[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 115 (Thursday, July 11, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4529-S4533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR WOMEN ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The clerk will report the
pending business.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 420, S. 4554, a bill to
express support for protecting access to reproductive health
care after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on June 24, 2022.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Reproductive Freedom For Women Act
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday was a very sad day for women in
America. Yesterday, Senate Republicans blocked a bill that simply
expressed support for a woman's right to choose. That is it; no more,
no less.
Supporting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions
should have been one of the easiest ``yes'' votes we have taken all
year. By voting no, Republicans told every woman in America: ``Your
body, our choice.''
Republicans are saying ``We don't care'' to all the women who live in
States where reproductive rights are almost gone, from Texas to
Florida, to Alabama, and beyond.
This is the terrible legacy of the Senate Republicans and the Trump
administration: They cleared the way for the Supreme Court to overturn
Roe.
Years ago, Donald Trump himself said overturning Roe was part of the
plan. He said:
[I]f we put another two or . . . three justices on [the
Supreme Court]--that will happen.
And then, Senate Republicans--even many who don't abide by the MAGA
philosophy--just laid down and voted for all of the President's
nominees.
To this day, Senate Republicans keep doubling down and tripling down
on undermining women's rights, despite so much blowback from the
American people. Senate Republicans voted no on protecting
contraception. They voted no on protecting IVF. And they voted no again
yesterday on supporting the right to choose.
So let me say to America: Do you want to know who is on your side
protecting abortion and women's rights? It is the Democrats. Every
Republican--with one or two exceptions--has universally voted to take
away women's rights. That is the truth of it.
Our Republican colleagues can run, but they can't hide. They are
voting against women because extreme MAGA groups are pushing them to do
it or maybe because of belief. Either way, they are out of touch with
America.
Now, for all the chaos and disaster of the first Trump Presidency, it
pales in comparison to the threat of a second Trump Presidency. We have
all heard about the policy platform, 2025, drafted by the Heritage
Foundation--a project overseen by former Trump officials and advisers
and appointees. It is a manifesto for the second Trump Presidency.
What does it do? The Trump manifesto lays a groundwork for a
nationwide abortion ban. That is the heart and soul of the Republican
Party. That is where they always go when they are in power, folks. When
they are not in power, they say some words here and there. When they
are running for office, they try to run away from how they vote and how
they feel. Then they come here, and they vote to roll over women's
rights again and again and again. And each time they do it, it becomes
more extreme and more extreme. And that is just the beginning on the
issues.
The Trump manifesto, 2025, calls for the most conservative agenda
America has ever seen. It calls for more tax cuts for the very wealthy,
more tax cuts for corporate elites, more tax cuts for megacorporations.
It calls for reversing Democrats' clean energy agenda while empowering
the Nation's biggest oil and gas polluters. And the Trump manifesto
even calls for silencing and attacking all of Donald Trump's political
opponents.
Can you imagine? It is like a dictatorship. It is like a
dictatorship, with nothing--Trump says: ``I am going to prosecute
people''--no evidence. Wow. What happened to rule of law in this
[[Page S4530]]
grand country? What happens to the visions of the Founding Fathers when
Donald Trump and the MAGA Court take over?
The hard right is done speaking euphemisms. They are smelling blood.
They are saying it straight to our faces: If you disagree with Donald
Trump, watch your back. It is bone-chilling. It is un-American. It is
dangerous for our democracy.
The Trump manifesto is an autocrats' dream. If MAGA Republicans get
the chance to act on the Heritage Foundation's ideas, the damage to the
America we all know and love may well be irreversible. We will never
get it back. Our children and grandchildren will live in a less grand
country than we have lived in. The destruction would be unthinkable,
and it would betray everything America has represented for 248 years.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mr. President, on SCOTUS, above the entrance to the Supreme Court are
these words: ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
Last week, the conservative Justices put some new writing on those
walls, figuratively: ``The President of the United States is above the
law.'' Instead of ``Equal justice under the law,'' they replaced it
with ``The President of the United States is above the law.''
In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, Donald Trump and his allies
conspired for weeks to undermine the will of the people and halt the
peaceful transfer of power. These efforts culminated in the violent
insurrection on January 6. These are the facts. Many of us in the
Senate lived through it. I was within 30 feet of the hooligans who
invaded the Capitol.
No free Nation can condone a tyrant who abuses his office to try and
cling to power, but that is, in effect, what the conservative majority
on the Supreme Court has done. By ruling Donald Trump enjoys broad
immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions as President after
the 2020 election, the conservative majority has violated the most
basic premise of our Constitution that no man is above the law.
Most Americans will see what the Court did and think it was grossly
political, a shameless attempt to help Donald Trump out.
I worry that over time, Americans will increasingly lose trust in
what the courts say. They have already begun to lose that trust with
these rightwing MAGA decisions, very few of them founded in any
precedent at all. It could be the unraveling of trust in our democratic
institutions.
The good news is that the Constitution provides a remedy to the
Supreme Court's terrible decision: Congress has the authority to
exercise strong checks on the judiciary through legislation. We should
look precisely into that. One possible avenue: clarifying that Donald
Trump's election-subversion acts do not count as official acts of the
Presidency. Such a notion should hardly be controversial, and I am
working with my colleagues on legislation to see what kind of proposals
would be appropriate.
We were all taught in grade school that there are no kings here in
America, but what the conservative Justices have done is placed a crown
on the head of Donald Trump. They declared, in effect, the same thing
Nixon told David Frost in 1977 when he said--this is what Nixon said,
chased out of office for potential criminal acts:
When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.
That is going to be the new ``rule of law'' in America with these
Justices? What a bone-chilling proposition. If future Presidents no
longer fear prosecution for their conduct in office, then what the heck
is going to rein them in? One election every 4 years? That is cold
comfort if a corrupt President can use their office to undermine
elections in the first place. It is a catch-22, a very evil one. It is
autocracy 101. What if future Presidents order the DOJ to arrest
election workers? What if they escalate their attacks on the press?
What if they take bribes in exchange for favors or money? What if, in
each of these instances, they claim they were acting in an official
capacity? America would be in a state of constitutional pandemonium.
The American people are tired of Justices who think they are beyond
accountability. We in Congress should be open to sensible, reasonable
solutions to restore the checks and balances that the MAGA Court has
taken away.
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. McCONNELL. 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 Republican leader is recognized.
NATO
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as NATO's Washington summit draws to a
close today, there is clearly tremendous resolve among many of our
allies to make the transatlantic alliance fit for purpose for another
75 years. But a strong and effective NATO has always required strong
and effective American leadership, and here at home, there is reason
for cautious optimism that support for leadership on collective defense
is widespread.
Last month, the Reagan Institute released the findings of its latest
poll on the American people's views of global issues. Here is what it
found: A majority of Americans support ``a more engaged U.S. foreign
policy'' and hold favorable views of the NATO alliance and support
lethal assistance to Ukraine. Despite the media spending years
amplifying views from the fringes of our politics, a majority of
Republicans believe that ``U.S. involvement in international events''
benefits America.
When asked recently whether peace, prosperity, and security were
products of American leadership and sacrifice--listen to this--more
Republicans than Democrats actually agreed with that.
Here is the kicker: They are not just telling this to pollsters; they
are actually demonstrating it at the ballot box. By massive, double-
digit margins, Republican primary voters have picked candidates who
supported the national security supplemental earlier this spring. Let
me say that again. Not a single Republican incumbent who voted to help
America's friends resist authoritarian aggression and rebuild the
arsenal of democracy lost their primary. Not one lost their primary.
Across the country, voters rejected fringe candidates who peddled
isolationist pablum and voted instead for American leadership.
The way Speaker Johnson put it earlier this week, he has had people
come up to him at events in 31 different States in recent months to say
the same thing: We are glad Congress delivered the supplemental.
So, Mr. President, it can often seem like the loudest voices in
Washington are the ones that bemoan the responsibilities of American
leadership while enjoying the peace and prosperity it underwrites, but
these voices are increasingly estranged from the views of most
Americans. The American people know instinctively that leadership on
the world stage isn't some handout to allies and partners; it is an
investment--an investment--in our own security. They know this
leadership is what preserves the U.S.-led order that has underpinned
peace and prosperity for decades. Now they just need a President who is
willing to exercise that leadership.
For years, the American people watched the Biden administration
dither and wring its hands over fears that standing with a sovereign
democracy might invite escalation from a tyrant who was already
conducting a full-scale war of conquest. Since last fall, they have
heard the President insist in one breath that America's commitment to a
close ally was ironclad and then withhold urgent assistance in another.
It is well and good to talk about American leadership, but talk is
cheap. This week would have been a great opportunity for the Commander
in Chief to start backing up his words with firm commitments to start
investing seriously--seriously--in hard power. It should have been the
week the Democratic leader brought the NDAA up for Senate
consideration. It could have been a great week to lead.
Fortunately, the most successful military alliance in history has had
some strong leadership in Brussels with Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg. I am deeply grateful for his tireless work on both urgent
and
[[Page S4531]]
long-term challenges facing the alliance and for his deep devotion to
the cause of collective defense.
The Secretary General took office months--just months--after Russia
launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine back in 2014, and after a
pivotal decade, he will leave the alliance with renewed clarity and
resolve to face even graver Russian aggression and linked authoritarian
threats all around the world.
For 10 years, he has worked relentlessly to expand allies' focus to
include serious challenges emanating from beyond NATO's borders.
Recognizing the links between major threats to global security, he
has improved the alliance's engagement with critical Indo-Pacific
nations like Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
Just yesterday, he led allies in making clear that China is the
``decisive enabler'' of Russia's war against Ukraine and that ``the PRC
cannot enable the largest war in Europe in recent history without this
negatively impacting its interests and reputation.''
He has successfully expanded NATO, most recently welcoming Sweden and
Finland as highly capable additions to our ranks.
In the face of Russian aggression, the Secretary General has been an
extraordinarily effective advocate and spokesman for collective
defense, rallying renewed investment from allies and leading the most
significant NATO rearmament since the Cold War.
As he navigated the predictably diverse and spirited views of dozens
of allies, the Secretary General demonstrated a keen appreciation for
America's legitimate, longstanding, and bipartisan concerns about
burden-sharing across the alliance and has repeatedly urged allies to
take on more responsibility for our shared security.
On a personal note, I am immensely grateful for the time the
Secretary General and I have spent working closely together. I have
appreciated his candor, his professionalism, and his devotion to our
common cause. I was particularly proud to welcome him to address a
joint meeting of Congress earlier in his term.
As he departs his post, Secretary General Stoltenberg should take
great pride in the historic accomplishments of his tenure and remain
optimistic, as I am, in the course he has set for the alliance. He has
the gratitude of allies and partners all across the free world, and he
will leave big shoes for his successor, Mark Rutte, to fill.
Nomination of Sarah Netburn
Mr. President, now on another matter, I have spoken before about the
New York magistrate judge with a bad habit of engaging in political
activism from the bench and lying about it under oath. Unfortunately,
the red flags on Judge Netburn's record aren't limited to the
inappropriate actions she does commit; there is also the important work
she has inexplicably chosen to ignore.
Take it from the family members of victims of 9/11 who wrote recently
to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. As these loved ones
sought a small piece of justice for the lives that terrorist killers
snuffed out, Judge Netburn failed to rule on the unopposed motions they
submitted that would have entitled them to participate in the next
round of compensation for grieving families.
As they put it:
We cannot understand how a Magistrate Judge could treat 9/
11 family members so callously or so blithely disregard her
duties.
Mr. President, I have posed this question before on another of the
administration's nominees, Nancy Maldonado. But I will ask it again:
Why on Earth do our Democratic colleagues continue to entertain
lifetime promotions for nominees with a demonstrated inability to do
the job?
This sort of gross negligence is damning. It is disqualifying. And,
frankly, the Netburn nomination isn't worth another second of the
Judiciary Committee's time, let alone the Senate's.
Inflation
Mr. President, on one final matter, cumulative inflation since
President Biden took office now sits at 21 percent, and working
families across America are still feeling the pinch in their wallets,
especially when it comes to basic necessities like housing.
In New Jersey, one man who has watched his rent soar said:
I thought things were going to taper off, but it doesn't
appear to be tapering.
In my State of Kentucky, one resident said he was ``sticker-shocked''
at the skyrocketing costs of homeowners' insurance, property taxes, and
utility bills. And he is certainly not alone. One survey showed nearly
one in five homeowners could not afford a $500 emergency repair on
their home.
Last month, 46 percent of Americans reported that they are struggling
to keep pace financially, and only 25 percent of this group said they
planned on supporting President Biden.
The American people know which party ignored the warnings of top
economists, lit money on fire with reckless taxing-and-spending sprees,
and fueled the worst inflation this country has seen since the Carter
administration. The American people are sick and tired of Bidenomics. I
expect they will have more to say about it this November.
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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Border Security
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last month's arrest of eight men from
Tajikistan with suspected ties to ISIS further underscores what we have
known for a long time, and that is that President Biden's 3-year-plus
border crisis is a threat to our national security. All eight of these
individuals had made their way into our country across our southern
border, and they are hardly the only dangerous individuals to have made
their way into our country on President Biden's watch.
An illegal immigrant who had successfully evaded the Border Patrol to
enter the United States has been arrested for the murder of a mother in
Maryland. An illegal immigrant released into the country on parole has
been charged with the murder of a nursing student in Georgia. Two
illegal immigrants are charged with the killing of a 12-year-old girl
in Texas.
Unfortunately, I could go on.
In another alarming case, 50 out of 400 illegal immigrants who
entered the United States through an ISIS-linked smuggling network are
still unaccounted for. It is, of course, impossible to predict or stop
every crime, but the chaos at our southern border that President Biden
has allowed to rage for 3-plus years has unquestionably created an
environment that facilitates the entry of dangerous individuals into
our country.
Since President Biden took office, approximately 10 million
individuals, that we know of, have made their way illegally into our
country--10 million.
That is larger than the population of the vast majority of American
States. We have had 3 successive years of record-breaking illegal
immigration on President Biden's watch--3. And we can only hope that we
will manage to avoid yet a fourth.
The situation is so bad that President Biden finally realized that if
he didn't do something, his disastrous record on the border might tank
his reelection prospects. And while it would be nice if the executive
action he took last month had been motivated by the clear national
security dangers the situation presents and not by fear of losing an
election, at least he finally conceded that he had to do something--
inadequate and full of exemptions as it might be.
But while this might--and I emphasize ``might''--be a case of better
late than never, I am afraid it is also a case of too little, too late.
Because a tremendous amount of damage has been done that President
Biden can't fix, even if he should succeed in restricting future flows.
As I said, roughly 10 million illegal immigrants have entered our
country on President Biden's watch. And while I am sure that many of
these individuals were simply in search of a better life, we can be
pretty confident that there are others, like the recently arrested
individuals with suspected ties to ISIS, who have more malign
intentions.
Of particular concern are the roughly 1.8 million known ``got-
aways.'' Those are individuals who the Border Patrol
[[Page S4532]]
saw but was unable to apprehend, who have made their way into the
country over the course of this administration.
U.S. Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens, speaking earlier this year
about the number of ``got-aways'' at the border said:
[T]hose are the numbers that really keep us up at night,
because if you know that all you need to do is turn yourself
into the Border Patrol and go through the process, what
possible reason would you have for wanting to evade capture?
Could it be that those are the folks that probably have
criminal intent?
Chief Owens was referring to the fact that under the Biden
administration's lax asylum system, individuals who show up at the
border claiming asylum have frequently been released into the country
with court dates as much as a decade into the future.
And his point, of course, is that when turning yourself into the
Border Patrol when a claim for asylum is likely to result in years of,
essentially, legal permanent residence, it is especially concerning
that we have had hundreds of thousands of individuals choosing not to
turn themselves in and escaping into the interior of our country.
So, again, even if President Biden's executive action from last month
does do something to help reduce the flow of illegal immigration--which
very much remains to be seen--we will still be left with the effects of
the chaos he has allowed to rage at our southern border for 3-plus
years. And we will still be left with the effects of his other
disastrous border and immigration policies from offering mass amnesty
to hundreds of thousands of individuals whose asylum cases have been
closed without a decision to fast-tracking mass parole through the CBP
One app to placing unaccompanied children with possibly dangerous
guardians in the United States--something, by the way, that Senator
Grassley is currently working to prevent in the future.
And I expect we will still be dealing with the consequences of
President Biden's dangerous policies for a long time to come.
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. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 8369
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise at a time of widespread and acute
peril for the national security of the United States and for America's
allies. Led by China, our enemies and our adversaries--Russia, Iran,
North Korea--are actively cooperating to target us and our allies all
over the world. In extreme cases, they seek nothing less than the
physical annihilation of the countries they are targeting.
In Europe, Russia has launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In
Asia, China is engaged in day-by-day aggression against our allies and
is threatening another full-scale invasion of Taiwan. And in the Middle
East, Israel is fighting for its survival in the face of a war of
extermination being waged against it by the Iranian regime. October 7
was the worst 1-day mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust. Iran and
its terrorists have attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip, from Lebanon,
from Syria, from Judea and Samaria, from Yemen, from Iraq, and from
Iran.
And what has the Biden administration's policy been? Since the
opening days of this administration, they have pursued an obscene
policy of denying weapons to our allies while allowing resources to
flow to our enemies.
They immediately halted arms to our Arab allies that they were using
against Iran's Houthi terrorists while lifting sanctions simultaneously
on the Houthi terrorists. The Houthis immediately launched a vast
offensive and today are significantly blocking shipping through the Red
Sea. The administration denied critical weapons such as ATACMS to
Ukraine at a period that they could have stalled Russia's offensive,
providing both time and space for Iran to flood drones to be used by
Russian forces against Ukraine.
And, of course, the Biden administration flooded unaccountable
hundreds of millions of dollars into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip,
which they knew would benefit Hamas. Joe Biden sent that money to Gaza,
even though he was warned that the money would inevitably go to Hamas
and be used for terrorism.
I joined 19 Senators in making that point explicitly: If you send
this money to Gaza, it will be used by Hamas for terrorism. And we now
know that the Biden administration agreed with me. The Biden
administration concluded that it was ``highly likely''--that is their
assessment--``highly likely'' that the money going to Gaza would be
used by Hamas for terrorism.
Now, ordinarily, under U.S. anti-terrorism law, that is the end of
the matter. If it is highly likely the money will be used for
terrorism, you don't send it.
Do you know what they did instead? They waived our anti-terrorism law
and said: Send it anyway.
I guess they are OK if Hamas uses U.S. dollars to murder Israelis
because that is exactly what happened.
After October 7, the administration didn't change. Even after October
7, the Biden administration has slowed and halted critical weapons that
our Israeli allies need to counter Hamas.
That utter incoherence has entangled this body. During the debate
over the last national security supplemental, I and many other
lawmakers found ourselves unable to support the policy, in part,
because we did not believe that the Biden administration would
faithfully implement the authorities and appropriations Congress would
be providing.
Those doubts were subsequently publicly confirmed. President Biden
has explicitly said that he is blocking precision weapons to Israel and
that he would even block artillery if Israel moves to fully root out
Hamas from Rafah.
I will add, Mr. President, that this policy is particularly egregious
in the context of the Gaza pier because the Biden administration
requires Israelis to provide force protection for the pier while
denying them the weapons they need to do so.
Senate Democrats have, unfortunately, found themselves in the
position of knowing that this policy is both incoherent and
catastrophic. But at the same time, it is their party's policy so they
defend it anyway.
What we should be doing is providing Israel weapons now and denying
Hamas the resources it needs to continue its war of terror against
Israel.
That is why, in a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous consent
request to ensure that the Biden administration delivers to Israel the
weapons that the Biden administration is withholding.
This legislation has already passed the House. In a moment, it might
pass the Senate.
For folks at home who are watching, you should watch very carefully.
When I raise the unanimous consent request, a Democrat Senator will
stand up and begin speaking. He will begin by saying: ``Reserving the
right to object,'' and then he will give some remarks.
Listen for two words: ``I object'' because this is binary. If at the
end of his remarks he says ``I object,'' it will defeat this motion,
and it will mean that Senate Democrats have decided they agree with Joe
Biden in blocking weapons to Israel. And if he doesn't--if he gives the
identical speech and just pulls out his pen and crosses out those two
words written at the bottom of the speech, he just doesn't say ``I
object''--do you know what happens? The legislation that has already
passed the House would pass the Senate unanimously, 100 to 0, and go to
the President's desk for signature.
Just about every Member of this body goes and gives speeches and
says: I support Israel.
Well, talk is cheap. If you support Israel, provide them the weapons
they need in a time of war. We are going to find out if the Democrats
are willing to do so or not.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 398, H.R. 8369; I further ask
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Vermont.
[[Page S4533]]
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the war in
Gaza has been a humanitarian catastrophe, and tens of thousands of
civilians have been killed and wounded. Thousands of children are not
able to obtain medical care that they urgently need. Hundreds of
thousands of people in northern Gaza have been told to relocate again
and again and again. There is no safe place for these innocent people
to go in Gaza. Also, 100 precious lives of hostages do remain in Hamas
control. And I am very upset about the escalation of anti-Israel
sentiment here in our own country.
But everyone is painfully aware that Hamas built its underground
system of tunnels and military command beneath Gaza schools, hospitals,
and other civilian structures. It is a very difficult dilemma, but the
answer is not the entire destruction of Gaza.
And Secretary of Defense Austin said that ``there's a better way'' to
prosecute the military campaign and to eliminate Hamas while protecting
civilians. That is our military leader. And that is a sentiment that is
shared by many U.S. military officers, both active and retired and,
incidentally, many Israeli officers.
Israel has received, as my colleague from Texas knows--and as my
colleague from Texas also knows--Israel has continued to receive
massive amounts of U.S. weapons, ammunition, and other military aid.
And the Congress passed an emergency supplemental, in addition to the
fiscal year 2024 appropriations bill. And together, they provide,
literally, billions of dollars--billions of dollars--in military aid
for Israel. So the suggestion that Israel is lacking for U.S. weapons
and ammunition is without any merit whatsoever.
The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians will not be solved
with more bombs, particularly when the Netanyahu government has yet to
articulate achievable goals or a credible plan for what comes next
after the war ends--something that many Israeli citizens are pointing
out and objecting to the manner in which Prime Minister Netanyahu is
conducting this war.
In the meantime, starvation is escalating for women and children--
innocent people in Gaza--who had nothing to do with what happened on
October 7. And, incidentally, as the Senator from Texas knows, every
single one of us in the Senate is absolutely horrified by what Hamas
did on that day, October 7. And as my good friend from Texas said, that
was the worst mass murder of innocent Jewish people since the
Holocaust--horrifying.
I think it is fair to say that everybody in this body wants the war
to end. They want a secure, peaceful Israel, and we want a secure,
peaceful Palestinian State. But the suggestion that the U.S. Government
is not providing significant aid to Israel, which I have objected to
but this Congress has supported by a very large margin, is flatout
wrong.
So for these reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
____________________