[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 23 (Thursday, February 8, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S463-S486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  REMOVING EXTRANEOUS LOOPHOLES INSURING EVERY VETERAN EMERGENCY ACT--
           MOTION TO PROCEED UPON RECONSIDERATION--Continued

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we are going to have a cloture vote now, 
and I am hopeful we can move forward on this bill.
  I ask for regular order.


                             cloture motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair 
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 30, H.R. 815, a bill to amend title 
     38, United States Code, to make certain improvements relating 
     to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for 
     emergency treatment furnished through the Veterans Community 
     Care program, and for other purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Mark R. Warner, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Catherine Cortez Masto, Margaret Wood Hassan, 
           Richard J. Durbin, Martin Heinrich, Tim Kaine, Kyrsten 
           Sinema, Jack Reed, Angus S. King, Jr., Richard 
           Blumenthal, Christopher Murphy, Brian Schatz.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 30, H.R. 815, a bill to amend title 
38, United States Code, to make certain improvements relating to the 
eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for emergency 
treatment furnished through the Veterans Community Care program, and 
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close upon reconsideration?

[[Page S464]]

  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--32

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Marshall
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Tuberville
     Vance

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lummis
       
  (The PRESIDENT pro tempore assumed the Chair.)
  (The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). On this vote, the yeas are 67, 
the nays are 32.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion upon reconsideration is agreed to.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is a very good thing that the Senate 
has just voted to proceed to the national security supplemental. This 
is a good first step. This bill is essential for our national security; 
for the security of our friends in Ukraine, in Israel; for humanitarian 
aid for innocent civilians in Gaza; and for Taiwan. The bill also 
strengthens our military at a time when they need it most. Failure to 
pass this bill would only embolden autocrats like Putin and Xi, who 
want nothing more than America's decline. Now that we are on the bill, 
we hope to reach an agreement with our Republican colleagues on 
amendments.
  Democrats have always been clear that we support having a fair and 
reasonable amendment process. During my time as majority leader, I have 
presided over more amendment votes than the Senate held in all 4 years 
of the previous administration.
  For the information of Senators, we are going to keep working on this 
bill until the job is done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, the Federal Government has failed Arizona 
and other border States for decades. And for decades, Congress has done 
nothing about it. As we have lurched from crisis to crisis, Arizona and 
other border States have always been hit the hardest.
  This humanitarian crisis is bad for asylum seekers, bad for law 
enforcement, and bad for communities. The problem gets worse the longer 
it is ignored. And yet for decades, nothing has been done. I see it 
every time I go to the border. So have my colleagues who have traveled 
to Arizona to see it for themselves. I hear about it every time I talk 
to border mayors and sheriffs. And we talk about it every day here in 
the Senate and over in the House. In fact, there are few topics we talk 
about more while nothing changes.
  This week, we had a real and rare opportunity to actually do 
something about it. There was a real plan, a real bill ready to be 
passed and signed into law by the President. We got here because for 
months, Senators Sinema, Murphy, and Lankford worked together on a 
bipartisan agreement almost every single day for months. If we passed 
it, we would get more Border Patrol agents, more technology to stop 
fentanyl, more asylum officers to quickly screen asylum claims, and 
more judges to bring down this massive backlog of cases. That would 
make a real difference. If we passed it, we would have an updated 
asylum system, authorities to prevent the border from being 
overwhelmed, and more visas to keep families together.
  We would have a more secure and fair process at the border. That is 
what all of us want, and it should be no surprise that we got this plan 
thanks to Republicans and Democrats just working together. It was the 
product of tough conversations and compromise--in other words, the way 
legislation is supposed to happen. And it came together in an agreement 
that was not going to just address the border, but also the biggest 
challenges in our national security.
  This is a perilous time. The decisions we make here, now, will shape 
the world that our kids and grandkids grow up in. As Hamas and other 
Iranian-backed militias threaten stability in the Middle East, this 
agreement included support for our ally Israel and aid for civilians in 
Gaza.
  And as China expands its influence in order to offset U.S. power in 
the region, this agreement included support for Taiwan and other 
partners in the Pacific to strengthen their own self-defense.
  Finally, as Putin wages his illegal war to annex Ukraine and 
destabilize Europe, this agreement included desperately needed weapons 
and ammunition to support Ukraine in their self-defense. I have 
traveled to Ukraine twice since Russia invaded nearly 2 years ago. As 
someone who has fought in combat myself, I was struck by the bravery of 
their citizens and soldiers in this existential fight that they are 
facing. Over the course of the last 2 years, armed with support from us 
and our European allies, they have decimated the Russian Army 
significantly, degrading their combat capabilities. This is a huge 
benefit to our own national security, and it came about without putting 
a single American in harm's way.
  But our previous aid package for Ukraine ran out last year. So this 
week, we faced a choice: either provide Ukraine with more support to 
keep beating back Russia or leave it without the weapons and ammunition 
it needs and invite Russia to regain momentum. If that happens, Putin 
could set his sights on another target, threatening a wider conflict 
that will be much more costly for the United States.
  That would be a disaster.
  I am relieved that we found a path forward to prevent that by 
advancing these national security priorities on their own. But I am 
baffled by how we got here. We took a pair of votes this week--one that 
included border security and support for allies and one that was just 
support for our allies. It was a lack of support from my Republican 
colleagues that meant the first vote with border security failed--this, 
after months of working on a compromise to finally do something about 
this issue.
  Every Senator faced a choice, an up-or-down vote. That is why we are 
here: To make tough choices in service of our country and to make easy 
choices when they are right in front of us.
  Supporting our allies is an easy choice. Securing our border is an 
easy choice. I understand the politics. I know some politicians see 
more advantage in shouting about problems than solving them.
  Well, I will tell you this: If you come back to my State to do TV 
interviews at the border, you better be ready to explain why you chose 
politics over addressing this crisis that is staring you in the face. 
If you can't do that, don't come back because this isn't just a 
political talking point for me or for Senator Sinema or for my State. 
It is the reality that we live with every single day.
  That is why, even after this setback, I won't stop working to fix 
this issue at our border and fix our broken immigration system. But 
make no mistake, this is a shameful week for the Senate. The American 
people are watching. They were hoping that Congress could overcome 
political divides for once and actually deliver. That didn't happen. 
The Senate failed them.

[[Page S465]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there are pivotal times in our Nation's 
history when what we do in this Chamber really matters. How we vote may 
well determine whether people live or whether they die; whether men and 
women live under the dictates of an authoritarian regime or as free 
people in a democratic nation; whether terrorists continue to commit 
atrocities, kidnap children, kill our troops, or are defeated.
  This is such a moment.
  This week, General Kurilla, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, 
told me that this is the most dangerous security situation in 50 
years--50 years. The defense supplemental bill before us would 
strengthen our own military. It would send a strong message to Putin 
that his goal of capturing free, democratic nations will not be allowed 
to succeed. It would reassure our closest ally in the Middle East--
Israel--that terrorists will not achieve their goal of wiping that 
nation off the face of the map. It would counter Chinese aggression, 
and it would rebuild our own defense industrial base.
  Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to recognize the perilous times 
that we are living in and vote for this national security bill. It is 
critical.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it should never have taken us this long 
to move forward on this aid that so many of us are saying is necessary. 
But I am so glad that we are finally here making progress on this 
crucial package. We have more work ahead to get this passed in the 
Senate and House and, ultimately, signed into law. And we, frankly, do 
not have a minute to waste.
  I hope this vote is the start of moving this package now in earnest, 
because this is serious. As the senior Senator from Maine just 
outlined, our allies are at war. Civilians are in harm's way. Dictators 
are watching closely to see what we are going to do about it. So, 
really, the stakes could not be higher. How we answer this moment will 
define America's future on the global stage and could well redefine the 
balance of power in the world.
  I hope today is truly a breakthrough for bipartisanship, that cooler 
heads will prevail from here on out, and that we can move this forward 
in a reasonable, bipartisan way.
  We will be doing everything in our power to move that forward. I 
stand ready to work with my vice chair, the senior Senator from Maine, 
on any amendments that Senators want to bring forward. And as the 
leader just said to everyone, we will stay here until this is done.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tribute to Alyson Sincavage

  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today with the bittersweet task of 
saying goodbye to our office's departing chief counsel, Alyson 
Sincavage. Whether it was her time as a public defender or fighting on 
behalf of immigrants at the American Immigration Lawyers Association to 
cutting her teeth in the Senate with former Senator Tom Udall and my 
colleague Senator Tim Kaine, Alyson has been exactly the type of public 
servant we were looking for when I joined the Senate in 2021 and was 
handed the gavel to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, 
Citizenship, and Border Safety.
  From the earliest days of setting up shop in the subcommittee, 
through tireless fights during reconciliation and nonstop negotiations 
and vote-a-ramas, from helping me prepare for the historic confirmation 
of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to navigating 
contentious markups--yes, we have contentious markups in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee from time to time--and also overseeing the 
confirmation of 30 judges to the Federal bench in California, she has 
done a lot.
  She has helped guide my team of counsels on the Judiciary Committee 
while we have taken on the dark money influence on the Supreme Court of 
the United States. We worked together to protect reproductive rights 
and, particularly the last few months, defending against some of the 
most extreme and cruel Republican immigration proposals. She has fought 
for Dreamers, for farmworkers and essential workers and for keeping the 
asylum system serving asylum seekers and immigrant communities who too 
often lack someone who is watching their back while in the room where 
decisions are being made and proposals are being negotiated.
  In this most partisan of times, she has constantly reminded all of us 
about the human impact of what we do and who would be most affected by 
the decisions we make here in Washington.
  Through her tireless dedication and her unrivaled expertise, she has 
also helped guide fellow immigration counsels in other offices, serving 
as the moral conscience of the Senate on immigration and an invaluable 
resource for staffers and Senators alike.
  I want to acknowledge that Alyson has spent countless hours, many 
late nights, not just long days, early mornings, long days and late 
nights and weekends committed to the work and to the fight. That 
doesn't always show up in the box score. It may not always make 
headlines the next day. Through it all, she has always kept her cool 
unless the situation called for a little bit of fire, which, actually, 
oftentimes it did.
  Finally, speaking not just as a Senator but as a parent, I know just 
how hard these jobs can be to navigate those long days with the 
emotions running high--in the office, not just at home--and to still 
make sure we are picking up the kids, putting kids to bed at night, 
attending to those kid birthday parties on the weekends, and, yes, 
making sure the dinosaur doesn't go to school.
  Alyson has essentially managed 3 years of around-the-clock 
immigration negotiations, our entire Senate subcommittee, and still 
made time to be a good mom and to bring her kids to the Hart Office 
Building on Halloween for trick-or-treating.
  To her kids, Siena and Jude, who may be too young now to appreciate 
this but watch this video in years to come, please know just how 
important your mom has been, not just helping to build a future for 
your family but for millions of families across the country.
  To her husband Adam and to her entire family, thank you for sharing 
her with us. The Senate is a better institution, the State of 
California is a better place, and our future is stronger because of the 
work Alyson has done.
  To Alyson, thank you for all that you have done for Angela and me, 
for our office, and for the people of California and the Nation. We are 
going to miss you. We know you are not going too far, and you will be 
back often to visit, but we are going to miss you in the office. We 
thank you so very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mr. PADILLA. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am back now for the 28th time in my 
series of speeches on the special interest scheme to capture the U.S. 
Supreme Court. What I would like to do today is to talk a little bit 
about the Judicial Conference and what the Judicial Conference has been 
doing to help clean up the mess at the Supreme Court.
  I suppose I should start with ``What is the Judicial Conference?'' 
The Judicial Conference is a body created by Congress around 100 years 
ago as the chief governing and policymaking body of the Federal 
judiciary. It basically supervises the administrative side, not the 
adjudicative side--the administrative side--of the judicial branch of 
government. It is chaired by the Chief Justice, and its membership is 
composed

[[Page S466]]

of the chief judges of each circuit and of the Court of International 
Trade. So it is a very distinguished group of very senior appellate 
judges and a district judge from each circuit--typically, a chief judge 
or a senior judge. Again, it is a pretty distinguished group.
  The Conference is responsible for, among other things, enforcing 
ethics rules, overseeing financial disclosures, and setting other 
policies across the Federal judiciary, which it mostly does through 
committees. It has committees on issues ranging from financial 
disclosure to things like courtroom security.
  The Judicial Conference has a very important role enforcing judicial 
ethics rules. Ethics rules are within its ambit of responsibility. Now, 
bearing in mind the recent ProPublica story concluding that the 
Judicial Conference has, to quote the story, ``often protected, not 
policed, the judiciary,'' I wanted to share my experience as I have 
conducted this investigation and how we have been able to work with the 
Judicial Conference.
  First, let me say, as a general matter, that the Judicial Conference 
is very reticent--very reticent. Getting even basic information, like 
which judge serves on which committee, is an uphill struggle.
  Last year, Business Insider, the publication, sought the list of 
members of the Committee on Financial Disclosure, and the Conference 
initially denied the request--what can I tell you--saying that the 
``names of the members of the committee are not public,'' which is kind 
of a strange position to take when they are paid by taxpayers to do 
that work, and all you are asking is who they are.
  But, thankfully, later, the Conference reversed course. I requested 
the Judicial Conference disclose information, like who sits on its 
committees and what rules they operate by, but, so far, I have not yet 
received a formal response to that, and I very much hope that the 
members of the Judicial Conference will make this information public. 
Transparency is not a bad thing in this area.
  Anyway, through all of its established reticence, when I have brought 
issues to the attention of the Judicial Conference through 
correspondence or through remarks that I deliver at the Conference's 
twice-annual meetings in Washington, which I am invited to in my 
capacity as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, 
the Conference has generally produced positive results. My requests 
have covered four areas, and I will give you a quick overview of where 
those matters stand.
  First, I will talk about the disclosure rules for amicus curiae 
briefs, or ``friend of the court'' briefs. Dark-money front groups send 
flotillas of amicus briefs to the Supreme Court. The Justices and their 
clerks read these briefs. They often cite them in their official 
decisions. But it is basically judicial lobbying.
  The problem is that this flotilla of amicus briefs doesn't have to 
disclose the true source of the funding behind the briefs. So neither 
the Justices nor the other parties nor the public gets to know who is 
really paying for these arguments to be presented to the Supreme Court, 
nor do we know the interconnections among the front groups. To what 
extent are they single web of front groups masquerading as a great 
number of individual entities?
  We know for sure one thing: There was a brief filed under a 
``fictitious name'' of another organization. It wasn't even a real 
entity that filed the brief. It was the ``fictitious name'' under 
Virginia law of a completely different group, and that was done without 
disclosing the name of the actual group to the Court.
  That means it is left to offices like mine to track these groups and 
then explain to the Court, which we do in our amicus briefs, how all of 
this flotilla of briefs is coordinated.
  Very often we see common dark-money donors. Very often we see the 
fingerprints of the rightwing billionaires' Court fixer, Leonard Leo, 
time and again. Dark-money groups pay huge sums to support rightwing 
Justices' confirmations onto the Court and then turn around and file 
amicus curiae briefs to signal to those Justices, whom they helped get 
on the Court, how they should rule.
  So, since 2019, I have asked the Supreme Court to strengthen its 
amicus disclosure rule. After much badgering, the Court, to its credit, 
sent this matter to the Judicial Conference for consideration, where, 
at the Judicial Conference, it was, in turn, referred to an advisory 
committee. Although that advisory committee hasn't yet formally 
proposed a rule change, things look promising. These judges who make up 
the Judicial Conference well recognize the importance of, as one judge 
said, knowing what she called the ``real power behind the throne'' in 
these flotillas of amicus briefs.
  It is also encouraging to hear judges on the committee recognize that 
there is a ``broad agreement,'' which they said, on the need for better 
disclosure. As always, the devil will be in the details, but, thus far, 
the Judicial Conference is on the case. It has announced that it is 
examining the matter.
  Another issue that I have raised with the Judicial Conference is what 
I call the ``Scalia trick,'' misuse of the ``personal hospitality'' 
exception in the financial disclosure rules. Justice Scalia got this 
trick named for him by taking dozens of high-end hunting trips for 
free, and he used this rule to avoid disclosing them. He pretended that 
a ``personal invitation'' from a resort owner, whom he had perhaps 
never met, made it ``personal hospitality'' protected by the rule.
  Senator Graham and I first sent a bipartisan letter to the Supreme 
Court about abuse of the personal hospitality exception back in 2021. 
This letter can be found online at https://www.
whitehouse.senate.gov/download/2021-02-04-letter-with-graham-to-scotus-
hospitality-and-code.
  After that, I sent several more letters asking the Court to address 
the ``Scalia trick.'' Those three letters can be found online at 
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/2021-08-30-letter-to-
circuits-hospitality, https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/2022-
04-18-letter-to-circuits-hospitality-follow-up, and https://
www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/2023-02-21-letter-to-judicial-
conference-personal-hospitality.
  The good news is that, in March of last year, the Administrative 
Office of the Courts wrote to me to say that the Committee on Financial 
Disclosure ``would clarify its regulations on `personal hospitality.' 
''
  I will quote that word again, ``clarify,'' because it matters later.
  Sure enough, when the clarification came out, the Judicial Conference 
slammed the door hard on the ``Scalia trick''--so no more secret 
flights to and from hunting trips across the country on someone else's 
dime; no more secret ``personal'' hospitality paid for by a third 
party; and no more secret ``personal'' hospitality, so-called, at 
properties owned by a corporation.
  I count these clarifications as a win. So I will put that into the 
``win'' column.
  There is a related question still pending from that. Justices Thomas 
and Alito claimed, last year, this same exception--the ``personal'' 
hospitality exception--let them accept their secret gifts of jet and 
yacht travel from rightwing billionaires without reporting it.
  In his most recent financial disclosure report, Justice Thomas 
claimed that he could keep those past gifts secret because what he 
called the committee's ``new rules''--his description--didn't go into 
effect until March 2023. And there I disagree. The disclosure law was 
always clear. It was the Judicial Conference's guidance that hadn't 
headed off the ``Scalia trick,'' likely because nobody imagined that 
any judge would be so bold as to have intermediaries ask resort owners 
to send them invitations for free travel and then call that 
``personal'' hospitality.
  Anyway, the judiciary's letter to me said that the change was a 
``clarification.'' And that word choice matters a lot here, because if 
it was, in fact, a ``clarification,'' then Justice Thomas and all the 
rest of the Supreme Court must amend their past filings to comport with 
the law, because it had always been that way, and they would have to 
disclose all the freebies kept secret in previous years. So pending at 
the Judicial Conference is my request that the Conference clarify 
whether the revised guidance constituted a ``clarification'' or a rule 
change. I do not have a response to that yet, but the end of the 
``Scalia trick'' was a considerable win.

[[Page S467]]

  I have also contacted the Conference about how omissions in Justice 
Thomas's financial disclosure report were handled by the Conference 
back in 2011. That correspondence can be found online at https://
www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/05.02.2023%20-%20 
Supreme%20Court%20Ethics%20 Hearing%20-%20Exhibit%2010.pdf and https://
www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-08-31_letter_to_ 
judge_mauskopf_financial_disclosure_ committee.pdf.
  Back then, Justice Thomas failed to disclose $700,000 that the far-
right Heritage Foundation had paid his wife over several years. Justice 
Thomas's undisclosed yacht and jet travel, paid for by the rightwing 
billionaire Harlan Crow, also became public for the first time. So 
Members of Congress and a watchdog group sent the 2011 omissions to the 
Judicial Conference's Committee on Financial Disclosure for review. 
Under the law, the Conference is required to refer the matter to the 
Attorney General for further investigation if there is reasonable 
cause--reasonable cause--to believe that the violations may have been 
willful.
  Last year, my Courts Subcommittee heard testimony from a judge who 
was then on the Judicial Conference, who raised serious concerns about 
the Conference's ``reasonable cause'' inquiry. There is actually no 
indication that a ``reasonable cause'' inquiry was made, so in August, 
I wrote to the Administrative Office to find out more about what really 
happened. The Administrative Office acknowledged my request, but I have 
not yet received a response to my questions.
  The Judicial Conference is also considering Justice Thomas's more 
recent financial disclosure omissions. Congressman Hank Johnson, who is 
my coordinate as the top Democrat on the Courts Subcommittee on the 
House side, and I wrote to the Judicial Conference several times, along 
with other Members of Congress, asking for a review of these ethics 
violations and a determination as to whether referral to the Attorney 
General is required for this second round of yacht and jet travel from 
Republican billionaire Harlan Crow, for the real estate sale from 
Thomas to Crow, and for various gifts from other ultrawealthy 
individuals, including Paul Novelly and David Sokol.
  Madam President, those letters can be found online at https://
www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/letter-to-judicial-conference-
referral-to-ag_04142023 and https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/
media/doc/2023-08-11_letter_to_judge_ mauskopf_ thomas_gifts1.pdf.
  As in 2011, the current matter has been sent to the Committee on 
Financial Disclosure. We don't know exactly how the committee's review 
is going, but the Judicial Conference's report on its September 
meeting--its most recent meeting--included this interesting note on the 
committee's activities. The note said the committee was ``updated on 
the status of the ongoing review of public written allegations of 
errors or omissions in a filer's financial disclosure reports that were 
referred to it since the Conference's last session.'' So it seems like 
that is this matter, and it seems like that investigation is an ongoing 
review.
  The final issue I have raised with the Judicial Conference is my 
complaint against Justice Alito for what I thought was a pretty blatant 
ethics violation last summer. I addressed this complaint to Chief 
Justice Roberts both in his capacity as Chief Justice and as Chair of 
the Judicial Conference.
  Madam President, that letter can be found online at https://
www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-09-04_ complaint_from_ 
senwhitehouseenclosure.pdf.
  The Supreme Court, unlike every other Federal court, has no procedure 
for receiving or investigating ethics complaints, so that is why I sent 
it to him wearing both of those hats.
  The first thing I asked the Chief Justice to do was to change that. 
There should be a place where, with a complaint like that, I could go 
and file it and somebody would pay attention.
  I also asked that either the Conference or the Court conduct its own 
investigation into Justice Alito's comments in the Wall Street 
Journal's editorial page, made in an interview with David Rivkin, where 
Justice Alito offered his legal opinion that ``[n]o provision in the 
Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme 
Court--period.''
  Well, it seems to me that is a slam dunk ethics violation for a 
couple of reasons. First, Justice Alito was opining on the 
constitutionality of my Supreme Court ethics bill, which the Senate 
Judiciary Committee had recently advanced, and the legitimacy of 
related oversight requests from the Senate Judiciary and Finance 
Committees.
  We have heard time and time again from Supreme Court nominees, 
including Justice Alito himself, that it is improper and a disservice 
to the judicial process--those were Justice Alito's words in his 
nomination hearing--for them to express opinions on a matter that might 
come before the Court. Well, boom. This was a matter that might come 
before the Court--indeed, it was actually likely to come before the 
Court--and there he was opining at will in the pages of the Wall Street 
Journal's editorial page.
  But it gets worse. He made his comments in the context of a specific 
ongoing legal dispute--a dispute involving Court fixer Leonard Leo, who 
had arranged for an undisclosed free jet trip and fishing excursion for 
Justice Alito and himself.
  When the Senate Judiciary Committee requested information about the 
gifts Leo arranged, we got a letter back from his lawyer, David 
Rivkin--the same person who conducted the interview that recruited the 
comment from Justice Alito. Justice Alito's comments in the Wall Street 
Journal echoed the exact argument that Rivkin had made when he refused 
to give us any information--i.e., that Congress has no authority to 
legislate on or oversee Supreme Court ethics, which is a weird position 
to take when you consider that the Judicial Conference, which oversees 
Supreme Court ethics, was created by an act of Congress.
  Anyway, the cherry on top of this whole mess, which I flagged also 
for Chief Justice Roberts in a followup letter--which can be found 
online at https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
alito_complaint_
addendum.pdf--came a month later when another billionaire, who is also 
alleged to have provided Justice Thomas with undisclosed gifts, cited 
Justice Alito's comments as support for his argument that this 
billionaire didn't have to answer our questions about those gifts. I 
sent that letter to Chief Justice Roberts as an addendum to my 
complaint, and I have not yet heard back.
  But it really does seem wrong that a Justice of the Supreme Court 
would offer an opinion on a matter that might come before the Court 
that actually relates to a specific, ongoing legal dispute in which the 
lawyer for a party in that ongoing legal dispute is doing the 
interviewing; that the person that lawyer represents is a friend and 
associate of the Justice himself; and that the result of that activity 
is that gifts to that very Justice are kept from public view, 
orchestrated by the client. It is a mess.
  The last thing we have is a letter that Senator Wyden and I just sent 
to the Acting Director of the Judicial Conference that relates to the 
recreational vehicle loan that Justice Thomas received. It appears from 
the Finance Committee's investigation that the principal on the loan 
was never repaid--not a dollar of it; that for a period, interest on 
the loan was repaid but then interest stopped being repaid.
  When you stop paying both principal and interest, that amounts to an 
act of forgiveness of the loan. Yet the forgiveness of that loan was 
never declared on his judicial ethics filings, suggesting that it might 
not have been disclosed even in his tax filings, which could lead to a 
whole second set of legal concerns.
  Madam President, that letter can be found online at https://www.
whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
2024-02-07_wyden_whitehouse_letter_
to_ao.pdf.
  It is not fair to expect the Judicial Conference to have done 
anything about that because it was just sent to them, but with respect 
to the other things, I would sum it up this way: The score at the 
Judicial Conference so far is one clear win on getting rid of the 
Scalia trick; major progress on disclosing who is really behind front

[[Page S468]]

group amici; an ongoing review of the billionaire gifts program at the 
Court as it relates to Justice Thomas in particular; and so far no 
response on the Alito-Wall Street Journal mischief.
  Like I said, it is a very reticent place. They move very slowly and 
have a lot of process. So I am just going to continue to press along in 
bringing information before the Judicial Conference so that they and 
the public can get clear answers on these issues. Certainly, the 
American people deserve transparency when it comes to fairness and 
gifts from interested billionaires to Justices of the Supreme Court.
  With that, to be continued.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). The Senator from Texas.


                            Border Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, for the entirety of President Biden's 
term of office--for the last 3 years--my Republican colleagues and I 
have spoken out about the crisis on our southern border. Of course you 
can imagine, coming from a border State like Texas--we have 1,200 miles 
of common border with Mexico, and we are at the epicenter of this 
crisis.
  I can't tell you how many times I have come here and tried to 
convince my colleagues that we needed to do something in order to stop 
the flow of humanity coming across the border, along with the drugs, 
the criminals, the people on the Terrorist Watchlist--the whole 
enchilada. I explained that the recordbreaking number of illegal 
crossings was something that is not normal. This is an extraordinary 
and unprecedented wave of humanity coming across the border. It is 
making these criminal organizations that pay by the head--or get paid 
by the head for smuggling people to the border from around the world 
and the ones who smuggle the drugs that follow on closely behind 
fabulously wealthy.
  I have criticized the Biden administration's policies day in and day 
out because they send a clear signal to the migrants to keep on coming. 
In other words, the Border Patrol likes to talk about the push factors 
for immigration. Those are poverty, violence, things like that, a 
desire for a better life. They also talk about the pull factors and the 
Biden policies of releasing everybody who comes to the border 
illegally, either in claiming asylum or in granting them something 
called parole, which is 2 years in the country, plus a work permit. 
This is an enormous pull factor. It is like a giant magnet, telling 
people: Come to America. Forget illegal immigration. Forget the fact 
that people who come here legally have to wait in line and have to meet 
certain legal requirements.
  I want to make clear: America was built on legal immigration. Legal 
immigration has been one of the greatest blessings our country has ever 
encountered. No other country in the world is as generous as the United 
States of America when it comes to welcoming people from other 
countries. But we expect them to follow the rules, which allows us to 
control the numbers, which allows for the reasonable assimilation of 
those individuals because we want everybody not to be a hyphenated 
American but to be an American, and that means assimilation into our 
society. It also means keeping criminals out. It means keeping 
terrorists out. It means keeping the drugs out that come with illegal 
immigration.
  So the Biden policies have been a flashing green light and a welcome 
mat for people from around the world. There are as many as 300,000 a 
month now--unbelievable--and as many as 13,000 a day. Jeh Johnson, the 
former Secretary of Homeland Security under Barack Obama, said that 
1,000 illegal border crossings a day was a real problem, and we are 
seeing 13,000 under President Biden.
  I have tried to share the stories of my visits to the border and what 
I have learned. In fact, Senator Cruz, my colleague from Texas, and I 
have hosted numerous Senators and asked them to come to the border so 
they can talk to the same people we have talked to--the Border Patrol, 
the nongovernmental organizations, the Federal Government employees, 
the community leaders--who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of 
people showing up.
  It wasn't that long ago, in a little town of Del Rio, TX--population 
35,000--that 15,000 migrants from Haiti showed up. Can you imagine the 
impact on that town of 35,000 people to have 15,000 people show up at 
the same time--people who needed food, shelter? They couldn't provide 
that sort of just simple necessity of life to these migrants. They were 
overwhelmed.
  These migrants had actually been living in South America. They 
actually didn't come directly from Haiti, so they didn't have any 
credible fear of persecution coming from South America. But the Biden 
administration said: Come on in. And they do and they have and they 
will.
  I have highlighted the link between the migration crisis and the 
fentanyl epidemic, which killed 71,000 Americans last year. This 
incredibly powerful synthetic opioid has taken too many young lives. In 
fact, it is the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages 
of 18 and 49. If we were having car accidents that was the leading 
cause of death of Americans between the ages of 18 and 49, we would say 
something has got to change. But we have become anesthetized to these 
numbers. They are so huge, it is hard for us to process those. But 
anything that is the leading cause of death for 18- to 49-year-olds in 
our country, you would think would be something that we would all be 
concerned about and want to do something about.
  I have raised concerns over the increasing number of potential 
terrorists. My memory is that at last count, we saw last year, roughly, 
170 people on the Terrorist Watchlist detained at the border. You might 
think: Well, that is great. We got all of them. We stopped them. Well, 
there were 1.7 million ``got-aways.'' Do you think there were people on 
the Terrorist Watchlist among those 1.7 million ``got-aways''?
  What do you think those ``got-aways'' were doing evading law 
enforcement? They certainly must have had concerns because anybody 
without a criminal record who is not engaged otherwise in a crime, they 
are turning themselves in, either claiming asylum or being released by 
the Biden administration. So the people who are actually running away 
from law enforcement, I think common sense would tell you they are 
running for a reason--either carrying drugs, they have criminal 
records, or worse.
  I have also talked about the negative impact of this crisis on lawful 
trade and travel. You know, I saw an article this morning that now 
Mexico is America's largest trading partner. It used to be China; but 
now it is Mexico and, actually, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade 
Agreement--now the successor is the U.S.-Mexico-Canada, the USMCA, 
trade agreement. Legitimate trade and commerce across our border 
supports millions of jobs in America and represent essential supply 
chains for our manufacturers--something we became acutely aware of 
during COVID because we found out that if you are depending on Taiwan, 
for example, to make advanced semiconductors, well, in the event of 
another pandemic or a war or a natural disaster, we might not be able 
to get those. It made us start to think: What do we need to do to make 
our supply chains more reliable? Part of that is the businesses have 
moved to Mexico.
  But many times, because the border has been overwhelmed by migrants, 
they have had to shut down the bridges and the ports of entry. 
Recently, one of the railroads that transits the U.S.-Mexico border 
that is essential for trade and to maintain some of these supply chains 
was shut down completely, costing billions of dollars in lost revenue 
because the Biden administration does not control the flow of migration 
across the border.
  For me, this is not a political cudgel; it is something my 
constituents care deeply about. It is an issue that my State has 
battled every day that President Biden has been in office. We are at 
ground zero.
  It is also sucking up taxpayer dollars, endangering children because 
300,000 of them have been placed with sponsors who came--children who 
came unaccompanied to the border are placed with sponsors in the 
interior. There have been 300,000 of them placed with those sponsors 
since President Biden took office, and the Biden administration can't 
tell you what has happened to them.
  The New York Times documented children in forced labor--dangerous 
jobs illegally forcing children to work in these jobs. But we don't 
know

[[Page S469]]

whether these children are going to school, whether they are getting 
the healthcare they need, whether they are being fed properly, whether 
they are being trafficked for sex, or recruited into gangs. And the 
Biden administration can't tell you. That is what the status quo of the 
last 3 years has given us.
  It would be an understatement of the century to say that our 
Democratic friends have been less concerned about what is happening at 
the border.
  Two years ago, President Biden visited a semiconductor plant in 
Arizona while the border crisis was raging. The President was asked why 
he wasn't visiting the border since he was so close, and he said: 
Because I have more important things to do--more important than 
visiting the border and seeing for himself what damage the Biden border 
crisis was creating.

  That month--the same month that the President refused to go to the 
border because he had more important things to do--250,000 migrants 
crossed the southern border. But the President couldn't be bothered to 
go to the border.
  The Vice President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the White 
House Press Secretary, and other administration officials have 
repeatedly downplayed the severity of what is happening at the border. 
They have lied. They have lied to the American people--some of them 
under oath--like Secretary Mayorkas. Time and time again he said the 
border is secure.
  Does he think we are so gullible as to not see what is happening on 
TV or online with our own eyes the caravans of migrants making their 
way to the border and then being released into the interior, and the 
Secretary says the border is secure? That is outrageous. But the 
majority of our Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
weren't bothered by that.
  During President Biden's first year in office, the senior Senator 
from Montana threw cold water on the idea that Congress should act on 
the border. He said:

       I don't know you need legislation--

  This is our senior Senator from Montana. He said:

       I don't know you need legislation. I think what we need is 
     to make sure we get the people and the technology down there 
     to stop it.

  He said we don't need legislation. I guess in one sense he is right, 
because if President Biden would just enforce the law, everything could 
change and would change.
  But now we are seeing a different tune. Our colleagues are saying: 
Well, because there has been disagreement on the border, border changes 
in the context of the current discussion on the emergency national 
security supplemental, they said: We care about the border, and the 
people who disagreed with the product that was negotiated on a 
bipartisan basis don't care about the border.
  The American people are not stupid. The American people are smart, 
and they could see through that sort of fig leaf or that attempt to try 
to mislead them from what they have seen with their very eyes over the 
last 3 years.
  The following year, after the senior Senator from Montana made those 
comments, the senior Senator from Ohio tried to minimize the impact of 
the security crisis on the border. He said: I don't hear a lot about 
immigration from voters except from people on the far right that always 
want to gain political advantage by talking about it.
  Well, I wonder what he is hearing from his constituents these days.
  This is not just conservatives or Republicans. How about he listens 
to the mayor of New York City--a self-styled sanctuary city--or the 
mayor of Chicago or any major city that has seen migrants make their 
way into their jurisdiction?
  There is no better example of our colleagues' intransigence than the 
lack of action by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have served on the 
Judiciary Committee my entire time here in the Senate. It is a great 
committee. It has jurisdiction over immigration matters. But the Senate 
Judiciary Committee hasn't had a single markup on an immigration bill 
in the last 3 years, not one.
  We have asked the chairman, the senior Senator from Illinois: Please 
schedule a markup. We are not even saying it is my way or the highway. 
We are saying: Bring an immigration bill to the Judiciary Committee. 
Let the Senators on the Democratic side and the Republican side offer 
amendments, and let's let the chips fall where they may. But the very 
committee in the U.S. Senate that has jurisdiction over immigration and 
border matters has done nothing in the last 3 years, even longer than 
that.
  We have talked about the issue. We have advanced a couple of narrow 
bills that touch on the edges of what is happening at the border, 
including bills to combat human trafficking and support law 
enforcement. But under the chairman's leadership, the Senate Judiciary 
Committee hasn't made a serious, honest attempt to tackle this issue 
head-on.
  To be clear, it wasn't for lack of bills to vote on. Just a few 
months into the Biden Presidency, Senator Sinema--the Senator from 
Arizona--and I introduced, along with our colleagues in the House--
Henry Cuellar and Tony Gonzales--we introduced a bill we call the 
Bipartisan Border Solutions Act to try to address the surge in 
immigration.
  The theory was that, here is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that 
maybe--just maybe--the Biden administration would be willing to work 
with us on. Maybe if things got so bad, they would look at this as a 
lifeline to begin a conversation on immigration.
  That bill would have increased staffing levels for law enforcement 
and immigration courts. It would have expedited legal proceedings and 
enhanced protections for unaccompanied children.
  These were commonsense measures. They were modest measures that had 
bipartisan and bicameral support. And it would have allowed us to at 
least get started to meaningfully address the problems we faced at that 
time before they spun completely out of control, as they have today. 
Still, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee won't schedule a hearing 
or a markup on that bill.
  Now, we are not saying this has to be the final product. We are 
saying let's start the conversation. We have been asking over and over 
again for the chairman to have a hearing, have a markup, but he has 
refused. He has refused to engage at all. Had that bill been signed 
into law at the beginning of the Biden administration, it could have 
prevented some of the chaos we have endured over the last 3 years, but 
instead, the leadership on the Democratic side has buried their heads 
into the sand until the situation has become so dangerous and untenable 
that it has turned into a political liability for President Biden.
  It is not lost on me that here we are--February--looking at a 
November election, and President Biden says: We have got to do 
something about my terrible poll numbers when it comes to border 
insecurity. You would think, if it had been serious, that he would have 
engaged earlier, but this is what we call an election-year conversion. 
Once the shift happened, the rhetoric from our Democratic colleagues 
has changed significantly.
  Last month, the senior Senator from Montana, who once said we didn't 
need any new laws, wrote an entire op-ed about the need to act on the 
border. In it he wrote:

       The lack of urgency from my colleagues on both sides of the 
     aisle . . . is frankly disturbing.

  This is from a Senator who said you don't need new laws.
  Earlier this week, the senior Senator from Ohio, who once said he 
didn't hear much about immigration from his constituents, advocated for 
a border deal, saying:

       Ohioans cannot . . . wait any longer.

  And, yesterday, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who for 3 
years has refused to use that committee, the committee of jurisdiction, 
to advance any bills to deal with the crisis, stood here on the Senate 
floor and he blamed--you guessed it--former President Donald Trump for 
lack of progress on the border.
  We should wish for the numbers of illegal crossings that occurred 
during President Trump's time in office because it was a fraction of 
what we have seen under President Biden. As a matter of fact, we have 
seen more illegal border crossings in 3 years under President Biden 
than we have in 12 years during the Obama administration and during the 
Trump Presidency.
  But that is what people do here in Washington, DC. This is a city in 
which

[[Page S470]]

the blame game is like an Olympic sport. People are vying for medals by 
telling the biggest whoppers. It is completely disingenuous for Senate 
Democrats to blame anyone but themselves and President Biden for the 
lack of broad progress on the border crisis.
  Despite this shift in rhetoric that we have seen, President Biden's 
comments have once again taken the cake. Earlier this week, President 
Biden made the most bogus, delusional claim about the state of the 
border, somewhere he hasn't been in a long, long time. Now, I remember 
he did come to El Paso for a driveby. But he said:

       The only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump 
     and his MAGA Republican friends.

  You know, at some point, when you hold elected office, the most 
powerful office in the land--maybe on the planet--you ought to accept 
some responsibility, not just blame other people. But that is not what 
President Biden did. These are the words of the current President of 
the United States, the man who has the power, under existing law, to 
detain and deport illegal border crossers but has chosen not to do so.
  On President Biden's watch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has 
logged more than 7 million migrant encounters, and the Biden 
administration has released 2.3 million migrants into the country. And 
President Biden thinks that the American people are gullible enough to 
believe that we are in this situation because of former President 
Trump? Give me a break. For 3 years, we have been beating on the door, 
begging and pleading with our Democratic colleagues and the White 
House: Work with us. We are not asking for perfection; we are asking to 
do our jobs and do your job. But President Biden has refused to engage. 
Our colleagues across the aisle have pretended like there is no 
problem, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee won't even 
schedule a markup.
  Now, because Republicans voted against a single bill that was 
negotiated by three Members, including many policies that Republicans 
have been on record opposing for years, the American people are 
supposed to buy this argument that our party is to blame for the 
border? Well, I, for one, am still ready to engage with my Democratic 
colleagues if they are sincere, but it is hard to believe when this 
rhetoric occurs in the context of upcoming elections. It really does 
feel like an election-year conversion.
  In the past few days, our colleagues have proven that this was never 
about solving the border crisis; it was about giving President Biden a 
new talking point on the campaign trail in order to cover up the 
disaster of his own making. This is a manmade disaster, and the man who 
made that disaster was President Biden.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss the supplemental 
emergency security package that is currently being debated in this 
body.
  Yesterday, the comprehensive package that included the bipartisan 
border provision was voted down after Republican colleagues did a 180 
and chose to oppose it.
  But there is an urgent need to move forward with a supplemental 
package, and so what we are now working on in this body is a slimmed-
down version that would still do a tremendous amount of good: 
humanitarian aid for Gazans and others around the world who need it; 
State disaster relief funds for States that suffered flood, hurricane, 
drought, wildfire; support for our allies in the Indo-Pacific to 
promote regional stability there; support for defense aid to Israel; 
and support for defense aid for Ukraine.
  And we are in the process of trying to find how we can move forward 
together on that package, and, in my view, it is very important that we 
do so and that we finish this before we recess. And it is my hope that 
when we do, we will be able to do it in a way that carries a 
significant bipartisan vote because that will increase the likelihood 
that it will be acceptable to the House of Representatives.
  I want to talk about one particular aspect of this discussion, an 
amendment that I am filing together with 28 colleagues that, frankly, 
should be a no-brainer, accepted on a voice vote by all 100 Senators, 
and it has to deal with the provision of military support for the 
defense of Israel.
  The proposal that President Biden made, which is now more than 2 
months old, to the body included a recommendation of defense support 
for Ukraine, for Israel, for Taiwan, and then also potentially other 
nations in the Indo-Pacific. Some of the funding is to implement the 
AUKUS framework between the United States, Australia, and the UK.
  Defense aid given by the United States to other nations traditionally 
carries with it a congressional notification requirement, and that 
requirement--to kind of short-form it--works in a very simple way. Even 
when we voted to allow the defense aid to go forward and we have 
appropriated money for it, when an administration of either party is 
ready to transfer the aid, they give a notification to Congress about 
the transfer so that Congress can review the aid and make sure that it 
is the kind of military aid that was intended when the bill was passed.
  So, to give you an example, if we are doing transfers of foreign 
military aid to Egypt--and we have done that in the past--and the 
purpose of is it to enable Egypt to fight terrorism, we often want to 
see what the weaponry is so we can determine, wait, are those weapons 
that would be useful in counterterrorism or are those weapons that 
could be misused against civilian protesters, for example. So the 
congressional notification requirement is an important way that 
Congress can check to make sure that support that we have voted for is 
actually being provided in the way that we intended.
  The notification requirement isn't onerous. It requires that Congress 
be given a certain--not lengthy but short--period of notice where we 
can analyze to determine whether the aid is the kind that we intended, 
and if it isn't, we don't necessarily have the ability to veto it, but 
we can ask additional questions of the administration.
  This is what oversight is about. This is what Congress needs to do. 
And this is tradition with respect to arms transfers to any nation.
  In the request that was delivered to Congress 2 months ago, there was 
a small provision in the request that puzzled me, and it said that the 
traditional congressional notification provisions under the 
supplemental bill would not apply to any of the defense aid to Israel.
  I support defense aid to Israel, and I have supported it during my 
entire career in the U.S. Senate, but I don't support this 
administration or any administration bypassing Congress and not 
providing us the notification about this aid.
  In the supplemental bill, the notification would still apply to aid 
to Ukraine; it would still apply to aid to Taiwan; it would still apply 
to aid to other nations but not to aid delivered to Israel. I reached 
out to the White House nearly immediately to ask why this was done, and 
the answer was: We will have to get back to you.
  And I have not gotten any answer, much less an acceptable answer, 
about why we would want to bypass congressional notification of this 
aid.
  Why should Congress vote to bypass ourselves? Why should Congress 
say: Yes, you can bypass us and not give us notice of this aid, as is 
traditional?
  The congressional notification provision does have an exception for 
emergencies. In the event of emergencies, the administration can say: 
This is an emergency, and we need to do it right away. And that 
emergency power has been used twice in the last couple of months to do 
expedited aid to Israel. I would not propose to take that power away, 
whether it be for Israel or Ukraine or any other nation, but why would 
we want to allow Congress to be bypassed in nonemergency situations?
  And so the amendment that I have filed with 28 colleagues, many of 
whom are standing on the floor with me today, would simply say that the 
same standard should apply to aid to Israel as applies to Ukraine and 
the other nations; that, yes, we are supporting this aid, but when an 
administration transfers it, Congress should get notice so we can ask 
questions if we determine that we need to.
  I endeavored to get this provision in the base language of the bill 
that we will hopefully be voting on soon, and I

[[Page S471]]

failed in that. I was told the reason is that my Republican colleagues 
did not support it.
  Why wouldn't Republican colleagues want a Democratic administration 
to give them notice about arms transfers so they could ask questions 
about it? I don't get it, but that is the reason that it is not in the 
base bill. Yet it is my hope, as we get into this debate--and I know 
there is significant discussion about the extent of amendments, if any, 
that will be offered--that I would hope to be able to bring this up, 
and I would think it should get an overwhelming vote in this body.
  I have colleagues who are here to speak, and I want to just say one 
last thing as I conclude. This is not a box-checking thing. Congress 
having oversight over war, peace, and diplomacy is critically 
important.
  We see what is happening more broadly in the Middle East with the 
United States engaged now against the Houthis in the Red Sea and in 
Yemen, with the United States engaged against the Iranian-backed 
militias in Iraq and Syria, with the escalation of Hezbollah firing 
rockets into Israel. And I think many of us are worried about the 
United States sliding, slipping, stumbling into another war in the 
Middle East, which, in my view, would be a disaster.
  The United States should be providing support for allies. But, in my 
view, it would be a disaster for the United States to be engaged in 
another war in the Middle East right now. It would be Vladimir Putin's 
dream. It would be Xi Jinping's dream. It would be others' dream to 
have us entangled in the Middle East right now. But I think it would be 
a horrible thing for the United States to do that. But if that is to be 
a possibility on the table, let it be debated here. Let it be debated 
by Congress in full view of the American public. Let's see what the 
stakes and the consequences and the risks and the benefits would be. 
But let's not stumble or slide our way into an escalating set of 
military hostilities in the Middle East with U.S. troops involved.
  The provision about congressional notification on arms transfers is 
part of this very thing: to make sure that important matters of war, 
peace, and diplomacy are not just done by any Executive but that there 
is full buy-in by Congress, lest we find ourselves in a war we 
shouldn't be in.
  And so I am going to work to see if I might be able to get this as 
part of the package that we are negotiating. And, again, I would think 
any Member of the article I branch should not casually accept an 
evisceration of its oversight powers over arms transfers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon 
with my colleagues Senator Bennet and Senator Cardin. I think we are 
going to be joined shortly by others, Senators Blumenthal and Peters, 
and I am not sure who else. But we are here to register our strong 
support for the legislation that we just advanced with the vote 
earlier--the 67 positive votes--for the security supplemental.
  This bill would give critical support for partners like Ukraine, 
Israel, and Taiwan; it would provide humanitarian aid for Gaza and 
other populations; and, equally important for us in New Hampshire, it 
would curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States.
  So make no mistake, our adversaries and our allies are watching how 
we respond to the war in Ukraine. If we allow Vladimir Putin to 
continue his unprovoked attack on Ukraine, who knows where he is going 
to stop.
  What we do today is going to determine the strength of tomorrow's 
autocrats, because when dictators like Putin are not held accountable 
for their aggression, their threat to the world grows. And if we don't 
act quickly to support the Ukrainians, all the battles that they have 
won, all the land that they have reclaimed, all the progress that they 
have made to win back their country could be undone. We must not deny 
Ukraine the resources and weapons they need to defeat Putin once and 
for all.
  Right now, Ukraine has just 20 percent of the ammunition and 
artillery it needs as Russia continues its advance; 85 percent of 
Russia's missiles are now foreign made; and Iran supplies 70 percent of 
its drone capabilities.
  For anybody who is worried about Iran--and I am on that list of 
people who are concerned about Iran's threat, not just to the Middle 
East but to Ukraine and to the United States--defeating Russia in 
Ukraine is one of the most important things we could do to stop the 
threat from Iran.
  The threats we face are so interconnected; and so our response to our 
adversaries must also be interconnected. This bipartisan supplemental 
funding agreement follows through on our promise to stand by our 
friends in Ukraine and Israel and in the Indo-Pacific.
  We must not abandon them now. How will we convince our allies in the 
future that we are going to be there to support them if we abandon 
Ukraine and say: Sorry, we can't help you now?
  I recognize that for a lot of Americans, including some in my home 
State of New Hampshire, many of the problems that this bill addresses 
seem like it is about far-off issues. But I want to be clear that what 
happens in Ukraine doesn't stay in Ukraine. Putin's illegal invasion is 
directly targeting American consumers. His obstruction of Ukraine's 
grain imports in the Black Sea threatened a global food security crisis 
and caused prices to rise around the world. It has caused the threat of 
famine in parts of Africa and other countries.
  American support, in coordination with our allies, has helped to 
ensure that Ukraine can restart those exports that are needed to feed 
the world.
  With the support of the United States and our NATO allies, Ukraine 
put Russia on defense in the Black Sea. They have reduced Russia's 
formidable Black Sea fleet by 20 percent over just 4 months.
  And much of the supplemental funding for the Defense Department to 
support Ukraine is going to be spent in the United States. It invests 
over $25 billion in the American defense industrial base. That expands 
production lines; it strengthens the American economy; and it creates 
new jobs.
  These funds also ensure that our own military can backfill our own 
stocks and maintain U.S. readiness. Perhaps, the most important piece 
in all of this, Putin's expansionist agenda could lead to an attack on 
a NATO ally, and that could draw the United States into direct conflict 
with Russian forces.
  We don't have to talk to too many of the countries that border Russia 
or that were under former Soviet control to hear their concern about 
what happens if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the potential for him 
to go into the Baltic countries, to go into Poland and Moldova.
  I have four grandsons. I don't want them sent off to fight in Europe 
or Asia years from now because article V is invoked from a NATO country 
because we didn't take the action that we should have taken today to 
support Ukraine.
  In the months after Russia's unprovoked invasion, I met with a 
Ukrainian soldier named Andriana. She said to me something that I will 
not forget and that I have said to people in New Hampshire who asked me 
about this war. She said:

       Give us the weapons to fight the Russians so that you don't 
     have to.

  Well, last year, I saw her again as she recovered from a traumatic 
injury that she sustained on the frontlines and temporarily paralyzed 
her. And you can see the challenge. This is Andriana as a soldier. And 
there she is in the hospital bed. But her spirit was not broken.
  I got a chance to see her again as she was recovering. And she 
reminded me that Ukraine has a motto that is much like New Hampshire's 
motto. It is: ``Freedom or Death.'' That is not so different from New 
Hampshire's motto: ``Live Free or Die.''
  My constituents understand what it means to stand up for our 
freedoms. We have a long history of doing that. And it is people like 
Andriana who we are supporting, brave defenders of democracy in Ukraine 
and every corner of the world, who are standing up for democracy, for 
us in America, and democracies around the world. And it is critical 
that we support those brave Ukrainians so that they can win this war, 
so we can say to Vladimir Putin and autocrats across the globe: We are 
not going to let you get away with taking over other countries; we are 
not going to let you get away with the human rights atrocities that you 
have committed.

[[Page S472]]

  For our whole history, the United States has been on the side of 
freedom. We cannot waver now. We must pass this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here this 
afternoon with the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from 
Maryland to talk about our commitments in Europe, our commitments to 
Ukraine. I want to thank them for their leadership on the Armed 
Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee here in the 
Senate. They are a team that I wouldn't want to tangle with. And I am 
glad they are out here on the floor today as allies in support of this 
incredibly important mission.
  I am also very glad that after 4 months of an endless--almost seemed 
endless--and painful set of negotiations, we find ourselves in a place 
where we have actually had a sign of bipartisan cooperation to fulfill 
our obligations at this really, really critical moment just in the nick 
of time. And I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
for that strong vote. And I hope as we go forward in the coming hours 
that that is a bill that we will actually build on because there are 
some people who are saying this will never pass the House of 
Representatives. It never will unless we can figure out how to pass it 
here. And we can do it in a bipartisan way. And we are off to that 
start.
  When Russia invaded Ukraine just 2 years ago, the world expected Kyiv 
would fall in 72 hours; that Putin would depose Ukraine's government 
and that he would install a puppet government in that capital city. But 
the Ukrainian people astonished the world.
  Practically barehanded, the Ukrainians fought off Putin's army, 
saving Kyiv and its democratic government. And since then, with our 
help, they have liberated over half of the territory that Putin stole 
from them. They have won battle after battle after battle that nobody 
ever thought they could win.
  As the Senator from New Hampshire said, they basically pushed Putin 
out of the Black Sea, opening up the seaways to get wheat out to the 
rest of the world--to Africa and to other places in the world. They 
don't even have a navy, the Ukrainians. They are a nation that is--I am 
talking about this in Colorado. It is like this is an entire nation of 
MacGyvers. And every day they are figuring out some new way to defeat 
Vladimir Putin or to push him out of the Black Sea.
  Just last week, Ukraine sank another one of Putin's warships. And 
since the war began, Putin has killed 70,000 Ukrainian troops and 
nearly 100,000 Ukrainian civilians.
  Our military support and our intelligence support has been critical. 
But it is really important to remember that it has only represented 
less than 0.4 percent of our economy--of our GDP--and that we are 
spending less as a percentage of our economy than many of our European 
allies.
  I know it is fashionable around here for some people to say that the 
folks in Europe aren't doing their part. But many of them are actually 
doing more as a group. They are doing more than we have done.
  In fairness to us, we provided more military aid than they have. And 
that has been really important. But they put in more humanitarian aid. 
And combined, we have stood up for Ukraine and stood up for each other.
  But because of the delay that we have had here on Capitol Hill, 
Europe has already committed an additional $55 billion to Ukraine just 
a week ago--or 10 days ago, I think--waiting for us to lead. They said: 
We are out of time. Ukraine is out of bullets. And so we are going to 
do what we need to do, is what our colleagues in Europe said.
  But, listen, it is not just countries that are in Putin's backyard 
that are doing this. It is not just countries who think: Well, if they 
can do it to Ukraine, they might do it to us. Our coalition includes 
Australia, includes Japan, includes South Korea. In fact, Japan just 
pledged another $4.5 billion for Ukraine. That is a lot of money for a 
country that is as far from Kyiv as Japan is, from Ukraine.
  But our partners know what the stakes are for democracy in this 
battle. They know that supporting Ukraine means standing with people 
who are willing to fight to do whatever it takes to live in a free 
country like ours.
  As I said, Ukraine is running out of bullets. And Putin may be having 
a tough time on the Ukrainian battlefield, to put it mildly, compared 
to what anybody would have reasonably expected. But the battlefield he 
is counting on winning on is the battlefield here on Capitol Hill. He 
knows how divided we are. He knows that this Capitol is filled with 
self-defeating division. And the question he is asking and the question 
we need to ask ourselves is whether we are going to allow that division 
to stand in the way of our support for Ukraine. He can read our 
newspapers. He knows how to troll us on social media.
  Just in the 4 months that we have been having this debate--by the 
way, I think we should have passed this in October. Just in the 4 
months we have been debating this and that we have consumed debating 
this aid, Putin has taken back territory that the Ukrainians spilled 
blood to gain, and his soldiers have killed or injured over 1,500 
Ukrainian civilians. Russia is killing or badly wounding 30,000 
Ukrainian troops every month.
  As we gather here today, Putin is right now, today, amassing 40,000 
soldiers, 500 tanks, and 650 armored vehicles to conquer yet another 
Ukrainian city. And Ukrainian's troops are digging in as they have all 
winter long to fight back. But they are outgunned; they are outmanned. 
They have to ration their ammunition because they don't know whether 
the bullets are coming again. They don't know whether they are going to 
get the support they need.
  And Putin thinks he can beat Ukraine, not because he thinks the 
Ukrainians are weak but because he thinks we are weak. He thinks we are 
weak.
  It is not just Putin who thinks that American democracy can't meet 
the challenge; his autocratic allies across the world believe the same 
thing.
  It is important, as the Senator from New Hampshire was saying, 
Senator Shaheen, to see how ``interconnected,'' to use her word, these 
things are. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine connects directly to 
Iran's aggression across the Middle East, to China's saber-rattling 
against Taiwan and the Philippines, and North Korea's missile launches. 
Putin is killing Ukrainians today with Iranian and North Korean 
missiles in this very war. China supplies critical components to Moscow 
to regenerate Russia's defense production, and it helps keep the 
Kremlin able to avoid or escape our sanctions. For its part, Hamas used 
weapons from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia to murder 1,200 
people in Israel on October 7.
  As everybody in this Chamber knows from what is going on just this 
week, Iran is backing militants in Iraq and Syria who just killed U.S. 
soldiers in Jordan. Tehran is bankrolling the Houthis. Its attacks in 
the Red Sea have caused shipping prices to jump, inflicting higher 
costs on Americans. And, of course, China is funding billions of 
dollars to the dictator in North Korea who supplies weapons to fight 
this very war against the Ukrainian people.
  The threats these powers pose are connected and overlapping. From 
Putin to Xi, these dictators have made it clear--and they have said it 
at the negotiating table over and over again in the last decade--that 
they believe that democracy is exhausting and that totalitarianism is 
the best that humanity can expect.
  This Congress's failure to fund Ukraine, if it comes to that, will 
send a powerful signal to them that they are right and that democracy 
is in decline, at least in the U.S.A.
  And despite all of this, despite all of these stakes, I heard people 
in both this Chamber and in the House of Representatives question 
whether this fight really matters to the American people. Failing to 
support Ukraine means showing the world that the United States, long 
the leader of the free world, is no longer capable of standing up for 
the post-World War II order, our values, and for our partners. We can't 
accept the implications of that for our future or for our children's 
future.
  Fortunately, we have an amazing example in front of us right now in 
the Ukrainian people because their courage, their ingenuity, their 
stamina

[[Page S473]]

have reminded us that humans will actually die for democracy. They will 
fight authoritarianism until it is destroyed, until it is dismantled. 
And they have fought and inspired people all over the world to support 
them in their fight, not to send soldiers or to sacrifice our lives but 
to send arms and to send intelligence.
  Are we willing to say, after all of that over the past 2 years--are 
we willing to say that we have no stake in this outcome; that we are 
indifferent to Putin's aggression or the meaning to the free world if 
he is successful in his illegal and criminal invasion of a free country 
in Europe?
  If we fail to fund Ukraine, it is not going to end this war. That is 
an invitation for Putin to continue this war. And he will impose his 
will on the Ukrainian people, and dictators everywhere will see that 
they have a green light; that they can inhabit a world where might 
makes right; where people don't have the benefits of freedom or the 
rule of law but get up every day just to fight off the kind of mayhem 
that the Ukrainian people are fighting today. That world would be a lot 
more dangerous than the one we are in today.
  We do not want to embolden Putin or his allies to believe that they 
can do to other places what they did to Ukraine, as the Senator from 
New Hampshire said. Putin could march into NATO like his allies have 
said--Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania--and then article V would be invoked 
and then we are involved and our people are involved.
  If he actually won this war, Putin could use his leverage over 
Ukrainian wheat and Ukrainian energy to dictate terms to people all 
over this world who rely on those important commodities.
  And let me tell you something else--and this is not some totally 
hypothetical parade of horribles. We look at this every day on the 
Intelligence Committee. Xi Jinping is watching this, and he is 
considering what this means for what he intends to do with Taiwan, 
whether he wants to plunge the Indo-Pacific into war, shocking the 
global economy and drawing American soldiers into that theater.
  Letting Putin win--giving Putin the green light--is going to take us 
down this road. It is as predictable as the Sun rising tomorrow.
  And that is why--let me close because I know the Senator from 
Maryland is here. Let me close by saying this. I want to just say this 
especially to the people in this Chamber who have sort of taken a more 
isolationist tack than the one we are taking today, who may not believe 
that the United States has the same essential role to play that I 
believe the United States has played, partly because of my family's own 
experience and my mother having been born in Warsaw, a Polish Jew in 
1938 and what that means to me about American leadership. But let me 
say, if you are somebody who believes that the United States should be 
less entangled abroad and more focused at home, you ought to ask them 
if you can vote for Ukraine twice--twice--because the world is going to 
be less safe for the American people if we fail to do this.
  I know that many of my Senate Republican colleagues understand the 
historic nature of this moment--and Democrats as well--and believe that 
we should extend our support for Ukraine along with our partners, 
including Israel and Taiwan. They are right.
  Let me say, no friend of Israel or Taiwan should turn away from 
Ukraine. Ukraine's battle is their battle. Ukraine's fight is their 
fight. And I hope our colleagues in the House will come to appreciate 
that as well and that we will have a big bipartisan vote here and a big 
bipartisan vote in the House, and we will recommit to each other maybe 
to overcoming the dysfunction that we have had, surprise ourselves on 
the upside for once around here, and send an important signal to the 
rest of the world.
  I will finish with this. In his first meeting with us--and I know my 
colleagues remember this. There was still COVID when this was 
happening. President Zelenskyy was on the computer, just like any other 
Zoom call that any of us had during COVID. He said to us: We are 
fighting to live our lives the way you live your life.
  The last time he spoke to us--it was in person this time. He came 
here. We met in the Old Senate Chamber. The last time he spoke to us, 
he said: We need your help. We need your bullets. We need your support. 
But if you fail to support us, we will never stop fighting because, as 
Senator Shaheen said, our entire enterprise is based on the idea that 
we are going to fight for freedom. We are never going to stop fighting.
  He did say: We would lose. We can't beat Putin without your help, but 
we will never stop fighting for freedom.
  I thought that was a very honest thing for him to say. I thought he 
could have said easily: We will give up. Instead what he said was: You 
may decide not to stand for freedom, but even if you fail us, we won't 
give up.
  We can't fail Ukraine. This is no time for Congress to play politics 
with people's lives, no matter where they live, whether they live in 
Denver or in Kyiv or in the Middle East or New Hampshire or Maryland or 
Connecticut or Taipei. We won't get a second chance. This is a test of 
America's resolve and this is a call for American leadership and we 
cannot fail.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Bennet for those 
comments.
  Senator Shaheen, thank you for organizing this opportunity for us to 
talk about the importance of this bill.
  I must tell you, it has been a long road, and there were times where 
I think we thought we would not be able to get this aid package to the 
floor of the U.S. Senate.
  The Senator from Colorado was one of the strongest voices that we had 
to make sure we never gave up. We were disappointed many, many times 
over many months. Senator Shaheen has been in the forefront, serving 
both on Armed Services and Senate Foreign Relations, to make sure, 
again, that we kept the momentum moving forward to get this done. Even 
last night, when we thought that there was an impediment that we could 
not overcome, we looked at the votes on the board and said that it 
doesn't look like we are going to get there. Senator Shaheen said, 
Senator Bennet said, Senator Blumenthal said that we can't give up.
  I have the honor of chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
The Presiding Officer is one of our distinguished members.
  There is no more important foreign policy priority than getting this 
bill passed and signed by the President. It is our No. 1 priority for 
our national security.
  You have heard my colleagues talk about the fact that this is not 
about Russia versus Ukraine. That is what this war immediately is 
about, but it is about the free-world democracy versus autocracy.
  Yes, 2 years ago, how many of us thought that President Zelenskyy 
would still be alive, let alone President of a viable country, Ukraine? 
The will and fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people is to be admired. 
Their leadership has been incredible. They are the ones who have been 
able to hold back the big Russian army, but they couldn't do it without 
our support. Yes, they will still fight, but they can't hold back that 
type of force unless they have the ammunition and the weapons and the 
support they need in order to carry on this battle.
  When I said it is not a fight between Russia and Ukraine, we have a 
coalition of the democratic powers of the world all working to help 
Ukraine--Europe and throughout the global community--and I think 
sometimes it is lost because our constituents think this is just the 
United States coming to Ukraine's aid. Europe collectively provides 
more help than we do as a nation. We are the largest single 
contributor. They can't do it without our expertise, our help, our 
resources, and our equipment. We know that.
  But look who is on the other side. Who is supporting Russia? It is 
Iran, it is North Korea, and, yes, it is the People's Republic of 
China. They are the ones supporting Russia's efforts.
  Yes, this supplemental is interconnected. What is happening in the 
Middle East, what is happening in the China seas, what is happening 
with Taiwan--all related to whether democracies can prevail.
  We have so much at stake. Yesterday, I was so disappointed because of 
the vote that took place. Today, I see

[[Page S474]]

some light here. But let's take advantage of this. We have momentum. 
Let's make sure we get this bill passed.
  Why is it so important? There is no question in any of our minds that 
Russia will not stop its military operations at Ukraine's border. 
Russian troops are already in Moldova and Georgia because of earlier 
incursions similar to what happened with Crimea, Ukraine. Do any of us 
think they are not going to try to take over those countries, as they 
did Ukraine?
  Then take a look at the Baltic countries: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. 
They used to be part of Russia--at least they claimed; we never 
recognized that. They are now NATO allies and great NATO allies. Mr. 
Putin wants to take over those countries.
  Poland--he wants to take over Poland, the countries that border, and 
he doesn't stop there.
  This really is an alignment of the world, and it is so critically 
important that the United States is the leader in this effort on behalf 
of democracy. It is not only the money that is important. It is not 
only the ammunition and the munitions that are important. It is U.S. 
leadership because it is a clear signal that we are going to triumph, 
that Ukraine will triumph and democracy will triumph. We really need to 
understand the importance of this action.
  I have been honored to be a Member of this body now for 18 years. 
This is my 18th year in the U.S. Senate. This is perhaps the most 
important vote I will cast as a United States Senator. That is just how 
important this issue is for us to get done. And I am proud of many of 
the issues that we have taken up during my years in the U.S. Senate. 
That is how important it is for us to get this done.
  Yes, we need to make sure that we stop the Iranian proxies in the 
Middle East because they are all part of this. Yes, we could be drawn 
into a conflict because of what is happening on the Red Sea or what 
Hezbollah is doing on Israel's northern border or Iran's activities and 
proxies in Iraq. We know that. We have to act with dispatch--urgency.
  In Ukraine, the case is that they don't have enough ammunition. They 
are rationing ammunition today. There are Ukrainian villages as we 
speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate that are at risk of being taken 
over by Russian forces because they don't have the munitions they need 
and the support they need, including from the United States of America.
  This has been a great investment. How many of us thought that the 
monies we invested over the last 2 years would lead to blocking the 
Russian military? But it has done that. Yes, it is real that the 
alternative to money could be U.S. military, our sons and daughters 
over fighting in Europe once again. Look at history. Look at what 
happened in the 1930s. Look what led up to World War II. You see some 
dangerous comparisons that are taking place.
  We need to be on the right side of history, and the right side of 
history is to make sure the supplementals pass with dispatch. There are 
so many other issues in here that are critically important. We need to 
make sure that humanitarian assistance is there, and we need to make 
sure that at the end of the day, Russia is held accountable for what 
they have done. War crimes. They have committed genocide. They tried to 
wipe the Ukrainian culture off the face of the Earth. Sound familiar? 
World War II. They have to be held accountable.

  They have to be held accountable financially for the damage they have 
caused to Ukraine. I am proud of the bill we were able to pass in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee known as the REPO bill. I 
congratulate Senator Whitehouse and Senator Risch for their leadership 
on that. It also includes the global center. It also includes 
atrocities prevention.
  We need to make sure that we have a comprehensive way to make sure 
Russia is held accountable for what they have done, but it starts with 
supporting Ukraine to defend itself and to win this war of aggression 
that Russia has started and make it clear that we are there in the 
Middle East. There is no future for the security of Israel or the 
Palestinians with Hamas in control. They have to be eliminated. The 
proxies in Iran have to be neutralized. Yes, in the Indo-Pacific, we 
must stand with our ally Taiwan so there is no military action taken by 
the People's Republic of China against Taiwan. All of that is in this 
bill, and that is why this bill is so critically important that we get 
to the finish line.
  So I urge my colleagues--we had a good vote a little while ago. We 
are not at the finish line in the U.S. Senate. The next step is, let's 
be reasonable and find a reasonable path forward to get this bill 
done--I hope within the next day or two--send it over to the House of 
Representatives, and hope that our colleagues in the House will follow 
the lead of the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans working together 
to get a bill done for our national security. Then I hope we can get 
back to border security because we know our immigration system needs 
that, and we need border security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am grateful to my colleague Senator 
Shaheen of New Hampshire, as well as Senator Bennet of Colorado, 
Senator Cardin of Maryland, and I will be followed by Senator Peters of 
Michigan. We are among the group, but we are hardly the only ones who 
feel so passionately about this issue.
  For anyone who has visited Ukraine--and I have been there four times 
over the last couple of years--seeing and hearing are so powerfully 
inspiring, so deeply moving. I will never forget my first visit after 
the invasion when I went to President Zelenskyy's office--really a 
bunker--and spoke to him about what it was like to have the Russians 
literally 10 minutes away by car from his door.
  Then I went to Bucha, where I saw the remains of Russian tanks where 
they were stopped by Ukrainians using handheld missiles in the snow 
against these huge weapons of war, but simply by dint of their courage 
and indomitable spirit, they stopped the Russians--but only at Kyiv's 
doorstep.
  President Zelenskyy told me then and he has told me since: We will 
fight with pitchforks if we need to. We don't need your soldiers. We 
need your help. We need the military equipment that you can provide.
  He told us they needed more Javelins, and we provided them later than 
we should have. He said: We need HIMARS artillery. He said: We need 
ATACMS. We provided them later than we should have. Bradley and Stryker 
vehicles. Again, we provided them later than we should have. Of course, 
Abrams tanks and F-16s. They are there or on the way--later, but we did 
the right thing.
  Winston Churchill once said America always does the right thing after 
it tries everything else--an exaggeration, but there is a kernel of 
truth in Winston Churchill's comment, which is, we are often late in 
doing the right thing.
  Now we have no more margin of error in Ukraine. Deliveries of weapons 
are one-third of what they were only 7 months ago, and the failure to 
appropriate funds here means that supply of arms will be at 10 percent 
of what it was.
  I have met those veterans, Ukrainian soldiers who have fought on the 
front, who described to me what it means to be fighting against the 
entrenched Russian forces--landmines, their artillery pouring onto the 
Ukrainian troops, shells and drones that keep them at constant risk and 
force them back when they have sought to make advances. And they have 
made advances, and they have been successful on the front, both in the 
east and in the south. It has been yard by yard, mile by mile, moving 
forward, sometimes pushed back, and the Russians laying waste to whole 
cities.
  I have also visited Bucha and Irpin. We know what happened in 
Mariupol. The killing in Bucha was an atrocity that the world should 
never forget--men and women and children, hands tied behind their 
backs, shot in the head, and then buried in mass graves that I saw. 
Talking to people who live in Bucha whose memories will be seared 
forever and their children traumatized by these Russian atrocities.
  Vladimir Putin is a war criminal. There is a warrant for his arrest, 
rightly, from the international court of criminal justice. There should 
be warrants for arrests for all of the Russian officials who have 
participated in taking children from Ukraine, by the thousands--tens of 
thousands--and

[[Page S475]]

then indoctrinating them, reeducating them in Russia or Belarus.

  Russia has launched an unprovoked, criminal, murderous attack on a 
nation. That constitutes genocide. Those people in Bucha and in many 
other places around Ukraine were killed for one reason alone: They are 
Ukrainian. The world's outrage is well-founded.
  Many of my colleagues have expressed that same outrage. Senators are 
good at summoning outrage in words that are far more eloquent than 
mine, but we will be judged not by our words but by our actions. We 
will be rightly judged by history as to what we do or what we fail to 
do here.
  And we have missed opportunities in Ukraine before. The Senator from 
New Hampshire will recall well our efforts after the first invasion, 
when Russia seized a huge part of Ukraine and a bipartisan effort was 
made in the Armed Services Committee to provide more lethal aid to 
Ukraine so that it could use it, before this second invasion, to push 
back the Russians and show that we could deter them.
  And after my first visit to Ukraine, which was a little bit before 
the second invasion, I came back, and I said to anyone who would 
listen, including the President of the United States: The only way to 
deter Putin is with force, delivery of what Ukraine needs to defend 
itself. Vladimir Putin is a thug. He understands only force.
  And, unfortunately, we missed that opportunity. The second invasion 
occurred 2 year ago, and the effects in Ukraine are visible, again, to 
anyone who would visit: bombed-out buildings; transformers for power, 
destroyed; Ukraine's delivery of grain to a world that needs more food, 
blocked.
  These effects are not abstract, and they are not limited to Ukraine. 
There are a lot of people in the United States who watch what they see 
on TV, and the images are horrifying. And their reaction is, of course: 
Thank goodness it isn't here, and thank goodness it doesn't affect us.
  Well, the fact of the matter is, it affects Americans. It affects all 
of our allies. It affects the supply of energy and the cost of it--and 
the effect on the world economy. It affects the availability of grain--
Ukraine is the bread basket of many parts of the world--and the cost of 
food. It affects the diplomatic relations of nations, and, ultimately, 
it will affect our men and women in uniform.
  Right now, President Zelenskyy can fight and win without men and 
women from America on the ground. But if he keeps going--and he will 
keep going, if he wins; he has told it to us. We have only to listen to 
him. It will be Poland or Romania or Moldova or Finland and Sweden.
  Does anyone have any doubt about why Finland and Sweden want to be 
part of NATO? After years of neutrality, it is simply fear of Russia 
and Vladimir Putin's savage indomitable appetite for more territory and 
his long-range vision for restoring the Russian Empire and the old 
Soviet Union.
  So anybody who thinks that what happens in Ukraine has no effect on 
America, you are in denial. Anyone who argues that we should be 
repairing our roads or building more schools or providing more food and 
heat for people who need it in America, you are right, but not at the 
expense of our national security. We can do both. We have done both.
  And throughout American history, there have been people who have 
said: Let's pull back; let's care only what happens within our shores. 
And they have been proved wrong by history because of their denial, 
and, ultimately, America has done the right thing, as it did in World 
War II, and as it has done again and again and again by defending 
freedom and democracy.
  This imperative is a moral obligation. It is a political necessity, 
but it is also a national security imperative.
  The arms that we deliver to Ukraine already have helped degrade the 
Russian military by one half. Talk to our military leaders about the 
effects on Russia's military of Ukraine's defense. It has degraded the 
Russian Armed Forces by one half, and we have invested less than 5 
percent of our military budget, without a single American casualty--not 
a single American in uniform killed or wounded. That is an investment 
that we need to continue, because the alternative is for us to be 
putting our troops on the ground there to defend, under our NATO 
obligation, those countries that will be invaded next--whether it is 
Poland, Romania, Moldova, or Finland and Sweden.
  Let me say, finally, I was very proud yesterday to vote for a 
supplemental that serves our national security--our national security 
in Ukraine, our national security interest in Israel. It is defending 
itself against a terrorist organization that wants to eradicate Israel 
and annihilate the Jewish people, and it is doing so at our urging, 
with pressure from the United States, with reduced civilian casualties, 
more humanitarian aid, and maybe, most importantly, working toward a 
pause to bring home the hostages. Some are American.
  And our security interest in Taiwan, in the Southeast, where, again, 
an aggressor threatens the rule of law and the order that we have 
established.
  And, of course, national security at the border--we need to control 
the border. Our immigration system is broken. We need comprehensive 
immigration reform, but we need steps now to reform a completely 
shredded system at the border.
  But this cause of Ukraine should bring us together and has brought us 
together. When we first started 10 years ago in the Armed Services 
Committee, one of our leaders was John McCain. I have traveled to 
Ukraine with Senator Graham. We have been part of a bipartisan 
movement. It should bring us together as Republicans and Democrats. 
There should be no red or blue part of it.
  And I know--let me just say finally--that the people of America, at 
heart, are with us. I know that the Ukrainian community in Connecticut 
has stood steadfast and has been such an example. When I have told 
President Zelenskyy about the strong support in our Ukrainian 
community, his eyes have lighted up. And that is true throughout 
America. Ukrainians have remained steadfast in their loyalty to the 
freedom of their country, and they have been inspired, as have we.
  Vladimir Putin is counting on us to fail. He believes democracies are 
decrepit and corrupt. He thinks that an autocratic dictatorship is 
superior, that everyday people don't know how to govern themselves, 
that he can continue to divide us by misinformation and disinformation.
  He is wrong. Let's prove him wrong. Let's do it without delay. Let's 
do the right thing, without doing everything else first.
  I thank my colleagues, and I am proud to stand with them today to 
urge that both Chambers pass this supplemental as quickly as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate considered 
legislation that would have provided critical aid to our allies and 
provide resources and authorities to secure our northern and southern 
borders. The legislation was forged by good-faith, bipartisan 
negotiations.
  But instead of coming together to advance a vital border security 
bill, my Republican colleagues blocked it--blocked it--from receiving 
any further debate and potential modification. My Republican colleagues 
voted against advancing legislation that would make meaningful changes 
at our border for the first time in decades. It would have provided the 
personnel, the resources, and the authorities needed to secure our 
borders, address regional migration trends, and support lawful trade 
and travel that drives our economy.
  I serve as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and I have worked to advance several bipartisan bills to 
secure our borders. But the legislation we had yesterday was rejected 
by my Republican colleagues, which would have addressed some of the 
most pressing challenges at the southern border and actually take them 
on immediately.
  The bill would have allowed us to hire more CBP officers and agents, 
the men and women who are on the ground protecting our national 
security and managing our border crossings. It would have provided 
resources to install more advanced screening technology, tools that 
help identify illegal cargo and stop dangerous drugs like

[[Page S476]]

fentanyl from reaching our communities. It would have helped the 
Federal Government go after criminal organizations that traffic harmful 
drugs across the border.
  The bill also aimed to streamline the process for asylum seekers 
arriving at our southern border, while ensuring individuals who do not 
qualify are quickly removed. It would have helped to ensure that 
unaccompanied children who arrive at the border--some of the most 
vulnerable people in our immigration system--have access to counsel, 
and it would have established a pathway to permanent residence for 
Afghan allies who risked their lives in the defense of our national 
security.
  Now, the bill wasn't perfect. It was not meant to be a comprehensive 
immigration reform, but it was a bipartisan effort to address the 
challenges that we are now seeing at the southern border. And that is 
why the National Border Patrol Council, which represents frontline 
border security professionals, fully supported it, and they urged us to 
take action. They needed these tools. They were crying out: Please, 
give us these tools at border.
  The conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal put it 
simply in their headline, and it was: ``A Border Security Bill Worth 
Passing.''
  Republicans in Congress initially demanded border security measures 
to be part of this bill. But in the minute that we actually had a 
strong, bipartisan security bill on the floor, they decided to walk 
away. Maybe it is because they have been listening to former President 
Trump, who publicly fought to sink this bipartisan effort. He doesn't 
care about making our border more secure or supporting our CBP agents 
on the frontline or keeping fentanyl out of our communities. He only 
cares about his chances in November, and he thinks that, if we solve 
this problem, it is going to hurt his election.
  Clearly, Republicans in Congress agreed, and they have made it 
abundantly clear that they would rather campaign on this issue than 
actually pass legislation to fix it. They would rather play politics 
and see themselves on TV and on their favorite network talking about it 
rather than rolling up their sleeves and actually solving the problem.

  My colleagues who worked on this comprehensive bill set a much needed 
example of bipartisanship. I am proud to work alongside Senator Murphy 
in our caucus, and I am grateful to serve as chairman of the Homeland 
Security and Government Affairs Committee and work closely with both 
Senators Sinema and Lankford. These are three committed lawmakers, 
people who did actually roll up their sleeves and actually worked to 
get things done in a meaningful way. And I certainly appreciate their 
hard work in negotiating this comprehensive bill.
  We are all aware of the challenges we face at the southern border, 
and it is a shame that a vast majority of my Republican colleagues have 
decided not to act.
  We could still take a critical step to help our allies, however, who 
are now facing existential challenges. Our international partners are 
fighting for democracy. Ukraine is standing up to a reckless dictator 
and protecting its people from his violent campaign. In October, Israel 
weathered the deadliest terrorist attacks in its history. Taiwan 
continues to face aggression from the Chinese government. In order to 
help preserve democracy and stability on the global stage, the United 
States must stand at their side. We can send help to our international 
partners when they need it the most.
  It has been almost 2 years since Putin initiated his unprovoked war 
of aggression against Ukraine. In response, the Ukrainian people have 
shown incredible bravery and resolve. They have stood up in the face of 
this dictator to defend their sovereignty and their democracy. They are 
fighting a courageous battle, not only to protect their own country but 
to show the world the importance of protecting liberty against an 
authoritarian regime. For months, Ukraine has needed the United States 
to help in this fight and provide more military assistance as they push 
back on Russian forces. And now we have an opportunity to move a bill 
forward that would send this critical aid to our ally. It will help the 
Ukrainian Army get the weapons, the intelligence, and the training 
resources that they need to win this war. It will also include 
significant humanitarian aid, money that will go directly to those most 
immediately affected by this conflict.
  My home State of Michigan is home to a vibrant Ukrainian-American 
community. Every day I hear from constituents who are urging the United 
States to act and act soon, not just to help Ukraine but to defend 
democratic values all across the globe.
  If we fail to pass this legislation, it will play right into Putin's 
hands. The Ukrainian victories will be nullified, their resolve will 
have been wasted, and their independent democracy will be in grave 
danger. We cannot and must not let that happen. I commend President 
Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people for their response to Putin's 
invasion, and I implore my colleagues to pass the bill before us and 
send them the aid that they so desperately need.
  We also now have the ability to send urgently needed resources to 
Israel in their fight against Hamas and provide humanitarian aid to 
civilians in Gaza who have been caught in the crossfire of this 
conflict. Israelis are reeling from horrific attacks on October 7, 4 
months ago. Many families are still praying for the safe return of 
family members being held hostage by Hamas. Others are mourning their 
loved ones who were killed in the initial attack, and there is no 
question that the country will never, ever be the same.
  I stand with Israel and all those in the region seeking peace and 
security by passing this legislation. We can support both our key ally 
in the region and provide relief for innocent civilians in Gaza who 
have shouldered the burdens of this war.
  As we send this urgently needed support, I want to reiterate my calls 
for both parties to minimize civilian casualties and work toward a 
lasting peace.
  We had a chance to address all of these challenges at once yesterday; 
but, unfortunately, a significant bipartisan agreement failed, 
congressional Republicans decided they do not want to secure our 
border. But today, we can send help to our allies and we can still help 
protect democracy across the world. The stakes are too high not to act.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill before us now and join me 
in supporting this vital assistance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we heard you loud and clear.
  Is it my turn? I am not jumping ahead of anybody.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. So let's have an overview of where we are at 
here. Everything my colleagues on the Democratic side said about 
helping Ukraine makes perfect sense to me. I think we need to help 
Ukraine.
  I thought it was a really bad idea to get out of Iraq in 2011, and I 
issued a statement about our withdrawal in 2011. I said:

       I respectfully disagree with President Obama. I feel all we 
     have worked for, fought for, sacrificed for is very much in 
     jeopardy by today's announcement. I hope I am wrong and the 
     President is right, but I fear this decision has set in 
     motion events that will come back to haunt our country.
  The ISIS was not the JV team. A lot of people were slaughtered 
throughout the planet because of that ill-advised decision.
  So we got out of Afghanistan. President Biden chose to do that. I 
have a statement here I will put in the record. I was very clear that 
if we get out of Afghanistan, pull all the troops, that there will be a 
reemergence of al-Qaida and ISIS and there will be a great major 
upheaval, as this decision by President Biden is a disaster in the 
making.
  So a lot of Republicans agree with those two things. To my Republican 
colleagues, if we pull the plug on Ukraine, it is going to be worse 
than Afghanistan. The idea of pulling the plug on Ukraine and it will 
not affect our national security is a fantasy.
  It was clear to me that getting out of Iraq in 2011 was too soon and 
would lead to the rise of radical Islamic terrorists. They literally 
took over half the country, killed people in Paris and here and 
everywhere else.
  Now we are back in Iraq. We should never have got out in the first 
place. The bottom line about Afghanistan--I know it was a long slog and 
people

[[Page S477]]

wanted out, but the Taliban took over within weeks. And the Taliban 
being in charge of Afghanistan led to other people in the world 
thinking, hey, America is weak, now is the time to pounce.
  So in 2021, we withdraw from Afghanistan. The Taliban take over. In 
2022, Russia invades Ukraine. That has been a complete disaster. In 
2023, Hamas attacks Israel, killing more Jewish people than at any time 
since the holocaust. In 2024, Iranian proxies are killing American 
soldiers and they are running wild throughout the world. Other than 
that, everything is pretty good.
  Now having said all that, my point is, I want to help Ukraine, 
Israel, and Taiwan. I really do. I think it is in our national security 
interests to do all of the above. But I have also said from, like, day 
one: I want to help other countries, but we got to help our country 
first.
  Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the border is not just 
broken, it is a complete nightmare. It is a national security disaster 
in the making; 7 million people have come across the border illegally--
a lot of people on the Terrorist Watchlist. So it has been a nightmare. 
And we tried to sit down in a bipartisan way--Senators Murphy, Sinema, 
Lankford, and others sat down to come up with a bipartisan proposal 
that I thought did a pretty good job in many ways. However, having said 
that, I didn't think it was enough.
  I was hoping that they would build on what they did. But here's where 
we are at: The House declared it insufficient.
  Ms. SINEMA. Would the Senator yield to a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Republican--
  Ms. SINEMA. Would the Senator yield to a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Ms. SINEMA. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Senator, I was just listening 
to your speech, and you mentioned that you thought the bill that we had 
drafted was a good start but not enough.
  I am wondering if you would remind us how you voted yesterday on the 
motion to proceed to the bill that had the border package that we 
worked on together?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will be glad to. I voted no because I didn't see a 
process in place or willingness by my Democratic colleagues to allow me 
to express how I think it could be better.
  See, at the end of the day--you weren't here, but Senator McCain 
was--we worked really hard--Senator Bennet has been involved in all 
this stuff in 2013--and we let the bill come to the floor, people amend 
it, and we spent days and weeks. So that is why I voted no.
  Ms. SINEMA. Senator Graham--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. My colleagues will address your comments to 
me.
  Mr. GRAHAM. So here is what I am saying. This has been a half-ass 
effort to deal with border security. To the people in the House--
  Ms. SINEMA. Senator, would you yield to a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No, I am speaking. You will speak later.
  To the people in the House, we have not really tried hard to secure 
the border.
  We took a well-meaning product. People worked really hard. I applaud 
you and others for coming out with a product that I thought had a lot 
of good things in it, but not enough for me.
  So now I can't even vote. We have closed out the border debate, and 
you may give me a few amendments on Ukraine about the border. That is 
not the way it works around here.
  Ms. SINEMA. Would the Senator yield to my question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No.
  To my House colleagues: You can do better than this. Don't send us 
back H.R. 2. It is not going anywhere. You couldn't get all Republicans 
for H.R. 2. We lost one Republican and no Democrats.
  So this idea we have done enough on the border is BS.
  I am not done. I am not going to help Ukraine until we first do a 
better job helping ourselves. I have given people involved credit for 
working hard to get a product. But the system in place now--take it or 
leave it.
  The reason I voted no is because I didn't see any willingness by 
anybody to allow an amendment process where we could deal with the 
border issue.
  I'm giving an amendment on the Ukraine bill about the border.
  Ms. SINEMA. Would the Senator yield to a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No. That is ass-backwards. We don't do it that way.
  During the Gang of 8 and other attempts, we had a robust amendment 
process. And let me tell you, I think there are things we can do to 
make it better.
  Ms. SINEMA. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. They want the 5,000-a-day encounter that kicks in an 
emergency authority to shut down the border. Here is what the border 
council said: 5,000 encounters a day is a catastrophe; 1,000 encounters 
a day would be a substantial improvement. It is truly an emergency. I 
was hoping we could talk about that.
  Now, we may get a vote on that on the Ukraine bill. We have closed 
out a debate on the border.
  Ms. SINEMA. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Ms. SINEMA. Thank you. Now, Senator, I know that you have been here 
quite a bit longer than me, but it is my understanding that in order to 
get to the portion of the bill where we offer amendments on the floor, 
we first have to pass the motion to proceed.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Ms. SINEMA. And it is also my understanding that it was authored by 
leadership and the three sponsors of the border bill, which your team 
gratefully helped us create, that we would have an open-amendment 
process.
  So would you help me understand why you voted against the motion to 
proceed before we were able to offer any amendments?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will be glad to. Yes, because I think the fix is in.
  I think people on our side and your side wanted to do the border 
thing as quick as they could so we could get to Ukraine. And I don't 
trust the system here to be able to allow us to have the debate that we 
had for the Gang of 8 bill. That is why I voted no, because I didn't 
see any willingness in--and it proved to be correct--because now the 
Republican leadership has joined with the Democratic leadership to shut 
down debate on the border bill, throwing a few amendments on the 
Ukraine bill and saying: Aren't you happy now?
  No, I am not happy. I am not happy. I admit it that I wanted to 
secure the border before I help Ukraine. Everything you say about 
Ukraine is right.
  I was not kidding, to our colleagues in the House. We have done a 
half-ass job here trying to secure the border.
  We shut this thing down unlike any other time I have been involved in 
immigration. I have taken a lot of hard votes. You have taken a lot of 
hard--you know, you have been kicked around. I understand it. Senator 
Lankford, I admire the hell out of him.
  I thought you all produced a pretty good product--a really good 
product in some areas. But it wasn't enough.
  I want a cap on parole. Let me tell you why I want a cap on parole. 
During the Trump-Obama years, the average people paroled in the country 
was 5,600. In the last 2 years, President Biden has paroled over 
800,000 people. So the parole was better, but we need a cap to stop the 
abuse. I would like to have an amendment on whether or not we should 
cap parole at 10,000 per year, but I am getting that on the Ukraine 
bill.
  So, to my colleague from Arizona, no, no, no. This has not been a 
real effort to find border security in a bipartisan way. We took your 
product. Take it or leave it. The reason I voted no to proceed has 
exactly been reaffirmed here. We stopped the process. We are jumping to 
Ukraine. We are going to do it this weekend, and it is going nowhere in 
the House.
  To those of you who want to help Ukraine, you have made it harder. We 
are going to lose a handful of Republican votes over here because they 
felt they were shut out in the debate about how to secure the border.
  We are going to lose votes--
  Ms. SINEMA. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No, please.
  We are going to lose votes over here. You don't have a snowball's 
chance in hell of getting it through the House, because we took the 
border issue, and we didn't address it the way it should have been. We 
closed it out. I could see

[[Page S478]]

the game being fixed. I am here as a proud supporter of Ukraine, 
telling you that you have hurt the cause of Ukraine by trying to 
shortchange a debate on the border. Your product was good, but I want 
to make it better.
  I have got a National Border Patrol Council letter about three things 
that would make it better.
  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:

                               National Border Patrol Council,

                                     Tucson, AZ, February 7, 2023.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Graham and Cornyn: I am responding to your 
     questions regarding how to improve the border security 
     provisions in the emergency national security supplemental. 
     Simply put, defining an emergency at the border as 1,000 
     encounters a day would be a substantial improvement. It is 
     apparent that 5,000 encounters in a day is a catastrophe, and 
     1,000 encounters a day is a true emergency. This is line with 
     what former Secretary of Homeland Security for President 
     Obama, Jeh Johnson said, that one day of 1,000 encounters was 
     a very bad day and ``overwhelms the system.'' If you could 
     lower the number to 1,000 encounters on average over a 7 day 
     period, and require that the President shut down the border 
     at that level of encounters, that would be a substantial 
     improvement to the legislation.
       As to the question of how to end catch and release, 
     detaining single adults and families rather than referring 
     them to non-custodial removal proceedings and enrolling them 
     in Alternatives to Detention, would be a giant step forward 
     towards that goal. The system of non-custodial proceedings 
     created by the provisions in the supplemental would not 
     effectively curb the catch and release policies of the Biden 
     administration for single adults or aliens in a family unit. 
     Therefore, changing the bill to provide for detention of 
     families as well as single adults would be a tremendous 
     improvement in stopping catch and release.
       Finally, the idea of putting a cap on parole would be a 
     gamechanger on ending parole abuse. As you indicated, under 
     the Trump administration and the Obama administration, grants 
     of parole by Customs and Border Protection at the southern 
     border averaged around less than 6,000 a year. Under 
     President Biden, grants of parole across the Department of 
     Homeland Security has skyrocketed to over 800,000 a year. A 
     cap on parole of 10,000 parole grants a year would be a check 
     on their ability to abuse this authority.
       In summary, redefining emergency from 5,000 to 1,000, 
     requiring actual detention instead of Alternatives to 
     Detention, and a 10,000 a year cap on parole would make this 
     bill exponentially better. Thank you for your questions and 
     your interest.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Brandon Judd.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to close this thing out. Here 
is what is going to happen. You may get this bill passed without any 
border, but it is going nowhere in the House. The House has made it 
crystal clear: To get money for Ukraine and other foreign countries, we 
have got to help our own. Our border is on fire.
  I will give you credit, the Senator from Arizona. You have been 
trying to fix it. I appreciate what you have tried to do, but the 
system we have employed--to my colleague from Arizona--is unlike any I 
have ever seen, in that we are going to take a consequential moment in 
American history of trying to secure a broken border and not even bring 
it to the floor for a real debate.
  The reason I voted no to proceed is because I saw what was happening. 
Our people on this side have been obsessed with Ukraine to the point of 
ignoring our border. There are people who are going to vote no to 
Ukraine who have always believed that the border was an excuse to try 
to get Ukraine. I never believed that.
  So the bottom line is this idea that, because 41 of us vote no, you 
close out the border. How about sitting down, reopening the border 
debate, and having a robust debate like we did with the Gang of 8? The 
reason I voted no is I could see where this thing was going. The bill 
you produced, while I liked parts of it, was dead in the House. I am 
trying to find a way to make it better, if that is possible.
  As to President Trump, who said he just doesn't want to deal with 
this until next year, I want to deal with it now. We could be attacked 
tomorrow. I want to let the people in South Carolina know I consider 
this a direct threat to the United States. I want to do something. I 
want to do it now. I don't want to wait until November.
  Ms. SINEMA. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Sure.
  Ms. SINEMA. Thank you.
  Senator, are you aware that the only way to offer an amendment on a 
bill being considered in the U.S. Senate is to first pass the motion to 
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed--that being the vote we took 
yesterday at 1:59 p.m.?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Are you aware of the fact that people routinely vote not 
to proceed until they get some kind of understanding of what is coming 
next? And here is what came next: Not one effort to sit down and talk 
to the 41 of us: What would you like to change your vote?
  The fix is in. We jump right into Ukraine. We are going to do it this 
weekend. We did the minimum on the border when it comes to changing a 
bill that has many good qualities. So you are not convincing me that I 
am the problem. I have seen this. You have not. I have seen a debate on 
this floor with Senator Bennet where we got the crap kicked out of us 
for weeks. We gave everybody who didn't like what we did a chance to 
come down here and say their side of the story and kick us in the ass. 
That is the way the process works. We did not do that here. So you are 
losing votes on Ukraine. You are losing me in terms of trying to fix 
this problem. I can't tell our House colleagues that you should accept 
this product, because we have not done what I think needs to be done to 
try to secure our border. That is why I am voting no.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Oh, wait a minute. Can I take that back? I have got to say something 
to my friend, if I may, just for a minute.
  This is the Polish Prime Minister. I like Poland. It has been a great 
ally and a good NATO ally.

       Dear Republican Senators of America, Ronald Reagan, who 
     helped millions of us to win back our freedom and 
     independence, must be turning in his grave today. Shame on 
     you.

  To the Prime Minister of Poland, I could care less what you think. To 
the Prime Minister of Poland, if Ronald Reagan were alive today, we 
wouldn't have this broken border. To the Prime Minister of Poland, I 
want to help Ukraine. I want to help make a stronger NATO, but my 
country is on fire. We have had 7 million people come across a broken 
border.
  How would you feel if 7 million people came in illegally into Poland? 
Would you have this attitude that we have got to put Ukraine ahead of 
Poland?
  I am not going to put Ukraine, Israel, or anybody else ahead of 
America. I am going to try to create an outcome where the bill gets 
through the House. It has got to get through the House.
  And, to our House colleagues, we have not done everything that we 
could. We have let you down.
  Now I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fetterman). The Senator from Arizona.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. President, I think it is probably useful to take a 
couple of moments and do a quick refresher on how Senate process and 
procedure work.
  So, in the U.S. Senate, when a bill is introduced and when it comes 
to the floor, we have to do what is called a motion to proceed. The 
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed is a 60-vote 
threshold in the U.S. Senate. The 60-vote threshold, of course, is the 
filibuster.
  Now, folks in this body might remember how deeply I care about the 
filibuster, because it requires comity; it requires compromise; and it 
requires individuals of different parties to work together to solve 
problems. Often, it has been an object of contention in this body, but 
I support the filibuster because I believe it requires us to work 
together to solve problems, hear everyone's ideas, and incorporate them 
as we move forward on legislation.
  Of course, before you can actually amend a piece of legislation on 
the Senate floor, you first must pass the motion to invoke cloture. We 
held that vote yesterday at 1:59 p.m. I have got the copy of the 
rollcall vote right here in front of me. Unfortunately, there were only 
49 Senators who voted yes to move forward on yesterday's package. There 
were 50 Senators who voted no to move forward on the package.
  Of course, what the motion to invoke cloture was, was on the shell of 
the

[[Page S479]]

bill. The substitute that would be filed is this bill right here. This 
bill is 370 pages long. Most of this legislation is the border bill, 
which we spent over 4 months negotiating in a bipartisan way.
  I was very grateful that Senator Graham's team and Senator Graham 
himself were integral parts of that conversation.
  So this bill is subject to debate and subject to amendment but only--
only--after a motion to invoke cloture is passed, which requires 60 
votes. Now, my good friend from South Carolina indicated that he would 
like to offer some amendments. Some of the ideas that he was discussing 
are ideas that I very much support. I would look forward to debating 
and possibly even supporting one or more of his amendments. But, alas, 
we are unable to consider those amendments because, yesterday, the 
Senate chose to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture to move forward 
on this legislation. Therefore, we are not able to amend or debate this 
bill.
  The Senate later moved forward with a piece of legislation very 
similar to this, but it was missing the entire border section. So we 
are now in a period of waiting until our next vote to invoke another 
cloture in which, potentially, if unanimous consent occurs in this 
body, we could consider additional amendments. However, it could be 
more difficult to consider some of those border-related amendments 
since the package now does not include any of the border language that 
we carefully negotiated over the last 4\1/2\ months.
  So, to Members of the Senate and the folks who are listening, just to 
be clear, it seems clear to me--and I think to everyone in the U.S. 
Senate--that had we passed this motion to invoke cloture yesterday with 
60-plus votes, we would be currently debating, offering, and voting on 
amendments to the border provisions of the bill that was drafted, and 
each of those amendments would have been germane, which means they 
would have been voted at a 51-vote threshold--a simple majority--to 
move forward.
  Alas, because this body chose not to invoke cloture, we have moved on 
to a different piece of legislation, one that does not include the 
border components. So, while there may be amendments offered at some 
point over the next several days, it will be a very different debate 
than the amendments that would be offered before.
  I know that my friend from South Carolina is currently drafting an 
amendment, which I appreciate. The amendment that he is drafting for 
current discussion would have to incorporate the entirety of the border 
bill package, with some minor changes to the language that we drafted 
and voted on yesterday, in order to consider his amendment. So I would 
suggest that, perhaps, if we had wanted to have a robust debate and an 
openness to an open amendment process, the time to have done that would 
have been yesterday at 1:59 p.m.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, let me commend my colleague from 
Arizona, Senator Sinema, for her great and tireless efforts to develop 
a bipartisan immigration reform package that, as she indicated, we 
could have placed on the floor with our vote yesterday so that we could 
now be talking about modifications, changes, and improvements to not 
just the immigration section but also to the other sections. But my 
Republican colleagues in large numbers said no, and I think that was a 
grave mistake. If, in fact, we are facing a crisis on the border, 
voting against legislation to correct this crisis seems to me to be 
very difficult to justify.
  But it is good news that finally, on a bipartisan basis, the national 
security legislation is on the Senate floor for debate. It is a start, 
but it shouldn't have taken this long simply to get to the starting 
line. The delays and continued efforts to slow-walk the process by some 
can have serious and negative repercussions on our national security.
  It has been nearly 6 months since President Biden initiated this 
request--so long ago that the request was addressed to the former 
Speaker of the House, not the present Speaker of the House.
  I can recall last October, as we were talking about aid to Ukraine, 
as we were talking about aid to Israel, that my Republican colleagues--
many of them--stood up and said: Fine, but we have got to do something 
about the border. So, for months, we have been engaged in the process.
  Again, I have great regard for Senator Lankford, for his efforts, and 
for Senator Murphy of Connecticut and Senator Sinema for what they have 
done. They brought together a truly bipartisan piece of legislation. 
Senator Lankford is one of those most principled, conservative voices 
here in the Senate. My colleague from Connecticut has a very strong 
liberal stance, I would say, as myself. But they came together. Rather 
than being welcomed as a contribution to debate and progress in 
national security and border security, Senator Lankford has been 
demeaned by his own party, condemned by his State committee, and 
accused of or threatened by commentators that he would be destroyed 
because he had the temerity to try to develop a compromise on an issue 
of national security and national importance.
  So we have come in the last 6 months through a very circuitous and 
strange path to reach the point at which we are now, but at least we 
have a chance to aid and assist people who are fighting desperately not 
only for their freedom but for democracy all over the globe.
  For the last 6 months, the Ukrainian people have been keeping up 
their fight against Putin's brutal invasion with tremendous bravery and 
skill and with dwindling resources. Today, they are battling through 
another difficult winter, trying to withstand indiscriminate Russian 
attacks against their civilian population and infrastructure.
  We, of course, I believe, have a moral obligation to assist Ukraine 
in this fight. But it isn't just charity; it is in our national 
security interest to do so. We know that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, 
he won't stop. He will seek to destabilize other countries in the 
region, including our NATO allies. He will continue to sabotage the 
international economy and threaten our interests.
  This supplemental funding bill would provide $60 billion to help 
Ukraine with the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to repel 
Russia. In bringing up Ukraine's military strength, we will also be 
building up our own capacity. Indeed, the vast majority of the funding 
in the bill would go directly back into the U.S. industrial base.
  Over the last 2 years, we have had an extensive debate about Ukraine 
in this body. It is ironic to recall that until recently, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have been highly critical of the United 
States for taking too long to provide assistance and for not sending 
the ``right stuff'' to help fight off Putin.
  Now they have a chance to deliver the equipment--American-made 
equipment--and support Ukraine's needs, while also strengthening 
America's industrial base and American workers.
  We need this bill to move now, and we need the House to act on it.
  Make no mistake, denying aid to Ukraine has been and continues to be 
a gift to Vladimir Putin. But Putin is not the only one who benefits. 
China is studying how America and the democratic nations of the world 
respond to Ukraine.
  As President Xi considers Taiwan, he is scrutinizing Putin's playbook 
and the international response. He is measuring and judging if, when 
push comes to shove, the United States can just be waited out, can just 
be seen as faltering because they don't have the commitment to 
democracy and the modern international order forged after World War II.
  China, Russia, Iran, North Korea--they would relish seeing American 
support for Ukraine buckle, and they would relish seeing this 
supplemental fall.
  In contrast, passing this supplemental would send a powerful message 
to our allies. The bill includes nearly $5 billion in security 
assistance for Taiwan and our partners in the Indo-Pacific. Similarly, 
the bill includes $14 billion in security assistance for Israel--our 
strongest ally in the Middle East--in the wake of the horrific 
terrorist attack by Hamas.
  In addition, the bill includes $10 billion for the State Department 
and

[[Page S480]]

USAID to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza, Ukraine, and other 
crises around the world.
  Again, the bill would dedicate nearly $35 billion for replenishing 
U.S. weapons and strengthening our defense industrial base.
  It also includes Senator Tim Scott's and Senator Sherrod Brown's 
bipartisan FEND Off Fentanyl Act. My colleague from South Carolina was 
talking about the crisis at the border. One aspect of that is the 
movement of precursors of fentanyl across that border. This legislation 
would help interdict the movement of drugs and supplies, and it would 
be a significant attempt to adjust issues emanating from the border. 
That would be--or it would appear to be ignored by my colleagues.
  I believe that Democrats and some very courageous Republicans have 
gone the extra mile to put together legislation--the previous 
legislation, particularly, that incorporates improvements to our border 
security and this legislation, which addresses one aspect of the 
border, fentanyl, but quite critically addresses the issue of how we 
maintain the fight in Ukraine.
  I hope our Republican colleagues can stand with us and get this bill 
through. This is a historic moment. What is at stake is the survival of 
the international order based on law, based on mutual security with 
organizations like NATO, maintained over the years by the courage of 
millions of American men and women but forged in the fires of World War 
II and in the post-war years.
  What is emerging to undercut that great international order is a new 
autocratic system of oligarchs and demagogues who measure progress in 
their own personal power and personal wealth, not in peace and 
prosperity for all of their citizens and the citizens of the world.
  This is not a routine measure, check the box. This is about the 
future of our whole world. I hope we can stand up and recognize that we 
must support this legislation. We must assist Ukraine and Israel. We 
must provide humanitarian assistance for those who are suffering in 
Gaza. We must maintain the international order of democratic nations, 
united by a common interest and committed to peace and prosperity for 
the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                                 Israel

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague for his 
kindness in letting me go ahead.
  Mr. President, as Israel's war with Hamas drags into another month, I 
know it can feel hopeless to know that with every passing day, the 
chances that we will get these hostages home safely are dwindling.
  But above all, we must not abandon them. We must not abandon hope. We 
must tell their stories and do everything we can to bring them home.
  I recently met a woman, Yarden. Her little sister, Romi, is a 
hostage. She said that early on the morning of October 7, she woke up 
to the sound of her sister's phone call. At first, Yardan was confused. 
She knew her sister was supposed to be having the time of her life at 
the Nova music festival. Instead, Romi was calling her, scared to 
death. She said a lot of missiles were being fired, but there was no 
shelter at the open-air festival.
  Romi and her best friend Gaya tried to drive away, but they got stuck 
in a traffic jam. Suddenly, they saw people shouting and running: Get 
out of the car. There are terrorists. Run for your lives.
  They hid in a bush as gunshots sounded. Over the phone, Yarden asked 
Romi if there were police anywhere around her. ``Yes,'' Romi whispered. 
``There is one policeman''--just one policeman facing a multitude of 
terrorists.
  Another friend, Ben, came to rescue the girls with his car, and the 
group began to drive away, picking up another man, Ofir. For 10 
minutes, the group thought they would be safe, but then Romi called her 
mother. She said: Mom? We were ambushed. They are shooting at us. Ben 
is most likely dead. Gaya was shot, and she is not responding. Ofir is 
wounded badly. I was shot in my arm. If no one comes quickly, I will be 
dead.
  Romi was on the phone with her mother and sister for 4\1/2\ hours 
that day, including at the moment she was captured.
  Her family says that she has asthma and chronic sinusitis, and they 
worry that she could be struggling to breathe without her inhaler. They 
worry that her gunshot wound is not being properly treated. And they 
are worried that she doesn't have food, fresh water or fresh air.
  Romi's sister Yarden says she gets nauseated when she thinks about 
her sister. She gets nauseated when she uses the bathroom or takes a 
shower because she doesn't know whether her sister can do that safely. 
She misses Romi desperately and describes her as a magnificent young 
woman.
  A natural leader and advocate for justice, Romi loves dancing and 
traveling and hanging out with her friends. Her family says that 
everyone who meets her falls in love with her immediately; that she is 
her family's private sunshine and the glue that holds them together.
  Romi, like all the people still in Hamas captivity, deserves to live 
her life to the fullest. She deserves to have her story told. And so we 
have to keep telling it--and never abandon hope--for her, her family, 
or for the thousands of other lives who have been affected by this 
horrific, horrific crisis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for 
making those statements, and I am glad that I was able to yield time to 
hear them here on the floor myself.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. President, today is one of those days where I wonder if people 
know--who are watching C-SPAN or watch reports or are in the Gallery--
what the heck is happening. So I thought I would come down here and 
maybe tell you what is happening.
  For about 4 months, Senator Lankford, Senator Sinema, and Senator 
Murphy got together with the charge of trying to come up with a 
bipartisan approach to the situation at the border.
  I think, by most objective measures, everyone I know--because now it 
even shows up in polls--recognizes that we have got an out-of-control 
situation at the border.
  We clearly have people who should come to this country and should be 
able to ask for asylum, but it has been abused. The cartels are making 
about $1 billion a year charging tolls to come across the border. And 
if you don't pay the toll, you are probably going to get killed. You 
get about one chance to cross the border without paying a toll--$5,000 
if you are from Central America, $50,000 if you are from China. But if 
you try crossing that border--I have been there. They have got a line 
of sight, and if you try to cross that border without paying that toll, 
paying a transnational criminal organization, they are going to kill 
you.
  Now, they do let some people come across the border without having 
paid a toll, but they have got to work it off once they get here. They 
are effectively indentured servants who are doing the work of cartels.
  This is not hyperbole. This is a briefing that I have gotten from law 
enforcement officials--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--in the 
Biden administration. This is real. This is not politics, not from me 
anyway.
  So James Lankford, representing the Republican Party, went down, 
tried to negotiate a deal. And he worked hard at it. James Lankford is 
from Oklahoma, a ruby-red State. James Lankford is considered to be one 
of the most conservative Members of the U.S. Senate. To see Members of 
my conference and people out in the country criticizing James Lankford 
as some sort of a ``squish'' or some sort of a sellout really tells me 
that the people here have to know, so they must be misinforming people, 
and the people out there are believing it because they are hearing 
people here say that James Lankford sold out. It couldn't be further 
from the truth.
  The fact of the matter is, the bill that they negotiated, it still 
needed a little bit of work, but it is a dramatic improvement over the 
status quo.
  Why did we think we even had to go down this path? Because President 
Biden has apparently forgotten, over the last 3 years, all of the 
Executive orders that he has rescinded that have

[[Page S481]]

caused the border situation to get worse.
  President Biden needs to be told by his advisers that he, in fact, 
has tools, without a single bill being passed here, that could bring 
the situation at the border under some semblance of control, but he has 
chosen not to. So now we have some of our Members--my Members--who 
think that we have lost the argument; that for some reason, because we 
weren't able to get this border bill passed, that somehow Republicans 
own the responsibility for an out-of-control border situation that 
started after President Biden got sworn in.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we did not have this problem. You could have 
whatever arguments you want to have about President Trump, but the one 
thing I will tell you about the border, it was under control under 
President Trump, and it is out of control under President Biden. No law 
has changed. No authorities have expired. President Biden has chosen 
not to use authorities he has today.
  So I wanted to come down here and set the record straight, first, on 
Senator Lankford. I don't know if any other Member has come down and 
talked about him.
  I voted yesterday not to move forward on the border package because I 
have always said, unless we can convince more than half of our 
Republican majority that they would support this bill, it didn't make 
sense to send a bill to a Republican-led House that didn't have a 
majority of the Republicans here in the Senate. That is just knowing 
how a bill becomes law and knowing that we needed the strength of that 
message in order to have any prayer of getting the bill passed when it 
goes over to the House.
  So the border bill is where it is, and it is a shame. It is an 
opportunity lost that I will guarantee you, if we are in power in the 
White House, if Republicans are in power, we are going to regret that 
some aspects of this bill weren't passed.
  The bill was also endorsed by the Border Patrol Council. The Border 
Patrol Council is the law enforcement Agency on the border. When I hear 
the Border Patrol Council say they have endorsed something, they have 
their necks on the line. Their lives--Border Patrol agents have lost 
their lives over the past several years because of dangerous encounters 
at the border. So when I see the Border Patrol Council endorse 
something--ladies and gentlemen, even if you oppose the bill, 
understand that law enforcement, those people on the line at the 
border, endorsed this bill. Clearly, they want more. They have 
communicated to us that they want more, but they have said that this 
was positive progress. But that is an opportunity lost, and I am OK 
with that, and I am at peace with having voted against moving forward 
on it because I knew we wouldn't have a majority of our conference.
  But now what do we have before us? We have a bill that is primarily 
focused on providing aid to Ukraine, to Israel, and to Taiwan. So it is 
called a supplemental bill. It is an appropriation. It is us having to 
authorize the use of these funds.
  Now, we were supposed to leave today for 2 weeks. We were supposed to 
go on recess. And Senator Schumer made a decision that I happen to 
agree with. He has decided that we are not going to leave here until we 
settle this issue.
  We have some people say: Well, we need time to think about it. You 
know, this is a planned recess. We need to move on and step back and 
reflect, maybe negotiate another border bill.
  That is not going to happen.
  Now let's talk about what is before us. Do we care about this page or 
this chapter in history? I do. I mean, some people want to go away or 
think about it, but I think about right now and 24 hours a day since 
February of 2022, Ukrainian soldiers in trenches trying to defend their 
homeland.
  I know on TV and I know to everybody else this is just something that 
is happening over in Europe. Think about these people who are fighting 
for their existence, and we are sitting here saying maybe we can take a 
couple of weeks before we decide on it? Putin would love nothing more 
than that.
  Ladies and gentlemen, if we withdraw from Ukraine, if the United 
States, the leader of the free world, says that we are no longer 
interested in defending freedom and countering Russia, Russia will win, 
and at some point forward, we will regret the day that we avoided 
helping the Ukrainians fight their war because we are most likely--
those who would make that decision are making a decision to someday put 
American lives at risk in a war somewhere, maybe in Russia--or maybe in 
Europe but maybe in China.
  The people who are watching the decisions that this body is going to 
make over the next few days--Xi Jinping is probably more interested and 
more hopeful that we fail to make a decision to support Ukraine than 
Vladimir Putin.
  This world is small today. We don't have, as the leader of the free 
world, the luxury of only being focused on one place at a time. We have 
to focus on Ukraine and defend freedom there. We have to focus on the 
South China Sea, Taiwan, and the risk there. We have to focus on our 
friend and ally Israel in the Middle East. We have to make the tough 
decision and sometimes cut through the noise and go back home and 
explain to the American people how critical this decision is.
  Don't make the mistake of thinking it is just a channel change away 
from watching something else that is going on in the world, ladies and 
gentlemen. People's lives are on the line. Tens of thousands of people 
have died. Women have been raped. Children have been kidnapped. And 
Putin is OK with that. Does this United States stand down when you are 
talking about that kind of a dictator, that murderer and thug? God, I 
hope not.
  And I don't care how painful it is politically for somebody to go 
back home and explain this. It bears no resemblance to what people in 
Israel felt on October 7 and to what people in Ukraine have felt for 
the last 2 years. And it will be the same in Taiwan if we don't act.
  So over the next couple of days, if you are wondering why nothing is 
happening here, why there are no votes--well, Leader Schumer laid 
down--they call it a motion to proceed, and at least 60 people needed 
to vote on it in order for us to proceed to considering the bill. So 
now we have a bill here on the floor, and that bill has funding for 
Ukraine, it has funding for Israel, and it has funding for Taiwan.
  Now, you are wondering why are we not here voting and doing other 
things. Because right now, we are doing what they call hotlining votes. 
We are communicating to all the offices certain amendments that we want 
to pass. But then, because the Senate--any individual Member--I am Thom 
Tillis from North Carolina. I am not supposed to be talking to you all, 
by the way, because I think it is a violation of the rules. So I am not 
really talking to you all; I am just looking in that direction.
  But anyway, you have to get consent in this body to get anything 
done, and any one Member can gum up the works. So right now, we have 
people saying: We must have amendments on the bill. We must have 
amendments on the bill.
  Then they are privately saying: But I am not going to give up a 
second of time between now and Monday to let those amendments occur.
  So we can't have it both ways, guys. It is fine. If on Monday you get 
angry because no amendments were actually passed, it is because you 
haven't been able to cooperate. This is a give-and-take organization. 
If you don't show some flexibility--yielding back time--then we are 
just going to sit here until the mandatory time occurs, and then we are 
going to have a vote, and then people are going to be mad because they 
are going to say either the minority leader or the majority leader had 
this baked in all along and they were never going to allow a vote. That 
couldn't be further from the truth.
  If you as a Member of the Senate want to cooperate, we can get a 
slate of amendments done here. We can get an agreement that they can be 
heard. We can vote on them. And that is not going to happen, likely.
  So I just feel like we have to be honest with ourselves and recognize 
that if we don't come up with agreements, it is not because it was 
baked in; it is not because any leader already had it planned and is 
the puppet master to everything going on here; it is because Members 
are making a conscious decision to grind cooperation to a halt.

[[Page S482]]

  Now, let me just go back to where I started. The stakes are high 
here. Temperatures are high. But come on, guys. We are U.S. Senators. 
Get over it and do your job. Temperatures are high here, but the 
reality is, you should kind of cast aside the inconvenience that 
working this weekend may represent to you and think about the 
inconvenience that Hamas has put on the Israelis, that Putin has put on 
the Ukrainians. That is a real inconvenience.
  What we are doing here is living out the privilege and the honor of 
being U.S. Senators, and I expect my colleagues to grow a spine, do the 
work of the Senate, and go back home and explain what it is we are 
doing and why it is we are doing it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
national security supplemental appropriations bill that is the business 
before this body.
  After a disappointing failure to move ahead with a bill that included 
critical border security provisions, we now have before us a chance to 
pass and send to the House a bill that would invest tens of billions of 
dollars in the men and women of Ukraine who continue to fight 
tirelessly in the depths of winter on the frontlines of freedom; to 
spend billions more on coming to the aid of Israel as it continues to 
battle Hamas; and $10 billion invested in humanitarian aid that will 
provide critical support to those facing starvation and deprivation in 
Gaza, in Ukraine, in Sudan, in Somalia, and in a dozen other countries 
around the world; and to invest in our partners in the Indo-Pacific.
  It is absolutely critical that we continue to fund Ukraine's response 
to the brutal Russian invasion. In 2014, Russia invaded and seized 
Crimea. But it was in 2022 that Putin sent in hundreds of thousands of 
soldiers to attack Ukraine from the north, from the east, and to occupy 
20 percent of Ukraine's land.
  Many predicted Ukraine would fall within a matter of days. Yet they 
still fight on bravely today, showing what is possible with faith and 
persistence, determination, and perseverance--and the support of 50 
countries from around the world.
  Our President has assembled a remarkable coalition, and together they 
have contributed more than we have to Ukraine's security and defense.
  I was in Europe at a conference just a few weeks ago. I traveled with 
my friend and colleague Republican Senator Rounds of South Dakota. We 
went to Poland, to Slovakia, and to this conference in Switzerland, 
where we met with leaders from all over Europe. I had the chance to 
meet with President Zelenskyy and his Foreign Defense Minister to hear 
about how their economy is reviving; how they are exporting more grain 
now than they did before the war; how, with American investments 
through USAID, they have brought critical parts of their economy back. 
But I also heard that without these funds, without the munitions, 
without the budget support, without the humanitarian aid, President 
Zelenskyy predicted that Putin will ultimately win.
  I cannot imagine--I do not want to imagine--the tragedy that will 
befall Europe and our place in the world should we allow this to 
happen. Putin will only stop when we together stop it.
  When we were in Poland, Senator Rounds and I had heard loud and clear 
from their leadership the confidence that if Putin were to succeed in 
ultimately subjugating the Ukrainian people, he will be knocking on the 
door of Poland, our NATO ally, next.
  Just last week, here in the Capitol, I met with the Speakers of the 
Parliaments of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, three Baltic States long 
occupied by the Russians--by the Soviets--today free and members of 
NATO. Their leaders are convinced that should Putin be allowed to 
succeed in Ukraine, they will be next. His forces will be knocking on 
their door.
  And, folks, to be clear, either we come to their defense at scale and 
in force and with American troops or NATO is dead, and our role as 
leader of the free world is over.
  I have listened here on the floor and in person, on television, at 
caucus lunches, and at meetings as my Republican colleagues have said 
over and over that they support Ukraine strongly. Now we have a chance 
to prove it and to show it.
  I had the honor of taking the Liberty Medal from the National 
Constitution Center to Kyiv with our former colleague, Senator Rob 
Portman, of Ohio, now retired. It was a harrowing but uplifting 
journey, a chance to meet with President Zelenskyy and his whole core 
national security leadership team. To get into his office is quite a 
journey, through a maze of tunnels and sandbags of larger and larger 
men with more and more severe weapons, in darker and darker corridors. 
But to see the spirit, the determination, the persistence with which 
Zelenskyy, his team, their troops, and the people of Ukraine continue 
this fight is to be challenged to your very soul, to know what it looks 
like when people who have tasted freedom are willing to risk their very 
lives, to defend their country from the aggressions and the predations 
of the Russians. I don't need to tell you, but it is probably worth 
repeating that the horrific human rights violations committed by 
Russian troops against Ukrainian civilians must also be answered.
  I had the chance to meet with Ukrainian refugees, both in Kyiv on 
that former trip and in Poland just a few weeks ago. And to hear from 
Ukrainian women what was done to them, what happened to their husbands, 
to their children, to their hometowns is a reminder of the savagery of 
this war and the necessity of our standing firm with Ukraine.
  Ukraine is running out of ammunition and running out of time. And the 
hope that they have in the United States, as the Nation that is the 
indispensable country leading the free world, will run out if we fail 
to come to their defense at this moment.
  I will close with something that I heard from my parents when I was a 
child. There was a song popularized on the radio not long after Pearl 
Harbor. And in this song, a chaplain is reflecting on what he saw and 
what must be done next. The lyrics of the song go:

       Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
       Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition
       And we'll all stay free

  And this song by Frank Loesser, penned by an American not long after 
we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, he concludes: I can't afford to be a 
politician. We are all between perdition and the deep blue sea. So 
praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, and we will all stay free.
  To the men and women of this Senate, I can only hope and pray that 
you will pass the ammunition forward.
  To those who stand on the frontlines of freedom, who are facing 
relentless Russian attacks, and who even today, in the depths of 
winter, watch the debates on this floor to see whether this Nation will 
stand, whether we can be counted on--when our President says we will be 
with you to the end, that commitment must mean something. We must pass 
this supplemental.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COONS. Absolutely. I yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I am not mistaken, the Senator is also 
considering attending the Munich Security Conference.
  Mr. COONS. I am.
  Mr. DURBIN. As am I. And for those unfamiliar with that conference, 
leaders from around the world gather to discuss the current state of 
affairs when it comes to security.
  Mr. COONS. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. And if we are there, we are bound to be asked as a first 
question: Just what is the U.S. position on the defense of Ukraine?
  Mr. COONS. We will.
  Mr. DURBIN. Has the Senator come up with an answer?
  Mr. COONS. The answer will be given by this body in the coming few 
hours and days--because I went to Europe with my friend and colleague 
Senator Rounds just a few weeks ago and in Poland and Slovakia and at a 
conference in Switzerland gave the answer: We are confident we will 
fund Ukraine.
  Today, I am not certain. And in this question, in how we answer it, 
in how this body acts hangs the answer to whether the United States 
continues to lead the free world or is willing to be America first, 
America alone, and surrender to Putin.

[[Page S483]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. As a student of history, I am sure the Senator remembers, 
as I do, the lengthy ordeal when the British came to us before World 
War II and begged us to come to their assistance, and we waited and we 
waited. We came up with an alternative, Lend-Lease and other things. 
But we didn't commit until that fatal day, December 7, 1941, when the 
Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and we were drawn into the war.

  Can the Senator think of a time in history when the United States has 
walked away from an ally fighting for its life?
  Mr. COONS. Not with the significance and severity of this moment, for 
a couple of reasons. One, because all of the world is engaged in 
watching or in supporting.
  As I mentioned before, 50 nations are contributing munitions, 
financial support to Ukraine's fight. This is as global a fight as we 
have had since--well, the Second World War. And the clarity of the 
aggression by Russia against a sovereign, peaceful nation that in no 
way precipitated this conflict is as sharp and clear as any conflict in 
our lifetime.
  I cannot imagine the consequences for our reputation, not just at a 
conference in Europe but in history, were we to abandon Ukraine now.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator through the Chair again: 
In this circumstance, we have seen the revival, in my estimation, of an 
alliance which was so important 50 or 60 years ago and now is critical, 
and that is the NATO alliance. We have seen not only the strength of 
that alliance, but we have seen nations like Finland and Sweden 
announce that they want to be part of that alliance in the future. What 
does this say of the NATO alliance if the leading nation--the United 
States--walks away from Ukraine?
  Mr. COONS. I think that would weaken the United States. I think it 
would weaken NATO. I think it would weaken the whole concept of 
collective security.
  The Finns and the Swedes have a long history in this region. The 
Finns know better than any nation what it means to stand alone against 
Russian aggression, to fight hard, to stand tall, and to push them 
back. Their memory of the Winter War of 1939, 1940 is critical to their 
national identity, and they have a capable and sophisticated military. 
The Swedes were a regional power of dominant military centuries ago, 
but they remained neutral even in the Second World War.
  For the Swedes and Finns to see Russia's aggression against Ukraine 
and extend their hand to all of NATO and say ``we want in'' shows that 
they appreciate the significance of this moment.
  By adding Finland to NATO, we have doubled Russia's border with NATO. 
We have brought into NATO two very capable nations and militaries, but 
we have also increased, I think, our moral commitment to stand firm and 
to stand strong.
  NATO has only invoked article V once, in our defense, after the 
attack of 9/11; and NATO came with us for 20 years to Afghanistan.
  I have stood with the leaders of countries most Americans don't think 
about every day. Take, for example, Denmark, a small nation that fought 
alongside us for decades in Afghanistan that lost dozens and dozens of 
their soldiers. They met their pledge for collective security in NATO. 
We need to honor that pledge.
  Mr. DURBIN. My last question, of course, relates to the aftermath if 
we abandon Ukraine. I have a special connection and affection for the 
Baltic nations as well as Poland, which is so ably represented in the 
State of Illinois and city of Chicago. We are very proud of that fact. 
What does this say to those countries that are literally in the sights 
of Putin as the next victim if we walk away from this situation in 
Ukraine?
  Mr. COONS. It says to the people of Poland, to the people of 
Lithuania, to the people of Latvia, to the people of Estonia--nations 
that long knew the boot of Soviet occupation and oppression--that they 
should be afraid; that they cannot count on the United States; that 
they must provide for their own security.
  In the trip I just took to Poland, Polish leadership said: Even 
though there has been a change in their election, they will not change. 
They are committing 4 percent of their GDP to their national defense--
the highest of any NATO nation. They are welcoming Americans to 
participate.
  As you well remember, my colleague from Chicago--from Illinois--we 
went to Poland, and we went to Lithuania together, just before Russia 
launched its second broad-scale invasion of Ukraine. We saw Americans 
training alongside Pols at the Lask Air Force Base. We saw Americans 
training alongside other Baltic nations, right on the border with 
Belarus. And then the war began.
  The sense of the urgency of history was thick in the air as we got on 
a flight to come back to the United States, as the missiles and bullets 
were flying, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine began at full scale, and 
we did not know what would happen.
  In every meeting, in every conversation, the folks we met with said 
it was crucial that the United States be the guarantor of NATO, be the 
backbone of this collective alliance that has kept us safe and free.
  And with one last reference to history, the one previous time 
``America first'' was a watch word spoken across this Nation was in 
1939 and 1940 when Charles Lindbergh, a respected aviator, joined a 
nationwide isolationist movement to say we should stay out of the wars 
of Europe. As you ably pointed out, the lesson was nearly tragic, as 
Hitler's armies advanced across Europe, without the United States 
coming to the rescue of our allies. We waited and we waited and we 
waited until Japan attacked us.
  It is only because Germany declared war on us that we got in the war 
in Europe. We waited too long. We could have saved millions of lives. 
We could have stopped the march of Nazism years before it got out of 
control. Many of us were raised on the lessons of that chapter of our 
history. We should not forget that.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. COONS. Thank you.
  If I could conclude on this point: The lessons of history are thick 
not just in this Chamber, where the debates that formed NATO took 
place, not just in the capitals of Europe but around the world, where 
other authoritarians are watching to see whether we will stand, whether 
we will defend, and whether we can be counted on. We must pass this 
supplemental.


                    Remembering David Bulluck Brown

  Mr. President, I rise to offer remarks in honor of a dear friend who 
passed recently: David Bulluck Brown, an attorney of the State of 
Delaware, a leader in our bench and our community, a neighbor and a 
friend; born in Wilmington, DE, 1946; David passed on January 22; 
devoted to his family, a tireless servant of our community. He was a 
tireless servant of our community, the sort of example of a life of 
humble leadership that makes our world better because David was in it.

  He went to the same high school as my brother, A.I. duPont High 
School. He was a basketball and track star. He attended the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He 
went to the University of Virginia Law School.
  He worked here in Washington as an attorney before returning home and 
joining Potter Anderson & Corroon, a firm he later served as chair. 
David mentored junior associates and championed the firm's growing 
ranks of female lawyers. Kathleen McDonough, a dear friend and former 
chair of the firm, said David made everyone--from someone working in 
the mailroom to the most senior partner--feel heard, seen, and valued.
  Through an incredible, lifelong commitment to pro bono work and 
volunteerism, a commitment to social justice and equal rights for 
Delawareans, David showed the rest of us in the bar what we are 
obligated to do as lawyers. He didn't just do a little pro bono service 
here and there; he was a lion of the law and a leader of our community.
  He cofounded and long-served as chair of Delaware Volunteer Legal 
Services. He was the keeper of the institutional knowledge at DVLS and 
respected for his clear-eyed assessment of new projects. The current 
executive director of DVLS, Janine Howard-O'Rangers, said David was 
skilled at high-level vision-setting and equally skilled at sweating 
the details of specific causes and cases. He was always ready to greet 
the staff at DVLS with a hug or encouraging word and to give them his 
undivided attention.

[[Page S484]]

  David was also chair of Planned Parenthood of Delaware, chair of the 
Combined Campaign for Justice, and a board member of the Delaware 
Historical Society. In fact, he helped champion the creation of the 
historic Mitchell Center of African American Heritage at our Historical 
Society. He was on so many boards, I could take an hour and could not 
list them all: Delaware Theater Company, Downtown Wilmington 
Improvement Corporation, the Music School of Delaware.
  For his service, he was appreciated, honored, and recognized by so 
many of us in the First State. He received the Governor's Volunteer of 
the Year Award. He received the distinguished Bar Association's 
Christopher White Award--Chris White, who is a personal friend and an 
example of service to justice.
  David was a devoted family man who loved riding horses with his 
grandchildren, fishing with siblings at a family cottage in 
Wrightsville Beach in North Carolina, and who was a gracious, 
thoughtful, kind, brilliant, capable neighbor, friend, citizen, and 
attorney.
  David is survived by his beloved wife Gwen and their family: Ellie, 
Hannah, Tim, Francis, Sophie, Max, and River.
  On behalf of all of us in the State of Delaware, I simply wanted to 
convey my heartfelt condolences and my deep thanks for how many times 
David took time away from family and took time away from the productive 
practice of law to contribute to our community, to make a difference in 
our society, and to make our world a better place.
  I will deeply miss David Brown, and I hope you know how much of a 
difference he made to all of us with his life of dedicated service.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                             Maui Wildfires

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, today marks 6 months since fire tore 
through Lahaina and Upcountry Maui. We continue to see the heart and 
resilience of our communities as we recover and remember the lives 
lost.
  As recovery efforts continue, I am grateful to the thousands of 
people who have come together from literally all over the world to 
support our neighbors on Maui. Maui's recovery will take time, 
resources, and continuity of effort. I will keep working with my 
partners to ensure Maui has the resources it needs to recover and 
rebuild.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. President, the national security supplemental package we are 
debating demonstrates our strong support for our allies at a time of 
rising global instability, recognizing that an investment in our 
partners is also an investment in our own national security.
  While the funding for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific currently 
included in this bill is critical, missing from this bill is the text 
of the recently renegotiated Compacts of Free Association, agreements 
with the Pacific Island nations, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall 
Islands. In exchange for economic assistance, the Compacts of Free 
Association provide our country with exclusive military access to these 
countries and their territorial waters.
  With their strategic location in the South Pacific, these countries 
provide a strategic buffer between the United States and China. At a 
time of rising tensions in the Pacific, these compacts are a critical 
component of our ability to operate in the Pacific, especially as we 
work to counter China's growing influence in this region.
  Our military leaders have unanimously pointed out the importance of 
these compacts. Most recently, Admiral Paparo, nominated to lead U.S. 
military operations in the Indo-Pacific, reiterated the importance of 
the compacts in his confirmation hearing recently. These compacts date 
back more than 40 years, but our relationship with these island nations 
dates back to World War II.
  First agreed to in the early 1980s, the compacts have to be 
renegotiated and approved by Congress every 20 years.
  Over the past 4 years, U.S. negotiators have worked with their 
counterparts in the COFA nations to agree to new compacts that will 
govern our relationship with these countries for the next 20 years.
  Imagine, if we get this done with this bill, we will have 
accomplished what we need to do in our relationship in support for our 
compact nation allies for the next 20 years.
  These compacts have broad bipartisan support, including from both the 
chairs and ranking members of the Foreign Relations, Armed Services, 
and Energy and Natural Resources Committees. These are the committees 
of jurisdiction over these compacts.
  They understand how critical these agreements are to our posture and 
readiness in the Pacific. And the harmful message--frankly, the harmful 
message it would send if we do not get these compacts agreed to.
  Believe me, China is watching to see what we do in our support for 
our island friends. And, in fact, just this week, the Presidents of all 
three compact nations, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands sent 
a letter to Congress in which they wrote:

       Although we understand the delay in the legislation's 
     approval, it has generated uncertainty among our peoples. As 
     much they identify with and appreciate the United States . . 
     . this has resulted in undesirable opportunities for economic 
     exploitation by competitive political actors active in the 
     [region].

  Of course, they are talking about China. As I mentioned, China is 
watching and would love nothing more than for the United States to fail 
to pass these compacts.
  Failure for the United States would present China with a golden 
opportunity to bring the COFA nations close to their sphere of 
influence, significantly undermining our credibility and ability to 
operate in this region.
  Beyond the serious national security implications of the compacts, 
nearly 100,000 citizens of the COFA nations live, work, and pay taxes 
in our country. Moreover, COFA citizens enlist in our military at 
higher rates than U.S. citizens.
  With this bill, we stand with our allies, yes, but the compact 
nations are our allies in the Pacific. We are not just talking about 
our allies in Europe. These compact nations are our allies in the 
Pacific just as important, just as important to our national security.
  We are introducing an amendment with strong bipartisan support to add 
to this bill the text of the compacts. And I thank Senator Risch, the 
lead sponsor of this amendment, for his leadership and partnership in 
this effort.
  As we work to support our allies around the globe, I urge my 
colleagues to stand with our COFA partners and support our amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the supplemental emergency package that 
we are considering addresses a number of issues, including, very 
importantly, the challenge of supporting the Ukrainian people. It also 
includes $9.2 billion for humanitarian aid around the world, and some 
of that aid will assist with the humanitarian challenge in Gaza.
  But I want to address that challenge in Gaza today in far more detail 
and argue that we need to do more; that we are so connected to the 
circumstances in Gaza because of our very close relationship with 
Israel; that the United States has a moral imperative, a moral 
responsibility, to launch a massive effort to address the humanitarian 
challenges in Gaza--to address the shortage of water, the shortage of 
food, and the shortage of medical supplies.
  We have worked conscientiously with Israel to try to dramatically 
increase that aid. We have done so month after month after month, but 
that effort has produced only a trickle of aid compared to the need, 
and the circumstances in Gaza continue to deteriorate. So the United 
States needs to operate or launch ``Operation Gaza Rescue''--or give it 
some other name but a bold and dramatic intervention in the 
humanitarian circumstances in Gaza.
  Let me be clear. Israel had every right to go after Hamas after the 
horrific assault by Hamas terrorists on October 7 on villages in 
Israel, but how

[[Page S485]]

Israel conducts that war matters. Hamas is Israel's enemy. The 
Palestinian civilians are not Israel's enemy, and the Palestinian 
civilians are not our enemy.
  Israel's approach to the war, however, has produced horrifying, 
unacceptable levels of deaths and injuries and suffering for those 
Palestinian civilians. That has to change. It is why I have called for 
a cease-fire. It is why I have noted, though, that a cease-fire will 
not endure unless it includes the return of the hostages and an end to 
Hamas control in Gaza.
  I salute today the Biden administration's intensive efforts to 
produce a cease-fire--a 40-day cease-fire and hopefully a permanent 
cease-fire--but yesterday those hopes were shattered. While such an 
outcome might still develop tomorrow or the day after, there is no 
certainty at all that it will come about, and that is why we can't 
simply hinge our hopes for addressing the tremendous suffering in Gaza 
on the possibility of a cease-fire. There is no guarantee when those 
negotiations will be successful, and with each passing day, the 
situation in Gaza is getting a lot worse.
  The Netanyahu government's approach to the war has dramatically 
increased the suffering of civilians. At the same time, they have slow-
walked the provision of humanitarian aid.
  Senator Van Hollen and I went to Rafah crossing, Rafah gate. We met 
with some of the most seasoned humanitarian workers to be found in the 
world. They told us about their work, having been in Sudan and in Yemen 
and on the frontlines in Ukraine. They said the combination of factors 
that they saw in Gaza made this worse than any other war or conflict 
they had ever been at--the worst humanitarian catastrophe that a group 
of seasoned aid workers had ever witnessed.
  Netanyahu's government's war strategy has inflicted suffering on 
innocent civilians in multiple ways. President Biden described the 
Netanyahu government's bombing and shelling as ``indiscriminate,'' and 
that indiscriminate bombing has resulted in a breathtaking number of 
civilian casualties and injuries, now counting more than 27,000 dead, 
not including the estimates of those who might be trapped in the 
rubble. This number--every few days, it goes up by another thousand 
people, and more than double that number--some estimated 67,000 
Palestinians with significant injuries. Among the dead, among those 
27,000, more than 18,000 women and children have died.
  You know, these numbers, they are just--they are numbers. They are 
hard to get your hands around. So think about it this way: If 18,000 
women and children were lined up, holding hands, they would form a line 
13 miles long. Picture yourself going on a hike for 13 miles, and with 
every stride, another dead child, another dead woman. Or picture it 
this way: If you were to spend 1 minute with each of those 18,000 
individuals before they had passed away, it would have taken you more 
than 300 hours to have met each of them. And, of course, it isn't just 
the dead and the injured. We see the huge impact in the form of the 
challenges faced by expectant mothers, mothers carrying children, 
mothers delivering children. More mothers are having miscarriages. More 
mothers are having stillbirths. More mothers are anemic because of 
malnutrition, and that anemia is producing more postpartum 
hemorrhaging. More mothers are enduring C-sections without anesthesia. 
If any of you have had the privilege of being in the room with a woman 
delivering a child and imagine a C-section without anesthesia, you can 
imagine just how horrific that is.

  Of course, the bombing has had devastating impacts on the 
infrastructure, all kinds of infrastructure. We have an estimated 
70,000 homes destroyed, 300,000 homes damaged, 1.7 million people 
internally displaced inside Gaza--1.7 million out of 2.2 million 
Gazans. That is just an enormous percentage, an enormous number.
  That isn't all. Because so little aid has gotten in, hunger is 
rampant. Of those who are estimated to be at the highest level of 
hunger in the world, by far, the majority are in Gaza as compared to 
the rest of the world, the entire rest of the planet combined. Ninety 
percent of people in Gaza are surviving on less than a meal per day.
  The impacts of that malnutrition also add to the impacts on new 
mothers in the form of women who are malnourished and cannot 
breastfeed. If you can't breastfeed, you need to have clean water for 
formula. But the U.N. reports that about 70 percent of the people in 
Gaza are drinking contaminated water. Clean water is extremely hard to 
come by. If you provide formula with contaminated water, then the odds 
of a baby surviving drop dramatically.
  On the medical side, there were 36 hospitals in Gaza before October 
7. There are 13 that are still functioning, and they are not 
functioning well. They are short of basic medical supplies like 
anesthesia and antibiotics, drug supplies for diabetics or 
hypertension--the whole host of issues that they face.
  You know, the supply of food, water, and medicine can be provided 
through trucks. Before October 7, 500 trucks a day entered Gaza. Over 
the last 7 days, the U.N. reports that an average of about 170 trucks 
came in per day. It is not enough to meet even the most basic food, 
water, and medical issues in Gaza, meaning that with each passing day, 
the situation is getting worse and worse and worse.
  Why are there so few trucks? Two reasons. The first is that Israel 
has set up a very complicated system to inspect the trucks before 
entering. They had such an inspection system before October 7, and they 
were able to inspect and allow 500 trucks a day to enter, but they set 
up a convoluted system now that Senator Van Hollen and I witnessed at 
Rafah crossing where truckdrivers, after loading up their supplies, 
often wait up to a week to get permission to pass into Gaza--a week. 
During that time, they have to wait until they can go to Nitzana to 
have an inspection. That means traveling down the road and going into 
Israel from Egypt. There, the load is inspected. Often, all the pallets 
are taken off, and they are looked at carefully.
  There are a whole bunch of items that have been precleared because 
they are medical, food, and water items desperately needed, but at that 
site, the inspector may simply say ``I am not accepting that item,'' 
and then not just that item but the entire truck is rejected, and the 
process starts all over again.
  Senator Van Hollen and I went to a warehouse full of these rejected 
items. There were medical supplies and food supplies and bladders that 
you could put into the back of a pickup truck or on a flatbed to carry 
water and deliver water--all rejected.
  In fact, we were told that one of the items being rejected were 
sanitary kits for assisting in the delivery of a child. I said: How 
could one reject a kit for the delivery of children?
  The answer was--the inspector said: There is a scalpel in this kit, 
and that is a knife, and so these kits cannot be allowed.
  We have women delivering babies often without going to the hospital 
because the communications have been shut down, but when they do get to 
a hospital, not even the basic supplies have necessarily arrived to 
assist the doctors to provide the right care in the right way at the 
moment a woman is giving birth.
  So if you make it through this complicated, bizarre inspection 
process that is designed to slow everything down; if you finally get 
permission to go through Rafah gate or Kerem Shalom gate by the U.N.--
trucks going through a separate entry; if you get that permission, then 
the problem is, how are you going to get from there to the warehouse? 
How are you going to get from there to the hospital? Because there is a 
war going on. Bombs are dropping. Shells are being fired. Tanks are 
shooting shells. So you need deconfliction to be able to deliver 
humanitarian supplies. And who can deconflict? Only one entity can 
deconflict, and that is Israel, and Israel has refused to do so.

  So now imagine the truck comes in. The Egyptian truckdriver says that 
now it must be transferred to a Palestinian truck and a Palestinian 
driver. How is the Palestinian driver even going to know there is a 
truck there when the communications have been shut down? How is the 
Palestinian driver going to get safely to the truck? How are they going 
to get safely to the warehouse when there is no deconfliction? So, of 
course, people

[[Page S486]]

have been dying trying to deliver the aid to the hospital or the aid to 
the warehouse.
  The failure to have a sane, efficient inspection process--which we 
know is possible because Israel was able to do that for 500 trucks a 
day before October 7--in combination with the complete failure of 
deconfliction has resulted in a very small amount of aid getting in. 
That is the challenge. That is the challenge truckdrivers face, with 
broken roads and falling bombs and artillery shells, risking their 
lives as they do every day and making it extremely difficult.
  For months, President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, Defense 
Secretary Austin, and other senior members of the administration have 
been urging the Netanyahu government to change course. They have urged 
the Netanyahu government to adopt a strategy against Hamas that does 
not produce this tremendous number of civilian deaths, civilian 
injuries, and massive suffering. And Netanyahu has stiff-armed the 
American Government. They have made some little changes here and there 
but the same basic fact--massively insufficient supply of food and 
water and medical supplies.
  I have heard how members of the administration, the top teams, have 
had very testy, very difficult conversations with Prime Minister 
Netanyahu and with his other core leaders. But, you know what, no 
matter how much we ask, no matter how often we ask, the same result--
massively insufficient humanitarian aid.
  So President Biden's request to change war strategies has been 
rejected, President Biden and his team's request to massively increase 
humanitarian aid have been rejected, and the circumstances get worse 
and worse and worse in Gaza with every passing day.
  President Biden is doing the right thing by trying to urge Israel to 
make those changes, but the Netanyahu government has been very clear in 
the end that they are not going to do so. So the strategy, however 
well-intentioned, however passionately carried, has failed.
  This leaves us, the United States of America--it leaves us in a 
terrible place. We are Israel's closest partner. The suffering in Gaza 
now becomes part of our story. It becomes part of our responsibility. 
As Israel's largest supplier of economic aid, it becomes part of our 
responsibility. As Israel's largest supplier of military aid, it 
becomes part of our responsibility. As Israel's largest supplier 
specifically of bombs and artillery shells that the Netanyahu 
government has used in that indiscriminate bombing that President Biden 
talks about, it becomes our responsibility. Thus, if it is our 
responsibility, we have to act. The United States must act. Asking 
politely or asking urgently or asking passionately or asking often to 
Israel is not enough. That strategy--it has failed.
  That is why it is incumbent on the United States to immediately stand 
up a rescue operation--Operation Gaza Rescue--to get that massive 
humanitarian aid into Gaza, to deliver the food, the water, the medical 
supplies.
  It is time to make sure that every one of the 13 remaining 
hospitals--13 out of 36--has all the medicines and medical supplies it 
needs. We can do that through immediate and sustained helicopter 
deliveries. We can do that with direct deconfliction with the Israelis 
because they are not going to shoot down American helicopters 
delivering aid.
  How do we know that deconfliction can work in that setting? Because 
it has already been done. Jordan has been delivering on repeated 
occasions assistance through airdrop deliveries. If Jordan can do this, 
the United States, with our massive capabilities, can do so.
  It is time not just to ensure that every hospital has everything it 
needs but to ensure there is enough food and water to alleviate the 
massive hunger and the massive challenge of citizens unable to 
currently get clean water. We know that dirty water will produce 
disease. We know that sustained undernutrition or malnutrition--
starvation--will produce significant challenges, illness. The 
combination is terrible, even before you add in the massive injuries 
from the bombing and the shelling. We can get that food and we can get 
that water into Gaza. It is a 40-mile coastline. We have huge assets 
that can deliver food and water from sea to shore. It is our 
responsibility to do so.
  We are at this point--because of our close relationship and 
partnership with Israel, we, the United States, are complicit in the 
starvation, the hunger, the thirst, the illness, the brokenness, the 
suffering of the Gazan people. So I direct my comments to President 
Biden and his top team: You all worked very hard to find a path through 
Israel to get the aid in, and it has failed. I commend you for trying. 
But now it is our responsibility, our moral responsibility, to no 
longer be complicit in this humanitarian catastrophe. We must act and 
act now.
  I encourage President Biden and his team: Meet today. Send the orders 
to ships today to get offshore. Launch the plans today to be able to 
provide those medical supplies to those 13 hospitals. Prepare those 
plans now for sea-to-shore delivery of food and water.
  Communicate to Israel that we are going to do this because we will 
not be complicit in this humanitarian catastrophe that is ongoing; that 
we value the life of every civilian, every Palestinian civilian, we 
value the life of every Palestinian woman and child, and we, the United 
States, are going to act.
  President Biden, I encourage you not to only meet with your team to 
plan this but to announce it to the American people. The American 
people are deeply concerned about our close association with this 
humanitarian disaster. The world is very concerned about our close 
association and complicity in this humanitarian disaster. So speak to 
us, the American people, that Team Biden will act not in a week, not in 
a month, not when the war ends--but now. There is no time to waste, and 
this is a moral imperative.
  It is the United States that so often says to the rest of the world: 
What has gone on here, and why have you allowed it to happen?
  This is an unacceptable humanitarian catastrophe, and you must 
address it. That is the United States talking to the world, but now we 
have a humanitarian catastrophe that is in our hands, our 
responsibility, and we have to carry that responsibility squarely, 
directly, and act immediately and boldly. American complicity in the 
suffering of the Palestinians living in Gaza must end.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is a very good thing that today the 
Senate cleared the first procedural hurdle to pass the national 
security supplemental.
  For the information of Senators, the Senate will convene tomorrow at 
12 noon to resume postcloture debate on the motion to proceed. If no 
agreement is reached, the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed at 
approximately 7 p.m. tomorrow evening.
  As I said this morning, we still hope to reach an agreement with our 
Republican colleagues on amendments. Democrats have always been clear 
that we support having a fair and reasonable amendment process. 
Nevertheless, the Senate will keep working on this bill until the job 
is done.

                          ____________________