[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 172 (Wednesday, November 20, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6666-S6671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RELATING TO THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENTIAL REPORT WITH RESPECT TO 
    THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 566, 
S.J. Res. 117.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 566, S.J. Res. 117, 
     relating to the disapproval of the Presidential report with 
     respect to the indebtedness of the Government of Ukraine.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 1 
hour for debate, equally divided.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, yesterday marked a somber milestone: 1,000 
days since Russia invaded Ukraine. Over a million lives have been lost 
or wounded--a staggering human toll. Yet, instead of seeking a path to 
peace, the Biden administration is choosing escalation. Billions of 
taxpayer dollars have been funneled into this conflict with little or 
no oversight and no end in sight. It is as if writing blank checks has 
become our primary foreign policy strategy. This has extracted a huge 
human cost.
  Just days ago, President Biden authorized Ukraine to use American-
provided long-range weapons to strike inside Russia. Let me repeat 
that. We are now enabling attacks using U.S. weaponry inside Russian 
territory. When I first saw the headline, I didn't believe it. I hoped 
it was maybe a joke or fake news. It was neither. It was real.
  Now, this is not a step toward deescalation. Nothing could be further 
from that. In fact, this is a dangerous provocation, one that brings 
the United States perilously, unacceptably close to a direct conflict 
with a nuclear-armed adversary. In response, Russia has updated its 
nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear 
weapons.
  This is not a game. The rounds are live and flying--and, I would add, 
deadly. The specter of nuclear war is now looming larger than it has in 
decades. Yet the administration seems undeterred, even willing, as if 
eager to risk U.S. security for the sake of scoring one last cheap 
political point against the incoming Trump administration and the 
American people.
  Now in the twilight of its tenure, the Biden administration is 
quietly attempting to forgive half of Ukraine's economic aid package 
from the last supplemental appropriations bill--a whopping $4.7 billion 
given away for free if President Biden has his way.
  The American people are being deceived by the Biden administration. 
Americans were told Ukraine would repay that sum when this bill passed. 
In fact, that is part of how they got it passed. It was, you might say, 
a ``without which not'' of that bill's passage. Now they are being 
stuck with the tab.
  Now, let's be clear: Forcing the American people to pick up this tab 
removes an essential point of leverage for the United States to bring 
Ukraine to the negotiating table. It prolongs a bloody war. It drains 
our own scarce precious resources and gives Ukraine a freebie we don't 
extend even to our closest allies, all without accountability or a 
strategy that prioritizes America's interest first.

  But it is worse than that. It does so in a way that puts us in the 
firing line--the firing line of a nuclear-armed adversary. Moreover, a 
significant portion of this sum was allocated to fund the salaries of 
President Zelenskyy and Ukrainian bureaucrats.
  What kind of message does that send?
  At a time when American families are pinching pennies--pinching 
pennies--because we spent money we don't have, causing us to print more 
money, causing every dollar the American people earn to buy less, it is 
absolutely unconscionable that their hard-earned tax dollars are being 
used to underwrite the administrative costs of a foreign government and 
the salaries of foreign bureaucrats--all in a way that makes us less 
safe, all in a way that puts us in a precarious position we haven't 
faced since most of us were children.
  Our constituents are tightening their belts and making tough 
decisions about healthcare, education, and basic necessities. Yet we 
are being asked to finance the operational expenses of another nation's 
government.
  Madam President, we have a duty--a solemn duty, a sacred duty--to our 
constituents to ensure that their hard-earned money is spent wisely and 
ethically and, at a minimum, not in a way that makes them less safe, 
not in a way that paints a target on their back or an adversary with 
nuclear weapons. We certainly have a constitutional duty to prevent 
unnecessary escalation that could lead to catastrophic consequences. 
And we have a duty to uphold the will of the American people who very 
recently--just over 2 weeks ago--voted for a different President with a 
different foreign policy, one that works for the American people and 
not against them.
  Instead, as a final parting gift--and, yes, I use that word very, 
very euphemistically--the Biden administration wants to saddle the 
American people with a tab that they don't want, that they never agreed 
to, that they expressly rejected at the ballot box, and that they 
cannot afford.
  That is why I stand in full wholehearted support of Senator Rand 
Paul's joint resolution of disapproval to block this misguided, 
dangerous, reckless, wealth transfer to a corrupt foreign government. I 
call on all of my colleagues to do the same.
  We need to halt this dangerous path and give the incoming 
administration every tool to pursue a strategy that prioritizes peace 
and America's interests. The American people have spoken and 
resoundingly, with good reason, rejected the policies of this 
administration that escalate conflict and prolong wars.
  The American people deserve better. They should expect more. They 
strive and yearn for peace. Rand Paul's measure would help advance 
that. Doing nothing would impair it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Georgia.


                            U.S. Arms Sales

  Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, I rise not in response to the Senator from 
Utah or to address the matter being raised by Senator Paul but to 
address the resolutions that were debated previously with respect to 
U.S. policy in the Middle East.

[[Page S6667]]

  In 1982, as Israeli forces pursued the PLO deep into Lebanon, 
President Reagan was angered by what he viewed as excessive civilian 
casualties resulting from the Israeli bombardment of Beirut.
  Concerned by the suffering of innocent civilians and its impact on 
American diplomacy, not only did President Reagan personally call 
Israeli Prime Minister Begin and demand a halt to the bombing--and the 
bombing reportedly stopped within hours--but the American President 
then blocked the provision of cluster munitions to Israel out of 
concern that their use by the IDF was killing too many innocent people.
  President Reagan imposed conditions on the provision of U.S. arms, 
using leverage to influence the conduct of an ally. He took those steps 
to protect innocent life and to defend what he perceived to be 
America's interests. And Israel, faced by President Reagan's ultimatum, 
adjusted its policy to accommodate America's demands.
  The United States remained Israel's closest ally, and the world kept 
turning.
  This story is not a perfect mirror image for the agonizing situation 
we face today and have faced since the despicable Hamas attacks of 
October 7. Today, Israel faces a multifront assault by Iran and its 
proxies while the war in Gaza has devastated the territories and 
civilian population.
  But I tell this story to remind my colleagues that in the pursuit of 
America's national interests, to use the leverage that comes with the 
provision of arms, as President Reagan did in 1982, is not just 
sometimes necessary, it is expected and appropriate. The United States 
is and will remain Israel's closest ally. Our commitment to Israel's 
security is ironclad.
  But no foreign government is simply entitled as a matter of right to 
American weapons with no strings attached. No foreign government, no 
matter how close an ally, gets everything it wants whenever it wants, 
to use however it wants. It is entirely appropriate for the United 
States to insist that foreign powers use American weapons consistent 
with our interests, our values, and our laws.
  And to insist otherwise weakens American foreign policy and 
undermines our ability to protect the interests of the American people. 
And to impose conditions on the provision of certain weapons to an ally 
when necessary is not a betrayal of that alliance. It is the pursuit of 
our national interests. Again, President Reagan understood that in 
1982.
  So let's apply the principle to the present moment. In November of 
last year, I addressed the Senate on the war in Gaza in the aftermath 
of the October 7 attack, affirming Israel's right to defend itself, to 
wage war against and defeat its enemies. And I affirmed, as I do again 
today, America's enduring support for our ally.
  I also urged that Israel respect American requests to reduce 
unnecessary civilian casualties in Gaza, to provide safe passage for 
food and essential medical supplies, to clearly define Israeli 
objectives to present a credible plan for Gaza's future governance, and 
to prevent atrocities by Israeli extremists in the West Bank.
  These requests of the Israeli political leadership have been made not 
just by me and many others in the Senate but repeatedly by the 
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the President over 
the past year.
  That Israel take these reasonable and necessary steps has been and 
remains in America's national interests. No one in this body or the 
American Government has suggested that Israel lay down its arms and be 
overrun or that Israel does not have a right and, indeed, an obligation 
to defeat its enemies and defend its people. Rather, the United States 
has insisted that Israel's conduct of the war respect our interests and 
our values--the interests and values of Israel's closest ally.

  And yet, for the most part, this insistence has been ignored. The 
United States has been ignored, in part, because the Israeli Prime 
Minister is beholden to Cabinet Ministers in Mr. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, 
who insist there be no deviation from policies that are gratuitously 
brutal, even over American objections.
  We should be disgusted by the spectacle of Israeli extremists running 
amuck in the West Bank, sometimes with the protection of Israeli 
security forces, shooting and maiming goat herders and olive farmers 
and burning and seizing their land.
  And the American people are rightly horrified by the lack of 
sufficient concern for innocent Palestinian life that has left so many 
children unnecessarily dead in Gaza, without limbs, or riddled with 
shrapnel.
  As I said on the floor last year, no one should be naive to the 
inherent risk to civilians that comes with warfare in a place like Gaza 
against an enemy like Hamas. Tragically, horribly, fighting terrorists 
in a dense urban environment makes civilian casualties inevitable. Yet 
the evidence that force has repeatedly been applied with reckless 
disregard for the innocent is too credible for us to ignore. We are 
talking about precious, innocent children and other innocent civilians 
who might otherwise be alive or without grievous wounds today.
  These things aren't just horrific, they are inconsistent with 
America's national security interests. Yet we seem to have forgotten 
that we have the power to influence our ally's conduct and that we can 
do so without betraying our ally. It is often said that our efforts to 
influence close allies are best done in private and, where possible, 
done gently, and I agree. But in this case, that has not been 
sufficient nor have heartfelt public statements and harshly worded 
letters been effective.
  So what would President Reagan do? Judging by his actions 40 years 
ago, I think he would judiciously use the power that comes with our 
provision of weapons in order to shape Israel's conduct.
  Some have taken to the floor tonight to argue that holding up two or 
three arms sales today would have been an abandonment of our ally, 
leaving Israel naked and undefended in the face of Iranian aggression. 
That is nonsense.
  The question on the floor today was not whether to shut off military 
support for Israel. The resolutions we debated accounted for less than 
5 percent of American arms that will likely flow to Israel over the 
next 3 years, and most of the shipments debated will not even arrive 
until 2026 or 2027. Bipartisan American support for Israel's 
nonnegotiable right to exist and to defend itself is rock solid.
  Had these resolutions passed, however, perhaps Israeli politicians 
would have received the necessary message that has so far been 
disregarded, which is, yes, defend yourself; yes, defeat your enemies, 
but have mercy for the innocent, retrain your own extremists, and 
respect the interests of the United States.
  The realization that every shipment is not simply available on an 
unlimited basis with no strings attached might have resulted in changes 
to Israeli policy that would reduce civilian suffering and support 
America's regional and global interests as he believed it would when 
President Reagan used American power in 1982.
  I remain steadfastly committed to the United States-Israel alliance. 
And I also believe we must be willing to say no, even to our closest 
friends, when we believe it is in America's national interest.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                             S.J. Res. 117

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 117, the 
motion to proceed. And I rise as the chair of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee to relate to our colleagues why I am against this 
resolution and how we got to this vote.
  This body passed aid to Ukraine by a 79-to-18 bipartisan vote. It 
approved the necessary funding for Ukraine to be able to defend itself 
against Mr. Putin's aggression--Russia's aggression--and it allowed us 
with our coalition partners to be able to have a unified front against 
Russia's attempt to change borders by force.
  That legislation included the authority to the President to forgive 
and cancel debt. That is what President Biden did under the authority 
given to him by a 79-to-18 vote in this body. The President executed 
that authority and, yes, the Senate has the opportunity by a resolution 
to override that.
  But I would urge my colleagues to remember why we voted by a 79-to-18 
vote on this floor to help Ukraine.

[[Page S6668]]

Ukraine is the frontline in our defense for democracy. No one believes 
that Russia would stop if Ukraine were to fall with just Ukraine. We 
know that Russia has its eyes on Moldova and Georgia. We know the 
Baltic countries are very much in the eye of Russia.
  Poland is concerned, and Europe is concerned. It is in our national 
security interest to make sure that Russia's aggression in Ukraine is 
stopped and Ukraine's sovereignty is protected.
  Now, Russia is not alone in this. There is an alliance developing of 
autocratic States against our democratic systems of government. Russia 
is getting help from the People's Republic of China. They are getting 
direct help from North Korea. They are getting weapons from Iran. They 
are getting help from these autocratic partners.
  We are literally fighting for our democratic way of life. It is not 
just Europe that is of concern. If Ukraine were to fall, it makes it 
much more likely that the People's Republic of China would think that 
they could take over Taiwan and the West would just let them do that, 
and China could very well try to take that over by force. So there is a 
lot at stake here.
  Now, Ukraine is footing the burden. It is their soldiers that are on 
the battlefield. They are devoting 100 percent of their ability to the 
war effort, and they are asking us to help make sure that their economy 
can perform.
  So this debt relief goes to maintain their economy, to maintain their 
energy and agricultural sectors, and it would unlock IMF--International 
Monetary Fund--to Ukraine without cost to the American taxpayer.
  This debt relief makes sense from so many different points: to 
protect Ukraine's ability to keep its economy moving so they can pursue 
their defense of their nation, that we have an ally and friend that 
stops the aggression of Russia and says no to the alliance that is 
being formed against democratic states.
  It is a very small price for us to pay to maintain our democracy and 
to prevent the need for American soldiers fighting on foreign soil.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier this year, we passed a bipartisan 
national security supplemental that included crucial economic aid to 
Ukraine, which was structured as a forgivable loan. The Senate vote was 
overwhelming and bipartisan--79 to 18. That is because there is wide 
understanding on both sides of this aisle that support for Ukraine is 
an investment in our own national security interests, and that includes 
the economic support in that package, because while weapons are 
important, the costs of war are not just measured in arms, and the 
burdens are not only borne by the military.
  There are day-to-day government functions that must continue to 
support the war effort and for the sake of the very families and 
communities Ukraine is fighting for, and that includes work to defend 
and repair critical infrastructure, roads, bridges, energy, water; work 
to fight off cyber attacks and corruption, which threaten to weaken 
critical functions of government; work to support the energy and 
agricultural sectors that are crucial to Ukraine's economic stability, 
not to mention the global food supply. And there is work to make sure 
first responders can keep doing their jobs; mental health and support 
services can reach veterans, internally displaced families, and others 
in need; and teachers and schools can keep supporting kids, which are 
the future of every country.
  These investments are crucial to Ukraine's future and its resistance 
of Putin's invasion, and given how important those investments are, it 
is worth noting that these dollars came with three layers of oversight 
and audits to make sure they are being used as intended.
  But the vote today is a test of whether we truly understand what is 
at stake here, not just for Ukraine but for America's strength as a 
global leader. It is a test of how closely we stand by our allies in 
their times of need.
  Our adversaries are watching for us to fail. They are hoping to tell 
everyone: Watch out before you accept any help from the United States. 
They are hoping allies start doubting our promises. They are hoping 
other countries start second-guessing whether to build stronger ties 
with America. They are hoping we weaken our position in the world and 
weaken Ukraine in the process.
  We cannot let that happen. I urge my colleagues to send a message: 
American leadership is strong, and our support for our allies is 
unwavering. And it is in our own national security interest.
  I urge all of them to join me in opposing this joint resolution of 
disapproval.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, here we go again with the ``Ukraine First, 
America Last'' policy. Earlier this week, President Biden delivered a 
report to Congress informing us that he now intends to forgive or 
cancel $4.65 billion worth of U.S. loans to Ukraine.
  Now, you might ask yourself: When were these loans issued?
  Oh, about a month or two ago.
  Well, when does Ukraine have to pay back these loans that we are 
forgiving?
  Well, they made an agreement to start paying them back in 40 years. 
President Biden is forgiving loans that aren't due for 40 years.
  This makes a mockery of the entire charade that this is a loan. They 
should have just said it was a gift.
  A forgivable loan? It is not even a loan. It is not due for 40 years, 
and we are forgiving it now.
  These funds were provided by the American taxpayer in the form of 
loans with the expectation that they would be repaid. We are not going 
to wait any period of time. They weren't even going to be repaid for 40 
years, and we are forgiving them. That is a sick joke, and a sick joke 
on every American who has got a loan at the bank for their house, who 
has to pay their mortgage every month, and yet Ukraine is never going 
to have to pay their loans.
  It seems like this is ``Ukraine First, America Last.'' We have got a 
$36 trillion debt in our country. We are paying a trillion dollars in 
interest. We can barely keep up. We are not keeping up with all of the 
things we promised Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food 
stamps--all of the things that have been promised. We are $2 trillion 
short.
  So what do we do? We are just shipping billions to Ukraine. About 
$200 billion has been sent so far.
  Such blatant disregard of American citizens is unacceptable. The 
joint resolution of disapproval that I put forward, today, provides the 
Senate an opportunity to prevent the President from doing this--from 
canceling this debt, from making a mockery of the idea that it was ever 
a loan.

  We will not stand idly by as the President elevates the interests of 
a foreign country above our own.
  And let me remind President Biden that, due to his failed policies 
over the last 4 years, Americans across this country are struggling 
with their loans. Today, some 37 million Americans live under the 
poverty line, including 9 million children. Fifty percent of Americans 
say they are living paycheck to paycheck, and yet the concern is for 
the loans of a foreign country that will never be repaid, that were not 
even going to begin to be repaid for 40 years.
  This is an insult to every American who has a mortgage that they have 
to pay. Eight out of 10 Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year are 
unable to cover their future bills until their next paycheck arrives. 
Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, and we are shipping this 
money to a foreign country that will never be asked to repay it.
  In 40 years, if they were somehow gloriously successful again--40 
years from now--they are still not going to be asked to pay this. 
Americans are working two, sometimes three jobs just to make ends meet, 
and while millions of Americans work day in and day out to pay off 
their own personal loans, President Biden wants to forgive Ukraine's 
economic loans without any debate.
  This was rushed forward. I was fortunate enough to get 16 colleagues 
to allow this vote to happen. But they didn't want this vote to happen. 
They gave us a short window, and, boom, it is going to be gone. They 
don't want a discussion about how obviously insulting this is to every 
American to do this.

[[Page S6669]]

  The American people have been more than generous when it comes to 
supporting Ukraine. In the nearly 3 years of this war, Congress has 
appropriated nearly $200 billion in aid. For 3 years, the American 
people have been sold the lie that if we only send tens of billions 
more of their dollars to Ukraine, Ukraine will be able to push Russians 
out, secure the 2014 borders, and achieve victory in the battlefield.
  It won't happen. The President of Ukraine, the generals of Ukraine, 
the people who have followed this situation all agree: The war is at a 
stalemate.
  Trillions of dollars more will only lead to more carnage in the 
battlefield, and it won't achieve victory. These assertions were always 
farcical, as they failed to contend with basic battlefield realities.
  Despite massive assistance provided by the United States and others, 
Ukraine is no better off now than they were 3 years ago. It is arguable 
that their ability to negotiate, as they have lost more land to Russia, 
is actually that their leverage for negotiation with Russia is less 
than it was when the war began.
  In fact, Ukraine is now in a worse negotiating position because they 
have likely incurred hundreds of thousands of casualties and now face a 
critical manpower shortage. That shortage is becoming impossible to 
ignore, as Russia consolidates its gains and continues to make progress 
across eastern Ukraine.
  Americans may be surprised to discover that their aid has not, in 
fact, shifted the war in Ukraine's favor. They may also be surprised to 
learn that much of the money Congress sends to Ukraine isn't actually 
being used to support Ukraine's military.
  While American families struggle to put food on the table and keep 
the lights on, U.S. taxpayers are paying for the salaries of thousands 
of Ukrainian bureaucrats, their pensions. We are paying for their 
teachers.
  Do our teachers make enough money? Probably not. But I am guessing, 
if you ask an American teacher, should we be paying the salaries of 
Ukrainian teachers, you might get a debate.
  We are paying their healthcare workers' salaries, their first 
responders. We are buying seeds and fertilizer for their farmers. And 
we are bankrolling Ukrainian small businesses.
  A report conducted earlier this year found that 43 percent of small 
businesses in America were unable to pay their rent in full and on time 
in the month of April. Yet we are sending billions of dollars to 
Ukraine to subsidize their small businesses.
  A report by CBS News discovered that U.S. taxpayers are helping a 
Ukrainian knitwear company find new international customers overseas. 
Oh boy, we are helping Ukrainian businesses expand overseas.
  We don't even need independent journalists to highlight such 
absurdities. USAID bragged on their own website about how they provided 
funding for six Ukrainian fashion brands to participate in Paris 
Fashion Week. I am sure they will be glad that they won't be paying 
back any loans.
  This is what we are asking the American people to pay for--to send 
Ukrainian fashion brands to a Paris fashion show? I have never had one 
constituent in Kentucky come up to me and say: Please, send more money. 
We are fine in Appalachia. We are fine in rural Kentucky.
  I don't think there is anybody in Asheville, NC, today that is 
pleading for more good money to be sent to Ukraine.
  It is bad enough, but it is also impossible to ensure that this 
amount of money actually gets to the misguided priorities that have 
been set. The Government Accountability Office admits that there are a 
number of ways in which Federal Agencies could improve oversight and 
aid to Ukraine.
  It has been 3 years. Why hasn't the government approved the 
oversight? Well, because it is impossible to send so much aid to a 
country as quickly as we have and expect that there won't be waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  I forced the Senate to vote on a special inspector general for 
Ukraine, and the ``Ukraine First uniparty''--both sides of the aisle--
voted it down. Even with a special inspector general, it is nearly 
impossible to ensure oversight on this vast amount of money in such a 
short period of time.
  Adding insult to injury, Ukraine is consistently ranked as one of the 
most corrupt countries in the world. Transparency International ranked 
Ukraine 104th out of 180 countries in 2023, with respect to honesty and 
integrity, and also found that 23 percent of the public service users 
paid a bribe in the previous 12 months in Ukraine.
  And yet we give billions of dollars, and we have no special inspector 
general.
  And now in spite of all of this, President Biden wants to forgive 
over $4.6 billion in loans that the U.S. taxpayer provided under the 
auspices that they would be repaid.
  This lunacy is just another example of how the Washington 
establishment is completely out of touch with Americans. You ask 
Americans about this, they have got to pay their loans; they don't 
understand forgiving Ukrainian loans.
  The election earlier this month made it eminently clear that the 
American people are sick and tired of the status quo. They are sick and 
tired of business as usual in Washington, and they want their elected 
officials to deliver change.
  It is fitting that in the final months of this disastrous Presidency, 
Joe Biden caps off his foreign policy for the middle class by asking to 
cancel over 4.6 billion in aid, in loans, to Ukraine--once again 
prioritizing the interest of a foreign country at the expense of our 
own.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution to 
disapprove of the President forgiving this billions of dollars' worth 
of loans to Ukraine and put the American people first.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am not going to get into the debate 
before the floor, but I heard the city of Asheville referenced at the 
last debate from the gentleman from Kentucky, and I have to tell you, I 
am not happy with that. I sat here last week and tried to do a 
unanimous consent request to fund the Small Business Administration 
loan, and my colleague from Kentucky objected.
  But don't pretend like this debate tonight has anything to do with 
Asheville, NC, a town that just got drinking water 2 days ago. You want 
to argue this, don't argue it on the merits of something that you 
objected to me trying to accomplish last week for the city of 
Asheville.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Sometimes in Washington, memories get clouded and foggy, 
even after a week. The Senator from North Carolina will remember that 
he objected to aid in North Carolina. He objected to small business 
loans. He objected to them simply because they were paid for.
  I offered unanimous consent, and it was blocked by the Senator from 
North Carolina. I offered unanimous consent to immediately infuse more 
loans through the Small Business Administration for North Carolina that 
was hit hard by the flooding. The Senator from North Carolina blocked 
his own bill because I proposed that it be paid for by taking green 
energy boondoggle loans.
  So don't be tricked by any flimflammery or any sort of making up of 
history. The Senator from North Carolina last week blocked his own aid 
passage that I agreed to let go unanimously as long as it was paid for 
by taking some extra money from another part of the budget. Don't be 
fooled.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I understand we have about 7 or 8 minutes 
left. I may need to use all of them.
  Let's talk about tomfoolery. Let's talk about being disingenuous. The 
gentleman from Kentucky knows damn well that he proposed an amendment 
that would have actually caused the bill to fail.
  The gentleman from Kentucky also knows very well that the House has a 
posture that the disaster recovery bill has to be funded. The gentleman 
from Kentucky knows that this aid that I have tried to get to the House 
would have been fully funded. The gentleman from Kentucky also knows 
that I also support the amendment he offered, but he played the game 
that we play around here and tried to think that I wouldn't have the 
courage to stand up

[[Page S6670]]

against that garbage amendment because it was the right amendment at 
the wrong time.
  I yield, Mr. President, unless there is additional time and someone 
else wants to speak.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. It is very important that the truth be told about what went 
on with aid to North Carolina. I agreed to pass it unanimously as long 
as it was paid for.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President. Mr. President.
  Mr. PAUL. I won't be interrupted, Mr. President. I have the floor.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise for an--
  Mr. PAUL. I have the floor.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise--
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky has the 
floor.
  Mr. PAUL. I will not yield the floor.
  Mr. President--
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry--
  Mr. PAUL.--what has been said here is untrue.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order. The 
Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
  Mr. TILLIS. Is it the ruling of this Chair that it is out of order to 
make the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky has not 
yielded for an inquiry. The Senator from Kentucky still owns the floor.
  Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, it is important that the truth be told and 
that people aren't allowed to stand and lie without challenge.
  The bill last week to give immediate aid to North Carolina was 
objected to by the Senator from North Carolina. I agreed to let it go 
immediately by unanimous consent as long as it was paid for. The 
Senator from North Carolina objected.
  These are the facts. This is the Senate record. The people of North 
Carolina can read this in the Senate record. He objected to his own 
bill because he was annoyed that I had the audacity to say we have a $2 
trillion debt, and we should pay for things.
  We had $4 trillion worth of Green Energy New Deal boondoggle spending 
subsidies to big green energy company, big corporations. He objected to 
taking money from green energy boondoggle budgets and spending it in 
his own State. He objected to his own bill.
  So what I would say is: The truth is important. The facts are 
important. We have had a very important debate here, and there is a 
general philosophical debate about whether or not we should spend money 
in Ukraine or in our country.
  We have had flooding problems in Kentucky. I haven't met one person 
who suffered from this who didn't say it was more important to spend 
the money in Kentucky than Ukraine. It is a debate that is worth 
having. The decisions we make over here should be about prioritizing 
spending. Where do we spend it? Do we borrow it? Where do we spend the 
money? This is what it is about.
  And the fact that the Senator from North Carolina wants to rewrite 
history and say he didn't object to his own bill when he did is a lie; 
just simply untrue. Just simply untrue.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will suspend.
  The Senate is reminded that there are rules of decorum in the Senate. 
Let me read to you rule XIX:

       No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any 
     form of words, impute to another Senator or other Senators 
     any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.

  Mr. PAUL. Thank you. I would regain the rest of my time. How much 
time do I have left?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 6\1/2\ half minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PAUL. You said 6\1/2\ minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Total remaining.
  Mr. PAUL. This side of the debate which has--
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. PAUL.--30 minutes will relinquish the remaining time on our side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. First, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is to state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to understand the effect of the 
gentleman from Kentucky relinquishing time.
  Does that mean that I would need to continue debate until the time is 
over; or at the time that I finish speaking, will we go to a vote?
  Mr. PAUL. There is no more time left on our side.
  Mr. TILLIS. There is about 4 minutes left?
  Mr. PAUL. There is none.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TILLIS. There is 5\1/2\ minutes remaining?
  Mr. PAUL. But that is not what happened. I relinquished the time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. TILLIS. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. State the nature of your inquiry.
  Mr. TILLIS. Does the Senator from North Carolina have the floor?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina has 
the floor.
  Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  I have been accused of lying. I don't mind that. I mean, I am a 
politician. People do that every single day.
  But I believe that someone may be guilty of misleading this body 
about my position. So I am going to take a few minutes to explain my 
position. It may or may not coincide with the end of time set aside for 
debate.
  But our State motto is ``Esse Quam Videri.''
  Mr. Chair, may I have order?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will come to order. The 
Senators will take conversations outside the chamber.
  Mr. TILLIS. My state motto is ``Esse Quam Videri.'' That is Latin. It 
means ``to be rather than to seem.''
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, the gentleman from Kentucky suggests that 
I am against clawing back the Green New Deal and certain things that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed through 
reconciliation. Why would anybody with any experience in this body 
think that it wouldn't be one of the first things I would vote for when 
we have reconciliation? Right? How can anybody possibly suggest that I 
am against clawing back policies that were passed through 
reconciliation because I am going to need it to pay for tax reform when 
we pass reconciliation in the next Congress. So how can it--and I have 
said that we are going to claw back things, and we are going to pay for 
it.
  If you listen to the gentleman from Kentucky, he said I am against 
repealing that. Well, both can't be true, ladies and gentlemen. They 
just simply can't be true.
  I am for the very things--and I hope that the Senator from Kentucky 
knows I would be happy to cosponsor that bill. If I have it, I will 
tomorrow.
  But I don't play games in this Chamber. I actually fight, in this 
case, for the people of western North Carolina who are suffering. I 
will defeat any amendment to aid to North Carolina if it stands in the 
way. But I know a little bit about legislative procedure, ladies and 
gentlemen. And anybody in here who pays attention to how a bill becomes 
law should watch this.
  We could pass the SBA funding bill out of here because 99 out of 100 
Senators said it was OK. One didn't. Now we would like to think that 
the House would receive it and pass it out because we have a tradition 
of not funding disaster recovery bills, but we know the current 
majority won't do it.
  So anybody with a modicum of experience in legislative procedure and 
actually passing bills that get to the President's desk would know that 
it will have to be funded, and my colleague from the western North 
Carolina 11th District is working on a paid-for now.
  So if you really care about the people in North Carolina, if you 
really understand the legislative process, and you really understand 
the posture of the House, then you know--you absolutely know--that this 
bill will be paid for before it goes to the President's desk.
  Now, I have some people asking me why I am talking. Because I am 
going to get the final say here, and I am not

[[Page S6671]]

going to let anyone else talk before we have to go to a vote. So if you 
are wondering why I am going on, I am not going to play the game of 
somebody coming up--I am only equating what they said about me--that I 
lied.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, instead of relinquishing the time, unless I 
can be assured the minute I put this mic down we are going to go to a 
vote, then I have got to start quoting poetry or something because I am 
not yielding until time is out.
  So, Mr. President, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The gentleman may state the nature 
of his inquiry.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 7 minutes and 35 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. TILLIS. You said 7 minutes and 35 seconds?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, 7 minutes and 35 seconds.
  Mr. TILLIS. OK. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry of the lady from 
the State of Washington?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield back all the Democratic time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington yields 
back all time.


                             Vote on Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion to proceed.
  Ms. LUMMIS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Moran
     Mullin
     Paul
     Risch
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tuberville

                                NAYS--61

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Helmy
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Braun
     Vance
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call with respect to the Sooknanan cloture motion be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________