Tim Kaine

Madam President, I rise with my colleagues. I appreciate the Senator from Oregon and the UC he will seek in a few minutes about a very important bill to reclaim congressional authority over appropriations. I think both Senators Merkley and Murray have done a good job of laying out the law that appropriations are an article I power for Congress and the Impoundment Control Act requires that, once appropriated in a budget that the President signs, the dollars have to be spent.

And so they have done a great job with the law, and the President with these pocket rescissions is violating the law.

Since they have talked about the law, I want to talk about priorities. I want to talk about priorities and what this move of the President shows about his priorities.

When the news was announced that he was going to cancel $800 million of appropriated funding in a budget that he had signed, he and some others said they are trying to shrink government or make government more efficient.

Folks, that is a joke. That is a laugh line.

You heard my colleague from New Hampshire talking about spending money on ballrooms, on arches, on trying to put his name on buildings. He is not trying to shrink anything.

You see news in the last couple of days about President Trump stealing money from the Department of Homeland Security to run ``Love Me'' ads on television because he is so insecure about his low popularity.

Can I take money that is supposed to be going to protecting America's border and turn it into ``Love Me,'' ``Love Me,'' ``Love Me'' ads on television?

He is not trying to shrink anything. In fact, the White House is here trying to get us to agree to a 40-percent increase in the Pentagon's budget in the middle of an illegal war so he can continue to, as he says, restart bombing after the midterms.

Can I just ask this question: Has any President ever publicly put ``midterms'' and ``bombing'' in the same sentence?

I am likely to restart bombing after the midterms.

Who has that thought much less says it publicly? So the President who is cutting the $800 million is seeking more money for an illegal war, is running ads about himself on television, is trying to build ballrooms and arches and put his name on buildings--this is about priorities.

Can I tell you about just one of these items that the President is proposing to cut in the $800 million? It has been alluded to by my colleagues.

The $800 million in funding includes, in the midst of a housing crisis, when all of our constituents are talking to us about housing affordability--the Trump administration wants to cut $56 million to the HUD Housing Counseling Program, which aims to expand and preserve home ownership opportunities in every ZIP Code in America.

Now, this funding in Virginia enables nonprofit organizations in my Commonwealth and around the country to offer essential financial and support services for families looking to access the American dream of home ownership.

One of my providers in Virginia reports they have helped--using these funds--they have helped over 1,000 families in the past 2 years achieve the American dream of owning a home, and a large factor that has contributed to their success has been these funds that President Trump wants to cut.

With the funding, they have helped families build basic financial knowledge and the skills they need to become successful homeowners.

In other cases, they work with families for a year or more to help them repair their credit and pay down their debt and save for downpayments, which helps them afford to buy a home.

The long-term support has helped bridge the gap for families to find a home and ensure they are able to become successful and sustainable homeowners.

So the Trump administration's decision to cancel that funding when they are seeking money for ads or ballrooms or arches or names on buildings or illegal wars is directly affecting our constituents in their effort to have a piece of the American dream.

Everything my colleagues have said about the law is correct. This violates article I of the Constitution. It violates the Impoundment Control Act. It goes against the promise that the President made when he signed the budget, that he would implement it.

But the thing that makes me the maddest and the reason I am so excited to be here to support my colleague is, to cut programs that help Americans afford homes to fund ads and ballrooms and illegal wars shows that this administration's priorities are completely out of touch with what our citizens expect of us.

And I hope my colleagues--if they are not willing to stand up for their own prerogative as Members of the Senate to write a budget, at least stand up for your constituents who are crying out for housing relief and not let that money be taken away to be put into ballrooms and illegal wars.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the human rights reporting resolution that will be before the body within about 90 minutes. I am a cosponsor of the bill. Because this resolution is a little bit unusual, I thought I would describe sort of the procedural context and the reason for the statute and then describe why I strongly support a resolution to direct the Department of State to give us a human rights report about Israeli activities on the West Bank, violence against folks on the West Bank and in particular violence against Americans on the West Bank, for which there has been as of yet little or no accountability.

This is a provision that is called a 502B resolution. Like some other resolutions that I brought to the floor in the last year, it is a privileged resolution, and the ``privilege'' means that a single Senator can file it seeking a human rights report on any nation. The resolution cannot be locked up in committee. Within a certain number of days, it ripens, and it is guaranteed a floor vote with a simple- majority passage threshold.

The theme that seems to unify these privileged resolutions is it is an effort of a Senator--even a single Senator--to shine a spotlight on and demand accountability from the Executive. Whether that is on the declaration of an emergency or the transfer of arms or the initiation of war or, in this case, the provision of U.S. aid, a Senator has the right to force a vote on the Senate to explore in this case the human rights record of any nation receiving U.S. aid.

This is not the first such resolution I have brought to the floor. I brought one to the floor 6 or 8 months ago to seek a human rights report on El Salvador because El Salvador was receiving all these deported individuals from America--not Salvadorans--and imprisoning them in a notorious prison. In that case, I sought information about the conditions of imprisonment. What was the deal between the United States and El Salvador? What is the human rights record of that prison? Can someone in the prison from the United States demonstrate that they are the wrong person, that they picked up the wrong person?

So this is the second such resolution I have helped bring to the floor, and I have about two dozen others that I have filed and that are pending--all the nations into which the President is sending folks pursuant to these third-country deportations. I believe it would be important for Congress to get the information about the transfers, about the cost, about the agreements, and about the human rights records.

So this is part of a larger strategy that was put into statute to enable Congress to test the human rights record of nations that are receiving U.S. aid.

In this instance, this resolution, which was initially cosponsored by Senators Van Hollen, Sanders, and I but now has a number of cosponsors, is specifically to seek a State Department report on the Israel human rights record about the treatment of folks on the West Bank. It lists a number of circumstances in which U.S. citizens--mostly Palestinian American but U.S. citizens--have been killed or injured on the West Bank, and there has been no accountability for that by the Israeli Government.

The circumstances on the West Bank are pretty dire. If you just go based upon Israeli media or Israeli human rights organizations, there have been significant public instances of attacks on Palestinian communities on the West Bank for which there has been no accountability. But the notice of these particular attacks has not just been limited to Israeli press or Israeli human rights organizations; international organizations have raised the same issue, but also, importantly, so have U.S. officials serving in Israel during multiple Democratic and Republican administrations.

For example, I have attended briefings where U.S. military officials posted in Israel have described instances of violence on the West Bank committed by Israelis and in some instances even Israeli security forces or Israeli IDF reservists. So the violence is not just private- on-private violence, but some of it is being facilitated and even encouraged or participated in by members of the Israeli Government, and that is reporting from the U.S. military.

Recently, President Trump's Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, whom I knew as Governor Huckabee because we served as Governors together 20 years ago, has similarly complained about violence against folks on the West Bank perpetrated by Israelis--in this case, Israeli settlers--and the lack of any accountability for that violence. Obviously, that should raise serious, serious concerns, but when the violence is also perpetrated against Americans who are there on the West Bank to study, there on the West Bank to visit their families, there on the West Bank to be human rights observers or journalists--when the violence is committed against Americans, we need to take specific steps to make sure we understand that there will be accountability.

That is what this resolution would do. It would require the Department of State, within a set period of time, to issue a human rights report that specifically addresses the questions that are listed in the resolution and particularly those questions that bear upon violence committed against Americans and what Israel can or will do about it.

Anything dealing with United States-Israel relations or the Middle East, frankly, is controversial because it is such a challenging area. And let's be clear, Israel is a friend. Israel is an ally. That friendship is between the American people and the Israeli people. It is between the American Nation and the State of Israel. That friendship is a friendship that is really important regardless of which leaders are in place.

This is a relationship that goes back to the United States' decision under President Truman to immediately recognize the nation of Israel once the U.N. decided in 1947 that there would be an Israel for the Jewish people and a Palestine for Palestinian people. President Truman immediately recognized the nation of Israel, and that is one of the reasons why Truman is one of my favorite Presidents.

However, ``friendship and partnership'' are not the same as ``complete agreement.'' In fact, if you are not candid with your friends and if you can't have a friendship that can survive being candid with one another, it is not

really a friendship. A friendship is only tested when you are candid with each other and find out whether the relationship lasts through disagreement. This is an area of pretty profound disagreement between many of us and that nation of Israel.

As I conclude, I would say that the reason this resolution is on the floor is because of a deep perception by many of us in this body that despite that friendship, we are not being listened to. We are not being listened to.

Many of us in both parties and administrations of both parties have raised this issue of violence against Palestinians on the West Bank over and over and over again with those in the Israeli Government that we have interacted with.

I know I have, in my visits to Israel over the years as mayor and Governor and Senator, in sessions we have had with Israeli leaders on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in discussions we have had with Knesset members and others--I have specifically raised in person and by letter and now in joining in this resolution this issue of violence against people living on the West Bank and what needs to be done about it.

I will be blunt. Despite raising this issue privately in the way that you would maybe first want a dialogue with a friend--raising the issue and seeking assistance--and raising it multiple times, I have come to the conclusion that I am not being listened to. I have come to the conclusion that even though this is a friendship that matters and even though the United States is Israel's most important security partner, they are completely ignoring us when we raise important human rights issues such as this one.

So when a friend is speaking to you as a friend and urging you to do better--that is what friends do for one another--and the friend is being ignored, you end up making resolutions like the one we will vote on later a necessity.

So it is my hope that we will get a robust vote on the need for the State Department to fully lay out the human rights record and particularly what will be done to stop violence against all on the West Bank but especially what will be done to stop violence against Americans on the West Bank.

For that reason, I am very happy to join my colleague Senator Van Hollen and others, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution when it comes up later.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, President Trump's war against Iran has been deeply unpopular--from the very first day--in Virginia and among Americans, and it is growing more and more unpopular with each passing day.

It is unpopular because Americans don't want to see 18 troops lose their lives. They don't want to see the Pentagon undercounting troop deaths.

It is unpopular because the American people don't want to see hundreds of combat casualties for no legitimate purpose and a concern that the Pentagon is undercounting combat casualties.

It is unpopular because Americans--and Virginians, in particular-- don't want to see extended deployments of carrier strike groups and their loved ones away from home. A report came out yesterday that there were eight attempted suicides in the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group because of the extended deployment.

It is unpopular because having your sons and daughters deployed overseas,

as 1,200 Virginia Guard members were last Saturday, in a war of choice and with no clear plan or strategy, leaves families uncertain about the future.

It is unpopular because diesel prices are going up, and other prices are going up.

It is unpopular because Americans don't want to see a U.S. missile hit a school and kill hundreds of kids.

It is unpopular because Americans don't appreciate a leader who would tear up a diplomatic deal that was working and, instead, prefer a war that is not working.

It is unpopular because it is depleting our munitions.

It is unpopular because it is adding to our debt.

It is unpopular because Americans have spent now more than 100 billion extra dollars in fuel costs than they would have without this war.

The good news is that we can do something about it. We don't have to stand back and just say: Wow, the President has decided, for silly reasons, to start an illegal war, and I guess we just have to go along.

And that is what this vote is about.

We have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution says the President cannot declare war, only Congress can. There has been no congressional declaration of war. The President is violating the Constitution with this war.

There is a statute that allows the President to defend the country for 60 days without Congress, but it requires that that military action expire at the end of 60 days. We are well past 60 days. The President is not only not following the Constitution, he is not following the War Powers Act.

Third, we have passed a concurrent resolution--Congress, both Houses, under a Republican majority--declaring the war illegal. The President has ignored that.

We directed him: Withdraw troops or get an authorization.

He has done neither, and it is not likely he will do either.

But the American public is speaking loud and clear and saying: You in the Senate--you can do something about it.

And that is what this resolution is about.

The House, for the second time, has passed a concurrent resolution provided under the War Powers Act. We will now vote, and it is my hope we will vote with them to declare, yet again, that this is an illegal war and that the President should stop it.

In closing, I will just say this: The President appeared at the U.N. earlier this week and said it was his decision as to whether to do a peace deal or whether to annihilate the nation of Iran. We have never had a President who talks like this, and we never should again. But it is not his decision; it is our decision.

The time to make a decision to end this war is upon us. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the concurrent resolution.

I yield the floor.