[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 115 (Thursday, July 11, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4533-S4536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 89
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I move to discharge S.J. Res. 89 from the
Foreign Relations Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, S.J. Res. 89, a joint resolution to direct the
termination of the use of United States Armed Forces for the
construction, maintenance, and operation of the Joint
Logistics Over-the-Shore pier on the coast of the Gaza Strip
that has not been authorized by Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is debatable for 1 hour.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the Gaza pier is a perfect example of the
Biden administration's foreign policy incoherence. This was a nearly
half-billion-dollar stunt trying to buy a few votes in Michigan. It has
been an unconscionable waste of American taxpayer dollars, and,
simultaneously, it has undermined America's geopolitical credibility
with our allies.
The pier is unnecessary. We can debate whether sufficient aid is
getting to the Gaza Strip, but I believe that our Israeli allies have
taken unprecedented steps to ensure that indeed there is. I understand
that many Democrats disagree.
What is undeniable, however, is that whatever aid is coming in, it
has not, will not, and, indeed, could not have come through this God-
forsaken pier. The operation was simply too insignificant and too
convoluted.
Moreover, we know that Hamas diverts aid delivered through this pier.
The pier has also been reportedly attacked by Palestinian terrorists,
and three U.S. servicemembers have been injured because of pier
operations.
Further, the pier has cost American taxpayers a minimum of $320
million to construct. And that was an estimate from April, so it is
surely higher now.
Meanwhile, we have required our Israeli allies to provide a
``security bubble'' around the pier. We are pressuring them to protect
this operation, which is bringing supplies hijacked by Hamas.
Joe Biden is asking Israel to protect the Gaza pier from Hamas while
denying Israel the weapons to counter Hamas. And as we just saw, Senate
Democrats are endorsing that policy. I find it difficult to think of a
more ridiculous policy.
Let's be clear. American policy should be unequivocal: We need to
ensure that Israel has the military and diplomatic support to utterly
eradicate Hamas. That is good for Israel, and it is good for America.
Unfortunately, we have seen a recurring theme from the Biden
administration and from Senate Democrats: Undermine Israel at every
step of the way and aid terrorists at every step of the way.
In fact, this administration has been the greatest friend to Hamas
and Hezbollah and the greatest ally to Ayatollah Khamenei on the entire
planet. Under the Biden Presidency, over $100 billion has flowed to
Iran, and $6 billion of it was in ransom for five Americans--a policy
which I warned at the time would lead to more Americans being taken
hostage. Tragically, on October 7, we saw that come to pass.
Where we are now is the Biden administration is sending money to
Gaza, and they are combining it with blocking weapons to Israel. The
policy is utterly backward. If you were to ask anyone on the street
``What should we do on foreign policy?'' they would say that we should
support our friends and stand up to our enemies. Unfortunately, Joe
Biden and the Democrats--their policy--has blocked weapons to our
friends, blocked weapons to Israel, and sent billions of dollars to our
enemies who are actively trying to kill Israelis and actively trying to
kill Americans. It is Alice in Wonderland through the looking glass.
What the Senate should be doing is voting on the legislation the
House has already passed to provide the weapons Israel needs now. Just
a minute ago, I tried to pass that here on the floor of the Senate, and
you saw Senate Democrats object to that. Why is it that we are not
voting right now on providing the weapons to Israel that Joe Biden has
blocked? Because Senate Democrats do not want to vote on it.
The only reason it didn't pass a minute ago is that a Senate Democrat
objected and did so on behalf of all of the Democrats, and we know that
it is all of the Democrats because Chuck Schumer is the majority leader
of this body. Senator Schumer could schedule the House bill for a vote
anytime he wants, and he said he will not allow it to come to a vote.
So understand, if you support Israel, the reason the Biden
administration is able to block weapons from going to Israel is because
every Senate Democrat is standing in solidarity with this White House
in blocking weapons from going to Israel in a time of war.
The reason you heard the words ``I object'' is some Senate Democrats
don't want to go on the record for that. They don't want to actually
cast the vote.
The Senator who objected is from the State of Vermont. Vermont is a
bright-blue State--a State that they comfortably believe is safe to
make an objection. Senators who are on the ballot in red or purple
States are not eager to go on record on this question.
Procedurally, I do not have the ability to force a vote on passing
the already passed House bill that would provide immediate weapons to
Israel.
[[Page S4534]]
There is not a procedural vehicle to do that, but there is a procedural
vehicle to vote on the mirror image of that policy. If we can't vote in
saying America should provide weapons to our friend the State of
Israel, what we can vote on is if we should stop giving money to our
enemies--to Hamas.
The Gaza pier is flowing money to Gaza that is benefiting Hamas.
Under the War Powers Act, I have the ability procedurally to force a
vote, which we are about to have, on whether to cut off that money.
Everyone at home, I want you to understand this is a vote, yes, on
the Gaza pier and, yes, on cutting off money to Hamas, but it is also a
vote on the other half of the policy: Should we provide weapons to
Israel?
I would have more than happily withdrawn this war powers resolution
if--if--if the Democrat majority would have allowed a vote on the
legislation that has already passed the House providing immediate
weapons to Israel, but Democrat leadership doesn't want that vote. So I
am going to force the only vote we can get.
Understand, when you see Democrat after Democrat after Democrat walk
down to the well of the Senate and vote--I am going to make a
prediction--they are going to vote quietly. You may see a couple--a
couple--who have been among the loudest opponents of Israel. A couple
may vote loudly, but most Democrats are going to walk in very quietly
and go to the clerk and go ``no'' or maybe point down quietly, but it
is not going to be a vote they are proud of. It is going to be a vote
that they hope their constituents don't know about, that they hope the
men and women they represent don't hear about, and it is going to be a
vote, sadly, that simply reflects party loyalty in that the Biden White
House has cracked the whip and has said: We support our enemies; we
oppose our friends. Now fall in line and vote accordingly.
I am hoping that Senate Democrats will rediscover that the Senate is
an independent body; that the Senate doesn't work for the White House
even if your own party is in charge; that the Senate was designed to
provide checks and balances on the President, especially concerning
foreign policy; that the Senate was given by the Framers of the
Constitution unique responsibilities concerning foreign policy: the
responsibility to declare war, the responsibility to ratify treaties,
the responsibility to confirm Ambassadors, to confirm the Secretary of
State, to confirm military officers. The Framers designed the Senate to
check an Executive, whether from your own party or the opposing party.
There is a long history of Senate Democrats who were willing to stand
up to Democrat Presidents. You know, there was a Senate Democrat named
Scoop Jackson. Scoop Jackson actually had the courage to stand up, even
if it was a Democrat President, and fight for American national
security. I wish we had even one Scoop Jackson Democrat left in the
Senate, even one Democrat who would stand up and say: Look, I am with
the Biden White House most of the time, but on cutting off weapons to
Israel, on funding Gaza, on sending money to Iran and Hamas, enough is
enough. I can't do that.
It is within the prerogative of every Senator to do just that, and I
would note it is possible.
You know, we just had a Senate Judiciary markup where, going into the
markup, everyone assumed that a judicial nominee from New York was
going to be voted favorably out of the Judiciary Committee.
Now, this was a particularly radical nominee. This was a nominee who
as a magistrate judge had ordered a 6-foot-2-inch biological man who
was a serial--repeat--rapist to be housed in a women's prison, putting
every woman in that prison at risk of sexual assault or rape. It was an
extreme and radical nominee. I and others led the opposition to it.
I will tell you, we just had the markup. We walked into the markup,
and everyone assumed, as has happened for 3\1/2\ years, that the
Democrats would vote like the politburo--``da''--and vote for whatever
extreme nominee was in front of us. Something shocking happened. When
the vote happened, one of the Democrat Senators, the Democrat Senator
from Georgia, voted no, and the nominee was defeated.
I am going to point to that as an example to the Democrats in this
Chamber. I understand that the White House expects you to fall in line,
that President Biden is coming to join you for lunch today, but every
Senator has the prerogative to make their own choice: Do you agree with
undermining Israel? Do you agree with flowing money to Gaza and Hamas
and Iran and terrorists who want to kill us? If you don't, the people
of your State have elected you and given you the prerogative and given
you the voice to stand up and say no to this policy that is endangering
America and endangering our allies.
I urge every Member, Republican and Democrat, to stand together,
united. It would be powerful if we saw a bipartisan vote saying: We
stand with our friends, and we stand against our enemies, and enough
with this nonsense of funding people who want to kill us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, just to alert our colleagues, it is my
intention at the end of this debate to make a point of order that this
joint resolution is not entitled to privilege under 50 U.S.C. 1546a due
to U.S. troops not being engaged in hostilities, but in order to allow
the debate to continue, I will withhold that motion until the end of
discussions.
This resolution that is before us would be an unprecedented
invocation of the expedited procedures in the War Powers Resolution. I
am a strong supporter of the War Powers. I think it is an appropriate
use of oversight on our power to commit our troops to harm's way. This
resolution does not seek to remove U.S. forces from hostilities but,
rather, to end a specific mission. The War Powers is to deal with our
military troops, not to deal with tactical military and nonmilitary
actions. The Senate should not allow the privileged vehicles intended
for entirely different purposes to be used as a backdoor effort to stop
humanitarian assistance.
Let me be clear about this. American boots are not on the ground in
Gaza. The U.S. troops who are operating the pier in question are not
engaged in hostilities or in carrying out a mission that requires the
authorization of the use of military force. They are facilitating the
delivery of food, water, and other basic humanitarian assistance. The
supplies are not even being delivered by U.S. forces.
Let me just call to our colleagues' attention what is included in the
War Powers Act itself. It deals with U.S. Armed Forces when they are
``[i]nto hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the
continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.''
That is not what we have here in regards to the pier, so this is not
the appropriate use of the War Powers Act.
I might tell you, this is somewhat moot because we expect, by the end
of this month, for the pier operations to cease.
In any event, I think it is important for this body to make clear
that we support the War Powers. This is not an appropriate use of the
War Powers. For that reason, I will be making a motion, at the end, of
a point of order.
I understand some of my other colleagues have some points, so I will
yield the floor, but I will ask for the floor before the end of the
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Cardin and
basically of the concerns we have of the War Powers Act and in
diminishing the act to the point that we can't really react to the
needs that we have around the world in trying to defend ourselves and
help our allies.
I agree also with Senator Cruz that this pier has not worked, that it
has not done what it was intended to do. There have been difficult
conditions, and a lot of money has been spent. To go any further is
needless.
I intend to enter into a resolution--to have a resolution for today--
that basically will do exactly what Senator Cruz has said in his,
except we will do it as a sense of the Senate versus invoking the War
Powers Act. I will ask for consent and hopefully receive the support of
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. That will be later. We will
do it today before we leave.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
[[Page S4535]]
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from West
Virginia.
I think my colleague is going about it the right way in dealing with
the substance of the issue through a resolution and not by invoking the
authorities we have for expedited procedures under the War Powers Act.
For that reason, I later intend to make a point of order.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland said that he
intends to raise a point of order objecting to this war powers
resolution because we do not have servicemembers in harm's way; we do
not have active hostilities, which is what is required by the War
Powers Act. That is a creative procedural argument. It just has the
inconvenient fact of not being true. Not only is it not true, but what
the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is arguing to this body
is directly contrary to the explicit position of the Biden Department
of Defense.
I want to read to you from a press briefing from the Biden Department
of Defense on May 16. A reporter asked the official spokesperson for
the Department of Defense:
The USAID spokesperson said yesterday that he wasn't
satisfied yet with the deconfliction arrangement yet, and
then he added that the maritime corridors exposed to--we do
not think the JLOTS of the maritime corridor is exposed to
any additional risk above and beyond that which is already
present in Gaza. That's pretty frightening now, isn't it,
given how many people have been killed . . .
Answer--and this is from the Biden Department of Defense:
I don't think we've come up here with rose-colored glasses
and said this is not a risk. This is an active war zone.
The Biden Department of Defense has explicitly stated: ``This is an
active war zone''--that they are putting U.S. personnel at risk. And
that is precisely why the War Powers Act gives this body the ability to
act.
I would note, as well, my friend from West Virginia said he wanted a
sense of the Senate but not to use the War Powers Act. The War Powers
Act is a way for Congress to exercise its prerogative.
Over recent decades, we have seen the Senate hand away much of our
responsibility on foreign policy and national security to the
executives. That is contrary to the design of our Constitution, and it
is, frankly, harmful to the Senate and harmful to this country.
We are not merely a body that has a sense of the Senate. Look, I
assume I will join with whatever the sense of the Senate is. If it says
this is a dumb idea, I will join that. But while we are at it, we ought
to rename a post office.
The Senate exists to do more important things than make general
musings into the ether. The Senate has the constitutional power and,
under the War Powers Act, the legal and statutory power to say: Stop
spending money to send U.S. service men and women into harm's way.
Now, far too often, the Senate has stepped out of our historic role
in foreign policy and has said: Whatever the President wants, we, the
Senate, aren't going to say anything about it.
When there is a Republican President, Democrat Senators suddenly
discover their voice and say: Hey, the Senate ought to say something.
But when it is a Democrat President, it seems no matter how
incoherent and disastrous the foreign policy from the Democrat
President, Democrat Senators don't want the Senate to exercise its
authority.
I will reiterate the offer that I made just moments ago to the staff
of the Senate majority leader: I will withdraw this war powers
resolution if the Senate votes on the legislation that has already
passed the House to provide the weapons that the Biden White House is
blocking to Israel.
The Democrats don't want to do that because they don't want their
Members on record. And because they don't want their Members on record,
this is the only vehicle I have, because, procedurally, under the
statute, I have a right to force a vote on this.
The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee said there are not
active hostilities. The Biden Department of Defense has explicitly
disagreed.
To quote again:
I don't think we've come up here with rose-colored glasses
and said that this is not a risk. This is an active war zone.
That means the War Powers Act fully applies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, there is no dispute that there is active
hostility in Gaza. That is not the issue. The question is whether
American troops have been engaged in that hostility, and they are not.
That is when the War Powers Act is triggered.
American presence through missions are common in areas surrounding
active hostilities. That is not unusual. So the use of the War Powers
Act in this circumstance would be unprecedented.
I would urge my colleagues to recognize there are other ways we can
express ourselves. I thank Senator Manchin for giving us that
opportunity. But this is the wrong procedure to use.
And if all time is yielded back--
Mr. CRUZ. It will be momentarily.
Mr. CARDIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. A very brief response to what my friend from Maryland said:
The pier was fired upon twice. It is difficult to say that we are not
in active hostilities when we are being fired upon, and so it clearly
falls under the statute.
With that, I yield all further time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. In a brief rebuttal, I will tell you a mission dealing
with humanitarian assistance is not introducing our soldiers.
Point of Order
Mr. President, I yield back our time, and I make a point of order
that this joint resolution is not entitled to privilege under 50 U.S.C.
1546a due to U.S. troops not being engaged in hostilities.
Vote on Point of Order
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair submits the question to the Senate
for its decision.
Is the point of order well taken?
Mr. CARDIN. 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Montana (Mr.
Daines), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Scott).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott)
would have voted ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 212 Leg.]
YEAS--48
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
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--46
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Ossoff
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--6
Capito
Daines
Markey
Menendez
Romney
Scott (FL)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Sinema). On this vote, the yeas are 48,
the nays are 46. The point of order is
[[Page S4536]]
well-taken. The motion to discharge falls.
The point of order is sustained and the motion falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
____________________