[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 14, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5484-S5495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 6126

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, time is of the essence. Yes, time is of 
the essence, and that is why I rise today, once again, in calling for 
the immediate passage of the House-led and passed bipartisan, 
standalone aid package for Israel that will provide our ally with $14 
billion in military assistance for their ongoing war with the savage 
Hamas terrorists. This standalone bill does not use Israel as a lever 
to fund Ukraine funding or to make our border more porous to terrorists 
and criminals.
  I want to start by sharing two stories--the stories of two gentlemen 
I met last week. I am going to start with Doran. Doran's brother was 
the mayor of a kibbutz located within a stone's throw from Gaza. As the 
mayor, he often welcomed Palestinians from Gaza. He shared meals with 
them and conversed with them. It was a peace-loving family. But on the 
morning of October 7, Doran's brother, the mayor, was brutally murdered 
by Hamas.
  But that wasn't enough. Next, his brother's mother-in-law was 
murdered. Then, his son was murdered and, finally, a nephew. In a 
matter of a few hours, a woman lost her husband, her mother, her son, 
and her nephew.
  The other story I want to share is of two brothers, Gal and Guy. Gal 
was the older brother. Guy was the younger brother. They went to the 
peace and love music festival, just about 3 miles away from the Gaza 
Strip. And, on the morning of October 7, Gal was watching over his 
brother Guy, and they heard gunshots, and they heard rockets going off, 
and they both decided to run for their cars. They were split up, and, 
while Gal made it home, Guy never did.
  Later that same day, his family saw horrifying videos of his brother 
lying on the ground, handcuffed, and who remains a hostage to this day. 
And, of course, we have no idea if Guy is alive or not.
  So I ask: Why is this important? Why is time of the essence?
  Listen, Israel is a powder keg, and it is about ready to explode. For 
starters, since we were here last, Hamas leadership has declared its 
desire for a permanent state of war with Israel on all borders. There 
continues to be a barrage of missiles, rockets, and drone attacks on 
Israel that has worsened since the war broke out, with Hamas firing at 
Israel nearly 10,000 times.
  Since October 7, 50 attacks have occurred on U.S. military 
installations. Some 52 American soldiers have been injured, not to 
mention that we lost 30-some Americans, killed on October 7 by these 
monsters called Hamas.
  So why is time of the essence? Right now, there are still hundreds of 
innocent people, like Gal's brother Guy, being held captive, and, most 
likely, being tortured and raped by Hamas terrorists, including 10 
Americans.
  So I stand here today, again, calling on my Democratic colleagues to 
do the right thing, and today--yes, today--pass this aid for Israel in 
their time of need. It has been over 5 weeks since the Hamas army of 
terror launched its savage and brutal assault on our greatest ally in 
the Middle East. The House and its bipartisan solution have only been 
met with obstruction by my friends across the aisle in this Chamber, 
and

[[Page S5485]]

the American public wants to know why the White House and my friends 
here across the aisle insist upon leveraging this funding in order to 
fund their other priorities.
  Is there really anybody across the aisle who objects to Israel 
receiving funding and to help stop this war against humanity?
  This delay in providing this aid is not lost on Israel, raising 
questions about our commitment as an ally, and perhaps equally 
concerning is the message it sends to Hamas terrorists, emboldening 
them in their murderous endeavors. And our slow response reinforces the 
White House message that America has no redline, and they can continue 
to attack our military without significant recourse.
  America is not a fair-weather friend. We must stand unequivocally 
with Israel, a country that has stood beside us as a staunch ally 
through thick and thin. We must pass this aid today.
  Now, when I met with Doran--who lost, as you recall, four members of 
his family on October 7--he pledged with me to help get one clear 
message to the American people: Hamas does not use logic. We are not 
dealing with a civilized nation here. Their evil defies any type of 
logic. They don't make sense. These people are evil monsters who rape, 
torture, and kill their enemies.
  And, by the way, every person in this room is one of their enemies. 
Anyone in America who does not believe in their religious ideas is 
their enemy, whom they have pledged to kill.
  Hamas, Iran, and its proxies have all taken an oath to kill every 
American. Yet some of my colleagues across the aisle have attempted to 
delay the delivery of this critical military assistance, as they call 
for negotiations with these terrorists in a ceasefire.
  I would ask each one of my friends across the aisle who is holding up 
this bipartisan funding to sit down with a victim of Hamas's savage 
attacks. Please invite any one of the 170 family members who are here 
on Capitol Hill today, who have family members currently being held as 
hostages--their friends and family members being used as a human shield 
by this evil terrorist group. I am asking you to sit down with them and 
listen to their stories of how Hamas terrorists tortured, maimed, and 
massacred the most Jewish people in a single day since the horror of 
horrors, the Nazi Holocaust.
  I want to make sure it is clear today: Hamas evil defies any logic. 
There is no negotiating with them. There are no terms that they would 
seriously consider. All they understand are death, horror, and 
destruction.
  Let's make this point perfectly clear. Our hesitation to provide 
bipartisan funding to our staunch ally Israel empowers Hamas and gives 
Iran and its proxies a green light to kill Americans.
  I would like to urge everyone to take this measure and adopt it 
immediately. And, for now, I would like to yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio, my friend Senator Vance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, thanks to my colleague from Kansas here. 
Look, this is pretty simple, and it is pretty obvious. The U.S. Senate 
would pass aid--much-needed aid--to Israel today, at this very moment, 
aid the House has already passed. It could go to the President's 
signature this afternoon if my Democratic colleagues would stand down. 
But they won't. Many of them here are gathered to push back against our 
very commonsense proposal to offer support to one of our most important 
allies as they face an existential threat. And it is important for us 
to be honest about that fact, to acknowledge that Israel would be 
getting support from this government tomorrow if our Democratic friends 
didn't stop it today.
  Now, why are they doing this? You will hear over the next hour or 
so--we will hear--a lot of slogans but very little real discussion 
about our policy in Ukraine or our policy in Israel. The Democrats have 
decided that this must be combined into a massive hodgepodge package 
for it to pass the U.S. Senate. They are doing this because they know 
that America is united behind Israel, and they want to use our Israeli 
allies as a political cover in their time of crisis. That is all this 
is about. You will hear a whole lot, but that is, ultimately, what this 
is about.
  They know they cannot defend President Biden's disastrous, pointless, 
and, ultimately, directionless Ukraine policy, so they would like to 
use Israel as a cover.
  Now, we have before us a hodgepodge of a supplemental from the 
President of the United States. It combines a few billion dollars for 
Ukraine with a few billion dollars to Gazan support--because that makes 
a ton of sense, right? Let's give money to the Israelis to fight back 
against Hamas, and then let's give some money to Hamas too. I am sure 
they won't use it to kill Israelis. It will just be food and medicine, 
we are assured, even though we know that because Hamas is the 
functional government in Gaza, we know if we give them support, that 
support will all the way flow into the war effort. At least, some of it 
will. Let's be honest about it. Maybe some of it will flow to the 
Palestinian people. Call me skeptical, but we know that, at least, some 
of it will flow to the Hamas war effort. Let's be honest about that 
fact.
  It is not just that, though. It is not just a few billion for Hamas, 
a few billion for Israel; it is a few billion to resettle migrants in 
the United States of America--because, God knows, we haven't had enough 
resettlement of migrants in the United States of America over the last 
couple of years. The fentanyl deaths and the chaos and crime in our 
country prove it.
  And then on top of that, let's add $60 billion to Ukraine, because, 
of course, we know that Israel and Ukraine are very closely connected. 
They are so closely connected, in fact, that this Chamber can't have a 
separate debate on one aid package or the other. And then let's add 
some money to East Asia on top of that.
  We will combine all of this into a $106 billion dollar supplemental 
aid package that has very, very little--the gross majority of the money 
has nothing to do with Israel--and we will do it so that we can cover 
for the fact that the President of the United States has thrown the 
world into chaos.
  What I would like to do is have a separate debate. Divide these 
questions into separate conversations and debate them separately. And, 
oh, by the way, use the political will of this Chamber to support our 
Israeli allies yesterday because they have needed it for much longer 
than that.
  Now, let me close with just a couple of final observations here, and 
then I will kick it over to my friend, the Senator from Missouri.
  I am getting sick, in this Ukraine policy debate, of hearing the same 
exact slogans repeated. This country has been governed for 30 years on 
bipartisan foreign policy slogans. Why don't we have a real debate? We 
are told again and again and again that Vladimir Putin is just like 
Hitler in the 1930s; if we don't stop him in Ukraine, he is going to 
march all the way through Europe.
  What happened to our education system that the only historical 
analogy we can use in this Chamber is World War II? What about World 
War I where competing major powers threw the entire world into conflict 
because we didn't make smart decisions, we didn't deescalate conflict 
when we had the opportunity.

  Why is it that we think Vladimir Putin, who has struggled to fight 
against the Ukrainians, is somehow going to be able to march all the 
way to Berlin when he can't conquer a country immediately to his east?
  Why do we think that everything that happens in the United States and 
in the world in 2023 is Munich almost a century ago?
  I am sick of us not having a real debate on this conversation. 
Vladimir Putin is a bad guy. He should not have invaded Ukraine. But 
our policy in 2023 has to be different than our policy in the 1940s 
because the circumstances are different.
  As Lincoln said:

       As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.

  You will also hear that China will be emboldened. China will be 
terribly emboldened if we don't stop the Russians in Ukraine. Well, 
call me crazy, but I think the Chinese would be emboldened if we use 
limited American weapons and give it all to the Ukrainians instead of 
giving it to the Taiwanese.
  Now, maybe you disagree, but let's have the debate, and let's have 
the real debate on the President's Ukraine policy instead of holding 
Israel hostage.

[[Page S5486]]

There is nothing more shameful than taking an existential crisis--
thousands of dead Israeli civilians--and using them as a fig leaf for a 
Ukraine policy.
  If you want to defend the Ukraine policy, defend it. Let the Israel 
aid flow through, and let's let it flow through today.
  I yield to my good friend from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I stand in solidarity with my colleagues 
on separating these issues. I think the American people think that is 
what we do here. I think the American people think we actually have an 
appropriations process where we have individual bills come forward and 
we are offering amendments and Senators can have their say and 
Republicans and Democrats can have different ideas, offer different 
amendments and we vote on those things.
  That is actually not what happens here at all. And this is now 
compounding this with a supplemental aid package of putting on a bunch 
of unrelated issues to try to bootstrap Ukraine aid when the most 
pressing need we have right now, the most bipartisan support we have 
right now, is the Israeli aid. And, by the way, it is paid for.
  Now, I know listening to the hallways buzz in this town about 
actually paying for something is, like, unbelievable. You know, it is 
going to be catastrophic if we actually have that discussion. But I 
think it is healthy. I think it is healthy. But I think we need to 
separate these issues.
  This is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the history of 
the world, and what we are told is: We can't do that.
  And to my friend from Ohio's point, history doesn't begin and end 
with Neville Chamberlain. There are a lot of lessons from history about 
how you confront these things.
  And, by the way, each theater is very different. What Israel needs is 
different; what Ukraine might need is different; what Taiwan might need 
is different. Oh, and by the way, what the United States of America 
might need is different as we face our chief rival in the world. We 
have never had one like this in the history of this country with China. 
We have never had an economic rival, a nuclear power, a militarized 
rival like we have with China.
  Maybe we should be talking, as we talk about this military industrial 
base--and I think there is broad support for this--for long-range 
capability.
  Our military industrial base is strapped right now. We are at 
capacity. We ought to be growing that. I support that. But I think we 
ought to have a discussion about: What does the United States need too? 
But as it relates to Israel, they have a clear objective, a likelihood 
of success, broad support. I have yet to hear any of that as it relates 
to Ukraine.
  All we get are, again, slogans and fearmongering. I think, by the 
way, if you brought up that for an individual vote, it might pass. I 
don't know. We ought to try it. But I know this would. It should today. 
But we are going to hear objections now from the Democrats. They are 
going to object to this and forestall this important aid that our 
allies in Israel, who are facing a real existential threat right now, 
need.
  Again--and, by the way, we have thrown in, you know, border here, and 
call me skeptical as it relates to Joe Biden and his administration on 
his seriousness when it comes to the border. When I was attorney 
general of Missouri, we fought some of these fights in court, including 
keeping ``Remain in Mexico'' in place. We had to get court orders and 
contempt orders against this administration to actually follow the 
judge's order to enforce the law.
  Now, I am going to support the strongest border package possible, but 
it is really hard when you have an executive branch that isn't 
interested in executing the law. And now we have 8-plus million people 
in this country who have come here illegally. They have admitted that, 
quite possibly, we have terrorists in this country because we have an 
open border. Let's have that debate also. But here we are with an 
opportunity to separate the Israeli funding, again, that has broad 
support.

  Each one of these issues, each one of these funding requests have 
separate realities on the ground, political support, strategies, 
likelihood of success. Let's respect that, and let's respect the will 
of the American people that we can actually come up here and do the 
important work we were sent here to do, which is to have real debate in 
what is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the history of the 
world.
  I yield back to the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, let me start by thanking my colleagues 
from the great State of Ohio and Missouri for standing beside the 
people of Israel unequivocally.
  But before we turn the floor back to those who protest too much, 
those who protest against this stand-alone Israel funding, let's 
address some of the objections made by the Senate Democrats last week.
  It is important that we focus on the urgency of aiding Israel without 
tying it to other complex, timekilling, unrelated conflicts.
  In last week's debate here on the Senate floor on Israel's safety and 
security, Senate Democrats mentioned Ukraine 77 times, more than twice 
of what they mentioned Israel.
  I ask Americans to listen to this debate and count for themselves how 
many times my friends across the aisle mention Ukraine but turn their 
back, almost like they are allergic, to using the word ``Israel.''
  They took 45 minutes of their hour-long speeches to make their case 
for Ukraine funding. Look, I get it. I get it: You want to fund 
Ukraine. But let's have that debate another day.
  What Americans understand about Ukraine is that Joe Biden has thrown 
$113 billion at the problem with minimal accountability. And in return, 
200,000 people have died. Americans understand that the war in Ukraine 
is at a stalemate, and it is going to turn into a 7-, probably 10-year 
war. It is going to turn into a war of attrition. What is the plan, 
Americans want to know? How much more of their blood and treasure do we 
have to send overseas? Let's debate Ukraine funding another day.
  Now, next, my friends across the aisle are going to use the pay-fors 
as an excuse. If that is the reason you won't support stand-alone 
funding for Israel, then give us a different pay-for. But, meanwhile, 
time is of the essence. Your caucus and our caucus are divided on 
funding for Ukraine. Your caucus and our caucus are divided on how to 
solve the open-border crisis.
  And I don't hear any solutions offered from the Republican-controlled 
House, the people's House, that the first thing we don't hear from the 
White House and the Senate leadership is that it is dead on arrival, 
and vice versa. Anything that we are offering they say is dead on 
arrival.
  Folks, we are no closer today on figuring out Ukraine funding or how 
to solve the open-border crisis than we were a month ago, two months 
ago, six months ago. We are months apart, I think we are infinitely 
apart, from solving these problems.
  Meanwhile, Hamas and Iran grow more emboldened and World War III 
inches closer. I don't hear anyone saying, from either side of the 
aisle, don't fund Israel. So why don't we fund Israel today? Don't tell 
me why we should fund Ukraine. Don't tell me you don't like the pay-
for. Stand up today and tell me why we shouldn't fund Israel today. 
Tell me why we shouldn't use Israel as a leverage for your other 
priorities.
  Tell me why we shouldn't send a message to Hamas and Iran. And the 
message that we are going to send them is that we will not tolerate 
this barbarism, these atrocities, these crimes against humanity.
  Time is of the essence. The House has passed a stand-alone bill to 
fund Israel. The Senate should do the same.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 6126, which is received from the House. 
I further ask the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we cannot

[[Page S5487]]

send the message to our allies or to the world that America only stands 
by some of its allies, that our word is only good some of the time. We 
also cannot send our adversaries the message that they can simply wait 
us out, allow us to become distracted, allow our resolve to waiver, and 
that the United States will eventually fail to respond to all of the 
pressing challenges we face.
  Our adversaries are watching carefully to see if we will let Putin 
win, and the answer must emphatically be, absolutely not. I have said 
it before; I will say it many times again. We cannot just do half our 
job here. That is not just wrong, it is dangerous, and it is naive.
  There are fundamental flaws in the arguments I have heard from my 
colleagues for splitting up this aid. Let's start with this one: the 
argument that somehow we haven't debated Ukraine aid, even though we 
have been debating this even longer than aid for Israel and even though 
we have already been forced to punt this aid to an ally in need before.
  Ukraine can no more afford a delay than our allies in Israel. Ukraine 
is at a critical point in a brutal war to defend its sovereignty 
against Putin's bloody invasion. Abandoning Ukraine is the same as 
surrendering to Putin and sends a message that he can invade any 
democracy he would like with impunity. Fortunately, Members on both 
sides of the aisle do understand this, and clear, overwhelming 
bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate have shown they 
support aid for Ukraine.
  We absolutely cannot allow Ukraine aid to get left behind yet again 
when they are at a critical moment in their heroic fight to protect 
their homeland and their future as a sovereign democracy.
  If my colleagues really wanted more debate on this, we had a robust 
debate last week, and there was a very strong showing from Senators who 
discussed at length why it is so important that we keep this aid 
together in one package. Here is the key point that was raised time and 
again in that debate: The global challenges we face are all connected, 
and they are all urgent. We have to be strategic enough to understand 
that.
  Do you know who met with Putin last month? The leader of Hamas. Do 
you know who is watching how committed we are to our allies in Ukraine? 
The Government of China.
  When it comes to the serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza, let's get 
something straight: Making sure people have food and water and medical 
care is not just the right and moral thing to do, it is also very 
clearly in our national interest, as it promotes long-term stability 
and security.
  Hamas is hoping we ignore the humanitarian needs in Gaza. It is 
hoping it can drive more people to despair and then anger and then, 
ultimately, extremism.
  In this critical moment, if we only respond to some of the challenges 
before us, not only will the other challenges continue to fester, but 
we will be sending a dangerous message about the limits of American 
leadership in the world.
  For our commitments to mean something in the world, they have to be 
ironclad. For our adversaries to take American leadership seriously, 
they have to know that we will stand by our allies, that we will stand 
up for democracy, and that we will stand up to dictators. The way we do 
that is by passing a strong, unified security package with support for 
Ukraine and Israel, humanitarian assistance, and smart investment in 
the Indo-Pacific to support our partners and strengthen deterrence.
  I am continuing to work on this package to get it done, and that work 
cannot be more important, nor could it be more urgent. If my colleagues 
are serious about making sure we act quickly, I urge them to support us 
in that effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I believe we 
must move forward with emergency funding for our allies--all of our 
allies, not just the State of Israel but also Ukraine. We are in a 
situation where both of these countries are under tremendous stress. 
But it is very clear that the proposal before us, this unanimous 
consent request to pass the bill including only funding for Israel, is 
just ironically an attempt to deny funding for Ukraine. It is not 
really about helping Israel; it is about making sure we don't continue 
our support and commitment to Ukraine. That commitment is just as 
vitally important to us as our solemn commitment to Israel.
  If we fail to support Ukraine, we will send a very unfortunate 
message to our adversaries: You can succeed in overrunning America's 
allies if you simply wait us out.
  My colleagues on the other side of the debate have been spinning a 
false narrative that says: By providing support for Ukraine, we will 
deny support for Israel. The truth is that the only obstacle to 
providing help to both nations is them. The truth is also that the 
United States is already supporting the State of Israel. The United 
States has provided Israel with over $12.4 billion in military 
assistance and missile defense funding over the last 3 years. In 
response to the attacks of October 7, President Biden has moved two 
aircraft carrier strike groups into the region. He ordered marines into 
the region. U.S. forces have already engaged and shot down missiles 
from adversaries in the region. We have also suffered more than 56 
injuries of American military personnel because of actions against the 
U.S. position in the Middle East.
  We need to support Israel. We are supporting Israel. We will continue 
to support Israel. But we cannot abandon Ukraine. They have lost 
hundreds of thousands of civilians and military personnel.
  The horrors of October 7 were grotesque. I was in Israel last month. 
I saw the images--some that have not yet been released--of the 
slaughter. It was traumatic for the entire State of Israel--in fact, 
the Jewish community worldwide. But go to Ukraine. Go to Bucha. Dig up 
the graves of people shot in the back of the head while their hands 
were tied. You want to talk about atrocities? Those were atrocities 
perpetrated by the Russians.
  So we are fighting forces that are dark and evil in two fronts, and 
we have to support all of those democratic nations--Israel and Ukraine. 
They are struggling against the darkness.
  This is not my opinion alone. Two weeks ago, Mike Pompeo, the former 
Secretary of State for Donald Trump and a former Congressman from 
Senator Marshall's home State of Kansas, wrote this about Ukraine:

       Make no mistake: The outcome of this war will have a direct 
     impact on U.S. national security. Should Putin prevail--
     whether on the battlefield or through a war of attrition that 
     leads to ill-conceived diplomacy--

  And I would suggest that denying this aid is ill-conceived 
diplomacy--

       the war would be felt well beyond Ukraine's borders.

  Indeed, I would add that if we fail to support Ukraine with funding 
and equipment, then it is more likely that young American 
servicemembers will be called upon to fight and perhaps die and suffer 
in Eastern Europe because, as so many of my colleagues have suggested 
and as Secretary Pompeo suggested, Putin will not be satisfied with 
simply taking Ukraine, and we could see ourselves engaged in defending 
one of our NATO allies.
  I have a very simple sort of notion about American military policy, 
having had the privilege to serve in our military. I would rather send 
resources to a country fighting than send American soldiers to do the 
fighting. And if we don't support Ukraine, that will happen.
  Let me conclude by simply saying that it is time to get serious. We 
have 3 days before our government runs out of funding. Israel needs our 
support. Ukraine needs our support. American families and communities 
are counting on us to deliver critical disaster assistance. They need 
support for affordable, high-quality childcare. There are many needs we 
must address. We have to move now but not by isolating our Ukrainian 
allies. We are in the fight with them, and we will finish the fight 
with them.
  At this point, I would yield to Senator Durbin of Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I 
understand the concerns raised by my colleague from Kansas. I share 
many of them. We have all seen the horrifying videos and

[[Page S5488]]

images, the scenes of death and destruction perpetrated by Hamas 
terrorists from October 7--the deadliest single day for the Jewish 
people since the Holocaust. We all know that return to the status quo 
is unacceptable. So I support the Senator's sense of urgency that we 
must get security aid to Israel as it seeks to defend itself.
  As a former chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, it was 
my privilege and honor to appropriate literally millions of dollars for 
Iron Dome, the air defense which today protects Israel. I believe in 
supporting our allies in France. In fact, I joined a quarter of my 
colleagues in the Senate in a letter to President Biden just last week 
with this very same message.
  But I want to be clear. Many of my colleagues harken back in history 
to the days of Munich and say we are stuck in that thinking. I would 
say: Forget Munich for a moment. Think of the days of Moscow. Think of 
this impromptu visit by the Hamas terrorists to Moscow to sit down with 
Vladimir Putin. Coincidence? Just happened to be part of the travel 
plan? No. Hamas had already attacked Israel. They were branded as a 
terrorist group. Where did they go to find solace? Where did they go to 
find a friend? They went to Moscow and Vladimir Putin. Why would we get 
soft on Putin at this moment?
  What is happening in Israel is a mirror of what is happening in 
Ukraine--a tyrant, atrocious conduct, an unprovoked invasion of a 
country, innocent people killed. That is the story in both places. Yet 
the Republicans come to the floor today and say to us: We are only 
concerned about one. We don't care about the NATO alliance and 
supporting it further. We don't care about supporting Ukraine further. 
We just want to help one of our allies.
  I want to be clear. Just 2,000 miles north of Israel, there is 
another country fighting for its survival in the face of a brutal 
assault, also in need of sustained U.S. security assistance. That 
country is Ukraine.
  Two months ago, I imagine, my colleagues all joined me and others, 
meeting in the Old Senate Chamber in a private, secret, confidential 
meeting with the President of Ukraine. President Zelenskyy told us 
without equivocation: Without the continued financial support of the 
United States and NATO, we will lose this war. He didn't say that once; 
he said it twice to make it abundantly clear. And now for the 
Republicans to say that we will step aside and let the aid to Ukraine--
if it is ever going to come--come much later is to jeopardize their 
future and to really make a mockery of the amazing display of courage 
we have seen in Ukraine resisting the Russian aggression.
  Just as Secretaries Austin and Blinken argued for emergency aid for 
Israel before the Senate Appropriations Committee recently, they also 
stressed the need for aid to Ukraine. Ukrainians have fought bravely, 
stood up against Russian tyranny, with the United States, the European 
Union, and countless other countries around the world standing with 
them. We are the frontline of democracy in Ukraine, and to walk away 
from Ukraine, as the Republicans are suggesting today, is a travesty. 
To pull back now would be unconscionable, a reflection of an America no 
longer being the world leader it purports to be, and a boon for 
countries like Russia, China, and Iran, eager to fill the ensuing void.
  Secretary Blinken said it plainly:

       In both Israel and Ukraine, democracies are fighting 
     ruthless foes who are out to annihilate them.

  Secretary Austin went further:

       Today's battles against aggression and terrorism will 
     define global security for years to come.

  The Republican suggestion today to walk away from assistance to 
Ukraine would unfortunately lead us to that conclusion.

       And only firm American leadership can ensure that the 
     tyrants, thugs and terrorists worldwide are not emboldened to 
     commit more aggression and more atrocities.

  In addition to Israel and Ukraine, we must also remain steadfast in 
addressing Chinese aggressions in the Indo-Pacific, including Taiwan.
  Let me say a word about humanitarian aid. One cannot look at the 
scenes coming out of Gaza without realizing there are many thousands of 
innocent victims, people who are not part of the terrorism of the Hamas 
leadership, people simply trying to survive. The scenes coming from 
hospitals on a daily basis are a reminder to us that there is a 
desperate need for humanitarian aid.
  Al-Shifa Hospital this morning displayed photographs of a dozen 
infants who have been separated from their ventilators because the 
electricity is off, and there is no water in the hospital.
  To provide humanitarian aid to the helpless, guiltless victims in 
this part of the world is consistent with the values of the United 
States, and I support it without reservation. Humanitarian assistance 
is not only the right thing to do, it will save lives. It will help 
prevent the next conflict. It will serve as a downpayment on our own 
security in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to resist this effort by the Republicans to walk 
away from Ukraine and to ignore the obvious consequences. The people of 
Ukraine have shown extraordinary courage. I hope a majority in the 
Senate will as well.
  I yield to Senator Van Hollen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, at this 
moment of danger and peril around the world, we, the United States of 
America, must support our friends and democracies that are under attack 
from brutal adversaries. That means supporting Israel's right to defend 
itself in the aftermath of the brutal Hamas attacks of October 7.
  It also means ensuring that the people of Ukraine can defend 
themselves against Putin's rank aggression. Make no mistake about it, 
this proposal on the floor today is tantamount to saying the Ukrainian 
people should surrender to Vladimir Putin. It is waving the white flag. 
If we don't support Ukraine, not only will the Ukrainians lose, 
democracy will lose around the world. And I have to say that Ronald 
Reagan would be rolling in his grave today to see the Republican Party 
abandoning Ukraine in the fight for democracy and freedom.
  You know, most of us gathered recently in the Old Senate Chamber with 
President Zelenskyy, and he was very clear that the Ukrainians will 
fight on to defend their democracy and their sovereignty, but if the 
United States doesn't stand by the people of Ukraine, Putin will have 
the upper hand.
  So for goodness' sake, our Ukrainian friends are spilling blood; they 
are giving lives. The very least we can do is step up and continue to 
provide military assistance so that they can defend themselves.
  And this is not only about Ukraine; it is about making sure that our 
allies--our NATO allies--understand that the United States will 
continue to stand up against aggression. If the United States walks 
away, the NATO alliance will begin to collapse.
  It also sends a terrible signal to others around the world--other 
autocrats--who are watching very carefully what the United States and 
our allies do with respect to Ukraine. I have heard my colleagues say 
it is only speculation as to what our allies in the Indo-Pacific would 
think if we walked away.
  Well, let me tell you. They have told us very clearly. Leaders in 
Japan and South Korea, friends in Taiwan are watching closely what the 
United States does with respect to Ukraine, just as President Xi is 
keeping one eye on Taiwan as he keeps the other eye on what is 
happening in Ukraine.
  Now, President Biden is scheduled to meet with President Xi tomorrow 
in San Francisco at the APEC conference. And I can tell my colleagues 
don't pretend on the Senate floor or otherwise that you are going to be 
really tough on China; that you are going to support Taiwan if you cut 
loose and run when it comes to Ukraine because they are intricately 
connected. Just ask the people in Taiwan, ask the people in the Indo-
Pacific region.
  Finally, I keep hearing my Republican colleagues talk about their so-
called pay-for, as if the $14 billion dollar cut to the IRS pays for 
the $14 billion in support for Israel. This debate has been going on 
for a couple of weeks so it can't be that our colleagues aren't paying 
attention to what both the IRS and the Congressional Budget Office have 
said. They have said, far from paying for it, it will actually increase

[[Page S5489]]

the deficit. That was the testimony of all the witnesses, Democrats and 
Republicans, in the Budget Committee last week. Why would it increase 
the deficit? Because you are taking away funds that the IRS is using to 
go after very wealthy tax deadbeats, people who are not paying the 
taxes that are already due and owing.
  You are saying to the IRS: We are going to deny you the funds to go 
after those very wealthy deadbeats. And because you can't collect the 
revenue from those tax deadbeats, the United States deficit is going to 
go up, not down. So that doesn't pay for it. Don't call it a pay-for. 
That is simply a fraud. It is not true.
  And what is really astounding--I have heard my colleagues use the 
word ``leverage'' a couple of times. It is a new cynicism to use our 
efforts to support Israel to provide what amounts to a don't-have-to-
pay-your-taxes message to very wealthy Americans. It is like nobody 
ever seems to miss an opportunity to give another tax break to very 
wealthy folks on the Republican side. In this case, it is not a tax 
break; it is actually just requiring that people pay the taxes already 
due and owing. So stop calling it a pay-for.

  Let's stand up for Ukraine and democracy in Ukraine; yes, let's 
continue to support Israel's right to defend itself; and let's stand up 
as the United States of America to ensure that we send a message to our 
allies around the world that are with them and our adversaries around 
the world that we will stand by our friends.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from Colorado, Senator Bennet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, reserving the right to be object, I am 
glad to be here today. I think it is important for us to have this 
debate. This is a debate. People on the other side of the aisle say it 
is not one.
  I heard my colleague from Ohio talking earlier about slogans, 
slogans, slogans. This is all about slogans.
  I cannot believe the degree to which the accomplishments by the 
Ukrainian people are being diminished on this floor or being diminished 
in this debate. It is absolutely disgraceful.
  They are this close to winning this war. There is a freeze today on 
the battlefield, on the frontline, in part, because Putin knows exactly 
what is going on here. He knows about the debate that is going on here. 
He knows, my colleagues, that he is losing on the battlefield. He 
understands that. NATO understands that. Xi Jinping understands that. 
He knows that.
  He is losing on the battlefield. He is counting on winning on Capitol 
Hill. He is counting on winning on this battlefield. Let me tell you 
something. This isn't about slogans.
  Let's talk about what Ukraine has done over the last 2 years. I 
haven't heard anybody talk about that in this discussion or this 
debate. I hope my colleagues on the other side are listening because 
you will not hear, in your lifetime, a list of greater courage or 
sacrifice than what you will hear from Ukrainians, and it is not 
slogans.
  They defeated and reversed the Russian attack on Kyiv--which, by the 
way, Kyiv was supposed to fall in 72 hours. They reversed that. They 
forced Russia to retreat from Chernihiv and Sumy. They won the battle 
of Kharkiv. They took back Kherson. They took back Snake Island.
  Ukraine has taken back more than half--more than half--of the land 
that Russia took from them in this invasion, colleagues, more than 
half. Nobody 2 years ago would have predicted that. Everybody would 
have said Putin would never relinquish that land.
  They almost singlehandedly restarted commercial grain trade with Asia 
and Africa. Why does that matter? That matters so that the whole rest 
of the world can be fed, so they will stay in the fight that we have 
led that no other country can lead but the United States of America, 
even though my colleagues on the other side have gotten tired.
  Last month--read it. Look it up. I will put it in the Record. There 
was an amazing article over the weekend about this in the New York 
Times, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 12, 2023]

       How Ukraine, With No Warships, Is Thwarting Russia's Navy

       In a small, hidden office in the port city of Odesa, the 
     commander of the Ukrainian Navy keeps two trophies 
     representing successes in the Black Sea.
       One is the lid from the missile tube used in April 2022 to 
     sink the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, 
     a devastating blow that helped chase Russian warships from 
     the Ukrainian coast. On the lid is a painting of a Ukrainian 
     soldier raising his middle finger to the ship as it bursts 
     into flames.
       The other is a key used to arm a British-made Storm Shadow 
     missile that slammed into the headquarters of the Russian 
     fleet in Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula.
       We dreamed of making a beautiful recreation park for 
     children in this place, to take away the center of evil that 
     is there now,'' said Vice Adm. Oleksiy Neizhpapa, the 
     Ukrainian naval commander.
       He held the key in his hand, and although his eyes were 
     tired, he said there was nothing to do but fight.
       ``Sevastopol is my hometown,'' he said. ``For me, it is my 
     small homeland, where I was born, where my children were 
     born. So, of course, I dream that the time will come, 
     hopefully soon, that we will return to our naval base in 
     Sevastopol.''
       Despite having no warships of its own, Ukraine has over the 
     course of the war shifted the balance of power in the naval 
     conflict. Its use of unmanned maritime drones and growing 
     arsenal of long-range anti-ship missiles--along with critical 
     surveillance provided by Western allies and targeted assaults 
     by Ukraine's Air Force and special operations forces--have 
     allowed Ukraine to blunt the advantages of the vastly more 
     powerful Russian Navy.
       ``At this point, the Russian Black Sea Fleet is primarily 
     what naval strategists term `a fleet in being': It represents 
     a potential threat that needs to be vigilantly guarded 
     against, but one that remains in check for now,'' said Scott 
     Savitz, a senior engineer at the RAND Corporation, a 
     federally financed center that conducts research for the 
     United States military. ``Remarkably, Ukraine has achieved 
     all this without a substantial fleet of its own.''
       Admiral Neizhpapa cautioned that Ukraine remains vastly 
     outgunned on the Black Sea. It lacks the battlecruisers, 
     destroyers, frigates and submarines that populate the Russian 
     fleet. Russian planes still dominate the skies above the sea, 
     and Russia still uses its fleet to launch long-range missiles 
     at Ukrainian towns and cities, threatening armed forces and 
     civilians alike.
       On Wednesday, a missile struck a commercial ship pulling 
     into the port of Odesa, killing the pilot and wounding three 
     crew members. It was the first civilian vessel hit since 
     shipping to Odesa resumed in late August.
       The Russia Navy also dominates the Sea of Azov, a body of 
     water connected to the Black Sea by the narrow Strait of 
     Kerch, and is increasingly using Azov ports in the occupied 
     cities of Mariupol and Berdiansk to help alleviate logistical 
     challenges on land.
       Ukraine has nevertheless managed to negate some of those 
     advantages and lately has gone on the offensive. Over the 
     last two months, it has launched both stealthy nighttime 
     operations by small units on jet skis and powerful missile 
     strikes. Those strikes have hit not just the Sevastopol 
     headquarters but also a Kilo-class submarine and a 
     shipbuilding plant in eastern Crimea, an attack that damaged 
     a new missile-carrying Russian warship.
       The latter strike ``will likely cause Russia to consider 
     relocating farther from the front line,'' the British 
     military intelligence agency reported on Wednesday.
       Ukrainian officials also said that the Russian strike on a 
     civilian ship as it pulled into port in Odesa would not stop 
     the shipping. About 100 cargo vessels carrying more than 3.3 
     million tons of agricultural and metal products have made the 
     journey in a little over two months, according to Western and 
     Ukrainian officials.
       Even as forward movement on the ground has largely 
     shuddered to a halt, with neither Russian nor Ukrainian 
     forces able to break through heavily fortified lines, Ukraine 
     has effectively turned around 10,000 square miles in the 
     western Black Sea off its southern coast into what the 
     military calls a ``gray zone'' where neither side can sail 
     without the threat of attack.
       And Admiral Neizhpapa stressed that Ukraine's combined 
     armed forces and its security services were all playing 
     integral roles in the battle of the Black Sea.
       James Heappey, Britain's armed forces minister, told a 
     recent security conference in Warsaw that Russia's Black Sea 
     fleet had suffered a ``functional defeat'' and contended that 
     the liberation of Ukraine's coastal waters in the Black Sea 
     was ``every bit as important'' as the successful 
     counteroffensives on land in Kherson and Kharkiv last year.
       The war at sea has also demonstrated the impact of emerging 
     technologies, transforming long-held theories about naval 
     warfare in ways that are being studied around the world, 
     perhaps nowhere more closely than in China and Taiwan.
       The classical approach that we studied at military maritime 
     academies does not work now,'' Admiral Neizhpapa said. 
     Therefore, we have to be as flexible as possible and change 
     approaches to planning and implementing work as much as 
     possible.''

[[Page S5490]]

       For example, he said, it takes years to develop and build 
     warships and more time to update them to meet new challenges. 
     Yet maritime drones are evolving every month.
       Admiral Neizhpapa acknowledged that Russian air superiority 
     over the Black Sea is a problem and has stressed the value 
     that F-16 fighter jets would bring to Ukraine's naval war. 
     The United States has pledged F-16s, but Ukrainian officials 
     have said they are unlikely to be seen in Ukrainian skies 
     before next summer.
       Russia's main response to setbacks at sea has been a 
     relentless bombing campaign aimed at crippling Ukrainian port 
     infrastructure and punishing the people of Odesa. In recent 
     weeks, its naval aircraft have been dropping ``mine-like 
     objects'' in the shipping lanes from Odesa, the admiral said, 
     but shipping has not stopped.
       ``Of course, they want to stop our initiative by all 
     means,'' he said. ``But we believe that they will not 
     succeed.''
       While much attention over the past 20 months has focused on 
     the land war, Europe's largest since World War II, a desire 
     to control the Black Sea was a key factor in President 
     Vladimir V Putin's decision to invade Ukraine. In 2014, when 
     Russia illegally annexed Crimea, Ukraine lost nearly all of 
     its ships; about 5,000 of its sailors defected, cutting the 
     size of its navy by two-thirds.
       Despite Ukraine's recent intensified assaults, Crimea still 
     functions like a huge aircraft carrier parked off Ukraine's 
     southern coast. It is a critical logistics hub for Russian 
     occupation forces in the south, a base for Russian fighter 
     jets and attack helicopters, and a platform to launch missile 
     and drone strikes across Ukraine.
       Admiral Neizhpapa is fond of citing an adage of Alfred 
     Thayer Mahan, the famed American naval officer and historian: 
     ``A nation must defend its own coast starting from the coast 
     of the enemy.''
       For the admiral, who left the peninsula in 2014 with other 
     sailors who remained loyal to Ukraine that means taking the 
     war to Crimea.
       Russia, however, is also adapting and bolstering its 
     defenses.
       What we did a year ago is no longer working or is not 
     working as effectively,'' Admiral Neizhpapa said. ``We have 
     to be flexible and change our tactics.''
       Ukraine must not only innovate, he said, but also deploy 
     new weapons quickly. Ukraine has unveiled several iterations 
     of uncrewed surface vessels, and officials recently offered a 
     glimpse of what they said was Ukraine's first unmanned 
     underwater vehicle.
       Christened Marichka and measuring about 20 feet from bow to 
     stern, the vessel can travel beneath the surface of the waves 
     for more than 600 miles, although the size of its payload has 
     not been made public and there is no evidence that it has 
     been used in combat.
       About two dozen Russian ships and one submarine have been 
     damaged or destroyed since Russia launched its full-scale 
     invasion, Admiral Neizhpapa said. Oryx, a military analysis 
     site that counts only losses that it has visually confirmed, 
     has documented at least 16 damaged or destroyed ships.
       Standing in front of a classified chart that lists damage 
     done to Russian vessels, Admiral Neizhpapa said he had no 
     time for what he called ``wishful sinking''--any exaggeration 
     of what Ukraine has achieved.
       There are still scores of powerful Russian warships that 
     Ukraine wants to take off the board. On Friday, Ukraine's 
     intelligence agency released a video of a naval drone attack 
     on two ships that it said played an important role in the 
     layered air defenses that protect Russia's fleet. The extent 
     of the damage was not clear.
       ``The enemy also learns very quickly, and he also makes his 
     own conclusions, counteracting our actions,'' Admiral 
     Neizhpapa said. ``The war at sea can only be won with new 
     solutions that must be implemented as quickly as possible.''

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, they largely neutralized the Black Sea 
Fleet. They don't even have a real navy. They don't have a navy. 
Through their dedication and through their imagination and their 
willingness to sacrifice, they have managed to neutralize the Black Sea 
Fleet.
  There is nobody who thought they could do this. This is all while 
Russians outnumber Ukrainians 3 to 1 on the battlefield.
  I heard from my colleagues, how much more American lives, how much 
more American treasure? There is not an American losing their life. The 
Ukrainians are losing their lives in the name of democracy.
  In total, Ukrainians have killed 300,000 Russian fighters. Thank you, 
Ukraine, for doing the work that NATO has not been asked to do, that 
the United States has not been asked to do.
  Putin knows he is losing this war in Ukraine. The only question that 
he has is, is he going to win the war here in the U.S. Congress? Who is 
going to lose Ukraine?
  And the people who are here today saying this is not a lesson from 
World War II; this is a lesson from World War I, these are the people 
who are going to lose Ukraine.
  Do we have any right to be fatigued, colleagues, when we haven't lost 
100,000 people, when all we are being asked to do is manufacture the 
weapons that Ukraine is using on this battlefield, putting American 
people to work to support Ukraine and democracy? That is what we are 
being asked to do. Can we possibly be fatigued at this moment?
  I suppose we could be having a very different debate if Ukraine 
hadn't been as successful as they have been, but they have been 
successful. What we know is, if we roll over now for Vladimir Putin, if 
we stop providing Ukraine with their weapons--and they are out of 
bullets. They are out of bullets as we stand here today. They have $1 
billion left. If we stop providing them with resources, if we stop 
providing them with the intelligence that we provided them, they are 
going to lose this war. President Zelenskyy came here and told you that 
we will win this war if you stick with us; we will lose this war if you 
abandon us.
  We cannot abandon Ukraine at this moment.
  I know I have other colleagues on the floor who need to speak today. 
I am glad this has been recorded for history. I am glad today's debate 
has been recorded for history because when they ask who lost this war 
to Vladimir Putin, it is not going to be a question of rhetoric or 
debate points; it is going to be a question of a war that we were 
actually on the verge of winning and a war that we walked away from and 
lost with repercussions to every single corner of this world, including 
where Xi Jinping is sitting right now in Beijing. And don't forget 
about it. Don't forget about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to thank 
Senator Murray and Senator Reed for leading us in this time.
  I want to make two relatively brief points to add to the discussion, 
and I will turn it over to others of my colleagues.
  First, I understand that my Republican colleagues want to avoid the 
question of Republican priorities. The fact of the matter is, an 
Israel-only funding bill passed through the House of Representatives, 
and attached to it was a massive giveaway for the richest Americans: 
millionaires and billionaires who don't pay their taxes. So as we chart 
the path forward for a bill that only funds Israel, we know, in the 
House of Representatives, it has to be matched with a massive--
massive--giveaway for millionaires and billionaires.
  I don't think you can ignore that fact that a large swath of the 
Republican Party is using this crisis in Israel in order to deliver yet 
another gift to the very small slice of Americans who don't need any 
more gifts. There are 700 billionaires in this country who have more 
net worth than 50 percent of all Americans. The rules are already 
rigged in favor of the superwealthy. So the idea that we would 
facilitate a plan in the House of Representatives to use Israel aid as 
a means to continue to rig the rules in favor of those ultrarich 
Americans, it is just incredibly distasteful, and it is a signal about 
where the Republican Party priorities are today.
  Second, I do want to talk about what Senator Vance and others talked 
about, about the lazy precedent, referencing the sloganeering that they 
accuse Democrats of engaging in.
  So it is correct that what is happening today in Ukraine does not 
have a modern precedent because never before in our lifetime, in the 
post-World War II order, has a large nuclear nation like Russia invaded 
another large neighboring nation with the purpose of annexation.
  What Russia is trying to do is to fundamentally change the rules; to 
fundamentally shift international norms that have been in place since 
World War II. At the foundation of it is that big countries don't 
change their borders through force, through aggression. It is important 
to understand that these are the rules that have undergirded the last 
70 years of U.S. growth and U.S. national security.
  So we don't believe that we should support Ukraine because we just 
believe that Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler. We don't believe we should 
support

[[Page S5491]]

Ukraine to perpetuate some slogan about American greatness. No. We 
believe that we have an interest--as the most powerful nation in the 
world, as the nation that has benefited most from the post-World War II 
order--to defend those rules because, if we don't, no one else will.
  And it just strikes me that my Republican colleagues who have this 
fatalistic view of what is going to happen in Ukraine just really view 
America as weak, as impotent, and as powerless in the face of this 
unprecedented aggression from Vladimir Putin. America's greatness is 
connected to our willingness to stand up and lead at moments of crisis, 
and this is a unique moment of crisis without precedent, which is why 
it requires the United States to stand against Russia's aggression.
  Listen, for thousands of years--and we know this because you read 
about it in your history books while growing up--for thousands of 
years, prior to the establishment of the post-World War II order, this 
world was defined by state-on-state, civilization-on-civilization 
violence and conflict. People labored under the constant threat that 
their entire world would be ended by another one of these civilization-
on-civilization conflicts. But this was back at the time when weapons 
were crude--they were swords; they were bows and arrows; then they were 
simple firearms. Millions died, but millions also survived.
  We live in a very different era today where we, frankly, have to be 
more worried--not less worried, not permissive and fatalistic--about 
the consequences of reentering a world and a paradigm in which states 
enter into conflict against other states. Why? Because we now live in a 
world filled with weapons of mass destruction, not just nuclear weapons 
but other highly sophisticated weapons.
  So now this kind of conflict that Russia and Ukraine are engaged in 
is the kind of conflict that can wipe out millions in a day. That is 
why the United States of America has stood up for the post-World War II 
order. That is why we have fought and sometimes died to maintain it. 
And this is the most significant affront to that order--an order that 
has protected this country; an order that has protected our economy; an 
order that has saved millions of lives in our lifetimes.
  It is hard. Ukraine's mission is difficult. In a short-term ``satisfy 
me now'' culture, I understand that many of my Republicans get phone 
calls from their constituents saying: If Ukraine hasn't won this war 
tomorrow, I am not interested any longer. But this conflict matters, 
and it matters that we stick with Ukraine, because if we lose--if we 
lose--we are living in an entirely new world: The cap is off state-on-
state violence. Pretty soon, America will be in one of those conflicts 
with another nuclear nation, and we won't be talking about thousands of 
Ukrainians dying; we will be talking about millions of Americans dying.
  So I appreciate my colleagues for being here today. I think this is 
as important as it gets. I think we really are deciding the future of 
this world and the rules that govern it, and I join my colleagues in 
objecting to this motion.
  I yield the floor to Senator Schatz.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object--and I 
will be pretty quick here--I have rarely seen such a cynical piece of 
legislation on the Senate floor. I have rarely seen it.
  The point that Chris Van Hollen and Chris Murphy made, I think, is 
the first point, which is, when all you have is a hammer, everything 
looks like a nail. So whenever there is an opportunity to legislate--
even in the foreign policy space, even when we are in a global fight 
against fascism--the first thing that comes to the mind of many people 
on the other side of the aisle is, How can we make life easier for the 
wealthiest among us? Like it has literally got nothing to do with 
Israel aid or Ukraine aid or Indo Asia-Pacific security matters. Just, 
whenever you get a chance, throw in an opportunity to enrich the 
wealthiest among us who are already not paying their fair share of 
taxes.
  So that is the frame, right?
  This is where we start, which is, I have got an idea: We should cut 
taxes again. I have got an idea: Let's gut the IRS so that they don't 
have the ability to audit these billionaires, many of whom don't pay 
taxes in the first place.
  So that is how you should understand this from the jump.
  The second thing you should understand is, we really are in a global 
fight against fascism and authoritarianism. And if there is one thing 
that I think the last 2 or 3 years--frankly, the last 7 years--has 
taught us is: Believe what the authoritarians say they want to do. 
Believe Hamas when they say they want to wipe Israel off the map and 
that they are not done. Believe Putin when he says that the biggest 
mistake that the Soviet Union ever made was perestroika and glasnost 
and all of that. Believe him when he says that after he takes Ukraine, 
he will turn his eye to the Baltics. Believe all of these people. They 
do exactly what they have been saying they would do. And here we are 
hoping--hoping against hope--that maybe they don't mean it; that maybe 
their ambitions aren't so murderous. They do it every time.
  And the idea that we would separate these two fights even though 
these people are aligned--these Fascists are aligned, this 
authoritarian movement is increasingly aligning itself perhaps because 
of the internet, perhaps because of globalization--but, whatever it is, 
there is an actual global Fascist, authoritarian movement, and they are 
on the march. And the idea that we would fund Israel's security needs 
and leave Ukraine behind because--what?--Ukraine is in Europe? because 
Donald Trump doesn't like Ukraine aid? because it is getting hard? 
because it is getting tiring? because it is getting expensive? Listen 
to those arguments. My God. This man wants to take Europe and has a 
plan to do so.
  As Senator Bennet said--and this is a key point--God bless these 
Ukrainian fighters. They are the ones fighting and dying. They are the 
ones spilling blood to keep Europe peaceful, to establish that nobody 
can change the boundaries of a country using violence only. God bless 
them for doing this. God bless them for their sacrifice, for their 
ingenuity, for, frankly, exceeding everybody's reasonable expectations. 
God bless them for their sacrifice.
  All they need from us are resources. We are the wealthiest country in 
the history of humankind, and we are saying: It is a little too long. 
We haven't won yet. Trump doesn't like it. This is kind of getting 
expensive.
  What a bunch of terrible arguments in the scheme of things. What a 
bunch of terrible arguments. When we look back 20, 30, 50 years from 
now at this debate, no one is going to ask whether this was emergency 
spending or in a supplemental or in the regular appropriations process 
or in a CR or in a CR and omnibus. They are just going to ask: Did we 
stand with the free world like Americans always do?
  So this has gotten me a little angry. This has gotten me a little 
frustrated because I just thought--I really did think--and I am not 
naive--but I really did think that on an issue like this, we could put 
our partisanship aside; we could put our fealty to either our current 
President or to the former President aside and just say: Look, this is 
good for the free world; we are just going to do it together.
  I now, with the Presiding Officer's permission, through the Chair, 
defer to the President pro tempore.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I call for regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kansas still has the floor.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, thank you to my colleagues for their 
comments today and for their arguments. Many were good arguments. Some 
of the facts, the American people disagree with. Some of the 
conclusions, the American people disagree with.
  What I heard today was once again from my colleagues spending 80 
percent of their time focusing on Ukraine funding; but I didn't hear 
one person say why we shouldn't go ahead and fund Israel today, why we 
shouldn't send a bill to the President's desk today.
  Look, we have debated Ukraine at lengths. Put a bill on the floor. 
Let's

[[Page S5492]]

vote on Ukraine funding. My friends across the aisle have said that 
Ukraine is winning this war, and many of the same reasons they give us 
to continue to support Ukraine are the same words I heard in grade 
school as to why we should support the cause in Vietnam. They are the 
same arguments.
  If Ukraine is winning, then why have Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary 
abandoned Ukraine? Why is the frontline not moving?
  Some of my friends brought up aid. Look, if you want aid to the 
hospitals in Gaza, if you want aid to Gaza itself, then tell Iran to 
stand down. Tell Hamas to release the hostages. I don't hear anyone 
talking about that. Tell Hamas to surrender. Let's send a message from 
the Senate that we unequivocally stand beside Israel.
  And I will close with this: One of my friends across the aisle talked 
about President Reagan. What I will remember about President Reagan 
and, before him, Eisenhower is that they stressed peace through 
strength. But this White House is giving us war through weakness.
  Time is of the essence. We need to get Israel the funding. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, my colleagues from Kansas, Ohio, and 
Missouri have raised a raft of questions to which I will offer a few 
timely and simple answers: Look up. Look back. Look ahead.
  To my colleague from Kansas, his predecessor Bob Dole, a Senator who 
was a great leader in this Chamber, was a champion for the power of 
humanitarian aid around the world. And I will not yield without 
speaking to a piece of this supplemental that has been largely ignored: 
the critical role of humanitarian aid in sustaining our partners and 
allies, in averting humanitarian catastrophe, and, yes, in sustaining 
both Ukraine and Israeli national security.
  But, first, if I might, let's look back for a moment to history. My 
colleague from Ohio complained that we somehow had not thoroughly 
debated Ukraine. I believe we have, but I am happy to have us engage 
for hours more because there are critical lessons from the past that 
inform the strong, broad, and bipartisan support for aid to Ukraine.
  The last time I went to Kyiv, I traveled with his predecessor, 
Senator Rob Portman--a cochair of the Ukraine Caucus in this body and a 
determined and committed supporter of Ukraine's. Why? Let's look back 
for a moment.
  In the runup to the Second World War, a famous American aviator, 
Charles Lindbergh--a man who was decorated for his exploits and his 
exploration--joined a nationwide movement whose slogan was ``America 
First.'' ``America First'' seemed to say that we should stay out of the 
roiling conflicts in the Pacific and in Europe; that we should step 
back and allow the armies of the Nazis to advance across Western Europe 
and allow the armies of imperial Japan to advance across Asia because 
those were not our concerns. In fact, he gave a publicized speech in 
favor of neutrality just on the eve of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
  History proved that ``America First'' almost risked ``America Alone'' 
in a world overcome by authoritarians.
  I will tell you, that mistake is a mistake my colleagues risk making 
now. If they want to make America weak again, they can go back to the 
arguments of the isolationist Republicans on the verge of the Second 
World War.
  But to my colleague from Kansas, I will say you don't really have a 
debate with us. You have a debate with your own leadership. I have 
heard on this floor clear, forceful, focused speeches in defense of 
Ukraine--the critical role of our support for Ukraine--not from 
Democrats alone but from some of the most seasoned and capable and 
leading Members of the Republican caucus, including my colleagues from 
Texas and from Kentucky.
  There is broad support for Ukraine. I, frankly, think, to answer the 
question of my colleague from Ohio: How are these possibly connected, 
the attack of Hamas on Israeli civilians, the attack of Russia on 
Ukrainian civilians?
  I say, you would need only look up. What is that sound? It is Iranian 
drones and missiles raining death on innocent civilians in Israel and 
Ukraine. These conflicts are profoundly connected.
  My colleague from Ohio suggested that President Biden has thrown the 
world into chaos. I do not have the time to fully rebut this ill-
informed point, but I will suggest that Vladimir Putin's aggression in 
Ukraine and, in particular, the terrorism of Hamas in Israel is not the 
cause--of that, President Biden is not the cause but, in fact, has been 
a forceful, timely, and responsive leader. His response to the attack 
on Israel, I hope, has earned broad bipartisan support because it was 
personal, forceful, and timely.
  All of us here are standing, calling for the release of hostages by 
Hamas, standing in strong support of Israel, and insisting that we 
advance at the same time the aid that is desperately needed by our 
close allies.
  My colleague from Kansas asked a critical question: Will we show the 
United States is a fair-weather friend? To my colleague I will say: 
Sir, that is exactly why I join my colleagues in objecting to this 
narrow, Israel-only aid package, because we cannot show that we will 
fail to aid Ukraine.
  Last, it was asked by several of my colleagues: Why would we send 
humanitarian aid into Gaza? It will inevitably all fall into the hands 
of Hamas, who support this.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, if I might, a 
letter from the Israeli Embassy to the Congress of the United States.
       There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
     printed in the Record, as follows:

   Emergency Supplemental Funding--Humanitarian Assistance Component

       Please find below an overview of Israel's position, 
     regarding the humanitarian assistance component of the 
     Presidential request for emergency supplemental funding.
       It is in Israel's view that humanitarian assistance to Gaza 
     could and should play a significant role in helping Israel 
     achieve its long-term strategic goals to remove the Hamas 
     threat in Gaza, and enabling a post-Hamas Gaza that is 
     demilitarized and does not pose a threat to Israel.
       Israel's position is that this assistance should be 
     designed in a way that ensures that it does not fall into the 
     wrong hands, Palestinian or international.
       In light of this, we support appropriating significant 
     funding as part of the supplemental, for the following 
     purposes and under the following terms:
       a) Funding for short-term emergency humanitarian 
     assistance, so long as it will be allocated and delivered in 
     coordination with Israel, inspected and monitored by Israel 
     and which is consistent with Israel's objectives in Gaza.
       b) Designated funding for a post-Hamas Gaza. Significant 
     humanitarian assistance under the supplemental is required in 
     order to rebuild a demilitarized and profoundly changed Gaza 
     following the uprooting of Hamas.
       c) Egypt-Gaza border: As part of the supplemental, we seek 
     funding for the Egypt-Gaza border, including the upgrading of 
     the Rafah crossing--all designed to ensure that Gaza will not 
     be able to remilitarize. As such, this part of the 
     supplemental will be vital for Israel's security. We stand 
     ready to share our thinking on how to achieve the above 
     mentioned goal.
       The bottom line is that the supplemental, properly 
     allocated, would contribute to humanitarian solutions on the 
     ground, while bolstering Israel's national security. We 
     believe that US funding in this matter will draw 
     contributions from additional actors and stakeholders from 
     the region and from the international community. We are more 
     than willing to answer any questions you may have and look 
     forward to continuing our dialogue on this and other matters.

  Mr. COONS. Who supports humanitarian aid into Gaza with appropriate 
measures of inspection? The Israeli Government. They say it is critical 
to bolstering their national security.
  Look up. Look back. Look forward. Look up; you will see the missiles 
and drones of Iran raining down on innocent civilians. Look back; you 
will see the mistakes of isolationism. Look forward, and you will see 
there is a bipartisan path to supporting humanitarian relief globally, 
to supporting aid to Israel against Hamas, to investing in border 
security, and to taking up and passing a robust supplemental, as we can 
and as we should.
  For that reason, I join my colleagues in opposing the motion made by 
my colleague from Kansas.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today, alongside my colleagues, 
including Senator Coons and Senator Murray, to implore my colleagues to 
hold firm in their support of Ukraine.
  I have sat here for the last hour and listened to these speeches and 
listened

[[Page S5493]]

to some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--which, I 
know, does not reflect all of them--and this is what I came away with: 
the focus on ``Oh, you just want to go backward,'' the analogies to 
talking about past decisions in Munich and Vietnam. We all are students 
of history. I am focused on now. I am focused on what is happening now.
  Like my colleagues here, I have strongly condemned the massacre, the 
terrorist attack by Hamas--and the democracy of Israel. We stand with 
Israel and the right to defend, but we also stand with the idea that we 
should continue to provide humanitarian relief in Gaza and around the 
world.
  I think one of the ironies of the statement of our colleague from 
Ohio--and some of our other colleagues--was that he failed to mention 
that, actually, Israel has come out this week also supporting the 
humanitarian aid. So that is one thing that I think needs to get 
corrected.
  The second, as we look at where we are now, he mentioned Vladimir 
Putin, called him ``a bad guy.'' Those were his words, ``a bad guy.'' I 
think it is a lot more than that. This is a tyrant. This is a ruler who 
has committed war crimes, who has downed passenger planes, who has 
invaded a democracy. Let's get the facts straight about Vladimir Putin.
  The other thing is that, now, to not see this as connected is just 
plain wrong. What kind of drones was Russia using? Iranian drones. Who 
took the meeting with some of their senior officials from Russia? Who 
went there? Hamas. Hamas went to Russia after this terrorist attack.
  When we stand for democracies in one place, we stand for democracies 
in other places.
  Our colleague from Ohio referred to some of the President's requests 
as a ``hodgepodge''--a ``hodgepodge.'' I was thinking of that word and 
what is in this request and this budget: protection of a nuclear plant, 
the largest nuclear plant not just in Ukraine but in Europe. When his 
predecessor, Senator Portman, and I were in Ukraine, when we met with 
President Zelenskyy--where we actually talked about the strong support 
and the strong Ukrainian community in Ohio and in Minnesota--when we 
met with him, a major focus of ours was the nuclear plant because we 
didn't know how long the Ukrainians were able to hold the line to 
protect that plant from not just contamination in Ukraine but 
contamination all over Europe. That is what is in what our colleague 
has called a ``hodgepodge'' of a budget.
  What else? Supporting NATO. I was just with the leader of Estonia--a 
small country, yes, but they have given over 1 percent of their 
military budget--of the budget of their country--to Ukraine.
  Are we just going to turn away on NATO because we think it is a 
``hodgepodge'' to support our allies in countries like Great Britain, 
our allies in countries like France and Germany and Estonia and Latvia 
and Lithuania and Georgia and, yes, Ukraine? We are just going to say 
it is a ``hodgepodge''?
  What else is in that ``hodgepodge''? Well, what else is in the 
``hodgepodge'' are things like air defense, things like munitions, 
things like small arms. That is what we are talking about here when we 
talk about the help that we give to Ukraine.
  Then I looked at some of the percentages, as I sat here, of other 
small nations that have given much more than the United States, where 
it is something like 0.3 percent--right? These countries are at over 1 
percent in the help that they have given Ukraine. They have taken in 4 
million--count that, 4 million--refugees in Europe. So when we help 
Ukraine, we are not doing it alone, colleagues. We are standing with 
our allies. We are standing with our best trading partners. We are 
standing with the world for democracy.

  This is not in a vacuum. This is, as the President once said, a big 
effing deal.
  What about Vladimir Putin? Senator Bennet got at this. He is failing. 
He tried to capture Kyiv, but he failed. He tried to wipe Ukraine off 
the map, but he failed. He tried to break the Ukrainian spirit, but he 
has made it stronger. He tried to break NATO, but NATO has grown.
  Ukraine has persevered against all odds. To abandon our partners now 
would be a dereliction of our duty to defend a democracy and an 
embarrassment to this Nation, and, yes, it would create a much bigger 
national security risk not just for our allies but for our country.
  I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine not just with Senator 
Portman but on another visit, as well, with a number of our Republican 
colleagues. Each time, I was struck by the strength of the people who 
put their lives on the line: the ballerina who has to don camo and go 
to the frontline, the cafe owner donating food to people in need, the 
deejay at the national call center using her platform to find missing 
loved ones.
  We must not forget President Zelenskyy's words in September:

       There is not a soul in Ukraine that does not feel gratitude 
     to you, America.

  That is what we have to remember. They are watching in Ukraine. The 
democracies are watching. And, as Leader McConnell has said, ``think of 
it as an axis of evil: China, Russia, and Iran.''
  This is not just a test for Ukraine. It is a test for the United 
States and for the free world, and the path toward greater security for 
all of us is simple: Help Ukraine win the war.
  I yield the floor.
  The Senator from Oregon is with us today to speak.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I once again join my colleagues in 
coming to the floor in opposition to this short-sighted proposal and in 
support of a comprehensive supplemental funding bill that responds to 
the full range of immediate global challenges facing our country. This 
includes arming and equipping Ukraine and Israel, aiding our partners 
in the Indo-Pacific, and providing the necessary assistance to 
adequately address dire humanitarian needs around the world.
  To only provide urgently needed support to Israel, as my colleague's 
proposal would do, would miss the bigger picture. And that is precisely 
what Putin and Hamas are hoping for. This proposal ignores the reality 
that these conflicts are part of a shared fight to preserve democracy, 
confront autocracy and defend the values of the free world.
  Over the past 75 years, these shared values and the advancement of 
democracy across the world have benefited the American people by making 
the world more predictable, increasing our national security, lowering 
the cost of goods, and providing opportunities for American businesses. 
Europe is a critical trading partner for the U.S., and in my home state 
of New Hampshire, we export about $3 billion worth of goods and 
services to Europe annually.
  So it is in our collective interest to continue supporting our 
partners to further the democratic advancement in countries across the 
world, provide an alternative to China and Russia, and increase 
America's security and prosperity.
  We know that our allies need weapons now, but bullets and bombs alone 
will not solve these challenges in their entirety. Humanitarian 
assistance, which provides for the basic needs of those who find 
themselves in the crosshairs of the world's conflicts and crises, 
supports our security objectives in Israel, Ukraine, and across the 
globe. In Gaza, the United States has long worked with our Israeli and 
Egyptian allies to ensure that humanitarian aid is properly and 
efficiently vetted and delivered. The U.S. has a rigorous system in 
place to screen and certify implementers on the ground who make sure 
that food, water, and fuel go to the places and people that need them -
- not to Hamas. And in Ukraine, the United States has stood by men, 
women, and children as they fight off a brutal invading force. A 
failure to continue to support assistance for Ukraine could mean that 
12 million fewer people will get the humanitarian assistance they need 
right now--aid that has gone to emergency food and shelter, basic 
healthcare, access to safe drinking water, and basic hygiene kits. This 
funding is simple. It will save lives. We must deliver.
  Now, make no mistake; our adversaries are watching what the United 
States does. It is no coincidence that Iran backs Hamas's campaign in 
Israel while also supplying Russia with lethal drones to use in 
Ukraine. China's coercive behavior toward Taiwan and the

[[Page S5494]]

broader Indo-Pacific region may very well depend on if the U.S. is 
willing to stand on the side of democracy in Europe and the Middle 
East. Dictators like to stick together. And while they stick together, 
they seek to divide us from our allies and divert our attention and our 
resources. We cannot pick and choose when to stand up to autocrats--or 
there will be no free world left to defend.
  I will keep coming back here and keep objecting as long as there are 
short-sighted and partisan proposals that do not adequately address the 
breadth of our national security challenges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled recess: 
Senator Merkley, Senator Lee, and Senator Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, our 
colleague from Kansas has come to the floor and asked for unanimous 
consent for a bill of some major significance.
  We have heard a lot of my colleagues explain why this Israel-only 
bill would be a disaster, because it throws Ukraine overboard.
  And then I heard his rebuttal. His rebuttal was, ``Well, why not do 
Israel alone?'' as if we hadn't had this conversation for the last hour 
and a half. We know the answer: because the House has said it will pass 
an Israel-alone bill, leaving Ukraine abandoned.
  So this UC is about abandoning Ukraine. That has powerful 
international consequences. Allow Ukraine to be torn apart by Putin's 
brutal invasion--that is what this UC does. It makes a group of 
American Senators Putin's best friends. This bill--this UC, this 
unanimous consent for this bill--will shatter the Atlantic alliance, 
deeply, deeply damaging the power of democracies working together. This 
bill will fracture NATO because if we don't stand with Ukraine, how 
many doubts creep in about any enduring effort to defend a smaller 
country assaulted by a dictator next door?
  This bill will destroy American leadership in defending democracies. 
This bill will empower dictators around the world. They will conclude 
that they can outlast the attention span of a coalition of democratic 
republics as long as they stay the course.
  Some of my colleagues in support of this bill say it is costing a lot 
of money. The budget that Russia is dedicating to this battle is, some 
estimate, 30 percent--30 percent--of their defense expenditures. Our 
GDP here is 1\1/2\ percent--1\1/2\ percent versus 30 percent. If we 
can't stay the course when the question is $1.50 out of every $100, 
when would we ever stay the course?
  The last time this globe saw such complicity blockading a vicious 
conqueror was when Chamberlain went to Munich.
  In Munich, Chamberlain told Hitler: You can take that massive slice 
of Czechoslovakia, and England will look the other way. We will simply 
declare peace in our time.
  But that appeasement by Chamberlain didn't produce peace in our time. 
Instead, that appeasement of Hitler stoked Hitler's appetite for 
conquering adjacent lands. That appeasement of Hitler set the stage for 
the Second World War, with massive loss of life and treasure for the 
United States of America and nations around the world.
  Appeasing Putin today is as wrong as appeasing Hitler 85 years ago. 
We must instead stand with the freedom-loving, fierce-fighting, 
democracy-defending people of the Republic of Ukraine.
  If you come to this Chamber and you have followed former President 
Trump's lead in loving Putin, then say yes to this unanimous consent 
request and throw Ukraine under the bus. If you love China, love their 
authoritarian conquests, love their desire to invade Taiwan, then come 
to this floor and support this unanimous consent request for this bill 
and throw Ukraine under the bus. But if you care about freedom; if you 
are a champion of democracy; if you believe that democracies must stand 
together against tyranny, against autocracy, against imperialist 
invaders; if you respect the courage and fortitude of the people of 
Ukraine, then absolutely say that you object to this UC request, that 
you object to this bill.
  We here in the U.S. Senate must not countenance Putin appeasement. We 
must not countenance complicity and another Munich moment. So I join my 
colleagues today in preparing to object to this bill.
  I yield to my colleague from Washington State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is to be recognized 
next.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this is a moment in history where we have the 
chance to stand up and provide assistance to an ally, an important 
ally, in a tough part of the world that has a lot of enemies in common 
with the United States.
  Israel was savagely attacked without provocation on the morning of 
October 7 of this year, just over a month ago. The most unspeakably 
savage human attacks were carried out on men and women of Israel whose 
offense was simple: living in Israel. The people of Hamas wanted them 
dead because of the fact that they are Jewish and they live in Israel. 
Their humanity, their religion, their ancestry, and their geography all 
qualified them to be deemed unworthy of living by the savages of Hamas. 
These savages will continue in their butchery and, in so doing, degrade 
humanity for as long as they can get away with it.
  Longstanding relationships between the United States and Israel have 
set us on a course in which we can reasonably be expected to provide 
reasonable assistance to Israel.
  Now, to be clear, what Israel is asking of us is not grand. They are 
not asking us to go there and fight their war for them, nor are they 
asking us to provide hundreds of billions of dollars over many years in 
order to help them achieve that effort--no. It is a relatively modest 
request that they are making of us. Compared to other requests that we 
are considering from other parts of the world, including and especially 
from Ukraine, this is a modest one.
  This is, moreover, an effort that they believe they can carry out 
successfully in a matter of weeks or months, not something spanning out 
over the better part of a decade.
  Finally, there is overwhelming bipartisan, bicameral support for aid 
to Israel. It has already passed the House of Representatives. It is 
done. We could bring it up right now, we could pass it today, and it 
could be on the desk of the President of the United States at the Oval 
Office, just a few blocks from here, by tonight.
  To my knowledge, there is not a single Member of this body who would 
object to collapsing, consolidating the otherwise burdensome and time-
consuming process that it takes to bring a bill to the floor at the 
U.S. Senate. We could have this done today, and I predict that the vote 
would be overwhelming--if not unanimous, then very nearly so--with the 
number of dissenting votes probably in the single digits, probably in 
the low single digits, if, in fact, there were any ``no'' votes at all.
  So the point here is that you have two proposals, two ideas to offer 
support in two different conflicts. One is overwhelmingly popular and 
bipartisan and could easily pass both Houses. The other is troubling 
and fraught with questions and also happens to be the proposal--the one 
for Ukraine--that is a lot more expensive and that involves a conflict 
that is now, we are being told, a conflict that is likely to stretch 
out for the better part of a decade with no end in sight. And that is a 
conflict wherein--since the beginning of last year, we have spent $113 
billion on the conflict in Ukraine. They are, moreover, analytically 
distinct, just as they are geographically distinct. They involve 
different considerations. We opt to consider them together.
  This is one of the real maladies of Washington today, is the fact 
that, in many instances, Congress can't seem to resist the impulse to 
consolidate support for one thing and use that as leverage to bring 
about support for something else for which there is no comparably 
large, bipartisan, broad-based support. That is unfortunate.
  The people of Israel need this aid now. Let's get this done now. We 
will consider Ukraine on its own merits. There is no reason to delay. 
We should bring this up today, get it passed

[[Page S5495]]

today, and get it signed into law this very evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________