[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2943-S2992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 2024

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senate 
has received a message from the House of Representatives to accompany 
H.R. 815.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the message 
to accompany H.R. 815.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a 
message from the House.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 815) entitled ``An Act 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.'', 
     with a House amendment to the Senate amendment.


                            Motion to Concur

  Mr. SCHUMER. I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 815, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 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.

[[Page S2944]]

         Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Chris Van Hollen, Mark 
           Kelly, Richard J. Durbin, Alex Padilla, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Michael F. Bennet, Gary C. 
           Peters, Jon Tester, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Tammy 
           Duckworth, Richard Blumenthal, Jeanne Shaheen, Angus S. 
           King, Jr., Margaret Wood Hassan, Benjamin L. Cardin.


                Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 1842

  Mr. SCHUMER. I move to concur in the House amendment to H.R. 815, 
with an amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] moves to concur in 
     the House amendment to the Senate amendment, with an 
     amendment numbered 1842.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask consent that further reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 1 day after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 1843 to Amendment No. 1842

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1843 to amendment No. 1842.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask consent that further reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       On page 1, line 3, strike ``1 day'' and insert ``2 days''.


                Motion to Refer with Amendment No. 1844

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to refer H.R. 815 to the Committee 
on Appropriations with instructions to report back forthwith with an 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] moves to refer the 
     House message to accompany H.R. 815 to the Committee on 
     Appropriations with instructions to report back forthwith 
     with an amendment numbered 1844.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask consent that further reading of the motion be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 3 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1845

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions 
at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1845 to the instructions of the motion to 
     refer.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask consent that further reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       On page 1, line 3, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 days''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 1846 to Amendment No. 1845

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1846 to amendment No. 1845.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask consent that further reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       On page 1, line 1, strike ``4 days'' and insert ``5 days''.


                                H.R. 815

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senate convenes at a moment nearly 6 
months in the making.
  A few days ago, the House of Representatives, at long last, approved 
essential national security funding for Ukraine, for Israel, for the 
Indo-Pacific, and for humanitarian assistance. Today is the Senate's 
turn to act.
  For the information of Senators, at 1 p.m. this afternoon, the Senate 
will hold two rollcall votes related to the supplemental: one on a 
procedural motion and then a vote to invoke cloture.
  The time has come to finish the job to help our friends abroad once 
and for all. I ask my colleagues to join together to pass the 
supplemental today as expeditiously as possible and send our friends 
abroad the aid they have long been waiting for. Let us not delay this. 
Let us not prolong this. Let us not keep our friends around the world 
waiting for a moment longer.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, to provide for the common defense is 
one of Congress's primary responsibilities.
  I have been at this business for quite a while, and I have found that 
making and explaining sensible decisions about advancing our Nation's 
interests is easier when you start from the right set of assumptions.
  Here is what I know to be true: American prosperity and security are 
the products of decades of American leadership. Our global interests 
come with global responsibilities. Healthy alliances lighten the burden 
of these responsibilities. And at the end of the day, the primary 
language of strategic competition is strength.
  These are the facts that led me to urge Presidents of both parties 
not to abandon Afghanistan to terrorists, to fight efforts from both 
sides of the aisle to tie America's hands in critical parts of the 
world, to push consecutive administrations to equip Ukraine with lethal 
weapons before--before--Russia escalated, and to continue fighting for 
the sort of sustained investments in our military and defense 
industrial base necessary to meet the challenges that we face.
  The responsibilities of leadership, the value of alliances, the 
currency of hard power--these are foundational principles. They are not 
driven by the fickle politics of any one moment. They are tested and 
proven by the workings of a dangerous world.
  Today, the Senate sits for a test on behalf of the entire Nation. It 
is a test of American resolve, our readiness, and our willingness to 
lead. And the stakes of failure are abundantly clear.
  Failure to help Ukraine stand against Russian aggression now means 
inviting escalation against our closest

[[Page S2945]]

treaty allies and trading partners. It means greater risk that American 
forces would become involved in conflict. It means more costly 
deployments of our military and steeper military requirements to defend 
against aggression.
  Failure to reestablish deterrence against Iran means encouraging 
unchecked terrorist violence against American personnel, our ally 
Israel, and the international commerce that underpins our prosperity.
  And failure to match the pacing threat--the People's Republic of 
China--means jeopardizing the entire system of alliances that preserve 
American interests and reinforce American leadership.
  Colleagues on both sides of the aisle who dismiss the values of our 
allies and partners ignore what history teaches about times when we 
lacked such friendships. Our adversaries understand the stakes, and 
they are responding with a coordinated full-court press.
  Iran and North Korea are literally arming Russia's war in Ukraine. 
China is helping Iran skirt international sanctions. A ``friendship 
without limits'' has blossomed between Moscow and Beijing.
  The authoritarians of the world may have caught the West flatfooted. 
They may be betting big that American influence is in decline. But, 
increasingly, our friends understand the stakes too.
  In Asia, nations with every excuse to be preoccupied by Chinese 
aggression understand that, in fact, defeating authoritarian conquest 
halfway around the world is actually in their interests. They know 
China will benefit from Russian advances, and they know Beijing is 
waiting for us to waver.
  In Europe, allies that had long neglected the responsibilities of 
collective security are making historic new investments in their own 
defense.
  Finland and Sweden, two high-tech nations, responded to Russian 
escalation by bringing real military capabilities to the most 
successful military alliance in world history. And when the House 
passed the supplemental last week, the Prime Minister of Sweden 
reiterated that our allies have even more work to do.
  The holiday from history is over.
  And in the Middle East, our close ally is locked in a fight for its 
right to literally exist. The people of Israel require no reminders of 
the stakes of hard-power competition or deterrence.
  The remaining question is whether America does. Do our colleagues 
share the view of the Japanese Prime Minister that ``the leadership of 
the United States is indispensable''? Or would we rather abdicate both 
the responsibilities and the benefits of global leadership?
  Will the Senate indulge the fantasy of pulling up a drawbridge? Will 
we persist in the 21st century with an approach that failed in the 
20th? Or will we dispense with the myth of isolationism and embrace 
reality?
  For those who insist that America cannot do what the moment requires, 
the facts are inconveniently clear:
  First, supplemental investment in the capabilities America and our 
friends need to defeat Russian aggression are not a distraction from 
China. Without the investments we have made over the past 2 years, 
America's defense industrial base would be even further behind the 
clear requirements of long-term competition with the PRC.
  You don't believe me? Just ask the former chairman of the House 
Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, who stayed in Congress 
long enough to support the legislation now before us.
  Second, supplemental investments have expanded our capacity to 
produce critical munitions. This supplemental contains additional 
investments aimed at expanding production capacity of critical 
munitions and weapons systems needed in the Indo-Pacific. Higher 
production rates and lower unit costs of critical munitions are a no-
brainer for colleagues who are actually interested in strategic 
competition with the PRC.
  Colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say they are concerned 
over the defense industrial base today would have done well to have 
joined me--months before Russian escalation in Ukraine--in supporting a 
massive proposed investment under reconciliation led by our former 
colleagues Senator Shelby and Senator Inhofe. If some of our Republican 
colleagues hadn't joined the Democratic leader in opposition, we would 
have begun to rebuild our capacity even sooner.
  And, finally, investment in American hard power and leadership isn't 
coddling our allies. By every objective measure, they have helped drive 
our allies to make historic--historic--investments of their own in 
collective defense.
  Across Europe, the acceleration of defense spending is outpacing our 
own. And, right now, allies and partners from Europe to the Indo-
Pacific have contracted more than $100 billion worth of cutting-edge 
American weapons and capabilities. That is right. Our allies across the 
world are buying expensive, sophisticated American weapons produced in 
American factories by American workers.
  Do my colleagues really think that will continue if America decides 
that global leadership is too heavy a burden?
  So much of the hesitation and shortsightedness that has delayed this 
moment is premised on sheer fiction, and I take no pleasure in 
rebutting misguided fantasies.
  I wish sincerely that recognizing the responsibilities of American 
leadership was the price of admission for serious conversations about 
the future of our national security.
  Make no mistake, delay in providing Ukraine the weapons to defend 
itself has strained the prospects of defeating Russian aggression. 
Dithering and hesitation have compounded the challenges we face.
  Today's action is overdue, but our work does not end here. Trust in 
American resolve is not revealed overnight. Expanding and restocking 
the arsenal of democracy doesn't just happen by magic.
  And even as our allies take on a greater share of the burden of 
collective security, our obligation to invest in our own defense is as 
serious as ever.
  So I will continue to hold the Commander in Chief to account for 
allowing America's adversaries to deter us, for hesitating in the face 
of escalation, and for providing anything less than full support for 
allies like Israel as they fight to restore their security and their 
sovereignty. At the same time, I will not mince words when Members of 
my own party take the responsibilities of American leadership lightly.
  Today, the Senate faces a test, and we must not fail it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a recent article by Peter Pomerantsev in 
TIME Magazine starts this way. It is about a Ukrainian held prisoner by 
the Russians. I quote:

       After they beat Azat Azatyan so bad blood came out of his 
     ears; after they sent electric shocks up his genitals; after 
     they wacked him with pipes and truncheons, the Russians began 
     to interrogate him about his faith. ``When did you become a 
     Baptist? When did you become an American spy?'' Azat tried to 
     explain that in Ukraine there was freedom of religion, you 
     could just choose your faith. But his torturers saw the world 
     the same way as their predecessors at the KGB did: An 
     American church is just a front for the American state.

  Since Soviet times, the Russian Orthodox Church has been used as a 
tool of the state, so Russians assume Protestants in Ukraine are 
American agents.
  The world was horrified after the Kyiv suburb of Bucha was liberated, 
revealing that civilians had been massacred simply for being loyal 
Ukrainians. But Bucha is not an exception. In every part of Ukraine 
that Russia has occupied, civilians have been murdered, women 
systematically raped, and Christians not loyal to Moscow have been 
persecuted, tortured, and killed. Every day, the Russian military fires 
rockets, drones, and shells at civilian areas to demoralize the 
population in hopes of taking more Ukrainian land. Yet, with every 
Russian missile attack, every Ukrainian town destroyed, and every 
report of murdered pastors, the Ukrainian people become

[[Page S2946]]

more determined to prevent any more territory falling under Russian 
occupation.
  You can understand why calls by some American politicians to 
negotiate with Russia seem so absurd to Ukrainians under daily attack. 
Ukraine knows that if it allows any more territory to fall under 
Russian control, it will mean more Ukrainians tortured and killed. 
Likewise, for most Ukrainians, giving up on their fellow countrymen 
currently suffering under Russian occupation is unthinkable.
  There is also zero indication from Russia that Russia is looking to 
negotiate. The lack of any new U.S. military assistance from Congress 
for over a year has actually bolstered Putin's belief that he can 
outlast the West despite being outnumbered and outmatched in economic 
and military power.
  Now, we all know that Russia is in violation of multiple treaties 
recognizing Ukraine's borders and promising to respect its sovereignty. 
Start out with the United Nations Charter that guarantees the 
sovereignty of individual countries. But beyond that, the United States 
and Russia, plus the United Kingdom, all signed the Budapest Memorandum 
in 1993 in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons inherited from the 
Soviet Union in return for a guarantee of its sovereignty and 
territorial integrity. If you believe in the rule of law, that Budapest 
Memorandum ought to mean something.
  Just like in 2014, if Russia gets away with any territory it took by 
force, it will send the message that force pays off. Before long, 
Russia will be back for more territory. And who is to say they would 
stop with Ukraine? Anyone claiming that there is no threat to the rest 
of Europe is choosing to ignore comments by people in Putin's inner 
circle threatening NATO allies like Poland and the Baltic countries.
  I think Putin made it very clear back in 2005 when he said that ``the 
demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of 
the century.'' We all hear Putin talking a lot about Peter the Great 
and restoring the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire grew and grew 
throughout history, irrespective of national, ethnic, religious, or 
cultural borders. That provides the context when Putin repeats the 
phrase ``Russia's borders do not end anywhere.''
  I believe in the lesson we took from World War II for the Cold War 
that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When we see the 
flame of aggression, we ought to stamp it out before the whole world is 
engulfed.
  Neville Chamberlain bet everything on the hope that letting Hitler 
take Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia would satisfy him and there would 
be, according to his own words, ``peace in our time.'' It is not 1938, 
but it could be, and hopefully no world war confronts us like it did in 
1938 when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made that trip to Germany 
and had that meeting that ended with the words ``peace in our time.''
  We all know that Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia and then, in 
a short period of time, invaded Poland. We stayed out of that war until 
we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and then World War II was raging both 
in the Pacific and in Europe.
  So can we learn from history? Today, we have to decide again whether 
to respond to aggression with strength while the threat is manageable 
or opt for appeasement and hope, against experience, that it will not 
lead to a wider war as it did in the late 1930s.
  Think about how much was lost in World War II, not just in dollars 
but in American lives. Now think about how much it would cost in 
American blood and treasure if Russia is emboldened to attack a NATO 
ally and article 5 of the NATO treaty would kick in and all 31 
countries would be involved in that effort--and the United States would 
likewise be involved.
  The United States has been spending about 5 percent of our annual 
military budget to arm Ukraine, and U.S. intelligence believes the war 
has severely degraded Russia's military power and its ability to 
threaten NATO allies. Ukraine has taken back about half the territory 
Russia occupied in 2022. But without American aid, Ukraine is almost 
out of ammunition, and Russia sees an opportunity.
  Europe has spent more than twice as much as the United States on aid 
to Ukraine in total dollars. Think of the humanitarian aid that Europe 
lends to all those millions of Ukrainians who have sought refuge in 
other countries. Compared to Europe, when you look at it as a share of 
the economy, the United States ranks No. 32. No. 1 ranking Estonia has 
provided more than 12 times as much assistance as a share of its 
economy because Estonia knows what it was like to be occupied by the 
Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991.
  Europe has stepped up big-time and keeps finding ways to do more. You 
read daily in the newspapers about European leaders wondering whether 
the U.S. Congress is going to step up, and they have tried to fill in 
the vacuum while we dither here, waiting to make a decision on more 
help for Ukraine.
  The Czechs and the Estonians have led two efforts to pool Europe's 
funds to purchase shells from other countries to patch the gap left by 
the United States while Congress dithers on this issue, but the Czechs 
and Estonians do not have the military industrial base that we do, so 
they cannot do it all.
  Opponents of Ukraine aid have started talking down our industrial 
base's ability to produce everything needed to stop Russian aggression 
while also preparing for China, which may just follow Russia's example 
against Taiwan if Russia is successful in Ukraine. These people argue 
that Ukraine can't win so we should cut our losses and worry about 
China. I disagree. The fact is, Russia has lost much of its experienced 
military and advanced equipment. Russia does have a vast population and 
has put its economy on full war footing, so it has been able to 
reconstitute; however, Russian soldiers are poorly trained, and the 
morale of these Russian soldiers is in the toilet.
  Russia has resorted to its old tactic of ``meat assaults,'' where 
hundreds of poorly trained infantry try to overwhelm Ukrainian defenses 
with sheer numbers and great deaths.
  Russia has only been able to make incremental advances while taking 
huge casualties in the face of superior Ukrainian morale and equipment.
  Russia's economy is feeling the strain. Word has gotten out about how 
freely Russian commanders sacrifice the lives of their soldiers. It 
will only get a lot harder to replace the tens of thousands of Russian 
soldiers sent to their death in Ukraine.
  Russia is pinning its hopes on U.S. military aid not coming and 
Ukraine running out of ammunition. I, for one, am happy to help dash 
Putin's hopes. The good news is that our defense industrial base is 
ramping up. That includes the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, which has 
more than doubled production using its current facilities. It is also 
undergoing a major modernization program, accelerated by previous 
Ukraine supplemental bills.
  In the near future, it will have a brandnew facility that will be 
able to produce many more 155mm shells and do it much faster.
  Those arguing that the United States is no longer up to the task of 
producing the necessary military equipment are underestimating our 
economy.
  I am reminded of President Carter's famous 1979 malaise speech where 
he identified a crisis of confidence among the American people. That 
was 1979.
  In 1980, Ronald Reagan came along with his signature optimism that 
America's best days are ahead. And he worked to overcome the challenges 
that we faced, including the lagging economy and an underresourced 
military.
  Just recently, the Japanese Prime Minister spoke to our Congress and 
delivered a message as a very good friend. He said he detected an 
undercurrent of self-doubt about Americans. The Japanese Prime Minister 
spoke movingly about the role of American leadership in championing 
freedoms and fostering the stability and prosperity of nations like 
Japan. That Japanese Prime Minister explained that while American 
leadership is indispensable, Americans are not alone in this world.
  With allies like Japan and many countries in Europe stepping up, the 
free world has never been stronger or more united. So this is hardly a 
time for a crisis of confidence.
  In fact, I am shocked to hear some people in my own party--the 
Republican Party--accepting American decline and advocating a return to 
the

[[Page S2947]]

Obama head-in-the-sand policy toward Russia.
  Remember, back then, Obama was so afraid of escalation that he tried 
to appease Putin after Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Look at that 
mistake we made. Do we want to overdo it again?
  Obama refused to provide any lethal aid--not one bullet for Ukraine 
under Obama. He pushed Ukraine to negotiate with a gun to its head.
  President Trump came in, reversed the Obama policy, and provided 
equipment and training to the Ukrainian military. Thank God Trump did 
that. The Javelins provided by the United States played a major role in 
stopping the Russian advance towards Kyiv.
  Take it from this Senator, elected to this body alongside President 
Reagan: The conservative position is to believe in America, to invest 
in our military, and to support freedom.
  Like the Senate-passed bill, most of the money in this package goes 
straight to our military to replenish stockpiles--spent in the United 
States, using American labor. It will allow for more drawdowns to send 
vital military aid to Ukraine. This includes Patriot interceptors that 
can take down Russia's most advanced missiles and save lives at the 
same time.
  Ukraine will get more Iowa-made howitzer shells that are far more 
accurate and reliable than those that Russia has begged from North 
Korea.
  And an improvement added by Reagan Republicans in the House is a 
requirement for the Biden administration to provide the long-range 
ATACM missiles needed to take out Russia's supply lines.
  I have been calling for these ATACMS to be provided for a long time. 
I think the reason they have not been provided by the Biden 
administration is due to the holdover of the Obama fear of escalation. 
That fear has proven to be misguided.
  The only way to lasting peace is strength. That is what Ronald Reagan 
showed Americans. Strength is what we need now in the face of 
aggression from Russia and Iran and threats from China.
  I don't buy this notion that it is a conservative or Republican 
position to abandon the American leadership that has kept the peace 
since World War II, meaning no World War III. I certainly do not think 
it is conservative to advocate a return to a weak and failed Obama 
policy.
  I make no apologies for supporting Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan in the 
face of threats from the axis of anti-American dictatorships. And, now, 
instead of the axis of the 1940s--Germany, Italy, and Japan--it is now 
the axis of the 21st century--Russia, Iran, China, North Korea. They 
have their sights set upon replacing the United States as leaders of 
this Earth. It is an investment worth making to prevent the United 
States getting sucked into World War III. It is also the right thing to 
do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, like my good friend from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley, I am going to come down to the Senate floor to talk about the 
national security supplemental we are voting on today. I commend the 
senior Senator from Iowa. He is a great U.S. Senator. It was a really 
good speech. I am going to reinforce some of what he just said on the 
importance of this bill, but, importantly, the broader context of how 
we actually got here and where we need to be going in terms of our 
Nation's defense.
  In my view, the current occupant of the White House, President Biden, 
has gotten a free pass on his numerous huge national security missteps 
that have been undermining our Nation's security and have forced the 
Congress of the United States to actually take action.
  That is the whole point. We are taking action. I am a supporter of 
this legislation, but we are doing it because of the failures of the 
current occupant of the White House. I am going to encourage my 
colleagues, particularly my Republican Senate colleagues, to vote in 
favor of this bill.
  But I think it is important to put it in the broader context of what 
is going on in the world. I made a couple of speeches on this before. I 
am just going to reiterate some and add to some of the challenges we 
are facing because of the Biden administration.
  First, I think it is pretty obvious to everybody--to anyone who is 
watching--that we are in a new era of authoritarian aggression led by 
this dictator, Xi Jinping. Look at him. He gets in his ``cammies'' 
every now and then, threatening his neighbors.
  By the way, China is going through the largest peacetime military 
buildup in the history of the world. If that doesn't make you a little 
nervous about what is going on around the world, it should. This guy is 
a brutal dictator. But it is led by him, Putin, the ayatollahs in Iran, 
the terrorists in Iran--the largest state sponsor of terrorism--and the 
``Mini-Me'' North Korean dictator. They are all working together. They 
want to undermine our interest. They want to undermine the interest of 
our allies. They are driven by historical grievances. They are paranoid 
about their democratic neighbors. They are more than willing to invade 
them, as we are seeing across the world--whether Israel, whether 
Ukraine.
  Again, they are working together, and they are spending boatloads of 
money on national security issues, military buildups. This is actually 
led by this guy. He is the big one that we have to keep a close eye on. 
That is No. 1.
  We are in a real, real dangerous era. This is one thing I do agree 
with the Biden administration on.
  We have had the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs come and say: Hey, we are in the most dangerous time since 
probably the end of World War II.
  Dictators are on the march. They are invading their neighbors. They 
are massively building up their military, and they are all working 
together. It sounds a little bit like the 1930s to me.
  The second reason we need a defense industrial base supplemental is 
our own industrial base--our ability to produce weapons for us, for 
America--has completely atrophied. I could give a speech for hours. 
This, again, is part of the Biden administration's fault.
  But we can't build Navy ships. We can't build Navy subs. Every 
component of our industrial base is shrinking. It is brittle. It has 
atrophied. Yet we are in this dangerous period. So that is pretty 
alarming.
  By the way, it is our responsibility, in article I of the U.S. 
Constitution, for the Senate and the House to raise an army, to provide 
and maintain a navy. My view is it is the No. 1 constitutional duty we 
have--securing this Nation. Yet we are behind.
  The Navy just put out, 3 weeks ago, this alarming report saying the 
U.S. Navy is behind on every ship platform that they are building--3 to 
5 years behind--carriers, subs. Almost 40 percent of our attack sub 
fleet is in maintenance, not even out to sea.
  He is scared to death of U.S. subs. What is this guy doing? He is 
cranking out 10 to 12 ships--high-end navy ships--a year. The Chinese 
Communist Party's navy is now bigger than the U.S. Navy. The danger is 
our industrial base can't produce weapons the way it could.
  And then the third reason I think we need a national security 
supplemental is given how weak the Biden administration has been on 
national security. The current budget of this President shrinks the 
Army, shrinks the Navy, shrinks the Marine Corps. Do you think Xi 
Jinping is impressed by that? He is not--neither is Putin, neither are 
the ayatollahs. That is what they are doing.
  By the way, this President, in every budget he submits to Congress 
for the military during these really dangerous times, what does he do? 
He cuts it. He cuts the military. I am going to get more into that.
  These are the big three reasons that I have been supportive of this 
bill. But here is the thing. When you read the bill and look at it and 
dig into the details, it is less of a foreign aid bill and much more of 
a bill to enhance our industrial capacity. It is not a perfect bill, 
and I am going to get into that in a minute. There is no such thing as 
a perfect bill, by the way, but almost 60 percent of this national 
security supplemental bill that we are going to be voting on goes 
directly into our industrial base, directly into our ability to build 
submarines--like $6 billion for submarines, $6 billion with the AUKUS 
agreement, $5 billion for 150mm artillery shells, over half a billion 
for

[[Page S2948]]

counter-UAS systems--Patriots, Javelins, Harpoons, Tomahawks, HARM 
missiles, TOW missiles--built by Americans for our own defense. That is 
in this bill. It is in the bill. That is a really important component. 
Almost 60 percent of this bill goes into that.
  And it has other things in it: $3 billion for our troops in the 
CENTCOM area of responsibility, right now--who are in combat right now, 
taking incoming missiles from the Houthis. The USS Carney almost took 
100 different missiles and drones. With sailors in combat, this 
replenishes their weapons systems and helps our troops in combat.
  By the way, in my view, just that element alone is enough to support 
this bill. You have American troops in combat in the Middle East.
  And, of course, this bill does go to help our allies and partners--
Israel, Taiwan, Ukraine--who are facing existential threats, literally, 
from their very aggressive neighbors.
  But, again, a lot of this is going to stay home. We are not sending 
subs to any of those countries. We are building submarines to be ready, 
if we have to, in a conflict with China. Xi Jinping--that dictator I 
was just showing you there--is scared to death of the nuclear sub 
capability of the United States.
  This is mostly about us protecting our country and our industrial 
base to produce weapons for America. I think it is going to put a lot 
of workers to work. But this bill, primarily, if you read it, is about 
protecting our Nation.
  As I said, it is not a perfect bill. There are a number of things--
there are some amendments we were debating a couple months ago here on 
the Senate floor. For example, I think the direct budget support, the 
economic aid--that should go to our European allies to help the 
Ukrainians with that, that should go to the Gulf Arab allies who want 
to support Gaza in terms of economic aid. We should be providing the 
lethal aid.
  But, I will say, Speaker Johnson definitely improved the bill from 
what the Senate sent over a couple of months ago. I applaud him for his 
impressive leadership.
  There are a number of improvements, like the direct budget support 
and economic aid are now in the form of forgivable loans. That was a 
President Trump idea. That was a good idea.
  On the REPO Act, Senator Risch has been pushing on that hard. He has 
done a great job on that. That would enable us to seize Russian assets 
and use them to help pay for the Ukraine war.
  There is a requirement that makes the Biden administration lay out a 
much more detailed strategy on Ukraine and forces them to provide 
Ukrainians ATACMS weapon systems.
  It focuses on fentanyl. It focuses on TikTok and the improvements 
there, breaking the tie between the Chinese Communist Party and control 
of this popular app.
  The House did try to take up some border security issues. I certainly 
wish those would have passed. I am not sure my Senate Democratic 
colleagues would have voted on it. That would have made it better.
  But there are many improvements. The Speaker did a good job on it.
  Mr. President, we had some critics on the left and on the right of 
this bill. I want to just address a few of those as we are getting 
ready to vote on this. Some are quite serious.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have said: Hey, the Europeans need 
to do more, particularly when it comes to Ukraine.
  I actually agree with that. No one in this Chamber has worked harder 
on the issue of making sure our NATO allies meet their 2-percent 
obligation in terms of defense spending.
  I had an amendment to the Sweden and Finland accession treaties that 
we voted on here that said it is the sense of the Senate that all of 
these countries have to meet their 2-percent-of-GPD obligation on 
defense as a NATO member. That passed 98 to 0 here in the Senate.
  I had an NDAA provision that is now law that says the Secretary of 
Defense shall prioritize training and troop deployments for countries 
in NATO with U.S. forces that meet their 2 percent obligation.
  So I agree with those critiques, but some of the critiques from some 
of my colleagues--let's just say they weren't serious.
  You might remember one--that this national security supplemental is 
some kind of secret trap for a future impeachment of President Trump. I 
am pretty sure that is not what Speaker Johnson was working on the last 
2 months.
  That this national security bill will ``strain our industrial base.'' 
Actually, it will do the opposite. I think that is clear. It is going 
to make generational investments in our industrial base that hopefully 
will continue for years. They will continue for years.
  That the national security supplemental sends the ``wrong signal'' to 
what the warfighter in America needs for actual threats we face. Well, 
I find that really curious. Let me give one example. I worked directly 
with the INDOPACOM Commander, Admiral Aquilino, on exactly what he 
thought he needed to help American forces defend Taiwan and the Taiwan 
Strait. That is in the bill. The original bill from the Biden 
administration had very little on that. We made it a lot better, a lot 
stronger. But working directly with INDOPACOM and the admiral--there is 
no better expert in the world on what they need to fight in the Taiwan 
Strait. So, again, that criticism seems really off base and not a 
serious critique if you actually are one of the Senators doing the 
homework on what our warfighters need.
  But the biggest issue I have with some of the arguments and critiques 
of this national security supplemental that are actually coming from 
the left and the right in the House and in the Senate is their claim 
that deterrence is divisible--deterrence is divisible. Now, what do I 
mean by that? Their argument, and I have heard it a lot, is that you 
can cut off aid to Ukraine, let Putin roll over them, roll over that 
country, move up to the borders of the Baltics and Poland--NATO allies, 
by the way--but somehow we can still be strong in the Taiwan Strait 
with regard to Xi Jinping and the ayatollahs in Iran.
  So deterrence is divisible. You can kind of show weakness with regard 
to Putin but strength with regard to Xi Jinping and the ayatollahs. 
Well, that is not how the world works. Deterrence is not divisible. How 
do we know that? Well, I think we know that because of this debacle.
  Joe Biden's failed approach to national security has shown us that 
deterrence is not divisible. What am I talking about? When this 
happened, the botched Afghanistan withdrawal--``Biden's debacle,'' as 
The Economist put it on their front cover--many in this Chamber--
Democrats and Republicans, by the way, myself included--predicted that, 
given this botched Afghanistan withdrawal, dictators around the world 
are going to be emboldened to press us other places. Stand by. Putin 
and Xi are going to invade somewhere else because of this. I didn't 
only hear that from people here; I have talked to world leaders who 
have said there was no way Putin would have invaded Ukraine if it 
hadn't been for this Biden debacle.
  So deterrence is not divisible, and that is exhibit A, which brings 
me to my final point here.
  The press, our friends in the media, as usual are missing the bigger 
story on what is going on on this national security supplemental. All 
the focus has been on the House and how Republicans in the House have 
delayed the Senate bill for 2 months, that we Republicans in the 
Congress are not taking foreign policy seriously, and that this bill's 
passage is some kind of victory for President Biden's foreign policy 
leadership. But here is what I think is going on: This national 
security supplemental bill actually exposes even further the weakness 
of the Biden administration's approach to Ukraine on foreign policy 
that has only brought the world chaos.
  I was at a Sunday talk show the other day and made the point--a very 
simple question: Is the world a safer place for America and its allies 
today relative to 4 years ago? I think everybody knows the answer is 
no, it is not even close. There is chaos all over the world.
  I think what is really important is to focus on how we actually got 
to this point, why we need this defense supplemental in the first 
place. The reason we do is the failure of the current occupant of the 
White House's policies with regard to foreign policy and national 
security. That is the entire reason we

[[Page S2949]]

have to bring this bill, this national security bill, to the floor and 
why it is so urgently needed now. This bill is not some kind of exhibit 
of Joe Biden's foreign policy triumph; it is a needed correction of Joe 
Biden's foreign policy failure.
  First, as I noted, the Afghan debacle certainly emboldened Putin to 
invade Ukraine. I think that is a view that is commonly held.
  Secondly, our own border debacle has been something that has made it 
so Republicans who would normally support strong national security 
were, with a lot of good reasons, saying: Hey, let's take care of our 
own open borders and national security at the southern border first. 
The President has not done that. We have an open border that is a 
humanitarian and national security fiasco in America.
  Third, this President, with regard to Ukraine, has not been in it to 
win it. What do I mean by that? Every major weapons system that the 
Ukrainians have said they need, they have delayed and delayed and 
delayed because they were fearful of Putin. Let's just call it like it 
is. The list is long: HIMARS, Stingers, Javelins, tanks, Abrams tanks, 
F16s, even the ATACMS that are in the House bill, forcing the President 
to say that we are going to get these really important, long-range, 
accurate artilleries to the Ukrainians. This is the No. 1 issue we 
heard from President Zelenskyy a couple months ago when we were in 
Munich--that they are just not getting weapons they need.
  Imagine if the Biden administration had gotten all the weapons 
systems I just mentioned to Ukrainians a year and a half ago. And what 
has happened every time? This body--Democrats and Republicans--has gone 
to the President, saying: Mr. President, give them these weapons.
  Well, we are going to delay. We don't want to escalate with Putin.
  Escalate with Putin? He invaded a country.
  They are not in it to win it.
  The President called an LNG pause on our allies. Our allies in Europe 
are apoplectic about that.
  Not in it to win it.
  Finally, this President has never explained the stakes of why this is 
so important. He has given two speeches on Ukraine. Two. Two major 
speeches. And do you know what he does? He attacks Republicans in his 
speeches. That is not leadership. That is not leadership. Especially on 
a big national security issue, you want to bring people together and 
explain the stakes. Speaker Johnson has done more to explain the stakes 
in a calm, reassuring manner in the last 2 weeks than President Biden 
has done in 3 years.
  Finally, again, in terms of lack of seriousness on national security 
issues, I think the most damning issue is the lack of seriousness with 
regard to our national defense. As I mentioned, the President puts 
forward budgets to cut defense spending every year.
  I have asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs--three hearings in a row in the Armed Services Committee--if 
this is the most dangerous time since World War II, why are you cutting 
defense spending? Why are you going to bring defense spending in 
America next year to below 3 percent of GDP? We have only been there 
four times since World War II. Why are you dramatically undermining 
readiness?
  They don't want to do that. The Secretary of Defense doesn't want to 
do that. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs doesn't want to do that. So 
why are they doing it? The answer to that is, this is where our 
Democratic colleagues always are. Since Vietnam, just look at what 
every President who is a Democrat who has occupied the White House has 
done--Carter, Clinton, Obama, and now Biden. They come in, and they cut 
defense spending, and they cut readiness. This is in the DNA of the 
national party.
  Republicans have a different tradition. It is this tradition: Peace 
through strength. Peace through strength--that is our tradition.
  To my Republican colleagues and friends in the Senate, our tradition 
is much more serious, it is prouder, and I will tell you this: It is 
much more supported by the American people. Peace through strength, not 
American retreat.
  As I am encouraging my Republican Senate colleagues to vote on this 
national security supplemental, this is in line with the peace through 
strength tradition we have in this party. Think about it--Teddy 
Roosevelt; Eisenhower; Reagan, of course; the Bush Presidencies; and, 
very much in the tradition of peace through strength, the Trump 
Presidency. I was here. Heck, I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2014 
primarily because the second term of the Obama administration cut 
defense spending by 25 percent. Readiness plummeted--plummeted. 
Shocking how badly ready our troops were. When the Trump administration 
came in, working with Senate Republicans when we were in the majority, 
we reversed it. Peace through strength.
  So through arguments, facts, understanding history, a serious view of 
the world, peace through strength--my Republican colleagues, we need to 
keep this tradition going, especially during these dangerous times. We 
certainly can't rely on our Democratic colleagues to support that. We 
certainly can't rely on this White House. President Biden cuts defense 
spending every year to support that. That is a really important reason 
why I encourage my colleagues to support this national security 
supplemental--imperfect bill, yes, but needed during these very 
dangerous times.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on a $95 
billion supplemental spending package, and $95 billion--that is a lot 
of money, especially at a time when many Americans are unable to afford 
their rent or pay their mortgages, pay their bills, afford healthcare, 
struggling with student debt, and many other needs. Mr. President, $95 
billion is a lot of money.
  All told, this package includes tens of billions of dollars in 
additional military spending and major policy changes, many of which 
are controversial, many of which are disagreed with by the American 
people. Yet, unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate will not 
have the opportunity to hold separate votes on the various components 
of this bill.
  I have heard from many of my Democratic colleagues--and I agree--who 
talk about the dysfunctionality taking place in the House of 
Representatives. In fact, I don't know if we are quite sure who the 
Speaker of the House will be in a couple of weeks or whether the 
extreme-right wing is going to get rid of Mr. Johnson. But what we can 
say about the House is that they at least gave their Members the 
opportunity to vote yes or no on funding for Ukraine, yes or no on aid 
to Israel, yes or no on TikTok, and yes or no on aid to Asian 
countries. That is more than can be said for the U.S. Senate right now.
  I remind my colleagues that this is supposedly the greatest 
deliberative body in the world--except we don't have very many 
deliberations around here. You have one bill, up or down.
  We need to have a serious debate on these issues. I think the 
American people want us to have a serious debate on these issues, and 
that is why I am trying my best to secure amendment votes, which, in my 
view, will significantly improve this bill.
  As it happens, I strongly support the humanitarian aid included in 
this bill, which will save many thousands of lives in Gaza, Sudan, 
Ukraine, and many other places. Strongly support it. I strongly support 
getting Ukraine the military aid it needs to defend itself against 
Putin's Imperialist war. I support the Iron Dome to protect Israeli 
civilians from missile and drone attacks.
  But let me be very clear: I strongly support ending the provision 
which will give $8.9 billion in unfettered offensive military aid to 
the extremist Israeli government, a government led by Prime Minister 
Netanyahu, who is continuing his unprecedented assault against the 
Palestinian people.
  I also strongly oppose language in this legislation that would 
prohibit funding for UNRWA, the U.N. organization that is the backbone 
of the humanitarian relief operation in Gaza and the only organization 
that experts say has the capability to provide the humanitarian aid 
that is desperately needed there.
  And I have filed two amendments to address these issues. These 
amendments would not touch funding for the Iron Dome and other purely 
defensive

[[Page S2950]]

systems to protect Israel against incoming missiles.
  As we all know, Hamas, a terrorist organization, began this war with 
a horrific attack on Israel that killed 1,200 innocent men, women, and 
children and took more than 230 captives, some of whom remain today in 
captivity.
  As I have said many times, Israel has and had the absolute right to 
defend itself against this terrorist attack, but Israel did not and 
does not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian 
people, which is exactly what it is doing.
  Regarding offensive military aid to Israel, what we will be voting on 
is pretty simple: First, has Netanyahu and his government violated U.S. 
and international law in Gaza? Which, if he has, should automatically 
result in the cessation of all U.S. military aid to Israel. That is a 
pretty simple question.
  Second--maybe even more importantly--as U.S. taxpayers, do we want to 
be complicit in Netanyahu's unprecedented and savage military campaign 
against the Palestinian people? Do we want to continue providing the 
weapons and the military aid that is causing this massive destruction? 
Do we want that war in Gaza to be not only Israel's war, but America's 
war?
  On the first question, the legal issue, the answer is very clear. 
Netanyahu and his extremist government are clearly in violation of U.S. 
and international law and, because of that, should no longer receive 
U.S. military aid.
  International law requires that warring parties facilitate rapid and 
unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need. That is 
international law. Israel has clearly not done that. Only in the last 
several weeks, after pressure from President Biden, has aid access 
begun to improve somewhat; though, it is still grossly insufficient 
given the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe.
  Maybe more importantly is that U.S. law on this subject is extremely 
clear. There is no ambiguity. The foreign assistance act says that no 
U.S. security assistance may be provided to any country that 
``prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the 
transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.'' That 
is the law. Israel is clearly in violation of this law. For 6 months, 
it has severely limited the amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza. 
The result has been a catastrophic humanitarian disaster with hundreds 
of thousands of children facing malnutrition and starvation. Israel's 
violation of this law is not in debate. It is a reality repeatedly 
confirmed every day by numerous humanitarian organizations. Israeli 
leaders themselves admit it.
  At the start of this war, the Israeli Defense Minister declared a 
total siege on Gaza, saying--this is the Israeli defense minister:

       We are fighting human animals and we [are acting] 
     accordingly.
       There will be no electricity, no food . . . no fuel . . . 
     Everything [is] closed.

  And they kept their word on that. In January, Netanyahu himself said 
that Israel is only allowing in the absolute minimum amount of aid. For 
months, thousands of trucks carrying lifesaving supplies have sat just 
miles away from starving children--trucks with food miles away from 
children who are starving. And Israel has kept these trucks from 
reaching people in desperate need.
  Israel's blockade pushed the United States--this is rather 
incredible--to extreme measures, including airdropping supplies and the 
construction of an emergency pier in order to get food to starving 
people. In other words, the President and the United States did the 
right thing. Children are starving. We are trying to do airdrops, build 
a pier. In other words, we are now in the absurd situation where Israel 
is using U.S. military assistance to block the delivery of U.S. 
humanitarian aid to Palestinians. If that is not crazy, I don't know 
what is; but it is also a clear violation of U.S. law.
  Given that reality, we should not today even be having this debate. 
It is illegal to continue current military aid to Israel, let alone 
send another $9 billion with no strings attached.
  Let me take a moment to describe what is happening in Gaza right now 
to further explain why these amendments are absolutely necessary and 
why we must end U.S. complicity in Netanyahu's war in Gaza.
  More than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed and 77,000 wounded 
since this war began; 70 percent of whom are women and children--70 
percent of whom are women and children. That means some 5 percent of 
the 2.2 million residents of Gaza have been killed or wounded in 6\1/2\ 
months--5 percent of the entire population in 6\1/2\ months have been 
killed or wounded. That is a staggering, rather unbelievable number.
  Mr. President, 19,000 children in Gaza are now orphans--19,000 
children are orphans--having lost their parents in this war. And I 
might add, for the children of Gaza, the psychic damage that has been 
done to them will never cease in their lives. They have witnessed--
little kids; Gaza is a young community, a lot of children--they have 
witnessed unbelievable carnage, destruction of houses. They have 
experienced hunger, thirst. They have been thrown out of their homes. 
What is being done to these many hundreds of thousands of children is 
unforgiveable.
  And the killing has not stopped. Over the weekend, 139 Palestinians 
were killed and 251 were injured. Of these, 29 were killed in and 
around Rafah, including 20 children and 6 women, 1 of whom was 
pregnant.
  Roughly 1.7 million people, over 75 percent of the population, have 
been driven from their homes in Gaza. Satellite data shows that 62 
percent of homes in Gaza have been either damaged or destroyed, 
including 221,000 housing units that have been completely destroyed--
221,000 housing units completely destroyed. That is more than 1 million 
people made homeless by Israeli bombing.
  Not only housing, it is Gaza's entire civilian infrastructure that 
has been devastated. In Gaza today, there is no electricity, apart from 
generators or solar power, and most roads are badly damaged. More than 
half of the water and sanitation systems are out of commission. Clean 
drinking water is severely limited, and sewage is running through the 
streets spreading disease.
  Israel has not only destroyed the housing stock in Gaza, not only 
destroyed the infrastructure, they have systemically destroyed the 
healthcare system in Gaza. Mr. President, 26 out of 37 hospitals are 
completely out of service in a country which now has tens and tens of 
thousands of people who are sick and wounded. Only 11 hospitals are 
partially functioning, but they are overwhelmed by the many, many 
people who are sick and injured, and they are all short of medical 
supplies. Doctors have had to perform countless surgeries without 
anesthesia or antibiotics, only three hospitals are now providing 
maternal care in Gaza, where 180 women are giving birth every day. 
Overall, 84 percent of health facilities have been damaged or destroyed 
in Gaza, and more than 400 healthcare workers have been killed.
  But it is not only the housing that has been destroyed, not only the 
infrastructure, not only the healthcare system, the education system in 
Gaza has collapsed, with 56 schools destroyed and 219 damaged. The last 
of Gaza's universities was demolished in January. Some 625,000 students 
now have no access to education. I really do not understand what the 
military utility of destroying a university is. Mr. President, above 
and beyond the destruction of homes, the destruction of the 
infrastructure, the destruction of the healthcare system, the 
destruction of schools, universities, and the educational system, 
unbelievably, there is something even worse now taking place in Gaza, 
and that is that more than 1 million Palestinians, including hundreds 
of thousands of children, face starvation.

  People in Gaza are foraging for leaves. They are eating animal feed 
or surviving off the occasional aid package. At least 28 children have 
already died of malnutrition and dehydration. The real number is likely 
much, much higher. But without sustained humanitarian access throughout 
Gaza, it is impossible to know. Recently, USAID Administrator Samantha 
Power said that famine was already present in northern Gaza.
  Without food, clean water, sanitation or sufficient healthcare, 
hundreds of thousands of people are at severe risk from dehydration, 
infection, and easily preventable diseases.

[[Page S2951]]

  I keep hearing discussion from the pundits and the experts about the 
``day after in Gaza,'' when the war is over. But what kind of ``day 
after'' can there be amidst this incredible destruction? Gaza today can 
barely sustain human life.
  Hamas started this war. That is true. But this war stopped being 
about defending Israel a long time ago. What is going on now is the 
destruction of the very fabric of Palestinian life. It is impossible to 
look at these facts and not conclude that the Israeli Government's 
policy has been quite deliberately to make Gaza uninhabitable for 
Palestinians. And, clearly, there are powerful voices in Israel's 
extreme-rightwing government who have been quite open about their 
desire to drive the Palestinian people out of both Gaza and the West 
Bank.
  This is not the Israel of Golda Meir. Netanyahu's government is 
beholden to outright racists and religious fanatics who believe that 
they have exclusive right to dominate the land.
  That is why we must end our complicity in this terrible war. That is 
why we should support the amendment I am offering to end unfettered 
military aid to Netanyahu's war machine.
  Let's be clear: Cutting military aid to Netanyahu's government is not 
just my view. It is what the American people believe and are demanding. 
The American people, in fact, are fed up with Netanyahu and his war. 
They do not want to see their taxpayer dollars support the slaughter of 
innocent civilians and the starvation of children.
  A recent Gallup poll showed that just 36 percent of Americans approve 
of Israel's military action, with 55 percent disapproving. A Quinnipiac 
poll showed that U.S. voters oppose sending more military aid to Israel 
by 52 percent to 39 percent. An earlier YouGov poll also showed that 52 
percent of Americans said the United States should stop sending weapons 
to Israel until it stops attacks in Gaza.
  Maybe--and here is a very radical idea--maybe it is time for Congress 
to listen to the American people. I would urge strong support for my 
amendment.
  Mr. President, my second amendment would remove the ban on funding 
for UNRWA, a U.N. organization with 30,000 employees that is delivering 
essential humanitarian aid in Gaza and supporting basic services in 
other neighboring countries, including Jordan. Millions of people rely 
on those services.
  Israel has said that 12 UNRWA employees were involved in the October 
7 terrorist attack. These are serious charges and, obviously, any 
involvement with Hamas by UNRWA employees is unacceptable. That is why 
every year UNRWA provides Israel with a list of its staff and goes to 
great lengths to cooperate with Israeli authorities. UNRWA learned 
about Israel's accusations from the media, and immediately fired the 
accused employees while the U.N. launched an investigation.
  Thus far, Israel has refused to cooperate with the U.N. 
investigation. I should add, importantly, that most major donors have 
now restored funding to UNRWA and are satisfied by the agency's 
protocols to ensure independence from Hamas.
  The U.S. National Intelligence Council, meanwhile, said that Israel's 
claims were plausible but could not be confirmed, and noted that Israel 
has tried to undermine UNRWA for years. In the last 6 months, Israel 
has harassed UNRWA employees, blocked shipments of supplies including 
medicines, frozen its bank accounts, and killed 181 U.N. staff.
  UNRWA plays a critical role both in Gaza and across the region. 
Whatever the investigation shows in the end, it is my view that you do 
not deny humanitarian aid to millions of people because of the alleged 
actions of 12 UNRWA employees out of a workforce of 30,000.
  And, by the way, when we talk about investigations, maybe--just 
maybe--we should not just be talking about investigating UNRWA. Maybe 
we should also investigate what is going on in the West Bank. Last 
weekend, after an Israeli teenager was killed, large groups of armed 
Israeli settlers--vigilantes--rampaged through 17 villages, shooting 
dozens of people and burning homes. Israeli soldiers watched the 
attacks unfold, doing nothing to stop them. No arrests have been 
announced. Maybe we need an investigation there as well.
  This past weekend, the Israeli military killed 14 more Palestinians 
in the West Bank. An ambulance driver was shot and killed as he tried 
to recover people wounded in another violent attack by Israeli 
settlers.
  Since October 7, Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed more than 
470 Palestinians in the West Bank, including more than 100 children. 
But for some reason, I don't know why, I just don't hear any of my 
colleagues calling for an investigation of that.
  We are in a critical moment, not just in terms of what is happening 
in Gaza but, in many ways, what is happening right here in America and 
what is happening here in the U.S. Senate. Given the fact that a 
majority of the American people now want to stop funding for 
Netanyahu's war machine, I find it incomprehensible that we are not 
going to be able to vote on that issue.
  I find it outrageous that, at a time when Netanyahu's government has 
clearly broken the law, Members of this Congress, Members of the 
Senate, are not going to be able to vote as to whether or not they want 
to continue providing billions more of unfettered military aid to 
Netanyahu's war machine.
  So I would hope that we will have the decency to allow a little bit 
of democracy here in the U.S. Senate. I would hope that we will allow 
the Members to vote on some of these very, very important issues, and I 
certainly hope that we will pass these amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, my colleagues, we live in a dangerous 
world. Fellow Americans and Kansans, we live in dangerous times, and 
the world is a real challenge.
  The national security crises abroad and here at home are increasing. 
They are ever increasing. Iran launched a full-scale attack on Israel. 
Hamas has stated its intent to wipe Israel off the map. Russia 
continues its brutal aggression in Ukraine. And China is rapidly 
modernizing its military and using companies to spy and track 
Americans.
  Each of these conflicts is interconnected, and it would be naive to 
send aid to Israel but take a pass on supporting Ukraine, Taiwan or our 
other allies. It is vital the United States be a steadfast and reliable 
partner in the midst of so many dangers that threaten the world and our 
own nation's peace and prosperity.
  In a joint FOX News op-ed with former Secretary Mike Pompeo, we 
stated:

       The preservation of freedom requires enormous effort; 
     indeed, liberty demands the marshaling of every resource 
     necessary in its defense against those who would see it 
     destroyed.

  Vladimir Putin has chosen to pursue the reconstitution of the Russian 
Empire according to his own vision of Russian history. He has made 
clear that his aspirations go beyond Ukraine and that he views NATO as 
Russia's enemy. Under Putin's leadership, Russia is increasingly 
collaborating with other nations that oppose us--Iran and our most 
powerful adversary, communist China.
  Allowing the war in Ukraine to fester will only prolong and deepen 
the instability already wrought, and it puts at greater risk the 
100,000 U.S. servicemembers defending NATO's borders, including those 
from Fort Riley in Kansas.
  I have said, from the beginning, the world is a better and safer 
place if Ukraine wins and Russia loses. Ending the war on terms 
favorable to Kyiv will leave Ukraine and the NATO front in a stronger 
and better position to deter further Russian aggression.
  Just a week ago, Iran launched a full-scale attack on Israel from its 
own soil. Through an impressive and coordinated effort with the United 
States and other countries, Israel successfully defended itself from 
the barrage of missiles fired at it. It was a victory for Israel, but 
Iran has demonstrated that it is capable and willing to act on its 
desire to eliminate the State of Israel.
  Standing with Israel and Ukraine also means standing with our Indo-
Pacific partners. We cannot be tough on China and weak on defending 
Ukraine and Israel.
  The Pentagon describes China as the most ``comprehensive and serious 
challenge'' to U.S. security. The Japanese Prime Minister stood before 
Congress,

[[Page S2952]]

just a few days ago, and reaffirmed that ``Japan is already standing 
shoulder to shoulder with the United States.'' The United States must 
send the message that we are committed and that we are standing 
shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the Indo-Pacific.
  The bill that we are about to debate, discuss, and presumably vote on 
allows the United States to respond to immediate needs as China 
increases its military provocation of Taiwan, while also modernizing 
our own U.S. fleet to compete in the Pacific.
  It is in America's--it is in America's--vital national interest to 
assist Ukraine in repelling Russian invasion, assist Israel in driving 
out terrorism, and assist our Indo-Pacific partners in standing up to 
China's threats. We must project strength. Failure to do otherwise 
undermines our credibility, and that undermining of credibility, 
unfortunately, resonates around the globe. That credibility was already 
damaged after the administration's disastrous and chaotic withdrawal 
from Afghanistan.
  Additionally, in this funding package, a majority of those funds 
provided to Ukraine--and those provided in previous packages--will be 
directly injected back into the U.S. economy.
  There has been a significant amount of misinformation on this bill, 
and that is important to clarify: 70 percent of funding in the Ukraine 
bill--$42 billion of the $60.8 billion--will be used to replenish U.S. 
stockpiles and develop, produce, and purchase U.S.-made weapons, 
including weapons from production facilities in Kansas and the Kansas 
City area.
  This package also requires the administration to develop a strategy 
to support Ukrainian victory.
  The American people deserve to know the objectives of supporting 
Ukraine, our interests as they relate to this war, the cost of not 
satisfying those interests, and an estimate of the resources that are 
needed. The supplemental will deliver on all of these aspects.
  There is no path forward for Ukraine; there is no path forward for 
Israel or for Taiwan if the United States of America disengages in the 
world. The pricetag is significant. But in the absence of taking a 
stand now, we have to take a stand tomorrow. Do what we need to do 
today or pay a price later, and later will be even more costly, but 
these costs must be shared with our NATO allies and our partners 
elsewhere in the world.
  I commend NATO and the European nations that have, up to now, pledged 
more support to Ukraine's cause even than our own country has. Europe 
has pledged more money than the United States; yet it is critical to 
rapidly fulfill these commitments, such as through the delivery of 
necessary equipment like air defense systems, to help Ukraine better 
withstand Russia's onslaught.
  I am reluctant--and so are many Kansans--to spend more money or to be 
engaged further in the world, especially with a crisis at our own 
southern border. I share my colleagues' frustrations that we were 
unsuccessful. We came close, but we were unsuccessful in including 
border policies in this package. The crisis at the southern border is a 
grave national security threat. There are lots of reasons to be 
concerned about people coming across our borders, but I would 
highlight, in this conversation, it is a security threat. The 
administration's continued inaction at the border is particularly 
frustrating when the administration has many of the tools that it needs 
to improve the situation.
  I will continue working to pass legislation to protect the border, 
but at the same time, we must work to bolster our national security in 
the areas that we can agree upon. We can't wait for a new 
administration or a new Congress to try and pass perfect border 
legislation, if such a thing exists. Some of the national security 
challenges we face are not strictly military in nature and reflect the 
changing nature of what conflict is. What does ``conflict'' mean today?
  Our adversaries use technology companies to collect vast amounts of 
personal data from Americans. This information can be used to control 
or influence each of us, often without our even realizing it is 
happening. This bill takes the first step to protect U.S. data, but 
significant work is left to ensure America's data is secured by a 
Federal comprehensive data privacy and security law.
  The challenges we face, unfortunately, will not just go away. They 
will not resolve themselves on their own, and the preservation of 
freedom requires enormous effort. I have always believed that our 
greatest responsibility as American citizens is to make sure that those 
who follow us live with the freedom and liberties that were guaranteed 
by our Constitution and that were fought to protect and defend by those 
who sacrificed, many of them who sacrificed their own lives. This week, 
we have an opportunity to deliver on that effort--to do, to live up to 
our responsibilities as Americans to be a steadfast and reliable 
partner.
  I am grateful to my colleagues in the House for their work in getting 
the National Security Supplemental passed and sent back to the Senate.
  I underscore to my colleagues in the Senate the importance of doing 
the work we were elected to do. Americans who will be directly 
impacted, they are paying attention--but so are our adversaries and 
allies. I hope we are successful in fighting for and defending the 
liberties and freedoms of America and Americans and in protecting and 
helping to secure the remainder of the world. It is in our benefit--in 
America's benefit--to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I feel fortunate, of course, to serve in 
the Senate and equally fortunate to represent the State of Illinois and 
the city of Chicago. What an amazing gathering place for America 
Chicago has been over the years--and still is to this day.
  When we talk about issues here in Washington, many times I can relate 
them not just to neighborhoods but to people in Chicago who feel so 
intensely about the land of their birth or causes of other countries. I 
have gone through that same experience myself--my mother an immigrant 
from Lithuania. I was fortunate to witness the freedom struggle in 
Lithuania when they finally broke from the Soviet Union. If you go down 
Chicago Avenue west of Michigan Avenue, you go into an area known as 
Ukrainian Village. That nomenclature speaks for itself. There are 
churches and gathering places, schools, and families who are watching 
the war in Ukraine with personal intensity. To them, it is a land where 
their mothers and fathers were born and where many of them were born, 
and they have prayers and pleas to the politicians not to forget.
  You can also step right outside of this Chamber, a few steps away, 
and find a group of Ukrainian Americans who have been demonstrating on 
behalf of the cause of Ukraine for as long as this war has gone on. I 
saw them this morning, and as we go by, the typical greeting in the 
Ukrainian Village is ``Slava Ukraini''--``Long Live Ukraine''--to which 
they reply that they agree with me. It is a great feeling to see these 
demonstrators peacefully demonstrating for a cause that means so much 
to them and to realize that, as a Senator, I am going to have a vote 
today or tomorrow that can make a real difference in whether Ukraine 
prevails against Vladimir Putin or whether it doesn't.
  Last week, my Ukrainian Caucus cochair, Senator Roger Wicker--the 
Republican of Mississippi--and I hosted the Ukrainian Prime Minister. 
The Presiding Officer was there, and we were joined by several 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle. It was truly a bipartisan 
turnout.
  The Prime Minister's point was simple: With continued U.S. and allied 
support, Ukraine can defeat Russia's brutal war and, in doing so, help 
defend greater security in Europe.
  I agree. That is why the weekend vote in the House and the vote here 
this week in the Senate are so important.
  We always have had an isolationist sentiment in the United States. If 
you are a student of history, you know that we had to overcome that 
sentiment in both World Wars; but in both cases and here today with 
Ukraine, in the larger national security supplemental bill which we are 
considering, it was not only in our interest to stop wars of aggression 
but also to help maintain the international world order that reflects 
our values and benefits here at home.

[[Page S2953]]

  Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and its earlier seizure of 
land in Georgia and Moldova threaten decades of hard-won peace and 
stability in Europe. Make no mistake, China, Iran, and North Korea are 
watching to see if the United States and our allies allow Russia's 
aggression to stand. Doing so not only would embolden Putin to try for 
more European land, including from NATO allies like the Baltics and 
Poland, but it would also raise the risks faced by allies in the Indo-
Pacific and the Middle East. That is why I am so pleased that this 
supplemental includes security assistance for our key allies in those 
regions of the world as well.

  It also includes considerable humanitarian aid to help with the 
number of growing needs, including in Gaza, Sudan, and in drought-
stricken areas of the world that are facing food insecurity.
  Quite simply, what we do today has consequences--global historic 
consequences. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg recently issued his 
blanket warning to us all.
  He said:

       If Vladimir Putin wins in Ukraine, there is a real risk 
     that his aggression will not end there.

  Putin will continue to wage his war beyond Ukraine, with grave 
consequences.
  Stoltenberg went further to remind us:

       Our support is not charity; it is an investment in our own 
     security.

  I want to remind my Republican colleagues that President Ronald 
Reagan understood this 37 years ago when he said at the Brandenburg 
Gate dividing East and West Berlin: ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this 
wall.'' I was lucky enough to be in Berlin when the wall was coming 
down. The euphoria felt by the people of Berlin was palpable. I 
remember groups coming to the Brandenburg Gate, bringing little hammers 
with them to try to chip off a piece of the wall and save it for their 
children and grandchildren. It meant that much to them.
  Only a few years after his historic speech, the Soviet Union 
collapsed, ushering in decades of freedom and prosperity in Eastern 
Europe and a welcomed end to the Cold War. Vladimir Putin called this 
historic wave of liberation from the shackles of Communism ``the 
greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century''--a wave of 
freedom he clearly wants to reverse that continues to this day.
  And my friend and former colleague John McCain, with whom I will 
never forget walking through the makeshift shrines to those killed 
fighting for democracy in Ukraine's Maidan Square, saw this battle of 
ideas and freedom so clearly.
  Recently, House Foreign Affairs Committee chair  Mike McCaul happily 
noted:

       The eyes of the world are watching, and our adversaries are 
     watching, and history is watching--and that's what I kept 
     telling my colleagues: Do you want to be a Chamberlain or a 
     Churchill?

  So I urge a strong bipartisan vote this week to send a clear message 
to Putin that he cannot prevail in Ukraine; to ensure that other key 
allies and humanitarian crises will receive much needed aid; and to 
uphold basic international norms.
  The Washington Post called the House's approval of the supplemental 
``the vote heard around the world.'' Let's make sure our actions in the 
Senate this week are also heard around the world.
  This package contains many elements beyond aid to Ukraine. The Indo-
Pacific section provides $2 billion in weapons for Taiwan and $3.3 
billion for a submarine base, and provisions relating to humanitarian 
aid to Gaza, Sudan, and other vulnerable populations around the world 
will make a difference between life and death.
  We want to crack down on the fentanyl trafficking. I recently had 
Anne Milgram, who is the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
back to my office to give me a briefing on the fentanyl crisis in this 
country. It bears repeating what she said over and over again:

       One pill can kill.

  That message has to be communicated to our children and families all 
across the United States. We lost over 100,000 Americans last year to 
fentanyl. Some of them had no idea what they were ingesting. What they 
did, of course, was to take a fatal dose of fentanyl, which can be very 
small.
  Yesterday, I was at O'Hare Airport in Chicago and was taken on a tour 
to show the efforts to intercept precursor drugs and pill pressers, 
tablet pressers, that are coming into this country and killing so many 
people. So many innocent people have no idea of the danger. A young 
person, a teenager in Chicago, felt that he was ordering a Percocet 
pill--a harmless Percocet pill--over the internet. It was laced with 
fentanyl, and he died on the spot. One pill can kill.
  We take significant steps forward in the enforcement of laws against 
fentanyl and drug trafficking, as we should.
  We also have new sanctions on Iran, Russia, and China. And, of 
course, there was a controversial issue, the sale of TikTok, which is 
included in this.
  My greatest fear is that Netanyahu and his rightwing coalition, once 
they receive these American funds, will act irresponsibly. I am afraid 
that they will revert to their devastating tactics in Gaza. In the name 
of stopping Hamas, they will, unfortunately, revert to their 
devastating tactics, which kill many innocent people, mainly women and 
children--Palestinian women and children--who have no place to turn, no 
place to escape. These innocent people living in Gaza should not be 
victims of this war.
  There are requirements for all civilized nations in wartime when it 
comes to protecting individuals and civilians, and they certainly 
should apply in this situation. There is no question--and it bears 
repeating every time we talk about this topic--that Israel has the 
right to exist; it has the right to defend itself; and it had the right 
to strike back at Hamas after the atrocities of October 7, but the 
humanitarian crisis which was unleashed in Gaza is unspeakable, 
indefensible, and we cannot be a party to it.
  There are provisions in the law for those who receive aid from the 
United States, and that would include all of the countries that I have 
mentioned here--provisions in the law which require them to adhere to 
international standards when it comes to protecting the innocent and 
when it comes to facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid. We must 
hold Israel and all recipients of U.S. aid to those standards to make 
certain that they are doing everything in their power to protect the 
innocent.
  This is an important vote, and as usual, in the Senate, we find that 
it is not a single issue that we will be voting on but, in fact, 
perhaps, a dozen key issues, any one of which could be a major bill 
debated at length on the floor of the Senate. But time is wasting. We 
passed this defense supplemental for the first time in February of this 
year, and here we are in April. It is time to get this done for the 
relief and the support of the people in Ukraine and for the good of 
American values all around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, less than 2 weeks ago, Iran attacked 
Israel with a barrage of more than 300 missiles and drones. The attack 
was a notable escalation on Iran's part since the weapons were fired 
not just by Iranian proxies but also directly from Iran.
  It was a reminder of two things:
  First and foremost, the attack was a reminder of the need for the 
United States and the free world to make it clear to Iran that we are 
not going to stand idly by while Iran attacks Israel and continues to 
foment terror in the Middle East.
  Iran's malign activities have been allowed to go on for far too long, 
and it is past time not just for the United States but for nations in 
Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere to call a halt to Iran's 
activities.
  On a larger scale, Iran's attack on Israel was a reminder that bad 
actors and hostile powers are going to fill any space that they think 
they can fill. And if the United States and other free countries 
abdicate leadership or telegraph weakness on the global stage, bad 
actors are going to be happy to step in to fill the vacuum.
  I would not be surprised if the Biden administration's all-too-
frequent posture of appeasement toward Iran--and the lack of clarity 
the administration

[[Page S2954]]

has telegraphed about U.S. support for Israel--has emboldened Iran to 
reach further and engage in the kind of escalation that we saw this 
month.
  Bad actors around the world are flexing their power right now: Iran 
in the Middle East, Russia in Europe, China in the Indo-Pacific and 
beyond. And these powers are forging alliances with each other to 
advance their activities.
  Iran has provided Russia with weapons to use in its war on Ukraine 
and is working with Russia to produce drones at a Russian facility. 
Meanwhile, Russia has committed to supplying Iran with fighter jets and 
air defense technology--assets which, as a recent Washington Post 
article noted, ``could help Tehran harden its defenses against any 
future airstrike by Israel or the United States.''
  When it comes to China, the Secretary of State recently reported:

       We see China sharing machine tools, semiconductors, other 
     dual-use items that have helped Russia rebuild the defense 
     industrial base that sanctions and export controls had done 
     so much to degrade.

  In the face of increased aggression from these powers, the United 
States' response needs to be one of strength. That includes not just 
having a strong military and a strong economy but engaging on the 
global stage.
  As I said, bad actors will fill any space they think they can fill. 
And when the United States and other free countries abdicate leadership 
on the global stage, bad actors will step in to fill the vacuum.
  The foreign aid contained in this bill is an important part of 
telegraphing America's refusal to cede the global stage to hostile 
powers.
  It will help demonstrate to Iran our support for Israel and help our 
ally rid itself of the threat of Hamas on its border.
  It will help make it clear to Russia that the United States is not 
going to give Russia free rein in Eastern Europe.
  It will help make a credible investment in our own industrial base 
and replenish interceptors that we have used in the Red Sea.
  And it will let China know that while Taiwan may be small, its 
backing is not.
  Sending these messages is important. It is in our Nation's interest 
to ensure that a newly victorious and emboldened Putin isn't sitting on 
the doorstep of four NATO states that we are bound by treaty to 
protect.
  It is in our Nation's interest to ensure that a China inspired by a 
Russian victory in Ukraine doesn't decide it is time to invade Taiwan.
  And it is in our Nation's interest to ensure that Israel is equipped 
to defend itself from Iran and its terrorist proxies.
  I am pleased that in addition to the funding for Israel, Taiwan, and 
Ukraine we considered before, the bill before us today includes some 
new measures. Notable among them is legislation to ban TikTok if the 
company is not purchased by an entity unaffiliated with the Chinese 
Communist Party.
  Currently, the Chinese Communist Party is able to gain unlimited 
access to the account information of TikTok users if it so chooses. And 
the news that emerged last week that the Chinese Embassy has actually 
lobbied congressional staff against legislation to force the sale of 
TikTok was a stunning confirmation of the value the Chinese Government 
places on its ability to access Americans' information and shape their 
TikTok experience. So I am very pleased that the bill before us today 
would ban TikTok if it is not sold to a company without ties to the 
Chinese Communist Party.
  I am also pleased that this legislation includes the Rebuilding 
Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act--or the REPO 
Act--which would direct frozen Russian assets to rebuilding efforts in 
Ukraine. Russia has caused a horrifying amount of destruction in 
Ukraine, and it is right that Russian assets should go toward its 
rebuilding.
  This bill also contains additional accountability measures for our 
support for Ukraine, including a provision that would turn some of the 
funding into loans to be repaid by Ukraine when it is back on its feet.
  Does this bill cover everything we should be doing on the national 
security front either at home or abroad? No, it doesn't. But it will 
provide essential support to our allies that will not only help them 
preserve their freedom but will advance U.S. interests around the 
globe.
  So I look forward to the Senate's passing this legislation this week 
and sending a clear message about American resolve and about American 
strength.
  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.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
pending business, the supplemental appropriations bill that came over 
to us from the House of Representatives.
  In February of this year, I was in Munich for the security 
conference, and the question that was asked of me the most by just 
about every world leader is whether the Congress would pass the Ukraine 
supplemental appropriations bill. Our colleagues around the world 
understood how important the supplemental appropriation passage was to 
the security of Ukraine and its ability to defend itself.
  I want to tell you, when I was asked that question by the world 
leaders, I said, yes, we would pass it. I don't know if they were so 
convinced that we would get it done, and I am not so sure how convinced 
I was at that time that we would be able to reach a point where we 
would be able to keep the supplemental intact and be able to pass it. 
For, you see, the aid in that supplemental is so critical to the 
defense in Ukraine. Ukraine is literally running out of ammunition. The 
U.S. leadership is absolutely indispensable.
  It also, of course, includes the humanitarian assistance and so many 
other important issues. But it also represents U.S. leadership, the 
ability for us to keep the coalition of the democratic states and the 
West together in our campaign to make sure that Mr. Putin does not 
succeed in taking over Ukraine and then moving to other countries in 
Europe.
  Now we can definitely answer the question. By our actions in this 
body, we can tell our friends around the world that, yes, the 
supplemental appropriation will pass, will be signed by President 
Biden, and the aid will be flowing to Ukraine to defend itself.
  So much depends on the passage of this supplemental. First and 
foremost, it is the defense of Ukraine--incredibly brave people in 
Ukraine who are holding up the defense against a great, mighty Russian 
army. They have been very, very successful, but they need to have the 
ability to defend themselves. That is what they are asking the United 
States to do: not to provide the soldiers but to provide the 
wherewithal so we will not have to send our soldiers to Europe.
  It is the frontline for defense of democratic states, where we all 
know that Russia will not stop with Ukraine if they are successful; 
that Moldova and Georgia, the Baltic States, and Poland are all very 
much in the view of what Mr. Putin wants to take over.
  But there is more to the supplemental than just Ukraine. There is the 
financing for the Middle East. Israel is defending unprecedented 
Iranian drone attacks. We saw that last week. They need our assistance 
to make sure that they can protect against these missiles and drones.
  We know the leaders of Taiwan are looking to passage of this 
supplemental because they have to look across the Taiwan Strait at the 
People's Republic of China and their aggressive language and their 
concerns about whether China will use force against Taiwan. The passage 
of this supplemental gives great hope to Taiwan that the United States 
is with them.
  Then, as I mentioned earlier, the humanitarian workers who are 
desperate to help in the Sudan need our resources in order to meet that 
crisis that is going on every day. The passage of this supplemental 
will help the humanitarian workers deal with the humanitarian crisis 
that we have in the Sudan, that we have in Gaza, and that we have in 
Ukraine and so many other areas around the world.

[[Page S2955]]

  So, yes, it has been difficult to understand the delay in getting 
this done, and it has affected Ukraine's ability to defend itself, the 
delay in getting the supplemental to the finish line. So it is 
absolutely essential, as Senator Schumer said, that we complete our 
work as quickly as possible and to remove any doubt about America's 
support of Ukraine. If there was any doubt, the vote in the House of 
Representatives on the Ukraine package passed by a strong bipartisan 
vote of 311 to 112.
  Now, the entire package enjoys strong bipartisan support, and that is 
critically important for the success of our foreign policy--$60 billion 
for Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel, $8 billion for Taiwan and our 
Indo-Pacific partners, and $9 billion for global humanitarian 
assistance. But in addition to the appropriations that were in the bill 
when we passed it in the Senate months ago, the House added some 
additional provisions which, quite frankly, I think all strengthen the 
bill.
  It provides a way to hold Russia accountable for its own actions, the 
damage it has caused. That is a positive addition to the package. It 
strengthens our sanctions against some of our most extreme adversaries. 
That also strengthens the bill.
  I was pleased that there was a reauthorization of the Elie Wiesel 
Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, a bill that I authored that 
deals with trying to avoid conflicts from turning into genocide or 
atrocities so we can prevent having to deal with the challenges we see 
in so many parts of the world. We need to invest in prevention, and the 
Elie Wiesel Act gives us the tool to do that.
  I want to recognize President Biden for his leadership on these 
issues, his leadership globally in keeping the coalition together in 
support of Ukraine and our foreign policy objectives in the free world, 
and also for what he did here in the United States: staying true to the 
principles, connecting the dots for the American people, and dealing 
with the strategy so we can finally get this bill to the finish line. I 
congratulate the Biden administration for staying with this and helping 
us reach this moment where we are on the verge of passing the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act.
  It reinforces our foreign policy that is rooted in our values that 
promote human rights and defend democracy--a foreign policy drawn by 
basic human decency. That is what the U.S. foreign policy is about, and 
this supplemental reinforces our objectives in each one of those 
categories.
  This gives the world a credible vision of the future--a future that 
discourages dictators and autocrats, a future for a Europe whole and 
free, a future for a thriving Indo-Pacific, a future for a peaceful and 
prosperous Middle East, and a future that prioritizes civil society 
movements and human rights around the world.
  I know that the challenges we face today on the global stage seem 
immense because they are. Anyone can see that. Russia is relentlessly 
bombing Ukraine's oil and gas sector. Ukraine is running out of 
ammunition. But, shortly, we will take a historic vote--a vote that, as 
President Zelenskyy says, gives Ukraine ``a chance at victory.''
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the supplemental 
that passed the House of Representatives. I urge them to vote yes to 
funding America's foreign policy and national security priorities, yes 
to supporting the war-stricken people of the world who will not give up 
hope for democracy, yes to standing up with our allies and partners 
across the globe, and yes to a future American leadership on the global 
stage that is based on our values.


                               Earth Day

  Madam President, on Monday, April 22, we celebrate Earth Day. Since 
April 22, 1970, millions have come together worldwide to highlight the 
urgent action needed to save our planet.
  In 1970, the American environmental movement began in earnest as 
concerned individuals mobilized en masse to protect the planet.
  The status quo was unacceptable--rivers so polluted they caught fire, 
children getting sick just from playing outside, and wildlife showing 
clear signs of distress.
  In Congress, Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin championed the Earth 
Day movement, with the hope of bringing environmental awareness to the 
political and national stage.
  Back then, the exact causes of our planet and people's ailments were 
not totally understood. The American people were not aware the extent 
to which the reliance on fossil fuels, fertilizers, and pesticides were 
causing irreparable harm.
  We know a lot more now. However, we are still learning about how 
harmful everyday products are. Items that we accept as part of our 
daily life--plastic products, for example--are ubiquitous.
  This year's Earth Day theme, planet vs. plastics, reminds us that the 
threat of plastic pollution continues to grow. Plastics are actively 
causing harm to human life, animal life and our Earth.
  It is estimated that the average American ingests more than 70,000 
microplastics in their drinking water supply. The origins of these 
plastics range from littering to stormwater runoff, to poor wastewater 
management in treatment facilities.
  Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental issues we 
currently face. Microplastics and microfibers are smaller than 5 
millimeters in size. An estimated 50 to 75 trillion pieces of 
microplastics are in the ocean. Because these microplastics are so 
small, many animals mistake them for food. These microplastics have 
been found to attract and carry pollutants that are present in the 
water, making them carriers of various harmful chemicals.
  Evidence such as this prompted then-President Barack Obama to pass 
the Microbead-Free Waters Act. The Microbead-Free Waters Act helped to 
ban plastic microbeads in certain products from being sold in the 
United States.
  However, this same regulation does not apply to the limiting of 
microplastics in bottled water or microfibers in clothing.
  When synthetic clothes are washed in the washing machine, an 
estimated 3.5 quadrillion microfibers are released--a process known as 
microfiber shedding. This particle is the most prevalent type of 
microplastic found in the Chesapeake Bay. With over 3,000 miles of 
coastline, Maryland is extremely vulnerable to plastic marine debris 
and its environmental consequences.
  A study by NOAA took samples of various locations of the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed and found that 98 percent of the samples contained 
microplastics.
  A modeling exercise conducted by researchers from Pennsylvania State 
University and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science found that the 
majority of plastic pollution in the Chesapeake Bay stays within the 
local waters and is not exported to the ocean.
  The study suggests that the bay acts as a catchall for plastics, with 
about 94 percent of microplastics staying in the system, most likely on 
or along the shores. Only 5 percent of the particles were carried from 
the bay to the ocean, and 1 percent remained suspended in the water 
column.
  In 2020, Maryland produced nearly 12 million tons of solid waste, 
with 13 percent attributed from plastics, including plastic bags.
  Research concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic led to a rise in 
carryout services and grocery store visits, resulting in a 30 percent 
increase in plastic waste in 2020.
  My home state of Maryland has taken many steps to combat plastic 
pollution. In September 2020, Maryland made history by becoming the 
first State to enact a ban on expanded polystyrene foodware, the 
single-use plastic foam that is often used for takeout cups and 
containers.
  In October 2021, Baltimore effectively banned the use of plastic bags 
used for grocery and restaurant services, while also imposing a 5-cent 
bag tax on alternative bag use. The Salisbury City Council unanimously 
approved a ban on certain types of plastic bags that took effect on 
July 1, 2023. These are all significant steps my home State has taken 
to address plastic waste.
  Plastics not only threaten the marine life, like oysters and crabs, 
that call the Chesapeake Bay home, but they can also negatively impact 
the economy and health of Maryland and the region at large.
  In light of the threat of microplastics and the broader environmental 
challenges we face, I am proud of the accomplishments we have made to 
address the plastic pollution crisis.

[[Page S2956]]

  The Save Our Seas 2.0 Act was signed into law in December 2020. One 
of the crucial components to this Act was the authorization of the NOAA 
Marine Debris Program. The NOAA Marine Debris Program serves as a model 
for finding ways to track marine debris, including plastics, around the 
world.
  Congress must continue to take action to support legislation that 
seek to reduce the use and production of plastic and improve recycling 
facilities.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Plastic Pellet Free Waters Act, 
introduced by my colleague Senator Dick Durbin.
  Last year, I was privileged to lead a bipartisan delegation to Dubai 
for COP28. During this summit, we emphasized that the United States is 
concerned about the impacts of climate change and is ready to continue 
taking action to combat it.
  At the summit, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and 
Executive Director of the U.N. Environment Programme warned of the 
climate implications of plastics to our coastal ecosystems and oceans. 
He urged the plastic industry to find nonplastic alternatives for 
products to help the environment.
  When Earth Day was first celebrated, the topic of environmental 
protection was not as partisan as it is today. Our focus should be on 
passing legislation that works to protect and preserve our Earth. We 
see the evidence before us. The longevity of our Earth is at stake.
  While Earth Day only comes around once a year, it should be 
celebrated every day. We must not forget the responsibility we have to 
protect our planet. On this Earth Day, I celebrate the progress we have 
made so far and ask that we reaffirm our commitment to environmental 
stewardship and sustainable development.
  With that, I would 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.
  Mr. KELLY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                H.R. 815

  Mr. KELLY. Madam President, these are dangerous times for our 
national security, and the actions we take here this week will shape 
the world that our kids and our grandkids grow up in.
  Putin continues to wage a brutal war to annex Ukraine and has been 
making gains as Ukraine runs low on ammunition. Israel is under threat 
from not just Iran's proxy terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah 
but Iran itself. Just 10 days ago, we saw them launch hundreds of 
ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones against Israel. China 
continues its aggression toward its neighbors in Asia as it renews its 
threats to take Taiwan by force.
  Our partners and allies and the democratic values we hold dear are in 
real danger. That should be enough to compel us to act, but it is 
bigger than that. Iran, China, and even North Korea are helping to 
supply Russia's desperate war machine. China's President Xi is watching 
to see if we can hold together the coalition supporting Ukraine. He is 
judging what the cost would be if he were to invade Taiwan.
  Our adversaries are testing us, and they see instability and 
dysfunction as an opportunity. That creates a real risk that one or 
more of these threats could boil over into a wider conflict that would 
be much more costly for the United States and potentially put more 
Americans in harm's way.
  I spent yesterday at the Naval Air Station in Patuxent River, MD, 
with U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen. They shouldn't have to go to war 
years from now in Europe, the Middle East, or the Pacific because of a 
failure of leadership in Washington, DC, this week. That must be 
avoided at all costs.
  So what do we do? We get our allies and partners--Ukraine, Israel, 
and Taiwan--the weapons and ammunition to help them defend themselves; 
we modernize our own forces so our adversaries know they will lose any 
fight they pick with us; and we provide humanitarian support to those 
harmed by these conflicts, including innocent Palestinians in Gaza.
  The Senate is once again preparing to vote on a national security 
bill that will accomplish these goals and meet the dangerous moment we 
find ourselves in, but let's get something straight here. We should 
have gotten this done shortly after the President proposed it in 
October. The Senate spent months negotiating before we ultimately 
passed it with 70 votes. And then the House--well, they let it sit for 
more than 2 months before sending it back to us with 311 votes.
  It should disappoint all of us that partisanship and obstruction 
meant it took 6 months--6 months--for Congress to pass something that 
clearly the vast majority of us--in fact, 71 percent of us--in the 
Congress agreed on. Ultimately, bipartisanship will win the day. It 
will win the day in the House and in the Senate. But the delays have 
come at a real cost, especially on the battlefield in Ukraine.
  There are a lot of factors that go into winning a war. Russia is a 
massive country, and even with its heavy losses, it can throw a lot of 
manpower at the problem to overcome and cover up its incompetent 
leadership, its culture of corruption, and its underperforming weapons 
systems.
  At the same time, I have seen in my two trips to Ukraine since the 
war broke out that the Ukrainians have a remarkable spirit that can 
only come from a unified country fighting for its own existence. They 
are literally fighting for their own lives. But because of delays in 
getting this bill passed, Ukraine's fighters are desperately low on 
artillery shells, on missiles, and even on small arms ammunition. That 
is tying the hands of their commanders at the same time that Russia is 
revitalizing its war effort with increased domestic military production 
and a lot of help from China and Iran.
  With the right equipment and enough of it, Ukraine can win this war. 
Passing this bill will allow us to transfer them more of the weapons, 
armored vehicles, and ammunition from our stockpiles that Ukraine needs 
to turn the tide, and then we will be able to replenish our own 
stockpiles with modern equipment to deter our adversaries from testing 
us any further. This is a win-win for us.
  At a very dangerous time, this is what we must do to prevent further 
destabilization and conflict that will cost us more in the end. I know 
that a majority of my colleagues agree with me.
  Let's not wait any longer. Let's not wait a day longer. Let's get 
this done right now and show the world that the United States continues 
to lead, continues to stand by our allies, and continues to be the 
strongest force for peace and stability in the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to 
strongly support the national security supplemental appropriations 
package before us. This important legislation, which was approved 
overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives, reflects, in many ways, 
the bipartisan bill that Chair Murray and I negotiated and the Senate 
passed in February by a vote of 70 to 29.
  This bill would strengthen our military's readiness, rebuild our 
defense industrial base, and assist our partners and allies at a 
volatile and dangerous time in world history.
  The national security package before us totals $95 billion. Now, 71 
percent of that funding--$67 billion--is defense funding. It will be 
used to continue vital U.S. military support to Europe and the Middle 
East, where our partners and allies are under attack by authoritarian 
regimes, rogue states, terrorists, and other extremists. It will expand 
and modernize U.S. defense production capacity. It will replenish our 
own stockpiles with updated, more capable weapons and equipment. And it 
will strengthen the U.S. submarine industrial base.
  In the past few months, I have received briefings from two combatant 
Commanders--General Kurilla of the U.S. Central Command and Admiral 
Aquilino of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Each of them has told me 
that this is the most dangerous global environment that they have seen. 
One said in 40 years; the other said in 50 years.
  The point is, the threats that the United States faces from an 
aggressive Iran and its proxies, an imperialistic Russia, and a 
hegemonic China are interconnected. How we respond to one affects how 
the other will operate. They require a strong response.

[[Page S2957]]

  The package before us provides the resources to address each of those 
threats. Let me take just a few moments to highlight some of the bill's 
key components.
  With regard to Iran and its proxies, earlier this month, as we are 
all painfully aware, Iran attacked Israel with more than 300 drones and 
missiles. Thanks to the U.S. Navy's heroic response in assisting 
Israel, as well as the great coordination and response from our allies 
and partners, fewer than 1 percent of Iran's weapons reached their 
targets in Israel.
  In all, more than 80 incoming drones and at least 6 missiles were 
intercepted by American forces, including the crews of two destroyers, 
I am proud to say, that were built in Bath, ME--the USS Carney and the 
USS Arleigh Burke.
  But let us make no mistake about what was going on with this attack. 
Iran fully intended to kill as many Israelis as possible and to cause 
horrific damage. It was only the skill, the bravery, and the precision 
of Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Jordan, and 
Saudi Arabia that prevented that from happening.
  This national security package includes $2.4 billion to support the 
ongoing U.S. Central Command operations in the Middle East, such as 
those that I have just mentioned, but, also, to keep open vital 
shipping lanes and to protect commercial ships from all over the world 
from attack as they are transiting.
  It also includes $4 billion to replenish Iron Dome and David's Sling 
air defense systems, which have proven to be so critical to Israel's 
self-defense, as well as $1.2 billion for Iron Beam, a promising new 
air defense capability.
  This legislation would also provide vital assistance to Ukrainians 
battling a brutal, unprovoked Russian invasion. And I know how strongly 
the Presiding Officer feels about this issue, as do I.
  It includes $15.4 billion to help Ukraine purchase American-made 
weapons to use in its defense and $11.3 billion to support our 
servicemembers in Poland and Germany who are helping our allies equip 
and train Ukrainian forces.
  But let me underscore an important point. It is not our troops who 
are dying on the Ukrainian battlefield. It is the Ukrainians who are 
bravely defending their country. If, however, Putin is allowed to 
succeed in Ukraine, he will continue to pursue his goal of re-creating 
the former Soviet Union. He has made no bones about that. He has said 
that repeatedly.
  In my judgment, he would likely seize Moldova next; again, invade 
Georgia, as he did in 2008; continue to menace the Baltic nations; and 
threaten Poland. And then, our troops would be involved in a much wider 
European war because Putin would be ultimately attacking our native 
NATO allies.
  The funding in this package aims to prevent such an outcome by 
supporting Ukraine as it defends itself against Putin's aggression.
  And let me debunk a myth that I keep hearing over and over again, and 
that is that the Europeans somehow are not doing their part in helping 
to equip Ukraine. That is just inaccurate.
  I have a chart that I used a few months ago, when the supplemental 
was on the floor, that ranked our European allies. Well, today, the 
United States would be even further down on this list, which measures 
security assistance to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP of that nation.
  Today, we rank 16th on that list. In other words, 15 other 
countries--Estonia, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland, 
Sweden, North Macedonia, Albania, Romania, Netherlands, Germany, the 
Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom--are all spending more of their 
GDP to help Ukraine than we are.
  I think that is such an important point, and yet we hear, over and 
over again, by those who are opposed to assistance that the Europeans 
are not doing their part. They are clearly doing their part.
  With regard to the Indo-Pacific, this package would help deter a 
menacing China, whose navy now exceeds the size of ours. And in the 
budget that the President just sent up, that would only grow worse, 
since the President is requesting the lowest number of new ships in 15 
years. And we cannot allow that to happen.
  This legislative package also includes $1.9 billion to replenish U.S. 
military inventories transferred under Taiwan Presidential drawdown 
authority, as authorized by last year's National Defense Authorization 
Act. This is the fastest way for DoD to get Taiwan the weapons it needs 
to strengthen its own defense.
  The bill also includes $2 billion to provide Indo-Pacific allies and 
partners with American defense equipment and training, as well as $542 
million for the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command's top unfunded requirements.
  The package includes humanitarian assistance to address global needs, 
such as in Sudan and Gaza. It prohibits, however, funding from being 
provided to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, known as UNRWA, which 
employed several terrorists who participated in the October 7 attack on 
Israel.
  Finally, I want to note that this bill includes the FEND Off Fentanyl 
Act, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. This bill would help 
disrupt the flow of fentanyl into the United States, including by 
requiring the President to sanction criminal organizations and drug 
cartels involved in trafficking fentanyl and its precursors.
  We are losing too many of our family friends, coworkers, and 
neighbors to this scourge, and we must be more aggressive in combating 
it. And I thank my colleague Senator Tim Scott for his leadership on 
this piece of the package.
  I once again call on my colleagues to recognize the perilous times in 
which we are living and to vote for this essential national security 
legislation. We must pass it without further delay.
  Our adversaries are watching. With our vote on this package, let us 
send them a strong message. Terrorists will not succeed in wiping 
Israel off the map. Authoritarian states will not be allowed to invade 
their free, independent, and democratic neighbors without consequences. 
And this Congress, despite its divisions, will come together to ensure 
that the United States and its military have what they need to stand 
tall, firm, and beside our allies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for up to 10 minutes, Senator Schmitt be recognized for up 
to 5 minutes, Senator Lee be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and 
Senator Sanders be recognized for up to 2 minutes prior to the 
scheduled vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I have been warning for months about 
the need to meet this moment of global uncertainty and chaos with a 
robust, national security supplemental--not delay, not half steps, but 
investments that show the world we are serious about standing by all of 
our allies, providing humanitarian aid, and maintaining America's 
leadership on the world stage, which is why I am glad the House sent us 
legislation that includes every pillar of the package we passed 
overwhelmingly here in the Senate.
  And I hope now we can all come together to pass these policies once 
again. We cannot send the message that division has won out against 
action, that isolationism has won out against leadership, because the 
challenges that we face and that our allies face are immense, urgent, 
and interconnected.
  Putin is waging a brutal invasion of Ukraine, which is running low on 
supplies.
  The war between Israel and Hamas threatens to escalate into a far 
more dangerous regional conflict. Civilians caught in conflict 
desperately need food, water, medical care, and other humanitarian aid. 
And the Chinese Government is making aggressive moves to grow its 
influence in the Indo-Pacific.
  Those are the stakes of this moment, as I have reminded my colleagues 
time and time and time again. Inaction cannot be an option. We need to 
meet this moment, address all the challenges before us, and show the 
world American leadership is still strong.
  I believe that strongly, and I know, when push comes to shove, a 
clear majority of Members on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers 
of Congress, feel the same way.
  That is why I have come to the floor so many times over the past 
several months to lay out in painstaking detail

[[Page S2958]]

how much is at stake, how crucial it is that we meet this moment with a 
robust package that addresses the many interconnected challenges before 
us. It is why here in the Senate we took action over 2 months ago now 
and overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan national security supplemental. 
I and many others--Vice Chair Collins, Leader Schumer, Leader 
McConnell--all worked very hard over months to craft legislation that 
could pass both the Senate and the House, that both Democrats and 
Republicans could get behind.
  So I am glad we are now working to pass the national security 
supplemental the House sent over, particularly since it is materially 
identical to the Senate package we cleared with such great support.
  I have to say I am relieved to see Speaker Johnson finally do the 
right thing, ignore the far right, and send us what is essentially the 
bill we wrote and passed months ago. But let's be clear about a few 
things. This delay has not been harmless. Putin's forces have been on 
the march. His missiles and Iranian-made drones have been striking 
critical Ukrainian infrastructure. We measure time in hours; Ukrainians 
are measuring it in how many bullets they have left, how many more 
missiles fall on their cities, and how much closer Putin's tanks are 
getting. That was clear even before I said that 2 months ago.
  The path forward, the path we are finally now on, was painfully clear 
because unfortunately we have seen this movie before in debt limit 
negotiations and in funding the government.
  I believe Congress can actually work together. We can actually hammer 
out a compromise.
  This is not the bill either party would have written on their own but 
one that gets the job done. Let's be clear. The package before us gets 
the job done. It gets aid to soldiers in Ukraine, who are counting 
their bullets and wondering how long they can hold out. It gets support 
to Israel, which faces serious threats on all fronts. It gets support 
to our allies in the Indo-Pacific, where the Chinese Government has 
been posturing aggressively. It gets critical humanitarian aid to 
civilians in Ukraine, Sudan, and Gaza, including kids who are caught in 
the crossfire who are in desperate need of food and water and medical 
care.
  That was a redline for me. I pushed hard at every stage of this to 
make sure we provide humanitarian aid. At every stage of these 
negotiations, I made clear Congress will not advance a supplemental 
that fails civilians. I will not let us turn our backs on women and 
children who are suffering and who are often hit hardest by the fallout 
of chaos and conflict.
  Madam President, at a time when the world is watching and wondering 
if the United States is still capable of meeting the challenges before 
us, if we are still united enough to meet them, this package won't just 
send aid, it will send a message. It will show our allies that our word 
is still good and that we will stand by them in times of need. It will 
show dictators that our warnings are serious and that we will not let 
their flagrant attacks go unchecked. And it will show the world that 
American leadership is still alive and well and that we are still a 
strong protector of democracy and provider of humanitarian aid. That is 
a message that is well worth sending now more than ever.
  I wish we were able to wrap this up much sooner. I am glad we are at 
this final threshold now. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the final 
package.
  Before I wrap up, I absolutely have to recognize some of the people 
who have worked incredibly hard to get us here today. It starts with my 
vice chair on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Collins, and our 
House colleagues, former Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member DeLauro, 
and Chairman Cole, and their staffs for help getting this package 
through the House. It includes Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell, as 
well, and in the House, Leader Jeffries and Speaker Johnson.
  We also would not have gotten here without Members on both sides of 
the aisle coming together and understanding that this is a moment we 
cannot leave our allies behind and then all pulling in the same 
direction so we can deliver support to our allies in Ukraine, Israel, 
and the Indo-Pacific, humanitarian aid to civilians, and that message 
to the world.
  Most importantly, we wouldn't have gotten here without the tireless 
work of our dedicated staff. The stakes have been high, the nights have 
been very long, and the men and women working to get this package 
together and get it across the finish line have absolutely risen to the 
challenge.
  Madam President, from Vice Chair Collins' team, I want to recognize 
Betsy McDonnell, Matt Giroux, Ryan Kaldahl, Paul Grove, Viraj Mirani, 
Lindsay Garcia, Patrick Magnuson, and Lindsey Seidman for their hard 
work.
  I owe a huge thanks to many members of my excellent team. Excuse me 
for one moment. It is a list, but every one of them deserves 
recognition and for us to all hear who they are. From my team, I want 
to thank Evan Schatz, John Righter, Carly Rush, Kate Kaufer, Mike 
Clementi, Robert Leonard, Ryan Pettit, Abigail Grace, Brigid Kolish, 
Gabriella Armonda, Katy Hagan, Kimberly Segura, Laura Forrest, Alex 
Carnes, Drew Platt, Kali Farahmand, Sarita Vanka, Doug Clapp, Jennifer 
Becker-Pollet, Aaron Goldner, Kami White, Elizabeth Lapham, Jim Daumit, 
Michelle Dominguez, Jason McMahon, Mike Gentile, Ben Hammond, Valerie 
Hutton, and Dylan Stafford.
  I know there are many others as well, including House staffers who 
have worked tirelessly on this. I want to personally thank each and 
every one of them.
  Madam President, we hammer out a lot of meaningful bills here. Just 
about every bill we pass touches the lives of the American people 
directly--every one. But, as I said before, in this moment of global 
uncertainty, the balance of world power and the strength of American 
leadership are at stake. So I am deeply grateful to every Member, every 
staffer, and every person who came together to make sure we pass this 
test by passing the resources that are so clearly needed.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I will speak for just a moment. I know 
that as the day goes on, I am sure we will have a mutual admiration 
society of the Wilsonian view that permanent Washington has about 
foreign policy in this country, so I do not wish to speak about that at 
this time. I do believe that view is on a collision course with history 
and the will of the American people. But I rise to speak about sort of 
the process of the Senate--where we are, how we got here--and to quote 
a famous St. Louisan, Yogi Berra, ``It's like deja vu all over again.''
  Here we are debating. Senator Lee, my friend from Utah, has a motion 
to table, essentially, Senator Schumer's effort to fill the tree. To 
the American people who are watching or listening or being reported 
upon, that means that the majority leader of this Chamber is boxing out 
everyone. That is right. The 99 other people who were elected by an 
entire State to advocate for their interests don't get a say. They 
don't get to offer an amendment. They don't get to say: I would like to 
build a unique coalition with either somebody from my own party or 
somebody on the other side of the aisle on something we might agree 
upon.
  I think the world's most deliberative body has been reduced to Kabuki 
theater. There is no uncertainty ever. The only time--and this is the 
cold, hard truth to my friends in the Gallery--the only time you get to 
offer an amendment in this place is if it is sure to fail. Think about 
that. Senator Schumer won't allow U.S. Senators to offer ideas unless 
he knows they will fail.
  So, to my Republican and Democrat colleagues, colleagues who may be 
watching on TV, or their staff, it doesn't need to be that way. This is 
perhaps one of the most obstructive measures that the majority leader 
employs, and I don't pretend it is just him. I think one of the things 
that all of us have to look in the mirror about is whether or not that 
is what we want this place to be.
  Mr. President, if we think we have come together on an issue that 
affects both of our States, we should be allowed to offer those things 
up. We don't get a chance to do that.
  Appropriations bills--I know the Senate appropriators have worked 
hard on

[[Page S2959]]

individual bills. Chuck Schumer didn't allow those bills to be debated 
on the floor. It never happened. We ended up with a few minibuses.
  That would be a great reform. How about, instead of every hour maybe 
you show up, what if we sat in our seats and actually voted on this 
stuff for 4 or 5 hours? We could get through a lot. But the Senator 
from New York is allergic to work unless he can control the outcome; 
or, say, if you object now, everyone has to change their plans last 
minute; or if you don't support this without an opportunity to affect 
it, you are against--pick the poison--you want to shut down the 
government or you are for Putin. All these ridiculous things get thrown 
out here.
  Open it up. I will tell you why it won't happen--because it is a real 
threat. It is a threat to him because the idea that other Senators who 
aren't part of the two who get to make all the calls--that we would 
find a different way. That is a threat to his power because right now 
he gets to say: Come to me with everything. I will put it in some 
omnibus. There won't be any time to debate it. They probably won't be 
able to read it. But if they don't vote for it, you want to shut down 
the government.
  So to all the Senators, I would like to work with you to dislodge 
this concentration of power that no doubt our Founders would be rolling 
in their graves over. This diffusion of power that is defined by our 
separation of powers and federalism was meant to spread it out to 
protect individual liberty. It certainly was never intended for one 
person in the Senate who can always be recognized and, like last week, 
did something that had never happened in the history of our Republic, 
which was to dismiss Articles of Impeachment even though we are 
supposed to have a trial. Granted, he had accomplices in that. Every 
single Democrat voted with him. But he is recognized first. He can fill 
the tree. There are no amendments. We have to beg to be heard, which is 
why I objected to that farce last week. I don't think it is becoming of 
a U.S. Senator to say: Oh, thank you, Senator Schumer, for giving me 2 
minutes to speak.
  Anyway, there is a better way.
  It is playing out again here today because we are essentially taking 
what the House gives us. The upper Chamber is capitulating to the House 
to say that we can't actually affect this thing, we can't change 
anything, and if you do it--pick the poison--you are threatening the 
security of another country or something ridiculous.
  I would just hope that this is a clarion call for reform. The Senate 
is broken.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. I echo and endorse the wise comments just uttered by my 
friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Missouri. What we 
are witnessing here is the destruction of the legislative process in 
the Senate.
  The Senate is here today preparing to vote on one of the most 
significant pieces of legislation this entire Congress--that is, a bill 
to send nearly $100 billion overseas--and Senators are unable even to 
offer an amendment to that bill.
  By filling the amendment tree this afternoon, the majority leader has 
prevented every single Member of this body from offering amendments to 
the legislation, any efforts to improve it. If we want to have any 
amendment considered, we have to beg the majority leader to let it come 
before the full Senate for a vote.
  You may remember that just a couple of months ago, we were in a very 
similar position on a very, very similar bill.
  Senator Schumer promised a ``fair and open'' amendment process on the 
national security supplemental in February of this year, but not one 
amendment--not a single amendment--was considered on the Senate floor.
  Republicans filed over 150 proposed amendments to improve the bill, 
but not one vote on a single one of those amendments or any other was 
allowed. Why? Why?
  Well, Senator Schumer blocked every amendment from even being 
considered by filling the amendment tree. That blocked all of the other 
99 Senators from participating meaningfully in that process.
  Now, why wouldn't he want amendments? That is, after all, the 
hallmark characteristic of what defines us as a body. It is why we call 
ourselves the world's greatest deliberative legislative body. So why 
wouldn't he want those?
  Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that an amendment 
might point to some of the weaknesses in the bill, some of the defects 
of the bill. It might prompt Members to--I don't know--slow down and 
ask whether this is a prudent idea--to send a lot of humanitarian aid 
to Gaza, up to $9 billion, $9.5 billion that could go there with 
minimal guardrails, where Hamas will, with certainty, seize it to wage 
war against Israel; or if the U.S. taxpayer should be footing the bill 
for ``gender advisors'' in Ukraine's military. Should they really vote 
for a bill that does this? That is what an amendment forces all of us 
to ask ourselves and decide on one particular question or another.
  But leadership in the Senate wants to avoid these thorny questions 
that might rock the boat. Leadership wants to ram this bill through the 
Senate with minimal debate and perhaps no amendments because they know 
that aspects of it, especially the $60 billion for Ukraine, are 
massively controversial with the American people, those who elected us, 
those who pay taxes to fund these efforts.
  Now, my colleagues and I are working in good faith to reach a 
unanimous consent agreement to bring forward a handful of amendments 
and set up a stand-alone vote in exchange for expediting the passage of 
the bill.
  We nearly had that agreement locked in late Friday night--an 
agreement to vote on just two amendments and one stand-alone bill--but 
a couple of Senators on the other side of the aisle panicked and 
started objecting to any and all agreements.
  They panicked because they knew that one of those items set up as 
part of a UC--the stand-alone legislation to redesignate the Houthis as 
a foreign terrorist organization, as has been offered by my friend and 
colleague the Senator from Texas--might actually pass. Remember, this 
is the same entity that has been firing on U.S. forces in the region 
and those of our allies, and yet they couldn't let that happen. 
Democrats will agree only to amendments that they find politically 
palatable or know will not pass.
  Now, it has not always been this way in the Senate. When I first 
joined this body in 2011 as a new Member, individual Members could call 
up our amendments freely and then make them pending, and the Senate 
would then have to dispose of them as it does with pending amendments, 
either by voting them in; voting them out, up or down; or by a motion 
to table or reject them.
  But Members had to vote. They had to take ownership for their 
opinions in public. They had to let their constituents know where they 
stood.
  Today, the majority leader hides the ball from the public by filling 
the amendment tree, ensuring that the amendments that he and his party 
dislike will never see the light of day.
  This is a circus. It is a madhouse. Filling the amendment tree isn't 
about creating an orderly process. It is about limiting real debate.
  When we had an open process, when Members could call up their 
amendments and make them pending on most bills, it actually sped up 
consideration of a bill. Members knew that they would have a fair shot 
in the debate and debate eventually. So they would be more cooperative, 
would be more willing to collapse time, and wait until the next bill to 
offer their amendment or take a motion to table as a proxy for their 
amendment vote.
  But in today's Senate, we do nothing on the floor for hours while 
Members and the staff hide in the cloakroom and argue about what we can 
and cannot vote for. They twist arms, pressure Members in private, and 
make assurances they can't and don't intend to keep, saying: Oh, you 
will get the amendment in the base text of the next bill or you will 
get it as a free-standing measure another time.
  And then they shrug their shoulders when it just doesn't work out.
  Why not have these debates in public? Why not allow our Senators and 
their constituents to know what is

[[Page S2960]]

going on? Well, it is because the majority leader doesn't want to give 
up control.
  Sadly, while the Democrats pioneered this change in the amendment 
process, Republican leadership chose to tolerate the practice and even 
continue it while we were in the majority by filling the amendment tree 
so that no one could offer an amendment without the leadership's 
blessing. For both sides, it is about control. It is about protecting 
Members from voting, the very thing we all came to this body to do.
  On the Republican side of the aisle, our aspiring leaders need to ask 
if they want to perpetuate this awful trend. Will they tolerate 
blocking out Members, including Members of their own party from 
offering amendments? Will they continue to lock down the floor? Will 
they continue to disenfranchise Members and, more importantly, those 
they represent, by preemptively blocking them from exercising their 
procedural rights? Or will they finally stop this barbaric practice of 
filling the amendment tree? Will they let Members make their amendments 
pending so that Senators must actually debate and vote?
  Republicans need to ask these questions of anyone desiring to lead 
our conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I rise finding myself in the unusual position of 
supporting Senator Lee's effort of opening this bill up to amendment 
votes. I don't often agree with Senator Lee. I know that it is a 
radical idea. But, maybe, in the greatest deliberative body in the 
world, we might, on rare occasion, actually have debate and votes on 
major issues.
  To that end, I plan on offering two very important amendments to this 
legislation. Members can agree with me on these issues or disagree, but 
they should be voted upon.
  My first amendment would ensure that we are not providing any more 
offensive military aid to Netanyahu's war machine while he continues to 
violate U.S. and international law.
  This amendment would not touch funding for the Iron Dome or other 
purely defensive systems, but it would end aid to a war machine which 
has already killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded 77,000, 70 percent 
of whom are women and children. And, right now, as we speak, hundreds 
of thousands of children face starvation as a result of that war 
machine.
  Poll after poll shows that the American people are sick and tired of 
seeing their taxpayer dollars support the slaughter of innocent 
civilians and the starvation of children.
  And while there is strong Republican support for ending aid to 
Netanyahu's war machine, the support, I should tell my Democratic 
colleagues, is overwhelming.
  The second amendment that I am offering would remove the prohibition 
on funding for UNRWA, the backbone of the humanitarian relief operation 
in Gaza and the only organization that experts say has the capability 
to provide the humanitarian aid that is desperately needed.
  Israel has alleged that 12 UNRWA employees out of 30,000 were 
involved in the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7. That is being 
investigated.
  I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. That is being investigated, and it should be. But you 
don't allow thousands of children to starve because of the alleged 
violations and actions of 12 people.
  The bottom line: We are debating one of the most serious issues we 
have faced in a long time. The American people want us to vote and 
debate these issues, and we should be able to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. A bipartisan majority has been working for months to get 
this aid across the finish line and, after so long, we are at the 
threshold. Any further delay will waste time we do not have, that our 
allies do not have. That is exactly what this motion is. We need to get 
this bill passed ASAP.
  Let's remember: This bill is essentially the same bill we already 
passed overwhelmingly 2 months ago. There is no reason, no excuse for 
delay, not when bombs are falling on our allies, not when civilians, 
including kids, are suffering and starving, not when the world is 
watching to see if America is still united enough to lead.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the table motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we just heard the astounding claim that it 
would be a waste of time to allow individual Senators to come here and 
do what they were elected to do, which is to offer improvements to 
pending legislation.
  We are not a rubberstamp for the House. We are not a rubberstamp for 
either party's leadership in either Chamber. We are U.S. Senators, and 
we should be able to vote as such.
  And so I am asking for the support of my colleagues in tabling the 
amendment tree so we can have the ``fair and open'' process that 
Senator Schumer promised the last time we addressed the national 
security supplemental.
  If we table the tree, Members can actually, finally, be able to call 
up their amendments on the floor, instead of begging Senator Schumer to 
give his blessing for their consideration.
  If you support a fair and open amendment process, if you want to 
improve the bill, you should support my motion to table.
  This will not create the post-apocalyptic hellscape that those in 
leadership would have us believe will ensue.
  There will not be dogs and cats living together in the streets, 
nothing out of the Book of Revelations. We will just find ourselves in 
the position of being able to do our job.


                            Motion to Table

  To that end, I move to table the motion to refer.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--50

     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
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hawley
     Paul
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion on the House 
message to accompany H.R. 815 be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  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 the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to

[[Page S2961]]

     the Senate amendment to 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, Chris Van Hollen, Mark 
           Kelly, Richard J. Durbin, Alex Padilla, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Michael F. Bennet, Gary C. 
           Peters, Jon Tester, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Tammy 
           Duckworth, Richard Blumenthal, Jeanne Shaheen, Angus S. 
           King, Jr., Margaret Wood Hassan, 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 the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to 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. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 80, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--19

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Budd
     Cruz
     Daines
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Johnson
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Merkley
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Tuberville
     Vance

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Paul
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are 
19.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the motion to 
refer and the amendments pending thereto fall.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, the Senate sends a unified message 
to the entire world: America will always defend democracy in its hour 
of need.
  We tell our allies: We will stand with you.
  We tell our adversaries: Don't mess with us.
  We tell the world: We will do everything to defend democracy and our 
way of life.
  In a resounding bipartisan vote, the relentless work of 6 long months 
has paid off. Congress is sending the supplemental to President Biden's 
desk.
  Getting this done was one of the greatest achievements the Senate has 
faced in years, perhaps decades. A lot of people inside and outside 
Congress wanted this package to fail. But, today, those in Congress who 
stand on the side of democracy are winning the day.
  To our friends in Ukraine, to our allies in NATO, to our allies in 
Israel, and to civilians around the world in need of help: Help is on 
the way.
  To our friends in Ukraine: America will deliver more ammo and air 
defenses and basic supplies that you need to resist Putin on the 
battlefield.
  To our friends in Israel: America will soon deliver aid to help you 
fight the scourge of Hamas and stand up to Iran.
  To innocent civilians in the midst of war, from Gaza to Sudan: 
America will deliver food and medicine and clothing.
  To our friends in the Indo-Pacific: We will stand with you to resist 
the Chinese Communist Party.
  And to the whole world: Make no mistake, America will deliver on its 
promise to act like a leader on the world stage, to hold the line 
against autocratic thugs like Vladimir Putin.
  A few months ago, Putin made a bet that American aid would sooner or 
later come to an end. We are showing Putin that betting against America 
is always--always--a grave mistake.
  Over the past few months, I have spoken repeatedly and at length 
about the supreme importance of getting this supplemental package done. 
Starting in October and through Thanksgiving and Christmas and New 
Year's and into the spring, I said again and again that we had to work 
in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans alike, if we wanted to 
pass this bill.
  When we succeeded in getting the supplemental through the Senate the 
first time in February, it was for two reasons above all: persistence 
and bipartisanship. At certain points, it might have seemed hard to see 
how we would reach our goal, but we never lost hope that if we 
persisted, we could finish the job.
  Today, thank God, our persistence has been validated, and the bill 
sent to us by the House is largely the same as the bill in substance as 
what the Senate has championed all along.
  It wasn't easy to reach this point, but today's outcome yet again 
confirms another thing we have stressed from the beginning of this 
Congress: In divided government, the only way to ever get things done 
is bipartisanship. I am very pleased that in this moment, when it 
mattered most, both parties found a way to work together even when it 
wasn't easy.
  Again, persistence and bipartisanship are what saved the day. Leader 
McConnell and I, who don't always agree, worked hand in hand and 
shoulder to shoulder to get this bill done. Together, we were 
bipartisan and persisted.
  Now, it is troubling that a very small minority within the hard right 
tried desperately for months to prevent Congress from doing the right 
thing. These isolationists have now secured their ignominious place in 
history as the ones who would see America stick its head in the sand as 
our enemies sought to undermine us. Had they won, they would have 
presided over a declining America. I am glad that today we will see 
that effort fail.

  This is an inflection point in history. Western democracy faces 
perhaps its greatest test since the end of the Cold War. The conflicts 
we see right now in Europe, in the Middle East, and the tensions of the 
Indo-Pacific will go a long way in shaping the balance of power between 
democracy and autocracy in the decades to come, and the consequences 
for America's long-term security will be profound.
  If Putin is allowed to seize the territory of a neighboring sovereign 
nation, if the Chinese Communist Party is allowed to consume the Indo-
Pacific, if Iran is allowed to dominate the Middle East, and if America 
were to stand by and do nothing, it is the United States that would 
suffer the consequences most of all in the long run.
  Failure to act now could not only undermine the legitimacy of our 
democratic values, it would have impacts across American life. It would 
hurt us politically, economically, militarily, and socially. It would 
harm the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, endanger the safety of our 
troops, cripple America's innovative potential, and make the world a 
more hostile place for our civic values--individual liberty, freedom of 
expression, equal justice under law, and opportunity for all. We always 
try to live up to these ideals, but they will not survive if autocratic 
powers like Putin and the Chinese Communist Party overtake America in 
this century.
  That is what is at stake in the war in Ukraine, where we face Putin. 
That is what is at stake in the Indo-Pacific, where we face Xi. That is 
what is at stake in conflicts in the Middle East, where we face Iran. 
Nothing less--nothing less--than the future of American security and 
the future of the democratic order that has survived since the end of 
the Second World War.
  So we have a choice. We can either make a downpayment on defending 
our

[[Page S2962]]

security or find ourselves on the back foot, facing much graver threats 
in years and decades to come. The only answer is the right one: We must 
act now.
  We have learned in recent years that democracy is a fragile and 
precious thing. It will not survive the threats of this century--the 
new threats--if we aren't willing to do what it takes to defend it. And 
if America will not lead the way to protect democracy in this age, no 
other nation will. That is the burden, that is the duty of a nation as 
great as ours.
  There are so many people on both sides of the aisle who deserve 
credit for this immense accomplishment.
  I thank President Biden for his stalwart leadership. He never 
flinched or winced. He knew how important this was and was always 
working with us and importuning us to move forward.
  I thank Leader McConnell, as I have mentioned before, for working 
hand in hand with us, not letting partisanship get in the way.
  I thank Speaker Johnson, who rose to the occasion. In his own words, 
he said he had to do the right thing despite the enormous political 
pressure on him.
  I thank Leader Jeffries, who worked so well together in his 
bipartisan way with Speaker Johnson.
  Let me say this once again about my friend the Republican leader: We 
were of one mind to get this bill done. It was our bipartisanship, our 
linking of arms together, that got this large and difficult bill 
through the Congress despite many political ideologues who wanted to 
bring it down. Bipartisanship once again prevailed, and I thank him for 
his leadership.
  I want to thank my Senate colleagues, particularly in my caucus. The 
dedication and unity and strength you have shown have made this 
possible. I was able, as leader, to work with the Republican leader in 
the House, the Speaker, the minority leader in the House, and the 
President because I knew I had our full caucus behind us--strongly, 
fervently.
  The speeches that we heard at our Tuesday lunches, made by many who 
are sitting here, would make every American proud, and I thank you, 
thank you, thank you for that.
  For the past 6 months, our friends and allies across the world have 
been watching what has been going on in Congress and asking themselves 
the same thing: Will America stand by her friends to face down the 
forces of autocracy? Will America follow through on its commitment to 
be a leader on the world stage and safeguard the cause of democracy? 
Will America summon the strength to come together, overcome the 
centrifugal pull of partisanship, and rise once again to meet the 
magnitude of the moment? Today, with both parties working together, the 
Senate answers these questions with a thunderous and resounding yes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Welch). The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to pass 
this important legislation, and I want to thank Leader Schumer for his 
tremendous leadership on this entire package. It is amazing. His 
dedication and support to getting this done. He really, really held 
steadfast as well as our caucus, as he just described, and so many of 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  I also want to thank Senator Murray for her continued leadership on 
appropriations bills.
  This supplemental will supply Ukraine with desperately needed 
equipment, weapons, training, and logistics.
  For over 2 years, the Ukrainian people have shown courage and 
resilience, enabling them to resist Russian aggression. As just 
described by our leader, it would be disastrous for our national 
security and democracy and human rights if we had not supported them.
  This bill also continues to support American taxpayers by authorizing 
the President to use an estimated $5 billion in frozen Russian assets. 
These assets will help pay for Ukraine's reconstruction. And it 
designates the U.S. economic assistance, which Ukrainians will have to 
pay back once they have repelled the Russians.
  The supplemental also includes support for our Middle East ally 
Israel, including support to make sure, just like these past few days, 
of shooting down 99 percent of missiles and drone attacks by Iran.
  It also includes $9 billion of humanitarian aid for Gaza, Ukraine, 
and for people caught in conflicts around the world. These conflicts 
have taken an immeasurable toll on the Palestinian and Ukrainian 
people.
  The supplemental also contains a range of sanctions that will make it 
harder for each of Israel's adversaries--Iran and Hamas--to finance 
their operations.
  It contains the SHIP Act, which requires the President to post 
sanctions against individuals and companies that knowingly help evade 
oil sanctions. Illegal revenues funnel tens of billions to designated 
organizations and terrorist groups. And it builds on legislation 
Senator Murkowski and I enacted over a decade ago that helped expose 
the middlemen who were enabling Iran to evade these sanctions.
  This package also includes over $8 billion to support Taiwan and 
other Indo-Pacific allies in this critical part of the world where we 
stand shoulder to shoulder with these democracies.
  It also contains legislation, the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, of which I 
was proud to be a cosponsor--It is critically important legislation 
that does a couple of things. One, it declares that fentanyl is a 
national emergency. This enables the President to impose sanctions on 
fentanyl traffickers, enabling the U.S. Treasury to better fight 
fentanyl-related money laundering. Those fentanyl traffickers and money 
launderings have ties to organized crime and to drug cartels.
  These issues have been clearly outlined in my State by communities, 
health providers, law enforcement, and others who want help in stopping 
the traffickers.
  Part of the solution is stemming the flow of fentanyl. This 
supplemental would allow the proceeds from those seized assets of those 
narco-traffickers to be used by law enforcement in our local 
communities to fight this fentanyl scourge.
  We must give our communities all the tools they need to stop this 
product from flooding across our borders, and this legislation will do 
just that.
  I also want to address that technology should be a tool to help solve 
our greatest challenges, to improve the human condition, and to drive 
innovation and support economic opportunity. But foreign adversaries 
use technology for social and political control.
  There is no individual right to privacy or freedom of speech in these 
autocracies. U.S. social media companies are not allowed to operate in 
China. In fact, China leads the world in using surveillance and 
censorship to keep tabs on its own population and to repress dissent.
  Governments that respect freedom of speech do not build backdoors 
into hardware or software, into apps on phones, or into laptops. 
Backdoors allow foreign adversaries to target vulnerable Americans 
based on their user name or sensitive data. Backdoors allow foreign 
adversaries to use proxy bots to bombard--bombard--vulnerable 
populations--Americans--with harmful content or even to blackmail 
people.
  The U.S. Department of Justice has stated: ``Hostile foreign powers 
are weaponizing bulk data and the power of artificial intelligence to 
target Americans.''
  I do not want technology in the United States used this way. I want 
the United States to work with our most sophisticated technologically 
advanced countries, like-minded democracies--places like Japan, South 
Korea, our European allies--and set the global standards for technology 
and data protection. I want to see a technology NATO, one in which our 
allies come together and say there cannot be a government backdoor to 
any hardware or software if it wants to see global adoption.
  We should have a trusted framework for cross-border data flows, as 
has been discussed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development and the G7. And criteria for trusted data flow should 
include commitments to democratic governance, the rule of law, and the 
protection of property rights and free speech.
  I believe in trade, and I want trade. And I believe that business 
should be about business. But business is not

[[Page S2963]]

about business when foreign adversaries weaponize data, weaponize 
technology, and weaponize business approaches that hurt Americans.
  I want to yield to my colleague, the chairman of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, for his perspective on why this legislation 
before us is so important.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I want to agree with my 
friend, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, on issues she already 
outlined, whether it be the need for aid for Ukraine, support for 
Israel, humanitarian aid for Gaza, or the necessary funding that has 
taken place for the Indo-Pacific, and, obviously, legislation that we 
all supported on fending off fentanyl.
  But I want to particularly commend her for comments she has made on 
these technology issues. Over the last 7 years, as vice chair and now 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I spent an awful lot of time 
looking at what I think is one of the most significant intelligence 
failures of the last half century, and that was the failure we had to 
anticipate and disrupt Russian efforts to meddle in our elections. 
Since that time, though, we have seen a wide spectrum of foreign 
adversaries who tried to copy the Russian playbook.
  But don't just take it from me. A succession of now-declassified 
intelligence assessments has described the ways in which foreign 
adversaries like Iran, like the People's Republic of China, and others 
are seeking to stoke social, racial, and political tensions in the 
United States. They are seeking to undermine confidence in our 
institutions and our elections systems and even to sow violence amongst 
Americans. The extent to which our adversaries have exploited American 
social media platforms is a matter of public record.
  The committee I chair has held many hearings--open hearings--on the 
failure of U.S. social media platforms to identify the exploitation of 
their products by foreign intelligence services. As a Senator, along 
with the Senator from Washington, I have been among the leading critics 
of these platforms for their repeated failures to protect consumers.
  While the exploitation of U.S. communication platforms by adversaries 
continues to be a serious issue, at the end of the day, our platforms 
are at least independent businesses. They do not have a vested interest 
in undermining our basic democratic system.
  The truth is, though, I can't say the same for TikTok, the fastest 
growing social media platform in the United States, whose parent 
company ByteDance is based in the PRC. Even as U.S. social media 
platforms have fumbled in their response to foreign influence 
operations, there was never any concern that these platforms would 
operate at the direction of a foreign adversary. Again, I cannot say 
the same for TikTok.
  I yield back to Senator Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank Senator Warner for his perspective as chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee and his hard work. He and I both drafted 
legislation more than a year ago trying to give our government the 
tools to deal with this issue.
  In 2020, India concluded that TikTok and other Chinese-controlled 
apps were national security threats and prohibited them. As a result, 
India TikTok users migrated to other platforms, including Google's 
YouTube, and Indian small businesses found other ways to operate on 
other platforms.
  This supplemental contains the Protecting Americans from Foreign 
Adversary Controlled Applications Act. Congress has a nonpunitive 
policy purpose in passing this legislation. Congress is not acting to 
punish ByteDance, TikTok, or any other individual company. Congress is 
acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, 
surveillance, and malign operations harming vulnerable Americans, our 
servicemen and women, and our U.S. Government personnel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I would like to expound a little bit on what Senator 
Cantwell just said. It has been made absolutely clear that a number of 
Chinese laws require Chinese companies and their subsidiaries to assist 
PRC security agencies and abide by the secret and unchallengeable 
government directives. The truth is, these Chinese companies, at the 
end of the day, don't owe their obligation to their customers or their 
shareholders, but they owe it to the PRC Government.
  In the context of social media platforms used by nearly half of 
Americans, it is not hard to imagine how a platform that facilitates so 
much commerce, political discourse, and social debate could be covertly 
manipulated to serve the goals of an authoritarian regime, one with a 
long track record of censorship, transnational oppression, and 
promotion of disinformation.
  In recent weeks, we have seen direct lobbying by the Chinese 
Government, indicating, perhaps, more than anything we will say on the 
floor here, how dearly Xi Jinping is invested in this product--a 
product, by the way, that is not even allowed to operate in the Chinese 
domestic market, itself.
  Story after story, over the last 18 months, have exposed the extent 
to which TikTok had grossly misrepresented its data security and 
corporate governance practice, as well as its relationship with its 
parent company. Countless stories have refuted the claims made by 
TikTok executives and lobbyists that it operates independently from its 
controlling company ByteDance.
  We have also seen documented examples of this company surveilling 
journalists. We have seen corresponding guidance from leading news 
organizations, not just here in America but across the world, advising 
their investigative journalists not to use TikTok. These public 
reports, based on revelations of current and former employees, also 
reveal that TikTok has allowed employees to covertly amplify content.
  Unfortunately, those who suggest that the United States can address 
the data security and foreign influence risk of TikTok through 
traditional mitigation have not been following TikTok's long track 
record of deceit and lack of transparency.
  I yield back to Senator Cantwell.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank Senator Warner for his comments.
  I find it most disturbing that they used TikTok to repeatedly access 
U.S. user data and track multiple journalists covering the company. 
Researchers have found that TikTok restricts the information that 
Americans and others receive on a global basis.
  As of December 2023, an analysis by Rutgers University found that 
TikTok posts mentioning topics that are sensitive to the Chinese 
Government, including Tiananmen Square, Uighurs, and the Dalai Lama 
were significantly less prevalent on TikTok than on Instagram, the most 
comparable social media.
  Foreign policy issues disfavored by China and Russian Governments 
also had fewer hashtags on TikTok, such as pro-Ukraine or pro-Israel 
hashtags. Here are some of those hashtags on TikTok:
  The example of Tiananmen Square, which we all know was an example of 
students standing up to the military, and yet for Tiananmen Square, 
there are 8,000 percent more hashtags on Instagram than on TikTok.
  The Uighur genocide protecting a Muslim population, there are 1,970 
percent more hashtags about that on Instagram than on TikTok.
  And my personal favorite, just because I had the privilege of meeting 
the Dalai Lama here in the Capitol, 5,520 percent more hashtags where 
the Dalai Lama is mentioned on Instagram than on TikTok.
  And pro-Ukraine, 750 percent more hashtags on Instagram than on 
TikTok about Ukraine and support for Ukraine.
  I think that says it all in this debate today. Are we going to 
continue to allow people to control the information by using an export-
controlled algorithm and China-based source code?
  My colleagues and I are urging for this deweaponization by saying 
that TikTok should be sold. Now, I know that the Chinese have an export 
control on that algorithm. Congress believes that you have to have 
adequate time to sufficiently address this issue posed by our foreign 
adversaries. That is why the legislation before us is for ByteDance to 
sell its stake in TikTok.
  We think a year is ample time to allow potential investors to come 
forward, for due diligence to be completed, and for lawyers to draw up 
and

[[Page S2964]]

finalize contracts. This is not a new concept to require Chinese 
divestment from U.S. companies.
  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States requires 
Chinese divestment from hotel management platforms--StayNTouch, from a 
healthcare app called PatientsLikeMe, from the popular LGBTQI dating 
app Grindr, among other companies. And even after the Chinese owner 
divested from Grindr in 2020, Americans had continuity of service on 
this platform.
  So I turn it back to my colleague, but we are giving people a choice 
here to improve this platform and have the opportunity for Americans to 
make sure that they are not being manipulated by our foreign 
adversaries.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H. Res. 1051, the House 
resolution originally on this legislation, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material as ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1051

       Whereas TikTok collects vast amounts of data on Americans, 
     though the total extent of its collection is unknown:
       (1) On August 6, 2020, the President concluded that TikTok 
     ``automatically captures vast swaths of information from its 
     users'' and that TikTok's ownership by ByteDance Ltd. enables 
     the People's Republic of China (referred to in this 
     resolution as the ``PRC'') and Communist Party of China 
     (referred to in this resolution as the ``CCP'') to gain 
     access to ``Americans' personal and proprietary 
     information,'' potentially allowing the CCP ``to track the 
     locations of Federal employees and contractors, build 
     dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct 
     corporate espionage''.
       (2) Outside reporting has confirmed the breadth of TikTok's 
     reach, concluding that its data collection practices extend 
     to age, phone number, precise location, internet address, 
     device used, phone contacts, social network connections, 
     content of private messages sent through the application, and 
     videos watched.
       (3) On November 11, 2022, Federal Communications 
     Commissioner Brendan Carr explained that ``underneath 
     [TikTok], it operates as a very sophisticated surveillance 
     app.'' He characterized it as ``a big risk'' for multiple 
     reasons, including espionage. The risk posed by TikTok is 
     exacerbated by the difficulty in assessing precisely which 
     categories of data it collects. For example, outside 
     researchers have found embedded vulnerabilities that allow 
     the company to collect more data than the application's 
     privacy policy indicates.
       Whereas PRC law requires obligatory, secret disclosure of 
     data controlled by Chinese companies at the PRC's unilateral 
     request:
       (1) Pursuant to PRC law, the PRC can require a company 
     headquartered in the PRC to surrender all its data to the 
     PRC, making it an espionage tool of the CCP.
       (2) The National Intelligence Law, passed in China in 2017, 
     states that ``any organization'' must assist or cooperate 
     with CCP intelligence work. Such assistance or cooperation 
     must also remain secret at the PRC's request.
       (3) The PRC's 2014 Counter-Espionage Law states that 
     ``relevant organizations . . . may not refuse'' to collect 
     evidence for an investigation.
       (4) The PRC's Data Security Law of 2021 states that the PRC 
     has the power to access and control private data.
       (5) The PRC's Counter-Espionage Law grants PRC security 
     agencies nearly unfettered discretion, if acting under an 
     effectively limitlessly capacious understanding of national 
     security, to access data from companies.
       (6) On September 17, 2020, the Department of Commerce 
     concluded that the PRC, to advance ``its intelligence-
     gathering and to understand more about who to target for 
     espionage, whether electronically or via human recruitment,'' 
     is constructing ``massive databases of Americans' personal 
     information'' and that ByteDance has close ties to the CCP, 
     including a cooperation agreement with a security agency and 
     over 130 CCP members in management positions.
       (7) On December 2, 2022, the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, Christopher Wray, stated that TikTok's data 
     repositories on Americans ``are in the hands of a government 
     that doesn't share our values and that has a mission that's 
     very much at odds with what's in the best interests of the 
     United States. . . . The [CCP] has shown a willingness to 
     steal Americans data on a scale that dwarfs any other''.
       (8) On December 5, 2022, the Director of National 
     Intelligence, Avril Haines, stated, when asked about TikTok 
     and PRC ownership, ``It is extraordinary the degree to which 
     [the PRC] . . . [is] developing frameworks for collecting 
     foreign data and pulling it in, and their capacity to then 
     turn that around and use it to target audiences for 
     information campaigns and other things, but also to have it 
     for the future so that they can use it for a variety of 
     means''.
       (9) On December 16, 2022, the Director of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency, William Burns, explained that ``because 
     the parent company of TikTok is a [PRC] company, the [CCP] is 
     able to insist upon extracting the private data of a lot of 
     TikTok users in this country, and also to shape the content 
     of what goes on to TikTok as well to suit the interests of 
     the Chinese leadership''.
       (10) On August 2, 2020, then-Secretary of State, Mike 
     Pompeo, stated that PRC-based companies ``are feeding data 
     directly to the Chinese Communist Party, their national 
     security apparatus''.
       (11) Public reporting has repeatedly confirmed statements 
     made by the Executive Branch regarding the tight 
     interlinkages between ByteDance, TikTok, and the CCP.
       (A) The Secretary of ByteDance's CCP committee, Zhang 
     Fuping, also serves as ByteDance's Editor-in-Chief and Vice 
     President and has vowed that the CCP committee would ``take 
     the lead'' across ``all product lines and business lines'', 
     which include TikTok.
       (B) On May 30, 2023, public reporting revealed that TikTok 
     has stored sensitive financial information, including the 
     Social Security numbers and tax identifications of TikTok 
     influencers and United States small businesses, on servers in 
     China accessible by ByteDance employees.
       (C) On December 22, 2022, public reporting revealed that 
     ByteDance employees accessed TikTok user data and IP 
     addresses to monitor the physical locations of specific 
     United States citizens.
       (D) On June 17, 2022, public reporting revealed that, 
     according to leaked audio from more than 80 internal TikTok 
     meetings, China-based employees of ByteDance repeatedly 
     accessed nonpublic data about United States TikTok users, 
     including the physical locations of specific United States 
     citizens.
       (E) On January 20, 2023, public reporting revealed that 
     TikTok and ByteDance employees regularly engage in practice 
     called ``heating,'' which is a manual push to ensure specific 
     videos ``achieve a certain number of video views''.
       (F) In a court filing in June 2023, a former employee of 
     ByteDance alleged that the CCP spied on pro-democracy 
     protestors in Hong Kong in 2018 by using backdoor access to 
     TikTok to identify and monitor activists' locations and 
     communications.
       (G) On November 1, 2023, public reporting revealed that 
     TikTok's internal platform, which houses its most sensitive 
     information, was inspected in person by CCP cybersecurity 
     agents in the lead-up to the CCP's 20th National Congress.
       Whereas the PRC's access to American users' data poses 
     unacceptable risks to United States national security:
       (1) As a general matter, foreign adversary controlled 
     social media applications present a clear threat to the 
     national security of the United States.
       (2) The Department of Homeland Security has warned that the 
     PRC's data collection activities in particular have resulted 
     in ``numerous risks to U.S. businesses and customers, 
     including: the theft of trade secrets, of intellectual 
     property, and of other confidential business information; 
     violations of U.S. export control laws; violations of U.S. 
     privacy laws; breaches of contractual provisions and terms of 
     service; security and privacy risks to customers and 
     employees; risk of PRC surveillance and tracking of regime 
     critics; and reputational harm to U.S. businesses''. These 
     risks are imminent and other, unforeseen risks may also 
     exist.
       (3) On September 28, 2023, the Department of State's Global 
     Engagement Center issued a report that found that ``TikTok 
     creates opportunities for PRC global censorship''. The report 
     stated that United States Government information as of late 
     2020 showed that ``ByteDance maintained a regularly updated 
     internal list identifying people who were likely blocked or 
     restricted from all ByteDance platforms, including TikTok, 
     for reasons such as advocating for Uyghur independence''.
       (4) On November 15, 2022, the Director of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation, Christopher Wray, testified before 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives that TikTok's national security concerns 
     ``include the possibility that the [CCP] could use it to 
     control data collection on millions of users or control the 
     recommendation algorithm, which could be used for influence 
     operations if they so choose, or to control software on 
     millions of devices, which gives it an opportunity to 
     potentially technically compromise personal devices''.
       (5) On March 8, 2023, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, Christopher Wray, testified before the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate that the CCP, through 
     its ownership of ByteDance, could use TikTok to collect and 
     control users' data and drive divisive narratives 
     internationally.
       Whereas Congress has extensively investigated whether 
     TikTok poses a national security threat because it is owned 
     by ByteDance:
       (1) On October 26, 2021, during the testimony of Michael 
     Beckerman, TikTok head of public policy for the Americas, 
     before a hearing of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection 
     of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 
     the Senate, lawmakers expressed concerns that TikTok's audio 
     and user location data could be used by the CCP.
       (2) On September 14, 2022, lawmakers expressed concerns 
     over TikTok's algorithm and content recommendations posing a 
     national security threat during a hearing before the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate with Vanessa Pappas, Chief Operating Officer of 
     TikTok.

[[Page S2965]]

       (3) On March 23, 2023, during the testimony of TikTok CEO, 
     Shou Chew, before the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
     House of Representatives, lawmakers expressed concerns about 
     the safety and security of the application, including 
     TikTok's relationship with the CCP.
       (4) On February 28, 2023, former Deputy National Security 
     Advisor, Matthew Pottinger, emphasized that it has already 
     been confirmed that TikTok's parent company ByteDance has 
     used the application to surveil United States journalists as 
     a means to identify and retaliate against potential sources. 
     The PRC has also shown a willingness to harass individuals 
     abroad who take stances that contradict the Communist Party 
     lines. The application can further be employed to help 
     manipulate social discourse and amplify false information to 
     tens of millions of Americans.
       (5) On March 23, 2023, Nury Turkel, the Chair of the United 
     States Commission on International Religious Freedom, raised 
     the alarm that TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, has a 
     strategic partnership with China's Ministry of Public 
     Security, and China's domestic version of the application, 
     Douyin, has been used to collect data and sensitive 
     information from Uyghurs and other oppressed ethnic minority 
     groups.
       (6) On July 26, 2023, William Evanina, the former Director 
     of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, 
     pointed to TikTok as just one of many areas of concern that 
     combine to paint a concerning picture of the CCP's 
     capabilities and intent as an adversarial, malign competitor.
       (7) On November 30, 2023, John Garnaut of the Australian 
     Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) remarked that TikTok has 
     sophisticated capabilities that create the risk that TikTok 
     can clandestinely shape narratives and elevate favorable 
     opinions while suppressing statements and news that the PRC 
     deems negative.
       (8) On January 18, 2024, the Select Committee on Strategic 
     Competition between the United States and the Chinese 
     Communist Party of the House of Representatives was briefed 
     by a set of senior interagency officials to discuss these 
     matters.
       (9) On March 22, 2023, elements of the intelligence 
     community provided a classified briefing on the threat to 
     members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the House of Representatives and leadership for the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.
       (10) On April 26, 2023, the Executive Branch provided a 
     classified briefing on the threat to members of the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
       (11) On June 5, 2023, the Executive Branch provided a 
     classified briefing on the threat to staff of the Committee 
     on Banking of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives.
       (12) In June 2023, at the request of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, 
     the intelligence community provided a classified threat 
     briefing open to all Members of the House of Representatives.
       (13) On November 15, 2023, elements of the intelligence 
     community provided a classified briefing to the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate on, inter alia, the 
     Peoples Republic of China's conduct of global foreign malign 
     influence operations, including through platforms such as 
     TikTok.
       Whereas Congress and the Executive Branch are of one mind 
     on the risks presented by TikTok's data collection practices:
       (1) On May 15, 2019, the President issued an Executive 
     Order on Securing the Information and Communications 
     Technology and Services Supply Chain, which stated that 
     ``unrestricted acquisition or use in the United States of 
     information and communications technology or services 
     designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons 
     owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or 
     direction of foreign adversaries . . . constitutes an unusual 
     and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign 
     policy, and economy of the United States''.
       (2) On June 9, 2021, the President issued an Executive 
     Order on Protecting Americans' Sensitive Data from Foreign 
     Adversaries, which stated that ``[f]oreign adversary access 
     to large repositories of United States persons' data also 
     presents a significant risk.'' The EO stated that ``the 
     United States must act to protect against the risks 
     associated with connected software applications that are 
     designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons 
     owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or 
     direction of, a foreign adversary''.
       (3) In May 2019, in connection with a review by the 
     Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), 
     a company based in the PRC agreed to divest its interest in a 
     popular software application reportedly due to concerns 
     relating to potential access by the PRC to American user data 
     from the application.
       (4) On July 8, 2020, then-National Security Advisor, Robert 
     O'Brien, stated that the CCP uses TikTok and other PRC-owned 
     applications to collect personal, private, and intimate data 
     on Americans to use ``for malign purposes''.
       (5) On August 14, 2020, the President found ``there is 
     credible evidence . . . that ByteDance, Ltd. . . . might take 
     action that threatens to impair the national security of the 
     United States''.
       (6) In February 2023, the Deputy Attorney General, Lisa 
     Monaco, stated, ``Our intelligence community has been very 
     clear about [the CCP's] efforts and intention to mold the use 
     of [TikTok] using data in a worldview that is completely 
     inconsistent with our own.'' Deputy Attorney General Monaco 
     also stated, ``I don't use TikTok and I would not advise 
     anybody to do so because of [national security] concerns''.
       (7) On July 13, 2022, Federal Communications Commission 
     Commissioner, Brendan Carr, testified before the Subcommittee 
     on National Security of the Committee on Oversight and Reform 
     of the House of Representatives that ``there is a unique set 
     of national security concerns when it comes to [TikTok]''.
       (8) On March 23, 2023, the Secretary of State, Antony 
     Blinken, testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 
     the House of Representatives that TikTok is a threat to 
     national security that should be ``ended one way or 
     another''.
       Whereas the Executive Branch has sought to address the 
     risks identified above through requiring ByteDance to divest 
     its ownership of TikTok:
       (1) On August 14, 2020, the President issued an Executive 
     Order directing ByteDance to divest any assets or property 
     used to enable or support ByteDance's operation of the TikTok 
     application in the United States and any data obtained or 
     derived from TikTok application or Musical.ly application 
     users in the United States. The Order, however, remains the 
     subject of litigation.
       (2) On August 6, 2020, the President issued an Executive 
     Order (E.O. 13942) that directed the Secretary of Commerce to 
     take actions that would have prohibited certain transactions 
     related to TikTok in 45 days if ByteDance failed to divest 
     its ownership of TikTok. The companies and content creators 
     using the TikTok mobile application filed lawsuits 
     challenging those prohibitions, as a result of which two 
     district courts issued preliminary injunctions enjoining the 
     prohibitions.
       (3) Following the multiple judicial rulings that enjoined 
     the Executive Branch from enforcing the regulations 
     contemplated in E.O. 13942, on June 9, 2021, the President 
     issued a new Executive Order that rescinded E.O. 13942, and 
     directed the Secretary of Commerce to more broadly assess and 
     take action, where possible, against connected software 
     applications that pose a threat to national security.

       Whereas Congress has passed, and the Executive Branch has 
     implemented, a ban on ByteDance-controlled applications like 
     TikTok from government devices because of the national 
     security threat such applications pose; even so, the 
     application's widespread popularity limits the effectiveness 
     of this step:
       (1) Prior to 2022, several Federal agencies, including the 
     Departments of Defense, State, and Homeland Security, had 
     issued orders banning TikTok on devices for which those 
     specific agencies are responsible.
       (2) On December 29, 2022, following its adoption by 
     Congress, the President signed into law a bill banning the 
     use of TikTok on government devices due to the national 
     security threat posed by the application under its current 
     ownership.
       (3) A majority of States in the United States have also 
     banned TikTok on State government devices due to the national 
     security threat posed by the application under its current 
     ownership.
       (4) To date, as long as TikTok is subject to the ownership 
     or control of ByteDance, no alternative to preventing or 
     prohibiting TikTok's operation of the application in the 
     United States has been identified that would be sufficient to 
     address the above-identified risks.
       (5) The national security risks arise from and are related 
     to the ownership or control of TikTok by a foreign adversary 
     controlled company. Severing ties to such foreign adversary 
     controlled company, for example by a full divestment, would 
     mitigate such risks.
       (6) As has been widely reported, TikTok, Inc. has proposed 
     an alternative, a proposal referred to as ``Project Texas,'' 
     which is an initiative to try and satisfy concerns relating 
     to TikTok's handling of United States user data.
       (A) Under the proposal, United States user data would be 
     stored in the United States, using the infrastructure of a 
     trusted third party.
       (B) That initiative would have allowed the application 
     algorithm, source code, and development activities to remain 
     in China under ByteDance's control and subject to PRC laws, 
     albeit subject to proposed safeguards relating to cloud 
     infrastructure and other data security concerns. Project 
     Texas would also have allowed ByteDance to continue to have a 
     role in certain aspects of TikTok's United States operations.
       (C) Project Texas would have allowed TikTok to continue to 
     rely on the engineers and back-end support in China to update 
     its algorithms and the source code needed to run the TikTok 
     application in the United States.
       (D) Allowing code development in and access to United 
     States user data from China potentially exposes United States 
     users to malicious code, backdoor vulnerabilities, 
     surreptitious surveillance, and other problematic activities 
     tied to source code development.
       (E) Allowing back-end support, code development, and 
     operational activities to remain in China would also require 
     TikTok to

[[Page S2966]]

     continue to send United States user data to China to update 
     the machine learning algorithms and source code for the 
     application, and to conduct related back-end services, like 
     managing users' accounts.
       (7) On January 31, 2024, the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, Christopher Wray, testified before the 
     Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United 
     States and the Chinese Communist Party of the House of 
     Representatives that TikTok gives the PRC ``the ability to 
     control data collection on millions of users, which can be 
     used for all sorts of intelligence operations or influence 
     operations,'' and ``the ability, should they so choose, to 
     control the software on millions of devices, which means the 
     opportunity to technically compromise millions of devices''.
       (8) The risks posed by TikTok's data collection would be 
     addressed by the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary 
     Controlled Applications Act, despite the potential that the 
     PRC might purchase similar types of data from private data 
     brokers.
       (9) The degree of risk posed by TikTok has increased 
     alongside the application's immense popularity in the United 
     States.
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives has determined 
     that ByteDance and TikTok pose an unacceptable risk to the 
     national security of the United States.

  Ms. CANTWELL. I turn it back to my colleague Senator Warner and again 
thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from 
Washington for her leadership going through the disparate effects of 
TikTok versus other social media platforms.
  And let's acknowledge, TikTok, I think, realized they had a problem 
over a year ago. So they tried to develop a response--it was something 
called Project Texas--to allegedly address concerns related to TikTok's 
handling of America's data.
  However, Project Texas would still allow TikTok's algorithm, source 
code, and development activities to remain in China. They would remain 
so under ByteDance control and subject to Chinese Government 
exploitation.
  Project Texas allows TikTok to continue to rely on engineers and 
back-end support from China to update its algorithm and source code 
needed to run TikTok in the United States.
  How can they say there is not the possibility of interference? This 
reliance on resources based in China, again, makes it vulnerable to 
Chinese Government exploitation.
  That is why Project Texas does not resolve the United States' 
national security concern about ByteDance's ownership of TikTok.
  Now, let me acknowledge--and I think Senator Cantwell and I worked on 
a more, frankly, comprehensive approach that, in a perfect world, we 
might have been debating today, but we work in the world of getting 
things right.
  So I stand firmly in support, as Senator Cantwell has, of taking 
action now to prevent the kind of intelligence failure we first saw 
back in 2016.
  And, again, the chair of the Commerce Committee has indicated this is 
not some draconian or novel approach. For decades, we have had systems 
in place to examine foreign ownership of U.S. industry. We have seen 
even more scrutiny in instances where foreign buyers have sought to 
control U.S. telecom and broadcast media platforms.
  Frankly, this country should have adopted a similar regulatory 
approach for social media--again, something that Senator Cantwell and I 
worked on--which has considerably more scale and barriers to entry than 
broadcast media had a decade ago.
  But this bill is an important step in fixing that glaring gap. It 
goes a long way toward safeguarding our democratic systems from covert 
foreign influence, both in its application to TikTok and forward-
looking treatment of other foreign adversary control over future online 
platforms.
  Before I yield back, I want to make clear to all Americans: This is 
not an effort to take your voice away. For several months now, we have 
heard from constituents how much they value TikTok as a creative 
platform. And yesterday was the 4-year anniversary of my once-viral 
tuna melt video on another social media platform. I can kind of 
understand why TikTok has become such a cultural touchstone.
  To those Americans, I would emphasize: This is not a ban of a service 
you appreciate.
  Many Americans, particularly young Americans, are rightfully 
skeptical. At the end of the day, they have not seen what Congress has 
seen. They have not been in the classified briefings that Congress has 
held, which have delved more deeply into some of the threat posed by 
foreign-controlled TikTok. But what they have seen, beyond even this 
bill, is Congress's failure to enact meaningful consumer protections on 
Big Tech and may cynically view this as a diversion or, worse, a 
concession to U.S. social media platforms.
  To those young Americans, I want to say: We hear your concern, and we 
hope that TikTok will continue under new ownership, American or 
otherwise.
  It could be bought by a group from Britain, Canada, Brazil, France. 
It just needs to be no longer controlled by an adversary that is 
defined as an adversary in U.S. law.
  And with that, I urge that we take action on this item, and, again, 
appreciate the great leadership of the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee on working with our friends in the House to bring this 
important legislation to the floor of the Senate.
  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. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I cannot believe we are here again. 
Americans cannot believe what we are witnessing here today.
  Less than a week ago, House Republican leadership sold out Americans 
and passed a bill that sends $95 billion to other countries. With the 
Speaker's blessing, the House Rules Committee approved a package of 
foreign aid bills that undermines America's interest abroad and paves 
our Nation's path to bankruptcy.
  The Speaker relied on Democrats to force this $95 billion package 
through committee, over the objection of three conservative Members.
  Unfortunately, our leadership here in the Senate, both Democratic and 
Republican, are complicit.
  The Senate is about to follow the House's lead, further violating the 
trust of those who sent us here. We are about to vote on another $60 
billion for Ukraine; this, on top of the $120 billion American 
taxpayers have already sent to this black hole, with no accountability.
  We are a country that is $35 trillion in debt. We are a country whose 
southern border is wide open thanks to the Biden administration. 
Illegal immigrants are invading our country. Drugs, including fentanyl, 
are flooding across, killing hundreds--hundreds--of Americans a day.
  We are printing money for other countries while inflation continues 
to crush the American citizen. Not one dollar of this bill is paid for 
or offset. Not one. We will have to print more money or borrow it from 
China, all to fund foreign wars while we are losing the fight at our 
own southern border.
  What we are doing is a slap in the face to the Americans who sent us 
here to represent them. Instead of debating legislation to close the 
border and fix the economy, we are about to send billions of dollars to 
one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
  The war in Ukraine is a stalemate. It has been for a while. Pouring 
more money into Ukraine's coffers will only prolong the conflict and 
lead to more loss of life. No one at the White House, Pentagon, or the 
State Department can articulate what victory looks like in this fight.
  They couldn't when we sent the first tranche of aid over 2 years ago 
and they still can't do it over 2 years later. We should be working 
with Ukraine and Russia to negotiate an end to this madness. That is 
called diplomacy, by the way, a tactic this administration has been 
completely unwilling to use.
  Instead, Congress is rushing to further bankroll the waging of a war 
that has zero chance of a positive outcome.
  The Speaker claims he is privy to special, classified information 
that justifies support for this massive package.
  If this critical information exists, all elected representatives who 
are being asked to vote on this massive spending package should have 
access to it.
  Republican leaders in the Senate argue that Russia will roll through

[[Page S2967]]

Ukraine and into NATO if we don't immediately send another $60 billion 
we don't have.
  I wouldn't be surprised if we get a letter signed by fifty or so 
``high ranking, former intelligence officials'' confirming this and the 
dire consequences of delay. Don't fall for it.
  I had a classified briefing from the Department of Defense just this 
morning. I can tell you there is no justification to prioritize 
Ukraine's security before our own. None.
  To add insult to injury, we are financing this conflict on the backs 
of the American taxpayer. As I said earlier, this country is $35 
trillion in debt. Today we are borrowing $80,000 a second--you heard 
that right--$80,000 a second, $4.6 million a minute. And I want this 
body to explain that to the American people next election. This is 
irresponsible and unsustainable.
  On top of that, we are now considering adding another $95 billion to 
that mountain of debt with this foreign aid package. This funding will 
be financed by deficit spending the American people will eventually 
have to pay back.
  This group doesn't have to pay it; the American people do. It is easy 
to spend somebody else's money.
  Unlike the so-called loan to Ukraine--loan, we are hearing, which 
will never be repaid--don't be fooled--unfortunately, some of my 
colleagues will vote yes on this bill claiming that, hey, this money 
for Ukraine is a loan. This was a concept originally floated by 
President Trump.
  However, this bill not only allows the President to set the terms of 
loan repayment, it lets him cancel the payment any time and the 
interest on it. Sounds a little fishy to me.
  I and the majority of Americans are highly skeptical that we will 
ever see a cent paid back to the American taxpayer. The chickens are 
going to come home to roost, and when they do, it is going to get 
really, really ugly. Every Member of this body should be laser-focused 
on getting our own house in order, not bankrolling foreign wars.
  Mr. President, $46 billion of this foreign aid package is supposedly 
for Israel. Sadly, that is not reality.
  If you read the fine print, $9 billion of that funding would go to 
the Palestinians for what is being billed as humanitarian aid for Gaza. 
Of course, sending any money to Gaza will immediately be used to line 
the pockets of Hamas terrorists. They will provide zero relief to the 
civilians suffering under their control.
  There is no requirement that any hostages--also in this bill--be 
released for any exchange of this money. Why is that not happening? We 
have American citizens and we have Israeli citizens who have been 
captive for 5, 6 months. We are giving $20-something billion--$9 
billion to the people who are holding hostages--and we are not getting 
any relief for the people who have been suffering as hostages going on 
6 months.
  Why in the world would America agree to funding both sides of this 
war? Israel is our greatest ally in the Middle East. We should be 
standing firm in support of our friends in their battle against Hamas. 
Sadly, the White House is more focused on playing politics and 
appeasing their radical, pro-Palestinian base. Why else would we send 
billions of dollars to Hamas? Is this a political payoff in an election 
year? Sounds like it to me. What a sad state of affairs this country is 
in.
  While Congress rushes--rushes--today to bankroll Ukraine and the 
Palestinians, our leadership is avoiding the key crisis facing our 
Nation: our southern border. Wake up.
  According to a recent Gallop poll, immigration is the top concern of 
people in this country who pay our bills, but the American people were 
just sold out. It is that simple.
  You are witnessing the swamp at its worst--a swamp more concerned 
about maintaining power and being smarter than everybody else and 
lining the pockets of their friends than representing the interests of 
the American people.
  Colleagues, wake up. The clock is ticking. How many Americans must 
die before we take on our own security as seriously as we are taking on 
other people's borders, including Ukraine's?
  We lose 100,000 people to fentanyl. Does anybody care in this body? I 
haven't heard it. This is a direct result of the border policy under 
President Biden. Fentanyl is manufactured in China and ran by the 
cartel in Mexico. At what point does that horrific reality become 
important enough for us to come in here and vote and shut this dang 
border down? The left loves to tell you about threats. What kills more 
Americans than the Biden border policy? Nothing. It is the biggest 
disaster in history since I have been alive and a citizen of this 
country. Ukraine is losing soldiers by far fewer than the number of 
Americans who are dying from fentanyl. We have to take care of our own 
people before we take care of the rest of the world.
  The Biden administration is failing this country. We know what the 
problem is. We know the solution. But nobody wants to solve it. That is 
an ineffective government.
  President Trump proved that we can get operational control of our 
border. He had control. The problem is, no one in this administration 
or this body actually wants to solve this problem, which means we are 
also failing this country.
  Americans are counting on this body to stand up and correct the 
course. I hope we don't let them down.
  For these reasons, I will be voting against this massive supplement 
of taxpayer money that we don't have today going to Ukraine.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, you know, we meet this week at a critical 
time. The threats we face on the world stage are demanding our 
attention in a way that we have not seen in decades.
  From the Middle East, to Europe, to the Indo-Pacific, weakness from 
President Biden has allowed chaos to spread across this globe. In 
Israel, they are in a fight for survival against genocidal Hamas 
terrorists. In the Indo-Pacific, China is saber-rattling and making 
provocative moves towards Taiwan and the Philippines. In Ukraine, 
Russia continues its brutal war of aggression by committing war crimes 
against innocent civilians. But right here at home, we are facing a 
crisis of our own--most notably, the worst border crisis in American 
history.
  The truth is that the consequences of our border crisis affect our 
citizens the most. For example, in my home State of North Carolina, we 
have seen a 22-percent increase in drug overdose deaths--the highest 
level ever recorded. This is primarily due to deadly fentanyl that was 
transported into our country through an open southern border on 
President Biden's watch.
  Police departments from Charlotte to Raleigh have uncovered tens of 
thousands of pounds of fentanyl--enough to kill every man, woman, and 
child not just in North Carolina but in the whole country. Right now, 
we have an administration ignoring that crisis, and the only attempt 
the Senate made to address it--it fell far short of what is needed.
  So as we again debate foreign aid and foreign spending, I will repeat 
what I have said throughout the process. We must secure our own border 
before we help other countries protect theirs. In order to be a strong 
nation, we first have to have a strong border here at home.
  During one of my recent telephone townhalls a few month ago, I asked 
a poll question to the thousands of people who had joined me that 
evening on the phone. I asked: If you could be assured that the 
southern border was secure, would you then support sending aid to 
allies and partners? Roughly two-thirds of the respondents said yes. 
You see, most people aren't opposed to helping our friends; they just 
think we need to take care of our own country first.
  For me, ``America First'' does not mean ``America Only,'' so when I 
oppose this package, it won't be because I oppose helping our friends 
and our allies. We should send Israel the weapons they need to 
eliminate Hamas and free the remaining hostages--one, by the way, who 
is a North Carolinian. We should counter the Chinese Communist Party's 
military aggression in the Indo-Pacific and its social media subversion 
inside our country. We should counter Russia's brutality and force 
Putin to the negotiating table on terms most favorable to Ukraine. We 
should rebuild the arsenal of democracy and make significant 
investments in our national defense. We should do all of those things 
but not before we fix what affects our own citizens first.

[[Page S2968]]

  Too many Americans are suffering. Too many Americans are dying. This 
is an order of priorities, and my first priority as a U.S. Senator will 
always be to make life better for us here in the United States and back 
home in North Carolina.
  I will oppose this foreign aid package because we must put America 
first--not alone, not alone, but first.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today not in defense of TikTok but 
in defense of TikTok's users, especially the 170 million American 
users. Congress is rapidly heading towards passing legislation that 
will likely result in the blocking of the most popular application 
among young people in this country--an app whose fundamental purpose is 
to facilitate and promote speech; an app that has revolutionized how 
people connect, share, do business, and communicate online; an app that 
is bringing competition to the heavily concentrated social media 
market.
  It should be a serious flag that a bill with such significant 
implications for freedom of speech and online competition has gone from 
being an idea in the House of Representatives to all of a sudden being 
passed on the floor of the Senate in a matter of weeks, just weeks.
  So when political elites who otherwise fiercely disagree with each 
other come together to pass legislation that may result in significant 
censorship--yes, censorship--often in the name of national security, we 
should be hypervigilant about the true intentions of this legislation.
  Episodes in history of using national security as a pretext to crack 
down on dissenting or unpopular speech loom as warnings about the ease 
of compromising our values when national security is supposedly at 
stake.
  I want to be clear. I rise today on this greatest of debate floors 
not to defend TikTok. I don't deny that TikTok poses some national 
security risks. Instead, I come here today with a plea to my colleagues 
to think carefully about the impact of this bill, the consequences of 
its implementation, and the tradeoff between supposed national security 
threats and freedom of expression and basic rights to free speech.
  This legislation may address or at least mitigate a national security 
risk, but it could and likely will result in widespread censorship. 
This censorship would predominantly impact young people in our country, 
many of whom are just gaining their political consciousness and 
obtaining the right to vote. We should be clear-eyed about these 
stakes.
  Censorship is not who we are as a people. We should not downplay or 
deny this tradeoff. Some say the legislation merely forces ByteDance to 
sell TikTok within a year. That is a sale that won't affect its users 
at all. The ownership will change, so bill supporters say, but the app 
will stay the same.
  Realistically, the actual chances of divestment in a year, if ever, 
are very small. A TikTok sale would be one of the most complicated and 
expensive transactions in history, requiring months, if not years, of 
due diligence by both government and business actors.
  We should be very clear about the likely outcome of this law: It is 
really just a TikTok ban. And once we properly acknowledge that this 
bill is a TikTok ban, we can better see its impact on free expression: 
170 million users--170 million Americans use TikTok to watch videos, 
learn about the news, run a business, and keep up with the latest pop 
culture trends. They connect with friends and family, sell new products 
and build community. The culture and expression on TikTok are unique 
and unavailable anywhere else on the internet.
  In fact, TikTok is a threat to business, a threat to Facebook and 
Instagram and other American companies precisely because of its unique 
style and community which cannot be replicated anywhere else.
  And while many of my colleagues are sincere in their fears for U.S. 
national security, others appear to support this legislation for a far 
more dangerous reason: They want to ban TikTok because of its users' 
content, because of TikTok's viewpoints. They don't like that many 
TikTok users support progressive or liberal politics or perspectives 
that they simply don't agree with.
  The bill's supporters dress up this censorship by arguing that the 
Chinese Government is manipulating TikTok's algorithm to promote 
certain viewpoints. In this view, a TikTok ban is about combating 
Chinese propaganda, not penalizing TikTok's content.
  TikTok, from their perspective, is ``poison[ing] the minds of young 
Americans with pro-Communist China propaganda.'' This isn't just some 
hypothetical risk, critics say, but an actual ongoing operation by the 
Chinese Communist Party.
  Don't be fooled by these arguments. Although the Chinese Government 
certainly censors online speech in China, there is no credible evidence 
that the CCP has done so in the United States through TikTok. In fact, 
when U.S. national security officials talk about the risk of China 
manipulating TikTok's algorithm, they refer to it as a ``hypothetical'' 
risk--a hypothetical risk. This is the real objection, an objection to 
the political content, the most valuable and protected speech in a 
democracy.
  We should be very clear about the impact and intent of this 
legislation. This bill is, for all intents and purposes, a ban on 
TikTok, and it is intended to suppress disfavored speech on the 
platform, plain and simple. We could see that in the cross-
examination--the questioning in the House of Representatives hearing--
on this subject.
  For my colleagues who are awake to this reality, they may, 
nevertheless, believe that such speech suppression is a small cost to 
pay to keep Americans safe. To them, I urge a strong note of caution. 
The defense that a little speech suppression is necessary when our 
national security is at stake is ultimately un-American. This reasoning 
may seem convincing, but American history has too many examples of 
controversial laws that ultimately infringe on civil liberties in the 
name of national security. In the United States, we often look back on 
these episodes with regret. We should not add TikTok to that history.
  Don't get me wrong. TikTok has its problems. No. 1, TikTok poses a 
serious risk to the privacy and mental health of our young people. In 
fact, TikTok paid a fine for violating my Children's Online Privacy 
Protection Act just 5 years ago. But that problem isn't unique to 
TikTok, and it certainly doesn't justify a TikTok ban, which is what we 
heard over and over again in the House of Representatives in their 
hearing on this issue. The reason is that YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, 
and Snapchat are making our children sick, as well, and exploiting our 
children and teenagers and their information for profit. American 
companies are doing the same thing, too, to children and teenagers in 
our country, as is TikTok.
  So why aren't we thinking of this as a common goal that we are going 
to have in order to protect those teenagers and children?
  If the bill's supporters truly wanted to protect the well-being of 
our young people, they would broaden their lens and address the youth 
mental health crisis plaguing our children and teenagers that has, in 
part, been caused by Big Tech in the United States--in the United 
States--along with TikTok.
  I want you to hear the statistics. To my colleagues, it is powerful. 
One in three high school girls in the United States just 2 years ago 
considered suicide. At least 1 in 10 American high school teenage girls 
attempted suicide that year--attempted suicide. Amongst LGBTQ youth, 
the number is more like 1 in 5 attempted suicides just 2 years ago.
  Now, it is not exclusively because of social media, what TikTok, 
Instagram, Facebook, Discord--all of them are doing it, but it plays a 
big role according to our own Centers for Disease Control. It plays a 
big role according to our own Surgeon General. It plays a big role, and 
we should be talking about that out here. That is a clear and present 
danger. That is not a hypothetical danger. That is not a hypothetical 
threat that may occur sometime in the long, distant future. It is 
happening right now. If we are talking about TikTok, we should be 
talking about all the other companies at the same time.

[[Page S2969]]

  Instead of suppressing speech on a single application, we should be 
addressing the root causes of the mental health crisis by targeting Big 
Tech's pernicious privacy invasion business model of teenagers and 
children in our country. We could be passing our bipartisan Children 
and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act and banning targeted ads to 
kids and teens on TikTok and everywhere else.

  My legislation with Senator Bill Cassidy has been intensely vetted, 
passed through Senate committee, and is supported by the chair and 
ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee. And unlike a TikTok 
ban, it addresses the problem that is universally recognized, the 
compromised health and well-being of all of our children and teenagers.
  Today, if you hear out on the floor Senators talking about the impact 
TikTok is having upon young people in our country, it is a good 
question, and we should be dealing with it, but you can't deal with it 
just by talking about TikTok. You have to talk about every American 
company that actually created the model that has led to this mental 
health crisis, and we are not doing that today. That is something that 
is a clear and present danger right now, not a hypothetical threat in 
the future, which is what we are actually doing by passing this 
legislation.
  Instead of protecting young people online, we are censoring their 
speech, and this is a grave mistake. We should be having a much bigger 
discussion about what the implications of this legislation are for the 
future. I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the opportunity to 
come out here on the Senate floor to talk about this very important 
issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. In a few hours here, the press headlines are going to read 
that the Senate just passed the Ukraine funding bill. That is what they 
will call it. This bill is about a lot more than just Ukraine. There is 
a lot in this bill, and I want to go through some of it.
  First of all, it provides something I have strongly supported, which 
is providing, in this case, $26 billion to the State of Israel to 
defeat Hamas, to defend itself against its enemies. This is actually 
something we tried to pass on its own or could have passed on its own 
months ago. It was blocked. It was held hostage for Ukraine funding, 
but it is something we should have done months ago.
  It is interesting. I think Israel, in and of itself, is a miracle 
country. On the first day of its existence, it was invaded, I believe, 
by 12 separate armies. The whole world thought they would be overrun 
and defeated very quickly, and they survived. And they have throughout 
their entire existence had to deal with the fact that everywhere they 
turn, they have enemies all around them.
  It also happens to be the only pro-American democracy in the Middle 
East. Today, it is engaged in a battle to not just defeat these vicious 
criminals and terrorists who committed a slaughter on the 7th of 
October of last year, but they also have to deal with rockets being 
launched against them from Lebanon. You have 90-something thousand, 
potentially, Israelis permanently displaced in their own country. They 
can't go back to where they live in the northern part of their country. 
And then there is the threat from Iran and the threat from all the 
terror groups--Hezbollah and the like--that are constantly targeting 
Israel and then having to face all the things that are happening around 
the world, as well, in this effort to delegitimize their right to be a 
Jewish State.
  I am a strong supporter of Israel's defense. We should have done this 
weeks and months ago, and it could have been done as its own bill, but 
it was held hostage.
  This bill provides, as well, $8 billion to help nations in the Indo-
Pacific, particularly Taiwan, and the purpose of that is to build up 
the military capacity of our partners in the region, frankly, to 
dissuade and prevent the Chinese Communist Party from starting a war in 
the Indo-Pacific that would make the one going on in Europe look like 
child's play--far more dangerous.
  By the way, that is something I have been trying to do since 2019. I 
believe I was the first Member of Congress to call for a banning--not a 
banning of TikTok, a banning of ByteDance, which is the company that 
owns TikTok. If ByteDance sells TikTok, TikTok could continue to 
operate. But we should not have a company operating in the United 
States with the algorithm that it has and the access to the data that 
it has that powers the algorithm. We should not have a company like 
that operating in the United States that happens to do whatever the 
Chinese Communist Party tells them to do.
  But the reason why the headlines are going to be about Ukraine 
funding is because that is the part of this bill that, frankly, has 
been controversial and has people who oppose it.
  I, personally, believe it is in the national interest of the United 
States to help Ukraine. Ukraine was invaded, not once but twice, by 
Vladimir Putin. I supported Ukraine in helping Ukraine back in 2014 
when they were first invaded by Putin; and President Obama would only 
supply them with blankets and meals, ready-to-eat. And I support 
continuing to help them now to defend themselves. They didn't start 
this war. I support helping them defend themselves to the extent we can 
afford it and to the extent we can sustain it.
  But while this invasion of Ukraine most certainly poses a national 
security risk to the United States and a risk to our country, the 
invasion of America across our southern border is even more important. 
It is even more a severe threat.
  Today, and every single day for the last 3 years, thousands of 
people--many if not most of whom we know very little about--are pouring 
into the United States across our southern border.
  I made it clear months ago that while I support helping Ukraine, I 
would only vote to do so if the President issued Executive orders that 
would help stop this. It was his Executive orders ordering us not to 
enforce immigration laws that created the incentive and the driver that 
has led to this crisis and only that. Only Executive orders to begin to 
enforce our immigration laws will allow us to stop what is happening 
now.
  But the President continues to refuse to issue those Executive 
orders. He continues to refuse to enforce our immigration laws, and so 
the crisis continues. And sadly, just a few moments ago, we took a vote 
here that basically says that we here in the Senate will not be allowed 
to vote on amendments to make changes to this bill.
  So we are left with the choice. I am left with this choice. If I want 
to help Israel, if I want to help Taiwan, if I want to ban ByteDance 
from operating TikTok in the United States, then I have to drop my 
demand that the President enforce our immigration laws, and, by the 
way, I have to vote for billions of dollars to be spent on all kinds of 
programs around the world that I will describe in a moment, including 
for people who are illegally entering this country. This is moral 
extortion.
  First of all, 9 million people over 3 years--that is how many have 
entered our country. This is not immigration. We should always be a 
country that welcomes immigration. It enriches our country. Controlled 
immigration, in which we control how many people come, who comes, 
knowing enough about them--that is immigration. But 9 million people 
and counting in 3 years? That is mass migration, and mass migration is 
never good. There is never such a thing as positive mass migration, 
particularly of 9 million people in 3 years. At a time when our 
country, from the inside and the outside, is being infiltrated by 
people and by movements that seek to destroy America, mass migration is 
catastrophically dangerous.
  Last week, in a coordinated effort--and it was a coordinated effort; 
they admitted it--to cause the most economic impact possible in the 
United States, at least until our leaders abandoned Israel--that was 
their demand--we had pro-terrorist mobs, which is what they are--these 
are not protesters; these are pro-terrorist mobs--shut down traffic on 
an interstate highway in Oregon. They blocked passengers from getting 
to the airport in Chicago and Seattle. They closed down the Golden Gate 
Bridge in San Francisco.
  At this very moment--right now, as I speak on the Senate floor--at 
some of

[[Page S2970]]

our most prestigious universities, their campuses are closed because 
they have been taken over by pro-terrorist mobs, chanting things and 
harassing Jewish students to go back to Poland, they say. Others are 
chanting: ``Go Hamas. We love you. We support your rockets too.'' 
Others--I have heard these chants--here it goes: ``We say justice. You 
say how. Burn Tel Aviv to the ground.''
  The situation has gotten so intolerable that, just 2 days ago, a 
rabbi advised Jewish students to leave Columbia University and go home 
for their safety.
  This morning, I got a text message from a friend--a Jewish friend--
and I read something I never thought I would ever have to read. Here is 
what he wrote me:

       I have to tell you, for the first time in my life, I see 
     Jewish people scared for their safety and considering exit 
     strategies from the USA, including buying homes in foreign 
     countries and looking to liquidate USA assets.

  I never thought I would ever read that from anybody in America.
  These mobs, by the way, don't just want to destroy Israel. They want 
to destroy America. Some of these mobs are out there chanting ``death 
to America'' in the streets of American cities.
  As for one of the mob leaders at one of these riots, this is what he 
said into a microphone:

       It is not just ``Genocide Joe'' that has to go; it is the 
     entire system that has to go. Any system that would allow 
     such atrocities and devilry to happen and would support it--
     such a system does not deserve to exist on God's Earth.

  Do you know what system he is talking about? This system--our system, 
our system of government--that is what he was talking about.
  Where did all of this come from? How did all of this happen from one 
day to the next? How can things that we once only saw happening in the 
streets of Tehran, manufactured by the evil regime--how are those 
things now being chanted in our streets in our country? Where did this 
come from? The clues are everywhere.
  Hamas and Hezbollah have been very, very public about how these 
violent, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic mobs are part of their strategy to 
intimidate American leaders to support policies that will help destroy 
Israel.
  Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror groups have repeatedly called on 
their supporters around the world to protest ``in cities everywhere,'' 
and they boast about how their friends--or who they call their 
``friends on the global left''--were actually now responding to their 
calls.
  By the way, they openly brag. This is all coming from interviews that 
they do on television programs that can be monitored. They openly brag 
that this is ``because of the introduction of colonialism, racism, and 
slavery studies into history curricula.''
  They go on to say that many young Americans have been--this is my 
term, a term I read today in the Wall Street Journal--have been groomed 
to ``support armed resistance,'' to support intifada in the United 
States.
  By the way, it is not just the mobs that we are seeing. Beyond that, 
as the Director of the FBI has acknowledged, ISIS generates income--
they generate revenue--by running a human smuggling ring that brings 
migrants to the United States.
  Just the bare minimum common sense would lead you to conclude that, 
if ISIS has a business to smuggle migrants into the United States, why 
wouldn't they use that to smuggle a few terrorists here to do in 
America what they did in Moscow a few weeks ago?
  So we have Hamas, and we have Hezbollah, and we have all of these 
terror groups encouraging and supporting violent mobs calling for 
intifada inside America. We already have people here, on student visas, 
calling for ``Death to America,'' and ISIS controls a migrant smuggling 
ring that they can use to bring people into the United States to 
conduct attacks.
  But if I want to help Israel, if I want to help Taiwan, if I want to 
help Ukraine, if I want to ban TikTok, I have to agree; I have to vote 
to do nothing to stop thousands of people a day whom we know literally 
nothing about--just allow them to come across our border and be 
released into our country.
  As far as some of the money that is being spent all over the world, I 
have always supported the United States being engaged in the world, and 
I continue to be, but I ask you this: I have senior citizens, and I 
have veterans, and they call my office, and they call our offices, and 
they say: I have nowhere to live. Housing is too expensive.
  I met a senior, a couple of days ago, in his eighties. He still has 
to work nights as a security guard, and he literally lives in a mobile 
home--not even a mobile home, in like a trailer parked in someone's 
backyard.
  These people call. They have lived in this country their whole lives. 
They have served our country. They call for help, and the most we can 
often do is help get them on a waiting list for section 8 housing. This 
is a problem that exists in America right now.
  But if I want to help Israel, if I want to help Taiwan, if I want to 
help Ukraine, if I want to ban TikTok, I have to vote for spending 
billions of dollars to give to charity groups so they can fly people 
around the country here and put them up in hotel rooms or so they can 
help for resettlement in another country.

  We have rich countries in the Middle East, allies of ours. Their 
leaders own some of the largest yachts in the world. Some of their 
leaders own some of the most expensive horses you could possibly buy in 
the world. They have built some of the most extravagant and luxurious 
resorts on the planet in some of these countries. These are rich 
countries and strong supporters of the Palestinian cause, as they call 
it.
  But if I want to help Israel, if I want to help Taiwan, if I want to 
help Ukraine, if I want to ban TikTok, I have to vote to send American 
taxpayer money to deal with the catastrophe that has been created by 
Hamas in Gaza--100 percent by Hamas. There was no war. There was a 
ceasefire before Hamas crossed over and slaughtered and raped and 
kidnapped. But now the American taxpayer is on the hook.
  Look, I understand that, in our Republic, in our system of 
government, compromise is necessary. We have to do it all the time. I 
have passed a lot of bills--I am very proud of that--and every one of 
them involved my finding someone from a different ideological 
perspective, from the other side of the aisle. You have to compromise, 
meaning you are not going to get everything you want. You are going to 
have to give them something they want in exchange for something you 
want or you may have to change the way you wrote what you want. That is 
what you have to do in order to pass laws.
  I understand compromise--I do--but this bill is not that. This bill 
is not a compromise. This bill is basically saying that, if I don't 
agree to drop my demands that the President secure our border, if I 
don't agree to spend billions of taxpayer dollars all over the world to 
resettle people here and in other places in the midst of our own 
migratory crisis--if I don't agree to all of that, then Israel and 
Taiwan and Ukraine do not get the help they need and that I support, 
and TikTok does not get banned. This is not compromise. This is 
legislative blackmail, and I will not vote for blackmail.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, does anybody believe that hashtag 
``StandwithKashmir'' is organically more popular than hashtag 
``TaylorSwift''? No, of course not, but right now, on TikTok, hashtag 
``StandwithKashmir'' has 20 times more posts than hashtag 
``TaylorSwift.''
  This is a direct example of the Chinese Communist Party using their 
control of TikTok to skew public opinion on foreign events in their 
favor. China is our chief foreign adversary in the world. They are a 
threat to our national security, our values, our economy, and the CCP 
works tirelessly every day to undermine our entire way of life. TikTok 
is one of the ways they are doing that.
  I understood that as Governor. That is why I was the first Governor 
in the country to ban the use of TikTok on State devices back in 2020, 
and that is why I will be voting for this bill today. Today, we are 
taking action to end the Chinese Communist Party's ability to own and 
operate TikTok in the United States.

[[Page S2971]]

  TikTok's active users include over 150 million Americans. That is 
almost half of our country's entire population. It has become the most 
influential news platform in the country. The percentage of TikTok 
users who regularly get their news from this app has doubled since 
2020. The problem, however, is that what that news is, what slant that 
news has, is being entirely controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. 
We don't allow this for TV stations or radio stations. You have to be a 
U.S. citizen to own a TV station or a radio station in this country. 
Why are we letting our greatest adversary in the world own a news 
platform?
  TikTok, under CCP ownership, promotes or demotes content based on 
whether it aligns with the CCP's interests and its agenda. This has 
major, real-world implications here at home and around the world.
  Look at what is happening on our college campuses right now in this 
country. Pro-Hamas activists are taking over public spaces and making 
it impossible for campuses to operate. Jewish students are being told 
to leave campus because their universities can't guarantee their 
safety. There are a lot of other things wrong with this, including the 
failure to prioritize student safety over appeasement of terrorist 
sympathizers.
  But why is this happening?
  Well, let's look at where young people are getting their news. Nearly 
a third of adults 18 to 29 years old--these young people in the United 
States--are regularly getting their news exclusively from TikTok. Pro-
Palestinian and pro-Hamas hashtags are generating 50 times the views on 
TikTok right now despite the fact that polling shows Americans 
overwhelmingly support Israel over Hamas. These videos have more reach 
than the top 10 news websites combined.
  This is not a coincidence. The Chinese Communist Party is doing this 
on purpose. They are pushing this racist agenda with the intention of 
undermining our democratic values, and if you look at what is happening 
at Columbia University and other campuses across the country right now, 
they are winning.
  I want to talk about another example that means a lot to folks back 
home whom I represent in Nebraska.
  We know that the COVID-19 pandemic originated in China. Instagram and 
TikTok currently have about the same number of users in the United 
States; However, if you look at the content, there is a 400-to-1 ratio 
for content that blames China for this pandemic on Instagram compared 
to TikTok. Again, Instagram has 400 times the number of posts blaming 
China for COVID than on TikTok.
  On TikTok, the Chinese Communist Party has quashed dissent or 
criticism. They have done this for Tiananmen Square--which, again, on 
Instagram, there are 80 times the posts around Tiananmen Square than 
there are on TikTok, and on Hong Kong, there are 180 times the posts on 
Hong Kong being censored or being repressed versus on TikTok.
  The Federal Government's job is to protect Americans against foreign 
and domestic threats. TikTok is a major foreign threat. The bill we are 
passing today puts an end to that. This bill ensures that our citizens 
are not improperly targeted, surveilled, or influenced by any foreign 
adversary.
  Right now, the major threat is TikTok, but China can make another 
TikTok. That is why, instead of going after any specific app, this bill 
simply prohibits marketplaces, like the App Store or Google Play, from 
hosting applications controlled by foreign adversaries. This is just 
common sense.
  It also establishes a narrow framework to protect against future 
apps. It allows the Federal Government to require divestment of 
applications controlled by a foreign adversary or face a prohibition on 
app stores and be denied access to web-hosting services in the United 
States. That power has very strict guidelines. The authority can only 
be exercised if an application is under the control of an adversarial 
foreign entity, presents a national security threat, and has over 1 
million active users annually.
  It also protects individual users. No enforcement action can be taken 
against individual users of banned applications. Civil enforcement 
actions may only be initiated against companies that violate the act.
  The bill incentivizes China to divest from TikTok or TikTok will face 
a ban. If TikTok is divested from the CCP, it can continue to operate 
in the United States. If the restrictions are already in effect and 
TikTok is divested later, the restrictions will be lifted.
  I believe the Chinese Communist Party is the greatest threat we face 
in this Nation. They are fighting smart, trying to undermine us from 
within, and using technology like TikTok to do it. Together, by passing 
this bill, it is my hope that we will send a loud message and a clear 
message that America is not open to the CCP for influence.
  We are taking a stand to protect our own, protect our values, and end 
a major Communist Chinese Party tool to attack us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, long before I ever thought of running for 
office, I was a little kid born in a West Virginia coal mining town 
called Beckley. My sister and I ended up going to the same grade school 
not too far from our house.
  As a kid, I was pretty well behaved and didn't get into much trouble, 
but in the first grade, I got in a fight. I got in a fight because some 
kid was picking on my sister, who was a year older, in the second 
grade. He was a much bigger guy, and it was not a fair fight. I got 
involved in it and took him out with one swing. That was the last punch 
that I think I had thrown in anger. But I didn't like the idea of a big 
guy, a bully, trying to push around somebody, whether it was my sister 
or not. I have never cared for that in other situations growing up and 
watching the behavior of people in all kinds of different situations.
  Our country, if you go back to our founding, if you recall, we took 
on the biggest nation on Earth, the strongest nation on Earth, Great 
Britain. It was not a fair fight. They had us badly outgunned, 
outnumbered. And somebody came to our rescue. The persons who came to 
our rescue were the French. If it weren't for the French, we would 
still be, maybe, a colony of Great Britain. But the French stood up and 
said: We are here to help.
  There is a time for people to stand--countries to stand by and allow 
things to happen, and there is a time to stand up and be heard. We were 
helped as a nation over 200 years ago by the French. We have, I think, 
a moral obligation to help make sure that Ukraine has an opportunity to 
continue to go forward and to be a democratic nation. They are a 
democratic nation. They actually choose--they elect their own leaders. 
Vladimir Putin doesn't care very much for that. He thinks they 
shouldn't be allowed to do so and has decided to use force to be able 
to take away the opportunity to be a free nation.
  We have a couple of opportunities. We can criticize Putin, the 
Russians, for what they are doing or we can actually do something about 
it.
  I think I may be the last Vietnam veteran serving here in the U.S. 
Senate. When we go out from here, I like to run. Many, many mornings 
when I have gone for a run near the Capitol, I have run out to the 
Lincoln Memorial. On my way back, I run right by the Vietnam Memorial. 
It is black granite. There are names of I want to say maybe 59,000 
people who died in that war I served in.
  We got involved in that war. It was not a popular war. It wasn't 
popular with my generation. But we got involved in that war. The 
communists in North Vietnam were coming in and trying to take over the 
south. We ended up, for better or for worse, aligning with the south. 
We know what the outcome turned out to be. A lot of people died. A lot 
of people died in that war. I know a number of them, and my guess is my 
colleagues do as well.
  I tell that story because we have a situation here that is not 
altogether different in which the Ukrainian people, who want to defend 
themselves--they want to preserve their democracy, and they are willing 
to make the tough fight if we will help them and the rest of the free 
world will help them.
  God bless our President and leaders of a bunch of other countries who 
said: We are not going to walk away and let

[[Page S2972]]

Putin have his way and take away the democracy of the people of 
Ukraine. We are going to help them. We are going to help them not by 
sending--as we did in the Vietnam war--our own young soldiers, sailors, 
and airmen. We are not going to send them to Ukraine to defend Ukraine. 
We are going to send them munitions. We are going to send them drones. 
We are going to send them missiles. We are going to send them ships and 
aircraft. We will do that.
  That is really all the Ukrainians are asking for. That is all they 
are asking for. They are asking for that kind of help. We ought to 
provide it. We ought to provide it.
  I used to fly missions. I was a naval flight officer, P-3 aircraft 
mission commander. We used to fly a lot of surveillance missions around 
the world, track Soviet submarines everywhere across the planet. We 
also flew a lot of missions off the coast of Vietnam and a lot of 
missions in the South China Sea.
  Even decades ago when I was flying missions with my squad in the 
South China Sea, we were concerned about the militarization of the 
South China Sea by China and China taking over islands that were not 
theirs, that maybe had been claimed by the Philippines and other 
nations. The Chinese were taking them over with the idea of 
militarizing them and ultimately making maritime trafficking--the 
moving of ships and aircraft through the South China Sea--more 
difficult.
  We used to fly missions in the Vietnam war. We used to fly missions 
out of Vietnam. I was commissioned in 1968. By that time, we pulled a 
lot of land-based aircraft--B-52s, P-3s, just land-based aircraft with 
the Navy--we pulled them out of Vietnam, and we flew our missions out 
of Thailand, a big Air Force base.
  We flew missions out of Taiwan, places in the southern part of the 
island, Tainan, which is an Air Force base in Taiwan. I had a chance be 
to deployed there from time to time. I got to know some of the people 
who lived in Taiwan--wonderful people, lovely people. Do you know what 
they were concerned about all those years ago? They were concerned 
about China coming in and taking them over, trying to take away their 
independence--not just militarize the South China Sea and transfer a 
bunch of islands into bases, if you will, for the Chinese military but 
actually take over a democratic country that has never been a part of 
China and make them do the bidding of China.
  Mark my words. If Vladimir Putin is successful in prevailing in 
Ukraine, if he is successful, Taiwan will be next. As sure as I am 
standing here today, President Xi, the leader of China who says Taiwan 
is theirs, will hunt right into the fight. That would trigger a real-
world conflict between them and us. It wouldn't be good for either of 
us, but we would, I think, be beholden to defend Taiwan.
  Why don't we bring a halt to that idea of China getting involved and 
trying to come after Taiwan and having to commit our own troops? Why 
don't we just take care of it by making sure the people of Ukraine have 
the ships, the aircraft, the tanks, the missiles, and the armament they 
need to prevail on their own against Russia?
  We wouldn't have to commit our own troops. We wouldn't have to worry 
about the kind of body bags that came back from Vietnam when I was 
serving in the Vietnam war. We would end up with a free Ukraine, and I 
think we would have a much better chance of making sure that the folks 
in Taiwan would continue to enjoy their independence as well.
  I am wearing a lapel pin here that people ask me about from time to 
time--even today. They say: What kind of lapel pin is that? It is an 
American flag, and it is a Ukrainian flag as well.
  A couple of days after Russia invaded Ukraine, I sent somebody over 
from my staff to the Ukrainian Embassy to get this lapel pin. I have 
worn it every day since, every day since.
  And I get a lot of people--I go back and forth on the train, as my 
colleagues know. I live in Delaware and go back and forth on the train 
almost every day. It is amazing how many people I run into on the 
train, at the train stations, or traveling around the country. They 
will say: What is that that you are wearing? And when I explain it, I 
don't recall one person ever saying: You shouldn't wear that, or, That 
is a bad idea. People say: Good for you. Good for you. We ought to help 
them.
  The Presiding Officer may recall a couple of months ago when--in 
fact, this year and maybe even last year--President Zelenskyy came 
here. Not to this Chamber, but he came into the Old Senate Chamber just 
down the hall. And he spoke in a closed room to Members of the Senate, 
Democrats and Republicans, in very emotional, very compelling language 
where he laid out the situation that they faced, laid out how important 
our support was and how grateful that they were for us being willing to 
stand by them, stand up for them.
  And his speech was interrupted any number of times by standing 
ovations by Democrats and by Republicans. I happened to be sitting 
right in front of his podium when he was speaking, about as far away as 
our stenographer is standing from me today. And during the course of 
his speech, a couple of times he made eye contact, and I tried to give 
him encouragement in a sort of way. And I think I did.
  But when it was over, he walked away from the podium, and I walked up 
to him and I shook his hand and I hugged him. I don't get to hug 
international leaders every day, but I hugged him and he hugged me. And 
I said to him, ``You are a hero.'' I said to him, ``You are a hero.'' 
And he reached over and touched my lapel pin, and he said to me, ``No, 
no. You are our heroes.'' He said, ``You are our heroes.''
  Now, I just want to say, in the months that have passed since then 
when we have floundered, kind of waffling around and trying to figure 
out how we are going to continue to provide aid and support for 
Ukraine, and I thought--he was back a couple of months later, and I had 
a chance to talk to him again. And again he said, ``You are our heroes; 
you are our heroes,'' talking about us in this body and the House of 
Representatives.
  And I said to my staff later that day and my colleagues later in the 
day: You know what--it is funny--I don't feel much like a hero.
  This was a couple of months ago when he was here because we were on 
the verge of pulling the plug on the aid and the assistance we were 
going to provide for Ukraine. There was a very real chance that we 
could pull the plug, take away the help, and Putin and the Russians 
would just move in and take over. And I didn't feel like a hero with 
that sort of staring us in the face.
  When we leave this week and go back to our districts, our States, and 
our homes across the country and reflect back on what we have done, 
what we have decided, I want to feel like a hero. I want all of us to 
feel like a hero and a heroine and deserve to be feeling that way.
  I am a great student of World War II, and some of my colleagues are 
as well. I remember a time when Churchill was leading the allied world 
and rising and standing up and warning against the threat that Germany 
provided for the rest of us, urging us to be brave and be strong, be 
vigilant, come to the aid of Europe.
  There was another guy named Chamberlain whose name is sort of thought 
of in terms of appeasement. Churchill: engage, defend, be strong. 
Chamberlain: appease. We have a chance here to be more like Churchill 
and less like Chamberlain. And I hope and pray, when we vote here 
today--maybe even tomorrow--that is exactly what we will do.
  I want us to make not just the folks in Ukraine, Taiwan, and--I don't 
want them just to be grateful. I want the people who we serve, who 
elect us and sent us here--I want them to be proud of what we have done 
and the work that we have done on their behalf and on behalf of these 
other countries who need our help.
  We are the beacon for democracy for the world. Our Constitution is 
the longest living constitution in the history of the world. It lays 
out how the democracy should operate; and for all these years, we have. 
We need to hold that to our heart, and we need to do the right thing.
  The last point I would say is this: My mom was a deeply religious 
woman. I have shared this with some of my colleagues before. She would 
drag my sister and me, in the West Virginia coal-mining town in West 
Virginia--she would drag us to church every Sunday morning, every 
Sunday night, every

[[Page S2973]]

Wednesday night, and even on Thursday night. And then we would go home, 
and she would turn on the TV and we would watch Billy Graham on 
television. She wanted us to have a deep faith, but she really wanted 
us to hold dear the Golden Rule, the idea that we should treat other 
people the way we want to be treated.
  How would we want to be treated if we were the Ukrainian people 
today? How would we want to be treated if we were Taiwanese people 
today, facing the kind of threats that they face? We would want the 
rest of the free world to come to their aid--not to send troops, not to 
send fighter pilots and all, but give them the tools that they need to 
take on this fight and to win it. When we do that, if we do that--and I 
am encouraged that we will--we will deserve the words of President 
Zelenskyy when he said, ``You are our hero. You are our hero.'' Let's 
be that hero.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, with respect to my colleagues who voted in 
the other direction on this particular piece of legislation, let me 
offer some serious concerns about the direction we are headed as a 
country and about what this vote represents in terms of American 
readiness; American capacity to defend itself and its allies in the 
future; and, most importantly, the American leadership's ability to 
acknowledge where we really are as a country: our strengths, our 
weaknesses, what can be built upon, and what must be rebuilt entirely.
  I am extraordinarily aware of a couple of historical analogies that 
should inform this debate, one that seems to always inform debate and 
another that seems to never come up. Now, opponents of further aid in 
Ukraine--and I count myself among them--say that this is a Chamberlain 
vs. Churchill kind of moment. You just heard my distinguished colleague 
from Delaware make this observation.
  With no disrespect to my friend from Delaware, we need to come up 
with some different analogies in this Chamber. We need to be able to 
understand history as not just World War II replaying itself over and 
over and over again. Vladimir Putin is not Adolf Hitler. It doesn't 
mean he is a good guy, but he has significantly less capability than 
the German leader did in the late 1930s. America is not the America of 
the late 1930s or the early 1940s. We possess substantially less 
manufacturing might, in relative terms, than we did almost 100 years 
ago. And most importantly, there are many ways in which the analogy 
falls apart even if you ignore America's capacity, Russia's capacity, 
and the like.
  There are ways in which we should be looking at other historical 
analogies, and I would like to point to just a couple of those right 
now. The Second World War, of course, was the most devastating war, 
arguably, in the history of the world. Close behind it is the First 
World War. And what is the lesson of the First World War? It is not 
that there are always people appeasing the bad guys or fighting against 
the bad guys. The lesson of World War I is that, if you are not 
careful, you can blunder yourself into a broader regional conflict that 
kills tens of millions of people, many of them innocent. In 1914, 
alliances, politics, and the failure of statesmanship dragged two rival 
blocs of militaries into a catastrophic conflict.
  In the past week alone, the Council on Foreign Relations has 
published an essay calling for European troops to sustain Ukraine's 
lines as Ukraine struggles to raise troops. Some European leaders have 
said they might send troops to support Ukraine in a conflict.
  Perhaps the history lesson we should be teaching ourselves isn't 
Chamberlain vs. Churchill. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves how an 
entire continent, how an entire world's set of leaders allowed itself 
to blunder into world conflict.
  Is there possibly a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Ukraine? 
Yes, I believe that there is. Indeed, as multiple people--both critics 
of Vladimir Putin and supporters of Ukraine--have pointed out, there 
was, in fact, a peace deal on the table approximately 18 months ago. 
What happened to it? The Biden administration pushed Zelenskyy to set 
aside the peace agreement and to engage in a disastrous 
counteroffensive, a counteroffensive that killed tens of thousands of 
Ukrainians, that depleted an entire decade's worth of military stocks, 
and that has left us in the place that we are now, where every single 
objective observer of the Ukraine war acknowledges today that the war 
is going worse for Ukraine than it was 18 months ago.
  Could we have avoided it? Yes, we could, and we should have avoided 
it. We would have saved a lot of lives, we would have saved a lot of 
American weapons, and we would have had this country in a much, much 
more stable and much better place if we had.
  Now, there is another historical analogy that I think is worth 
pointing out, and that is the historical analogy of the early 2000s. 
Now, in 2003, I was a high school senior, and I had a political 
position back then. I believed the propaganda of the George W. Bush 
administration that we needed to invade Iraq, that it was a war for 
freedom and democracy, that those who were appeasing Saddam Hussein 
were inviting a broader regional conflict.
  Does that sound familiar to anything that we are hearing today? It is 
the same exact talking points, 20 years later, with different names. 
But have we learned anything over the last 20 years? No, I don't think 
that we have. We have learned that if we beat our chest instead of 
engage in diplomacy, that it will somehow produce good outcomes. That 
is not true. We learned that if we talk incessantly about World War II, 
we can bully people and cause them to ignore their basic moral impulses 
and lead the country straight into catastrophic conflict.
  Now, as one of the great ironies of my time in the U.S. Senate for 
the last 18 months, I have been accused by multiple people of being a 
stooge of Vladimir Putin. Well, I take issue to that because in 2003, 
yes, I made the mistake of supporting the Iraq war. I also, a couple 
months later, enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps, one of two kids from 
my small block on McKinley Street in Middletown, OH, to enlist in the 
marines just that year. I served my country honorably, and I saw when I 
went to Iraq that I had been lied to, that the promises of the foreign 
policy establishment of this country were a complete joke.
  Just a few days ago, we saw our friends in the House waving Ukrainian 
flags on the floor of the U.S. House--which, I would love to see them 
waving the American flag with such gusto. And I won't complain about 
the fact that it was a violation of the rules of decorum, though it 
certainly was. But it reminded me--it reminded me--and I believe, 2005, 
maybe it was 2006--when that same exact Chamber, the Members were 
raising their fingers, stained with purple ink, to commemorate the 
incredible Iraqi elections that had happened in 2005.

  I was in Iraq for both the constitutional referendum of October of 
2005 and the parliamentary elections of December of 2005. And I 
remember the people in Iraq, happily voting, raising their fingers in 
the air.
  What I am saying is, not that the people of Iraq were bad or that 
they were bad for voting in their elections, what I am saying is the 
obsessive focus on moralism--democracy is good, Saddam Hussein is bad; 
America, good; tyranny, bad--that is no way to run a foreign policy, 
because then you end up with people waving their fingers on the floor 
of the U.S. House of Representatives, even though they have walked 
their country into a disaster.
  And I say this as a proud Republican. I say this as somebody who 
supports Republican colleagues who agree with me and disagree with me 
on this issue. It is, perhaps, the most shameful period in the 
Republican Party's history of the last 40 years that we supported 
George W. Bush in the prosecution at military conflict.
  Now, my excuse is that I was a high school senior. What is the excuse 
of many people who were in this Chamber or in the House of 
Representatives at the time and are now singing the exact same song 
when it comes to Ukraine?
  Have we learned nothing? Have we updated nothing about our mental 
thinking, about the standard that we apply for when we should get 
involved in military conflicts? Have we learned nothing about how 
precarious and precious U.S. life is and other life around the world 
and that we should be a little bit more careful about protecting it?

[[Page S2974]]

  Back then, in 2003, we actually had an anti-war left in this country. 
Now, nobody, really, is anti-war. Nobody is worried about prosecuting 
military conflicts overseas. Nobody seems to worry about unintended 
consequences. But Iraq had a lot of unintended consequences--a lot of 
consequences that were, maybe, foreseen by a few smart people; a lot of 
them that weren't foreseen by anybody--one of which is that we gave 
Iran a regional ally instead of a regional competitor.
  Did George W. Bush stand before the American people and say: We are 
going to invade this country and give one of our strongest enemies in 
the region a massive regional ally? Did we think that 20 years later, 
Iraq would become a base to attack American troops in the Middle East? 
Did we think it would empower one of the most dangerous regimes in that 
area of the world?
  We are now funding Israel, as I think that we should, to defend 
itself against attacks that are originating in Iran when the same 
people who are calling for more war all over the world were the same 
people who caused us to start a war that empowered Iran.
  There is a certain irony in this, a certain sadness that I have that 
we never seem to learn the lessons of the past. We never seem to ask 
ourselves why it is that we keep on screwing up American foreign 
policy, why it is that we keep on making our country weaker, even 
though we say we intend to make it stronger.
  Here is another thing that we should learn from the Iraq war, 
something that I as a Christian care a lot about and I think that even 
many of my colleagues who are not Christians, many of my fellow 
Americans who are not Christians, should care about. The United States 
remains, to this day, the world's largest majority Christian nation. We 
are the largest Christian nation by population in the entire world. And 
yet what are the fruits--``By your fruits ye shall know them,'' the 
Bible tells us. What are the fruits of American foreign policy when it 
comes to Christian populations all over the world over the last few 
decades?
  Well, in Iraq, before we invaded, there were 1.5 million Christians 
in Iraq. Many of them were ancient communities--Chaldeans, people who 
trace their lineage and their ancestors to people who knew the literal 
Apostles of Jesus Christ.
  Now, nearly every single one of those historical Christian 
communities is gone. That is the fruits of American labor in Iraq--a 
regional ally of Iran and the eradication and decimation of one of the 
oldest Christian communities in the world.
  Is that what we were told was going to happen? Did the American 
people--the world's largest majority Christian nation in the world--did 
they think that is what they were getting themselves into? I certainly 
didn't. And I am ashamed that I didn't, but we did. We did all of those 
things because we weren't thinking about how war and conflict lead to 
unexpected places.
  Now, it sounds farfetched, I am sure, when we apply these lessons to 
the Ukraine conflict. Certainly--certainly--this has no risk of 
spilling over into a broader regional or even world conflict. Well, 
certainly not, in fact. I was being sarcastic. It obviously does. As 
European allies propose sending troops to fight Vladimir Putin, drawing 
NATO further into this conflict, yes, the Ukraine war threatens to 
become a broader regional conflict.
  What about the assault on traditional Christian communities? Just 
today, the Ukrainian parliament is considering enacting a law that 
would dispossess large numbers of Christian churches and Christian 
communities in the country of Ukraine.
  Now, they say it is because these churches are too close to Russia. 
That is what they say. And maybe some of the churches are too close to 
Russia. But you don't deprive an entire religious community of their 
religious freedom because some of its adherents don't agree with you 
about the relevant conflict of the day.
  I believe, standing here, that this war will eventually lead to the 
displacement of a massive Christian community in Ukraine. And that will 
be our shame--our shame in this Chamber for not seeing it coming; our 
shame in this Chamber for doing nothing to stop it; our shame for 
refusing to use the hundreds of billions of dollars that we send to 
Ukraine as leverage to ensure and guarantee real religious freedom.
  The other thing--one final point on this historical contingency 
point. It was true then, and it was true today, there is this weird way 
where the debate in this country has gotten warped, where people can't 
engage in good-faith disagreement with our Ukraine policy. You will 
immediately be attacked for being on the wrong team, for being on the 
wrong side.
  I remember, as a young conservative high schooler, how opponents from 
the conservative side of the Iraq War: Well, you are just all for 
Saddam Hussein, and you believe that Saddam Hussein should be allowed 
to continue to brutalize the Iraqi people; you have no love for these 
innocent Iraqi people; you don't believe in America. And the same exact 
arguments are being applied today, that you are a fan of Vladimir Putin 
if you don't like our Ukraine policy, or you are a fan of some terrible 
tyrannical idea because you think maybe America should be more focused 
on the border of its own country than on someone else's.

  This war fever, this inability for us to actually process what is 
going on in our world to make rational decisions is the scariest part 
of this entire debate.
  You see people who served their country, who have been advocating for 
good public policies--agree or disagree with them--for their entire 
careers smeared as agents of a foreign government simply because they 
don't like what we are doing in Ukraine. That is not good-faith debate; 
that is slander. And it is the type of slander that is going to lead us 
to make worse and worse decisions.
  It should make us all feel pretty weird when you see your fellow 
Americans making an argument, and the response to that argument is not: 
Well, no, no, here is why you are wrong, or, Here is substantively why 
I disagree with you. But they fling their finger in your face and say: 
You are a Putin puppet; you are an asset of a foreign regime.
  This way of making decisions democratically is how we bankrupt this 
country and start a third world war. We should stop doing it.
  So let me make some arguments for why our Ukraine policy doesn't make 
any sense. The first, we do not have the manufacturing base to support 
a land war in Europe. This must be appreciated. And it is interesting, 
when I was making this argument that we didn't have the manufacturing 
base to support a military conflict in Eastern Europe, to support a 
military conflict in East Asia, and then also to actually support our 
own national defense, that America was spread too thin, I was commonly 
met 18 months ago with a very common rejoinder. I was told that the 
Ukraine war represented a fraction of a fraction of American GDP, that 
we could do everything all at once and it would not stress America's 
capabilities.
  Now, everyone seems to agree with me. Now, everyone seems to 
acknowledge that we are severely limited, not in the number of dollars 
that we can send to Ukraine--because there are limits there--but in the 
number of weapons, of artillery shells and missiles, that we don't make 
enough of the critical weapons of war to send them to all four corners 
of the world and also keep ourselves safe.
  But people will say: Well, J.D. is right, we need to rebuild the 
defense industrial base; we need to rebuild our capacity to manufacture 
weapons. But now the desire and the need to manufacture more weapons is 
an argument for the Ukraine conflict instead of an argument against it.
  It is interesting how advocates of this conflict always find a new 
justification when the justification of a few months ago falls apart.
  So let's deal with some very cold, hard facts. Ukrainians have argued 
publicly--their defense minister has said this--that they require 
thousands of air defense interceptor missiles every single year in 
order to keep themselves safe from Russian attack. Do we make 
thousands? No.
  If this supplemental passes, as I expect it will in a few hours, we 
will go from making about 550 PAC-3 interceptor missiles to about 650. 
And there are a few other weapons systems that could provide protection 
in terms of air defense. But Ukraine's air defenses are being 
overwhelmed right now because

[[Page S2975]]

we don't make enough air defenses. Europe doesn't make enough air 
defenses. And, by the way, we are being stretched in multiple different 
directions.
  The Israelis need them to push back against Iranian attacks. The 
Ukrainians need them to push back against Russian attacks. We may, God 
forbid, need them. And the Taiwanese would need them if China ever 
invaded. We don't make enough air defense weapons and neither do the 
Europeans. And so rather than stretching ourselves too thin, America 
should be focused on the task of diplomacy and making it possible for 
our friends and our allies to do as much as they can but to recognize 
the limitations and to ensure that we--most of all, our own people in 
our own country--can look after our own defense.
  It is not just air defense missiles. Martin 155mm artillery shells--
these are one of the most critical weapons for the land war in Europe, 
maybe the single most critical weapon for the land war in Europe. The 
United States makes a fraction of what the Ukrainians need. And if you 
combine what the United States provides with what the Europeans are 
able to provide and what other figures are able to provide, we are 
massively limited in whether we can help Ukraine close the gap it 
currently has with Russia.
  Now, you have heard senior figures in our defense administration say 
that unless this bill passes--unless this bill passes--the Ukrainians 
will face a 10-to-1 disadvantage when it comes to critical munitions 
like artillery--10 to 1.
  What gets less headlines is that currently the Ukrainians have a 5-
to-1 disadvantage, and there is no credible pathway to give them 
anything close to parity. And I am not even talking about this year; I 
am talking about next year too. During a conversation with the senior 
national security official of the Biden administration, I was told that 
if the United States radically ramps up production and if the Europeans 
radically ramp up production, the Ukrainians will have a 4-to-1 
disadvantage in artillery by the end of 2025. And that was treated as 
good news.
  You cannot win a land war in Europe with a 4-to-1 disadvantage in 
artillery, especially when the country that you are going up against 
has four times the population that you do.
  And, of course, the most important resource in war, even in modern 
war, is not just air defense missiles and is not just artillery shells; 
the most important resource is human beings. Human beings still fight 
our wars, as tragic as that is and as much as we wish that it wasn't 
true, and Ukraine has a terrible manpower problem too.
  The New York Times recently wrote a story about how they had 
conscripted--perhaps accidentally; I certainly hope so--they 
conscripted a mentally handicapped person into service in their 
conflict. They have now dropped the conscription age. And, still, they 
are engaged in draconian measures to conscript people into this 
conflict. That says nothing about the fact, by the way, that 
approximately 600,000 military-age men fled the country.
  This war is often compared, as I said earlier, to the UK's fight 
against Nazi Germany. In the height of World War II, did a million 
Brits--over a million Brits leave Britain to avoid being conscripted by 
the Germans? I highly doubt it. So there is a deep reserve problem--a 
reserve of weapons, there aren't enough of them; a reserve of manpower, 
there aren't enough men.
  This is the problem that Ukraine confronts. I say this not to attack 
the Ukrainians who have fought admirably--many of them have died 
defending their country. But if we want to respect the sacrifice of the 
people who have died in this conflict, we have to deal with reality. 
And the reality is that the longer that this goes on, the more people 
will needlessly die, the fewer people will actually be left to rebuild 
the country of Ukraine, and the less capable Ukraine will be of 
actually functioning as a country in the future.
  But I am not just worried about that; I am not just worried about 
whether Ukraine can win. I also worry about, as I said earlier, 
unintended consequences. And now we should spend a little bit of time 
discussing some more of those.
  A few things come from our obsessive focus on Ukraine. No. 1, we 
have, at multiple levels in this Congress, passed pieces of legislation 
that deal with Ukraine that attempt to explicitly curtail the diplomacy 
powers of the next Presidential administration. I know we don't often 
talk so directly about politics, and I am sure I disagree with my 
friends on the other side of the aisle about who the next President 
should be, but we want to empower the next President, whoever that is, 
to actually engage in diplomacy, not make it harder to engage in 
diplomacy.
  Multiple provisions of this legislation--but also other legislation 
this Chamber has passed and I opposed--try explicitly to tie the next 
President's hands. Let's just say that the next President, whoever that 
might be, decides that he wants to stop the killing and engage in 
diplomacy. This Chamber will be giving a predicate to impeach that next 
President for engaging in basic diplomacy. Hard to imagine a more 
ridiculous judgment on the priorities of American leadership that we 
are already trying to make it impossible for the next President to 
engage in any measure of diplomacy. That is not leadership, and that is 
not toughness; that is a blind adherence to a broken foreign policy 
consensus, which is unfortunately exactly what we have.
  The Ukraine supplemental that is, again, likely to be passed in the 
next few hours, funds Ukraine's border while turning a blind eye to the 
United States own border crisis. The bill includes hundreds of millions 
that could be used to strengthen Ukrainian border security and support 
the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. Good for them. I am glad 
that they care about their own border security.
  The supplemental extends benefits for Ukrainian parolees in the 
United States. It includes $481 million for refugees and interim 
assistance, which could be used, in part, for the Office of Refugee 
Resettlement to provide resettlement assistance to Ukrainians arriving 
in the United States and also to other organizations that also, because 
money is fungible, could resettle other migrants from other countries 
into our country.
  So the very same moment that we are supporting the Ukrainians to 
secure their own border, we are not just ignoring our own border, we 
are funding NGOs that will worsen Joe Biden's migration crisis. It is 
completely senseless. Yet that is what we are doing.
  Let's talk about something else. This bill includes a provision that 
is wildly popular called the REPO Act. In short, the REPO Act does 
something very simple. The REPO Act allows the Treasury Department to 
seize Russian assets to help them pay for the war. That sounds great. 
Of course, Russia shouldn't have invaded Ukraine and, of course, they 
should have to pay for some of the consequences--all of the 
consequences--that they have created. But ask yourself, are there 
unintended consequences that come from seizing tens of billions of 
dollars from foreign assets? In fact, there are.
  A number of economists from across the political spectrum have argued 
that the REPO Act could potentially make it harder to sell U.S. 
Treasuries. This is something a lot of Americans don't care about. I am 
sure their eyes might glaze over a little bit. But this country is 
running almost $2 trillion deficits every single year. You ask: Where 
do those $2 trillion come from? They come from selling Treasury bonds 
on the open market. That is how we pay for the deficit spending in this 
country. And what happens when people start to worry that U.S. 
Treasuries are not a good investment? Well, we have already seen the 
consequences over the last couple of years. Interest rates go up. 
Inflation goes up. Home mortgages become more expensive. Are we at 
least a little bit worried that the bond markets could react negatively 
to us seizing tens of billions or hundreds of billions of dollars from 
assets? We should certainly be worried about it because we already 
can't afford the deficit spending in this country to begin with. 
Treasury yield rates are already extraordinarily high. Thanks to the 
Biden spending programs, they have actually shown a remarkable 
stubbornness over the last few months.
  Here is another unintended consequence. Germany is an important 
American ally, and it has, by some

[[Page S2976]]

standards, the fourth or fifth largest economy in the entire world. It 
is a very, very important country, a very important ally. By the way, 
it is a beautiful country with beautiful people. But Germany, under the 
influence of a series of so-called green energy policies, is rapidly 
deindustrialized.
  Germany, by the way, was one of the few countries in the wake of 
World War II--especially in the seventies, eighties, and nineties--that 
actually kept its industrial might largely intact. Think about German 
cars and all the other manufacturing things that come from the country 
of Germany. Well, Germany is much less powerful in terms of 
manufacturing today than it was 10 years ago. Why? Because it takes 
cheap energy to manufacture things. You need cheap energy if you want 
to manufacture steel. You need cheap energy if you want to manufacture 
cars. That is one of the reasons, by the way, the manufacturing economy 
has done so poorly under the Biden administration--because their energy 
policies don't make any sense.

  But Germany should be told that the United States will not subsidize 
its ridiculous energy policies and its policies that weaken German 
manufacturing. We should send a message to the Germans that they have 
to manufacture their own weapons; they have to field their own army; 
and they have the priority and they have the responsibility to defend 
Europe from Vladimir Putin or anyone else.
  I ask the question: How many mechanized brigades could the German 
army field today? By some estimates, the answer is zero; by other 
estimates, the answer is one. So the fourth most powerful economy in 
the world is unable to field sufficient mechanized brigades to defend 
itself from Vladimir Putin. Now, this isn't 5 years ago or 10 years 
ago; this is yesterday. So for 3 years, the Europeans have told us that 
Vladimir Putin is an existential threat to Europe, and for 3 years they 
have failed to respond as if that were actually true.
  Donald Trump famously told European nations they have to spend more 
on their own defense. He was chastised by Members of this Chamber for 
having the audacity to suggest Germany should step up and pay for its 
own defense. Even today, Germany, by some estimates, fails to hit its 
2-percent-of-GDP threshold where it is supposed to spend 2 percent of 
its economy on military. And even if it hits that 2-percent threshold 
in 2024, it will have hit it barely after, literally, decades of being 
chastised. Is it fair that the Americans are forced to front this 
burden? I don't think that it is.
  But I am actually less worried about the fairness and more worried 
about the signal this sends to Europe. If we keep on carrying a 
substantial share of the military burden, if we keep on giving the 
Europeans everything that they want, they are never going to become 
self-sufficient, and they are never going to produce sufficient weapons 
so they can defend their own country.
  You hear all the time from folks who support endless funding to 
Ukraine that unless--that unless--we send resources to Ukraine, 
Vladimir Putin will march all the way to Berlin or Paris. Well, first 
of all, this don't make any sense. Vladimir Putin can't get to western 
Ukraine; how is he going to get all the way to Paris? Second of all, if 
Vladimir Putin is a threat to Germany and France, if he is a threat to 
Berlin and Paris, then they should spend more money on military 
equipment.
  Some of my fellow Americans have been lucky enough to travel to 
Europe. It is a beautiful place. But one of the things that Europeans 
often say about Americans is that we have way too many guns and way too 
little healthcare. One of the reasons why we have less healthcare 
access than the Europeans do is because we subsidize their military and 
their defense. If the Europeans were forced to step up and provide for 
their own security, we could actually take care of some more domestic 
problems at home. No, too many in this Chamber have decided that we 
should police the entire world. The American taxpayer be damned.
  Let me make one final point here, cognizant I have colleagues who 
wish to speak.
  May I ask, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator has 28 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VANCE. I see my colleague from Florida, so I will be relatively 
brief here.
  For 40 years, this country has made, largely, I would say, a 
bipartisan mistake. It has allowed our manufacturing might to get 
offshored and to get outsourced, while simultaneously increasing the 
commitments that we have all over the world. We basically outsourced 
our ability to manufacture critical weapons while stepping up our 
responsibilities to police the world. And, of course, if we are going 
to police the world, then it is American troops who need those weapons.
  With one hand, we have weakened our own country; with the other, we 
have overextended. There is a certain irony that if you look at the 
voting records and the commitments of this Chamber, the people who have 
been most aggressive--my colleagues, some of them my friends--who have 
been most aggressive sending our good manufacturing jobs to China are 
now the ones who are most aggressive to assert we can police the world.
  What are we supposed to police the world with? Our artillery 
manufacturing, our weapons, our air defense manufacturing, our basic 
military industrial complex has become incredibly weakened. And this 
bill, you will hear people say, fixes it. It doesn't fix it at all. 
This bill, while it does invest some--and this is a good thing, by the 
way, it is not all bad--while it does invest some in critical 
manufacturing of American weapons, it sends those weapons overseas 
faster than it even replenishes them. This is not a bill to rebuild the 
defense industrial base; this is a bill to further extend this country.
  I will yield the floor, recognizing my friend from Florida wants to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague 
from Ohio for his hard work and his commitment to making sure he 
protects our country.
  President Biden has shown the American people that he will pander to 
his anti-Semitic base over supporting Israel. Israel, one of America's 
greatest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East--the only 
democracy in the Middle East.
  One of President Biden's first actions was to resurrect the failed 
Iran deal. Since then, he has green-lit billions of dollars in 
sanctions relief to Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of 
terrorism.
  His pandering can be seen in our cities and on college campuses where 
radical extremists rally violently in support of Hamas and the 
extermination of the Jewish people. This cancer has taken over the 
Democratic Party and caused violence against our Jewish communities.
  President Biden has made clear with his decisions that the American 
people cannot trust his administration. I certainly do not, which is 
why I am highly concerned that without proper safeguards, the Biden 
administration will use this aid package as leverage against our great 
ally, Israel.
  On October 7, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists burned people alive in 
their homes, beheaded babies, raped women and young girls, and murdered 
parents in front of their children. They brutally murdered 1,200 
innocent people in Israel, including Americans. And 200 days since the 
attacks, they are still holding 8 Americans and more than 100 other 
innocent people hostage in Gaza.
  I was in Israel last month, my sixth visit to the Jewish State in my 
years as Florida's Governor and now a U.S. Senator, and I have helped 
lead the charge in the Senate to support our great ally Israel. I have 
voted for the Israel aid in this bill only to see it fail the Senate 
with all the Democrats--all Democrats--voting against it.
  For years, I have voted for significant funding for the Iron Dome, 
David's Sling, and other key military assets to help Israel defend 
itself from Iran-backed terrorism.
  I am leading the Stop Taxpayer Funding of Hamas Act to condition aid 
to Gaza on the release of hostages and ensure we don't send a single 
dollar--not a single dollar--of American taxpayer money to Gaza unless 
the President certifies that it won't end up in the hands of a Hamas 
terrorist--a pretty simple ask.
  Unfortunately, the Democrats have blocked this bill from 
consideration or

[[Page S2977]]

passage in the Senate three separate times, including when I tried to 
include it in the Senate-passed foreign aid supplemental in February. 
It should not be difficult to say that we won't risk even one dollar of 
American taxpayer money going to Hamas and pass commonsense legislation 
to stop that from happening. That shouldn't be hard.
  Here is what makes me so angry and worried about our country: We have 
a President who is a fool who is stuck in a war that is raging--not 
overseas but within the Democratic Party right here in America. Joe 
Biden has ignited a civil war in the Democratic Party because he is 
allowing and in some cases actively encouraging the takeover of his 
party by Hamas-loving, terrorist sympathizers.
  Thankfully, there are still some Democrats who oppose this takeover 
and continue to stand with Israel, but they are very few, and their 
voices are being drowned out by the scream of anti-Semitic hate from 
the radical Hamas lovers in Michigan and New York.
  We cannot avoid the hard truth here. Joe Biden is destroying U.S. 
foreign policy in an attempt to pacify Democrats who support terrorism.
  They have chanted ``Death to America'' in Iran for years, but now 
Democrat activists are chanting it in New York and Michigan. Look at 
what is happening at Columbia University. How is this happening in the 
United States of America? But Democrats are letting this happen because 
Michigan is crucial for Biden to win. He knows he is losing there, so 
he is bending over backwards to support the small minority of people in 
Michigan who support terrorism, and he is doing it hoping it will help 
him win reelection.
  I want to stress this because it shows the American people exactly 
what is wrong with the platform of my colleagues across the aisle.
  Every single day, we hear Democrats scream about protecting democracy 
and how democracy is under attack. While they love to point fingers at 
Republicans as being responsible for this, the truth is that it is 
them.
  Between Israel and Hamas, which do you think is a stronger example of 
democracy? Pretty simple answer. Hamas hates everything that Americans 
support, especially democracy. If you are a woman, if you are gay, if 
you like equality, democracy, freedom of speech, none of these things 
is supported by Hamas--none of them--and some of them will get you 
killed by Hamas. All of them are supported by Israel.
  But Democrats are so obsessed with winning an election, they have 
taken the fringe radicals in their party and put them front and 
center--center stage. Think about that. Democrats are so terrified of 
the Hamas-loving lunatics in New York City and in Michigan, they are 
tearing down the only true democracy in the Middle East and propping up 
a terror organization that, if given power again, will create one of 
the most oppressive regimes in the world.
  Democrats are giving power and voices to people who support 
terrorism. It is so bad that over the weekend, Jewish students at 
Columbia University in New York City were told to go home and not 
return to campus because it is not safe for them. They were told to go 
home and not return to campus because it is not safe for them. Jewish 
students at Columbia University in New York City, of all places, are 
not safe because the campus is being overrun by dangerous, pro-Hamas 
extremists. Is anyone paying attention?
  Look at what is happening in our country. We have a President of the 
United States who is leading a Democratic Party that is cowering to the 
radical left of their party in a disgusting and dangerous attempt to 
get votes from Hamas sympathizers. His cowering means that all over our 
country, even in New York City, Jewish Americans aren't safe. No one, 
not one Member of the U.S. Senate should be OK with what is happening 
in our country today.
  I know that terrorists are being glorified at Columbia University 
right now, but let me remind my Democratic colleagues who Hamas is as 
we consider a bill that could provide billions of dollars in aid to 
these monsters.
  When I was in Israel, I saw the absolute evil of Israel's enemies--
Hamas, Hezbollah--all backed by Iran, and their brutality. Hamas 
stormed into Israel on October 7 and murdered Jewish people who were 
killed for one reason: just for being Jewish.
  I stood in places where it happened, where the blood of these 
innocent Jewish people still stains the floors and the walls of their 
homes and the streets where they once lived and played.
  When Hamas stormed in, they raped women, murdered families, and 
butchered and beheaded babies. You cannot imagine. Hamas burned parents 
alive in front of their children. They dragged people out of their 
homes and are now holding them hostage.
  What happened on October 7 horrified the world and struck me 
personally. One of the places where I saw the devastation of Hamas's 
terror was Kfar Aza. It wasn't the first time I had visited that small 
kibbutz. In 2019, my wife Ann and I visited Kfar Aza for the first 
time.
  As early reports were coming out, I was really worried about the 
kibbutz because of its proximity to Gaza, about half a mile away. You 
can see Gaza right there. It is right there, half a mile away. Open 
fields. When I heard the news that it was the site of some of the most 
horrific and barbaric activities, my heart just sank. I wanted to 
vomit.
  In 2019, my wife and I had spent an afternoon there, and it was the 
most peaceful place. I keep thinking about the moms and kids who were 
playing outside, enjoying the warm summer weather. It is gut-wrenching 
to think of the fate of the families we met that day.
  I spoke with Chen, the woman who led our tour of the kibbutz. She was 
traveling outside of Israel that day and fortunately survived.
  When I was in Israel a few weeks ago, I talked with Chen and other 
people who experienced the attack firsthand and thankfully survived, 
and they told me what happened to them, their families, and friends. I 
saw parents setting up memorials at the Nova music festival site for 
their children who have been taken hostage or murdered. I stood in a 
destroyed home and listened to the last words of a young Israeli woman 
via audio recording as she talked to her father before Hamas gunned her 
down. I met with the families of American hostages, whose devastation 
and grief are overwhelming. I saw firsthand what Israel faces from Iran 
and its proxies and what they would do to us, too, if they could. They 
would absolutely do it to us.

  I have placed a poster outside my office that features the faces of 
the hostages being held by Hamas, and I am not going to take it down 
until they all come home.
  I have been clear that we cannot see a cease-fire until every Hamas 
terrorist is dead. I want every single one of them dead.
  I know I said this before, but I won't stop saying what Hamas did. 
These monsters beheaded children and babies, raped girls, burned 
innocent civilians alive, and shot people at point-blank just because 
they were Jewish. They dragged innocent people through the streets and 
are now holding them as hostages in Gaza, which these terrorists 
absolutely control.
  It is unimaginable that the United States would ever consider sending 
money to a place where we know--we absolutely know--that it will be 
used to help terrorists who are holding American hostages. That is 
exactly what this bill does today.
  I want to make sure everyone understands what I am saying here, which 
is a fact: Every dollar that goes to Gaza directly benefits Hamas.
  I have spent every day since October 7 telling the stories of those 
being held hostage in Gaza by Iran-backed Hamas terrorists. As I said, 
I have a poster outside my office that features the faces of the 
hostages being held by Hamas, and I am not going to take it down until 
they are all released.
  It has been 200 days since the attacks, and some parents are still 
waiting for their children to come home. Can you imagine? A parent 
waiting for their child to come home.
  Little baby Kfir Bibas's first birthday was spent as a hostage in 
Gaza. His 4-year-old brother, Ariel, a beautiful little boy, is still 
being held hostage. I have a milk carton in my office that has Ariel's 
picture on it. I see it every day, and it makes me think of my own 
grandkids.

[[Page S2978]]

  Kfir and Ariel's parents have been waiting for 200 days to hold their 
babies again. Can you imagine? Sadly, we have heard horrible reports 
that these innocent children may no longer be alive. It just makes you 
sick to think about it, and you think about your own family.
  While Israel is dealing with the recovery from these attacks in its 
own country, it is still fighting the terrorists who want to destroy 
it. It is still fighting with these terrorists who want to destroy 
every Jew and destroy Israel.
  So here is the other takeaway from my recent trip to Israel. In 
meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli leaders, I saw that 
while Israel is still dealing with the recovery of its own people, they 
are also overseeing incredible and unprecedented work to preserve 
civilian life and get aid into Gaza.
  War is hell. Tragedies happen, and we wish we could prevent all of 
them. We wish there could be zero civilian impact of war, but that is 
simply not possible.
  When tragic incidents occur, we are right to expect accountability. 
Israel has shown full accountability for every misstep taken as it 
fights for its existence against brutal Iran-backed terrorism.
  Israel is doing more to prevent civilian deaths than any warfighting 
nation has been expected to do in history and taking responsibility 
when tragic incidents happen. But it seems that accountability from 
Israel is not enough for President Biden; it is not enough for the 
Democrats.
  It is insane to me that the same President who has never held anyone 
accountable for the deaths of 13 American warriors at Abbey Gate in 
Afghanistan and never held anyone accountable for the deaths of the 
innocent Afghan family killed in a U.S. drone strike during his botched 
Afghanistan withdrawal is openly attacking Israel for mistakes that it 
is taking full responsibility for.
  When President Biden and Democrats again and again attack Israel and 
talk about sanctions on the IDF, they do the bidding of Iran and Hamas. 
Let us all remember who the enemy is. Let us all remember who the enemy 
is and has always been--the evil terror-supporting regime in Iran.
  Since its first days, the Biden administration has emboldened Iran 
with appeasement, freeing billions and billions and billions of dollars 
to fuel Iran's support of terrorism and turning its back on Israel.
  Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and one of America's 
strongest allies, but it took President Biden months to meet or speak 
with Prime Minister Netanyahu after he took office, and the world took 
notice.
  Since October 7, President Biden and Democrats in Washington have 
continued to undermine Israel's fight against Iran-backed Hamas 
terrorists, further isolating our ally in its greatest time of need.
  America and the freedom-loving nations of the world are less safe and 
secure because of President Biden's weakness and appeasement of evil 
regimes and the terror each supports.
  Now the Senate wants to again pass legislation that gives billions of 
dollars to Gaza, which is 100 percent run by Hamas--100 percent run by 
Hamas. I am not opposed to humanitarian aid to people in war-torn 
places like Gaza, but I am not OK with giving aid that has even the 
slightest possibility of going to terrorists who want to destroy Israel 
and the United States.
  I am especially disturbed by the idea of giving aid that could go to 
terrorists who want to destroy Israel and the United States and who are 
also at this point holding American hostages.
  Can you imagine giving aid to a country that wants to--anybody who 
wants to hold American hostages? Why would we do that? How is that a 
minority opinion in the U.S. Senate? How has the Democratic Party 
fallen so far to the radical pro-Hamas lunatics in its base that saying 
``No, we won't provide humanitarian aid unless we can certify it won't 
go to terrorists who are holding American hostages'' is not an OK 
position to take, an OK position to even vote on?
  The eight Americans who are being held hostage in Hamas have been 
held in captivity for 200 days. We believe five are still alive and 
three are dead, and Hamas is holding their bodies and robbing their 
families of the ability to bury their loved ones. Even when we know 
they are dead, Hamas holds their bodies.

  Do we see President Biden or senior members of his administration and 
Democrats in Washington talking about that every day? Absolutely not. 
What we do see from Democrats is they continue to attack Israel, call 
for the ousting of its democratically elected government--they call for 
the ousting of its democratically elected government--and allow the 
abandonment of our ally at the United Nations. They abandoned our ally 
Israel at the United Nations and on the world stage.
  And it is disgusting that, while they launch these attack on our 
ally, Democrats say little or nothing about the fact that American 
citizens--American citizens--are being held hostage by a brutal 
terrorist organization that we know is committing horrific sexual abuse 
against these innocent people.
  Why has Biden given money to Gazans who are holding American 
hostages? Why would he do that? Why would we allow Biden to give more 
money to Gazans who are holding American hostages?
  When will this stop? Why the heck are we allowing Biden to send more 
money to Gaza in this bill when we know that every dollar--every 
dollar--that goes to Gaza funds the terrorism of Hamas?
  What are we doing to get American hostages released? What has 
happened? Have we sent the troops in? Have we done anything? Have you 
heard anything? Have you watched Biden in the Situation Room do 
anything? Absolutely nothing.
  I won't stop stating this fact: Every dollar that goes into Gaza 
directly benefits Hamas. That is the undeniable truth, and it is why I 
have been fighting for years to pass--for years--to pass a simple bill, 
the Stop Taxpayer Funding of Hamas Act, which simply prevents U.S. 
taxpayer dollars from going to Gaza unless the Biden administration can 
certify that not a single cent will go to Hamas--pretty simple. This 
isn't a solution in search of a problem. It addresses a very real 
threat of taxpayer money funding Iran-backed terrorism that seeks to 
destroy Israel and is holding hostages.
  How can it be fair to allow an American family with a family member 
being held hostage in Gaza to see their tax dollars go to the same 
people who are holding their family member hostage.
  We have seen reports that the Palestinian Authority has been paying 
over $300 million a year in monthly salaries to terrorist prisoners, in 
monthly allowances to families of dead terrorists. The Palestinian 
Authority that pays terrorists and their families should not receive 
U.S. tax dollars, and this bill is going to allow more of that.
  In 2021, President Biden's State Department said:

       We're going to be working in partnership with the United 
     Nations and the Palestinian Authority to ``kind of''--

  ``Kind of''--

     channel aid there in a manner that does its best to go to the 
     people of Gaza.

  The official went on to say:

       As we've seen in life, as we all know in life, there are no 
     guarantees, but we're going to do everything that we can to 
     ensure that this assistance reaches the people who need it 
     the most.

  The Biden administration thinks the risk of resources going to Hamas 
terrorists is OK because ``in life, there are no guarantees.''
  I reject that. I do not believe we should leave anything to chance 
when it comes to preventing U.S. taxpayer dollars from being sent to 
the brutal terrorists that slaughtered so many Israelis and Americans 
and are holding American hostages.
  Senate Democrats have made clear that they are so terrified of losing 
the votes of radical, Hamas-loving leftists that they cannot bring 
themselves to support something that simply makes sure we aren't 
sending money to the thugs who brutally murdered 1,200 innocent people, 
including more than 30 Americans, on October 7 and are still holding 
American hostages. They won't even allow us to have a vote on it.
  It is hard to imagine that this is where we are today, and this bill 
that is before us does nothing to address this, while approving 
billions in aid for Gaza that we know will go straight to Hamas. 
Nothing--absolutely nothing--

[[Page S2979]]

in this bill says that money will not go to Hamas, because there is 
nothing in this bill that prevents it. Again, there is nothing in this 
bill that prevents your taxpayer money from going to Gaza, where it 
will directly benefit Hamas.
  I have heard about my colleagues on the left talking about needing to 
support the children of Gaza. No child should suffer, but the children 
of Gaza suffer every day not because of Israel, not because of America 
but because of Hamas. They suffer every day because Hamas takes aid 
dollars that come into Gaza to fund its terror against Israel and the 
United States.
  If my Democrat colleagues wanted to make sure any U.S. tax dollars 
only go to help the children of Gaza, they would fully support my Stop 
Taxpayer Funding of Hamas Act, but they won't even let me have a vote 
on it. It would make certain that no aid goes to Hamas. It would not 
stop all aid from going to the children of Gaza. It would just make 
sure that that is the only place it goes and not to Hamas terrorists. 
But, again and again, Democrats have blocked the Senate from even 
voting on this. It makes no sense to me.
  We should aid our ally Israel now. I have been trying to get that 
done for months, and Senate Democrats have blocked it five times. While 
it is extremely important to continue to fund Israel's defense 
efforts--as I have fought to do for years--I fear that President Biden 
will use this as the leverage he needs to advance his radical, anti-
Israel foreign policy to appease the anti-Semites in his own party.
  I was just in Israel and clearly understood the urgency in delivering 
aid to Israel. But without safeguards in place to ensure that no money 
goes to Hamas or that Biden cannot say ``strings attached,'' this aid 
doesn't protect Israel from being forced into an unacceptable 
compromise by the Biden administration while it is at war. What Prime 
Minister Netanyahu said is: Give us time and space to destroy Hamas, 
and we will.
  Too often in Washington, compromise means that everyone gets what 
they want so nobody has to make a tough choice. The bill before the 
Senate today is a perfect example of this broken way of doing business 
that has become the norm in Washington.
  If given the opportunity to vote on these issues independently, as 
the House did, I would vote to support aid to Israel in a heartbeat, 
with strong safeguards, as I have in the Senate multiple times--all of 
which have been blocked by Democrats prior to this vote. I would vote 
to ban TikTok, unless we see a total divestment from it by entities 
controlled by communist China. I would vote to sanction the evil regime 
in Iran. I would vote to support aid for Taiwan so it can fend off 
threats of invasion by communist China. And I would vote for the REPO 
Act, which allows for the confiscation of Russian assets, and of which 
I am a proud cosponsor, while opposing the fact that this bill allows 
President Biden to send billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in 
unaccountable aid to Ukraine--unaccountable aid to Ukraine--including 
billions to pay the salaries of Ukrainian politicians.

  Why are we borrowing our money to pay for the salaries of Ukrainian 
politicians? It makes no sense for the United States to borrow dollar 
after dollar after dollar so we can pay the salaries of politicians in 
the Ukraine while our border--our border--is wide open.
  I have had a redline in the debate about the future of any aid to 
Ukraine. First, it must be lethal only; and, second, any action taken 
by the United States to secure the borders of Ukraine must be tied to 
forcing--it is the only way it is going to happen. You have to force 
the Biden administration to secure the U.S. southern border.
  In some of his first actions as President, Joe Biden took multiple 
Executive actions to dismantle the border security policies enacted by 
President Trump, which created the most secure U.S. southern border in 
recent history. The catastrophic results of Biden's open border 
policies are being felt by nearly every American family.
  Since Biden took office, more than 10 million--10 million--illegal 
aliens, unvetted, have unlawfully crossed our border, and more than 6 
million have been released into the United States. We have no idea who 
these people are.
  Deadly fentanyl, the precursors of which are supplied by communist 
China and manufactured by the savage Mexican drug cartels, are killing 
more than 70,000 Americans every year. Why don't the Democrats care 
about that?
  Terrorists and dangerous criminals are coming across the border in 
droves. Why don't Democrats care about this?
  The FBI Director admitted to me, under oath, that we now have terror 
cells in the United States because of the open southern border. And we 
have all seen the horror brought to our communities by violent illegal 
aliens murdering innocent Americans like Laken Riley.
  But the Senate won't have the chance to vote on each bill which 
passed the House individually. No, we won't have a chance to do that 
individually, the way it was done in the House, and we are not going to 
have a chance to change this bill. It is up or down. If you don't like 
a provision, tough luck. You don't get an amendment vote. It is a sad 
day for our body to be shut out of the process like this.
  While some politicians will claim that the bill before the Senate 
today is some magic bullet that will restore order and protect 
democracy around the world, we know that is a lie. Most bills have some 
good policy. This one is no different. However, I cannot bring myself 
to look the other way and vote for policies that will, in many ways, 
prolong the suffering that Biden's weaknesses and appeasement have 
caused for Americans and our friends and allies around the world each 
and every day.
  I yield to my colleague and I now retain the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you very much. I would like to be 
recognized. Can you let me know when it is 40 minutes?
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You will be notified.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, so our colleagues are talking today about 
how they are going to vote, why they are going to vote. I think the 
support of history will judge what we do here today.
  Let me say one thing up front: There is no border security in this 
package. I regret that. I wish there were. There should be.
  On the bill from the Senate, I voted no regarding the border security 
provisions. I thought it was sort of inadequate tabs on parole and on a 
few other things. My hope was it would get over to the House, and we 
could negotiate a stronger border security package. That did not 
happen, and I regret that.
  So to everybody who comes on this floor and says our border is 
broken, we should do something about it. You are absolutely right. And, 
unfortunately, we didn't get there. President Trump opposed the Senate 
bill. We couldn't find a better way forward that would get 60 votes. I 
hate that, but now we have to deal with what is left for us to take 
care of in the world.
  So the fact that we did not get provisions for our border, in my 
view, doesn't mean we can't deal with the other problems the world 
faces. We actually have to because, if we don't get Ukraine right and 
we don't get Taiwan right and we don't get Israel right, then our 
broken border is going to be a bigger problem.
  So the first thing I want to say is: To those who want border 
security, you are right. Don't give up. But this is not just about 
border security.
  This is a statement from the Minister of Defense in Israel:

       The supplemental package submitted to the U.S. Senate today 
     is critical and urgent in supporting Israel's capabilities to 
     face threats posed by Iran and its proxies. We thank our 
     friends in Congress, and urge our partners to stand with 
     Israel in the face of Iranian terrorism.

  Now what is he talking about? This was issued earlier today. This is 
the Minister of Defense in Israel. I know him very well. He is a very 
accomplished man, and he is urging us to vote for this package because 
Israel needs it because they have been threatened by Iran.
  Now, since we took up this debate in the Senate, a lot has happened. 
The Iranians attacked Israel from Iran. Over 300 drones and missiles 
were launched at Israel from Iran and successfully engaged. Nobody lost 
their

[[Page S2980]]

life, but it wasn't because the Iranians weren't trying.
  We are voting today on a package to help our friends in Israel 
replenish Iron Dome. This is Passover. It is so ironic, right? We are 
having this debate on Passover. Here is my Passover gift to the Israeli 
people: More weapons--replenish the Iron Dome so that you can defend 
yourself and have another Passover, so that this won't be the last one. 
If you left it up to Iran, it would be.
  So to those who are wondering what we should do: We failed on the 
border; you are right about that. We should vote yes to help our 
friends in Israel. I can't think of a time since I have been here that 
they need more help than right now. They don't need any speeches. They 
don't need us to attend events. They need us to send them military aid 
that they are desperate to have.
  They have diminished their Iron Dome stockpile. They need it 
replenished. They are dealing with Hamas on one front, Hezbollah on the 
other, and now they have been attacked by the Iranian Ayatollah from 
Iranian soil.
  So the Defense Minister of Israel is asking us for a ``yes'' vote 
because it is urgent to help our friends in Israel. So if you are pro-
Israel--which most people in this body are--they need you, and they 
need you now. The 20-something billion dollars of aid in this package 
is absolutely imperative to help the Jewish State survive against Iran 
and its proxies, as the Defense Minister said. So from an Israeli point 
of view, this is the most critical time maybe since its founding 
because the efforts to destroy the Jewish State are real.
  Here is what I worry about. If we don't help Israel now, we will be 
encouraging more attacks by the Iranians, and this war will get really 
out of hand. It is already out of hand.
  There are about 100,000-plus rockets in the hands of Hezbollah in 
Lebanon. If they were all unleashed at the same time, that would be a 
nightmare for Israel. They have about 300 drones and missiles, but that 
is a fraction of what is available. I want to deter Iran from going to 
the next step. Now, how do you do that? Let Iran know that we have 
Israel's back, that we are going to help them with their military needs 
in perpetuity so they can defend themselves, that we are not going to 
abandon Israel at this critical time.
  What does Israel have to do? Not only do they have to knock down the 
rockets that have come their way--they need weapons to do that--they 
have to create deterrence. The best way for Israel to deter the enemies 
of the Jewish State is to let the world and the enemies know that 
America has Israel's back.
  Now, I want to say something about Speaker Johnson and Democratic 
Leader Jeffries: Well done. Speaker Johnson and Hakim Jeffries worked 
together to pass a package we have before us. We need more of this, not 
less, in a time of great peril for our allies and the United States.
  So this was a moment where the people in the House rose to the 
occasion. They set aside their party differences. They focused on 
giving us a package that I think is stronger but needed now more than 
ever.
  Since we last had this debate in the Senate, what has happened? A 
direct attack on the State of Israel by Iran. They need the money, and 
they need it now. Vote yes. A great Passover gift to the Israeli people 
would be this aid package.
  Now, I want to put this debate in a greater context. I have had a lot 
of my friends come to the floor talking about whether or not Ukraine is 
in our vital national interest. I think it is. Here is what is 
happening in Europe as I speak: You have Russia who has launched an 
effort to destroy Ukraine--not just the Crimea, but to take Kyiv and 
turn it into a part of Russia. Ukraine, a sovereign nation that gave up 
1,700 nuclear weapons they had in their possession after the end of the 
Cold War in the Budapest Memorandum in the mid-nineties. Ukrainians 
gave up 1,700 nuclear weapons with the assurance their sovereignty 
would be protected. The map used had Crimea as part of Ukraine.
  So what do we have then? We have a situation where, for the second 
time, Russia has invaded Ukraine. They did it in 2014. We had some kind 
of a peace agreement. It didn't hold. Why? Because Putin wants all of 
Ukraine. I will talk about that in a moment.
  He wants more than just Ukraine. He wants to reconstruct the Russian 
empire, the old Soviet Union. Listen to him, not me. I will talk about 
that in a moment.
  Go back in time to the thirties. If you could go back in time and you 
could talk to the leaders in the thirties, knowing what you know now, 
what would you tell them? ``You should stop Hitler as soon as you 
can.'' You have got opportunity after opportunity to hold him to 
account before he got too strong. You had plenty of chances to lay down 
the gauntlet.
  But every time there was a chance to stop him, people blinked. People 
believed that he wanted German-speaking territory and that was all. 
They did not believe he wanted to kill all the Jews. That was a big 
mistake, because he did. He wanted a master race.
  He wrote a book. The biggest miscalculation of the 20th century was 
not to understand what Adolf Hitler actually wanted. He didn't want 
German-language countries. He wanted everybody to speak German. He 
wanted a master race where there is no place for the Jewish people and 
others. And 50 million people died because we got it wrong.
  In 1941, in this body, Senator Nye--I don't know him:

       Getting into this return engagement of war to Europe is 
     only as inevitable as we the people of America will permit it 
     to be. Staying out of this war is inevitable if only the 
     people will continue and multiply their forceful demands upon 
     the Government at Washington to keep its promise to the 
     people to keep our country out of this mess, which seems 
     destined to wreck every civilization that lends its hand to 
     it.

  He is on the floor of the Senate in June of 1941, telling his 
colleagues: This war in Europe, stay out of it.
  Well, how well did that age? Because in December of 1941, we were 
attacked by the Japanese.
  Here is a rule that has stood the test of time: When forces rear 
their ugly heads anywhere in the world wanting to dominate other 
people, destroy their religion, put them under the yoke of tyranny, it 
will eventually come back to us.
  When the Taliban blew up statues of Buddha, even though I am not a 
Buddhist, it came back to me. Evil unchecked and appeased, we always 
pay a heavier price than if we confront it.
  Charles Lindbergh--an American hero in many ways, a very brave guy--
this is what he said on April 24, 1941:

       When history is written, the responsibility for the 
     downfall of the democracies of Europe will rest squarely upon 
     the shoulders of interventionists who led their nations into 
     war uninformed and unprepared.
       When history is written, the responsibility for the 
     downfall of the democracies of Europe will rest squarely upon 
     the shoulders of the interventionists who led their nations 
     into war uninformed and unprepared.

  How well did this age? The democracies in Europe failed because we 
allowed Hitler to get strong. Every time he would go into the 
Sudetenland, you named the early intervention. We wrote it off. We 
appeased him.
  No, Mr. Lindbergh, you were wrong. The reason democracies in Europe 
were at risk and failed is because we did not stand up to Adolf Hitler 
while it really mattered. The reason that 50 million people died is 
because you didn't get it.
  Father Coughlin--the demagoguery from this guy is being used today: 
demonizing people, trying to convince the American people ``those 
people over there don't matter to you.''
  Let me tell you what matters to the American people. When forces like 
Putin rear their ugly head to take Ukraine, they are not going to stop; 
they are going to keep going. And we have NATO commitments to countries 
around Ukraine. Vote yes for this package to help the Ukrainians 
continue to fight the Russians before Americans are fighting the 
Russians. And how does America get into this conflict? If a NATO nation 
is attacked.
  This is my favorite: September 11, 1941. Now, when I say ``September 
the 11th,'' most Americans kind of listen, because that day does live 
in infamy.
  So Charles Lindbergh made a speech on September 11, 1941, in Des 
Moines, IA. And here is what he said:

       When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the 
     American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why 
     shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the 
     world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and 
     the one time we did take part in a European war left European 
     problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

[[Page S2981]]

       It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great 
     Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. 
     England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not 
     large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade 
     the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against 
     Germany.
       If England can draw this country into the war, she can 
     shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility 
     for waging it and paying its cost.

  He is arguing that the Lend-Lease Program that President Roosevelt 
came up with to help the island nation withstand invasion by the 
Germans was a foolish endeavor, that this small group of people in 
England cannot possibly win and we are betting on a loser.
  The loser is Lindbergh. The winner is Churchill and the British 
people.
  This attitude exists today. People in this body, right before I 
spoke, talk about ``we can't help Ukraine because we have too many 
problems in other places. They can't win.''
  They were supposed to fall in 4 days.
  Look what has happened: 200-something days later, they have destroyed 
half of the Russian army, taken back half the territory Russia seized, 
and now they need our weapons in a desperate fashion. They are trying 
to defend their homeland, and they are asking from us not troops, but 
weapons that can matter. And I will say to everybody in this body: You 
sell the Ukrainians short at your own peril. You are in the camp of 
Lindbergh trying to convince the American people: Pull the plug on 
England. They are in a fight they can't possibly win. What Lindbergh 
and others didn't realize was that their fight was our fight.
  Let me tell you why Ukraine's fight matters to us. If we don't stop 
Putin now, he will keep going. And let's talk about what he says.
  Just as people in the thirties--Lindbergh and Father Coughlin and 
Chamberlain, let's bring them back to light here:

       How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be 
     digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a 
     quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know 
     nothing.

  This is when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland in violation of all the 
agreements they signed in World War I. He was telling the British 
people: This is sort of a German thing. I know he is violating the 
agreements we had to end World War I; but, you know, it really doesn't 
matter.
  Boy, were you wrong. He didn't want the Sudetenland. He wanted the 
world. He wanted a master race. And guess what? Mr. Chamberlain's 
analysis of Hitler is not aging too well in history.
  To the people of this body who are going to vote today: You are 
miscalculating Putin if you think it is just about some dispute with 
Ukraine or he is threatened by NATO. No. Yes, I am sure he is 
threatened by NATO, but he has an ambition here.
  Putin in 2016:

       The borders of Russia never end.

  Putin in 2022:

       [When Peter the Great] was at war with Sweden taking 
     something away from it. . . . He was not taking away 
     anything, he was returning.
       When he founded the new capital, none of the European 
     countries recognized this territory as part of Russia; 
     everyone recognized it as part of Sweden.

  He is telling you, in Russian history, because you claim it, he wants 
it, the Russians are going to take it.
  This is Medvedev:

       One of Ukraine's former leaders once said Ukraine is not 
     Russia. That concept needs to disappear forever. Ukraine is 
     definitely Russia.

  This is the former President of Russia. He is telling you--and you 
are not listening--that they want more than Ukraine. Ukraine is part of 
Russia. The Ukrainians don't believe that. They are fighting like 
tigers. I don't believe that. If you give him Ukraine, he will want 
Moldova and then the Baltic nations. He will make claims to them 
because they used to be part of the Russian Empire.
  Hitler wrote a book, and nobody believed him. Putin and Medvedev, to 
their credit, are telling you exactly what their ambitions are, and you 
are not getting it. You are making the same miscalculations that they 
made in the thirties. You are making the same arguments: They can't 
win. It is not our problem. Stay out of it. Don't help people fighting 
for their freedom.
  That gets you more war, not less. Fifty million people died in World 
War II because they got it wrong in the thirties when they could have 
gotten it right.
  We haven't lost one American soldier, but if you don't help Ukraine 
now, that will change unless you want to completely abandon NATO. I am 
saying it as loudly as I can say it--that if we don't help Ukraine now, 
this war will spread, and Americans who are not involved will be 
involved. You think this war costs a lot now? Wait until you are in a 
war with Russia and NATO, and see what that costs. I am not telling you 
things that I made up. I am quoting people who are in charge of Russia. 
Nobody believed Hitler. You should have. You should believe these 
people. They have a mission.
  Isolationism leads to more war, not less. Isolationism takes off the 
table confronting evil at a time it is the weakest. Isolationists, in 
the name of peace, create more war than they ever avoid because the bad 
guy won't stop.
  Here is what you have got to understand: The Ayatollah, what does he 
want? He tells us he wants to destroy the Jewish State. I believe it. 
He tells us he wants to purify Islam in his own image--the image of 
Shiism. I believe it. He tells us that we are the Great Satan, and he 
is coming after us. I believe him. So the Ayatollah has an agenda that 
Israel can't accommodate. You cannot accommodate somebody who wants to 
kill you.
  Hamas doesn't want to advocate for the Palestinian people a better 
life; they want to kill all the Jews. The agenda of Hamas is not to 
make the Palestinian people more prosperous; it is to destroy the 
Jewish State--``from the river to the sea.'' These people are religious 
Nazis. What do you expect Israel to do? October 7 was an attack not to 
restore the dignity of the Palestinian people but literally to rape and 
murder and kill the Jews.
  Isolationism allows that to go unchecked. ``America First'' says: 
Let's help Israel. Let's help Ukraine. Let's turn it into a loan rather 
than a grant. Let's get Europe to do more and pay more. That is a big 
difference to me.
  To the people in this body, if you don't help Israel now, you are 
sending the worst possible signal to the Ayatollah. If you believe as I 
do, that he wishes to destroy the Jewish State, how can you vote no?
  I know our border is broken, but voting no to Israel doesn't make our 
border more secure. It makes us less safe.
  If you believe Hamas wants to destroy every Jewish person they can 
get their hands on and destroy the Jewish State, how can you vote no?
  If you believe, as I do, that Putin won't stop in Ukraine, how do you 
vote no? You have to believe that Putin won't go any further when he 
says he will.
  To vote no to Israel, you are taking off the table money they 
desperately need because they are under attack from forces they haven't 
been under attack from before. Hamas and Hezbollah have attacked 
Israel, and they are proxies of Iran, but the Iranians launched an 
attack toward the Jewish State from Iran. Don't vote no. Israel needs 
you now.
  Nothing we can do will fix the border, but we can help Israel, and we 
can help Ukraine. Helping Ukraine means we are less likely to get in a 
war with the Russians. Helping Israel means we are helping an ally, and 
the same people who want to kill Israel want to kill you too. So there 
is 20-something billion dollars to help Israel replenish the Iron Dome. 
There is $60 billion--some of it is in the form of a loan--to help 
replenish our stockpile. Most of this money is for us, but some of it 
goes to Ukraine to stay in the fight; they need an air defense 
capability.
  So to the isolationists--and I know you don't want to be called an 
isolationist, but you are. When you don't support your allies from 
threats because you don't want to get involved and you think it doesn't 
matter, I think you really are an isolationist. You would have to 
believe that Putin does not mean what he says. I believe him when he 
wants to take over the old Russian Empire and reconstruct the Soviet 
Union. I believe it. I want to stand up to it. I believe the Ayatollah 
wants to kill all the Jews. I want to help the Jewish people. This is 
Passover for God's sake--we are taking this vote on Passover--and not 
one of the people we are talking about here of the countries wants one 
American soldier.

[[Page S2982]]

  Have we learned nothing? We withdrew from Iraq in 2011. Senator 
McCain, Senator Lieberman, and myself--we all spoke up. Well, those two 
are gone, and I miss them desperately at times like this, but we told 
the Obama administration: If you pull all the troops out of Iraq, you 
are going to regret it and that ISIS was not the JV team. They came 
back in full force, and they established a caliphate. Al-Qaida and ISIS 
didn't even exist. This idea of leaving radical Islam unchecked and 
thinking it won't hurt you is insane. These people are not going to 
stop fighting us or our allies. You may be tired of fighting them. They 
are not tired of fighting you. I would rather fight them over there 
before they get here. Every one of these terrorists whom Israel kills 
is one less terrorist who will attack us. Containing Putin and Ukraine 
means it is less likely for us to get in a war.
  Here is what I said: I feel all we have worked for and fought for and 
sacrificed for is very much in jeopardy by today's announcements. I 
hope I am wrong and the President is right, but I fear the decision has 
set in motion events that will come back to haunt our country.
  Well, I was right, and I didn't want to be. Al-Qaida came back, and 
Iraq fell apart. We had to go back in. The Yazidi people were pretty 
much wiped out. Thousands of people were slaughtered. ISIS, you know, 
attacked the French, and they killed people all over the world because 
we let them come back.
  So here is what I would say to the people who vote no: Not one 
country we are helping wants any of our soldiers to come in and fight; 
they just want the weapons to do the fighting. If you don't give them 
these weapons at a time of critical need, you are setting in motion 
America being deeper involved in conflict, not less. If they take 
Israel down, I promise you, you are next, and if you don't help Israel 
replenish their conventional weapons, there will be a day when Israel, 
if they have to, will play the nuclear card. I promise you this: The 
Jewish people are not going down, this time, without a fight. The State 
of Israel will do whatever it takes to survive.

  I want to let the Ayatollah know America has Israel's back, which I 
think will create deterrence, but if the Ayatollah ever thought we 
pulled the plug on Israel, then I think it would be more emboldened, 
and you have got 100,000 rockets--precision-guided--to be fired at 
Israel en masse. That is a nightmare for the Iron Dome. So Israel has 
to tell the region, when it comes to defending the Jewish State, all 
bets are off. This thing could escalate big time.
  So, when you vote no today, you are making it more likely the 
Ayatollah does more, not less. When you vote no today, you incentivize 
Putin to do more, not less. When you vote no today, you make China 
wonder if we really are serious about helping Taiwan.
  I understand that the American people have needs here at home. I get 
it. Our border is broken, and you are right to want to fix it, but we 
are not right to abandon our allies in great need. If history has 
taught us anything--for those who are willing to learn from history--it 
is that, when evil rears its head, stand up; be firm; be unequivocal. 
It will save a lot of lives and a lot of heartache.
  I am going to end where I started: What does China want? They want to 
turn world order upside down. They don't believe in the rule of law. 
They steal our intellectual property; they intimidate their neighbors; 
and they will go after Taiwan if they believe we are weak and not 
helping Taiwan. If you want to avoid a war between Taiwan and China, 
give Taiwan the capability that would deter China. Eighty percent of 
the semiconductors in the world are made in Taiwan, and the digital 
economy would be dominated by China. We have a chance here to harden 
the defenses of Taiwan to deter China.
  We have a $24 billion package to replenish the weapons that Israel 
desperately needs to stand up in the face of multiple threats from Iran 
and its proxies. They need the money. They need it now. This is 
Passover. Help our friends in Israel.
  We have a chance to replenish the stockpile of the Ukrainians, who 
fought like tigers--but not just give them 155 rounds; give them the 
ATACMS that can reach out and knock the bridge down between Crimea and 
Russia.
  The bill before us allows us to go after Russian sovereign wealth 
funds that are frozen all over the world--about $300 billion. It allows 
us to take money from the Russian invader to pay for the reconstruction 
of Ukraine. This is a package worth your support. It makes Russia pay 
more. There is a loan component in this: Pay us back if you can because 
we are in debt. I get that part of it.
  This package coming back from the House was not only bipartisan, I 
thought it was smart. The component in this package to allow us to 
seize Russian assets I think will have a deterrent effect all of its 
own. The oligarchs around Putin are now in more jeopardy, not less, and 
it is proper to go after Russian sovereign wealth assets when Russia 
has brutally invaded Ukraine in violation of every agreement they made 
with Ukraine and the world at large.
  The bottom line for me is that this package doesn't address the 
border, and I am sorry it doesn't. This package addresses threats that 
exist to our allies, and it is in our national security interest to 
meet the needs of those allies before it gets worse. Whether you want 
Iran to stop or not, they will not. Israel needs the weapons, and they 
need them now. Our friends in Ukraine, with the right set of weapons, 
can go back on the offensive, and if you don't stop Putin now, you will 
regret it later.
  This is one of the moments in history that really matters. I always 
wondered, How could the people in the thirties not get it about Hitler? 
Now I know. It is complicated. I have very good friends who are going 
to vote no. I have very good friends who do not see Putin in the same 
way I see him. I see him as a guy with ambitions that won't end in 
Ukraine and that he will get us into a bigger war if we don't stand up 
now. I believe him when he says the thing he says about taking more 
territory. I have friends who are strongly supportive of Israel but who 
are going to vote no.
  The bottom line is, Israel needs you now more than ever. The 
Ayatollah upped the ante by attacking Israel directly from Iranian 
soil. For God's sake, let's help Israel and help them now.
  There is a chance here to seize Russian assets to pay for the war to 
take the burden off the taxpayer. Let's vote yes.
  As for Taiwan, there is almost universal acknowledgment in this body 
that China will keep going until somebody stops them and that we want 
to deter war between Taiwan and China. In this package, we have vital 
military assistance to Taiwan to make it harder for the Chinese to 
attack and take it over by military force.
  Do you think the Chinese are watching what we do with Ukraine? If you 
don't think they are watching, you don't know much about China. They 
are sizing us up, and if we pull the plug on Ukraine, you are inviting 
more aggression from China to Taiwan. If we send a signal that we are 
not--if you vote no and we are not giving the package to Israel to 
replenish their defenses, it will make the Iranians more emboldened to 
keep going.
  This vote you are about to take is probably one of the most important 
votes we have had since I have been here. This is the defining moment 
in world history. The world is on fire. It all started with 
Afghanistan. Once we pulled out of Afghanistan, people thought we were 
weak, and they took advantage.
  Here is what I would say: If you agree with me, don't vote no; vote 
yes because a ``no'' vote, I think, continues that theme that America 
is unreliable. A ``no'' vote will make Russia believe that there is a 
growing sentiment in America that, if we just outlast Ukraine, we will 
not only get Ukraine, we will get more. A ``no'' vote emboldens the 
Ayatollah to think support for Israel is being diminished. A ``no'' 
vote to help Taiwan would encourage China, in my view, to be more 
aggressive.
  Now, how does this all end? Here is my fear: These are the Twin 
Towers. This is what happens when something over there gets out of 
hand, and we don't deal with it. This is what happens when you ignore 
the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, and you sit on the sidelines and 
think it doesn't matter to

[[Page S2983]]

you. This is what happens when a group of people take women in a soccer 
stadium and kill them for sport, thinking it won't bother us. The 18 to 
19 hijackers who were able to do this were able to do it because they 
had a safe haven in Afghanistan.
  We didn't get involved. We looked the other way, thinking it doesn't 
matter to us. We missed all the warning signs.
  Remember when they said the lights were blinking red before September 
11, 2001? Let me tell you what the FBI Director says: I have never seen 
so many blinking lights as I do now. Wherever I turn, I see threats. I 
have never seen a time in American history that I have been involved as 
FBI Director with this many threats all at once. Everywhere I look, I 
see blinking lights.
  The response to that is to help our allies, not turn away. How can 
you say we are under great threat, and we are not willing to provide 
aid to people who are on the tip of the spear?
  So this aid package coming back from the House is better than it was 
when it left the Senate. It has more for Israel. It has the ability to 
get Russian assets to help the American taxpayer and reconstruct 
Ukraine with Russian money, not American money or other money. It has a 
component in here to let the Ayatollah know we are not going to bend in 
Israel, and it reinforces Taiwan's military defense at a time when they 
are very vulnerable.
  This is a good package. It has a loan component, recognizing that we 
are in debt. It is not a perfect package. I wish it had border 
security. I was hoping it would, but it doesn't.
  Since we last had this discussion about what to do, Iran launched an 
attack on Israel--300 drones--and everything is really getting out of 
hand here.
  The Ukrainians are down to their last artillery shells. That can all 
change when we vote yes. They will get not only more artillery shells, 
they are going to get more advanced weapons. And we are going to go 
after Russian money. We are going to put Putin on his back foot.
  If you vote yes, it is a bad day for Putin; it is a bad day for the 
Ayatollah; and it is a wake-up call to China. If you vote no, you are 
going to encourage everybody I just talked about to do more.
  We are friends. I respect everybody in here, no matter how you vote. 
I just see this as clear as a bell.
  There were people in the 1930s, like Churchill and others, who saw 
Hitler for who he really was. And a lot of people didn't want to 
confront that because they were weary of the war they just fought 
called World War I. They wanted to believe that Hitler was just all 
talk. They didn't want to get in another war because millions of people 
had died. The last thing they wanted was another war. What they didn't 
realize is that Hitler wanted things they couldn't give them.
  We have been at war since September 11, 2001. We are in debt. We are 
all tired. The last thing we want is to keep it going.
  Well, let me tell you about our adversaries. They are not going to 
stop. It is wise for us to help people do the fighting so we don't have 
to, to have their backs at a time of great need because if we abandon 
them and say this doesn't matter to us, everything you saw happen in 
the 1930s is going to happen again.
  If Russia believes we can't stick with Ukraine, they are going to 
keep going. If the Ayatollah believed that American support for the 
Jewish State was deteriorating, he is going to up the ante.
  These college campus protests make me sick to my stomach. You have 
people on college campuses in this country supporting the terrorists, 
supporting Hamas. They are not supporting a better life for the 
Palestinian people; they are supporting the destruction of the Jewish 
people.
  Hamas doesn't want a better life for the Palestinians; they want to 
kill all the Jews.
  My good friend from Connecticut just walked in. His grandparents were 
involved in the Holocaust. I know where he is going to be.
  So what is going on in America is very similar to the 1930s but in 
many ways worse.
  To those who are out there protesting to stop aid to Israel: You are 
fools. You are progressive. Do you think Hamas is progressive? Do you 
think Hamas will tolerate a society that you have come accustomed to, 
where women can do whatever they want, people can live their lives? You 
are empowering people who are despicable. They are religious Nazis.
  You are dumb as dirt if you think abandoning Israel makes us safer 
and that Hamas gives a damn about the Palestinian people. They don't.
  I am urging a ``yes'' vote.
  I understand this is not a perfect package, but this is a really good 
package at an important time in world and American history. So I would 
urge a ``yes'' vote. And a ``no'' vote, in my view, makes it more 
likely we spend more money and Americans die who are not dying now.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I have such respect for the remarks of the 
gentleman who just completed his remarks. I know he feels very 
passionately. And I agree with him about what he said, especially about 
Israel and what they are going through.
  The attacks on October 7 were unspeakable horrors imposed on the 
people of Israel, and I want to come to their defense. I want to come 
to their defense so badly that I have joined my colleagues repeatedly 
to pass stand-alone $14 billion funding for Israel multiple times since 
October 7.
  By unanimous consent, we came to the floor multiple times and said: 
Let's send money to Israel. And who stopped it? The Democrats. The 
Democrats stopped money going to Israel.
  Now we are here with a package of bundled things so we can roll 
enough stuff together so that we can get passage of a piece of 
legislation that is highly imperfect.
  One of the main things that my constituents object to is that we are 
spending money for every country in this bill except our own. We will 
not defend our southern border. We will not spend money to protect our 
country from the invasion of terrorists and people whom we don't know, 
and we don't know why they are here.
  The number of people who are coming into this country whom we don't 
know, we don't know why they are here, we are not identifying them, and 
we are turning them loose in this country is a crazy way to then turn 
around and say: We are not going to protect our borders. Y'all come, 
but we are going to send $95 billion to other countries to protect 
their borders.
  That doesn't fly with my constituents.
  But, interestingly, that is not even my biggest concern about this 
bill. Regarding this bill, I filed an amendment to ensure the $95 
billion pricetag of this package is fully paid for by reducing the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act spending caps for fiscal year 2025 in both 
nondefense and defense areas.
  In other words, this is yet another thing we are doing that is not 
paid for. If we are that passionate about helping our friends in 
Ukraine, in Taiwan, in Israel, then let's pay for it.
  The American people are living paycheck to paycheck right now. They 
are going to the grocery store and paying twice as much for food, in 
some cases, than they were in 2020.
  The price of gas is up. The price of food is up. The price of rent is 
up. More people right now are living paycheck to paycheck in this 
country than were in 2020. They can't afford health insurance, and they 
are cutting back on important things in their diets and for their 
families.
  So we are going to let our people endure these kinds of insults that 
are brought on by us, and yet we want to send $95 billion to other 
countries that we are going to pay for with borrowed money?
  We are $34 trillion in debt. In 22 months during COVID, the U.S. 
Government printed 80 percent of all the money that has ever been 
printed in the entire history of the United States. In 22 months during 
COVID, we printed 80 percent of all the money that the United States 
has ever printed in its history.
  Now, when you print that much money and you put it in an economy, you 
get inflation. Why? Because you have too much money facing too few 
goods. That is kind of the definition of inflation.

[[Page S2984]]

  We got ourselves into this. Between the Federal Reserve and Treasury, 
that printed money, with nothing behind it except the full faith and 
credit of the United States--which is not nothing--but when they did, 
they put us in a position where this year, we are going to owe more 
interest on the national debt than our entire defense budget and our 
entire budget for Medicare. And last year, we already passed 
legislation spending more on interest than the entire budget for 
Medicaid. We are spending money on interest because we refuse to pay 
for the things we think are critical.
  I agree with the last gentleman who spoke. The world is in crisis, 
and I agree that we should help them. But we should pay for helping 
them, not run up debt, not put this burden on people in this country in 
the future.
  This is wrong, and I am voting no. If we vote no, this bill is not 
the end of it. How many bills have we dealt with since October 7 
dealing with funding for Ukraine or Taiwan or Israel or some 
combination of them?
  Both parties have people who want to help Ukraine, Israel, and 
Taiwan. We understand the world risks that are posed by China if we sit 
on our hands, the risks that are posed by Russia if we sit on our hands 
and Iran and North Korea, and we are not going to sit on our hands. We 
are going to pass a bill. We are going to fund these things. But since 
we know we are going to do it, why don't we do it right? Why don't we 
pay for it?
  You know, if we had only passed a budget a few weeks ago that was at 
fiscal year 2019 levels--we actually collect enough revenue in this 
country to pay for that--we could have had a year where we balanced our 
budget.
  Now hearken back to 2019. Is there anything the government is doing 
now that they weren't doing in 2019 that is a total game changer in 
your life? I will bet the answer is no. So if we only would have gone 
back to the spending levels of 2019, I don't think it would have made a 
difference in anybody's lives, the way that they live their personal 
lives, and we would have balanced the budget. But we keep spending more 
and more money that is not paid for. Our national debt per citizen now 
exceeds $103,000. Debt per taxpayer is nearly $267,000.

  Since I became a Senator in 2021, our national debt has increased 
$7.8 trillion. When I first entered Congress in 2008, our national debt 
was just over $10 trillion--$10 trillion. Now we are at $34 trillion. 
This is not sustainable. In just 15 years, our national debt has more 
than tripled. Our debt is the greatest threat our country faces today--
not China, not Russia.
  The American people will continue to shoulder the burden of our 
unhinged spending. When we have changing priorities, we should be doing 
what we do in our own personal lives. If something is more important to 
me than something else, I don't do this; I do the thing that is more 
important to me.
  We never have those discussions here. In fact, the way our committees 
work, they never talk to each other. The people on the committee that 
crafts the budget don't talk to the people who are spending the money. 
They don't talk to the committee that is collecting the taxes. Once the 
budget is set, the appropriators go to work. Are they talking to the 
committee that collects the taxes and oversees our Tax Code? No. They 
don't talk to each other. In fact, they are completely divorced of each 
other.
  If you look at the charts around here that are spread around the 
Senate, it will show you how much we are spending on discretionary 
spending and mandatory spending and defense and nondefense, but where 
does it ever compare it to the revenues we are taking in? We don't talk 
to each other about it. We are $34 trillion in debt, and, by golly, we 
ought to start talking about it.
  Now, in the last few weeks, we turned the Constitution on its head. 
The U.S. House sent over impeachment articles that they had worked hard 
on. Now, whether or not you thought that Alejandro Mayorkas was guilty 
of the crimes that were asserted and whether or not you felt that you 
would vote to impeach him doesn't matter. The Constitution set up a 
process where the House impeaches and the Senate sits as the jury.
  For the first time in our history, we didn't have a trial. We didn't 
get a chance to say he is guilty or he is not guilty. And given the 
partisan politics of the day, we would have found him not guilty--you 
know. But people in this body didn't want to hear the evidence against 
him. People in this body don't want to know how many terrorists are 
coming across our border, how many people are coming across the border 
and we don't know whether they came from a Venezuelan prison. So the 
motion was tabled, and then we dismissed it. We pushed it under the 
rug.
  Now, the same week, we had a bill come over from the House on section 
702 of FISA. We were told that it was just an extension of the expiring 
provisions of section 702. It wasn't. It expanded 702. It expanded the 
opportunity for the government to tell communications providers: You 
will give us this information without a warrant. They expanded the 
warrantless searches in that bill. The Fourth Amendment was under 
attack, and there again, we just swept it under the rug.
  Now we are passing a bill to spend $95 billion that is unpaid for.
  You know, we have good reasons for making the decisions we do around 
here. My colleague Senator Graham just voiced very articulately why we 
should help Ukraine, why we should help Israel, why we should help 
Taiwan, that our enemies are watching. Well, let's fix this bill and 
make it better and then pass it. But we are not allowed to do that. We 
are not allowed to have a debate. We are not allowed to have 
amendments. We are not allowed to make it better. We have one choice: 
yes or no.
  If you vote no, by golly, you must be an isolationist. Well, I am 
voting no. I am not an isolationist. I have previously voted many times 
to help Israel. I have helped bring motions to fund Israel specifically 
to the floor of this Senate as a stand-alone bill, and the Democrats 
shot us down. And the Democrats shot us down from having a trial that 
was required by the Constitution.
  Further, we didn't get to amend the bill that came to us regarding 
section 702 of FISA. Now, that debate was bipartisan. There were a lot 
of Democrats and Republicans who wanted to join together and fix that 
bill, and the people who encouraged us to vote for that bill knew it 
was faulty. They knew it was faulty. They knew that language was too 
broad. They knew we should fix it.
  They said: You know what, let's pass it now because the time is about 
to expire. It is 11:30 p.m. FISA 702 expires in half an hour, and we 
don't have time to fix it.
  Yet we sat on our hands and fiddled around the whole day. We could 
have fixed that, but the proponents--on both sides of the aisle, by the 
way--said: No, no. Let's fix it later. We need to get this passed now. 
It is important to get it done before the clock expires, but we will 
work on it maybe when we get to the NDAA.
  We put off the big decisions. We are trying to get things done, but 
we don't care if they are right. Let's just sweep this one under the 
rug. Let's let this one pass today and deal with it another time.
  That is what we are doing with this bill. We are saying: Yeah, let's 
help Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan. We are not going to pay for it. 
Let's worry about that later.
  But the American people expect more of us, and we should demand more 
of ourselves. What we are doing here is wrong. We have been wrong year 
after year by ignoring this debt.
  You know, I rarely come to the floor and make this argument, 
especially when people want to go home. I mean, this is a week we were 
supposed to be out of session. We were supposed to be getting a week 
off, and it would have been richly deserved because what happened here 
last week had a lot of people ready for a cooling-off period. But we 
don't get a cooling-off period because it was decided by the leadership 
that we need to march forward with this. We can't amend it because then 
we would have to send it back to the House, and the House isn't in 
session.

  You know, this is not the way this institution was designed to 
function. We shouldn't ram things down each other's throats. We 
shouldn't use the calendar as a weapon to force people to vote for 
things that could be fixed, that could be better.

[[Page S2985]]

  I would like to vote for this bill, but I am not voting for something 
that is not paid for.
  In 2008, after the financial crisis, we printed $3 trillion basically 
to bail out the banks, and we got addicted to easy money--to 
quantitative easing, it is called. Then, when COVID came around, we 
printed $5 trillion more. We are so addicted to easy money, to money 
where we just turn on the printing press and keep it going 24/7, that 
we are causing inflation and we are making it worse.
  Last week, the International Monetary Fund said the United States 
faces ``significant risks'' from ``loose fiscal policy'' stemming from 
``fundamental imbalances between spending and revenues.'' It is sad 
that the IMF has to point that out to us.
  Additionally, Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell remarked recently 
that ``the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path'' and that 
``effectively, we are borrowing from future generations.'' These are 
quotes from the Chairman of the Fed.
  I have been working on bipartisan legislation since I was elected to 
the Senate to address our addiction to spending. I introduced the 
bipartisan, bicameral Sustainable Budget Act in 2021 and 2023 to 
establish a fiscal Commission. There are so many proposals outside of 
that that we could address.
  We ought to be listening to our fellow Senator Bill Cassidy, who is 
coming up with some great ideas that we can sustain and reform and 
nurture and keep the solvency of Social Security. Social Security is 
going to go broke in 2034. We are down to 10 years. The law says that 
when Social Security is drained of its excess funds, by law, the amount 
of money that comes in and is collected each year is the amount that 
can go out. We can't subsidize it in another way. If that happened, 70 
million Americans would see their Social Security benefits cut by a 
quarter.
  The highway trust fund goes broke in about 2028. We haven't fixed 
that. We are not talking about fixing that. Yet we know that EVs--
electric vehicles--don't pay fuel taxes, and the more EVs that are on 
the road, the less money we collect to maintain our roads. Our highway 
trust fund is going broke. It is going to be insolvent in about 4 
years. We are not talking about fixing that.
  Let's look at Medicare Part A. That is hospitalization. It goes 
insolvent in the 2030s. We are not talking about that.
  We are talking about spending $95 billion more today so we can pat 
our chests and say we did something great for our colleagues around the 
world. In fact, we are doing something great for them, but we are doing 
something that is extremely harmful to ourselves because we will not 
address our own unsustainable fiscal path.
  You know, I sit in my office and listen to my colleagues, and there 
are so many really worthy arguments, brilliant arguments, articulate 
people in this body. And I rarely come to the floor and have these 
conversations because I feel: I know this bill is going to pass 
tonight. I am going to vote no. The vast majority of people are voting 
yes. Nobody cares that we are spending this much money and it is unpaid 
for.
  I am tired. I woke up at 2 a.m. in Wyoming this morning to try to get 
back here for these votes. I am tired. A lot of people want to go home 
tomorrow. A lot of people wish this debate was not occurring because 
the vote is a foregone conclusion. But, you know, I have been here now 
for 3\1/2\ years, and I have watched all of this happen, all this 
spending that we never pay for--we never pay for it. We don't talk 
about it. We pretend it is not a problem. We hear it is unsustainable. 
We hope the Nation doesn't go broke while we are here. Maybe people who 
are sitting in our chairs can deal with it when we are gone, but we are 
leaving them an unsustainable fiscal path and a big mess.
  I would like to support this bill tonight. I would like to vote yes. 
But it is not paid for, and I will be voting no.
  I encourage my colleagues to want to do better. We can do better. We 
can improve these bills. But we have to be allowed to amend them. We 
have to have these conversations before the tree is filled, as we say 
in the Senate, before amendment opportunities are lost.
  This process is designed to cram the product down the throats of U.S. 
Senators and their constituents, without debate, meaning without the 
opportunity to amend and debate the amendments.
  I know we can do better because I know the people in this room. There 
are so many smart, thoughtful, patriotic, caring Senators on both sides 
of the aisle. I know we can do better. But we have to want to.
  We have to want to deal with the elephant in the room. The elephant 
in the room is that we are $34 trillion in debt, and we will not talk 
about it. We will not address it. We will not try to fix it.
  Every time, in the last year, that we have been talking about Ukraine 
funding, I have said: Let's go get our money that we have at the IMF 
and lend it, interest-free, for, heck, 30 years to Ukraine.
  Nobody wants to talk about that. I don't know why. We just want to 
use taxpayer dollars to pay for things--taxpayer dollars, meaning 
printed money down at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. Just churn 
those printing presses, send money out the door, and export to other 
countries our inflation.
  Other countries use our dollar because we are the world's reserve 
currency and because they are trying to do business with us and among 
other countries, in some common language, some common fiat currency, 
and the common fiat currency of the world is the U.S. dollar. Well, the 
more we print it and send out monopoly money, the more we export to 
other countries our inflation.
  Every Senator in this room makes $174,000 a year. That is our salary. 
By the way, our salary is the exact same as it was when I arrived in 
Congress in 2009. Congressional salaries have been frozen since 2009. 
So $174,000 then is worth $122,000 today. That is how much inflation 
has eroded the paychecks of every Member of Congress. Yet we think we 
can live with frozen salaries since 2009. Why can't other people live 
with frozen dollars in Federal Agencies?
  Do you know that our Federal Government is bigger than China's? This 
place has got to do some homework about its own spending, about its own 
fiscal situation, about what we are doing to the value of our dollar, 
about how we are threatening the dollar as the world's reserve currency 
because we are not nurturing and caring for and being good stewards of 
the U.S. fiat currency. It is time to face reality.
  So this isn't the first time nor is it the last time that I will be 
discussing this on the floor of the Senate. And I wish that we could 
work together to have a more perfect Union. I know my colleagues and I 
can do it, but we have got to have the will, the gumption, the moral 
integrity, the virtue, the faith, and the freedom to do it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Unanimous Consent Requests

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it wasn't too long ago when Republicans made 
a promise to ourselves and to the American people that before we sent 
another dollar, another dime, another nickel, another penny to Ukraine, 
we would ensure that our own house was in order, that our own country 
was secure, that our own border was secure, that we would pass a real 
border security measure. And yet here we are, months later, preparing 
to dispatch nearly $100 billion. If you say it slowly, you sound a 
little bit like Dr. Evil in the original Austin Powers movie--$100 
billion to foreign countries while the security of our own homeland 
languishes.
  House Republicans have broken their promise and at least a critical 
mass of them, under the direction of House Republican leadership, have 
betrayed the American people because they have gone back completely on 
what they--what we--promised.
  Tonight, we are seeing the same movie played out on the Senate floor. 
This occurs at a time when about 60 percent of Americans live paycheck 
to paycheck, and yet Congress continues to add to a national debt that 
is about

[[Page S2986]]

to blow past the $35 trillion mark. How can we justify this to the 
American people as a Congress?
  Are we really more concerned with the borders of a foreign country--
Ukraine--and with foreign wars around the world than we are with the 
safety and the security of the United States and its citizens?
  This bill tells the American people that the answer to that question 
is an unambiguous resounding ``yes.'' Congress cares more about sending 
billions to wage endless war in foreign countries, cares more about 
this than saving our own country, especially at a time when we are 
being invaded. We have seen an invasion of between 8 and 13 million 
people over the last few years alone. That is a big deal.
  We are forgetting the wise caution left to us by our first President, 
the Father of our Country, George Washington, who warned against 
entangling our peace and our prosperity with the affairs of other 
nations. He said:

       Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of 
     Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of 
     European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

  It seems no price is too high, no weapon system is off limits. Our 
only strategy appears to be ``spend, spend, spend, and then spend some 
more,'' with little to no thought given to the consequences. It is the 
continuation of a lackluster approach to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, 
devoid of coherent strategy, while allocating the vast majority of its 
funding to Europe and the Middle East, neglecting, of course, the 
looming threats from China and the warnings from great national policy 
experts, like Elbridge Colby, who warn us, time and time again, that 
the same weapons that we are depleting, sending to other parts of the 
world, sending to Ukraine, are those that are in such dire need in 
Taiwan and elsewhere.
  The $13 billion in military aid to Israel is juxtaposed with the up 
to $9.1 billion in civilian aid going to Hamas. Now, some would say: 
You mean Gaza. And I say: No, I mean Hamas.
  You cannot send this aid. Even if it is labeled as humanitarian or 
for some other noble-sounding purpose, if you send it to Gaza, it is 
aid to Hamas--Hamas terrorists. These are the same terrorists who 
massacred, who butchered, who savagely mutilated innocent men, women, 
and children in Israel just a few months ago in October. The architects 
of this bill undermine their own goal to secure stability and peace in 
the region.
  So I have come to the floor in an attempt to soften the blow to the 
American people. To that end, I would like to call up Lee amendment No. 
1902 for consideration. My amendment would require Ukraine to repay the 
money loaned to it and that the funds repaid be used to secure our 
border. If Congress is so determined to send taxpayer money abroad, 
then the repayment of this loan should not be waivable and must be used 
to secure our border.
  It is sad that shoring up our border and protecting our own citizens 
has to come at the mercy of our debtors. But that is what this 
administration thinks of everyday Americans--that they don't deserve 
protection.
  We should be voting on H.R. 2, and we should be doing that today. We 
should be addressing the crisis at the border. Instead, we are focused 
on sending money to secure Ukraine's border, not our own.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and 
motions in order to call up my motion to concur with amendment No. 
1902.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEE. If the objection is that my proposal is somehow not germane, 
then I will offer up another amendment. I want to bring up Lee 
amendment No. 1857 for consideration. It would ensure that the 
repayment of the loan Congress seems so determined to give Ukraine is 
exclusively used to pay down the U.S. national debt.
  This bill demands the American people dig deeper into their pockets, 
funding the salaries and pensions of Ukrainian officials as 
humanitarian efforts under the guise of a loan. The unsettling truth is 
that this loan can and almost certainly will be waived, possibly 
leaving Americans without any reimbursement. I think that is part of 
the plan, in fact. It makes it easier to swallow. It makes it look like 
something less than what it is.
  My amendment addresses this concern by prohibiting any cancellation 
of a debt owed by Ukraine and making sure repayments go directly to the 
U.S. national debt.
  By presenting this amendment, I aim to offer the American people the 
financial security and oversight this bill currently lacks, 
deliberately so, effectively serving as an insurance policy against 
irresponsible fiscal gambles half a world away.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and 
motions in order to call up my motion to concur with amendment No. 
1857.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEE. Next, I am going to call up, in a moment, Lee amendment No. 
1882 for consideration. If we are genuinely concerned about security, 
let's just start by securing our own citizens' personal information, 
securing it from foreign adversaries. My amendment would prohibit the 
sale, transfer, or sharing of American personal data to governments 
like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran without explicit consent from 
the individual.
  For weeks, proponents of the House-passed bill to force the sale of 
TikTok--legislation included in the package we are debating--have told 
us this legislation is vital to protecting the security of Americans' 
data.
  The reality, however, is far more complicated. Indeed, forcing the 
sale of TikTok through that legislation won't, itself, secure the data 
of users. Instead, it will simply allow another company to purchase 
TikTok and do with their users' data what they may.
  Only by changing the underlying law and preventing companies from 
handing over Americans' information to our adversaries can Congress 
secure the personal information of every American. My amendment aims to 
do just that rather than engage in a regulatory game of Whac-A-Mole, 
whereby we allow ourselves to be distracted by whatever company happens 
to be making headlines at the moment. My amendment would implement a 
comprehensive prohibition on any individual or company operating in the 
United States from selling, transferring, or sharing the data of an 
American citizen to the government of a foreign adversary without that 
individual's express consent.
  This is a serious solution to a serious problem. No company should 
profit by exposing the personal information of an American citizen to a 
hostile foreign power, whether that company is owned by a foreign 
national or by an American citizen.
  To that end, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending 
amendments and motions in order to call up my motion to concur with 
amendment No. 1882.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
  Mr. LEE. This really is too bad. These are some really good 
amendments. Apparently, we are not allowed to have those. We are just 
allowed to sing off of whatever hymnal they happen to hand us that has 
been preblessed by the law firm of Schumer, McConnell, Johnson, and 
Jeffries. That is unfortunate.
  Next, I want to call up Lee amendment No. 1860 for consideration, 
which proposes to strike all emergency spending designations from the 
bill. We cannot continue to spend under the guise of an emergency, 
especially when an actual emergency--a real-life, present-tense, 
presently located emergency--involving the security of our own Nation's 
national border is not even being addressed in this bill. It is not 
just that it is not being resolved. It is not even being addressed at 
all.
  This irresponsible practice has led to a ballooning national debt now 
nearing $35 trillion. It will soon blow past that. If this spending is 
necessary, it should be subject to the same budgetary constraints as 
all other government expenditures. This bill spends almost $100 
billion--$100 billion we don't have--on

[[Page S2987]]

top of the more than $100 billion Congress has already appropriated for 
the war in Ukraine over the last 2 years--in excess of $113 billion, if 
I am not mistaken. It will spend more money on interest payments on our 
national debt this year than on all base defense spending. And, within 
a year, I believe, we are likely to be spending well over $1 trillion a 
year just in interest on the debt.
  If Congress believes it is worth spending $100 billion we don't have, 
Congress should be making sure that sum of money will be fully offset 
or subject to appropriate budgetary enforcement.
  My amendment would strike the emergency designations of this bill to 
subject this additional spending to the annual caps Congress agreed to 
last year, while simultaneously predicting the bill's budgetary effects 
from escaping proper enforcement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending 
amendments and motions in order to call up my motion to concur with 
amendment No. 1860.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is profoundly distressing--disappointing, 
to say the least--that these commonsense amendments have been so 
cavalierly objected to and have been met only with one-word objections.
  Although my amendment to strike the emergency designations--all of 
them drew an objection--pursuant to section 314(e) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I intend to raise a point of order against these 
same emergency designations for international disaster assistance and 
migration and refugee assistance for Gaza.
  We are, in the end, going to have to acknowledge that we are at a 
critical juncture, compelled to reevaluate our priorities as a nation 
and our responsibilities to the American people. Every decision we make 
must be weighed against the best interests of those we are sworn to 
serve, not those people abroad but those who are right here at home.
  Waving the flag of another nation in Congress as you vote to send 
them tens of billions of dollars doesn't inspire confidence; it creates 
distrust.
  As legislators, we fail in our duty if we don't heed the call to 
prioritize the American people first.
  So to all out there who find this distressing--the distressed 
Americans, the distressed carpenters, the distressed plumbers, the 
distressed poets--I am sorry that we weren't able and willing to secure 
the border. We should have been able to do that. We made a promise, and 
we as Republicans shouldn't have deviated from that promise--certainly 
not with the critical mass necessary to facilitate passage of this in 
the House and then, before the night is finished, likely the Senate; 
certainly not under the leadership of our own elected Republican 
leaders, who themselves have repeated this promise not too many weeks 
ago--a promise that is now apparently a thing of the past that we are 
supposed to forget.
  This $95 billion aid package to foreign countries is a stark 
testament of the misguided priorities of our current congressional 
leadership and a clear indication that we have let ourselves and, 
perhaps more critically, the American people down. The situation 
demands a wake-up call.
  To every Member of this body, by failing to address the fundamental 
needs of our own people, the American people, in favor of international 
interests, we risk not only the prosperity but also the security of our 
Nation.
  And make no mistake, this isn't free, although it can feel free to 
those of us who work in this hallowed Chamber. It can feel free to us. 
It can feel as if we draw from an endless, unlimited well, but we 
don't.
  As we have seen to an acute degree over the last few years, every 
time we spend more money than we have, that comes at a cost. Sure, we 
borrow the money, and sure, the credit of the United States is still 
just good enough that it can feel like we have the capacity to just 
print our own money, which is essentially what we are doing. But every 
time we do that, every dollar earned by every hard-working American--
every mom and dad, married or single, in this country, just trying to 
put food on their table for their kid, suffers, as they are having to 
shell out an additional $1,000 a month every single month just to live, 
just to put a roof over their head and keep food on the table.
  I agree with the assessment of Nobel laureate and famed economist 
Milton Friedman, who said that in any given moment, the true level of 
taxation in America can best be measured not by the top marginal tax 
rate or even the average effective tax rate but, instead, by the 
overall level of government spending.
  This, he explained--perhaps referring to an odd combination of credit 
rating, the way our deficit spending works--in effect, every year when 
we look at overall government spending, especially Federal spending, 
that is the true cost of the Federal Government because what we don't 
collect in taxes, we effectively print and thereby devalue every dollar 
that is earned by every American by degrees. Unlike other expenses that 
people have--the monthly bills they receive or the annual tax return 
they file--there is no billing moment attached to this, there is no 
pricetag. You don't ever see the overall amount that you are spending 
on this, as you do at least once a year when you file your Federal 
income tax return. No. It is very different with inflation. Each dollar 
is diminished bit by bit.
  The Federal Government is costly, and when it sends money abroad that 
we don't have to fund somebody else in fighting a war against somebody 
else, that costs money.
  Another thing we learn about these proxy wars is that in the United 
States of America, which has assembled the greatest military force the 
world has ever known--certainly the strongest military force that 
exists today--proxy wars carry on for going on 2-plus years now. We are 
in our third year of this effort. They don't remain proxy wars forever.
  It becomes especially startling when the proxy war is being fought 
against a nuclear-armed adversary. That is not to say we can never push 
back against any nuclear-armed adversary, but it does mean we should be 
darn careful when we do that. We should know exactly what our objective 
is, what it is going to take to secure the peace so that we don't have 
to fight that war.
  We don't avoid the profound risk to our own national security simply 
by funneling money through a proxy, whether that proxy is a great 
steward of the funds, weapons, and resources that we send or not. 
Whether that country happens to be one that has proven impervious to 
fraud, corruption, money laundering, and grift or not, we should be 
concerned about what happens to that money because it is ours and 
because how it is spent is going to have a very direct, very real 
potential outcome on the American people.
  We cannot pretend anymore that we have the money to do this, that the 
economic cost is free, or that the military risk is free. None of them 
are.
  Shame on us if we don't turn this around. Shame on us if we pass this 
tonight. Shame on us if we do this without taking any steps to secure 
the integrity of our own border.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, here is the good news: A few weeks ago, 
the approval rating for Congress was 10 percent. It has gone up to 14 
percent. According to a recent YouGov poll, 14 percent approve of what 
Congress is doing and 68 percent oppose.
  And I would tell my friends on both sides that it is about equal. In 
terms of whom people want to elect, it is about half Democrats, half 
Republicans. Why is that? Why do we have a 14-percent approval rating? 
Well, it might have something to do with things like we are witnessing 
today and the degree to which the Congress is completely out of touch 
with where the American people are.

[[Page S2988]]

  So let me read some other polls, not on favorability but on people's 
feelings toward the role the United States is now playing in the war in 
Gaza. April 10, Economist YouGov poll, 37 percent support decreasing 
military aid to Israel; 18 percent support an increase.
  And to my Democratic colleagues, I would say 48 percent of Democrats 
support decreasing aid; 10 percent support increasing aid.
  Then there is a March 29 poll from Axios-Ipsos-Telemundo poll of 
Latinos--Latino people: 16 percent of Latinos said the United States 
should continue to support Israel with arms and funds; 39 percent said 
the U.S. should not be involved in the conflict.
  March 27 Gallup poll: 36 percent of Americans approve of Israel's 
military action; 55 percent disapprove. Among Democrats, 18 percent 
approve; 75 percent disapprove.
  March 27 Quinnippiac poll: Overall, voters oppose sending more 
military aid to Israel by 52 percent to 39 percent--52 percent oppose 
more aid; 39 percent support more aid--Democrats, 63 percent oppose 
sending more military aid; 25 percent support it.
  March 11, YouGov: 52 percent of Americans said the United States 
should hold weapons shipments to Israel until it stops attacks in Gaza.
  So you got a whole bunch of polls. They differ a little bit, but they 
say, pretty overwhelmingly, that the American people do not want to 
give more military aid to the Netanyahu war machine to continue its 
horrendous destructive policies in Gaza. That is what the American 
people are saying.
  Earlier today, I tried to bring up two amendments dealing with the 
crisis in Gaza. One of them basically said that the United States 
should not support--should not supply any more offensive--offensive--
military aid to the Netanyahu government. I support defensive 
measures--the Iron Dome. The Israeli people have a right not to be 
attacked with missiles and drones. That amendment not only--that 
amendment could not even get a vote. That is the U.S. Senate today. 
People overwhelmingly are in opposition to more U.S. aid. We can't even 
discuss this issue and have a vote.
  Why are the American people as opposed as they are to more aid for 
the military in Israel? Well, among other things, it may have something 
to do with what some of the Israeli leaders are saying and, in fact, 
who they are. And I think the American people are catching on that what 
we have today in Israel is not the Israel of Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin. 
It is a government now significantly controlled not only by rightwing 
extremists but by religious zealots.
  Today, what we are seeing is a situation where Netanyahu himself has 
never favored a two-state solution, and he has made that very clear and 
has worked to systematically undermine the prospects for a deal. And I 
might mention that a two-state solution is the policy of the U.S. 
Government. His party's--Netanyahu's party's--founding charter 
reinforced in the current coalition agreement says ``between the Sea 
and the Jordan [River] there will only be Israeli sovereignty.'' For 
many years before October 7, Netanyahu told his allies, in private, 
that it was important to bolster Hamas to ensure that the Palestinians 
could never unify and form their own government.
  In January, in terms of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Netanyahu 
said:

       We provide minimal humanitarian aid. If we want to achieve 
     our war goals, we give the minimal aid.

  The rest of the government or many others in that government is 
similarly extreme. At the start of the war, the Israeli Defense 
Minister declared a total siege, saying:

       We are fighting human animals, and we are acting 
     accordingly.
       There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything 
     is closed.

  Another minister, at the start of the war, posted a picture of a 
devastated area in Gaza, saying it was ``more beautiful than ever, 
bombing and flattening everything.''
  Another Israeli lawmaker said:

       [T]he Gaza Strip should be flattened, and there should be 
     one sentence for everybody there--death. We have to wipe the 
     Gaza Strip off the map. There are no innocents there.

  Several officials have openly talked about reestablishing Israeli 
settlements in Gaza. The current Intelligence Minister, among others, 
openly talks of permanently displacing Palestinians from Gaza.
  Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who oversees the 
police, has long advocated for the forceful expulsion of Palestinians 
from the region. This is the current Israeli National Security 
Minister.
  Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, responsible for much of the 
occupied West Bank has, likewise, long expressed the extreme racist 
views and has called for the expulsion of Palestinians from their 
lands. He has called for segregated hospital wards for Jews and Arabs 
because ``Arabs are my enemies.'' As a younger man, he was arrested by 
the Israeli authorities on suspicion of anti-Palestinian terrorism.
  That is the man who is the current Israeli Finance Minister.
  This is a significant part of Netanyahu's government. Those are some 
of the people whose war we are subsidizing.
  We can pretend to ignore all of this. We can pretend that today's 
Israel is the Israel of 20 or 30 years ago, but that is just not the 
case. And the reason I raise these issues and talk about some of the 
people in the Israeli Government is to understand that what is 
happening today in Gaza is not an accident. It is a bringing forth the 
doing of what many of these people have wanted to do for a long time.

  It should come as no surprise that this extreme government in Israel, 
right now, is not simply waging a war against Hamas--and Israel has the 
right to defend itself from the terrorist organization of Hamas--but it 
is at war with the entire Palestinian people and fighting that war in a 
deeply reckless and immoral way. And that is why the Netanyahu 
government has consistently ignored President Biden's request that they 
do more to minimize civilian casualties, that they be more targeted in 
their approach, and that they let more humanitarian aid in.
  And so given the attitude and the beliefs--the racist beliefs of a 
number of people in the Netanyahu government, let us take a look and 
see what is happening today in Gaza.
  We all know that Hamas, a terrorist organization, began this war with 
a horrific attack on Israel that killed 1,200 men, women, and children 
and took more than 230 captives, some of whom are still in captivity 
today. And as I have said many times and repeated a moment ago, Israel 
has the right to defend itself; but it does not have the right to go to 
war against the entire Palestinian people, including women and 
children.
  Let's take a deep breath and listen to some of these facts--and no 
one disputes these facts. The war is about 6\1/2\ months old. More than 
34,000 Palestinians have been killed, and 77,000 have been wounded--70 
percent of whom are women and children. That is 70 percent of whom are 
women and children. That means that 5 percent, 5 percent of the 2.2 
million people in Gaza have been killed or wounded in a 6\1/2\-month 
period. That is an astronomical figure--astronomical. The number of 
people getting wounded--70 percent are women and children--is almost 
beyond comprehension.
  Mr. President, 19,000 children are now orphans in Gaza--19,000--
having lost their parents in this war. And when you think about the 
children in Gaza, literally, it is hard to imagine.
  Imagine a 7-year-old in an area where the whole community has been 
flattened, where there is massive death, where there is no food, there 
is no water, no schools. Your parents may or may not be alive. Your 
relatives are dead. That is what the children in Gaza are going through 
right now, and I doubt that any of them will ever fully recover from 
the psychic trauma--the terrible, unbelievable trauma that they are 
experiencing at this moment.
  And the killing has not stopped. Over the weekend, 139 Palestinians 
were killed and 251 were injured. Of these, 29 were killed in and 
around Rafah, including 20 children and 6 women, one of whom was 
pregnant.
  Just today, more news emerged about mass graves found by Palestinian 
health authorities and U.N. observers at the Nasser Hospital in Khan 
Younis and the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. So far, more than 300 
bodies have been found. The U.N. Human Rights Office reports that the 
dead include elderly people, women, and wounded people, and that some 
had

[[Page S2989]]

been bound and stripped of their clothes. Some of these bodies 
apparently had their hands tied, the U.N. said.
  What can we say about this horror? Roughly 1.7 million people--and it 
is, again, hard to understand. Maybe think--Members of Congress, think 
about your own State and what this would mean and look like in your own 
States. We are dealing with a population of 2.2 million people which is 
about 3\1/2\ times the size of the State of Vermont.
  Roughly 1.7 million people--over 75 percent of the population--have 
been driven from their homes. It is not a community which has been 
forced to evacuate in order for a military action to take place. This 
is three-quarters of the population driven from their homes.
  Satellite data shows that 62 percent of the homes in Gaza have been 
damaged or destroyed, including 221,000 housing units that have been 
completely destroyed.
  A number of months ago in Vermont, we had a terrible flood, and 
dozens of houses were destroyed. And I saw the impact of what the 
destruction of dozens of houses in my small State meant. We are talking 
about 221,000 housing units that have been completely destroyed.
  But it is not just housing. Gaza's civilian infrastructure has been 
devastated. There is little or no electricity apart from generators or 
solar power. Most of the roads are badly damaged. More than half of the 
water and sanitation systems are out of commission. Clean water is 
severely limited, and sewage--raw sewage--is running through the 
streets, creating disease. But it is not just housing and civilian 
infrastructure.
  And this is quite unbelievable, but there is a reason, I think, for 
all of this. None of this is happening by accident. Israel has 
systematically destroyed the healthcare system in Gaza. We are not 
talking about an occasional accidental bomb that destroys a medical 
unit or a hospital. Those things happen. What we are talking about is 
the reality that 26 out of 37 hospitals are completely out of service. 
They have been bombed and attacked in all kinds of ways. The 11 
hospitals that are remaining are partially functioning, but they are 
being overwhelmed by tens of thousands of trauma patients, and they are 
short on medical supplies.
  So you got 77,000 people who have been wounded, and you got almost 
all of the hospitals out of commission.
  I met recently with a group of American and British doctors who 
recently returned from Gaza where they had gone, bravely risking their 
own lives, to try to help alleviate the terrible suffering taking place 
there. And it is difficult to relate the unspeakable things they 
witnessed. They saw thousands of patients, many young children, killed 
or maimed in Israeli bombings. They operated on little children, 
already orphaned, on dirty hospital floors. On many days, they had no 
morphine; on other days, no water or clean gloves. They knew that many 
victims, even if they survived the week, would die of infection without 
access to sanitary environments or antibiotics.

  They reported that the Israelis would not allow them to bring in 
wheelchairs or syringes, claiming they might have some military use. 
They witnessed Israeli forces systematically cutting off electricity, 
food, and water to hospitals and abducting medical workers with no 
affiliation to Hamas. They reported that Israeli soldiers destroyed 
medical equipment, like MRIs, oxygen tanks, and CT scanners, for no 
apparent reason. These are American doctors who witnessed these things.
  Overall, 84 percent of health facilities have been damaged or 
destroyed, and more than 400 healthcare workers have been killed--an 
extraordinary number.
  But we are not just talking about housing being decimated. We are not 
just talking about physical infrastructure being decimated. We are not 
just talking about a healthcare system being decimated. Gaza is a young 
community. A lot of children live there, and their educational system 
has been destroyed. Fifty-six schools have been bombed and completely 
destroyed, and 219 have been damaged--schools. The last of Gaza's 
universities--I think they had 12 universities in Gaza, and the last 
one was demolished in January. Now, I am not quite sure how fighting 
Hamas has anything to do with destroying universities, but it does lead 
to the fact that some 625,000 students in Gaza have, today, no access 
to education.
  Just today, David Satterfield, the U.S. Special Envoy for the Gaza 
humanitarian crisis, said that the risk of famine throughout war-
devastated Gaza, especially in the north, is ``very high'' and that 
more aid must reach those areas.
  He said:

       We have always stressed that we were in a man-made 
     situation, and it can only be addressed by political will and 
     decisions.

  So, on top of the destruction of housing, infrastructure, healthcare, 
and education, we are now looking at mass starvation and malnutrition. 
The United Nations estimates that more than 1 million Palestinians, 
including hundreds of thousands of children, face starvation. Desperate 
Gazans have been scraping by for months, foraging for leaves or eating 
animal feed. At least 28 children have died of malnutrition and 
dehydration. That is a number that came out several weeks ago, and 
there is no reason to believe the real number is not much, much higher. 
USAID Administrator Samantha Power said that famine was already present 
in northern Gaza.
  Without food, clean water, sanitation, or sufficient healthcare, 
hundreds of thousands of people are at a severe risk of dehydration, 
infection, and easily preventable diseases. Yet, for months, thousands 
of trucks carrying lifesaving food, medicine, and other supplies have 
sat just miles away from starving children. Got that? I hope we all try 
to put that image in our minds: starving children over here and trucks 
loaded with food on the other side of the border that are unable to get 
through and kept from entering Gaza by Israeli restrictions in a brutal 
war fought with little regard for civilians.
  But let us be clear, and I think this is the main point I want to 
make this evening. This war stopped being about defending Israel and 
going to war against Hamas a long time ago. This is not any longer a 
war against the terrorist organization called Hamas. This is now a war 
that has everything to do with the destruction of the very fabric of 
Palestinian life. That is the goal of this war.
  It is impossible to look at these facts and not conclude that the 
Israeli Government's policy has been to make Gaza uninhabitable. That 
is what some of their government leaders have wanted, and that is, in 
fact, what is happening. These are not accidents of war--mistakes. This 
is calculated policy. Indeed, this is what has been going on 
systematically over the last 6 months. These cruel actions are entirely 
consistent with the public statements of numerous Israeli senior 
officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu himself.
  That brings us to the role of the United States in this horrific war. 
Put simply, we are deeply complicit in what is happening. This is not 
an Israeli war; this is an Israeli-American war. Most of the bombs and 
most of the military equipment the Israeli Government is using in Gaza 
is provided by the United States and subsidized by American taxpayers. 
The U.S. military is not dropping 2,000-pound bombs on civilian 
apartment buildings. The U.S. military is not doing that, but we are 
supplying those bombs. The United States of America is not blocking the 
borders and preventing food, water, and medical supplies from getting 
to desperate people. We are not doing that, but we have supplied 
billions of dollars to the Netanyahu government, which is doing just 
that.
  So this is not just an Israeli war; this is an American war as well. 
Yet, despite the massive financial and military support the United 
States has provided to Israel for many years, Netanyahu's extremist 
government has ignored urgent calls from the President and others to 
alter their military approach and to end this humanitarian disaster.
  In my view, the U.S. unconditional financial and military support for 
Israel must end. That is why I offered an amendment to this bill--to 
do, in fact, what a majority of the American people wants us to do, and 
that is to no longer provide military aid to the destructive Netanyahu 
government.

[[Page S2990]]

  I would have welcomed the chance to vote for the humanitarian aid 
provision in this bill. It is terribly important that we start feeding 
people not only in Gaza but in Sudan and all over the world. It is an 
important provision, and I support it. I believe very strongly we 
should support Ukraine and help them end--defeat--the imperialist 
ventures of Putin and the Russian army. But I am not going to be able 
to do that because I am going to stand with the American people today 
who oppose more money for Netanyahu.
  Let me conclude by simply saying this: What we are doing today is 
very bad policy. We are aiding and abetting the destruction of the 
Palestinian people. What we are doing today is not what the American 
people want, and I say to my Democratic friends, it is absolutely not. 
A lot of Republicans don't want us to continue that as well, but a 
strong majority of Democrats is saying: Enough with Netanyahu's war. 
You just can't give him another $10 billion for unfettered military 
aid.
  But I suppose, in a little while, as things happen here in Congress, 
we will ignore the needs of the American people; we will not pay 
attention to what they want. Then we are shocked--just shocked--that we 
have a 14-percent approval rating.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, as our Nation and our allies face a 
host of challenges across the globe, it is critical that we deploy the 
necessary resources to protect freedom, support democracy, and address 
humanitarian crises abroad. For Ukraine, especially, this assistance 
could not come at a more crucial time. While Putin continues to wage 
his war of aggression against the Ukrainian people and on democracy 
itself, Ukraine is running dangerously low on artillery and air defense 
munitions, as well as other vital supplies. This aid is critical not 
only to support the Ukrainian people in their fight against Putin, but 
also to defend freedom and democracy worldwide. Our allies and 
adversaries alike are watching closely to see if the United States and 
our partners will keep our promises to the people of Ukraine in their 
hour of need or whether we will retreat.
  In particular, we know that President Xi has one eye on the war in 
Ukraine and the other eye on Taiwan. As Taiwan prepares to inaugurate 
its newly elected President next month, the PRC has ratcheted up 
diplomatic and military pressure against Taipei. We have also recently 
seen increasingly provocative maneuvers by China's coast guard against 
the Philippines' vessels in the South China Sea. These actions 
underscore the need for increased security cooperation between the U.S. 
and our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific. That is why I am glad 
this bill provides additional funding for security assistance to our 
partners there.
  This bill also includes important provisions to protect our security 
here at home by investing more in the Nonprofit Security Grant 
Program--NSGP--which helps protect various community institutions that 
are at risk of hate crimes, including synagogues, mosques, and certain 
other houses of worship. The alarming rise of anti-Semitism, 
Islamophobia, and anti-Arab incidents since the October 7 attacks 
underscores the vital need for more resources to help protect our 
communities from bigotry and hate. As we confront these challenges 
across the country, I believe it is critical that all Americans feel 
safe in their houses of worship. This legislation makes that possible 
with investments to install essential security measures. Additionally, 
it boosts screenings and inspections at border points of entry to 
better protect American families from the threat posed by the deadly 
flow of fentanyl into our Nation, a drug that has caused pain and loss 
for far too many.
  In addition to these provisions, this legislation includes over $9 
billion in humanitarian aid that will reach people in desperate need 
around the world, from Gaza to Sudan and elsewhere. Last week, we 
marked the solemn anniversary of the start of the civil war in Sudan, 
where more than 25 million people currently need humanitarian 
assistance. This aid will also support innocent civilians in Gaza, 
where four out of five of the hungriest people anywhere in the world 
currently reside. I am glad to support this funding that will provide 
necessities like food, water, shelter, and medical care to the world's 
most vulnerable people. That being said, I am deeply disappointed that 
this bill prohibits any of the available funds from going to UNRWA, 
which provides vital services to Palestinian refugees in many countries 
and is the main humanitarian aid distribution entity in Gaza. According 
to USAID Administrator Samantha Power, famine is already occurring in 
Gaza. Amid such a crisis, it is unconscionable to cut off funding, 
without a mechanism to reinstate it, for the primary distributor of 
urgently needed aid to starving people. To rectify this, I put forward 
an amendment to provide a process to restore that funding following the 
ongoing investigation and appropriate remedial actions. While we did 
not have an opportunity to vote on that amendment, I will continue to 
seek to reverse the current ban--which Republicans demanded be included 
in the recent government funding bill--on U.S. funding for UNRWA 
through March 2025. I will also press the Biden administration to 
encourage other countries to continue to support UNRWA and use our 
support for international organizations in a way that advances that 
goal. The underlying bill does include substantial assistance that is 
desperately needed at this time in Gaza and around the world and is 
better than our alternative at this point--which is to provide nothing.
  Within this legislation, I also support the funding for defensive 
weapons systems, like the Iron Dome, to protect Israel from Hamas, the 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, and other threats in the region. 
The October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel was horrific; we must 
prevent any such future horrors and secure the release of all remaining 
hostages. I fully support Israel's right--indeed, its duty--to defend 
itself. But while this war is just, it must be fought justly. I do not 
support a blank check for offensive weapons for the Netanyahu 
government's current campaign in Gaza. I will continue to press for a 
cease-fire and the return of all the hostages but, in the meantime, we 
cannot turn a blind eye to what President Biden has described as 
``indiscriminate'' bombing or to the failure of the Netanyahu 
government to meet its obligations to facilitate, and not arbitrarily 
restrict, the delivery of assistance to address the humanitarian 
catastrophe in Gaza. Given these concerns, had this been an up or down 
vote strictly on military assistance for Israel, I would have insisted 
on amendments to ensure that no funds for offensive weapons would flow 
to the Netanyahu government until it cooperates fully in the delivery 
of humanitarian assistance to starving people in Gaza; agrees not to 
launch an invasion into Rafah, where over 1.3 million Palestinians were 
told to seek safety; and allows an independent investigation into the 
deaths of all humanitarian aid workers killed in Gaza. For now, I will 
continue to press the administration to pause any further transfers of 
offensive military aid until the Netanyahu government meets President 
Biden's demands and will use the congressional review process to 
reinforce that position. A partnership should not be a one-way street.
  I appreciate that President Biden issued National Security Memorandum 
20, based on the amendment that I, together with 18 of my colleagues, 
proposed when the supplemental was first considered in the Senate 
months ago. That amendment, and the ensuing NSM-20, are designed to 
better ensure that American taxpayer dollars are used in a manner 
consistent with our values and our interests. Specifically, NSM-20 
requires recipients of U.S. security assistance to use our support in 
accordance with international law and to facilitate the delivery of 
humanitarian assistance in conflict areas where they are using U.S.-
supplied weapons. It also requires the Biden administration to submit 
to Congress by May 8 a written report on whether recipients of U.S. 
security assistance have been complying with those obligations. The 
administration's report will be a test of whether they are willing to 
apply those standards to allies as well as adversaries and take any 
actions necessary to ensure accountability.
  This sweeping national security bill has many provisions that raise 
concerns, but on balance, it provides the resources that are vital to 
support the people of Ukraine and advance important American priorities 
around the

[[Page S2991]]

world. That is why, despite certain reservations, I support this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has been no easy task to get us to 
this point. The world has been watching; the clock has been ticking; 
but we are finally at the finish line.
  I am not just glad but relieved we are finally about to pass the bill 
from the House that, as many of us noted, includes every pillar of the 
package we passed overwhelmingly here in the Senate back in February, 
essentially identical in the funding that we are providing.
  I think it is fair to say, thanks to the bipartisanship and a shared 
commitment to doing what is best for America, the Senate has made its 
voice heard in this process.
  In particular, I want to, once again, thank my counterpart and vice 
chair, Senator Collins. We don't agree on everything, but we both had a 
real appreciation for the seriousness of this work and the importance 
of negotiating a bill that would pass both Chambers. As I have said, 
this package is not the product I would have written just by myself; it 
is the result of a difficult bipartisan process. Crafting this package 
has required serious, sober discussion, not partisanship, not political 
show.
  So thanks to Senator Collins, Leader Schumer, the minority leader, 
and many others, this legislation provides the resources necessary to 
make the world safer for America and its allies. We are delivering 
investments to address the challenges of today and investing in our 
strategy for the future. This package makes clear that Congress 
understands that the conflict in Ukraine is not disjointed from future 
aggression by the Chinese Communist Party.
  From the beginning I was clear: The challenges we face around the 
world are interconnected. We have to deliver a comprehensive package. 
Half steps cannot cut it. This package ensures that America keeps its 
word to all of our allies and stands by all of our commitments.
  Especially important to me: in passing this package, we do not lose 
sight of the human reality on the ground, the fact that in the middle 
of every conflict are civilians--people displaced from their homes, 
people facing obstacles getting basic medical services, and kids and 
families who desperately need food and water.
  I made certain at every step that this bill delivers badly needed 
humanitarian assistance for Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, and many other 
regions caught in conflict.
  So now we are at the finish line. Let's vote to stand by our allies, 
to say to dictators like Putin that they cannot invade sovereign 
democracies freely and unchecked and that America will not ignore the 
humanity and the cries for help from civilians who are caught in the 
middle of conflict and crossfire whom we must protect.
  Tonight, Moscow and Beijing are watching closely to see whether we 
have the vision to recognize how these crises are related and the 
resolve to come together and respond forcefully to them. Our 
adversaries are cheering for dysfunction. Let's show them unity 
instead. Let's show them the strength of democracy. Let's vote yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the pending measure, the House message to 
accompany H.R. 815, contains an emergency designation: on page 12, 
lines 3 through 6, and another emergency designation on page 12, lines 
12 through 15. I, therefore, raise a point of order pursuant to section 
314(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against both of these 
designations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                            Motion to Waive

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of 
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections 
of that act and applicable budget points of order for the purposes of 
the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Tuberville).
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

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

                                NAYS--20

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Johnson
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Vance

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cardin
     Hawley
     Paul
     Scott (SC)
     Tuberville
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). On this vote, the yeas are 75, 
the nays are 20.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. This has been an extremely important day in the 
history of our country and the free world. They are all watching, 
waiting to see what we would do.
  When Putin escalated his war against Ukraine, I told our colleagues 
that allies and adversaries, alike, would pay very close attention to 
America's response. When Iran-backed terrorists invaded the Jewish 
State on October 7 to slaughter innocent Israelis, I warned that the 
world would watch closely for signs that American leadership was 
actually weakening.
  For months, our friends have watched to see whether America still had 
the strength that won the Cold War or the resolve that has underpinned 
peace and prosperity, literally, for decades. Our enemies have tested 
whether the arsenal of democracy is, in fact, built to endure.
  Well, tonight, the Senate will send a clear message. History will 
record that, even if allies and partners have worried about the depth 
of our resolve; even as Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran grew more convinced 
that our influence had run its course; and even as loud voices here at 
home insisted on abandoning responsibilities of leadership, America 
stepped up and the Senate held firm.
  It is time to reaffirm some basic truths. Alliances matter. Foreign 
nations' respect for American interests depends on our willingness to 
defend them. And the peace, prosperity, and security are not accidents. 
They are products of American leadership and American sacrifice.
  The votes we are about to cast will be among the most consequential. 
But the difficult work of restoring and sustaining hard power, defense, 
industrial capacity, and global influence must continue beyond this 
supplemental.
  So I will just say to my colleagues: We can wish for a world where 
the responsibilities of leadership don't fall on

[[Page S2992]]

us or we can act like we understand that they do. Tonight, as in so 
many moments in our history, idle calls for America to lower its guard 
ring hollow. None of us is absolved of our duty to see the world as it 
actually is. None of us is excused from our obligation to equip the 
United States to face down those who wish us harm.
  I said it before: History settles every account. And I welcome the 
eyes of posterity on what the Senate does tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, finally, finally, finally, tonight, after 
more than 6 months of hard work and many twists and turns in the road, 
America sends a message to the entire world: We will not turn our back 
on you.
  Tonight, we tell our allies: We stand with you.
  We tell our adversaries: Don't mess with us.
  We tell the world: The United States will do everything to safeguard 
democracy and our way of life.
  This bill is one of the most consequential measures Congress has 
passed in years to protect America's security and the future--the very 
future--of Western democracy. And after overcoming a lot of opposition, 
tonight, Congress finishes the job.
  To our friends in Ukraine, to our friends in Israel, to our friends 
in the Indo-Pacific, and to innocent civilians caught in the midst of a 
war from Gaza to Sudan: America hears you. We will be there for you.
  And to the whole world, rest assured. Rest assured that America will 
never shrink from its responsibilities as a leader on the world stage.
  Tonight, we make Vladimir Putin regret the day he questioned American 
resolve.
  I thank President Biden for his unflinching leadership. I thank 
Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries for working together valiantly to 
pass this bill. I thank Chair Murray and Vice Chair Collins for their 
excellent work.
  And I particularly want to thank my caucus for standing firm. We were 
always united. You gave us strength to get this job done. I salute you.
  And, particularly, I want to thank Leader McConnell. We worked on 
this bill arm in arm, together, shoulder to shoulder. Without that kind 
of strong bipartisan leadership, this difficult bill would never have 
passed.
  We now come to the end of a long, difficult, and Herculean effort. 
Our allies around the world have been watching Congress for the last 6 
months and wondering the same thing: When it matters most, will America 
summon the strength to come together, overcome the centrifugal pull of 
partnership, and meet the magnitude of this moment? Tonight, under the 
watchful eye of history, the Senate answers this question with a 
thunderous and resounding yes.
  For a little more good news, for the information of Senators, the 
Senate will not be in session on Monday, April 29. The next rollcall 
vote will be at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 30.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be 
deemed expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion to 
concur with amendment No. 1842 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Motion to Concur

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to concur.
  Mr. PETERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), 
and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--18

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Budd
     Cruz
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Johnson
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Merkley
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Vance
     Welch

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Paul
     Scott (SC)
     Tuberville
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to concur in the House amendment to 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 815 is agreed to.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________