Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by pointing out--although it may not be obvious here in the Senate--that poll after poll shows that a strong majority of the American people oppose sending more weapons and military aid to fuel Netanyahu's vicious and destructive war machine. I would also add, because some of this has come up, that according to a poll commissioned by J Street, a pro-Israel Jewish organization, 62 percent of Jewish Americans support withholding weapons shipments to Israel until Netanyahu agrees to an immediate cease-fire. Let me just mention a few of the organizations that think the time is now to stop giving money to Netanyahu, who ignores America's laws and our values--some of the major trade unions in America: the SEIU, the United Auto Workers, United Electrical Workers; Amnesty International; the Arab American Institute; the Association of U.S. Catholic Priests; the Friends Committee on National Legislation; Oxfam America; the Episcopal Church; the United Church of Christ; the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society; the American Baptist Churches USA; the Global Ministries of the Christian Church. These resolutions have strong support all across this country by people who understand that we cannot continue to fund the horrific war machine and the atrocities Netanyahu is committing. These resolutions come down to a few basic points. First of all, should the U.S. Government obey the law? And the law is very clear that we as a government cannot fund other countries that are in violation of international human rights or that are blocking humanitarian aid. Now, somebody here wants to come down and say: I don't like that law. The U.S. Government should give money to any government it wants no matter what they do, no matter how atrocious their behavior is. Come down and change the law, but that ain't the law now. The law is based on moral principles that say: When the United States provides military arms, those countries that receive those weapons cannot violate international human rights and cannot block humanitarian aid. And that is precisely what Israel is doing. That is not me who says that; that is what virtually every humanitarian organization working in Gaza right now says. So if you believe we should obey the law, you have to vote for these resolutions. No. 2, from a moral perspective, we cannot turn a blind eye to one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the modern history of this world--a humanitarian disaster we are significantly funding. My colleagues, as we speak, thousands and thousands of children in Gaza are starving to death. In an area of 2.2 million people, 43,000 are dead. Over 100,000 have been injured. We cannot turn a blind eye to that humanitarian disaster, caused in part by U.S. financial support to Netanyahu. Thirdly, I heard about the U.S. role in the world. Well, I will tell you that our role is significantly diminished if we continue to support Netanyahu and this humanitarian disaster that is currently taking place. What is the moral standard that we have to critique other countries? How do you critique Iran for their terrible human rights record? How do you critique China or Russia for their terrible human rights records? Because you get here on the floor of the Senate and you make that critique, and people around the world will laugh at you, and they will say: Don't give us advice. Don't criticize us when you have supported the mass starvation of children with your taxpayer dollars. This is a very important vote. It is an important vote because it tells the world that we will not continue supporting a government which violates American law, which violates international law, and which violates the humanitarian standards that I would hope every Member of this Senate upholds. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time be yielded back.

Mr. SANDERS. I would ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, pursuant to section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 111, relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, thank you very much, and let me thank the leadership for their cooperation in setting up this debate. Today, we will be voting on three joint resolutions of disapproval, or JRDs, to block the sale of certain offensive weapons to Israel. These resolutions are S.J. Res. 111, to block the sale of 120- millimeter tank rounds; S.J. Res. 113, to block the sale of 120- millimeter high-explosive mortar rounds; and S.J. Res. 115, to block the sale of JDMs, the guidance kits attached to many of the bombs dropped in Gaza. I would note to my colleagues that these resolutions are strongly supported by more than 100 civil society groups, including pro-Israel groups, like J Street; some of the largest labor unions in this country, including the SEIU, the United Auto Workers, and the United Electrical Workers; humanitarian groups, like Amnesty International and Doctors of the World; and religious groups, like the United Methodist Church and the Friends Committee; and many, many other organizations. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of these supporting organizations.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I would also point out that poll after poll shows that a strong majority of the American people oppose sending more weapons and military aid to fund Netanyahu's war machine. I would also mention, interestingly enough, that according to a poll commissioned by J Street--this is a pro-Israel organization--62 percent of Jewish Americans support withholding weapon shipments to Israel until Netanyahu agrees to an immediate cease-fire. These resolutions are aimed at offensive weapons that have been used to devastating effect against civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. They would not affect any of the systems Israel uses to defend itself from incoming attacks. From a legal perspective, these resolutions are simple, straightforward, and not complicated. Bottom line: the U.S. Government must obey the law--not a very radical idea--but unfortunately that is not the case now. Every Member of the Senate who believes in the rule of law, that our government should obey the law, should vote for these resolutions. The Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act are very clear. The United States cannot provide weapons to countries that violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S. humanitarian aid. Let me repeat that because that is the essence of this entire debate. Not complicated. The U.S. Government cannot provide weapons to countries that violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S. humanitarian aid. That is not my opinion; that is what the law says. According to the United Nations, according to much of the international community, according to virtually every humanitarian organization on the ground in Gaza, Israel is clearly in violation of these laws. Under these circumstances, it is illegal for the U.S. Government to provide Israel with more offensive weapons. These joint resolutions of disapproval are Congress's tool to enforce the law, and that is exactly what we must do. It has been more than 13 months since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, an attack which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages, including Americans. As I have said many, many times, Israel had the absolute right to respond to that horrific Hamas attack, as any other country would. I don't think anybody here in the U.S. Senate disagrees with that. But Prime Minister Netanyahu's extremist government has not simply waged war against Hamas; it has waged an all-out war against the Palestinian people. Within Gaza's population of just 2.2 million people--and I want people to conceptualize that that is about the size of New Mexico, 2.2 million people--more than 43,000 Palestinians have been killed and more than 103,000 injured, a population of about the size of New Mexico. And 60 percent of those who have been killed and injured are women, children, or elderly people. According to satellite imagery, two-thirds of all structures in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed--two-thirds of all structures. Think about that. Two-thirds of all structures have been damaged or destroyed. That includes 87 percent of the housing, 84 percent of health facilities--84 percent of health facilities--and 70 percent of sanitation plants. Right now, there is raw sewage running through the streets of Gaza, and it is very difficult for the people there to obtain clean drinking water. Every one of Gaza's 12 universities has been bombed. They have got 12 universities; every single one of them has been bombed, as have many hundreds of schools. For 13 months, there has been no electricity in Gaza. During the last year, millions of desperately poor people in Gaza have been repeatedly driven from their homes and forced to evacuate time and time again with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. So let's imagine millions of people driven from their homes, told to go here, told to go there, and going from one place to another. Families in Gaza have been herded into so-called safe zones, only to face continued bombardment. They are told to go to this area, and the bombs start falling, and the children start dying. The children of Gaza have suffered a level of physical and emotional abuse that is almost beyond comprehension, abuse that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. These children today--as we speak, right now--are hungry, they are thirsty, they cannot access healthcare. And all around them, they have witnessed death and destruction. That is what the children of Gaza have experienced, and Gaza is a very young population. And as horrific as that situation is, what has happened over the last year, what is taking place today, right now, this moment as we discuss this issue, it is even worse, if that is imaginable. As a result of Israel blocking desperately needed humanitarian aid, the volume of aid getting into Gaza in recent weeks is lower than at any point since the war began. More aid is needed; less aid is getting through. The result? Many thousands of children are facing malnutrition and starvation. Let me repeat that: Many thousands of children today are facing malnutrition and starvation. This is not my observation; this is what the leaders of the 19 most important humanitarian organizations on the ground in Gaza, including the American head of UNICEF, Cathy Russell, and the American head of the World Food Programme, Cindy McCain, wife of our former colleague John McCain--that is what they say, according to their recent report: The situation unfolding in North Gaza is apocalyptic . . . Basic, life-saving goods are not available. Humanitarians are not safe to do their work and are blocked by Israeli forces and by insecurity from reaching people in need. And they continue: [As a result,] the entire [Palestinian] population in North Gaza is at imminent risk of dying from disease, famine, and violence. These are the 19 major humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza right now, including several of the major ones led by Americans. And Israel's recent decision to ban UNWRA, the backbone of the humanitarian response in Gaza, will only make a horrific situation even worse. Madam President, I have met with doctors who have served in Gaza treating hundreds of patients a day without electricity, without anesthesia, without clean water, including dozens of children arriving with gunshot wounds in the head. I have seen the photographs and the videos. And we have some of them here. I have seen--I have heard from UNICEF who estimates that 10 children lose a leg in Gaza every single day. There are now more than 17,000 orphans in Gaza. Let me quote from a New York Times opinion piece of October 9, 2024-- a little more than a month ago--where American doctors and nurses in Gaza--these are Americans working in Gaza--describe what they saw on the ground. Merril Tydings is a nurse from New Mexico, and she said, ``These people were starving.'' She is talking about healthcare workers, her colleagues. These people were starving. I learned very quickly to not drink my water or eat the food I had brought in front of the health care workers because they had gone so many days without. Without food. Without water. Dr. Ndal Farah from Ohio said: Malnutrition was widespread. It was common to see patients reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps with skeletal features. Abeerah Muhammad, a nurse from Dallas, TX, said: Everyone we met showed us pictures of themselves before October. They had all lost 20 to 60 pounds of weight. Most patients and staff looked emaciated and dehydrated. Dr. Nahreen Ahmed from Philadelphia said: Every patient I treated had evidence of malnutrition. For example, poor wound healing and rapidly developing infections. Dr. Aman Odeh from Texas said: Mothers on the maternity ward delivered prematurely because of malnutrition, stress and infection. Milk production was poor due to lack of hydration and adequate food supply. Dr. Mike Mallah from Charleston said: All of my patients were suffering from malnutrition, 100 percent. What is important to understand--and I am not sure that many of my colleagues do--is that the Israel of today that we are dealing with is not the Israel of Golda Meir or Yitzhak Rabin. This is a government now controlled not only by rightwing extremists but by religious zealots. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, who oversees the police, has been convicted in Israeli courts on terrorism charges. He is the head of the police. Finance Minister Smotrich, in charge of the occupied West Bank, is also an extreme racist and has called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the land. That is the current Israeli Finance Minister. In January, Prime Minister Netanyahu said of Gaza: We provide minimal humanitarian aid if we want to achieve our war goals. At the start of the war, the Israeli Defense Minister said--and I hope people hear this. The Israeli defense minister--ex-minister: We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly . . . there will be no electricity, no food . . . no fuel. Everything [is] closed. Former Israeli Defense Minister. That is what he said and, in fact, by and large, that is exactly how this war has been waged. What this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars. In the last year alone, the United States has provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel--$18 billion dollars. And, by the way, a few blocks from here, people are sleeping out on the street. And we have also delivered more than 50,000 tons of military equipment to Israel--50,000 tons. In other words, the United States of America is complicit in all of these atrocities. We are funding these atrocities. That complicity must end, and that is what these resolutions are about. It is time to tell the Netanyahu government that they cannot use U.S. taxpayer dollars and American weapons in violation of United States and international law and our moral values. Despite receiving 18 billion from U.S. taxpayers in the last year and being the largest historical recipient of U.S. foreign aid, the Netanyahu government has completely ignored--completely ignored--the repeated requests of President Biden and the U.S. Government. It is time to make clear to Netanyahu that he cannot take American money, take American arms, and continue to blind U.S. foreign policy goals. The U.S. Government wants a cease-fire for a hostage deal. Netanyahu has prevented a deal to preserve his coalition. The U.S. Government wants more humanitarian aid to reach the desperate people in Gaza. Netanyahu is blocking that aid. The U.S. Government wants to contain regional escalation. Netanyahu has refused diplomatic off-ramps and launched several reckless attacks without consulting the United States. The U.S. Government wants to stop settlement expansion and settle the violence in the West Bank. Netanyahu and his Ministers have driven record settlement expansion and armed extremists settlers. The U.S. Government wants a plan for postwar governance in Gaza. Netanyahu will not engage. And by the way, blocking these sales would also be in keeping with actions taken by some of our closest allies. The United Kingdom suspended 30 arms export licenses after concluding there was an acceptable risk they could be used in violation of international law. Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands have taken similar steps. U.N. bodies have called for an end to the armed shipments fueling the conflict. Time and time again, I have heard Members of the U.S. Senate come to this floor to denounce human rights violations taking place around the world. I have heard well-founded concerns about China's brutal reception of the Uighur ethnic minority. I have heard rightful outrage about Putin's brutal attacks against Ukraine and bombing of civilian installations. I have heard genuine concern about Iran's outrageous crackdown on peaceful protestors. I have heard repeated condemnations of Saudi Arabia's terrible treatment of women and political dissidents. And on and on it goes. A lot of folks come to the floor to talk about human rights and what is going on throughout the world. But what I want to say to all those folks: Nobody is going to take anything you say with a grain of seriousness. You cannot condemn human rights around the world and then turn a blind eye to what the U.S. Government is now funding in Israel. People will laugh in your face. They will say to you: Are you concerned about China? Are you concerned about Russia? Are you concerned about Iran? Well, why are you funding the starvation of children in Gaza right now? We must pass these resolutions from a legal perspective. The U.S. Government must obey the law. We must pass these resolutions from a moral perspective. The United States must not provide support to a government which has created one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history. We must pass these resolutions for our own best foreign policy interests. If we do not demand that the countries we provide military assistance to obey international law, we will lose our creditability on the world stage. With that, I would like to yield to Senator Merkley of Oregon.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes for either side.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 115, relating to the disapproval of the proposed license amendment for the export of certain defense articles, defense services, and technical data to Israel.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, two basic points: The first one is the same point that has to be made over and over again. What we are doing is in violation of the law. U.S. weapons cannot be provided to countries that violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S. humanitarian aid. According to all of the international and humanitarian organizations on the ground in Gaza right now, that is exactly what Israel is doing. So a ``no'' vote is to allow us to continue breaking the law. As to the second point, this one deals with JDAMs, which are systems that make bombs more precise. And, on the surface, it sounds like, well, that is a good thing. You would rather use ``smart'' bombs than ``dumb'' bombs, and when you do that, you save civilian lives. The problem is that what Israel has been doing is using JDAMs to target U.N. schools packed with displaced people and to target refugee centers and kill large numbers of innocent people. So a ``smart'' bomb does not save civilian lives when it is directly targeting civilians. I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 113, relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the resolution.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the law is very clear. This is not a complicated issue. U.S. weapons cannot be provided to countries who violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S. humanitarian aid. It goes without saying that Israel had a right to defend itself from the horrific Hamas terrorist attack of October 7. But Israel did not have the right to kill 43,000 Palestinians and injure over 100,000--60 percent of whom are women, children, and the elderly. It did not have the right to destroy Gaza's infrastructure, healthcare system, schools, and university. And it certainly does not have the right to starve thousands and thousands of children in Gaza. The United States cannot be complicit in these atrocities. We cannot give billions of dollars to the Netanyahu government and have them defy U.S. law while they take U.S. money. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, over 4 months ago, Steward Health Care and the more than 30 hospitals it owns in 8 States declared bankruptcy, with some $9 billion in debt. This bankruptcy has caused devastating harm to patients, healthcare workers, and entire communities from Massachusetts to Arizona. In July, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I chair, voted to authorize a bipartisan investigation into the financial mismanagement of Steward Health Care. On that same day, the HELP Committee also voted to subpoena Dr. Ralph de la Torre, the CEO of Steward Health Care, to testify at a hearing on this very important issue on September 12. Sadly, Dr. de la Torre made the unfortunate and unacceptable decision not to show up at this hearing in defiance of a congressional subpoena. So last week, the HELP Committee voted 20 to 0 on two resolutions to hold Dr. de la Torre accountable for his failure to appear at this hearing. The first resolution instructs Senate legal counsel to bring a civil suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia to require Dr. de la Torre's compliance with the subpoena and his testimony before the HELP Committee. The second resolution would refer this matter to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to criminally prosecute Dr. de la Torre for failing to comply with the subpoena. In a few moments, I will be asking unanimous consent to pass the second resolution, which seeks to hold Dr. de la Torre in criminal contempt for failing to comply with the congressional subpoena. But before I do that, let me take a moment to briefly explain why the HELP Committee believed it was so important for Dr. de la Torre to testify before Congress. First, we wanted Dr. de la Torre to explain to us how it could happen that at least 15 patients at hospitals owned by his company died-- died--as a result of a lack of medical equipment or staffing shortages, and why at least 2,000 other patients were put in immediate peril, according to Federal regulators. That is something that the American people deserve to know. But perhaps most importantly, we wanted to know how it could happen that while thousands of patients and healthcare workers suffered and communities around the country have been devastated as a result of Steward Health Care's financial mismanagement, Dr. de la Torre and the companies he owned were able to receive at least $250 million in total compensation over the past 4 years. For months, Senator Cassidy, the ranking member of the HELP Committee; Senator Markey, the chair of our healthcare subcommittee; and I have asked Dr. de la Torre to testify before our committee to answer these questions. And time after time, he has arrogantly refused, and that is simply not acceptable. So, today, I will ask the Senate to unanimously adopt this resolution seeking to hold Dr. de la Torre in contempt of Congress. Let me take this opportunity to thank Ranking Member Cassidy and his staff for working with me and my staff on this very important issue. The passage of this resolution by the full Senate will make clear that, even though Dr. de la Torre may be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, even though he may be able to buy fancy yachts and private jets and luxurious accommodations throughout the world, even though he may be able to afford some of the most expensive lawyers in America, no, Dr. de la Torre is not above the law. If you defy a congressional subpoena, you will be held accountable no matter who you are or how well connected you may be. The goal of the HELP Committee throughout this entire process has been to make sure not only that we have a complete understanding of the financial chicanery surrounding Steward Health Care but to do everything that we can to make sure that such a travesty never occurs again. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Congressional Record, one from Dr. de la Torre's attorneys to the committee and, secondly, a response letter from Ranking Member Cassidy and myself.

Mr. SANDERS. With that, Madam President, I would be happy to yield to the ranking member of the committee who has done an excellent job on this issue, Senator Cassidy.

Mr. SANDERS. Senator Markey has played a leadership role in the investigation of this whole process. I would like to yield to Senator Markey.

Mr. SANDERS. Senator Markey, thank you for your leadership on this. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 522, S. Res. 837.

Mr. SANDERS. I know of no further debate on the resolution.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, 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. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I am here for another reason this evening, but I wanted to concur with Senator Welch. Obviously, we need more Federal disaster relief, we need reforms in FEMA, and we certainly need a permanent post office in Montpelier, VT. So I want to thank Senator Welch for his work in that area.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the administration's report pursuant to National Security Memorandum 20 concluded that ``it is reasonable to assess that defense articles . . . have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its . . . [international humanitarian law] obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm.'' That is the administration. The report stated that ``high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the IDF is using [effective civilian harm mitigation] effectively in all cases.'' That is the administration. It is not just the civilian casualties and the violations of international human rights. Other provisions of U.S. law are also applicable. Section 6201 of the Foreign Assistance Act also states that ``No assistance shall be furnished . . . 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.'' The whole world has witnessed Israel's restriction of humanitarian aid. The U.N. and virtually every humanitarian group says that Israel's restrictive policies are the primary cause of the humanitarian catastrophe now taking place in Gaza. The administration says as much, admitting that ``Israel did not fully cooperate with United States government efforts and the United States government-supported international efforts to maximize humanitarian assistance flow to and distribution within Gaza.'' In fact, frankly, that severely understates the reality. No matter how people here in Washington may try to spin it, the simple fact is that we must end our complicity in Israel's illegal and indiscriminate military campaign, which has caused mass civilian death and suffering. The law also says that arms sales must advance U.S. foreign policy interests. If we are going to sell arms, they must advance U.S. foreign policy interests. These transfers, again, fall far short. These sales would reward Netanyahu's extremist government even as it flouts--openly flouts--U.S. policy goals at every turn and, in fact, drags the United States closer to a regional war. For months, the Biden administration has been trying to reach a cease-fire deal that would secure the release of the hostages and allow massive amounts of humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza. Every time a deal appears close, Netanyahu moves the goalposts, introducing new demands and torpedoing the deal. It is clear to me that Netanyahu is prolonging the war in order to cling to power and avoid prosecution at home for corruption. That is why hundreds of thousands of Israelis routinely take to the streets to protest his policies. But it is not just his sabotage of a cease-fire for hostage deal. Netanyahu has also overseen record settlement expansion in the West Bank and unleashed a wave of violence there that has killed nearly 700 Palestinians, including 150 children killed over the last 11 months. Because so much focus is on Gaza, we are not paying attention to the disaster taking place in the West Bank. Americans have also been caught up in this bloodshed. On September 6, Israeli security forces shot a 26-year-old American recent college graduate in the head near an illegal settlement in the West Bank. In January, they shot and killed a 17-year-old American high school senior from Louisiana. In February, they shot and killed another 17-year old American from Florida. And in October of last year, they nearly killed a constituent of mine from Vermont, Dylan Collins, a journalist for Agence France-Press, with two tank rounds. Six journalists were wounded in that attack, which killed a Reuters journalist. The group was clearly marked as ``press.'' These are the same tank rounds the administration would provide to Israel in this sale. Needless to say, there has been no--zero--accountability for these deaths. And, of course, there has been no accountability for the repeated Israeli settler attacks, enabled by security forces, on Palestinian towns and villages; no meaningful response to the burning of Palestinian homes and businesses--nothing but silence in the face of a concerted rightwing Israeli effort to illegally annex the West Bank. Yet those are the Netanyahu extremist government policies that these sales would reward. I say that to my colleagues. All of this is going on; and should our response to Mr. Netanyahu say: Keep it up, here are more arms; here are more money? A government that has caused mass civilian deaths, flouted U.S. and international law, and that is actively undermining key U.S. policy goals in the region should not be receiving more financial aid from America and should not be receiving military weaponry from the United States. Passing a joint resolution to block these sales will make clear to the Netanyahu government that they cannot continue to ignore the U.S. Government's demands for an immediate cease-fire and the release of the hostages. It will put pressure on its extremist government to change Israel's military approach and avert a regional war. And it may--just may--begin to restore a shred of U.S. credibility abroad. Passing a joint resolution of disapproval is not only the right thing to do, it is not only the legal and appropriate thing to do, it is also what the American people want us to do. According to a June 5 poll from CBS News, 61 percent of Americans oppose sending weapons and supplies to Israel, including 77 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and many Republicans as well. And that poll is consistent with earlier polls. This is not a new or radical idea. The United States routinely conditions military aid, arms sales, and security cooperation with every other country. This ain't new. We have done it over and over again. And we have done it many times before with Israel. It is not a new idea. It is only in recent years that the idea of leveraging aid to Israel to secure policy changes has become controversial. President Ronald Reagan, I say to my Republican colleagues, suspended the delivery of F-16 fighter jets to Israel over its raid on the Osirak reactor in Iraq; threatened to suspend military aid to end Israel's bombardment of Beirut; and again threatened to stop military aid to force an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 1982. That was President Ronald Reagan. President Jimmy Carter similarly leveraged aid to change Israeli policies in Lebanon. In 1991, then-Secretary of State James Baker threatened to withhold $10 billion in loan guarantees unless Israel stopped settlement expansion. In other words, using arms sales and military aid as leverage is not a new idea. It has been done under Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. There is also recent precedent of Congress's acting to stop the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. In 2019, Congress passed a series of JRDs to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia over its bombing campaign in Yemen. At that point, the Saudi coalition was directly responsible for, roughly, 8,000 civilian deaths over 4 years, mostly from airstrikes. Israel has killed 41,000 in less than a year. Blocking these sales would also be in keeping with actions taken by the international community and some of our closest allies. So what I am suggesting here is not unique in the world. It has taken place all over the world, including with some of our closest allies. There has been widespread condemnation of Israel's conduct during this war from governments around the world, international institutions, and humanitarian organizations. The United Kingdom recently suspended 30 export licenses for a range of armaments after concluding there was an unacceptable risk they could be used in violation of international humanitarian law. Germany has not approved an offensive weapons transfer since March. Italy, Spain, Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands have taken similar steps. United Nations bodies have called for an end to the arms shipments fueling the conflict. We cannot continue to ignore what the extremist Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza. We cannot continue to be complicit in this humanitarian disaster. The time is long overdue for the U.S. Senate to act, and we must act. I hope my colleagues will support this effort on the floor, and my office is ready to answer any questions that Senators may have. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I am proud and excited to say a few words to urge my colleagues to support Mary Kay Lanthier as the next district court judge for the District of Vermont. Ms. Lanthier is a native Vermonter who has spent her entire career in her home State, including working as a public defender in Rutland for 15 years. She grew up in a hard-working Vermont family, where the parents emphasized the importance of serving her community. Ms. Lanthier learned that lesson well and has dedicated her career to being a public defender. In that role, she has fought for her clients to have a fair chance at justice in her courtroom. And if she is confirmed, I am confident that she will make sure that all of the people who appear in front of her are treated fairly and get the justice that they are due. Ms. Lanthier began her legal career as a judicial law clerk for the trial courts in Chittenden and Addison Counties, where she developed a deep love and dedication for the work taking place in Vermont courtrooms. Early in her career, Ms. Lanthier worked in private practice and public defense, working on family law, workers' compensation, and criminal cases. Since 2007, she has served as the supervising attorney at the Rutland County Public Defender's Office. In that role and throughout her career, she has developed a reputation as a respectful and skilled attorney. Judges have praised her preparation, and opposing lawyers have written letters in support of her nomination. As one of those letters says, ``Ms. Lanthier's compassion is a virtue that improved the administration of justice.'' Last November, I was pleased to be joined by Senator Welch, with input from Congresswoman Balint, in forming a nonpartisan judicial nomination advisory panel to fill this vacancy on the Federal bench in Vermont. The panel was impressed by Mary Kay's career in public defense, her stellar reputation in the legal community, and her warmth and empathy. I was also impressed after interviewing her. One thing that struck me was not only her deep love of the law but her deep love of Rutland, VT, where this judgeship is based. For Mary Kay, I know that there is particular pride in doing this very important work in her hometown and for being a role model for the young people growing up there today about what is possible. Along with Senator Welch, I was pleased to recommend that President Biden nominate her for this position. She will be an excellent district court judge for Rutland and for the State of Vermont. I am confident that she will treat everyone in her courtroom with the compassion, respect, and dignity that they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, when I turn on the TV or read the papers, I read a lot about politics, and I read about this candidate attacking that candidate and the other candidate attacking another candidate, and on and on it goes. But somehow or another, as a nation, here in Congress and on the campaign trail and in the corporate media, we, as a nation, have a habit of forgetting to talk about some of the most important issues that affect ordinary Americans. We talk about a lot of stuff, but, somehow, we will neglect to talk about the most important issues facing our country. And at the top of my list is the reality that in America we are rapidly becoming an oligarchic form of society. What does that mean? It means that today we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in the history of the United States of America. It means that there are three people--one, two, three multibillionaires--who own more wealth than the bottom half of American society. Three people here, 160 million people there--that sounds like an issue we might want to be talking about. We might just want to be asking about how well the economy is doing for ordinary people as opposed to the people on top. And when we ask that question, the answer is pretty clear. The top 1 percent have never, ever in American history had it so good. They are making money head over heels. What we are seeing at the same time is a working class in this country that is struggling--struggling to pay the bills, struggling to put food on the table, struggling to see that their kids get ahead. According to the Rand Corporation, not exactly a progressive entity, over the last 50 years, we have seen a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary Americans to the top 1 percent. In fact, there has been a shift of $50 trillion going from the bottom 90 percent to the top 1 percent. What does that say about American economic policy? And, at the same exact time, over the last 50 years, we have seen something else that is rather extraordinary. Despite the huge increase that we have all observed as a result of technology and increased worker productivity, it turns out that real inflation-accounted-for wages for the average American worker is lower today than it was 50 years ago. Every worker in America is producing a lot more than was the case 50 years ago because of this new technology, and yet real inflation- accounted-for wages are lower today than they were 50 years ago. People on top are making out fantastically well; working class people are falling further and further behind. And let us not forget that, today in America, 60 percent of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. I grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck. We lived in a rent-controlled apartment for my whole childhood. I know something about it. And what it means that people from California to Vermont--they are struggling, living under great stress, trying to figure out how they are going to be able to take care of their families, at the same time as the people on top never had it so good. But when we talk about oligarchy, it is not just massive income and wealth inequality. It is not just the fact that the working class in this country is going nowhere in a hurry. It is also the growing concentration of ownership in America. In sector after sector, whether it is media, whether it is financial services, whether it is transportation, whether it is healthcare, you have fewer and fewer large corporations that control what goes on in those sectors. And when you have concentration of ownership, you have price-fixing, you have corporate greed, and that is one of the reasons why inflation has had the impact that it has had and why we have seen that much inflation. Unbelievably, there are three Wall Street investment firms today-- BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street--that combined control assets of $20 trillion and combined are the major stockholders in 95 percent of the Standard & Poor corporations. That is what power is about--three entities, three private Wall Street investment firms being able to be combined as the major stockholders in 95 percent of our corporations. So oligarchy is about massive income and wealth inequality. Oligarchy is about the rich becoming much richer--CEOs of large corporations now making 350 times what their workers make. Oligarchy is about 60 percent of our people living paycheck to paycheck, despite huge increases in worker productivity. But I will tell you what oligarchy is also about: The billionaire class is not just satisfied to control the economic life of this country. They are moving aggressively to control the political life of this country. So while ordinary Americans get the right to vote--they have one vote--the billionaire class, as a result of this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they have the right not just to cast one vote as a citizen but to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars into super-PACs that will elect their friends and defeat their political opponents. Now, if anyone in America thinks that is what American democracy is supposed to be about, well, I have a strong disagreement with you. Democracy is one person, one vote; not billionaires buying elections through their super-PACs. And I would hope that, here in Congress and on the campaign trail, leaders of this country make it clear that we have got to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, which allows billionaires to buy elections, and move to public funding of elections. And that is where we should be going if we believe in democracy. When we talk about the issues facing working families, when I go around the country--and I was just up in Maine the other day, as a matter of fact--you ask people about our healthcare system. You ask them a simple question. You say: Is this healthcare system working for you? And almost without exception, what the American people say is: Our healthcare system today is broken. It is dysfunctional, and it is way, way, way too expensive. And when people say that, they are right. And I hope everybody knows that, in America today, we spend twice as much per person on healthcare as do the people of any other country--twice as much. And yet despite spending over $13,000 for every man, woman, and child--18 percent of our GDP on healthcare--our outcomes are worse than other countries that spend half as much per capita. Our life expectancy is way down, behind many other countries, and, really obscenely, the life expectancy in the United States between the people on top and working-class people is 10, 12 years. In other words, if you are rich, you will live as long as people in other developed countries, but if you are working class or poor, the odds are you are going to live 10 or 15 years less. Now, I don't know how much we talk about that, but I think maybe it is time that we do. And maybe we talk about the reality that we remain today the only country in the industrialized world that does not guarantee healthcare for all people as a human right, and that 85 million of our people are uninsured or underinsured. And it is not just healthcare. It is prescription drugs, and we are working hard on this. As chairman of the HELP Committee, that is what we are doing, trying to drive down the costs of prescription drugs. But today, because of the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and the inactivity of the Congress, in many cases we are paying 10 times more for the same exact prescription drugs as do the people in other countries. And on and on it goes. We have, as a nation, the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth. This is the richest nation on Earth, and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth. In terms of our seniors, 50 percent of senior citizens in this country are living on $30,000 a year or less, and 25 percent are living on $15,000 a year or less. And I do not know how anybody, let alone a senior citizen, lives on $15,000 a year or less. So what do we do? Well, maybe for a change--I know it is a radical idea--we might want to hear on the floor of the Senate and maybe in the House, actually discuss issues of relevance to working people. I know that is kind of an extremist, a far-left idea, that we talk about the real issues facing working families, but, you know, that is what I think. And maybe we come up with some serious proposals and ideas that address some of these crises. And there may be differences of opinions, but let's at least discuss these issues. It seems to me that when so many of our elderly people are struggling, when half of older workers have nothing in the bank as they face retirement, you know, we might want to pay attention to that issue. Now, over in the House, some 90 percent of the Republicans think that what we want to do is cut Social Security benefits. Well, I don't think that that is a particularly good idea. I think that is a dumb idea. And I think we should do exactly the opposite. Instead of cutting Social Security benefits, we should expand Social Security benefits and extend the life and the solvency of Social Security. Well, how do you do that? It ain't hard to do. Right now, somebody that makes $16 million a year contributes the same amount into the Social Security trust fund as somebody who makes $160,000 a year. Does that make sense to anybody? Not to me. If you lift the cap and ask the wealthy--the top 2, 3 percent--to start paying into the Social Security trust fund that same 6 percent that the working people pay, do you know what you could do? You can do two things: You can expand Social Security benefits by $2,200 a year. That is pretty good. It may not sound like a lot of money to somebody that is wealthy, but if you are trying to get by on $20,000 a year, do you know what? That $2,200 can help a lot. And when you lift that cap, the other thing you do is you can make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years so we end this discussion about Social Security going broke. We had a hearing recently on the HELP Committee on medical debt, and what we learned, unbelievably, is that in our broken, dysfunctional healthcare system, half of people in this country who are dealing with cancer, because of the high cost of cancer treatment--half of these people--either go bankrupt or they deplete all of their financial resources. I mean, does anybody who has a heart, anybody who has a soul, anybody who has a sense of morality think that it makes sense that when people come down with a terrible illness and are worried about living or dying that they have to also worry about whether or not their family is going to go bankrupt? And I think we should learn here at the Federal level, here in the Senate, a lesson that a lot of States and cities and counties are doing, and that is ending medical debt. We should not punish people, force bankruptcy on people, who are struggling with serious illnesses. Wherever I go in my home State of Vermont, my city of Burlington, all over the country, people are worried about the high cost of healthcare in America. It is no great secret that rents are soaring. It is no great secret that, shamefully as a nation, we have some 600,000 Americans sleeping out on the streets today. It is clear to me that instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires and to large corporations, maybe--just maybe--we may want to invest in building low-income, affordable, and senior citizen housing, and we may want to put a cap on the kinds of rent increases--as President Biden suggested--that these large Wall Street firms are now raising the rents that they are raising for people who live in their homes. I don't know how to describe this except to say that I am personally embarrassed and I think the American people are embarrassed that right now in this country, we have a Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. All over this country, we have workers--if they are not making 7 and a quarter, they are making 10, they are making 12, 13 bucks an hour. People can't make it. I don't care where you are. If you are in rural Kentucky, in Burlington, VT, or New York City, nobody makes it on $12, $13 an hour. We have not raised the Federal minimum wage in decades. I brought a bill up here a few years ago. We got all of 46 votes. We didn't get one Republican vote; we lost six Democratic votes. Well, the American people do not think that folks in this country should be forced to work at starvation wages, and I hope we can bring forth legislation to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. In my view, that living wage should be at least $17 an hour. When we talk about workers' rights, I can tell you from personal experience, having been involved in a number of strikes and union organizing campaigns, corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars--illegally--trying to prevent workers from forming unions. That is why we must pass the PRO Act that will provide severe penalties against any corporation, any employer that uses illegal tactics to deny workers the right to form a union. Mr. President, when we talk about childhood poverty, as I am sure you will recall, a few years ago, as a result of the American Rescue Plan, we provided $300 a month per child for the vast majority of working parents in this country. That tax credit had the impact, incredibly, of lowering the childhood poverty level in this country by over 40 percent. One provision in one large bill lowered the childhood poverty level by over 40 percent. For minority communities, it was even greater than that. Maybe--just maybe--as a nation, we might want to end the disgrace of having the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth and make permanent a strong child tax credit similar to what we had in the American Rescue Plan. These are just some of the issues that are out there, and there are many others. I talk to elderly people often who say: All right. We are not going to pass--you don't have the political support to pass Medicare for All. The drug companies and the insurance companies are too powerful. You can't take them on right now. But at least--at least--can we expand Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision? Millions of elderly people in America can't afford to go to a dentist. People have no teeth in their mouths. Yes, we can do that, and we should do that. So all that I wanted to say is that at a time when many, many Americans are giving up on democracy--they are hurting. They look to the government, they vote, and nothing happens. The rich get richer; they get poorer. They are saying, ``Hey, all of this democracy and all this election stuff--it is all a crock. It doesn't matter,'' and they are willing to look at authoritarianism as a substitute for the democracy we have. So, to my mind, not only is it the right thing and the moral thing to start paying attention to the needs of a long-neglected working class-- long neglected by the Democratic Party; long neglected by the Republican Party--not only is it time to pay attention to those needs, if you are interested in preserving democracy, you might want to do that as well. So the thrust of my message today is that the time is long overdue for this Congress, this Senate, to have a serious discussion on the serious issues facing the working families of this country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I want to commend my fellow Vermonter for his remarks. I wanted to say a few words on the same subject. Madam President, tomorrow, Wednesday, will be a unique moment in congressional history. Throughout the many years of our country, leaders from dozens of countries with all kinds of political backgrounds and persuasions have been invited to address a joint session of Congress. To the best of my knowledge, however, tomorrow will be unique. In bringing Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress, it will be the first time in American history that a war criminal has been given that honor. Frankly, this invitation to Netanyahu is a disgrace and something that we will look back on with regret. With this invitation, it will be impossible, with a straight face, for the United States to lecture any country on Earth about human rights and human dignity. As you well know, along with the Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, and several others, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been credibly accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court, the ICC. That Court may soon issue arrest warrants for Sinwar and Netanyahu. The case against Sinwar and his Hamas accomplices is clear. They were organizers of the horrific October 7 terrorist attack on Israel that began this war and involved the mass murder of 1,200 innocent men, women, and children, the taking of hostages, and sexual violence. These war crimes are well documented, and very few people would dispute the merits of these charges. The ICC's prosecutors' charges against Netanyahu are also well founded. The charges focus on the starvation of civilians as a method of war, as well as intentional attacks against the civilian population. Specifically, the prosecutor says that Netanyahu is responsible for ``depriving [civilians] of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.'' A separate U.N. independent Commission of Inquiry likewise found that both Hamas and the Israeli military have committed war crimes since October 7, leading to widespread civilian deaths. The Commission said the Israeli military's ``intentional use of heavy weapons with large destructive capacity in densely populated areas constitutes an intentional and direct attack on the civilian population, particularly affecting women and children.'' I think we all agree that Israel had the right to defend itself against the horrific Hamas attack on October 7, but Netanyahu's extreme, rightwing government has, since that attack, waged what amounts to a total war--a total war--against the entire Palestinian people, making life unlivable in Gaza and killing tens of thousands. These actions have trampled on international law, on American law, and on basic human values. I understand that the mass media and many of us in Congress have been preoccupied in recent weeks with the awful assassination attempt against former President Trump and the changes at the top of the Democratic Presidential ticket. But while all that is going on, it is absolutely irresponsible for us to turn our backs on one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history, especially when that disaster has been aided and abetted by U.S. taxpayer dollars and weapons. In other words, it is not just the Israeli Government; it is us and our money and our weaponry as well. Let us be clear. Let us be very clear as to what is going on in Gaza right now. Since this war began, among a population of 2.2 million people, at least 39,000 Palestinians have been killed and 89,000 injured--60 percent of whom are women, children, or elderly people. Most observers believe that the death toll is much higher because thousands of people remain buried under the mountains of rubble; their bodies have not yet been recovered. Some 1.9 million people, out of a population of 2.2 million, have been driven from their homes, 90 percent of the population. Take a deep breath--90 percent of the population driven from their homes. The vast majority of these desperate and poor people have now been displaced not once, not twice, but, in some cases, four or five times, herded around like cattle. Just yesterday--yesterday--Israel announced another evacuation order for Khan Yunis, and 150,000 people were forced to flee on a moment's notice just yesterday. When we talk about housing in Gaza, it is not just that people have been displaced time and time again. More than 60 percent of Gaza's housing has been damaged or destroyed, including 221,000 housing units that have been completely destroyed. Where are these people going to go to if and when this war ever ends? And with that housing destruction, more than a million people remain permanently homeless. Entire neighborhoods have been wiped out. Today, more than a million Palestinians--almost half of the population of Gaza--are living in tents trying to find shelter, trying to find protection from the intense summer heat in that area. But it is not just the housing that has been destroyed. Gaza's civilian infrastructure has also been devastated. Water and sewer systems have been made inoperable--and the result: Raw sewage is running through the streets of Gaza, spreading disease, and there is very little clean water. Many roads are impassable, and there is virtually no electricity now in Gaza. But it is not just the housing that has been destroyed, not just the infrastructure that has been destroyed. Gaza had 12 universities, schools of higher learning. Every single one of those universities has been bombed, and 88 percent of all school buildings have been damaged. In other words, under Mr. Netanyahu's leadership, the entire educational system in Gaza has been annihilated. In fact, 540 people have been killed while sheltering--sheltering--in U.N. schools. But it is not just the housing that has been destroyed, not just the infrastructure of Gaza that has been destroyed, not just the educational system which has been destroyed. At a time when almost 90,000 people are dealing with war-related injuries in Gaza--including many, many children who have lost their arms and their legs or are suffering all kinds of diseases--the healthcare system in Gaza has been systemically obliterated. Madam President, 21 of Gaza's 36 hospitals are completely out of service, and the remainder can only partially function. The World Health Organization has recorded more than 1,000 attacks on healthcare facilities since October 7. As a result, disease is spreading due to shortages of clean water, sanitation, and hygiene. Cases of hepatitis, dysentery, and other infections are on the rise. And cases of polio have now been detected. Malnourished women struggle to breastfeed their newborns. Formula is inaccessible and even when available cannot be used without reliable sources of clean water. So the tiniest children and their mothers suffer as well, as a result. But it is not just displacement of 1.9 million people. It is not just the mass destruction of housing. It is not just the obliteration of the infrastructure. It is not just the destruction of the educational system. It is not just the annihilation of the healthcare system in Gaza that we are seeing. It is even worse than that. And I hope that my colleagues who attend Mr. Netanyahu's remarks on Wednesday remember this as they rise time and time again to give him standing ovations. As a result of Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid, people in Gaza are now starving to death. So remember when people stand up and applaud, children, women, innocent people in Gaza are now starving to death. According to the best available research, drawing on leading experts from the U.N. and other aid organizations around the world, some 495,000 Palestinians face starvation. These groups estimate that more than 50,000 children require treatment for acute malnutrition and are at risk of starving to death. At least 30 documented--I suspect it is a lot higher number than that--have already starved to death. So when you stand up and applaud that guy, remember the starving children that he has created. But even those who get the lifesaving care they need, the children will carry the scars of this disaster for the rest of their lives. As every psychologist will tell you, a child's brain develops fastest in the first 2 years of life, and childhood malnutrition does lifelong cognitive and physical damage. That is what Netanyahu is doing to the children of Gaza. And I would ask my colleagues to stop for a moment and also think about the psychological damage this war has done to the children there. Imagine being a child living with the constant buzzing of drones above your head, wondering whether those drones are going to rain fire and bullets onto your home, wondering if they might strike you at any moment. Imagine being a little 5-year-old witnessing your relatives killed, your neighborhood destroyed. Think about being a 10-year-old going hungry night after night and searching around for water and for food to survive. Think about being pushed from one place to another not knowing where you will be tomorrow, carrying your little water, your few belongings through streets running with sewage and amid piles of rubble and trash. That is what Mr. Netanyahu, the man Congress is honoring tomorrow, has done to the children of Gaza. According to the U.N. and virtually every humanitarian organization functioning in Gaza, Israel has intentionally blocked humanitarian aid--including food, water, and medical supplies--from reaching the desperate people of Gaza. And let us be clear: There is no--no--excuse for this. Blocking humanitarian aid, killing aid workers, and creating the conditions for starvation--these are not only acts of extreme cruelty, but they are clear violations of both U.S. and international law. They are war crimes. They are war crimes. And Netanyahu heads the government that has enacted these policies. So, tomorrow, when Netanyahu comes before Congress, I hope that, for one second, the Members who attend will focus--just for a second--on the starving children in Gaza. I hope, while they applaud, that they will think about the hundreds of aid workers killed, the dozens of hospitals bombed, the housing destroyed, and the universities obliterated. When Mr. Netanyahu rises to speak tomorrow, I also hope that my colleagues remember that all this death and destruction is not just the unfortunate byproduct of a brutal war. Revenge and destruction are the explicit policy of Netanyahu's extremist rightwing government. Two days into the war--2 days--after October 7, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said: I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly. And that is exactly how they have pursued this war. They define the Palestinian people as human animals, and, tragically, they have acted consistent with that view. Let us remember and understand that the Israel of today is not the Israel of the past. It is now run by a rightwing extremist government. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, the man who oversees the police, has long advocated for the forcible expulsion of Palestinians from the region. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, the man responsible for the occupied West Bank, is also an extreme racist and has called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the land. He has called for segregated hospital wards for Jews and Arabs because ``Arabs are my enemies.'' And that is the man who is in charge of the occupied West Bank. And that is the current Israeli Finance Minister as well. It should come as no surprise that this extremist government, in addition to destroying Gaza, has overseen record Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank, in violation of international law and commitments to the United States. Israeli forces and vigilante settlers have killed more than 500 Palestinians in the West Bank since October 7, including 131 children. Just last week, the International Court of Justice issued a ruling on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. A panel of 15 accomplished judges from around the world confirmed what most of the world has long known: that occupation is illegal and must end. I know that there are some here in Congress--not many, but some--who have condemned Netanyahu and his extremist government. But condemning Netanyahu is not enough. We cannot condemn a Prime Minister, who the ICC considers to be a war criminal, while at the same time continuing to provide his government with tens of billions of dollars in military aid. That is hypocrisy at its worst. Just today, I am happy to say, seven major trade unions here in the United States, including the Association of Flight Attendants, the American Postal Workers Union, the International Union of Painters, the National Education Association, the Service Employees International Union, the United Auto Workers, and the United Electrical Workers--some of the largest unions in America, representing some 6 million workers-- sent a letter to President Biden calling on him to immediately halt all military aid to Israel. And they are absolutely right. Netanyahu is a rightwing extremist and a war criminal who has devoted his career to killing the prospects of a two-state solution and lasting peace in the region. He should not be welcome to the U.S. Congress. On the contrary, his policies in Gaza and the West Bank should be roundly condemned and his rightwing extremist government should not receive another nickel from U.S. taxpayers. I yield the floor.