Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we will shortly be voting on the cloture motion for S.J. Res. 4, and we are joined by Senator Murkowski. I first want to start by thanking her for her extraordinary leadership on this issue and so many other issues that involve equality and opportunity for all Americans. It has been a journey that we have shared together, and I really want to thank her for her leadership on S.J. Res. 4. It is bipartisan, and I know we are going to have a strong vote. I would just urge our colleagues not to filibuster equality. Let's get onto this resolution and complete the work that we have done. The States have already completed the work. Three-fourths, 38 States, have already approved and ratified the constitutional amendment for equal rights. It is now necessary for us to take the final step and remove any doubt on the validity of the previous actions of Congress and the ratifications by the States. The courts have held what we have done before. It is up to Congress to do this. We have the authority, and we have the opportunity today by the vote that is going to take place. We just got a statement on the administration's policy. President Biden strongly supports S.J. Res. 4. So we now have the support of the executive branch, and I hope that we can get the votes today in order to move forward on this. It is necessary. We know that there are still systemic challenges based upon sex in our workplace, in healthcare, and domestic violence. This will be helpful, and most Americans already think it is part of the Constitution. So let's get the job done. We will have an opportunity to do so in a few moments. Again, I want to thank my colleague, who has been a true leader on this, Senator Murkowski of Alaska. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, once again, I want to thank Senator Murkowski for her leadership. This is a bipartisan effort, this joint resolution that we have, and it has been what the Equal Rights Amendment journey was about. It started with action in the Congress. There was strong bipartisan support for the resolution for no discrimination based upon sex in our Constitution. It was passed by the House and Senate by bipartisan majorities. The States' ratification process--I can tell you about the one in Maryland that I was part of when I was in the House of Delegates in our State legislature when we ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. There was strong bipartisan support. And I am proud today that I am joining with Senator Murkowski for the need for the Equal Rights Amendment to be ratified. This is a bipartisan effort. I hope our colleagues will not filibuster it. I understand the concern. This will be our first vote in the Senate on the resolution. The House has already passed it in two previous Congresses. I know that our House colleagues are watching, and I thank them for their leadership in the House. This will be our first opportunity in the Senate. I am glad we are having this opportunity. With that, Mr. President, I would ask consent that, despite the previous order, we start the vote immediately.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time--and I am going to be joined by several of my colleagues--to talk about a vote that we are going to have tomorrow on S.J. Res. 4. This is the resolution that would rescind the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. This is an issue that I have been working on for a long time, including during my time in the Maryland General Assembly in 1972, when the Maryland legislature ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. So this goes back a long time, and it is time to finish the work. I want to thank Chairman Durbin for his leadership on this issue, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for the work he did so that we could reach this moment where we have a chance to take the step that is critically important, removing any ambiguity in regards to the ratification process. I also want to thank Leader Schumer for making this time available so we will be able to vote on this issue tomorrow. I particularly want to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Senator Lisa Murkowski, my coleader on this resolution. The two of us have worked together. This should never be a partisan issue. Equality should enjoy support, I would hope, from both Democrats and Republicans. There is no time limit on equality. The 28th Amendment to the Constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment, was approved by the U.S. Congress in both the House and Senate by a two-thirds vote, as required in the Constitution, and has been ratified by 38 States--that is, three-fourths necessary for the ratification of a constitutional amendment. The sole purpose of S.J. Res. 4 is to remove any ambiguity, to remove the time limit that was included originally in the 1972 act of Congress of 7 years and previously extended to 10 years. I want to acknowledge the help I have received on this through the incredible staff we all have here in the U.S. Senate. Bill Van Horne, who is my chief counsel, has been working on this issue since my days in the House of Representatives, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing all the groups together. Helen Rogers has helped a great deal in this effort. I just want to acknowledge the work both of them have done on the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA simply states: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex. That is it. That is exactly what the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution says. Ratification would affirm women's equality in our Constitution, enshrining the principle of women's equality and explicit prohibition against sex discrimination in our Nation's founding document. Currently, the only explicitly guaranteed right in our Constitution based upon sex is the 19th Amendment, which is the right to vote. Existing legal protections against sex-based discrimination fall well short of addressing systemic sex-based inequality in our society. As the 28th Amendment, the ERA would serve as a new tool for Congress, for Federal Agencies, and in courts to advance equality in the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protection of LBGTQ+ individuals. Enshrining this protection in our Constitution also ensures enduring protections for all Americans across the country. Existing legal protections against sex-based discrimination fall well short of addressing the systemic sex-based inequality in our society. It is also a signal to the courts that they should apply a more rigorous level of review to laws and government policies that discriminate on the basis of sex. That is what the ERA is all about: equality--the most fundamental of American values. We need to finally get the job done. Last Congress, a bipartisan majority in the Senate cosponsored this joint resolution, and the House of Representatives has already passed this legislation on two occasions--first in the 116th Congress and then in the 117th Congress. Virginia became the 38th and final State required by the Constitution to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment on January 27, 2020. Our resolution, S.J. Res. 4, would clarify once and for all that the Equal Rights Amendment has met all the requirements of article V of our Constitution. Let me read what it says: That notwithstanding any time limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution, whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States. It is a clarification resolution. Congress has the power to do it. Congress approved it by more than the required two-thirds majority in both Chambers, and three-quarters of States have now ratified it. Article V of the Constitution has been complied with. You are going to hear legal arguments surrounding whether a Senate joint resolution can remove a deadline, so let me talk about some of these issues. First, in the Constitution, there is nothing in the Constitution that sets a time limit on ratification. Read Article V. It talks about the votes necessary in Congress--we have had that--and the votes of ratification by the States--we have done that. There is no time limit in the Constitution. The 27th Amendment effecting congressional pay raise was ratified after two centuries, after being initially proposed by Congress as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, two centuries before--over 200 years before it was ratified. Congress has the authority to act. There is precedent for Congress to extend the deadline for ratification of an amendment, as it did once before for the ERA. Note that the ERA deadline was contained in the preamble to the text of the constitutional amendment, not in the constitutional amendment itself. There is precedent for Congress to declare that the requisite number of States have ratified a constitutional amendment, as the House and Senate did in 1992 by resolutions affirming the validity of the 27th Amendment regarding congressional pay raises. That is the one that took over 200 years to ratify. In terms of Article V, the only question is whether a State has ratified. Ratification is something that happens at a moment in time. It either happens or it doesn't happen. History tells us that once a State has ratified, it can't take it back. The 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution after the Civil War even though two States had attempted to rescind prior ratifications. Those States were included on the list of States that ratified. The effectiveness of a rescission is ultimately a question for Congress. S.J. Res. 4 answers that question. Then the most recent opinion by the Department of Justice, the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, noted that Congress, as a coequal branch of government, is not precluded from taking further action regarding the ratification of the ERA. So we have all of the legal requirements. We can act. Now let me lay out a few more things here. Most Americans believe the ERA is already part of our Constitution. Just ask them. They think it is there. Most of our States have provisions in the State constitutions to provide equal rights based upon sex. So we already have it in States, and it is working. Most democracies--in fact, every constitution that has been written since World War II contains an equal rights amendment. The United States is an outlier on this issue. We are the leader of democratic values in human rights globally, but we don't have an equal rights amendment in our Constitution. The Pew Research Center did a survey on this. Seventy-eight percent of Americans support the Equal Rights Amendment being added to the Constitution. This is overwhelmingly popular among all of our constituents--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, men, women. Two- hundred fifty national and local groups support the ERA, including the League of Women Voters, the National Urban League, the National Council of Jewish Women, the SEIU, and many, many other civil rights, labor, and civic groups. This resolution language removes any doubt of ratification, and it is the right way to go under our Constitution. We had the advice of constitutional scholars who support what we are doing--Erwin Chemerinsky, Larry Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catharine MacKinnon, Victoria Nourse, former Senator Russ Feingold. All have endorsed the way we are proceeding. The ERA is needed not only to keep progress moving forward but also to protect against incursions on the progress we have already made. Based on recent decisions by the Supreme Court, some Justices ascribe to the view that the meaning of equality under the equal protection clause should be frozen in time in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified. That approach may cast in doubt even the limited precedents currently holding that the equal protection clause applies to sex discrimination. It has been more than 100 years since women won the right to vote and nearly 100 since the effort to enshrine the ERA in the Constitution began. Generations have fought to achieve major points of progress in our laws and our society since then. However, it is undeniable that work remains. Finally, enshrining the ERA into the Constitution would be one major step that we could take towards a society that is truly equal on the basis of sex. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 4. The women of America have waited long enough. Don't filibuster equality. You don't want to be on that side of history. There should be no time limit on equality. Let us use this opportunity to complete the action of equality based on sex in our Constitution. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I want to thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership in the Senate and in our community on these issues. I serve with her and Senator Cortez Masto on the Finance Committee, and I see the duo there fighting for removing a lot of the discrimination we have in our healthcare system--again, that women are discriminated against. Both of these Senators do a great job being here, protecting the rights. But it is so important that we have in our toolbox the constitutional amendment to help us in fighting discrimination so that we have a fairer playing field in the courts to protect the rights of women. So I thank her. We are also joined by Senator Klobuchar. We were elected at the same time to the U.S. Senate. She has been an advocate on behalf of equality for all communities, but particularly her efforts on behalf of women is known throughout the Nation, and I am glad she could join us today.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Durbin, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his leadership on this issue but, just as importantly, for his leadership on so many human rights and civil rights issues. Thank you for the hearing that you conducted in the Judiciary Committee. It shed light on a lot of the ridiculous arguments that some have made against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. More importantly, it showed why it is important for us to remove any ambiguity on the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. I also want to just acknowledge your extraordinary leadership around the world. When there is a human rights struggle, Senator Durbin is going to be the spokesperson for those who would otherwise not be heard. I have joined him many times in those efforts, and I am proud to be on his team. I thank him for really giving us the leadership here in the U.S. Senate and the best values of America here at home and abroad. I thank him for his leadership on this issue and on so many other issues. I am joined by a couple of my other colleagues--first, Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut. I also want to acknowledge Senator Van Hollen from Maryland. Both have been real leaders in regard to the equal rights of women but also in regard to civil liberties and civil rights. Both are good friends. One I have the honor of representing the State of Maryland with, so I have seen him in action for equal rights in our State. As for the other, we have been together on the Helsinki Commission, fighting globally for human rights. So I thank them for being here.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on the Equal Rights Amendment. He is our leader on protecting our democratic institutions, which include equality for all. Senator Whitehouse's leadership in protecting the election process and protecting us against dark money and an independent judiciary will go down in history as one of the great contributions made. I thank him for his help in regard to the Equal Rights Amendment, and I thank him for his leadership on so many issues here in the U.S. Senate. Let me just conclude this part of our discussion. We will have a chance tomorrow to vote on this. What we are asking is very simple: to put the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution without any ambiguity and remove the time limit. We have already done everything necessary for its ratification. This document is a precious document: the Constitution of the United States. Most Americans believe the Equal Rights Amendment is in this document. It is not. The consequences are that we are not protecting women's rights and discrimination against sex in the manner we should be protecting them. Now, the vote tomorrow is going to be on a cloture motion. You see, the majority of the Members of the Senate support the resolution that Senator Murkowski and I are bringing forward. And the way the minority can stop it is by denying us an opportunity to vote up or down on the resolution. This is a matter of rights. I would hope that my colleagues would support the resolution or they will at least allow the majority of this body to make the decision on this resolution. I hope my colleagues will vote for the cloture motion so that we can have a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate on this resolution, which will, once and for all, make it clear equal rights are part of the American Constitution, part of our commitment to future generations. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, on Saturday, Earth Day turned 53. For the past half-plus century, we have paused each spring to celebrate and reflect on our relationship with the natural world and to demonstrate support for environmental protection. This year's theme, Invest in Our Planet, served as a reminder of our responsibility to deliver Federal resources and spur innovation to ensure peace and prosperity for future generations. The environmental challenges facing our planet, fueled increasingly by climate change, are urgent and require immediate action. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--EPA--nearly half of our rivers and streams are polluted by excess nutrients. During extreme rain events, river flow increases, pouring more fresh water into estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay. Stormwater runoff pushes nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants off the land and into rivers and streams. Excess nutrients then lead to the growth of harmful algal blooms that harm plants and animals. Pollution not only affects our aquatic life but can contaminate drinking water sources and impart costly impacts to recreation, tourism, and fisheries. Low-income and communities of color often face disproportionately high pollutant exposures. The communities who are most affected by nitrates are also less likely to be able to afford the necessary water treatment. That is why I applaud the Biden administration's focused attention on delivering the benefits of historic Federal investments to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution. For too long, the Nation has underinvested in water infrastructure. Failing water infrastructure threatens the environment, and it risks people's health, safety, and livelihoods. Congress responded with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which delivers more than $50 billion to EPA to improve our Nation's drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. This is the single largest investment in water that the Federal Government has ever made. EPA recently announced $775 million in funding Congress appropriated for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, CWSRF. This funding, along with the investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, is critical for communities across the country to upgrade their wastewater and stormwater systems, protect public health and preserve our precious water bodies. In its allotment, my home State of Maryland received $18.3 million towards improving water quality, toward a total of over $167 million this fiscal year to upgrade drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act also invested in EPA's geographic programs, including the Chesapeake Bay Program. These programs are long-standing, location-specific programs that help protect local ecosystems and communities from climate change, habitat loss, and pollution. I am also pleased to report that due in part to concerted efforts to control nutrient pollution, the Chesapeake Bay had the tenth smallest area impacted by low-oxygen water this past summer. Long-term trends indicate this ``dead zone'' where fish, crab, and other species cannot live because there is not enough oxygen in the water has been getting smaller. Low-oxygen or hypoxic water is caused by excess nutrients like nitrogen or phosphorus from agricultural runoff and urban and suburban stormwater entering the bay. It is encouraging to see that efforts to reduce nutrient pollution are making a difference. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a model for a regional partnership that unites an array of stakeholders--from producers to nonprofits to local governments--behind a common goal: Restore and protect the Bay. Globally, cooperation offers similar benefits. The recovery of the Earth's protective ozone layer announced in January is a hopeful example. The ozone layer plays a critical role in shielding us from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Human activities, such as the use of ozone-depleting substances like chlorofluorocarbons--CFCs-- have caused significant damage to the ozone layer. Fortunately, collective action to limit these substances, such as the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, an international agreement to protect the ozone layer, is allowing it to recover. According to the United Nations, if commitments like these stay in place, the ozone layer could fully recover to 1980 levels by 2040. However, we must ensure solving one environmental challenge does not create another. Hydrofluorocarbons--HFCs--which are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances, are even more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. The Kigali amendment addresses this issue by adding HFCs to the list of substances that need to be limited in the Montreal Protocol. For our part, Congress not only passed the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act--AIM Act--to phase down HFCs, but also ratified the amendment. It was America's space Agency that demonstrated the link between hydrofluorocarbons--HFCs--and climate change. In 2015, a NASA study found that HFCs damage the ozone layer and that their impact could cause a 0.035 percent decrease in ozone by 2050. Today, federally supported science is returning the U.S. to the Moon: Artemis II is NASA's first crewed Artemis mission. On this 10-day long mission, four astronauts announced earlier this month will fly around the Moon before returning to Earth and test the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft capabilities that will help send more people to space in the future. This kind of exploration enables us to learn more about our planet and gather valuable data on the environment. I am so proud of the Marylanders involved with the mission, including Commander Reid Wiseman, with whom I had the opportunity to speak earlier this month. The flight, set to build upon the successful uncrewed Artemis I mission completed in December, will set the stage for the first woman and first person of color on the Moon through the Artemis Program, paving the way for future for long-term human exploration missions to the Moon and, eventually, Mars. This is the Agency's Moon to Mars exploration approach. Overcoming the challenges of working in space will lead to many more technological and scientific advances here on Earth in areas including healthcare, transportation, public safety, consumer goods, energy, information technology, and industrial productivity. I am heartened by all the positive changes to improve our environment, but there is still work to be done. The Inflation Reduction Act laid the groundwork to make a just, clean U.S. economy a reality, saving trillions of dollars from avoided illness and death, reduced property damage from climate-related disasters and sea level rise, and reduced costs related to increasing temperatures. Still, climate change and other environmental issues continue to pose a threat to Earth's health that disproportionally impacts vulnerable communities. Further steps will be needed to fully meet President Biden's pledge to reduce U.S. climate pollution by 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. We cannot become complacent; we must remain committed to taking action to protect our environment. I am confident that our Nation can further promote sustainability through thoughtful policies and legislation. This year, let us celebrate our achievements and not forget our responsibility to invest in our planet.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have 13 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule 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. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 870, the Fire Grants and Safety Act. This critically important legislation reauthorizes several important programs in the Department of Homeland Security--DHS. Specifically, the legislation reauthorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency's--FEMA--Assistance to Firefighters Grants--AFG--grant program, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response--SAFER--grant program, and the U.S. Fire Administration--USFA. Without action by Congress, the authorizations for these programs will lapse in September 2024. AFG grants help ensure that departments have the resources they need to train and equip their personnel. This includes vital personal protective equipment that firefighters and EMS personnel need to do their jobs safely. SAFER grants help ensure departments can meet staffing requirements through hiring of firefighters and recruitment and retention activities. I am particularly proud of the work of USFA, which is headquartered in Emmitsburg, MD. Its mission is to support and strengthen fire and emergency medical services--EMS--and stakeholders to prepare for, prevent, mitigate and respond to all hazards. USFA ensures that the fire service is prepared to respond to all hazards and is the lead Federal agency for fire data collection, public fire education, fire research, and fire service training. USFA offers classes on critical topics pertaining to emergency medical services, fire prevention, arson investigation, hazardous materials incidents, incident management, leadership and executive development, planning and information management, responder health and safety, wildland and the urban interface. As our Nation faces increasing extreme weather events due to climate change, we can expect even stronger natural disasters to afflict our Nation, including more damaging hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. Firefighters receive millions of calls each year for help beyond just fires and often respond to medical emergencies, hazardous materials spills, natural disasters, and active shooter situations. According to the National Fire Protection Association, fire killed 3,800 people and injured another 14,700 people in 2021. Property damage in 2021 reached nearly $16 billion due to fires. And America's firefighters paid the ultimate price while running toward danger; in 2021, 141 firefighters died while on duty. The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation is located on the campus of the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, along with the USFA. Last year, I was pleased that the foundation received a nearly $1.5 million grant for its important work. USFA estimates more than 2,000 civilians died in residential fires in 2022. Communities across Maryland regularly rely on these grant programs to help provide equipment, facilities, and training for their firefighters, whether they are career or volunteer. Indeed, many volunteer fire departments do not receive any local or municipal funds and must fundraise on their own in order to continue operating their essential and lifesaving emergency services in their communities. In Western Maryland, just by way of one example, these grants programs provide critical funding to enhance firefighters' emergency response capabilities and their ability to protect the health and safety of the public and themselves. These grants also support the recruitment and retention of additional firefighters. In 2022, these grants allowed Frederick County to hire full-time firefighters; Washington County to provide new portable radios for Fire and EMS departments across the county; the Borden Shaft Volunteer Fire Company No. 1 in Allegany County to purchase vehicle extrication and rescue tools; and the Community Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., of District No. 12 in Washington County to purchase a gear washer and dryer. Indeed, according to a recent fire services coalition letter supporting this legislation: ``All across the country, local fire departments of all types and sizes do not have enough staff, training, personal protective clothing, breathing apparatus, and other equipment. The SAFER and the AFG programs help ensure fire and emergency services personnel across the country are properly trained, staffed, and equipped to protect their communities. These programs improve response capabilities across all emergency response areas--from fires to medical aid and hazardous materials response.'' A recent fire service needs assessment survey from the National Fire Protection Association noted that most small fire departments have personal protective equipment that is 10 years of age or older and that most fire departments cannot equip every firefighter with a self- contained breathing apparatus, with again much of the equipment being 10 years of age or older. That same survey noted: ``Staffing levels across job roles and functions have remained flat and weekday staffing among volunteer fire departments remains a challenge.'' I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and reauthorize these critical FEMA programs so that we give our heroic firefighters the resources, equipment, and training that they need to carry out their dangerous missions as safely as possible as they protect and serve the public.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations the Honorable Sheila R. Tillerson Adams on her recent retirement as chief and administrative judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland and to thank her for her long career of distinguished public service. Judge Adams served as the administrative judge for 12 years. Judge Adams has been a trailblazer, the first Black woman to serve as a judge in Prince George's County. She graduated from Morgan State University in May 1979 with a bachelor of science degree in psychology, cum laude. She received her juris doctor degree from Howard University School of Law in May 1982 and a master of laws in taxation from Georgetown University Law Center in May 1987. She gained admission to the Maryland Bar in June 1983, the Federal Bar in July 1983, and the Supreme Court in May 1992. Judge Adams began her legal career in 1982 and, in 1984, became only the second Black female State's attorney in Prince George's County, after being hired by the State's attorney at the time, Arthur M. ``Bud'' Marshall. She was appointed by then-Governor William Donald Schaefer to the District Court of Maryland in Prince George's County in June 1993. She served with distinction in that capacity for 3 years before she was elevated to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County by Governor Schaefer's successor, Parris Glendening, in 1996. On September 4, 2010, following the Retirement of Judge William D. Missouri, then-Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Robert M. Bell appointed her as administrative judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland. Judge Adams led the court through floods and fire that damaged court facilities and the COVID-19 pandemic. She persevered. While she served as chief and administrative judge, Judge Adams articulated a vision statement to exemplify the court's goals when providing judicial services: ``The Circuit Court Welcomes All--A Forum for Justice.'' This statement has served as the foundation for every initiative, program, and goal at the court. Judge Adams expanded the Problem-Solving Courts to provide greater assistance to youth and adults facing a myriad of challenges. She established the Veterans, Re-Entry, Truancy Reduction, Juvenile Diversion, and Back on Track Courts to help people who have served in the military, people who struggle with substance issues, students with truancy problems, and the formerly incarcerated succeed in life. Through counseling, rehabilitation services, and intense monitoring, these programs are changing lives for the better every day. Judge Adams also focused on providing resources and assistance to survivors of elder abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sex trafficking with the creation of the Prince George's County Family Justice Center--PGCFJC--an initiative of the circuit court. With more than 21 on-site partners, the PGCFJC provides a full array of colocated services through a coordinated, collaborative, and hope-centered advocacy model. Local government and private community-based organizations work together and efficiently meet survivors' needs. As the COVID-19 pandemic rampaged for nearly 3 years, Judge Adams enhanced the court's technological advancements and accessibility to the public, holding hearings and trials virtually, and providing litigants Zoom links via a website that provided all the information they needed to attend judicial proceedings. She maintained health and safety protocols in the courthouse to keep everyone safe. She also focused on security and led the way for the design and construction of a security checkpoint near the courthouse. Delivery vehicles now must go through a checkpoint where the Prince George's County Sheriff's Office K-9 Team looks for any hazardous or explosive materials inside them. Another security measure that Judge Adams established was a security command center complete with IT workers who monitor hundreds of security cameras throughout the courthouse complex. Designated officials at the center can monitor the courthouse complex 24/7. This state-of-the-art center was one of Judge Adam's primary security- related goals. Once the pandemic restrictions were lifted, Judge Adams implemented a new case management system called Maryland Electronic Courts, MDEC. Her goal was to transition court operations to an electronic system that is nearly paperless. With MDEC, attorneys are required to utilize electronic filing when representing clients in civil and criminal cases. Electronic filing is optional for litigants representing themselves. Employees also can access files virtually via the online system instead of having to hunt down paper files. Judge Adams modernized the court to make it a dignified space to resolve disputes and collaborated with many justice partners throughout the county to provide enhanced judicial services. A fearless and bold leader, Judge Adams' tenure and leadership will continue to impact Prince George's County and the legal system for years to come. Judge Adams cochairs the Law Links Committee of the Prince George's County Bar Association and has done so since 1993. Law Links is a paid summer internship program with local law firms and legal departments in the county that is committed to broadening the aspirations and possibilities of young people. It combines work experience with a law and leadership institute. All participants in the program are Prince George's County high school students. Throughout Judge Adams' exemplary career, she has received many awards and honors. Most recently, the J. Franklyn Bourne Bar Association presented Judge Adams with the Wayne K. Curry Spirit of Excellence Award for her trailblazing leadership. In May 2022, she was awarded the 2022 Gladys Noon Spellman Public Service Award at the 37th Annual Prince George's County Women's History Month Celebration. Last April, the Prince George's County Commission for Women presented Judge Adams with the 2022 Trailblazing Woman Award for her extraordinary legal career and achievements. Judge Adams is not the only public servant in her family. She is married to Timothy ``Tim'' J. Adams, the first Black mayor of Bowie in the 138-year history of the city. I thank both of them for their public service and wish Judge Adams a happy, well-earned retirement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, the Senate today has finally voted to repeal two outdated and obsolete authorizations for the use of military force--those that launched two wars against the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein, enacted into law in 1991 and 2002. Yet this is not the only action we must take to protect our national security. A third AUMF, which Congress enacted in 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on our country by the terrorist organization al- Qaida, is also outdated and ought to be repealed. This authorization was fully justified and necessary at the time, and I voted in favor of it. It was sadly necessary to go to war in Afghanistan to remove the very real threat that al-Qaida posed from its sanctuary there. But, as I have repeatedly argued in successive Congresses since 2014, this AUMF, too, is now obsolete. We ought to repeal it and replace it with a new AUMF that more accurately reflects the threats our country faces today. Four Presidents from both parties have used the 2001 AUMF to target groups that did not even exist on 9/11/2001 in countries such as Yemen and Somalia, far from the battlefield of Afghanistan. Presidents have used this AUMF in ways that those of us in Congress who voted for it could never have imagined 22 years ago. Publicly available War Powers Resolution notifications that refer to the 2001 AUMF address more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Niger, Philippines, Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. The number of countries where the U.S. military has actually resorted to military action is smaller but not insignificant. Again based on War Powers Resolution notifications, the 2001 AUMF has been publicly cited as authorization for military activity in seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Niger. No administration should continue to use the 2001 AUMF--that clearly and specifically is aimed at those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks--as a blank check for war anywhere and anytime, and it is past time for Congress to take action. In 2014 and 2015, President Obama relayed his intent to work with the Congress to repeal and replace the 2001 AUMF, at the time the United States was assembling the Coalition to Defeat ISIS, but we were not able to get it done. Now, President Biden has reiterated the same intent. In the official Statement of Administration Policy on the bill we have passed today, the White House declared its support for passage of S. 316 and goes on to say: Furthermore, President Biden remains committed to working with Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans form modern terrorist threats. Toward that end, the Administration will ensure that Congress has a clear and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action and of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and interests around the world. So, in response to the invitation President Biden has extended to Congress to replace and repeal the 2001 AUMF, I am today introducing legislation that would prospectively repeal the outdated authorization--while providing enough time for both the executive and the legislative branches to agree on the most appropriate replacement. This legislation would sunset the existing AUMF in July 2025, 6 months into the next administration. So we will have adequate time to consult with the administration's national security professionals about the best way to do so. This would also provide a framework for the necessary national debate about how to modernize our national security posture during the upcoming 2024 elections. This is a pivotal moment. Congress must act to reassert its rightful role in war-making authorities, as set out in article I of the Constitution. We must take action on all fronts. Having voted decisively to repeal the authorizations of 1991 and 2002 in legislation led by my able colleagues, Senator Kaine of Virginia and Senator Young of Indiana, we now need to move with dispatch to repeal and replace the 2001 authorization. It is a responsibility that we must assume to protect our national security in today's context. I look forward to moving on this initiative as soon as possible in this session of the 118th Congress.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, the Senate today has finally voted to repeal two outdated and obsolete authorizations for the use of military force--those that launched two wars against the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein, enacted into law in 1991 and 2002. Yet this is not the only action we must take to protect our national security. A third AUMF, which Congress enacted in 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on our country by the terrorist organization al- Qaida, is also outdated and ought to be repealed. This authorization was fully justified and necessary at the time, and I voted in favor of it. It was sadly necessary to go to war in Afghanistan to remove the very real threat that al-Qaida posed from its sanctuary there. But, as I have repeatedly argued in successive Congresses since 2014, this AUMF, too, is now obsolete. We ought to repeal it and replace it with a new AUMF that more accurately reflects the threats our country faces today. Four Presidents from both parties have used the 2001 AUMF to target groups that did not even exist on 9/11/2001 in countries such as Yemen and Somalia, far from the battlefield of Afghanistan. Presidents have used this AUMF in ways that those of us in Congress who voted for it could never have imagined 22 years ago. Publicly available War Powers Resolution notifications that refer to the 2001 AUMF address more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Niger, Philippines, Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. The number of countries where the U.S. military has actually resorted to military action is smaller but not insignificant. Again based on War Powers Resolution notifications, the 2001 AUMF has been publicly cited as authorization for military activity in seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Niger. No administration should continue to use the 2001 AUMF--that clearly and specifically is aimed at those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks--as a blank check for war anywhere and anytime, and it is past time for Congress to take action. In 2014 and 2015, President Obama relayed his intent to work with the Congress to repeal and replace the 2001 AUMF, at the time the United States was assembling the Coalition to Defeat ISIS, but we were not able to get it done. Now, President Biden has reiterated the same intent. In the official Statement of Administration Policy on the bill we have passed today, the White House declared its support for passage of S. 316 and goes on to say: Furthermore, President Biden remains committed to working with Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans form modern terrorist threats. Toward that end, the Administration will ensure that Congress has a clear and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action and of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and interests around the world. So, in response to the invitation President Biden has extended to Congress to replace and repeal the 2001 AUMF, I am today introducing legislation that would prospectively repeal the outdated authorization--while providing enough time for both the executive and the legislative branches to agree on the most appropriate replacement. This legislation would sunset the existing AUMF in July 2025, 6 months into the next administration. So we will have adequate time to consult with the administration's national security professionals about the best way to do so. This would also provide a framework for the necessary national debate about how to modernize our national security posture during the upcoming 2024 elections. This is a pivotal moment. Congress must act to reassert its rightful role in war-making authorities, as set out in article I of the Constitution. We must take action on all fronts. Having voted decisively to repeal the authorizations of 1991 and 2002 in legislation led by my able colleagues, Senator Kaine of Virginia and Senator Young of Indiana, we now need to move with dispatch to repeal and replace the 2001 authorization. It is a responsibility that we must assume to protect our national security in today's context. I look forward to moving on this initiative as soon as possible in this session of the 118th Congress.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 27, which is at the desk; and that at 2:30 p.m. today, it be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on the passage of the joint resolution without intervening action or debate.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have the honor of being the chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee here in the U.S. Senate, and there has been a lot of activity during the Biden administration that deals with our economy. The Biden administration has a proud record of legislative accomplishments, from the American Rescue Plan to the bipartisan infrastructure bill, to the Safer Communities Act, to the Inflation Reduction Act, to the CHIPS and Science bill, to the PACT bill, and the list goes on and on. But I want to talk a little bit about the accomplishments under the Biden administration for small businesses, and I am very proud of what we have been able to do to help small businesses in our country. We have 33.2 million small business owners in America. They are the drivers of our economy. We say they are the backbone of our economy; I think they are also the backbone of our communities. They create jobs, and they do most of the innovation that we see. It makes America more competitive and creates more job opportunities and economic opportunities. Over 99 percent of our businesses in the United States are small businesses, and nearly 50 percent of all U.S. employees work for small companies. So it is critically important that we pay attention to our small businesses, and, of course, it was challenging during the COVID- 19 pandemic. I will just give you one example of why it is so important, giving one example in Maryland. I am sure you could give an example in every one of our States. This past Friday, I was at Sabatino's restaurant in Little Italy, Baltimore. We see many times that the economic growth of ethnic communities has been spurred by innovation by small companies. Sabatino's is one of those restaurants, which is iconic to Baltimore today. It was started in 1955 by two individuals, two immigrants who started Sabatino's restaurant. It is now an iconic restaurant in Baltimore where we like to go for good political discussion. It is in a pretty famous neighborhood. It is where Nancy Pelosi grew up. It has incredible food. It is for good company and good food, and it is an anchor in that community for its economic growth. There are a lot of small business owners who are in that neighborhood who are continuing to provide job opportunities and economic growth and a future for Little Italy in Baltimore. We could give many, many examples of that type of activity by a small company, a small business, that has really saved a neighborhood and preserved it for its future. The Biden administration has a proud record in support of small businesses. Let me just give you some of the numbers. Twenty twenty-one was a record year for the growth of small businesses in this country. We had the largest number of new business growth, small business growth, in the history of America, and it was led by women-owned small businesses. Women of color led among the women business entrepreneurs. This is attributable to the fact that the Biden administration has been concentrating on helping our small businesses but has paid particular attention to those small businesses located in traditionally underserved communities. That has led to programs that have helped. I will give you one example: women's business centers. The President announced just this week increasing the number of women's business centers in our community. When President Biden took the oath of office, we had one women's business center in Maryland, and it was doing really great service, helping women get through the maze of bureaucracies and obstacles that were in their way to start a small business or grow a small business. It was located in Rockville, MD, and provided great help. Today, we have four women's business centers in Maryland, one located in Salisbury, which is a rural part of our State, to help women business entrepreneurs in rural Maryland. We have one at Morgan State University, a historic Black college in Maryland, and it is an HBCU that has provided tremendous opportunities for minority business owners. We just recently opened another women's business center at Bowie State University, an HBCU in the Washington area, in Prince George's County. These are concrete steps the Biden administration has taken to not only grow our small business opportunities in America but to make sure we pay attention to those who have been left behind in the past. Let me just give you another example of how we have delivered through the Biden administration to help our small business community. We delivered for the people, for individuals like Carl Williams of Los Angeles, who founded Royal Men Solutions. After he was released from prison, Carl heard about the Minority Business Development Agency's Entrepreneurship Education for Formerly Incarcerated Persons Center in Los Angeles. His dream of becoming a third-generation carpenter and making his father proud took flight through this program. Carl explains, and I quote: The information the MBDA Center afforded me was invaluable, teaching me the elevator pitch, understanding my competition, standing out as a custom furniture builder, and knowing my value. All of their advice was an intricate part of my growth and development in the business world. Well, one of the great accomplishments of the Biden administration was to help our returning citizens, those impacted under the criminal justice system, to give them an opportunity, and they are taking advantage of that thanks to the Biden administration. Also in the Biden administration was the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure package. Through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we were able to pass legislation that establishes in statute the Minority Business Development Agency that Carl depended upon--the MBDA. We authorized $110 million per year for the Agency through fiscal year 2025 and elevated the office by creating an Under Secretary position to lead the Agency. The funds will expand the geographic reach of the MBDA by authorizing the creation of regional MBDA offices and rural business centers and creating the Parren J. Mitchell Entrepreneurship Education Grants Program to support minority entrepreneurs at HBCUs and MSIs. I particularly like the program being named after the former Congressman Parren J. Mitchell, a Congressman from Baltimore, who was chair in the House of Representatives of the Small Business Committee and was responsible for our first efforts to set aside to help small businesses and minority small businesses. We delivered for founders like Miles Barr, Richard Lunt, and Vladimir Bulovic, who at MIT imagined a world where they could seamlessly help limit our carbon footprint through transparent solar technologies. The company has already started producing small-size windows that reduce energy and may help reduce our total national energy consumption by up to 12 percent. Thanks to funding from the Small Business Innovation Research or SBIR Program, as we all know it, they were able to spin out of MIT and embark on this private endeavor. In the 117th Congress, with President Biden's leadership, we were able to extend the life of and improve the SBIR and STTR Programs. Through the SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022, the Small Business Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer Programs were reauthorized, including their related pilot programs, through September 30, 2025. The legislation also includes language that ensures the largest SBIR and STTR award winners are adequately transitioning and commercializing their technologies. These actions we take have real consequences. These are companies that need to have that ability to participate in government research. That is what the SBIR Program and the STTR Program do. The Federal Agencies that have the largest amounts of research must engage smaller companies. Now, guess which Agency is the strongest proponent of the SBIR Program that we reauthorized under President Biden's leadership? It is the Department of Defense because they know these small, innovative tech companies are going to give them the technology they need to keep America safe, and they are. I look at my own State of Maryland, where we are blessed to have so many high-tech companies that are working in defense, working in healthcare, working in communications, and working in the environment and energy. Thanks to our actions, these companies can now grow and do their work and help our country solve our problems through the passage of the SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022. The Biden administration delivered for veterans, women entrepreneurs, rural communities, and the mom-and-pop shops that keep our communities vibrant. Because of COVID-19, we knew this was not a time to sit back and watch the small businesses we loved close their doors. Instead, we rolled up our sleeves and took care of Main Street. While we saw too many small businesses close, we saw many of them come back stronger than ever before, and entrepreneurs did the same. In a remarkable comeback under the Biden administration, we have seen 10.5 million new business applications, making 2021 and 2022 record years. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, we helped small businesses reduce their energy costs while improving their environmental sustainability. Through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, small businesses across the country will receive the help they need to modernize the way they do business in order to grow and succeed. Look, I want American entrepreneurs and small business owners to know that they should dream big. Our Nation is on path to make those big dreams a reality. I am very proud of the progress we have been able to make during these past 2 years. I am looking forward to working on behalf of small businesses in this Congress with my partner Senator Ernst on the Small Business Committee. I just want the small business owners of America to know that we are on their side, and we are going to continue to provide the help so they can help America grow. They are the backbone of our economy and the backbone of our communities, and we stand with them. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Lujan for his leadership on behalf of small businesses. Senator Lujan is absolutely right. There are a lot of areas that are not necessarily within the jurisdiction of the Small Business Committee that directly affect small businesses, and one of those is access to broadband. Senator Lujan understands that for small businesses to succeed, they have to have access to affordable, high-speed internet. And Senator Lujan has also been critically important in so many of the other areas--challenges that we have confronted, particularly during COVID. So I just want to thank him for his leadership on behalf of small businesses and the people of New Mexico. We are joined on the floor by Senator Rosen, and I just want everyone to know of her valuable contributions to the Small Business Committee. She has been one of the leaders during these 2 years with the record I just went over of accomplishments under the Biden administration. But she is a real leader in recognizing that, if we are going to succeed with women entrepreneurs, we need to deal with childcare, and, today, small business tools are not fully available to small business operators of childcare. Senator Rosen is our leader in trying to make sure that we correct that and do something about it. I also appreciate her knowledge and understanding and leadership on the regulatory challenges that small businesses confront and taking on that challenge to see whether we can't provide some relief. So I just really wanted to acknowledge her extraordinary work on behalf of small businesses in this country.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, again, I want to thank Senator Rosen for her leadership, and we certainly are looking forward to taking up the legislation that she has introduced. H.J. Res. 27 Madam President, I know we are on debate on the waters of the United States. The rule provides for exceptions for ranchers and farmers. I would hope that we reject the resolution. I would like to start my statement of support for a strong definition of ``waters of the United States'' with a reflection on the history of the Clean Water Act. Congress overhauled the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, originally enacted in 1948, with amendments in 1972 that gave the act its current dimensions. The 1972 legislation spelled out ambitious programs for water quality improvement that industries and municipalities are still implementing today. The 92nd Congress held a series of votes on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which would later come to be known as the Clean Water Act. The Senate passed the bill, which came out of a conference committee with the House after 39 meetings, by a vote of 74 to 0. The House passed the bill by a 366-to-11 vote. Nineteen-seventy two was a Presidential election year. Despite a first term notable for its landmark environmental achievements, President Nixon vetoed the bill in an attempt to set himself apart from his opponent, George McGovern. Bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate overrode President Nixon's veto, and the bill became law on October 18, 1972. The Senate vote was overwhelming. Meanwhile, State and local leaders, as well as advocates of all stripes, were central in the push for this legislation to be enshrined in law. Contrast this show of congressional unity with our situation today, where we are relying on President Biden for his veto if the Senate passes this joint resolution of disapproval of the rule the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency--EPA-- jointly submitted relating to ``Revised Definition of `waters of the United States.' '' The rule under attack finally delivers a clear, workable definition. On December 30, 2022, the Agencies announced the final ``Revised Definition of `waters of the United States' '' rule. On January 18, 2023, the rule was published in the Federal Register. The Agencies' final rule establishes a clear and reasonable definition of ``waters of the United States'' and reduces the uncertainty from constantly changing regulatory definitions that has harmed communities and our Nation's waters. This commonsense, science-based approach recognizes that pollution upstream can have downstream impacts, so we must protect the system to safeguard downstream communities and our environment. The rule also maintains longstanding Clean Water Act permitting exemptions for routine farming and ranching activities. The rule ought to be durable in part because it was informed by extensive public comment to establish a definition that supports public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. In developing the proposed rule, EPA and the army reviewed and considered the extensive feedback and recommendations the Agencies received from States, Tribal governments, local governments, and stakeholders through consultations, meetings, and webinars. In 2017, Chairman Carper and I led 19 Senators in a letter to then- EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt opposing the Trump administration EPA's plan to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which would have weakened safeguards for the Nation's waterways. Last year, on February 28, 2022, 13 Senators joined me in a letter to the EPA applauding the rule to revise the definition of ``waters of the United Sates.'' Our letter explained how the rule takes significant and positive steps toward restoring strong clean water protections that are critical to meeting the Biden administration's commitment to environmental justice. Clean water is essential for improving public health outcomes through the provision of safe, affordable drinking water for all Americans, no matter their location. In the interim, I led a bicameral letter with my Chesapeake Bay watershed colleagues to Michael Regan, who is currently the EPA Administrator, and to Lieutenant General Scott Spellman, the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We urged them to rescind the harmful Navigable Waters Protection Rule the Trump administration implemented, and replace it with a rule that restores strong Clean Water Act protections to the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways and wetlands across the country. The Bay receives half of its water from a network of 110,000 streams and 1.7 million acres of wetlands, most of which are non-navigable tributaries and non-tidal wetlands that drain to those tributaries. Scientific research attests to the critical importance of small headwater streams in removing pollution from higher-order streams and rivers, and in preserving aquatic and riparian life throughout the entire system. Small streams and wetlands do not just provide habitat for wildlife and trout and other fisheries that enhance outdoor recreation opportunities; they also clean water for farmers that drive our economy through the production of food. Water pollution has never respected political boundaries. Using the Congressional Review Act to attack this thoughtfully crafted rule would be a mistake for healthy watersheds and clean water supplies across the country. I urge all my colleagues to reject this damaging resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to support S. 316. I congratulate and thank Senators Kaine and Young for their leadership on this issue. It will give us an opportunity to finally repeal the 1991 and the 2002 authorizations for the use of military force in regard to Iraq. We are not at war with Iraq, and we have seen--particularly with the use of the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, which was centered on Afghanistan--that it can be used by administrations well beyond the intent of Congress. So it is our congressional responsibility to remove these authorizations and to finally repeal them. I want to make it clear: I voted against both of the Iraq authorizations when I was in the House of Representatives in 1991 and 2002. The 2002, particularly, was passed by false pretenses. It was passed because of the belief that Iraq was involved in the attack on our country on September 11 when, in fact, they were not. It was based on the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction that could be used against U.S. interests, and that was also false. Today, the U.S. forces in Iraq are there by the invitation of the government. There is no need for Congress to authorize the use of military force in regard to Iraq. If there are any issues in regard to protecting U.S. interests that may fall within Iraq that would require the use by the President of the military, he has that authority under article II of the Constitution, and he also has the authority given to him by the War Powers Act to utilize that process if, in fact, it is needed. It is Congress's responsibility to declare war, clearly, in the Constitution of the United States. It is our responsibility to authorize when our men and women should be put in harm's way. We have a responsibility to make sure that the authorizations for the use of that force are in compliance with our security needs. And, clearly, we need to eliminate the authorizations that we passed in 1991 and 2002, and we are going to have the opportunity to do that. It is very important that we pass those bills. As I said earlier, it could be used by a future administration, by a President, to go well beyond the intent of Congress. Maybe 5 or 10 years from now, a creative use of that authorization could be used to introduce troops clearly against the intent of Congress. Now, why do I say that? Because it has happened before. Let me give you a case in point. The 2001 authorization for the use of military force, which was passed shortly after the attack on our country on September 11, 2001, was aimed at going after the organizations in Afghanistan that were partly responsible for the attack on our country. Let me, if I might, read into the Record the 2001 authorization for use of military force because I think Members of the Senate and certainly the public would be very surprised to see the specific language that was used in 2001 and how it has been misused by four administrations. It states ``That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'' That is the language of the AUMF. Yet we have seen that being used now by four Presidents far beyond the intent of Congress. They are using them in countries and against organizations that didn't even exist in 2001. It has been used in Yemen and Somalia, far from Afghanistan. Presidents have used the 2001 authorization in places and against organizations that we never imagined 22 years ago. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say: Well, these are affiliates of organizations that existed in 2001. Well, the concept of affiliate is nowhere in the authorization for use of military force that Congress passed. It was used by legal counsel and administrations to justify the use of force. It is our responsibility to give that authority, and we didn't. Yet Presidents are using this to justify the use of force. Presidents have used the 2001 authorization in places and against organizations never imagined by Congress. The notice under the War Powers Act has been given to over 20 countries using the 2001 authorization, and military activities have been used well beyond Afghanistan under that authority--in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Niger--never intended by Congress. Congress needs to pass S. 316. Let me make that clear. We need to get this bill passed to take off the books the Iraq authorizations that we have, and then we need to repeal and replace the 2001 AUMF. It is our responsibility. President Biden agrees. Let me just quote from the President's statement in support of S. 316. He says: Furthermore, President Biden remains committed to working with Congress to ensure that the outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats. Toward that end, the Administration will ensure that Congress has a clear and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action and of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and interests around the world. Chairman Menendez has also indicated and Senator Kaine has also indicated and understand that we first must pass S. 316, and then we need to take up the 2001 authorization for a repeal and replacement. I will introduce legislation in the very near future that does exactly that, that gives us the opportunity to carry out our responsibilities. I have done this in previous Congresses. It will sunset the 2001 authorization with enough lead time for the administration and Congress to pass, as President Biden has said, a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats. That is our responsibility to do that. We must take action on all fronts: Repeal the authorization that was passed in 1991 and 2002 related to Iraq and then move with dispatch to repeal and replace the 2001 authorization that was aimed mainly toward Afghanistan. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 36th annual Women's History Month. This year in Maryland, we have some special advancements to celebrate. In Maryland, voters chose Brooke Lierman as the first-ever woman independently elected to a statewide office as our new comptroller. Marylanders also elected Aruna Miller as our second female Lieutenant Governor and first woman of color and immigrant elected to statewide office in Maryland. Here in the U.S. Congress, we have the highest percentage of women serving in history--28 percent across both the House of Representatives and here in the Senate. They build on the legacy of pioneers like former Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. She was the first Democratic woman to win a seat in both the House and the Senate and until recently held the record as the longest serving female Senator, having now been surpassed by Senator Feinstein of California. As the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. Equal Rights Amendment Mr. President, I was proud to testify recently at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA. At the most basic level, the ERA is a continuation of the centuries-long process of expanding what is meant by ``We the People.'' The main clause of the amendment simply states: Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The vast majority of Americans will hear this and think, Of course, this should be part of our Constitution. In fact, many Americans believe that it is already part of our Constitution. It has been overwhelmingly supported by the American public, regardless of political affiliation. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in the spring of 2020 found that 78 percent support the Equal Rights Amendment being added to the Constitution. A separate poll from AP-NORC similarly found three-quarters of Americans in support of the ERA, with large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. In addition, 22 States, including my home State of Maryland, have established State-level ERAs. Six more have some form of explicit prohibition against sex discrimination in their constitution. Other States are actively in the process of adding the ERA. For example, in January, the New York State Legislature sent a State-level ERA to the voters for consideration on their 2024 ballot. So we already have it in the majority of the constitutions among States. It is time that it be added to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, 85 percent of countries have explicit prohibitions against governmental discrimination on the basis of sex. The United States is the only--the only--industrialized democracy that does not include an explicit provision in their Constitution. We want the United States to continue to be the gold standard when it comes to women's equality, opportunity, and protection against discrimination. Our inaction on this issue is an outdated barrier to our credibility on the global stage. When Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the States for ratification, it included a 7-year time limit for the States to ratify in the preamble of the resolution proposing the Equal Rights Amendment to the States. This deadline was later extended for 3 years until 1982, but a total of 35 of the 38 States ratified the amendment by the extended date of 1982. There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for a time limit on a ratification of a constitutional amendment. In 2017, Nevada activists, led by State Senator Pat Spearman, reignited the push for the ERA through the first State ratification since 1977. Illinois followed in 2019. Virginia became the 38th and final State required by the Constitution to ratify the ERA in 2020. Since then, the only major remaining barrier has been the ambiguity caused by the fact that the three final ratifications occurred after the time set in the original resolution passed by Congress. With Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, I introduced a joint resolution to resolve that ambiguity--to remove that last barrier. Thirty eight States have ratified; it should be part of our Constitution. It would remove the arbitrary deadline that Congress once set and to recognize the ERA as validly ratified by the required 38 States. Our S.J. Res. 4 is cosponsored by 52 U.S. Senators, including Senator Collins and all Senate Democrats and Independents. This action is well within the Congress's broad power over the amendment process laid out in article V of our Constitution. As the ERA Coalition put it, this is the first time in our history that an amendment has fulfilled all ratification requirements under article V and has not been recognized. There is precedent both for constitutional amendments to be ratified after significant periods and for Congress to pass resolutions to recognize amendments as validly ratified. There is simply no constitutional reason nor court ruling that bars us from taking this step. I point out to my colleagues that the 27th Amendment to the Constitution which deals with congressional pay increases was ratified. It took over 200 years to ratify it, and it is now part of the Constitution of the United States. There are many reasons why it is important that we do act. The reality is that women still face serious challenges on account of sex and that our existing legal framework does not always provide a sufficient remedy. As the 28th Amendment, the ERA would serve as a new tool--for Congress, for Federal Agencies, and in the courts--to advance equality in the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protection of the LGBTQ+ individuals. The ERA would serve as a constitutional backstop for existing and new legislation. It would also signal to the courts that they should apply a more rigorous level of review to laws and government policies that discriminate on the basis of sex. Enshrining this protection in the Constitution also ensures enduring protections for all Americans across the country. Through this action, we can finish the work started by the generations before us in order to secure the future of the generations to come. Our strength is in our values, and no value is more American than equality. There should be no time limit on equality. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, so many cities and towns across America have the story of a segment of highway or a railroad track that cuts ruthlessly through neighborhoods. These neighborhoods may not have been affluent, but they supported vibrant, tight-knit, supportive communities with cherished homes, schools, and small businesses. Backed with Federal funding, these highways and other massive infrastructure projects tore these neighborhoods apart and left them an enduring legacy of exclusion and diminished opportunity. To be sure, these infrastructure projects were intended to serve a purpose, and they did serve a purpose--transportation, of a particular sort. For families who could afford a car and a house in the suburbs, highways were built to whisk people in and out of our urban downtowns, without regard for the people and the communities remaining in those downtowns. In the most benign cases, these projects were designed without care or sensitivity to the people they left behind and excluded. In the worst cases, the outcome of suppression and exclusion of people of color was, in fact, deliberate. It is time to confront our legacy of racism and exclusion in infrastructure development and promote the next generation of infrastructure that heals, unifies, and reconnects--an infrastructure of inclusion, not division. Thankfully, under President Biden's leadership and the direction of Congress, we are doing just that. President Biden has affirmed and reaffirmed his commitment to advancing equity and combating systemic racism through two Executive orders. The first Executive order, which was signed on the first day in his office, said: The Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. Affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government. The Executive order he signed just last month acknowledges that we have so much work to do. It says: [M]embers of underserved communities--many of whom have endured generations of discrimination and disinvestment-- still confront significant barriers to realizing the full promise of our great Nation, and the Federal Government has a responsibility to remove these barriers. How to remove these barriers. These barriers exist in a metaphoric sense, but sometimes they are concrete--literally. Baltimore City has dealt with the enduring legacy of its own ``highway to nowhere.'' This project is on the Franklin- Mulberry corridor in West Baltimore. It started as a way to get drivers out of the city quickly. Although the city never completed the project, a 1.4-mile stretch of highway contained within a concrete canyon was built and did irreparable harm to the surrounding communities: 971 homes and 61 businesses were destroyed. The project displaced approximately 1,500 people, most of them Black. And for decades, the city has lived with this eyesore and barrier to growth, opportunity, and connection. Let me be clear. Removing barriers like highways is not simply about demolishing or removing infrastructure; it is about building the kind of infrastructure our cities and communities need--the infrastructure of connectivity and inclusion. This means that instead of a highway for fast moving cars--or worse, an unused highway--in the case of Baltimore's ``highway to nowhere,'' we need to restore neighborhood street grids, parks, sidewalks, and bike trails--the infrastructure we need to reconnect people with opportunities, with businesses, with education, and with healthcare. I am proud that under President Biden's leadership on equity and the surface transportation title of the bipartisan infrastructure law that the Committee on Environment and Public Works negotiated, we now have a Federal program specifically aimed at addressing the legacy of division and exclusion from past infrastructure projects and supporting a new and better future for hurt and marginalized communities. The Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, which the Environment and Public Works Committee reported unanimously in May of 2021, includes the Reconnecting Communities Program, later included in the final Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I might say I am proud of the role that our Presiding Officer played in the development of that law, the infrastructure law, as well as Reconnecting Communities. I was proud to serve on the committee with our Presiding Officer, and we are pleased to be an integral part in making sure that legislation got to the President's desk. When we were negotiating the surface transportation reauthorization bill, it was not easy to convince everyone that this would be a worthy program. But just look at the overwhelming need across the country and the expressions of interest in the first round of grant awards--more than 350 applications nationwide--that far outpaced the amount of funding available. There are so many worthy projects across the country. They never received enough planning and consideration through the Federal policy framework that existed prior to President Biden's focus on equity, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and Reconnecting Communities. I think the overwhelming need we are seeing across the country will strongly support the program's continuation and expansion into one of the U.S. Department of Transportation's signature initiatives. Last month, after all the work of developing legislation and enacting it into law and standing up the program, the Department of Transportation awarded the very first round of Reconnecting Communities grants. I am proud that after all the work on the bipartisan infrastructure law, Baltimore City was one of the first recipients of the Federal funding under the Reconnecting Communities Program. Baltimore will receive a $2 million grant for planning, to which the State of Maryland, under Governor Moore, is adding $400,000. This funding is going to start an important process of planning and engagement with the people of Baltimore to develop a proposal, one that I hope will move forward in the coming years with Federal support for the construction of a project of great significance to Baltimore and its future. This award for Baltimore and the establishment of the Reconnecting Communities Program is an important milestone in the history of our Nation's approach to infrastructure. For far too long, our national infrastructure policies contributed to tearing down communities while we built our transportation networks. With the Reconnecting Communities Program, our Federal infrastructure policy will no longer tear communities apart. Rather, it must build up, reconnect, and support them. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the joint resolution we are considering tramples on the right of DC citizens to manage their own affairs, plain and simple. In fact, it is so intrusive, it provides a compelling argument for DC statehood. DC statehood is long overdue. There is no justification for the denial of rights and representation for the 700,000 citizens of the District of Columbia. They deserve to have their voices heard in our democracy; they deserve true self-governance and the right to have a say in the policies that will affect their lives. Our Nation's Capital is home to more than 700,000 fellow Americans who, despite our Nation's founding mantra--``no taxation without representation''--pay their share of taxes without full voting representation in either Chamber of Congress. In fact, despite paying more in Federal taxes per capita than citizens of any of the 50 States, DC residents have no say in how those taxes are actually spent. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue; it is an American issue because the lack of fair representation for DC residents is clearly inconsistent with the values on which this country was founded. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us who enjoy the right and the privilege of full voting rights and representation to take up the cause of our fellow citizens in the District of Columbia. We must use our voices to call out this historic injustice and right this wrong. DC has more residents than two States, Wyoming and Vermont. It has a population comparable to Alaska and Delaware. DC pays more in Federal taxes than 23 States. Yet it has no representation here in the Senate. Along with my colleagues who make up the informal ``National Capital Area'' delegation, I have worked over the years to advance the District's interests given its proximity to the two States and significant cross-border commuting and business activity. Statehood for DC is not about taking away the power and representation of residents of other States. This is not and should never be interpreted as a zero-sum game. Instead, what we have here is a situation that clearly conflicts with our democratic ideals. The District includes people of all backgrounds. However unique the District might be, its residents are hard-working people who do not differ from other Americans in their basic entitlement to representation. Taxation without representation is a compelling argument for statehood. It should be enough to move Congress to act. Instead, we are regressing here. Rubbing salt into the wound of this intrusion is the fact that proponents of the joint resolution deliberately mischaracterize what the Criminal Code revision does, or fails to do. The Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022--the RCCA--comprehensively revises DC's Criminal Code, which had not been updated since its creation in 1901. We may agree or disagree with some of its provisions, but it is a matter that should be left to the elected officials of the District. Congress has passed joint resolutions disapproving DC legislation on three occasions; the last time occurred in 1991. A resolution of disapproval has not received a floor vote in either Chamber since 2015. In recent years, it appears that our friends across the aisle have introduced joint resolutions of disapproval to undermine DC self- governance as a means for advancing partisan policy narratives around controversial topics such as crime, COVID-19 vaccinations, reproductive health, and harm reduction programs such as needle exchange. Although DC Mayor Muriel Bowser vetoed the council's Criminal Code revision--the Council voted 12-1 to override the veto--she also indicated her staunch opposition to Congress intervening in the city's affairs. I agree with Mayor Bowser. The District's Attorney General, Brian L. Schwalb, sent a letter to the Senate on February 23, 2023, in which he eloquently stated: Ironically, many who have expressed support for overriding these two D.C. local laws have long espoused the virtues of freedom from federal government interference and respect for states' rights . . . I am well aware of the Constitutional power granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. However, merely because Congress has the power to act does not mean that it should exercise that power. Particularly given Congress' stated intent when passing the Home Rule Act to empower the District ``to the greatest extent possible'' with the responsibility of ``legislating upon essentially local District matters,'' I urge the Senate to reject calls for disapproval of D.C. local laws, and instead, to stand up for democratic values, stand against disenfranchisement, and stand with the residents of our Nation's capital. I agree with Attorney General Schwalb. I deeply regret that Congress is intervening in the affairs of people who have no representation, especially here in the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided measure.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

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