[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 172 (Wednesday, November 20, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6666-S6671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RELATING TO THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENTIAL REPORT WITH RESPECT TO
THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 566,
S.J. Res. 117.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 566, S.J. Res. 117,
relating to the disapproval of the Presidential report with
respect to the indebtedness of the Government of Ukraine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 1
hour for debate, equally divided.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, yesterday marked a somber milestone: 1,000
days since Russia invaded Ukraine. Over a million lives have been lost
or wounded--a staggering human toll. Yet, instead of seeking a path to
peace, the Biden administration is choosing escalation. Billions of
taxpayer dollars have been funneled into this conflict with little or
no oversight and no end in sight. It is as if writing blank checks has
become our primary foreign policy strategy. This has extracted a huge
human cost.
Just days ago, President Biden authorized Ukraine to use American-
provided long-range weapons to strike inside Russia. Let me repeat
that. We are now enabling attacks using U.S. weaponry inside Russian
territory. When I first saw the headline, I didn't believe it. I hoped
it was maybe a joke or fake news. It was neither. It was real.
Now, this is not a step toward deescalation. Nothing could be further
from that. In fact, this is a dangerous provocation, one that brings
the United States perilously, unacceptably close to a direct conflict
with a nuclear-armed adversary. In response, Russia has updated its
nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons.
This is not a game. The rounds are live and flying--and, I would add,
deadly. The specter of nuclear war is now looming larger than it has in
decades. Yet the administration seems undeterred, even willing, as if
eager to risk U.S. security for the sake of scoring one last cheap
political point against the incoming Trump administration and the
American people.
Now in the twilight of its tenure, the Biden administration is
quietly attempting to forgive half of Ukraine's economic aid package
from the last supplemental appropriations bill--a whopping $4.7 billion
given away for free if President Biden has his way.
The American people are being deceived by the Biden administration.
Americans were told Ukraine would repay that sum when this bill passed.
In fact, that is part of how they got it passed. It was, you might say,
a ``without which not'' of that bill's passage. Now they are being
stuck with the tab.
Now, let's be clear: Forcing the American people to pick up this tab
removes an essential point of leverage for the United States to bring
Ukraine to the negotiating table. It prolongs a bloody war. It drains
our own scarce precious resources and gives Ukraine a freebie we don't
extend even to our closest allies, all without accountability or a
strategy that prioritizes America's interest first.
But it is worse than that. It does so in a way that puts us in the
firing line--the firing line of a nuclear-armed adversary. Moreover, a
significant portion of this sum was allocated to fund the salaries of
President Zelenskyy and Ukrainian bureaucrats.
What kind of message does that send?
At a time when American families are pinching pennies--pinching
pennies--because we spent money we don't have, causing us to print more
money, causing every dollar the American people earn to buy less, it is
absolutely unconscionable that their hard-earned tax dollars are being
used to underwrite the administrative costs of a foreign government and
the salaries of foreign bureaucrats--all in a way that makes us less
safe, all in a way that puts us in a precarious position we haven't
faced since most of us were children.
Our constituents are tightening their belts and making tough
decisions about healthcare, education, and basic necessities. Yet we
are being asked to finance the operational expenses of another nation's
government.
Madam President, we have a duty--a solemn duty, a sacred duty--to our
constituents to ensure that their hard-earned money is spent wisely and
ethically and, at a minimum, not in a way that makes them less safe,
not in a way that paints a target on their back or an adversary with
nuclear weapons. We certainly have a constitutional duty to prevent
unnecessary escalation that could lead to catastrophic consequences.
And we have a duty to uphold the will of the American people who very
recently--just over 2 weeks ago--voted for a different President with a
different foreign policy, one that works for the American people and
not against them.
Instead, as a final parting gift--and, yes, I use that word very,
very euphemistically--the Biden administration wants to saddle the
American people with a tab that they don't want, that they never agreed
to, that they expressly rejected at the ballot box, and that they
cannot afford.
That is why I stand in full wholehearted support of Senator Rand
Paul's joint resolution of disapproval to block this misguided,
dangerous, reckless, wealth transfer to a corrupt foreign government. I
call on all of my colleagues to do the same.
We need to halt this dangerous path and give the incoming
administration every tool to pursue a strategy that prioritizes peace
and America's interests. The American people have spoken and
resoundingly, with good reason, rejected the policies of this
administration that escalate conflict and prolong wars.
The American people deserve better. They should expect more. They
strive and yearn for peace. Rand Paul's measure would help advance
that. Doing nothing would impair it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Georgia.
U.S. Arms Sales
Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, I rise not in response to the Senator from
Utah or to address the matter being raised by Senator Paul but to
address the resolutions that were debated previously with respect to
U.S. policy in the Middle East.
[[Page S6667]]
In 1982, as Israeli forces pursued the PLO deep into Lebanon,
President Reagan was angered by what he viewed as excessive civilian
casualties resulting from the Israeli bombardment of Beirut.
Concerned by the suffering of innocent civilians and its impact on
American diplomacy, not only did President Reagan personally call
Israeli Prime Minister Begin and demand a halt to the bombing--and the
bombing reportedly stopped within hours--but the American President
then blocked the provision of cluster munitions to Israel out of
concern that their use by the IDF was killing too many innocent people.
President Reagan imposed conditions on the provision of U.S. arms,
using leverage to influence the conduct of an ally. He took those steps
to protect innocent life and to defend what he perceived to be
America's interests. And Israel, faced by President Reagan's ultimatum,
adjusted its policy to accommodate America's demands.
The United States remained Israel's closest ally, and the world kept
turning.
This story is not a perfect mirror image for the agonizing situation
we face today and have faced since the despicable Hamas attacks of
October 7. Today, Israel faces a multifront assault by Iran and its
proxies while the war in Gaza has devastated the territories and
civilian population.
But I tell this story to remind my colleagues that in the pursuit of
America's national interests, to use the leverage that comes with the
provision of arms, as President Reagan did in 1982, is not just
sometimes necessary, it is expected and appropriate. The United States
is and will remain Israel's closest ally. Our commitment to Israel's
security is ironclad.
But no foreign government is simply entitled as a matter of right to
American weapons with no strings attached. No foreign government, no
matter how close an ally, gets everything it wants whenever it wants,
to use however it wants. It is entirely appropriate for the United
States to insist that foreign powers use American weapons consistent
with our interests, our values, and our laws.
And to insist otherwise weakens American foreign policy and
undermines our ability to protect the interests of the American people.
And to impose conditions on the provision of certain weapons to an ally
when necessary is not a betrayal of that alliance. It is the pursuit of
our national interests. Again, President Reagan understood that in
1982.
So let's apply the principle to the present moment. In November of
last year, I addressed the Senate on the war in Gaza in the aftermath
of the October 7 attack, affirming Israel's right to defend itself, to
wage war against and defeat its enemies. And I affirmed, as I do again
today, America's enduring support for our ally.
I also urged that Israel respect American requests to reduce
unnecessary civilian casualties in Gaza, to provide safe passage for
food and essential medical supplies, to clearly define Israeli
objectives to present a credible plan for Gaza's future governance, and
to prevent atrocities by Israeli extremists in the West Bank.
These requests of the Israeli political leadership have been made not
just by me and many others in the Senate but repeatedly by the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the President over
the past year.
That Israel take these reasonable and necessary steps has been and
remains in America's national interests. No one in this body or the
American Government has suggested that Israel lay down its arms and be
overrun or that Israel does not have a right and, indeed, an obligation
to defeat its enemies and defend its people. Rather, the United States
has insisted that Israel's conduct of the war respect our interests and
our values--the interests and values of Israel's closest ally.
And yet, for the most part, this insistence has been ignored. The
United States has been ignored, in part, because the Israeli Prime
Minister is beholden to Cabinet Ministers in Mr. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir,
who insist there be no deviation from policies that are gratuitously
brutal, even over American objections.
We should be disgusted by the spectacle of Israeli extremists running
amuck in the West Bank, sometimes with the protection of Israeli
security forces, shooting and maiming goat herders and olive farmers
and burning and seizing their land.
And the American people are rightly horrified by the lack of
sufficient concern for innocent Palestinian life that has left so many
children unnecessarily dead in Gaza, without limbs, or riddled with
shrapnel.
As I said on the floor last year, no one should be naive to the
inherent risk to civilians that comes with warfare in a place like Gaza
against an enemy like Hamas. Tragically, horribly, fighting terrorists
in a dense urban environment makes civilian casualties inevitable. Yet
the evidence that force has repeatedly been applied with reckless
disregard for the innocent is too credible for us to ignore. We are
talking about precious, innocent children and other innocent civilians
who might otherwise be alive or without grievous wounds today.
These things aren't just horrific, they are inconsistent with
America's national security interests. Yet we seem to have forgotten
that we have the power to influence our ally's conduct and that we can
do so without betraying our ally. It is often said that our efforts to
influence close allies are best done in private and, where possible,
done gently, and I agree. But in this case, that has not been
sufficient nor have heartfelt public statements and harshly worded
letters been effective.
So what would President Reagan do? Judging by his actions 40 years
ago, I think he would judiciously use the power that comes with our
provision of weapons in order to shape Israel's conduct.
Some have taken to the floor tonight to argue that holding up two or
three arms sales today would have been an abandonment of our ally,
leaving Israel naked and undefended in the face of Iranian aggression.
That is nonsense.
The question on the floor today was not whether to shut off military
support for Israel. The resolutions we debated accounted for less than
5 percent of American arms that will likely flow to Israel over the
next 3 years, and most of the shipments debated will not even arrive
until 2026 or 2027. Bipartisan American support for Israel's
nonnegotiable right to exist and to defend itself is rock solid.
Had these resolutions passed, however, perhaps Israeli politicians
would have received the necessary message that has so far been
disregarded, which is, yes, defend yourself; yes, defeat your enemies,
but have mercy for the innocent, retrain your own extremists, and
respect the interests of the United States.
The realization that every shipment is not simply available on an
unlimited basis with no strings attached might have resulted in changes
to Israeli policy that would reduce civilian suffering and support
America's regional and global interests as he believed it would when
President Reagan used American power in 1982.
I remain steadfastly committed to the United States-Israel alliance.
And I also believe we must be willing to say no, even to our closest
friends, when we believe it is in America's national interest.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
S.J. Res. 117
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 117, the
motion to proceed. And I rise as the chair of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee to relate to our colleagues why I am against this
resolution and how we got to this vote.
This body passed aid to Ukraine by a 79-to-18 bipartisan vote. It
approved the necessary funding for Ukraine to be able to defend itself
against Mr. Putin's aggression--Russia's aggression--and it allowed us
with our coalition partners to be able to have a unified front against
Russia's attempt to change borders by force.
That legislation included the authority to the President to forgive
and cancel debt. That is what President Biden did under the authority
given to him by a 79-to-18 vote in this body. The President executed
that authority and, yes, the Senate has the opportunity by a resolution
to override that.
But I would urge my colleagues to remember why we voted by a 79-to-18
vote on this floor to help Ukraine.
[[Page S6668]]
Ukraine is the frontline in our defense for democracy. No one believes
that Russia would stop if Ukraine were to fall with just Ukraine. We
know that Russia has its eyes on Moldova and Georgia. We know the
Baltic countries are very much in the eye of Russia.
Poland is concerned, and Europe is concerned. It is in our national
security interest to make sure that Russia's aggression in Ukraine is
stopped and Ukraine's sovereignty is protected.
Now, Russia is not alone in this. There is an alliance developing of
autocratic States against our democratic systems of government. Russia
is getting help from the People's Republic of China. They are getting
direct help from North Korea. They are getting weapons from Iran. They
are getting help from these autocratic partners.
We are literally fighting for our democratic way of life. It is not
just Europe that is of concern. If Ukraine were to fall, it makes it
much more likely that the People's Republic of China would think that
they could take over Taiwan and the West would just let them do that,
and China could very well try to take that over by force. So there is a
lot at stake here.
Now, Ukraine is footing the burden. It is their soldiers that are on
the battlefield. They are devoting 100 percent of their ability to the
war effort, and they are asking us to help make sure that their economy
can perform.
So this debt relief goes to maintain their economy, to maintain their
energy and agricultural sectors, and it would unlock IMF--International
Monetary Fund--to Ukraine without cost to the American taxpayer.
This debt relief makes sense from so many different points: to
protect Ukraine's ability to keep its economy moving so they can pursue
their defense of their nation, that we have an ally and friend that
stops the aggression of Russia and says no to the alliance that is
being formed against democratic states.
It is a very small price for us to pay to maintain our democracy and
to prevent the need for American soldiers fighting on foreign soil.
I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier this year, we passed a bipartisan
national security supplemental that included crucial economic aid to
Ukraine, which was structured as a forgivable loan. The Senate vote was
overwhelming and bipartisan--79 to 18. That is because there is wide
understanding on both sides of this aisle that support for Ukraine is
an investment in our own national security interests, and that includes
the economic support in that package, because while weapons are
important, the costs of war are not just measured in arms, and the
burdens are not only borne by the military.
There are day-to-day government functions that must continue to
support the war effort and for the sake of the very families and
communities Ukraine is fighting for, and that includes work to defend
and repair critical infrastructure, roads, bridges, energy, water; work
to fight off cyber attacks and corruption, which threaten to weaken
critical functions of government; work to support the energy and
agricultural sectors that are crucial to Ukraine's economic stability,
not to mention the global food supply. And there is work to make sure
first responders can keep doing their jobs; mental health and support
services can reach veterans, internally displaced families, and others
in need; and teachers and schools can keep supporting kids, which are
the future of every country.
These investments are crucial to Ukraine's future and its resistance
of Putin's invasion, and given how important those investments are, it
is worth noting that these dollars came with three layers of oversight
and audits to make sure they are being used as intended.
But the vote today is a test of whether we truly understand what is
at stake here, not just for Ukraine but for America's strength as a
global leader. It is a test of how closely we stand by our allies in
their times of need.
Our adversaries are watching for us to fail. They are hoping to tell
everyone: Watch out before you accept any help from the United States.
They are hoping allies start doubting our promises. They are hoping
other countries start second-guessing whether to build stronger ties
with America. They are hoping we weaken our position in the world and
weaken Ukraine in the process.
We cannot let that happen. I urge my colleagues to send a message:
American leadership is strong, and our support for our allies is
unwavering. And it is in our own national security interest.
I urge all of them to join me in opposing this joint resolution of
disapproval.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, here we go again with the ``Ukraine First,
America Last'' policy. Earlier this week, President Biden delivered a
report to Congress informing us that he now intends to forgive or
cancel $4.65 billion worth of U.S. loans to Ukraine.
Now, you might ask yourself: When were these loans issued?
Oh, about a month or two ago.
Well, when does Ukraine have to pay back these loans that we are
forgiving?
Well, they made an agreement to start paying them back in 40 years.
President Biden is forgiving loans that aren't due for 40 years.
This makes a mockery of the entire charade that this is a loan. They
should have just said it was a gift.
A forgivable loan? It is not even a loan. It is not due for 40 years,
and we are forgiving it now.
These funds were provided by the American taxpayer in the form of
loans with the expectation that they would be repaid. We are not going
to wait any period of time. They weren't even going to be repaid for 40
years, and we are forgiving them. That is a sick joke, and a sick joke
on every American who has got a loan at the bank for their house, who
has to pay their mortgage every month, and yet Ukraine is never going
to have to pay their loans.
It seems like this is ``Ukraine First, America Last.'' We have got a
$36 trillion debt in our country. We are paying a trillion dollars in
interest. We can barely keep up. We are not keeping up with all of the
things we promised Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food
stamps--all of the things that have been promised. We are $2 trillion
short.
So what do we do? We are just shipping billions to Ukraine. About
$200 billion has been sent so far.
Such blatant disregard of American citizens is unacceptable. The
joint resolution of disapproval that I put forward, today, provides the
Senate an opportunity to prevent the President from doing this--from
canceling this debt, from making a mockery of the idea that it was ever
a loan.
We will not stand idly by as the President elevates the interests of
a foreign country above our own.
And let me remind President Biden that, due to his failed policies
over the last 4 years, Americans across this country are struggling
with their loans. Today, some 37 million Americans live under the
poverty line, including 9 million children. Fifty percent of Americans
say they are living paycheck to paycheck, and yet the concern is for
the loans of a foreign country that will never be repaid, that were not
even going to begin to be repaid for 40 years.
This is an insult to every American who has a mortgage that they have
to pay. Eight out of 10 Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year are
unable to cover their future bills until their next paycheck arrives.
Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, and we are shipping this
money to a foreign country that will never be asked to repay it.
In 40 years, if they were somehow gloriously successful again--40
years from now--they are still not going to be asked to pay this.
Americans are working two, sometimes three jobs just to make ends meet,
and while millions of Americans work day in and day out to pay off
their own personal loans, President Biden wants to forgive Ukraine's
economic loans without any debate.
This was rushed forward. I was fortunate enough to get 16 colleagues
to allow this vote to happen. But they didn't want this vote to happen.
They gave us a short window, and, boom, it is going to be gone. They
don't want a discussion about how obviously insulting this is to every
American to do this.
[[Page S6669]]
The American people have been more than generous when it comes to
supporting Ukraine. In the nearly 3 years of this war, Congress has
appropriated nearly $200 billion in aid. For 3 years, the American
people have been sold the lie that if we only send tens of billions
more of their dollars to Ukraine, Ukraine will be able to push Russians
out, secure the 2014 borders, and achieve victory in the battlefield.
It won't happen. The President of Ukraine, the generals of Ukraine,
the people who have followed this situation all agree: The war is at a
stalemate.
Trillions of dollars more will only lead to more carnage in the
battlefield, and it won't achieve victory. These assertions were always
farcical, as they failed to contend with basic battlefield realities.
Despite massive assistance provided by the United States and others,
Ukraine is no better off now than they were 3 years ago. It is arguable
that their ability to negotiate, as they have lost more land to Russia,
is actually that their leverage for negotiation with Russia is less
than it was when the war began.
In fact, Ukraine is now in a worse negotiating position because they
have likely incurred hundreds of thousands of casualties and now face a
critical manpower shortage. That shortage is becoming impossible to
ignore, as Russia consolidates its gains and continues to make progress
across eastern Ukraine.
Americans may be surprised to discover that their aid has not, in
fact, shifted the war in Ukraine's favor. They may also be surprised to
learn that much of the money Congress sends to Ukraine isn't actually
being used to support Ukraine's military.
While American families struggle to put food on the table and keep
the lights on, U.S. taxpayers are paying for the salaries of thousands
of Ukrainian bureaucrats, their pensions. We are paying for their
teachers.
Do our teachers make enough money? Probably not. But I am guessing,
if you ask an American teacher, should we be paying the salaries of
Ukrainian teachers, you might get a debate.
We are paying their healthcare workers' salaries, their first
responders. We are buying seeds and fertilizer for their farmers. And
we are bankrolling Ukrainian small businesses.
A report conducted earlier this year found that 43 percent of small
businesses in America were unable to pay their rent in full and on time
in the month of April. Yet we are sending billions of dollars to
Ukraine to subsidize their small businesses.
A report by CBS News discovered that U.S. taxpayers are helping a
Ukrainian knitwear company find new international customers overseas.
Oh boy, we are helping Ukrainian businesses expand overseas.
We don't even need independent journalists to highlight such
absurdities. USAID bragged on their own website about how they provided
funding for six Ukrainian fashion brands to participate in Paris
Fashion Week. I am sure they will be glad that they won't be paying
back any loans.
This is what we are asking the American people to pay for--to send
Ukrainian fashion brands to a Paris fashion show? I have never had one
constituent in Kentucky come up to me and say: Please, send more money.
We are fine in Appalachia. We are fine in rural Kentucky.
I don't think there is anybody in Asheville, NC, today that is
pleading for more good money to be sent to Ukraine.
It is bad enough, but it is also impossible to ensure that this
amount of money actually gets to the misguided priorities that have
been set. The Government Accountability Office admits that there are a
number of ways in which Federal Agencies could improve oversight and
aid to Ukraine.
It has been 3 years. Why hasn't the government approved the
oversight? Well, because it is impossible to send so much aid to a
country as quickly as we have and expect that there won't be waste,
fraud, and abuse.
I forced the Senate to vote on a special inspector general for
Ukraine, and the ``Ukraine First uniparty''--both sides of the aisle--
voted it down. Even with a special inspector general, it is nearly
impossible to ensure oversight on this vast amount of money in such a
short period of time.
Adding insult to injury, Ukraine is consistently ranked as one of the
most corrupt countries in the world. Transparency International ranked
Ukraine 104th out of 180 countries in 2023, with respect to honesty and
integrity, and also found that 23 percent of the public service users
paid a bribe in the previous 12 months in Ukraine.
And yet we give billions of dollars, and we have no special inspector
general.
And now in spite of all of this, President Biden wants to forgive
over $4.6 billion in loans that the U.S. taxpayer provided under the
auspices that they would be repaid.
This lunacy is just another example of how the Washington
establishment is completely out of touch with Americans. You ask
Americans about this, they have got to pay their loans; they don't
understand forgiving Ukrainian loans.
The election earlier this month made it eminently clear that the
American people are sick and tired of the status quo. They are sick and
tired of business as usual in Washington, and they want their elected
officials to deliver change.
It is fitting that in the final months of this disastrous Presidency,
Joe Biden caps off his foreign policy for the middle class by asking to
cancel over 4.6 billion in aid, in loans, to Ukraine--once again
prioritizing the interest of a foreign country at the expense of our
own.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution to
disapprove of the President forgiving this billions of dollars' worth
of loans to Ukraine and put the American people first.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am not going to get into the debate
before the floor, but I heard the city of Asheville referenced at the
last debate from the gentleman from Kentucky, and I have to tell you, I
am not happy with that. I sat here last week and tried to do a
unanimous consent request to fund the Small Business Administration
loan, and my colleague from Kentucky objected.
But don't pretend like this debate tonight has anything to do with
Asheville, NC, a town that just got drinking water 2 days ago. You want
to argue this, don't argue it on the merits of something that you
objected to me trying to accomplish last week for the city of
Asheville.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Sometimes in Washington, memories get clouded and foggy,
even after a week. The Senator from North Carolina will remember that
he objected to aid in North Carolina. He objected to small business
loans. He objected to them simply because they were paid for.
I offered unanimous consent, and it was blocked by the Senator from
North Carolina. I offered unanimous consent to immediately infuse more
loans through the Small Business Administration for North Carolina that
was hit hard by the flooding. The Senator from North Carolina blocked
his own bill because I proposed that it be paid for by taking green
energy boondoggle loans.
So don't be tricked by any flimflammery or any sort of making up of
history. The Senator from North Carolina last week blocked his own aid
passage that I agreed to let go unanimously as long as it was paid for
by taking some extra money from another part of the budget. Don't be
fooled.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I understand we have about 7 or 8 minutes
left. I may need to use all of them.
Let's talk about tomfoolery. Let's talk about being disingenuous. The
gentleman from Kentucky knows damn well that he proposed an amendment
that would have actually caused the bill to fail.
The gentleman from Kentucky also knows very well that the House has a
posture that the disaster recovery bill has to be funded. The gentleman
from Kentucky knows that this aid that I have tried to get to the House
would have been fully funded. The gentleman from Kentucky also knows
that I also support the amendment he offered, but he played the game
that we play around here and tried to think that I wouldn't have the
courage to stand up
[[Page S6670]]
against that garbage amendment because it was the right amendment at
the wrong time.
I yield, Mr. President, unless there is additional time and someone
else wants to speak.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. It is very important that the truth be told about what went
on with aid to North Carolina. I agreed to pass it unanimously as long
as it was paid for.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President. Mr. President.
Mr. PAUL. I won't be interrupted, Mr. President. I have the floor.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise for an--
Mr. PAUL. I have the floor.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise--
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky has the
floor.
Mr. PAUL. I will not yield the floor.
Mr. President--
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry--
Mr. PAUL.--what has been said here is untrue.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order. The
Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
Mr. TILLIS. Is it the ruling of this Chair that it is out of order to
make the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky has not
yielded for an inquiry. The Senator from Kentucky still owns the floor.
Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, it is important that the truth be told and
that people aren't allowed to stand and lie without challenge.
The bill last week to give immediate aid to North Carolina was
objected to by the Senator from North Carolina. I agreed to let it go
immediately by unanimous consent as long as it was paid for. The
Senator from North Carolina objected.
These are the facts. This is the Senate record. The people of North
Carolina can read this in the Senate record. He objected to his own
bill because he was annoyed that I had the audacity to say we have a $2
trillion debt, and we should pay for things.
We had $4 trillion worth of Green Energy New Deal boondoggle spending
subsidies to big green energy company, big corporations. He objected to
taking money from green energy boondoggle budgets and spending it in
his own State. He objected to his own bill.
So what I would say is: The truth is important. The facts are
important. We have had a very important debate here, and there is a
general philosophical debate about whether or not we should spend money
in Ukraine or in our country.
We have had flooding problems in Kentucky. I haven't met one person
who suffered from this who didn't say it was more important to spend
the money in Kentucky than Ukraine. It is a debate that is worth
having. The decisions we make over here should be about prioritizing
spending. Where do we spend it? Do we borrow it? Where do we spend the
money? This is what it is about.
And the fact that the Senator from North Carolina wants to rewrite
history and say he didn't object to his own bill when he did is a lie;
just simply untrue. Just simply untrue.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will suspend.
The Senate is reminded that there are rules of decorum in the Senate.
Let me read to you rule XIX:
No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any
form of words, impute to another Senator or other Senators
any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.
Mr. PAUL. Thank you. I would regain the rest of my time. How much
time do I have left?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 6\1/2\ half minutes
remaining.
Mr. PAUL. You said 6\1/2\ minutes?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Total remaining.
Mr. PAUL. This side of the debate which has--
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is
recognized.
Mr. PAUL.--30 minutes will relinquish the remaining time on our side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. First, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is to state his
inquiry.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to understand the effect of the
gentleman from Kentucky relinquishing time.
Does that mean that I would need to continue debate until the time is
over; or at the time that I finish speaking, will we go to a vote?
Mr. PAUL. There is no more time left on our side.
Mr. TILLIS. There is about 4 minutes left?
Mr. PAUL. There is none.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TILLIS. There is 5\1/2\ minutes remaining?
Mr. PAUL. But that is not what happened. I relinquished the time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. TILLIS. Parliamentary inquiry.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. State the nature of your inquiry.
Mr. TILLIS. Does the Senator from North Carolina have the floor?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina has
the floor.
Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have been accused of lying. I don't mind that. I mean, I am a
politician. People do that every single day.
But I believe that someone may be guilty of misleading this body
about my position. So I am going to take a few minutes to explain my
position. It may or may not coincide with the end of time set aside for
debate.
But our State motto is ``Esse Quam Videri.''
Mr. Chair, may I have order?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will come to order. The
Senators will take conversations outside the chamber.
Mr. TILLIS. My state motto is ``Esse Quam Videri.'' That is Latin. It
means ``to be rather than to seem.''
Well, ladies and gentlemen, the gentleman from Kentucky suggests that
I am against clawing back the Green New Deal and certain things that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed through
reconciliation. Why would anybody with any experience in this body
think that it wouldn't be one of the first things I would vote for when
we have reconciliation? Right? How can anybody possibly suggest that I
am against clawing back policies that were passed through
reconciliation because I am going to need it to pay for tax reform when
we pass reconciliation in the next Congress. So how can it--and I have
said that we are going to claw back things, and we are going to pay for
it.
If you listen to the gentleman from Kentucky, he said I am against
repealing that. Well, both can't be true, ladies and gentlemen. They
just simply can't be true.
I am for the very things--and I hope that the Senator from Kentucky
knows I would be happy to cosponsor that bill. If I have it, I will
tomorrow.
But I don't play games in this Chamber. I actually fight, in this
case, for the people of western North Carolina who are suffering. I
will defeat any amendment to aid to North Carolina if it stands in the
way. But I know a little bit about legislative procedure, ladies and
gentlemen. And anybody in here who pays attention to how a bill becomes
law should watch this.
We could pass the SBA funding bill out of here because 99 out of 100
Senators said it was OK. One didn't. Now we would like to think that
the House would receive it and pass it out because we have a tradition
of not funding disaster recovery bills, but we know the current
majority won't do it.
So anybody with a modicum of experience in legislative procedure and
actually passing bills that get to the President's desk would know that
it will have to be funded, and my colleague from the western North
Carolina 11th District is working on a paid-for now.
So if you really care about the people in North Carolina, if you
really understand the legislative process, and you really understand
the posture of the House, then you know--you absolutely know--that this
bill will be paid for before it goes to the President's desk.
Now, I have some people asking me why I am talking. Because I am
going to get the final say here, and I am not
[[Page S6671]]
going to let anyone else talk before we have to go to a vote. So if you
are wondering why I am going on, I am not going to play the game of
somebody coming up--I am only equating what they said about me--that I
lied.
So, ladies and gentlemen, instead of relinquishing the time, unless I
can be assured the minute I put this mic down we are going to go to a
vote, then I have got to start quoting poetry or something because I am
not yielding until time is out.
So, Mr. President, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The gentleman may state the nature
of his inquiry.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, how much time is left?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 7 minutes and 35 seconds
remaining.
Mr. TILLIS. You said 7 minutes and 35 seconds?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, 7 minutes and 35 seconds.
Mr. TILLIS. OK. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry of the lady from
the State of Washington?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield back all the Democratic time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington yields
back all time.
Vote on Motion
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
motion to proceed.
Ms. LUMMIS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 61, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Moran
Mullin
Paul
Risch
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
NAYS--61
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Helmy
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Romney
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--2
Braun
Vance
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum call with respect to the Sooknanan cloture motion be
waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________