[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.

                          ____________________