Justice for Jana Elementary Act of 2023

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the song ``Free Bird'' by Lynyrd Skynyrd became an anthem for those consumed by wanderlust. The music speaks to freedom, the right to explore and experience the world, and a simple truth that we are all connected.

However, on October 25, 2021, the right to explore and experience the

world was put on hold for many when the White House issued a proclamation suspending and limiting air travel by unvaccinated foreign travelers.

This mandate levies a particularly heavy cost on State and local economies and American relationships. Continuing this mandate at a time when President Biden himself declared that the pandemic is over is unjustified, and it ignores the new risk calculus that is affording Americans a renewed sense of normalcy. You see, Americans are ready to move on. In fact, in many instances, they are moving on. Yet many are kept from doing so because of this policy and others like it.

Right now, foreign travelers, including family members, friends, business relationships, and even international sports stars, are being kept off U.S. soil due to this draconian vaccine mandate.

Mr. President, there are too many places we have got to see, but if we stay here with this vaccine mandate, things just couldn't be the same.

So in the spirit of freedom, in the spirit of self-determination and sanity, I am here today to try to pass this--to try to seek to pass by unanimous consent the FREEBIRD Act, which will restore the right to explore and experience the world by allowing nonimmigrant, noncitizen travelers to be vaccinated only if they choose to do so, because this policy has separated loved ones for too long.

It is time to end the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for foreign visitors, prohibit using Federal funds to carry out this requirement, and prevent the CDC from ordering future COVID-19 vaccine mandates for foreign travelers. This is just costing too much.

In 2021 alone, Utah visitors spent nearly $11 billion visiting our great State, generating over 130,000 jobs and almost $2 billion in State and local tax revenue alone. A significant portion of that involves foreign travel. But international visitation rates are still lagging. By lifting this vaccine mandate, Utah and the United States stand to benefit from increased international travel.

Our travel and tourism industry in the State of Utah dipped substantially after the pandemic hit us and hit us hard. Fortunately, it has recovered very nicely, but it has never recovered in the international travel sector to where it should be now, due in significant part to this particular mandate. It is not right. And it is not just costing us tourism; it is costing us meaningful connections that enrich and promote our shared humanity.

Right now, 22-time Grand Slam champion and top tennis competitor Novak Djokovic is missing the ongoing Miami Open due to the foreign traveler vaccine mandate still in effect, regrettably, in the United States. He recently missed the Masters tournament in Indian Wells, CA, for the same reason.

The U.S. Tennis Association, which does not impose COVID-19 restrictions of its own, expressed its hope that the policy will end.

This is an excellent example of how the United States and Americans in general miss out on relationships, business, and recreational opportunities. The United States is missing the action while Djokovic continues to play in countries that have ended their vaccine mandates, including in Monaco, Bosnia, and France. It is affecting his standing in world tennis competition. Just as importantly, it is affecting America's standing with the rest of the world.

Perhaps some think that the joke is on Djokovic. The joke is not on Djokovic; the joke is on us, the United States of America, if we leave this senseless, meaningless policy in place that does no good. It accomplishes nothing, but it inflicts great harm at the same time.

Right now, we have the opportunity--a great opportunity, a prime opportunity--to reverse course. Today, we can join the rest of the world, restore our personal and business relationships, boost our tourism, and reengage in the competitive spirit that brings nations together.

It is time to end this mandate. It is time to be free as a bird. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 14, H.R. 185; further, that the Lee substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I appreciate the thoughtful words from my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont. I have enjoyed working with him on the Judiciary Committee, and I always appreciate his insights and the thoughtful, respectful manner in which he communicates his message. I do think it is significant to point out a couple things in response to those arguments.

I think it is unfortunate. We had an opportunity to end this today, and by ending it, we could open up travel and tourism in a way that we haven't been. We could join the ranks of civilized nations of the world that have seen what a barbaric piece of nonsense this sort of restriction is, and we can do it right now.

Now, my friend and colleague from Vermont points out that it is important to remember that the public health emergency associated with the COVID-19 pandemic is set to come to an end. I assume he is referring to the May 11 deadline on which we are expecting for it to come to an end. I welcome that, and I look forward to that coming to an end. It is right for it to come to an end. One must ask, however, why must we wait until then to bring it to an end? President Biden has now long acknowledged that the emergent nature of the pandemic is itself over, is itself passed.

I understand and respect concerns about not wanting to do things too abruptly that might affect, for example, telehealth. That is very important. That is why it is very important for me to point out here that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that would

affect in any way the practice of telehealth--not directly, not indirectly, nothing, nada. There is zero language in this amendment that would in any way affect telehealth. Is there anything in here that would affect the other programs--any of them--that he mentioned? Not one thing. This is laser-focused on a single point-of-entry restriction on foreign visitors to the United States. That is it. Nothing else is affected by it.

So if what we are saying is that we can't end any of this before we end all of the public health emergency, that makes no sense. It also makes no sense because, as far as we can tell, there is absolutely nothing about the international traveler restriction attached to this particular mandate that is tied to the public health emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic--nothing. They are not tied together. So there is no reason at all for us to not pass this today, right now, at this moment.

Look, this has passed the House of Representatives. We could make this law. We could make this the law of the land by the end of the day today. The American people would be much better off for it.

Who will be better off as a result of keeping it? It is a legitimate question to ask. Who benefits from this? I struggle to imagine who really benefits from it. Now, maybe one or two Federal bureaucrats save face over it because they put it in place. Perhaps they have some pride of authorship with it; they don't want it to end. Well, I hate to break it to them: They are not lawmakers. They don't have the job of making law. We do.

So if this stays on the book, again, the joke is on us. The joke is not on Djokovic; it is on us.

So I really am trying to understand why we would want to wait until May 11 or any other date on which the Federal pandemic emergency would come to an end. It makes no sense.

To the degree that this involves an argument that I have heard time and time again when addressing COVID issues from several of our colleagues that we have to defer to the experts, defer to the science used by the experts in our Federal executive branch Agencies, I would ask this: Do you mean the same experts who told us that this virus came from bats? I am told that anyone who doubted the idea that it came from bats, that they were horrible people aimed at genocide or something.

Do you mean the same experts who told the American people they couldn't let their little kids go to school?

Do you mean the same experts who told America they had to mask their 2-year-olds, apparently unaware of the fact that 2-year-olds don't respond fairly well to that? It makes me wonder whether any of those people have ever raised or even been around an actual 2-year-old.

Do you mean the same experts who told us that masks would make all the difference and that if you were masked, you would live, and if you were unmasked, you would die?

Do you mean the same experts who told us that if we got the vaccine, we would not get or be able to spread COVID-19? I can speak from personal experience. Having had COVID, then got vaccinated, then got it again, it didn't have that effect. And I know there are millions and millions of people like me who are in the same boat.

Do you mean the same experts who continue to this day to insist that everyone else follow the restrictions imposed by those experts who were not elected by the American people and are not accountable to anyone who is elected by the American people?

We have reached an epidemic in this country, an epidemic in which we have government being run by experts. Experts are great. I am glad we have access to them. They are not lawmakers. My copy of the Constitution, in the very first operative provision--the first article, the first section, the first clause of the Constitution says: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,'' making clear that if you want to make a Federal law, you must go through Congress, not through an expert in some executive branch Agency.

Article 1, section 7 makes clear how that happens. You can make a Federal law only if you pass something through the House and the same language through the Senate and then present it to the President for signature, veto or acquiescence. If you don't follow that formula, you don't have a Federal law.

Tragically, since the mid-1930s, we have been on a bad trajectory, a bad course, a bad idea conceived in hell by the Devil himself in which we started delegating our lawmaking power. We hereby declare that we shall have good law in area X, and we hereby commit and delegate to commission Y the power to make and interpret and enforce and adjudicate laws, rules carrying the force of generally applicable Federal law. Make it so.

The power to make laws, to be a lawmaker, is distinct from the power to make lawmakers. We are given by the Constitution and the people who elected us the power to do the former, not the latter. We make laws, not lawmakers.

The only way these things were put in force to begin with was because we have excessively delegated our lawmaking power. Shame on us for doing that. It has remained in effect because the Federal court system, in my view, while occasionally stepping in, has been a little too lax, a little too reluctant to push back when we delegate our lawmaking power, which is itself a nondelegable duty. Shame on them for doing that, but shame on us again for the fact that when we act, we delegate to somebody. Somebody puts in place a ridiculous, indefensible set of policies--policies that would never pass this body, never become law here or in the House of Representatives. Why? Because they are stupid. They are silly. They are ridiculous. They are counterproductive. A policy that we would never enact, and if we were stupid enough to enact it, we would promptly repeal it.

When it gets put in place by an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat using a stretched, distorted version of statutory text delegating them some other power, we have to sit here and take it. The American people, whom we serve, who hired us to make laws, have to sit there and take it. And we pretend: Sorry, there is nothing we can do. We have to wait until the experts end this problem that they themselves created.

This has to stop. I am not going away. This issue isn't going away. I don't want to wait until May 11. I don't want to wait until those bureaucrats pull their heads out of wherever their heads happen to be at the moment.

This is not going away, and I will be back.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, over the past several weeks, I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle voice concerns about an issue I have been raising for years--protecting children and teens from online dangers. Recently, much of that conversation has focused on the social media app TikTok.

I want to be clear. TikTok poses serious and specific privacy problems. We are talking about a company that could expose American users', including young users', personal and sensitive information to the Chinese Government. The intelligence community has raised grave concerns that Beijing could potentially influence millions of American TikTok users with the platform's algorithms, spread malware to our smartphones, force the company to amass troves of data on users, and then demand that the information be handed over to the Chinese Communist Party.

In other words, TikTok could collect your personal data without your consent and then target you with information that the Chinese Government wants you to see or potentially, even worse, monitor where you go and what you do.

We already know that TikTok is currently on privacy probation with a Federal Trade Commission consent decree. They had to pay a $5 million fine for violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. That is my law. We should listen to those warnings, and we should do our job to legislate and regulate in response to these warnings.

I am pleased to hear so much concern for the experiences of our young people online. This is the kind of formidable bipartisan movement to rein in the overreach of Big Tech that we needed in this Chamber 3 months ago when lobbyists flooded to the Capitol to kill my Children and Teens' Online Privacy and Protection Act--COPPA 2.0--to raise protections up to age 16 for young people in our country in terms of the protection of their privacy.

Here is the reality: Asserting that TikTok stands alone as the one platform that poses a serious surveillance threat to our Nation's young people is deliberately missing the Big Tech forest for the TikTok trees.

It is in this dark, dank forest where even more dangers lurk. TikTok needs to be regulated immediately--we can agree on that--but it is absolutely not the only digital danger kids face today. There is no justification for starting and stopping there, because do you know who else is on privacy probation with the Federal Trade Commission in addition to TikTok? YouTube. Google's video platform also violated my law. The Federal Trade Commission fined it $170 million for invading kids under the age of 12 and their privacy. That is just a slap on the wrist to Google, $170 million. Oh, and Facebook too. The Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook $5 billion for violating users' privacy protections. Remember, TikTok was fined $5 million. Facebook has been fined $5 billion for violating privacy in our country.

So, yes, we do have to address the TikTok threat, but what we really need to do is to take on all of Big Tech with a set of commonsense protections to stop the tsunami of privacy invasions kids face today online.

America's children and teens are literally dying because of the impacts of social media platforms, and we must save them from drowning. In other words, I agree with my colleagues. Let's make sure kids are protected from Chinese surveillance; but at the end of the day, our moral obligation is to protect our youngest people from an entire industry that poses a direct and existential threat to their generation's well-being.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just announced that 1 in 3 high school girls in the United States of America had seriously considered suicide in the last year--1 in 3 teenage girls seriously considered suicide in the last year. And over half of all teenage girls say that they are ``persistently sad or hopeless.'' Banning TikTok will not solve that problem.

At least 1 in 10 girls in the United States attempted suicide in the past year. Can I say that again? At least 1 in 10 girls in the United States attempted suicide last year. Among LGBTQ+ youth, the number was 1 in 5 who attempted suicide in the past year. Banning TikTok will not solve that problem.

Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel even worse. Banning TikTok will not solve that problem.

And do you know where that latest statistic comes from? Instagram's parent company, Facebook. Just remember, about 22 million teens log into Instagram each and every day in America.

Our children and our teenagers--they are sick, and Big Tech is the parasite preying upon them every single day in our country. These aren't Republican

children. These aren't Democratic children. These are America's children.

The truth is that a myopic focus on a single app is a major missed opportunity. Why would we act on only one company when we should and can act on all of these companies that are preying upon the children and teenagers in our country as we debate here on the Senate floor?

Taking on TikTok alone will not solve the sinister surveillance that kids and teens face online every single day. Here is an example.

Let's say Congress does ban TikTok in the United States or, perhaps, the Federal Government simply forces the app's Chinese parent company to sell or to divest. Would that stop China from tracking teens online? No, it wouldn't. We would still have no rules and no laws stopping the Chinese Government from simply buying sensitive information about young users, which data brokers already traffic during their normal course of business in the United States of America, because, right now, a 14- year-old girl with bulimia or anorexia in our country has zero privacy rights online. Are we going to do something about that? Do we want to let that young girl continue to be made vulnerable by unscrupulous American or Chinese companies?

If we are going to debate this issue, let's talk about it. Let's get right down to what this whole thing should be about: Big Tech should not control the agenda in terms of our protections for young teenage girls or boys in our Nation.

She, that 14-year-old girl, cannot tell Instagram or Snapchat or YouTube: You may not collect, share, or sell my personal information. By the way, her parents can't tell those companies either. Banning TikTok will not change that. Banning TikTok does not stop the Chinese Government or its partners from simply buying the data we are afraid the company will hand over willingly.

Is this threat somehow lessened if it is a transaction as opposed to part of a takeover? Of course not.

Here is the truth: Right now, an entire generation is growing up with some of the most powerful companies in history that are tracking, targeting, and traumatizing them every single day in our country. Big Tech is knowingly and willfully fueling a youth mental health crisis in our Nation.

You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the President of the United States. Listen to the Surgeon General of the United States. Listen to the American Academy of Pediatrics in our country. Experts all over our Nation are drawing a straight line from Big Tech's business model to the devastating impacts on young Americans' well- being.

Do you know what will help solve this problem? Data privacy protections for children and teenagers in our country if we want to really deal with the threat to our Nation when one in three teenage girls considered suicide last year. That is a threat to our Nation. When 1 in 10 teenage girls actually attempted suicide last year, that is a danger to our Nation. A lot of it is as a result of social media.

Let's get down to this issue. Let's debate TikTok. Let's debate all of it in terms of threats to our country, because the data these tech companies collect about young users is the raw material--the inputs-- for powerful artificial intelligence systems. These algorithms take information about kids and teens and use it to push toxic content to those young people that they know will grab their attention and keep them scrolling on the app so they can sell more ads and make more money, and banning TikTok will not solve that problem.

On the topic of algorithms, if we are worried about the Chinese Government using TikTok's algorithm to influence our elections and our democracy, we should also be worrying about how China uses Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and YouTube, as well, to undermine our democracy.

Let's get at this. If we are going to debate all of this, let's put it out here finally. Let's just get Big Tech out of this debate and have 100 Senators talk about the real threats to teenagers and to our democracy. Let's have that debate. We already saw Russia manipulate Facebook in 2016. If we want to protect democracy, let's do it for every single social media platform in our country.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to Big Tech's algorithmic practices. That is why, for more than a decade, I have been introducing legislation that would solve that problem. My update to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act for kids under 12 and their parents online would give them a bill of rights for kids 16 and under in our Nation. The parents could just tell those companies: Stop tracking my child. Stop tracking my 14-year-old girl. Stop tracking my 15-year-old girl. If she goes online because she has bulimia or anorexia to get more information, you can't sell that information now to companies so that they can target that girl with more products or information when the parents are only talking to the family's physician.

Let's give those families some rights. Let's stand up for those families against these tech companies that are monetizing the mental health of the children in our country. Let's stop those companies from putting profits over people, over teenagers.

We came very close to passing key provisions from that legislation at the end of last year. My bill almost made it. Unfortunately, industry lobbyists--they stood in our way. They made it impossible for it to pass, because it destroys their business model of preying upon, making money off of, young people in our Nation. But we just can't be deterred.

We have to be more determined than ever to get this done on behalf of the parents, the pediatricians, and young people who are demanding action. I know we can do it, and there are leaders in the House, in the Senate, in both parties, who want to get this done.

So, yes, we must be clear-eyed about threats of Chinese surveillance. Yes, we must be clear-eyed about TikTok's national security risks. And, yes, we must be clear-eyed about the unique threats to young people in our country who are on that app.

I would urge my colleagues: Lift your gaze. Take off your blinders. Be honest about what legislative proposals to ban TikTok can and cannot accomplish on behalf of our youngest and most vulnerable in our country.

Our obligation, in this moment, is to end the sinister surveillance across all of the big tech behemoths that are fueling a youth mental health crisis in this country.

TikTok poses a serious and unique problem, but we know the problem is much bigger and much more pernicious than just one single app, as bad as it is.

We have a responsibility to take action, and I call on my colleagues to join, in a bipartisan fashion. As we debate TikTok, let's debate all of it. Let's pass the bill that protects the imminent threat to the mental health of the children and teenagers in our country every single day.

We want to talk about TikTok and its longer term threats? Let's talk about the threat right now. Let's talk about how young people are being harmed.

Let's pass that legislation at the same time. That is going to be my goal as this debate unfolds. It is to have votes on the floor of the Senate on the protection of the children and teenagers in our country from Chinese and American companies that are exploiting them every single day.

I close with that number that I started with: One in three teenage girls in the United States contemplated suicide last year. One in 10 teenage girls attempted suicide last year. We all know the role social media is playing in this. This is our moment to take on this entire industry globally to make sure that we protect the most precious resource we have, to protect the future of our country, and that is young people. They may be only 20 percent of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future. And, right now, they are being exploited by a single industry. Let's take on that industry.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, families and businesses across the country are worried about the safety and stability of our banking system.

Two weeks ago, Silicon Valley Bank--a bank that many people had never heard of--rocketed from relative obscurity to infamy when it suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed. The bank, which reported $212 billion in assets last quarter, is now known as the biggest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis. It is the second largest bank failure in American history.

The American people quickly learned that Silicon Valley Bank had made some pretty risky investment decisions. When interest rates were low, it purchased long-term Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities. As the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to fight record inflation, the value of those investments tumbled. SVB attempted to stop the bleeding by selling $21 billion worth of assets at a loss of nearly $2 billion. Well, it didn't take long for this entire house of cards to come tumbling down. When customers

learned about its financial troubles, it caused a run on deposits. And, of course, no bank can withstand a run on its deposits where people demand to get paid back immediately when many of the investments that were made are longer term investments.

Shortly after the Silicon Valley Bank implosion, Signature Bank, a regional bank in New York, collapsed as well. And, now, major banks have pledged to help rescue First Republic Bank from potentially succumbing to the same fate. My assumption is this isn't done out of the goodness of their hearts; but they realize if this contagion continues to spread across the country, it could imperil our entire economy.

Given the potential implications of this situation, the administration and Federal regulators quickly jumped into damage- control mode. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, otherwise known as FDIC, quickly announced that depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank would have full access to their funds, even above the insured deposits.

Of course, under existing law, FDIC insures deposits only up to $250,000; but FDIC quickly announced that that cap on insurance would be lifted.

President Biden also attempted to assure the American people that the banking system was safe. Secretary Yellen did the same. In a speech yesterday, she said the U.S. banking system ``remains sound.'' But the truth of the matter is that it is impossible to make guarantees when you are dealing with something as uncertain as human behavior and the wildfire-like spread of information across social media and elsewhere where people can, with a click of their phones, withdraw all their deposits from an institution. So while these are hopeful statements by the President and Secretary Yellen, it doesn't guarantee anything.

The health of the banking system doesn't just depend on objective measures of financial health, but also on public perception and public confidence. Even a bank with a rock-solid financial ground wouldn't be able to withstand a run on deposits. That is not how the banking system is designed to operate. They have to keep a certain amount of reserves so they can respond quickly to a demand for deposits, but no bank is prepared to pay all depositors 100 percent of what they have deposited on demand.

Fears of contagion are very real in the banking industry, which is why everyone is eager to understand what went wrong. When it comes to Silicon Valley Bank, which as one of my constituents described it, he said: Oh, that is Mark Zuckerberg's bank. Of course, it was guaranteed deposits above the insured amount.

We need to make sure there is not cherry-picking when it comes to the policies that apply here, lest people think there is a double standard. For example, if you were a bank in Midland, TX, lending primarily to the oil and gas industry, do you think the FDIC and the Biden administration would step up and guarantee those deposits above the $250,000 mark? Well, that is an unanswered question, but there shouldn't be a double standard.

The problem really is, it looks like there were multiple points of failure at Silicon Valley Bank. First is with the bank's management. Making these long-term investments in the face of rising interest rates because of the Federal Reserve's efforts to combat inflation, it is clear they failed to adjust their investment strategy to take into account the depreciation of the value of those longer term bonds. They either didn't recognize the impact that rates had on its assets or they simply were negligent or willfully ignored the reality. I am not sure what it was, but none of it was good. Given the fact that the bank was without a chief risk officer for more than a year, it seems clear that risk management was not Silicon Valley Bank's top priority.

In addition to the bank's failures, there were also major regulatory failures. Reports indicate that the Federal Reserve raised concerns about Silicon Valley Bank's risk management multiple times over the past few years. The first red flag was raised in January of 2019, more than 4 years ago. Once that happens, the Fed is supposed to monitor the bank and ensure these problems are being addressed. We simply don't have information to confirm whether or not that happened; but based on where things stand now, it seems like it did not happen.

While SVB executives and regulators carry some of the blame for the current banking system chaos, we cannot ignore the role played by the administration and by some of the policies that have been promoted by our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. As our country battled the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis, our Democratic colleagues alone, without any Republican votes, appropriated about 2.6 trillion more dollars, using a budget resolution that did not require any Republican votes. It wasn't a bipartisan effort. This was strictly a spending spree by our Democratic colleagues under the benign headings of the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act--$2.6 trillion. That was like gasoline on the inflation fire.

Republicans warned our colleagues that this kind of spending would lead to more problems than solutions. There were a lot of warnings about what impact this kind of spending would have after dealing with the COVID crisis, what the impact would be on the economy, particularly with constrained supply chains and a smaller workforce. Putting that kind of financial stimulus into our economy was guaranteed to fan the flames of inflation.

Well, as I said, the first round was a $1.9 trillion so-called American Rescue Plan, which our colleagues tried to brand as pandemic relief. But as the American people learned, less than 10 percent of that legislation was even remotely related to the pandemic, and the rest was exactly the type of things you would expect to see in a bill that was supported only by our Democratic colleagues--everything from funding for climate justice to backdoor money for Planned Parenthood.

Leading economists warned at the time that this was not a recipe for economic recovery. Even Larry Summers cautioned that that package could ``set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.''

Still, our colleagues couldn't be convinced to change course, show a little self-restraint, a little bit of prudence, a little bit of caution. They abused the rules of the Senate to pass the partisan spending bill that, again, only depended on Democratic votes. And, lo and behold, this is where we landed.

Our country has experienced inflation at a level we have not seen in 40 years. Prices have skyrocketed for gas, groceries, housing, and just about everything else. For some reason, our colleagues did not connect the dots between this reckless spending spree and the growing strain on our economy or its impact on the price of groceries or the price at the pump you pay for gasoline or diesel. So rather than tap the brakes, they opted to put the pedal to the metal.

Well, the second bill was even more absurdly named the Inflation Reduction Act, which all the outside studies showed would not reduce inflation any time in the near term. Our colleagues wanted the American people to forget the fact that unchecked spending would help usher in this terrible inflationary pressure. And somehow, counterintuitively, they seemed to think that even more spending would solve the problem.

Our colleagues' solution to inflation included handouts for wealthy people buying electric vehicles. Why in the world would you pay rich people to buy an electric vehicle when most working families couldn't afford one? They are handing out tax subsidies to rich people. And then there was the $80 billion supersizing of the IRS so it can squeeze every penny possible from working middle-class families and small businesses. You know this, to me, is just malpractice.

We had the new IRS Commissioner in front of the Finance Committee, and we said, you know, when can we expect your plan on how to spend the $80 billion and this plan to hire 87,000 new IRS agents? And he said: Oh, it is coming.

But our Democratic friends got it backward. Instead of saying: Here is the plan and how much does it cost to implement the plan, they said: Here is the money, you come up with a plan. Only in Washington, DC, does the world operate that way.

But between those two bills, our colleagues spent roughly $2.6 trillion on a partisan spending spree, just as some

economists, including Democratic economists like Larry Summers--just like they predicted, these bills did nothing to reduce inflation; they made it worse.

Of course, we know that the Federal Reserve has the responsibility to try to address inflation; and one of their few tools is to raise interest rates, to slow the economy down to increase unemployment in order to bring that inflation down.

Higher borrowing costs slow down the economy and curb demand, but they also--it requires the United States to pay our bondholders who purchase our debt even more money for the debt we incur--now roughly around a trillion dollars in interest on a $31 trillion national debt.

So over the last year, in order to combat inflation, the Federal Reserve has hiked interest rates nine times--nine times. We have witnessed the fastest series of rate increases since the early 1980s, but it still hasn't been enough to cool the red-hot inflation contributed to by our colleagues' reckless spending.

While I appreciate the administration's effort to stop the contagion from spreading, I would like to see our colleagues acknowledge the circumstances that led us here. Despite warnings that trillions of dollars in spending would lead to record inflation, our colleagues seemed to just run through that red light anyway. As a result, this is something that, to be blunt, they own. It has driven up the cost of everything from basic expenses, like groceries and electricity.

Then, of course, there are the subsequent interest rate hikes which have made it more expensive to buy a house or borrow money to buy a car, for example, or to finance your small business. That is a direct result of the inflationary pressures caused by excessive Washington spending. Again, it is like pouring gasoline on the fire.

Now we know this same inflation has contributed to the failure of banks like Silicon Valley Bank. Admittedly, it is due, in part, to the mismanagement by the bank and the lack of appropriate supervision by regulators, but the reason why Silicon Valley Bank got in trouble in the first place is because the value of their Treasury bonds where they had invested some of their reserves kept going down because it is inversely proportionate to interest rates.

Democrats kicked off an economic crisis, and now everybody is paying the price. I would like to know, as they look back on it now, whether they think it was worth it?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, the Senate debates removing the authority of the President to wage war in Iraq. Momentous as such debate might be, it is largely rendered symbolic by the fact that the war in Iraq has been over for more than a decade.

Were this body serious about debating the authority of the President to wage war across Africa and the Middle East, we would today be repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

Presidential administrations of both parties have used the 9/11 authorization to justify war in over 20 countries, from Afghanistan to Libya to Syria to Somalia to Yemen. In fact, both parties have essentially argued that the 9/11 AUMF has no temporal or geographic limits at all.

Repealing the Iraq war authorization will end no wars and save no lives.

The bill before us ignores the pervasive, seemingly limitless 9/11 proclamation, and it seeks, instead, to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq--a regime that no longer exists.

So we are missing the point here. We are going to repeal the one authorization they no longer use and leave the

one in place that authorizes war everywhere, all the time.

The public is told to celebrate the boldness of a Senate that will today end a war that has been over for over a decade, while ignoring an authorization of war that is really the only pertinent current authorization.

Now, it is true that some unreconstructed neoconservatives still advocate for the 2002 authorization to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but no serious scholars believe that the Iraq war resolution has any bearing at all in a world where the current Government of Iraq is an ally, at least ostensibly, of the United States.

Even more insensibly, some of these neocon throwbacks argue that a 20-year-old authorization to counter Saddam Hussein's Iraq somehow has something to do with authorizing military force against Iran. It is nonsensical. The very argument is so strained that ordinarily one wouldn't even bother countering such a frivolous case except for the fact that many Senators insist on making it.

We voted to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is dead and gone. His government is gone. The new government is an ally. The authorization means absolutely nothing. But yet some people argue on the floor: Oh, we have to have this in case we want to attack Iran.

Have they ever heard of coming back here and asking for permission?

Have they ever heard of saying we hold this power given to us by the Constitution and that we should be the ones to bestow the declaration of war to the President?

The 2002 AUMF doesn't mention Iran. President Bush's March 2003 speech to the Nation announcing his decision to invade Iraq does not mention Iran, and Iran and Iraq were enemies for over two decades prior to the invasion. In fact, the House report accompanying the 2002 AUMF refers to Iran but only as a victim of Saddam Hussein's aggression. Nothing--absolutely nothing--in the Iraq war authorization justifies hostilities against Iran.

One would think that these brave ``armchair'' generals would relish the thought of actually debating a war and putting their vote, their imprimatur, their stamp of approval on their very own war. And yet they want to leave it to a previous generation and have no debate should we decide that we need to go to war with Iran. Instead, this plucky crowd of war advocates want a permanent authorization of war on the books so as not to be troubled with the tedium of debating new wars or waiting possibly 24 hours for the consent of Congress.

It wasn't always so. While Henry Clay was not always the greatest opponent of war, he did find his voice when his son Henry Junior, was killed in the unnecessary Mexican-American War. In the spring of 1844, after hearing of Henry Junior's death at the battle of Buena Vista, Henry Clay put into words what every Founding Father had previously explained. He spoke these words in Lexington, KY:

A declaration of war is the highest and most awful exercise

of sovereignty. The Convention, which framed our federal

constitution, had learned from the pages of history that it

had been often and greatly abused. It had seen that war had

often been commenced upon the most trifling of pretexts . . .

that such a vast and tremendous power ought not to be

confided to the perilous exercise of one single man. The

Convention, therefore, resolved to guard the war-making power

against these great abuses. . . . Whenever called upon to

determine upon the solemn question of peace and war, Congress

must consider and deliberate and decide upon the motives,

objects and causes of the war.

That was Henry Clay in 1884.

And yet, today, the best the present Congress can muster is to propose to end a war that ended long ago. In fact, we are told precisely that it is OK to repeal this particular authorization because the President isn't really using it.

If you ask President Biden if we take away the 9/11 authorization, he would say: Oh, no, no. We are still using that one in about 20 different countries.

So we are going to repeal the one authorization he no longer cares about, and we are going to leave into place one that virtually-- Presidents of both parties have virtually said is unlimited in scope.

It wasn't intended to be. If you read the authorization from 9/11, you will find that it is very specific.

But today don't worry that we actually might rein in Presidential authority for war. Don't worry that today's repeal will actually end any current war anywhere. Don't worry. Don't worry about continuing to send our soldiers to the Middle East. Don't worry about continuing to send our soldiers to Somalia and Syria and Iraq.

The argument for repeal is that, like most debates in Congress, the victory will be Pyrrhic and ignored and war will go on. The armament industry spread throughout the United States will continue to prosper.

Don't worry. The vote today is easy. The vote today is mere symbolism.

I will support that symbolism, but I will not pretend that it is brave or meaningful or that one American soldier's life will be saved. I will support the symbolism because that is all the bravery that this particular Senate considers to be possible. But I won't celebrate today's vote as anything more than symbolism.

If there exists any desire to end America's forever wars, Congress should today strike a blow for peace by repealing the 2001 authorization for war. After all, the 9/11 AUMF never intended to authorize worldwide war, all the time, everywhere, forever.

The wording of the 9/11 AUMF was debated in 2001, a generation ago, and was precisely worded to authorize the President to make war on those who attacked us on 9/11 and those who harbored them--not a word about making war on associated forces, not a word about making war on their descendants, not a word about making worldwide war on religious extremism. But that is exactly what the 9/11 2001 AUMF has become--a catchall for a permanent war, everywhere, all the time.

So if anyone in the Senate is really serious about regaining the power to declare war, about informing Presidents of both parties that the Constitution exclusively gave the power to declare war to Congress, I offer an amendment today that might actually bring an American soldier home, an amendment that might actually save an American soldier's life, an amendment that sends an actual signal to the President that congressional authority and resolve actually lives and breathes and will resist Presidential aggrandizement.

Some Senators will argue that a vote to repeal the 9/11 military force proclamation for war--but they say: Well, we could do it, but only if we simultaneously replace it with another sweeping transfer of war-making power to future Presidents.

Really? Is there not one defender of Congress's exclusive power to declare war?

Is there no one else who will reject the abdication of Congress to constitutional responsibilities?

Is there not anyone who will defend the notion that absenting perpetual authorization for war, we could survive on just the Constitution alone?

For most of American history, for 225 years, we lived without a perpetual authorization of war. We addressed it as it arose and Congress voted--not a generation ago's Congress, the people currently elected would debate on one of the most important debates we ever have, whether to go to war. But most people here will say, no, we need to keep a proclamation from 9/11 that has nothing to do with the world today and nothing to do with the attack on 9/11. We need to keep it in place just in case so we could have troops everywhere.

For most of our history, we survived without such a perpetual authorization. The Republic survived under the notion that America is reticent to make war; that we are a merchant nation conscious of the great prosperity economic freedom has brought us in the world and also conscious of the devastation and famine and brutality and the despair of war but also quite outspoken in our history that America won't be trifled with; that once awakened, once attacked, America can and will bring that mighty economic engine to life--the engine that defeated Hitler, the engine that defeated the Japanese Empire, and the engine that after 9/11 showed that America will not countenance, for any reason, an attack on our people.

Couldn't we live under the Constitution again? Couldn't we show the confidence in our people, in our Congress, in our own individual self- worth to let

the world know that we don't want perpetual war; we don't want to be the policemen of the world; we don't want our Army stationed across the globe. But provoke us, attack us, and you will discover that we cherish our freedom, and we will fight for it; that our fight will be a constitutional one.

When America was attacked at Pearl Harbor, the Congress reacted constitutionally within days to declare war. When America was attacked on 9/11, once again, Congress acted in a nearly unanimous fashion to declare war. Couldn't we obey the Constitution and declare war when necessary and not keep on the books a perpetual authorization of war?

Only by eliminating these perpetual authorizations for war will Congress regain its constitutional prerogative to declare war. One generation should not bind another generation to war. The Congress that voted for the war in 2001 is no longer constituted, and many of those Members are no longer even living. Many of our soldiers were not even born when Congress authorized that war.

So, today, I will offer the U.S. Senate a chance to repeal the 9/11/ 2001 authorization for war, to reclaim our constitutional power, and send a message to the world that we are a nation of peace; that when provoked to war, the gentle giant that is America will respond lawfully according to the Constitution; that when war is absolutely necessary, America will obey the Constitution, which requires us to debate and vote upon war and not hide beneath another generation's deliberations.

Today, we should rise above symbolism and repeal the 9/11 authorization for war and show our respect for the Constitution, our fealty to the rule of law, and our sincere desire that peace, not perpetual war, be our legacy.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, so I don't know where we are headed in terms of votes tonight, but let me tell you where we are headed in terms of the bill before the Senate.

I understand Saddam is gone and the authorization to use military force directed at him in 2002--it makes sense to me, quite frankly, believe it or not, to revisit that, but what we need to make sure we do is not leave our troops exposed that are in the fight today. This is 2023.

So Senator Schumer keeps talking about Bush lied, people died. Here is what I would say to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues: In the last 2 years, we have, I think, a little over 2,000 American forces in Iraq, there to make sure ISIS doesn't come back, keep the place stable. After Obama pulled out of Iraq, the JV team became the varsity. ISIS basically took over most of Syria, destroyed Mosul, wiped out the Yazidi Community, raped, murdered, and pillaged, and we finally regained control of Iraq. We put troops back in--they should never have been taken out--and we need those troops to stay in Iraq, make sure ISIS doesn't come back.

When they had a foothold in Raqqa, Syria, as well as Iraq, ISIS directed attacks at the United States and our allies in Europe, and all hell broke loose.

So what I would want the body to understand--in 2023, Americans are serving in Iraq, and we owe it to them to

make sure that we can use whatever military force necessary to protect them against Shiite militias operating in Iraq at the direction of Iran.

Fifty-six attacks against American forces in the last 2 years under President Biden. They are trying to drive us out of Iraq. The Shiite militias are operating all over the country. I appreciate the partnership we have with the Government of Iraq, but we don't have a status of forces agreement.

So I have an amendment that is very simple. It would replace the 2002 AUMF with the following: An authorization to use military force to protect Americans stationed in Iraq against attacks by Shiite militias in Iraq. That is an ongoing problem. Let's not expose our troops to being attacked. Let's don't continue the narrative that we are pulling out of the Middle East, because you do so at your own peril.

After the debacle in Afghanistan, everybody is wondering about America's resolve. So to all the people who talk about repealing the 2002 AUMF because Saddam is gone, I actually understand that to a point, but what I hope you will understand is that the way you have written this, the people in Iraq today, the Americans serving, we don't have their backs, and we owe it to them to have their backs.

We need to let the Iranian militias know, and others: If you attack Americans in Iraq, we are coming after you.

And to those who say the AUMF needs to be repealed because it confers too much power on a President, we need to take that authority back as Congress, well, then, here is what I would say to you: Do we owe it to those serving in Iraq to provide authority from Congress that we will have your back if you are attacked by Shiite militias that are operating in Iraq?

This is about Iraq. It is not about Iran.

And I can't believe this body would not support an authorization to use military force to protect Americans stationed in Iraq who have been attacked over 56 times in the last 2 years by Shiite militias operating in Iraq.

If we do that, shame on us.

And to those who say: Well, the President has article II authority, he can do this on his own--you can't have it both ways. Is the goal to pull back power from the President, or is the goal to say the President has whatever power he needs in Iraq?

What I want to do is be crystal clear. If the 2002 AUMF is repealed, we have a hole in our defense. We do not have congressional response or statement about what to do to protect over 2,000 Americans serving in Iraq who have been attacked 56 times.

I have got a solution to that problem. If you repeal the 2002 AUMF, let's replace it with one tailored to the situation involving American forces being attacked by Shiite militias in Iraq, to be unequivocal to the Shiite militias and others: You attack Americans at your own peril.

If we do not do that, you have tremendously exposed our troops. In your effort to wind down one war, you have created a threat to those who are fighting the war we are in now.

And if you think al-Qaida has been defeated, you think they are not a threat to us and our partners in the Middle East, in Europe, you are really not following the news.

General Kurilla, the CENTCOM commander, said last week that ISIS-K, the ISIS organization in Afghanistan, has regenerated to the point, within the next 6 months, they would have the ability to attack the United States without warning.

And there are some amendments here to basically do away with the 2001 AUMF that dealt with the attack on our Nation.

So whatever political point you are trying to make about repealing the 2002 AUMF, here is what I want you to understand: The way you are doing it is putting American lives at risk in Iraq.

If you can't muster the courage--the Congress can't--to say to Shiite militias: You attack our troops at your own peril, we have let those serving down. And I am very, very intent, using my voice in the Senate, to say that those who are in Iraq that have been attacked continuously by Shiite militias, I recognize the threat you face, and I am willing to do something about it.

Not to pass this amendment exposes those in theater, in Iraq, to continual attack. It will embolden the Shiite militia because they think we pulled the plug on the place. It will continue a narrative that America is in retreat in the war on terrorism. It will make every problem in Afghanistan worse. And we have a chance to do something about it. Please take that opportunity.

If we pass this amendment, we can at least say the following: To those in Iraq, we did not abandon you; we did not forget about you. We said clearly as a Congress that we have your back, and we made an unequivocal statement to the Shiite militias that are roaming around in Iraq: You attack our people, we are coming after you.

And if we don't do that, we are sending a terrible message to our enemies and we are letting those who are serving in Iraq down.

Iraq is moving toward democracy slowly but surely, inefficient, ugly at times. But 20 years later, there have been elections in Iraq; we have a government working with us that is surrounded in a very dangerous neighborhood.

So to those who are wanting to repeal this AUMF, you have ignored a major threat. You are creating a problem to troops in the field. I am here to point it out to you, and I would love to work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that those who are left in Iraq, that are serving there to make sure ISIS doesn't come back and to protect our interests in Iraq, that they will have the voice of Congress behind them. There will be an authorization to use military force to protect them against Shiite militias, and it is very specific, in Iraq, who have had a pattern of attacking our troops. And if we don't do this, we are sending the worst possible signal to our enemies. We are letting our troops down. And if there are further attacks, I told you so, because I know it is coming.

Let's live in the real world. Al-Qaida is not defeated. ISIS is not defeated. They have been dealt a punishing blow in certain places, but if we take our eye off the ball, they are coming back here; and the easiest targets of all are those Americans in Syria and Iraq who are on the frontlines--a virtual wall between us and radical Islam that would kill us all if they could. I think we owe it to those that we send to Iraq--and the administration is right to keep them there. You are right to keep that residual force in Iraq as an insurance policy against the rise of ISIS, but you are wrong not having your voice lent to the cause that an authorization to use military force against Shiite militias-- that needs to be the law of the land. We owe it to those in Iraq. It is not a hypothetical problem--56 attacks in the last 2 years. And if we pull the plug on the AUMF in Iraq without dealing with the Shiite militia threat, we will send a horrible signal at the worst possible time.

So I urge a ``yes'' vote for this amendment to replace the 2002 AUMF with a specific authorization to use military force against Shiite militias that are attacking Americans continuously in the last 2 years, to protect those that are on the frontlines of this fight. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to call up my amendment No. 14, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Colleagues, this is, to me, very important; I hope to you.

There have been 56 attacks against soldiers stationed in Iraq--about 2,000--by Shiite militias in Iraq. I can understand repealing the AUMF because Saddam is dead, but those in Iraq--American soldiers--are being attacked routinely by Shiite militias in Iraq.

I am asking the Congress to tell the Shiite militias: You come after our troops, we are coming after you.

Article II power exists nebulously. The strongest we can be as a nation is when the Congress and the President speak with a single voice. Speak with this voice to those who will kill Americans in Iraq: Shiite militias, we are coming after you.

I ask for the yeas and nays.