solutions, whether it's mental health. of course as part of it. gun control and get accountability is another part of it. having greater stake holding a people so we can identify potential risk factors. allis of this is the ecosystem that matters, and right now we have a result that's very horrific i think our country and sad because a lot of violence in the united states today. >> host: let's hear from luke in fairfax, virginia.a. independent. >> caller: hello. i wanted to agree -- >> here on c-span2 were going to break away now for live coverage of the u.s. senate. order.

mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i calling up my amendment number 9 and ask that it be report #-d by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cruz, proposes an amendment numbered 9. mr. cruz: mr. president, there's no responsibility we have as members of congress more serious than protecting the men and women who defend this nation. we're facing a national security crisis due to joe biden and his administration who have

repeatedly been unwilling to act against repeated hostilities from the nation of iran. they have looked repeatedly for excuses to justify that inaction. now, i want to be clear. i am not where some members of this body are who want to maintain this authorization for use of military force. i want to vote to repeal this authorization of use of military force. the iraq war was a long time ago. i believe the iraq war was a mistake at the time it was fought. and i would be enthusiastic about congress reasserting its war-making and war-declaring power by repealing the aumf. but at the same time i don't want the repeal of the aumf to be used by the biden administration -- as an excuse by the biden administration to roll over and do nothing if and when iran attacks and murders american soldiers, sailors,

airmen and marines in the middle east. mr. president, this is not hypothetical. just last week general milley, the chairman of the join chiefs of staff testified before the house that from january 2021 until last week there were 78 attacks against american forces in the middle east by iranian-linked fighters. 78. the biden administration responded three times. 75 of them went unresponded. tragically but predictably, appeasement doesn't work. on thursday morning the centcom commander was testifying in front of the house. here on the floor of the senate we were debating this very issue, the aumf and iranian aggression. we now know that at 6:30 in the morning eastern time on thursday, iran attacked u.s. forces, murdered a united states

citizen, a u.s. contractor, and wounded six other americans. that happened 6:30 in the morning eastern time on thursday. mr. president, you didn't know that on thursday. mr. president, i didn't know that on thursday. none of us knew that on thursday. why? because the biden administration kept it a secret for 12 hours because they didn't want to tell the senate while we were debating this issue that an american had just been murdered by iran. that's disgraceful. you should be angry about it. i should be angry about it. my amendment is very simple. my amendment restates that under article 2 of the constitution, the president has the authority to defend u.s. troops and to respond to iranian aggression. the opponents of this bill, my friend senator kaine, will speak shortly. what he said in the senate foreign relations committee, he said the amendment is unnecessary. article 2 already does that. well good. if it is unnecessary, then the

democrats ought to support my amendment and add it because i'll tell what you it will get. if we add this amendment, i will vote yes on the aumf repeal. if we don't add this amendment, i'm a no and here's why. i don't want to give an excuse for the biden administration the next time iran attacks to do nothing. and if it's unnecessary legally, it ought to be an easy give to say let's add it to be clear if you attack u.s. forces, the president has the authority to respond because i don't want the biden administration using the repeal of the aumf as an excuse for their weaknesses and excuse for their appeasement. there's some in the political world that are in favor of unending wars. i am not one of them. but i am in favor of the united states defending our soldiers and sailors and airmen and

marines. let me say this. i don't know if the amendment is going to get the votes or not to pass. i think we will get most of the republicans. i don't know if any democrats will vote for it or not. but if this amendment is defeated and the congress goes on to repeal the aumf and iran takes that as encouragement that the biden administration will not retaliate, i believe the consequences will be lives lost. i believe we'll be back on this floor with american soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines who have lost their lives due to iranian aggression because the ayatollah believed the biden administration would not respond. you don't want to see that, mr. president. i don't want to see that. i believe no member of this body wants to see that. and if it's legally redundant, all the better to say let's send

a message to the ayatollah if you attack american forces, the president, the commander in chief, has the authority to respond and defend american forces. that is the number one responsibility of every member of this body. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the bill that's on the floor is the effort to repeal authorizations for war against iraq that were passed by this body in 1991 and 2 you 2000 -- d 2002. these are not iran authorizations. iran and iraq are not the same nation. the wars against iraq are over and we need to repeal these. this morning in the armed services committee, we heard from general austin. he talked about his visit to iraq. he was there when we were fighting against them as an adversary. now they are a strategic partner in the region against nonstate

terrorists and against iranian aggression. they are an ally. and a partner. senator cruz' amendment does restate article 2 powers in part of the findings in a way that i don't find objectionable but then in another part of the amendment, it goes on to authorize affirmative military action by the united states against the nation of iran. iran is a bad actor and getting worse. i don't disagree with that. but if what we need is a debate about a war authorization with iran, we shouldn't do it on the basis of a one-minute amendment offered on the floor of the senate. that's how we got into this problem in the first place. the iraq authorization in 2002 was considered in the senate for one day. no committee proceeding. five amendments in one day and we went into a war that most would agree was one of the worst blunders strategically that this body has made. let's not rush into a war authorization with iran. if there needs to be military

authorities to take offensive action against iran, let's at least give it the dignity of a debate, a full debate, not a one-minute amendment vote. finally, this amendment is opposed by groups all over the political spectrum from concerned veterans of america to the friends national committee on legislation to the american legion because they don't think we should be rushing into war. iran and its challenging activity and aggression warrants some significant attention, not a one-minute amendment vote on a bill that is -- it's not related to. i urge opposition so the amendment. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i respect my friend from virginia, but he is mistaken. this amendment is not a new authorization for military force. it restates current law. the language in the finding is word for word, the finding that president trump put in place when he authorized the strike that took out general soleimani. after that strike against general soleimani, i introduced

an amendment on this floor to commend president trump and the armed forces for taking out general soleimani and we voted on this commending president trump and our armed forces for taking out soleimani. this is not breaking new ground. this is reiterating the proposition that the commander in chief has the authority to defend u.s. armed forces, and my friend from virginia -- i would note by the way, earlier last week we voted on senator graham's amendment. that would have been a new authorization for use of military force. many senatorses voted against it. this is a much narrower amendment. this says if iran attacks u.s. troops, the commander in chief can defend those troops. that is current law but it's important for iran to hear it. it's important for our troops to hear. it is important for the biden administration to hear. and nowhere in my friend from virginia's remarks did he dispute that iran has attacked the united states 78 times in in the last two and a half years and the biden administration responded only three times. we owe our soldiers, sailors,

airmen, and marines to have their back. i urge support of this amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the cruz amendment number 9. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: doreenicapósvc10

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 41. the nays are 55. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i call up my amendment number 33 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from alaska, mr. sullivan, proposes an amendment numbered 33. mr. sullivan: mr. president, -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be four minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relationship to sullivan amendment numbered 33. the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, iranian proxies have attacked u.s. forces in the middle east 80 times since president biden took office. deterrence is failing. many of us are deeply concerned

that removing the 2002 aumf will further erode american deterrence relative to iran. further jeopardizing our troops in the region. why are we concerned about this? first, the 2002 aumf was as recently as 2020 used to support the very justified killing of the iranian force leader qasem soleimani. second, even as we are debating removing the 2002 aumf right now, iranian proxies have stepped up attacks on americans. mr. president, my amendment is simple and prudent and common sense. it requires the dni to certify that the removal of the 2002 aumf will not undermine american deterrence against iran. this is prudent and it's due diligence. why wouldn't every u.s. senator want to know whether the actions we are taking right now here in

the senate enhance or diminish deterrence against iran? the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. under my amendment the dni has 30 days to do this analysis and 30 days, mr. president, should not be considered an inconvention -- inconvenience when american lives are literally at stake. i urge all of my colleagues to support this prudent commonsense amendment. mr. kaine: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i respect my armed services colleague from alaska, but i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. iraq is not iran. the bill that is on the floor is to repeal war authorizations voted on by this body against iraq in 1991 and 2002. iraq is not iran. the president of the united states has sent two messages to this body saying that the repeal of the iraq war authorizations are necessary because iraq is

now a partner of the united states and that the repeal will neither jeopardize any current military operation, make the united states less safe, or take options away from the president to defend against iranian aggression. the certification has been given by the president. this is a bill that would ask one of his subordinates who has been available to talk to any of us by phone in the two weeks this bill has been on the table. it would basically say okay, mr. president, you said this, but we want to hear from one of our subordinates. avril hanes as been available to talk to any member of this senate in the two weeks this bill has been on the floor. the president has indicated this would not jeopardize our ability to defend against the activities of iran-backed militias. we should not conflate iraq now a partner of the united states with iran, an adversary of the until. i urge a no vote. mr. sullivan: mr. president, do i have any time left?

the presiding officer: the senator has 20 seconds. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i'm not conflating iran and iraq. iran right now is the threat. again, i ask my colleagues, none of them have an answer, why wouldn't we do the due diligence, 30 additional days to ask the dni if what we're doing on the senate floor right now undermines american deterrence relative to iran. it's a simple request. it shows that we're acting to make sure we protect our troops in the region. and again 30 days is not a lot of time -- the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. mr. sullivan: -- to make sure our troops in the region are safe and secure. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second and the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 38. the nays are 57. 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 arkansas. mr. cotton: we are -- we hear from democrats a lot these days about ending the iraq war. let's pause for a moment to remember the first time they end the iraq war. president obama pulled american troops out of the iraq just over a decade ago. the dumb war as obama called it was finally over. except it wasn't. turns out those american troops had kept a lid on a lot of chaos. when they left the bad guys came back with a vengeance.

president obama dismissed isis as the j.v. team of the terrorist world. but even he couldn't turn a blind eye when isis seized take lieu gentleman just -- take lieu ya and mosul a few months later and threatened to bring all of iraq into their so-called caliphate. ultimately president obama, winner of the nobel peace prize and great ender of the iraq war had to start a new iraq war not even three years after he had -- actually, it was an iraq-syria war. he had to deploy our troops to two countries this time, not one. and guess which use of force resolution president obama cited to fight isis? the same one that president trump relied on in 2020 to kill iran's terrorist mastermind qasem soleimani which is the

same resolution that democrats want to repeal today. all of which goes to show that this debate is not about saddam hussein. it's about whether the president, whether any president should have maximum authority to pursue america's enemies in iraq and syria. now, the democrats have argued that the 2002 resolution wasn't necessary to stop isis because the 2001 war on terror use of force resolution also applied. that's true. but apparently president obama didn't think the 2001 resolution was sufficient since he also invoked the 2002 resolution. i would welcome any democrat to explain why the leader of their party was wrong. somewhat to my amusement, some democrats and a few republicans have contended not to worry. the president can always rely on his commander in chief authority under article 2 of the

constitution to order military prices -- operations like the soleimani strike. i agree. yet these are the very same senators who usually argue that article 2 authorizes only the most immediate and modest actions in self-defense. everything else they say takes congressional approval. i'll be curious to hear from them the next time a president relies primarily on his article 2 authority to take necessary action to defend america. but enough with debating how many jag lawyers can dance on the head of a pen. let's ask a more important question. in the real world we're repealing these -- will repealing these resolutions make america more safe or less safe? to which i answer just look around the region. iran's proxies are trying to kill americans every day, and that's hardly an exaggeration.

just last week a suicide drone made by iran killed an american contractor and wounded six other americans in syria. an iranian rocket attack wounded another american after that. meanwhile, isis still carries out dozens of massacres and suicide bombings every year. and that's not to mention new terrorist groups who may be waiting in the wings ready for their shot at the title as america retreats. if we repeal these resolutions, will it make america more safe or less safe? the answer to that question is obvious. threats still originate in and emanate from iraq, whether terrorist groups like isis or iran's proxies, we should not lightly throw away additional authorities to target them. furthermore, we shouldn't give joe biden anymore reason to avoid taking necessary action to

protect america. president biden is already in full flight from the middle east. it was president biden who ended the war in afghanistan, just like president obama ended the iraq war. now the taliban rules in kabul, harboring terrorists. iran killed an american last week because joe biden never acts until iran kills an american. since he became president, iran has attacked american positions at least 83 times. yet president biden has only retaliated four times. little wonder the ayatollahs think they can get away with it, as they have with that latest strike, because after we finally hit back last week, iran struck our positions again, injuring yet another american. yet joe biden, as of this moment, has not retaliated.

a couple months ago, the administration also cited obscure legalistic grounds for why president biden didn't shoot down a chinese spy balloon over the aleutian islands. the last thing this president needs is more encouragement from congress to turn the other cheek. besides the message to the president, we should also consider the signal we send to our friends and enemies in the middle east. president biden has made matters worse through his shabby treatment of america's best friends. he has attack add the inest net government over -- he has attacked the netanyahu government. he has attacked saudi crown prince mohammed bin salomon. if we send the in edge that we're abandoning our friends, we shouldn't be surprised they begin to hedge their bets. already our allies are doing just that, turning to china as a

new powerbroker. just this month beijing brokered a deal between saudi arabia and iran. it has encouraged the use of chinese currency instead of dollars. china has also taken to build a secret port in the united arab emirates. the friend is unmistakable. china looks likes a rising power in the region while america appears to be on the decline and on the way out. we can reinforce that impression today or not. democrats can say that's not the message they intend, but what matters more is what our friends and foes hear. we'll vote on it soon. it's not just china that's exporting our -- exploiting our weaknesses. iran is already manipulating it's politics and arming shia militias. iran just signed a deal to send even more cash and deals to

iran's proxies. we'll vote on that soon, too. in short, repealing these resolutions will embolden terrorists, embolden iran, and embolden china while demoralizing our allies and making it harder to punish attacks on americans. do senators really want to sign up for these consequences? when another isis rears its head or iran's proxies use irk's iraq's -- iraq's territory for safe haven, do senators want to be responsible for stripping these authorities? i don't. if they do, let them say that this academic exercise which even they admit won't legally constrain any president, is worth these deadly real-world consequences.

our men and women deserve that honest debate. after all, it's their lives depending on it. mr. president, i yield the yesterday by a large

bipartisan vote 65 to 28 the senate invoked cloture on legislation regulating the end transcends. members can expect final passage on repealing the end transcends as soon as tomorrow. a lot both sides of the cooperation bipartisanship. this is a reasonable process on the floor with votes for our republican colleagues.

i hope this process can serve as (how this is worth into the future the next few months for sure we minutes without beingdilatory . did a body down the process we look for opportunities to advance bipartisan bills he asked years so again, i this aumf portends good things to come. i hope concern blueprint for how the senate can work in this session of congress as we work together to make our country a better place on wednesday is kane and young all cosponsors of this legislation for good work but there are disturbing trends in the senate want one of the most disturbing is what the senator is to weaken our national security or a long time worked together to quickly confirm the routine

emotions of generals and flag officers without without needless delay . confirming is one of the most responsibilities of the senate, a charge that rises far above normal political fights. but today one member, a 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. the senior senator wants 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 ofmaking 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 final functioning of our military when they are our military work every day to keep us safe. so the senator from alabama risks permanently injecting politics into theconfirmation 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, somethingmost people reject ? that is beyond the pale.

let's be clear, the senator from alabama's delayof 160 routine military promotions is reckless . it puts american security in jeopardy. among the hundred 68 is on hold, most of whom have worked to earn their promotions, often we need to protect our security includes five three-stargenerals, commanders for us naval forces in the pacific and middle east . people, leaders who are confrontingthe likes of china and iran .and the us military representative to the nato military committee which is especially important right now as russia continues to support ukraine

about the constitutional responsibility of congress in our foreign policy. most americans, i think, would be surprised to learn that congress has much of a role in foreign policy because for virtually my entire time in the senate, there's been very little evidence that we've played one. the founders envisioned add very specific role for congress, and it wasn't to micromanage foreign policy. they knew matters of war and peace required a level of coherence and action at odds with the legislative branch that, by design, often moves slowly and encourages disagreement, and some would say sometimes even incoherence. but if the founders had a reason for giving the executive broad flexibility to conduct war, they also had a reason for giving

congress sole power to declare war. they wanted to make it hard to start a war, not easy, mr. president. they knew that presidents would often find war tempting as a means to amass power, run roughshod over our constitutional checks and balances from their study of ancient times, they also understood the ways in which endless war threatened and undermined democracy. here's what james madison wrote in 1795, just six years after ratification of the constitution. of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded. no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continued warfare. the founders understood this because they studied history. they knew our history better than we know it ourselves. and they sought to apply its

lessons to decisions in their time. for example, they read about how the 27-year war between athens and sparta corroded athenian democracy from within by straining its economy, by feeding unrest, and creating a vacuum for strongmen who were peddling easy answers to difficult questions. and it's why they gave congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war, but also to ratify treaties, confirm our military and diplomatic leaders and approve our budget for national security and they expected corning congress to oversee -- congress to oversee foreign policy. and if we look back over the last 30 years, mr. president, twice the length of time that

the pages on the floor have even been alive, you look at the last 30 years from when congress first authorized the use of force against iran until today -- iraq until today, what can we say about how congress has lived up to its responsibility? has congress fulfilled the responsibility that the framers gave it? i'm afraid there's not very much good -- that's good in that record, mr. president. for 30 years, i would argue this body has been derelict in its responsibility and it has come at a terrible time and with it a terrible price, a terrible price. if we go back three decades to the early 1990's, i first started law school, the first president bush was in the white house and we were living in the early years of a post-cold war

world and president bush called it a new world order following the collapse of the soviet union. we didn't really appreciate it at the time, but when the soviet union collapsed, the united states lost an organized principle that had been with us. the cold war was not just a fight against the soviets, it was a fight against tyranny. for americans mf my generation, the cold war defined our policy for good and for ill. it also defined us as a people and defined who we were not. it gave us purpose. it unified us. it made us deliberate about our role in the world. mr. president, you may have read today that a new poll from the university of chicago where for the first time there is a vast minority of americans who say that patriotism is important to them. for the first time there's a vast minority of americans who

say that religion is important to them. you know, the vast majority of people are worried they're not going to provide something better for the next generation, which is where i think a lot of that comes from. but think about that change from when we were raised here to how people feel about it today. it's dramatic. i would say we can't give up. there's a lot of patriotic business for us to do, not just on the floor of this senate but in america today. i would argue, and i will in a minute, there's as much for us to do now as when we were in the cold war and we were having our fight with the soviet union. those principles of sort of

engagement, of agreement and disagreement, but a way of thinking about the world also had been important effect in terms of constraining our actions, mr. president, limiting our extent -- to some extent our behavior abroad and disciplining our politics at home. in the fight against communism, we made more than our fair share of egregious mistakes, and among them the worst the vietnam war. i would stay still that our policies in those days and the values that underlay it, you know, in total strengthened our democracy at home and advanced u.s. interest abroad. not perfectly, but mostly. the fall of the berlin wall disoriented us. could america continue to lead the world without the moral and

political organize and principle of an ideological foe? that was the question of. one answer was to reject the question. to sort of assume it away. to imagine that the triumph over soviet communism meant that the liberal order, our democracy and capitalism had prevailed. and there were people writing books about the end of history the president will remember saying that is exactly what had happened. but when saddam hussein threatened that new world order by invading his neighbor, kuwait, the united states rallied the world to drive him out. in just seven months our military routed the iraq army, liberated kuwait and effectively put saddam hussein in a box. george h.w. bush showed

restraint. the first president bush showed restraint. no country in the world, no tyrant in the world was more locked down by our no-fly zone than iraq -- than saddam hussein's iraq. and we had built international support from all over the world for what george bush had done. do you think it wasn't a hard decision for him to say, we could go into baghdad, we could go in and get that terrible dictator, but he knew we didn't have an answer for the second tairn violence -- sectarian violence that would break out in the aftermath of toppling saddam hussein, so he showed restraint.

and i think at the time our total and swift victory gave confidence to those who believed that our political project was done, that history had ended. that we had finally swept tyranny into the dustbin of history and that all we had to do was clap our hands, sit back and watch democracy spread. and, unfortunately, as is often the case in human events, as is always the case in human events, reality turned out to be far messier, and that naive optimism ended when al qaeda flew planes into the world trade center and the pentagon and crashed a plan in pennsylvania, murdering 3,000 of our fellow americans. and so the first decade of the 2000 was characterized by a

single-minded focus on responding to the pain, to the shock, and to the tragedy of 9/11 9/11, and all of this, i think, had an incredibly disorienting effect. and since those times, since those days we've been fighting not a cold war against a single rival power but a perpetual global war on terror that finds enemies everywhere and has led to catastrophic decisions. a perpetual war on terror that has terrorized us and this endless war led congress to seek vast authority to the president to wage that war, surrendering our constitutional responsibility to set the boundaries, to debate the wisdom

and oversee the use of legal force in the name of the american people, which is one of the reasons that we were sent here in the first place. in the first gulf war, congress's deference to the executive had no significant consequences because the first bush administration actually had a coherent strategy limited on limited and achievable objectives, liberate kuwait, with defeat their army and contain saddam. after that it cost the american people and our leadership in the world dearly. in afghanistan, what began as a limited mission to destroy al qaeda metastasized into a 20-year campaign to transform the country into a liberal

democracy, something afghanistan would never become, certainly not over that time period and probably not in our lives. at a cost of over 2300 american service members, nearly 4,000,00 contractors and over 36,000 afghan civilians. and in 2002, when the second president bush came to congress and misrepresented the threat of weapons of mass destruction, which saddam had destroyed years before and which many of our allies and our own intelligence agencies doubted that he had when they claimed that saddam's secular regime was somehow tied

to al qaeda, a terrorist group driven by religious fanaticism, when they said that the war could pay for itself with iraqi oil, conclude in months, not years, that we could somehow turn a nation whose sectarian rivalries saddam had prevented from exploding through violence and oppression into yet another pluralistic democracy, most people in congress went along for the ride except, i should say for a few of my colleagues still in this body, including senator durbin, senator murray, senator reed, senator stabenow, senator wyden, my former senior senator mark udall, then a member of the house. i say to the painlts here, mark -- pages here, mark their

names in the history books for the vote that they took. that was a courageous vote that they took. i believe the presiding officer -- it's not here, but i believe the presiding officer's predecessor, chairman leahy, from the great state of vermont, took that courageous vote as well. except for the handful of them, and i -- and my colleague, mark udall, then a member of the house, except for them, almost no one here asked if there was even a strategy or what it was. they didn't ask how toppling a sunni dictator in a shia majority country would strengthen iran. and i can assure you they didn't ask what china was doing as we committed ourselves to a second nation-building project in the middle east.

and by acquiescing to the president, congress essentially cut off the american people from the vital debate about the true cost and consequences of the war. and in the end, the cost was terrible. the iraq war killed over 4,600 american service members and over 3600 contractors. over 50 times -- 50 times more troops were killed or injured in the post-war insurgency than in the original march to bag baghd. the war killed -- to baghdad, the war killed over 200,000 iraqi civilians and it left the country in ruins and its identity in tatters. to -- 20 years later, iraqis are still trying to pick up the

pieces. since the -- corruption had ston iraq's wealth. 20 years later, iran is also in a stronger position than ever, seizing on the vacuum we created with proxies from iraq to syria to lebanon to yemen, threatening our troops in the region and vital allies like israel. china is cutting deals today, mr. president, having avoided those 20 years of bedlam, they are now showing up and making peace, agreements between the iranians and -- and the saudis, not having paid the price that we've paid. and 20 years later, america's global leadership and credibility have yet to recover as a result of the decisions that we made. in the name of spreading freedom

across the globe, we instead spread images of chaos and civil strife, of torture at abu grave, of water waterboarding and all violations of the values that we claim to serve, that i believe we do serve. and to pay for it all, mr. president, we borrowed $8 trillion from our children. $8 trillion to the next generation of americans. in fact, we were so committed to not paying for that war, to not sacrificing the way our -- our parents and grandparents did when they were engaged in wars, we were so committed to not bearing the burden that we cut taxes twice and borrowed another $10 trillion from our children toll

pay for those. imagine what we could have done for this country if we had spent that $18 trillion here at home. good-paying jobs we could have created. the 21st century industries and infrastructure we could have built. the opportunity we could have created for the next generation of americans. instead from their perspective, we would have been better off lighting that $18 trillion on fire. and i bring this up not to relitigate the past but to remind us of the profound cost to america and the world of giving presidents a blank check in foreign policy. of shirking our constitutional responsibility, our duty to provide real oversight and hold the executive accountable to our democratic values, to the rule of law, and the voices and

opinions of the american people. and we should acknowledge that there will be moments when doing so will be inconvenient for us in the short term. there are countries around the world that are not inconvenienced by the set of values that we purport to live by. but the fact that they're inconvenient doesn't mean they're not right. and as the founders understood, there's always going to be a temptation to trade freedom for the illusion of security, to act instead of consult, ignore our commitment to human rights and the rule of law for expediency or to turn a blind eye to corruption or incompetent by -- incompetence by a president of your own party, especially of your own party. but over the long term, our willingness to resist those temptations i think is what makes america different.

it's what makes our foreign policy different at its best. it's what has made us a beacon to the world even if our light has flickered at times. it's why the world doesn't look to china or to russia for moral leadership. it looks to us. because american foreign policy at its best has never been about serving the whims of a tyrant or a party boss. it's about serving the american people and offering a better vision for humanity through the power of our example and our partnership with the world and it's why we in congress have to take our rules seriously in this democracy. we really do. to take our obligation to the american people just as seriously and not simply honor our constitutional balance of power in the breach but every

single time. so my hope is that this modest vote that we're going to take, mr. president, is the beginning of a new commitment by congress to fulfill our constitutional responsibility, to bring the american people back into this conversation about what our global leadership should look like in the 21st century and to work in partnership with the president to define a new organizing principle for our leadership. because we don't have another 30 years to wait. and the whole world is watching. and i for one know that i think when we pick up the enduring values that reflect our foreign policy at its best, the re-- they reflect a sense of justice here at home as well. when we can stand for both

freedom and opportunity which we have, decade after decade after decade, there is a coalition of countries all over, all around the world that would rather sign up to that vision than sign up to the tyranny that's on offer from other societies. but we have to remember what the founders told us. in our time we have to exercise this responsibility that we have here in congress, and we need to do the work faithfully that the american people sent us here to do. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate from florida is recognized. mr. scott: i ask my amendment number 13 and ask it be reported by number. i ask to call up my amendment and report by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from florida mr. scott for himself and others proposes an amendment

numbered 13. mr. scott: in september 2021 president biden's misguided and dangerous decisions in his botched withdrawal of u.s. forces from after began stan led to america's most stunning and hugh million yating defeat in decades. due to president biden's carelessness and failed leadership, 13 servicemembers were lost. billions of dollars of u.s. military equipment were left for the taliban and here's a picture of some of it. and hundreds of american citizens were stranded behind enemy lines. the world is now more dangerous place. our enemies like russia, communist china and iran or emboldened and the american people are rightfully furious. we must have accountability and the best way to do that is to establish in a bipartisan and bicameral joint select committee on afghanistan similar to the iran-contra committee to conduct

a full investigation and compile a joint report on president biden's tragically failed withdrawal from afghanistan. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: mr. president, i appreciate very much my colleague from florida's continued focus on the need to fully account for what went wrong with the biden administration's horribly botched withdrawal from afghanistan. mr. young: however, i regret that i must oppose his amendment because this is not the right venue for establishing a committee of this nature. in the coming months we're going to consider the annual national defense authorization act and important oversight issues such as ones raised in the amendment by the gentleman from florida should be debated within that context and that framework. this legislative effort to remove outdated authorities that were put in place two decades ago for a war against saddam hussein's iraq to prevent them

from abuse in the future has to be kept in my estimation as clean as possible to enable them to be signed into law without further delay. so as i've said before by allowing these authorizations to live on, long past original purpose, congress has forfeited the power to authorize military force to the executive branch. i know my colleague from florida cares deeply about oversight issues as evidenced by this amendment so i hope he and i can work together both to pass a clean repeal of these two outdated authorizations and then discuss robust oversight measures for afghanistan within the confines of the ndaa process. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment in order to keep this bill to repeal the authorizations. mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered.

map the senator from florida. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent the vote begin now. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 33. the nays are 62.

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 missouri. mr. hawley: i call up my amendment number 40 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from missouri, mr. hawley, proposes amendment numbered 40. mr. hawley: mr. president, this body has spent 100 -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be four minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to hawley amendment number 40. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: proceed. mr. hawley: this body has spent to date $113 billion on the war in ukraine and counting. and yet we do not have any direct oversiepght of any of the money that is being spent. my amendment is very simple. let's create one government watchdog, not two, not three,

not 20. one government watchdog to oversee every cent that is spent on ukraine, to report back to this congress and to the american people as to how their hard-earned money is being spent. currently there are dozens of reporting requirements. there are multiple bureaucrats who are involved. listen, we learned this the hard way in afghanistan. we're -- where after years of lack of oversight, billions of dollars wasted, and tragically many lives lost, this body finally created a special inspector general to oversee the after afghanistan effort and reporting requirements to report back to the public on what we knew and we're learning. that is what we should do in this case, mr. president. i urge a yes vote on this amendment. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i don't have an objection to the notion that the funds we are spending together in ukraine should have careful analysis.

we know from past experience if there's not that careful analysis done, there can be problems. this is not the bill to do it. when we do war authorizations, we don't put other amendments on no matter how good there be if they're extraneous to the war authorization. the 1991 and 2002 war authorizations did not include additional items no matter how meritorious they might have been. and so why this idea is an idea that i think people can gravitate toward, i think this is the wrong bill, the wrong vehicle to insert something about ukraine into this repeal of the iraq war authorizations. we've not done a repeal for 52 years. the authorizations themselves were clean authorizations and i would urge a no vote so that the repeal when we vote on it tomorrow will be a clean repeal. i would urge my colleagues to vote no. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho.

a senator: mr. president, very briefly, i want to compliment senator hawley for pursuing this route. there isn't a person in this room, there isn't a person in america that doesn't want to see that every dollar spent of the taxpayers is looked after. mr. risch: in this particular instance, i'm going to oppose this simply because there are already 64 ongoing or planned audits and reports on u.s. assistance to ukraine. this piece of legislation would require a quarterly schedule and that actually reduces the number. for instance, usaid direct budget taker support comes every two months. this is being looked after. unlike iraq and afghanistan where we're talking about enormous amounts of money, not that this isn't a large amount, but those were enormous and the work and audit continuing was not very -- auditing was not very good. this case it is good. we've been looking at it in the intelligence committee and the foreign relations committee and

have found zero siphoning of u.s. dollars. so this really is an expenditure that is not necessary because it is being looked after already. so i would urge a no vote on this amendment. thank you, mr. president. mr. hawley: mr. president, do i have any time? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. you have 49 seconds. mr. hawley: thank you, mr. president. i would just say in response to my friend's point about there being 60-plus reporting requirements already in place, that's part of the problem. when everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. currently the oversight requirements are spread across three different agencies. the inspector general, the state department, and the defense department and usaid, each have a little piece of this. dozens of requirements. let's unify it. we've done this before. one inspector generally. one staff. one set of requirements. make it public. give the american people the accountability they deserve. i urge a yes vote. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment.

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

vote:

is vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 26, the nays

are 68. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. shaheen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 129 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 129, designating march 2023 as national women's history month. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mrs. shaheen: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on the resolution. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made

and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. hurricane katrina hine ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the -- mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of s. res. 1230, s. res. 131, s. res. 132. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the resolutions en bloc. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, where appropriate, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it standard adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, march 29. 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, that at 11:30 a.m., all postcloture time be considered expired, the pending amendment be withdrawn, no further amendments or motions be in order to the bill, the bill be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of s. 316, that following disposition of the bill, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to calendar number 28, s.870, finally,ings that there be two minutes for debate equally divided prior to each roll cal vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: we hope to line up additional roll call votes during wednesday's session. if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned until the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

>> lawmakers continue working oop bill to repeal 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force against iraq. they debated and voted on a handful of republican amendments to the bill. our vote on final passage is expected tomorrow. also on the agenda this week, a bill to authorize funding for the u.s. fire administration. and firefighter assistance grant programs, watch live coverage the senate when members return here on c-span2. on wednesday former starbuckss howard shuttles react to labor practices mr. shultz step down as ceo recently live coverage before the labor and pension committee starts another 10 a.m. eastern on c-span 3 watch or free mobile video app c-span now or online at c-span.org. ♪