[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 172 (Wednesday, November 20, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6653-S6665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 111
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, pursuant to section 36(b) of the Arms
Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign
Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 111, relating to the
disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of
Israel of certain defense articles and services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, S.J. Res. 111, providing for congressional
disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the
Government of Israel of certain defense articles and
services.
Mr. SANDERS. I would ask unanimous consent to dispense with further
reading of the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
hours of debate equally divided between proponents and opponents.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, thank you very much, and let me thank
the leadership for their cooperation in setting up this debate.
Today, we will be voting on three joint resolutions of disapproval,
or JRDs, to block the sale of certain offensive weapons to Israel.
These resolutions are S.J. Res. 111, to block the sale of 120-
millimeter tank rounds; S.J. Res. 113, to block the sale of 120-
millimeter high-explosive mortar rounds; and S.J. Res. 115, to block
the sale of JDMs, the guidance kits attached to many of the bombs
dropped in Gaza.
I would note to my colleagues that these resolutions are strongly
supported by more than 100 civil society groups, including pro-Israel
groups, like J Street; some of the largest labor unions in this
country, including the SEIU, the United Auto Workers, and the United
Electrical Workers; humanitarian groups, like Amnesty International and
Doctors of the World; and religious groups, like the United Methodist
Church and the Friends Committee; and many, many other organizations.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the list of these supporting organizations.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 111, S.J. Res. 113, and S.J. Res. 115 are Supported by More
Than 118 Civil Society Groups.
That includes labor unions like the SEIU, the United Auto
Workers and the United Electrical Workers; pro-Israel groups
like J Street; humanitarian organizations like Amnesty
International, ActionAid USA and Doctors of the World; and
religious groups like the United Methodist Church, the
Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Emgage Action.
full list of endorsing organizations
1. Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
2. United Auto Workers (UAW)
3. United Electrical Workers (UE)
4. J Street
5. About Face: Veterans Against the War
6. Action Corps
7. ActionAid USA
8. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
9. Americans for Justice in Palestine Action (AJP Action)
10. Amnesty International USA
11. Arab American Institute
12. Association of US Catholic Priests
13. Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC)
14. Center for Economic and Policy Research
15. Center for International Policy
16. Center for Jewish Nonviolence
17. CommonDefense.us
18. DAWN
19. Doctors of the World
20. Emgage Action
21. Friends Committee on National Legislation
22. Human Rights Watch
23. IfNotNow Movement
24. Indivisible
25. Just Foreign Policy
26. Justice Democrats
27. MADRE
28. Oxfam America
29. Oxfam America Action Fund
30. Peace Action
31. People's Action
32. Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
33. Refugees International
34. ReThinking Foreign Policy
35. The Episcopal Church
36. The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP)
37. The United Church of Christ
38. The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church
and Society
39. The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church
and Society
40. Uncommitted National Movement
41. United We Dream
42. US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action (USCPR
Action)
43. Win Without War
44. Working Families Party
45. Doctors Against Genocide
46. 18 Million Rising
47. Al-Haq, Law in the Service of Mankind
48. American Baptist Churches USA
49. American Friends Service Committee
50. Arab Resource & Organizing Center Action (AROC Action)
51. Arms Control Association
52. Avaaz
53. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
54. Center for Constitutional Rights
55. Center for Victims of Torture
56. Center National Council of Churches
57. Charity & Security Network
58. Children Not Numbers
59. Church of the Brethren, Office of Peacebuilding and
Policy
60. Civic Shout, Community Peacemaker Teams (CPT)
61. CODEPINK
62. Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes
63. Control Arms
64. Defending Rights & Dissent
65. Demand Progress
66. Democracy for America Advocacy Fund
67. Democratic Socialists of America
68. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
69. Extend
70. Faith Strategies
71. Franciscan Action Network
72. Freedom Forward
73. Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA)
74. Global Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ) and United Church of Christ
75. Hindus for Human Rights
76. Institute for Policy Studies, New Internationalism
Project
77. Israel/Palestine Mission of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.)
78. Jewish Voice for Peace Action
79. Law For Palestine
80. Leadership Team of the Felician Sisters of North
America
81. Legacies of War
82. Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
83. Medglobal
84. Medical Mission Sisters, Justice Office
85. MENA Rights Group
86. Mennonite Central Committee U.S.
87. Middle East Children's Alliance
88. Middle East Democracy Center (MEDC)
89. Migrant Roots Media
90. MPower Change Action Fund
91. Muslim Peace Fellowship
92. National Council of Churches
93. National Iranian American Council Action
94. Nonviolence International
95. Nonviolent Peaceforce
96. Our Revolution
97. Pax Christi USA
[[Page S6654]]
98. Peace Direct
99. Presbyterian Church (USA)
100. Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)
101. Quixote Center
102. RootsAction.org
103. Saferworld (US)
104. Sisters of Mercy of the Holy Cross
105. Society of Helpers
106. The Borgen Project
107. The Human Dignity Project (THDP)
108. The Religious Nationalisms Project
109. Transnational Institute
110. United Church of Christ Palestine Israel Network
111. United Methodists for Kairos Response (UMKR)
112. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
113. Women for Weapons Trade Transparency
114. Women's March
115. Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual
(WATER)
116. World BEYOND War
117. Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation
118. Yemeni Alliance Committee
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I would also point out that poll after
poll shows that a strong majority of the American people oppose sending
more weapons and military aid to fund Netanyahu's war machine. I would
also mention, interestingly enough, that according to a poll
commissioned by J Street--this is a pro-Israel organization--62 percent
of Jewish Americans support withholding weapon shipments to Israel
until Netanyahu agrees to an immediate cease-fire.
These resolutions are aimed at offensive weapons that have been used
to devastating effect against civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. They would
not affect any of the systems Israel uses to defend itself from
incoming attacks.
From a legal perspective, these resolutions are simple,
straightforward, and not complicated. Bottom line: the U.S. Government
must obey the law--not a very radical idea--but unfortunately that is
not the case now.
Every Member of the Senate who believes in the rule of law, that our
government should obey the law, should vote for these resolutions.
The Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act are very
clear. The United States cannot provide weapons to countries that
violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S.
humanitarian aid.
Let me repeat that because that is the essence of this entire debate.
Not complicated. The U.S. Government cannot provide weapons to
countries that violate internationally recognized human rights or block
U.S. humanitarian aid. That is not my opinion; that is what the law
says.
According to the United Nations, according to much of the
international community, according to virtually every humanitarian
organization on the ground in Gaza, Israel is clearly in violation of
these laws.
Under these circumstances, it is illegal for the U.S. Government to
provide Israel with more offensive weapons. These joint resolutions of
disapproval are Congress's tool to enforce the law, and that is exactly
what we must do.
It has been more than 13 months since the October 7 Hamas terrorist
attack on Israel, an attack which killed 1,200 innocent people and took
250 hostages, including Americans.
As I have said many, many times, Israel had the absolute right to
respond to that horrific Hamas attack, as any other country would. I
don't think anybody here in the U.S. Senate disagrees with that. But
Prime Minister Netanyahu's extremist government has not simply waged
war against Hamas; it has waged an all-out war against the Palestinian
people.
Within Gaza's population of just 2.2 million people--and I want
people to conceptualize that that is about the size of New Mexico, 2.2
million people--more than 43,000 Palestinians have been killed and more
than 103,000 injured, a population of about the size of New Mexico. And
60 percent of those who have been killed and injured are women,
children, or elderly people.
According to satellite imagery, two-thirds of all structures in Gaza
have been damaged or destroyed--two-thirds of all structures. Think
about that. Two-thirds of all structures have been damaged or
destroyed. That includes 87 percent of the housing, 84 percent of
health facilities--84 percent of health facilities--and 70 percent of
sanitation plants. Right now, there is raw sewage running through the
streets of Gaza, and it is very difficult for the people there to
obtain clean drinking water.
Every one of Gaza's 12 universities has been bombed. They have got 12
universities; every single one of them has been bombed, as have many
hundreds of schools. For 13 months, there has been no electricity in
Gaza.
During the last year, millions of desperately poor people in Gaza
have been repeatedly driven from their homes and forced to evacuate
time and time again with nothing more than the clothes on their backs.
So let's imagine millions of people driven from their homes, told to go
here, told to go there, and going from one place to another. Families
in Gaza have been herded into so-called safe zones, only to face
continued bombardment. They are told to go to this area, and the bombs
start falling, and the children start dying.
The children of Gaza have suffered a level of physical and emotional
abuse that is almost beyond comprehension, abuse that will stay with
them for the rest of their lives. These children today--as we speak,
right now--are hungry, they are thirsty, they cannot access healthcare.
And all around them, they have witnessed death and destruction. That is
what the children of Gaza have experienced, and Gaza is a very young
population.
And as horrific as that situation is, what has happened over the last
year, what is taking place today, right now, this moment as we discuss
this issue, it is even worse, if that is imaginable. As a result of
Israel blocking desperately needed humanitarian aid, the volume of aid
getting into Gaza in recent weeks is lower than at any point since the
war began. More aid is needed; less aid is getting through. The result?
Many thousands of children are facing malnutrition and starvation. Let
me repeat that: Many thousands of children today are facing
malnutrition and starvation. This is not my observation; this is what
the leaders of the 19 most important humanitarian organizations on the
ground in Gaza, including the American head of UNICEF, Cathy Russell,
and the American head of the World Food Programme, Cindy McCain, wife
of our former colleague John McCain--that is what they say, according
to their recent report:
The situation unfolding in North Gaza is apocalyptic . . .
Basic, life-saving goods are not available. Humanitarians are
not safe to do their work and are blocked by Israeli forces
and by insecurity from reaching people in need.
And they continue:
[As a result,] the entire [Palestinian] population in North
Gaza is at imminent risk of dying from disease, famine, and
violence.
These are the 19 major humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza
right now, including several of the major ones led by Americans. And
Israel's recent decision to ban UNWRA, the backbone of the humanitarian
response in Gaza, will only make a horrific situation even worse.
Madam President, I have met with doctors who have served in Gaza
treating hundreds of patients a day without electricity, without
anesthesia, without clean water, including dozens of children arriving
with gunshot wounds in the head. I have seen the photographs and the
videos. And we have some of them here. I have seen--I have heard from
UNICEF who estimates that 10 children lose a leg in Gaza every single
day. There are now more than 17,000 orphans in Gaza.
Let me quote from a New York Times opinion piece of October 9, 2024--
a little more than a month ago--where American doctors and nurses in
Gaza--these are Americans working in Gaza--describe what they saw on
the ground.
Merril Tydings is a nurse from New Mexico, and she said, ``These
people were starving.'' She is talking about healthcare workers, her
colleagues.
These people were starving. I learned very quickly to not
drink my water or eat the food I had brought in front of the
health care workers because they had gone so many days
without.
Without food. Without water.
Dr. Ndal Farah from Ohio said:
Malnutrition was widespread. It was common to see patients
reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps with skeletal
features.
Abeerah Muhammad, a nurse from Dallas, TX, said:
Everyone we met showed us pictures of themselves before
October. They had all lost 20 to 60 pounds of weight. Most
patients and staff looked emaciated and dehydrated.
Dr. Nahreen Ahmed from Philadelphia said:
[[Page S6655]]
Every patient I treated had evidence of malnutrition. For
example, poor wound healing and rapidly developing
infections.
Dr. Aman Odeh from Texas said:
Mothers on the maternity ward delivered prematurely because
of malnutrition, stress and infection. Milk production was
poor due to lack of hydration and adequate food supply.
Dr. Mike Mallah from Charleston said:
All of my patients were suffering from malnutrition, 100
percent.
What is important to understand--and I am not sure that many of my
colleagues do--is that the Israel of today that we are dealing with is
not the Israel of Golda Meir or Yitzhak Rabin. This is a government now
controlled not only by rightwing extremists but by religious zealots.
National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, who oversees the police, has been
convicted in Israeli courts on terrorism charges. He is the head of the
police. Finance Minister Smotrich, in charge of the occupied West Bank,
is also an extreme racist and has called for the expulsion of
Palestinians from the land. That is the current Israeli Finance
Minister.
In January, Prime Minister Netanyahu said of Gaza: We provide minimal
humanitarian aid if we want to achieve our war goals.
At the start of the war, the Israeli Defense Minister said--and I
hope people hear this. The Israeli defense minister--ex-minister:
We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly . . .
there will be no electricity, no food . . . no fuel.
Everything [is] closed.
Former Israeli Defense Minister. That is what he said and, in fact,
by and large, that is exactly how this war has been waged.
What this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but
what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with
U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars. In the last year alone, the
United States has provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel--$18
billion dollars. And, by the way, a few blocks from here, people are
sleeping out on the street. And we have also delivered more than 50,000
tons of military equipment to Israel--50,000 tons.
In other words, the United States of America is complicit in all of
these atrocities. We are funding these atrocities. That complicity must
end, and that is what these resolutions are about. It is time to tell
the Netanyahu government that they cannot use U.S. taxpayer dollars and
American weapons in violation of United States and international law
and our moral values.
Despite receiving 18 billion from U.S. taxpayers in the last year and
being the largest historical recipient of U.S. foreign aid, the
Netanyahu government has completely ignored--completely ignored--the
repeated requests of President Biden and the U.S. Government.
It is time to make clear to Netanyahu that he cannot take American
money, take American arms, and continue to blind U.S. foreign policy
goals.
The U.S. Government wants a cease-fire for a hostage deal. Netanyahu
has prevented a deal to preserve his coalition.
The U.S. Government wants more humanitarian aid to reach the
desperate people in Gaza. Netanyahu is blocking that aid.
The U.S. Government wants to contain regional escalation. Netanyahu
has refused diplomatic off-ramps and launched several reckless attacks
without consulting the United States.
The U.S. Government wants to stop settlement expansion and settle the
violence in the West Bank. Netanyahu and his Ministers have driven
record settlement expansion and armed extremists settlers.
The U.S. Government wants a plan for postwar governance in Gaza.
Netanyahu will not engage.
And by the way, blocking these sales would also be in keeping with
actions taken by some of our closest allies. The United Kingdom
suspended 30 arms export licenses after concluding there was an
acceptable risk they could be used in violation of international law.
Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands have taken
similar steps. U.N. bodies have called for an end to the armed
shipments fueling the conflict.
Time and time again, I have heard Members of the U.S. Senate come to
this floor to denounce human rights violations taking place around the
world. I have heard well-founded concerns about China's brutal
reception of the Uighur ethnic minority. I have heard rightful outrage
about Putin's brutal attacks against Ukraine and bombing of civilian
installations. I have heard genuine concern about Iran's outrageous
crackdown on peaceful protestors. I have heard repeated condemnations
of Saudi Arabia's terrible treatment of women and political dissidents.
And on and on it goes. A lot of folks come to the floor to talk about
human rights and what is going on throughout the world. But what I want
to say to all those folks: Nobody is going to take anything you say
with a grain of seriousness. You cannot condemn human rights around the
world and then turn a blind eye to what the U.S. Government is now
funding in Israel. People will laugh in your face. They will say to
you: Are you concerned about China? Are you concerned about Russia? Are
you concerned about Iran? Well, why are you funding the starvation of
children in Gaza right now?
We must pass these resolutions from a legal perspective. The U.S.
Government must obey the law. We must pass these resolutions from a
moral perspective. The United States must not provide support to a
government which has created one of the worst humanitarian disasters in
modern history.
We must pass these resolutions for our own best foreign policy
interests. If we do not demand that the countries we provide military
assistance to obey international law, we will lose our creditability on
the world stage.
With that, I would like to yield to Senator Merkley of Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, in 1978, between my junior and senior
years in college, I hitchhiked through Israel and the West Bank. I made
Israeli friends. I was invited to stay at a kibbutz. I explored the old
city of Jerusalem. I negotiated the ancient tunnel built by King
Hezekiah in the face of advancing armies. I climbed a snake path to the
top of Masada. I swam in the Sea of Galilee and the Red Sea and the
Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.
I was so impressed by the energy for building a new nation, for
planting forests, for making the desert bloom with new irrigation
systems, constructing cities and roads.
And, in addition, peace was on the horizon. Nine months before my
visit in November 1977, Anwar Sadat had visited Jerusalem to address
the Knesset and pursue a path to peace.
And then, just weeks after I left, he was shaking hands with Menachem
Begin and Jimmy Carter at Camp David, and a peace treaty was signed the
following year in March.
I was all in on America standing in partnership with this new nation
perched on a little sliver of land surrounded by hostile neighbors. And
I voted here in the Senate time and again for economic support for
Israel, for military support for Israel.
I have believed in the vision that it was the right way to help
Israel thrive, the best path to peace and security. As many of us
reasoned, if Israel's economy was thriving and their military strength
ensured their security, they could, with confidence, negotiate a secure
and peaceful future with their neighbors. They could, with confidence,
negotiate parameters for a Palestinian State so the Palestinians could
thrive as well.
Not so long ago, just over a decade, I traveled to Israel with former
Senator Mark Begich of Alaska and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and we
met around a little table with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. And
at that time, now 12 years ago, he expounded eloquently on his thesis
that the only path for Israel's peace and prosperity was two states for
two people.
In the dozen years since, much has changed. Prime Minister Netanyahu
has become a public and vocal opponent of a Palestinian State. Israel
has engaged in a de facto annexation of the West Bank, land essential
for a Palestinian State. They have done this through settlements. They
have done this through legalizing outposts. They have created
innumerable checkpoints. They have created settler-only roads.
In addition, Netanyahu has formed his government now with Bezalel
[[Page S6656]]
Smotrich, as Minister of Finance, someone who has said the Palestinian
people do not exist and called for a Palestinian town to be erased;
Itamar Ben-Gvir, Minister of National Security, celebrated Baruch
Goldstein's slaughter of 29 Palestinians at the Cave of Patriarchs
massacre in 1994.
Today, the policies of the Netanyahu government are very different
than the policies 12 years before. Under this government, attacks by
Israel's West Bank settlers against Palestinian villages have become
more frequent, violent, and often condoned by the Israeli Defense
Forces.
Events on October 7, a year ago, took a terrible turn. Hamas
terrorists attacked Israeli communities. They slaughtered 1,200 Israeli
men, women, and children. They abducted 240 hostages, and the whole
world was with Israel. We recalled 9/11. We grieved with Israel. We
grieved with the Jewish communities in our home State. And we defended
Israel's right to respond with a campaign targeted at destroying Hamas.
But I am here on the floor today because the way a war is conducted
matters. And Israel's bombing campaign, described by President Biden as
indiscriminate, has reduced Gaza to rubble and ruin. This destroyed
most of the infrastructure needed for survival: schools, hospitals,
homes, the power system, the communications phone system, the internet
system, the water system, the transportation system.
Most significantly, the bombing campaign has killed tens of thousands
of women, children, and seniors. It has seriously injured more than
100,000 Palestinians living in Gaza.
And Israel has chosen to restrict humanitarian aid. The consequences
of that are that food and clean water are woefully short; medical
supplies are minimal; and the specter of starvation haunts Gaza. The
indiscriminate bombing and the obstruction of humanitarian aid violate
the laws of war.
Now, President Biden and his team have consistently pressed the
Netanyahu government to change tracks. They recognize that it is
difficult in the setting in Gaza where Hamas imbeds itself but even so
have argued to Israel that the campaign against Hamas could be much
more targeted with far fewer civilian casualties. But the Netanyahu
government has rejected this appeal. And Biden and his team have pushed
to open the gates to Gaza, have Israel open the gates to Gaza, and to
massively increase humanitarian aid. And, again, the Netanyahu
government has rejected this appeal.
In mid-October, just last month, Secretary of State Blinken and
Secretary of Defense Austin renewed their appeal. They warned the
Netanyahu government that they must increase the amount of humanitarian
aid within 30 days to comply with U.S. law. And they wrote in that
letter that the amount of assistance entering Gaza in September was the
lowest of any month in the last year.
They laid out in this letter a whole series of horrific conditions
that need to be addressed, just as they had argued for the same for the
previous year. The result of that has simply been minimal to no action.
In November, a major evaluation was summarized in a letter by the
principals of the Inner Agencies Standing Committee. These are groups
like the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Oxfam and UNICEF and
the World Food Programme, headed by Cindy McCain, and the World Health
Organization.
These leaders who have folks on the ground, who have lots of experts
evaluating the situation, they recognize this. They summarized that the
situation unfolding in North Gaza is apocalyptic. And they go on to
talk about the schools serving as shelters having been bombed, about
rescue teams being deliberately attacked, and more.
As I described at the start of my remarks, I have, since my first
trip to Israel in 1978, been all in on the special partnership between
the United States and Israel, on economic support, on security support,
in the belief that our partnership would maximize Israel's confidence
in pursuing peace and security. But the actions of the last decade have
shattered that analysis.
The Netanyahu government is systematically undermining the
possibility of a Palestinian State through its settlement checkpoints,
its outposts, its settler-only highways. It is conducting its war
campaign in Gaza in a fashion that is producing massive civilian deaths
and injuries, conditions that aid organizations consistently described
as the worst they have seen anywhere in the world.
I believe that not only is this horrific for the Palestinians, but
this is absolutely not in the best interest of Israel's future. The
actions of the Netanyahu government are burning through a massive
reservoir of good will that was overflowing after October 7. It is
undoing the improved relationship with Arab neighbors won through the
Abraham Accords.
It is damaging because of our connection to Israel through military
arms, our advocacy and legitimacy campaigning for human rights around
the world.
So I ask you, what do you do when a good friend, a partner, heads off
on a disastrous course?
President Biden and his team responded by providing proposals and
encouragement to get back on course, but those were rejected. So now we
must weigh in here in this Chamber. And many in this Chamber may say:
Let's just continue the past; let's not see the horrific circumstances
in Gaza; let's not observe the systematic takeover of the West Bank;
let's ignore all that and continue with this very different rightwing
government without ever raising an eyebrow.
I disagree. I think that true partners do not stand idly by when
their partners go way off track in destructive ways and, thus, that we
should not continue to provide the munitions that we are voting on
today.
We cannot remain silent in the face of Netanyahu's strategy. We must
not continue to provide offensive weapons that make the United States
complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the
injury of 100,000 more innocents. Thus, I will choose to honor American
law and respect international law and support Israel's best, long-term
interests to thrive by voting to block these three weapons transfers up
for consideration today.
I was fabulously impressed by Israel when I hitchhiked around the
country in 1978--impressed by their can-do spirit, impressed by the
future of peace with Egypt and the possibility of peace with every
neighbor. I look forward to seeing that vision of peace and security
realized, and my vote today supports that vision.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. Madam President, since Hamas launched the deadliest
terrorist attack in Israel's history more than a year ago, Israel has
consistently faced a barrage of threats from Iran and its terrorist
proxies. Earlier this year, we all saw how Iran launched two separate
missile and drone attacks directly at Israel, and, just this week,
Israelis were wounded and killed after Hezbollah launched more rockets
at northern Israel.
The resolutions we are debating today would not only hurt Israel's
ability to defend itself against these attacks; they would embolden
Iran--I will repeat--they will embolden Iran and its terrorist proxies
to continue and even to increase their vicious and deadly attacks. In
doing so, they could prolong this war even further at a time when we
are close to securing a deal in Lebanon.
I know some on my side of the aisle are going to support these
resolutions because they disagree with the current Israeli Government,
but your decision whether or not to help Israel defend itself is not
and cannot be a political one. Government leaders and politicians,
well, come and go, but our commitment to Israel's security must be
ironclad, and restricting much needed arms to Israel because you don't
agree with everything the current government is doing will leave our
ally vulnerable to future terror.
I will repeat. Governments and leaders come and go. Will our support
for our ally remain?
Israel has an absolute right to defend itself, and the aid provided
by America is critical. I know some of you who are planning to vote for
these resolutions agree, but you may be worried about the need for
these offensive weapons that the resolutions would block. So let me
explain.
Israel cannot rely on missile defense alone to protect its citizens.
It also
[[Page S6657]]
needs to have the ability to destroy enemy threats before they can be
deployed and to respond to attacks that have already been launched. It
is this strategy that Israel successfully executed in the last few
months in Lebanon, where it preemptively destroyed Hezbollah rocket
launchers minutes--just minutes, moments--before they were set to fire
on Israel. And by providing Israel with these weapons, which are more
precise and more accurate, we can actually help it defend itself while
also minimizing civilian casualties.
I know many of you here are torn. You want to do the right thing, and
I am here to tell you that voting against these resolutions is the
right thing. Banning the sale of arms will hurt Israel. It will send
the wrong message to Iran and its terrorist proxies that America is
abandoning its ally and that the terrorists can now act with impunity.
Let me repeat. The message to terrorists will be, again, that they
can continue to act with impunity. Terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah,
the Houthis, and others will continue to receive that message loud and
clear, and I can promise you that they will plan accordingly.
So, if we are serious about preventing another atrocity like October
7, if we are serious about limiting civilian casualties, if we are
serious about sending a message to terrorists around the globe, I urge
all of you to vote no on all three resolutions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the resolutions
that we have before us.
For 76 years--and, by the way, I agree and associate myself with the
remarks of my friend and colleague from Nevada and not so much with my
colleagues from Vermont and Oregon, but I respect them individually. I
am in opposition to these resolutions before us, and I want to speak
for a few minutes as to why.
For 76 years, the United States has stood with the State of Israel,
our strongest ally in the Middle East, but, today, Members of this body
are sending a message that the United States' support for Israel is in
question. It is not. This comes after a difficult year during which
this administration has egregiously undermined Israel's ability to
defend itself as it fights a several-front war against Iran and our
common enemies. The administration has withheld weapons and ammunition.
It has issued National Security Memorandum 20, which has held Israel to
arbitrary standards and interfered in Israel's domestic politics--all
in an effort to placate the far left of the Democratic Party during our
own domestic elections.
Today, instead of acknowledging that American support for Israel is
still strong, these resolutions seek to say that support for Israel has
changed. It has not. I know these resolutions will fail, and I hope the
world will hear me when I say that the people of America support
Israel--full stop--but I think it is important to remember how we got
here.
This administration foolishly thought we could get along with Iran
and beg the Iranians to talk. When the Iranians refused, the
administration released billions of dollars in frozen assets in an
effort to buy the Iranians off. Meanwhile, the administration reversed
U.S. sanctions policies that had cut off the flow of money to the
Iranians. The Iranian ghost fleet, which Tehran uses to evade
sanctions, grew from under 80 ghost ships moving oil to now over 300
ships. Awash with money and knowing the administration would not
challenge Iranian bad behavior, Iran knew it could start this war in
Gaza without consequences.
Rather than focusing on Iran's behavior, these resolutions before us
today are the predictable evolution of the administration's horrible
and failed policies that seek to both appease the critics of Israel and
isolate the Jewish State in the international community at a time of
its greatest need. The departure from the regular process for moving
arms sales and the administration's repeated threats to halt assistance
to Israel invited these resolutions that are now before us. Withholding
arms sales signals to the terrorists that American support for Israel
is conditional and encourages Iran's proxies to extend the war in Gaza,
further risking civilians and incentivizing Hezbollah to continue its
attacks on Israel from the north.
We must stand with Israel as it confronts these threats. Voting in
favor of these resolutions would have significant foreign policy
implications far beyond the Middle East. U.S. allies across the globe
will lose confidence in the United States as a dependable security
partner. Partners straddling the fence between the United States on the
one hand and China and Russia on the other are watching this and
watching closely. They will certainly draw the conclusion that the
United States is a fickle friend that cannot be relied upon to follow
through on its commitments in the hour of their greatest need.
To make it worse, these resolutions highlight that, instead of
confronting our adversaries and their bad actions, the United States
will, instead, call on our friends to simply take it and to threaten
them if they do not just take it.
The support for Israel has traditionally enjoyed broad, bipartisan
support. I know that is true today. As such, I ask my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to vote no on these resolutions and to deliver
a strong voice of support for Israel.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I want to show my support for what my
colleague just said, Senator Risch, who made perfect sense. This is a
consequential vote, and we all know how it is going to end, but let me
tell you why it is consequential.
A lot of people are watching what we are doing here today, and they
are trying to get a signal to understand, like, where we are all coming
from. Let me tell you where I am coming from. I am coming from the idea
that, if you want to end the war between Israel and the Palestinians,
we need to replace Hamas with somebody who doesn't want to kill all the
Jews.
Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, killing more Jews than at any
time since the Holocaust. What were they up to in their pledge to
destroy the Jewish State? They are religious Nazis. If you don't
believe me, listen to what they have said. It was barbaric. They
slaughtered entire families. They decapitated children. They raped
women in front of their own families. And they filmed it to create hard
hearts throughout the world and the region. The Nazis hid their crimes.
Hamas filmed it so you could see it. Why?
October 7, in large part--not completely--was designed to stop
efforts to have Saudi Arabia and Israel recognize each other and
virtually end the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I have been to the region seven or eight times since October 7. I
went with a group of five Republicans and five Democrats right after
October 7 to deliver two messages. I went to Saudi Arabia, the biggest
power in the Islamic world, and I went to Israel.
To our friends in Israel, I said: We will give you--at least from my
view--the ability to make sure there is no second Holocaust. And the
weapons we have provided to Israel have resulted in the destruction of
Hamas.
There is no way forward for the Palestinians until you reform the
P.A., which is run by a bunch of corrupt old guys, and make sure Hamas
never comes back.
The most radicalized population on the planet are the young people in
Gaza. From the time they are born to the time they die, they are taught
to hate and kill the Jews. Look at their education system. How do we
change that? Somebody other than Israel has to come in and take over
Gaza and reform the West Bank and give the Palestinians a better life.
It will not be the United States. We can't do that. It certainly isn't
going to be Israel. Well, who would it be? It would be the Arab world.
The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has a vision for his country and the
region that I buy into. We have had our problems in the past, for sure,
but women can drive, which is a big thing, even though it doesn't sound
like it. Women can go out to dinner without a male escort. It doesn't
sound like a big thing, but it really is, and 38 percent of the people
working in Saudi Arabia are young women. So he has a vision to change
his country and to build on the Abraham Accords.
[[Page S6658]]
President Trump and his team were able to get six Arab nations to
recognize Israel--the United Arab Emirates and others--which was a huge
deal, and we have a chance to build on it.
So, for the last 2\1/2\ years, I have been going over to Saudi Arabia
and Israel, working with the Biden administration, to try to build out
the Abraham Accords. The big prize would be to have Saudi Arabia make
peace with Israel, take over Gaza and the West Bank with other people
in the region, and give the Palestinians a better life: rebuild Gaza;
create an honest government to replace a corrupt government; give them
sovereignty, self-government, the ability to live dignified lives; and
to give Israel security.
October 7 was designed by Hamas to stop what was imminent. I am here
to tell you that, on October 6, by the way, there were discussions
about how to roll out the normalization deal. Then, along comes October
7. Ever since that day, we have been dealing with this horrible
situation--the rape and torture and destruction of 1,200 Jewish people,
the response by Israel that has resulted in thousands of people being
killed--a lot of terrorists but a lot of children, a lot of innocent
people.
There are a lot of photos being presented.
I ask unanimous consent to display two photos, if I may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. This is a photo of Hiroshima--two photos, actually. This
is what happens when you drop a nuclear weapon on people. It is not
good.
Now, why did we do that? After Pearl Harbor, we and the civilized
world went to war against the Nazis and Imperial Japan. Millions of
people lost their lives, but it was the goal of the United States to
defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and we were able to do that.
Out of the ashes of that terrible, horrible war, we now have two
democracies. Japan and Germany are good allies of the United States.
They are productive members of the international community. It took a
generation-plus to change the radicalization of the German population
to the Nazis and the same in Imperial Japan.
What will happen is, if we can find normalization between Saudi
Arabia and Israel, there will be hope for the Palestinians like I have
not seen before. Those who want a two-state solution, we have to sit
down and talk about how you do that after October 7. But I do believe
that without resolving the Palestinian issue where the Palestinian
people have a hopeful life versus a glorious death, we will never move
forward.
I really do believe, after October 7, Israel needs security more than
ever. What is the key? The Arabs. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates, I think, hold the key to this. If we could
create a political horizon over the arc of time for the Palestinians
that you will have self-governance, that you will be independent, and
convince the Israelis that this new entity will not threaten you, that
there could never be another Oct 7, then we are well on our way to a
new region. This resolution today, no matter how sincere, undercuts all
of this.
Israel has had to respond to an attack that was the most vicious
since World War II against the Jewish people. I blame Hamas more than
any other group for the loss of life in Gaza because they use their own
people as human shields.
This commitment of the United States to give Israel what they need to
win a war they can't afford to lose has to be uncompromising, but what
is not uncompromising is the day after.
We are getting to the point now that, with the destruction of Hamas,
we have to think about, how can we prevent them from coming back?
Israel cannot occupy Gaza. The West Bank needs to be reformed, but it
has to be done with the Arab world leading the charge.
So what I would like to do with President Biden before he leaves
office is work with President Trump, the incoming President, and
President Biden, the outgoing President, to see if we can find a
solution. Can we lock down a normalization agreement between Saudi
Arabia and Israel that protects Saudi Arabia, a defense agreement with
the United States so they will be in our column and they will have an
anecdote to Iranian aggression? Can we, as a part of that, create a
political horizon for the Palestinians to have hope where there is
despair? Yes, we can.
But now is not the time to send this signal. This signal will be seen
by the enemies of Israel and the enemies of peace that if they just
stick with it, they will win.
If you want peace, you have to destroy those who hate peace. This is
not a Bibi problem; this is a problem where the Islamic terrorists--
Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran--want to kill all of the Jews, not just
Bibi. Now, why do they want to do that? They are religious Nazis. I
don't know why Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews, but he did.
So the Ayatollah has a couple of things in mind: the purification of
Islam, which means that Sunni Islam will bend to his will--if you don't
believe me, ask the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. The other goal is to
destroy the Jewish State and to drive us out of the Mideast.
The religious doctrine of the Shiites in charge compel them to kill
all of the Jews. It is a commandment from God. Here is what I know:
That is not what Islam teaches most Muslims, but they believe it. And
when we ignored Hitler, we did so not only at our own peril but the
peril of millions of people.
What have I learned from Israel? When someone threatens to kill you
because you are of a particular race or religion, you should take that
seriously.
So how do we end this conflict? We end this conflict with the
complete decimation of Hamas, a plan for the day after that will
replace Hamas in Gaza, reform the PA, try to get a cease-fire in
Lebanon, and reduce the impact that Hezbollah has on the Lebanese
people.
All of the Shiite, Iranian-backed militia have as their goal
disruption, upheaval, and tyranny. They want to control the region and
remake it in their own image. Look at what they are doing in Syria.
Look at what they are doing in Yemen. Look at what they are doing in
Lebanon.
We have a historic opportunity here to give Israel what they need to
finish a war they can't afford to lose, come up with a day-after plan
that would replace Hamas with a better life, try to get Lebanon in a
better space, and build on the Abraham Accords. This effort by my
colleagues undercuts all of that.
You have every right to say anything you want to say in this body,
but I have been there a lot, and none of you have gone with me. Making
peace is hard. We have not done this together. I have been with Senator
Van Hollen to Israel. I have been with Senator Van Hollen before in the
region. I think he wants to help the Palestinians, and I don't think he
is anti-Semitic. I just think there is an opportunity here.
It is not about Bibi, folks; it is about a strain of Islam that will
kill every Jew, including Bibi, and come after us unless they are
defeated.
So my goal is not only to reject this idea but to work with President
Biden and President Trump and their teams before the next President
takes office, to have a day-after plan that will allow Israel to
withdraw, and there will be no more October 7ths, and allow Gaza and
the West Bank to be rebuilt with dignity and hope. That is my goal.
This resolution undercuts my goal.
I would urge you to vote no.
I will be going back next week to Saudi Arabia, and I am going to
keep working with the Biden administration and the incoming Trump
administration to the last hour, to the last minute of the last day to
find a solution.
I would end with this: If we fail to find a day-after plan that
allows Israel to withdraw and be secure, and fail to deliver a
political horizon for the Palestinians, God help us all. This will
repeat itself. Iran will come back. Hezbollah and Hamas will reemerge.
We have a moment in time to change the region and change the world. I
would ask all of us to see that moment in this resolution, this counter
to what I am trying to achieve. So I would urge a ``no'' vote because
peace and a dignified life for the Palestinians rests with a viable
day-after plan.
What is the proper response to people who want to kill you and your
family and destroy your way of life? I can tell you what the United
States did. We went to war. We dropped two atomic
[[Page S6659]]
bombs to end a war we couldn't afford to lose.
What is the right response to those who want to kill all the Jews?
Make sure they don't have the capability to do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I rise in support of the joint
resolutions of disapproval that the Senate is considering today on the
sales of certain offensive weapons to the Netanyahu government.
To be clear, I do not support an arms embargo on Israel, but I do
believe that the United States should pause the delivery of offensive
weapons until the Netanyahu government meets the requirements of U.S.
law and policy with respect to the delivery of humanitarian assistance
to civilians in Gaza and the use of American weapons there.
This is not about abandoning support for Israel; this is about making
sure Americans' support for Israel complies with American laws and
policies and values. We would not be on this floor considering these
resolutions if that was happening today, and these votes will be the
one opportunity that Members of the Senate have to send that message. I
urge my colleagues to support them.
Following the Hamas attacks of October 7, I have, as probably every
Senator has, supported Israel's right to defend itself--in fact, argued
that they have a duty to defend themselves--and end Hamas's control of
Gaza, and I am steadfast in that support to this moment. There must be
no more October 7ths.
At the same time, U.S. taxpayer-funded assistance should not come in
the form of a blank check, even to our closest allies. We need to
ensure that U.S. interests, values, and priorities will be respected by
foreign governments that receive U.S. assistance. That is why our
security assistance to many countries includes various conditions to
encourage progress on human rights.
In some cases, as in the case of Ukraine, we have limited the use of
certain systems to align with U.S. national security interests. In
other cases, including even some NATO allies, we have prevented the
transfer of certain advance weapons systems when our policies goals do
not align.
The one minimum standard that we must apply to all recipients of
American security assistance is compliance with American laws, and it
is compliance with that minimum standard that we are talking about here
today--nothing more, nothing less. The Netanyahu government should not
be exempt from that universal requirement of American law.
The United States has provided billions and billions of dollars of
American taxpayer-financed bombs and other offensive weapons systems,
but we have seen Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly violate the terms
of American security assistance, disregard U.S. priorities, and ignore
our requests, only to be rewarded by more bombs and more money. That
pattern undermines the credibility of the United States around the
world and creates an unacceptable double standard that our adversaries
are exploiting.
Two of the conditions that every recipient of U.S. security
assistance must meet are, one, they must facilitate and not arbitrarily
restrict the delivery of humanitarian assistance into war zones where
those U.S. weapons are being used--war zones like Ukraine and war zones
like Gaza--and, two, they must use American-supplied weapons in
accordance with international humanitarian law, which was well
developed after World War II and what Senator Graham spoke to.
The Netanyahu government is violating both of these requirements in
Gaza, and by refusing to take action, the President and the United
States are complicit in those violations of American laws and American
values.
Let's look at the unacceptable restrictions being placed by the
Netanyahu government on the delivery of humanitarian aid to desperately
needy civilians in Gaza right now. It has been well documented that
there was some improvement in the delivery of humanitarian supplies in
Gaza last April, around the time that the Biden administration had to
submit the NSM-20 report to Congress, but since then, aid levels have
been on a downhill slide and then a precipitous drop. The cumulative
impact of severe restrictions on the delivery of humanitarian aid has
worsened an already catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Senator Sanders spoke to the conditions there.
In fact, that is why President Biden directly called on Prime
Minister Netanyahu to increase aid to Gaza on many occasions--most
recently in an early October call--and that is why, on October 13,
Secretaries Austin and Blinken expressly reminded Israeli Government
officials, in a letter that I have here, of their obligations under
U.S. and international law. They specifically cited section 620I of the
Foreign Assistance Act and National Security Memorandum 20 to
facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict the delivery of humanitarian
assistance.
Here is what our two Secretaries wrote in that letter:
We are particularly concerned that recent actions by the
Israeli Government--including halting commercial imports,
denying or impeding nearly 90% of humanitarian movements
between northern and southern Gaza in September--
And then they go on to list a number of other things--
are contributing to an accelerated deterioration in Gaza's
conditions.
Then Secretaries Austin and Blinken laid out a series of key measures
against which they said the United States was going to measure the
Netanyahu government's compliance. They mentioned enabling a minimum of
350 trucks per day to enter Gaza. They mentioned instituting adequate
humanitarian pauses across Gaza to enable humanitarian activities. They
mentioned reinstating a minimum of 50 to 100 commercial trucks per day.
They had a long list of items.
So what do eight very respected international NGOs that conduct
humanitarian relief in Gaza and monitor it have to say about whether
those conditions were met? Well, they have compiled a scorecard. I have
got it right here. And what they say on the specific items I mentioned
was that the Netanyahu government failed. In fact, the overall report
card concludes ``Israel Fails to Comply With U.S. Humanitarian Access
Demands in Gaza.''
In fact, they determined that not only did the Netanyahu government
fail ``to meet the U.S. criteria that would indicate support to the
humanitarian response, but concurrently took actions that dramatically
worsened the situation on the ground, particularly in Northern Gaza.''
They said that the situation is even more dire today than a month
ago. In other words, because of those actions that were taken, the
situation was worse than when Secretaries Austin and Blinken sent their
letter.
Indeed, an independent Washington Post analysis found that ``Israel
has largely failed to comply with the three main demands of the U.S.
letter.''
In that November 12 Washington Post article, they also pointed out
the following:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to
publicly disavow the plan, which calls for the military to
take control of the north by starving out the civilian
population and treating everyone who remains as combatants.
The story goes on to say:
The Israeli Defense Force says it has been given no such
orders and is focused on dismantling Hamas, but the ongoing
military operation in the north appears to have much in
common with the strategy.
It is called the ``General's Plan.''
A leading Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, editorialized with the
following headline:
Netanyahu's Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza Is on Display for All
to See.
That is a view that has also been echoed by many Israeli human rights
organizations, and I commend them on all the work that they do every
day.
And I find it extraordinary that so many of our colleagues come to
this floor to talk about human rights abuses across the world. They
cite Human Rights Watch. They cite Amnesty International. But when it
comes to those organizations writing reports about human rights
violations conducted by the Netanyahu government--oh, no--they run away
from that.
So let's look at what others have said in terms of monitoring the
situation right now in Gaza.
[[Page S6660]]
On November 1, the principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee,
the leaders of 15 U.N. and humanitarian organizations--including World
Food Programme Executive Director Cindy McCain and UNICEF Director
Catherine Russell, two American leaders of those organizations--said:
The situation unfolding in North Gaza is apocalyptic.
And they say:
The entire Palestinian population in North Gaza is at
imminent risk of dying from disease, famine and violence.
Humanitarians are not safe to do their work and are blocked
by Israeli forces and by insecurity from reaching people in
need.
They say:
Rescue teams have been deliberately attacked and thwarted
in their attempts to pull people buried under the rubble of
their homes.
Yet we keep sending more bombs.
In that statement, the U.N. and humanitarian leaders also issued this
call:
Member States must use their leverage to ensure respect for
international law. That includes withholding arms transfers
where there is a clear risk that such arms will be used in
violation of international law.
So let's look at the use of American weapons. In its May 10 NSM-20
report to Congress, the Biden administration concluded:
[I]t is reasonable to assess that defense articles covered
under NSM-20 have been used by Israeli security forces since
October 7 in instances inconsistent with its [International
Humanitarian Law] obligations or with established best
practices for mitigating civilian harm.
And in that report--and I urge my colleagues to look at it--the
administration identified a sampling of cases of civilian harm
incidents where U.S. weapons were used. And they said there are some
ongoing investigations and we are still waiting for answers from the
Netanyahu government.
Well, just a few weeks ago, there was a report that we now have 500
cases of civilian harm where U.S. weapons were used under review.
And if you look at the most recent letter from Secretaries Blinken
and Austin, you will see that they reference, at the bottom of their
report, the following--and I want to read this because their letter
says:
Lastly, it is crucial that our governments establish a new
channel to raise and discuss incidents of civilian harm. Our
previous engagements have not achieved the necessary
outcomes. We request the initial virtual meeting for this
channel to be held by the end of October.
This is more than a year into the war, and here you have the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State saying they are not
getting enough information from the Netanyahu government to be able to
make decisions about whether or not U.S. weapons have been used in
violation of international humanitarian law. Yet, despite not getting
that information, the administration has continued to send those
taxpayer-financed offensive weapons.
And it is very clear that the Netanyahu government continues to
conduct operations in Gaza in a way that results in large numbers of
civilian casualties, and I think our colleagues know that the fact that
Hamas violates international law and does despicable tactics by
operating from amongst civilians does not absolve Israel or any other
country involved in that kind of situation of the duty to avoid
civilian harm and avoid the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Since President Biden's recent call with Prime Minister Netanyahu
last month, we have seen continued high rates of civilian deaths, and
human rights organizations continue to document cases of weapons being
used in violation of international humanitarian law.
Now, Madam President, that October 13 letter not only warned the
Netanyahu government about unacceptable restrictions on humanitarian
aid in Gaza and not only warned them about illegal use of American
weapons; they also raised two other issues. One, they said that Israel
is required by international law to allow the International Committee
of the Red Cross access to Palestinian prisoners who were detained
without any charges.
Yet, despite them sending the letter, no change there. And that means
over 3,000 Palestinian prisoners who have been imprisoned without
charge under administrative detention are not--the ICRC does not have
access to them.
They also warned in their letter about pending legislation before the
Knesset that would cripple UNRWA. And here is what Secretaries Austin
and Blinken said. They warn that enactment ``of such restrictions would
devastate the Gaza humanitarian response at this critical moment and
deny vital educational and social services to tens of thousands of
Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which could have
implications under relevant U.S. law and policy.''
Within days of the U.S. Government sending that letter, two bills
were passed by the Knesset to ban UNRWA.
So what we see, Madam President, is a continuing pattern. President
Biden makes certain demands that are routinely ignored without
consequence. In fact, they are rewarded. And this is an ineffective use
of American leverage to accomplish our policy goals and ensure that
American law is abided by.
I want to just mention a couple others, and Senator Sanders
referenced them. But we know that Prime Minister Netanyahu has
repeatedly obstructed President Biden's plan for a ceasefire and the
return of hostages.
Both in Washington and Israel, I have met with families of hostages
who are experiencing unthinkable pain. I just met with the father of a
soldier who is being held right now in Gaza as a hostage. They have
stressed that Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly obstructed
President Biden's plan to bring home their loved ones.
In fact, in his farewell address just 2 weeks ago, former Israeli
Defense Minister Gallant noted that one of the key disagreements
leading to his firing by Netanyahu was over ``our moral obligation and
responsibility to bring our kidnapped sons and daughters back home as
quickly as possible, with as many alive as possible, to their
families.''
He went on to say:
Based on my role, experience, and the military achievements
of the past year, with a clear-eyed view of reality, I state
that this is achievable but involves painful compromises that
Israel can bear, and the IDF can deal with.
There is and will not be any atonement for abandoning the
captives.
This is former Defense Minister Gallant, fired by Netanyahu.
I heard Senator Graham speak a lot about the ``day after'' plan.
Well, President Biden has proposed a ``day after'' plan. It is to have
a reformed Palestinian Authority form the nucleus of governance in
Gaza. And, indeed, the Netanyahu government, led by Smotrich, not only
opposes President Biden's plan, but they have worked to systematically
weaken the P.A. by withholding tax revenues that it collects on behalf
of the Palestinian people.
What is more, Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly rebuked President
Biden's call to create a path to a two-state solution, even bragging
that he had long blocked that outcome--something I heard Senator Graham
refer to as something that was needed.
So the Netanyahu government has refused to comply with other
requests, as well, trying to change the rules of engagement on the West
Bank in order to prevent the killing of innocent civilians, including
the deaths of some American citizens. And contrary to longstanding
policy in American Government, from Republicans and Democrats alike,
about not having expanded settlements in the West Bank, something
Secretary Blinken agreed was inconsistent with international law, we
have seen a record number of settlements expanded by the Netanyahu
government--in fact, one when Secretary Blinken was there in Israel.
So, Madam President, the issue here is not whether or not the United
States is supporting Israel. The issue is whether or not, as we provide
that support, we have a two-way street. A partnership should be a two-
way street, not a one-way blank check. And, at a minimum, the Netanyahu
government should comply with American law, as we have talked about
today. And when they are not, we have an obligation to the American
people and American taxpayers to make sure that we withhold that
support until Netanyahu comes into compliance.
That is what we are saying here: Just meet the requirements of
American law.
And all of us have an obligation to American taxpayers to make sure
that
[[Page S6661]]
we are not complicit in violating American law and American values.
So, Madam President, that is why I encourage my colleagues to support
these joint resolutions to send that message. This is the one
opportunity we have to do so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes for
either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BUDD. Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong opinion to
Senator Sanders' attempt to cut off U.S. military support to our friend
and ally Israel.
I don't dare denigrate my colleague's intent here or the motives, but
I believe the effect is reckless and I believe it is dangerous and I
believe it will lead to the loss of even more lives.
We need to remember some basic facts about the difference between the
two sides of the conflict here. Israel is Middle East's only democracy.
They have been a force for stability in the region that is historically
beset by chaos. They have been America's strongest friend in good times
and bad. Israel is an unmistakable force for good.
And then you have the terrorists of Hamas. I mean, even their
founding charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.
Hamas's largest benefactor, Iran, lends its materiel and financial
support to this cause each and every day. They intentionally target
civilians. They target civilians, and they fire rockets into crowded
markets, and they preach not just death to Israel and to the Jewish
people but death to America.
And then came October 7. On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists
launched an unprovoked and deceitful series of terrorist attacks inside
Israel. The level of barbarism that we witnessed was nothing short of
evil incarnate--the mass slaughter of innocent civilians; unmistakable
and unspeakable violence against women, children, and the elderly. It
was the deadliest massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust.
These crimes against humanity were also visited upon American
citizens as well. Hamas murdered 46 Americans. They kidnapped 12. Seven
U.S. citizens remain hostage in Gaza. The State of Israel has every
right to root out the genocidal terrorists who committed these acts and
eliminate the threat once and for all.
Israel is carrying out this military action with precision, thanks,
in part, to munitions from the United States. For example, one of the
systems that we sell to the Israelis is tail kits with GPS receivers.
These kits convert unguided free-fall bombs into precision-guided
bombs. Put simply, these kits turn ``dumb bombs'' into ``smart bombs.''
But Senator Sanders proposes blocking the sale of these systems to
the Israelis. And, apparently, Senator Sanders would prefer that
Israelis use less accurate weapons to eliminate terrorists.
Now, it doesn't take anything more than common sense to realize that
this would make collateral damage even more likely. In Senator Sanders'
zeal to undermine our ally, he would make it more likely that
Palestinian civilians--who Hamas intentionally uses as human shields--
could be killed.
The bottom line is this: Cutting off U.S. support for an ally in
their time of need is just unbecoming of our country. To hamstring the
very nation trying to defeat the perpetrators of the October 7 carnage
is insulting to the Americans who were murdered and those who are still
held hostage. It is just wrong in every conceivable way.
All of these resolutions should be soundly rejected, and this body
should stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel as they take the fight to
Hamas.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak on the
resolutions we will be voting on shortly to share why I strongly oppose
them.
Israel is surrounded by enemies dedicated to its annihilation, from
Hamas to Hezbollah, to the Houthis, to most threateningly of all, Iran.
These threats, sadly, have been around for a long time and will
persist for many years into the future. Israel needs to protect itself,
not just today but also tomorrow and next year and beyond. It has been
a cornerstone of American policy to give Israel the resources it needs
to defend against its enemies. We should not stray from that policy
today.
Many of the arms sales in question today will not reach Israel until
years from now. We have no idea what kind of threats Israel will face
by then. It could be an even more emboldened Iran or a strengthened
Hezbollah or some other threat.
There are few, if any, who imagined the barbaric assault perpetrated
by Hamas on October 7. The twisted and hateful ideology that underpins
that violence from places like Iran will sadly continue in the region
for some time to come. Israel will need to be fully prepared to face
those threats. So voting to block assistance today could well very
embolden Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran and endanger Israel's security on
into the future.
I know there are many in this Chamber who have been strongly critical
of Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies. I am certainly one of them, as
I have made clear right here on the Senate floor, where I clearly
stated the urgent need to diligently pursue a two-state solution.
I have also made clear that Israel must do more to reduce the
suffering of innocent civilians in Gaza and do much more to get
humanitarian aid to where it is urgently needed. However, our security
assistance to Israel transcends any one Prime Minister or any one
government.
This is about Israel's long-term security and honoring a cornerstone
of the U.S. policy that we will give Israel--a democracy and a
steadfast ally--the resources it needs to protect itself in a difficult
world.
There are ways to express criticism and to work on addressing these
criticisms without impacting Israel's security.
So this is why I will be voting no. Again, while it is perfectly
legitimate to have objections with the Netanyahu government--and I know
many of my colleagues wish to express their disapproval--I believe
these resolutions are the wrong way and the wrong strategy to voice
those objections.
I vote no and urge others to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. First of all, I want to thank the majority leader not only
for his leadership on this issue in his straightforward, direct embrace
of the cause of Israel but also your openness for a debate in the
Senate about what is the best pathway forward.
Madam President, I also want to acknowledge that I had to listen
carefully to the words of Senator Schumer, Senator Rosen, Senator Budd.
They have given eloquent arguments in favor of opposing this
resolution. They raised the questions I ask myself: Can I, as a U.S.
Senator who is a strong supporter of Israel as a Jewish and democratic
state; can I, as a U.S. Senator who is absolutely appalled at what
Hamas did on October 7; can I, as a U.S. Senator who attended a
presentation by the Israeli Embassy that displayed the horror of the
rapes and the assaults on women who were taken captive; and can I, as a
U.S. Senator who believes in a two-state solution, vote in favor of
stopping the delivery of offensive weapons for Israel to use in Gaza?
And my answer is yes. It is for two reasons.
First, we are into our 14th month in Gaza. And what has happened is
over 43,000 people have been killed. Many Hamas, including the Hamas
leadership, have been killed. Good riddance.
But many, many thousands of innocent Palestinians, including women
and children, have been killed. Over 100,000 have been maimed and
injured, and 60 to 70 percent of the structures in Gaza have been
destroyed. That includes the schools. Young Gazans have not been in
school for 14 months. Hospitals have been destroyed. The humanitarian
catastrophe in Gaza is unparalleled and is being inflicted on innocent
Palestinians.
There is a second reason that I am going to support the joint
resolutions. I believe the continuation of the military action in Gaza
is not only jeopardizing what hostages still are alive, but it can only
make Israel weaker, not stronger.
[[Page S6662]]
Their own recently fired Defense Minister said there is no further
military purpose of offensive action in Gaza. If there is no further
reason for offensive military action in Gaza, why is there a need for
the United States to be providing more offensive weapons for the
Netanyahu government to be used in Gaza?
That is the question we face.
We talk about the signals that will be sent to Hamas, to Iran, to
Israel. There is another reality that can't be escaped, and it isn't
answered by inquiring as to what ``signals'' are being sent. It is what
is going to happen to these kids. What is going to happen to these
families that are continuing to live under bombardment where they can't
be safe anywhere, in part, because Hamas will go anywhere they can to
try to use them as human shields.
But even without that--being told that they can be safe here but then
are bombed and being told they can be safe there--many of these
families have been dislocated six to seven times.
The humanitarian catastrophe is grinding on. It comes, of course, at
a cost--enormous cost--to Palestinian families. It has come at a cost
to the State of Israel--which we support--with their further isolation
in the international community.
So the question before us is: What is the right thing to do, not just
by way of limiting and helping humanitarian catastrophe, but what is
the right thing for the United States to do with its ally Israel in
pursuit of the two goals we have always had with Israel? And that is to
advocate and defend and support Israel as a democratic, secure Jewish
State. And because we believe this is important to make that happen,
that we have an independent, secure Palestinian State, a two-state
solution.
So the question that I have is, Will U.S. arms, to be used
offensively in Gaza at this time and with this government, enhance
American policy that has been the policy of the United States through
Republican and Democratic administrations?
Madam President, the answer I have come to, the judgment I have come
to as a U.S. Senator is that it would harm our goals for that Jewish
democratic state, for the easing of humanitarian suffering, for
compliance with international law and the Leahy Law, and for what is a
goal that has to be the touchstone of our policy, and that is doing
everything we can to achieve a two-state solution for a secure,
democratic, independent Israel and a secure, disarmed--not armed--
Palestinian State side by side.
I intend to support these resolutions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Senator Welch is my friend, and he is
very eloquent. I just listened to his eloquent remarks in support of
Senator Sanders' resolution.
And Senator Sanders is my friend, but he is wrong. He is wrong.
Senator Welch talked, as he should have, about the right thing to do.
The right thing to do and the smart thing to do is not to pass Senator
Sanders' resolution.
I don't know why this is--if I make it to heaven, I am going to ask--
but there is some people in this world, they are not mixed up, they are
not confused, they are not sick, it is not that their mama or daddy
didn't love them enough--they are just bad people. And they hurt other
people, and they take other people's stuff. Why? Because they can.
And some of them are running countries, and they hate America. They
hate Americans. They want to kill us and drink our blood out of a boot.
That is just a fact.
Now, you do not have to be Einstein's cousin to see what is going on
in the world. President Xi in China is working with President Putin in
Russia who is working with the Ayatollah in Iran. Sometimes they allow
Kim Jong Un from North Korea to come along, but mostly as a mascot to
get them coffee.
President Xi is running the show, but that doesn't mean that
President Putin of Russia and especially the Ayatollah in Iran are not
right there by his side.
And what is their objective? Their objective is to have Russia
dominate Central and Eastern Europe. Their objective is to have China
dominate the Indo-Pacific--about which I will speak in a moment--and to
have China dominate Sub-Saharan Africa and to have China have the
ability to roam free in South America.
And their objective is to have Iran--the Ayatollah--dominate the
Middle East, which it has done until Israel decided to fight back,
which it has done through Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis rebels.
Now that is just a fact.
And one of our best friends in the world--maybe, on some days, our
only friend in the world--Israel--patient people, principled people but
realistic people--they have decided to stand up to Iran. And in
standing up to Iran, we are finding out very quickly they are also
standing up to China and Russia. But I will save that subject for
another day.
They have decided to stand up to Iran. They have beaten Hamas in
Gaza. They are beating Hezbollah in Lebanon. They had to do it despite
the obstacles thrown up against them every step of the way by President
Biden and Vice President Harris.
And if we support them, Israel will beat the Ayatollah in Iran.
Israel will cause a regime change. Because I can tell you, the people
of Iran--not its leadership--the people of Iran are fed up with their
leadership.
We have a duty--not a legal duty, a moral duty--to support our friend
Israel. We have agreed to do it. But besides that, we have a moral duty
to do it. And my friend Senator Sanders' resolution would turn our back
on one of the few friends that I think America--real friends that
America has in the world. And it would precipitate a foreign policy
crisis.
I don't say these words very often, but we ought to listen to the
words of my friend Senator Schumer. He is going to vote against Senator
Sanders' resolution. Senator Schumer is right. Even a blind hog finds
an acorn now and then. Senator Schumer is right: We need to defeat this
resolution. It will precipitate a foreign policy crisis.
And it is not the only one we would have in the world. I want to talk
for just a few minutes about another crisis that is going on quietly as
we speak.
This is the Indian Ocean, as the Presiding Officer well knows, one of
the most important parts of the world. Here is China; here is India.
China is trying to dominate all of these sea lands for military reasons
and for commercial reasons.
Here in the middle of the Indian Ocean is a group of islands called
the Chagos Islands. You may not have heard of them; I hadn't before I
was alerted of this crisis. America has a military base in the Chagos
Islands. There are about 40 to 60 islands. One of the islands is called
Diego Garcia. And we built a military base there. And it is not just
any military base. It is an extraordinarily important military base.
Our military base is one of the few in the world where our military
can reload submarines--hugely important. Our military base on Diego
Garcia in the Chagos Islands houses a number of Navy ships. Our
military base there houses long-range bombers that we use to carry out
missions around the world.
Now, we have to--we and the United Kingdom--I will explain why the UK
is involved in a moment--we have to work hard every day to police our
military base, not just the base itself, but the land--or, rather--the
water surrounding it, because China--China knows how important this
military base is to the security of the world. China is constantly
sending craft trying to spy on our military base there.
And we and the United Kingdom--again, I will explain in a second the
United Kingdom's relevance--are constantly having to patrol and fight
off the espionage of China. In fact, China has breached the security of
American military bases over 100 times in the last few years. They are
very aggressive.
Now, why am I talking about this military base? Because President
Biden and Vice President Harris, as we are all working here trying--
like a bunch of ants on a sugar bowl, trying to wrap up our work for
the year, President Biden and Vice President Harris are giving away
this military base. They are giving it away.
The Chagos Islands is a territory of the United Kingdom. The United
Kingdom gave America permission to build our military base here.
[[Page S6663]]
Now, the Chagos Islands has a rich history. It has a relationship
with another island in the Indian Ocean, Mauritius. And I mention that
because to understand what is going on, you have to understand the
relationship.
Mauritius and the Chagos Islands used to be partners. The Chagos
Islands were what is called a dependency of Mauritius. And Mauritius,
many, many years ago, beginning in 1715, was a colony of France. And
while Mauritius was a colony of France, Mauritius established a
relationship with the Chagos Islands.
And then, beginning in 1814, France said: Look, we are going to cede
Mauritius and now the Chagos Islands--where we have our military base--
to the United Kingdom. And they did.
Mauritius and the Chagos Islands, 250 years ago, they might have been
close, but they are not today. They don't share the same culture. They
don't speak the same language. They don't visit each other. In fact,
many of the people from Chagos lived in the United Kingdom.
But here is what President Biden is doing and Vice President Harris.
They say we need to grant independence to the Chagos Islands but not
let the people of the Chagos Islands run their country. We need to give
the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius. Why? I mean, no offense, but that
is cell-deep stupid.
Why? Mauritius and the Chagos Islands don't have a relationship
anymore, and we have a military base there.
I will tell you why. The United Nations--the United Nations, and
particularly the International Court of Justice, which has no
jurisdiction over the United States of America and has no jurisdiction
over the United Kingdom and which currently controls the Chagos
Islands, they have scolded the United Kingdom.
They said the United Kingdom is a colonizer, and the United Kingdom,
the people of the United Kingdom are bad people.
Now, remember, this is coming from the United Nations. This is the
same United Nations that has the following countries on its human
rights council: Somalia, Iraq, Venezuela, China. That is who thinks we
ought to get rid of this military base. OK? I mean, this is not some
act of justice here.
But in any event, the United Nations is saying: United Kingdom, you
bad people, give the Chagos Islands back--but not let the Chagos
Islands be free; they want to give the Chagos Islands back to
Mauritius. And President Biden could stop it and so could Vice
President Harris. But they are for it, all in an effort to curry favor
with the people at the United Nations who walk around with their NPR
tote bags and their organic broccoli and have great relationships with
members of the media who they think write history. Why on God's green
Earth would we do that? Why?
China, of course, is delighted. Why is China delighted? Now, the
United Nations says: OK, we don't want to be too mean-spirited here;
America can keep its military base for 99 years, but you have to sign a
lease. And we got to start paying Mauritius to stay there.
China says: Fine. That sounds good to us. Why? Because, No. 1, China
has already started currying favor with Mauritius, and No. 2, Mauritius
will now be in charge of the security of the Chagos Islands and our
military base and the water surrounding it.
China, Xi Jinping, he is as happy as a gopher in soft dirt. He will
be hacking the Mauritius security as soon as the trade is made.
Now, President Trump, I hope you are listening to this. My good
friend Senator Rubio, soon-to-be Secretary of State, I hope you are
listening to what I am talking about.
What we are debating today is important. I don't mean to say that.
And I am not kidding you. I am not going to bubble wrap it. If Senator
Sanders' resolution passes, it will precipitate a foreign policy
crisis. But this foreign policy crisis is being perpetrated--or
prosecuted right now, and it is another foreign policy crisis, and it
is going on all because President Biden--all because President Biden
and Vice President Harris want to appease the United Nations and China.
President Trump, please, pretty please with sugar on top, pick up the
phone and call the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and say: Don't
sign that treaty. Don't give away the Chagos Islands. Don't give away
America's military base. Don't do it.
If we object, they won't. If we don't say anything, they will.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, over the past year, we have used our
voices and influence to press for the protection of civilians in Gaza,
for access to vital humanitarian assistance, to bring home the
hostages, and to end this conflict. We all know that it is our
responsibility to do more, Israel's responsibility to do more, and the
international communities' responsibility to do more to protect
innocent victims.
But even as we work to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, we
must be clear about our commitment--our longstanding, bipartisan
commitment--to the State of Israel. It has been the bedrock of our
foreign policy in the Middle East, a special relationship that was
established in 1948 when President Truman, against the advice at that
time of the State Department because there were more Arab States and
just one Israel--against the advice of the State Department, President
Truman recognized the State of Israel immediately after the United
Nations vote.
That special relationship is based upon two countries--Israel and the
United States--both democracies, shared values. We share intelligence
information, military information, and much, much more. That special
relationship is important to Israel, and it is important to America's
national security interest. We both benefit from it.
Part of that special relationship is the United States is committed
to making available to Israel the military arms it needs in order to
defend itself from the dangers in the region. We have mutual
adversaries--Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and
many others. The threats are real. The adversaries are not just
Israel's adversaries; they are our adversaries.
Now, to the three resolutions that we have before us and how that
relates to this issue, S.J. Res 111 deals with tank munitions. These
tank munitions have a delivery date 3 years from now. These are
replenishments. This is so Israel has the capacity to defend itself
against the future threats that we know are in the region, that are
real. It is not engaged in the current conflict in Gaza or Lebanon; it
is for Israel's ability to defend itself against the threats that are
real in the region.
S.J. Res 113--mortar munitions. The delivery date is about a year and
a half from now. Again, it is for the replenishment of their supplies.
It is to make sure they are not caught in a situation where they can't
defend themselves against future threats.
These are the wrong vehicles for expressing ourselves in regards to
the conflict that exists today, but if we are going to talk about the
conflict that exists today, then a spotlight should be on Hamas, not
Israel.
The third resolution, S.J. Res 115--the JDAMs. This one, I really
don't understand. These are precision kits that go on munitions; they
are not the munitions themselves. Without the JDAMs, the precision of
the munitions is not as great. What does that mean? It means it has a
much higher likelihood of missing the target--collateral damage,
civilians killed and injured. So it is counterproductive to the safety
of the communities. I don't understand why we would want to prevent
Israel from having the technology to have precision use of its
munitions. To me, that makes no sense at all.
But, as I pointed out, the spotlight should be on Hamas. Why are we
in this conflict? October 7--brutal attack by Hamas. We don't hear a
lot of talk about that. The hostages. We talk about the release of the
hostages; they never should have been taken. Where is the outrage in
the international community and where is the outrage here about Hamas
holding hostages, some of whom are Americans? That is where the outrage
should be.
Hamas uses human shields. Yes, we bereave the loss of innocent life,
but Hamas makes it much more likely that there are going to be the
casualties of innocent life. They embedded themselves in hospitals and
universities and make it so much more difficult for Israel to conduct a
military campaign.
[[Page S6664]]
Why isn't the focus on the terrorists?
Then there is the humanitarian assistance. We have heard from our own
State Department people as recently as today that the challenges for
humanitarian assistance are made so much more difficult because of
Hamas using it as a weapon to deny its own people humanitarian help,
making it extremely difficult for the deliveries to take place.
So I am somewhat confused. I don't understand these resolutions as
furthering the cause for what the sponsor has indicated. The sponsor
says that he disagrees that blocking these offensive arms sales will
only embolden terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah as
well as their sponsors in Iran. But if the U.S. Senate fails to provide
the support to Israel now, what else would our adversaries believe?
This would be a sign of weakness in our resolve to fight the terrorism
in the region. It would be a gift to Iran.
Let me talk about the cost. You hear a lot about taxpayer cost.
Canceling these contracts--they have cancellation causes. This will
cost the taxpayers money, not save the taxpayers money.
I want to talk lastly about the timing of this, and I want to talk
about--let me quote from the message we received from the Biden
administration:
These resolutions are particularly untimely and
counterproductive as we are working to secure a cease-fire in
Lebanon. U.S. officials are in Beirut now working to finalize
this deal, a deal that is only possible because of the
military pressure Hezbollah is under. Disapproving arms
purchases for Israel at this moment would jeopardize those
talks and put wind in the sails of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas
at the worst possible moment.
These resolutions should be defeated. As the administration said, we
urge you to oppose the JRDs, which will prolong the wars, not shorten
them, put Israel at risk, and inject wind in the sails of Iran and its
proxies just as they are facing a historic low point and looking for a
deal.
I urge my colleagues to reject all three of these resolutions. Let us
continue to work together for peace in the Middle East. Let us work and
isolate the terrorists in the region, Iran and its proxies. Let's work
with our allies and partners in the region to do exactly that. Let's
not make the matter worse by calling into question our commitment to
make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself against the future
threats that are in that region.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by pointing out--although it
may not be obvious here in the Senate--that poll after poll shows that
a strong majority of the American people oppose sending more weapons
and military aid to fuel Netanyahu's vicious and destructive war
machine. I would also add, because some of this has come up, that
according to a poll commissioned by J Street, a pro-Israel Jewish
organization, 62 percent of Jewish Americans support withholding
weapons shipments to Israel until Netanyahu agrees to an immediate
cease-fire.
Let me just mention a few of the organizations that think the time is
now to stop giving money to Netanyahu, who ignores America's laws and
our values--some of the major trade unions in America: the SEIU, the
United Auto Workers, United Electrical Workers; Amnesty International;
the Arab American Institute; the Association of U.S. Catholic Priests;
the Friends Committee on National Legislation; Oxfam America; the
Episcopal Church; the United Church of Christ; the United Methodist
Church General Board of Church and Society; the American Baptist
Churches USA; the Global Ministries of the Christian Church.
These resolutions have strong support all across this country by
people who understand that we cannot continue to fund the horrific war
machine and the atrocities Netanyahu is committing.
These resolutions come down to a few basic points. First of all,
should the U.S. Government obey the law? And the law is very clear that
we as a government cannot fund other countries that are in violation of
international human rights or that are blocking humanitarian aid.
Now, somebody here wants to come down and say: I don't like that law.
The U.S. Government should give money to any government it wants no
matter what they do, no matter how atrocious their behavior is.
Come down and change the law, but that ain't the law now. The law is
based on moral principles that say: When the United States provides
military arms, those countries that receive those weapons cannot
violate international human rights and cannot block humanitarian aid.
And that is precisely what Israel is doing. That is not me who says
that; that is what virtually every humanitarian organization working in
Gaza right now says.
So if you believe we should obey the law, you have to vote for these
resolutions.
No. 2, from a moral perspective, we cannot turn a blind eye to one of
the worst humanitarian disasters in the modern history of this world--a
humanitarian disaster we are significantly funding.
My colleagues, as we speak, thousands and thousands of children in
Gaza are starving to death.
In an area of 2.2 million people, 43,000 are dead. Over 100,000 have
been injured. We cannot turn a blind eye to that humanitarian disaster,
caused in part by U.S. financial support to Netanyahu.
Thirdly, I heard about the U.S. role in the world. Well, I will tell
you that our role is significantly diminished if we continue to support
Netanyahu and this humanitarian disaster that is currently taking
place.
What is the moral standard that we have to critique other countries?
How do you critique Iran for their terrible human rights record? How do
you critique China or Russia for their terrible human rights records?
Because you get here on the floor of the Senate and you make that
critique, and people around the world will laugh at you, and they will
say: Don't give us advice. Don't criticize us when you have supported
the mass starvation of children with your taxpayer dollars.
This is a very important vote. It is an important vote because it
tells the world that we will not continue supporting a government which
violates American law, which violates international law, and which
violates the humanitarian standards that I would hope every Member of
this Senate upholds.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time be
yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Motion
The question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge.
Mr. SANDERS. I would 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).
The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 79, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 292 Leg.]
YEAS--18
Durbin
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Ossoff
Sanders
Schatz
Shaheen
Smith
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
NAYS--79
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Brown
Budd
Butler
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Helmy
Hickenlooper
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kelly
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murray
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sinema
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
[[Page S6665]]
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Baldwin
NOT VOTING--2
Braun
Vance
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Helmy). The Senator from Vermont.
____________________