journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's booktv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcast. c-span is available at the apple store in google play. download it for free today. c-span now your front with state to washington anytime anywhere. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we're just getting started building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communication support c-span as a public service along with your other television providers getting a frequency to democracy.

>> use senate is about to go in on this tuesday morning to continue work on on a bill to repeal the 1991 and 1992 authorization for use of military force and iraq. throughout the day senate lawmakers are expected to vote on a handful of republican amendments to the legislation. a vote on passage is expected sometime this week. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god,

we stand in awe of you. lord, when babies die at a church school, it is time for us to move beyond thoughts and prayers. remind our lawmakers of the words of edmond burke: all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. lord, deliver our senators from the paralysis of analysis that waits for the miraculous. use them to battle the demonic

forces that seek to engulf us. we pray in your powerful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the larp time is reserved -- leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed and the senate will resume consideration of s. 361. the presiding officer: the clerk: number 25, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against iraq.

mr. warnock: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. warnock: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. quorum call:

which is an important debate and 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 mind more important than the issue at stake here. how to use military force, when to use military force, when is it authorized by the president to use military force . because the issue of the us government sending young men and women into harm's way to defend our country's interests, there's nothing more important in my view . i appreciate the time and did they hear on the floor and it's also important because when you talk about young men and women going into harm's way overseas, one of the biggest arms to american servicemen and women over the past 20 years has actually been from shia militia groups

supported by iranian terrorist organizations. that doesn't always seem to make sense. americans killed and wounded in iraq were often, and i'll get to 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 kudz force led by kassam suleimani killed 600 american servicemembers and wounded over 2000 with very

sophisticated ied's supplied by the iranians to their proxies in iraq. so what does any of this have to do with the 2002 aumf for iraqi that we've been donating last week and will debate this week? madam president, the answeris everything . so we eventually figured out, we the united states that these very sophisticated ied's are called explosively formed projectiles work penetrators. efp's were as i mentioned caused by the iranians. took some time to figure out

that the iranian terrorists lied. they lied and they denied that they had anything to do with that but they actually had everything to do with that . for many years during the iraq war were being killed by iranian terrorists led by kassam suleimani who was the head of the kudz force that was doing this. during that time 2005 through 06 i was serving as a marine corps staff officer to the commanding general of the us central command. deployed too many parts of the centcom ar and the

biggest concern no doubt was these incredibly effective, brutally efficient efp that were killing and wounding so many of our best and brightest. this day is just remarkable that so few people even know about this or talk about it. killing and maiming thousands of american troops. by the koreans, the kudz force led by general suleimani so what does this have to do with the 2002 aumf? everything. what happened during that time?

national leadership never retaliated against iran at all. imagine that we know there killing and wounding thousands of our best and brightest and the united states should have done things toestablish deterrence . ran with good reason started to think we could kill american servicemembers with impunity. 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 serving our country

in dangerous places. i remember early on in my senate tenure here madam president in a briefing we had i asked the chairman of the joint chiefs do you think you've lost deterrence, 600 americans killed, you think the iranian can kill servicemembers? our best and brightest and not pay a price? the chairman said yes. i remember that very distinctly. bold why do you reestablish deterrence because if you reestablished as you're going to save lives, your servicemembers and there's nothing more important to you as a country and making sure men are, or legal, are the best trained.

but it's difficult when you lose deterrence it's hard to get it back . madam president we did get it back. and i applaud president trump and the trump administration when kassam suleimani was back in iraq, scoping american forces to kill and by the way a lot of them at that time were from alaska and in early january, the trump administration said the joke is 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, an important

signal to send to everybody around the world you can't go around killing american troops and not expect a retaliationagainst you or your country .that should be basic. that should be basic. every us senator here today should agree with that 110 percent. 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 is going to pay and he did with his life. the legal authorization or that justify killing was the 2002 aumf that we are donatingright now . okay. it was only three years ago that happened so it's very

relevant to the issue of deterrence very relevant to the issue of iran and for some colleagues to say they couldn't be more inaccurate. so this matters. and itmatters today . and those who say it doesn't, they don't know the history or don't want to know the history or haven't been watching the news for the last 96 hours because madam president, as we've seen the last 96 hours, some of us who were concerned about the very debate where having here which is to say let's remove the authorization that we used to kill soleimani, let's get rid ofit. what kind of signal does that send ? that this signal may be where

not worried about deterring ran anymore. could this signal that removing this authorization again, it was used to regain deterrence with your and if we got rid of it with this temple in iran? well, as i mentioned last 96 hours we 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 files wounded with these brazen attacks. some of us thought this might happen. it's happening. it's happening. and unfortunately madam president there was a little bit of something going on last week that were going to

get to the bottom of , trust me on the armed services committee last thursday we were debating the aumf and these vicious attacks started 6:30 a.m. dc time on the day we were debating the aumf we didn't hear about it until close of business thursday. somebody hiding that information from us? pretty relevant information. we're going to find out. so madam president, i'm going to be offering an amendment to the aumf tomorrow and i believe every us senator should vote for it. and here's why. i believe the 2002 aumf helped with deterrence. it was the authority in

article 2 to take out one of the biggest terrorists in the 21st century, that's for sure. killed moreamericans that's for sure . so the question is will removing this aumf lesson american deterrence from iran's malign activities and that's what my amendment asked 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 the aumf can go forward. again, it's a simple question . ask the dni for the next 30

days to look at this question. will removing the 2002 aumf lesson american deterrence against iran's malign activities? why would not every us senator want to go that's a really good question. we're seeing it in themiddle east right now in syria . maybe this is going to embolden them and maybe we shouldn't do it. maybe by doing this servicemembers lives at risk, maybe we shouldn't do it. that's it. why wouldn't you want that for the proponents, i was talking to a couple proponents of this aumf today and i have a lot of respect. i asked would you want to know? just wait three more days. we've been trying to get this removed for years. days.

send it to the president's own director of national intelligence and asked her, review the intelligence, what the chatter among the iranian proxies trying to this related to the removal aumf's and to give us an answer in 30 days. if the answer is no discount forward. it is yes this will hurt our deterrence against bad and we shouldn't be doingthis . that's all i amendment is asking. it simply says the authorization for the use of military force in 2002 if it's voted on to the repeal which it looks like itwill be , will go into effect after the director of national intelligence certifies.

sion of congress. as we work together to make our country a better place. i want to thank senators kaine and young, chairman menendez, and all the cosponsors of this legislation for their good work. but unfortunately, there are disturbing trends here in the senate, and one of the most disturbing is what the senator from alabama is doing to weaken our national security. for a long time both parties have worked together to quickly confirm the routine promotions of generals and flag officers, without partisan bickering, without needless delay. confirming military promotions one of the most important responsibilities of the senate, a charge that rises far above normal political fights. but today one member, one member, the senator from alabama, is blocking the routine

promotion of 160 general and flag officers because he objects to women within the military getting access to reproductive care. it's very simple -- the senior senator wants alabama to make the health care -- the senior senator from alabama wants to make the health care decisions for the women of our military. and the senator from alabama is holding up scores of military nominees who have not done anything to be treated this way, until he gets his way. the women of our military are more than capable of making their own decisions when it comes to their health. they come not -- they do not need the senior senator from alabama making decisions on their behalf. and they certainly do not need any senator throwing a wrench into the function, the vital functioning of our military when they are military -- they work

every day to keep us safe. so the senator from alabama is permanently injecting politics into the confirmation of routine military promotions. the senator from alabama risks permanently injecting politics into the confirmation of routine military promotions. and that would risk our entire national security. for what? so he can push the maga hard line on blocking women's choice, something that most women in this country, most people in this country reject? that is beyond the pail. let's be clear. the senator from alabama's delay of 160 routine military promotions is reckless. it puts americans' security in jeopardy. among the 160 nomes that are on -- nominees that are on hold, all of whom have worked to earn their promotions, all of whom we need to protect our security include five three-star

generals, commanders for u.s. naval forces in the pacific and middle east. people, leaders who are confronting the likes of china and iran, and the u.s. military representative to the nato military committee which is especially important right now as russia continues its war in ukraine. so let me say it again. this level of obstruction, of routine military promotions, is a reckless departure from senate norm. none of us want to live in a world where military appointments get routinely politicized, and that's just what the senator from alabama is doing. he's inflicting unnecessary damage to our military leadership, and it would paralyze the senate if all of us had to take one roll call vote after another just to confirm routine apolitical qualified generals and other flag officers. i know that members of both

sides of the aisle feel passionately at times about certain issues. we all do. but if every one of us went to the floor and said we're holding up every general, every admiral, every flag officer until we get our way, our military would come crashing down. it would be in shambles. and our national security would be in jeopardy, but that's just what the senator from alabama is doing. the obstruction is dangerous, dangerous for our national security. i urge my colleague from alabama it think about it. why shouldn't member on this side block military appointments? why shouldn't any other member on that side on things they believe in just as passionately as he believes in his issue of choice with a proper to -- well, the proper place to take it up is on the floor of the senate and house as a legislative proposal, not as hostage taking and taking hostage of our generals and people who deserve

promotion. so i urge my colleagues, my republican colleagues on the other side to speak out and to certainly speak to the senator from alabama and tell him how reckless this is. several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to their everlasting credit have voiced their concerns with the senator from alabama's action. our colleagues, our republican leadership, should convince him to stand down and let these military promotions go through. now, on the debt ceiling. well, this morning speaker mccarney stated in an interview that he sent a letter to president biden demanding the two sit down to talk about debt ceiling. he's been saying that for a very long time but for a very long time he has not shown us any plan. to date speaker mccarthy has failed to unite his conference behind a single proposal that can win 218 votes.

we're hearing a lot of contradictions, u turns by the republican caucus in the house. lots of outlandish proposals that would harm a lot of americans. but as far as a plan goes, the republican leadership still has none. when the speaker is asked about specifics for his plan, all we get is crickets. all we get is crickets. republicans have been flailing. one day there's a term sheet. then there's having a budget. then there's not having a budget. now there's a supposed amore face $4 trillion number but the only thing missing is a real plan. you can't just pick a number out of the sky and say this is a plan. of course it's not. you can't put a number on the floor of the house and try to get it to pass. so when speaker mccarthy pounces fingers at democrats, all he is doing is deflecting from problems he has in his own conference. that those on the maga right

want to pull one way and those who are more mainstream want to pull another way, and he can't bring the two of them together. speaker mccarthy says he wants to sit down with the president. but if he comes to the president's office with no specific plan, no specific details about what the republicans want to cut, what are they going to talk about? the weather? if the two sit down, the speaker would have nothing to say because for three months he's been missing the one thing that he needs most, an initial plan that cannot unite 200 of his 18 votes. we democrats have had a plan, house, senate, democrats. pass it without brinksmanship, without hostage taking. do what we've done under president trump and president biden in the past when we've reached the limit of debt ceiling. we say to speaker mccarthy, where is your plan. if you sit down with the

president, if he -- if the two were to sit down, the speaker would have nothing to say because for three months he is missing an initial plan that can unite 218 votes. during today's interview, the speaker also claimed multiple times that his party is considering $4 trillion in cuts. great. fill out the specifics where the $4 trillion exactly comes from. put it on the floor, mr. speaker. show us the plan. have a vote. we need specifics. you can't say you're for $4 trillion in cuts if you can't point to specifics. if the speaker truly has a proposal, he should lay it out. this isn't about some amorphis, vague number. it's about having a plan. and if this is the central problem with speaker mccarthy's approach. it's not even possible to meet with the president and have a true meeting if he can't guarantee he will keep his conference together. that's why republicans this drop their brinksmanship, drop the

hostage taking, work with democrats on a clean bipartisan extension of the debt ceiling, and remove this cloud that's hanging over our economy that is imposed by speaker mccarthy's brinksmanship. on h.r. 1, the house is expected to vote on republicans partisan, unserious so-called energy package they call h.r. 1. all it takes is a brief glance at h.r. 1 to realize it's just a big giveaway to big oil, pretending to be an energy package. house republicans so-called energy package would gut important environmental safeguards on fossil fuel projects. it would lock america into expensive, erratic, and dirty energy sources while setting us back more than a decade on our transition to clean energy. everyone admits we've got to do something about the carbon that's causing global warming. we've seen all the changes that it's caused all across the

country. and they want to move back ten years at the behest of big oil. so it's a plan that has no support with the american people. very little. the oil interests, yes. just about nobody else. and it falls woefully short on long overdue and much needed reforms for accelerating the construction of transmission to bring clean energy projects online. transmission is hugely important to increasing access to clean energy, but the republican plan falls woefully short on this front as well. so i want to make clear that h.r. 1 is dead on arrival in the senate. it's another exercise. you can go back to the maga supporters back home, the big oil companies who you are walking in lockstep with and say see, we put it on the floor but it's not going to get anything done. we are not going to waste our time on a bill that sets america back decades in our transition

to clean energy. a serious clean energy package would help ease americans -- america's transition to clean energy while ensuring that clean energy is reliable, accessible, and most importantly affordable. fortunately many democrats and republicans understand that we need a bipartisan, bicameral approach to produce a serious energy package. everyone knows there's going to have to be give on both sides to get it done. and we on our side will continue working in good faith on real permitting reform talks. but house republicans' h.r. 1 is very simply put a nonstarter. on student debt cra. yesterday republicans introduced legislation that would end the pause on payments and overturn president biden's historic student loan debt relief program. denying the millions of americans with student debt the critical relief they need. republicans talk a big game about helping working families. but they are once again showing

how callous and uncaring they are by blocking that relief that would immediately improve the lives of millions of families burdened student debt. republicans call president biden's plan a giveaway to high earners. that's just false. that's just malicious. that's just nasty. under president biden's plan, nearly 90% of relief dollars would go to out-of-school borrowers making less than $75,000. republicans, look at the facts. let me repeat it. under president biden's plan, 90%, nearly 90% of debt relief dollars would go to out-of-school borrowers making less than $75,000 a year. under president biden's plan, no one in the top 5% of incomes will receive a penny in debt relief. president biden's plan is not a giveaway to high earners. in fact, it's a lot of very, very wealthy people who never want to see the government help anybody except themselves who seem to push this idea of

getting rid of the president's plan. president biden's plan is a ladder up to the middle class for millions of americans who need it most. rather than help the privileged few, the biden plan would benefit students of color, poor americans, children of immigrants, and working and middle-class families across the country. these are the americans that bear the brunt of the student debt crisis. they are the ones hurt by republican legislation. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, providing for the common defense is one of the core responsibilities of the federal

government. it is in fact a primary reason why the federal government exists. in fact the constitution states and i quote, the united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion. so how do we do that, mr. president? how do we protect our nation and ensure that americans can live in peace and safety? well, the answer can be summed up in one word, mr. president. strength. as ronald reagan said, and i quote, we know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong but when they are weak. it is then that tyrants are tempted. end quote. or to put it in the words of another president, our first, speaking 200 years earlier, and i quote, to be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. end quote.

that from president george washington. mr. president, we secure peace by maintaining our strength. so what does that mean in practice? at its most basic level, of course, it means maintaining a strong military and national intelligence apparatus. it means ensuring that our military is well funded, sufficiently manned, and fully equipped to meet current and future threats. and unfortunately, mr. president, what we're not doing the best job at that right now. we have military services that are struggling to meet recruiting targets. there's a persistent pilot shortage. in awb in of cases we have too few mission capable aircraft. under the president's budget, navy ships would be retired faster than we can replace them in our limited shipyards. and war gaming analysis suggests we've run out of long-range munitions in certain conflicts with a great power much sooner than any american should be

comfortable with. on top of that, last month the spectacle of a chinese spy balloon flying over u.s. military bases made it clear that there's been an alarming gap in norad's monitoring of u.s. air space. in our current -- and our current situation isn't being helped by the fact that the president is deemphasizing investment in our military. the budget he introduced for next year requests a massive hike in nondefense spending compared to a mere 3.2% increase for defense. and in fact the supposed increase in defense spending isn't really an increase at all. the increase the president is proposing fails to keep pace with current levels of flynn commission means his defense spending hike is really a defense spending cut. and not for the first time. mr. president, in november of 2018 the bipartisan national defense security commission -- strategy commission i should say, released a report warning

that our readiness had eroded to the point where we might struggle to win a power against a major power like russia or china. and the commission noted we would be especially vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts. we've made some progress since then, mr. president. but we are definitely not there yet. and we have to make continued investment in our military and our readiness a priority. we need to be prepared to meet any threat because that will allow us to deter almost any threat. reducing our military as the president proposed, would leave us in a situation where we would have problems defending tower nation -- defending our nation's interest. china announced that it is increasing its defense budget

by 7.2% this year, after increasing it 1.7% last year. we need to continue to reinvest in our military, address recruitment challenges and ensure our men and women in uniform have what that he need to deter the threats of the 21st century. the most basic requirement of national strength is a strong military, and that isn't the only requirement. investment in our military and national security apparatus needs to be accompanied by commitments to border security, energy security, and more. border security, and here i'm talking not just about physical security but also enforcement of our immigration laws, is an essential part of keeping our nation secure. porous borders, or lack of immigration enforcement that allows things like visa

overstays are an invitation for those who seek to hurt our country. the fact that those who were apprehended attempting to cross the border illegally in february alone should be all the reminder we need that people who do not wish us well are seeking to enter our country. we need to ensure we are forcing our immigration laws and maintaining our borders to stop them. mr. president, i also referenced energy security as a component of national strength and security. what does energy security mean? it means developing our domestic energy resources, both conventional and renewable, to ensure a stable and reliable supply of energy that does not depend on imports from hostile countries. the energy challenges and soaring costs countries like germany have faced over the past year owing their reliance on russian energy are timely reminders of having energy

supplies. depending on imports from hostile nations, not only enriches those nations, it places us in a position of vulnerability. so far i talked about what we should do to protect our nation and deter aggressors. but security is not just a matter of working at home to strengthen our military and secure our borders. we also need to engage globally, to build relationships with allies, and stand against who's style actions by hostile countries. now, standing against hostile countries doesn't mean to fix every country's problem or getting involved in every issue around the globe. we are not and cannot be police officer to the world. but an ietion laitionism that -- isolationism from any world event is dangerous in contrary

to our national security interest. because sooner or later, world events, particularly those that involve powerful and hostile nations do affect us. we ignore the importance of security challenges like ukraine at awr peril. -- at our peril. putin is making it clear that his ambitions don't end with ukraine. he's also occupying a territory in georgia and seeking to assert russian influence in moldova and the balkans, a victorious russian in ukraine would gifl them four soviet nato states too are now into the -- are now nat. it would compound the existing -- it would spell economic disasters with the united states.

for the sake of our own security, we cannot afford to sit by and ignore the ukrainian conflict. helping ukraine fight its fight degrades russia's capability and helps ensure that the united states and nato troops won't have to fight a war with russia. and it sends a clear message to russia and other nations with imperial ambitions, that aggression will not go unanswered. mr. president, i would also note that along with isolationism, we need to be wary of the tendency to focus on one global threat to the exclusions of others. china which is flexing its military and economic power and threatening the safety of taiwan should be a major focuses right now -- focus right now. but it cannot be the only one. for who contend the u.s. support for ukraine, i would argue that the outcom in ukraine has

significant implementations for china and taiwan. it appears japanese prime minister would agree as he traveled to kyiv one week ago, a trip not taken lightly given that japan is neighbors with russia, china, and north korea. we know that chinese leader xi jinping is watching the west's response to the war in ukraine closely. and our support and nato's support of ukraine can send a powerful message to general secretary xi that he should think twice before making any move across the taiwan strait. mr. president, in addition to confronting the dangers imposed by great powers, we need to focus on threats in the middle east and africa, including isis and iran and their poxies.

in the past week, there have been multiple strikes on american forces in syria with attacks tracing back to iran-backed militia groups and we need to continue to make it clear that hostile action against americans like last week's attacks will not be tolerated. iran is fomenting unrest in the middle east, leading closer to weapons-gradeure ran yum -- uranium. it looks like russia will supply iran with fighter jets making them a more dangerous presence in the middle east. we cannot afford to ignore iran anymore than we can ignore china, russia, or any other serious threat to peace and stability. we need to remain engaged on the global stage, always pursuing peace, but also ready to respond to those who would jeopardize

it. above all, mr. president, we can't be afraid to call evil by its name. ronald reagan never declared war on the soviet union but he helped to bring down the evil empire in part by not being afraid to speak with moral clarity. mr. president, there will always be threats to peace and security, and it must be our job to ensure that the united states always has the strength to meet them. there is no sure way of preserving the peace or protecting the heritage of freedom that we have been given. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> the senate invoked cloture on legislation repealing the iraq auaf of 2002, in 1991. we will continue voting on an course of today and member should expect final passage on repealing the iraq aumf as soon as tomorrow. i want to think both sides of the aisle for their cooperation and bipartisanship. this has been original process here on the floor with votes on amendments brought forth by our

republican colleagues. i hope this process can serve as a blueprint for how the senate can work on into the future. in the next few months, for sure. we will have amendments without being dilatory. will have debate without bogging down the process. we will look for opportunities to advance bipartisan bills as we did over the past two years. so again i hope this auaf portends good things to come. i hope it can serve as a blueprint for how the senate can work in this session of congress. as we work together to make our country a better place. i want to thank senator hayne, senator young, and all the cosponsors for the good work. but, unfortunately, there are disturbing trends here in the senate and one of the most disturbing is what the senator from alabama is doing to weaken our national security. for a long time both parties

have worked together to quickly confirm the routine promotions of generals and flag officers without partisan bickering, without needless delay. confirming military promotion is one of the most important responsibilities of the senate, a charge it rises far above normal political fights. but today one member, one member, the senator from alabama, is blocking the routine promotion of 160 general and flag officers because he objects to women within the military getting access to reproductive care. it's very simple. the senior senator want alabama to make a health care, senior senator from alabama wants to make the health care decisions for the women of our military. and the senator from alabama is holding up scores of military nominees who have not been anything to be treated this way, until he gets his way.

the women of our military are more than capable of making their own decisions when it comes to their health. they do not need the senior senator from alabama making decisions on their behalf, and they certainly do not need any senator throwing a wrench in the function, the vital functioning of our military, when they, our military, work everyday to keep us safe. so the senator from alabama risks permanently injecting politics into the confirmation of routine military promotions. the senator from alabama risks permanently injecting politics into the confirmation of routine military promotions. and that would risk our entire national security. for what? so he can push the maga hard-line unblocking women's choice? something that most women in this country, , most people in this country reject? that is beyond the pale.

now, let's be clear. the senator from alabama stilling of 160 routine military promotions is reckless. puts american security in jeopardy. among the 160 nominees that are on hold, all of whom have worked to earn their promotions, all of whom we need to protect our security and includes five, three sir generals, commanded for your stables forces in the pacific and middle east, people leaders who are confronting the likes of china and iran, and the u.s. military representative to the nato military committee, which is especially important right now, as russia continues its work in ukraine. so let me say it again. this level of obstruction come of routine military promotions is a reckless departure from senate norm. none of us want to live in a

world where military appointments get routinely politicized, and that's just what senator from alabama is doing. he's inflicting unnecessary damage to our military leadership and it would paralyze the senate if all of us had to take one roll call vote after another just to confirm routine apolitical, , qualified generals and other flag officers. i know that members of both sides of the aisle feel passionately at times about certain issues, we all do, but if everyone of us went to the floor and said we're holding up every general, every admiral, every flag officer until we get our way, our military would come crashing down, would be in shambles. and our national security would be in jeopardy. but that's just what the senator from alabama is doing. the obstruction is dangerous. dangerous for our national security. i urge my colleagues from

alabama to think about it. why shouldn't a member on this site block military appointments? why shouldn't any other member on that side in things they believe and just as passionate as he believes in his issue of choice? with the proper place to take it up is on the floor of the senate and the house, as a legislative proposal, not as hostage taking and taking hostages of our generals and admirals and people who deserve promotion. so i urge my colleagues, , my republican colleagues on the other side to speak out and to certainly speak to the senator from alabama and tell him how reckless this is. several, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to the everlasting credit have voiced their concerns with the senator from alabama's action. our colleagues, our republican leadership should convince him to stand down and let these military promotions go through. now, on the debt ceiling.

while this morning speaker mccarthy stated in an interview that he sent a letter to president biden demanding that you sit down to talk about debt ceiling, he's been saying that for a very long time. but for very long time he has not shown us any plan. to date, , speaker mccarthy has failed to unite his conference behind a single proposal back and win 218 votes. we are having a lot of contradictions, u-turns by republican caucus in the house. lots of outlandish proposals that would harm a lot of americans, but as far as a plan goes, republican leadership still has none. when the speaker is asthma specifics for his plan, all we get is crickets. all we get is crickets. republicans have been crawling. one day there's a term sheet, there's a budget, not a budget,

now there's is a posted amorphous $4 trillion number number but the only thing missing is a real plan. can't just pick a number out of the sky and say this is a plan. of course it's not. you can't put just a number on the floor of the house and try to get it to pass. so when speaker mccarthy point fingers at democrats, all he is doing is deflecting from problems he has in his own conference, that those on the maga right want to pull one way, those remain stream onto another way, and he can't bring the two of them together. speaker mccarthy says he wants to sit down with the president, but when he comes to the president's office with no specific plan, no specific details about what republicans want to cut, what a degree to talk about, the weather? if the to sit down this big would have nothing to say. because for three months he's been missing the one thing that he needs most, and initial plan that cannot unite 200 of his 18 votes. we democrats if i do plan,

houses, senate, democrats. pass it without brinkmanship, without hostagetaking. do what we've been under president trump and president biden in the past when we reached the limit of debt ceiling. so, we say to speaker mccarthy, where's your plan? if you sit down with the president, if the two recessed down, the speaker had nothing to say because for three months he is missing an initial plan that can unite 218 votes. during today's interview the speaker also can multiple times his party is considering come back to this floor to talk about the soil act. this is a bill i introduced last year that deals with chinese ownership of land in the united states. since i've introduced this bill, several of my colleagues in this room also introduced other bills similar to it.

good. that means people are paying attention to this, and the conversation is starting. i'm all for as many ideas as we can get out here and how to solve this. the most basic principle we have right now is if we miss an obvious trend that's happening here, is to our economic peril. this chart has just a very simple number on it. in 2020, chinese entities owned almost 200,000 acres of land in the united states. one year later, they're at almost 400,000 acres in the united states. in one year. this is from 2020 to 2021. this trend is happening all over if the country, and we're certainly seeing it in my state, in oklahoma. when i travel around my state i hear people talk about the border, i hear people talk about the economy and often hear people say there's a lot foreign ownership going into land right now in oklahoma, and it's

dramatically affecting the price of real estate, the price of agricultural land, but also what's happening on that land. my state may be a little bit different than others, or it may be the same thing happening in your state. about half a decade ago, my state did medical marijuana legalization. it was a decision of the voters in my state to say they want to get access to medical marijuana for those that needed. the problem is that chinese entities and chinese criminal organizations and mexican cartels immediately flood fle market in our state, and we've seen a rapid rise in marijuana in our state, much of it in the illegal markets. it's not just happening for the, quote-unquote, medical side in our state. it's being distributed all over the country from my state. just a few months ago i was looking on different worldwide news sources and was shocked to be able to see in the bbc news headlines for that day a story

about my state on the global news headlines about a group of chinese nationals that were shot execution style in a grow operation in oklahoma. the individual who executed them was on the run, then was arrested in florida a couple days later, also a chinese national. chinese criminal organizations have moved into my state in mass numbers. the year after marijuana was legalized in my state for, quote-unquote, medical purposes, we had more land sales to foreign entities in oklahoma than any other state in america. as chinese criminal organizations and mexican cartels immediately moved in toobilities set up shop in -- to be able to set up shop in distribution nationwide. many people said i didn't think it was legal for foreign entities to be able to own land in the united states. well, there's a gap actually in our law. it's an issue that i want us to be able to dole with, how we're

going to -- to deal with, how to challenge about this issue. beyond the chinese side of things, another perspective on this, ten years ago, 321,000 acres in america were -- i'm sorry, in oklahoma, 321,000 acres in oklahoma were owned by a foreign entity ten years ago. today, it's 1.67 million acres in my state are owned by a foreign entity. from 321,000 to 1.67 million acres. there's a rapid transition that's happening where foreign entities are rapidly buying up land. if you're a farmer and rancher, yeah, there are some things god is just not making more of, and one of them is land. you can't just give that up. this is a problem. it's a problem nationally. not just in the marijuana industry, it's a problem

nationally. it's a problem dealing, quite frankly, with our national security. we currently have a one-mile buffer around all of our military installations, that you can't own land if you're a foreign entity within one mile around our military installations. we now believe that's not near enough. quite frankly, foreign nationals from many countries, like china, buying up the land around our critical infrastructure, around our telecom infrastructure, around military bations, around -- military bases, around government offices. they're not buying it because they're looking foreanother place -- for another place to invest, but to set up shop for their own operations, their own spying and their own control of our economy. we should pay attention to there. -- pay attention to this. as we deal with different entities, data, health care, they have to go through a process. it's called the cfias process. that is the committee on foreign

investment in the united states. the abbreviation you hear is called cfius. that includes the treasury, commerce, defense, intelligence community. all have to be involved if a foreign entity wants to be able to buy, let's say, a telecom company, or buy a lot of big data around a hospital, whatever it may be. it has to go through that process on that. agricultural land is not in that, though. there is no review for that, so there is no prioritization for foreign investment of our land, even where it is. so this has become an out-of-sight, out-of-mind issue. so the bill that i have, called the soil act, this does a mandatory review of cfius, that process, the council on foreign investment in the united states, for agricultural land in the entity that is in two categoriea national security threat, that country is a national security threat, or they're what's called a nonmarket economy.

let me explain those two. the national security threat is pretty straightforward. that's china, russia, iran, north korea. if china, russia, iran or north korea want to buy land around the edge of one of our military bases, right outside that one-mile buffer, or buy up lots of land around critical infrastructure and telecom, it's not for our good. we should have a review of that. second is a nonmarket economy. this is a market run by the government. china would fall squarely into this as a communist nation. you cannot run a foreign entity outside of china without it running through the communist party in china. so they're a nonmarket economy. be the most basic part about this is if you're going to buy any land in the united states and you're from one of those countries that's a nonmarket economy or a national security threat, we should have a

mandatory review of that. so they could actually do that kind of purchase, but we just want to know why, where, how much, what's the purpose of this, and we can ask those practical questions of it. the soil act also tries to close some of the loopholes in our federal law. let me talk through a couple of those. currently, we have a foreign entity, let's say a chinese entity doing an ag purpose there. they would still be available for agricultural subsidies in the united states. well that needs to be closed. we shouldn't do subsidies for a foreign entity coming into the united states and doing investment. so it closes that loophole. is closes all the disclosure loopholes dealing with agriculture land holdings. right now if you have a land holding that is around 10 acres, then you don't have to disclose it. a lot of these operations are less than 10 acres and there's a lot you can do on 10 acre fs that 10 acres also happens to be

right on our critical infrastructure, on our telecommor maybe it's also doing a criminal operation. also this deals with issues of long-term leases. foreign entities would come in and say we're not really buying the land. we're just doing a 99-year lease. that's the equivalent of actually owning the land so it gets around that loophole and beefs up our enforcement for those who violate our foreign investment laws. it also requires annual reporting for china and russia in particular. listen, i'm not trying to stop foreign investment into the country. bmw wants to manufacture here in the announce their cars, nissan, or any number of manufacturing products that are here from all over the world. they're welcome to be here. they're welcome to be able to do foreign investment. but when iran is buying up a big chunk of land, we should ask the question why they're doing that. currently we don't even have a process to do that.

when china is snapping up land by the hundreds of thousands of acres, we should ask the question why is china buying hundred also of thousands of acres of american land all of a sudden. what is the goal? we should ask that question and currently we don't have a process to do that. so let's fix that. we see the trend. let's not just watch this go sideways. let's actually engage and let's protect our national security and let's protect our national interests. with that i yield the floor. mr. lankford: i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hawley: mr. president, yesterday the nation witnessed a murderous rampage at an elementary school, a small christian school in nashville, tennessee. tragically three small children, 9 years old, lost their lives, three employees of this school lost their lives. and even as i'm on this floor now, nashville police are releasing the body cam footage of the officers who responded with heroic speed and heroic

courage to the deranged individual who made her way into that school and was executing students and teachers one by one. those officers deserve to be praised. they deserve to be thanked. they deserve to be honored for what they did. and for the lives they saved. mr. president, we must also tell the truth about what happened yesterday in nashville. this murderous rampage, this taking of innocent life was a horrific crime but more specifically, it was a hate crime. a crime that according to nashville police specifically targeted, that's their word, targeted the members of this christian community, the members of this religious institution, its students, its educators, its employees. let's be clear, mr. president. federal law prohibits the

targeting of violence against any american on the basis of religious affiliation or religious practice or religious belief. but that is according to police exactly what we saw happen yesterday. the members of this community were singled out because of their religious affiliation. and now three young children are dead and three educators are dead because of their affiliation with this religious institution, because of their beliefs, because of their work, because of their service. that is a crime under federal law. and it must be treated as such. today i have called on the director of the fbi and the secretary of homeland security to open a federal investigation, a federal hate crime investigation into what happened in nsh vail. we need the -- nashville. we need the facts mr. president. we need to know about the premeditated crime.

we need to know what this shooter did and intended to do. we need to know about the influences, what kind of violent rhetoric motivated this shooter, were there others involved? this contagion of hateful rhetoric and violence must not be allowed to spread, mr. president, and that is why we need all federal resources according to federal law devoted now, on the ground in nashville to get the facts and to stop the violence from spreading further. and i call on this body, every member of this body, to condemn in the clearest of terms this hate crime against this community in nashville. today i will introduce a resolution explicitly condemning this massacre as the hate crime that it is and calling upon this body to condemn hateful rhetoric that leads to violence, hateful read rick against religious --

rhetoric against religious believers, religious institutions, cllings communities that leads to violence. this is a tragic fact. it has happened before our eyes. and we must condemn it. and i would call on those corporate partners who are so quick to weigh in on social issues now make your voice heard. condemn this violence as the hate crime that it is. stand with this community in nashville. this is a time to be heard, mr. president. this is a time to be clear about what has happened and is unfolding before our very eyes. and let's just be crystal clear. rhetoric about days of vengeance and genocide, rhetoric directed against religious believers of whatever background whether they're presbyterians like the students and teachers and employees targeted yesterday or some other christian affiliation or orthodox jews or catholics or

whatever, the religious background, it is a crime under federal law to target and commit acts of violence against americans because of their religious beliefs, because of their religious affiliation, because of their religious practices. this should not happen, mr. president, in the united states of america. and now we must act to see that it does not spread. and so i hope the senate will soon take up my resolution. i hope that every member of this body will be clear about what has happened in nashville and will be clear in standing against the violence and standing against the hate and standing against the rhetoric and standing with this community that needs now our support, that needs now our encouragement and condolences, yes, butle needs our action. -- yes, but also needs our action. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from wisconsin. a senator: last december an infer governmental negotiating people was established. at its fourth meeting last month, the negotiating body accepted a draft of this new convention that would give the world health organization broad new powers in managing future pandemics. johnson & johnson phenomenon accepted -- mr. johnson: if accepted it would sell meant the world health organization at the center for managing future pandemics and erode u.s. sovereignty. let me just list a few of the examples of some of the provisions of this draft -- i'll call it a treaty. currently it would require a substantial new financial -- u.s. financial commitment to an international body without portional voting power. it would require the u.s. to give the word health organization 20% of vaccines and

other pandemic-related products produced for future pandemics. it includes a heavy emphasis on intellectual property rights to the world health organization. it gives the world health organization a reading role in fighting misinformation and disinformation and as the twitter files reveal, that leads to censorship and the suppression and abridging of freedom of speech. it also promotes a global one health approach to health care, including harmonizing regulation under who guidance. they have not earned this power. far from it. at a critical moment in 2019, early 2020, the who utterly failed to detect the pandemic and delayed informing its member states. instead it was kowtowing to beijing. unfortunately there are indications that the biden administration is considering

joining this new convention by executive agreement and avoiding the senate. we should not let this happen. an agreement of such magnitude needs to be submitted to the senate for advice and consent. this is not a partisan issue. this is about reclaiming the senate's prerogatives on international agreements. so, mr. president, i call up my amendment number 11 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from wisconsin, mr. johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 11. mr. johnson: mr. president, this amendment is very simple. it declares any pandemic convention produced by the intergovernmental negotiating body to be a treaty requiring senate advice and consent. i had a similar amendment on the iranian agreement a few years ago. it is far past time that the

members of this body reclaim our constitutional authority at ratifying these incredibly serious treaties and no longer allow the administration to go ahead and negotiate agreements that can have a dramatic impact on our sovereignty and bypass the senate entirely. so again very simple amendment. it would deem any agreement a treaty and require that it be ratified by the senate. i urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the amendment not because my colleague from wisconsin is completely wrong about the need for qrchlts h.o. -- w.h.o. accountability. many of the states he has -- states are troubling. the bill on the floor is a bill to repeal the iraq war authorizations in. it has nothing to do with global

health or w.h.o. the senate has not repealed a war authorization for 52 years. when we authorized the wars in iraq, the gulf war and the invasion of 2003, we did it in authorizations that didn't include extraneous amendments. the senate deemed these important enough that other matters, even if they were important, were not added on to the declarations of war. i strongly believe we should take up this repeal, keep it limited precisely to the question on the floor -- should rerepeal the iraq war authorizations -- and not add in extraneous matter even if that matter has some merit. for that reason, i would ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment. mr. johnson: mr. president, quick response. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: there is nothing in my amendment that would harm what the senator from virginia is trying to accomplish in terms

of repealing the authorization for use of military force. so my amendment request be accepted and have no -- so my amendment can be accepted and have no impact on the legislation before the body. thank you. the presiding officer: the question occurs on amendment number 11. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 49, under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: i ask that there be four minutes of debate equally divided on the votes remaining today. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i call up my

amendment number 30 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nebraska proposes an amendment numbered 30. a senator: this amendment is very simple. mr. ricketts: it is less than 10 words. it asks that the president check in with our allies in the middle east, iraq, saudi arabia, israel, uae, and let them know what we are dwog with this amendment -- doing with this amendment. i green new agree we should nott hang out there for 20 years. in my trip to the middle east last month, what i heard from our allies is it looks like we're withdrawing from the middle east. it emboldens iran, china and our allies in the middle east to hedge their bets from america and start maybe bringing in the

chinese as part of their security arrangements, and i think that's bad for our country and i think we can all agree we do not want china to be leading a world order here. the united states is the best for providing peace and prosperity. this amendment asks the administration to check in with our allies and check in with congress and 30 days after congress, the aumf would expire. i ask that everyone consider that and with that, i yield back. mr. kaine: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the amendment. i support the notion of dialogue, of course, with our strategic partners and allies, but the purpose of this aumf repeal is for congress to reclaim war powers and not outsource them to the executive and not outsource them to other nations. when we passed the iraq war authorization in 2002, there was

no requirement that it only went into effect if we then went out and had dialogue with other nations. why would we declare war unilaterally, but then say the only way to repeal it is to follow a dialogue with other nations. our allies and partners are aware of this bill. it's been on the floor two years, there's been debates on it, they're very aware with it. all of us meet with ambassadors and parliamentarians, if they felt there was a danger to this, they would let us know. the american legion also strongly piece opposes this ame. i ask that my colleagues oppose it as well. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. ricketts: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 31, the nays are 65. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the

this afternoon attorney general merrick garland testifies in president biden's 2024 but it request for the justice live coverage before appropriations subcommittee begins 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span three. you can watch on or free video up c-span no or only. hunter mayorkas watch the senate judiciary committee hearing tonight 8:00 eastern on c-span2. c-span now, free mobile video app or online at c-span.org.

♪♪ >> c-span is an unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and work including media come. ♪♪ >> we leave for the use of here or right here or in the middle of anywhere you should have access to fast and reliable internet. we sticking you to 10g. >> media come support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> welcome back to "washington journal". i'm joinedco by clement, foundig editor at large, welcome to the program. that's start with the publication,. >> depending on