Stopping Transfers of Public Funds Abroad Act

Mr. President, I rise today to propose a very simple bill that I think most Americans can understand. It has a very simple basic principle: If you are on any type of government aid, you are restricted from sending money overseas. It is pretty straightforward. We want to help American citizens who are in need, but if they are in need, why would they need to send money overseas?

I would say this: A nation's strength lies in its people's ability to sustain themselves and their countrymen first. To divert public benevolence overseas weakens the bonds of union at home, inviting dependence where independence should prevail. We cannot allow the fruits of American labor meant to nourish our own be scattered to foreign soils. True charity begins with securing the liberties and livelihoods of our fellow citizens.

Government aid is a ladder for the American worker to climb from poverty to prosperity. To send it beyond our borders is to weaken that ladder, denying our people the fruits of their own toil and the promise of a more perfect Union.

We have framed laws to protect our citizens from poverty's grasp, ensuring homes, livelihoods, and security for Americans. Diverting those resources overseas betrays that compact, for our progress is measured by providing for those who have little within our own shores.

And, finally, I would say this, Mr. President: Welfare should lift Americans up, not fund foreign dependencies. When those in public aid send money overseas, it is a sign the system is broken, trapping people in poverty while draining our Nation's hard-earned resources from those who need it at home the most.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3746 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask 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.

To my colleague from Oregon, who I don't really know well, let me say this. As somebody that actually came to this country from a foreign land legally, I find it decently insulting that you would paint a picture of immigrants coming here to be dependent on the government. Let me just tell you, the exact opposite is true.

But that is actually the playbook of the Democratic Party--smearing with racist undertones immigrants, thinking that the only reason we would ever come to America is to be dependent on government.

Let me just be clear to the Americans out there who want to understand what is actually happening in DC, because I have only been here 13 months. My colleague has been here for 30 years. When you have been here for 30 years in Washington, DC, you think it is perfectly normal for government to provide aid to those in need and then have those people send that money overseas. To them, that is normal.

And in terms of your comment, to my colleague from Oregon, that we are shipping jobs overseas or incentivizing companies to send jobs overseas, welcome to the Republican Party's position on tariffs. I am happy to see, finally, that we have a Democrat who is willing to embrace tariffs, because we are sick and tired of seeing our jobs shipped overseas.

So I am disappointed that we couldn't agree on a basic premise, that U.S. taxpayer dollars intended to help our citizens should stay within our shores. That should highlight why, yesterday, the Democrat Members of both Houses could not stand up when President Trump asked a simple question: Is it the first duty of an elected official to defend and protect American citizens?

And you were there, Mr. President. Not a single Democrat could stand up.

I yield the floor.

I will remind the Senator: I in no way disparaged your family. I didn't even mention your family. What I did mention is that you made the point that we are harming immigrants who come here who might be dependent on social safety net programs and sending that money back overseas.

And I came here from another country--not my parents. I came here. I wasn't born in this country. I came here to seek the American dream, and I am honored every day to be here--although, on a day like today, not so much, because it is grossly disappointing that the Democrat Party that I once knew, a party of the working class, is not willing to make a very

simple statement: When we help American citizens, we expect that money to stay in this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this legislation prohibits any individual--senior citizens, people with disabilities, our veterans, refugees, and the poorest of the poor--from sending money to friends or family overseas for any reason. That prohibition includes American citizens as well. So if you are a veteran who served our country and who counts on your VA benefits, you had better not provide any financial support to your grandmother living abroad or, under this legislation, you could be fined $100,000.

The legislation comes straight from a very cruel playbook: First, target public programs that provide a lifeline to low- and middle- income people; second, smear the recipients of this help by characterizing them as fraudsters; and third, use the exaggerated claims as a pretext to slash funding. That was the playbook at the heart of the Republicans' major legislation, which made the biggest ever cuts to healthcare and food assistance in the history of America.

Why were those awful cuts made that are causing hospitals to shutter their labor and delivery units and slash staff? To fund the ICE surge that has led to untrained Federal agents roaming the streets of America's communities, committing violence with impunity.

That major legislation also lavished tax breaks onto the ultrawealthy while doing nothing to crack down on the billions that wealthy tax cheats don't pay their fair share with each year.

This legislation represents a dark heart--a dark heart of the Republican agenda: Scapegoat those who don't have a voice while letting the wealthy and well connected get off the hook.

If my colleagues on the other side really were worried about money leaving the United States, I can tell you, as the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, they can look at their own tax laws that encourage giant corporations to ship jobs and factories overseas. They ought to figure out why the Trump economy is driving investors and their dollars away from America and into foreign markets.

It would be an understatement to say this legislation is a solution in search of a problem. This legislation is obviously some kind of messaging bill that would challenge the very foundations of what draws people from all over the world to America--the chance to imagine and create a better life for themselves and their families.

For those reasons, I object.

I yield the floor.

Since my colleague is talking about my family's background, you might be interested to know that my parents fled the Nazis in the thirties. Not all got out. And we were especially proud of my two parents, who weren't at all interested in coming to America for any benefits, as my colleague is suggesting; they persuaded themselves that they should be in our Army. My dad was one of the famous Ritchie Boys, renowned for their service to the country, writing the propaganda pamphlets we dropped on the Nazis. So my colleague is way off base with his comments about my family.

Finally, you might want to do some checking. When I first read this, I thought maybe my colleague and his staff just didn't get the text written correctly because the people who are really upset now are the veterans, people who wore the uniform of the United States, who my colleague is putting in a hardship situation, according to staff.

I just wanted to make sure the record was correct.

I yield the floor.