Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 24 (Friday, February 9, 2024)

[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 24 (Friday, February 9, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S565-S593]
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--Resumed

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 815,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 30, H.R. 815, 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.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Supplemental Funding

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief.
Yesterday, the Senate cleared the first major procedural hurdle to
passing the national security supplemental. It was a good and very
important first step. We now resume postcloture debate on the motion to
proceed. If we don't reach a time agreement, we will hold the next vote
on the motion to proceed at approximately 7 p.m. tonight, but I hope
our Republican colleagues can work with us to reach an agreement on
amendments so we can move this process along. Democrats are willing to
consider reasonable and fair amendments here on the floor as we have
shown on many occasions in the past 3 years. Nevertheless, the Senate
will keep working on this bill until the job is done.
I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.

Supplemental Funding

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, when the Biden administration released
its request for supplemental appropriations in October, I said the
Senate would need to do its own work to meet the demonstrated needs of
our national security.
The President's decisions over the past 3 years have directly
contributed to the web of serious security challenges demanding the
Senate's attention--from an embarrassing retreat from Afghanistan that
emboldened terrorists and shredded credibility with our allies, to a
halting response to Russian escalation that kept lethal capabilities
off the frontlines of Ukraine's defense, to an Iran policy that tried
trading deterrence for detente.
The Senate can and will continue to urge the Commander in Chief to do
the right thing, but we also have a responsibility of our own to
provide for the common defense and equip the next Commander in Chief
with the tools to exercise American strength.

[[Page S566]]

That responsibility is in front of us right now, and addressing
national security challenges with serious legislation starts with
recognizing some pretty basic realities about how the world works:
First, America has global interests and global responsibilities, and
to the extent the President has neglected them, the Senate ignores them
at the Nation's peril.
Second, alliances and partnerships are essential to advancing our
interests. They lower the costs of keeping the peace, reduce the direct
risks to America, and facilitate the commerce that drives our economy.
But these alliances and partnerships rely on American leadership and
American credibility.
Finally, there is a growing list of adversaries who wish us harm.
There is growing evidence that they are working together, and there is
no doubt that they are emboldened by American weakness.
These are not opinions. They are plainly observable facts borne out
by history. Denying them does a disservice to the American people, and
it is impossible to engage productively on decisions about U.S.
national security without acknowledging them.
So a great number of our colleagues have worked diligently on
legislation that confronts Russian aggression against the West, Iran-
backed terror against Israel and U.S. forces, and the rise of an
aggressive China head-on. The product before the Senate resolves the
significant shortcomings of the President's request.
For example, thanks to Senate Republicans, it requires the Commander
in Chief to submit a strategy that identifies the specific objectives,
requirements, and metrics from our assistance to Ukraine. It shifts $4
billion away from direct budget support to Kyiv into security
investments instead. And it fully funds the special inspector general
for Ukraine created by the NDAA last year, further expanding already
unprecedented visibility into how U.S. assistance is actually being
used.
The legislation also designates $9 billion above the President's
request for U.S. defense needs, including $2.4 billion for ongoing
operations against Iran-backed terrorists in the Middle East. And,
thanks to Republican efforts, it imposes strict new oversight measures
on humanitarian assistance and ensures that not a single penny of U.S.
taxpayer funds goes to the U.N. agency whose employees stoke hatred in
Gaza and actually participated in the slaughter of Jews in Israel.
Underneath these essential provisions sit historic and urgent
investments in American hard power, which is critical to our national
defense.
Our allies and partners in Ukraine and Israel are fighting our shared
adversaries, degrading their military capacity, and working to restore
deterrence. Our friends in the Pacific are working to deter yet another
one.
Together, they are facing the raw end of authoritarian aggression and
terrorist savagery. Our colleagues have heard me say this before:
American assistance to these efforts is not charity. It is an
investment in cold, hard U.S. interests.
This is not a rhetorical device. It is not referring to some vague
lines of efforts from which America expects to receive some trickle-
down benefit. I mean quite literally spending tens of billions of
dollars here in America, upgrading our capabilities, creating American
manufacturing jobs, and expanding our defense industrial capacity to
help us better compete with advanced adversaries.
Of just the funds this supplemental designates to support Ukrainian's
defense, $19.85 billion of it will be spent right here in America on
replenishing our own arsenal. Another $3.5 billion will be spent--
again, here in America--to expand our industrial base's capacity to
produce artillery and air-defense and long-range weapons. And $15.4
billion will be spent--one more time, here in America--on weapons for
Ukraine to continue degrading the military strength of a major U.S.
adversary.
These investments create capacity that we, the United States, need
for serious competition with our adversaries.
Of course, this doesn't even account for the massive streams of
funding our allies and partners around the world are investing in
American capabilities themselves, including more than $120 billion and
counting from NATO allies.
Overall, even accounting for direct assistance sent to allies like
Israel, more than 75 percent of this legislation is bound for
investments right here in America, and more than 60 percent of it goes
to the defense industrial base, where increasing capacity is a direct
investment in long-term strength abroad and prosperity here at home.
This is about rebuilding the arsenal of democracy and demonstrating
to our allies and adversaries alike that we are serious about
exercising American strength.
I can present these facts as frequently as necessary. It is what I
have been doing quite literally for years.
Every one of our colleagues is capable of understanding that security
assistance appropriated in support of Ukraine is money invested right
here in America. Every one of our colleagues is capable of
understanding that the investments this legislation makes in expanding
production capacity--from artillery rounds to rocket motors, to
submarines--are investments in readiness for long-term competition with
China, a competition America cannot afford to lose.
Every single one of us knows what is at stake here, and it is time
for every one of us to deal with it head-on.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I thank the
Senator from Kentucky for his words on the floor in support of
assistance to Ukraine in its hour of need. I thank him for being
consistent in that message.
Yesterday, after months of delay, 17 Republican Senators joined in a
bipartisan effort to advance critical security and humanitarian aid. I
want to thank them for stepping up and urge them to continue moving
this bill to final passage and moving it to passage in the House of
Representatives.
All the while, while we were giving our speeches here on the floor of
the Senate and other places, Vladimir Putin has been sitting back and
waiting for the United States to finally walk away from the Ukrainians,
as they fight bravely to repel his bloody onslaught. Putin is hoping
that Donald Trump will be reelected and that this Congress will
discontinue aid to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the ``message man'' for the MAGA
movement, Tucker Carlson, was in Moscow interviewing the former
communist KGB agent Vladimir Putin, hoping, no doubt, to further his
cynical strategy.
Is there anyone here who could remotely have imagined that many in
the party of Ronald Reagan and John McCain would be actively voting
against aid to stop Russian tyranny, that they would bend to the will
of former President Trump, who has spoken favorably of the Russian
despot?
This photograph captures a moment a few years ago. It captures a
moment, 37 years ago, at the Brandenburg Gate, between East and West
Germany, where President Reagan stood resolutely for freedom and told
Gorbachev to tear down the wall.
This second photograph is more personal to me. About 10 years ago,
when Senator John McCain and I were part of a delegation that
represented colleagues from Arizona, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and
Wyoming, we went to Ukraine's Maidan Square in Kyiv to honor those who
had been killed in the fight for freedom.
I am not alone in asking the same question that was asked yesterday
by the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk. He said, ``Ronald Reagan,
who helped millions of us win back our freedom and independence, must
be turning [over] in his grave'' with what is happening now in
Washington.
The Polish people are staunch allies of Ukraine and the United
States, and they have long memories of Soviet tyranny. They know that
critical American resolve is part of overcoming that tyranny, and we
should never forget it.
I am proud to represent the city of Chicago and the State of
Illinois. There are many Polish Americans there--great people. I think
what they have done during this Ukrainian war is an amazing story. They
have literally embraced the refugees from Ukraine. As one of the Polish
officials told me: Senator, you won't find a refugee camp for
Ukrainians in Poland. We bring them into our homes.
It is an amazing outpouring. When you ask them, what is motivating
you?

[[Page S567]]

He said: We remembered no one would do that for us when we faced the
same tyranny in our own history.
They have made a difference. It is not just because of their love for
their neighbors in Ukraine, but it is also the realization that, if
Vladimir Putin conquers Ukraine, the next target could easily be Poland
or the Baltic nations. They know that this fight, which is being waged
against Putin in Ukraine, is their fight. We should realize the same.
Next week, a bipartisan group of us are attending the Munich Security
Conference. It is an annual conference in Germany where we bring
together the European nations and many others to discuss topics of the
day. You can bet the No. 1 topic will be Ukraine. God forbid we fail to
pass this defense supplemental before the Munich Conference. I don't
know what I will say to our friends and allies in NATO and in Europe
who stood by us and by the Ukrainian people for so long if we abandon
them here in the U.S. Senate.
The first question that they will ask is, Will we approve the money
necessary to buy the ammunition and equipment for the Ukrainians to
fight on? We are going to answer that question here in the U.S. Senate
in just a matter of hours.
NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg recently said that if Putin isn't
stopped, he will continue his war beyond Ukraine, with grave
consequences.
And make no mistake, it is not only Putin watching and savoring our
failure to act. It is Iran, China, North Korea, and many others.
So let's get this done. Let's show Putin and the other tyrants of the
world that they cannot divide and weaken us at home or with our allies
abroad.
For months, my Republican colleagues refused to provide critical aid
to Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and Taiwan and to address urgent national
security and humanitarian needs until we would consider and pass
legislation to secure the American border. This week, we had an
opportunity to vote on a bipartisan bill that would help us to secure
the border and provide this essential national security funding. I had
some concerns about the language in this, but I realized it was a
bipartisan compromise.
Senator James Lankford, speaking for the Republicans, had been
negotiating literally for weeks to get the right language that could
appeal to both Democrats and Republicans.
I want to thank Senator Murphy and Senator Kyrsten Sinema for their
resolve as well.
While I had some concerns about the proposal, as I said, I was
prepared to support it with some changes. I am happy to report that it
received the support of the National Border Patrol Council, the union
that represents Border Patrol agents.
Despite all of this, Senate Republicans said they wanted to offer
amendments. Well, the way to offer an amendment is, first, to pass a
motion to proceed to the bill. When that measure came up for support,
we didn't have enough Republican support to pass it on the floor.
Almost immediately after the bill was released, numerous Senate
Republicans had come out in opposition to it.
And when the bill came to floor, they voted not to even consider it.
Why? Why? Because Donald Trump told them not to. And he was very bold
about it. He said: Blame me, if you will. But any attempt to make
border security changes should be stopped now so he can use the issue
in the campaign. He said: ``Blame it on me'' if the bill fails.
Well, we will. Trump is apparently fearful that a bipartisan effort
to secure the border would undermine his campaign rhetoric.
His interference could not have come at a worse time. We are facing
the worst refugee crisis in modern history. With outdated laws and
underfunded agencies, our immigration system is not up to the
challenge. As a result, many migrants are stuck in our processing
backlogs for years, without a work permit.
Most people don't know this fact, but I want to make it for the
record. We have had about 36,000 migrants come into the city of
Chicago, primarily from Texas. They were sent there under false
pretenses that there were accommodations waiting and a job waiting for
them. That was not the case. But the Governor of Texas didn't care, and
he didn't care about their outcome and their plight--36,000, trying to
find shelter for them. Some went to police stations and slept on the
floor. Some slept in churches. The Catholic charities did an amazing
job, as well as many others, to try to take care of them. And it has
been a real hardship on the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois--
36,000 people.
There is one thing most people don't realize. In the past year and a
half, we have absorbed, in Chicago, 30,000 Ukrainian immigrants who
have come from war-torn Ukraine to the city of Chicago.
Now, I hope you can understand that a city that has a section known
as Ukrainian Village certainly welcomes these people. Families that
sponsor them said that they would stand by them. And they became part
of our society and part of our economy quickly, without a lot of rancor
and with the understanding of people that they were going to add to
America. And they were in desperate need.
So 30,000 Ukrainians were absorbed into Chicago without much fanfare.
I have seen them at the churches and their schools, working in
restaurants, doing the kind of work that immigrants are used to doing
in America.
But the 36,000 who came in as migrants from Texas were sent in by the
busload, without any warning and without any effort to try to
assimilate them into the area before they arrived. The difference is
very stark.
The legislation that we were going to consider before the Republicans
killed it would have created a new system to process migrants quickly.
It would have funded our frontline officials and immigration officers
with $20 billion to ensure that they are processed efficiently.
Think about that. The Republicans have been saying publicly for
months that we need more resources at the border to stop the onslaught
of people who are arriving. And they also believe--and I share the
belief--that we need more surveillance at the border, not only for
those coming across the border but also for those bringing across the
border narcotics and other contraband dangerous to America.
So the bill, which they stopped this week with their vote on the
floor, would have provided $20 billion to ensure that they would be
processed efficiently at the border and provide $20 billion, at least,
in new technology and resources to stop the onslaught of narcotics and
drugs.
It would have ensured that asylum seekers with legitimate claims can
get a work permit quickly and start working, as so many businesses
across the Nation need.
Despite my concerns about this legislation, because it left out
Dreamers, I was prepared to consider it and support it. The DREAM Act
was a measure that I introduced some 22 years ago in an effort to give
these young people, who were brought to this country by their parents
and who grew up here and became part of America, a chance to finally
prove themselves and earn their way into citizenship. I think it should
be included in any measure that addresses immigration from this point
forward.
I hope we can all agree on one thing: We need to work together in a
bipartisan way to secure the border, after years of congressional
failure. Bipartisanship requires compromise.
After all of the Senate Republicans' TV appearances, campaign photos
at the border, and impassioned speeches on the floor, it only took one
man to destroy this agreement, this hard-fought bipartisan agreement--
Donald Trump.
I know my Republican colleagues understand the urgent need to secure
the border. I am disappointed that they would let their fear of one man
stop this body from doing its job.
We still have a chance to do the right thing when it comes to
security. We can stand behind the people in Ukraine who are fighting
bravely every single day.
I cannot imagine how America can explain to the world why it would
walk away from this battle against Vladimir Putin. We know his
ambitions beyond Ukraine are terrible, and innocent people will suffer.
Let's let the Ukrainian soldiers fight bravely with our support with a
vote in the Senate today.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.

[[Page S568]]

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I don't need to tell the people in this
body or on the other side of the Capitol that the public view of
Washington, DC, is not very good. Our numbers in public opinion numbers
oftentimes are in the single digits, and they are there for good
reason. They are there because oftentimes people only see politics here
all the time. They see bodies and individuals who work for the parties;
they don't work for the good of America.
What we saw earlier this week just confirms that, where we had a bill
that came out to address border security--particularly on the southern
border, but it does good things for the northern border too. It
addresses border security in this country, where we are seeing people
coming across the border--the southern border in particular. We don't
know who they are, and it is just flat a national security issue.
When I go home to Montana, I hear it from everybody. I hear it from
families, from business owners, from policemen to mayors--you name it.
In Montana--and I don't think Montana is different from any other
State--this is a big issue. People understand the southern border is
broken, and they want us, the folks who serve in Washington, DC, their
representatives to the government, to do something about it.
Over the last many years, multiple administrations, we have seen
people go to the border and talk about how things are really bad down
there: They are bad because we have undocumented folks coming across
the border in record numbers. They are bad because we have fentanyl
coming into this country that is killing people and ruining families.
Then they come back and go around the country talking about how
miserably bad it is on the southern border and how it needs to be
fixed. They are right.
Unfortunately--this shouldn't be about press releases and emails and
newsletters and interviews at night; this should be about getting
something done to fix the problem.
So what transpired about 4 months ago is that we had a bill on the
floor then--funding for Ukraine. I believe there was funding for
Israel, and I believe there was funding for the Indo-Pacific. There
were some in this body who said: This bill is going nowhere until we
get something that addresses the problems at the southern border.
I was standing right over there when one of the Senators said: We get
southern border--Republicans; Democrats get Ukraine funding.
Well, he was wrong. The truth is, the United States gets southern
border protection, and U.S. citizens get to help Ukraine and support
democracy and make sure that Putin isn't successful in taking over
Ukraine and ultimately the rest of the Europe.
But nonetheless, there are three people who went out. They were given
the blessing to negotiate a bipartisan--which is the way things should
be done around here and are done around here--a bipartisan southern
border bill. The two people, the Republican and the Democrat or the
Democrat and the Republican--however you want to place it--happen to be
the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Appropriations
Subcommittee. The other was a Member who is an Independent who lives in
a State that borders the southern border, Arizona.
So these folks went down and they worked and worked and worked. I
have been part of these negotiations. Quite frankly, they are never
easy. Nobody gets everything they want. There is compromise. There are
negotiations. In the end, you thread the needle, and you come up with a
bill that actually secures the southern border, that, by the way, any
one of those three negotiators would tell you they would not have
written themselves, but through the negotiating process, they came up
with a bill.
I am going to tell you, it was a pretty darn good bill. They rolled
it out last Sunday night for all of us to see, some 300-plus pages. I
got to read that bill. But the interesting thing is, before the bill
was even rolled out, some of the folks who serve in this body said ``I
oppose it.'' Before they even had a chance to look at it, they said ``I
oppose it'' because they were told to oppose the bill.
Now, look, we are all elected by our citizens in our States to come
here. I would hope we all have a mind, I would hope we all can think,
and I would hope we could all discern fact from fiction. But when
somebody says ``Vote against it'' and you just vote against it after
you have been in your State--you have heard what a big issue this is,
and you have considered what can happen if we do nothing versus what
could happen if we do something. Yet, for political purposes--not
because it is bad policy but for political purposes--a person says
``Don't fix it,'' and, almost like a cult, people here said ``We are
voting no.'' Many of them have not read it.
It is unbelievable to me. I have seen a lot of hypocrisy in this
place, but it is unbelievable to me the hypocrisy in that vote, as a
condition of national security--and folks in this body turn their backs
on fixing the problem. Why? Because they want to keep it a political
issue, which is exactly why the people look at Washington, DC, and say:
Do you know what? Those folks don't represent us. They are in it for
themselves. They just want everything to be an upheaval.
It confirms that thought.
So what does the bill do? What does this compromise bill do for
America? It funds $20 billion in security for the southern border--for
manpower, for technology, and to attack the fentanyl crisis, which is a
scourge on this country. It includes the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, which
puts serious harm to China's wallet for putting the precursor elements
of fentanyl into Mexico.
It changes the asylum laws. It raises the bar--exponentially--and
stops folks who come to the border illegally from gaming the system.
It requires--it requires--the President to shut down the border when
they can't handle the people. Look, don't take my word for it. The
National Border Patrol Council, some 18,000 Border Patrol agents have
endorsed this bill. These are the folks that are charged, by the way,
with keeping our border safe.
The acting director of Customs and Border Protection endorsed this
bill and said it ``would provide the strongest set of tools we have had
in decades.'' The chief of the U.S. Border Patrol said on FOX News that
``this bill that would have added additional hundreds of border patrol
agents to our rank and file, that would have given us more technology,
would have given us more equipment infrastructure. Of course I'm going
to be supportive of that.''
And one of the Senators that negotiated this bill--a strong
conservative I might add--Republican Senator James Lankford from
Oklahoma said that this would have stopped 800,000 entries in the past
4 months if it had already been signed into law.
The hypocrisy is stunning. Senators and House Members, who went back
to their home States and talked about how bad the southern border was
and how we needed to act, now have flip-flopped.
These are politicians who claim to work bipartisanly, but they oppose
bipartisan solutions. They are the same ones who have cried loudly for
years that we need changes--policy changes--on the border, but they are
revealing in plain sight that it isn't about policy issues; it is about
politics.
And the disinformation campaign that has come along with this is
rich. Claims that 5,000 migrants would be allowed into this country
every day is patently false; and if they had read the bill, they would
have known it.
There are those who say that Congressional action isn't needed. That
also is false. We control the purse strings; we control the policy
language. And only Congress can fix our asylum laws; only Congress can
make sure we are giving the Border Patrol the resources that they need
to secure the border.
I wish this place worked; I really do. This is the greatest country
in the world--not by accident, because our forefathers acted
responsibly that we didn't have campaign seasons that never end; that
we could actually sit down and negotiate, not as Democrats and
Republicans but as Americans, to do what is right for this country.
If we don't start acting like adults in this place and start thinking
and acting reasonably and listening to our constituents--not listening
to one person but listen to the folks that sent you here; even when you
disagree with them, you should be listening to them--to try to fix the
problems, I fear for this country's future. And I don't say that
lightly.

[[Page S569]]

There is plenty of evidence out there that shows that China would
love to replace us as the premier economy and the premier military in
this world. That is not something that we should take lightly. That is
something that we should take very, very seriously.
And when Congress doesn't do their job, when Congress doesn't even
debate a bill to deal with a serious problem in this country, it does
not speak well of us, and it only empowers our opponents out there, the
countries that want to replace us in the world.
I don't know what will transpire with this negotiated border
agreement, but I do hope that we get another opportunity to vote on it,
on the policy that was negotiated by Lankford and Sinema and Murphy.
They worked hard. At a bare minimum, they deserve--they deserve--but
more importantly, the American people deserve--to hear a debate on this
bill and find out not what Facebook or Twitter or what the internet
says about this bill but find out exactly what is in this bill.
Because I can tell you Montanans are tired of DC political games and,
quite frankly, so am I.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Child Tax Credit

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have an opportunity. We have an
opportunity to come together to cut taxes for American families in my
State and for the families of more than 500,000 children, and to cut
taxes for American manufacturers.
The deal negotiated by Finance Chairman Wyden, a Democrat, in the
Senate and Ways and Means Chairman Smith in the House, a Republican,
along with their colleagues of both parties, has overwhelming
bipartisan support. It passed the committee in the House 40 to 3. It
passed on the House floor with 357 votes.
When does that happen here? It is how Congress is supposed to work.
We talk with the people with whom we serve. We hear their concerns,
and we act. Families are dealing with costs that are far too high
because corporations continue to raise prices to pay for executive
bonuses and stock buybacks and higher profit margins.
I often think of this, because I hear, when my wife and I are at the
grocery store near our church in Brecksville, when I am out talking to
people at a roundtable, or just at an airport, people talk about high
food prices. One of the reasons--the biggest reason--when people go to
the grocery store, they realize they are paying for stock buybacks and
executive bonuses.
The American manufacturers have been telling us they can't compete
with countries like China without more investment in research and
development, but expiring provisions mean the Tax Code isn't rewarding
that kind of investment as much as it should.
I heard in Ohio from people in East Palestine. I am going for, I
believe, the ninth time there next week. They are worried. This is the
place, the community in Ohio on the Pennsylvania border in eastern
Ohio, where the Norfolk Southern train derailed, causing all kinds of
hardship for people. But people in East Palestine are worried, they
tell me, that they can be hit by a surprise tax bill for the payments
they rightly received from Norfolk Southern after the derailment last
year. It is unacceptable. People in East Palestine have endured enough.
So we came together to write a bipartisan, consensus bill that does
all of those things. At a time when Washington seems pretty broken, we
have an opportunity to come together and show the American people we
can get things done. We can cut their taxes, we can support their
businesses, we can help keep intellectual property in this country, we
can help create jobs, and we can help families.
The expansion of the child tax credit will help Ohio working families
keep up with rising costs, including all the extra expenses that come
with raising kids. It has broad support. Everyone--from the Nuns on the
Bus to the National Association of Evangelicals--supports expanding the
child tax credit.
I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Arizona, and I have
talked about how important the child tax credit is.
It supports work. The nonpartisan scorekeepers at the Joint Committee
on Taxation confirmed that this bill won't reduce work.
When I hear from Ohio parents, the No. 1 thing they say they use
their tax cut for is childcare, so they can work. We know how expensive
childcare is.
Also, when we passed this child tax credit--it is a tax cut for
working families, where 90 percent of children and the families of 2
million children in my State benefited from it. We passed it 3 or 4
years ago, and it expired, unfortunately. But I got letters from
families all the time saying: Now my daughter can play soccer, and we
can afford the school fees. Now my son can be in a school play and
afford the fees. Now we can maybe go to a movie once a month. These are
all the kinds of things that families living on the edge or families
not quite living on the edge contend with. It gives them that.
It is key for Ohio manufacturers that invest in research and
innovation. It is expensive. It is vital for keeping up with global
competitors. These tax credits will allow Ohio companies to compete.
Last month, I did a news conference with two longtime friends of
mine, two former Ohio Republican Congressmen, Steve Stivers and Pat
Tiberi. Steve Stivers is now president and CEO of the Ohio Chamber of
Commerce and Pat Tiberi is now CEO of the Ohio Business Roundtable.
They both talked about how crucial these tax cuts are for Ohio
businesses.
They are a major priority for American companies, as my Republican
colleagues in the Senate have made clear to us all year. That is why
Chairman Wyden and many of us worked with Republicans to write a bill
that is a win-win for everybody. It is a true bipartisan process from
the start. It includes ideas that have support from both parties.
Take the lookback provision in the child tax credit, allowing parents
to use the previous year's income to make sure they get the maximum
possible tax cut. This is an idea that Senator Cassidy from Louisiana
and I worked on together during the pandemic. We got support from both
parties. This will make this bill work better. It will enable this bill
to help children and families more. It is the same option that
corporations have in the Tax Code. Why not make it available to
families? Corporations often do lookbacks to look at the year before in
calculating their taxes. Why wouldn't we make it available to families
too?
The way Chairman Wyden and Chairman Smith negotiated this bill is how
we should do this. We listen to the people we serve.
I know that Chairman Wyden spoke with a number of Republican members
on the Finance Committee. He spoke with me often during this process as
we worked on both the R&D tax credit and the child tax credit.
I know that Chair Smith worked with members of both parties on his
committee. That is why he passed it out of his committee 40 to 3.
Imagine 40 to 3 on a tax bill in a Congress that has difficulty getting
a consensus and getting things done.
We made sure Members of both parties were in the room in these
negotiations or were in the room in terms of having discussions. We got
something done that brought people together. It supports families. It
supports businesses. It includes priorities of both parties. It
supports work. It supports American innovation. It won't add to the
deficit. It is paid for by cracking down on fraud. There is no reason
not to pass this deal.
I mean, again, 357 votes in the House, overwhelming bipartisan
support in the committee, then in the House--there is no reason to wait
other than playing politics. We see it far too often here.
We need to move. Tax season is underway. Families and businesses need
these tax cuts now. Why would we walk away from a bipartisan bill that
we could pass today if Members would put aside egos and politics and
all that too often gets in the way. Let's come together to cut taxes
for working families and cut taxes for Ohio manufacturers.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S570]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Border Security

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, the Senate will be in session this
weekend--including Super Bowl Sunday, which is fine by me--to deal with
this bill that now, as everyone knows, is about Ukraine, funding for
Ukraine and its war effort, funding for Israel, funding for Taiwan, and
some other matters.
I will dispense with the Israel and Taiwan funding because that is a
pretty straightforward one that I think has very strong support here. I
am for it. I am also for helping Ukraine against Russia. I do believe
we have a national interest in helping Ukraine against Russia.
I would just summarize it this way: If you look at China, which most
people would agree is the U.S.'s biggest adversary at this point for
global influence, the Chinese are hoping one of two things is going to
happen. The first is, they are hoping that we are going to get stuck in
Ukraine, along with what is happening in the Middle East, and that we
are going to be drained by it and we won't be able to focus on the
Indo-Pacific. But if we do become disengaged, then what their hope is--
they will go around telling people: See, we told you America is
unreliable and a power in decline. So I believe our goal when it comes
to Ukraine is to be helpful to Ukraine in a way that doesn't drain us,
in a way that doesn't harm our alliances around the world.
I have my own personal views on this. I have shared it in the past. I
have had further confirmation of it over the last 24 hours--that where
I think Ukraine eventually winds up is, I don't believe the Russians
can ever achieve their initial objectives no matter what happens, which
is to take all of Ukraine, all the way to Kyiv. I also think it is
going to be very difficult for a country the size of Ukraine, no matter
how much help it gets, to completely destroy the Russian Federation,
which, no matter how bad they have been militarily, just has a size
advantage.
But I do believe that at some point, both of these countries are
going to try to figure a way out. The question is, Which one of the two
is going to have the most leverage and the best deal possible, and will
Ukraine be able to emerge from this as a democracy, as a nation that is
not under the thumb of Vladimir Putin--another Belarus, as an example?
I think we have a national interest in the outcome. It is not an
unlimited national interest. It doesn't mean we spend however much they
need for however long it takes. But there is an interest.
I just wanted to say that at the outset. I say that because obviously
I am informed by my work on the Intelligence Committee, the Foreign
Relations Committee, and my interest in foreign policy, because I think
our job here in the Federal Government--we get involved in a lot of
things that are none of our business, but foreign policy and national
security are a key part of the Federal Government and what we are
supposed to be doing here.
I do believe that in the short and long term, there are things
there--I don't think I need to convince anyone about Israel and
Taiwan--that involve the national security of the United States and
what the world is going to look like in 5, 10, 15 years.
That said, I would imagine--not that I imagine, actually--I know that
there are people--if you walked into many places in this country right
now and you explained to them what was happening, they would be
puzzled. People would say, no matter how they may feel about Ukraine--I
think for most Americans, frankly, it is not a priority, not because
they like Putin and they like Russia but because we have a lot of
problems that people are dealing with in their everyday lives. I think
most people would say: OK. But if we are going to do that for Ukraine,
if we are going to help Ukraine deal with their invasion, shouldn't we
first or at least at the same time deal with our invasion, what is
happening to our country?
So you guys are going to meet all weekend. You are going to fight.
You are going to call each other names. You are going to drag this
thing out. You are going to have this big thing that we never do. We
never stay here on Sundays--it is fine with me. But we never do all of
this, but when we do it, it is always for somebody else or something
that is not as important to us. But for something that is important to
us, something that has to do with America, with our country, it never
happens.
How, in essence, can you be helping Ukraine with their invasion but
not be helping America with its invasion? And it is an invasion, what
is happening at our southern border.
These are very conservative numbers, but they are incredibly
accurate. They come right from both public and nonpublic--not
classified but nonpublic--information. They are products that are
produced from the House committee, for example. Let's just say that
from January 20, 2021, 3.3 million people have entered the United
States illegally and been released into the country. Of those 3.3
million people who have entered the country illegally, 99.7 percent of
them are still here. They have not been deported or removed. Of the 3.3
million who have been released into this country, over 617,000 of
them--and these are old numbers; these are numbers from last month--of
the 3.3 million people who entered the country illegally and were
released, 617,000 of them either have criminal convictions or pending
criminal charges. So we have had at least 600,000 convicted criminals,
suspected criminals, enter the country illegally, free to roam the
country now.

People ask, well, how did this happen? Because it has never been
zero. Let's be clear. It has never been zero. There have never been
zero illegal people entering into America. But how did this happen?
Well, let's first start with our law.
When people talk about immigration around here, they pretend it is
completely unregulated: We need new laws to fix it because the laws are
all messed up, and we don't regulate.
No. The immigration laws in America can be summarized. I mean, it is
a complex area of law, but at its core, it is quite simple. Immigration
law in America says this: These are the people who are allowed to be in
the United States of America, and if someone who is not allowed to be
in the United States of America enters illegally, you are to detain
them through removal, meaning you are to detain them in immigration
detention until their case is either resolved or they are removed from
the country. That is the law of the United States, and that has been
the law of the United States for quite some time.
With that detention requirement that you hold them until they are
removed, we have always had exceptions, narrow exceptions. For example,
if the Dalai Lama shows up at the border of the United States and says
``Hey, I am here because the Chinese are trying to kill me''--
exception, right? There have always been exceptions.
These are supposed to be narrow exceptions, and they are supposed to
apply to individuals case by case--humanitarian, things of that nature.
But for the first time in American history, the current President of
the United States decided to make the exception the rule--the rule. It
became the rule that if you arrived here, we would not detain you. The
exception became those we were detaining. I just gave you the numbers
of the people who were released. So the exceptions ate up the rule, and
that is how this happens.
Why it happens is not hard to understand. I assure you guys--listen,
I live in an immigrant community. When it comes to immigration, I have
been in the game for 10 years making these things--you know, looking at
these things longer. I live it. I live it. My entire family are
immigrants. My wife's entire family are immigrants. All of my neighbors
are immigrants. I can't drive two blocks and go anywhere and not be--
other than Miami, FL--surrounded with immigrants from all over the
hemisphere and all over the world. So when I talk to you about these
things, I didn't read about it in a magazine; I didn't see a
documentary; I didn't have some briefing; I talk to people who show me.
They have shown me. They said: Look, this is the cash-

[[Page S571]]

out payment that I sent to some guy to bring my sister and her husband.
Here is the Venmo that I sent to some guy to help my family get from
Cuba to Nicaragua and from Nicaragua to the United States.
They don't know what the immigration law is. They don't know about
exceptions, asylum. Here is what they know: They know people who have
come here, turned themselves in, said ``I am here,'' blah, blah, blah,
and they were released. They know people who did it, and those people
tell other people, and the traffickers advertise it.
So what happens is that when people figure out--and they figure it
out pretty quickly. Human beings are incentive-based creatures. All of
us are. That is why we pass laws to punish crime. That is why we raise
taxes on cigarettes--we want people to smoke less.
We are incentive-based creatures, and when people know that if you
can make it inside of the United States and turn yourself in, your
chances of being released are 85, 90-something percent, more people are
going to come.
The numbers don't lie. I don't have it with me. I tried to blow it
up; couldn't print it on time. But there is a graph that shows--it
looks like one of those things, you know, those echocardiograms, except
this one goes straight up. It basically says, here is the number in
December of 2019, January of 2020. February of 2021, it just spikes
right up. Why did it spike?
It spiked because we told people, by the way, if you are a single
adult--which was the biggest driver that really changed everything--if
you are a single adult and you come into America illegally and you turn
yourself in, we will interview you--maybe not even interview you--and
we will release you into the country. People figure it out.
And the way you solve it is to reverse that. The law didn't change.
The immigration law today looks the same as it did in 2019. No
immigration law has changed in America. What changed is this policy by
Executive order.
Remember, when we pass laws, it has to be executed. So look what is
happening with crime. It is illegal in every jurisdiction in America to
shoplift, but the places where you see a spike in shoplifting are the
places where the prosecutors have decided we are not going to prosecute
those cases.
And when you tell people, yes, it is illegal to do something but we
are not going to prosecute it, we are not going to go after it, you are
going to get it.
So how do you solve this? You solve it the same way you created it:
by reversing what created it. That is how you solve it.
And so a lot of us said: Well, look, if we are going to do all this
for Ukraine and all of these other countries--but Ukraine was really--
and this is something that you really want, it is important, can't we
also--so that we look, at least, half sane to the people in this
country that can't understand how we can spend all this time and energy
not helping ourselves before we help other countries--can we at least
deal with the border?
So they said: OK, we are going to do something on the border.
And they spent three, four--what, I don't know--8 weeks, whatever,
negotiating a deal, and then they produced it. I didn't have anything
to do with that deal. I am not condemning the people that did it. I
have done immigration negotiations in the past; it is difficult. This
is even more difficult because it is in the midst of a mass-migration
crisis.
But they negotiated a deal, but I didn't negotiate it. I didn't even
know what was in it until Sunday. And I read it--I read it twice,
actually--went through it with the knowledge base that I have. But they
negotiated a deal that most of us, for the most part, to be fair, had
nothing to do with negotiating. And I realized pretty quickly, this is
not going to reverse.
You can call it whatever you want. You can call it border security;
you can label it anything you want. But this is not going to solve our
problem. And, immediately, they said: Oh, the Republicans are a bunch
of liars. The first is: These Republicans, they wanted a border deal;
we gave them a border deal; and now they want to tank the whole thing.
They changed their minds.
I think that was the President: We gave them the exact deal they
asked for, and they changed their mind.
You didn't give me the exact deal I asked for. I asked for measures,
steps, that would actually solve the migration crisis. This bill
doesn't do that. In fact, I never even asked for a bill. I am not
against some of the language that is in there. You want to change the
standard on asylum? Long overdue; but that alone is not going to stop
the migration crisis. That is what I asked for.
I didn't negotiate it. I didn't even know what was in it, like I told
you, until Sunday. And so the solution that I want to see and did want
to see and continue to want to see, the solution that we could actually
go back to people and say: Guys, we did something real on the border.
Yes, we are going to help Ukraine with their invasion, but we actually
did--something real is also going to happen with our invasion. That was
not this bill, despite whatever people may say about it.
We rejected the toughest border deal imaginable, is the other thing
that people say. You know, like, if somehow, they figured out a way--
you know, they sprinkled holy water upon a vampire with this thing.
Look, I could spell out a bunch of problems in this bill. I don't have
time; I am not going to spend the time going through every detail.
This emergency thing they brag about, emergency power to shut down
the border, they don't tell you it is limited to 270 days, and the
President can suspend it at any time. All the President has to say is:
It is not in our national interest. We need to suspend the emergency.

By the way, even in the emergency, you still have to process 1,400
people a day, illegal immigrants a day, even in the midst of an
emergency.
But let me focus on what I think is--what I believe to be the most
blatant trap that was put in place in this bill. And it is one that
people don't necessarily spot right away if you don't understand
immigration law and how it has been applied over the last decade.
So there is this thing in the bill--remember, one of the things that
people use about immigration is asylum. It takes too long; it takes 8
to 10 years; huge backlog; courts; the like. It is true. And it is one
of the incentives, by the way, because people know if you release me
pending a hearing, 10 years from now you won't even know where I am,
much less show up at a hearing.
So they come back and say: Oh, we are prepared to solve that. How did
they solve it? Well, they create what I call the asylum corps. In
essence, they are going to go out and they are going to hire thousands
of Department of Homeland Security agents--bureaucrats, agents--not
judges--to process these claims, potentially right at the border.
Right?
So right at the border, these agents will be able to interact with an
illegal immigrant, interview them, ask them some questions, and they
will have the power, they will have the power right there at the border
to do three things.
The first is they could say, no, you don't qualify, you are out of
here. Or we are going to detain you, and you are out of here. They
could do that. That has not been the history of what has happened until
now.
And let me just tell you, from what I know, most of the people who
sign up for these jobs and this duty do not sign up to kick people out;
they sign up to help people get in. But that is the asylum, so that is
the first power.
The other two things are the likeliest one. The first is: We think
you might have a claim. We are going to release you pending a hearing
before a judge, and you get an immediate work permit.
Right now, you have to wait 6 months for a work permit, even if you
are released like these people. An immediate work permit--you want to
talk about a migration magnet? When people figure out, if I get there,
I have an X percent chance of being given an immediate work permit,
that is a migration magnet.
But here is the third thing they can do: They can give you asylum
right there and then--not a judge; a member of this new asylum corps
can literally give you asylum right there and then.
Now, let me be fair. The law says they can do it under the convention
against torture, which is an international treaty.
Well, what is that? Well, let me tell you how that has been applied.
How it

[[Page S572]]

has been applied is that the convention against torture isn't just
like, we are going to send you back somewhere where they are going to
waterboard you.
The convention against torture that has been applied in most of the
activists' groups that argue means we cannot remove people from this
country if we are going to send them back to a place where they might
be kidnapped or where they might be assaulted, not by just the
government but by nongovernment criminal gangs.
So, basically, if you come from a country where gangs kidnap people,
where gangs kill people, where gangs extort people, where gangs
threaten people, where gangs assault people--if you come from a country
where that happens, we cannot send you back there under the convention
of torture. That is their interpretation of it.
My friends, that is like 100 countries on Earth. That is like almost
every country represented in the number of people that arrive at the
border. So, basically, what you will have is an asylum corps with the
power to grant people asylum right at the border. And let me tell you
the difference between the asylum corps and an immigration judge: If an
immigration judge makes that decision, the Attorney General can still
step in and reverse it. These are irreversible decisions.
And let me tell you what asylum means. Asylum is basically a green
card. You are now 5 years away from being a U.S. citizen. That number
is not going to be zero. If that law and that provision had been in
place today, some of these 3.3 million people would have already been a
year or two into their 5-year wait to become citizens and voters of the
United States of America. That is in that bill.
And that is what it means when you read past the language and the
shalls and the this and that and all of that, that is what that
language means. And you want me to vote for a bill so that a year or
two from now when the news reports come out that the asylum corps has
granted asylum and a 5-year path to citizenship to 500,000 people and
everybody here goes: Well, I didn't know that was in that law--that is
in the law; that is in that bill; that is there.
And I could go on; there are other things. The point is this was a
trap. It was put in there in place, that was the goal. This is not a
border--that would actually incentivize immigration, knowing what it is
that incentivizes people to come.
The other lie is, whoa, without a law, we can't do anything about the
border. I already explained to you how we got here in the first place:
We stopped detaining everybody.
Remember, a few years ago it was--again, let's go back and be clear.
The children who were being detained was because before we turned them
over to some guy who claimed to be their uncle, we had to make sure he
wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer; we had to make sure he wasn't some pedophile; we
had to make sure it was really their uncle. And in the meantime, you
have to put them somewhere. But that was inhumane.
But now it has spread. Now it is the detention of anybody is
inhumane. You have people out there saying: By the way, we shouldn't
even put ankle bracelets on people who are released; that is inhumane.

But the incentive that drove the immigration was we stopped detaining
single adults. And the word got out really fast. And the traffickers--
this is a business for them. They traffic people; they move people;
they move drugs. They move contraband, and they move people. And they
knew this. And they sell it. They advertise it.
I wish I would have brought some of the pamphlets that they hand out
or pictures of some of the things they put up on social media in these
countries advertising the service.
You don't need a law to fix that because the law hasn't changed. What
you need is to reverse the Executive orders, the decisions of the
administration. And the President can do that. In fact, I heard
yesterday--I think it was NBC News or something reported the President
is now considering executive actions on the border.
So at least they have acknowledged that they have that power. A
reporter asked me yesterday, well, you guys are always against
executive actions. Well, the executive action I think they need to take
is to reverse the executive actions that he has taken which created
this crisis.
And there are other things that he can do. He can do the ``return to
Mexico''; he can do the ``safe third country.'' By the way, the ``safe
third country'' one is an interesting one. I was kind of involved when
that was put in place. And initially--because it is counterintuitive.
Initially, a lot of people said: Why would these countries agree to
that? So let me tell you why Honduras would agree to it, why El
Salvador agreed to it. Let me tell you why. Because those are transit
countries.
And safe third country basically said: If you come through that
country, once you step foot in that country, you are automatically
disqualified from getting asylum in the United States.
Now, I have nothing against these countries, but I promise you that
the migrants that are going through El Salvador, Honduras, and
Guatemala were going through. They didn't go to Guatemala, Honduras, El
Salvador, or Nicaragua, for that matter, to stay there. They went there
because it was on the way to where they were trying to go.
The minute migrants realized if I go there, if I go to Honduras, I
automatically cannot get into the United States, they stopped going to
Honduras or they stopped going to El Salvador. The countries figured it
out. I bet you we can get many more countries to sign up for something
like that, because they are bearing the brunt of being in the middle of
the migration corridor. We could return to that as well.
And, yes, we can build barriers. I remember after the horrible events
of January 6 here in the Capitol, the first thing that went up around
this entire building was a fence with barbed wire and National Guard.
The first thing they did to protect the Capitol and themselves was to
deputize National Guard from all over America and to put fences around
the Capitol, some of the biggest fences you have ever seen. And they
went up like that.
But, somehow, when our country is being invaded and you put up a
fence and you send the National Guard, this administration will go to
the Supreme Court and try to stop you. So they will do it to protect
themselves, but they won't do it to protect America.
My friends, the truth is that Biden doesn't want to stop the border
crisis, and the reason why is politics. I know his memory is probably
not the best, but I remember that he spent 3 years repeatedly saying--
not just him, all the deputies, people in this Chamber, all these know-
it-alls on television: There is no crisis at the border. There is not a
crisis. It is being exaggerated, exaggerated by a bunch of xenophobes
and racists.
But now it is a top issue in the country to voters. It wasn't a
crisis until it became a crisis in New York and Chicago and all these
major cities around the country who now suddenly--you know, when it was
happening to Texas, when this was happening on the border in Arizona,
as if somehow all the people that came here were--3.3 million people
were all going to stay in Eagle Pass, TX. But once it got into their
cities, once it started impacting them, now it became a problem too.
Once you had to start closing schools because you needed to make it a
migrant shelter, now it was a crisis. Now when you have a gang of
pickpocketers running through New York assaulting police officers, now
it is a crisis. Now, when the residents of your own city are screaming
at you, ``Why are you spending all this money when we have our own
homeless problem?'' now you have a crisis. And voters were saying it
too.

And so I imagine--I am certain--that the people involved in the Biden
reelection effort came to him and said: Sir, we need to have a plan. We
need to have a plan, and the plan needs to be something that, at least,
looks like we are trying to stop it but doesn't upset that element of
our base who actually believes that anyone who comes here should be
allowed to come here.
And that element exists. That element exists. There are people in
American politics and in American political discourse who believe that,
if you make it across the border, virtually anyone who comes here--
unless, like, the worst possible human being--if you make it across the
border, you should

[[Page S573]]

be allowed to stay, even if you came illegally.
They had to come up with a plan. So what was the plan? Here was the
plan, and I called this out in December. The plan is: Let's do a border
deal. Let's call it a border deal, but let's make sure it doesn't stop
migration because we don't want to upset our base. But let's also make
sure it is bipartisan. Let's get some Republicans to sign on to it, and
then let's get it passed through the Senate. And then when the House
kills it, we can say: I, Joe Biden, tried to fix the border, but these
Neanderthals, MAGA House members, they killed it. So blame them from
now on.
In fact, I am not speculating here. There is nothing that I am just
like psychically coming up with. There is an article in POLITICO in
which an unnamed source in the Biden campaign was saying: This is
perfect. If they pass it, we can claim credit for a bipartisan deal and
tell people: Now, be patient. It is going to take time to work, but it
is bipartisan. If it doesn't pass, he can blame the Republicans and say
they own it.
And those talking points were already being said, including by some
of my colleagues here on some Sunday shows that I saw. They were
already saying that even before the deal was already out there. That
was the plan.
But he will never fix it--one, because there are people in the base
that don't want it to be fixed. There are people in American politics,
as I said already, who think anyone who comes here should be allowed to
come and stay. There are others, frankly, who see a bunch of voters.
They see a bunch of future voters.
Do you know what? Let's find a way to get people asylum. Asylum is
perfect. It puts them instantly on a path to citizenship. In 4 to 6
years from now, we are going to have a bunch of new voters, and they
will vote for us, and they will remember we are the ones that let them
in.
So that is another element of it.
But I want to go back to the one about the elements of their base
that believe in open borders, whether they admit it or not. And some of
them actually do admit it. There are actually people who have told me
to my face, ``People should be allowed to live in any country that they
want,'' which, I suppose, in a free society, you can have a right to
any opinion you want. I assure you, it is not a majority position in
America. In fact, I assure you, it is not a majority position in any
country. But, somehow, they think it should be our position.
And if you don't think that the elements of a base have influence
over our politics, I submit to you what is happening right now with
Israel policy. So we have already seen, I would imagine, a small
minority--but nonetheless a minority--of radical, anti-Semitic pro-
Hamas activists who are out there. They are threatening to vote against
Joe Biden. They have said it: We will vote. Do not count on our vote.
We are going to vote against you. Your name is ``Genocide Joe''--they
call him.
They disrupt his speeches. He tried to give a speech the other day. I
think there were like 40 interruptions. They have been in the hallways
here. It is not just the weirdos from these CODEPINK communist groups,
but it is others, screaming at us: You need to do this; you need to do
that--all this stuff that is out there.
But they say: Sir, you have a problem. We have an element of our base
in some States that say they are not going to vote for you because you
are helping Israel too much.
And that is where you see the leak. The first leak that came out is:
Oh, the President hung up on Netanyahu.
Then you see another leak a couple of weeks ago: We are going to have
a two-state solution.
Never mind the fact that the two most prominent Palestinian groups,
sadly, in the region are groups--one of them is going to wind up in the
government of the second state--and these are groups that do things
like give cash rewards for killing Jews. The more Jews you kill, the
more money your family gets if you are a martyr. Pay to slay--it is
real. Groups that, for example, in their schools, when their kids are
4, 5, 6 years of age, their school books, their textbooks teach them:
Jews are subhuman, and they are evil--groups that are not interested in
a two-state solution. These groups are calling for a one-state
solution: ``from the river to the sea''--no Jews, only them.
So let's give them their own country. Now, I would love for that to
be possible, but not as long as those people are around. But that is
the other thing they threw out there.
And then, yesterday, we read that the White House has sent
emissaries. Top aides from the White House went to Michigan to meet
with some of these upset activists to see if we can somehow bring them
along so they will vote for him in November and stop being mean to Joe
Biden over Israel.
Well, do you know who some of these people were? Multiple--more than
one of them--were people that have openly--openly--been supportive of
both Hamas and Hezbollah and call them ``freedom fighters.'' At least
one of them is a guy who has publicly said, on multiple occasions, that
the U.S. Government is controlled by Zionist money, by Jewish money.
That is who the White House went to meet with yesterday.
And then, last night, we are treated to a press conference by the
President of the United States, and in what I imagine was an unscripted
moment--maybe not--he said Israel's response to Hamas ``has been over
the top,'' which is ironic, because I support Israel funding, but here
we are today being asked to pass a bill that has all this money for
Israel, which I support.
So what are we funding? We are funding Israel's ``over the top''
campaign against Hamas?
So it doesn't make any sense, except for the politics. That is how
politics influences all of this. You know, I would conclude by just
taking us back to the original point, which is, the reason why I have
voted already to move to proceed to this. I just don't know how you go
to people in everyday life, hard-working people, and say to them--
people who are upset because they feel like our country's border is
being overrun, and it is--and they say: How come we are not doing
anything about that, something real? Like, why aren't we making that a
priority? Why don't we ever read that the Senate is staying in through
the weekend arguing and fighting and working on something real to stop
the border? How come that never gets a priority?

The growing number of Americans who always feel like, when it comes
to a major issue and a major fight, they are always second--behind
another country, behind another group, behind somebody else--who have
been, for the better part of 20 years, told: We have to take care of
others before we focus on your problems. Let's send our jobs and our
factories to other countries because it is good for the global economy.
I know we have homeless veterans committing record amounts of suicides
and these tragedies, but let's spend more money housing migrants in
this country illegally to begin with.
People who watched the news last week, OK, a roving gang of migrants
from Venezuela--I mean, it is interesting because, for a year now, the
Venezuelan community in South Florida has been telling me to be careful
because some of the people who are coming from Venezuela now are
clearly gang bangers. And, you know, you have to prove that. I am not
saying it is zero percent, but they were right. They warned me a year
ago, and now we are seeing it. And you saw it last week when--what?--
five or seven of them assaulted police officers, were arrested, were
released within an hour without any bail, flipped the middle finger to
America, and walked right out, back to the migrant shelter, paid for by
taxpayers.
You saw it last Sunday, when an illegal migrant of Palestinian
descent went to Nassau County in New York, walked up to some guy's
house and tore down his Israeli and American flags. When the guy
confronted him, he assaulted the guy and started screaming things like:
We are going to kill all the Jews.
Those are just two examples. I could give you more, but they are
there. People are watching this stuff, and they are angry. They say:
Why don't you guys do something about that? Why aren't you staying
through the weekend about that? Why aren't those people being deported
immediately?
How about these people here on student visas? You are a visitor to
the

[[Page S574]]

United States of America on a student visa--on a student visa or
whatever visa--and you are in the street calling for ``intifada,'' but
we can't deport you. They won't deport you. We know who you are. You
are not here illegally; you are here on a visa. If you had said all
that stuff, we probably wouldn't have given you the visa, but now that
you are here, you get to keep the visa? Deport those people. They
won't. Why aren't you fighting about that?
Most Americans have nothing against Ukraine. Most Americans want to
help Ukraine, but I don't think it is unreasonable for them to say:
Well, what about us? What about our country? What about our invasion?
What about our border?
And I want to say this with as much respect as I can. There is nobody
in the Senate that can lecture me on immigration. This is not a
political drive. I have lived it my whole life.
This is not immigration--3.3 million people released into the
country. And 5 to 10,000 people a day illegally arrive in the country.
That is not immigration. Immigration is a good thing. Mass migration is
a bad thing, and that is what this is. This is mass migration, and it
is not good for anyone. It is not even good for the migrants, many of
whom are raped and killed along the way.
It is good for the traffickers. It is good for the enemies of this
country, but it is not good for the migrants. This is mass migration,
and it reminds me, well, if you are against this and you want to be
strict about immigration, that is anti-immigrant, which is silly, at
least if they say it to me.
But I remember, like, I am not anti-rain. I think rain is a good
thing. I think we need rain, right? I am anti-flood. I am not against
the rain. I am against flooding. Does being against flooding make you
anti-rain? No. And being against mass migration does not make you anti-
immigration, because mass migration is not immigration.
And beyond the issues of sovereignty and common sense and the costs
involved--beyond all of that--do we really think that you can release
600,000 people with either criminal convictions or pending criminal
charges into the country and nothing is going to happen? Do you think
you can release 600,000 people with criminal histories and they are,
all of a sudden, all going to become entrepreneurs and start some tech
company? No. The chances are that a lot of them are going to continue
to be criminals. You are going to have a crime wave. It is already
starting, and no part of this country will be immune from it.
And do you think ISIS and, for that matter, every terrorist
organization in the world, no matter what sewer they live in or some
cave they are hiding in--you don't think they are aware that the
largest, most effective human smuggling operation in all of human
history is operating right on the border of the United States? You
don't think they are aware of it? Because the guys that were involved
in 9/11--those animals, savages--they actually came here on a visa
pretending to be flight students.
The next 9/11, God forbid, they don't have to pretend anything. All
they have to say is: I come from a country where people are kidnapped
and where people are often victims of crime, and you must let me in.
And, for all we know, some of them may actually become citizens because
they are going to get asylum.
You don't think that these terrorist groups are aware? I can't and
won't divulge any intelligence information. So let's just use common
sense. Common sense tells you that these groups and these terrorist
organizations understand that the largest human smuggling, migrant
smuggling operation in the history of mankind operates right at border
of the United States. And we don't think anything is going to come out
as a result of it?
Something bad is going to happen. Something bad--really bad--is bound
to happen, and, when it does, remember this day, because, when it does,
when something really bad happens, when we are overrun by a horrible
crime wave and multiple cities--guys, we lived it.
I was a child. I actually didn't live in Miami at the time. We had
moved away for a few years. The Mariel boatlift brought 200,000--less
than 200,000--people from Cuba all at once. It took Miami 10 years to
dig out of that. Bill Clinton lost his reelection because he agreed to
take in some of those people into a Federal facility in Arkansas, and
they set it on fire.
And there are a lot of people who came through Mariel who did fine,
and there were a bunch of criminals and sadists and lunatics as well,
because you take a lot of people from anywhere, and you are going to
have the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Well, we have something just like this happening not once, over a
span of weeks, but, literally, every month we have two Mariels. And you
think that you are going to allow a flood of people into America and
something bad is not going to happen? Sadly, it is. It is just a matter
of time. And when it does--when it does--things that might sound
extreme to some aren't just going to sound reasonable, they are going
to sound overdue. And do you know what they are going to ask us? How
could you have allowed this to happen?

So I end where I began. I know that if all you do is spend your time
here and watch those networks and read these columnists and newspapers,
you may lose this perspective; but I promise you, in the real world, on
planet Earth, in this country among everyday people, most of them are
asking themselves: Do you want to help Ukraine? We are for it. Do you
want to help Israel? Of course. Yes, we should help Taiwan.
But who is helping America? Why isn't helping our country deal with
this migrant crisis No. 1 before those other things? Don't they tell
you on the airplane, if the oxygen mask deploys, put on your mask and
then put the one on your kid? What good are we, how do you suppose--
America, to anyone in the world, to any country on this planet--if we
are falling apart inside?
And then, who do we work for? We work for Americans. I am a U.S.
citizen, a U.S. Senator. I care about things that are going on in the
world. No one has ever accused me of being an isolationist. And those
things do matter in America. But you have to start with fundamentals,
and that means you have to be strong here at home in order to be strong
for our allies.
We are being invaded every single day. Today, 8 to 10,000 people will
enter the United States illegally and unlawfully. We don't know who
most of them are. Don't let them tell you that they do. You can buy a
fake passport. You can buy state travel documents in Brazil. In
multiple countries in Latin America, you can buy them. It is an
industry.
So I am just telling you, we are going to have something bad happen
and people are going to ask: Why didn't you guys fight over that? Why
didn't you stay over the weekend about that?
So why are we focused on an invasion of another country--which is
important--but not focused on the invasion of our own country?
And it can be solved. The President's executive orders created it,
and he can reverse it, but he won't. So here we are.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). The Senator from Indiana.

Tribute to Abraham Lincoln

Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, as a Senator from the State of Indiana, I
just can't let February pass without offering a tribute to one of our
State's favorite sons, Abraham Lincoln.
As we approach his birthday, we celebrate how Lincoln's story is
perhaps the ultimate example of American opportunity. Lincoln spent the
formative days of his childhood in the Hoosier wilderness, and he
ultimately rose from the humblest of circumstances: a log cabin all the
way up to the White House.
As President, he helped preserve our Union and end slavery, setting a
course so that all Americans, regardless of race or circumstances,
could follow his upwards path. Lincoln challenged America to honor the
promise in its Declaration of Independence, that all men are created
equal. And he reminds us still today that if we fail to do so,
government by consent of the governed cannot long endure.
I think all of us here in the U.S. Senate today can attest these are
difficult times. We face all sorts of challenges, foreign and domestic;
and therefore, our politics are difficult. But I would argue--and I do
so here today--that the politics we are facing today aren't nearly as
difficult as those that Abraham Lincoln faced.
During a week like this, where passions run high, we have had
numerous

[[Page S575]]

debates behind closed doors and on this floor, we should keep
perspective, and we should avoid dramatic comparisons and take dire
predictions with a grain of salt.
But concern about the national discourse which informs our political
system is indeed well founded. Dialogue between Americans so essential
to the maintenance of a democratic republic has coarsened and reached
the point that at times, it scarcely resembles conversation. This form
of estrangement leads to hurt feelings, separateness, civil
dysfunction. And my fear and what brings me down to this floor--not
just to honor a great man--I fear that this portends much worse
divisions moving forward.
Abraham Lincoln knew this. He understood this dynamic. Decades before
the Civil War, he identified a remedy in an address that upset the
residents of Springfield, IL. You see, 19th century America was awash
with passionate reform movements, much like today, in the great
American tradition. Many of their followers sought to cure societal
ills with great zeal and commitment.

One example was the temperance movement--sort of a dated term--but
the temperance movement was a campaign against drinking the ``demon
rum,'' alcoholic beverages. On February 22, 1842, the 110th anniversary
of George Washington's birthday, Abraham Lincoln spoke to a gathering
of reformers at Springfield's Second Presbyterian Church, as part of a
temperance festival. It must have been a grand old time.
Lincoln was 33 years old. He was a member of Illinois' House of
Representatives. And as he later said, he was ``an old line Whig.'' It
was a political party whose base, to borrow a modern term, included
members of social reform movements. But Lincoln did not use this
occasion to curry favor with his base. No. Instead, Abraham Lincoln
offered advice that is still relevant to us today.
The invitation to speak came from Springfield's chapter of the
Washingtonian Temperance Society. This organization was founded 2 years
prior in Baltimore by six friends, all recovering alcoholics. In a
short period of time, the Washingtonians started a revolution in
treating addiction. The society's numbers quickly swelled just a few
years after its founding. Chapters spread across the country, into the
frontier.
In the Washingtonians' success, Lincoln recognized a particular means
of building coalitions and addressing intractable problems. At its core
was something especially relevant, I would argue, in our era of
addition by subtraction, as he put it, ``persuasion''--``. . .
persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion.''
Previous efforts to curb alcoholism, you see, as Lincoln recounted,
were often self-righteous in their nature--perhaps that
characterization sounds familiar to some when we reflect on the current
discourse--self-righteous in their nature and impractical in their
demands. Lest I sound quaint, that rings a bit true to me when we
reflect on present-day Washington and the debates we sometimes have on
this floor.
The Washingtonian's approach and expectations differed, and that is
why they were successful. They damned the drink but not the drinker.
Their cure, such as it was, was based in compassion, based in
understanding, not condemnation. They saw a fellow citizen suffering
from the disease as a friend in need of help, not a helpless sinner.
Lincoln contrasted the approach and effect of the Washingtonians with
their predecessors, the older reformers. The older reformers, Lincoln
recalled, communicated ``in the thundering tones of anathema and
denunciation.''
Now, we are all, no matter our political persuasion, familiar with
those ``thundering tones.'' The truth is, we are all guilty. We are all
guilty of those ``thundering tones'' from time to time. And perhaps,
from time to time, those thundering tones are appropriate and
necessary, and they have a great deal of impact when used sparingly. We
are all guilty from time to time, forgetting that we are erring men and
women.
But Lincoln suggested a gentler alternative: ``It is an old and a
true maxim,'' he reasoned, ``that a `drop of honey catches more flies
than a gallon of gall.' '' That is how the Hoosier put it.
It is that drop of honey, Lincoln continued, which draws men and
women to our sides, convinces them we are indeed friends. Friends--this
from one of the most intelligent, successful, effective, polemicist
debaters, litigators, and politicians in all of human history; he
regarded his opponents as friends.
And this, in his words, is ``the great highroad'' to their reason:

[W]hen once gained, you will find but little trouble in
convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if
indeed that cause really be a just one.

Some Lincolnian humanity mixed in with age-old wisdom.
Now, across our politics and in our media, we seem so convinced
sometimes of our justness, of our cause, that it has become in vogue to
cancel--a modern term, ``cancel''--the other side and chase away those
on our own who do not see them, that other side, as enemies--tribalism,
unleashed.
Where does this tribalistic impulse to cancel and ostracize lead us?
It is an easy way to get booked on television these days. It is
guaranteed to increase the number of social media followers you have.
It might even rile up a rally or a crowd from time to time. But Abraham
Lincoln, before the age of social media, predicted exactly where this
would lead us.
Deem a fellow citizen a foe ``to be shunned and despised, and he will
retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart
. . .''--it is human nature and, therefore, unchanged and unchangeable.
``Such is man,'' he continued, ``and so must he be understood by those
who would lead him, even to his own best interest.''
Abraham Lincoln believed that the American Revolution defied human
history by proving men and women capable of governing themselves. Our
original birth of freedom led to the design of a republic, a republic
in which citizens decide what is in their best interest. Determining it
often requires passionate, loud, angry debates properly circumscribed
by a social, moral, ethical framework. It includes a balance with
generous measures of trust and understanding. An absence of this
balance gives way to discord, and that discord makes us all weaker--
collectively weaker, even individually weaker.

On the surface, Lincoln's speech in 1842 was about a means of
combating alcoholism and achieving reforms. Look deeper, though. Its
passages still today illustrate how we can continue to prove history
wrong together. Remember--remember the power of reason even in our most
passionate arguments. Find the empathy to form a bridge to our
estranged countrymen--they are out there--and allow forbearance toward
those among them we may disagree with--forbearance.
Abraham Lincoln relied on these values throughout his career even in
America's darkest hour. They remain vital to our national harmony and
to our common good. So, as we mark the occasion of Lincoln's birthday
in 2024, we should call on these values once again.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, let me start by thanking my friend
and colleague from Indiana for providing those wise words and good
examples from Abraham Lincoln.

Supplemental Funding

Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss the National
Security Act, which has many important components, including support
for Ukraine, for Israel, and for countries in the Indo-Pacific, as well
as humanitarian assistance to help respond to crises around the world,
including in Ukraine, in Gaza, the West Bank, Sudan, and elsewhere. It
also includes funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to
better protect those nonprofits here in the United States, including
places of worship, that face elevated risks from hate crimes.
I have spoken many times on this floor about the imperative of
providing the people of Ukraine with more desperately needed military
assistance to protect their sovereignty and to protect their democracy.
We must not abandon them to Putin's brutal onslaught. The Ukrainian
people are putting their blood and their lives on the

[[Page S576]]

line to defend their freedom. The least we can do--the least we can
do--is provide them, together with our allies, with the weapons and
other support they need to do that.
It is not only the freedom of Ukraine that is at stake; abandoning
the people of Ukraine to Putin would destroy our credibility with our
allies and our adversaries. It would undermine our word with both
friend and foe not only in Europe but around the world.
Let there be no doubt that President Xi is keeping one eye on what
happens in Ukraine as he keeps the other eye trained on Taiwan.
To my Senate colleagues, you cannot say that you want to deter
President Xi from attempting the forcible takeover of Taiwan if you are
prepared to wave the white flag in the face of Putin's aggression. You
can't say you are tough on China if you are weak on Russia and Putin.
This bill also provides important security assistance to partners in
the Indo-Pacific region to protect their sovereignty and support our
common vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific. As the chair of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, I
have worked hard on a bipartisan basis to advance that goal.
Today, I want to focus the remainder of my remarks on the provisions
in the supplemental to provide more U.S. security assistance to Israel.
The horror of the October 7 Hamas terror attacks against Israel
cannot, must not, and will not be erased or forgotten. About 1,200
people were brutally murdered, and 240 people were taken hostage. As I
have said many times in the aftermath of that heinous attack and those
kidnappings, Israel not only has the right but the duty to defend
itself and take the actions necessary to prevent any future October
7's. Never forget and never again.
I stand steadfastly with the people of Israel in pursuing that
objective and securing the release of all the hostages. Given the
terrible news of the deaths of as many as one-fifth of the remaining
hostages, the urgency of bringing the rest home could not be more
clear.
I also believe that, while it is a just war, a just war must still be
fought justly. As President Biden, Secretary Blinken, Secretary Austin,
and many others have repeated, how a war is conducted matters. It
matters for both moral and strategic reasons.
As Americans, we remember the collective anguish we experienced after
the 9/11 terror attacks. We are also acutely aware of the unintended
consequences of strategic overreach stemming from shared anger and
pain. These were important lessons--lessons that apply today.
We all recognize that Hamas's despicable tactic of operating from
among the civilian population makes it more difficult to target the
enemy, but that does not absolve the Netanyahu government of the duty
to take necessary measures to avoid civilian casualties. That is why,
back on December 2 of last year, Secretary Austin said:

Protecting Palestinian civilians in Gaza is both a moral
responsibility and a strategic one.

Those sentiments were echoed by Secretary Blinken in December of last
year when he said that it is ``imperative that Israel put a premium on
civilian protection.'' The Secretary of State has emphasized that point
repeatedly since then.
Nor does the horror of the October 7 attack justify the humanitarian
catastrophe in Gaza--a catastrophe that began when the Netanyahu
government imposed a total siege on the people in that very narrow
strip of land, and that has continued as his coalition places
unnecessary obstacles in the way of getting vital, desperately needed,
lifesaving assistance to innocent civilians there.
Over 2 million Palestinian civilians, who have nothing to do with
Hamas, are on the verge of starvation and need help to survive. That is
why Secretary Blinken has emphasized the importance of getting ``more
humanitarian assistance to people who so desperately need it in Gaza.''
The situation is awful, and it is getting worse by the day.
To those who say that all this aid is being diverted to Hamas, let me
just say that is factually untrue, and I want to read a statement I
received not that long ago from Ambassador Satterfield, who is our
humanitarian coordinator in charge of humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
His statement reads:

Today, I have not received any allegations, evidence, or
reports of any incidents of Hamas diversion or theft of U.S.
or other assistance or fuel from U.N.-delivered assistance
from any of our partners or from the Government of Israel
since the humanitarian assistance resumed in Gaza on October
21st.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that his full statement be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Satterfield Statement

To date, I have not received any allegations, evidence or
reports of any incidence of Hamas diversion or theft of U.S.
or other assistance or fuel from UN delivered assistance from
any of our partners or from the Government of Israel since
humanitarian assistance resumed in Gaza October 21.
I have received reports of several incidents of UN and
Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) aid trucks being taken
for immediate consumption by vulnerable civilians in Gaza, my
understanding based on direct conversations with the UN is
that these recent incidents are not due to systemic or
directed diversion by Hamas but rather undertaken by
desperate communities that are experiencing a grave level of
scarcity, under threat of constant kinetic operations, and
have been displaced, in some cases multiple times.
While my team and I are routinely in touch with the UN on
aid assistance delivery and have asked that they report any
indications of Hamas-directed diversion to the U.S., we do
not have the same visibility on the distribution of aid
consigned from the Egyptian Red Crescent to PRCS for onward
delivery in Gaza. We can provide further context in a
briefing.
We continue to have conversations with COGAT and the UN on
the looting and diversion risks in Gaza and have asked them
to alert us should there be evidence of Hamas-directed
diversion of assistance. All humanitarian assistance in Gaza
is reviewed, inspected, and monitored by COGAT. Our teams in
Israel and Washington, D.C. continue to engage with the
Israeli government on this matter.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Unfortunately, the Biden administration's urgent
pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears with Netanyahu's coalition. Just
a few days ago, we saw Secretary Blinken in Jerusalem, meeting with
Prime Minister Netanyahu, urging that Israel not take military action
in Rafah.
What is Rafah? Rafah is a city in Gaza that is right on the Egyptian-
Gaza border. Before the war started, there were about 300,000, 400,000
people in Rafah. Today, you have about 1.4 million people crammed into
Rafah because over a million people who have been displaced from other
parts of Gaza went to Rafah because they were told it was a safe place
to go.
Despite what Secretary Blinken said and despite the fact that just
the other day, John Kirby, the national security spokesman, said that
the United States would not support a major military operation in
Rafah--nevertheless, within hours of Secretary Blinken's meeting with
the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that they are going
to go into Rafah. It is just one of many, many examples of where our
requests have been rebuffed.
We have made some incremental progress from time to time. For
example, after many, many requests and urgings, we saw a while back the
long-delayed reopening of the Kerem Shalom crossing to allow some more
trucks into Gaza. But the reality is that the number of trucks and the
amount of aid getting into Gaza is nowhere near what is necessary to
meet the dire humanitarian situation.
Here we are 4 months into this war, and over 27,000 Palestinians have
been killed, over two-thirds of them women and children, and that does
not include those who are still buried beneath the rubble.
Wes Bryant, who helped lead the U.S. targeting against ISIS, has
written about the unacceptably high levels of civilian casualties in
Gaza.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that his op-ed be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

I Led Strike Cells Against ISIS--Israel's Strike Campaign in Gaza Is
Unacceptable

Nearly three months into Israel's war in Gaza, the casualty
data that has emerged is deeply troubling to me as an expert
in close air support and targeting.
Israel was wholly justified in responding to Hamas's
inhuman attack on Oct. 7, 2023, in which the terror group
tortured and gunned down hundreds of people and entire
families.

[[Page S577]]

But its aggressive campaign across the Gaza Strip has slain
almost 22,000 people, up to 70 percent of whom have been
women and children, with the majority of deaths attributed to
Israeli airstrikes. If these figures are anywhere near
accurate, civilian loss from Israel's strike campaign is
completely at odds with the standards that my colleagues and
I followed for years, including during major urban offensives
against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
I spent a career as a Joint Terminal Attack Controller
(JTAC) in the U.S. Air Force--the airpower experts who
coordinate and call in airstrikes. In 2014, I was a key
member of the special operations response force sent to
Baghdad to establish the strike cells that helped bring down
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. As a senior targeting
professional, certified by the U.S. Central Command to
conduct collateral damage estimation and analysis,
safeguarding the civilian populace from airstrikes was a core
aspect of my job. And while the United States may not be
perfect in this realm, the reality is that the Israeli
military has demonstrated a far higher tolerance for civilian
casualties than the U.S. military, even when compared to our
most sensitive operations.
In early December, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) stated
that, thus far in the course of its campaign in Gaza,
approximately two civilians had been killed for every Hamas
fighter. IDF spokesperson Jonathan Conricus defended that
ratio on CNN, calling it ``tremendously positive'' in light
of Hamas embedding itself within the civilian population.
A modern, first-world military should never view a 2:1
civilian-to-combatant death ratio as acceptable, let alone
remotely ``positive.''
This ratio exceeds that of the U.S. operation to destroy
ISIS's de facto capital in Raqqa, Syria, which itself became
a cautionary tale for civilian harm in dense urban fighting.
There, airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition killed more than
1,600 civilians during months of bombardment, according to an
Amnesty International report. The U.S. military has argued
that Amnesty's civilian death for Raqqa is significantly
overestimated and can be considered a worst-case
approximation. Even so, given that Raqqa was the last ISIS
stronghold in Syria and harbored thousands of ISIS fighters,
we can assess a civilian casualty ratio nowhere near that of
Israel's campaign in Gaza.
Yet the civilian casualty rates in Raqqa were still
considered unacceptable by U.S. standards and became a
significant driver of the Pentagon's civilian harm mitigation
and response reforms. The differences between Israeli and
American-led air wars goes further.
Nearly half of the munitions Israel has dropped in Gaza
since Oct. 7 have been unguided bombs, and Israel has
regularly used bombs weighing as much as 2,000 pounds within
densely populated refugee encampments and near besieged
hospitals. This is almost unheard of in U.S. airstrike
planning.
First, refugee encampments and hospitals are protected
sites within U.S. targeting methodology. Intentionally
striking in, or even within close proximity to, these areas
is almost never on the table.
Second, unguided bombs can miss their intended target by
dozens of meters. The only time we used them was in areas
with little possibility of civilians being present, such as
to destroy a weapons cache.
Further, the size of most bombs we dropped in urban areas
rarely exceeded 500 pounds--even then, we most often chose
warheads with smaller blasts and less fragmentation that were
designed to limit collateral damage.
And in all but the rarest of strike operations, my
authorized threshold for risk of civilian casualties was
zero, meaning that strikes would not be approved if there was
risk of even one civilian being killed. The IDF continually
carries out strikes in locations where high risk of civilian
death is well understood.
The justifications Israeli officials have offered for high
civilian casualties include Hamas's use of civilians as
involuntary human shields. However, in U.S. strike
operations, such excuses are never an option. Regardless of
how the enemy is conducting itself--how embedded within the
civilian populace they are or how many civilians they are
intentionally surrounding themselves with--this never
absolves us of the obligation to protect civilians.
Sadly, many U.S. defense analysts have nearly stepped over
one another to legally and morally justify the high rates of
civilian casualties in Gaza.
In an interview on CNN in December, a prominent defense
analyst from the U.S. Military Academy irresponsibly insisted
that the IDF strike campaign has been ``proportional, very
discriminate, very precise.'' I can state, without
reservation, that it simply has not shown any of these
qualities.
Just one example of what has, unfortunately, become many in
the course of Israel's strike campaign in Gaza includes the
IDF's deliberate and continued targeting within densely
populated refugee camps, even while knowing that these areas
have not been successfully evacuated by civilians. Such
strikes demonstrate far from any level of discrimination and
precision that I was expected to exercise as a U.S. targeting
professional.
I can recount watching our enemies maneuver in real time,
or tracking a terrorist cell for weeks to a specific
location, yet not being able to strike because we assessed
that civilians were potentially within the strike radius.
Although it is frustrating to be constrained from striking an
enemy when we see him plainly in our sights--this is the
humane way to conduct warfare. It is one of the major
qualities that separates us from our enemies and,
importantly, it is what the international law of armed
conflict was created for.
Since October, members of the Biden administration--
including President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken
and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin--have repeatedly spoken
against Israel's strike campaign, acknowledging the
devastating scale of civilian loss in Gaza. Yet the
administration has, thus far, failed to effect any meaningful
change on the part of Israel's strike operations, and
continues to send arms and munitions. Israel is the top
recipient of U.S. foreign military aid, receiving $3.3
billion annually, including the supply of air-to-ground
munitions used in their strike campaign.
This is a conversation that must be had, as our actions
demonstrate that we are complicit in the massive civilian
toll in Gaza. And this carries strategic, legal and moral
considerations. In my career hunting America's enemies with
airstrikes, it was my job to be calculated and precise in
targeting our enemies while being compassionate and vigilant
in safeguarding the civilian populace. We can stand by
Israel's right to defend its homeland, and the necessity to
defeat Hamas, while also doing far more to influence change
in its targeting and strike operations in Gaza.
A call for the humanitarian revision of the military
actions of Israel is no more antisemitic than valuing
Palestinian civilian lives is pro-Hamas. This overriding
rhetoric is the definition of logical fallacy, and only
blinds us.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It is not only the extremely high civilian death
toll; it is the over 67,000 wounded, the over 1.7 million displaced. It
is the huge damage to civilian infrastructure, including hospitals,
schools, mosques, and churches. It is the toll from humanitarian aid
workers killed and journalists killed. The level of death and
destruction in Gaza is simply inhumane.
For just one small but still powerful example, I urge my colleagues
to read the Washington Post story from last Friday--a week ago--about a
6-year old girl, Hind Hamada, who is trying to get to safety in a car
with her aunt, her uncle, and her five young cousins. The car was hit
by tank fire, and all of those who were in the car with Hind died. She
was severely injured. She got on a phone to try to call for help, and
there are recordings of her calls for help as her family members lay
dead around her in the car. The last recording on the phone call she
made to paramedics who were unable to reach her were:

Come and take me.

She was killed.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

A 6-Year-Old in Gaza City was Calling To Be Rescued. Did Anyone Find
Her?

The Hamada family was trying to get to safety. An order
from the Israeli military had gone out earlier last Monday,
ordering them to evacuate their neighborhood in Gaza City.
Bashar, 44, and his wife Anam, 43, piled their children and
their young niece, Hind, into the car.
They would never reach their destination.
The full picture of the tragedy that befell the family
remains incomplete. Some details could not be confirmed. What
is beyond dispute is that their car came under fire; the
parents and most of the children were killed; a 6-year-old
girl begged for hours to be rescued; paramedics were
dispatched; then communications were lost.
The Washington Post reconstructed the events of that day by
interviewing three family members, five members of the
Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) and reviewing audio of
phone conversations between dispatchers and children in the
car. The family's story is emblematic of the ongoing dangers
faced by civilians in northern Gaza--even as Israel says it
is winding down its military mission there--and the depth of
their isolation from the outside world.
Asked for comment multiple times, the Israel Defense Forces
said, ``We are unfamiliar with the incident described.'' The
Post provided specific coordinates and additional details to
the IDF on Tuesday morning and has not received a reply.
In the operations room of the PRCS in Ramallah, the
landline was ringing. It was 2:28 p.m. Omar al-Qam, the lone
dispatcher on duty that day, picked up.
From 2,000 miles away, in Frankfurt, Germany came the
steady voice of Mohammed Salem Hamada: ``My family members
are trapped in Gaza City,'' he told Omar. ``They were driving
a black Kia Picanto and the car was targeted. Some of the
people were killed inside.''
Mohammed gave Omar the phone number for his 15-year-old
niece, Layan, who had

[[Page S578]]

called her uncle in southern Gaza to sound the alarm. The
uncle, struggling with patchy cell service, called his cousin
in Germany, hoping he could find help.
The uncle relayed what Layan had told him: The Israeli army
had opened fire on the family's car. Her parents and all four
of her siblings were dead--Sana, 13, Raghad, 12, Mohammed, 11
and 4-year-old Sarah.
Layan told her uncle she was bleeding. And that her cousin
Hind, 6, was the only other survivor.
Omar, in Ramallah, called Layan. She sounded terrified.
``They are firing at us,'' she screamed into the phone.
``The tank is next to me.''
``Are you hiding?'' he asked.
Then came a burst of fire. Layan screamed. The line went
dead.
In shock, Omar said he went to find his colleague, Rana
Faqih, in another room. He was trembling, she recalled.
Rana said she walked him back to his chair in the dispatch
room and stood next to him as he dialed again.
It was Hind who answered this time.
``Are you in the car now?'' he asked her.
``Yes,'' came the small voice on the other end.
Rana took the phone, telling the 6-year-old she would stay
on the phone until help arrived. Hind's voice was so quiet,
it was impossible to make out her reply.
``Who are you with?'' Rana asked.
``With my family,'' Hind told her.
Rana asked if she had tried to wake up her family. Hind
responded: ``I'm telling you they're dead.''
Rana asked her how the car had been hit.
``A tank,'' Hind said. ``The tank is next to me . . . it's
coming towards me . . . it's very, very close.'' Rana's voice
was strong and clear and reassuring. Hind's was faint and
shaky. Rana urged her to keep talking. They prayed together.
Rana read to her from the Quran.
Don't cry, she told the little girl, though Rana was also
fighting back tears.
``Don't be scared,'' she told Hind. ``They're not going to
hurt you . . . . Don't leave the car.''
Minutes passed. Hind appeared to drop the phone. The
silences were longer now.
``If I could get you out I would,'' Rana said. ``We're
trying our very best.''
Rana was crying now, but tried to keep her voice steady.
``Please come get me,'' Hind said. Again and again: ``Come
get me.''
There was a distant rumble of fire in the background.
``Come get me,'' Hind repeated.
Rana, 37, has been working in Crisis and Disaster
Management with PRCS since 2009. She had faced situations
like this before, she said, but never with a girl so young.
Her colleagues had located the car in a neighborhood near
Al-Azhar University. Getting an ambulance there, inside a
closed military zone, would require permission from the IDF.
It was a process that involved multiple agencies,
communicating on unreliable phone lines. The dispatchers knew
it could take hours.
``We have received hundreds of calls from people who are
trapped,'' said Nebal Farsakh, a spokesperson for PRCS.
``People just want help evacuating. Unfortunately we do not
have safe access.''
Operators told The Post they reached out around 3 p.m. to
the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah, which
coordinates the safe passage of paramedics with COGAT--an arm
of the Israeli Defense Ministry. Fathi Abu Warda, an adviser
at the Palestinian Ministry of Health, confirmed receiving a
green light from COGAT to send an ambulance to the area.
COGAT did not respond to questions from The Post, referring
them to the IDF.
The operators said they tried to stay focused on Hind.
Nisreen Qawwas, 56, the head of PRCS's mental health
department, took the lead.
``She practiced deep breathing exercises with us, and I
told her we would be with her, second by second,'' Nisreen
recalled.
But Hind began to grow distant, Nisreen said, and hung up
multiple times, growing frustrated that no one had come for
her.
Eventually, operators said they reached Hind's mother, who
was sheltering elsewhere in Gaza City, and patched her into
the call.
``Her mother's voice made a real difference,'' Nisreen
said. ``Every moment she said to her mother, `I miss you
momma.' ''
Her mother told her, `You will be with me in a little while
and I will hug you,' '' Nisreen remembered.
The Post was not able to reach Hind's mother in Gaza City,
where there is limited connectivity.
At 5:40 p.m.--three hours after the phone had first rung in
Ramallah--the dispatchers said they got a call back from the
Palestinian Ministry of Health. The ministry told them they
had received permission to send paramedics to Hind. Israeli
authorities had provided a map for them to follow. PRCS
dispatched the nearest ambulance, 1.8 miles away, to the
scene with two paramedics.
Nisreen said she tried to keep Hind engaged. They talked
about the sea and the sun and her favorite chocolate cake.
But everyone could tell the little girl was fading. She
said her hand was bleeding, that there was blood on her body.
It was dark now. She was hungry, thirsty and cold, she told
her mother.
Dispatchers said the paramedics radioed in as they neared
the vehicle. The team in Ramallah encouraged them to move
forward, slowly, Nisreen said.
At that moment, dispatchers said, there was ``heavy
gunfire.'' The line with Hind was lost. Hind's last sentence,
Omar said, was ``Come and take me.''
That was at 7 p.m. last Monday, a full week ago. There has
been no word from Hind or the ambulance crew since.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. On the humanitarian front, millions of Palestinian
civilians are desperately trying to cling to life as we speak here. I
have met with the leaders of international humanitarian organizations
who have operated in conflict zones around the world for decades and
for decades. Every one of them--every one--has stated that their
organizations have never--never--experienced a humanitarian disaster as
dire and terrible as the world is witnessing in Gaza.
That is why 5 weeks ago, Senator Merkley and I traveled to the Rafah
border crossing between Egypt and Gaza to see for ourselves what was
happening, to talk to people on the ground.
What we saw and learned indicated that Palestinians--Palestinian
civilians--are on the verge of starvation; that injured children are
having their limbs amputated without anesthesia; that sewage continues
to spill into the streets and contaminate the water supplies; and
health officials are warning of the imminent outbreak of cholera and
other diseases. Diseases like dysentery are already rampant, especially
in kids.
That is why last week, 25 U.S. Senators wrote to President Biden
urging the administration to do more to push the Netanyahu coalition to
allow more desperately needed assistance to reach innocent civilians in
Gaza. We outlined five specific measures that need to be taken
immediately.
That was not the first time many of us wrote to President Biden to
express our concerns about the conduct of the war in Gaza. We wrote to
the President over 3 months ago, posing a series of questions,
including what mechanisms are in place to ensure that U.S.-provided
equipment is used in accordance with international humanitarian law? We
did that because the United States is not a bystander in this conflict.
Israel is the largest annual recipient of U.S. security assistance,
totaling more than $39 billion over the last 10 years alone. And right
now, bombs and artillery made in America and paid for by Americans are
being used in Gaza. So the U.S. Government and the U.S. Senate has an
obligation to the American people to ensure that their tax dollars, our
tax dollars, are used in the manner that aligns with our values and
aligns with our interests.
That is why 19 Senators filed an amendment to the National Security
Act, the supplemental national security provision that is before the
Senate now and soon will be considered. That is why we filed an
amendment to ensure that all recipients of U.S. military assistance in
that bill--whether Ukraine, whether Israel, or whether it is one of our
East Asian partners--use these U.S. taxpayer dollars in line with our
values and our interests.
Our amendment is designed to create an accountability structure to
ensure that countries that receive U.S. security assistance promise to
adhere to humanitarian law and other applicable law.
It is designed to ensure that recipients of U.S. assistance promise
to help facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict the delivery of U.S.-
supported humanitarian assistance in conflict zones.
And our amendment included a provision to maintain accountability by
requiring reporting be presented and provided to the Congress on
whether or not the recipients of U.S. military assistance were, in
fact, complying with those commitments on international law and
allowing humanitarian aid to flow to conflict zones.
Importantly, the reporting requirements in our amendment also require
information and an assessment about whether recipient countries--
countries receiving U.S. military aid--are employing best practices to
prevent civilian harm.
That is what our amendment does. We filed that amendment to this bill
just a few days ago. In the meantime, since we first proposed this
amendment in December, we have remained in regular communication with
the Biden administration.

[[Page S579]]

I want to thank all of my colleagues who cosponsored this amendment,
including the original cosponsors--Senator Kaine, Senator Durbin, and
Senator Schatz--but also the 15 other colleagues, including the
Presiding Officer who joined together in this effort to call for an
amendment that made sure that we better align our military assistance
with our values.
Our amendment applied these requirements to every country receiving
military assistance in the supplemental national security bill, but our
intention all along has been to expand this worldwide, to make sure
that as the United States uses taxpayer dollars to provide security
assistance to countries around the world, that we can tell those
taxpayers that their money is being used and the military equipment
purchased with their money is being used in a manner consistent with
our values.
We began that conversation with the President's team at the White
House. We had a chance to talk with them about our goals and the
purposes of the amendment.
At the time we introduced this amendment, we said our goal is to get
these provisions implemented, whether through amendment or through
other means.
I want to salute the President of the United States--President
Biden--because just last night, at 8:30 p.m., the President issued a
historic national security memorandum, National Security Memorandum No.
20.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the
Record.

National Security Memorandum on Safeguards and Accountability With
Respect to Transferred Defense Articles and Defense Services

As outlined in National Security Memorandum 18 of February
23, 2023 (United States Conventional Arms Transfer Policy)
(NSM-18), supporting foreign partners of the United States
through appropriate transfers of defense articles by the
Department of State and the Department of Defense is a
critical tool for advancing United States foreign policy and
national security objectives, including to:
(a) strengthen the collective security of the United States
and its allies and partners by enhancing interoperability and
supporting United States-led diplomacy in building and
maintaining international coalitions;
(b) promote international peace and stability, and help
allies and partners deter and defend themselves against
aggression and foreign malign influence;
(c) strengthen United States national security by
reinforcing respect for human rights, international
humanitarian law, democratic governance, and the rule of law;
(d) prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or
otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or
international humanitarian law; and
(e) strengthen ally and partner capacity to respect their
obligations under international law and reduce the risk of
civilian harm, including through appropriate tools, training,
advising, and institutional capacity-building efforts that
accompany arms transfers. Equally critical is ensuring that
adequate safeguards and accountability exist with respect to
transferred defense articles and defense services. Under the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751, et seq.), both the
Department of State and the Department of Defense implement
end-use monitoring programs.
In addition, as a matter of policy, the United States
always seeks to promote adherence to international law and
encourages other states and partners to do the same. United
States policy, including as reflected in Executive Order
13732 of July 1, 2016 (United States Policy on Pre- and Post-
Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S.
Operations Involving the Use of Force), is for executive
departments and agencies to engage with foreign partners to
share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of
and responding to civilian casualties, including through
appropriate training and assistance. In order to effectively
implement certain obligations under United States law, the
United States must maintain an appropriate understanding of
foreign partners' adherence to international law, including,
as applicable, international human rights law and
international humanitarian law. As a matter of international
law, the United States looks to the law of state
responsibility and United States partners' compliance with
international humanitarian law in assessing the lawfulness of
United States military assistance to, and joint operations
with, military partners.
For these reasons, I am issuing this memorandum, which
requires the Secretary of State to obtain certain credible
and reliable written assurances from foreign governments
receiving defense articles and, as appropriate, defense
services, from the Departments of State and Defense, and
requires the Secretaries of State and Defense to provide
periodic congressional reports to enable meaningful
oversight. In addition to the requirements of this
memorandum, the Secretaries of State and Defense are
responsible for ensuring that all transfers of defense
articles and defense services by the Departments of State and
Defense under any security cooperation or security assistance
authorities are conducted in a manner consistent with all
applicable international and domestic law and policy,
including international humanitarian law and international
human rights law, the applicable ``Leahy Law'' (22 U.S.C.
2378d, 10 U.S.C. 362), and NSM-18.
Section 1. Policy. (a) Except as provided below, the policy
outlined in this memorandum applies prospectively to the
provision to foreign governments by the Departments of State
or Defense of any defense articles funded with congressional
appropriations under their respective security assistance and
security cooperation authorities, including with Foreign
Military Financing and Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative
funds, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 333, and pursuant to
Presidential drawdown authority under section 506 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318). Prior to the
Departments of State or Defense providing such defense
articles to the recipient country and, as applicable,
consistent with the timelines set out in subsection (c) of
this section, the Secretary of State shall:
(i) obtain credible and reliable written assurances from a
representative of the recipient country as the Secretary of
State deems appropriate that the recipient country will use
any such defense articles in accordance with international
humanitarian law and, as applicable, other international law;
and
(ii) in furtherance of supporting section 6201 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378-1) and
applicable international law, obtain credible and reliable
written assurances from a representative of the recipient
country as the Secretary of State deems appropriate that, in
any area of armed conflict where the recipient country uses
such defense articles, consistent with applicable
international law, the recipient country will facilitate and
not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly
or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States
humanitarian assistance and United States Government-
supported international efforts to provide humanitarian
assistance.
The assurances described in this subsection shall be
enforceable consistent with subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Upon an assessment by the Secretary of State or the
Secretary of Defense that the credibility or reliability of
assurances provided by the recipient country as required by
subsection (a) of this section has been called into question
and should be revisited, the Secretary of State or the
Secretary of Defense, as appropriate, shall report to the
President, through the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs, within 45 days of such
assessment and shall indicate appropriate next steps to be
taken to assess and remediate the situation. Such
remediation could include actions from refreshing the
assurances to suspending any further transfers of defense
articles or, as appropriate, defense services.
(c) Recognizing that a reasonable period of time is
necessary to obtain the assurances required by subsection (a)
of this section from foreign governments already receiving
such defense articles from the Departments of State or
Defense as of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of
State shall obtain the required assurances from those
countries within the following time periods:
(i) For any country to which subsection (a) of this section
applies and that is deemed by the Secretary of State to be
engaged, as of the date of this memorandum, in an active
armed conflict in which defense articles covered by this
section are used, the Secretary of State shall obtain the
assurances outlined in subsection (a) of this section not
later than 45 days after the date of this memorandum and
shall provide an update to the President, through the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs,
regarding the recipient countries that have provided such
assurances. If the Secretary of State does not obtain such
assurances within 45 days of the date of this memorandum, the
transfer of defense articles and, as applicable, defense
services, shall be paused until the required assurances are
obtained.
(ii) For any country to which subsection (a) of this
section applies and that is not deemed by the Secretary of
State to be engaged, as of the date of this memorandum, in an
active armed conflict in which defense articles covered by
this section are used, the Secretary of State shall obtain
the assurances outlined in subsection (a) of this section not
later than 180 days after the date of this memorandum and
shall provide an update to the President, through the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs,
regarding the recipient countries that have provided such
assurances. If the Secretary of State does not obtain such
assurances within 180 days of the date of this memorandum,
the transfer of defense articles and, as applicable, defense
services, shall be paused until the required assurances are
obtained.
(d) This memorandum does not apply to (1) air defense
systems; (2) other defense articles or defense services that
are intended to be used for strictly defensive purposes or
are exclusively for non-lethal purposes other than in armed
conflict; (3) defense articles or defense services that are
non-lethal in nature; or (4) transfers strictly for the
operational needs of the Department of Defense.

[[Page S580]]

(e) This memorandum shall apply to the provision to foreign
governments by the Departments of State or Defense of any
defense services the Secretary of State or the Secretary of
Defense determines to be appropriate under their respective
authorities in furthering the aims of the policy outlined in
this memorandum.
(f) in rare and extraordinary circumstances justified by an
imperative associated with the national security of the
United States, and with concurrent notification to the
President, including an articulation of the relevant
justification, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of
Defense may waive the requirements of this section. Such
waiver should be as limited in time, scope, and nature as
deemed necessary to advance the interests of United States
national security.
Sec. 2. Congressional Reporting. (a) Not later than 90 days
after the date of this memorandum, and once every fiscal year
thereafter, the Secretaries of State and Defense shall report
in written form and, to the extent additionally appropriate,
through verbal briefings by appropriate senior officials of
their respective departments, to the Committee on Foreign
Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate; the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and, upon
request, other congressional national security committees as
appropriate. The written report shall address defense
articles and, as appropriate, defense services, provided by
the Departments of State or Defense described in subsections
1(a) and 1(e) of this memorandum, and shall include:
(i) any new assurances obtained since the prior report;
(ii) an assessment of any credible reports or allegations
that such defense articles and, as appropriate, defense
services, have been used in a manner not consistent with
international law, including international humanitarian law;
such assessment shall include any determinations, if they can
reasonably be made, as to whether use has occurred in a
manner not consistent with international law, and if so,
whether the recipient country has pursued appropriate
accountability;
(iii) a description of the procedures used to make the
assessment described in subsection (a)(ii) of this section;
(iv) an assessment and analysis of (1) any credible reports
indicating that the use of such defense articles and, as
appropriate, defense services, has been found to be
inconsistent with established best practices for mitigating
civilian harm, including practices that have been adopted by
the United States military, and including measures
implemented in response to the Department of Defense's
Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan or
incidents reviewed pursuant to the Department of State's
Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance; and (2) the extent
to which efforts to induce effective implementation of such
civilian harm mitigation best practices have been
incorporated into the relevant United States security
assistance program;
(v) a description of the procedures used to make the
assessment and analysis described in subsection (iv) of this
section:
(vi) a description of any known occurrences of such defense
articles and, as appropriate, defense services, not being
received by the recipient foreign government that is the
intended recipient, or being misused for purposes
inconsistent with the intended purposes, and a description of
any remedies undertaken;
(vii) an assessment and analysis of whether each foreign
government recipient has abided by the assurances received
pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of this memorandum, whether such
recipient is in compliance with section 6201 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378-1), and whether such
recipient has fully cooperated with United States Government
efforts and United States Government-supported international
efforts to provide humanitarian assistance in an area of
armed conflict where the recipient country is using such
defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services; and
(viii) a description of any challenges to conducting the
assessment and analysis described in subsections (a)(i)-(vii)
of this section, including whether or not there is available
information responsive to the subsections above.
(b) The written report and, where applicable, accompanying
verbal briefing provided under subsection (a) of this section
shall be unclassified but may be supplemented, to the extent
necessary, with classified reporting as appropriate for the
protection of classified national security information.
(c) The first report provided under this section shall
include available information on the use, since January 2023,
of defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services,
provided by the Departments of State or Defense described in
subsections 1(a) and 1(e) of this memorandum by recipient
countries that engaged in armed conflict during calendar year
2023.
(d) The Secretaries of State and Defense shall notify the
congressional committees specified in subsection (a) of this
section within 7 days following any report provided to the
President pursuant to section 1(b) of this memorandum and
within 7 days following any notification provided to the
President of the exercise of a waiver pursuant to section
1(f) of this memorandum, and shall notify the same committees
of assurances newly received pursuant to section 1(a) of this
memorandum within 30 days of receiving such assurances if not
otherwise reported to the Congress within that time period.
Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this memorandum, the
terms ``defense article'' and ``defense service'' have the
meanings given in section 47 of the Arms Export Control Act,
22 U.S.C. 2794.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum
shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department
or agency, or the head thereof;
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative,
or legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with
applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not,
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the
United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its
officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The requirements in this memorandum are not intended to
reflect an understanding that they are required by treaty or
customary international law, and this memorandum should not
be understood or cited to that effect.
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. What this national security memorandum does is
effectively implement the terms of our amendment. It makes the
provisions of that amendment effectively the law of the land and does
other things as well.
I not only want to salute President Biden, I want to salute his
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, the entire NSC team, and the
entire White House team for taking this very important, deliberate,
historic action. It is a very big deal.
What does it do? As our amendment, it pushes forward in a number of
big areas.
First, it requires that every recipient of U.S. military assistance
promise in writing, before receiving that military assistance, that
they will comply with international humanitarian law and, as
applicable, other international law. They have to promise in writing to
do that before the delivery of U.S. military assistance.
No. 2, it requires that every recipient of U.S. military assistance
must promise in writing to facilitate and not to arbitrarily restrict
the delivery of U.S.-supported humanitarian assistance into conflict
zones where U.S. weapons are being used by the recipient country. That
promise also has to be made before the delivery of that military
assistance.
And this national security memorandum has enforcement mechanisms to
ensure compliance and to make sure that the U.S. Government has the
tools to take action in cases of noncompliance.
It focuses, in the first instance, on countries that are currently in
armed conflict and using U.S. weapons. That would include Israel. It
would include Ukraine. It would include other countries that today are
using U.S. weapons in conflict zones.
And it indicates that if those countries do not make these
assurances, make these promises within the next 45 days, U.S. security
assistance will be suspended.
It also has a provision that says the Secretary of State will inform
the President of the United States if there is any information that the
recipient countries that have made these promises are not keeping those
promises to the American people and the American taxpayer and when the
Secretary of State makes such notification to the President, that
Congress will be informed.
The national security memorandum also has the robust reporting
requirements included in our proposed amendment to help monitor
compliance with the promises made by the recipient countries. They are
promises to use U.S. military assistance in accordance with
international humanitarian law and other international law as
applicable. They are promises to facilitate and not arbitrarily
restrict the delivery of humanitarian assistance.
The report will tell the Congress whether or not those countries are,
in fact, doing those things and provide an assessment of what is
happening.
The report will also include other provisions called for in our
amendment. One of them, very importantly,

[[Page S581]]

is that the report must assess and analyze whether or not the recipient
countries that are engaged in armed conflict are deploying and using
best practices to prevent civilian harm. Let me say that again. This
report will require an assessment and analysis of whether countries
that are receiving U.S. military assistance, engaged in armed conflict
now, whether or not they are employing best practices to prevent
civilian harm.
The national security memorandum prioritizes this reporting on
countries that are currently using U.S. weapons in armed conflict. For
those countries, the first report will be due in 90 days. Those
countries include Ukraine, include Israel, and any other countries that
are using U.S. weapons in armed conflict today.
And, very importantly, the reporting period that is covered will be a
reporting timeframe starting January of 2023. So Congress will receive
a report in 90 days on whether or not the recipients of U.S. military
assistance are in compliance throughout last year and on into this year
with those requirements set out in the national security memorandum
requirements that we had in our amendment.
This really is a historic moment. This is a transformational moment
in making sure we align U.S. security assistance with American values.
It is a very sweeping memorandum.
As of 8:30 p.m. last night, it is the law of the land in the United
States of America. It will give the President of the United States many
more tools and more leverage to better ensure that countries that are
using U.S. military assistance comply with the commitments they now
have to make in writing--whether it is Ukraine, whether it is Israel,
whether it is another country.
I spoke a little bit earlier about the fact that despite repeated
requests from the Biden administration of the Netanyahu coalition to
reduce the level of civilian casualties, to allow more humanitarian
assistance into Gaza, that, for the most part, with some minor
exceptions, those requests have fallen on deaf ears.
So we hope and believe and are quite confident that this national
security memorandum, which adopts our amendment, will provide the
President with the leverage, additional leverage needed to close that
gap between our request and reality.
I urge the President and his team to make effective use of these new
provisions.
(Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)
I urge the President's team to do that not just with respect to
Israel but with any country that is receiving U.S. military assistance,
because American taxpayers must be assured that the U.S. Government is
doing everything in its power to make sure that as we provide
assistance to partners around the world, that they are complying with
their values and complying with the principles of adherence to
international humanitarian law, international law, that they will help
facilitate and not obstruct the delivery of humanitarian assistance to
people in desperate need.
I want to again thank all of the cosponsors of this amendment,
because there were many people who opposed this amendment. But I never
understood the opposition to the straightforward principles that U.S.
taxpayer dollars and U.S. military assistance should go to countries
that commit to us that they will use that help that we are providing in
accordance with international humanitarian law and commit that if they
are engaged in armed conflict using U.S. weapons, that they will
support U.S. efforts and other U.S.-backed efforts to provide
humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who are caught up in the
crossfire through no fault of their own.
These seem like very straightforward principles, and it is about time
that we took what has previously really been the sentiment of the
United States and turn it into substance, to take rhetoric and make it
more of a reality.
So I want to thank all my colleagues, including the new Presiding
Officer, who helped make that happen.
I want to thank the President of the United States. I want to thank
President Biden, who has said from the beginning that the United States
must continue to be a beacon of hope and that we must have a foreign
policy based on values, based on the rule of law, based on human
rights. If we want to do that, we need to make sure that our laws match
those ambitions. We need to make sure that we have requirements on the
books that achieve those aspirations because aspirations that are not
backed up with real leverage sound good, but they are not made real in
the world we live in.
Thank you to all of the cosponsors to this amendment. Thank you to
the President of the United States. This is an important new chapter in
how the United States provides military assistance around the world and
how we conduct our foreign policy, and I hope it will lead to a
brighter chapter in the years ahead.
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.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The senior Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
pass the important national security package that is in front of us.
This will reaffirm our Nation's commitment to our partners across the
globe.
Earlier this week, many of us felt very strongly that we should move
forward on the combination of bills that Senator Lankford, Senator
Murphy, and Senator Sinema had negotiated. I strongly supported that
bipartisan compromise and worked with them on a portion of the bill
regarding our Afghan allies who had served with our troops, and I was
really impressed by the thorough nature of their negotiations.
We know how important that bill was for our own national security. It
would have given the President emergency authority to shut down the
border when our border agents are overwhelmed. It would have made
changes to our asylum system. It would have addressed processing issues
and backlogs. It would have actually expanded legal immigration for
things like work permits and visas.
I am grateful that the package we are considering today does include
the bipartisan bill that I am part of to declare fentanyl trafficking a
national emergency and allow us to impose tough sanctions on criminal
organizations and fentanyl supply chain hubs, but I will note that this
bill--because the other piece of this regarding fentanyl was not
actually included yet in this bill, that would be the resources that we
need to crack down on fentanyl trafficking at our border and ports of
entry.
So not only was the bill that our colleagues sadly voted down good on
giving the emergency authority to the President on the border to
protect our own Nation's security--something they had been asking for--
but it also did a very important thing when it came to fentanyl.
Why is this such a problem? In Hennepin County alone in the State of
Minnesota, the sheriff recently seized enough fentanyl to kill every
single person in that county--the biggest county in my State--and we
are seeing similar things to that across our Nation.
So what this bill would have done--the original bill would have
done--with the negotiation is that it would have actually given modern-
day technology, cutting-edge technology to our ports of entry--all
ports of entry, including airports and the like, including help we may
need on the northern border, the Canadian border, when it comes to
things like fentanyl. So that is why I hope that someday our colleagues
will reconsider and join us in advocating for strong border security as
well as for the work that needs to be done on the fentanyl epidemic.
The original package, as we know, is not being considered, but we
also know how important it is to go forward when it comes to our
leadership around the world, whether that means standing with our
allies after the terrorist attack in Israel, whether it means making
sure that humanitarian aid gets to innocent people in Gaza and across
the world, or whether it comes to Ukraine.
I did want to spend some time talking about Ukraine, as I have been
there a number of times in the last few

[[Page S582]]

years. The first time I went was actually with Senator McCain and
Senator Graham during the first invasion back in January 2017. In fact,
I spent New Year's Eve of 2016 on the border with Senator Graham and
Senator McCain and the former President of Ukraine. It was there that I
learned so much about the Ukrainian troops. Even back then, there were
snipers killing the troops at unbelievable rates, but they kept going
back to protect their own homeland.
Fast-forward, of course, and we see an even more significant invasion
by Vladimir Putin and Russia once again. Just as Vladimir Putin has
shown his true colors, the Ukrainian people have shown theirs,
defending their democracy in brilliant blue and yellow. They have
succeeded in taking back a number of lands that the Russians have
seized, and that is because of their unbreakable resolve, yes, but it
is also because America took the lead, joined by dozens and dozens of
allies across the world, from Japan to South Korea to Europe.
Now is not the time to give up. In the words of the NATO Secretary
General, the war has become a ``battle for ammunition.'' Russia is
firing nearly 10,000 rounds a day, while Ukraine is only managing
2,000. Our friends need our support more than ever.
In my last visit to Ukraine, with Senator Portman in the middle of
the war, we visited Irpin. We saw the bombed-out maternity wards and
the apartment buildings reduced to rubble. We saw the mass graves.
Those atrocities have been met, of course, with the resilience of the
Ukrainian people: the chef cooking meals for the troops on the
frontlines; the nurse who traded in scrubs for camo and now serves as a
field medic; the martial arts teacher leading an 11-man recon unit to
keep his village safe. Those are people who stood up, and our country
must stand with that democracy.
We must never forget President Zelenskyy's words on that worst
evening in September, when everyone had counted them out, when all the
pundits thought Russia would just roll over their country with their
tanks and with their planes. What did President Zelenskyy do? He went
down to the street corner and he said this. He said, ``We are here.''
Those simple words--``We are here.'' Well, that is our job now. We have
to say the same thing--that we are here for them.
U.S. aid has empowered the Ukrainian people to take back the
territory that is rightfully theirs. It has saved lives. It has given
families hope that there will be a future--but not if we turn our backs
on them right now.
Throughout our Nation's history, we have been there for free nations
across the globe, and we must be there again. That gets to something
that is not in the bill right now. It was in the original compromise
agreement, and just like Ukraine, just like the Pacific, just like the
help to Central Command and the help we must give given that our own
troops are being attacked in the Middle East--it is the covenants we
make.
I am here talking about the Afghan refugees, 80,000 of them
approximately in the United States. They served alongside our troops.
They served as interpreters. They served as intel gatherers. They put
their own lives and their families' lives at risk. And they have been
here. They have been in the United States.
That is why a bipartisan group of Senators have for now, sadly, years
been working on a simple bill to make it clear that they are no longer
in limbo. Many conservatives are supporting this bill.
I am filing a bipartisan amendment--that was just filed--with Senator
Moran. I thank him for his leadership as the ranking Republican on the
Veterans' Committee and for joining me on this bill, along with Senator
Graham, who is a longtime lead author of our base bill on the Afghan
refugees. Again, Senator Graham, ranking member on the Judiciary
Committee; Senator Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, ranking lead
Republican on the Armed Services Committee, is filing this amendment
with me; Senator Cassidy; Senator Mullin; Senator Tillis; Senator
Murkowski; Senator Crapo; Senator Rounds; Senator Capito; Senators
Coons and Blumenthal and many other Democrats as well.

We have that magic number to get over what we call our 60-vote
threshold. We will win this vote, but we will win more than a vote if
we are allowed to advance this amendment by both sides as they
negotiate which amendments go forward. We will be more than just
getting a vote; we will be standing up for keeping our covenants.
I am thinking of the people I have met, the Afghans, over the last
year, the women I met with who served in the Afghan national army's
Female Tactical Platoon. Our troops relied heavily on this platoon
during the war. As our soldiers pursued missions hunting down ISIS
combatants in unforgiving terrain and freeing prisoners from the grip
of the Taliban, these women had their backs. They worked with our
military's support team and facilitated discussions between our
soldiers and the Afghan women whom they crossed paths with in the
field.
After the war, they and so many others fled Afghanistan to build a
safer, brighter future in America. One of the platoon's commanders even
said that once she gets her green card, her plan is to join the U.S.
Army. That is right. Even knowing everything she sacrificed for our
country, leaving her family behind, putting herself in peril, she would
do it all over again if we gave her the chance. I am in awe of her grit
and her patriotism. Unfortunately--and this is a big
``unfortunately''--she and countless others like her are living in
limbo, and it is our turn to do right by the people who stood with us.
When the Hmong and the Vietnamese came to this country--I know this
well because my State has a very large Hmong population--we didn't
leave them in limbo and tell them: Well, you are standing here on the
ground in the United States of America after helping us out, but there
is a trapdoor under you because every year you have to reapply, and you
don't know what is really going to happen if you have to go back.
Are we going to send these people who stood with our troops back to
the arms of the Taliban or are we going to do what is right?
This bill, which I have worked on with numerous Republican leaders,
has a heavy-duty vetting--vetting--process. And I remind my colleagues
that the vast majority of these people are here already. They are on
our soil. We already know what they have been doing. In fact, we know
that one of them, sadly, was murdered--an interpreter who was working
as a driver late at night in the State of Virginia. I don't know if
that is what he would have been doing if he wasn't in limbo. But that
happened on our soil.
So all we are saying is that they be vetted and that they be able to
get out of this legal limbo and treated with the respect they deserve.
Time and time again, our Nation's history has shown us that people
who stand with us in combat don't diminish America; they strengthen
America.
Our effort has earned the support of more than 60 organizations,
including With Honor Action; including No One Left Behind; including
Operation Recovery; the American Legion--was just with them yesterday
as Senator Moran and I and Coons and Blumenthal and others discussed
this bill; the VFW--this is a major priority for the VFW; as well as
some of the Nation's most revered military leaders who have lent their
names.
At one point earlier last year, I went through hundreds of names of
generals, retired generals who led our troops in times of war who
support this bill, but today I mention Mike Mullen, ADM Mike Mullen,
William McRaven, and Generals Richard Myers of the Air Force, Joseph
Dunford from the Marine Corps, and Stanley McChrystal from the Army.
Maybe we should listen to them when we think about how we treat those
who saved the lives of our troops, how we must keep our covenants
because in the next conflict when we are standing up for democracies or
standing up for American interests, what do you think people are going
to say if they think they help our country, and our troops make
literal, individual promises to them, and then they come back, and they
don't know what is going to happen to them? Some of them are in hiding
right now across the world because they know that they or their
families will be killed if this continues.
We have built such a broad coalition of support because Americans
from

[[Page S583]]

across the political spectrum agree that it is our moral obligation.
When I am at home, vets come up to me--as I know they do to you,
Madam President--they come up to me about all kinds of things; they
always have: about their service, about their benefits, about what is
happening with healthcare and burn pits. And we have advanced so many
things to help them. But I have never seen anything more emotional for
our soldiers that have served in Afghanistan than this, because they
know the people that saved their lives and stood with them deserve
better than this.
What we are asking for is a vote on this bipartisan amendment, and we
know we can pass this amendment because we have enough sponsors on it
to pass this amendment. This is the perfect bill. Why? Because it is a
national security package. It is about our national security. It is
about that; it is about standing with our partners; and, most of all,
it is about showing the world when the United States of America makes a
promise, makes a covenant, we keep it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, one of the worst humanitarian disasters
in modern history is now unfolding before our eyes in Gaza today--right
now. And we, as the government of the United States, are complicit.
It has been 4 months since Hamas's terrorist attack started this war,
and what we in Congress do right now could well determine whether tens
of thousands of people live or whether they die. Already, the human
costs of this Israel-Hamas war has been staggering. Madam President,
1,200 innocent Israelis were killed in the initial terrorist attack,
and more than 100 are still being held hostage.
And as I have said many times, Israel has the right to defend itself
against Hamas terrorism, but it does not have the right to go to war
against the entire Palestinian people. As of today, Israel's response
has killed more than 27,000 Palestinians and injured more than 67,000--
two-thirds of whom are women and children. Let me repeat: Two-thirds
are women and children.
Madam President, 1.7 million Palestinians have been driven from their
homes, and, unbelievably, some 70 percent of the housing units in Gaza
have been damaged or destroyed. This is an unheard of level of
destruction--80 percent of people driven from their homes and 70
percent of housing units damaged or destroyed.
And while 1.7 million people are displaced from their homes, they
have no idea where they will be tomorrow or whether or not they will
ever return to their homes. And many of these men, women, and children
have been displaced multiple times. They go here; they go there; they
go there.
Most of the infrastructure in Gaza has been destroyed. Very few water
wells or bakeries are functioning. The electricity has been cut since
the beginning of the war. Sewage is running into the streets. Cell
phone service is spotty or nonexistent. Most of the healthcare
facilities in Gaza are not operational. Bombs falling, people getting
hurt; and yet healthcare facilities not operational. Many facilities
have been damaged in air strikes, and numerous, numerous healthcare
workers trying to keep children alive have been killed. The facilities
that are operational today lack the basic medical supplies that heroic
doctors and nurses need in order to save lives and treat their
patients.
And as horrible as all of this is, let me tell you what is even
worse. As a result of Israeli bombing and restrictions on aid entering
Gaza, only a tiny fraction of the food, water, medicine, and fuel that
is needed--desperately needed--can get into Gaza. Even then, very
little of that aid can reach beyond the immediate area of Rafah near
the Egyptian border.
And let us be very clear and take a deep breath and understand what
all of this means. It means that, today, hundreds of thousands of
children are starving and lack clean drinking water. The United Nations
says the entire population of Gaza is at imminent risk of famine, and
some 378,000 people are starving right now. According to the U.N., 1 in
10 children under the age of 5 in Gaza is now acutely malnourished.

And when malnutrition impacts young children, it often means
permanent physical and cognitive damage that will impact them for the
rest of their lives. In other words, if food got in tomorrow,
healthcare got in tomorrow, damage has already been severely done to
tens of thousands of beautiful, innocent little children. If nothing
changes, we will soon have hundreds of thousands of children literally
starving to death before our very eyes.
And, unbelievably, that situation could even get worse in the
immediate future. Roughly 1.4 million people--more than half of the
population of Gaza--are now squeezed into the Rafah area. That is right
up against the Egyptian border. Rafah was a town of just 250,000 before
the war. It is a very small area, roughly 10 miles by 4 miles. Most of
the people there are now packed into crowded U.N. shelters or sleeping
out in tents. It is a daily struggle for them to find food or water.
Yet Prime Minister Netanyahu, the leader of Israel's extreme-right
wing government, says that Israel will soon launch a major ground
offensive against Rafah, where all of these people currently are. He
will soon be forcing hundreds of thousands of desperate people to
evacuate once again. In other words, exhausted, traumatized, and hungry
families will be driven onto the road with no plan as to where they
will go, how they will receive essential supplies or protection for
their physical safety.
I cannot find words to describe how horrific this situation is and
could become. Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly said that the
goal of Israel's military efforts is total victory. Yet asked recently
what total victory would look like, he responded chillingly by saying
that it is like smashing a glass ``into small pieces, and then you
continue to smash it into even smaller pieces and you continue hitting
them.''
And the question that we as Americans and as the U.S. Congress must
ask is: How many more children and innocent people will be smashed by
Netanyahu in this process? It is quite clear that beyond total
destruction of Gaza, Netanyahu has no plan.
Yesterday, President Biden acknowledged the severity of this crisis,
and I thank him for doing that. He said that Israel's response in Gaza
``has been over the top'' and added that ``there are a lot of innocent
people who are starving. There are a lot of innocent people who are in
trouble and dying. And it's got to stop.'' That is President Joe Biden.
President Biden is absolutely right. It does have to stop. It has to
now, and that is in our hands. President Biden and Secretary of State
Blinken have been trying to negotiate an agreement where Israel pauses
its military operation while Hamas releases the remaining hostages. All
of us hope that this deal comes together. We all want the hostages
freed and the slaughter ended. But Netanyahu is resisting this
proposal. In large part, this is because he is politically weak at
home. Most Israelis likely blame him for creating this crisis. And in
my view--my view--he is trying to prolong the war to avoid facing
accountability for his actions.
Netanyahu didn't even wait for Secretary Blinken to leave the region
this week before he publicly dismissed the hostage deal as delusional
and brushed aside United States' concerns about expanding the ground
offensive in southern Gaza. The Associated Press called this a
``virtual slap in the face'' to Blinken and the United States--a
virtual slap in the face--and they are right.
Unbelievably--unbelievably--despite all of this, the U.S. Congress is
prepared to spend another $14 billion on military aid to Netanyahu's
rightwing government--$14 billion more, and 10 billion of this money is
totally unrestricted and will allow Netanyahu to buy more of the bombs
he has used to flatten Gaza and to kill thousands and thousands of
children.
This is American complicity at its worst, and it is really quite
unbelievable. Does the U.S. Congress really want to provide more
military aid to Netanyahu so that he can annihilate thousands and
thousands more men, women, and children? Do we really want to reward
Netanyahu, even while he ignores virtually everything the President of
the United States is asking him to do? Do we want to give even more
support to the leader of the most

[[Page S584]]

rightwing government in Israel's history, a man who has dedicated his
political career to killing the prospects of a two-state solution?
That is really hard to believe, but that is exactly what this
legislation before us will do. And what is even harder to understand is
that in the midst of this horrendous humanitarian crisis, the
legislation before us contains a prohibition to funding for UNRWA, the
largest U.N. agency operating in Gaza and the backbone of the
humanitarian aid operation. Israel's allegations against the agency are
serious, and they are being investigated seriously. But you don't
starve 2 million children and people and women--you don't starve 2
million people because of the alleged actions of 12 UNRWA employees.

The whole world is watching. Netanyahu is starving the children of
Gaza. We cannot be complicit in this atrocity. As long as this bill
contains money to fund Netanyahu's cruel war, I will do everything I
can to oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to talk about some of the
important issues that we are debating here on the Senate floor.
Actually, they are quite important, and we are having a good debate. I
want to just talk about some of the votes that we have taken in the
last couple of days.
We voted on what I think was termed--really focused on--the Senate's
border bill. A lot of people worked hard on that. I know the Presiding
Officer did and Senator Lankford.
I did not vote to proceed to consider that bill. There are a whole
host of reasons. I think the most important, from my perspective, was
this administration--the Biden administration--came in and said: We are
going to have a policy of full open borders--which they have. There is
no doubt about that. Every American knows it, sees it. It impacts
people in Alaska negatively--over 300,000 illegal immigrants in
December, an alltime record, and on track for 10 million.
In my view, the border bill did not go far enough, and it is hard to
trust the administration, even on provisions that we would want them to
enforce, given their disastrous record for the last 3 years. So I was a
no on that.
Then we turned to the national security supplemental. I want to talk
a lot about that this afternoon because it is very important. I voted,
actually, to proceed to the debate, to start debating--hopefully,
amending--this important bill.
It is being called many things. Some are calling it the Ukraine bill,
the Ukraine aid bill, the Israel bill. Having read it, having worked
hard over the last 4 to 5 months to actually shape it, I think it
should have a different name, maybe this name: the fighting
authoritarian aggression national security bill. But probably the best
title for this piece of legislation that we are now debating should be
the national security industrial base renaissance bill.
I hope my colleagues take a look at it. I hope they read it. But I am
going to explain why I think it should be called that, and then we are
obviously going to have a good debate on this bill.
I am hoping that this bill--and I have mentioned this to my
Republican colleagues, in particular--when people look at it and we
debate it and try to make it better here on the floor, that it will
unify the Republican conference, and, at the end, hopefully, get more
support, because I think there is an important reason.
There are a lot of reasons why I think this can unify Members of the
Senate, Members of the Republican conference. First, let me just go
into one of the most obvious, which I think almost everybody agrees
with. If you don't, maybe you are not reading the news. But we are in a
real dangerous period, led by this guy--this new era of authoritarian
aggression, as I call it, where you have dictatorships on the march,
very aggressive. That is Xi Jinping, the dictator of China. They are
going through the biggest peacetime buildup in world history of their
military--biggest peacetime buildup ever, of any country ever.
I keep close tabs on what the Chinese are doing. This guy likes to
dress up in fatigues. He is an aggressive, authoritarian dictator,
working very closely with Putin; working very closely with the
ayatollahs, the terrorists in Tehran; working very closely with Kim
Jong Un, the dictator in North Korea.
These dictatorships are all working together. I won't go into all of
it, but if you go to Armed Services hearings and Intel hearings, they
are working closely together, and they are willing to use military
force, particularly against their democratic neighbors, either directly
or through proxies--like Hamas, when they invaded Israel--to try to
undermine American interests and those of our allies. That is
happening.
We are in one of the most dangerous periods since World War II right
now. That is one reason that a bill like this should unify us.
Another is that our industrial base in the United States has
dramatically withered, particularly in its ability to protect us. What
do I mean by ``protect us''? To produce weapons systems, to produce
ammunition. Again, this is a fact. If you don't believe that, well,
maybe you should do a little more research.
Our industrial base is withering. It is a shadow of its former self
during the Cold War, certainly, during previous wars.
Mr. President, let me just give you an example. You know a lot about
submarines. We are supposed to be building 1.2 Virginia-class subs a
year. That is our goal. We can barely build one a year. This is making
our sub fleet, which is one of our greatest asymmetric advantages over
this guy, shrink.
Even worse, 37 percent of our attack submarine fleet--that is about
18 subs--are in maintenance or idle or awaiting maintenance, just
sitting there because we don't have the industrial capacity to maintain
our submarine base. Anyone who studies this knows this is a giant,
giant problem.

We all know this. If the bullets start flying, if a dictator like
this launches a war against one of our allies, or Putin does or Iran
does--they are trying to sink U.S. ships in the Red Sea right now,
anyway, literally troops under attack--when the bullets are flying,
that is not the time you need to build up your industrial base. So if
we are in a real dangerous period, which we are, and the American
ability, in terms of our industrial base, to protect our own country
has withered, which it has, that is another reason we should be
thinking: Let's do something about it.
A third reason the people on my side of the aisle should be taking
this legislation seriously is that it is an opportunity to make up for
what has been an incredibly weak Biden administration approach to
national security. I talk about this a lot, but this administration is
not serious about national security. The President has put forward
three times in his budget each year Department of Defense cuts,
inflation-adjusted cuts. He will crank up the EPA and the Department of
the Interior 20, 25, 30 percent. The DOD, every year, Joe Biden cuts
it.
The current budget shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy, shrinks the
Marine Corps. Do you think he is impressed by that? He is not.
In next year's budget, the Biden budget will bring the United States
below 3 percent of GDP on military spending. It is probably the fourth
or fifth time we have been below 3 percent in 80 years. Do you think he
is impressed with that? He is not.
We have an administration, led by civilians at the Pentagon, who are
not focused on lethality, who are not focused on warfighting, who have
been distracted by some of these far-left social issues, which, in my
view, have no business being in the Pentagon with our warfighters.
So this bill that we are debating right now is a chance to start a
course correction in the dangerous world we are facing because of
dictators like this and the very weak response of the Biden
administration's approach to national security and defense, which they
have always--go look at the budgets--always prioritized dead last of
any Federal Agency.
So what does it do? Let's take a look. This is from an article from
the Washington Post based on a study by the American Enterprise
Institute on what this supplemental--this is actually where it was in
November--what this does.

[[Page S585]]

I think the most important point that I want to emphasize here is
that this bill is primarily focused on rebuilding our military
industrial base in this new era of authoritarian aggression. That is
the principal focus.
Over half of the dollars that are in this bill--over half, over $50
billion--go directly to America's capacity, our capacity in States all
across this great Nation, mostly in the Midwest and on the east coast,
some out in California, to build weapons, to build ammo, and to be
ready for war if it comes--over $50 billion. There will be thousands
and thousands of jobs created by these direct investments in America.
This is a generational investment in our ability to defend ourselves.
What do I mean by ``generational''? Some of these investments we will
see 15 or 20 years from now, hopefully, still producing weapons,
submarines.
Let me just give you a few examples. Let's start with submarines. Our
greatest comparative advantage, relative to China--they are catching up
in a whole host of areas, but not in terms of subs. This has $3 billion
to go directly into the American submarine industrial capacity, which
will unlock another $3 billion from our AUKUS agreement with Australia.
That is $6 billion to our industrial base for submarines. There is $5
billion for 155 artillery shells; over half a billion for counter-UAS
systems. On the other weapons systems, this is directly invested in
America--Patriots, GMLRS, Javelins, Harpoons, Tomahawks, HARMs, TOW
missiles--built by Americans for our defense.
Do you get the picture? Over $50 billion of this bill will go
directly into our industrial base to defend ourselves. Working-class
Americans, America's national security will benefit.
This is replenishing our weapons stocks, our ammunition stocks, for
the U.S. military and, yes, for our allies to purchase, some of whom
are at war today--Ukraine, of course, and Israel.
Now, there is a lot of focus on Ukraine and a lot of arguments about
whether to provide continued lethal aid. I strongly support that. But
this bill also focuses on other allies, which, like I said, in the
Republican conference, I believe unifies us. Ukraine has been a debate.
But let me start with Israel.
I have been out to Israel twice in the last year, including about 10
days after the October 7 attacks, with a bipartisan group of Senators.
It is, obviously, our most important ally in the Middle East--one of
our most important allies in the world.
Here is what I think a lot of people miss. Right now, if you go
there, you will see it; you will feel it; you will understand it.
Israel is under an existential threat to the very existence of their
State and their people, as clear as day--Iran, all the proxies, Hamas,
Hezbollah, the Houthis. This is not an exaggeration.
This Defense bill has close to $17 billion for Israel in U.S. forces,
in U.S. Central Command, that, right now, are being attacked--right
now: Iron Dome, David's Sling, interceptors--about 2\1/2\ billion for
CENTCOM operations for our U.S. Forces, who are literally taking
missiles from the Houthis right now on Navy ships in the Red Sea. I
think everybody agrees: You have to fund our troops.
Let me give you another area that I think unifies us; should unify
all Senators; I think it unifies a lot of Republicans. And that is
Taiwan and INDOPACOM.
Taiwan has been kind of--not kind of--a big focus of mine throughout
my career. I just retired from the U.S. Marine Corps last week,
actually, as a colonel, after 30 years of service. My first deployment
as a U.S. Marine was to the Taiwan Strait in 1995 and `96. Two carrier
strike groups and a Marine amphibious ready group that I was a young
infantry officer on, we were there as a U.S. commitment when the PLA
was threatening to invade Taiwan. That is called the third Taiwan
Strait crisis. It was their first Presidential election. American
commitment was there.
I finished out my Marine Corps time as the chief of staff with the
Marine Force's Pacific Command, which is a whole focus on Taiwan. The
first time I ever visited Taiwan as a U.S. Senator, I will never
forget. A number of Senators were there. We got on the bus. The head of
our AIT embassy, essentially--not really an embassy, unofficial
embassy--he welcomed us, an American citizen: Welcome to Taiwan. One of
the most dynamic economies, one of the most vibrant democracies on the
planet. And the only reason it exists today is because of the
commitment of the U.S. military and America. For eight decades, we have
kept Taiwan free.
The initial supplemental that came up to the Senate, it didn't have a
lot for Taiwan or INDOPACOM. A number of us knew why. President Biden
was getting ready to meet with President Xi Jinping. They didn't want
to ruin the mood music at that meeting, so they didn't put much in to
defend Taiwan--help us defend Taiwan--as the Taiwan Relations Act
requires. So a number of us worked together--Senator Collins, in
particular, and my office. This bill has about $16.4 billion for
INDOPACOM relevant munitions, security assistance, capacity expansion
to deter China in the Taiwan Strait and throughout the INDOPACOM
theater.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the list to be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Supplemental Includes More Than $16.4 Billion for INDOPACOM-
Relevant Munitions, Security Assistance, and Capacity Expansion To
Bolster Deterrence Against China

$3.9 billion in security assistance to Indo Pacific allies
and partners.
Unlocking Taiwan Assistance. $1.9 billion to replenish U.S.
military stocks so DOD can transfer existing equipment and
weapons on hand to Taiwan using Presidential Drawdown
Authority provided in the FY23 NDAA. This is the quickest way
to arm Taiwan for its own self-defense.
Indo-Pacific Foreign Military Financing. $2 billion for
partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific to purchase U.S.
defense articles, services, and training.
$542 million for INDOPACOM unfunded requirements.
$134 million for campaigning and Joint Training, Exercise
and Experimentation.
$49 million for Joint Training Team Taiwan.
$25 million for Joint Task Force Micronesia.
$19 million for Joint Experimentation and Innovation.
$51 million for operationalizing near-term space control.
$147 million for Guam defense system.
$117 million for Persistent Targeting for Undersea.
$132 million for cruise missile motor capacity expansion
that is chokepoint for long-range missiles such as Harpoon,
Tomahawk, LRASM, and JASSM.
$3.3 billion to enhance the submarine industrial base in
support of AUKUS and U.S. submarine production, including
$282M for military construction.
$250 million for Treasury to provide a credible alternative
to China's coercive financing practices.
The following defense investments funded in other
categories of the supplemental (e.g. Ukraine, Israel, Central
Command) also benefit INDOPACOM.
$2.7 billion to expand domestic production capacity of
INDOPACOM-relevant munitions.
$755 million to increase production capacity for PATRIOT
air defense missiles.
$158 million for solid rocket motor capacity expansion, a
key components for numerous missiles relied upon by the U.S.
military.
$199 million to expand industrial capacity for energetics,
precision bombs, and batteries.
$1.6 billion to increase production capacity of 155mm
artillery rounds and components to reach 100K rounds per
month by the end of FY2025. Taiwan uses 155mm rounds.
$5.6 billion to increase U.S. inventories of INDOPACOM-
relevant munitions.
$2.65 billion for additional munitions to include air
defense and anti-tank weapons.
$915 million to replenish and modernize anti-radar HARM
missiles.
$550 million to max out production of long-range precision
artillery rockets (GMLRS).
$1.5 billion to procure 600K artillery rounds, a key
capability for U.S. Forces Korea.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, these are areas that I think can unify
us: industrial base, workers, Taiwan, Israel. Like any bill, there are
things in here I don't like: too much direct support to Ukraine, direct
budget support. I think the European Union--Europeans--should be doing
that, not us. Senator Collins did a good job of limiting that. It still
has too much.
If we have an amendment process here, I have an amendment that would
strip that. Focus on lethal aid, not budget support where the Europeans
can do that. There are other amendments out here to enhance what we
give our allies.
President Biden's team recently said we are not going to send any
more LNG to Asia or Europe.

[[Page S586]]

I just spoke with a very senior European elected official who thinks
that is a real bad idea. We have an amendment that said you can't do
that, Mr. President. We have to send energy to our allies. So there is
a lot more we can do to improve this bill.
I will end with this. You know, one of the arguments against this
bill will say: Well, you know what, we don't have to do anything in
Ukraine; we will let Putin roll. But we will be real strong in Taiwan.
We will be real strong all over the rest of the world. We will deter
these authoritarians there; don't worry so much about Ukraine.
But, as you know, that is not really how the world works. It is not
how the world works. Deterrence is not divisible. American credibility
is not divisible. You can't say we are going to be real strong in the
Taiwan Strait, but, you know, no problem in Ukraine or with Israel.
These authoritarians are working together, and we need a strategic
response through this very dangerous period. And how do we know
deterrence is not divisible? I think the Biden administration
demonstrated it with their botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.
When that happened, a number of us, myself included, said: Watch.
Watch. The authoritarian regimes around the world are going to test.
They are going to probe. They are going to go into different areas and
press. And, of course, that happened. I don't think you have the
Ukraine invasion by Russia without the botched Afghanistan withdrawal.
But, again, what I am trying to do here with my colleagues--Democrats
and Republicans--is say: It is not a perfect bill. I want to amend it.
I certainly hope we can get to an amendment process. I know a lot of
people want to get to that. But there is a lot in this bill--more than
half dedicated to American industrial base, billions dedicated to
Taiwan, billions dedicated to Israel--that I think should unite us. And
I am hopeful that is going to happen.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, there have been a lot of discussions over the
last few days about a bill--a bill many months in the making; a bill
that has been discussed, debated, and drafted, largely in secret. We
saw it for the first time Sunday evening, at 7 p.m. eastern time.
That bill has a lot of material in it. As it was released to us
Sunday night, it spent somewhere just shy of $120 billion. Since then,
it has gone through some changes. It now spends just a little under
$100 billion, about $95 billion. And it has been modified. Its scope
has been narrowed.
I want to talk, first, just for a few minutes about how we got here
or where we are in that process and then about some concerns I have
with the bill as it now stands.
Last fall--the fall of 2023--there was a push spearheaded primarily
by the White House but a push that included most Senate Democrats and
some Senate Republicans--a push to get more aid to Ukraine.
Now, remember, the total aid the United States has spent on Ukraine
throughout the duration of this conflict is somewhere in the
neighborhood of $113, $114 billion. It is an enormous amount of money.
The military aid component of that itself--at least until fairly
recently--was more than the military aid provided by any other country
or any other group of countries. It is an enormous sum of money.
All of this is going on at the same time that the American people are
enduring some challenges--challenges that relate to an economy in which
the dollar can purchase less and less every day. This is the
inevitable, foreseeable, and, in fact, foreseen and widely warned of
consequence of a government--this government based here in Washington,
DC--that has been spending too much money for many years, that has been
spending money to the tune of trillion-dollar and then multitrillion-
dollar deficits year after year after year.
This has happened, by the way, not during a widespread economic
depression but, really, during the top of an economic cycle in which
most of the last few years, unemployment has been really low.
These are not things that the government has borrowed to spend more
money on because of the fact that the economy has been severely
sluggish and, therefore, unable to produce as much output as we would
normally hope to have. No, this is just regular government spending run
amok at the peak of the economic cycle.
And as a result of this spending--this spending that has involved
multitrillion-dollar deficits for the last few years, including and
especially during this Presidential administration--that many years of
adding that much debt to our already gargantuan national debt, which
now stands above $34 trillion, those things have a consequence. When we
add that much debt--especially that much debt that quickly--because of
the way in which the acquisition of new debt works in the United
States, it has the same basic effect on the economy as just printing
more money. Essentially, what is happening here is that we are
contributing to the money supply; we have turned up the pace at which
we are contributing to the money supply; and as a result, every dollar
buys less.
How much less? Well, depending on which study you point to, a very
conservative estimate is that the average American household has to
spend about $1,000 a month every single month to buy the same basket of
goods and services of basic necessities--from housing to healthcare,
from gas to groceries--$1,000 a month more every single month to buy
just the same basic necessities that they were buying prior to the day
President Biden took office. And that is not very long. That does
produce an effect. And it produces a type of misery that looks
something like the following. Now, if people are on a salary, one way
or another, it is a relatively fixed budget that most households
operate on and, usually, a relatively fixed sum of money that they have
to live on, whether that is through a salary or through a combination
of sources, if they are independent contractors or if they are retired
and live on a pension or something like that.
So that sum of money now has to take into account that everything
costs about $1,000 a month more for basic necessities every single
month, working out to about $12,000 a year. For some families, this may
be more; for some, it may be a little less. But everyone is feeling the
pinch. It is what happens with inflation. It hurts everyone. But it
hurts the poor, middle-class Americans more than anybody else.
Rich people, interestingly enough, can find a way to get even richer,
even faster, during times of great inflation. So it is one of many
reasons why we ought to be concerned anytime we are going to spend a
significant sum of money--a significant sum of money that is in
addition to the ordinary operations of this government, the Federal
Government--the government based right here in Washington, DC.
That is why it is important to think about what we are spending, how
we are spending it, why we are spending it, and what consequences that
spending might have.
For many of these same reasons, when this latest push to provide tens
of billions of additional dollars over to Ukraine a few months ago, a
number of Republicans, a number of Members--mostly Republicans,
including Republicans in the Senate and Republicans in the House of
Representatives--expressed concern over doing that. There was a wide
range of concerns expressed. And I won't attempt to enumerate all of
them. But I will just say that most of them followed along a few
things. No. 1--the one that I just mentioned--inflation. The fact that
we are spending a lot more money than we have, that causes inflation to
become worse. The more we add to that dumpster fire, the more misery
inflation is likely to create.
No. 2, this money is going to a war, a war half a world away, to
which we have already contributed substantially. We have European
allies that are much closer to the action--European allies that have
provided some aid, provided far less military aid than we have; who
have not been as quick to defend their own backyard turf as we would
like and not nearly as quick to defend their turf as we have been as a
country.
This matters. This matters in a number of ways. Remember, many of
these allies of which I speak that are much closer neighbors to this
conflict, much

[[Page S587]]

closer to what is happening there, much more likely to be affected by
the conflict in a direct way, are countries that belong to NATO.
Remember, through NATO, for decades, the United States has been
providing a significant portion of the European security umbrella, an
umbrella that has benefited not only NATO allies but also their
neighbors for many years.
Now, an understanding has evolved over time. There should be a
certain percentage of GDP that NATO allies should be contributing to
NATO. A certain percentage of their GDP should be devoted to security,
to defense. A lot of those nations have not kept up with this and have
missed it chronically and by a pretty significant margin. We have
continued to provide our portion of the security umbrella to NATO,
which is huge. It is enormous. It allows it to operate. It allows these
nations to rely, to a significant degree, on our security umbrella.
Year after year, when many of those nations failed to fulfill their
duties, their part of the expectation of what it means to be a NATO
member, in time they get trained. They get acclimated to the fact that,
hey, this is OK. This is a pretty good deal. As a result, they can
spend money on whatever else they want. They can spend more money on
their social welfare programs or whatever it is that they spend money
on in Europe--maybe it is more wine, cheese, I don't know--whatever
their governments are spending money on that is not defense when they
fail to meet their NATO obligation. So as a result of that, they grow
more and more dependent on what we spend.
Then, when there is a bad guy--Vladimir Putin--with a country--
Russia--who goes in and without provocation attacks Ukraine, again, for
the second time in a decade, then they look to us. It is understandable
why they do that. They looked to us for a long time. We have shouldered
a lot of burdens around the world. And in many respects, we have a lot
to be proud of for that.
But this is a conversation that needs to happen because at what point
should they have to match--no--at what point should they have to exceed
as a percentage of GDP, perhaps collectively, those European nations in
real dollars, what we have spent before we consider putting more on the
line? That is a significant concern.
Some have also expressed the concern that we are devoting all this
time, attention, and an enormous sum of money to securing Ukraine's
borders when our own borders are insecure. We have been flooded with
what some estimate to be about 10 million people who have come into
this country without documentation since January 2021 when Joe Biden
took office. They wonder why we are doing so much to secure the borders
of another country half a world away while doing little or nothing to
secure our own.
Some have also noted, whenever we get involved in a proxy war--
spending a lot of money through another country to fight yet another
country--that is very often how we get involved in a much larger
conflict. This wouldn't be the first time that has happened or the
second time. It has happened a number of times. The most familiar one
people think of is Vietnam. We start out with proxies. We build, we get
drawn in, and we are eventually direct combatants.
It is worth considering, worth taking into account, not necessarily
dispositive of whether we get involved in any war, but this is a war we
have been fighting through a proxy--Ukraine--against an adversary--
Russia--with a very large nuclear arsenal, one that is large enough to
destroy the United States many, many times over. That has to be taken
into account. That question becomes more meaningful every time we
invest more money, every time we increase the lethality, the type of
weapons assistance that we are providing to them. Those all need to be
taken into account.
Sometimes we don't have those conversations. For those and other
reasons, a number of people, mostly Republicans--Republicans in the
House and Republicans in the Senate--have expressed some concern about
providing additional Ukraine funding.
Last fall, when this push started in earnest, Republican leadership
in the Senate suggested: Look, maybe what we should do, given that most
or all Democrats in the Senate really want this funding to Ukraine, and
we have some Republicans who want to be supportive but not as many--
maybe we should offer up something else to achieve a compromise, to
achieve something else that is important to most, nearly all--I would
hope all Republicans in the Senate--and that is U.S. border security.
So for the last few months, we have anticipated what would come of
some negotiations, which, unfortunately, became a lot more clandestine
than I would have preferred. I speak not critically of our negotiator,
James Lankford, who is a dear friend and a good man. I think he was
doing the best he knew how to do with the cards he was dealt. But those
negotiations, to my great dismay and disappointment and that of many of
my colleagues, occurred without our day-to-day awareness of what was
happening. We were not kept informed of exactly what was in there. We
were given very few details, and those details emerged mostly in the
last few weeks before this document was made public Sunday night at 7
p.m. Eastern Standard Time, when we finally saw that measure.
The reason why we shouldn't have months of secret negotiations in
which most Senate Republicans were kept out of the loop became more
apparent. The objectives of the negotiating team had drifted pretty far
from the original stated concerns of many, if not most, Senate
Republicans when we embarked on this process.
The idea was to use the fact that we have a lot of enthusiasm on our
side of the aisle to secure America's border and to pass legislation
that would force that, that would virtually guarantee that, that would
make it very difficult--very difficult to the point of being
impossible--and that we would continue to set all the wrong records, as
we did in the month of December and as we have so many times during
this administration, on the number of people coming across the border,
the number of people trafficked into the United States by international
drug cartels.
The drug cartels, by the way, are earning many billions--probably
tens of billions of dollars--every year smuggling human traffic into
the United States and with that human traffic are bringing in a whole
host of other problems carried by them and inextricably intertwined
with the human traffic they brought into the country, including enough
fentanyl that in the last couple of years has killed over 100,000
people per year, enough fentanyl that if distributed widely enough,
could kill every American living in this country, every single man,
woman, and child.

I was told by the Border Patrol during a recent visit I made to the
border in the Rio Grande Valley that for the first time since the 1860,
since the adoption, in fact, of the 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery
and indentured servitude in America, we now have significant numbers of
people living in indentured servitude, many of them in the form of sex
slavery, paying off the debts that they incurred while being smuggled
into this country by the drug cartels. There was a lot of enthusiasm,
for that reason, to stop that, to make it more difficult for that to
continue. And that was the whole point of merging those efforts.
So when the legislation came out Sunday night and we saw that--you
know, while there were some changes in law that might have been helpful
over time--there was nothing in there requiring the border to be
materially more secure. There were enough loopholes in there, as I read
it, enough loopholes in there that not only did it not guarantee a
significantly better result on border security, but in some respects it
could actually make some problems worse. It could at least prolong the
problem.
Those concerns were expressed. On a dime, it seemed, Senate
Republican leadership turned on that very legislation they had been
touting for months: It is under development. Wait until you see it.
Instead of trying to fix that, instead of saying: All right, let's go
back to the drawing board and see where the problem areas are, what we
can fix, what we can't fix, they said: Let's not do it at all. They
started quoting Republican Senators, Senators like me who had said the
President of the United States can use existing law. And with that
existing law, he can make material steps toward securing the border to
the same degree that was achieved in the last administration

[[Page S588]]

using the exact same laws; that the border security crisis, as we see
it now, is not itself something that exists for want of adequate
legislative authority in the hands of the President.
No, it is a willful choice on the part of the President and the
Secretary of Homeland Security not to enforce those laws aggressively;
in fact, in many cases not to enforce them and in some cases to openly
flout the law, as he has, by admitting a couple of million people into
this country under so-called immigration parole authority, parole
authority which is supposed to be used only on a case-by-case basis and
never a categorical basis, as it has been recently by this
administration, to admit millions of people into this country. The
President still could enforce the border.
Republican leadership then made the unfortunate choice to say: Well,
you Republicans who care about border security have been saying it is
not the lack of adequate legislative authority that the border is not
being enforced. Therefore, you guys shouldn't be pushing for any border
security language at all, so we will jettison that part.
That was never the point. The point was we were going to achieve a
compromise. True compromise between the party should entail getting one
thing one party likes and another thing another party likes and enough
steam for both of them to pass when neither of them can pass. So they
missed the point.
By missing that point, they also missed a real opportunity, perhaps,
to get something done there. That is unfortunate. Now, we still had a
chance. I made the case over the last few days that we could still
offer up something. In order to do that, Republicans would have to come
together, and they would have to debate both of the cloture motions we
had over the last 48 hours. And after defeating both of those, say we
are working on a proposal that could actually get us there--one that
could include material reforms, like H.R. 2, which has been passed by
the House of Representatives. I know it is something that Senate
Democrats don't necessarily dream about passing--not necessarily wild
about it--but it is something that would materially advance the cause
of border security and materially change the circumstances on the
border.
Even though the President doesn't have to have new legislative
authority, this would force that, and we could force that by harnessing
the enthusiasm for Ukraine aid.
But, alas, 17 or 18 Senate Republicans chose last night to move
forward--or yesterday afternoon, rather--to move forward and vote for
cloture on the motion to proceed, notwithstanding the fact by then,
they had cut off anything having to do with border security.
This was unfortunate. We waited for months for this language. This
language didn't do the job. We could have come up with other language,
but we had to stick together as a team. So much for teamwork. That
didn't pan out. That really is tragic.
We now find ourselves faced with a bill that focuses on this
supplemental aid package, an aid package of $95 billion, the vast
majority of which--close to two-thirds--goes to Ukraine. Some of it
goes elsewhere. We will talk more about that in a moment.
There is a lot in here, a lot to cover, but let's start with the fact
that in addition to the aid sent to Ukraine or sent to the Pentagon to
replenish stockpiles of weapons that have been released to Ukraine
under Presidential drawdown authority or otherwise, in addition to all
that, it provides some $238 million--roughly a quarter of a billion
dollars--to cover deployments of U.S. troops to Europe.
That is significant. It begs all kinds of questions. Why is that
happening? Where is it going exactly? If we are doing that, does that
mean we are getting ready to be involved directly or kinetically in
this war? What does that mean? Why are we doing this, by the way,
without a plan, a comprehensive strategy for Ukraine? What is it that
we want to achieve? How far are we willing to go to get there? Are we
going to be directly involved? At what point will we be adopting or
must we consider an authorization for the use of military force or a
declaration of war? All those questions are left unaddressed by this as
we spend roughly a quarter of a billion dollars on additional troop
deployments to Europe.
It allows for an additional $7.8 billion worth of weapons to leave
our stockpiles, U.S. stockpiles, immediately. This is a pretty big sum
of money.
Now, keep in mind that for many of these weapons, especially many of
the weapons that seem to be the most talked about and the most useful
here, a lot of them, including the weapons systems known as HIMARS,
Javelins, ATACMS--those are things that are being deplenished, have
been depleted very rapidly from our stockpiles, as we have been sending
them to Ukraine. They also happen to be many of the same weapons that
may become very valuable, very much in demand, and very much are now in
short supply should additional need for them break out in, for example,
Taiwan or Israel.
So as the planet is becoming a more dangerous place and we are
depleting those, yes, we are authorizing an additional $7.8 billion of
weapons to leave our stockpiles immediately. Now, why is this
significant? Ordinarily, there is a default rule set into law that says
you can't have more than $100 million in weapons leave our stockpiles
through Presidential action alone without a new law being passed by
Congress to allow that--$100 million, one-tenth of a billion dollars.
This is many times that. And I understand that this is a deliberate
choice. Congress can do that. After all, it is a statute that imposes a
cap. Congress, having adopted that cap, can increase or decrease the
cap anytime it wants to. But let's think about why. Let's think about
how much this makes sense. Let's think about whether and to what extent
this is in our interest--$7.8 billion. This is almost 80 times, about
78 times the ordinary drawdown authority that we would allow absent
some extraordinary action.
Now, when those weapons are released--as many of them already have
been under previous authorities--we are still looking at years before
many of them can be replenished. This is not stuff that we can just
produce tomorrow. You can't just turn on a switch or place an order.
This is not like ordering a new set of double-A batteries from Amazon.
No, this takes a fair amount of time. In fact, for some of these weapon
systems--many of them, in fact--I am told it may well be impossible for
us to replenish them prior to 2030. Who knows where we will be then.
Who knows what conflicts might require their use by then. And will we
find ourselves unprepared? One can easily imagine scenarios in which we
could.
If we have to engage, for example, in the Indo-Pacific in the near
future--let's say Beijing fulfills the fears of many for years and
decides to make a move on Taiwan--what happens then if our shelves are
barren, left barren because of this conflict? I think that needs to be
discussed more than it has been.
That is one of the most unfortunate offshoots--and there are many--of
the way this bill has been handled over the last few months. We put it
on the back burner while it has been negotiated and negotiated, we
thought initially--we hoped, believed initially--under terms that would
involve our being apprised and informed regularly about what was
happening and allowed to see text. That didn't happen.
When we finally saw text, that text didn't contain what most of the
Senate Republican conference asked for at the outset. Now, because of
concerns with that part of the bill, that part of the bill was just
jettisoned, and we are back to just the foreign aid stuff to be spent
mostly in the same three areas we had talked about at the very
beginning.
As a result of all of that, it is as though there has been a
distraction. One could use this to distract people from conversations
like this one. So we shouldn't be rushing this one. We should have
conversations about that and figure out whether it makes sense and what
we are going to do in order to protect ourselves in current and such
future conflicts as may arise, as to which we have no ability to
predict right now.
The legislation also allows for the Department of Defense to enter
into new contracts for a total of $13.7 billion in new equipment--new
equipment specifically for Ukraine through the Ukraine Security
Assistance Initiative--with no requirement whatsoever

[[Page S589]]

for the Biden administration to prioritize contracts for our own
readiness, for America's defense.
Why should we be worried about that? Well, as we are worried about
replenishing the stockpiles of the weapons I just referred to a moment
ago, we are placing new orders, new contracts, new money--$13.7 billion
for additional weapons--and those are all going out without any
obligation on the part of the Biden administration to negotiate in a
preference for a priority basis for weapons to be used by the United
States to be placed back in the U.S. stockpiles. Where does that leave
us? Well, I think it leaves us back in a similar position to what I
described a moment ago.
Look, our military is the most feared force in the world with good
reason. We have the best and the brightest men and women in the whole
world ready to fight for us at a moment's notice, and we also have the
best weapons systems in the world. But when you get to be king of the
hill, as our military currently is and I hope will be for the entirety
of the time I am on this planet and I hope in perpetuity, you don't get
to that point and then consider yourself immune to the risk of being
thrown off that hill. The minute we deplete our weapons stockpiles is a
moment that we should be concerned.
The legislation also funds the Ukrainian National Police. It funds
the Ukrainian National Police and State Border Guard in Ukraine with
$300 million. That is great. I am glad that Ukrainians are concerned
about Ukraine's borders--enough that they have apparently asked us for
this assistance--but this bill contains nothing to secure our border.
Last I checked, Ukraine is not being besieged by immigrants from all
over the world, including a lot of people on the Terrorist Watchlist,
including people from countries as far from Ukraine as the United
States is from Afghanistan and Syria and China and all kinds of
countries that are not in or connected to Latin America.
See, that is another thing I learned on my most recent trip to
McAllen, TX, from the Border Patrol, who told me that this is not what
we have seen in the past, not what we normally expect to see coming
across the borders. You have people from all over the world, including
parts of the planet where there are a lot of people who don't like us
very much and are known to plant people, to come into our country
without let's say gestures of good will on their minds--yet another
reason why this bill should give the American people pause. It should
give us pause.
If we are willing to spend that on Ukraine's border security, why not
ours? Yes, I know they are at war, and that is significant. That is
tragic. Yes, Vladimir Putin is a bad guy, and we don't want him to be
able to pursue his ambitions. Our job first and foremost is to protect
this country. When we can protect other countries half a world away, we
ought to have that discussion, and we ought to have that discussion in
a way that makes very clear to the American people how that benefits
them directly, how that makes them safer.
I don't mean to suggest that any of these questions are easily
answered, but I do mean to say emphatically that American border
security, which is at risk in ways that it never has been not just in
my lifetime but in the entire existence of this country--at least since
the end of the War of 1812 but in other ways, since it came to be--we
are in deep trouble with our border security.
People are pouring across who do not mean us well, and we have to be
concerned about this. This bill turns a blind eye to that, even while
fetishizing border security in another nation half a world away.
I don't think the American people will take enormous comfort when
they hear these and other concerns, when they learn that $7.8 billion
to be sent to Ukraine through this legislation will go to ensure that
Ukrainian bureaucrats don't miss a paycheck. We send this thing over as
part of the economic support fund for Ukraine, and it is there, as I
understand it, to make sure that every government employee in Ukraine
doesn't miss a paycheck, gets paid for an entire year. Billions of
dollars to subsidize all kinds of things in addition to paying their
government workforce. My understanding is that it is also going out in
various grants to subsidize everything from clothing stores to people
who sell concert tickets for Ukraine, all while making sure their
budget is fully funded for an entire year.
All this is happening while Americans are living paycheck to paycheck
and where that paycheck doesn't last very long, like it used to,
because they have to shell out an additional $1,000 a month every
single month, and this trend has been ongoing ever since January 20,
2021, when Joe Biden took office, and, not coincidentally, this
inflationary cycle steadily became worse and worse.
The bill also begins Ukrainian reconstruction. Now, this one is
interesting. In most parts, it sends $25 million for the transition
initiatives account of USAID, and it sends this out for frontline and
newly liberated communities, communities reclaimed from previous
Russian occupation.
There are a couple things about this that concern me. No. 1, I am not
aware of a lot of communities that have been reclaimed. I am sure there
are some. I am told there are a few, but they are few and far between.
Sending $25 million--I suppose the only reason it is that small a
number--you know, most Americans think of $25 million, and they say
that is an enormous sum of money, and it is. It certainly is. And that
has been hard-earned by the people who have paid it. But compared to
the rest of this bill, it is a tiny drop in a very large bucket.
So why should that be concerning? Well, for setting the predicate now
for the fact that it is going to be the United States on the line--U.S.
taxpayers on the line most notably--in order to fund these transition
initiatives. Does that mean we are going to be responsible for
rebuilding Ukraine as, if, when this war is won? Is that our job? Do we
have to rebuild these buildings? Is it a hard-working mechanic from
Denver, a plumber from Boston, a police officer from Provo? Why exactly
are their paychecks and their dollars and their bank accounts and their
hard-earned money being tapped for that? And more to the point, if they
are going to be on the hook not just for these isolated, Marshall
communities, then does that mean if--when--this war is finally won, we
will be doing all of that? They will be concerned about that, and they
have every reason to be.

(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)
Now, the legislation does ask for a multiyear strategy for Ukraine,
and it is a good thing to have a strategy. I wish we had a strategy for
how this war is going to be won and how our role in it helps bring an
end to that and how to prioritize different actions that we might
undertake and what they might cost, what they might entail. But this
strategy of which I speak places the United States at its helm, and as
I understand it, it doesn't do the things that I just described that
need to happen, but it does put the United States at the helm, sort of
in a pole position, as the people in charge of this outside of Ukraine.
I am not sure that is a great idea. It seems like yet another gift to
woke and complacent European allies already not meeting their NATO
obligations that refuse to own up to the responsibility of protecting
and securing their own continent in their own backyard.
Now, that takes us to another area of concern, to a different part of
the world. The nearly $10 billion for humanitarian aid in this bill--
somewhere between $9 and $10 billion when you add up a couple of
accounts--that by the terms of the legislation may be used in and
around Ukraine and in and around Israel, some of that money, one has to
assume--in theory, all of that money--could end up going to Gaza,
humanitarian relief in Gaza. Of course, there are dire humanitarian
conditions in Gaza, and that is heartbreaking. But there is nothing in
this bill that, as I view it, prevents that money or such money as goes
to Gaza from ending up in the hands of Hamas and benefiting Hamas. And
as I look at--I am not sure there is a way to do it. And that is one of
the reasons why I am concerned that there isn't a restriction on aid to
Gaza here because Gaza itself is under the thumb, not of a state, not
of a government as we would conceive of it--it is unlike anything we
have ever known here and hopefully anything we ever will know on this
continent, certainly in this country. But to say we are

[[Page S590]]

going to give aid to Gaza, but without it benefiting Hamas, it is
almost impossible to conceive of.
Let's remember what has happened in the past with other conflicts
where we have sent humanitarian aid to other entities, places like, I
don't know, Afghanistan, for example. Don't worry. This is humanitarian
aid, and it is not going to get into the hands of al-Qaida and its
affiliates--the bad people in Afghanistan who rule over Afghanistan
with an iron fist--and it did. It empowered them. It emboldened them.
It ultimately helped arm them.
We are fooling ourselves if we think this is going to be any
different. So it troubles me that we didn't draw a hard line there,
acknowledging that almost any aid that we make available for Gaza is
going to end up helping Hamas. And when you help Hamas, you are helping
Iran and its proxies wage a war of terror, not only against Israel but
against the United States, against Western civilization.
This should concern all of us: Democrat, Republican, Independent. I
don't care. It should be worrisome. We saw the devastation that rained
down on Israelis who had, themselves, done nothing--nothing--to deserve
this on October 7. We saw the inhumanity unfolding there.
It is the tip of the iceberg compared to what they want to do, what
they have promised to do, what we may well unwittingly equip them to do
if we are not careful, and we have not been careful here. Shame on us.
It also perpetuates the cycle of endless, unconditional wars in the
Middle East, wars bought and paid for by the United States. It
encourages escalating conflicts in the region to the tune of $2.4
billion going to Central Command, risking direct engagement with Iran.
Whenever we do this, we risk that. There is so much in this bill that
risks imminent conflict with Iran, and you don't think we are talking
about that?
We have been so caught up talking about the palace intrigue
associated with these phantom border security provisions that we didn't
get to see for months. And when we saw them, we had concerns about
them. And when we voiced those concerns to Republican leadership, we
were told too bad, too late. We are going to characterize you as the
reason this failed, and we are not going to consider anything else. We
are going to join up with the Democrats to support cloture on the
motion to proceed to legislation that unites the Democrats--all but one
in yesterday's vote--and sharply divides Republicans. What were there?
Seventeen Republicans who voted to support them. Uniting Democrats,
sharply dividing Republicans, while advancing Democratic policy
interest. This is deeply concerning.
I want to get back to Gaza for a moment. I think a lot of Americans
would be absolutely shocked and horrified to learn that Congress has
almost no visibility into how our funds are used within the United
Nations and other multilateral globalist organizations.
With Ukraine alone, our own government admits that ``routing U.S.
assistance funds to Ukraine through multilateral institutions . . .
where U.S. donations will merge with funding streams from other
international donors [and that that] has the potential to reduce
transparency and oversight.''
So I use this here in the context of Gaza by comparison. We know what
we are doing. This is not a surprise. When we put money out there into
the stream of international commerce, into the stream of international
government-to-government business dealings, we know full well that that
is going to end up in the hands of others, will be placed, in turn, in
the hands of others. And before we know it, we have lost any
opportunity to have transparency or to achieve any degree of oversight.

So why would we expect that routing our assistance for Gaza through
the United Nations will be any different, that it will be 1 degree
different. We shouldn't. We are foolish to think that. In fact, think
about it: decades of the United States bankrolling the entire United
Nations' system. We are, by far, the United Nations' largest
benefactor, much to my dismay. We have been for some time. But decades
of the United States bankrolling that whole system in the United
Nations has made taxpayers complicit in all sorts of things that
Americans don't like, don't want, and have every reason to oppose. But
somehow we, and the United Nations, end up being shielded from this
because of how many times those dollars change hands.
Well, it is not on us anymore. It is on this person. It is on the
United Nations. The United Nations says: Well, we give it to this
entity. We give it to that entity. Before you know it, nobody is in
charge. Nobody is accountable for where the money went, how it was
spent, and whether it harmed those who worked many hard hours to pay
their taxes in the United States to fund those things.
And in doing that, we made taxpayers complicit in all kinds of
things: in terrorism; in blatant, virulent forms of anti-Semitism; and
in the indoctrination of generations of children living in Gaza.
That is one of the reasons why, once we are past this phase, once we
are past the motion-to-proceed phase--assuming we pass it, which
appears far too likely for my comfort--I will be introducing an
amendment, an amendment to clarify that not only will our dollars stop
funding UNRWA--which, mercifully, this legislation does. Mercifully,
this legislation says none of it can go to UNRWA, a U.N. entity that
has been particularly problematic in promoting anti-Semitism, violent
rhetoric, advocating for acts of violence against Jewish people, and
other hateful rhetoric. Not only will our dollars stop funding UNRWA,
but they will no longer fund any U.N. organization operating in Gaza.
Look, we have been down this road before, funneling our aid dollars
through multilateral institutions, and we know exactly how this ends.
Without my amendment--I have got others, lots of others, in fact--but
without this particular amendment of which I now speak, there is
nothing in this bill to prevent the administration from taking funds
that would otherwise have gone to UNRWA and redirecting them to any of
the or any combination of the nearly 2 dozen other U.N. entities that
happen to operate in Gaza, where we lose all visibility into where our
dollars end up and how they are used.
Look, enough is enough. Like most multilateral institutions supported
by the United States as the principal benefactor or not, the U.N. is a
bloated, corrupt system far past its prime, and it has proven
adversarial to U.S. interests, interests of the United States as a
whole and of its people.
A truly just outcome would be for us to stop funding the United
Nations overall, and I have been advocating for that. But that is a
discussion point for a different day.
But the point here that I have to make is that we can't trust this
administration not to fund U.N. programs in Gaza, and we can't trust
the U.N. not to fund terrorists, which is exactly why my amendment is
urgently needed.
Before I close, I also want to talk about another amendment that I
will be introducing--again, this is a nonexhaustive list--but another
one that needs to be mentioned here is one that imposes restrictions on
the economic support fund in the legislation, the economic support fund
relative to Ukraine.
Every dollar in economic aid in this bill for Ukraine really is, as
written, it is a slap in the face to every hard-working American
battling the cost-of-living crisis created by Bidenomics here at home.
Now, economic aid isn't going to win the war for Ukraine. On the
contrary, economic aid may, at best, prove to be a waste of money, may,
at worst, end up prolonging the conflict, prolonging the problems and
the agony from it by masking the true cost to Ukrainians and to
Europeans, more broadly, of this conflict. Americans would be furious
to learn that billions of dollars out of their paychecks are
subsidizing clothing stores and concert tickets for Ukrainians, while
families here live paycheck to paycheck.
Now, some of my colleagues called the billions of dollars in economic
assistance provided to Ukraine a small amount. Really? Economic
assistance makes up 34 percent of the $113 billion in assistance the
United States has already provided to Ukraine. Calling that a small
portion is an insult to every struggling American, every American
family struggling to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.
But leaders of both parties will tell you that this bill will cut
economic aid

[[Page S591]]

to Ukraine. Well, that is a lie. One doesn't cut aid by adding to it.
And let's be clear: Providing $7.8 billion instead of Biden's initial
boondoggle request of roughly $11 billion is not a cut. It is simply
starting with a larger number only to reduce it. It is not a cut.

The bill, as written, mercifully prohibits pension pays out of that
economic assistance fund, but it allows American tax dollars to keep
paying the salaries of Zelenskyy and his bureaucrats.
Now, my colleagues have also said that cutting economic aid to
Ukraine in this bill sends a message to our European NATO allies to
step up and do more. But make no mistake, this is a laughable attempt
at burden sharing.
Look, my time is expiring. I will be back. I will be back to speak
more of concerns that I have with the legislation and ways that I have
come up with that, if passed by this body prior to passage of this
bill, could make some things better, could make some things less bad. I
think, at this point, that may be the best thing we can do. We will do
everything we can do it.
Make no mistake, this bill is a mistake. It has been written in the
wrong way, and it serves the wrong people. Our job, first and foremost,
is to do no harm to the American people, and, on that front, this bill
fails miserably.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes, Senator Murray be permitted to
speak for up to 5 minutes, and Leader Schumer for up to 5 minutes prior
to the rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Supplemental Funding

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to urge strong support for the
national security supplemental appropriations bill before us.
Earlier this week, General Kurilla, the Commander of U.S. Central
Command, told me that this is the most dangerous time in 50 years. The
threats the United States faces from an aggressive Iran and its
proxies, an imperialist Russia, and a hegemonic China are
interconnected, and they require our immediate attention. That is why
this bill focuses not only on strengthening our allies but also on
fortifying our military and rebuilding our own defense industrial base.
Since October, there have been more than 170 attacks on U.S.
servicemembers throughout the Middle East. We have seen unprovoked
attacks on our naval ships and the loss of two Navy SEALs at sea and
three brave servicemembers in Jordan.
Merchant ships have been attacked in the Red Sea. They have been
protected by our Navy ships, including, I am proud to say, the USS
Carney, a destroyer built at Bath Iron Works in Maine, which has shot
down numerous Houthi UAVs.
Despite the perilous times we live in, I heard a colleague suggest on
the Senate floor that we are not ready to consider this bill. I would
contend that we cannot wait any longer.
He also implied that it had been shrouded in secrecy. That is simply
inconsistent with the facts.
The package before us is the result of months of deliberations,
starting on October 20, when the President submitted his national
security supplemental request to Congress, available for all to read
and review.
On October 31, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a 3\1/2\-hour
hearing on the request. Virtually every Member of the Committee
attended. Secretary of State Blinken and Secretary of Defense Austin
testified. Prior to this hearing--this public hearing--the last time
the Committee held a hearing on a supplemental budget request was March
25, 2010--more than 13\1/2\ years earlier.
So, under the leadership of Chairman Murray and myself, we have been
transparent. We have held countless public hearings, including on the
supplemental before us.
The following week, our committee held a second hearing. At this
hearing, the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Health and Human
Services testified on the supplemental request. In the time that
followed, there were numerous discussions on the content of the
supplemental funding bill. Information was gathered on emerging needs,
particularly with regard to U.S. military operations in the Middle
East, and the bill's language was refined and improved.

On February 4, the text of the national security and border
supplemental was released along with a section-by-section analysis to
make it easier for Members.
After it was clear that there was not sufficient support to advance
the border security provisions, revised text and a summary were
circulated that excluded the border security sections, and that is the
package before us today--a package that has taken us months to get to
this point and that began in October with the submission of the budget
request and was subjected to extensive public hearings.
Further delay--or worse, an outright refusal to address these
challenges--cannot be the answer. There is simply too much at risk.
The package before us would bolster U.S. military readiness, help
Ukraine counter Russian aggression, assist Israel in its fight against
terrorists, and deter a rising China.
Now let me briefly describe the major components of this legislation.
First, $35 billion would go to restoring U.S. military readiness.
This includes $26 billion to replenish Defense Department stockpiles
with new and, in many cases, upgraded weapons and equipment; $5.4
billion to increase production capacity for artillery, air defense, and
long-range precision missiles; $3.3 billion to enhance the U.S.
submarine industrial base in support of our trilateral security
partnership with the United Kingdom and Australia, known as AUKUS.
This funding directly supports our military defense and defense
industrial base. One of the ways that we support Ukraine, Israel, and
Taiwan is through the transfer of weapons and equipment from our
stockpiles. The replenishment funding that I just mentioned allows us
to replace those articles with new and often more modern, more
effective munitions and equipment, benefitting both our military and
theirs. By modernizing our arsenal of democracy and improving the
readiness of the U.S. military to deter any adversary, this funding
makes America stronger.
Second, the bill provides resources to assist Ukraine as it defends
its territory following the second Russian invasion. And let us keep in
mind, Putin has made no secret of his plan. His plan is to re-create
the former Soviet Union. If he is allowed to be successful in Ukraine,
I believe he will then seize Moldova, invade Georgia, menace the Baltic
States, and threaten Poland. And then our troops will be involved in a
European war.
Today, we are not the one. Our troops are not dying on the Ukrainian
battlefield.
We include $15.4 billion to help Ukraine purchase weapons from the
U.S. industry so that it can defend itself. It includes $11.3 billion
to support our servicemembers in Europe, principally in Poland and
Germany, who are helping our allies equip and train Ukrainian forces.
It also provides $9.4 billion for economic assistance to help Ukraine
rebuild its economy.
Now, let me spend a moment on this point. The President's request for
direct budget support was $11.8 billion. We rejected that amount as too
much. We reduced it to $7.8 billion, and we further stipulated that no
funds could be used to reimburse pensions.
Tonight, I heard on the floor that the Europeans were not doing their
part. That is simply not true. Many of our European partners--I think
of the Baltic States, for example, with whom Chair Murray and I met
with representatives of recently--are contributing a greater percentage
of their GDP, by far, than we are.
Why are we joining our European allies in providing economic
assistance to Ukraine? As part of his plan to try to force Ukraine to
surrender, Putin has sought to destroy Ukraine's economy, tax base, and
exports, including grain exports. This funding seeks to help Ukraine
rebuild so that ultimately it will be able to provide for itself
economically once again.
But we are not just giving blank checks. We have included $23 million
for inspectors general for continued oversight of Ukraine assistance,
including funding for the special IG that was established in this
year's National Defense Authorization Act.

[[Page S592]]

Earlier in this debate, one of our colleagues suggested that our
country had no strategy for Ukraine. But, once again, the language of
this bill has been ignored. It requires a strategy with achievable
objectives with respect to U.S. assistance to Ukraine. And the
Appropriations Committee did not draft this language alone. We did so
in consultation with the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services
Committees.
Third, this bill fully funds the budget request to support Israel in
the war against Hamas. It includes $5.2 billion for Israel's missile
defense programs, including Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Iron Beam.
The first two of those are coproduced with the United States. It also
includes funding from--foreign military financing for Israel and
funding for U.S. Embassy support, oversight, and other assistance.

This next part is really important. The bill includes--it adds to the
supplemental $2.4 billion to support our U.S. forces as they face
ongoing attacks in the region and to sustain U.S. military operations
in Central Command against the Houthis and other Iranian-backed
proxies. General Kurilla stressed to me how critical this funding is.
Fourth, this bill includes resources aimed at deterring a rising
China.
It includes $2 billion in foreign military financing for the Indo-
Pacific region, which includes, obviously, Taiwan but also the
Philippines and Vietnam.
It provides funding for missile defense for Guam, for new
technologies to detect undersea threats, and for training and
exercises.
Funding is also included to address a chokepoint in the supply chain
for motors that affects multiple long-range cruise missiles, including
Harpoons and the Tomahawk.
The submarine industrial base investments that I previously mentioned
will also benefit our regional partners as they help the United States
meet its commitment under AUKUS while protecting the size of our own
submarine fleet.
Finally, I want to note that this bill includes $9 billion for global
humanitarian assistance. This funding would help the State Department
and USAID respond to critical humanitarian needs around the world, from
Ukraine and Eastern Europe to the Middle East and Africa. More than 108
million people worldwide are forcibly displaced today.
I want to emphasize that only 15 percent of that assistance--$1.4
billion--is for Gaza, and of that amount, the $400 million that had
been targeted by the administration to flow through the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency will not go through UNRWA.
Despite allegations highlighted in the Wall Street Journal last month
and numerous other publications that at least 12 UNRWA employees had
been directly involved in Hamas's October 7 terrorist attack on Israel
and in taking hostages and that around 10 percent of all of its Gaza
staff have ties to Islamic militant groups, incredibly, the Biden
administration continued to push for UNRWA funding.
I want my colleagues to know that this bill includes an outright
prohibition on funding in this supplemental and prior appropriations
from being used for any grants, contributions, or other U.S. payments
to UNRWA. We can distribute that humanitarian assistance through other
organizations.
The bill also includes stringent guardrails on humanitarian
assistance to Gaza. By March 1, the Secretary of State must certify
that policies, processes, and guidelines have been established and are
in use to prevent the diversion of aid by Hamas or other terrorist
groups. This includes consultations with the Government of Israel,
which has made clear the importance of humanitarian assistance to its
objectives in Gaza. Third-party monitoring and intelligence assessments
provide additional layers of oversight. Finally, we include a total of
$10 million to the State Department and USAID inspectors general--
funding that the administration did not request but that should
accompany any assistance for Gaza.
I encourage my colleagues at this time, this perilous time, to
support this bill that includes the funding desperately needed to
strengthen America's military readiness, to help Ukraine counter brutal
Russian aggression, to assist our closest ally in the Middle East,
Israel, in its fight against terrorism, and to deter a rising China.
The stakes are high, and we must meet the moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, let's be clear. The stakes of this
moment could not be higher. The question before us is nothing short of
what kind of future do we want for our kids.
Our role as the leader of the free world is on the line. If we tell
dictators like Putin they can trample sovereign democracies with
impunity; if we tell our allies that they are on their own; if we tell
suffering civilians help is not on the way; if we tell the world the
era of American leadership and resolve is over, we will be inviting
chaos, emboldening dictators, and leaving the world a much more
dangerous place for our kids. That is exactly why this package is so
important. That is why we have insisted for months on a serious,
comprehensive national security supplemental that actually meets this
moment and doesn't leave any of our allies behind.
It has been a long, frustrating road, but Democrats have been glued
to the negotiating table because failure is not an option here.
Listen, I hope we move forward quickly on this package now. I, like
many others, want a fair and reasonable, bipartisan amendment process,
but recognize that those of us who understand the stakes of this moment
are ready to stay here as long as it takes to get this done.
I hope all of our colleagues will continue to work with me and the
Senator from Maine to get this over the finish line because right now
soldiers in Ukraine are counting their bullets, wondering how long they
can hold out. Dictators are watching closely to see if this is their
time to make a move. Civilians, including kids, are caught in the
crossfire and are in desperate need of food and water and medical care.
We do not have a second to lose, so let's get this done and show the
world American leadership is still strong.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in a few moments, the Senate is going
to take the next step toward passing the supplemental. Tonight's vote
keeps the process of passing this emergency national security package
moving forward on the Senate floor.
As I said, I hope our Republican colleagues can work with us to reach
an agreement on amendments so we can move this bill more quickly.
Democrats are willing to consider reasonable and fair amendments here
on the floor as we have shown on many occasions in the past 3 years.
Nevertheless, the Senate will keep working on this bill until the job
is done.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All postcloture time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-
Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), the
Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott)
would have voted ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 19, as follows:

[[Page S593]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

YEAS--64

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mullin
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--19

Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Fischer
Graham
Hawley
Hoeven
Lee
Paul
Ricketts
Rubio
Sanders
Schmitt
Scott (SC)
Tuberville
Vance

NOT VOTING--17

Barrasso
Braun
Budd
Cornyn
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Hagerty
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lummis
Marshall
Moran
Risch
Scott (FL)
The motion was agreed to.

____________________