Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; that the committee-reported title amendment be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 348, S. 3648.

I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 567.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 583.

I know of no further debate on the resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 601, S. Res. 602, S. Res. 603, S. Res. 604, and S. Res. 605.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, March 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 117, Jose Rodriguez, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor; further, that at 11:30 a.m. the motion to proceed to the vote by which cloture was not agreed to on the Rodriguez nomination be agreed to, the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote be

agreed to, and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Rodriguez nomination, upon reconsideration; further, that if cloture is invoked, all time be considered expired at 2 p.m.; that following the confirmation vote, the Senate resume legislative session for the consideration of Calendar No. 340, S.J. Res. 62, that the motion to proceed be agreed to and the Senate immediately vote on passage of the joint resolution; that upon disposition of the joint resolution, the Senate resume executive session and resume consideration of the Schydlower nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Sanders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, following my remarks, Senator Cardin be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Nicole Berner of Maryland to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

She is an outstanding nominee to represent Maryland on that court. That is why Senator Cardin and I were proud to recommend her nomination to the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are pleased the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced her nomination to the floor of the Senate, and today we are proud to recommend her nomination to the full U.S. Senate.

Ms. Berner's impressive legal career is a testament to her exceptional skill and unwavering dedication to justice, to fairness, and to service.

Ms. Berner is a highly experienced litigator. She knows the courtroom. She is currently a partner at the law firm of James & Hoffman, where she is on full-time retainer as the general counsel of the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. In over 15 years as the general counsel to SEIU, she has represented the union's 2 million members in a diverse range of professional sectors, making her deeply knowledgeable about the challenges facing working people throughout the United States of America.

There are few judges on the Federal bench--and none on the Fourth Circuit--who have this practice background.

As part of her substantial litigation responsibilities, Ms. Berner has worked on a range of matters, including cases arising under labor and employment laws and regulations, as well as advising on legal claims involving criminal law, voting rights, Federal preemption, antitrust, bankruptcy, immigration, and the list goes on.

She has served as counsel in more than three dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and dozens more in Federal courts of appeals.

Earlier in her career, Ms. Berner was a staff attorney with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, litigating cases to protect and expand access to reproductive care and healthcare. She also spent several years in private practice. She has also worked to train future lawyers as an adjunct professor at Vanderbilt Law School.

She earned her J.D. from the University of California Berkeley Law School and went on to clerk for two Federal judges--one in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and one in the District Court for the Northern District of Columbia.

Based on all her legal experience, the American Bar Association gave Ms. Berner its highest rating of ``well qualified'' for the position she has been nominated for.

Her confirmation would mark a significant milestone for the Fourth Circuit. If confirmed, she would be the first openly gay, LGBTQ judge to serve on that court.

Ms. Berner's qualifications, her values, and her life experience, coupled with her notedly steady, thoughtful, and calm demeanor, which was exhibited during the hearing and questioning on the Senate Judiciary Committee, will make her an exceptional addition to the Fourth Circuit.

Her nomination has inspired letters and statements of support from a host of organizations, including 27 interfaith organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law, the National Women's Law Center, a number of union presidents--23 of them-- the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, among many others.

I know that Ms. Berner would say and she has told us that she has traveled this important journey of her life alongside other members of her family: her wife Debra and their sons Mattan, Naveh, Segev, and Ari.

I join my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from the State of Maryland, Ben Cardin, in strongly recommending that the U.S. Senate confirm Nicole Berner to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, during his State of the Union Address last week, President Biden once again rightly pointed out that Israel has the right and I would say the duty to defend itself in the aftermath of the brutal Hamas terror attack of October 7 that left approximately 1,200 brutally murdered and 240 taken hostage. There must be no more October 7s.

President Biden also described the ongoing humanitarian disaster taking place in Gaza today. Over 31,000 Palestinians have been killed-- over two-thirds of them women and children--and likely thousands more unaccounted for, buried beneath the rubble. Gaza has become a hellhole of human suffering. Humanitarian organizations that have operated worldwide for decades say they have never witnessed a more terrible situation.

Among those suffering in Gaza are not only over 2 million innocent Palestinian civilians but also over 130 hostages still held by Hamas, including Americans.

Earlier this week, I met with some of the families of Israeli hostages whose loved ones were kidnapped and are still being held captive, as well as one brave woman who was held hostage and released during the November pause.

Every day that they are separated from their loved ones, not knowing what will happen to them next, is a day of unimaginable mental anguish and torment. That is why we must prioritize the release of the hostages and end the suffering of Palestinian civilians. The only way to do that is to secure an immediate cease-fire and release all of the remaining hostages. That must happen, but until it happens, we must do everything in our power to protect innocent civilians and end the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

Today, four out of five of the hungriest people on Earth are in Gaza. Hundreds of thousands of them are on the verge of starvation, and over 23 children have crossed that grisly threshold and have died of starvation. Cindy McCain, the Director of the World Food Programme, has warned of an imminent famine. Injured children are having their limbs amputated without anesthesia. Sewage is spilling onto the streets, and humanitarian officials are seeing spikes in the spread of various preventable diseases, like diarrhea, among children.

Two weeks ago, the world got a glimpse of a horrible scene: Over 100 starving Palestinians were killed as they reached for food from trucks. In the aftermath of that horrible event, President Biden has ordered airdrops of food supplies. I support that decision because when people are starving, every parcel of food counts. But airdrops are just a drop in the ocean of need, so I was also glad to see the President order the building of a temporary port to help deliver more aid by ship. But that port will likely not be ready for at least 60 days, and even then, it will not be sufficient to meet the humanitarian need.

All of these extraordinary efforts to deliver aid by air and by sea are being undertaken when we know that during the prewar period, when there was already a near blockade of Gaza, about 500 trucks still crossed daily through the Kerem Shalom crossing into Gaza. And those 500 trucks crossed every day when the need was far less acute than it is right now.

So the obvious question is, Why? Why in the world should we have to resort to these extraordinary and more expensive means to deliver insufficient amounts of food and aid by air and sea when we could bring in sufficient amounts of food and aid by truck much more efficiently through Egypt's Rafah crossing and the multiple crossing points into Gaza from Israel?

The answer is because this is a man-made disaster.

The starvation in Gaza is not the result of food scarcity caused by drought or other natural disasters that we see in many parts of the world. This has been caused primarily because the Netanyahu government has used a series of tactics to restrict the amount of aid entering into Gaza. Anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear knows that.

Members of the Netanyahu government, like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir,

have made no secret of their intentions. In October, after the war began, Ben-Gvir said:

So long as Hamas does not release the hostages, the only

thing that should enter Gaza is hundreds of tons of Air Force

explosives--not one ounce of humanitarian aid.

Smotrich used his power as Finance Minister to block a shipment of flour that could feed 1.1 million people for a month in Gaza. The shipment was finally released 2 days ago after having been blocked for 5 weeks at least, all while people were starving.

At one point, Prime Minister Netanyahu said his government was allowing just the ``minimum'' amount needed, and that was at a time when he and others denied that there was even a humanitarian disaster in Gaza; denied that there was a scarcity of food in Gaza; denied that there was hunger in Gaza.

This is why President Biden has called out those restrictions and why he said in his State of the Union Address:

Humanitarian assistance cannot be a secondary consideration

or a bargaining chip.

The President said that his administration is going to ``insist that Israel facilitate more trucks and more routes to get more and more people the help they need--no excuses.''

More than 5 weeks ago, on February 2, 25 Senators sent a letter to President Biden, calling for the Netanyahu government to implement five specific actions to significantly increase the amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza. To date, none of them have been fully implemented.

That is why many of us have called on President Biden to immediately invoke and implement the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which is section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act. Now that NSM--National Security Memorandum--20 is in place, which is based on an amendment that 19 of us proposed to the National Security Act, it is essential-- essential--that the Biden administration enforce its terms to get humanitarian aid delivered where it needs to go. When people are starving, patience is not a virtue.

It needs to be said that getting humanitarian aid into Gaza is only half the battle. The other half and the more dangerous half is distributing the aid once it is inside of Gaza. It doesn't do any good if you can't safely transport the food to the people who are starving. In other words, you need a safe distribution system for aid inside Gaza. Now, the organization that is the primary distributor of assistance within Gaza has been an entity called the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, known by its shorthand as UNRWA. Americans may have not heard much about UNRWA, so I want to say a little bit about why UNRWA exists and what it does in Gaza and elsewhere. But before I do that, I want to jump to why this is a pressing issue right now.

The future of UNRWA is an urgent matter right now because Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extreme rightwing allies want to get rid of it not just in Gaza but everywhere that it operates. And guess what. Prime Minister Netanyahu and folks on the far right in his government have wanted to abolish UNRWA not just since October 7 but since at least 2017. In fact, in 2018, Prime Minister Netanyahu actually changed official Israeli policy with respect to UNRWA, saying that they wanted to cut off all funding to UNRWA, even at a time that his security team warned that it could create instabilities throughout the region if that happened.

Now we have Republican Members of the House and Senate who are jumping on this bandwagon and saying they want to abolish UNRWA. And how do they want to do this? By inserting a provision in the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill, which is being considered and debated right now as we gather here, to cut off all U.S. funding for UNRWA. That is what they want to do.

So let's go back to why UNRWA was created in the first place.

In 1949--a year after the establishment of the State of Israel--the United Nations formed a new agency to provide vital services for over 700,000 Palestinian refugees who were displaced during the first Arab- Israeli war. Back then, the idea was that UNRWA would provide services to Palestinian refugees until a just and durable solution to their plight was found. As we know all too well, over 73 years have passed without a resolution to that conflict, which is why UNRWA's mission remains essential. Among other services, UNRWA provides schools and primary health services to Palestinian refugees and their descendants in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and in Gaza.

I hope we all agree that the Palestinian people deserve to live in dignity. The way to do that is to ensure that they also have self- determination in a homeland of their own, just like every Israeli deserves dignity and self-determination in the Jewish and democratic State of Israel.

President Biden and I and many others believe that the only viable, long-term solution to this conflict is a two-state solution, and President Biden has put that idea forward as the best way to create some light at the end of this very dark tunnel. UNRWA was really intended to be a bridge until such a resolution was reached.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated very clearly that he is opposed to a two-state solution. He was opposed to the Oslo Accords, and he has been a severe opponent of the two-state solution. And as I said earlier, he also wants to eliminate UNRWA, which today is an organization of over 300,000 employees providing services to Palestinians in three countries and, as I said, also in the West Bank and Gaza.

Mr. President, 13,000 of those 30,000 UNRWA staff operate in Gaza-- many of them as teachers. Since the war started with the brutal Hamas attacks on Israel of October 7, UNRWA's schools in Gaza have shut down; and as a United Nations agency, it has deployed its resources to supply humanitarian relief to the civilian population there. It is the main vehicle for distributing humanitarian assistance in Gaza. It won't do any good to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza if you dismantle the U.N. organization principally responsible for delivering that aid to people in Gaza.

This morning, I met with chef Jose Andres, and I applaud him for his efforts and the efforts of the World Central Kitchen around the world, including in Israel and in Gaza. He said:

Support for UNRWA is vital. If you want to feed people you

need to support UNRWA.

We may have a temporary port, but when the ship gets to the port, someone has to transfer that food and other assistance from the ship to the people who need it in Gaza, and UNRWA is the principal distributor of assistance. If you talk to the World Food Programme and others, they say very clearly they cannot replace that capacity that UNRWA has.

In late January, the Netanyahu government alleged that up to 14 of UNRWA's 13,000 employees participated in the horrific October attacks against Israel. These are, of course, very serious allegations, and UNRWA has taken them seriously. All agree that any individuals involved in that horror must be held accountable, and even though the Netanyahu government has not provided UNRWA with the underlying evidence, UNRWA immediately fired the alleged perpetrators.

The U.N. Secretary General also took swift action and announced the launch of a full and independent investigation, led by the U.N.'s highest investigative body, into the allegations; and that is ongoing. At the same time, President Biden suspended all U.S. contributions to UNRWA pending the outcome of that investigation. A number of other countries followed suit, as did the EU.

But, since then, two things have changed. First, the Netanyahu government has not shared the underlying evidence with UNRWA nor, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, has it shared the raw evidence with the United States. In fact, I urge every one of my Senate colleagues to read the classified report prepared by the DNI, and I especially urge my colleagues to read the intelligence assessments about the many other claims the Netanyahu government has made against UNRWA--and there have been many. I am sure that many of my colleagues are unaware of the fact that UNRWA has long provided both Israel and the United States with the names and identities of all its employees for full review and vetting. Now, Israel, of course, has far more extensive intelligence capabilities than UNRWA; but, apparently, they have never previously raised complaints about any of the

UNRWA employees on the lists given to them.

Second, the EU and many countries that initially suspended their financial support for UNRWA have since restored their contributions because they have acknowledged the desperation in Gaza and the irreplaceable nature of UNRWA. In fact, even prior to these allegations, UNRWA had asked the U.N. Secretary General to convene an Independent Review Group to assess whether UNRWA was doing everything within its power to ensure neutrality.

So, again, UNRWA in Gaza--an organization with a staff of 13,000 people--is delivering essential life-sustaining aid to over 2 million people. And what the EU and these other countries that have restored UNRWA funding recognize is that it is inhumane to cut off assistance to 2 million people because of the atrocious, alleged acts of 14. Punish the 14. Don't punish 2 million innocent Gazans, and that is why I believe that President Biden should restore this assistance now.

The notion that UNRWA is, somehow, a front group for Hamas is a total lie--pure and simple. The individual dispatched by President Biden to be the U.S. humanitarian coordinator in the region is a veteran diplomat, Ambassador David Satterfield. He has repeatedly debunked claims made by members of the Netanyahu government that humanitarian aid provided by UNRWA has been diverted to Hamas. Specifically, he said the following:

I have not received any allegations, evidence or reports of

any incidence of Hamas diversion or theft of U.S. or other

assistance or fuel from UN delivered assistance from any of

our partners or from the Government of Israel since the

humanitarian assistance resumed in Gaza October 21.

Not a single report from Israeli Government officials or anybody else about Hamas diverting aid that was being transported by UNRWA or other U.N. agencies.

My colleagues, you should all know that the individual overseeing operations on the ground in Gaza today is an American named Scott Anderson. He is a 21-year Army veteran from South Dakota. He is a no- nonsense guy. I urge every Senator to talk to him. The notion that Scott Anderson is part of a front organization for Hamas is patently absurd.

The truth is that before the war started, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not pretend that he wanted to dismantle UNRWA on the grounds that it was a proxy for Hamas. He has long wanted to eliminate UNRWA not only in Gaza but everywhere else that it supports education for Palestinian schoolchildren and healthcare for Palestinians, like in the West Bank and Jordan. As I said, he has been trying to do that since at least the year 2017. And now he has Republicans in Congress joining him and calling for the defunding of all U.S. support for UNRWA, not only in Gaza but throughout the region.

Attempts to discredit UNRWA and the U.N. have gotten so bad that 18 heads of all the major U.N. humanitarian and refugee agencies, together with NGOs like Save the Children and CARE, signed a statement calling for a ``halt to campaigns that seek to discredit the United Nations and non-governmental organizations doing their best to save lives.'' It is making it harder for them to save lives.

If you want to take a combustible situation in the West Bank and make it even worse, then close down schools for kids there. Take away any chance of an education. Snuff out any hopes they may have for a brighter future. Really?

If you want to create instability in Jordan, shut down UNRWA schools and services there. Why do we all think that King Abdallah has warned us about the consequences of shutting down UNRWA?

Here is the crazy thing about this moment: Prime Minister Netanyahu has seized on the lies about UNRWA being a proxy for Hamas in Gaza to achieve his long-term goal of shutting down UNRWA everywhere.

And what adds insult to injury is that UNRWA has not perpetuated Hamas in Gaza, but Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has done exactly that. Let me explain.

You know, there is a lot of talk here in the U.S. Senate about the malign actors who have supported Hamas over the years. One of them is a very malign actor, Iran.

Now, Iran did not create Hamas, nor does Iran exercise command and control over Hamas. But it does support Hamas because, like Iran, Hamas has the despicable goal of eliminating Israel. That is why Iran has supported Hamas.

But what we rarely, if ever, discuss is the inconvenient truth that, until the unexpected horror of the Hamas attack on October 7, Prime Minister Netanyahu himself saw it as in his interest to keep Hamas in control in Gaza.

Don't take my word for it. He told us in his own words back in 2019 at a Likud Party meeting where he said:

Anyone who wants to prevent the creation of a Palestinian

state needs to support strengthening Hamas. This is part of

our strategy to divide the Palestinians between those in Gaza

and those in Judea and Samaria.

Prime Minister Netanyahu:

Anyone who wants to prevent the creation of a Palestinian

state needs to support strengthening Hamas.

Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record a piece that appeared in Haaretz, in October of last year, entitled ``A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance.'' I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

After all, so long as Hamas was in control in Gaza, how could anyone ask Israel to accept a Palestinian State that included Gaza and the West Bank? It is a fair question.

So what are some of the ways in which Prime Minister Netanyahu has enabled Hamas to maintain its control in Gaza? Well, another thing we have heard a lot about around here is the money from Qatar that went to Hamas. It is well established that every penny of that money flowed from Qatar to Hamas with the concurrence of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel. That has been the testimony of witnesses in both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. It has also been well documented in numerous news sources.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a CNN article entitled ``Qatar sends millions to Gaza for years--with Israel's backing.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New York Times article from December of last year entitled ``'Buying Quiet': Inside the Israeli plan that propped up Hamas.''

The sub headline is ``Prime Minister Netanyahu gambled that a strong Hamas (but not too strong) would keep the peace and reduce pressure for a Palestinian state.''

But Prime Minister Netanyahu's role in keeping Hamas in control in Gaza did not end there.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New York Times piece, again, from December of last year headlined: ``Israel found the Hamas money machine years ago. Nobody turned it off.''

I want to quote from Mr. Levy, who is quoted in that article. He was the Mossad chief in charge of economic policy. He says: ``I can tell you for sure that I talked to him''--referring to Prime Minister Netanyahu--``about this. But he didn't care that much about it.''

The article goes on to point out that Mr. Netanyahu's Mossad chief shut down Mr. Levy's team, the task force called Harpoon that focused on disrupting the money flowing to groups including Hamas.

So let's go back to why Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extreme rightwing allies, like Smotrich and Ben Gvir, wanted to keep Hamas in place in Gaza. It is because, as they have said, their primary goal was to avoid the establishment of a Palestinian State. And so long as they could keep the Palestinians divided, they could avoid a united national movement for such a state. And so long as Hamas was in control of Gaza, it proved a useful foil against recognizing a Palestinian State that included the West Bank and Gaza, until the horror of October 7.

The corollary of not threatening Hamas's control of Gaza has been to systematically weaken the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. The terrible irony, of course, is that while helping perpetuate Hamas-- which was dedicated to the destruction of Israel and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel--Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies have undermined the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, which, for over 30 years, since the Oslo Accords, have recognized Israel's right to exist and have sought to coexist with Israel.

Their strategy: Keep Hamas in place; undermine the Palestinian Authority.

In fact, even today, during the war in Gaza, Finance Minister Smotrich is withholding an even greater share of the PA's own funds, and, since coming to power, the Netanyahu government has advanced even more settlements and allowed even more outposts deeper in the West Bank. And, of course, that further undermines the legitimacy of the PA in the eyes of the Palestinian people by exposing their total inability to stop those actions, even as they, the PA, help provide to Israel with security in certain areas of the West Bank.

So Prime Minister Netanyahu has advanced the strategy of weakening the Palestinian Authority and facilitating Hamas in order to prevent Palestinians from being able to live in dignity in a state of their own. And the reason--the reason--that Prime Minister Netanyahu and the far-right extremists in his government, like Smotrich and Ben Gvir, don't want a Palestinian State in the West Bank is that they want it all for themselves in what they envision as a ``Greater Israel.''

If you have Palestinians in the West Bank or who stay in the West Bank, you can't implement the vision of a ``Greater Israel''--their version of one state.

So we come full circle. UNRWA was established to be a bridge to provide services, like education, to Palestinian refugees after they were displaced. I am sure its founders did not expect it to be around for so long, but that is because they likely never envisioned that, 74 years later, the conflict that gave rise to UNRWA would remain unresolved.

But it is unresolved, and now Prime Minister Netanyahu has openly opposed President Biden's call to resolve it, ultimately, by enacting a real two-state solution that would include normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries that have yet to recognize Israel--important security needed for the Jewish State of Israel.

And at the same time that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to torpedo a two-state solution to resolve the conflict, he also wants to pursue his long-term goal of ending the organization that was not born out of that conflict, UNRWA, and eliminating the services that it currently provides to Palestinian refugees.

The United States should not be complicit in this scheme. We should not be a party to defunding UNRWA in Gaza, which is, right now, playing a critical role in the delivery of desperately needed food and humanitarian assistance to starving people. Nor should we be complicit in defunding the essential services UNRWA provides in places like the West Bank, Jordan, and other places.

I support reforming UNRWA but not eliminating it. The question of defunding UNRWA is, at this very moment, the biggest unresolved issue in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. I call upon responsible Members of Congress in the Senate and the House to ensure that the United States does not defund UNRWA.

Members of Congress who argue for the elimination of UNRWA have never bothered to drive a short distance from Jerusalem to visit an UNRWA school and hear young students talk about their dreams to be doctors, engineers, and educators, like some of us have done. There is hope in these schools, not hate, and, frankly, that is what we should be able to do here in the U.S. Senate.

We should be on the side of hope. We should not be a party to more people starving in Gaza. We should not be a party to the closing of schools for Palestinian students in the West Bank, Jordan, and other countries. And the United States should not be a party to creating even more instability in the Middle East.

Like many of my colleagues, and like President Biden, I believe the only way to create some light at the end of this dark tunnel is to find a path that ensures security for the Israeli people and dignity and self-determination for the Palestinian people.

That is why I stand with our colleague Senator Schumer and his important and timely comments this morning that rejecting the idea of Palestinian statehood and sovereignty is a ``grave mistake'' for regional security and especially for the security of Israelis and Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that a two-state solution would be a big reward--reward, he says--for Hamas, but the opposite is true. Hamas has one plan: the destruction of the State of Israel and replacing the Jewish democratic state with one of their

own. They want one state. A two-state solution is contrary to everything Hamas stands for and all it seeks to achieve, so, far from being a reward, it would be a denial of their goal of one state under Hamas control.

We all know that the road ahead will be long, and it will be hard. In the aftermath of the horrific Hamas attacks of October 7 and the current humanitarian disaster in Gaza, it is hard to imagine a time of peace and stability. That will only come when Palestinian leaders who fully embrace the right of Israel to exist in security and Israeli leaders who recognize that Palestinians must have a viable state of their own both make the necessary risks for peace.

So let us push for an immediate cease-fire and a release of all the hostages, and then let us create a flicker of hope in this moment of darkness.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from South Carolina yield for a question?

We really should debate because I don't know any evidence at all for your--

Will the gentleman yield on that?

Madam President, the United States and Turkiye have an important and complex relationship, and I have been repeatedly outspoken about my concerns regarding Ankara's actions under President Erdogan. These include President Erdogan's ongoing attacks against our Syrian Kurdish allies, his aggressive actions in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the role he played in supporting Azerbaijan's military assaults against Nagorno-Karabakh. The Biden administration recently briefed me on these issues and provided some answers around my concerns.

Though I have been glad to see that President Erdogan has ceased the incursions by military aircraft into Greek airspace, the administration informed me that they continue to monitor this matter closely in order to encourage the ongoing dialogue between Greece and Turkiye. Additionally, I received assurances from the administration that it will continue to warn Azerbaijan against taking further military action against Armenia and that they will work with Turkiye to prevent any further escalation of that conflict. I remain deeply troubled by President Erdogan's attacks against the Syrian Democratic Forces--SDF-- in Northeast Syria; however, the administration assured me that they continue to voice their strong objections to these attacks, including the threat posed to U.S. forces working with the SDF, and reaffirmed their ongoing commitment to supporting this crucial partner, who has served as the tip of the spear in our campaign to defeat the Islamic State. The administration told me that they would more clearly communicate that commitment to the SDF to allay concerns that have been expressed about a reduced American commitment to our partnership.

While Turkiye's ratification of Sweden's NATO membership was long delayed, it has been a welcome step forward and an important signal to the NATO community. I hope that this step indicates a broader realignment of Turkiye's actions with U.S. national security interests and serves as a platform upon which we can address these other lingering issues in the bilateral relationship. It is for these reasons that I will be opposing S.J. Res. 60, which would disapprove of the sale of 40 F-16s and other defense articles and services to the Government of Turkiye. I will continue to stay in regular communication with the administration regarding their assurances on these and other key issues. It is clear that we must keep a close watch on Turkiye in the weeks and months ahead; actions speak louder than words.

Madam President, earlier this week, I came to the floor to discuss the horrific terrorist attacks committed by Hamas against Israel on October 7, the brutal murder of about 1,200 people and the seizure of 240 hostages. I underscored the fact that Israel not only has the right but it has the duty to defend itself against those heinous acts and prevent any future October 7s. Never again. I also repeated my calls to prioritize the release of hostages, including American citizens. I also pointed out that while Israel is conducting a just war, it must be waged justly, including taking all necessary measures to protect innocent civilians.

Last week, Secretary of State Blinken made his fifth trip to Israel, where this time he urged Prime Minister Netanyahu not to launch a major military operation against Rafah, a city in southern Gaza whose population has increased fivefold since the beginning of the war because Palestinian refugees fleeing from northern Gaza and other parts of Gaza were told by the Netanyahu government that Rafah was a safe place for them to go.

Within hours of meeting with Secretary Blinken, Prime Minister

Netanyahu rebuffed that request and announced publicly that he had decided to launch just such an operation against Rafah. Yesterday, as if to rub it in, Prime Minister Netanyahu appeared on ABC Sunday television here in the United States to say that despite the requests from the United States, he had decided that Israel will launch a military operation against the city of Rafah.

This is part of a pattern--a pattern where Prime Minister Netanyahu thanks President Biden and the United States for our substantial military assistance but then mostly rejects our request to take measures to protect civilians and to facilitate desperately needed humanitarian assistance to people in need.

President Biden has called the bombings in Gaza ``indiscriminate,'' and the United States has repeatedly called upon the Netanyahu government to take steps to end the huge number of civilian deaths from bombing, artillery, and other weaponry. The death toll now stands at over 28,000 people, over two-thirds of them women and children. What does Prime Minister Netanyahu say? He says Israel is already doing all it can.

President Biden recently called Israel's actions in Gaza ``over the top.'' Prime Minister Netanyahu said he didn't know what President Biden was talking about.

Every major international aid organization I have spoken to--and I have spoken to virtually every one--says that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the worst they have seen in the world, ever, in their decades of experience, as over 400,000 people are on the verge of starvation, and the entire population of over 2 million is at crisis levels of food insecurity. Meanwhile, Israeli authorities in Gaza, COGAT, say, ``There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.''

The Biden administration has repeatedly urged the Netanyahu government to allow for more humanitarian assistance into Gaza, only to be mostly ignored. The overriding message to the United States from the Netanyahu coalition is this: Thanks for giving us all the weapons. Thanks for your taxpayers' support. But don't lecture us about civilian casualties or the need to better facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

For example, on his trip to Israel last week, Secretary Blinken pointed out that ``Israelis were dehumanized in the most horrific way on October 7th, and that the hostages have been dehumanized every day since.'' I agree. Secretary Blinken then went on to say ``but that cannot be a license to dehumanize others.''

A former Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, responded by essentially saying: Thank you, Secretary Blinken, for the ammunition, but don't accuse Israel of dehumanization because that delegitimizes Israel and makes it harder for us to use that ammunition or to defend ourselves and exercise our right to self-defense.

In other words, former Ambassador Oren was saying: Keep sending us the weapons, but don't suggest that we are dehumanizing innocent Palestinians.

I would suggest that rather than criticizing Secretary Blinken for his comments, Michael Oren and others should condemn the dehumanizing statements about Palestinians that have been made by members of the Netanyahu coalition and other Israeli Government officials during the war in Gaza. Here are just some of them:

One said: ``There is no such thing as innocence in Gaza.''

Another Minister described the campaign in Gaza as ``rolling out the Gaza nakba. Gaza nakba 2023,'' nakba being a reference to the mass displacement of Palestinians back in 1948. And that statement was echoed by other members of Netanyahu's Likud Party.

Another member of Likud said: ``There is no place for any humanitarian gestures--we must erase the memory of Amalek,'' referring to members of a biblical tribe that was an enemy of Israel--in fact, such an enemy that Scripture said the Israelites should put to death every man, woman, and child.

Indeed Prime Minister Netanyahu himself said: ``You must remember what Amalek has done to you,'' a reference, scholars say, that has long been used by the Israeli far right to justify the inhumane treatment of Palestinians.

Even President Herzog, considered by many to be a more moderate voice, painted all Palestinians with a broad brush, saying: ``It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it's absolutely not true.'' President Herzog.

These are just a sampling of the many statements made by government officials and Netanyahu coalition members.

So what should the United States do? What should we do when bombs and artillery that we have provided and paid for are being used to kill large numbers of innocent Palestinian civilians and we are told to go mind our own business? What should the United States do when over 2 million Palestinian civilians, who have nothing to do with Hamas, are facing a humanitarian catastrophe, but the Netanyahu government refuses to open the Eretz crossing or take the other measures that 25 Senators wrote to President Biden about last week, asking him to push the Netanyahu government to do them? What should the United States do when the Netanyahu government refuses to prioritize the release of all the remaining hostages, including American citizens?

What should we do when extremist settlers in the West Bank, in many cases with the IDF standing by and in some cases with their active participation, attack Palestinians with impunity and push them off their land? What should we do?

What should we do when we have made clear that the United States opposes the launch of a new military operation in the city of Rafah because it will turn into an even bigger humanitarian disaster, but Prime Minister Netanyahu goes on American national TV to say he is going to do it anyway?

Rafah is a city in southern Gaza. Before the war started, it was a city with a population of about 300,000 people. Its population has now multiplied in size by 5 times. About 1.3 million people are there now, over 1 million of them having fled death and destruction in other parts of Gaza because they were told by Prime Minister Netanyahu and others that they would be safe there.

I visited the Egyptian side of the Rafah gate about 5 weeks ago, along with my colleague Senator Merkley, to better understand the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We talked to people. We listened to people. We got fully briefed. The humanitarian situation was a catastrophe then, and, by all accounts, the situation in Gaza has gone from nightmare to pure hell, even more so in the north than in the south.

When asked on national television on Sunday where all of these civilians now seeking refuge would go, Prime Minister Netanyahu breezily stated:

You know, the areas that we've cleared north of Rafah,

plenty of areas there.

That is what the Prime Minister said on American TV. Now, unless he is talking about areas that were cleared through bombing and have been reduced to rubble, it is simply not true.

Don't believe those who claim that there is an easy path to caring for the 1.3 million people in Rafah. It wasn't that long ago that Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed that there was no humanitarian crisis in Gaza--no humanitarian crisis there. In fact, he boasted that he was allowing into Gaza the minimal amount of humanitarian aid to avoid a humanitarian disaster. Well, the claim that there is no humanitarian disaster doesn't pass any credible test, and we know that.

For weeks, the United Nations and international aid organizations have warned that Palestinian civilians are on the verge of starvation. Those warnings have been ignored and dismissed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extremist government.

Just recently, the World Food Programme, together with UNICEF, which is the U.N. organization to look after the well-being of children around the world--both of these organizations, by the way, currently headed by Americans--they, WFP and UNICEF, issued an analysis recently on the deterioration of the nutrition situation in Gaza during the first 120 days of the war. Here are some of the things that they concluded: In northern Gaza, more than 90 percent of children age 6 to 23 months and pregnant and breastfeeding women and girls faced severe food poverty. The food they do have is of the lowest nutritional value. More than 90 percent of children age 6 to 23 months

and more than 95 percent of pregnant and breastfeeding women and girls are eating two or fewer food groups. And 95 percent of households are limiting meals and portion sizes; 64 percent are only eating one meal a day.

They indicated that health screenings show a rapid deterioration of the nutrition situation for children age 6 to 23 months in northern Gaza, with global acute malnutrition at over 15 percent.

WHO, the World Health Organization, classifies global acute malnutrition over 15 percent as a critical emergency.

Yesterday, I began to hear reports of people who have actually starved to death in Gaza. So, earlier today, I asked the head of the World Food Programme, former American Ambassador Cindy McCain, about these reports. I sent her a note--a text message--asking about reports that some children have now crossed the awful threshold from being on the verge of starvation to dying of starvation.

She wrote back:

This is true. We are unable to get in enough food to keep

people from the brink. Famine is imminent. I wish I had

better news.

I want that to sink in. Kids in Gaza are now dying from the deliberate withholding of food. In addition to the horror of that news, one other thing is true: That is a war crime. It is a textbook war crime, and that makes those who orchestrate it war criminals.

So now the question is: What will the United States do? What will we do? What will President Biden do?

President Biden must take action in response to what is happening. First and foremost, the President must demand that the Netanyahu government immediately allow more food and water and other lifesaving supplies into Gaza and make sure it reaches the children and other people who are starving, including in the north.

A few weeks ago, 25 Senators wrote the President a letter outlining some of those steps. To my knowledge, none of those five steps have been implemented by the Netanyahu government.

Second, unless and until the Netanyahu government allows more relief into Gaza, President Biden needs to invoke section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act. Here is the exact language of that section of the Foreign Assistance Act:

No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter of the

Arms Export Control Act to any country when it is made known

to the President that the government of such country

prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the

transport or delivery of United States humanitarian

assistance.

Now, about 3 weeks ago, I asked senior State Department officials to tell me why this law--section 620I, Foreign Assistance Act--has not been applied. Tell me how it is not the case that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not restricting, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance, when we have the humanitarian horror show that I just mentioned.

Well, I haven't gotten an answer to the question I posed about 3 weeks ago. And the answer is: There is no good answer to that question.

Now I applaud the President of the United States for issuing National Security Memorandum No. 20 a few days ago. National Security Memorandum No. 20, which now has full legal force, is based on an amendment that I and 18 of my fellow Senators filed on this national security bill that we are considering right now, and I want to thank the President and his team for putting the terms of that amendment into action, into law, through the national security memorandum, which gives the President of the United States additional tools to require that countries--all countries--that receive and use our military assistance do so in accordance with international humanitarian law. In fact, here is the wording of the national security memorandum, which is now the law of the land.

The Secretary of State shall . . . obtain credible and

reliable written assurances from a representative of the

recipient country as the Secretary of State deems appropriate

that, in any area of armed conflict where such recipient

country uses such defense articles, consistent with

applicable law, the recipient country will facilitate and not

arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly or

indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States

humanitarian assistance and United States Government

supported international efforts to provide humanitarian

assistance.

That is now the law of the land.

The bill before us does a number of things. It provides military assistance to Ukraine, to Israel, and to our partners in the Indo- Pacific. It also contains lifesaving humanitarian aid that, if it can actually be delivered to those who need it, would save lives in Gaza, the West Bank, Sudan, and other places around the world facing desperate humanitarian situations.

As I have said before on this floor, I am supporting this bill because of the vital military assistance it provides to the people of Ukraine, and I will vote for it because, without that assistance, they will not be able to sustain their courageous effort to fight off the onslaught against their democracy and their sovereignty from Vladimir Putin. And I support the vital humanitarian assistance in this bill, and I fully support the funds to supply Israel with the Iron Dome system and other defensive systems that have been essential to protect the people of Israel from Hamas rocket attacks and are there to protect them from other incoming missiles.

With respect to the lethal, offensive portion of that assistance, I am asking President Biden to make sure that it is provided in strict adherence to National Security Memorandum 20 that he just issued and be used only in accordance with international humanitarian law. That memorandum provides the President with substantial new leverage to make that happen, if he chooses to use it.

I hope he will because the U.S. Government has an obligation on behalf of the American people to make sure that our military support aligns with our values and interests. There should be no blank checks for any country.

We cannot continue the pattern where Prime Minister Netanyahu says, ``Thank you, Mr. President, for America's generous military assistance,'' and then thumbs his nose at America's legitimate requests.

This is a huge moment in history with what is going on right now in Ukraine, but it is also a critical question for our country with respect to what is going on in Gaza. And I hope and I pray that the President of the United States will make sure that the United States conducts itself in a manner that is consistent with our values and with our interests.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me start by thanking my friend and colleague from Indiana for providing those wise words and good examples from Abraham Lincoln.

Supplemental Funding

Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss the National Security Act, which has many important components, including support for Ukraine, for Israel, and for countries in the Indo-Pacific, as well as humanitarian assistance to help respond to crises around the world, including in Ukraine, in Gaza, the West Bank, Sudan, and elsewhere. It also includes funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to better protect those nonprofits here in the United States, including places of worship, that face elevated risks from hate crimes.

I have spoken many times on this floor about the imperative of providing the people of Ukraine with more desperately needed military assistance to protect their sovereignty and to protect their democracy. We must not abandon them to Putin's brutal onslaught. The Ukrainian people are putting their blood and their lives on the

line to defend their freedom. The least we can do--the least we can do--is provide them, together with our allies, with the weapons and other support they need to do that.

It is not only the freedom of Ukraine that is at stake; abandoning the people of Ukraine to Putin would destroy our credibility with our allies and our adversaries. It would undermine our word with both friend and foe not only in Europe but around the world.

Let there be no doubt that President Xi is keeping one eye on what happens in Ukraine as he keeps the other eye trained on Taiwan.

To my Senate colleagues, you cannot say that you want to deter President Xi from attempting the forcible takeover of Taiwan if you are prepared to wave the white flag in the face of Putin's aggression. You can't say you are tough on China if you are weak on Russia and Putin.

This bill also provides important security assistance to partners in the Indo-Pacific region to protect their sovereignty and support our common vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific. As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, I have worked hard on a bipartisan basis to advance that goal.

Today, I want to focus the remainder of my remarks on the provisions in the supplemental to provide more U.S. security assistance to Israel.

The horror of the October 7 Hamas terror attacks against Israel cannot, must not, and will not be erased or forgotten. About 1,200 people were brutally murdered, and 240 people were taken hostage. As I have said many times in the aftermath of that heinous attack and those kidnappings, Israel not only has the right but the duty to defend itself and take the actions necessary to prevent any future October 7's. Never forget and never again.

I stand steadfastly with the people of Israel in pursuing that objective and securing the release of all the hostages. Given the terrible news of the deaths of as many as one-fifth of the remaining hostages, the urgency of bringing the rest home could not be more clear.

I also believe that, while it is a just war, a just war must still be fought justly. As President Biden, Secretary Blinken, Secretary Austin, and many others have repeated, how a war is conducted matters. It matters for both moral and strategic reasons.

As Americans, we remember the collective anguish we experienced after the 9/11 terror attacks. We are also acutely aware of the unintended consequences of strategic overreach stemming from shared anger and pain. These were important lessons--lessons that apply today.

We all recognize that Hamas's despicable tactic of operating from among the civilian population makes it more difficult to target the enemy, but that does not absolve the Netanyahu government of the duty to take necessary measures to avoid civilian casualties. That is why, back on December 2 of last year, Secretary Austin said:

Protecting Palestinian civilians in Gaza is both a moral

responsibility and a strategic one.

Those sentiments were echoed by Secretary Blinken in December of last year when he said that it is ``imperative that Israel put a premium on civilian protection.'' The Secretary of State has emphasized that point repeatedly since then.

Nor does the horror of the October 7 attack justify the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza--a catastrophe that began when the Netanyahu government imposed a total siege on the people in that very narrow strip of land, and that has continued as his coalition places unnecessary obstacles in the way of getting vital, desperately needed, lifesaving assistance to innocent civilians there.

Over 2 million Palestinian civilians, who have nothing to do with Hamas, are on the verge of starvation and need help to survive. That is why Secretary Blinken has emphasized the importance of getting ``more humanitarian assistance to people who so desperately need it in Gaza.'' The situation is awful, and it is getting worse by the day.

To those who say that all this aid is being diverted to Hamas, let me just say that is factually untrue, and I want to read a statement I received not that long ago from Ambassador Satterfield, who is our humanitarian coordinator in charge of humanitarian assistance to Gaza.

His statement reads:

Today, I have not received any allegations, evidence, or

reports of any incidents of Hamas diversion or theft of U.S.

or other assistance or fuel from U.N.-delivered assistance

from any of our partners or from the Government of Israel

since the humanitarian assistance resumed in Gaza on October

21st.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that his full statement be printed in the Record.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration's urgent pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears with Netanyahu's coalition. Just a few days ago, we saw Secretary Blinken in Jerusalem, meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, urging that Israel not take military action in Rafah.

What is Rafah? Rafah is a city in Gaza that is right on the Egyptian- Gaza border. Before the war started, there were about 300,000, 400,000 people in Rafah. Today, you have about 1.4 million people crammed into Rafah because over a million people who have been displaced from other parts of Gaza went to Rafah because they were told it was a safe place to go.

Despite what Secretary Blinken said and despite the fact that just the other day, John Kirby, the national security spokesman, said that the United States would not support a major military operation in Rafah--nevertheless, within hours of Secretary Blinken's meeting with the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that they are going to go into Rafah. It is just one of many, many examples of where our requests have been rebuffed.

We have made some incremental progress from time to time. For example, after many, many requests and urgings, we saw a while back the long-delayed reopening of the Kerem Shalom crossing to allow some more trucks into Gaza. But the reality is that the number of trucks and the amount of aid getting into Gaza is nowhere near what is necessary to meet the dire humanitarian situation.

Here we are 4 months into this war, and over 27,000 Palestinians have been killed, over two-thirds of them women and children, and that does not include those who are still buried beneath the rubble.

Wes Bryant, who helped lead the U.S. targeting against ISIS, has written about the unacceptably high levels of civilian casualties in Gaza.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that his op-ed be printed in the Record.

It is not only the extremely high civilian death toll; it is the over 67,000 wounded, the over 1.7 million displaced. It is the huge damage to civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, mosques, and churches. It is the toll from humanitarian aid workers killed and journalists killed. The level of death and destruction in Gaza is simply inhumane.

For just one small but still powerful example, I urge my colleagues to read the Washington Post story from last Friday--a week ago--about a 6-year old girl, Hind Hamada, who is trying to get to safety in a car with her aunt, her uncle, and her five young cousins. The car was hit by tank fire, and all of those who were in the car with Hind died. She was severely injured. She got on a phone to try to call for help, and there are recordings of her calls for help as her family members lay dead around her in the car. The last recording on the phone call she made to paramedics who were unable to reach her were:

Come and take me.

She was killed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

On the humanitarian front, millions of Palestinian civilians are desperately trying to cling to life as we speak here. I have met with the leaders of international humanitarian organizations who have operated in conflict zones around the world for decades and for decades. Every one of them--every one--has stated that their organizations have never--never--experienced a humanitarian disaster as dire and terrible as the world is witnessing in Gaza.

That is why 5 weeks ago, Senator Merkley and I traveled to the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza to see for ourselves what was happening, to talk to people on the ground.

What we saw and learned indicated that Palestinians--Palestinian civilians--are on the verge of starvation; that injured children are having their limbs amputated without anesthesia; that sewage continues to spill into the streets and contaminate the water supplies; and health officials are warning of the imminent outbreak of cholera and other diseases. Diseases like dysentery are already rampant, especially in kids.

That is why last week, 25 U.S. Senators wrote to President Biden urging the administration to do more to push the Netanyahu coalition to allow more desperately needed assistance to reach innocent civilians in Gaza. We outlined five specific measures that need to be taken immediately.

That was not the first time many of us wrote to President Biden to express our concerns about the conduct of the war in Gaza. We wrote to the President over 3 months ago, posing a series of questions, including what mechanisms are in place to ensure that U.S.-provided equipment is used in accordance with international humanitarian law? We did that because the United States is not a bystander in this conflict.

Israel is the largest annual recipient of U.S. security assistance, totaling more than $39 billion over the last 10 years alone. And right now, bombs and artillery made in America and paid for by Americans are being used in Gaza. So the U.S. Government and the U.S. Senate has an obligation to the American people to ensure that their tax dollars, our tax dollars, are used in the manner that aligns with our values and aligns with our interests.

That is why 19 Senators filed an amendment to the National Security Act, the supplemental national security provision that is before the Senate now and soon will be considered. That is why we filed an amendment to ensure that all recipients of U.S. military assistance in that bill--whether Ukraine, whether Israel, or whether it is one of our East Asian partners--use these U.S. taxpayer dollars in line with our values and our interests.

Our amendment is designed to create an accountability structure to ensure that countries that receive U.S. security assistance promise to adhere to humanitarian law and other applicable law.

It is designed to ensure that recipients of U.S. assistance promise to help facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict the delivery of U.S.- supported humanitarian assistance in conflict zones.

And our amendment included a provision to maintain accountability by requiring reporting be presented and provided to the Congress on whether or not the recipients of U.S. military assistance were, in fact, complying with those commitments on international law and allowing humanitarian aid to flow to conflict zones.

Importantly, the reporting requirements in our amendment also require information and an assessment about whether recipient countries-- countries receiving U.S. military aid--are employing best practices to prevent civilian harm.

That is what our amendment does. We filed that amendment to this bill just a few days ago. In the meantime, since we first proposed this amendment in December, we have remained in regular communication with the Biden administration.

I want to thank all of my colleagues who cosponsored this amendment, including the original cosponsors--Senator Kaine, Senator Durbin, and Senator Schatz--but also the 15 other colleagues, including the Presiding Officer who joined together in this effort to call for an amendment that made sure that we better align our military assistance with our values.

Our amendment applied these requirements to every country receiving military assistance in the supplemental national security bill, but our intention all along has been to expand this worldwide, to make sure that as the United States uses taxpayer dollars to provide security assistance to countries around the world, that we can tell those taxpayers that their money is being used and the military equipment purchased with their money is being used in a manner consistent with our values.

We began that conversation with the President's team at the White House. We had a chance to talk with them about our goals and the purposes of the amendment.

At the time we introduced this amendment, we said our goal is to get these provisions implemented, whether through amendment or through other means.

I want to salute the President of the United States--President Biden--because just last night, at 8:30 p.m., the President issued a historic national security memorandum, National Security Memorandum No. 20.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

National Security Memorandum on Safeguards and Accountability With

Respect to Transferred Defense Articles and Defense Services

As outlined in National Security Memorandum 18 of February

23, 2023 (United States Conventional Arms Transfer Policy)

(NSM-18), supporting foreign partners of the United States

through appropriate transfers of defense articles by the

Department of State and the Department of Defense is a

critical tool for advancing United States foreign policy and

national security objectives, including to:

(a) strengthen the collective security of the United States

and its allies and partners by enhancing interoperability and

supporting United States-led diplomacy in building and

maintaining international coalitions;

(b) promote international peace and stability, and help

allies and partners deter and defend themselves against

aggression and foreign malign influence;

(c) strengthen United States national security by

reinforcing respect for human rights, international

humanitarian law, democratic governance, and the rule of law;

(d) prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or

otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or

international humanitarian law; and

(e) strengthen ally and partner capacity to respect their

obligations under international law and reduce the risk of

civilian harm, including through appropriate tools, training,

advising, and institutional capacity-building efforts that

accompany arms transfers. Equally critical is ensuring that

adequate safeguards and accountability exist with respect to

transferred defense articles and defense services. Under the

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751, et seq.), both the

Department of State and the Department of Defense implement

end-use monitoring programs.

In addition, as a matter of policy, the United States

always seeks to promote adherence to international law and

encourages other states and partners to do the same. United

States policy, including as reflected in Executive Order

13732 of July 1, 2016 (United States Policy on Pre- and Post-

Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S.

Operations Involving the Use of Force), is for executive

departments and agencies to engage with foreign partners to

share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of

and responding to civilian casualties, including through

appropriate training and assistance. In order to effectively

implement certain obligations under United States law, the

United States must maintain an appropriate understanding of

foreign partners' adherence to international law, including,

as applicable, international human rights law and

international humanitarian law. As a matter of international

law, the United States looks to the law of state

responsibility and United States partners' compliance with

international humanitarian law in assessing the lawfulness of

United States military assistance to, and joint operations

with, military partners.

For these reasons, I am issuing this memorandum, which

requires the Secretary of State to obtain certain credible

and reliable written assurances from foreign governments

receiving defense articles and, as appropriate, defense

services, from the Departments of State and Defense, and

requires the Secretaries of State and Defense to provide

periodic congressional reports to enable meaningful

oversight. In addition to the requirements of this

memorandum, the Secretaries of State and Defense are

responsible for ensuring that all transfers of defense

articles and defense services by the Departments of State and

Defense under any security cooperation or security assistance

authorities are conducted in a manner consistent with all

applicable international and domestic law and policy,

including international humanitarian law and international

human rights law, the applicable ``Leahy Law'' (22 U.S.C.

2378d, 10 U.S.C. 362), and NSM-18.

Section 1. Policy. (a) Except as provided below, the policy

outlined in this memorandum applies prospectively to the

provision to foreign governments by the Departments of State

or Defense of any defense articles funded with congressional

appropriations under their respective security assistance and

security cooperation authorities, including with Foreign

Military Financing and Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative

funds, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 333, and pursuant to

Presidential drawdown authority under section 506 of the

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318). Prior to the

Departments of State or Defense providing such defense

articles to the recipient country and, as applicable,

consistent with the timelines set out in subsection (c) of

this section, the Secretary of State shall:

(i) obtain credible and reliable written assurances from a

representative of the recipient country as the Secretary of

State deems appropriate that the recipient country will use

any such defense articles in accordance with international

humanitarian law and, as applicable, other international law;

and

(ii) in furtherance of supporting section 6201 of the

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378-1) and

applicable international law, obtain credible and reliable

written assurances from a representative of the recipient

country as the Secretary of State deems appropriate that, in

any area of armed conflict where the recipient country uses

such defense articles, consistent with applicable

international law, the recipient country will facilitate and

not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly

or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States

humanitarian assistance and United States Government-

supported international efforts to provide humanitarian

assistance.

The assurances described in this subsection shall be

enforceable consistent with subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Upon an assessment by the Secretary of State or the

Secretary of Defense that the credibility or reliability of

assurances provided by the recipient country as required by

subsection (a) of this section has been called into question

and should be revisited, the Secretary of State or the

Secretary of Defense, as appropriate, shall report to the

President, through the Assistant to the President for

National Security Affairs, within 45 days of such

assessment and shall indicate appropriate next steps to be

taken to assess and remediate the situation. Such

remediation could include actions from refreshing the

assurances to suspending any further transfers of defense

articles or, as appropriate, defense services.

(c) Recognizing that a reasonable period of time is

necessary to obtain the assurances required by subsection (a)

of this section from foreign governments already receiving

such defense articles from the Departments of State or

Defense as of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of

State shall obtain the required assurances from those

countries within the following time periods:

(i) For any country to which subsection (a) of this section

applies and that is deemed by the Secretary of State to be

engaged, as of the date of this memorandum, in an active

armed conflict in which defense articles covered by this

section are used, the Secretary of State shall obtain the

assurances outlined in subsection (a) of this section not

later than 45 days after the date of this memorandum and

shall provide an update to the President, through the

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs,

regarding the recipient countries that have provided such

assurances. If the Secretary of State does not obtain such

assurances within 45 days of the date of this memorandum, the

transfer of defense articles and, as applicable, defense

services, shall be paused until the required assurances are

obtained.

(ii) For any country to which subsection (a) of this

section applies and that is not deemed by the Secretary of

State to be engaged, as of the date of this memorandum, in an

active armed conflict in which defense articles covered by

this section are used, the Secretary of State shall obtain

the assurances outlined in subsection (a) of this section not

later than 180 days after the date of this memorandum and

shall provide an update to the President, through the

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs,

regarding the recipient countries that have provided such

assurances. If the Secretary of State does not obtain such

assurances within 180 days of the date of this memorandum,

the transfer of defense articles and, as applicable, defense

services, shall be paused until the required assurances are

obtained.

(d) This memorandum does not apply to (1) air defense

systems; (2) other defense articles or defense services that

are intended to be used for strictly defensive purposes or

are exclusively for non-lethal purposes other than in armed

conflict; (3) defense articles or defense services that are

non-lethal in nature; or (4) transfers strictly for the

operational needs of the Department of Defense.

(e) This memorandum shall apply to the provision to foreign

governments by the Departments of State or Defense of any

defense services the Secretary of State or the Secretary of

Defense determines to be appropriate under their respective

authorities in furthering the aims of the policy outlined in

this memorandum.

(f) in rare and extraordinary circumstances justified by an

imperative associated with the national security of the

United States, and with concurrent notification to the

President, including an articulation of the relevant

justification, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of

Defense may waive the requirements of this section. Such

waiver should be as limited in time, scope, and nature as

deemed necessary to advance the interests of United States

national security.

Sec. 2. Congressional Reporting. (a) Not later than 90 days

after the date of this memorandum, and once every fiscal year

thereafter, the Secretaries of State and Defense shall report

in written form and, to the extent additionally appropriate,

through verbal briefings by appropriate senior officials of

their respective departments, to the Committee on Foreign

Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee

on Appropriations of the Senate; the Committee on Foreign

Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and, upon

request, other congressional national security committees as

appropriate. The written report shall address defense

articles and, as appropriate, defense services, provided by

the Departments of State or Defense described in subsections

1(a) and 1(e) of this memorandum, and shall include:

(i) any new assurances obtained since the prior report;

(ii) an assessment of any credible reports or allegations

that such defense articles and, as appropriate, defense

services, have been used in a manner not consistent with

international law, including international humanitarian law;

such assessment shall include any determinations, if they can

reasonably be made, as to whether use has occurred in a

manner not consistent with international law, and if so,

whether the recipient country has pursued appropriate

accountability;

(iii) a description of the procedures used to make the

assessment described in subsection (a)(ii) of this section;

(iv) an assessment and analysis of (1) any credible reports

indicating that the use of such defense articles and, as

appropriate, defense services, has been found to be

inconsistent with established best practices for mitigating

civilian harm, including practices that have been adopted by

the United States military, and including measures

implemented in response to the Department of Defense's

Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan or

incidents reviewed pursuant to the Department of State's

Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance; and (2) the extent

to which efforts to induce effective implementation of such

civilian harm mitigation best practices have been

incorporated into the relevant United States security

assistance program;

(v) a description of the procedures used to make the

assessment and analysis described in subsection (iv) of this

section:

(vi) a description of any known occurrences of such defense

articles and, as appropriate, defense services, not being

received by the recipient foreign government that is the

intended recipient, or being misused for purposes

inconsistent with the intended purposes, and a description of

any remedies undertaken;

(vii) an assessment and analysis of whether each foreign

government recipient has abided by the assurances received

pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of this memorandum, whether such

recipient is in compliance with section 6201 of the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378-1), and whether such

recipient has fully cooperated with United States Government

efforts and United States Government-supported international

efforts to provide humanitarian assistance in an area of

armed conflict where the recipient country is using such

defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services; and

(viii) a description of any challenges to conducting the

assessment and analysis described in subsections (a)(i)-(vii)

of this section, including whether or not there is available

information responsive to the subsections above.

(b) The written report and, where applicable, accompanying

verbal briefing provided under subsection (a) of this section

shall be unclassified but may be supplemented, to the extent

necessary, with classified reporting as appropriate for the

protection of classified national security information.

(c) The first report provided under this section shall

include available information on the use, since January 2023,

of defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services,

provided by the Departments of State or Defense described in

subsections 1(a) and 1(e) of this memorandum by recipient

countries that engaged in armed conflict during calendar year

2023.

(d) The Secretaries of State and Defense shall notify the

congressional committees specified in subsection (a) of this

section within 7 days following any report provided to the

President pursuant to section 1(b) of this memorandum and

within 7 days following any notification provided to the

President of the exercise of a waiver pursuant to section

1(f) of this memorandum, and shall notify the same committees

of assurances newly received pursuant to section 1(a) of this

memorandum within 30 days of receiving such assurances if not

otherwise reported to the Congress within that time period.

Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this memorandum, the

terms ``defense article'' and ``defense service'' have the

meanings given in section 47 of the Arms Export Control Act,

22 U.S.C. 2794.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum

shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department

or agency, or the head thereof;

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative,

or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with

applicable law and subject to the availability of

appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not,

create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,

enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the

United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its

officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The requirements in this memorandum are not intended to

reflect an understanding that they are required by treaty or

customary international law, and this memorandum should not

be understood or cited to that effect.

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

What this national security memorandum does is effectively implement the terms of our amendment. It makes the provisions of that amendment effectively the law of the land and does other things as well.

I not only want to salute President Biden, I want to salute his National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, the entire NSC team, and the entire White House team for taking this very important, deliberate, historic action. It is a very big deal.

What does it do? As our amendment, it pushes forward in a number of big areas.

First, it requires that every recipient of U.S. military assistance promise in writing, before receiving that military assistance, that they will comply with international humanitarian law and, as applicable, other international law. They have to promise in writing to do that before the delivery of U.S. military assistance.

No. 2, it requires that every recipient of U.S. military assistance must promise in writing to facilitate and not to arbitrarily restrict the delivery of U.S.-supported humanitarian assistance into conflict zones where U.S. weapons are being used by the recipient country. That promise also has to be made before the delivery of that military assistance.

And this national security memorandum has enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance and to make sure that the U.S. Government has the tools to take action in cases of noncompliance.

It focuses, in the first instance, on countries that are currently in armed conflict and using U.S. weapons. That would include Israel. It would include Ukraine. It would include other countries that today are using U.S. weapons in conflict zones.

And it indicates that if those countries do not make these assurances, make these promises within the next 45 days, U.S. security assistance will be suspended.

It also has a provision that says the Secretary of State will inform the President of the United States if there is any information that the recipient countries that have made these promises are not keeping those promises to the American people and the American taxpayer and when the Secretary of State makes such notification to the President, that Congress will be informed.

The national security memorandum also has the robust reporting requirements included in our proposed amendment to help monitor compliance with the promises made by the recipient countries. They are promises to use U.S. military assistance in accordance with international humanitarian law and other international law as applicable. They are promises to facilitate and not arbitrarily restrict the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

The report will tell the Congress whether or not those countries are, in fact, doing those things and provide an assessment of what is happening.

The report will also include other provisions called for in our amendment. One of them, very importantly,

is that the report must assess and analyze whether or not the recipient countries that are engaged in armed conflict are deploying and using best practices to prevent civilian harm. Let me say that again. This report will require an assessment and analysis of whether countries that are receiving U.S. military assistance, engaged in armed conflict now, whether or not they are employing best practices to prevent civilian harm.

The national security memorandum prioritizes this reporting on countries that are currently using U.S. weapons in armed conflict. For those countries, the first report will be due in 90 days. Those countries include Ukraine, include Israel, and any other countries that are using U.S. weapons in armed conflict today.

And, very importantly, the reporting period that is covered will be a reporting timeframe starting January of 2023. So Congress will receive a report in 90 days on whether or not the recipients of U.S. military assistance are in compliance throughout last year and on into this year with those requirements set out in the national security memorandum requirements that we had in our amendment.

This really is a historic moment. This is a transformational moment in making sure we align U.S. security assistance with American values. It is a very sweeping memorandum.

As of 8:30 p.m. last night, it is the law of the land in the United States of America. It will give the President of the United States many more tools and more leverage to better ensure that countries that are using U.S. military assistance comply with the commitments they now have to make in writing--whether it is Ukraine, whether it is Israel, whether it is another country.

I spoke a little bit earlier about the fact that despite repeated requests from the Biden administration of the Netanyahu coalition to reduce the level of civilian casualties, to allow more humanitarian assistance into Gaza, that, for the most part, with some minor exceptions, those requests have fallen on deaf ears.

So we hope and believe and are quite confident that this national security memorandum, which adopts our amendment, will provide the President with the leverage, additional leverage needed to close that gap between our request and reality.

I urge the President and his team to make effective use of these new provisions.

(Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)

I urge the President's team to do that not just with respect to Israel but with any country that is receiving U.S. military assistance, because American taxpayers must be assured that the U.S. Government is doing everything in its power to make sure that as we provide assistance to partners around the world, that they are complying with their values and complying with the principles of adherence to international humanitarian law, international law, that they will help facilitate and not obstruct the delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in desperate need.

I want to again thank all of the cosponsors of this amendment, because there were many people who opposed this amendment. But I never understood the opposition to the straightforward principles that U.S. taxpayer dollars and U.S. military assistance should go to countries that commit to us that they will use that help that we are providing in accordance with international humanitarian law and commit that if they are engaged in armed conflict using U.S. weapons, that they will support U.S. efforts and other U.S.-backed efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who are caught up in the crossfire through no fault of their own.

These seem like very straightforward principles, and it is about time that we took what has previously really been the sentiment of the United States and turn it into substance, to take rhetoric and make it more of a reality.

So I want to thank all my colleagues, including the new Presiding Officer, who helped make that happen.

I want to thank the President of the United States. I want to thank President Biden, who has said from the beginning that the United States must continue to be a beacon of hope and that we must have a foreign policy based on values, based on the rule of law, based on human rights. If we want to do that, we need to make sure that our laws match those ambitions. We need to make sure that we have requirements on the books that achieve those aspirations because aspirations that are not backed up with real leverage sound good, but they are not made real in the world we live in.

Thank you to all of the cosponsors to this amendment. Thank you to the President of the United States. This is an important new chapter in how the United States provides military assistance around the world and how we conduct our foreign policy, and I hope it will lead to a brighter chapter in the years ahead.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, in the aftermath of the horrific October 7 terrorist attack, Israel not only has the right, but also a duty to its people, to defend itself and pursue the objectives of ending the military threat posed by Hamas and returning all the hostages unharmed. I support those goals and therefore do not and would not support a resolution to terminate all U.S. military assistance to Israel.

That is why I would like to begin by making clear what S. Res. 504 is not about. It is not about cutting off U.S. security assistance to Israel. Anyone who says otherwise has not read the resolution.

So what does this resolution do? The very first line of the resolution states that its purpose is ``requesting information on Israel's human rights practices.'' The resolution goes on to seek information on ``alleged violations of internationally recognized human

rights,'' including violations related to Israel's military operations and the ``denial of basic humanitarian needs'' like food, water, medical care, fuel, and shelter.

While these are not simple questions, the resolution simply asks questions. And while I understand that some may be uncomfortable asking questions about the conduct of a close partner, we have a duty to the American taxpayers to get the facts. Israel is the largest annual recipient of U.S. security assistance, totaling more than $39 billion over the past 10 years alone. The United States is not a bystander to this conflict, and the American people deserve honest answers about how our assistance is being used. The report should provide a full picture of what is happening, including how Hamas's despicable tactic of hiding among the civilian population impacts the prosecution of the war and any other information that the administration deems important.

As I have repeatedly said, Israel's war against Hamas is just, but it must be waged justly. President Biden, Secretary Blinken, and officials across the Biden administration have also made this point clear. For example, Secretary Blinken has repeatedly stated that the ``daily toll on civilians in Gaza, particularly children, is far too high'' and called upon the Netanyahu coalition to put a ``clear plan in place that puts a premium on protecting civilians'' and to get ``more humanitarian assistance to people who so desperately need it in Gaza.''

These entreaties have been rebuffed time and time again by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ultra-extremist coalition that includes the likes of Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. Despite statements from the Israeli Defense Forces that their operations have shifted to a more ``targeted phase,'' there were still between 112 to 151 Palestinians reportedly killed in Gaza each day last week. This truth is only underscored by the Sunday Washington Post headline: ``Despite U.S. pressure on Israel, casualty count in Gaza remains high.''

The death toll has now reached over 24,000, two-thirds of them women and children, with another 60,000 wounded. Meanwhile, the humanitarian catastrophe is getting worse, not better. The Netanyahu government initially declared a full siege of Gaza and then, for months, refused to open the main Kerem Shalom crossing. It still refuses to open the northern Erez crossing to get assistance to the desperate people trapped there. Indeed, the water pipeline to northern Gaza has been shut off since October 7.

I visited the Rafah crossing about 10 days ago and witnessed the many obstacles to getting more aid to over 2 million people in desperate need. People in Gaza are on the verge of starvation, children are having limbs amputated without anesthesia, sewage is piling up in the streets, and waterborne diseases have broken out. International NGOs who have operated in conflict zones for decades have said they have never witnessed a humanitarian disaster as terrible as Gaza.

It is painfully evident that there is a big gap between what U.S. officials have requested of the Netanyahu government and the actions taken by his coalition. This further justifies why we need answers from the administration to the fundamental questions posed by this resolution. We owe it to American taxpayers to better understand how the support we have provided is being used. Some of the very questions raised in this resolution are those we have already sought answers to. While I appreciate the dialogue we have had with members of the administration about the situation in Gaza, to date, we have received no written responses to our letters on the conflict.

If this resolution were to be adopted, the process under section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 gives the Biden administration 30 days to answer the questions posed. That statute requires the report within 30 days and the only reason for the timetable set forth in statute is to ensure that the Senate gets those answers within a reasonable timeframe. It is simply not credible to say that the Biden administration would fail to meet that deadline and trigger a cut-off of assistance.

Concerns have been raised that, if passed, and once the administration submits the required report within 30 days, the underlying statute, 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act, allows any Senator to file a subsequent resolution to cut off security assistance provided to Israel under the Foreign Assistance Act. While it is worth noting that such a resolution would not apply to air defense systems authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act, like the Iron Dome systems, I would oppose such a blanket attempt to cut off assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act.

I do believe that the United States should require all recipients of U.S military assistance to abide by certain principles and meet certain standards. That is why Senators Kaine, Schatz, Durbin, and I, together with ten of our Senate colleagues, have proposed an amendment to President Biden's national security supplemental request that would apply equally to Ukraine, Israel, and any other recipient of such assistance and require that each recipient: No. 1, use any U.S. weapons provided with these funds in accordance with international humanitarian law; No. 2, cooperate with U.S. efforts to provide humanitarian assistance in conflict zones where U.S.-provided weapons are being used; and No. 3, submit a report to the Congress on the extent to which these standards are being met and the extent to which the recipients have adopted U.S. policies and mechanisms to reduce civilian casualties in conflict. These standards and simple accountability measures should apply to all recipients of U.S security assistance worldwide, and I will be pressing further on this issue when the Senate takes up President Biden's supplemental request.

For now, the business before the Senate is S. Res. 504, and I see no reason to oppose a measure requiring a report seeking facts and information. We have a duty to the American people to get answers to the questions set forth in this resolution.