu, he became a citizen and now is a franchiser for multiple franchise -- multiple outlets of the company. he talks about the american dream, coming here from nigeria as a transfer student, getting his citizenship and now being an owner involved in rotary, running for political office. a better american than most americans. somehow this threatens the department of labor. now, in addition to her policies, we should ask questions about how ms. su presided over a mismanaged california unemployment insurance program during the pandemic and why california paid $31 billion in fraudulent claims when she chose to suspend the eligibility to termination process. some of these payments were went to inmates and known domestic and international criminals. to put it into context it the department of labor's requested budget is $15 billion and employs more than 17,000 people. this means that ms. su lost more

than double the annual budget of the agency she'll be responsible for managing in washington, d.c. this equals into question -- this calls into question her qualifications as a manager. there will be many reasons to be concerned about her nomination to head the department of labor, and and i look forward to a full hearing prose to further discuss. now, mr. president, i request that the following appear separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: mr. president, today we introduce the congressional review act resolution of disapproval to overturn the biden administration's unfair student loan schemes that transfer the burden of t.d. 400 billion in federal student loans from those who took on that debt to get a degree that would help them make more money, to american taxpayers who perhaps never went to college, who have already fulfilled their commitment to pay off their loans, oftentimes

sacrificing to do so. the resolution would also end the pause on student loan payments which by august will have cost taxpayers almost $200 billion. president biden has extended this pause six times for a total of 31 months, far beyond the original justification of an ongoing pandemic. i'm joined by 38 of my colleagues in offering this resolution. last august president biden announced his plan to cancel up to $20,000 in federal student loans for most borrowers and to extend the payment and interest accrual policy on student loans via executive fiat. make no mistakes, this reckless student loan scheme does not forgive debt. it does not forgive debt at all. it just transfers the burden from those who willingly took out these leans for college and again in order to make more money when thee graduate, to americans who never attended college or who have already paid off their loans. and i would ask, where's the

forgiveness for the guy who didn't go to college but bought a truck, went to work, and is now working to pay off that loan? is his truck loan going to be forgiven? it will not be. what about the woman who paid off her student loans but is now truggeling to pay her mortgage? does she get a refund to help her with her mortgage? is the administration providing them relief? the answer is no. instead the administration would have them not only pay their bills but the bills for those who decided to go to college in order to make more money and then had their student loans forgiven. this is irresponsible and unfair. by the way, the plan does nothing to address the problems that created the debt in the first place. it doesn't hold colleges or universities accountable for rising costs. according to the college board in the last 30 years tuition and fees have jumped at private nonprofit colleges by 80% and at

public four-year institutions by 124%. and it doesn't ensure that students are prepared for life after college. indeed, it creates a terrible moral hazard that tells students that federal student loans aren't real commitments and tells colleges that no matter how high they raise their prices or what product they produce, the federal government will cover the tab courtesy of the american taxpayer. our resolution prevents average americans, the 87% of who have no student loans, from being stuck with a policy the administration is doing not to be fair to all but favor the few. our resolution also protects the rule of law which president biden must know he is violating. during supreme court arguments on the legality of the student loan forgiveness in february, justice roberts clearly indicated if 400 billion was to be spent on

student loan cans lelings -- cancellation it should require congressional approval. this is this administration attempting to subvert congress for what appears to be purely political purposes. it is a wildly dangerous precedent if left unchecked. for americans who cannot afford their debt or want a proactive approach to paying off loan commitments, congress has already authorized -- again let me just say this. for someone who can't afford their debt or who wishes to be proactive to pay off their loan commitments, congress has already authorized 31 different programs to pay or forgive student loans. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the list of federal programs already available to americans who are struggling to repay their loans, work in public service, or who are in high-demand fields. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: they range from total forgiveness under public

student loan forgiveness to pslf, stafford loans for teachers and perkins loans cancellations for law enforcement officers, military, early childhood educators, and social workers, to name a few. there are also repayment programs for high-demand fields where education is specialized and the need is a public good. for example, through the department of health and human services, therapists, behavioral health providers who are needed to help our children as we face a mental health crisis are eligible for loan forgiveness. in addition, there are repayment policies related to the income of an individual. there are five different programs to keep payments low compared to an individual's income and to cap the total time for repayment. quite different from this mass transfer of debt under this reckless student loan scheme which forgets these existing programs were set up to target limited taxpayer resources to

benefit using, to those using their degrees to serve and to fill broader public needs or who demonstrate that they themselves have a personal individual need. by the way, what benefit does the g.i. bill hold when students can just wait to have their stliewns -- student loans forgiven? why contribute to your community when you can wait for president biden to forgive your loans? irresponsible policies by -- like president biden's student loan scheme discourages americans from going into public service. president biden and secretary cardona have come to the table, there are real problems in the student loan system and federal financing in higher education. let's fix them legally. i close by encouraging my colleagues to join me in this resolution to prevent this

unconstitutional student loan forgiveness scheme. it's unfair to the hundreds of millions of americans who will bear the burden of paying off hundreds of billions of dollars of someone else's student debt. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: back in 2019, i believe april 2019, if not the first, i must have been one of the first people to call for the company tiktok to be banned in the united states. i do think that's an extraordinary thing to ban a company. and so before i think we, for someone like me who has argued for a national ban on a company like this, to take away something from over 100 something million americans, many of whom i've heard from, many of whom i know personally,

before we do something like that, i think people deserve an explanation as to why. why is it we would want to do that. i don't think the answer can be trust us, it's bad for america. i think they do deserve an answer. i think they do deserve a clear argument as to why it's in our national interest to do this and why it's the only option we have. first, i think it's important to understand how tiktok works. it's an ingenious app. no one argues about it. short-form videos, and it always seems to show you what you want to see. and the more you use it, the more it shows you the things you want to see. how does it do that? it does it two ways. first of all, it scoops up an extraordinary amount of data. not just data on what you're watching. all kinds of data. cnbc actually talked about it. tiktok, it collects the content that you viewed, the content you created, shared. and beyond that it includes your contact lists. it collects your name, age,

user name, e-mails, messages, photos, videos, other personal information. in 2021, tiktok changed its privacy policies. it cannot collect biometric data like your face print. extraordinary amount of data. but that's not the only thing it does because i hear some people criticizing us and all they talk about is everybody collects data. it's not just the data. what makes tiktok so effective is that it has an algorithm that uses artificial intelligence to combine this data and your usage. what this does is that algorithm knows you better than you know yourself. it knows the videos you're going to like before you even know you're going to like them. it's extraordinary power behind this. it's what they call a recommender engine. we're going to call it an algorithm. it's a predictor. people would say, well, what's the big deal? all sorts of media apps,

companies do that. not just that. netflix does it to recommend movies you want to watch and spotify does it to recommend music. instagram and facebook and snapchat and twitter, all of them have an algorithm and collect data. what they're doing is no different than anybody else. here's the difference. the only one who has a parent company that's a chinese company that owns it is bytedance. it's not that they are a chinese company. they own and they operate the heart and soul of tiktok, the recommender engine, the algorithm. that belongs to bytedance. and in order for this to work, in order for tiktok to work, bytedance has to have access to the data of americans. they have to. now here's what people will say to you. so what it is a chinese company. it doesn't all have to be american companies. actually the ceo of tiktok was here last week and he said

bytedance is, i'm trying to paraphrase it, is not owned or controlled by the chinese government. they are a private company that's owned by outside investors that include americans this is disingenuous. it's not true. let me tell you why it's not true. first of all, there is no such thing as a private company in china, not in the way we think of a private company. let me explain why. in china, number one, they have a law called the national intelligence law. and the national intelligence law of china requires -- doesn't ask for, doesn't say we can go to court and require you to do this. it automatically requires, the national intelligence lawf china requires every single chinese company, that includes bytedance, to do whatever the government of china tells them to do. china has another law. it's called the data security law. and what that law says is that every tech company in china,

like bytedance, tech company in china, they have to hand over to the government whatever user information, whatever information they want. they have to do it by law. that's a big difference between them and these other companies. and so the bottom line is this when it comes to those who argue it's not a company controlled by the chinese government, i read the other day that china says they're going to block any forced sale of tiktok. how could china block the forced sale of tiktok if they don't control tiktok? the reason they can block it is because they control the government, through these laws, they control the company that controls the algorithm that drives tiktok. it's controlled by bytedance. under chinese law, if the government of china tells bytedance, the owner of tiktok, to use the algorithm a certain way, they have to do it. and it doesn't matter who the shareholders, it doesn't matter if 100% of the shareholders of bytedance are americans, if

they are located in china and the chinese government tells them we want you to use the algorithm and the data you have access to in a certain way they have no choice but to do it. that's not just true for bytedance. that's true for every company in china. a lot of people say okay, the solution is this, let's store all the american data here in america. let's put it all in a server located in the united states and that will do the trick. no it won't, and here's why. even if you stored all of the data that tiktok has on americans, over 100 something million users, even if you stored all of it, bytedance in china still has to be given access to that data. you may have it stored in america, but you have to give access to bytedance. you know why? because the algorithm that tiktok depends on doesn't work without the data. bytedance has to have access. so that's almost like putting your life's savings in a safe but then giving the thief the combination. who cares that it's in a safe. who cares where the safe is.

if the thief has the combination, they can get into the safe. and so it doesn't matter where you store the data. if bytedance owns the algorithm, they have to have access to the data. and if they have access to the data, the chinese government has access to the data whenever they want. the latest iteration is what we should do is we should force tiktok to be sold. sold to who? tiktok is worthless, worthless without the algorithm. so even if tiktok, as we know the company is by americans, they still need the algorithm that bytedance owns and you can't buy the algorithm from bytedance even if they want to sell it to you. do you know why bytedance can never sell you the algorithm, the recommender engine that powers tiktok? because the chinese government in 2020 imposed a law that prohibits it. the chinese government specifically imposed a law in 2020 that says you cannot transfer the algorithm outside of china.

so selling it is not going to make a difference because no matter who buys it, tiktok is worthless, it won't work without the algorithm. the algorithm belongs to bytedance. byte chance in china and they have to do whatever the chinese government tells them to do. this is where people have said to me who cares? who cares if the chinese government controls the algorithm and has access to the data. they want me to explain how is an app that features funny videos and the latest dance fad, how is that possibly a national security threat? let me walk you through a very realistic hypothetical. let's suppose for a moment that china decides they're going to invade taiwan in 2027 or 2028, and the key to a successful invasion or taking of taiwan is to prevent the united states of america from getting involved. and the key to keeping the united states from getting involved is to convince the american people that we shouldn't get involved because they know we're a democracy. they know the public opinion

matters in america. so knowing all this, the chinese government goes to bytedance who by law has to do whatever they're told, and the chinese government says to bytedance, we want you to align your algorithm to shape american public opinion on taiwan. they won't do this overnight. they'll spend a couple of years laying this out. we want you to align your algorithm to make sure that people in america are seeing messages that convince them that america should not get involved. and not only that, we want you to use the data to target specific american audiences with specific messages. so, for example, some americans might see a bunch of videos that allege to show people in taiwan, probably fake but nonetheless people in taiwan supporting a chinese takeover. maybe family members -- remember, they have all this data on us. family members of military members would see videos about how thousands of americans will die if the united states gets

involved. others might see videos of americans, or who they think are americans arguing why do we care about taiwan? we should be focused on our problems here at home. and when we notice that they're doing something about it, that's what people will say, if that happens, then you deal with it. once we know they're doing it and we try to do something about it, you know what comes next? what's already happening now. you're going to have a bunchl of small businesses in america who depend on marketing in tiktok. i don't diminish that. it's true. i know people that built up their businesses and they use tiktok for marketing and it works. just imagine when we say guys we've got to shut tiktok down now because now it's real, they're using it against us, people are going to say you're going to destroy my business. china will probably threaten those people, make it very clear if the u.s. gets involved we're going to knock all the americans off tiktok, down goes your business.

those people will be asking the american officials here not to get involved in taiwan. you know where we find ourselves then? paralyzed. a country paralyzed that cannot act in its own national security interest because we've allowed an adversary to basically use an app that they control and the data that they control to shape public opinion in america over an extended period of time, and we can't do anything about it. here's where some people say it's a violation of the first amendment, free country. i agree. you have a right to speak. i don't agree it's a violation of the first amendment. you have a right to speak and say anything you want in america. this is not about the content of the videos. this is about the existence of a company that is related to an important government interest. what is that government interest? not just a substantial government interest, it is the most important government interests that we have, the national security of our country. and preventing our country from being paralyzed from acting in

its nam security interest -- national security is the most compelling and important government interest one can imagine. now, people say, well, this is all hypothetical. there's no evidence the chinese government is doing a there is no evidence the chinese government is doing any of this, only for start by saying that every threat to national security begins theoretically of become reality. for example, china is really hypertonic missile designed to think our ships and they're not firing the mentorships today were sinking our ships and not even threatening them yet somehow everybody around here agrees we need to do something about the hypersonic n with an e not doing it out because as theoretical right, they've not launch nuclear missiles against the united states always been a lot of any of your on monitoring are sides are making sure that were not being attacked is a theoretical threat but is been taken seriously for 70 years. and second, what is so

theoretical about using propaganda during a time of war. there's nothing theoretical about probably getting, propaganda has been used in virtually every conflict for centuries demoralizing to divide your adversaries. it is not just theoretical, we've seen tiktok be used for messages and to undermine opponents and it was used by to spread pro- russian messages during the invasion of ukraine is been used to suppress videos and talking about - and genocide of uighur muslims in china is already being used in fact it was used, it was used to control content and not content about our elections in this country in 2022. i guess mark will i can go further than that, it's already been used by china they've

already been used to collect data on specific reporters so they used it to attract and track the locations of the reporters in northern talking to an event, here in america, and tiktok was caught, spine on american journalists who are writing stories of that tiktok did not like and tiktok do not it is untrue,ie it is a lie. and then come they had to admit it, so now find people who did this and other under the justice department investigation but here is the point that i would say about this whole theoretical and i say god forbid, because nobody wishes for this on anyone and there's nothing good about war, and a government that we are ever in the war with china, china we use cyber attack to try to take downe our election grid. i china will you space weapons to try to destroy the satellite that we haven't space in china will use these missile to try to sing our ships into killing is

in the goal of these things but yet somehow we think they are incapable of using social media outcome of 15,200,000,000 american users, they would never use that against us have this synced out our ships are chantel hundreds but they were never use an app that they control. come on, of course they would. and there's a lot more to say this topic and we should debate this, what is the big deal, but i will so event under sega 1991, america has been the socialist power inre the world i would venture to guess that everybody here do notot serving government at a time in america near adversaries for the most part and so i think that we've generally as aat nation, certaiy is a government have forgotten what is like to live in a world which there is another country and another government that has almost as much power as we do. but after 30 years, that is what we are miss where we stand right

now. whether we like it or not, we are in nearea combination and in many ways conflict with china for global instance for the direction of the world, two very different views. the government of china by the way, please always hear these people talk about this, we have no home with chinese people. he e community -- chinese communist party. they want to be the world's most powerful country and do it at our expense. the consequences of that is that the world's most powerful country will be a nation that puts uighur muslims in death camps. that is trying to destroy tibetan culture. that had no problem massacring their own people in tiananmen square. that as we speak are arming the russians to commit atrocities in ukraine. that don't believe in any of the things we're here debating, about free speech and the like. we are in a competition, and we are in a condition flictdown in

a conflict -- in a conflict, hopefully not armed, but we have an app, a be social media app with the most detailed personal data on over 100 million american users and growing, and are turning over the power for one day to them to use it to divide us, to paralyze us, to confuse us, to turn us against each other. think of the daniel that russia -- think of the damage russia did by putting bots, fake accounts on twitter and buying ads on facebook. can you imagine if russia owned facebook or twitter? actually controlled those companies, the damage it would have done to this country. imagine that in a country with an economy 50 times the size, and 100 times more capability. because that's what we're facing here. it's not a game, and we should take it seriously. if there is a way to deal with this that doesn't involve a ban or something drastic, i've been

open to that, because but it doesn't exist because of the way this company is structured. we better take it seriously, or 20, 30 years from now, people will say you guys should have taken it seriously, and we failed to do so, and we paid the price for it. we should act on it as soon as possible. we should ban tiktok because it's bad for america, harms our country, and it's a danger to our future. i yield the floor. mr. brown: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, senator rubio, for your comments. whenever i hear my colleagues rail against china, and i agree with that 95% of the time, whenever i hear them say things like we want the world's -- that they want to be the world's most powerful country, the most powerful government, i agree with that, but let's, as senator rubio said, this isn't a debate between him and me, i want to make a couple comments before i talk about worker safety that i

know the presiding officer chairs so much about. i go back a half generation, and senator rubio wasn't here then, but many of his ideological soul mates were here then. this congress couldn't stop itself, from presidents clinton, bush one and boom and bush two and trump -- and obama and bush two and trump couldn't stop giving incentives to american corporations to mover to china. they shut down production in duluth, minnesota, mansfield, ohio, my hometown, or toledo and youngstown, as corporations were lobbying congress. i worked, teamed up with lindsey graham, a republican against that. we were unsuccessful. as corporations lobbied congress to give china something called permanent normal trade relations. they shut down production in ohio and moved to to china. what happened? they taught china a whole lot about manufacturing and created a whole lot of wealth in china.

now we're surprised about tiktok and surprised that the chinese military is as powerful as it is. it's important to remember when we listen to corporate interests in this body, who lobby here to weaken, to push jobs overseas, these are the kinds of things than. i hope we learn from that and take that lesson and apply it to tiktok and into the future. senator rubio, thank you for raising the issue. madam president, i want to talk about worker safety for a moment. friday, seven american workers went to work in west reading, welfare, at the chocolate factory to provide for their families. he spoke to senator casey about this, the senior senator from pennsylvania, one of the leaders in fighting for worker safety in this body. i spoke with him about it a few minutes ago. those seven workers never came home after an explosion leveled the plant. our thoughts are with the families who lost sons and daughters, workers who were paid

decent wages, not exorbitant wains -- wages, but never returned to their families. we'll learn more about what went wrong. i know pennsylvania workers always have an ally in senators casey and fetterman, on this issue and so much more. this struck me in a more emphatic way because it was about -- i believe it was one day before the 112th anniversary of the triangle shirtwaist factory fire. that woke up the nation to the dangers by workers. dozens, because the managers lost the factory doors, because they're afraid some of these very low-paid, mostly women, some very young workers might steal a blouse or two, they locked the factory doors so when this fire broke out in a very flammable environment, workers jumped out the whippedo to -- the window to their deaths, dozens and dozens. that made a huge difference in

congress finally dealing with worker safety. in fact, a woman who was nearlyby heard the sirens, came to the scene, was named frances perkins. this was 1911. she became the first female secretary of labor under president roosevelt, stayed with him his entire 12-plus years in office, played a big role, with senator wagner, of writing the most pro-workers legislation in the nation's history, especially on worker safety. madam president, i wear this pin on my lapel, it was given to me 25 years ago, at a workers' memorial day rally by the steelworkers. it's a depiction of a canary in a bird cage. the mine workers 120 years ago took a canary in the mine. if the canary died, from toxic gas or lack of oxygen, the mine workers got out of the mines. he had no unions in those days strong enough to protect him or government that cared enough to protect him.

we changed that because of worker safety laws and because of unions. this tragedy in west reading, pennsylvania, reminds us the work never ends. i think about the steelworkers who lost their lives near toledo in an explosion at the refinery in oregon, ohio, last year, max morrissey and ben morrissey, brothers who died in that accident. i think about the norfolk southern worker, norfolk southern, because of its culture of laying off workers and compromising safety and paying big compensation bonuses to executives, a worker at norfolk southern lost his life earlier this month. no worker should have to worry about kissing a husband or wife or children goodbye, shouldn't have to worry about returning home. that's why we should stand up to corporate lobbies who always want to cut costs and workers safety be damned. we saw what happened in east palestine because the railroad

laid off a third of its workers, then compromise on safety. we saw what happened in silicon valley bank when they didn't pay attention to consumers and regulators and the public interest. again, workers always pay the price. we know what will happen. every time there's an industrial accident, people are upset, they worry about it, but the companies lobby regulators for weaker laws. we see it here with corporate lobbyists and in the regulatory agencies when they always want to weaken consumer laws and environmental laws, they always want to weaken worker safety laws and communities pay, and workers pay. it's why a union card is so powerful. it means high irpage. it means safety and better benefits. if you love this country, you pay for the people that make it work. whether they stwiep a card -- swipe a card, wear a badge, work for tips or salary. we fight to keep people safe on

the job. that is our job. we make sure we do that better than in the past. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: thank you, madam president. is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. sullivan: thank you, madam president. madam president, we are debating

last week and this week the authorization for the use of military force, authority granted in 2002, which is a really important debate that we're seeing here right on the senate floor. by the way, it's a good-faith argument. there's members on both sides of the aisle making different arguments. there's not a topic in my view than the issues at stake here -- how to use military force, when to use military force. is it authorized by the presidency to use military -- by the president to use military force? because the issue of the u.s. government sending young men and women into harm's way to defend our country's interests, there's nothing more important, in my view. nothing more important. so, i appreciate the time and the debate here on the floor,

and it's also important because it wraps into, when you talk about young men and women going into harm's way overseas, one of the biggest harms to american servicemen and women over the past 20 years has actually been from shia militia groups supported by iranian terrorist organizations. now, that doesn't always seem to make sense. americans who were killed in iraq and wounded in iraq were often -- and i'll give some of the numbers here -- killed and wounded because those who did the killing and wounding were supplied by iranian terrorist

groups, in particular the quds force which was led by qasem soleimani during the course of the iraq war, killed over 600 american servicemembers and wounded over 2,000 with very sophisticated ied's that were supplied by the iranians to their proxies in iraq. so what does any of this have to do with the 2002 aumf for iraq that we've been debating last week and will debate this week? well, madam president, the answer is everything. everything. so we eventually figured out -- we, the united states -- that

these very sophisticated ied's are called explosively formed projectiles or penetrators, efp's, were actually, as i mentioned, caused by the iranians. took some time to figure this out because, like so many things, the iranian terrorists in tehran, the ayatollahs, they lie, they lie, and they denied it. oh, we don't have anything to do with that. well, they actually have everything to do with that. so again, the best and brightest in america, in my view, for many years during the iraq war were being killed by iranian terrorists and being led by qasem soleimani, who was the head of the quds force that was doing this.

madam president, during that time, 2005 to the middle of 2006, i was serving as a marine corps staff officer to the commanding general of the u.s. central command, general abizaid , deployed to many part else of the centcom oar, with the centcom commander. and the biggest concern was these incredibly effective, brutally efficient efp's that were killing and wounding so many of our best and brightest. to this day, it's just remarkable to me that so few people even know about this or talk about it. killing and maiming thousands of american troops by the iranians,

by the quds force, led by general soleimani. so again, what does this have to do with the 2002 aumf? everything. what happened during that time? well, when we figured out it was the iranians doing this, we never -- and we, again, national leadership -- never really retaliated against iran at all. imagine that. we know that they're killing and wounding thousands of our best and brightest and the united states did not do anything to establish deterrence. as a matter of fact, during that time, we lost deterrence, and it became clear that iran, with good reason, started to think, hey, we can kill american

servicemembers with impunity. there's no price. so they did. so when you lose deterrence with a terrorist regime that likes to kill americans and has a history of killing americans, it's not a good thing. especially for the young men and women who are serving our country in dangerous places. i remember early on in my senate tenure here, madam president, in a briefing we had in the scif. i asked the chairman of the joint chief, do you think we've lost deterrence? 600 americans killed, over 2,000 wounds. you think the iranians believe that they can kill as many americans -- again, our best and brightest and not pay a price? the chairman said yes. the chairman said yes. i remember that very distinctly. so the whole point is, well, how

do you reestablish deterrence? because if you reestablish deterrence, you're going to save lives, you're going to protect your servicemembers. and, again, there's nothing more important that we do as a country than making sure the men and women who go defend our country, defend us, defend our interests are protected, are lethal, are the best trained. but it's difficult. when you lose deterrence, it's hard to get it back. well, madam president, we did get it back. and i certainly applaud president trump and the trump administration. when qasem soleimani was back in iraq scoping american forces to kill -- by the way, a lot of them at that time were from alaska -- in early january of 2020, the trump administration said, the joke's over.

this guy with blood on his hands, thousands of our best and brightest, he's not doing it again. and he was killed during a daring strike on january 3, 2020. he was looking to kill more american troops in iraq, and he got killed. and i think it was justified, important signal to send to everybody around the world, you can't go around killing american troops and not expect to get a retaliation against you or your country. that should be basic. that should be basic. every u.s. senator here today should agree with that 110%. so the trump administration said, we're not going to allow this anymore, and the guy who is responsible for killing so many americans and wounding so many

americans, he's going to pay. and he did, with his life. the legal authorization for that very justified killing was the 2002 aumf that we're debating right now. okay, that was only three years ago that that happened. so it's very relevant to the issue of deterrence, very relevant to the issue of iran and for some of my colleagues saying, well, it's old, it has nothing to do with anything happening right now, they couldn't be more inaccurate. so this matters, and it matters today. and those who say it doesn't, they don't know this history or they don't want to know this history or they haven't been watching the news for the last 96 hours. because, madam president, as we've seen in the last 96 hours,

some of us who were concerned about the very debate we're having here, which is to say, let's remove the authorization that we used to kill soleimani, let's get rid of it -- hmmm ... what kind of signal does that send? could this signal maybe we're not worried about deterring iran anymore? could this signal that removing this authorization, this 2002 authorization -- again, it was used to regain deterrence with iran -- if we got rid of it, would this embolden iran? well, as i mentioned, the last 96 hours we've had iranian proxies unleashing deadly attacks on american servicemembers and american

contractors. that's happening right now. is it a coincidence? i don't know. one american dead, five wounded with these brazen attacks. some of us thought this actually might happen. it's happening. it's happening. and, unfortunately, madam president, there was a little bit of something going on last week that we're going to get to the bottom of it, trust me, on the armed services committee. we're going to get to the bottom of it. because last thursday, we were debating the aumf, these vicious attacks started 6:30 a.m. d.c. time on the day we were debating the aumf all day thursday. we didn't hear about it until close of business thursday. somebody hiding that information from us? pretty relevant information. but we're going to find out about that. so, madam president, i'm going

to be offering an amendment to the aumf tomorrow, and i believe every u.s. senator should vote for it. and here's why. i believe that the 2002 aumf clearly helped with deterrence. it was the authority, in addition to article 2, to take out one of the biggest terrorist -- heck, in the 21st century, that's for sure, killed more americans than any other terrorist, that's for sure. so the question is, will removing this aumf lessen american deterrence against iran's maligned activities? and that's what my amendment asks the director of national intelligence to do, to look at

that question and certify the answer. and if the answer is no, then this new aumf or the removal of this aumf can go forward. again, it's a really simple question. ask the dni for the next 30 days to look at this question. will removing the 2002 aumf lessen american deterrence against iran's maligned activities? why would not every u.s. senator want to go, that's a really good question. heck, we're seeing it in the middle east right now in syria. maybe this is going to embolden iran. heck, maybe we shouldn't do it. maybe by doing this, we're going to put american servicemembers' lives at risk.

hmmm ... maybe we shouldn't do it. let's ask the dni. that's it. why wouldn't you want that for the proponents -- i was just talking to a couple of proponents of this, of this aumf debate. and, again, i have a lot of respect for them. but i asked them, why wouldn't you want this? wouldn't you want to know? just wait 30 more days. i know you've gnp trying to get this -- i know you've been trying to get this removed for years. 30 more days. send it to the president's own director of national intelligence and ask her, review the intelligence, review what you're hearing, the chatter among the iranian proxies trying to kill americans, who killed americans. is any of this related it the removal of the aumf? and then give us an answer in 30 days. and if the answer is no, this can move forward. if it's yes, this will hurt our deterrence against iran, then we shouldn't be doing this. that's all my amendment is

asking. it simply says, the authorization for the use of military force, aumf of 2002, if it's voted on to be repealed, which it lacks like it will be -- which it looks like it will be, will go into effect after the director of national intelligence certifies in an intelligence assessment to congress that the repeal will not degrade the effectiveness of united states-led deterrence against iranian aggression. who could be against that? we should have 100 u.s. senators wanting to know the answer to that question, especially given what just happened over the last 96 hours, because maybe this debate is emboldening the iranian proxies and terrorists. maybe it's not. madam president, let's get the

answer. my amendment would also make sure that it is 100% clear that if the 2002 aumf is repealed, that the united states can fully retaliate against the iranians or any iranian threat if they are threatening our country or our people. i know that most of my colleagues here agree with that. we negotiated that language with some of my democratic friends and republican friends. so it's just that and this issue of asking the dni to certify that what we're doing on the senate floor right now is not going to undermine our deterrence against iran. and, oh, by the way, put more american lives at risk. simple. i would be shocked if any

senator voted against wanting to know the answer to that basic question. so, madam president, i'm asking my colleagues to just think hard. don't you want more information? can't you wait 30 more days to get president biden's dni to certify that what we're doing right here in the senate is not going to undermine deterrence and put more american lives at risk? i hope that all of my colleagues would agree with that and vote on my amendment. finally, madam president, i will just say the deterrence that we regained with the justified killing of suleimani has clearly been slipping away, particularly once the biden administration came into office. and it is a concern. i was on a recent bipartisan codel to the middle east, and

the number-one issue we're hearing about in every single stop by every single leader was the maligned activities of iran. you name the country we were in -- and we were in a lot of them, all the abraham accord countries in israel -- iran was the number-one topic in how aggressive they're getting. the lifting of the terrorist designation for the iranian backed houthis almost in the first month of this administration, in february 2021, was a sign of weakening deterrence against iran. the administration's inability to stand firmly with the united arab emirates, one of our strongest allies in the middle east, when it was attacked by houthi missiles and drones, of

course with the iranians help, was something else that lessened our deterrence. madam president, just last week when the centcom commander testified, he said there have been 78 similar attacks on american forces since 2021. we're losing deterrence. that's during the biden administration's two years. they have been attacking the hell out of our troops. what are we doing? what are we doing? the mullahs in tehran are emboldened by accommodation, like all tyrants. so i am asking my senate colleagues to take the very prudent, logical, and

responsible step to ask the dni if what we are getting ready to do here on the senate floor, which is to remove the 2002 aumf, will that undermine our deterrence against iran. let's wait 30 days to get the answer. don't put your head in the sand, my colleagues. stand up, see what the answer is from the dni so we can move forward in a way that makes sense for our national security, deterrence of the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, and most importantly, the ability to protect and defend our servicemembers serving overseas in places like syria that's very dangerous. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

senate stands adjourned until revealed to us a few authorizationsor the use of military force against iran. under our final passage vote by the end of the week. watch live coverage of the senate when they return here on cspan2. her copy of the what her 18th congressional directory now available at cspanshop.org. it is your access to federal government violent contact information for every house and senate member and important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scan the coat at the right to order your copy today or go to cspanshop.org. it is $29.95 plus shipping and handling and every purchase helps support our nonprofit

operations. this may come a c-span network the house and senate are in with the house working on energy policy legislation. the senate continues to work on legislation to repeal authorizations for the u of military force against iraq. the senate will also hold hearings on president biden's proposed $6.9 trillion budget for fiscal year 2024 with testimony from the secretary of homeland security and attorney general america garland. on tuesday federal banking leaders testify before the senate banking cmittee at recent bank failures. then on wednesday the former ceo of starbucks, appears before the set health committee over complaints starbucks is preventing stores from unionizing. watch this week on the c-span networks or on c-span now our free mobile video app. also head over too c-span.org for special scheduling information or to stream video live on the event any time unfiltered view of government.

♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more. including cox. quicksilver can be hard. but squatting in a diner for internetwork is even harder. that is but we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet so homework can just be homework. cox connected to compete. >> cox, supports he spent as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. folks joining us for miami, florida kimberly leonard of insider sheets policy and politics correspondence. one thing she reports what is the activity of the governor florida ron desantis will come back to the program. >> thanks much for having me. >> recent interview at book tour making around at this point. what is the stage