Floor Statements

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 101 and ask that it be reported by number.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on my amendment, with Senators Capito and Manchin each controlling 1 minute in opposition.

Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to strip a single provision out of this bill: the provision green-lighting the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

I offer my amendment for three reasons.

First, this provision that would put Congress's thumb on a permitting scale is completely unrelated to the debt ceiling and should not be included in this bill.

Second, I object on behalf of Virginia landowners. If you could build a pipeline in midair, that is one thing. But the only way to build it is to use eminent domain to take people's land. Virginians don't want to have their land taken for a pipeline unless there is a thorough process where they have all the rights accorded to them by law, administrative agency, and judicial review. Cutting off those rights is disrespectful to these landowners, who, in this part of the State, sometimes land is all they have, and it has been in their family for generations.

Finally, this bill would strip jurisdiction of a case away from the Fourth Circuit in the middle of the case. That is unprecedented and historic.

I used to try cases all the time in this circuit. I lost them, and I would appeal them. But I wouldn't try to get Congress to strip jurisdiction away from the court because I was unhappy. No everyday person gets this deal. No criminal defendant gets this deal. No small business gets this deal. Nobody gets this deal, and we shouldn't give it to some company just because they are powerful and they have influence in Congress.

For these reasons I ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the School Infrastructure Modernization Act, with my colleague Senator Warner.

To claim the Federal tax credit for historic preservation, a building renovation must be for a different purpose than that for which the building was previously used, a requirement known as the prior use rule. This bill waives that requirement for renovations of K-12 public school buildings. This will make it easier to restore historic-but- dilapidated school buildings across the country so our children have safe, modern spaces in which to learn.

As a Richmond City Council member and later mayor, I faced challenges familiar to many municipalities--overcrowded schools, aging buildings, and limited dollars in the budget. But in one particular case, I and a group of local stakeholders identified a creative solution. On one hand, we had an overcrowded Thomas Jefferson High School with in-zone and magnet students. On the other hand, we had a closed Maggie Walker High School that needed renovations. We put together a financing package that made use of Federal and State historic tax credits to renovate Maggie Walker High School and satisfied the prior use rule by consolidating the magnet program from Thomas Jefferson into a new Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies. Today, some 30 years later, this is one of America's highest performing public high schools. Without the Federal historic tax credit, this would have been too expensive to make happen.

This bill will make it easier to do similar projects around the country. More modern school buildings will bolster the quality of public education, and carrying out these projects will generate private sector infrastructure investment and jobs. In Virginia alone, according to a 2021 study, more than 1,000 K-12 schools are at least 50 years old, representing more than half of all the K-12 schools in the Commonwealth.

I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense incentive that is good for education, good for infrastructure, and good for jobs.

Madam President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the School Infrastructure Modernization Act, with my colleague Senator Warner.

To claim the Federal tax credit for historic preservation, a building renovation must be for a different purpose than that for which the building was previously used, a requirement known as the prior use rule. This bill waives that requirement for renovations of K-12 public school buildings. This will make it easier to restore historic-but- dilapidated school buildings across the country so our children have safe, modern spaces in which to learn.

As a Richmond City Council member and later mayor, I faced challenges familiar to many municipalities--overcrowded schools, aging buildings, and limited dollars in the budget. But in one particular case, I and a group of local stakeholders identified a creative solution. On one hand, we had an overcrowded Thomas Jefferson High School with in-zone and magnet students. On the other hand, we had a closed Maggie Walker High School that needed renovations. We put together a financing package that made use of Federal and State historic tax credits to renovate Maggie Walker High School and satisfied the prior use rule by consolidating the magnet program from Thomas Jefferson into a new Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies. Today, some 30 years later, this is one of America's highest performing public high schools. Without the Federal historic tax credit, this would have been too expensive to make happen.

This bill will make it easier to do similar projects around the country. More modern school buildings will bolster the quality of public education, and carrying out these projects will generate private sector infrastructure investment and jobs. In Virginia alone, according to a 2021 study, more than 1,000 K-12 schools are at least 50 years old, representing more than half of all the K-12 schools in the Commonwealth.

I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense incentive that is good for education, good for infrastructure, and good for jobs.

Mr. President, I take the floor because of a letter that I received in my office a few days ago. This was a letter that was mailed to our office via email on March 23, and I just want to read it.

Hello Senator. My name is--

I am going to omit the name.

My name is . . . and I am terrified to go to school. I have

lived in your district for almost six years, and never have I

been more scared than I am when I go to school every day. My

father was in the army, my mother works with wear blue run to

remember (a military non-profit for gold star families). I am

no stranger to death, and yet I am scared that one day that

may be waiting for me at school. I lived in Lakewood

Washington, I went to Saint Francis Cabrini, and we once had

a lockdown because a car ran down our fence while children

were at recess. I was present during the shooting at Fort

Hood in 2013, my sister can't remember, but she was so close

to the perpetrator. I still have nightmares from both of

these incidents. I am supposed to be safe at school, but

today when it was rumored that someone was planning to target

our school out of revenge on an ex-partner, I was reminded of

that day I spent huddled under a desk in art class,

[feverishly] reciting the Hail Mary. Something needs to

change, I'm not the only kid who feels this way. Why should I

be scared to go to school?

This letter came to my office on March 23. A few days later, this student and all of America woke up to the story of the shooting in Nashville.

Why should I be scared to go to school?

In January of this year, just a few months ago, there was an incident that also attracted significant attention in Virginia and around the country where a first grade teacher, Abby Zwerner, at the Richneck Elementary School in Newport News, VA, saw a 6-year-old pointing a gun at her, and she acted heroically to come toward the student to try to take the gun. And she was shot and badly, badly wounded, but she was able to protect the lives of her students and others in the school building. She is recovering slowly from that and just starting to talk about that experience.

Mr. President, I went to Newport News about a month after that incident, in early February, to meet with a number of the parents and teachers. And they wanted it off the record, no press--just let's sit down and talk. And I am going to respect their privacy by not talking about their names, the names of their kids, or particulars of their story. But I can summarize it.

These parents are afraid when they drop their kids off at school, and they are afraid that, when they come at the end of the day, something might have happened to their children. They are afraid that they may get a call in the middle of the day that something has happened to their kids.

And the teachers who were with me that day, they have that same fear. They go into these classrooms every day because they love children, but they are afraid now to do that job. Lord knows, we have got teacher shortages all over this country, and we are working our best to try to attract people to the profession. But these teachers, many of whom have been in the profession for decades, they are now afraid, for the first time in their lives, to go to school every day.

Emergency room visits for gun-related injuries in Virginia increased by 72 percent from 2018 through 2021. In an average year, about 1,020 people die in Virginia and another 2,050 or so are wounded by guns. And among young people, guns are the leading cause of death among children and teens in Virginia. An average of 85 children and teens die by guns every year. Fifty-five percent of these deaths are homicides. Others are accidental shootings or deaths by suicide.

I don't know what to do with this. I don't know what to do with this. I react negatively when, in the aftermath of shootings, it sometimes seems like all Members of Congress can say is that they are heartbroken and they send thoughts and prayers to the family. That starts to sound very hollow. Of course, thoughts and prayers are meaningful, but it starts to sound very hollow to those who are victimized by gun violence when that is the response and nothing more.

But let me be self-critical. I am not into offering hollow thoughts and prayers. I tend to say I am heartbroken for the families and I think we need to do things in the Senate, like do an assault weapons ban or other meaningful legislation that would keep kids safe.

Some of the things we ought to do in Congress are things we have done in Virginia in recent years, and that has made our State safer, but there is nothing you can do that is going to completely eliminate this problem.

But I was challenging my staff the other day. If we think thoughts and prayers and nothing else is hollow, then saying we should do an assault weapons ban when we know that is not going to get 60 votes on the floor of the Senate--I do think we should do an assault weapons ban. When we had one in the nineties, it worked. But I also know with certainty that, in the near future, there is zero chance that this body is going to get the 60 votes for an assault weapons ban or other kinds of gun safety regulations that would take a student and make her less afraid to go to school or a parent and teacher and reduce their fear.

So what I am challenging people around me, including my own staff and challenging myself on is: Have we allowed this tough issue--the debate about this tough issue--to get a little stale?

Thoughts and prayers, assault weapons ban--thoughts and prayers don't do anything to help people. An assault weapons ban might, but we are not going to pass it.

Have we allowed it to get stale, and are there solutions and strategies that we are not talking about that we might be able to find common ground on?

Because, if anything should cry out to us and demand that we find common ground, it is that we not do nothing; that we not listen to the fears of students and parents and teachers and just say: Well, that is just the way life is in America, right? That is just American life.

We can't be complacent about it. And, Mr. President, I am just thinking about our differences in age. My children are out of high school now. My youngest is 10 years out of high school. You still have school-aged kids. So you are still grappling with the reality of safety in schools at the pickup and the dropoff.

This has gotten so much worse just in the last 10 years. My children all went to the Richmond public schools, which are an urban public school setting in a community that had some significant problems with violent crime. But my wife and I were never nervous when we took them to school, and we never worried about getting a text or something in the middle of the day; and we never were afraid that, when we got there at the end of the day, something would happen. And that was just a little bit over 10 years ago.

My children finished high school right before--my youngest--right before the Sandy Hook shooting. So they were not in the K-12 system in Virginia when there has just been this steady drumbeat of one school shooting after the next. They weren't terrorized or afraid. Their teachers weren't. My wife and I weren't. And that was just 10 years ago.

How much more devastating the problem of school shootings has become in the last 10 years.

So I just take the floor to say: I need to write something back to this youngster. Her question:

Why should I be scared to go to school?

I have got to write her and respond in some way, and I don't really know now what to say. But I have challenged my team and I challenge my colleagues. We are in a recess period where we are back in our States. We are talking to people. We are, hopefully, getting ideas from them and listening to them. Let's ask some young people who go to school, let's ask some teachers, let's ask some parents of schoolkids if they have ideas for us that are new or different. Let's ask them whether our political debate about solutions has grown stale and whether there are solutions that we haven't yet contemplated that could respond to the question that this student has raised.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to ru1e XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, the United States invaded Iraq following congressional authorization exactly 20 years ago, March 19 and 20, 2003.

In that war, nearly 4,500 Americans lost their lives and more than 31,000 American troops were wounded--some grievously--who will carry that wound for the rest of their lives. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed.

I rise thinking about all of them as we come close to a vote to declare these wars are over.

It wasn't too long into the war when criticism of the decision to go to war began. There is no criticism of the heroism of the American troops who served ably, who did so well, who protected their colleagues, who protected civilian life the best they could. But there began to be criticism of the rationale for the war.

Two of the rationales for this war were that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That was very convincing to many colleagues here. It turned out not to be true. And another of the rationales that was occasionally advanced was that Iraq had participated in the 9/11 attack. That proved not to be true.

So much of the analysis of the Iraq war, looking backward over 20 years and lessons learned, has focused upon the rationales advanced that turned out not to be true.

But there was another challenge; and today is an effort, in many ways, to try to fix that challenge. And the challenge was this: We rushed into it. There were 4,500 who died; 31,000 who were wounded, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

What we have to contemplate is the reality that we rushed into a war--this body rushed into a war. The Iraq war resolution was filed in the House in early October 2002, assigned to a committee, and came out of the House in a week. The resolution was pending in the Senate--no committee action, no committee opportunity for inquiry, amendment, debate. It was pending in the Senate for 3 days--3 days.

The Senate voted to go to war--a war that has had massive consequences--with a total of 3 days of analysis. Taking the time to be the greatest deliberative body in the world does not guarantee that we will get everything right. But short-circuiting a decision, especially a decision of such magnitude as to whether the United States should go to war, maximizes the chance that we, as fallible humans, will get it wrong.

I believe many of the challenges that we faced in the Iraq war began with that rush. I am very dedicated to the proposition--and I have been since I came here--that the United States and the article I branch of Congress, we should never be pushed into a war and we should never be rushed into a war.

The repeal of the 1991 and 2002 AUMF has been on the floor of the Senate for 2 weeks, not 3 days. The repeal has been pending before the body since 2019. It has had two different markups in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where members got chances to offer amendment and debate and vote twice. The effort over the last 13 days has involved 11 votes on amendments in this body. In the declaration of war, there were only five amendment votes.

We have given dramatically more time in this body to the question of whether we end two wars--one declared in 1991 and one declared in 2002--than was given to the momentous question of whether we should start a war.

I think that is a lesson that we should all absorb and learn from. I want to thank my colleagues who have been so helpful in this regard. Senator Young has been such an able colleague in this path from the very day he came into this body and was assigned to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; his bona fides, having worked with a great Member of the Senate, Senator Lugar; and his marine service made him somebody who grabbed this issue immediately.

I want to thank the Senate Foreign Relation Committee's leadership, Senators Menendez and Risch, both of whom have cooperated to try to give this the attention and deliberation it deserves. I will say this about Senator Risch: We have had disagreements along the way, but here is a man who knows how to disagree without being disagreeable-- curmudgeonly, yes, but not disagreeable.

I also want to thank Senator Schumer for being committed to make this happen.

Also to Senator Warner for his pep talks when I would get down about how come I am not able to convince anybody. He would give me pep talks, and I appreciated his comments.

I appreciate the outside groups that weighed in in significant ways-- American Legion, Concerned Veterans for America, Friends Committee on National Legislation, and so many others.

I very much want to thank my staff, many of whom are here, who have worked with me on this and, probably like Senator Warner at some points, wondered why I was so obsessed about it. Can't we move on and do something else? I learned early, I am not going to get my way by looks, so I better get it by persistence. And this has been one of those efforts where persistence has helped.

And the passage of 20 years, and even the anniversary--the 20th anniversary, has kind of opened a reflective moment where I think we are moving in the right direction.

Last thing I want to say is this: This is, obviously, very important to me, personally, on this topic, coming from a State that is so military in our focus and proudly so, being the father of a marine-- that makes a difference to me. But even if this debate were about another topic, I am so glad that we just spent time deliberating, for gosh sake, instead of rushing to a war in 3 days. We had a very robust process of full committee consideration, of full Senate floor debate, of amendments--some that were easy and some that were really hard; some that were really close and some that weren't so close.

We showed that we can operate in what I have never really experienced in the time I have been here, but what I have had glimpses of in this debate: We can operate according to sort of a regular order--the way we should do things. And regular order is kind of a phrase; who knows what that means?

It means deliberation when we are making important decisions, allowing the committees to take their time to do the work, allowing committee members to shape a bill, getting the bill on the floor, giving it the time it deserves. That is what the Senate has been known for since 1787.

We have declined in our ability or, perhaps, our willingness to do it the old-fashioned way, but when we do it the old-fashioned way and we deliberate, we make better decisions. And I am proud to have been part of a decision-making process that has enabled all 100 Senators to participate in a meaningful way.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my State Department fellow, Nathan Lee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of his fellowship with my office.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not because my colleague from Wisconsin is completely wrong about the need for WHO accountability. The facts he stated are facts that are troubling. But the bill that is on the floor is a bill to repeal the Iraq war authorizations of 1991 and 2002. The bill has nothing to do with global health or the WHO.

The Senate has not repealed a war authorization since 1971--52 years. This is a historic debate.

When we authorized the wars in Iraq, the Gulf war and the invasion of 2003, we did it in authorizations that didn't include extraneous amendments. The Senate deemed these important enough that other matters, even if they were important, were not added onto the declarations of war.

I strongly believe we should take up this repeal, keep it limited precisely to the question on the floor--should we repeal the Iraq war authorizations--and not add in extraneous matter, even if that matter has some merit.

And for that reason, I would ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I support the notion of dialogue, of course, with our strategic partners and allies, but the purpose of this AUMF repeal is for Congress to reclaim war powers and not outsource them to the Executive but also not outsource them to other nations.

When we passed the Iraq war authorization in 2002, there was no requirement that it only went into effect if we

then went out and had dialogue with other nations. Why would we declare war unilaterally but then say the only way to repeal it is following dialogue with other nations?

Our allies and partners are very aware of this bill. It has been on the floor for 2 years. There have been floor debates about it in the House. There have been two separate markups in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They are very aware of it.

All of us meet with Ambassadors. All of us meet with Parliamentarians. If nations in the region felt that there was any danger to this, they would have let us know. I will conclude and just say that the American Legion also strongly opposes this amendment. I would ask my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Vote on Amendment No. 30

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The bill that is on the floor is the effort to repeal authorizations for war against Iraq that were passed by this body in 1991 and 2002. These are not Iran authorizations. Iran and Iraq are not the same nation. The wars against Iraq are over, and we need to repeal these.

This morning, in the Armed Services Committee, we heard from General Austin. He talked about his visit to Iraq. He was there when we were fighting against them as an adversary. Now they are a strategic partner in the region against nonstate terrorists and against Iranian aggression. They are an ally and a partner.

Senator Cruz's amendment does restate article II powers in part of the findings in a way that I don't find objectionable; but then in another part of the amendment, it goes on to authorize affirmative military action by the United States against the nation of Iran.

Iran is a bad actor and is getting worse--I don't disagree with that--but if what we need is a debate about a war authorization with Iran, we shouldn't do it on the basis of a 1-minute amendment offered on the floor of the Senate. That is how we got into this problem in the first place. The Iraq authorization in 2002 was considered in the Senate for 1 day, with no committee proceeding. There were five amendments in 1 day, and we went into a war that most would agree was one of the worst blunders strategically that this body has made. Let's not rush into a war authorization with Iran. If there needs to be military authorities to take offensive action against Iran, let's, at least, give it the dignity of a debate--a full debate--and not a 1- minute amendment vote.

Finally, this amendment is opposed by groups all over the political spectrum, from Concerned Veterans for America to the Friends Committee on National Legislation to the American Legion, because they don't think we should be rushing into war. Iran and its challenging activity and aggression warrant some significant attention, not a 1-minute amendment vote on a bill that it is not related to.

I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. President, I respect my Armed Services colleague from Alaska, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Iraq is not Iran. The bill that is on the floor is to repeal war authorizations voted on by this body against Iraq in 1991 and 2002. Iraq is not Iran.

The President of the United States has sent two messages to this body saying that the repeal of the Iraq war authorizations are necessary because Iraq is now a partner of the United States and that the repeal will neither jeopardize any current military operation, make the United States less safe, or take options away from the President to defend against Iranian aggression.

The certification has been given by the President. This is a bill that would ask one of his subordinates, who has been available to talk to any of us by phone in the 2 weeks this bill has been on the table-- it would basically say: OK, Mr. President, you said this, but we want to hear from one of your subordinates.

Avril Haines has been available to talk to any Member of this Senate in the 2 weeks this bill has been on the floor. The President has indicated this would not jeopardize our ability to defend against the activities of Iran-backed militias. We should not conflate Iraq, now a partner of the United States, with Iran, an adversary of the United States.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I don't have an objection to the notion that the funds we are spending together in Ukraine should have careful analysis. We know from past experience, if there is not that careful analysis done, there could be problems. This is not the bill to do it.

When we do war authorizations, we don't put other amendments on, no matter how good they might be, if they are extraneous to the war authorization. The 1991 and 2002 war authorizations did not include additional items, no matter how meritorious they might have been.

So while this idea is an idea that I think people can gravitate toward, I think this is the wrong bill, the wrong vehicle, to insert something about Ukraine into this repeal of the Iraq war authorizations.

We have not done a repeal for 52 years. The authorizations themselves were clean authorizations.

I would urge a ``no'' vote so that the repeal, when we vote on it tomorrow, will be a clean repeal. I would urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider Rubio Amendment No. 4; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the amendment and 60 affirmative votes will be required for adoption, all without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I want to take a minute to speak against this amendment.

This underlying bill is to repeal two war authorizations--one is 32 years old, and one is 20 years old. This amendment would turn 20- and 30-year-old wars into endless wars.

The amendment would say that no repeal could become effective until the President certifies that Iran is no longer providing any material or technical or financial support for bad activities in either Iraq or Syria. So even if they are doing nothing in Iraq, the Iraq war still isn't over as long as they are doing something in Syria.

Let's not turn 20- and 32-year-old wars into forever wars. The American Legion opposes this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for all time to be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I would seek permission to speak for a minute in opposition.

This is offered in good faith--and I appreciate my colleague--but it is completely unnecessary for the following reason: The White House and the Department of Justice have both stated, there is no one currently detained pursuant to the 2002 authorization. It is not being used as a ground for detaining anyone.

I was at the hearing yesterday, and my colleague from Idaho is correct, Secretary Blinken talked about repeal of the 2001 authorization could affect detention and said we should not do a repeal if there is not a replacement.

But the administration's position on the 2002 authorization is that there are no military activities, including a single detention, where we are using the 2002 as justification.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against the certification requirement. Keep this bill a clean repeal of the 1991 and 2002 authorizations.

Vote on Amendment No. 43

Madam President, very briefly, as I know we are about to begin the vote, the Paul amendment is just one that is based on a sentiment that I think many of us agree with--that the 2001 authorization needs revision. He proposes to repeal it but not for 6 months, giving us time to do the revision. I would vote against it but would look forward to working with him and others and the administration to find out what an appropriate revision should be. I don't think we should leave a gap.

With respect to the Graham amendment--a colleague who is a good friend--the President has the ability to take action against Iranian- backed militias in Iraq. The President is doing that every day, not based on the 2002 authorization.

I agree with my colleague from New Jersey in that this is a debate about ending a war authorization that has gone on for 20 years, not on the floor, without committee action, coming up with a new authorization against a new enemy. If we need to do that, we can discuss it in committee.

The good news is that the President has article II power to defend against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and is doing it every day.

With that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on both the Graham and Paul amendments.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This amendment is to create a new AUMF that does not currently exist. The President has article II powers, and we are defending against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq every day under article II.

We do not need this. This is why both the American Legion and the Concerned Veterans for America oppose Graham 14.

I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's repeal the Iraq war authorization, not pass a new one.

Vote on Amendment No. 14

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and then Senator Menendez be permitted to complete our remarks prior to the opening of the first vote.

Mr. President, to my colleague from Indiana, I am so glad to be on the floor with you as we approach a most historic vote, a vote that has not been conducted in the Senate since 1971, a vote to repeal a war authorization.

We will start the first procedural steps to formerly end the Iraq war. Right now, we still have not one but two active war authorizations against the Government of Iraq that is no longer an enemy, but, in the Biblical phrase, we have beaten the sword into a plowshare. Iraq is now a strategic partner of the United States.

The bill that Senator Young and I have worked on in close coordination with other colleagues would repeal both authorizations. It is a clean and simple bill, barely a page long. It has attracted bipartisan support, as my colleague mentioned, not only in the Senate and House but from stakeholder groups who care about Americans' military national security and the health and fate of our troops and veterans and their families. It is a very, very broad ideological spectrum of America that support this bill. It is a rare coalition, and it speaks to how painfully evident it is that the repeal of these authorizations is long, long overdue.

This Sunday, March 19, marks the 20th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2002. That war ended 12 years ago. The Persian Gulf war of 1991, Operation Desert Storm, ended 30 years ago.

I want to thank my friend from New Jersey, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez, for his longstanding support for this repeal effort. I want to thank my colleague from Indiana for partnering with me for years and his indefatigable effort to move us to this day. I also want to acknowledge the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch, who does not support my bill, who voted against it in committee, but who has worked in a cooperative way on the committee both in the 117th Congress and in the 118th Congress to make sure that this bill would be heard, that there would be a robust process for amendments in committee, and now that it can be heard on the floor.

The discussion over Congress's role in determining how and when the United States utilizes its military power--having that discussion--is so important, maybe even more important than ultimately how people vote on this bill, because, too often, the article I branch has deferred on matters of war, peace, and diplomacy to the article II branch, to the executive, even though these powers are some of the most specific and somber powers granted to Congress in article I of the Constitution. Congress must exercise our article I authority over war, peace, and diplomacy, and that is what this bill and this debate is about.

I think we need to repeal the Iraq war authorizations, first to recognize reality: An enemy that we were trying to push out of Kuwait in 1991, an enemy whose government we voted to topple in 2002, that enemy no longer exists. Iraq, today, is an American security partner of incredible importance. Defense Secretary Austin just visited Iraq last week, had productive meetings with the new Prime Minister, Prime Minister al-Sudani.

Those meetings included Iraq's request that we stay--we have about 2,500 troops in Iraq right now--and work with them to counter ISIS and other nonstate terrorist threats that threaten not only Iraq but other nations in the region. Iraq is asking us to stay so we can help them check Iranian aggression in the region.

Secretary Austin talked about the value of this strategic partnership with Iraq. Iraq is no longer a force for chaos. Iraq is now a force for regional stability, and the United States is their partner of choice. Why would we want two war authorizations against a nation that has become a partner of choice?

Our servicemembers had the courage to put their lives on the line, and everyone in this Chamber knows families, knows servicemembers who served in Iraq, who were injured in Iraq. Many of us know families of those who were killed in Iraq. They had the courage to do their job. How dare we, as Congress, not have the courage to simply say, after 20 years: This war is over; the job is done.

This is partly a way of thanking those who have borne the battle here at home. We owe it to our servicemembers to fulfill our constitutional obligations and vote to end endless wars.

Repeal also sends a powerful message to adversaries of the United States today. Repeal says: You may be an adversary of the United States today--and we know we have challenges around the world today with Russia or China or Iran or North Korea. But the repeal of this authorization sends the message: You may be our adversary today, just as Iraq once was, but the United States specializes, throughout our history, in turning adversaries into partners, allies, and friends.

Look at the U.S.-Germany relationship. We fought two wars against Germany in the 20th century. The relationship now is so powerful, and that powerful relationship is helping as we try to protect Ukraine from an illegal invasion by Russia.

Look at Japan. We fought a war against Japan, a devastating war. We were attacked by Japan in 1941. Yet, now, Japan is one of our closest allies in the world.

Look at Vietnam. When Vietnam invites the USS John McCain to make a port call in Vietnam to celebrate the relationship that has been built between our two nations--a relationship that still has some challenges but a relationship that few could have predicted during the Vietnam war--we send a message to the entire world that the United States will turn a sword into a plowshare, will beat a spear into a pruning hook; that we will embrace diplomacy. And that is a message that the U.S. adversaries of today should draw from an action to repeal this war.

The Biden administration has reissued a statement of administration policy on this particular bill, stating that they fully support it. Let me just read briefly from it:

The Administration notes that the United States conducts no

ongoing military activities that rely primarily on the 2002

AUMF, and no ongoing military activities that rely on the

1991 AUMF, as a domestic legal basis. Repeal of these

authorizations would have no impact on current U.S. military

operations and would support this Administration's commitment

to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our Iraqi

partners. That partnership, which includes cooperation with

the Iraqi Security Forces, continues at the invitation of the

Government of Iraq [to] . . . advise, assist, and enable

[them].

The Great Seal of the United States, which you can see here on the wallpaper around this Chamber, was created early in our Nation's history, and it shows an eagle holding 13 arrows in one talon--those 13 to represent the first 13 American States--and an olive branch in the other talon. The design was chosen very intentionally. The arrows signify the U.S. military capacity, might, and will. The olive branch signifies the American desire to be a peacemaking, diplomatic nation.

On the Seal of the United States, the eagle is facing toward the olive

branch--facing toward the olive branch--because we want everyone to know how we define ourselves as a nation--that, yes, we will have the military capacity to defeat enemies if we must, but, as a nation, our preference, permanently and always, is to seek peace and diplomatic solutions with all the nations of the world.

After 20 years, it is time to repeal the Iraq war authorizations. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this procedural vote today. It will begin a robust and fulsome debate that will go into next week. Senator Young and I and our colleagues are committed that that debate shall include opportunities for Members to offer amendments. That is being worked on by Democratic and Republican leadership.

We haven't had a discussion of this kind for nearly six decades. It is good that we are going to give it the time and attention it deserves, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the cloture motion later this morning.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellows, Kylie Garber, Kristina Koch, and Kumhee Ro, be granted floor privileges for the duration of their fellowships with my office.

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

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about the importance of March 15, which for the first time has been designated ``International Long COVID Awareness Day.''

This is a topic of importance to millions of Americans who deal with long COVID every day and tens of millions of people around the world who are dealing with long COVID, from mild symptoms to symptoms that are so debilitating that they are unable to work.

There is still an awful lot to learn about the condition, but what we do know is that long COVID is comprised of ongoing health problems that people experience after being infected with COVID-19. For some, long COVID can last weeks or months. For others, like me, long COVID has now lasted for 3 years.

Long COVID symptoms can vary. Some people experience general symptoms like fatigue, neurological symptoms like headache or difficulty concentrating, digestive problems, shortness of breath, heart palpitations, and other neurological conditions.

The prevalence of long COVID is a best estimate, but the recent survey by the Census Bureau, in partnership with the National Center for Health Statistics, shows that about 5.8 percent of Americans have long COVID, and that amounts to about 11 percent of Americans who have had COVID who continue to experience long COVID symptoms.

I am on my own long COVID journey. My symptoms are mild, but they have been continuous for 3 years. When we were working in the Capitol in March of 2020 at the very beginning of COVID, most of us had dispatched our staffs and sent them home. So I was working in my office together just with my chief of staff. It was kind of a lonely time, as those of us who were here remember, but we were working hard. We were working hard to pass the first COVID relief bill, the CARES Act, and we did good work, in a bipartisan way, to provide relief to individuals and our businesses and hospitals and universities and schools in those early days.

I noticed one day that my nerve endings turned on like a light switch was flicked, and all of them started to tingle like my skin had been dipped in an Alka-Seltzer--24/7, every nerve ending in my body. It has not gone away in 3 years.

I had a mild case of COVID. I never had respiratory problems. I never had fatigue. Within a few days after getting this, I was fine except for the nerve tingling, and I assumed because of the pollen on my car that it was hay fever gone wild. Other symptoms were more like allergic symptoms--pinkeye and skin rashes.

That all went away, but when I went home, I gave COVID to my wife-- just one more thing for a husband to feel guilty about. She got the standard case of COVID, and that is what made us realize that that is what I had. We both had mild cases. Within a very few days, we were up and at `em and feeling great, but this nerve tingling sensation has never gone away.

I kept waiting, thinking next week it will go away or next month it will go away, but after 6 months, I finally decided I should see a neurologist. I went

to George Washington and did fine on neurological tests, but the neurologist told me: Look, viruses can have a neurological aftereffect. The good news is, it is probably not going to get worse. The bad news is, it may not get better.

The doctor was perfectly right on both counts. It has never gotten worse, and it has never gotten better. It is not painful. It is not debilitating. I can work. I can exercise. I can focus. It is harder to sleep--that would be the only area where it is affecting my life. But it is eerie that, after 3 years, it hasn't changed.

My wife said: Well, but then doesn't that mean you just get used to it and you don't notice it?

No. It is just a little too intense. I notice it all the time, everywhere.

Well, the good news is, my symptoms are mild and I can continue to work, but as I have shared my story, what I have found is many come and share their stories with me, including people here around the Capitol. They share their own long COVID stories, and many are very, very troubling: The marathon runner who can't walk around the block. I have a dear friend who--I am godfather to her oldest child--has a very physically demanding job as a dialysis nurse, which involves a lot of helping patients around. She got COVID, and both fatigue and balance issues are so challenging that she is not able to do the work.

I had a State employee who worked in my department of transportation who saw me on a bike ride by his house one day in Richmond, where I live, and he flagged me down and stopped me. He said: Hey, look, I was your employee when you were Governor working with the department of transportation. I am a young dad. I have two boys under age 10. I want to be a great father for them, but I got COVID, and now my long COVID symptoms are so significant, I can't play baseball with them.

He can't do the kinds of things that a dad wants to do with his children. This individual is now on long-term disability, unable to work at all.

These are very, very serious stories.

The public health emergency around COVID is likely to come to an end on May 11, but we can't forget millions of people who are dealing with this issue.

Now, let me just share some statistics. Across the United States, adult women are more likely than men to experience long COVID. Individuals who identify as Hispanic or Latino experience long COVID more than any other racial or ethnic group. People with disabilities are more likely to experience long COVID than those without disabilities.

Long COVID is not limited to people like me. I just turned 65. A lot of young people are dealing with long COVID symptoms. Their initial COVID presented differently than it did with most adults, but some of the long COVID symptoms are those I have described. Twenty-five percent of people who have long COVID say that their symptoms significantly limit their activity.

The economic cost of long COVID disability is upward of $200 billion a year. Up to 4 million people are out of the American workforce right now because of long COVID, at a time when I know all of us are hearing from our employers: I can't hire people. It is so hard to hire people now.

The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since 1969. If there are things we could do that could help those 4 million come back into the workforce, it would be good not only for them, for their happiness, for their pocketbooks; it would be great for our economy.

To better understand the impact of long COVID, in January, I worked together with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to gather patients and providers from Virginia and State and Federal officials from everywhere to come to a summit in Richmond to talk about long COVID. The conversations that day allowed us to, nearly 3 years in, dig into long COVID and what are its impacts and, most importantly, what can we do. We were able to discuss experiences, share best practices and research.

I was honored to have four Virginians with long COVID who joined me in discussing their own journeys.

Cynthia talked about having unusual symptoms and not being believed initially that she even had COVID and then not being believed that she had long COVID. Her symptoms were more in the allergic reaction space, similar to mine. In fact, she went multiple times to emergency rooms because her symptoms were so intense and found that, without telling her, she was often being drug-tested because they assumed that she was there and maybe she was suffering from some kind of a drug overdose. So they were testing her for that and not believing her long COVID story.

She has since found healthcare professionals who believe her and are offering her treatments that have not ended her long COVID symptoms but are enabling her to more effectively negotiate her schedule.

Mattie from Southwest Virginia was kind of your quintessential do- everything, 35-year-old mom of three, who also worked, who also went to school. She could juggle everything and make it seem easy. When she got COVID, she got hit with fatigue so intense she couldn't do any of those things, and then that spiraled into depression. She was a healthcare provider herself, working with seniors, and really started to question, What kind of purpose do I have if I can't be the mom I want to be, if I can't be the healthcare provider I want to be? It caused tremendous anxiety and depression.

Now, Mattie's was a story of hope because she eventually found a physician who realized COVID had exacerbated an underlying medical condition called Hashimoto's disease that she had had probably since birth but had never really been serious enough to notice. COVID exacerbated it. She is being treated for Hashimoto's, and many of those symptoms have abated. So hers is a story of hope. This is not a hopelessness story. You can find paths forward. She is doing better.

ZZ and Katy. ZZ is a middle schooler who had serious long COVID experiences, and Katy talked about trying to help her son and not being believed until they finally found their way to the Children's National Hospital, just up the hill from where we are.

Finally, Rachel--a longtime human resources professional at a community college in Virginia--used to working with people, including people with disabilities, to help them either get jobs or do coursework at the local community college. Her long COVID experience was so debilitating in fatigue and migraine headaches and other problems with respect to focus that she eventually had to leave her job and apply for long-term disability and her Social Security.

She was told when she applied that there were more than half a million applications before hers, and after a year, she was turned down with little explanation. She described the challenges of trying to negotiate the system and fill out forms when she is suffering from such fatigue and headaches and other symptoms that make even filling out a form difficult.

So these four stories were a mixture of young people and adults, some stories that didn't yet have happy endings and at least one that did have a positive ending, and it was important that we understand them.

Congress has taken some steps. I have colleagues in the room, and I just want to thank them for this. We provided $1.15 billion in Federal funding to the National Institutes of Health to advance understanding, prevention, and treatment. In December, Congress passed a budget that included $10 million for this Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to do critical research. These efforts are a step in the right direction, but more must be done.

Just last week, the President introduced the fiscal year 2024 budget. He requested additional funding for AHRQ and additional funding for the HSRA to do long COVID.

Today, I am reintroducing a bill, the CARE for Long COVID Act, with Senators Markey and Duckworth and eight other Senators. It is also being introduced in a bipartisan way on the House side. The bill will expand research to increase understanding of treatment efficacy and disparities and provide more recommendations, educate long COVID patients and health providers, facilitate interagency cooperation, and develop partnerships between community-based organizations, social services, and others.

But there is more work to be done, so as I conclude--I see my colleague from Louisiana on the floor waiting to

speak--we just have to keep focused on this to try to address this challenge. When the public health emergency ends, we can't forget those who are dealing with long COVID, and we can't forget those who are dealing with the significant amount of mental anxiety and stress that has been present in the lives of all for the last 3 years. We have to improve our outreach and education, we have to accelerate our research to come up with treatments and cures that work, and we have to do it with a sense of urgency. I am committed to working with you all to do that.