[Pages S1692-S1693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Foreign Aid

  Mr. President, it wasn't so long ago that a Senator stood on this 
floor and said the following:

       Foreign aid as a part of our overall budget is less than 1 
     percent of the total amount the US Government spends. I 
     promise you it is going to be a lot harder to recruit someone 
     to anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism if the United 
     States of America is the reason one is even alive today.

  The person who said that was not me. It wasn't another Democrat. It 
was then-Senator, now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
  As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Marco Rubio 
was one of the strongest supporters of foreign aid and specifically the 
U.S. Agency for International Development or USAID. He introduced bills 
to leverage USAID, to fight human trafficking, advance women's 
economic empowerment, and reduce violence globally. He called on the 
Agency to, among other things, provide humanitarian relief to Colombia, 
support free and fair elections in Burma, promote internet freedom in 
Cuba, and advance democratic values in the Indo-Pacific.

  Speaking in 2018, he said:

       Anybody who tells you that we can slash foreign aid and 
     that will bring us to balance is lying to you. It's just not 
     true.

  So to witness the evisceration of USAID and foreign aid more broadly 
under his leadership as Secretary of State--Secretary of State and 
Acting Administrator of USAID--has been honestly shocking. This is 
someone who 2 months ago was confirmed by the Senate 99 to 0. He is 
someone who throughout his time in the Senate believed in the power and 
jurisdiction of this institution; someone who, while we disagreed on 
policy a lot, consistently showed moral clarity on the basic belief 
that America ought to be on the side of the good guys, on the side of 
democracy and freedom. But he has sidestepped Congress at every turn on 
this issue.
  As lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee overseeing 
funding for foreign and national security policy, I have been working 
with my colleagues to press Secretary Rubio publicly and privately for 
answers. We have sent numerous letters with dozens of questions, 
virtually all of which have gone unanswered.
  These aren't out of the ordinary, partisan, gotcha questions; they 
are the normal things that your clerk from the Appropriations 
subcommittee would say ``Hey, can you tell us what this is?'' and 
``Please inform us per the law.'' This is like normal, mundane, 
workaday correspondence--nothing.
  We are supposed to get notifications about changes, and we have 
gotten nothing.
  Then, on Monday, 5 a.m. eastern time, there is a tweet from him 
saying that the review of foreign aid that was supposed to take 90 days 
is now complete and that 5,200 contracts are gone--83 percent of the 
whole enterprise--and they will consult with Congress about what 
remains. But the last part is not true. There has been no consultation 
with Congress at all during this process.
  There has to be as a matter of law, and the Secretary ought to come 
to Congress and explain to us--not Pete Marocco, whom we didn't 
confirm, who most people in the public have never heard of, who is 
widely viewed as a controversial figure. He came in, closed-door 
briefing, 1 hour, and you know what--he had a hard stop, had to go at 
11.
  Do you know what he did at 11? He went with Federal marshals to 
another Federal Agency and barged in the door, and that was found to be 
illegal. That was his hard stop. He only had an hour to talk to members 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because he had to get on to 
commandeering a building with Federal marshals.
  As of today, we still have no idea which programs were cut and which 
still remain. They gave us a stack of programs, but it was like we were 
in a classified session, right? When you are in a classified session, 
they might give you a paper, and then there is staff that politely but 
firmly take the paper back so you don't accidentally take a bunch of 
classified stuff out of the building. They acted like the stuff they 
are doing on appropriations is somehow top secret. It is not top 
secret; they just don't want anyone to know.
  We don't know how or even whether Secretary Rubio intends to 
reprogram the funds for the programs that were eliminated, and we are 
still waiting to hear how he intends to operate the remaining programs 
going forward. Weeks and months have passed, and we still don't even 
have the most basic information.
  Here is what we do know. I am going to try to calm down here. Here is 
what we do know. Multiple laws are being violated at once--the Foreign 
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which established USAID 
as an independent Agency; the Impoundment Control Act, which says the 
President can't delay or refuse to spend the funds Congress 
appropriates just because they have a different policy view.

[[Page S1693]]

  The Impoundment Control Act is not ambiguous. It says that a 
President cannot decide what they spend based on a policy preference. 
If it is in the law, it is in the law; they have to execute on it.
  Their opportunity to exercise their leverage as a separate and 
coequal branch is to threaten to veto a bill if it has something they 
don't want to spend money on, but once that law is enacted, their 
discretion is gone.
  The appropriations bills for State and foreign ops, which, among 
other things, set minimum funding levels, prohibit the creation of new 
programs, the suspension or elimination of existing programs, and 
changes to Agencies without prior consultation with and notification to 
Congress--nobody did that.
  You can love these cuts. I assume some people love these cuts. You 
can hate these cuts. I hate these cuts. But one thing you cannot say is 
that this administration is following the law and fulfilling its duties 
in consulting with Congress. In the meantime, millions of people will 
die. Millions of people will die.
  Our sudden withdrawal has pushed people in Syria, Sudan, South 
Africa, and so many other places to the verge of starvation, disease, 
and death.
  I learned when I was 28 that when you are an elected officer, you 
better be very careful what you say. I said some casual words one time. 
I still remember what I said. I won't repeat them. I was on Hawaii News 
Now, and someone asked me a question, and I was tired. It was the 
morning show. And I said something just overly casually, and it really 
hurt people. So ever since then, I have tried to be as precise as I can 
be. Now that I am in the Senate, even more so do I have an obligation 
to not say anything that is untrue but also just to be careful not to 
be too provocative.
  So I say this advisedly: Millions of people will die because of the 
U.S. Government executive branch. This is a global humanitarian 
catastrophe about to happen on America's watch.
  When I became ranking member of the subcommittee, one of the first 
things I talked to Chairman Lindsey Graham about was: How do we make 
things work better? Where can we better align our priorities?
  I am open for business if the enterprise is lawmaking, and I am 
absolutely opposed if the enterprise is lawbreaking.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Senator from Vermont.