Floor Statements

Madam President, had I been able to vote, I would have voted yea on the Kaine amendment No. 429 to require the advice and consent of the Senate or an act of Congress to suspend, terminate, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty and authorizing related litigation, and for other purposes.

I am a cosponsor for a similar bill, S.J. Res. 37, led by Senators Kaine and Rubio, which establishes a mechanism for the United States to exit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. Although the Constitution provides clear guidance on Congress's role in ratifying treaties, it does not say anything about Congress's role in approving or disapproving withdrawal from a treaty. I believe, together with Senator Kaine and Senator Rubio, that the NATO alliance is a foundational principle of U.S. national security, regardless of who is President, and the U.S. leadership role in the alliance should depend on more than the whims of any one administration.

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, and Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, I rise to honor Jake Ryan Wallin, a Fargo police officer whose life was cut tragically short in the line of duty on July 14, 2023. He lived every day of his 23 years in the service of others, and his loss is nothing short of a tragedy for his family, his community, and our country.

Jake was the beloved son of Jeff and Amy Wallin. Raised in St. Michael, MN, he was a graduate of St. Michael-Albertville High School and Alexandria Technical and Community College before attending the American Military University.

As a member of the Minnesota National Guard, he was deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq, where he served honorably. Upon return, he found a new home in Fargo, ND, and continued his life of service with the Fargo Police Department.

At Officer Wallin's funeral, the people who knew him best emphasized that more than anything, he wanted to live a life of purpose--to do work that made a difference for people. As a servicemember and a police officer, he did that and so much more. Time and time again, Officer Wallin heard the call of duty and raised his hand to say, ``Count me in.'' That level of selflessness, character, and patriotism is the mark of a good citizen and a good man. A world where everyone lived the values that defined Officer Wallin's life would be a better world indeed.

My heart is with Jake's parents Jeff and Amy; his brother Brady; his fiance Winter; and everyone who called him a grandson, a nephew, a cousin, a colleague, or a friend. I wish them peace and comfort as they mourn the needless, devastating loss of an exceptional young man. While he is no longer with us, his memory will serve as an inspiration to generations of public servants who choose to follow in his brave footsteps.

Mr. President, I rise to state my intention to include the Afghan Adjustment Act as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

This involved years of work. This bipartisan legislation is led with Senator Graham, along with Senators Coons, Moran, Blumenthal, Murkowski, Shaheen, Wicker, Durbin, Tillis, and Mullin. Those are just the people who are cosponsoring this bill; and there are many others who are supporting it on both sides of the aisle.

What is this about? Well, it is about our national security. It is about a covenant--a covenant--that we have made and we must keep to those who stand with us on the battlefield. This bill does right by Afghans who worked alongside our troops and shows the world that the United States of America, when we make a promise, we keep it.

Nearly 80,000 Afghans who sought refuge in our country are currently in limbo. In just the last few weeks, one of them who was a translator for our military, who was working two jobs to support his family, who was living in legal limbo, was murdered--murdered--in the middle of the night working as a Lyft driver.

Is that keeping our covenant? Is that keeping our promise?

Many of these people are those who risked their own lives and their family's safety to protect our servicemembers. That is why this bill is so strongly supported by the American Legion, by the VFW; and that is why it has gotten support from people on both sides of the aisle.

These are people who are in our country right now. They are in our country right now. What this bill does is it simply says that they will be vetted but that we will also keep our promise to those who stood by our military. Among them are translators and humanitarian workers, as well as courageous members of the Afghan military who stood shoulder to shoulder with our troops. They cannot go back. They would be killed. We were right to help these people flee the Taliban and come to the United States, and it now falls on us to help provide them with the stability and the security they need to rebuild their lives here. So many of them want to move on with their lives here in the United States of America, a country that they stood with.

We have seen this before. We saw it with the Hmong and the Vietnamese when they came to our country. And many of them now, who are they? They are police officers, they are doctors, they are firefighters, they are people who teach our kids. That is how this has worked in the past and it has been successful and it will be successful now. The bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act creates a more efficient system for our Afghan allies to apply for permanent legal status. It is provisional permanent legal status.

The legislation makes the process more thorough, as I noted, by requiring applicants to go through vetting that is just as rigorous as the vetting they would have gone through if they came to the United States as refugees, including an in-person interview, a standard that eight--eight--eight former Donald Trump and George W. Bush Administration national security officials called the ``gold standard'' of vetting. The gold standard of vetting.

Senator Graham and I worked closely with many Republicans--including Senator Moran who has been so helpful

as ranking member of the Veterans' committee on this bill; including Senator Wicker who is on this bill, the ranking member of Armed Services--and the Department of Defense to strengthen the bill's vetting provisions and to add language that responds to concerns. In addition, the legislation updates a special immigrant Visa program to include groups that should never have been excluded from the program in the first place, including the female tactical teams of Afghanistan, which did so much to support our troops. The entire purpose of the Special Immigrant Visa program is to provide permanent residency to those who have supported the United States abroad. And it is clear to me that these brave women should also qualify.

The bill also requires the administration to implement a strategy for supporting Afghans outside of the United States who are eligible for SIV status and ensures that these applicants have a way to get answers--answers--from the State Department about their applications.

The Afghan Adjustment Act, as I noted, is sponsored by a bipartisan group of 11 cosponsors--with many more who are going to vote for it-- and has earned the backing of more than 60 organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, as well as some of our Nation's most revered military leaders, including Admirals Mike Mullen, William McRaven, and James Stavridis; Generals Richard Myers of the U.S. Air Force, Joseph Dunford from the U.S. Marine Corps, and Stan McChrystal, from the U.S. Army.

Part of the reason we were able to build such a broad coalition for our bill is because it is modeled after other bipartisan legislation that Congress passed after previous armed conflicts. After the Vietnam War, Congress passed a law, as I noted, that allowed thousands of people to resettle in the U.S., including many Hmong refugees who now call Minnesota home.

As I noted, they are such success stories. They are in the legislature. They are farmers and bakers. They are builders and inventors. They started families. Congress also acted similarly following the Cuban revolution and the Iraq war to protect allies and friends. In each instance, our country welcomed these immigrants and we have benefited immeasurably from their contributions.

If we act to help our Afghan allies, just as we helped other allies, we will continue this tradition of not leaving people behind--of keeping our covenant.

Think of these stories.

A few months ago, I had a meeting with a group of Afghan women who served in the Afghan National Army Female Tactical Platoon, including one of the group's commanders, Mahnaz. Our troops heavily relied on the platoon during the war. As our soldiers pursued missions hunting down ISIS combatants on unforgiving terrain and freeing prisoners from the grips of the Taliban, these women had their backs. The platoon worked especially closely with our military's support team and facilitated conversations between our soldiers and the Afghan women that they crossed paths with in the field.

Mahnaz is now living in limbo. But some of her biggest advocates fighting for her and her platoon to secure residency are the American soldiers they served with. I know every one of my colleagues has heard from American soldiers about these brave Afghans that served with our soldiers.

In U.S. Army Captain Mary Kolars' words:

Mahnaz might as well be my sister. They've sacrificed for

their country and for ours. The bond between our two units is

pretty inseparable.

The deep respect is mutual. Mahnaz knows what her sacrifice cost her. She is more than 6,000 miles from the place she once called home with little hope of ever returning. She separated from so many of the people she once shared her life with. But even knowing the cost of her sacrifice, she says she would do it all again.

I am in absolute awe of her grit and her patriotism and the many stories. I will be telling these stories every day throughout this week, and I hope that we will come together and make sure that she and so many other of these brave Afghans have a path in this country. It is example after example of these stories.

Ahmad spent 4 years training to serve in the Afghan military. He was selected for Afghanistan's elite aviation unit, which worked closely with America's military in our fight against the Taliban. Reflecting on his experience, he said:

In the face of danger, we were united, we were relentless,

we were resilient.

His helicopter was shot down--not once, but twice--but that didn't diminish his resolve.

But his experience since the evacuation has been shattering. He now lives in Alabama, thousands and thousands of miles away from his family. He works two jobs to make ends meet and sends what he can back to the loved ones he left behind. He knows full well that the foundation he is building here in America could dissolve in a second if he doesn't get some kind of provisional status, which this Congress can grant, just as it did with the Vietnamese and the Hmong and after the Iraq war and after the Cuban revolution. He was there for us in time of need, and we must be there.

Another man--I am not going to reveal his name, and he asked that it not be revealed because of his family back in Afghanistan--while he and his wife and children were able to evacuate to the United States, he lives in fear of the Taliban retaliating against his other loved ones back in Afghanistan.

He served in the Afghan National Army for years and worked as a liaison with our forces. He even trained in the United States, graduating from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, but Afghanistan was his home, and he always believed that that was where he would remain. That changed when the Taliban seized control. Fearing for his safety, he and his family rushed to the airport in Kabul, weaving through countless Taliban checkpoints, knowing that any wrong move would be their last.

Today, he is in Kansas, but he has anxiety for the people at home and in not knowing if he, too, will be sent back.

Another story is of a man named Tashmorad. He is afraid the Taliban will target his family if his name becomes public. That is why this isn't really his name but is a name he asked to be used.

Back in his home country, he flew missions with the Afghan Air Force. To use his words, his job was to ``capture the bad guys like al-Qaida and Taliban.'' He had dreamt of flying since he first saw an Afghan pilot make an emergency landing in his village when he was about 10 years old. When he found out that he would have to learn English to fly, he started trying to teach himself from a book that he bought at a local shop. He went on to earn a degree in language and culture, with a focus on aviation, and then took part in flight training from our military, from the U.S. military.

He then spent 10 years as a military pilot, where he flew as high as 25,000 feet, helping American soldiers identify Taliban positions in the mountains of Afghanistan. He was stationed about 300 miles from his family when the withdrawal began. His squadron leader ordered him to fly back to support the evacuation. Even though it was getting dark, he turned his airplane lights off to avoid being detected and shot down. Because of his tact and his skill, he landed safely. His commanders advised him not to leave the airport, but he knew he needed to see his family. He made a brief trip home to his pregnant wife and kids and said goodbye before he returned to join the airlift operation. That was almost 2 years ago, and he hasn't seen his family since.

Today, he lives in Roanoke, VA. He delivers food to make extra money. He works as a water technician. Every extra cent that he makes, he sends back to his family. He still dreams of flying, but more than that, he dreams of reuniting with his wife and kids. He dreams of buying a two-bedroom house for his family, and he dreams of having a safe and stable life in the country that he risked everything for.

There are more stories of two Afghan Air Force pilots and friends. Their paths to become women pilots were hardly straightforward, but through sheer persistence and skill, they both made it happen. The two women were at aviation training in Dubai when the withdrawal began. In an instant, their lives were turned upside down.

I ask you to imagine how you would feel if you were in a foreign country, and you realized that you couldn't safely, all of a sudden, return home. They knew that their careers put their loved ones at risk, so they called their families and told them to round up their uniforms, their pilot IDs, and their diplomas and burn them.

Hasina watched over a video call as her mom destroyed the evidence of the life she had worked so hard to build. ``All my dreams were on fire,'' she once reflected, ``and I was just watching.''

She arrived in the United States, she and her friend, with one suitcase each. They began waiting tables at a strip mall in Fort Myers, FL, hoping, one day, to return to the skies.

Those are just a few of the examples.

My colleagues, there are 80,000 of those stories--80,000 of those stories--and we have a covenant to keep. You talk to any soldier who served over in Afghanistan, and they will have stories to tell. It is our job to uphold the promises that were made to those who served with us, because if we don't uphold those promises, what do you think is going to happen the next time we ask others to serve with our own military?

I am so proud that we have such strong bipartisan support for this amendment, that we have those in the Senate who have worked on these issues for so long in supporting this. I am convinced that when we have the vote on this amendment, we will finally be able to put our heads up proudly and say our covenant has been kept.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as we know, this Saturday marks the 1-year anniversary of the day the U.S. Supreme Court decided to overturn half a century of precedent on a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions.

I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Rhode Island and all of my colleagues who are here today.

When they made this decision, it went against the 70 to 80 percent of Americans who believe that this decision should be made by a woman and her family and her doctor and not by politicians. As a result, as we predicted that day, women across the country are at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws governing their ability to access reproductive care.

In States like Texas, women have been forced to carry pregnancies for days after learning that their baby would not survive because their doctors can't legally provide care unless their life is at risk.

And then there was the heartbreaking story about the 10-year-old girl in Ohio who had to go to Indiana to get an abortion after she was raped--10 years old. People said it was some kind of a hoax. It wasn't. It was real. And everyone in this Chamber knows it.

The Supreme Court's decision threatened women's health and freedom. And to this day, it demands a legislative response, not a response where the women of Texas are told that they have different rights. In fact, no rights compared to women in Minnesota or even in our next-door State of Wisconsin. Part of that is codifying Roe v. Wade into law. That is true.

We must also address the full scope that women are facing, the full scope of threats right now. Recent reports have illustrated how social media companies are collecting and data brokers are selling location data that could be used to identify women seeking reproductive healthcare services.

We know that the collection of this data, we know that people on both sides of the aisle understand that this has ramifications beyond women seeking abortion care. They could have anyone, man or woman, seeking a mental health provider, an addiction clinic, counseling therapy--all of it--the rules are murky, and the data is being collected and sold.

That is why I am leading the UPHOLD Privacy Act with a number of our colleagues, including Senator Warren and Senator Hirono. And that is why I am seeking unanimous consent to pass this legislation.

Our bill sets commonsense limits on how companies can use people's personal data. First, it bans data brokers from selling location data. Women making their most personal healthcare decisions should be able to go to their doctors' appointments and consult specialists without worrying that the data about their location where they are going to be or are will be purchased or sold.

Second, it says you can't use health data for commercial advertising purposes, period. That means companies can't use data from fitness trackers or browser histories to sell ads, all healthcare data.

Third, it gives consumers more say over how their personal healthcare information is used by allowing them to request that their data be deleted.

It also places limits on what health data companies can collect about Americans. Consumers deserve to be in the driver's seat when it comes to determining how their personal health data is used. This legislation does just that.

It is past time that we update our privacy laws, in general, and I hope we get that done by the end of this year. But we must also update our health privacy laws to reflect the reality of how social media platforms and data brokers are profiting off our data.

In a world without Roe, this couldn't be more urgent. I supported, with a Republican, limits on this health data to begin with, and now, as we are in this post-Roe world, as I know, it becomes even more important.

I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in declaring that these Big Tech companies cannot sell

off, through data brokers, our private personal healthcare and that our decisions should never be a tool for profit. This is not a radical proposal. It is completely common sense.

As we get closer to marking a year without Roe v. Wade, I continue to stand with my colleagues in the fight for reproductive freedom. We stand firmly on the side of the American people who have come together, time and time again, in Kentucky, in Michigan, in Montana, and in the middle of the prairie in Kansas to defend reproductive rights. We will not settle for a reality in which our daughters have fewer rights than their mothers and their grandmothers.

As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 631 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Just a few specific responses. First of all, this bill is very specific. It addresses health and location data, and, as I noted before, I continue to believe that we need Federal privacy legislation, in general, to address other privacy needs. But this bill is targeted at sensitive health data when it comes to location.

And I know it was the conservative members of the Supreme Court who actually issued the broad decision to overturn half a century of precedent on a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. And this bill is a targeted response on one issue, and that is to set commonsense limits on how companies can use people's personal data.

I just also wanted to respond to the issue of mifepristone, which was temporarily thrown out by one judge in the State of Texas, and that is now pending before several different courts. A different decision was made in another court, in Washington State. But I will note that the statute referred to, which would somehow limit this drug that was approved by the FDA decades ago and has been found safe in dozens and dozens of countries across the globe--that law that was referred to was actually enacted, the Comstock Act in 1873--1873--when they treated pneumonia with bloodletting, when the Pony Express existed, and, which I know, is 10 years before they even did the ``Yellowstone'' prequel.

So if my colleagues want to move backward to that time period, those are the laws they are citing. I believe the people of this country want to move forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the U.S. Senate vehicle and alternate vehicle parking regulations, adopted by the Committee on Rules and Administration on May 17, 2023, in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate considers this week the resolution to rescind the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Amendment Act, passed by the DC City Council on January 19, 2023.

As a general matter, I believe that the people of Washington, DC, and their elected representatives should have the autonomy to govern themselves. For years, I have cosponsored and fought to pass the Washington D.C. Admission Act, which would admit the District of Columbia as a state.

I have also long supported funding for the police, as well as reforms, to help ensure that our justice system works for everyone. That includes being the lead sponsor of the COPS Reauthorization Act to provide Federal funding to law enforcement departments across the country to hire and retain police officers. I also support police reform measures focused on holding officers who break the law accountable for misconduct, increasing transparency in police practices, and improving police conduct and training.

The DC City Council's bill included many changes to strengthen accountability measures and improve conduct, including reforms to prevent the use of chokeholds, limit the use of force, and expand the use of de-escalation tactics. The bill also takes steps to prevent officers who have committed serious acts of misconduct or were fired for disciplinary reasons from serving on the DC police force. I support these efforts, which is why I oppose the resolution.

It is also important to note that the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Amendment Act does not include changes to qualified immunity. As Congressman Jim Clyburn has said, as we work toward common ground on police reform, we cannot ``sacrifice good on the altar of perfect'' and let disagreements about qualified immunity stand in the way of reform. The men and women in law enforcement who risk their lives every single day must have the confidence to make split-second decisions that can make the difference between life and death. I would not support this measure if changes to qualified immunity were made that put law enforcement officers who act in good faith at risk.

While there are a significant number of critical reforms included in DC's police reform bill, I am not in agreement with the provisions that prevent the unions that represent DC police officers from including disciplinary procedures in their collective bargaining agreements. All other unions that represent public servants in the District of Columbia negotiate for fair disciplinary proceedings, and while police officers serve a unique role that requires oversight, we should not deny police unions the same opportunity. The DC Council should ensure that police officers who break the law are held accountable, but it should not do so by undermining the right of law enforcement to collectively negotiate.

I also think changes could be made to provisions that set a fixed timetable for the release of data related to incidents involving the use of force. Law enforcement, working with City officials, should have some measure of flexibility to determine the appropriate timing for releasing information to protect public safety.

It is my hope that DC government officials will address these issues as they continue to work with law enforcement and other interested parties to make needed reforms to their justice system.

Madam President, I rise to celebrate the incredible life and storied career of Minnesota's dear coach Bud Grant. A legendary Vikings, head coach, NFL Hall of Famer, Gopher player, and Minneapolis Laker, Bud gave us so many Minnesota memories. I will always remember when, at age 88, Bud took to the field in a short- sleeved polo shirt in subzero temperatures for the coin toss in the 2016 Vikings/Seahawks playoff game.

My dad and Bud were friends to the end of my dad's life. I grew up knowing everything about the Vikings, and no name loomed larger in my house than ``Bud Grant.'' I remember answering the phone as a young kid to silence on the other line, save for maybe the grunted word ``Jim.'' That meant it was Bud calling my dad back for the postgame story, regardless of the outcome. The first few times it happened, I would earnestly explain that my name wasn't ``Jim,'' but after a while, I got the drill, and I would just run to get my dad.

Bud gave so much to his players, but he gave even more to the fans. Those Bud Grant years were an exhilarating time in Minnesota--158 victories and four Super Bowl appearances--but through it all, Bud remained steady and stoic, win or lose.

Bud was a beloved coach and a dedicated outdoorsman. But above all, Bud was devoted to his family. Today, my heart is with all those who knew and loved Bud.

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Cardin, thanking him for his leadership for so many years, as well as Senator Murkowski and my colleague Senator Stabenow in support of this bipartisan resolution to remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment so we can finally enshrine equal rights for women into our Constitution.

What are people afraid of?

Minnesota ratified the ERA 50 years ago. Since then, women and men who stand with them have never rested in the fight to guarantee equality in the Constitution of the United States of America.

After a half century of overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles, that long-fought battle for equality has come down to an arbitrary deadline.

Passing the resolution will bring us one step closer to ratifying the ERA and finally enshrining permanent protections for women and girls in our Constitution.

The Equal Rights Amendment would make clear, once and for all, that women are guaranteed equal rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The core of the amendment is only 24 words long, guaranteeing that ``[e]quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.''

In 1972, the amendment passed both Houses of Congress with bipartisan support. The Senate voted to send the amendment to the States by a vote of 84 to 8, with 7 not voting, and the House passed it 354 to 24. Congress initially set a 7-year deadline for the required three-fourths of States to ratify the amendment, and it later extended the deadline by 3 more years.

By the time that deadline expired, only 35 States had ratified, leaving the amendment three States short of the 38 needed. But the deadline did not stop the growing support for the ERA and women's equality. Since then, three additional States have voted to ratify the ERA, including Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia.

It is long past time that equality of women be enshrined in the Constitution.

I have been proud to join a bipartisan group of Senators in cosponsoring this resolution. This resolution is part of a long tradition of bipartisan support for the ERA. The past year has made it painfully clear that protecting equality remains fundamental to the lives of each and every American. As my colleagues have noted, the women of this country still face a gender pay gap that leaves them economically behind. Women still earn around 82 cents of every dollar a man makes, and for women of color, it is even less.

Ten months ago, we saw the Supreme Court issue a rule shredding nearly five decades of precedent protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. Now women are at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws governing their ability to access reproductive care, leaving them with fewer rights than their moms and grandmas.

Every branch of government has a responsibility to protect people's rights, and if one branch fails to do so, the Constitution gives Congress and the people the power to step in by proposing and ratifying a new amendment.

Ratifying the ERA would affirm that sex discrimination is inconsistent with the Nation's core values of equal protection under the law.

We know that the majority of Americans are on our side--78 percent of Americans, according to the Pew Research Center--support the ERA being added to the Constitution--78 percent of Americans. We know this proposal is common sense.

This year marks the 101st anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, a critical milestone in our democracy. At this moment in our country's history, I am as committed as ever to fighting to ensure that all Americans are guaranteed equality under the law. Let's show the world that the United States of America is a place where equality is the law of the land.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here to talk about the Fire Grants and Safety Act.

I do appreciate the words of my colleague. It was good to hear his concerns, and I think we all share concerns about Americans being spied on and their data.

I also note that as we look at dealing with platforms and social media and the like at the same time we pursue this, we must pursue the bills that have been out there for well over a year now and passed through the Judiciary Committee last year and will do so again. And those are bills related to monopoly power; bills related to the incredible imbalance in power with two of the platforms, Google and Facebook, when it comes to dealing with small newspapers and radio stations and TV and their content, a bill that was nearly passed at the end of last year; another bill that Senator Grassley and I have that speaks to the fact that other countries in the world are now putting forth regulations and rules about self-preferencing and the unfairness to our small businesses; and then, of course, other bills, some of which are in the Commerce Committee, on privacy and children's issues and the like.

All of these bills must be considered on this floor because, as noted by my colleague, we have not passed any rules when it comes to not only the issues he was addressing but also when it comes to a competition tech policy since the advent of the internet.

I think we know a lot more than we knew when Facebook was in a garage. We know a lot more, and it is time for us to get up to speed and to actually pass some rules and stop talking about it.

Mr President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 10 to roll back protections for veterans and their family members who are seeking to access basic reproductive healthcare. I would like to thank Senator Murray, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Duckworth for their leadership in standing against this resolution.

Almost 10 months ago, the Supreme Court issued a ruling overruling nearly five decades of precedent protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. Now, women are at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws governing their ability to access reproductive care, leaving them with fewer rights than their moms and grandmas.

S.J. Res. 10 is yet another attempt to roll back women's access to care. It would overturn a decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs to allow veterans and their family members to access basic healthcare. Currently, the rule allows Veterans Affairs doctors to provide counseling and care to women veterans and beneficiaries covered by Veterans Affairs insurance, as well as abortion care in the case of rape, incest, or when the life or health of the women is at risk. The rule is limited, and the Department has said that Veterans Affairs doctors, nurses, or healthcare professionals can opt out of providing abortion care.

Women across the country are already facing so much uncertainty because of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. This resolution threatens the lives and health of women veterans who risked their lives for our country. Today, we are standing up for

them by making it clear that we will not settle for a reality where they cannot access basic care.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize Anthony Williams's decades of service with the U.S. Postal Service. Nearly 43 years ago, Mr. Williams began as a city carrier at the Rice Street Station in St. Paul, MN, and on March 3, 2023, he retired as the Minnesota-North Dakota district manager. During that time, Mr. Williams supported the Postal Service in its work processing and delivering 425 million pieces of mail each day, including everything from Social Security checks and life-saving prescriptions, to birthday and graduation cards.

When I think about Anthony's time with the U.S. Postal Service, I will always think about his commitment to problem-solving. In the face of polar vortexes, staffing shortages, and a global pandemic, he always found a way to regroup, examine the situation, and do what needed to be done to get Minnesotans and North Dakotans their mail.

While in a practical sense the U.S. Postal Service brings us our letters and packages, as the only organization with the logistical capability to reach every address in the Nation, it also brings our country together. That is the heart of what Anthony did through his decades of service, and I will always be grateful.

I hope that Anthony gets some much deserved rest and time with Cindy in retirement, and if I ever need to reach him, I know he is just a stamp away.

Madam President, I rise in support of the legislation repealing the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force against Iraq. I am pleased about the vote.

I want to thank Senator Tim Kaine and Senator Todd Young for leading this bipartisan legislation as well as Chair Bob Menendez for moving it through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

With this bill, we are asserting Congress's constitutional power to determine when to begin and end wars. These AUMFs were passed 32 and 21 years ago respectively. The Gulf war ended in a matter of months, and the Iraq war that began more than a decade later has been over for 12 years. It is time for Congress to act.

Open-ended AUMFs serve no strategic purpose and undermine Congress's authority to determine if and when to send our troops into battle, which is a major decision that we should make.

On top of that, they come with great risk. It is far too easy for a Presidential administration to treat an AUMF as blanket permission to enter into or to stoke conflicts abroad. It doesn't matter which party is in the White House--our Constitution grants war powers to Congress.

We also must recognize that the situation on the ground has changed. Iraq is now a sovereign democracy and America's strategic partner in the Middle East. If we want to work with them to advance stability in the region--and we should--what kind of signal does it send to have our laws identify Iraq as an enemy nation?

Repealing the AUMFs will not halt our military's strategic operations in Iraq, and it will not harm our national defense; but it will offer a measure of closure to the veterans and servicemembers who sacrificed so much on the battlefield.

I will not soon forget when I went to Baghdad and Fallujah and saw firsthand the bravery and commitment of our troops. The Minnesota soldiers I met over there--as, I am sure, the Presiding Officer met with New Hampshire soldiers--never once complained about their missions. Instead, they asked me to call their moms and dads at home to tell them they were OK.

And not a day goes by that I don't think of that afternoon at the Baghdad Airport. By circumstance, we were getting on a plane. I saw a group standing, and I went over there. They were members of the Duluth National Guard, whom I have met many times since. They were there, saluting, as six caskets, draped in American flags, were loaded onto a plane to be flown home.

Our troops did their jobs and more. Let's do ours. It is time to bring an end to the AUMFs and the war.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, March 23; 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; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 25, S. 316; further, that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate vote on the Lee amendment, No. 22, as provided under the previous order.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I rise today, on International Women's Day, in support of the Women's Health Protection Act. I would like to thank Senator Baldwin for her leadership, from my neighboring State of Wisconsin; Senator Blumenthal for his longtime leadership of this bill; as well as Senator Murray and so many others, including yourself, Madam President, for your work on this. I also wanted to mention Erin Chapman, of our Judiciary team, who is here with me, who has worked on this as well, and my colleague Tina Smith, who is the only Senator to have worked at Planned Parenthood in the U.S. Senate.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling shredding nearly five decades of precedent protecting a women's right to make her own healthcare decisions, against the wishes of 70 to 80 percent of Americans who believe this is a decision that should be made between a woman, her family, and her doctor.

In this past year, we heard that majority loud and clear in States where access to reproductive healthcare was directly on the ballot. From Montana and Michigan to Kentucky and Kansas, voters turned out to protect a woman's right to choose. It was almost as if those who authored some of these resolutions--like in Kansas--that tried to limit a woman's right forgot that women were going to show up and vote; and in Kansas they did, in record numbers, right in the middle of the prairie.

This doesn't come down to red States or blue States or purple States. As you know, this is about freedom. As voters across the country have made clear, it is unacceptable for women to be left to the mercy of a patchwork of State laws governing their ability to access reproductive care, leaving them, as Senator Baldwin just pointed out, with fewer rights than their moms and grandmas. That is right; my daughter has fewer rights right now than her mom and her grandma did.

And you think about what has been happening. You think about the heartbreaking story of that 10-year-old girl in Ohio who had to go to Indiana after being a victim of rape and had to go to Indiana just to get her healthcare. I remember when that story came out. People, including news organizations--some of them said it was a hoax, and then they had to go back. They had to go back and apologize to that little girl because it wasn't a hoax. It really happened. And those are the stories we are, sadly, seeing across the country.

So what can we do in the face of this threat to women's health and freedom? All three branches of government have a responsibility to protect people's rights. And if one branch doesn't do its job, then the other branch is supposed to step in. That is why we are introducing this bill. Congress must act to codify the principles of Roe v. Wade into law, and we have the opportunity and the obligation to do that with the Women's Health Protection Act.

We have updated this bill to make clear Congress's intent to restore the rights the Supreme Court took away in the Dobbs decision. The bill also protects a woman's right to travel to another State to receive reproductive healthcare, something that I know you, Madam President, have been leading on during this past year.

All of this comes down to one question, and I will end with this: Who--who--should get to make these personal decisions for women: a woman herself or politicians?

I think the answer is clear. I do not think that women making these decisions want to see our Republican colleagues in the waiting room. That is why I urge every Senator to get behind the majority of Americans who support a woman's right to choose and support the Women's Health Protection Act.

I yield the floor.