[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.

                          ____________________