[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 26 (Sunday, February 11, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S838-S856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  REMOVING EXTRANEOUS LOOPHOLES INSURING EVERY VETERAN EMERGENCY ACT--
                                Resumed

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

       A bill (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.

  Pending:

       Schumer (for Murray) amendment No. 1388, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Schumer amendment No. 1577 (to amendment No. 1388), to add 
     an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 1578 (to amendment No. 1577), to add 
     an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 1579 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 1388), to add an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 1580 (to amendment No. 1579), to add 
     an effective date.
       Schumer motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Veterans Affairs, with instructions to report back forthwith 
     Schumer amendment No. 1581, to add an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 1582 (the instructions (amendment No. 
     1581) of the motion to commit), to add an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 1583 (to amendment No. 1582), to add 
     an effective date.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

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


                                H.R. 815

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, from the earliest days of Vladimir 
Putin's escalation in Ukraine, America's closest allies and partners 
have been paying close attention.
  From halfway around the world in the Indo-Pacific, our friends have 
made it clear that in the Ukrainian people's fight, they see their own 
future.
  From Taiwan:

       Ukraine's survival is Taiwan's survival.

  From Japan:

       Security in Europe and security in the Indo-Pacific are 
     inseparable.

  From Australia:

       It is absolutely in the interest of every free country that 
     Putin's aggression fails.

  But why? Why would peaceful people dare to get involved in others' 
fights? Why would leaders in Asia contribute billions of dollars in 
weapons to help Ukraine defeat Russian aggression? Why would the Prime 
Minister of Japan and the President of South Korea bother with long 
journeys to wartime Kyiv to express solidarity with Ukraine? Why not 
just pull up the drawbridge and keep quiet? Because our allies and 
partners are not naive. Because they know that unchecked aggression 
begets more. Because they know that victory for Russia means a green 
light for China. Because they know that neglecting Ukraine's fight to 
restore its sovereignty raises the costs of defending their own.
  Our partners don't have the luxury of pretending that the world's 
most dangerous aggressors are someone else's problem, and neither do 
we.
  So, today, it is no exaggeration to say that the eyes of the world 
are on the U.S. Senate. Our allies and partners are hoping that the 
indispensable nation--the leader of the free world--has the resolve to 
continue, and our adversaries are hoping for something quite different. 
Friends and foes alike pay close attention to what we say here and to 
how we vote because American leadership matters, and it is in question.
  But let's be absolutely clear. The United States didn't give our 
``greatest generation'' to the fight against Nazi Germany or commit 
half a century of focus and resources to defeating Soviet communism 
just out of a sense of altruism, and we aren't helping partners resist 
authoritarian aggression today out of some warm and fuzzy sense of 
charity. We haven't equipped the brave people of Ukraine, Israel, or 
Taiwan with lethal capabilities in order to win philanthropic 
accolades. We are not urgently strengthening defenses in the Indo-
Pacific because it feels good. We don't wield American strength 
frivolously. We do it because it is in our own interest. We equip our 
friends to face our shared adversaries so we are less likely to have to 
spend American lives to defeat them.
  For years, I have warned about the growing threats to America's 
national security and the growing coordination among our adversaries.
  And, for years, I have worked to steer greater investments toward the 
hard power needed to deter them.
  The Russian despot trying to conquer Ukraine also wants to see 
America weakened.
  The Chinese autocrat hoping to subjugate Taiwan also wants to consign 
American leadership to history.
  The Iranian regime that equips the slaughter of Israel's Jews and a 
terrorist war on international commerce also wants to shatter our 
influence in the region and spill American blood in the process.
  They tell us by their actions. Pretending not to hear them is not an 
option. Delaying until the costs in American lives and treasure rise 
immeasurably is not an option. The time to stand up to these gathering 
threats is right now.
  Every night, millions of Americans sleep in peace because brave men 
and women continue to answer the call to serve in our Nation's Armed 
Forces. Every day, millions of Americans turn for their livelihood to 
an economic order built and underwritten by American leadership. And 
every time that peace and prosperity are threatened, we stand with 
allies and partners who trust in the righteousness of that leadership 
and the credibility of our commitments.
  Today, the future of the world I have just described is in question. 
The endurance of an order in which American support is craved and 
American strength is feared is in doubt. And we, the United States of 
America, have the most to lose.
  Ever since we came to the aid of our allies 80 years ago, America has 
been an inseparable partner in the security of Europe, not out of 
charity but because our own security and prosperity is tied to it.
  Ever since we were attacked in 1941, America has helped guarantee 
stability and free commerce in the Indo-Pacific, not as a moral gesture 
but because we have core interests of our own in this critical part of 
the world.
  Ever since the establishment of the modern Jewish State of Israel in 
1948, America has stood by her, not out of generosity but because of 
the enduring values and interests we share: in security, in democracy, 
and in peace.
  I know it has become quite fashionable in some circles to disregard 
the global interests we have as a global power, to bemoan the 
responsibilities of global leadership, to lament the commitment that 
has underpinned the longest drought of great power conflict in human 
history. This is idle work for idle minds, and it has no place in the 
U.S. Senate.
  In this Chamber, we must face the world as it is. We must reject the 
dimmest and most shortsighted views of our obligations and grapple 
instead with actual problems, as they come, in the harsh light of day.
  And, today, the questions facing this body are quite simple. Will we 
give those who wish us harm more reason to question our resolve? Or 
will we recommit to exercising American strength?
  Will we give those who crave our leadership more reason to wonder if 
it is in decline? Or will we invest in the credibility that underpins 
our entire way of life?
  I cannot answer these questions for any one of my colleagues, but 
none of us can afford to get them wrong.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the national security supplemental before 
us is of profound importance to America's security. It will provide 
updated, modern, effective munitions to our troops, rebuild our 
flagging defense industrial base, allow our Navy to continue its vital 
operations in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, and support our 
allies.

[[Page S839]]

  Now, time does not permit me to correct every misunderstanding and 
misrepresentation about this bill that we have heard on the Senate 
floor and elsewhere, but I do want to correct some of the most 
egregious misstatements because the American people should have the 
facts.
  The defense supplemental bill before us would strengthen our own 
military by providing $35 billion to restore our military readiness, 
modernize our arsenal of democracy, and rebuild our defense industrial 
base. It would send a strong message to Putin that his goal--his 
dream--of capturing free, democratic nations like Ukraine will not be 
allowed to succeed. It would reassure our closest ally in the Middle 
East, Israel, which is battling terrorists who have killed more 
Israelis--more Jews--in a single day since the Holocaust, who have 
taken as hostages babies and the elderly, and who are using innocent 
Palestinians as human shields. It would help deter a rising and 
menacing China, whose navy now exceeds the size of our own. Each of 
these investments is in our self-interest. It makes America more 
secure.

  A claim was made yesterday that this bill gives $238 million to 
increase U.S. troop deployments to Europe. The implication was that 
this bill increases funding to send U.S. troops into combat in Ukraine.
  That is simply not true. The funding in this bill supports, through 
the end of the year, U.S. servicemembers who are principally in Poland 
and Germany working with our allies to train and equip the courageous 
Ukrainians.
  The Ukrainians are the ones who are doing the fighting and taking the 
casualties. No American soldiers are dying on the Ukrainian 
battlefield. We are training and equipping the Ukrainians because it is 
the right thing to do, but, also, is in America's self-interest.
  The best way to ensure that the United States is not drawn into a 
larger regional war in Europe, in which our troops could be put at 
risk, is by helping Ukraine defend itself against this brutal, 
unprovoked invasion. If Russia prevails in Ukraine, Putin will be in a 
position to threaten our NATO allies all along Ukraine's border, 
including Poland and one of our newest members, Finland.
  What we are doing through this bill is to greatly diminish the risk 
that the United States could be drawn into these larger conflicts. 
History is filled with examples of well-intentioned leaders who sought 
to avoid war but who actually made war more likely by refusing to 
recognize the evil with which they were confronted. Neville Chamberlain 
declared ``peace in our time'' trying to appease Germany before World 
War II began. We should not make that same mistake today.
  Another charge that I heard yesterday is that Europe is not doing 
enough to support Ukraine and that the way to get them to do more is 
for us to do less. Again, this assertion is false.
  In terms of security assistance provided to Ukraine as a percentage 
of GDP--the only fair way to measure it--the United States ranks 15th 
globally--15th. Estonia ranks No. 1. Estonia has the same population as 
the State of Maine--1.3 million people. Yet it has provided 10 times as 
much, as a percentage of its GDP, as our country has to help the 
Ukrainians.
  On February 1, the European Council unanimously approved a 4-year 
``Ukrainian Facility'' economic assistance package worth $54 billion. 
That equals nearly $13.5 billion per year. And that is on top of what 
other countries have already provided, which is approximately $63 
billion in nonsecurity assistance.
  Now, I want to stress that throughout this process, which began last 
October and included extensive hearings and much consultation, we did 
not rubberstamp the Biden administration's budget request. Many changes 
were made throughout the process. But let me just touch on three.
  First, the President requested $11.8 billion for direct budget 
support for Ukraine. We reduced that amount by $4 billion--more than 30 
percent. Furthermore, that budget support will phase out over time. 
This assistance, however, is critical because it helps ensure that 
Russia cannot win this war by utterly destroying Ukraine's economy, as 
Putin is trying to do, and it allows Ukraine to focus more of its 
national resources on the war effort.
  The second important change: This bill includes a clear and strict 
prohibition on funding in this bill and in prior appropriations from 
being used for any kind of financial support to the United Nations 
Relief and Work Agency, known as UNRWA.
  Yesterday's news that the Hamas tunnel was found under UNRWA's 
headquarters in Gaza and that Hamas was using UNRWA's electricity to 
power a command and control section underneath the headquarters 
underscores the need to ensure that not a single penny of taxpayer 
funds is provided to that agency, much less the $400 million that was 
in the President's original request. And I would note that the evidence 
is overwhelming that 12 employees of UNRWA directly participated in the 
October 7 horrific attacks on Israel. And the estimates are that about 
10 percent of their employees are involved in terrorist groups. This 
organization is thoroughly infiltrated by Hamas and other groups.

  Third, we included strict guardrails for all the humanitarian 
assistance for Gaza. By March 1, USAID and the State Department have to 
have procedures, processes, and policies in place that are developed in 
consultation with Israel to ensure that money is not diverted from the 
legitimate humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians to 
terrorist groups like Hamas.
  It was suggested on the floor yesterday that we have no oversight of 
this assistance and no way of knowing where it is going. That is simply 
wrong. USAID delivers direct budget support through a World Bank 
mechanism whereby the funds that are released to the Government of 
Ukraine are done so on a reimbursement basis for verified, preagreed 
categories of expenditures only.
  In addition, USAID employs a rigorous monitoring system that involves 
two international accounting firms, Deloitte and KPMG, to audit this 
assistance. We have increased funding for the Office of Inspector 
General for both Ukraine funding and for the Gaza funding.
  Let me discuss, also, the support that we provide Ukraine, Israel, 
and Taiwan through the transfer of weapons and equipment from our 
stockpiles. A concern was raised on the floor yesterday that this would 
leave our own military vulnerable and without enough weapons. It is 
important to remember that this bill includes $35 billion to restore 
U.S. military readiness and modernize our arsenal of democracy. For 
every dollar of authority provided to transfer weapons to Ukraine in 
this bill, there is $2.50 to replenish U.S. military stockpiles. And 
most of the time, this allows us to replace those older items with more 
modern, effective, and improved weapons. In the case of Israel, many of 
the weapons systems such as Iron Dome and David's Sling are coproduced 
by both the United States and Israel. The Under Secretary for 
Acquisition and Sustainment has said ``production is deterrence.'' The 
supplemental includes $8.3 billion in historic investments to greatly 
expand our production capacity. This will result in a strong, resilient 
munitions industrial base capable of surging to meet the threats facing 
our country.
  But if we do not pass this supplemental now, none of these 
investments will occur.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. There are so many 
other misrepresentations that I wish I had time to counter today.
  Let me tell you that this funding is 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 and menacing China.
  In American history, it was our very first President, George 
Washington, who used the term ``peace through strength'' in his fifth 
State of the Union Address. Centuries later, President Ronald Reagan 
reminded us of the vital importance of peace through strength. That is 
the goal of the legislation before us. That is what it will accomplish 
as we meet the challenge of the perilous times in which we live.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise with immense pride to be from Maine 
this afternoon.
  I want to thank my colleague for not only the hard work that she and 
the

[[Page S840]]

members of the Appropriations Committee have put in over the past 4 
months to bring this bill to the place where it is but also for her 
vocal and outstanding and moving leadership on this issue.
  I simply want to express, I am very proud to be from Maine this 
afternoon and thank you to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to thank my distinguished 
colleague from Maine for his very kind comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me join the comments of the 
Independent Democratic Senator from Maine and the kind words for his 
colleague because what she said in a brief period of time is so 
important at this moment of debate.
  I note with pride that of the top nations, on a proportional basis, 
supporting the effort in Ukraine, the Baltics ranked at the top and 
that these small nations, determined to be free, know what it means to 
invest in the cause of the Ukrainians.
  I also note and I believe she made reference to the fact that a 
country like Poland, which ranks fifth on the list of proportional 
assistance to Ukraine, is giving so much that is not accounted for in 
the ledger books. The people of Ukraine, when they left in a panic over 
the invasion of the Russians, went to Poland and were accepted in that 
country as neighbors that were going to give a helping hand when the 
Polish people opened their homes. The leader in the Polish Government 
said to me: Senator, you look all over Poland. You won't find a refugee 
camp of Ukrainian refugees. They are living in our homes.
  That type of assistance is not calculated easily in the accounting 
books, but it is meaningful.
  I might add that among the top five nations I noted on the chart was 
Finland. Finland, because of its leadership, decided to join NATO. And 
their arrival, it is my understanding, and their accession into NATO 
doubled the border that Russia has to face of NATO countries in size. 
Finland is a very large country. We are glad to have them as part of 
NATO and its future. That is at stake as well.
  I don't want to get political in this issue about the future of NATO, 
but I think it is pretty clear there are those of us who believe 31 
nations in NATO are indispensable for maintaining security in Europe 
for years to come--decades to come--and we have to invest in it.
  If the United States should step away from this NATO commitment to 
Ukraine by its action on Capitol Hill, shame on us. There is so much at 
stake here in terms of the future of democracy.
  Last night--I will close with this--as I was leaving Capitol Hill in 
the darkness, I passed by four or five people standing on the sidewalk 
outside. They were Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans who were there to 
beg us to stand by their country in this hour of need. They have been 
keeping a watch for weeks and months at a time so that the U.S. 
commitment to Ukraine is appreciated by them, and they express it to us 
as Members of Congress.
  I saw them standing in the dark and realized there may be many 
Americans going about their business, but these Ukrainian Americans 
know that this decision by the U.S. Congress and the Senate and the 
House could literally decide the future and fate of their homeland in 
Ukraine.
  I think it is an essential responsibility on a bipartisan basis. And 
I thank Senator McConnell for his inspiring words this morning. On a 
bipartisan basis, we need to stand with Ukraine in their hour of need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in this Chamber over the last couple of 
months, we have heard haunting echoes of the past, haunting echoes of 
Chamberlain going to Munich in 1938 to say to Hitler: Go ahead. Take 
that slice of Czechoslovakia. We will simply look the other way and 
declare peace in our time.
  The parallel is not just haunting, it is scary. Folks advocating for 
saying to Putin: Just go ahead, take Ukraine. We will look the other 
way and tackle other challenges.
  In both cases, you had an authoritarian in Hitler, in Putin, 
determined to take adjacent land and certainly in Putin's case, 
determined to crush the democracy of the Republic to the south. 
Ukrainians speak a language that is a close cousin to Russia. Putin 
particularly resents the loss of so much territory, so many states that 
he controlled--or the Soviet Union controlled--not so long ago, and his 
mission is to reclaim as much as he can.
  It should be our mission--it is our mission; it is the American 
mission--to defend democracy in the world, to stand with people who are 
all about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of 
religion and the freedom to cast a fair ballot to determine their own 
future. Those are all the values that Putin opposes.
  So much is at stake here for the future freedom of the people of 
Ukraine but also for American leadership in the world. If we follow in 
Chamberlain's footsteps from 1938 and look the other way, where else--
where else--will Putin decide to tackle? And how much partnership will 
we lose in the cause of democracy and freedom by breaking the pact we 
have forged so carefully with Europe to support Ukraine? And how much 
future blood will flow from our sons and daughters as we stand in other 
battles because of our failure in this case to stand with the people of 
Ukraine?
  Xi of China is watching carefully. Can the autocrat simply endure 
until the American people are tired, endure until the partnership 
between Europe and the United States breaks down? Can he simply 
maintain an assault on Taiwan until we fade away with other priorities?
  It is a vision in the world that we have been proud to fight for, the 
vision of democracy and the vision of freedom. This is the moment when 
we have the opportunity to actually secure a bill here in the Senate to 
fund the people of Ukraine. We are not being asked to shed our blood. 
We are not being asked to put our soldiers, our men and women, on the 
battlefield. We are not even being asked to put a huge share of our 
budget into this battle. It is 1.5 percent of our national budget--one 
and a half pennies on the dollar of our budget.
  If we cannot sustain even that modest commitment to stand for 
freedom, to stand for voting integrity in a Republic, in a democracy, 
then on what course has the United States gone?
  Let us stay the course as champions of freedom and champions of 
democracy and take a strong step forward today to completing the work 
of making sure we stand with the people of Ukraine, we maintain our 
partnership with Europe, and we continue to lead for freedom and 
democracy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I am asking my colleagues to support my 
motion to table the motion to recommit.
  Now, even for seasoned Senators, this sounds like a lot of technical 
language, and it kind of is; so let's put it in perspective and explain 
what it actually means.
  What is really going on here is that we have got the majority leader 
who has decided to obstruct an open and fair amendment process.
  The motion to commit, which my motion aims to dispense with, is what 
Senator Schumer is using to block every Member of this body from 
accessing the amendment tree and offering up amendments as they please, 
making them pending, then having them dispensed with.
  Instead, Leader Schumer is dictating which amendments are allowed to 
be voted on and which are not. To cut to the chase, essentially, all of 
them are not. And then he turns around and accuses Republicans of being 
obstructionists for not wanting to play by his arbitrary rules.
  Now, some have suggested that too many amendments have been filed, 
pointing out that among a handful of Republicans, over 80 amendments 
were filed. This is not a reason to not allow any amendments. Not all 
of those amendments have sponsors who really want to make sure they 
want to get voted on.
  In any event, the way the Senate works, the way it has long worked, 
the way it still worked to a significant degree when I first got here 
in 2011 was

[[Page S841]]

that we work it out and we allow Members to offer up amendments. And 
when the body gets tired of it, social pressure, coupled with physical 
exhaustion, usually leads to a natural end to the process.
  But every Member of this body has rights, has certain institutional 
prerogatives and prerogatives accorded under the rules, and the people 
of our States should be afforded representation allowing us to address 
the issues that we think are important.
  Sadly, some of our colleagues are ready to sacrifice those 
prerogatives, those privileges and rights, under the rules and by 
Senate custom and tradition for a $100 billion foreign assistance 
package.
  Now, it is important to remember that the Senate Republican 
conference and our counterparts in the House GOP took a consensus 
opinion, a consensus position a couple months ago that supplemental 
spending should not move without language actually forcing the Biden 
administration to secure the border.
  It was language that was negotiated by a small number of Senators. It 
took a few months to get it negotiated. When we finally saw it, less 
than a week ago, last Sunday at 7 p.m., it didn't achieve that goal. 
And for that reason, that proposal received only four Republican votes 
on the vote on cloture of the motion to proceed.
  Only one-third of Republican Senators voted for cloture on the motion 
to proceed to the supplemental without the border provisions. And this 
doesn't make it our conference's position. Quite to the contrary, it 
makes the position within the Senate GOP supporting cloture a slim 
minority among Republicans.
  And so what we are asking is that we be given the opportunity, those 
of us--most of the Senate Republican conference--who have concerns with 
the bill would like more opportunity to debate and, yes, offer 
amendments to this bill. We need to have that opportunity.
  I am seeking this not just for my own interests, but for that of 
every Member of this body--any Member of this body--who has one or more 
amendments that they would want to be considered.
  Look, we shouldn't have to be supplicants to the majority leader and 
be forced to operate solely in a universe with which he is really 
comfortable. We all have rights to bring these amendments forward, and 
we ought to be able to have them considered.
  So I appreciate my colleagues' support on this motion, and I hope 
everyone can support it, regardless of how you feel on the bill and 
regardless of which political party you belong to. This is for all of 
us.
  And it is important to remember that neither passing this motion nor 
opposing cloture today will kill this bill; rather, it would keep 
debate alive and allow amendments to move forward.
  We should also remember that there is no clock ticking here. This is 
not something that is going to evaporate. We are not going to turn into 
pumpkins if we fail to get this done today or tomorrow or this week. We 
can handle this the way that it should be handled, with great care to 
make sure that we know what is in the bill and to make sure that 
Members, as many of them as possible, have had a chance to be heard on 
it and offer improvements to the bill before we move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have spoken quite a bit about how the 
votes we cast as U.S. Senators for this funding have tremendous 
consequences.
  I have talked about whether or not we deliver this aid, especially to 
Ukraine, is a question of whether or not America will stand by the 
world and stand by its allies.
  How we all decide to vote on this bill could not be more important. 
It was just last night we heard the presumptive Republican nominee for 
President openly encourage Russia to attack our NATO allies. All of us 
in this Chamber--all of us--understand those words have consequences.
  Our friends and adversaries alike listen to what major political 
leaders here in America have to say about issues of global concern, but 
as my colleagues know, our votes matter tremendously as well. Action, 
legislation that actually gets signed into law, $60 billion to support 
our Ukrainian allies, that sends a lot more than a message to Putin; it 
sends badly needed ammunition and weapons to Ukraine so they can put an 
end to Russia's bloody invasion.
  So I urge every one of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
join me not only in sending a message to our friends that they can 
count on America to stand by its word, to our adversaries that they 
cannot invade sovereign democracies unchecked and unanswered, to 
civilians caught in conflict around the world that America will help 
deliver food and medicine and more, but to join me and vote against 
this tabling motion so we can finally take action and show the world 
that Congress is united when it comes to American leadership and 
resolve on the world stage. We have been negotiating for months now 
trying to get this funding over the finish line.
  Let's all recognize that each time we falter, our adversaries have 
not been subtle in making a show of it, claiming that America will not 
do anything to protect its friends and allies.
  This--this is the time to prove them wrong. I said it before; I will 
say it again: Those of us who understand the gravity of this moment are 
ready to stay here as long as it takes to get this done. I hope we can 
soon come together quickly and get this to the finish line as soon as 
possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. My friend and colleague from the State of Washington makes 
the point that we need to show unity. Now, nothing says unity quite 
like shutting out the majority of the minority party from having any 
say in amendments, from having even a single amendment be made pending.
  If what we are after is unity, then we should vote for it and allow 
individual Members to exercise their prerogatives, their rights under 
the Senate rules and by custom, practice, and tradition and precedent 
to make their amendments pending. That is not too much to ask.
  My friend and colleague also just acknowledged that, as in her words, 
we can stay here as long as it takes to get this done. If we are 
respectful to each other's rights, privileges, and prerogatives as U.S. 
Senators, it is going to take more time than this.
  I know many may want to get it done today, and you may feel that way 
especially if you think the bill is just perfect the way it is, but we 
owe it to those we represent to do everything we can to make sure this 
bill is adequately debated and that amendments are considered.


                            Motion to Table

  With that, I move to table the motion to commit.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), 
the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. 
Risch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio 
(Mr. Vance).
  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) 
would have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis) would 
have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have 
voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schmitt
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Wicker

[[Page S842]]


  


                                NAYS--53

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Braun
     Cramer
     Lummis
     Risch
     Scott (FL)
     Vance
     Warnock
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 40, the nays are 53.
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
mandatory quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Murray 
     substitute amendment No. 1388 to Calendar No. 30, H.R. 815, a 
     bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain 
     improvements relating to the eligibility of veterans to 
     receive reimbursement for emergency treatment furnished 
     through the Veterans Community Care program, and for other 
     purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Brian Schatz, Margaret 
           Wood Hassan, Angus S. King, Jr., Sherrod Brown, Mark R. 
           Warner, Jack Reed, Richard J. Durbin, Alex Padilla, 
           Catherine Cortez Masto, Christopher A. Coons, Michael 
           F. Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Kelly, Martin 
           Heinrich, Richard Blumenthal, Benjamin L. Cardin

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
substitute amendment No. 1388 to Calendar No. 30, H.R. 815, a bill to 
amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements 
relating to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for 
emergency treatment furnished through the Veterans Community Care 
program, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), 
the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), 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'' and the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

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

                                NAYS--27

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Braun
     Cramer
     Lummis
     Risch
     Scott (FL)
     Warnock
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). On this vote, the yeas are 67, 
the nays are 27.
  Three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked, the motion to commit falls as being 
inconsistent with cloture.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield 30 minutes of debate time to the 
manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I yield 30 minutes of debate time to 
the senior Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, there is no good reason to delay the 
security and humanitarian assistance in this national security 
supplemental package any longer.
  Ukraine is running dangerously low on munitions on the eve of the 
second anniversary of Putin's invasion; millions of innocent 
Palestinians in Gaza are suffering daily without access to basic 
necessities; and our allies in the Indo-Pacific are counting on our 
support to counter China's aggression and maintain stability in the 
region.
  None of these priorities can wait months longer without being 
addressed. All of them are vital to our security interests. We need to 
pass this supplemental urgently.
  When Ukrainian officials warn that they are running out of shells and 
bullets, it is not an exaggeration. In the fight for an eastern 
Ukrainian city, the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian artillery fire was 5 
to 1--5 to 1. Ukrainian soldiers are being forced to ration their 
bullets even when enemy soldiers are bearing down on them. That is what 
Ukraine is contending with on the frontlines as we speak.
  Meanwhile, Putin is intensifying his onslaught with the help of Iran 
and North Korea which are more than happy to replenish his stockpiles 
if it means ending world order as we know it. In Gaza, millions of 
innocent civilians have been, for months, enduring unimaginable horrors 
on a daily basis.
  More than 28,000 people have been killed since the start of the war. 
Hundreds of thousands are starving with widespread famine looming. Just 
about everyone is displaced with nowhere else to go, and humanitarian 
assistance getting through the few available checkpoints is nowhere 
close to enough. These people need our help, and it can't arrive soon 
enough.
  Just as we have a responsibility to help Israel defend itself against 
Hamas terrorism, we also have a responsibility to make sure that 
innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire have access to basic 
necessities--food, water, medical supplies.
  This package also includes important assistance for our allies and 
partners in the Indo-Pacific region in order to counter China's 
aggression in the region. Chinese President Xi has made no secret of 
his desire to take Taiwan by force if need be.
  And just because there are wars going on in the Middle East and 
Europe, it does not mean that we can take our eye off threats brewing 
in Asia and the Indo-Pacific. It is in both our interest and our 
allies' interest for us to stay vigilant and provide support to 
maintain stability in the region.
  Later this week, I will be part of a bipartisan delegation with 14 of 
my colleagues attending the Munich Security

[[Page S843]]

Conference in Germany. And one of the pressing questions among world 
leaders will be: Where does America really stand? Do we still believe 
in defending democracy and freedom? Are we still willing to rally the 
world in standing up to autocrats and authoritarianism?
  They will no doubt be closely watching what we do or fail to do here 
in the next few days. And we ought to be able to say to them: America 
remains the indispensable Nation. America stands with our allies in war 
and in peace. But that depends on Republicans working with Democrats in 
good faith to pass this supplemental package.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, let's take a moment to take stock of how 
we got here: 3 years of weakness from President Biden. From the very 
beginning, President Biden appeased Russia, he appeased Iran, and he 
appeased China.
  He gave Russia one-sided extensions of arms control treaties. He 
looked the other way at Russian aggression against America in cyber 
space or threats to our friends in Europe.
  With Iran, from the very beginning, he wanted to go back into the 
failed nuclear deal. He refused to stand up to attacks on American 
forces throughout the Middle East that Iran is behind.
  And, from the beginning, with China he begged and pleaded to turn 
down the temperature--the temperature that, I would say, China has been 
turning up for years.
  Then, of course, there was the collapse in Afghanistan, in September 
of 2021, which put all of our enemies around the world on notice that 
President Biden was not up to the task of protecting America or aiding 
our friends.
  Vladimir Putin began to marshal forces on Ukraine's borders a few 
weeks later, and then he invaded 2 years ago.
  For 2 years, President Biden pussyfooted around. He wouldn't give 
Ukraine the weapons it needed to defend itself when they needed it. 
And, to top it off, here at home, he opened our border entirely to an 
invasion of over 10 million illegal aliens.
  So, last fall, when President Biden asked for more than $100 billion 
to try to solve his own failed policies, the Republicans here wanted to 
take the opportunity to try to force an unwilling President to protect 
our border, in addition to aiding our friends. So we engaged in several 
months of negotiations, and, after 4 months, we saw that the Democrats 
are more ideologically invested in open borders than they are a secure 
border or, for that matter, aiding our friends around the world.
  Now, I want to commend Senator Lankford from Oklahoma, who led these 
negotiations. I think he did the very best he could negotiating with 
stubborn counterparties who are ideologically invested in open borders.
  There are some good parts of the bill, but, unfortunately, the bill 
itself wouldn't solve the crisis at our border. And we didn't go down 
this path to pass a bill for its own sake. We wanted to force the hand 
again of an unwilling President to protect our borders. That is why all 
but four Republican Senators and some Democratic Senators opposed that 
legislation.
  So now we have in front of us a bill that spends $95 billion. Much of 
that spending--the defense spending--is needful, and I want to commend 
Senator Collins, who led that part of the negotiations, for doing an 
outstanding job of improving what President Biden sent out in his 
request for defense spending. If this bill doesn't pass into law, it 
should be a template for the future and hopeful legislation that might 
come back to us from the House.
  However, the bill still includes $19 billion in nondefense spending. 
Again, I want to commend Senator Collins for reducing that amount from 
what the administration requested, but that is still $19 billion, 
almost 20 percent of this bill.
  Madam President, $7.9 billion goes to Ukraine for direct budget 
support. I believe that we need to be aiding Ukraine with military 
hardware, ammunition, shells, and tanks. Europe is going to have to do 
more to pick up direct budget assistance to Ukraine.
  Up to $9.2 billion goes for humanitarian aid to Ukraine, to Israel, 
or to other vulnerable populations and communities. We don't know how 
the administration is going to break that down. So some--even much of 
that--could go to Gaza.
  There is no reason for the United States of America to be sending 
humanitarian aid to Gaza. Israel was targeted with vicious atrocities 
on October 7 from Gaza by Hamas, and, no matter the guardrails in 
place, when aid goes to Gaza, Hamas doesn't divert it, doesn't steal 
it, doesn't commandeer it. Hamas and their cronies accept it because 
Hamas is the governing authority in Gaza. The United States did not 
send aid to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in World War II. It should 
not be sending it to Gaza during Israel's war for survival.
  There is another $1.6 billion in aid, mostly to post-Soviet states in 
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Maybe, some of that is useful 
spending, but if you look at the administration's own budget requests, 
they say that also goes to things like climate change resiliency or 
green energy investments.
  Finally, there is $481 million for grants to leftwing globalist NGOs 
whose main mission is not to secure our border but to accelerate the 
flow of illegals into this country.
  Now, I have an amendment that would strike all of this nondefense 
spending from the bill, reducing its cost by $19 billion, which is no 
mean thing when we are spending more than a trillion dollars a year 
than we take in. I would also point out that even if we didn't just put 
that money toward deficit reduction, it could also go to, say, three 
Virginia-class submarines for our own military, more than 170 F-35 
stealth fighters, or more than 5,000 precision strike missiles. But 
Senator Schumer won't allow a vote on this amendment or other 
amendments.
  Now, I hope, when this legislation leaves the Senate and goes to the 
House, that the House of Representatives--in particular, the Speaker of 
the House--can sit down and negotiate directly with President Biden and 
get the kind of concessions that President Biden must make to address 
his own failures to secure our border.
  And, in that case, we will not only be able to protect our own border 
but also help our friends around the world who are in the crosshairs, 
thanks to Joe Biden's failures and his weakness.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I rise today--in a few minutes, I am 
going to make a unanimous consent request for a bill that we refer to 
in our office as the American Deficit Relief Act; but before I do, I 
want to talk about why I am here.
  We have a program--if you all remember, during the COVID era, we came 
to this floor multiple times on a bipartisan basis to do everything we 
could to try to keep the economy afloat while we were dealing with 
something that hadn't happened in this country in 100 years called a 
pandemic. We did some things that were good; we did a few things that 
were proven to be not so good. One of those things is referred to as 
the employer retention credit, also known as the employer retention tax 
credit or ERC.
  It was under the CARES Act that we first implemented this bill, and 
at that time, we thought it was going to be about $55 billion reduced 
revenue to the government. I guess a different way of saying that is 
$55 billion remaining in the private sector. That was the concept 
behind so many of the things that we did in the COVID relief measures.
  But then we had--in the Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American 
Rescue Plan, we have added even additional reductions, extensions, that 
resulted in $86 billion in revenue not coming back to the Federal 
Government.
  Now the challenge that we have out there, like we have in a few of 
these programs, is we have had fraudsters run rampant--and probably 
none more than the employer retention tax credit.

[[Page S844]]

  They have cottage industries that are set up, calling businesses and 
saying: Hey, did you know that you are eligible for this?
  Now, keep in mind when we were doing this program, these were 
businesses that were saying: My gosh, my business is about to go under. 
I don't know how to pay for my employees. We were trying to create 
programs to get the employers to hang on a little bit more.
  Folks, I don't know if you have noticed, but we are past the 
pandemic. We are back open for business, and you have got companies 
that I think, arguably, are going to be proven guilty of fraud going 
out and asking people to take the tax credit now to the tunes of 
billions and billions of dollars.
  So what do we do?
  Well, we have got the employer retention tax credit where people are 
calling the IRS and making claims every single day. In the middle of 
the tax-filing season, they are dealing with a program that the IRS has 
said they want to get rid of. Fraud is out of control. We need to give 
them help. They have been asking for help.
  Now why would this require a unanimous consent request, and why would 
I anticipate an objection today?
  Just in fairness to Senator Wyden, my colleague on the Finance 
Committee--he is the chair; I am a relatively new member--there are 
some that want to use this program as a pay-for for a tax measure that 
we may talk about briefly later on.
  I am OK with some of the tax discussion going on, but I am really 
worried about this being used as a pay-for. Here's why: We implemented 
the program in the 2019 timeframe--or I should say 2020 timeframe. We 
don't have a pay-for for this program. It sits on the books for a 
while. Now, it is costing three times as much, and we are using some of 
what we hope to claw back through fraud and abuse as a pay-for.
  It just seems to me it is kind of pay-for laundering. It doesn't make 
sense when you are looking at some $34 trillion in debt.
  With the discussion about the tax extenders that are up now, the R&D 
tax credit, the low-income housing tax credit, all those things I 
support--and I even support some modernization of the child tax credit; 
but I got a real problem with using the $78 billion, roughly, that we 
think we can get out of the Employee Retention Tax Credit to pay-for.
  So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed 
to the immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. I further ask 
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, anybody 
who follows the Finance Committee knows that I very much enjoy working 
with our colleague from North Carolina. We have worked together on a 
variety of issues here. However, we have got a big disagreement, and I 
hope we can work it out.
  More than 90 percent of North Carolina's Members of Congress voted in 
favor of our bipartisan bill to improve the lives of 16 million kids 
and assist scores of small businesses trying to better compete with 
China. This carefully crafted bipartisan bill will significantly also 
increase the supply of affordable housing, which is badly needed from 
one end of our Nation to another. If the Senate approves the request of 
our colleague from North Carolina, it would essentially kick out one of 
the legs of this carefully crafted bipartisan tax agreement. The entire 
bill topples.
  Here is a little background.
  After 4 months of negotiations, including many meetings over several 
months and in working with our colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo; our 
colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Neal; Chairman Smith, of the 
Ways and Means Committee, and I agreed on a bill that brings together 
Republican and Democratic priorities. Republicans wanted a set of tax 
cuts for business. Democrats were willing to accept those because many 
of those tax cuts will help small businesses and help our country 
compete with China by promoting research and development. So Democrats 
said we will work with the Republicans on those proposals in exchange 
for an equal investment in kids and families. We fought for the largest 
expansion of the child tax credit we could get. Our bill immediately 
helps 16 million kids from low-income families.
  The laws on the books--I think the Presiding Officer and I talked 
about this when she came to the Senate to join us. The laws on the 
books today discriminate--they discriminate--against so many of our 
large families of modest means. This bipartisan bill changes that. They 
will get to claim the child tax credit for each of the kids just like 
middle- and high-income families get to do.
  The analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows 
what a transformational change this would be for so many families of 
modest means. For example, a parent of two young kids who works as a 
home health aide or a food server could see their child tax credit 
nearly double. They could get close to an additional $2,000 to help 
those families--to help them pay for diapers, baby food, and schools 
supplies--you name it. For families with three or more kids, the 
benefits are even greater, and in both cases, they will do even better 
next year.
  These are families who walk the economic tightrope every day. They 
need the help. They are going to keep working hard regardless because 
raising a child in America is expensive for everybody--working class, 
middle class, even those who are more fortunate.
  Our bill also includes other bipartisan priorities. I particularly 
want to thank colleagues on both sides. Senator Maria Cantwell, my 
colleague from the Pacific Northwest; our colleague from Indiana, 
Senator Todd Young; and a number of Senators came together to support 
the low-income housing tax credit, which will help to build more than 
200,000 affordable housing units across the country. All of these 
priorities are paid for by sunsetting a pandemic-era tax program called 
the employee retention tax credit.
  The program, which technically expired in 2021, has become overrun 
with fraud. I think my colleague remembers because we were there 
together, and all of us were kind of slack-jawed. We had the 
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Werfel, whom Senator 
Tillis and I both enjoy working with--a straight shooter.
  I said: I got a tip from a whistleblower. What is the story on this 
employee retention tax credit? I hear that 95 percent of the current 
claims are fraudulent. Let me repeat that: 95 percent of the current 
claims are fraudulent.
  He looked at his shoes and said: Yes, that is the case, Senators.
  So that is what we are looking at for our pay-for.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation are the people--you know, I know they 
are not exactly a household word, but they are the official nonpartisan 
experts. As my friend from North Carolina and I know, we kind of use 
them as the gospel before everybody starts running around and twisting 
the politics. The Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that cutting off 
the ERTC claims pays for nearly the entire tax bill that Chairman Smith 
and I introduced. So it makes a lot of sense to cut off an out-of-date 
program that is overrun with fraud and redirect those dollars to low-
income families and priorities like research and development and small 
business.
  Now, I know that my colleague from North Carolina is raising 
objections to this as being an offset, and he certainly has a right to 
do that. But I want to take a minute to kind of walk through the 
implications.
  First, my colleague's request from the Senate right now would shut 
down these employee retention claims, but it doesn't include the rest 
of the bill that Chairman Smith and I introduced. So there would be no 
help for low-income kids and families, no boost for R&D, no boost for 
small business.
  I know my colleague thinks that this is some kind of gimmick, and he 
would like to wait and pass the business pieces of the tax package 
without any offset. Now, I am not sure--because he and I have not 
really talked about it--but there is this old saw that corporate tax 
cuts pay for themselves--essentially, that the tax breaks favored by

[[Page S845]]

Republicans never need to be offset, regardless of the proof they will 
add to the deficit, and that is wrong. That was shown in 2017 when 
Republicans added trillions of dollars to the deficit to pass the Trump 
tax law, which overwhelmingly benefited large corporations and the 
wealthy. The pricetag on that deficit buster was growing even higher 
with the increase in interest rates.

  So my colleague, as I indicated, hasn't had to get involved in those 
kinds of issues in the past, but I just think that, if we are unwinding 
deficit finance tax laws, we ought to go back a little further and 
repeal the deficit-financed handouts to corporations and the wealthy 
that Donald Trump and the Republicans passed in 2017.
  The fact is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, from 
Missouri, who I think would call himself a strong conservative--he and 
I negotiated a bipartisan proposal. Nearly the entire bill is paid for, 
and it came after months and months and months of discussions with 
Democrats and Republicans. If the Joint Committee on Taxation tells the 
Finance Committee that that is an offset--the one we have that works--
that, to me, is always the end of the debate.
  So I would just hope that we not do something--and I know my 
colleague well enough at this point that this is not his intent, but 
this is essentially a poison pill to a bipartisan effort on the child 
tax credit, research and development, and low-income housing, and we 
shouldn't do it this way.
  I will just say publicly what I said to my colleague from North 
Carolina: I am very interested in working with him and with the ranking 
member, Senator Crapo, because we have always done it that way. We have 
always found common ground. My goodness, there is a lot to work with 
here. It got 357 votes in the other body. I have been here long enough 
to know you can't get 357 votes to go order a Dr Pepper. That is a big, 
big effort at bipartisanship.
  So I close by way of saying that I am going to object here in a 
minute officially so that is clear, but I want to again extend an olive 
branch to my colleague from North Carolina and to the ranking member, 
Senator Crapo. Let's do something good for low-income kids, 
particularly the big families, the small businesses, research and 
development. Let's get that low-income housing tax credit that Senator 
Cantwell and Senator Young and a whole group of us on the Finance 
Committee have been for. Let's get going on that so we can work on it 
together and get it up in short order after we come back.
  So, with that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, about a month ago, in the Banking 
Committee, we had a panel come before us that was talking about 
fentanyl and how, in the banking system, we should try and figure out 
ways to get rid of the illicit finance of fentanyl. One of the people 
who testified is a country music artist and rapper called Jelly Roll. 
It turned out that Jelly Roll grew up in Antioch, TN. I did too.
  So, when I went to ask him questions, I started by saying: You grew 
up in Antioch. Where did you grow up?
  He described the area.
  I said: You will remember Country Meadows.
  He said: Yeah. I used to live there.
  I said: Me too.
  It is a trailer park in Antioch, TN.
  I understand there are families who need tax credits. I know that 
there are families who need help. I was one of those families. There is 
a right way to do it, and there is a wrong way to do it. So I want to 
make sure that we don't conflate the concern I have about using one 
credit card to pay off another credit card with tax policy that I am OK 
with, with child tax credit programs that we can get to right. But 
let's do it on the basis of sound, sustainable fiscal policy.
  I have three grandchildren under the age of 6 years old. The dirty 
secret about this money that we are using to pay for this program is 
they are putting my children and my grandchildren further in debt 
because they are not real pay-fors.
  So I was down here to try and end a program that I do not believe is 
appropriate. Quite honestly, I don't think people consider me a 
firebrand who is not willing to work across the aisle. So, when you see 
me stand up against the so-called bipartisan effort, maybe you should 
listen a little bit more--if not for the fact that I happened to grow 
up in the population that I want to help take care of, then because I 
understand business, and I understand a bad pay-for and a fake pay-for 
when I see one.
  Now, I hope that we can get to a point to where we agree on tax 
policy, but the first opportunity I had was to decide whether or not I 
supported what had been negotiated, perhaps with Senator Crapo, perhaps 
with Congressman Smith, and perhaps with Senator Wyden, but not with me 
and not with many members of the Finance Committee.
  So I look forward to going forward. I have given Senator Wyden a lot 
of credit, I think, for being a fair chairman. I look forward to having 
that discussion about this measure and then, hopefully, trying to find 
a pay-for that would make fiscal conservatives like me feel more 
comfortable with the overall package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, just very briefly, my sense is that, 
after we are done voting on the piece of legislation that is in front 
of us, we will have, I would say to my friend from North Carolina, a 
crucial period where we can come together and start looking at ways to 
find common ground and get this passed.
  The reality is it has been weeks now since the chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee and I brought forward our proposal--the one that 
got 357 votes. I have been saying to folks on the Republican side of 
the aisle: My door is open. Tell me what you want in terms of a couple 
of these provisions I have heard mentioned, but we haven't heard 
anything.
  So I want, as chairman of the Finance Committee, to again extend an 
olive branch to say: The door is open. Have you got ideas on pay-fors 
that both sides can go along with that we can get passed in the other 
body? Have you got issues--I mean, we have had a discussion about the 
work requirement, for example, and I have looked at all of these 
experts and this fellow from the tax organization, Grover Norquist, who 
is certainly one of the more conservative people in this town, who says 
this doesn't discourage work. But he doesn't have an election 
certificate, and Republicans do. So we are going to all sit down and 
work this through, but we have to get it done quickly because people 
are filing their returns now. We want those small businesses and we 
want those families to get a fair shake.

  So to all Senators who are listening to this: My door is open. Let's 
move quickly after we get through this bill and be ready to go when we 
get back and move this legislation to do something significant, which, 
by the way, also has an added benefit because it will set the table in 
a responsible way for the bigger tax debate come 2025.
  I thank my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator the from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, just one technical point, and then I 
will yield the floor.
  I should mention that I did live in the same trailer park as Jelly 
Roll but 20 years apart. I don't want anybody to think we were 
contemporary neighbors. I am a bit older.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I want to make sure I am procedurally 
correct here. I rise to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1599

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to talk about an amendment that I 
filed. We are hoping we will get to the point where both sides will 
come together and have an agreement on amendments, but I know we have 
some more work to do.
  If I had to describe this amendment, this is one of those you can 
describe in one word: ``fentanyl.''
  There is not a community in the country--big city, small town, rural 
area, suburban community--that hasn't been ravaged by fentanyl in one 
way or another. We all know it is in every State.

[[Page S846]]

  When I consider the challenge we have in Pennsylvania, when I look at 
the counties with the largest percentage of their population who have 
been victims of an overdose, the so-called overdose death rate, those 
counties are not one kind of county. They are a lot of small, rural 
counties that have a lot of small towns. They are counties with big 
cities in them and big urban populations. So no matter where you live, 
fentanyl is a problem.
  The overdose death rate is almost all fentanyl-related in my State of 
Pennsylvania. Something on the order of 70 or 75 percent or higher of 
the overdose deaths are fentanyl-related.
  So I don't think anyone in this Chamber--Democrat, Republican, or 
Independent--would disagree with the scale and the severity of the 
fentanyl problem. There are some things we can do about it, investments 
we can make that we should not fail to make in the short term, in the 
near term, and, I hope, with this legislation.
  We all know that the fentanyl problem starts in China. China for 
years now has been producing the chemical precursors. If anything, we 
should continue to crack down on the bad guys in China and the cartels 
in Mexico. The good news is, this legislation, by including the FEND 
Off Fentanyl bill, which is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill out of 
the Banking Committee, will help us do that, to target the bad guys, to 
target money laundering with provisions that will focus on anti-money 
laundering provisions. It will also target the bad guys by way of 
sanctions against transnational criminal organizations.
  This all starts in China, but of course it does end up coming across 
the border. Most of the fentanyl coming into the United States is 
trafficked into the country through official land border crossings. 
This isn't a problem where someone is crossing the border and has 
fentanyl in their pocket. That is not where most of the fentanyl comes 
in. The fentanyl comes in in vehicles, in cargo.
  The good news is, we have the technology to detect that and to stop 
it at the border. But because most of it is coming across those land 
border crossings by those transnational criminal organizations that 
start in China--here is the data:
  In fiscal year 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, seized 
240,000 pounds of drugs at the southwest land border, which included an 
estimated 1.1 billion doses of fentanyl. That is just in fiscal year 
2023.
  What we stopped at the border was 1.1 billion doses of fentanyl. The 
bad news is, that number could be a lot higher. Billions and billions 
of doses could be stopped at the southwest border if we are willing to 
make the right decisions here and invest in the technology and the 
manpower, the personnel that it takes to do that, to intercept more and 
more doses. We should be intercepting billions of doses, not just 1.1 
billion doses of fentanyl.
  What does the amendment do? Here are the specifics on it:
  The amendment would support the procurement and deployment of so-
called nonintrusive inspection systems--known by the acronym NII, 
nonintrusive inspection systems--which scan vehicles at the border and 
provide detailed images of the interiors of those vehicles to detect 
fentanyl and other illicit drugs and help increase their effectiveness 
by supporting ongoing efforts to develop algorithms to analyze and flag 
the scans for officers.
  That would be a significant investment in technology that we know can 
bring that intercepted number of doses at the border much higher so we 
can stop billions of doses instead of just 1 billion doses.
  The second thing the amendment would do is it would create a 
structured outbound inspection program to increase seizures of firearms 
and currency that are flowing out of the country and into the hands of 
these international cartels in Mexico. It would also fund related 
technology and infrastructure.
  Then, thirdly, the amendment would support and expand existing 
fentanyl interdiction efforts by investigative law enforcement agencies 
and task forces throughout the country. These individuals are working 
night and day with limited resources and limited technology to stop 
fentanyl. We can't tie their hands behind their backs and point at them 
and say: Stop the fentanyl at the border. They need more technology--a 
lot of it. It is expensive, and we have to pay for it. If you want to 
stop fentanyl at the border, you need to invest in it and support the 
appropriations that would invest in that inspection.
  We also need to help these law enforcement officials who are 
currently working on this morning, noon, and night every day of the 
week. We have to give them the tools they need to stop fentanyl at the 
border.
  This amendment should be and I think it would be overwhelmingly 
bipartisan. Both parties have a concern about this. Both parties have 
counties like mine where the overdose death rate is high, mostly caused 
by fentanyl.
  Let's come together and take a step, as we pass this larger bill, to 
stop Putin in his murderous invasion of Ukraine. Let's help stop and 
disable the terrorist organization Hamas. But also, as we make 
investments, let's make an investment to stop fentanyl at the border 
with proven strategies--technology and otherwise--that we know will 
work. Let's stop fentanyl at the border and do it in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  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.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
discuss a matter of enormous consequence that is not being adequately 
covered in the mainstream media nor here in the Senate, and that is, 
right now, today, in Gaza, we are witnessing one of the worst 
humanitarian disasters in modern history. It is unfolding before our 
very eyes, and we must not run away from that reality.
  I am very sorry to say, but we in the United States are deeply 
complicit in what is happening in Gaza. What we do in Congress right 
now could well determine whether tens of thousands of people live or 
die.
  Let us very briefly review what has happened in the last 4 months. On 
October 7, Hamas launched a horrific terrorist attack that killed 1,200 
innocent Israelis and took more than 230 hostages and more than 100 of 
those hostages still remain in captivity today. That is what started 
this war.
  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. And that, tragically, is what we 
are seeing. As of today, Israel's military campaign has killed more 
than 27,000 Palestinians and injured some 68,000, two-thirds of whom 
are women and children.
  Unbelievably, 1.7 million people have been driven from their homes, 
nearly 80 percent of the population. That is more than twice the 
population of my own State of Vermont. These people displaced have no 
understanding as to where they will go tomorrow or whether, in fact, 
they will ever return to their communities. That is where they are now: 
pushed out of their homes, hungry, desperate, no understanding of where 
they will be in the future.
  The devastation caused by Israeli bombardments is unprecedented in 
modern history, some 70 percent of the housing units in Gaza being 
damaged or destroyed. The Israeli bombing attacks have destroyed most 
of the infrastructure in Gaza. There is no electricity there and very 
little clean water. There are virtually no places where people can buy 
bread or other basic necessities as most of the bakeries have been 
destroyed or shut down. Raw sewage is now running into the streets, and 
communication is extremely difficult because there is little or no cell 
phone service.
  Despite the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been injured, 
there are no fully functional hospitals in Gaza, and just one in three 
is operational at all.
  Amid repeated attacks on healthcare facilities, doctors and nurses 
with extraordinary courage are bravely working to save lives even with 
inadequate and sporadic electricity or basic medical supplies.
  Israel bombing and the onerous restrictions placed on aid entering 
Gaza

[[Page S847]]

means that only a tiny fraction of the food, water, medicine, and fuel 
that is needed can get into Gaza.
  And even when supplies get across the border, very little of that aid 
can reach beyond the immediate area around the Rafah crossing from 
Egypt.
  Let us take a deep breath and understand what all of this means for 
the men, women, and children who are in Gaza today, right now.
  Not only have they been driven from their homes, not only have those 
homes been damaged or destroyed, not only are they unable to access the 
medical care or the clean water they need, but unbelievably and 
horrifyingly, hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza today face 
starvation.
  Let me repeat: Hundreds of thousands of children face starvation. The 
United Nations says that 1 in 10 children under the age of 5 in Gaza is 
already malnourished, and the entire population is at imminent risk of 
famine.
  What every physician knows is that malnutrition in small children 
causes permanent physical and cognitive damage. It stays with them for 
their entire lives.
  In other words, even if the war ended today, large numbers of 
children in Gaza will have suffered physically from what has happened 
for the rest of their lives, and that is not to mention the 
extraordinary psychological damage that these kids have gone through.
  Can you imagine what it means to be 5 years old, seeing buildings 
collapsing, people dying, suffering from hunger and thirst? That is 
what these kids are going through today.
  If nothing changes, we will soon have hundreds of thousands of 
children literally starving to death before our very eyes, and believe 
it or not--believe it or not--the situation could become even worse.
  Right now, 1.4 million people--more than half of the population of 
Gaza--are squeezed into the area around Rafah, right up against the 
Egyptian border. Rafah was a town of just 250,000 people before the 
war; now there are 1.4 million people there--more than five times the 
original population. These people are packed into crowded U.N. shelters 
or sleeping out in tents. It is a daily struggle for them to find food 
or water.
  And in the midst of all of this horror and suffering, Israeli Prime 
Minister Netanyahu, the leader of Israel's extreme-right wing 
government, has announced that Israel will soon launch a major ground 
offensive against Rafah where 1.4 million people are located.
  What that means is that Netanyahu will soon be forcing these people, 
already living in extreme desperation, to evacuate once again, and 
nobody--nobody--has any idea where they will go.
  These families, already exhausted, traumatized, and hungry will once 
again be displaced with no plan as to how they will survive.
  I struggle to find words for this cruelty. And let me state once 
again that what is happening in Gaza now is funded with U.S. taxpayer 
dollars. These are our bombs and our military equipment that is being 
used. We are complicit. This is not just an Israeli war; it is an 
American war.
  Prime Minister Netanyahu says that all of this is necessary. He says 
that Israel will only accept ``total victory'' in this campaign. Yet 
asked recently what total victory would look like, he said, chillingly, 
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,'' Netanyahu.
  The question that we must ask ourselves is, how many more children 
and innocent people in Gaza will be smashed by Netanyahu in the 
process? And why is the United States helping to fund this humanitarian 
disaster?
  It is quite clear that beyond total destruction of Gaza, Netanyahu 
has no plan. This week, President Biden acknowledged the severity of 
the crisis. 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.''
  The President is absolutely right. It does have to stop. But if that 
is the case, then why in God's name are we now contemplating 
legislation that provides $10 billion to the Israeli war machine to 
continue Netanyahu's war?
  President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken have been trying to 
negotiate an agreement where Israel pauses its military operation, 
Hamas releases the remaining hostages, and massive humanitarian aid 
comes in to help desperate people. We all hope that this deal comes 
together, but Netanyahu is resisting this proposal.
  In my view, he is trying to prolong the war in order to cling to 
power. Most Israelis rightly blame him for creating this crisis and 
want him out. But if Netanyahu prolongs the war, he can avoid 
accountability for his disastrous leadership. And that is why Netanyahu 
is ignoring almost everything that President Biden and Secretary 
Blinken are saying.
  He, this week, dismissed the hostage deal as ``delusional'' and 
brushed aside U.S. concerns about expanding the ground offensive to 
southern Gaza.
  There is a simple question that must be asked. How does it happen 
that despite waging a horrific war, which has caused massive suffering, 
despite ignoring the wishes of the President of the United States and, 
in fact, virtually the entire world community, how does it happen that 
the U.S. Congress is about to send another $10 billion of unrestricted 
military aid to Israel, no strings attached?

  It is beyond comprehension to me that Congress would reward Netanyahu 
even while he ignores everything the President of the United States 
says. Netanyahu is the leader of the most rightwing government in 
Israel's history, a man who has dedicated his political career to 
killing the prospects of a two-state solution, and yet this bill will 
give him a blank check paid for by the American taxpayer.
  It is hard to believe, but that is exactly what this bill will do. 
And what is even harder to understand is that in the midst of this 
almost unprecedented humanitarian crisis, this legislation before us 
actually contains a prohibition on funding for UNRWA, the largest U.N. 
Agency operating in Gaza and the backbone of the humanitarian aid 
operation.
  UNRWA is the organization that actually gets food throughout Gaza. 
Israel's allegations against UNRWA are serious, and they are being 
investigated seriously. But you don't starve 2 million people because 
of the alleged actions of 12 UNRWA employees.
  The whole world is watching. Netanyahu is starving hundreds of 
thousands of children. We, in America, cannot be complicit in this 
atrocity.
  As long as this bill contains money to fund Netanyahu's cruel war, it 
must be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this will take a little bit of time. Do 
you want to speak, sir? OK.
  So I want to explain sort of where we started and where we are at. 
Those of us old enough to remember 2001, that was a very bad day for 
America, and it will stick with me forever. I remember being here, 
during the attack, in Washington and asking myself: What can I do to 
make sure this never happens again? We did some things, made some 
mistakes, did some things right, but I will remind you at the end of 
this discussion that before the attack, the lights were blinking.
  When the Taliban took over in Afghanistan and started killing women 
in soccer stadiums for sport and blowing up Buddhist statues, to think 
that wouldn't affect us was pretty naive.
  So there is sort of a debate in my party, to be honest with you, 
about America First, what does that mean, and isolationism.
  Isolationism sounds good; doesn't work, never has, never will. When 
people are willing to do horrible things to others in the name of 
religion or a master race, to think that they will leave you alone is 
just really very naive.
  So when Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews because they were an 
inferior race, for a long time America sat on the sidelines. Voices 
like Lindbergh and others saying: This is not our fight, no more 
foreign wars. Well, you wind up allowing the guy to get stronger. You 
could probably have stopped him dozens of times, but nobody wanted to 
get involved because of the aftermath of World War I.
  Well, what did we learn? Allowing Hitler to get stronger and not 
standing up to his abuse of the Jewish people

[[Page S848]]

and his desire for a master race led to about 50 million people getting 
killed and hundreds of thousands of Americans getting killed because of 
World War II.
  So America First--America First was a slogan being said in the 1930s. 
President Trump talks about America First. It is different to me.
  If America First is isolationism, count me out; I don't believe it 
is. If America First is weak, count me out; I don't believe it is.
  So America First and strong, what does it mean? It doesn't mean you 
don't care about the other parts of the world, but you have to get your 
own backyard right, and you do expect other people to carry their fair 
share of burden.
  That is what it means to me, and it means having a strong military, 
not a weak military. It means letting people know if you screw around 
with America, you will regret doing it. Just ask Soleimani. But you 
can't; he is dead. He had blood on his hands, and President Trump saw 
that his reign of terror ended. That is being strong. So that is sort 
of where we are at in our party right now. I am going to jump from 2001 
to 2011. So, in 2001, America united. We were hurt as a nation. The 
country went through a lot of turmoil. Three thousand of our citizens, 
almost, were killed in various ways. But terrorists, if they could kill 
3 million of us, they would have.

  We go to the Mideast. We make mistakes. The source of the problem is 
Afghanistan. Bush decides to get involved in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was 
truly a bad guy, but we can debate whether or not we should have done 
that. But the one thing that I said, Senator McCain said, and Senator 
Lieberman said: We are down to about 10,000 troops. We need an 
insurance policy force to make sure that the forces we are trying to 
contain--radical Islam in Iraq--do not come back. So President Obama 
had an option of leaving 10,000, and he chose to pull the plug. And 
here is what I said: I feel all we have worked for, fought for, and 
sacrificed for is pretty much in jeopardy by today's announcement. I 
hope I am wrong and the President is right, but ``I fear this decision 
has set in motion events that will come back to haunt our country.''
  That is what I said when President Obama wanted to pull the plug on 
Iraq. This is what Senator McCain said:

       This decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our 
     enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, 
     which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of 
     U.S. troops from Iraq.

  Senator Lieberman:

       This failure puts at the greater risk all that so many 
     Americans and Iraqis have fought, sacrificed, and, in the 
     thousands of cases, gave their lives to achieve: an Iraq that 
     is self-governing, self-defending, and aligned with the 
     responsible nations of the world in the fight against Islamic 
     extremism and terrorism.

  My last line was:

       But I fear this decision has set in motion events that will 
     come back to haunt us.

  Hoping I was wrong. Here is what happened: We pulled the plug on 
Iraq. The JV team called ISIS runs wild, and the carnage that followed 
was devastating to the world, the attacks after the withdrawal in 2011. 
In 2015, 130 people killed in Paris by attacks that came from the 
caliphate that was established after our withdrawal. In 2016, 86 people 
killed in Nice, France. I can go on and on and on--2017, Istanbul, 
Turkey. Just on and on, carnage by the thousands throughout the world, 
and it came to get us here too. The Orlando, FL, Nightclub attack was 
inspired by somebody who pledged allegiance to ISIS. You just remember 
all of the beheadings in Syria. They took large parts of Iraq and Syria 
after the withdrawal.
  Everything we were worried about actually came true, even greater 
than I thought. Yazidi genocide, the Yazidi people were raped and 
murdered by the tens of thousands all because everybody was ready to 
leave Iraq. That was in 2011.
  Let's fast forward to 2021. After having left Iraq, saw what 
happened, had to go back in, we decided to pull out of Afghanistan 
where it all started, 2021. So if you had told me in 2001 we would 
allow the Taliban to come back 20 years later, I would not have 
believed it. But we did. We wanted 2,500--that is what I wanted, more 
if you needed it--to keep the country from falling apart, a residual, 
follow-along force.
  Secretary Blinken said:

       If 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars in support, 
     equipment, and training did not suffice, why would another 
     year, another five, another ten [make a difference]?

  Let me answer that question. If after all that blood and treasure we 
pulled the plug because we are tired based on the passage of time and 
the enemy comes back and they take over, then other people in the world 
will see us as weak. So, Secretary Blinken, you didn't understand the 
ripple effect of allowing Afghanistan to fall back into the hands of 
terrorists, and President Biden, against sound military advice, you 
chose to pull the plug. Ten years earlier, President Obama pulled the 
plug on Iraq--the rise of ISIS. Apparently, it is hard for us to learn 
much at all.

       Because it's the right one--it's the right decision for our 
     people. The right one for our brave servicemembers who have 
     risked their lives serving our nation. And it's the right one 
     for America.

  He is talking about pulling out of Afghanistan. President Biden, it 
was a horribly bad decision.
  But he is not the only one. Some of my best friends were sort of in 
that mindset.
  ``I write to express my support for President Trump's plan for the 
prompt withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan,'' Senator Hawley.
  ``After the loss of over 2,000 American servicemembers and thousands 
of others injured in action, I agreed it was past time to get our 
troops out of Afghanistan,'' Senator Marshall--really good friends.
  All I can say is, it is not when we leave, it is what we leave 
behind. So we pulled the plug, jointly, on Afghanistan. President 
Trump, at the time of the end of his term, had about 2,500 
servicemembers still. He was going to leave them there, I hope and 
think, but at the end of the day, there was a plan to withdraw by May. 
I think he put in place it was conditional, and the Taliban didn't 
abide by any of the conditions. So when President Biden announced he 
was going to get out, I think, on May 1, ``Getting out of Afghanistan 
is a wonderful and positive thing to do. I planned to withdraw on May 
1st, and we should keep as close to that schedule as possible.'' So 
that was President Trump. And I can't remember exactly when we got out, 
but it wasn't very much after that.

  So 20 years, almost to the day, after 9/11, you have got Republicans 
and Democrats saying: Enough already. Let's leave--not understanding 
why we should stay. And apparently leaving Iraq in 2011, nobody really 
remembered that much at all.
  So the Secretary of Defense said: I don't have any regrets about 
supporting the decision to leave Afghanistan. He really probably needs 
to resign, quite frankly. I like the man personally, but he has been so 
wrong so often, I have lost all confidence in his ability to make good, 
sound decisions. And when he speaks, nobody listens. So the idea that 
he would defend what happened in Afghanistan, the withdrawal, ``I have 
no regrets'' is a bit disappointing because I have a ton of them.
  So what happened after we withdrew or announced we were leaving? 
Thirteen servicemembers were killed in the disaster that was a 
withdrawal. And now the talking point is, that was a disaster. That was 
embarrassing. We shouldn't have done it that way. Well, I will just 
give you my two cents' worth: There is no good way to do a dumb thing. 
What was dumb was to leave Afghanistan and allow ISIS-K and ISIS and 
al-Qaida to come back when a fairly small force compared to what we 
have done in the past could have held the country together. So it was 
just carnage, the 13 brave Americans killed at Abbey Gate.
  What happened after our withdrawal? Remember the C-17 going down the 
runway with Afghans jumping on the wheel, the wings, babies being 
passed over the wire to soldiers. It was just really hard for me to 
sleep, quite frankly, for days after that. And the Veterans' 
Administration had a real spike in assistance from veterans because all 
those who fought and lost loved ones and sacrificed in Afghanistan were 
pretty upset.
  So that was in 2021. Ten years after we withdrew from Iraq and ISIS 
stormed the world, we made the same stupid decision to withdraw in 
Afghanistan. The rest is history. The Taliban has taken over.

[[Page S849]]

  Now, the question is to Secretary Blinken: Did our withdrawal set in 
motion bad things? I would say it did.
  February 24, 2022, Russia invades Ukraine. Many of us believe that 
when we pulled the plug on Afghanistan, it showed a lack of resolve, 
and all the bad guys got bolder. So you will never convince me that our 
decision in 2021 did not encourage and lead to aggression by Russia in 
2022.
  Now, we wanted preinvasion sanctions--Senator Menendez, Blumenthal, I 
think Whitehouse. We had a package of sanctions to hit Russia as the 
buildup was coming. You could see the amassing of Russian forces. And 
we said: Why don't we tell Russia right now, here is what comes your 
way if you invade? And many of us wanted to give lethal weapons to 
Ukraine before the invasion to deter Putin.
  Well, the administration said no to preinvasion sanctions. They said 
no to sending any weapons. They didn't want to be provocative. Well, it 
didn't work. They invaded. And your effort to deter the invasion never 
occurred.
  Once the war started, many of my Democratic friends, to their credit, 
joined all of us to help Ukraine the best we could. We were arguing for 
military assistance that would change the tide of battle. We were told 
that Kyiv would fall in 2 or 3 weeks. Well, they were wrong. The 
Ukrainians have been fighting like tigers. They have put a hurting on 
the Russian military. And for months after the invasion, I, along with 
many others--Democrats included--were pushing the Biden administration 
to help. How do you fight the Russians? You need more tanks. It took 10 
months to get the first delivery of M1 Abrams tanks after Secretary 
Austin opposed tanks, 1 year and 7 months to get to ATACMS. They 
resisted HIMARS, long-range artillery. They have yet to get the F-16s. 
So every time we would talk about a weapon system that would change the 
course of battle, it was like pulling teeth. And it is amazing the 
Ukrainians have done as well as they have.
  But the people who decided not to impose preinvasion sanctions, the 
people who wanted to slow-walk military assistance are the same people 
who wanted to get out of Afghanistan, the same people who wanted to 
withdraw from Iraq. I don't mean to be overly critical, but they lost 
me a long time ago. Devastation in Ukraine, great country, proud 
people, it has just been terrible.
  Putin, by the way, is now an indicted international war criminal for 
kidnapping and stealing Ukrainian children, and this is over 2 years 
into the war.
  What else has happened since 9/11? There was a defense budget 
approved by this body against my wishes to produce a military budget 
that was below inflation. At a time when you had a war with Russia and 
Ukraine, you had the rise of radical Islamic terrorism, you had Iran 
pushing everybody around in the Mideast and China threatening their 
neighbors, so the response in 2024, the fiscal year 2024 budget, in 
light of all of these threats, to pass a military budget below 
inflation, what are we thinking? Have we learned nothing from 9/11?
  So, everybody talks about China, for good reason. We are not at war 
with China, thank God, but I, along with many of my colleagues, want to 
be tough on China. Well, if you want to be tough on China, you have to 
have credibility.
  The budget we passed over my objection, which was agreed to by the 
former Speaker of the House, a Republican, has put us on track to have 
less ships in the Navy by 2030 than we have today. And you want to be 
tough on China?
  The Navy tells us they need about 450 manned and unmanned vessels to 
deal with the threats we face throughout the world. We passed a 
military budget that goes from 292 ships in 2030 to 290, not 450.
  What does it take to get 450 ships in the Navy? Five percent spending 
above inflation for about a decade. We are spending below inflation, so 
I don't think we are ever going to get there.
  What is China doing? Well, they have 370 ships. By 2030, they are 
going to have 435. Today, we have 292; the Chinese navy is 370. By 
2030, they are going to have 435, and we are going to have 290. Well, 
we must come up with some super-duper ships. We are going in the wrong 
direction.
  What are we thinking as a nation? How do you expect to deter China 
when you are reducing your military spending below inflation, you are 
reducing the number of ships available to help our friends in Taiwan 
and throughout the world, and they are dramatically increasing their 
navy? Do you think they feel deterred? I don't think so.
  So I really don't want to hear any more talk about being tough on 
China until we pass a budget that shows we actually mean what we say.
  That is 2022. We have Russia invade Ukraine. In 2021, we get out of 
Afghanistan. In 2022, Russia invades Ukraine. In 2023, we pass a budget 
below inflation. So what also happened in 2023? On October 7, Hamas 
attacks Israel.
  Now, I heard my colleague Senator Sanders talk about we shouldn't be 
sending any more aid to Israel. I respectfully disagree. This was the 
largest loss of life to the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Hamas is 
the perpetrator of the attack, and there was this belief--somewhat in 
Israel and somewhat in America--that you could keep this caged tiger 
somewhat fed, but they wouldn't bite you. That proved not to be true. 
They openly talk about destroying the Jewish people.
  Israel pulled out of Gaza I think in 2005 or 2008. I can't remember 
the day. It wasn't very long until Hamas took over, and anybody who 
wanted to make peace with Israel, they killed--Hamas did. They have an 
underground tunnel complex, and that money they used to build the 
tunnels is pretty much all the aid the world has given them. And all of 
a sudden, Israel is the bad guy.
  I hate that so many people are being killed, but Hamas uses the 
Palestinian people in Gaza as human shields. They want Israel to kill 
more of their people because they think it helps their cause to isolate 
Israel.
  I have been to Israel more times than I can count. I think the idea 
is a professional military force. And here's what is so ironic: The 
Jewish State, Israel, if they wanted to, could kill everybody in 
Palestine. They have the ability to do that. The Palestinians would 
love to kill everybody in Israel; they just don't have the ability. The 
one that could do it has chosen not to; the one with limited 
capabilities is willing to bet the farm on killing as many as they can.
  What an upside-down world we are after 9/11. If somebody in a 
Parliament had made the speech that Senator Sanders just made, 
criticizing America for our response after being viciously attacked, I 
think we would have taken offense to that. And we are only talking 
about October. We are talking about months, not years. There were 24 
brigades that Hamas had. They are down to the last four or five. They 
are hiding among a million Palestinians. I don't blame Israel for 
wanting to destroy them all.
  I actually support Saudi Arabia and Israel recognizing each other and 
trying to find a better future for the Palestinians. That better future 
cannot include Hamas.
  The First Minister of Northern Ireland, which is a beautiful place, 
said something--I really don't know her; I just thought it was an odd 
thing to say--that one day Hamas will be seen as part of the solution. 
I am not so sure that is the case. I don't ever see Hamas being 
considered part of the solution anytime.
  So that is 2023. What else is happening in 2023 and now 2024?
  So Secretary Austin came before our committee.
  We are helping Israel. There is money for Israel in this package, and 
I want to help Israel. There is money for Ukraine in this package, and 
I want to help Ukraine. There is money for Taiwan in this package, and 
I want to help them too.
  I asked Secretary Austin:

       Is it a red line for Iran to orchestrate an attack on our 
     forces that kills an American in Syria or Iraq. . . . Can you 
     say that?

  This was weeks before they actually did this.

       [AUSTIN:] I think Iran should be held accountable for the 
     activities of [Iran].
       [GRAHAM:] Can we say to Iran, if you escalate the second 
     front, if you activate Hezbollah against the State of Israel 
     to create a second front, we will come after you?
       [AUSTIN:] Whether or not we attack Iran because of a 
     decision on the part of Lebanese Hezbollah, that is a 
     Presidential decision.

  Back to my original question.

[[Page S850]]

  I wanted him to tell the world, so the Iranians could hear, that if 
your proxies kill an American, we are coming after you, not just the 
proxies. Well, unfortunately, it wasn't long after that exchange that 
these three brave Americans were killed in 2024 by an Iranian militia.
  So 2020, we get attacked. We say: Never again. In 2024, Iranian 
militia are killing American servicemembers in Jordan and then almost 
200 attacks since the invasion of Hamas against Israel. And we are 
helping Israel, and Hamas and all the terrorists throughout the world, 
including Iran, are trying to pay us back.

  After 9/11, I didn't think this headline would be possible: ``Iran 
closer than ever to weaponizing uranium, building nuclear bomb.''
  So 20-some years after 9/11, we have a budget below inflation. We 
have pulled out of Iraq; 10 years later, pulled out of Afghanistan. 
Russia is trying to dismember Ukraine. Hamas attacked Israel with 
ferocity and barbarity beyond what the Nazis did. How could all this 
happen? And Iran, the ``Great Satan,'' religious Nazis, on the verge of 
getting a nuclear weapon? What the hell happened?
  Now we are going to turn to something else that happened. September 
11, 2001. I don't know how many illegal crossings we had at the 
southern border, but it wasn't that big of an issue. We did immigration 
reform with President Bush, trying to secure our border. So on 
September 11, 2001, if you had told people that in 2024 we would have a 
border that was completely broken, wide open, with terrorism on the 
rise, fentanyl coming in to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans 
every year, rabid Islamic extremists on the Terrorist Watchlist pouring 
through the border, nobody would have believed you. What happened? Did 
we learn anything from 9/11? Apparently not.
  When President Trump left office in December of 2020, we had the 
lowest illegal crossings in 40 years. For fiscal year 2020, it was 
458,000; 2021, 1.7 million; 2022, 2.4 million; 2023, 2.5 million. We 
are on track for fiscal year 2024 for 3.6 million. Over 9 million have 
come across since President Biden has been in office. He inherited the 
most secure border we have had in a long time.
  We have been talking about what to do. In April of 2023, Secretary 
Mayorkas said: We need policy changes to remove individuals who do not 
qualify for asylum. The asylum system needs to be reformed from top to 
bottom--policy changes.
  To Senator Lankford's credit and Senator Murphy's and others, they 
have been working for a very long time to come up with a border 
security proposal that would change asylum, and I thought they did a 
pretty good job, to be honest with you, but there was more to be done. 
The bipartisan bill was a serious effort. It had many good things but 
not quite everything I wanted, for sure.
  So, you see, from 2020 to 2023, there has been a 300-percent increase 
in the encounters, and 172 people on the Terrorist Watchlist came 
through in fiscal year 2023, the end of September of last year.
  Here is the one that just blows me away: parole. During the Trump and 
Obama Presidencies, parole was granted at about 5,600 per year. In 
fiscal year 2022, the Biden administration paroled 795,000 people; in 
fiscal year 2023, 802,000. We are well on our way to a million this 
time. Again, Presidents Obama and Trump paroled 5,623 on average per 
year. President Biden paroled 795,561 in fiscal year 2022 alone.
  Now, what am I talking about when it comes to parole? Here is the 
law. The DHS Secretary, in his ``discretion,'' may parole into the 
United States temporarily, under such conditions as he may prescribe, 
only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or 
significant public benefit, any alien applying for admission to the 
United States.
  Urgent humanitarian reasons. Significant public benefit. Case-by-case 
basis. That law has been completely obliterated.
  The bipartisan bill that is trying to rein in the abuse of parole--
they did a pretty good job but not enough for me. That is why I wanted 
to make sure we would debate the bipartisan bill the same way we did, 
the Gang of 8, which I was part of. That was on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate for a couple weeks. You have to defend your product.
  I want to put a cap on parole.
  And here is what is coming: We are going to start a parole watchlist. 
This is a discretionary decision. You don't need to change the law; you 
just need to quit obliterating the law and follow it. So I am going to 
track every week how many people the Biden administration paroles 
because it is supposed to be done case by case--5,600 per year for 
Trump and Obama and now about 800,000 a year. Clearly these people in 
the Biden administration want to wave in a lot of folks. And when I 
hear Secretary Mayorkas say he doesn't bear any of the blame, that is 
offensive because when you wave in that many, word gets out that if you 
show up, you are going to get in.
  You have an 85-percent chance, if you show up to the U.S. border, of 
being allowed in as of last month. As long as people believe there is 
an 85-percent chance of getting into the country, they will never stop 
coming.
  The Biden administration repealed 90-something Executive orders. They 
canceled the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. Anything Trump did, they 
changed because they didn't want to be like Trump.
  Well, you have accomplished that goal. You are not like President 
Trump when it comes to securing our border, and I think that is one of 
the reasons President Biden is going to lose.
  The bottom line is you have a pretty secure border. You tore up all 
the infrastructure President Trump put in place, and you want to blame 
him. Give me a break.
  You are taking parole and abusing the law, and when an 85-percent 
chance of getting in the country continues, you are never going to stop 
the flow. So don't tell me, Secretary Mayorkas, that your policies had 
nothing to do with this tsunami--I dare say, invasion--of America.
  And it is just not people. It is drugs. In 2021, there were 71,238 
people who died from a fentanyl overdose. We have seized enough 
fentanyl coming through the southern border to kill 2\1/2\ billion 
people. Most of it is coming through China. It comes through the 
southern border. It is literally an attack on America, and we are not 
doing much to respond. There was a provision in the bipartisan bill 
that addressed the fentanyl problem. It was pretty good but not 
enough--again, enough fentanyl to kill everybody in America and 2,700 
pounds were seized in one fiscal year alone. In one fiscal year, there 
was enough to kill everybody in America. How could that happen after 9/
11?
  After 9/11, we created a Terrorist Watchlist. I wish we had had one 
before 9/11. Now, after 9/11, one of the things we wanted to do was to 
kind of watch people we thought were going to be terrorists or 
associated with terrorists. Here is what has happened: In 2017, we 
found two. In 2018, we found six. In 2019, zero. In 2020, three. In 
2021, 15, when we withdraw from Afghanistan. In 2022, Russia invades 
Ukraine, 98. In 2023, Hamas attacks Israel, 172. There have been 50 
already since September. All of these people are probably up to no 
good.
  CNN, not FOX, in 2023: ``Smuggler with ties to ISIS helped migrants 
enter U.S. from Mexico, raising alarm bells across government.''
  After we pulled out of Iraq in 2011 and the JV team became ISIS and 
destroyed thousands of people's lives--destroyed the Yazidis people and 
created attacks on our homeland--they are still in business smuggling 
people into our country. How could that happen after 9/11? How could 
that happen after 2011? Well, it is.
  This is a San Diego field office warning: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and 
Hezbollah are coming across in this area--fighting-aged males 
associated with these jihadist groups. How could that happen in October 
of 2023?
  On December 5, 2023--just a couple of months ago--this is the FBI 
Director's testimony before our committee in responding to a question I 
asked:

       While there may have been times over the years where 
     individual threats could have been higher here or there than 
     where they might be right now, I have never seen a time where 
     all the threats or so many of the threats are elevated all at 
     exactly the same time.

  So we take a border security proposal. I appreciate the people who 
worked on it. You did some good things. We had one cloture vote, and

[[Page S851]]

they pulled the plug. The fix was in on both sides here. We didn't 
really have a serious debate to fix the broken border.
  The elevated threat strain is real. We don't want an October 7-type 
attack coming against America like it did Israel. We don't want another 
9/11. We have our military spending below inflation. We have a border 
that is completely broken. We are being poisoned by fentanyl coming in 
from China. Hamas has killed more Jews since the Holocaust. The Taliban 
is now in charge of Afghanistan, and the Iranians, through their 
proxies, are trying to kill Americans and have killed Americans to 
drive us out of the Middle East. Other than that, we are in good shape.
  How does this happen? What are we thinking as a nation? With my good 
friend John McCain, we were wrong some. We probably had too many troops 
for too long. I have, by no means, been perfect, but I think I and many 
others have been more right than wrong. So we have to ask ourselves as 
a country: How could it be that we find ourselves in this national 
security nightmare, and isn't it time to make corrections? I will talk 
about that in a minute. But the hits, they keep on coming.
  ``60 Minutes'' did a program. If you would watch it, it would really 
make you mad. There is a hole in the fence near San Diego that people 
just literally walk through. The Biden administration decided not to 
plug the hole. It got on ``60 Minutes,'' and I think Mexico has plugged 
the hole.

       The number of migrants arriving at the southern border is 
     unprecedented . . . So what is the fastest growing group 
     among them? Chinese migrants . . . We saw large groups, 
     including many from the middle class, come through a 4-foot 
     gap at the end of a border fence 60 miles east of San Diego.

  That is according to ``60 Minutes'' a couple of weeks ago.
  How is this happening, and why are we letting it continue?
  In December, there were 302,034 border encounters. This is the most 
of any month on record--ever. So when Secretary Mayorkas says they bear 
no responsibility, I respectfully disagree.
  The problem you have, Mr. Secretary, is that you have abused parole, 
as 85 percent of the people who show up get in. You have waved in over 
2\1/2\ billion people when Obama and Trump had 5,600 on average. You 
have created the magnet. You have made people believe that, if they get 
here, they are going to come and stay. You really don't deport anybody. 
You have been as weak as water when it comes to securing our border.
  You want to blame Congress. I will be the first to say, Congress 
should do better. I had been working on comprehensive immigration 
reform with Senator Kennedy, I think, during the first Bush term in 
2006, I believe it was--maybe it was the second term--and on the Gang 
of 8 bill in 2013. I had been working on it, trying. It is just hard. I 
understand, but we can't stop trying. The problem we have today is that 
the policy choices of the Biden administration have obliterated border. 
You could bring about control of the border far better than we have 
today if you would just re-implement policies that were working and 
just get over the fact that Trump did it and actually put the American 
people first.

  As to the product that was produced by the bipartisan working group, 
thank you very much for your hard work. I know it is not easy.
  Senator Lankford, on our side, is one of the smartest people I know 
and is one of the most honorable people I know.
  I think you produced a good product on asylum and good stuff on 
parole. There are some things that needed to be changed. As to the 
``break glass'' 5,000--when you can shut down the border when you have 
5,000 a day--it probably should have been 1,000. There are a bunch of 
things. There needs to be a cap on parole to make sure it is not abused 
in the future.
  There are a bunch of things we could have done to make the bill 
better. The reason I am going to vote no to this package is because I 
have been telling people for months now that I want to help Ukraine; I 
want to help Israel; I want to help Taiwan; but we have got to help 
ourselves first. The effort to help ourselves, I thought, was 
halfhearted and not consistent with what we have done in the past to 
try to pass an immigration bill. I thought the fix was in. So the 
border part we did in one day. We are jumping now to the supplemental 
dealing with aid to our allies.
  I am going to stick with what I have been saying: I have been to 
Israel and Saudi Arabia, I think, four times in the last 8 weeks. I 
love our friends in Israel. We have got $10 billion in there for them. 
We have got money that is needed to help Ukraine keep the fight going. 
We have money to harden Taiwan. It all makes perfect sense to me, but 
we can't do that until we secure our own border.
  So I am going to vote no, being consistent with what I have been 
saying, and I am not going to Munich. It is the first time, other than 
being in cycle or sick, that I miss Munich. We have Codel McCain where 
we honor John McCain--Senator Whitehouse and myself. He came up to me--
you know, Sheldon Whitehouse is a wonderful man--saying he may not go 
to Munich if we don't do something on Ukraine.
  I said: Well, I can withstand the wrath of the Europeans, but I can't 
withstand going home and telling the American people--South 
Carolinians, particularly--that we have done a good job on their 
behalf, and we have not. So I will not be going to Munich. I will be 
going to our border.
  While you are over in Munich, talking to our friends and our allies, 
I will be at the border. You can tell our friends and allies that I 
want to help them, but we have a national security nightmare in our own 
backyard, and I intend to do all I can to get a better outcome. I meant 
it then, and I mean it now.
  Finally, here is what the FBI Director said:

       Post October 7, the attack by Hamas against Israel, you see 
     a veritable rogues' gallery of terrorist organizations 
     calling for attacks against us, [the United States].

  They want to attack us as payback for helping Israel. So every 
problem we had before October 7 is now worse, and they want to come 
after us because we dare to help our friends in Israel. The threat 
level has gone to a whole other level since October 7.
  This is the FBI Director, just a few weeks ago, telling us that the 
October 7 attack, orchestrated by Hamas against Israel, has made us 
more vulnerable to attack, and people want to come pay us back because 
we helped Israel.
  I will sort of end where I began.
  ``Zero Dark Thirty'' was a story about the invasion of Afghanistan 
after 9/11, but the folklore now is that there were blinking lights 
everywhere before the attack on September 11 and that we sort of missed 
it.
  So I asked the FBI Director that question:

       Do you see blinking lights against American national 
     security interests? Do you see blinking lights that you 
     equate with a threat to our homeland being attacked?
       I see blinking lights everywhere I turn.

  So, folks, after 9/11, in 2024, the world is on fire. We need to help 
our friends. They have many problems. Israel has got its back against 
the wall. We need to help them with military aid. I intend to do that 
and will do that. Russia invaded Ukraine after we withdrew from 
Afghanistan. Americans are being killed by Iranian proxies. I am not 
only willing to help our allies, I am going to insist that when we get 
back to appropriating--if we ever do--we get rid of this stupid budget 
deal that has the spending below inflation. That is just insane given 
the state of the world.
  To the House, you have been insisting on border security as part of 
any package to help other countries. I get it. I get it. I get it. You 
are right to do that, but stop sending H.R. 2. You aren't solving the 
problem by passing a bill that can't go anywhere. H.R. 2, no matter how 
much you like it--I particularly, actually, do like it--didn't pick up 
one Democratic vote in the House, and you lost two Republicans. We have 
put it on the floor of the Senate. We lost one Republican and didn't 
pick up one Democrat. It is not going to become a law. So it doesn't 
matter if it can't be enacted. I want to secure our border, but with 
H.R. 2, the votes are not here for it.
  To my House colleagues, if you can't pick up one Democrat, how are we 
supposed to pick up 11? And, when we voted on H.R. 2, we lost one 
Republican. So I would advise you to find some alternative to H.R. 2 
that would really help. There are a bunch of them.

[[Page S852]]

Marsha Blackburn has, like, 12 ideas, and I have got three. Let's try 
to find some border security measures, and let's do this.
  There are some people rightly upset that we are giving nonlethal aid 
to Ukraine after all this money. Why don't we just focus on the weapons 
and let our European allies help them financially? I don't mind helping 
them financially some, but our friends in the House probably are going 
to take a different view.

  I talked to President Trump today, and he is dead set against this 
package. He thinks that we should make packages like this a loan, not a 
gift. It is what we did with Lend-Lease for the British.
  In 2003, I had an amendment with Senators Collins, Kay Bailey 
Hutchison, and a couple others to make the reconstruction of Iraq--of 
Iraq--in 2003, a loan, not a grant. Pay us back when you can. Get back 
on your feet, get your oil industry up and running, and try to pay us 
back, within reason, as much as you can. That was defeated by a single 
vote.
  Here is where I think the American people are at: very much 
supportive of Israel; very much understanding, I think, of the 
consequences of failure in Ukraine.
  There is an element in my caucus that wants to pull the plug on 
Ukraine. These are pretty much many of the same people who wanted to 
pull the plug on Afghanistan.
  My friend, Rand Paul--I don't know where his statement is--but he has 
been consistent. You have got to give him that. He wanted to pull out 
of everywhere. He still does. I would just tell him: You may be tired 
of fighting a radical Islam; they are not tired of fighting. You may 
want to become fortress America, but it won't work. Senator Paul, our 
border is our last line of defense, not our first line of defense. So 
when you pull out of Afghanistan, after the passage of time, and expect 
it all to turn out well, you miss what happened in 2011 in Iraq.
  The reason I keep saying this is that wanting a war to be over is not 
enough. The other side has to want it to be over too.
  Here is where we find ourselves in 2024: Radical Islam is getting 
stronger as I speak. They are back in charge of Afghanistan.
  Here is what I have come to learn since September 11, 2001, to this 
very minute: The enemy we are facing are religious fanatics.
  Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews and create a master race. He wrote 
a book, and nobody believed him. They should have.
  These people are on a mission to purify Islam, to destroy the State 
of Israel, and come after us. You can want them to stop. They will not 
stop unless you make them.
  Here is what I would suggest to this body and the American people: 
All this time has passed, but the enemy is still there.
  Here is the good news: There are plenty of people over there who 
don't want what these guys are selling, and they are willing to fight 
with us. Be their partner.
  It breaks my heart to pull the plug on all the people who stepped 
forward in Afghanistan. Only God knows what kind of life they are 
leading right now.
  If you show weakness in one place, it hurts you everywhere else. 
Putin chose to invade in 2022, I think, because he saw us weak in 2021.
  As to what we should do next, we should never count on a foreign 
country to protect American shores. We are going to need some level of 
troop presence--it doesn't have to be 100,000, by any means--working 
with populations over there fighting radical Islam so they won't hit us 
here. If you haven't learned that by now, you have missed a lot. How 
many more times do we have to do the same thing to realize it is not 
working?
  My fear is that the mistakes we have made have caught up to us big 
time. And when you take a broken border and put it into the mix of what 
has been going on for the last 23 years with a radical Islam, it is a 
lethal cocktail to make 9/11 occur again on steroids.
  As I speak this evening, Israel is in a fight for its literal life. 
The Ayatollah is engaging America and other allies through proxies, 
trying to drive us out of the Mideast. If you think the Ayatollah wants 
a peaceful nuclear program, you should not be allowed to drive. He 
wants a bomb. And if he ever got the bomb, he would use it.
  The first thing you have got to understand is who is on the other 
side of the table. The ``Rocket Man'' in North Korea, he has got 
nuclear weapons. I think he is a mafia state. I don't want him to have 
any more, but I don't believe he is going to wake up one day and attack 
us if we are strong.
  China wants to dominate the world in a kind of nonlethal way, a 
combination of force and cheating behavior in the economy. So we have 
got to deal with China.
  Russia wants to reconstruct the old Russian Empire, the old Soviet 
Union. And if you let Putin get away with it in Ukraine, he ain't going 
to stop, and you are going to have a war with NATO. That is why I want 
to help Ukraine.
  But having said all of that, for me to be able to convince people in 
South Carolina to continue to support conflicts overseas, I have to 
prove to them that I get it when they tell me: What about our own 
country?
  So I am not going to Munich. I am going to the southern border. I am 
not going to vote for this aid package because I think this body did 
not seriously entertain trying to strengthen our border.
  The bill is going nowhere in the House. I am going to try to convince 
some of my colleagues in the House: Listen to President Trump. Make 
some of this a loan. It is called the Trump rule, I think. We are 
willing to help you, but pay us back if you can. I think most Americans 
would appreciate that change of attitude. Put together something on the 
new package that is more lethal--lethal aid--minus humanitarian aid, 
with a loan, not a grant, and some reasonable border security 
provisions.

  I think we can do two things. I think we can help our friends, and I 
think we can help ourselves. It will be a more sustainable position for 
political leaders to take when the American people understand that 
others, if they can pay you back, they should.
  I really believe in helping my neighbor when the barn burns down, but 
if they can pay me back down the road, great.
  The bottom line: I thought about this for days. I have been one of 
the leading voices on our side: You can't pull the plug on Ukraine; we 
have got to help Israel.
  I am always in a tug-of-war with President Trump. He did not pull all 
of our forces out in Afghanistan, I appreciate that. ``America First,'' 
to me, works. Isolationism doesn't.
  I know this bill is going nowhere in the House.
  To my House colleagues: I am voting no against aid that I believe is 
very much needed--and I have been an advocate for it--to let you know I 
am listening to you. I am letting my colleagues in my conference know 
it is time to sort of have other people do more if they can. I am with 
you. Let's make it a loan, not a grant. Let's make it more lethal. 
Let's do something on the border that will actually pass. Then we can 
end this debacle in a pretty good spot.
  I will close with this. In a few minutes, the Super Bowl is going to 
kick off. I, like most everybody--most people in the country--am going 
to watch the ball game. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan more times 
than I can count--52 is the last time, but more since--usually with 
Senator McCain. I have seen the wars go up and go down. I have seen 
surges. I have seen mistakes. I have made my own fair share of 
mistakes. But I cannot tell you how worried I am as an American right 
now that we have lost our vision when it comes to defending America.
  In 2024, my friend, we have the most porous border I have known since 
I have been in public service. Fentanyl is coming over killing 
thousands of Americans. Nine million people have come across. The 
numbers on the Terrorist Watchlist grow daily.
  Hamas has generated a jihad. Our help of Israel is going to make an 
attack on America more likely, with jihadists to pay us back.
  Putin, if he gets away with it, will set in motion the invasion of 
Taiwan by the Chinese.
  So why don't we do this? Why don't we find a way to help our friends 
in Ukraine that will be politically more sustainable? Why don't we 
build a bigger Navy so China will be less likely to

[[Page S853]]

invade Taiwan? Why don't we stick with our friends in Israel as long as 
it takes and quit trying to tell them what is the proper response after 
this carnage?
  I do want Israel to try to lessen civilian casualties. But to our 
friends in Israel: I know why this is so hard. Hamas makes it that way.
  We have got a chance here in the next 30 days or less to come up with 
a solution to our border and help our allies in a way that the American 
people will be more supportive of. I think it is now time for us, as a 
nation, to look to others in the world and say: Do more where you can.
  To our friends in NATO: Trump is right; you should pay more.
  To our friends in Ukraine: We want to be there for you, but we are 
$34 trillion in debt. Let's make it a loan. Pay us back when you can, 
if you can, and come up with a sustainable way of doing business, given 
a nation so in debt.
  And before we do any of that, convince the American people we have 
the ability and the desire to protect our own backyard.
  ``America First,'' to me, means that America leads from the front, 
not from behind; that America shapes history. It is not overwhelmed by 
it. But America has to insist on others doing their part.
  I would say this. There is more others could do, and they should. 
Europe has been pretty good, quite frankly, on Ukraine. There is more 
others could do, and they should.
  We should go back to trying to secure our border. The House has sent 
a bill that had no chance of passing. The Senate took up a bipartisan 
bill in a way that could really not be debated. So both bodies, for 
different reasons, have got us in a spot where we are not going to do 
anything meaningful on the border. So I won't be going to Munich; I 
will be going to the border.
  To the people in Munich who wonder why I am going to the border: If 
you want me to help you, I have got to convince people back home I have 
helped them.
  And I ain't going back to Munich any time soon until we fix our own 
border.
  I will gladly vote yes on this package when it is rearranged.
  The House will take up this bill that will pass, and it is going to 
get stuck. So I am going to try to unstick it, if I can. I am going to 
urge the House to listen to the Trump rule. See if we can pay for some 
of this--not pay for it, make it a loan; pay for it if you can--and get 
this right before it is too late.
  All these years after 9/11, I am absolutely dumbfounded, as a nation, 
how we could be where we are today, and I am going to do my part to try 
to fix it--a stronger military budget, not a weaker one; fix the 
border; help others, but insist they help themselves.
  With that, 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.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln, when he opened up the 
Gettysburg Address, said: Few will little note, nor long remember what 
I say here today.
  As I rise as the Super Bowl is about to begin, I realize that most 
people are looking for a view of Taylor Swift and not listening to us. 
But nonetheless, I feel compelled to come because we are obviously 
considering important issues.
  As we know, we are currently discussing a national security bill that 
would assist Israel after the October 7 attack and resist the efforts 
of Putin and the Chinese Communist Party. But this issue, importantly, 
has become entwined with border security, U.S. border security.
  The way things work--and we all know this in the Chamber but just to 
specify--if any bill is going to be signed into law, it is because you 
have good policy, you have good politics, and it has good process. If 
you don't have those three things on a big bill, then something is not 
going through.
  I would like to talk about that policy, politics, process dynamic 
here and how the process is being used to defeat the passage of good 
policy. By the way, it is that process which confuses folks, but I will 
get to that. Let me just first discuss a little bit of the policy.
  I am speaking as a Republican, a conservative Republican, and I can 
say that almost all Republicans want to confront the Chinese Communist 
Party. We understand around the world that the Chinese Communist Party 
is doing its best to undermine the interest of the United States, 
turning a blind eye as fentanyl is imported into our country, with 
60,000 to 100,000 people in any given year dying from overdoses. We 
understand that the Chinese Communist Party takes our industry, 
subsidizes theirs with that industry that moves over there, and they 
take our jobs. Then they pollute the atmosphere, and it blows over to 
the United States. This is a geopolitical rival, and the Chinese 
Communist Party has turned their eyes upon Taiwan.
  Most Republicans--all Republicans--want to confront China--or so they 
say. Most Republicans want to keep Vladimir Putin from killing 
Americans. We understand he is trying to kill Americans. If anybody 
watching now or later wants to dispute that fact, just Google ``Wagner 
Group''--Wagner Group, that group of Russians, that military group 
attacking U.S. soldiers in the Middle East. You go there, you are going 
to find an article. You can find a radio transcript of them attacking 
our troops. We slaughtered them. That is not the point. They intended 
to slaughter us. Russian troops attacked Americans. Russians are in 
Venezuela. In Venezuela, they have helped that become a narco-state in 
which drugs are being imported to the United States. And Russian troops 
are trying to hurt us around the world. Most Republicans, if not all, 
say they are against that.
  Lastly, let's talk briefly about support of Israel. Republicans 
support Israel, and after October 7, in which, unprovoked, Hamas went 
in with those atrocities--killing pregnant women, slaughtering infants, 
killing the elderly; not going after combatants, not going after the 
Israeli Defense Forces, but going after Israelis at a peace concert, at 
a kibbutz where a group of Israelis lived who are committed to 
reconciliation with Palestine. That kibbutz was specifically targeted.
  Republicans say: We support Israel. In fact, it is hard for a 
Republican not to support the three things I just listed.
  So we have a policy before us which accomplishes that. It is not 
perfect. No bill comes through here that is perfect. Anybody can come 
up here with a laundry list on any bill and you can cherry-pick and 
find something that is bad with it. That is just the biggest game in 
town around here. But the point is that it overall accomplishes the 
goals we wish to accomplish if you want to keep Russians from killing 
Americans, push back on the CCP, and support our ally Israel.
  Now, can we do more? Absolutely. There is a mess at the southern 
border. One of my colleagues, Lindsey Graham, spoke earlier about a 
hole in the fence that the United States doesn't fix, the Biden 
administration doesn't fix, and ``60 Minutes'' had a documentary of 
them just pouring through this 4-foot-wide hole.
  So we know there is a mess at the southern border. Wouldn't it be 
great if we could put an amendment on this good policy to support our 
allies that will likewise control the southern border?
  The politics of controlling the border are really good. Republicans 
want to control the southern border. The politics to support Israel by 
and large are good on the Republican side.
  But the politics maybe are not as good, and there are some who, 
frankly, are not sure they want to support Israel, they don't think 
they really want to combat Putin, and they are not sure they want to 
support Taiwan, but they don't really want to say that. So instead, 
they say: Well, there is nothing in there about the southern border, 
and so I am not going to support this particular legislation.
  That makes the politics work out.
  I am being principled, by golly. It doesn't support the southern 
border. It doesn't stop those illegals coming across. So therefore, I 
am going to tank the whole bill.
  That politics kind of works for them.
  So our policy is good on supporting our allies. We would like to have 
better

[[Page S854]]

policy to support the southern border. But the politics of not 
supporting our allies are lousy, so if you don't want to support our 
allies, you just say that you don't have anything about the southern 
border, and so therefore, you are not going to support our allies.
  It is getting a little confusing. I apologize. But the people who are 
trying to execute this are relying on that confusion.
  How would you go about doing this? If you don't want the bad politics 
of not supporting Israel and you would like to have better policy--but 
wait a second. If you get the better policy, then you have to support 
Israel and confront Ukraine and China. You use the process.
  Remember, we have to have policy, politics, and process. This is 
where the use of process comes in to give you cover on the politics as 
you work to defeat good policy.
  Now, again, all those folks back home, reaching for the Doritos, 
looking for Taylor Swift on TV or getting tired of seeing Taylor Swift 
on TV, are saying: Process. Process. What is process?
  Well, anyone who has gone to a PTA meeting, a school board meeting, 
any sort of meeting has seen process at work. There is an agenda. If 
you want to be heard, you raise your hand, maybe get on a list. No one 
person or one group is allowed to dominate theoretically, but all get 
to contribute. In that mutual contribution, you come up with a product 
that is actually better for the whole. That is the way process is 
supposed to work. It works whether you are at a PTA meeting, a school 
board meeting, or in the U.S. Senate.
  But that process can be misused. Frankly, anyone who has been to a 
PTA meeting kind of knows it can be misused. So how could the process 
be misused in this set of circumstances? Well, remember, the only way 
we make this bill better is if we are allowed to put in an amendment 
that controls the situation at the southern border. But if you use the 
process to prevent an amendment from being placed, you never get that 
amendment; you never improve the policy; you never allow something good 
to happen to control the influx of illegal immigrants across the 
southern border. And because you never get that amendment, your excuse 
of voting against the policy to support Israel, confronting Putin, and 
the CCP is airtight--because somehow it doesn't address the problem at 
the southern border. But wait a second. You can only do that with an 
amendment, and the process is being used to prevent that amendment from 
being placed.
  Now, if it seems like things are going back and forth, that is kind 
of the intent. How do we confuse the American people? How do I keep my 
politics straight? Because I want my politics to support my allies, but 
I really don't want to support them. I don't want to say that verbally, 
that I don't want to support them, I don't want to confront Putin. The 
way I can do it is prevent an amendment, but I can't say that I am 
preventing an amendment, so I have to use the process to prevent the 
amendment.
  My children and I used to play a game called Opposite Day. They were 
young. At some point, they got too old for the game.
  They would say something like: Daddy, I want ice cream.
  I would say: Well, today is Opposite Day. You don't get ice cream if 
you want it.
  Well, I don't want ice cream.
  Well, Opposite Day is off. You get ice cream after all.
  You know, it would be kind of this going back and forth before I 
would finally buy them the ice cream.
  It is kind of like what is happening here. People are saying they 
don't want something or saying they want something when all their 
actions show they don't. The actions are opposite of that which they 
hope to achieve, but indeed, they are achieving what they actually 
want.
  But that is kind of--I won't go any further with opposite day. It is 
using the process to prevent an amendment from being placed because 
placing the amendment would therefore remove the obstacle to passing 
the policy which they really are opposed to.
  So let's quickly review. If you don't want to support Israel, if you 
don't want to confront Putin, if you don't want to confront the Chinese 
Communist Party and you would rather block this bill from supporting 
them by saying there is nothing to control the southern border, but you 
prevent an amendment from being passed that would control the southern 
border, then your politics are straight.
  Am I frustrated? I am incredibly frustrated. I am frustrated because 
I feel like this is a fundamental dishonesty with the American people.
  By the way, I am for the policy of controlling the southern border. 
There are drugs and people coming across that border, and I want an 
amendment process whereby we can make it tougher and harder for those 
cartels to ship those folks. Give us an ability to have that amendment. 
But I also want to support Israel, confront Putin, and I also want to 
keep the CCP from taking Taiwan for many reasons I could go into.
  By the way, I may be wrong. I may be totally wrong; in which case, I 
will owe an apology to some folks. But if all of a sudden it breaks up 
and we can have an amendment--an amendment that maybe makes it just a 
little harder for a cartel to traffic people and to traffic drugs--I 
will be so pleased. I will be so pleased that I was wrong.
  But on this day when folks are hopefully thinking about the Super 
Bowl and more pleasant things, I can't help but say that we in the 
Senate owe it to the American people to both be honest to them and to 
get something done.
  This is my plea to my colleagues: Let's be honest, and let's get 
something done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise today to lay out in somewhat 
abbreviated terms how exactly Joe Biden is responsible for the border 
crisis and what Americans would like to see. He alone, right now, can 
solve this issue.
  I think there has been a lot of discussion about improving some of 
the laws that are currently on the books.
  I think the work that was done to try to do that, in my view, didn't 
accomplish that, but nevertheless we are here on Super Bowl Sunday to 
consider something else. I don't mind working on Super Bowl Sunday; I 
grew up in a blue-collar family. Missourians work hard. Working on a 
Sunday is no big deal.
  But you have to ask: What would keep us in today? What would Chuck 
Schumer push--which, by the way, if he is a poker player, it was like 
the worst tell of all time. Everybody knew he was going to try to jam 
us right before a 2-week break. I have only been here a year, and I 
knew that. It was coming.
  But what could be so important when we have a $34 trillion debt, a 
border that is wide open? It is what the center of gravity of this 
whole thing has been about the whole time, which is sending $61 billion 
to a foreign country. We should have a robust debate about that. We 
absolutely should, but we are lying to ourselves if we somehow believe 
that is more important to Americans than securing our own border. It is 
not.
  You know it when you go home and you talk to people, what they are 
talking--the polling certainly doesn't indicate that. But here we are. 
It is fine. We are here. Let's have a debate. I am going to reserve 
some comments for a later time on how we could actually have that 
debate in the U.S. Senate without another Senator having the 
opportunity to offer an amendment.
  I have had so many conversations with Republicans and Democrats who 
believe that there are 99 other people here--or 98 other people here or 
96 other people here, depending on who is getting to draw up the four 
corners, and our willingness to sort of diminish the power of an 
individual Senator who is sent here by an entire State is baffling. And 
I do think that this place is ripe for some sort of bipartisan reform 
on process. This pent-up energy that exists is partly to blame because 
there are no vehicles for people to actually offer amendments.
  You know, Senator Collins and Senator Murray have worked on the 
appropriations process. We have spent 8 hours in 14 months on that on 
the floor. I suppose more on that to come.
  But it is Super Bowl Sunday, so I guess I will give a Super Bowl 
analogy or football analogy about what has happened at our southern 
border.
  I wish I had been smart enough to think about having a John Madden

[[Page S855]]

board here with the offense and defensive line lined up about the play 
that Joe Biden drew up in early 2021, but it goes something like this: 
We had the best defense that football had seen in 45 years, the lowest 
level of illegal immigration in 45 years.
  So what defense does Joe Biden put on the field when he comes into 
office? He doesn't. He takes the defense off the field. Nine million 
illegal immigrants later, we are at where we are at. And we are having 
this discussion again about foreign aid when Joe Biden has failed to 
secure our own border.
  It is not by accident. This didn't just happen. From day one, whether 
it was just simply a reflexive desire to undo everything that was Trump 
or a true open borders agenda written by a bunch of liberals on a white 
paper that somehow got into these positions of power, I think everyone 
can honestly agree that what is happening is not in the best interests 
of the Americans that we represent.
  So, I suppose, let's run through the anatomy of this border crisis in 
kind of a tale of the tape. From day one, all of those effective 
policies that were working, by the way, under existing law--so we had 
that 45-year low under current law.
  There is no legal deficiency right now. There is no deficiency in the 
law that would prevent Joe Biden from securing the border today. There 
isn't. Objectively, there isn't.
  Are there improvements that could be made? Sure. We ought to debate 
that.
  But I guess what happened yesterday was if you somehow don't support 
what this was, you have forfeited, you know, whatever the compromise 
was that was rejected--that as a Senator you don't have the right to 
offer an amendment to try to fix a bill. I think that is a dangerous 
road to go down.
  But here is a small sampling: On January 20, 2021, Joe Biden 
terminated--on day one--terminated the national emergency at the 
southwestern border, halting the construction of the border wall. In 
fact, we found out in the Armed Services Committee that he was paying 
contractors $140,000 a day--a day--to not build the wall. And in one 
instance, with some materials that were put up for auction, over $4 
million worth of materials were sold for just over $100,000.
  I mean, I think if people that we represent actually, you know--if 
you talked to them and told them this, no one would agree that makes 
any sense for taxpayers, regardless of what your position is. But, 
again, because of this reflexive desire to undo everything that was 
Trump, taxpayers take a bath; our border is wide open.
  Same day, Joe Biden reversed a 12-year Executive order, an order that 
in several proclamations put restrictions on immigration from countries 
associated with terrorism. Same day, January 20, 2021, Joe Biden 
announced a 100-day moratorium on deportations and immigration 
enforcement.
  Forever, among Republican and Democrat administrations, essentially 
our border policy, our immigration policy, was, if you come here 
illegally, you are detained or deported. Unless there is some reason 
like you are claiming asylum, 9 out of 10 of them, roughly, are deemed 
bogus, but that had been the policy of the United States of America--no 
longer.
  Same day, January 20, 2021, Joe Biden revoked a Trump-era Executive 
order that directed the Federal Government to employ all lawful means 
to enforce the immigration laws of the United States. That was the 
Executive Order 13768, and that was just the first day.
  In February 2021, the Biden administration stopped applying title 42 
expulsions to children at the border.
  On February 17, 2021, the CDC exempted unaccompanied alien children 
from title 42 expulsion requirements.
  March 10, 2021, the Biden administration announced the reinstatement 
of the Central American Minors Program and expanded it on June 15, 
2021.
  In April and again in October of 2021, DHS canceled contracts to 
build the border wall. I mentioned the $140,000 a day, which is, I 
mean, quite frankly, unbelievable.
  On October 29, 2021, the Biden administration canceled the migrant 
protection protocols or the ``Remain in Mexico'' program.
  When I was Attorney General, we were engaged in Missouri in a number 
of these related lawsuits or lawsuits related to these issues and were 
successful for a while. ``Remain in Mexico'' was one of those. We got a 
temporary and ultimately a preliminary injunction. It went all the way 
to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court kept it in place. We had to go 
back to the Federal district court and say: Judge, the Supreme Court 
said this is still in effect. They are not listening. The Biden 
administration refuses to listen to the Supreme Court, seeking 
contempt.

  It is not in their DNA. So we wonder why we are at--this is on 
purpose. And I think that in a sincere attempt from many of my 
colleagues, the purpose of what this was supposed to be about by some--
my personal view is to keep all this stuff separate. I try to be 
consistent about that.
  But the idea was--obviously, the Ukraine money is very, very 
important to a lot of people here--that maybe there would be some 
trigger if numbers were actually at somewhere close to zero the money 
would be released. That was never on the table, and I think that led to 
a lot of frustration by some. But, again, for me, I have always 
maintained Joe Biden has the authority right now. We don't need 
anything else.
  April 1, 2022, the Biden administration announced that they intended 
to end title 42 and stop expulsions under that program and stop the use 
of title 42 ultimately in May of 2023.
  Title 42 was perhaps the most effective at sort of turning people 
away, as far as the numbers go, but they were, very early on, committed 
to undoing that.
  September 9, 2022, the Biden administration reversed the Trump-era 
public charge rule. On December 13, 2022, the Biden administration sued 
the State of Arizona to force them to remove the shipping containers 
that were placed to close the gaps in the border wall.
  January 6, 2023, the Biden administration began abusing statutorily 
authorized parole authority--again, border wall, ``Remain in Mexico,'' 
parole authority. If you just did those two things--or three things--
and you didn't actually reinstate all of the Executive orders from 
President Trump, you could solve this.
  By and large, these paroles with the paroling authority is supposed 
to be case by case. It is an individualized adjudication. It is not 
because you are from a particular country or some category. Enforce 
current law. That is where the frustration lies. And so that included 
immigrants from Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--
millions, millions of people.
  January 3, 2024, the Biden administration sued the State of Texas for 
enforcing a recently enacted Texas State law that allowed Texas judges 
and magistrates to order illegal immigrants to return to the foreign 
nation from which they came or from where they entered, I should say.
  That is what you need to know about this debate. Joe Biden literally 
in his administration was suing Texas for trying to enforce the laws 
they refused to enforce.
  And perhaps, I would say, if you wanted to understand, maybe, and 
encapsulate the most ridiculous or outrageous effort to undo something 
that existed under President Trump, there was something called 
Operation Talon. Operation Talon was created to deport previously 
convicted sex offenders from other countries.
  Now, I understand we live in a divided age and partisan politics. I 
would think that we could all agree that we should deport previously 
convicted sex offenders seeking to come here illegally. That was off 
the table. That is too much.
  So we heard a lot about compassion and inhumanity. There is nothing 
compassionate about what is happening at the border right now. People 
are drowning. Fentanyl is streaming across. The human trafficking--the 
cartels, in my experience as AG being down at the border, they have 
spheres of influence, not just at the border but in the interior of the 
United States. You go to places like Atlanta, Saint Louis, Kansas City, 
Denver--people who are essentially in indentured servitude, and if they 
speak up, bad things happen to folks back home.
  So this crisis is completely manmade, and that man is Joe Biden. And 
I know that--look, we put on jerseys a lot of times, but we are all 
Americans. And I just don't think anybody can

[[Page S856]]

look and see what is happening and think it is OK. It is not. I think 
we have gotten a little more clarity on that, a little more bipartisan 
voice on that, and my contention to this Chamber is that there is one 
person, there is an administration that can fix it right now but 
refuses to do so.
  Illegal border crossings--I will just sort of close with this. 
Recently, I think everybody is talking about just shocking numbers, an 
alltime high in December of 2023: 249,785. That is up 31 percent from 
November, the previous month, and up 13 percent from the previous 
December.
  Signals are being sent. And based on the polling, I don't know if the 
concern is next year that there might be a change in administration, we 
better be ready for what that looks like.
  And, again, the person who can do it--and regardless of what may have 
happened with this language, if you have an executive branch not 
interested in executing the law, you are never going to get around 
that.
  So we have got the crisis at the southern border. No new authority is 
needed. It is up to him, and I wish he would. As an American, I really 
wish he would. But there are forces, evidently, in the White House or 
on that side of the aisle that just--it is not doable.
  And so now I guess he is in the blame game, but nobody is buying it. 
They didn't buy the Bidenomics argument. They are not buying that this 
is anyone else's fault than the person who reversed everything that was 
working previously and the person who can enforce the laws on the books 
right now and secure our border. He could do it. He just simply doesn't 
want to.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. To my colleague from Missouri, thank you for your 
comments at the beginning where you were talking about process and the 
need for the Senate to change. This is a very different Senate from 
when I first came here and saw it function in a fashion where the 
social contract was: I won't object to other people's amendments 
because they won't object to mine. And then everybody was able to do 
their amendments.
  And also the other factor, just taking it back almost 50 years ago--
it was 1976 when I came here as an intern--cloture motions were not 
used on motions to proceed. They were not used on amendments. They were 
only used on final passage.
  And so now we have the challenge, when a spending bill comes to the 
floor, that you have a cloture on motion to proceed, a cloture on 
substituting the Senate bill onto the House vehicle, a cloture motion 
on final passage, each taking 2 days plus 30 hours, which means 3 weeks 
are completely wasted time.
  I appreciated your expression that there is bipartisan energy and 
interest in making this place work better. It is a message I love to 
hear. I hope we can find a bipartisan strategy that will enable both 
sides to have amendments and will enable us to quit wasting 3 weeks of 
time with no action on every spending bill that comes to the floor.
  Many colleagues have expressed a desire to see each and every one of 
the appropriations bills come to the floor. The last one we had on the 
floor took 6 weeks. Maybe together we can find a better path. Thank 
you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today, the Senate took the next 
significant step toward passing the national security supplemental by 
voting on cloture on the substitute 67 to 27. That is a strong signal 
that this bill has the support it needs to get through the Chamber.
  Advancing this bill today was precisely the right thing to do. Our 
friends abroad are watching closely how we vote in the upcoming days. 
Ukrainian fighters are watching, and you can be sure Vladimir Putin is 
watching the Senate too.
  So for the information of Senators, the Senate will be back in 
session tomorrow at noon to consider postcloture debate. We hope to be 
able to keep moving forward on this bill tomorrow. Members should 
expect a live quorum at noon.
  Again, as I have already made clear, we will keep working on this 
bill until the job is done.

                          ____________________