Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 116, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, in 1 minute, I will ask unanimous consent on Calendar No. 24, S. 30. I am just proud to say that there are a good number of major facilities for Veterans Affairs to go forward, including the final installation on the Canandaigua veterans facility, up near Rochester, to complete its modernization. We have been working a long time on this, and this finally completes that action.

Mr. President, now, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 24, S. 30.

I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 11 a.m., Wednesday, March 22--Members should remember that, 11 a.m.; 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 proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Gallagher nomination; further, that at 12 noon, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination and that following disposition of the Gallagher nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate resume legislative session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 25, S. 316; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of my Democratic colleagues.

Mr. President, I will note that four of my colleagues will come to the floor tonight to discuss the success of the ACA. This is the anniversary of the ACA.

Millions and millions of Americans have gotten good, reasonably priced medical coverage because of the ACA. It is one of the hallmarks that this Congress passed in this century. It is doing more good every year. More people are covered, and costs are going down.

Medical care is so essential to the American people. And here we are. Despite all the naysayers early on, it is a hugely successful, popular program that is making Americans more healthy.

I want to thank my colleagues, led by the Senators from Pennsylvania and New Jersey. I know the Senator from Oregon is coming as well to discuss the benefits and beauty of the ACA.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, now, almost 20 years to the day that U.S. military operations began in Iraq, the U.S. Senate begins the process of repealing the Iraq AUMFs--the ones of 2002 and 1991--putting the final remnants of those conflicts squarely behind us.

The United States, the Nation of Iraq, and the entire world have changed dramatically since 2002, and it is time the laws on the books catch up with these changes. The Iraq war has itself been long over. This AUMF has outlived its purpose, and we can no longer justify keeping it in effect.

While the Iraq war was the cause of so much bitterness in the past, I am glad that repealing these AUMFs has been a genuinely bipartisan effort. I expect we will have a number of amendment votes on the floor once this amendment is before us, and I want to thank Senators Kaine and Young, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and all the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the cosponsors of this legislation.

Again, this is a bipartisan process. Both parties in this Chamber have voiced support for repeal. President Biden has voiced support for repealing this AUMF, and in June of 2021, our House colleagues voted 268 to 168 to repeal, with 49 Republicans in support.

I hope this year, on the 20th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, both Chambers will finally speak in one voice and send an AUMF repeal to the President's desk.

Americans are tired of endless wars in the Middle East. Many Americans have come of age without even remembering the early years of the Iraq war. Every year we leave these AUMFs on the books is another year that a future administration can abuse them, and Congress--the rightful dispenser of war powers--cannot allow this to continue.

I want to make this clear: Repealing this AUMF will not in any way hinder our national defense, nor will it hurt the efforts of our troops deployed overseas. In fact, the repeal is an important step for strengthening our relationship with Iraq.

So once again, thank you to all my colleagues for their good work on this resolution, and I urge everyone on both sides to vote ``yes'' on cloture on the motion to proceed in a few hours.

Madam President, on the Clarke nomination today, the Senate will confirm a highly qualified judicial nominee from New York, whom I was very proud to recommend, Jessica Clarke, to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York.

Ms. Clarke had all the opportunities in the world to enter private practice in New York, but instead she chose the path of public service. She has worked in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and the New York attorney general's Civil Rights Bureau. She is a great civil rights lawyer, and I am certain she will make an excellent member of the Federal bench.

It would have been difficult to imagine someone like Ms. Clarke being nominated to the Federal bench a generation ago, but because of her talent and her dedication to the rule of law, she is rightfully taking her place on the bench today. Our courts will be better for it. I look forward to supporting her confirmation and urge my colleagues to vote in her favor.

Madam President, now on insulin, the exponential spike in the cost of insulin is one of the most unjust and widespread healthcare bad trends in the past few decades. This drug, discovered a century ago and which is exceedingly cheap to produce, has seen its price surge in recent years, sometimes far beyond $300 for a month's supply. That is cruel. It is unjust. It causes anguish for so many, but it is also for so many a reality.

Senate Democrats took a major step toward basic fairness last year by capping the cost of insulin for people on Medicare at $35 a month. Since Democrats took action, Big Pharma has taken note. Eli Lilly announced a few weeks ago that they, too, will be capping the cost of insulin for patients at $35 a month as well as dramatically dropping the overall price. And just this week, Novo Nordisk also decided to drop their price in a similar manner.

So today I call on the third big drugmaker of insulin--Sanofi--to end their practice of keeping insulin prices at sky-high levels so that Americans can afford to pay for diabetes treatment without going broke.

I will be sending Sanofi a letter soon expressing my desire and Americans' strong desire for them to drop the price of insulin.

Lowering insulin costs for all patients is the right thing to do, and I hope Sanofi makes the correct decision to lower their prices very soon, just like Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk have done.

All of us know somebody with diabetes. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine the sheer agony of struggling to afford this basic drug just so you can live a decent and healthy life, so you don't have to worry about going blind or maybe having a leg amputated--just so you can live at all. No American should have to go through that ever-- ever--but too many do.

In the Senate, I hope both parties can build on the work last year to cap patient insulin costs at $35 a month for everyone. We did it for Medicare. We can do it for everyone else. And we hope we can get that done on a bipartisan basis. Lowering insulin prices isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue; it is purely American. And I hope we can get something done. But today, the most immediate thing that can happen is for Sanofi to listen to the voices of millions of Americans and make the right choice to lower the price they charge for insulin for all patients.

Madam President, now, on energy, yesterday, Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans rolled out a bipartisan, unserious, and dead-on- arrival so-called energy package they laughably labeled as H.R. 1.

It is not difficult to see that the Republican proposal is nothing more than a wish list for Big Oil, masquerading as an energy package.

No serious energy package would gut important environmental safeguards on fossil fuel projects while leaving out necessary permitting reforms needed to bring transmission and clean energy projects online.

Rather than prepare for the future, Republicans' Big Oil wish list would lock America into expensive, erratic, and dirty energy sources. The Republicans' so-called energy plan would set us back decades in our transition to clean, affordable energy. It shows the influence that Big Oil has on the Republican House caucus because it seems that this package was almost written by Big Oil.

So let me be clear. The House Republicans' so-called energy bill is dead on arrival in the Senate--dead on arrival. And I would say to my colleagues: We can still get something done. Fortunately, many Democrats and Republicans understand that we need bipartisanship in order to produce a real energy package. As we speak, there are talks happening in good faith about the possibilities of a permitting deal. I strongly--strongly--support both sides working together to arrive at a real energy bipartisan package, not the partisan wish list Republicans have introduced.

Any genuine energy package must include a permitting deal that will ease America's transition to clean energy while also ensuring that clean energy is reliable, accessible, and, most importantly, affordable.

Transmission is vital to getting clean energy from where it is produced to where people live, but the Republicans' H.R. 1 proposal completely ignores this issue, to its detriment and its demise.

Until Republicans recognize that permitting reform is an essential step toward laying the foundation for a clean energy future, no proposal or package they put forward will be taken seriously.

Mr. President, almost 20 years to the day since the start of the Iraq war, the U.S. Senate is beginning the bipartisan process of repealing the Iraq AUMF of 2002.

Repealing this AUMF is a necessary step toward putting the final remnants of the Iraq war squarely behind us.

Every year we leave this AUMF on the books is another year a future administration can abuse it. Congress, the rightful dispenser of war powers, cannot allow this to continue.

Repealing the AUMF and the AUMF of 1991, as well, will not hinder our national defense, nor will it hurt the efforts of our troops deployed overseas.

Americans are tired of endless wars in the Middle East. I hope this year, on the 20th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, both parties in both Chambers will speak with one voice.

And I want to certainly thank Senators Kaine and Young, as well as our chair and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who have done such a good job on this issue, bringing it to where we are today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this morning, I sent a letter to the National Transportation Safety Board Chair, Jennifer Homendy, urging her to expand NTSB's investigation of Norfolk Southern into a comprehensive review of all seven class I freight railroad companies' safety practices.

Though the NTSB is currently investigating the toxic derailment in East Palestine and Norfolk Southern's questionable safety culture, I want to make something very clear: Norfolk Southern isn't the only rail company that has spent years lobbying to loosen regulations, neglect safety upgrades, and lay off workers.

Norfolk Southern is just one example of a dangerous, industry-wide trend within the rail industry that puts profits over people's safety.

In the last 5 years alone, there have been over 26,500 accidents and incidents in the rail industry, but instead of prioritizing safety, the industry cut over 30,000 employees from the workforce--roughly 20 percent.

We need the NTSB to expand its investigation because the current data can only tell part of the story. The data tells us how many accidents have occurred, but we want to know if they occurred in populated areas and how many gallons of oil were spilled or which toxic chemicals were released.

We also need to know which of these accidents occurred because the tracks were severely degraded or poorly designed.

We also want to know which negligent company policies contributed to the 2,700 deaths in recent years and if any of those could have been prevented.

These are just some of the questions that my letter asks--ones that can only be answered by a complete, comprehensive, and rigorous investigation of the rail freight industry.

I hope NTSB expands its investigation to include the safety practices and culture of all class I freight railroads. It is a necessary step to assure Americans that freight rail safety will improve.

In the meantime, I again commend my colleagues Senators Brown and Vance of Ohio and Fetterman and Casey of Pennsylvania for introducing bipartisan legislation to improve rail

safety and provide a check on the railroad industry. I will continue working with them to move it forward.

Mr. President, now, on the House Republicans' H.R. 1, today, House Republicans are rolling out a partisan, dead-on-arrival, and unserious proposal for addressing America's energy needs that they have laughingly labeled H.R. 1. It is a nonstarter in the Senate.

Republicans' so-called energy proposal is as bad and as partisan as it gets. H.R. 1 will lock America into the most expensive and volatile dirty sources of energy and will set America back a decade or more in our transition toward clean, affordable energy.

Even a brief glance at the House GOP proposal is enough to show it is not a serious package. The package is a wish list for Big Oil, gutting important environmental safeguards on fossil fuel projects, while doing none of the important permitting reforms that would help bring transmission and clean energy projects online faster.

Considering America's serious energy challenges--and not to mention the disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine--it is bewildering to see House Republicans waste time on a Big Oil wish list, instead of taking our energy needs seriously, and ignoring clean energy as they do.

Thankfully, many Democrats and Republicans understand that the only way we will pass a genuine energy package this Congress is through bipartisan cooperation. I am glad that there are good-faith talks underway right now between both parties in both Houses to figure out what sort of permitting deal is possible.

I strongly support these efforts because Americans should not have to go broke just to meet their daily energy needs. We should work on a comprehensive, bipartisan permitting package that can secure enough votes to pass the Congress and reach the President's desk.

Any serious permitting package must also focus on the needs of the future. As America transitions to clean energy, we need to take steps in Congress to ease that transition and ensure clean energy is reliable, accessible, and, most importantly, affordable. That includes efforts to expedite the onshoring and construction of industries critical to our economic and national security, like work we did in CHIPS and Science. Permitting reform is an essential step toward laying the foundation for a clean energy future, and Republicans must work with Democrats on a package that meets this challenge, if we are going to get anything done.

What House Republicans have come up with, in the meantime, is something that falls pathetically short.

Mr. President, on Russia, on the same day Russian aircraft intercepted and forced down a U.S. surveillance drone in the Black Sea, it was troubling to hear some on the hard right not condemn Putin so much as excuse him--the hard right, excusing Putin, not even daring to condemn him.

One Republican Governor, in particular, said yesterday that defending Ukraine and opposing Putin is not of vital national interest. He called Putin's illegal and unprovoked invasion of another sovereign democracy a ``territorial dispute.'' He basically thinks the United States is wrong to support Ukraine as they fight and die to protect their democracy, and he is certainly not alone in thinking that on the hard right.

I have to wonder what he would have thought if he was around in the 1930s. We know what happened then, when many refused to stand up to aggression--a world war resulted.

Sadly, these remarks are not unique within the GOP. For years, an isolationist fever has been surging within the hard right, propagated night after night on networks like FOX News. The hard right's isolationism is dangerous. It is un-American, undemocratic, and it is woefully blind to the lessons of history.

It is ironic that many on the hard right, which historically opposed communism and authoritarianism, now openly flirt with autocrats like Putin.

These MAGA isolationists are making America less safe. They are making our troops less safe, and they are severely undermining American leadership on the world stage. This desire to excuse and validate Putin's goals is one of the many terrible legacies of Donald Trump, and it is as good a reason as any why he and those who think like him should never ever come near the Oval Office ever again.

I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks prior to the scheduled recess.

My remarks are very simple. The United States-India relationship is extremely important, and it is a very good thing that we now have an Ambassador.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation vote on the Taylor-Kale nomination be at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader; further, that the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session ripen at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 16; that following the cloture vote on the Clarke nomination and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate resume legislative session and vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to

proceed to Calendar No. 25, S. 316; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Clarke nomination, at 1:30 p.m., the Senate resume legislative session, all postcloture debate time be considered expired, and the Senate vote on the confirmation of the nomination; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.