[Pages S2988-S2993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in 
recess until 2:15 p.m.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:30 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and 
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Britt).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I want to begin by saying happy 
anniversary. Happy anniversary.
  Thirty-two years ago today, President Clinton signed the National 
Voter Registration Act into law. The so-called Motor Voter Act--that is 
what it became known as--made commonsense and unprecedented strides to 
registering more eligible Americans to vote. Imagine that--taking 
advantage of the fact that motor vehicle agencies and other State and 
local government offices that interact with Americans every single day 
can easily, efficiently, securely assist U.S. citizens with one of the 
most fundamental rights: registering to vote and participating in our 
elections.
  A little over 3 years after it was signed into law--on May 24, 1996, 
more precisely--I proudly completed my own training as a deputy 
registrar in Los

[[Page S2989]]

Angeles County, which qualified me to register voters in my own 
community. Nearly two decades later, I was sworn in as California's 
30th secretary of state, becoming the chief elections officer to the 
most populous and most diverse State in the Nation. Just earlier this 
year, I was proud to become the ranking member of the Senate Rules and 
Administration Committee, with jurisdiction over Federal elections. So 
it would be an understatement for me to say that I am proud to bring my 
decades of elections administration experience to the discussions and 
deliberations of this body.
  Throughout my time in public service, I have seen personally that one 
of the single greatest ways to increase not just civic engagement more 
broadly but voter registration and voter participation more 
specifically is to meet Americans where they already are. Motor Voter 
tried to do exactly that--registering voters at State departments of 
motor vehicles and other public agencies, including State colleges and 
universities, military recruitment offices, and others.
  That is a good thing for our democracy because we should all believe 
in that most basic of lessons that I believe we all learned in high 
school civics class--that our democracy works best when its many 
eligible people participate.
  One other place that the National Voter Registration Act can and 
should extend to is naturalization ceremonies, giving new, eligible 
U.S. citizens the information they need to register to vote should they 
want to.
  If you have never had the opportunity to attend one before, I can 
tell you personally that there are few experiences that give you more 
of that patriotic feeling than inside the four walls of a 
naturalization ceremony. If you ever had doubts or questions about what 
it means to be an American, I encourage you to ask a newly naturalized 
citizen.
  When I served as California's secretary of state, it was such an 
honor to speak at a number of these ceremonies. Part of the sacredness 
of the experience that I felt was standing up on the stage, looking out 
at the audience, and being told by the USCIS personnel how many 
countries were being represented there. Maybe it was dozens of people, 
maybe it was hundreds of people representing literally dozens or 
hundreds of countries. So walking into the auditorium, walking into the 
convention center hall, there were immigrants from countries all over 
the world, but upon taking that oath and leaving that ceremony, they 
were all U.S. citizens.
  While some people get to that point of naturalization, having been in 
the country for a couple of years, some after several decades, some 
coming from working-class families and others from very wealthy 
families, some families who have been here just a few years and others 
who have been here maybe multiple generations--maybe some of these new 
citizens never had a chance to go to college or even high school. 
Others were there with not just bachelor's and master's degrees but 
Ph.D.s, maybe multiple degrees. The one thing that was constant for 
everybody was that as a U.S. citizen, you now had the right to vote. 
And in our elections, not only does every vote count, but every vote 
counts equally. Think about that. How beautiful is that?
  As I think about the people who go through the process, I can't help 
but also think about my parents because they went through the 
naturalization process. When I see the dozens or hundreds of immigrants 
becoming citizens, I envision what their preparation was like because 
it was very similar, no doubt, to what my parents did--taking classes, 
studying, showing up at every important appointment, filling out all 
those forms. On the day they finally take the oath of allegiance, they 
earn the full benefits of U.S. citizenship.
  So it was an honor and a privilege to be able to address those 
audiences as secretary of state and encourage them not just to get 
involved in the community but to register to vote and exercise their 
new right to vote. And, of course, I would do it on a nonpartisan 
basis.

  But the statistics tell us that registration amongst naturalized 
citizens still lags behind other voters. During the 2022 election, only 
61 percent of naturalized citizens were registered to vote compared to 
70 percent of native-born Americans.
  So the data tells us that we have a responsibility to do more here. 
That is why today I am asking my colleagues to pass the Including New 
Voters in the Electorate Act, also known as the INVITE Act.
  My bill would use the powers of the National Voter Registration Act 
to designate USCIS field offices as voter registration Agencies, 
effectively giving our field staff not just the opportunity but the 
duty to help new, eligible U.S. citizens register to vote. Rather than 
just hand out a form, it would empower USCIS personnel to actually 
assist new citizens in completing and returning their voter 
registration forms.
  I can predict what some of the counterargument might be, so let me 
just say to everyone who regularly expresses concern about 
``noncitizens voting,'' I would suggest, what better place to make sure 
citizens are registered than at a naturalization ceremony?
  With the flexibility to work with State and local agencies however 
they see fit, my bill would take those spaces that are so crucial to 
our democracy and turn them into catalysts for democratic participation 
because the responsibilities that come with citizenship don't end upon 
taking the oath of citizenship; that is just the beginning.
  I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to join me in 
supporting this commonsense bill to invest in and strengthen our 
democracy.
  Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the 
desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read 
a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
thank my friend and colleague the senior Senator from the State of 
California for his passion in pursuing what is itself a laudable goal, 
which is helping newly sworn-in, newly naturalized U.S. citizens to 
register to vote. But I have no choice but to object to this unanimous 
consent request, this effort to pass it without further debate--without 
any debate today.
  I want to point out that this is a bill that hasn't gone through any 
of the regular processes. It is therefore inappropriate for us to 
consider it at this point.
  Look, the bill itself was just barely introduced. It hasn't had a 
hearing, hasn't had a markup before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 
which we both serve or otherwise, nor has there been any debate on this 
topic.
  No doubt it is important to make sure that our newly naturalized 
citizens have the opportunity to register to vote, but that puts the 
cart before the horse in many regards. If we haven't done our homework, 
we could cause problems.
  No one disputes the fact--at least no one disputes the fact now that 
there are, in fact, noncitizens voting in Federal elections. No one 
disputes that there are already laws on the books making it a crime for 
noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections. U.S. Federal elections are for 
U.S. citizens and no one else, and it is a crime to do otherwise.
  We have had some of these discussions over the last year, and in the 
months leading up to the 2024 general election, there were a lot of 
unsubstantiated claims made to the effect that noncitizens don't vote. 
We know now that that is not true. There have been a number of 
documented instances from this last general election alone in which 
that happened. This reflects the fact that we often do a poor job of 
making sure noncitizens don't vote.
  On the current voter registration form, the Federal voter 
registration form, there is just a box, a little box that one checks 
for the applicant to indicate whether he or she is a U.S. citizen. 
Provided that he or she checks that box and later signs the form for a 
driver's license, that person can then obtain voter registration in the 
same State in which he or she has applied for a driver's license. All 
we have to go on is that person's word as to citizenship.

[[Page S2990]]

No one asks for documentary proof of citizenship--no.
  One might ask: Why? Why has no one asked for this, especially if it 
is a known problem?
  Well, this dates back to an interpretation of the 1993 National Voter 
Registration Act, the NVRA, which is also sometimes referred to as the 
Motor Voter law. It was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that 
interpreted provisions of the NVRA as prohibiting the State officials 
administering that form, receiving that form, from asking for any kind 
of proof of citizenship.
  Now, that interpretation was, in my view, wrong. I agree with Justice 
Alito's dissent in that case saying that the statute contains no such 
requirement; there is nothing in there prohibiting States from doing 
that. Nonetheless, that ruling stands, remains on the books today, 
prohibiting State officials, when receiving those forms, from doing any 
verification, requesting any proof as to citizenship.
  That is why I, last year, introduced a bill called the SAFE Act that 
would amend the National Voter Registration Act to make clear what I 
believe was already clear but that the Supreme Court got wrong, 
allowing State officials to request proof of citizenship at the time 
these documents are submitted and setting requirements for that to 
happen.
  The SAFE Act identifies, establishes, and outlines acceptable 
documentation for proving citizenship, and it requires the States to 
set up alternative verification processes for citizens who don't have 
the normal, necessary, contemplated documentation, including for those 
instances--very, very common instances--in which a woman marries and 
thereafter changes her name to a married name not evident on any birth 
certificate she may have.
  When you contemplate the many dozens of women who support the SAVE 
Act in this Chamber and in the other and who voted for it in the other 
Chamber, who were part of the process of drafting this bill--they and I 
and the others who were involved in its drafting, we all went out of 
our way to make sure that these documentation standards were not unduly 
onerous. In fact, if anything, they are less onerous than those 
requirements, those documentation standards that already exist in other 
areas of the law.
  Take, for example, labor and employment. Anytime any American citizen 
starts a new job as an employee, he or she is required to fill out a 
form called the I-9. The I-9 form requires an American citizen to 
provide proof of citizenship. And if you are not an American citizen, 
then you have to provide proof of your work eligibility, providing 
proof of your visa and the documentation that goes along with that.
  Now, just as it is true that married women who have changed their 
name to their married name, a married last name that is different than 
that found on their birth certificate--just as women every single day 
across this country are able to start a new job without that being an 
impediment, we have made sure that the SAVE Act would leave things the 
same way. If anything, we made it easier in the context of casting this 
sacred, important vote and registering to become eligible to cast such 
a vote.
  The legislation, the SAVE Act, also compels States to purge 
noncitizens from voter rolls and establishes Federal penalties for 
intentionally registering noncitizens to vote in Federal elections.
  Over the last 4 years, many, many millions upon millions of illegal 
aliens have entered our country's borders, and of those, a nonzero but 
ultimately unknown number of them were improperly registered to vote. 
No one disputes that this has happened. They don't now; they didn't 
last summer; they don't now because the proof is there, and it remains 
undisputed.
  At a time when trust in voting is as important as it has ever been, 
if not more so, we must stop any avenue for foreign election 
interference, and we need to pass the SAVE Act.
  Voting is both a sacred right and an important responsibility that 
accompanies American citizenship, and allowing people--people of other 
countries, people of other countries who are not citizens of our 
country--to violate the law and to access our elections and vote in our 
elections contrary to the law is a great blow to our security and to 
our self-governance.
  The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the SAVE Act a few 
weeks ago, and now it is our turn to pass the SAVE Act and that we must 
do.
  In light of the foregoing and in light of the fact that, if we were 
to take a step like that contemplated and proposed by my friend and 
colleague--and he is both, the senior Senator from California--without 
putting in place these additional safeguards that we need in the SAVE 
Act, safeguards that are no more intrusive--and, in fact, if anything, 
are less intrusive--than those already in existence in everyday events 
like starting a new job, I must object, and I hereby do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from California.
  Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I think I tried to make the point 
clear. While I respect where my colleague from the State of Utah is 
coming from, I just fundamentally disagree.
  The National Voter Registration Act, which this body passed on a 
bipartisan basis back in 1993, was designed to expand voter 
registration opportunities by making it easier for eligible Americans 
to register when they interact with government Agencies, plain and 
simple, and that is all this bill seeks to do, by designating USCIS as 
a voter registration entity under the NVRA.
  And the point is simple. When anybody goes to apply for a driver's 
license or a State ID, as you are filling out those forms, you do add 
name, date of birth, your address, you are signing all that same 
information for a driver's license or an ID that you are putting on the 
voter registration card or form when you are registering to vote.
  And yes, you do sign as to the accuracy of the information under 
penalty of perjury. So it is not just the check the box nonchalantly; 
you are signing under penalty of perjury. And there have been occasions 
when people are charged with false registration or improper 
registration. So the laws are working. The instances of ineligible 
voters voting are very, very rare, but they happen. That means our laws 
are working.
  So we will keep trying to work on the INVITE Act, but I encourage my 
colleague to think about not just the spirit of this proposal but the 
context of the success of the NVRA over the last several decades.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 22

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, we need to remember a couple of things. 
First, when someone has gone through the process of immigrating to the 
United States, they have completed a journey--perhaps a lengthy 
odyssey--of moving to the United States, applying for and ultimately 
obtaining U.S. citizenship. They have provided a lot of documentation. 
They have done a lot of things to make that happen.
  And it would be an insult to those who are U.S. citizens, whether 
natural-born or naturalized citizens, to make it easy for people to 
cheapen that, to undermine it, to dilute that by coming in and saying: 
You know, I am filling out my driver's license application, and all I 
have to do here is check a box--check a box, sign my name saying, yes, 
I am a U.S. citizen.
  Well, you know, that is not an option in other areas where 
citizenship is required. It is absolutely not an option, for example, 
in applying for a passport, which is one of the documents that can be 
provided and often is provided when someone completes the process of 
filling out an I-9 and thereby establishing their work eligibility as a 
U.S. citizen. One of the forms that they can provide to help establish 
that is a U.S. passport.

  But regardless of what combination of identification they use, they 
do have to establish their citizenship. Why? Well, because that is the 
law. There are very good reasons why we have those laws in place to 
make sure that, when someone starts a job, they are either a U.S. 
citizen or they have a visa with some type of work authorization in it.
  So it makes zero sense, for something as significant and important to 
the very foundations of our constitutional Republic as the right to 
vote, that we could just so lightly cast aside the need to verify 
citizenship when we go out of our way in other contexts, like starting 
a new job, to make sure that they prove it.

[[Page S2991]]

  So, sure. My friend and colleague points out, when people fill out 
that driver's license application, they do have to check that box, and 
they do have to sign their name, but why make it so that someone could 
lie, especially when read against the backdrop of the Supreme Court 
ruling 12 years ago, concluding--wrongly, in my view but concluding 
nonetheless, and that decision is on the books--that not only do they 
not have to prove citizenship, but no State official, when receiving 
the driver license application form, may even inquire, even if they 
have reasons to doubt that the person has committed something or 
otherwise--they can't ask, even if there has been a wave in that State 
or in that area or across the country of noncitizens registering to 
vote and that State wants to make a decision--you know, we really ought 
to provide some degree of documentation--they are not allowed to do any 
of that.
  So this is filling that gap, and it is important to do that.
  To that end, Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, which is at the desk. I further 
ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from California.
  Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
reserve the right to object not for the first time on this proposed 
SAVE Act, not even for the second time on this proposed SAVE Act.
  This is an item that my colleague has brought up repeatedly here 
before the Senate. So I won't repeat the arguments and explanations 
that I have made in prior objections to the SAVE Act but to suggest it 
is a solution in search of a problem. Audit after audit, review after 
review, investigation after investigation has demonstrated that the 
instances of ineligible immigrants voting in elections is exceedingly, 
exceedingly, exceedingly rare, which, again, means that our current 
laws are working.
  And to suggest that birth certificates be required for a certain task 
when it is already secure--we could have--I would be walking around 
with my birth certificate in my pocket.
  A passport is another acceptable form of documentation for 
citizenship. Half the American public doesn't have a current, valid 
passport because not everybody travels abroad on a regular basis. So 
they are unnecessary. Our current laws are working, and, therefore, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, with great respect to my friend and 
colleague the distinguished senior Senator from California, he has 
suggested that the SAVE Act, which merely requires some type of proof 
of citizenship when someone registers to vote in U.S. elections--that 
the SAVE Act itself is a solution in search of a problem.
  My friend also suggests that no documentary proof of citizenship is 
or should be made necessary, even considering the Supreme Court's 
ruling that States are not even allowed to request such documentation 
where they may deem it necessary. He suggests that this is the case 
because, as he puts it, the occurrence of noncitizens voting in U.S. 
elections is not only rare, but it is exceedingly, exceedingly, 
exceedingly rare, as he puts it.
  I don't know exactly what that means, but I do know that, taken to 
its logical conclusion, that same logical leap could and would lead us 
to all kinds of outcomes that we would never dream of. There are all 
sorts of things that may be rare by some standard or another. Sure, it 
is true that most of the people voting in U.S. elections are not 
noncitizens. In fact, I would say that they would be a small, small, 
small minority of those casting votes because most people here in the 
United States, most people voting in U.S. elections, are, in fact, U.S. 
citizens.
  But taken to its logical conclusion, that would suggest that there is 
no need for TSA, which, actually, I would be fine with for all sorts of 
reasons. But taken to its logical conclusion, it would suggest there is 
no need for you to identify yourself when you go through TSA because 
instances of terrorism are exceedingly rare or instances of people 
boarding an airplane in somebody else's name are exceedingly rare. 
Sure, that happens.
  Taken to its logical conclusion, it would also suggest that because 
instances of people starting a job, beginning employment in the United 
States as an American citizen or as a noncitizen pretending to be an 
American citizen, are exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as he 
puts it, therefore we should require no documentary evidence of either 
U.S. citizenship on one hand or work eligibility with a visa on the 
other hand.
  I could go on and on. But it is not an answer to the need for the 
SAVE Act, to the demand that 80-plus percent of the American people 
agree with, which is noncitizens shouldn't vote in U.S. elections. It 
is not an answer to that demand, to that widely held bipartisan 
supermajority view, not an answer to that to suggest that because 
noncitizen voting is rare, we need not require any proof of citizenship 
ever.
  Why? Well, there are so many reasons why, but here is the simplest 
one. When we make that easy, more people would do it. Some elections 
are decided by large margins; others are decided by, to use his words, 
exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly small margins.
  We would be doing ourselves and the American people and the American 
Republic and the U.S. Constitution a grave, grave disservice if we 
didn't take that risk very seriously.
  Foreign election interference and meddling in our system is a real 
threat. We need to take it seriously. It is tragic and unfortunate.
  In fact, it is shameful that we haven't passed the SAVE Act. This is 
not the end of this issue. I will be back. We will get this passed. But 
between now and whenever we do get it passed, the American people are 
taking on a risk because of this body's unwillingness to act.
  And it is not this body. Let's face it. It is Members of this body on 
one side of the aisle, and not on the other, who are willing to incur 
this risk.
  That, tragically, is a sacrifice they are willing to make. We, 
tragically, are a sacrifice they are willing to make. Let's not let 
them continue to make it. Let's pass the SAVE Act.
  (Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Marshall). The Senator from Vermont.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 224

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, all of us are extremely concerned--and I 
mean all of us: Senator Risch and all the Republican colleagues and me 
and all of the Democratic colleagues--about the suffering and famine 
that are upon the folks in Gaza.
  Today, I am here to offer a resolution for consideration on which 46 
Senators on our side agree. Although we have not had signatories on the 
Republican side, I know that my colleagues on the Republican side are 
very concerned about the devastating absence of food, medicine, and 
baby formula for 2 million Palestinians who are living in Gaza.
  It has been 74 days since aid trucks were allowed to transit into 
Gaza. That is a decision that the Israeli Government has made under 
Prime Minister Netanyahu. What does alarm me is that it is very clear 
under international law and it is very clear on prior actions that this 
U.S. Senate has taken that in a conflict, as a tactic of war, starving 
a civilian population is illegal, impermissible, and just wrong, 
absolutely wrong.
  As an indication of the suffering, this is one young child who died 
in her parents' arms, Janan Al-Saqafi. That was due to no food, no baby 
formula to feed this young person.
  The U.N. has released a report that indicates that if food is not 
brought into Gaza within the next 48 hours, 14,000 more infants will 
die, and they will die in the arms of their mother or father.
  So this question of should aid get in--obviously it should. It is not 
right for aid to be withheld as an instrument of war. Regrettably, that 
appears to have been a decision that has been made by the Israeli 
Government. It is not right, it is not necessary, it is not helpful, 
and it is extraordinarily harmful to innocent children and to innocent 
mothers.

[[Page S2992]]

  My hope is that this Senate would pass a resolution making very clear 
our concern about the well-being of innocent Palestinians in Gaza. The 
food those Palestinians in Gaza need is right on the other side of the 
border. It is there. All it needs is to be transported from where it is 
into Gaza and then distributed.
  I want to just quote a Palestinian about how dire that situation is. 
In the words of a Palestinian:

       Believe it or not--

  This is, by the way, at a moment when bombs are still dropping, where 
people who have been relocated a dozen times are having to relocate 
again, where the two remaining hospitals in Khan Younis have been 
bombed, where there is no security whatsoever.
  This is what a Palestinian said that sums it up:

       Believe it or not, people no longer care about bombs, 
     rockets, or even death. What consumes them now is food. How 
     to find it. How to feed their children. It is impossible to 
     describe how hard life has become. People walk around in a 
     daze, dizzy from malnutrition and despair. People are 
     confused, anxious, and exhausted. They are literally dying of 
     hunger. At this point, they would accept anything just to 
     survive. People are fainting in the streets. They look like 
     skin and bones, pale and dizzy. If you saw them, you would 
     break down and cry.

  Those are the words of a Palestinian in Gaza.
  Mr. President, we have to feed those people. The food is there. We 
all want those innocent people to survive and avoid famine. Let us do 
every single thing we can to persuade the Israeli Netanyahu Government 
to get that food in to people who desperately need it.
  At this point, I yield to my colleague Senator Van Hollen from 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague the Senator from Vermont Mr. Welch for offering this 
resolution.
  I just want to focus on the resolution itself for a moment because 
you would think this is something we could all agree on.
  I am just reading the resolved clause here:

       Resolved, That the Senate--(1) is gravely concerned with--
     (A) the humanitarian crisis and acute suffering of the 
     Palestinian civilians in Gaza; and (B) the suffering of the 
     hostages and hostage families.

  That is section 1 of the resolved clause.
  Senator Welch has said and I think we all acknowledge the terrible 
humanitarian disaster that Palestinian civilians are suffering under 
right now. Trump just acknowledged it the other day. He said that a lot 
of people are starving.
  Cindy McCain said:

       Families in Gaza are starving while the food they need is 
     sitting at the border.

  Fifty-seven children have already died from malnutrition, and the 
reports are that 14,000 Palestinian children in Gaza are at imminent 
risk of death if they don't get more food.
  Just yesterday, after 78 days of a total siege and blockade on any 
food coming into Gaza, a trickle of food began to get in, primarily 
because European countries began to say very loudly that what was 
happening was unacceptable, that it was a violation of international 
law.
  We are also hearing from the hostage families the urgency of putting 
an end to this conflict and resolving this to make sure their loved 
ones can come home.
  I was very glad to see Steve Witkoff be able to bring home Edan 
Alexander. Now we have to bring back the rest of the hostages.
  The hostage families overwhelmingly have been calling on Prime 
Minister Netanyahu and his government to end the conflict, end the 
suffering on all sides, and bring their loved ones home.
  I want to just read the second part of this resolution because it 
does what I understand so many of the hostages' families have been 
saying we should do.

       [C]alls on the White House, Department of State, and other 
     relevant United States Government agencies to urgently use 
     all available diplomatic tools to bring about the release of 
     the hostages, an immediate cessation of the blockade on food 
     and humanitarian aid for Palestinian civilians, and a durable 
     end to the conflict in Gaza.

  Those are part 1 and part 2 of the resolved clause that I just read.
  I want to thank Senator Welch because he has written this in a way 
that you would think not a single Senator would object to the words in 
this resolution. So I do urge my colleagues to support it.
  Let's put an end to the suffering and starvation of Palestinian 
civilians in Gaza. Let's get the hostages home. Let's work to end this 
conflict in a way that ensures no more October 7ths and ensures 
security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.
  I yield back to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Thank you again, the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further 
consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 224; further, that 
the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, look, first 
of all, we have no disagreement with the suffering that is going on in 
Gaza. The problem we have here is, as we heard from both of these 
speakers, not one word was said as to whose fault this is. This is the 
fault of a group of people, and that group of people is Hamas. I heard 
them mention Israel several times. This is not Israel's fault. I heard 
them mention us, the United States. This is not our fault.
  I couldn't agree more with Senator Welch when he talks about the fact 
that we want an immediate cease-fire and for people to be fed there and 
things to get better there. It is so simple. It is so easy. It is 
totally in the hands of Hamas. If they release the hostages, they lay 
down their arms, and they surrender, not one more bullet will be fired, 
and there will be scads of trucks coming into Gaza. That is how this 
ends.

  But can we end it? No. If we send trucks in--the Senator knows. The 
Senator has seen the intelligence on some of this. When we send food 
and trucks in there, who eats? The soldiers eat. The Hamas soldiers 
eat. They starve the women, and they starve the children.
  Not only do they starve them; they use them as human shields. And 
they set up their facilities--their military facilities--in hospitals, 
in schools, in mosques, in all kinds of places that they then wring 
their hands and say: Oh, my gosh, we have been attacked.
  Look, this is despicable. This is horrible. This is criminal. It is 
beyond human understanding how human beings could treat other human 
beings the same way, especially when you are related to them, as they 
are in Palestine.
  So I agree that this needs to stop, but the first thing that needs to 
be said is that this is the fault of Hamas, and it is not our fault. 
And it doesn't matter if we roll trucks in there tomorrow. That food 
would be taken. It would be stolen. It would be distributed by Hamas to 
their fighting soldiers, and the dying and the suffering of the women 
and children would continue.
  This thing is badly aimed. It does not, in any way, lay the fault 
where it belongs, and that is at the feet of Hamas. So based on all 
that--I share your objective--this gets us nowhere. And worse than 
that, it doesn't point out where the problem is.
  Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Lummis). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I want the Senator from Idaho, the 
esteemed chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to know that when 
it comes to condemning Hamas for what it did on October 7, for what it 
has done to the Palestinians in Gaza on an ongoing basis, I join you in 
condemning Hamas.
  And this resolution does not get into the question of fault. It gets 
into the question of suffering. It gets into the question of the 
suffering of innocent people who, at times, have been victimized by 
Hamas but whose families are hungry, who are starving. And the point of 
this resolution is to say: Let's help them avoid starvation by 
supporting the delivery of the food and the

[[Page S2993]]

medicine and the baby formula that they need.
  This, in no way, is going to solve the conflict. That is a point the 
Senator made, and he has got a point to be made. But if we do all we 
can to facilitate the delivery of aid, it means that we are doing all 
we can to ease the suffering of innocent families who have been 
victimized.
  My view is that we should do all we can to alleviate the suffering, 
especially for these infants, these children, these women, and peace-
loving Palestinians who want nothing more than to live in peace in 
their neighborhood.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I want to respond to that.
  First of all, I commend the Senator for his appreciation for the 
suffering that is going on. It is horrible. It is despicable. You have 
seen the photos. You have seen the video. It is a horrible, horrible 
situation.
  One of the difficulties I have with this is that he is correct; this 
resolution does not assign fault, nor does it talk about fault. And 
that is one of the biggest problems I have with this. If this is going 
to be resolved, fault must be identified. The conditions on the ground 
have to be identified. And how this is going to be resolved has to be 
identified, none of which is considered in here. It is simply a 
suggestion that simply taking food there is going to resolve this 
problem, and we have done that. We have food there. It is ready to go 
in.
  As I said, three things need to happen, and it is in the hands solely 
of Hamas--not in Israel, not in Netanyahu, not in our President, not in 
the people of the United States' hands. It is in the hands of Hamas. 
And that is, if they simply release the hostages, lay down their arms 
and surrender, it is over. The food flows in. There is not another 
bullet fired. That is all that has to happen. But what has to be 
recognized in this is how this is going to end. There is only one way 
this can end, and that is with complete and total destruction of Hamas.
  This is very similar to what the United States of America and its 
allies did in the late 1930s. We decided that the Nazis were so bad 
that they could not exist as a military force, as a political force, or 
as a cultural force, and we decided they needed to be eliminated.
  That is what Israel decided it has to do to protect itself. That is 
what it is doing.
  But Hamas can stop this. They can stop it in a minute, and they are 
not showing any signs of that. So what is going to happen is this fight 
is going to go on until the last Hamas falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________