Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the late William T. ``Bill'' Maughlin, Jr., who left an indelible mark on Baltimore City and the great State of Maryland through his lifelong dedication and service. Beginning his distinguished 30-year career as an employee of the Maryland Messenger, now Need It Now Courier of Maryland, Mr. Maughlin, affectionately known as ``Chef Bill,'' was constantly evolving in the ways he positively impacted the city and its residents. He then became a fundraiser for the Maryland Committee for Children, which advocated for improved childcare, and later transitioned to a food services manager and events planner for the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore. Mr. Maughlin remained focused on the growth and joy of his community, establishing several ventures with his partner Kevin Brown throughout the years. Together, they created many prominent Baltimore businesses, providing a second home and community meeting place for many. They cemented themselves as Baltimore business staples, notably including Nirvana, the city's first ``cafetorium'' at 1727 N. Charles St., where they hosted a performance by legendary actress and singer Eartha Kitt in 1993. In 2006, Mr. Maughlin's passion for community and art coalesced in the founding of the Station North Arts Cafe--SNAC--Gallery. At the suggestion of then-Maryland Institute College of Art President Fred Lazarus IV, it expanded in 2013 with the creation of Nancy by SNAC, a beloved local watering hole. Chef Bill's creative culinary pursuits, including an all-day breakfast menu featuring dishes like pulled pork barbecue and cornbread waffles, were a testament to his innovative spirit, his love for food, and his desire to nourish his community. I offer my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Maughlin's family for his service. His life will forever be remembered by his passionate leadership and mentorship of the Baltimore City community. His legacy is etched in the hearts of those he touched, and he will be deeply missed.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, with regards to the motion to waive the point of order against the FISA section 702 provision in the conference report, I share the sponsor's concerns on the potential expiration of section 702 authorities, which are critical to foreign intelligence collection efforts and protecting the homeland. However, I am also deeply concerned that Section 7902 of the NDAA extends section 702 authorities without much-needed reforms to better protect the civil liberties of Americans. Despite the fact that surveillance under this section is supposed to be limited to certain foreign nationals abroad, a FISA Court opinion released in July 2023 stated that the FBI conducted approximately 40,000-50,000 warrantless ``back door'' search queries of section 702 communications data targeting U.S. persons per quarter in 2022. I support the FBI's initiative to voluntarily adopt stricter internal compliance rules to address this problem, but the administration and Congress must work together to do more to balance the need for intelligence collection and the protection of civil rights. Due to the FISA Court's certification process, the administration has acknowledged that, even in the absence of a formal 4-month extension, the government is able to conduct surveillance authorized under section 702 until April 11, 2024. I also understand that a formal extension of FISA authorities through April 2024, would effectively reset the clock and allow the administration to obtain a fresh certification from the FISA Court, thereby effectively extending the authority for an additional 12 months beyond the 4-month extension. That would only further delay our opportunity to review the program and propose necessary reforms. For the record, I would have supported an alternative that extended the formal authorization through April 2024, so long as it would have prevented the administration from obtaining a fresh certification to extend the program for another year after that. That alternative is not, however, before the Senate. The bottom line is that I agree that the section 702 program is necessary for our national security, but I also think it needs to be reviewed and reformed. We should not short-circuit the robust, bipartisan discussions in Congress on how to reform this authority with a lengthy extension. I am voting against this motion to waive the point of order so we can pair the extension of section 702 surveillance programs with a serious and targeted reform effort that maintains critical national security capabilities in a manner consistent with constitutionally protected rights.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I rise today to honor John Noel, a man who has been instrumental in preserving Maryland's historical sites at the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park for over two decades. Throughout his tenure, he has established a reputation as a dedicated leader and guardian of Maryland's treasured landscapes. Since assuming the role of deputy superintendent in 2014, Mr. Noel has been vital to the C&O Canal's mission. He has ensured that the Park's over 5 million annual visitors experience a page of history as they walk through its grounds. Mr. Noel's charge at the C&O Canal-- overseeing the Park's maintenance, operations, and educational programming--has touched the lives of many. His work, in collaboration with his team, spans the Park's impressive 184.5-mile stretch. Mr. Noel's leadership in preserving the history of the C&O Canal is truly commendable. For nearly 100 years, the canal was a lifeline for communities along the Potomac River, transporting coal, lumber, and agricultural products to market. His journey at the National Park Service has had a profound impact, shaping not only the terrain of the park but also the hearts of all who had the pleasure of working alongside him. Mr. Noel's footprints along the C&O Canal and his impact will continue to be remembered by all and serve as a source of strength. Maryland's historical sites will continue to be honored and preserved because of Mr. Noel's leadership, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating him and wishing him a well-earned, enjoyable, and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, November 19, 2023, marks the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, WDoR, commemorating the millions of people killed and injured by the devastating cost of car crashes. On this day, communities across the Nation and globe gather to call for action against the roadway safety crisis, recognizing that these are not isolated incidents but rather widespread problems with known solutions. This day also serves as a powerful reminder of the critical work of emergency responders in saving lives and as a moment to stand in solidarity to recognize how road traffic deaths and injuries deeply impact our community. Now is the time to take decisive action. By investing in proven, tangible measures and enacting legislation, we can prevent further loss of life. Our Nation must invest in advanced technology and the redesign of our roadways to spare more families the tragedy of losing a loved one. Like other issues that are uniquely American, the U.S. failure to protect all road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists, makes us stand out among developed nations. According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks 47th out of 54 in traffic fatality rate among high-income nations. In 2021, there were 42,915 deaths due to roadway crashes in the U.S., the highest figure since 2005. This highlights the lack of progress that has been made in addressing these preventable losses. As we solemnly observe this day, we are reminded of the profound message behind this year's poignant theme: Safe Streets for All. Since its inception in 1995 and its subsequent adoption by the United Nations for global observance on November 15, 2005, the WDoR has become a catalyst for change across continents. It is a day that compels us to reflect on the heartbreaking losses experienced by families worldwide due to unsafe road conditions. Our call to action is clear and urgent: We must not only remember but also advocate for immediate change. This means demanding from our leaders a steadfast commitment to invest in and reimagine our infrastructure. By fostering the creation of safer vehicles, redesigning our roadways, and ensuring walkable and bike-friendly communities, especially for those communities that have been persistently marginalized, we can transform our streets into corridors of safety rather than peril. In honoring the lives tragically cut short by traffic accidents, we confront the profound loss of family members, partners, and cherished friends, alongside the burdens of caring for those left with permanent disabilities. Yet it is in our collective commitment to act that we find the truest form of remembrance, ensuring such tragedies become rare exceptions. Rejecting complacency, we honor the victims by embracing our shared duty to prevent further needless interruptions of life stories on our roads. As a community, both local and global, we are called to forge a path toward safer streets, decisively acting to protect every life and using the memories of those we have lost as a catalyst for real and enduring change.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, at this moment of danger and peril around the world, we, the United States of America, must support our friends and democracies that are under attack from brutal adversaries. That means supporting Israel's right to defend itself in the aftermath of the brutal Hamas attacks of October 7. It also means ensuring that the people of Ukraine can defend themselves against Putin's rank aggression. Make no mistake about it, this proposal on the floor today is tantamount to saying the Ukrainian people should surrender to Vladimir Putin. It is waving the white flag. If we don't support Ukraine, not only will the Ukrainians lose, democracy will lose around the world. And I have to say that Ronald Reagan would be rolling in his grave today to see the Republican Party abandoning Ukraine in the fight for democracy and freedom. You know, most of us gathered recently in the Old Senate Chamber with President Zelenskyy, and he was very clear that the Ukrainians will fight on to defend their democracy and their sovereignty, but if the United States doesn't stand by the people of Ukraine, Putin will have the upper hand. So for goodness' sake, our Ukrainian friends are spilling blood; they are giving lives. The very least we can do is step up and continue to provide military assistance so that they can defend themselves. And this is not only about Ukraine; it is about making sure that our allies--our NATO allies--understand that the United States will continue to stand up against aggression. If the United States walks away, the NATO alliance will begin to collapse. It also sends a terrible signal to others around the world--other autocrats--who are watching very carefully what the United States and our allies do with respect to Ukraine. I have heard my colleagues say it is only speculation as to what our allies in the Indo-Pacific would think if we walked away. Well, let me tell you. They have told us very clearly. Leaders in Japan and South Korea, friends in Taiwan are watching closely what the United States does with respect to Ukraine, just as President Xi is keeping one eye on Taiwan as he keeps the other eye on what is happening in Ukraine. Now, President Biden is scheduled to meet with President Xi tomorrow in San Francisco at the APEC conference. And I can tell my colleagues don't pretend on the Senate floor or otherwise that you are going to be really tough on China; that you are going to support Taiwan if you cut loose and run when it comes to Ukraine because they are intricately connected. Just ask the people in Taiwan, ask the people in the Indo- Pacific region. Finally, I keep hearing my Republican colleagues talk about their so- called pay-for, as if the $14 billion dollar cut to the IRS pays for the $14 billion in support for Israel. This debate has been going on for a couple of weeks so it can't be that our colleagues aren't paying attention to what both the IRS and the Congressional Budget Office have said. They have said, far from paying for it, it will actually increase the deficit. That was the testimony of all the witnesses, Democrats and Republicans, in the Budget Committee last week. Why would it increase the deficit? Because you are taking away funds that the IRS is using to go after very wealthy tax deadbeats, people who are not paying the taxes that are already due and owing. You are saying to the IRS: We are going to deny you the funds to go after those very wealthy deadbeats. And because you can't collect the revenue from those tax deadbeats, the United States deficit is going to go up, not down. So that doesn't pay for it. Don't call it a pay-for. That is simply a fraud. It is not true. And what is really astounding--I have heard my colleagues use the word ``leverage'' a couple of times. It is a new cynicism to use our efforts to support Israel to provide what amounts to a don't-have-to- pay-your-taxes message to very wealthy Americans. It is like nobody ever seems to miss an opportunity to give another tax break to very wealthy folks on the Republican side. In this case, it is not a tax break; it is actually just requiring that people pay the taxes already due and owing. So stop calling it a pay-for. Let's stand up for Ukraine and democracy in Ukraine; yes, let's continue to support Israel's right to defend itself; and let's stand up as the United States of America to ensure that we send a message to our allies around the world that are with them and our adversaries around the world that we will stand by our friends. With that, I yield to the Senator from Colorado, Senator Bennet.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, at this moment of danger and peril around the world, we, the United States, must support our friends and democracies that are under attack from brutal adversaries. That means ensuring that Israel has the right to defend itself in the aftermath of the brutal October 7 attack of Hamas. It also means ensuring that the people of Ukraine can defend themselves against Putin's rank aggression. This proposal on the floor today is tantamount to surrendering to Putin's aggression. This is waving the white flag. All of us were gathered in the Old Senate Chamber--most of us-- recently when President Zelenskyy addressed the U.S. Senate. President Zelenskyy was very clear that the Ukrainians would continue to fight on no matter what. But he was equally clear that without the support of the United States and our allies, Putin has the upper hand, and it becomes a matter of time. As we speak here, the Ukrainians are shedding blood. They are giving their lives. For God's sake, the least we could do is continue to provide them with the military and other assistance they need to fight off aggression, and time is of the essence in Ukraine. And as my colleagues have said, this is not only about defending democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine; it is about the credibility of the NATO alliance and our other European partners who have come together to say to Putin: We stand together against your aggression. The United States takes a walk, it sends a terrible signal not just to Ukraine but to all our NATO partners with whom we also say we have shared security interest. They see the United States walk away, it undermines the credibility of the entire alliance, not just with respect to Ukraine but with respect to any further aggression by Putin or others. And it is not just about the NATO alliance. As my colleagues have said, this is also about other autocrats around the world who are watching very closely what happens in Ukraine, including what happens with respect to U.S. support in Ukraine. President Xi is watching very closely as he keeps one eye on Taiwan. So make no mistake about it, you can't get out here on the Senate floor and say you want to help protect Taiwan, say that you want to be tough on China when you are weak on Ukraine because what happens in Ukraine has a direct bearing on what happens to Taiwan and a direct bearing on Xi's aggression in the Indo-Pacific region. You can't have it both ways. That has been very clear from our allies in East Asia. Talk to the leaders of Japan. Talk to the leaders in the Republic of Korea. Talk to other leaders in the Indo-Pacific. They say, if the United States walks on assistance to Ukraine, that our credibility will be totally undermined with respect to our allies in the Indo-Pacific region and that President Xi will have the upper hand there. So let's not pretend we are tough on China when you are weak on Ukraine. Finally, as the chair of Appropriations pointed out, embedded in this proposal is also what appears to be a very cynical effort to actually use the claim of supporting Israel in order to secure relief for very rich taxpayers in the United States. This cuts funding from the IRS that the IRS will use to enforce current law against very wealthy Americans who are not paying the taxes that are already due and owing. So under the cover of this bill, our Republican friends apparently want to help out very wealthy taxpayers who aren't paying their fair share, which is why the Congressional Budget Office has said that even when you cut the moneys to the IRS, it is going to actually increase the deficit. The provision that the House had to cut funding for the IRS, which I guess they thought they were going to fool people that it was going to cover the cost of helping Israel--it doesn't do that. It actually adds to the deficit. Why? Because the IRS will not be able to enforce current tax law against very wealthy Americans who refuse to pay their fair share. I know Republicans are always looking for a way to give the very wealthy and the very rich a free ride, but this takes cynicism to a new level. So I propose that we come back to the Senate floor with a proposal that does the right thing to support and defend Israel and its attacks from Hamas but also does the right thing for Ukraine, for the credibility of the NATO alliance, for the credibility of our alliances in the Indo-Pacific, for the people of Taiwan, and makes sure that this isn't used as a cover to give very wealthy people here in the United States a free ride on the taxes that already are due and owing. So, with that, I yield the floor to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I commend the Senate for its passage of our bipartisan resolution, S. Res. 437, condemning anti-Semitism, including any anti-Semitic acts committed on university or college campuses. No one deserves to feel unsafe in their community or school or threatened because of their religion or ethnicity. On October 16, the FBI released their annual statistics on hate crimes, which stated that anti-Semitic hate crimes rose 25 percent from 2021 to 2022 and accounted for over half of all reported religiously based hate crimes. The onset of war between Israel and Hamas has further exacerbated these anti-Semitic threats and incidents targeting Jewish Americans and Jewish organizations here in the United States. As a member of the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, I have an enduring and ongoing commitment to confront anti-Semitism wherever it rears its ugly head and to ensure we take all steps necessary to protect the Jewish community. As we consider the best ways to counter anti-Semitism, it is important that we consult a range of definitions and tools to understand this problem. The White House's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism notes several of these tools, including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance--IHRA--definition of anti-Semitism, as well as the Nexus Document and other efforts. Moreover, as Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt made crystal clear during her confirmation hearing, ``Criticism of Israeli policy is not antisemitism.'' Unfortunately, there are some who are attempting to politically weaponize anti-Semitism by equating criticism of Israeli Government actions with anti-Semitism. These politically motivated charges only weaken good faith efforts to confront the very real danger of anti-Semitism. That is why our bipartisan resolution is so important during these troubling times; it sends a clear, united message that anti-Semitism cannot be tolerated and the fight against it should not become politicized.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The Senator from Missouri is absolutely right about the horror of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel. I was at the Kfar Aza kibbutz at the end of June. That was the site of one of the massacres--50 people gunned down, killed: dads, moms, kids. We have to condemn the horror of the Hamas attack in the strongest of terms. And we will, as a body, make sure that we stand by our ally and partner Israel as it prosecutes its fight against Hamas. Not only does Israel have the right to defend itself, it has an obligation and duty to its people to defend itself. I am confident that in the coming days, the U.S. Senate will provide more than just words of support--those are very important, and I want to applaud the President of the United States for what he has been doing--but also tangible support. This resolution is not about condemning Hamas's attacks on Israel. What this resolution does is condemn certain speech around the country. Now, let me just say to my colleague from Missouri: I stand with anybody and second to none when it comes to condemning anti-Semitism, whether in words or in actions. And I have stood up throughout my time in public service to do exactly that. If the Senator from Missouri wants to bring to the floor of the Senate a resolution condemning anti- Semitism, a resolution that points out what we just saw from the most recent FBI statistics about the rise in anti-Semitism, I will join with him in that effort. But what this resolution does is attempts to smear students, many of whom engaged in anti-Semitic remarks but many who did not. My view is that when you come to the Senate floor to pass such a resolution and you are talking about freedom of speech, it is very important not to paint a broad brush and condemn everybody engaging in speech. This is what this resolution does. It is an attempt to say, even to those who had legitimate--legitimate--statements to make about war and peace, to smear them all as making anti-Semitic remarks. I would also say to my colleague that there have been a lot of other anti-Semitic remarks around the country, from radio show hosts to others. And if we want to make it a practice of regularly coming to condemn remarks--hateful remarks--whether anti-Semitic or racist or anti-gay or whatever it may be, then the U.S. Senate is going to have to think long and hard about doing exactly that. I heard you mention violence. Most of these protests--as repugnant as some of them were in terms of the words--were not violent. The one terrible violent hate crime we have seen in the United States since Hamas's awful attack was the 6-year-old Palestinian-American Muslim boy in Chicago stabbed 27 times. You mentioned here, ``Whereas Columbia University was forced to close its campus to the public after an Israeli student was violently assaulted,'' I ask whether my colleague from Missouri wants to also include in the resolution violent acts. They were hate crimes. The police have said these were hate crimes. He was attacked because he was a Muslim. I don't see any condemnation of that in this resolution. Nothing. So I would stand with my colleagues in standing up to hateful rhetoric, condemning anti-Semitism. But what this resolution does--what this resolution does--is not that.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am not suggesting to my colleague that any particular statement that he took out from these protests was a legitimate statement. No. No. But what you are doing here--what you are doing here--is smearing all of the students who engage in these protests--yes, you are--and that is wrong. I would just invite you, again, to join with me--if we are going to get in this practice--and I don't suggest it; this is one of the reasons I am here--of when there are terrible, hateful remarks made against any group, whether they be Blacks or other minority groups, the U.S. Senate maybe will weigh in, but--

Mr. VAN HOLLEN.--on this issue--

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There are student groups that may have legitimate concerns, for example, about--just a minute--legitimate concerns about the loss of innocent civilian life in Gaza.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No. No. No. But what you are doing is saying--you are questioning--based on certain remarks made by some students, you are questioning them all.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I object.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, if I may, I have to----

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I have got another meeting, but I object.