[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 20, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2988-S2993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:30 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Britt).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Unanimous Consent Request
Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I want to begin by saying happy
anniversary. Happy anniversary.
Thirty-two years ago today, President Clinton signed the National
Voter Registration Act into law. The so-called Motor Voter Act--that is
what it became known as--made commonsense and unprecedented strides to
registering more eligible Americans to vote. Imagine that--taking
advantage of the fact that motor vehicle agencies and other State and
local government offices that interact with Americans every single day
can easily, efficiently, securely assist U.S. citizens with one of the
most fundamental rights: registering to vote and participating in our
elections.
A little over 3 years after it was signed into law--on May 24, 1996,
more precisely--I proudly completed my own training as a deputy
registrar in Los
[[Page S2989]]
Angeles County, which qualified me to register voters in my own
community. Nearly two decades later, I was sworn in as California's
30th secretary of state, becoming the chief elections officer to the
most populous and most diverse State in the Nation. Just earlier this
year, I was proud to become the ranking member of the Senate Rules and
Administration Committee, with jurisdiction over Federal elections. So
it would be an understatement for me to say that I am proud to bring my
decades of elections administration experience to the discussions and
deliberations of this body.
Throughout my time in public service, I have seen personally that one
of the single greatest ways to increase not just civic engagement more
broadly but voter registration and voter participation more
specifically is to meet Americans where they already are. Motor Voter
tried to do exactly that--registering voters at State departments of
motor vehicles and other public agencies, including State colleges and
universities, military recruitment offices, and others.
That is a good thing for our democracy because we should all believe
in that most basic of lessons that I believe we all learned in high
school civics class--that our democracy works best when its many
eligible people participate.
One other place that the National Voter Registration Act can and
should extend to is naturalization ceremonies, giving new, eligible
U.S. citizens the information they need to register to vote should they
want to.
If you have never had the opportunity to attend one before, I can
tell you personally that there are few experiences that give you more
of that patriotic feeling than inside the four walls of a
naturalization ceremony. If you ever had doubts or questions about what
it means to be an American, I encourage you to ask a newly naturalized
citizen.
When I served as California's secretary of state, it was such an
honor to speak at a number of these ceremonies. Part of the sacredness
of the experience that I felt was standing up on the stage, looking out
at the audience, and being told by the USCIS personnel how many
countries were being represented there. Maybe it was dozens of people,
maybe it was hundreds of people representing literally dozens or
hundreds of countries. So walking into the auditorium, walking into the
convention center hall, there were immigrants from countries all over
the world, but upon taking that oath and leaving that ceremony, they
were all U.S. citizens.
While some people get to that point of naturalization, having been in
the country for a couple of years, some after several decades, some
coming from working-class families and others from very wealthy
families, some families who have been here just a few years and others
who have been here maybe multiple generations--maybe some of these new
citizens never had a chance to go to college or even high school.
Others were there with not just bachelor's and master's degrees but
Ph.D.s, maybe multiple degrees. The one thing that was constant for
everybody was that as a U.S. citizen, you now had the right to vote.
And in our elections, not only does every vote count, but every vote
counts equally. Think about that. How beautiful is that?
As I think about the people who go through the process, I can't help
but also think about my parents because they went through the
naturalization process. When I see the dozens or hundreds of immigrants
becoming citizens, I envision what their preparation was like because
it was very similar, no doubt, to what my parents did--taking classes,
studying, showing up at every important appointment, filling out all
those forms. On the day they finally take the oath of allegiance, they
earn the full benefits of U.S. citizenship.
So it was an honor and a privilege to be able to address those
audiences as secretary of state and encourage them not just to get
involved in the community but to register to vote and exercise their
new right to vote. And, of course, I would do it on a nonpartisan
basis.
But the statistics tell us that registration amongst naturalized
citizens still lags behind other voters. During the 2022 election, only
61 percent of naturalized citizens were registered to vote compared to
70 percent of native-born Americans.
So the data tells us that we have a responsibility to do more here.
That is why today I am asking my colleagues to pass the Including New
Voters in the Electorate Act, also known as the INVITE Act.
My bill would use the powers of the National Voter Registration Act
to designate USCIS field offices as voter registration Agencies,
effectively giving our field staff not just the opportunity but the
duty to help new, eligible U.S. citizens register to vote. Rather than
just hand out a form, it would empower USCIS personnel to actually
assist new citizens in completing and returning their voter
registration forms.
I can predict what some of the counterargument might be, so let me
just say to everyone who regularly expresses concern about
``noncitizens voting,'' I would suggest, what better place to make sure
citizens are registered than at a naturalization ceremony?
With the flexibility to work with State and local agencies however
they see fit, my bill would take those spaces that are so crucial to
our democracy and turn them into catalysts for democratic participation
because the responsibilities that come with citizenship don't end upon
taking the oath of citizenship; that is just the beginning.
I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to join me in
supporting this commonsense bill to invest in and strengthen our
democracy.
Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the
desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read
a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to
thank my friend and colleague the senior Senator from the State of
California for his passion in pursuing what is itself a laudable goal,
which is helping newly sworn-in, newly naturalized U.S. citizens to
register to vote. But I have no choice but to object to this unanimous
consent request, this effort to pass it without further debate--without
any debate today.
I want to point out that this is a bill that hasn't gone through any
of the regular processes. It is therefore inappropriate for us to
consider it at this point.
Look, the bill itself was just barely introduced. It hasn't had a
hearing, hasn't had a markup before the Senate Judiciary Committee on
which we both serve or otherwise, nor has there been any debate on this
topic.
No doubt it is important to make sure that our newly naturalized
citizens have the opportunity to register to vote, but that puts the
cart before the horse in many regards. If we haven't done our homework,
we could cause problems.
No one disputes the fact--at least no one disputes the fact now that
there are, in fact, noncitizens voting in Federal elections. No one
disputes that there are already laws on the books making it a crime for
noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections. U.S. Federal elections are for
U.S. citizens and no one else, and it is a crime to do otherwise.
We have had some of these discussions over the last year, and in the
months leading up to the 2024 general election, there were a lot of
unsubstantiated claims made to the effect that noncitizens don't vote.
We know now that that is not true. There have been a number of
documented instances from this last general election alone in which
that happened. This reflects the fact that we often do a poor job of
making sure noncitizens don't vote.
On the current voter registration form, the Federal voter
registration form, there is just a box, a little box that one checks
for the applicant to indicate whether he or she is a U.S. citizen.
Provided that he or she checks that box and later signs the form for a
driver's license, that person can then obtain voter registration in the
same State in which he or she has applied for a driver's license. All
we have to go on is that person's word as to citizenship.
[[Page S2990]]
No one asks for documentary proof of citizenship--no.
One might ask: Why? Why has no one asked for this, especially if it
is a known problem?
Well, this dates back to an interpretation of the 1993 National Voter
Registration Act, the NVRA, which is also sometimes referred to as the
Motor Voter law. It was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that
interpreted provisions of the NVRA as prohibiting the State officials
administering that form, receiving that form, from asking for any kind
of proof of citizenship.
Now, that interpretation was, in my view, wrong. I agree with Justice
Alito's dissent in that case saying that the statute contains no such
requirement; there is nothing in there prohibiting States from doing
that. Nonetheless, that ruling stands, remains on the books today,
prohibiting State officials, when receiving those forms, from doing any
verification, requesting any proof as to citizenship.
That is why I, last year, introduced a bill called the SAFE Act that
would amend the National Voter Registration Act to make clear what I
believe was already clear but that the Supreme Court got wrong,
allowing State officials to request proof of citizenship at the time
these documents are submitted and setting requirements for that to
happen.
The SAFE Act identifies, establishes, and outlines acceptable
documentation for proving citizenship, and it requires the States to
set up alternative verification processes for citizens who don't have
the normal, necessary, contemplated documentation, including for those
instances--very, very common instances--in which a woman marries and
thereafter changes her name to a married name not evident on any birth
certificate she may have.
When you contemplate the many dozens of women who support the SAVE
Act in this Chamber and in the other and who voted for it in the other
Chamber, who were part of the process of drafting this bill--they and I
and the others who were involved in its drafting, we all went out of
our way to make sure that these documentation standards were not unduly
onerous. In fact, if anything, they are less onerous than those
requirements, those documentation standards that already exist in other
areas of the law.
Take, for example, labor and employment. Anytime any American citizen
starts a new job as an employee, he or she is required to fill out a
form called the I-9. The I-9 form requires an American citizen to
provide proof of citizenship. And if you are not an American citizen,
then you have to provide proof of your work eligibility, providing
proof of your visa and the documentation that goes along with that.
Now, just as it is true that married women who have changed their
name to their married name, a married last name that is different than
that found on their birth certificate--just as women every single day
across this country are able to start a new job without that being an
impediment, we have made sure that the SAVE Act would leave things the
same way. If anything, we made it easier in the context of casting this
sacred, important vote and registering to become eligible to cast such
a vote.
The legislation, the SAVE Act, also compels States to purge
noncitizens from voter rolls and establishes Federal penalties for
intentionally registering noncitizens to vote in Federal elections.
Over the last 4 years, many, many millions upon millions of illegal
aliens have entered our country's borders, and of those, a nonzero but
ultimately unknown number of them were improperly registered to vote.
No one disputes that this has happened. They don't now; they didn't
last summer; they don't now because the proof is there, and it remains
undisputed.
At a time when trust in voting is as important as it has ever been,
if not more so, we must stop any avenue for foreign election
interference, and we need to pass the SAVE Act.
Voting is both a sacred right and an important responsibility that
accompanies American citizenship, and allowing people--people of other
countries, people of other countries who are not citizens of our
country--to violate the law and to access our elections and vote in our
elections contrary to the law is a great blow to our security and to
our self-governance.
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the SAVE Act a few
weeks ago, and now it is our turn to pass the SAVE Act and that we must
do.
In light of the foregoing and in light of the fact that, if we were
to take a step like that contemplated and proposed by my friend and
colleague--and he is both, the senior Senator from California--without
putting in place these additional safeguards that we need in the SAVE
Act, safeguards that are no more intrusive--and, in fact, if anything,
are less intrusive--than those already in existence in everyday events
like starting a new job, I must object, and I hereby do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I think I tried to make the point
clear. While I respect where my colleague from the State of Utah is
coming from, I just fundamentally disagree.
The National Voter Registration Act, which this body passed on a
bipartisan basis back in 1993, was designed to expand voter
registration opportunities by making it easier for eligible Americans
to register when they interact with government Agencies, plain and
simple, and that is all this bill seeks to do, by designating USCIS as
a voter registration entity under the NVRA.
And the point is simple. When anybody goes to apply for a driver's
license or a State ID, as you are filling out those forms, you do add
name, date of birth, your address, you are signing all that same
information for a driver's license or an ID that you are putting on the
voter registration card or form when you are registering to vote.
And yes, you do sign as to the accuracy of the information under
penalty of perjury. So it is not just the check the box nonchalantly;
you are signing under penalty of perjury. And there have been occasions
when people are charged with false registration or improper
registration. So the laws are working. The instances of ineligible
voters voting are very, very rare, but they happen. That means our laws
are working.
So we will keep trying to work on the INVITE Act, but I encourage my
colleague to think about not just the spirit of this proposal but the
context of the success of the NVRA over the last several decades.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 22
Mr. LEE. Madam President, we need to remember a couple of things.
First, when someone has gone through the process of immigrating to the
United States, they have completed a journey--perhaps a lengthy
odyssey--of moving to the United States, applying for and ultimately
obtaining U.S. citizenship. They have provided a lot of documentation.
They have done a lot of things to make that happen.
And it would be an insult to those who are U.S. citizens, whether
natural-born or naturalized citizens, to make it easy for people to
cheapen that, to undermine it, to dilute that by coming in and saying:
You know, I am filling out my driver's license application, and all I
have to do here is check a box--check a box, sign my name saying, yes,
I am a U.S. citizen.
Well, you know, that is not an option in other areas where
citizenship is required. It is absolutely not an option, for example,
in applying for a passport, which is one of the documents that can be
provided and often is provided when someone completes the process of
filling out an I-9 and thereby establishing their work eligibility as a
U.S. citizen. One of the forms that they can provide to help establish
that is a U.S. passport.
But regardless of what combination of identification they use, they
do have to establish their citizenship. Why? Well, because that is the
law. There are very good reasons why we have those laws in place to
make sure that, when someone starts a job, they are either a U.S.
citizen or they have a visa with some type of work authorization in it.
So it makes zero sense, for something as significant and important to
the very foundations of our constitutional Republic as the right to
vote, that we could just so lightly cast aside the need to verify
citizenship when we go out of our way in other contexts, like starting
a new job, to make sure that they prove it.
[[Page S2991]]
So, sure. My friend and colleague points out, when people fill out
that driver's license application, they do have to check that box, and
they do have to sign their name, but why make it so that someone could
lie, especially when read against the backdrop of the Supreme Court
ruling 12 years ago, concluding--wrongly, in my view but concluding
nonetheless, and that decision is on the books--that not only do they
not have to prove citizenship, but no State official, when receiving
the driver license application form, may even inquire, even if they
have reasons to doubt that the person has committed something or
otherwise--they can't ask, even if there has been a wave in that State
or in that area or across the country of noncitizens registering to
vote and that State wants to make a decision--you know, we really ought
to provide some degree of documentation--they are not allowed to do any
of that.
So this is filling that gap, and it is important to do that.
To that end, Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, which is at the desk. I further
ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I
reserve the right to object not for the first time on this proposed
SAVE Act, not even for the second time on this proposed SAVE Act.
This is an item that my colleague has brought up repeatedly here
before the Senate. So I won't repeat the arguments and explanations
that I have made in prior objections to the SAVE Act but to suggest it
is a solution in search of a problem. Audit after audit, review after
review, investigation after investigation has demonstrated that the
instances of ineligible immigrants voting in elections is exceedingly,
exceedingly, exceedingly rare, which, again, means that our current
laws are working.
And to suggest that birth certificates be required for a certain task
when it is already secure--we could have--I would be walking around
with my birth certificate in my pocket.
A passport is another acceptable form of documentation for
citizenship. Half the American public doesn't have a current, valid
passport because not everybody travels abroad on a regular basis. So
they are unnecessary. Our current laws are working, and, therefore, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, with great respect to my friend and
colleague the distinguished senior Senator from California, he has
suggested that the SAVE Act, which merely requires some type of proof
of citizenship when someone registers to vote in U.S. elections--that
the SAVE Act itself is a solution in search of a problem.
My friend also suggests that no documentary proof of citizenship is
or should be made necessary, even considering the Supreme Court's
ruling that States are not even allowed to request such documentation
where they may deem it necessary. He suggests that this is the case
because, as he puts it, the occurrence of noncitizens voting in U.S.
elections is not only rare, but it is exceedingly, exceedingly,
exceedingly rare, as he puts it.
I don't know exactly what that means, but I do know that, taken to
its logical conclusion, that same logical leap could and would lead us
to all kinds of outcomes that we would never dream of. There are all
sorts of things that may be rare by some standard or another. Sure, it
is true that most of the people voting in U.S. elections are not
noncitizens. In fact, I would say that they would be a small, small,
small minority of those casting votes because most people here in the
United States, most people voting in U.S. elections, are, in fact, U.S.
citizens.
But taken to its logical conclusion, that would suggest that there is
no need for TSA, which, actually, I would be fine with for all sorts of
reasons. But taken to its logical conclusion, it would suggest there is
no need for you to identify yourself when you go through TSA because
instances of terrorism are exceedingly rare or instances of people
boarding an airplane in somebody else's name are exceedingly rare.
Sure, that happens.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it would also suggest that because
instances of people starting a job, beginning employment in the United
States as an American citizen or as a noncitizen pretending to be an
American citizen, are exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as he
puts it, therefore we should require no documentary evidence of either
U.S. citizenship on one hand or work eligibility with a visa on the
other hand.
I could go on and on. But it is not an answer to the need for the
SAVE Act, to the demand that 80-plus percent of the American people
agree with, which is noncitizens shouldn't vote in U.S. elections. It
is not an answer to that demand, to that widely held bipartisan
supermajority view, not an answer to that to suggest that because
noncitizen voting is rare, we need not require any proof of citizenship
ever.
Why? Well, there are so many reasons why, but here is the simplest
one. When we make that easy, more people would do it. Some elections
are decided by large margins; others are decided by, to use his words,
exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly small margins.
We would be doing ourselves and the American people and the American
Republic and the U.S. Constitution a grave, grave disservice if we
didn't take that risk very seriously.
Foreign election interference and meddling in our system is a real
threat. We need to take it seriously. It is tragic and unfortunate.
In fact, it is shameful that we haven't passed the SAVE Act. This is
not the end of this issue. I will be back. We will get this passed. But
between now and whenever we do get it passed, the American people are
taking on a risk because of this body's unwillingness to act.
And it is not this body. Let's face it. It is Members of this body on
one side of the aisle, and not on the other, who are willing to incur
this risk.
That, tragically, is a sacrifice they are willing to make. We,
tragically, are a sacrifice they are willing to make. Let's not let
them continue to make it. Let's pass the SAVE Act.
(Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Marshall). The Senator from Vermont.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 224
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, all of us are extremely concerned--and I
mean all of us: Senator Risch and all the Republican colleagues and me
and all of the Democratic colleagues--about the suffering and famine
that are upon the folks in Gaza.
Today, I am here to offer a resolution for consideration on which 46
Senators on our side agree. Although we have not had signatories on the
Republican side, I know that my colleagues on the Republican side are
very concerned about the devastating absence of food, medicine, and
baby formula for 2 million Palestinians who are living in Gaza.
It has been 74 days since aid trucks were allowed to transit into
Gaza. That is a decision that the Israeli Government has made under
Prime Minister Netanyahu. What does alarm me is that it is very clear
under international law and it is very clear on prior actions that this
U.S. Senate has taken that in a conflict, as a tactic of war, starving
a civilian population is illegal, impermissible, and just wrong,
absolutely wrong.
As an indication of the suffering, this is one young child who died
in her parents' arms, Janan Al-Saqafi. That was due to no food, no baby
formula to feed this young person.
The U.N. has released a report that indicates that if food is not
brought into Gaza within the next 48 hours, 14,000 more infants will
die, and they will die in the arms of their mother or father.
So this question of should aid get in--obviously it should. It is not
right for aid to be withheld as an instrument of war. Regrettably, that
appears to have been a decision that has been made by the Israeli
Government. It is not right, it is not necessary, it is not helpful,
and it is extraordinarily harmful to innocent children and to innocent
mothers.
[[Page S2992]]
My hope is that this Senate would pass a resolution making very clear
our concern about the well-being of innocent Palestinians in Gaza. The
food those Palestinians in Gaza need is right on the other side of the
border. It is there. All it needs is to be transported from where it is
into Gaza and then distributed.
I want to just quote a Palestinian about how dire that situation is.
In the words of a Palestinian:
Believe it or not--
This is, by the way, at a moment when bombs are still dropping, where
people who have been relocated a dozen times are having to relocate
again, where the two remaining hospitals in Khan Younis have been
bombed, where there is no security whatsoever.
This is what a Palestinian said that sums it up:
Believe it or not, people no longer care about bombs,
rockets, or even death. What consumes them now is food. How
to find it. How to feed their children. It is impossible to
describe how hard life has become. People walk around in a
daze, dizzy from malnutrition and despair. People are
confused, anxious, and exhausted. They are literally dying of
hunger. At this point, they would accept anything just to
survive. People are fainting in the streets. They look like
skin and bones, pale and dizzy. If you saw them, you would
break down and cry.
Those are the words of a Palestinian in Gaza.
Mr. President, we have to feed those people. The food is there. We
all want those innocent people to survive and avoid famine. Let us do
every single thing we can to persuade the Israeli Netanyahu Government
to get that food in to people who desperately need it.
At this point, I yield to my colleague Senator Van Hollen from
Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank my friend and
colleague the Senator from Vermont Mr. Welch for offering this
resolution.
I just want to focus on the resolution itself for a moment because
you would think this is something we could all agree on.
I am just reading the resolved clause here:
Resolved, That the Senate--(1) is gravely concerned with--
(A) the humanitarian crisis and acute suffering of the
Palestinian civilians in Gaza; and (B) the suffering of the
hostages and hostage families.
That is section 1 of the resolved clause.
Senator Welch has said and I think we all acknowledge the terrible
humanitarian disaster that Palestinian civilians are suffering under
right now. Trump just acknowledged it the other day. He said that a lot
of people are starving.
Cindy McCain said:
Families in Gaza are starving while the food they need is
sitting at the border.
Fifty-seven children have already died from malnutrition, and the
reports are that 14,000 Palestinian children in Gaza are at imminent
risk of death if they don't get more food.
Just yesterday, after 78 days of a total siege and blockade on any
food coming into Gaza, a trickle of food began to get in, primarily
because European countries began to say very loudly that what was
happening was unacceptable, that it was a violation of international
law.
We are also hearing from the hostage families the urgency of putting
an end to this conflict and resolving this to make sure their loved
ones can come home.
I was very glad to see Steve Witkoff be able to bring home Edan
Alexander. Now we have to bring back the rest of the hostages.
The hostage families overwhelmingly have been calling on Prime
Minister Netanyahu and his government to end the conflict, end the
suffering on all sides, and bring their loved ones home.
I want to just read the second part of this resolution because it
does what I understand so many of the hostages' families have been
saying we should do.
[C]alls on the White House, Department of State, and other
relevant United States Government agencies to urgently use
all available diplomatic tools to bring about the release of
the hostages, an immediate cessation of the blockade on food
and humanitarian aid for Palestinian civilians, and a durable
end to the conflict in Gaza.
Those are part 1 and part 2 of the resolved clause that I just read.
I want to thank Senator Welch because he has written this in a way
that you would think not a single Senator would object to the words in
this resolution. So I do urge my colleagues to support it.
Let's put an end to the suffering and starvation of Palestinian
civilians in Gaza. Let's get the hostages home. Let's work to end this
conflict in a way that ensures no more October 7ths and ensures
security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.
I yield back to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Thank you again, the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further
consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 224; further, that
the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, look, first
of all, we have no disagreement with the suffering that is going on in
Gaza. The problem we have here is, as we heard from both of these
speakers, not one word was said as to whose fault this is. This is the
fault of a group of people, and that group of people is Hamas. I heard
them mention Israel several times. This is not Israel's fault. I heard
them mention us, the United States. This is not our fault.
I couldn't agree more with Senator Welch when he talks about the fact
that we want an immediate cease-fire and for people to be fed there and
things to get better there. It is so simple. It is so easy. It is
totally in the hands of Hamas. If they release the hostages, they lay
down their arms, and they surrender, not one more bullet will be fired,
and there will be scads of trucks coming into Gaza. That is how this
ends.
But can we end it? No. If we send trucks in--the Senator knows. The
Senator has seen the intelligence on some of this. When we send food
and trucks in there, who eats? The soldiers eat. The Hamas soldiers
eat. They starve the women, and they starve the children.
Not only do they starve them; they use them as human shields. And
they set up their facilities--their military facilities--in hospitals,
in schools, in mosques, in all kinds of places that they then wring
their hands and say: Oh, my gosh, we have been attacked.
Look, this is despicable. This is horrible. This is criminal. It is
beyond human understanding how human beings could treat other human
beings the same way, especially when you are related to them, as they
are in Palestine.
So I agree that this needs to stop, but the first thing that needs to
be said is that this is the fault of Hamas, and it is not our fault.
And it doesn't matter if we roll trucks in there tomorrow. That food
would be taken. It would be stolen. It would be distributed by Hamas to
their fighting soldiers, and the dying and the suffering of the women
and children would continue.
This thing is badly aimed. It does not, in any way, lay the fault
where it belongs, and that is at the feet of Hamas. So based on all
that--I share your objective--this gets us nowhere. And worse than
that, it doesn't point out where the problem is.
Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Lummis). Objection is heard.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I want the Senator from Idaho, the
esteemed chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to know that when
it comes to condemning Hamas for what it did on October 7, for what it
has done to the Palestinians in Gaza on an ongoing basis, I join you in
condemning Hamas.
And this resolution does not get into the question of fault. It gets
into the question of suffering. It gets into the question of the
suffering of innocent people who, at times, have been victimized by
Hamas but whose families are hungry, who are starving. And the point of
this resolution is to say: Let's help them avoid starvation by
supporting the delivery of the food and the
[[Page S2993]]
medicine and the baby formula that they need.
This, in no way, is going to solve the conflict. That is a point the
Senator made, and he has got a point to be made. But if we do all we
can to facilitate the delivery of aid, it means that we are doing all
we can to ease the suffering of innocent families who have been
victimized.
My view is that we should do all we can to alleviate the suffering,
especially for these infants, these children, these women, and peace-
loving Palestinians who want nothing more than to live in peace in
their neighborhood.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I want to respond to that.
First of all, I commend the Senator for his appreciation for the
suffering that is going on. It is horrible. It is despicable. You have
seen the photos. You have seen the video. It is a horrible, horrible
situation.
One of the difficulties I have with this is that he is correct; this
resolution does not assign fault, nor does it talk about fault. And
that is one of the biggest problems I have with this. If this is going
to be resolved, fault must be identified. The conditions on the ground
have to be identified. And how this is going to be resolved has to be
identified, none of which is considered in here. It is simply a
suggestion that simply taking food there is going to resolve this
problem, and we have done that. We have food there. It is ready to go
in.
As I said, three things need to happen, and it is in the hands solely
of Hamas--not in Israel, not in Netanyahu, not in our President, not in
the people of the United States' hands. It is in the hands of Hamas.
And that is, if they simply release the hostages, lay down their arms
and surrender, it is over. The food flows in. There is not another
bullet fired. That is all that has to happen. But what has to be
recognized in this is how this is going to end. There is only one way
this can end, and that is with complete and total destruction of Hamas.
This is very similar to what the United States of America and its
allies did in the late 1930s. We decided that the Nazis were so bad
that they could not exist as a military force, as a political force, or
as a cultural force, and we decided they needed to be eliminated.
That is what Israel decided it has to do to protect itself. That is
what it is doing.
But Hamas can stop this. They can stop it in a minute, and they are
not showing any signs of that. So what is going to happen is this fight
is going to go on until the last Hamas falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
____________________