[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 29, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S725-S730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S SECURITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST ACT OF 2019--MOTION 
                          TO PROCEED--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
unfinished business.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1, a bill to 
     make improvements to certain defense and security assistance 
     provisions and to authorize the appropriation of funds to 
     Israel, to reauthorize the United States-Jordan Defense 
     Cooperation Act of 2015, and to halt the wholesale slaughter 
     of the Syrian people, and for other purposes.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, hundreds of thousands of Federal 
workers are, thank God, returning to work this week to tackle a backlog 
that has been building for over a month. Over that time, the U.S. 
economy suffered a loss of $11 billion, according to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office--$11 billion for the President's temper 
tantrum, including $3 billion that can never be recovered. That is an 
expensive temper tantrum. The individual costs are even harder than the 
big numbers.
  Who knows how many Federal workers missed a doctor's appointment or 
fell behind on their payments because they weren't getting their 
paychecks. Federal contractors will not get backpay and may have lost 
health insurance entirely during the shutdown. Senator Smith is working 
on legislation to fix that problem.
  While even Federal employees and contractors are returning to work, 
they still might be digging out of the hole that the Trump shutdown put 
them in. I hope this serves as a lesson to President Trump and all of 
my Republican colleagues--no more shutdown. We cannot repeat this same 
nightmare scenario in 3 weeks when the CR expires. We Democrats will 
not shut down the government. We hope President Trump has learned his 
lesson. He touched a very hot stove. We hope our Republican colleagues 
will join us, as they did last Thursday, to make sure there is no 
shutdown. Thankfully, I have heard several of my colleagues say that. A 
number of them, including some of the most senior Republicans, have 
said we shouldn't have another shutdown. So we look forward to working 
with you to avoid that in every possible way.
  The House and Senate conferees should strive, instead, to find common 
ground where it already exists and build from there. The good news is 
they begin with plenty to work with. Democrats and Republicans agree on 
the need for stronger border security measures at our ports of entry as 
well as the need for more humanitarian assistance. That is a good place 
to start.
  Plenty of column inches have been dedicated to the discussion of 
areas where Republicans and Democrats have friction, but several times 
over the past 2 years, Congress has come together to reach big 
compromises, including two budget agreements and a landmark Russia 
sanctions bill. The common theme of those agreements is that the 
President stayed out of the

[[Page S726]]

negotiations. Because President Trump gave Congress space to find a 
deal on our own, we were able to strike an accord. That is what we will 
need again if the conference committee is to succeed, because the 
President has no understanding of what the realities are in this Senate 
and in the House and no consistency in what he says one day and what he 
says the next. As I said, negotiating with President Trump is like 
negotiating with Jell-O.
  So let Democrats and Republicans, the House and Senate, come to an 
agreement, and my guess is we can avoid a shutdown.


                                 Huawei

  Madam President, on another matter, yesterday afternoon, the 
Department of Justice unveiled nearly two dozen charges against the 
Chinese telecom Huawei in two indictments--one for the evasion of 
sanctions on Iran and another for its attempts to steal sensitive 
intellectual property from T-Mobile in the United States.
  I am so glad the Justice Department announced these indictments 
yesterday. China has been flouting international sanction laws and, 
even worse, stealing IP and know-how for the last decade. State-
connected telecom giants like Huawei are an example of how China 
operates. They are not the exception. They are the rule in China.
  When China wants to supplant U.S. dominance in an emerging industry, 
it acts rapaciously. It steals. Our law enforcement needs to be 
especially vigilant with Chinese telecom companies such as Huawei and 
CTE, which intend to displace U.S. communications networks with their 
own 5G networks because those could give China access to all kinds of 
sensitive information. U.S. authorities should be prosecuting Huawei's 
criminal violations to the fullest extent of the law. I give the 
administration credit for having this suit go forward, but my message 
to President Trump now is this: Don't back down. While the Trump 
administration has shown signs of being tougher on China than either 
the Bush or Obama administration--which I commend them--President Trump 
has also tried the conciliatory approach, particularly at the moment 
when the administration is engaged in negotiations with the Chinese.

  Just last year, President Trump let ZTE, another state-backed Chinese 
telecom that violated trade sanctions, off the hook in the hopes of 
achieving concessions from China on North Korea that never 
materialized. In December, the President said he would ``certainly 
intervene'' in the Huawei case if he thought it were necessary to 
achieve a trade deal with China.
  President Trump, do not make the same mistake you made with ZTE by 
interfering with the Justice Department's prosecution of Huawei. The 
United States should not make any concessions unless and until China 
makes credible and enforceable commitments to end all forms of theft 
and extortion of American intellectual property, which is exactly what 
Huawei is accused of.


                             Koch Brothers

  Madam President, finally, a comment on the Koch brothers. I read a 
column with interest today in the Washington Post. The Koch network has 
been trying to rebrand itself as less partisan. They are saying: Let's 
bring us together. Let's work with both sides.
  That is a good instinct, but color me skeptical. The Koch brothers 
may sit out the Presidential contest, as they did in 2016, but their 
political arm, Americans for Prosperity, continues to support 
candidates who are divisive, who do not bring us together. Some of the 
ads you see, the very candidates they support, are dividing us. You 
can't, on the one hand, say you want to bring us together and use your 
political arm to tear us apart. Yet that is what the Koch brothers are 
doing.
  They support the kind of judges who agree with them on all the 
corporate stuff. They don't want regulation, but they are against 
voting rights. How does that bring us together? They are against 
immigrants. How does that bring us together? At the State level, the 
Koch brothers' network of affiliates continues to support so many 
different initiatives that divide us. Through support for shadowy think 
tanks and pseudoacademic institutions, the Koch brothers continue to 
fund studies that sow doubt about climate change and evangelize 
deregulation.
  It seems their highest priority is still to help the rich and 
powerful, no matter how divisive it is, as long as we can get our 
corporate taxes cut even further, cut the taxes for the wealthy, and 
stop the protections by preventing government regulations for average 
folks. As long as they do that, all this talk about coming together and 
supporting an occasional bill here and there doesn't mean much.
  I hope that this beginning of what the Koch brothers say spreads. I 
hope it is not just sort of a figleaf because they are getting such bad 
publicity, and America is moving so far away from what they believe.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, for weeks, Democrats repeated the same 
refrain: Open the government, and we will negotiate on border security.
  On Friday, the government was reopened. Now it is time for Democrats 
to honor their promise and work with Republicans to provide adequate 
funding to address the security and humanitarian crisis at our border. 
The next 3 weeks will be a test of Democrats' seriousness about 
legislating. Do they really want to work with Republicans and the 
President on solutions? Are they willing to actually negotiate, which 
involves both sides making compromises, or are they more interested in 
obstruction? That is the question before the House.
  Are they in Congress because they actually want to find solutions to 
challenges facing our country or are they here to score political 
points and oppose everything the President says or does? The answers 
should become pretty clear over the next 3 weeks. If Democrats meant 
what they said about negotiating on border security, we could produce a 
bill that will fulfill our responsibility to protect our borders. Make 
no mistake, it is a responsibility. Perhaps our greatest obligation as 
Members of Congress is to provide the funding and resources necessary 
to keep our Nation secure. No nation can be safe if it doesn't know who 
is coming across its borders.
  Right now, we are facing a security crisis at our Nation's border. 
Tens of thousands of individuals try to cross our southern border 
illegally every single month. Illegal drugs flow into this country 
through ports of entry and unsecured areas of the border. The holes in 
our border security leave us susceptible to illegal entry by gang 
members, human traffickers, drug dealers, terrorists, weapons 
traffickers, and more. The flood of illegal immigration has also 
created a humanitarian crisis. Individuals attempting the journey to 
come here illegally are vulnerable to exploitation, illness, and abuse. 
Approximately, one out of every three women attempting the journey to 
the United States is sexually assaulted. Roughly, 70 percent of 
individuals become victims of violence along their way. Illness and 
other medical issues are also a serious problem. By failing to 
discourage illegal immigration, we are perpetuating this humanitarian 
crisis.
  I hope, over the next 3 weeks, Democrats will honor their promise and 
come to the table on border security legislation in a real way, ready 
to engage in genuine negotiation and compromise so we can really 
address this crisis at our border.


                                  S. 1

  Last night, we moved to debate on a package of four bills related to 
U.S. policy in the Middle East. The Senate attempted to consider these 
bills earlier this month, but Democrats inexplicably chose to block 
these bipartisan pieces of legislation on three different occasions--
three times. I am hopeful their decision last night to finally support 
consideration of these bills is a good sign that they are ready to turn 
to legislating instead of politicking.
  The bill package before us this week addresses a number of key 
issues.

[[Page S727]]

First, it will further strengthen our relationship with Israel, our 
closest ally in the Middle East. It authorizes 10 years of military 
assistance funding for Israel and reaffirms our commitment to ensuring 
that Israel has better weapons and equipment than its enemies. It will 
also foster increased technological cooperation between Israel and the 
United States to support the security of both our countries.
  This legislation will also strengthen our relationship with another 
important ally of ours in the Middle East, and that is the Kingdom of 
Jordan. At a time when Jordan is facing security and humanitarian 
challenges stemming from the conflict in Syria, it is particularly 
important that we reaffirm our commitment to this key ally. This 
legislation will also help hold accountable individuals who supported 
the atrocities of the Assad regime in Syria. It directs the Treasury 
Department to investigate whether the Central Bank of Syria launders 
money for the Syrian Government. Finally, this legislation will protect 
the rights of State and local governments to decline to do business 
with entities that have chosen to boycott Israel.
  I am glad we finally moved on to these important bills, and I look 
forward to voting for their final passage, hopefully, in the very near 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today with 
a sense of great disappointment--disappointment in what my colleague, 
the senior Senator from Florida, and the Republican leader have done 
with the bill before us today. They have taken a bill that had broad 
bipartisan support--maybe unanimous bipartisan support--and tried to 
turn it into a political weapon. In the process, they are doing a great 
disservice to the American people and to all of us who value the 
tradition of strong, bipartisan support for our friend and ally Israel.
  I am a cosponsor of the original bill, S. 2497, entitled the ``United 
States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018.'' It is a 
bill to codify the memorandum of understanding between the United 
States and Israel. It was forged under President Obama and provides 
Israel with $38 billion in security assistance over the next 10 years. 
This includes $33 billion in foreign military financing funds to Israel 
and $5 billion in missile defense assistance for the Iron Dome, David's 
Sling, and Arrow 3.
  That is a lot of money when you consider the many priorities we have 
here at home and abroad. In fact, more than one-half of our entire 
global foreign military financing--the security assistance we provide 
to all of our partners and allies around the world--goes to Israel. In 
my view, that is an important investment. It is an important investment 
to support our friend and our democratic ally Israel from the many 
threats it faces in a very dangerous neighborhood--threats from Iran, 
Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and many others.
  We need to make sure Israel maintains a strong military edge to 
defend itself, and that is why there was strong bipartisan support for 
that original bill. But then the Republican leader took a bill with 
broad bipartisan support for Israel and added a provision designed to 
retaliate against American citizens who express their disagreement with 
certain policies of the Government of Israel by participating in 
certain boycott activities. Specifically, the Senator from Florida 
added a provision that encourages States throughout the country to pass 
laws to punish American citizens who choose to protest the settlement 
policies of the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu by either 
boycotting products made in Israeli settlements in the West Bank or by 
not otherwise engaging in commerce with such settlements.
  I want to make this clear. While I disagree with some of the policies 
adopted by the Netanyahu government in Israel, I do not--I do not--in 
any way support a boycott as a method of expressing those 
disagreements. Let me be equally clear. I will fiercely defend the 
constitutional right of any American citizen to express his or her 
views in such a peaceful way if they so choose, just as I would support 
the right of every American to engage in other political boycotts to 
peacefully express their political views without fear of being punished 
by their government.
  The Senator from Florida and apparently the Republican leader want to 
use the power of the State to punish American citizens who disagree 
with them on this issue. It is right here in the bill. Let me read some 
of the relevant parts of the bill that is before us today: A State may 
adopt and enforce measures . . . to restrict contracting by the State 
for goods and services with any entity that . . . knowingly engages in 
. . . boycott activity . . . intended to limit commercial relations 
with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or Israeli-controlled 
territories for purposes of imposing policy positions on the Government 
of Israel.
  How does this new provision encourage States to retaliate against 
American citizens? It is pretty clear from that language. It encourages 
States to pass laws to deny citizens the right to bid on any State 
contract unless--unless--those citizens sign an oath stating that they 
do not or will not engage in any boycott of Israel, including any 
boycott related to the sale or purchase of goods or services from 
Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
  Think about that. Let's say you are an American citizen living in my 
State of Maryland. Let's say you own a computer consulting business, 
and you happen to disagree with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's 
government policy of expanding settlements on the West Bank near the 
city of Bethlehem, and you want to express your opposition to that 
policy. Let's say you choose to protest that policy by deciding that 
you will not provide your services to businesses located in those 
settlements on the West Bank. If you did that, you would be prohibited 
by these State laws from bidding on a contract to provide computer 
consulting services to a Maryland State agency. Think about that. You 
may run the best computer consulting business in the State of Maryland, 
but if you don't sign an oath renouncing your right to engage in a 
boycott, you cannot win any contract with the State. In other words, 
even if you were the best, most qualified bidder, you would be 
disqualified from winning that State contract because of your peaceful 
political activity, having nothing to do with your ability to fulfill 
the contract. Does that sound unconstitutional? Yes, it is blatantly 
unconstitutional. And guess what. That is what two Federal courts have 
already concluded about State laws that already do what Senator Rubio's 
bill is proposing. I am going to review those decisions in a moment, 
but before I do, let me respond to the very flimsy defense the senior 
Senator from Florida and others have offered to try to justify this 
effort to punish free expression.

  Here is what Senator Rubio tweeted: ``Opposition to our bill isn't 
about FREE speech. Companies are FREE to boycott Israel. But local & 
state governments should be FREE to end contracts with companies that 
do.''
  This reflects a profound misunderstanding of the First Amendment. It 
turns the First Amendment on its head. It is like saying to our fellow 
Americans: You are free to peacefully express yourselves however you 
want, but the government is then free to use the power of the State to 
punish you for doing so. You are free to express your political 
opinions, but if we don't like what you say, the State is free to pass 
laws to prevent you from doing any business with the State.
  That is State-sponsored discrimination against disfavored political 
expression.
  I would remind my colleagues that the First Amendment is not designed 
to protect the government from its citizens; it is designed to protect 
citizens who may engage in unpopular speech from retaliation by the 
government.
  What if a State passed a law to penalize gun control advocates who 
boycotted stores that sold semiautomatic weapons? What if a State 
retaliated against anti-abortion activists who

[[Page S728]]

boycotted health clinics that provided abortion services? We would all 
agree that is blatantly unconstitutional.
  Senator Rubio's proposal and the proposal advanced by the Republican 
leader is a textbook example of why we have a First Amendment.
  I have heard others defend this measure by saying: ``It is simply a 
law to boycott the boycotters.'' That is a cute slogan but, again, 
shows a stunning ignorance of the First Amendment.
  Yes, any of us as individuals can always decide to boycott those 
whose boycotts we disagree with. Each of us as individuals is free to 
boycott those businesses that choose to boycott Israeli settlements in 
the West Bank, but that is not what this bill does. This bill calls 
upon States to use the power of the State, to use the power of 
government to punish peaceful political actions that we don't like. 
Again, that is patently unconstitutional.
  That is the conclusion reached by two Federal courts that struck down 
the kinds of State laws Senator Rubio and others seek to promote.
  In Kansas, a Federal judge blocked the enforcement of a State law 
requiring any State contractor to submit a written certification that 
they are ``not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel.''
  In the Kansas case, a woman who served as a public school math 
teacher for 9 years was barred from participating in a State-sponsored 
teacher training program because she refused to sign a certification 
that she wasn't participating in a boycott of Israel.
  The court found that the anti-boycott certification requirement was 
designed to suppress political speech and was, according to the court, 
``plainly unconstitutional.'' In his opinion, the judge wrote: ``The 
Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to 
participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.'' 
That is what the Federal district court judge stated.
  In Arizona, a Federal court blocked a State law requiring contractors 
to certify that they will not boycott Israel, finding, again, that the 
law violates the right of free speech.
  In this case, an attorney contracted with the Arizona State 
government to provide legal services to help individuals in prison. 
Because of his political views, the attorney refused to purchase goods 
from businesses supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank. 
Because he would not submit to a written certification that he wasn't 
boycotting Israel, he was barred from contracting with the State to 
provide legal services.
  In this Arizona case, the court held that ``a restriction on one's 
ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel 
unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to 
engage in a boycott. The type of collective action targeted by the 
[law] specifically implicates the rights of assembly and association 
that Americans and Arizonans use `to bring about political, social, and 
economic change.' ''
  There are a number of other challenges to laws requiring government 
contractors to certify they are not boycotting Israel or Israeli 
settlements on the grounds that they violate American's fundamental 
right to free speech--a right that Americans have even when their 
speech is not supported by a majority of us. That is the whole purpose 
of the First Amendment.
  In Texas, there are two pending First Amendment challenges to a law 
requiring State contractors to certify they will not boycott Israel or 
its settlements. In the first Texas lawsuit, four individuals were 
required to choose between signing a certification that they are not 
participating in a peaceful boycott or losing income and other 
professional opportunities. These individuals include a freelance 
writer who lost two service contracts from the University of Houston; a 
reporter who was forced to sign the certification against his 
conscience in order to keep his job; and a Ph.D. candidate at Rice 
University who was forced to forfeit payment for judging at a debate 
tournament. It caused a student at Texas State University to forgo 
opportunities to judge high school debate tournaments.
  In the second lawsuit, a Texas speech pathologist who had worked with 
developmentally disabled autistic and speech impaired elementary school 
opportunities for 9 years was fired because she refused to sign an 
addendum to her contract renewal saying she would not boycott Israel or 
Israeli settlements.
  In my home State of Maryland, a software engineer is challenging an 
executive order requiring contractors to certify in writing that they 
are not boycotting Israel or its settlements. In that case, the 
individual was barred from bidding on government software program 
contracts because he would not sign such a certification.
  These laws are blatantly unconstitutional.
  Let me speak briefly to a recent court decision in Arkansas in which 
a Federal district court judge ruled in favor of a State law 
prohibiting Arkansas from contracting with or investing in individuals 
or firms that boycott Israel or its settlements.
  This district court decision is destined for the dustbin of history. 
I am not sure any Senator on either side of the aisle wants to be 
associated with its holding.
  It concludes that a boycott ``is not speech, inherently expressive 
activity, or subject to constitutional protection.'' The banner right 
there on page 9 of the judge's opinion reads: ``A Boycott is Neither 
Speech Nor Inherently Expressive Conduct.'' In other words, according 
to that district judge, States can pass laws banning or penalizing 
boycotts they don't like.
  Years ago--and it was many years ago--as a college student, I was 
active in the movement to get companies to divest from South Africa and 
boycotting companies that did business with the apartheid regime in 
South Africa. Under the Arkansas court decision, a State could pass a 
law that would ban that conduct or would at least penalize me if I 
wanted to do business with the State as a sole proprietor and sought 
State contracts.
  There is no doubt that the Arkansas decision will be overturned. The 
Supreme Court explicitly held in the case of the NAACP v. Claiborne 
Hardware that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in 
a boycott for political purposes. The judge in the Arkansas case 
attempts to narrow that NAACP holding in a way that is clearly 
inconsistent with First Amendment protections. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to read all three Federal district court 
decisions from Kansas, Arizona, and Arkansas.
  As I said earlier, I do not support the boycott of Israel as a means 
of pressing the Netanyahu government to change some of its policies. 
There are much better ways. We have to try to encourage our friend and 
ally to change some of the policies they disagree with.
  Here is what I predict: I predict that the boycott movement will 
continue to grow for a number of reasons. At the top of that list is 
the fact that the Trump administration's actions, and inactions, are 
adding oxygen to the boycott movement.
  To start, the Trump administration has abandoned any pretense of 
trying to prevent the expansion of Israeli settlements in new parts of 
the West Bank. There has been a big jump in the number of tenders and 
settlement plans since President Trump took office. In fact, our 
Ambassador there, Ambassador Freidman, has been a vocal cheerleader for 
additional settlements in new areas on the West Bank. In doing so, the 
Trump administration has abandoned what has been a long-held bipartisan 
position of the U.S. Government. Here are a few statements from 
Presidents of both parties over the last 40 years:
  President Ronald Reagan, in 1982, said that ``settlement activity is 
in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the 
confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly 
negotiated.''
  President H.W. Bush, in 1990, said: ``The foreign policy of the 
United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in 
the West Bank or in East Jerusalem.''
  President Clinton, in 2001, said that ``the settlement enterprise and 
building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one 
day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo 
commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.''
  President George W. Bush, in 2002, said: ``Israeli settlement 
activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end 
through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries.''

[[Page S729]]

  Finally, President Obama, in 2009, said: ``The United States does not 
accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This 
construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to 
achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.''
  So there you have a continuous line of bipartisan Presidents, 
Republicans and Democrats, expressing U.S. policy on the issue of 
settlements. The provision before us today in this bill directly 
contradicts this long-stated U.S. policy by drawing no distinction 
between someone boycotting businesses located in the State of Israel 
and someone boycotting businesses located in settlements in the 
territories. In other words, the provision before us--and the State 
laws it promotes--supports the same penalty for those who boycott 
commerce with a business in Tel Aviv as it does those who boycott 
commerce with businesses in the settlements, including outposts that 
may be illegal even under Israeli law. This provision before us erases 
an important distinction in American policy that has been endorsed by 
Presidents of both parties.
  One of the reasons for discouraging settlements and outposts in new 
areas is to preserve the option of a two-state solution--an option that 
has previously been supported by Presidents of both parties, as well as 
pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC, J Street, and others. It is a 
demographic reality that in order to ensure a Jewish state that is 
democratic and provides equal rights to all its citizens, there must be 
a two-state solution.
  Such a solution should come about through a negotiated settlement 
between the parties--between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We all 
know that dysfunction and obstruction on the Palestinian side has been 
one obstacle to reaching an agreement, but that does not justify 
changing the status quo on the ground by adding settlements in new 
areas that will make a two-state solution impossible.
  Second, the Trump administration, under the guidance of the 
President's designated Middle East Senior Adviser, his son-in-law Jared 
Kushner, has embarked on an undisguised effort to crush the 
Palestinians by revoking all U.S. humanitarian assistance. Here we are, 
authorizing $38 billion for U.S. military support for Israel--something 
I strongly support and am a cosponsor of--but at the same time, the 
Trump administration has eliminated humanitarian and other assistance 
to help the Palestinian people, many of whom are living in horrible 
conditions. The Trump administration has eliminated assistance that 
helps provide medical care, clean water, and food to hundreds of 
thousands of vulnerable Palestinian children and families. Much of this 
assistance is provided by organizations like Catholic Relief Services 
and the Lutheran World Federation.
  President Trump has also eliminated $25 million in U.S. support to a 
network of six hospitals in East Jerusalem, support the Congress 
explicitly protected under the Taylor Force Act. In doing this, he 
gutted funding for the main hospitals providing cancer treatment for 
patients in the West Bank and Gaza and kidney dialysis for children. 
These hospitals include Lutheran Augusta Victoria Hospital, the 
Anglican St. John of Jerusalem Eye Hospital, and the Catholic St. 
Joseph Hospital--American-founded institutions that fall under our 
American Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program.
  The Trump administration has eliminated support for those programs, 
but the effort to crush the Palestinians into submitting to a one-sided 
agreement will never work. President Trump and Jared Kushner apparently 
think this is just another real estate deal where you turn off the 
water and electricity to force your tenants out. Instead, these actions 
by the Trump administration will only add fuel to the boycott movement 
because many people will see no other vehicle for expressing their 
views.
  Finally, to the senior Senator from Virginia and others supporting 
this provision, nothing--nothing--will motivate Americans to exercise 
their rights more than efforts to suppress them. Trying to suppress 
free speech--even unpopular speech, even conduct we don't support here 
and I don't support--will only add momentum.
  I will end where I started. It is a really shameful and disappointing 
day when the sponsors of this legislation took a bill demonstrating 
strong bipartisan support for Israel, for our friends and allies who 
share our commitment to democracy and share other values we hold dear--
some Senators took that bill and used it as an attack on the 
constitutional rights of American citizens who may want to peacefully 
demonstrate their opposition to some of the Netanyahu government's 
policies, not in the way the Presiding Officer would choose, not in the 
way I would choose, but in a way they have a right to do as American 
citizens.
  In making these changes to the bill, the sponsors are sabotaging what 
was a bipartisan bill to support our friend and ally Israel and, in the 
process, strengthening the very boycott movement we seek to oppose. 
That hurts Israel, that hurts the United States, and it is a really sad 
day in the U.S. Senate when we take something that we have all agreed 
on and decide to use it to attack the constitutional rights of American 
citizens with whom we may disagree. I am sorry it has come to this 
point. I hope my colleagues will think about this as we move forward in 
this debate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                                  S. 1

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, Senate Democrats 
finally dropped their filibuster of S. 1, the Strengthening America's 
Security in the Middle East Act. It took 24 days and 4 cloture votes, 
but enough of my Democratic colleagues have now voted to advance this 
legislation concerning America's role in the world.
  As I mentioned before, the bill would reaffirm our Nation's 
commitment to Israel's security through military assistance and 
cooperative missile defense, as well as loan guarantees. It would 
deepen our ties of strategic cooperation with Jordan, as the security 
and humanitarian ramifications of the Syrian civil war continue to take 
their toll, and the legislation also includes the Caesar Syria Civilian 
Protection Act, which would hold accountable those who have enabled and 
carried out the butchery of the Assad regime.
  But I would like to take a few moments this morning to discuss an 
amendment that I plan to propose as well. The amendment I plan to 
propose would expand on the legislation and take a further step to 
emphasize the need for American leadership in our troubled world, 
particularly with respect to our ongoing fight against al-Qaida and 
ISIS in Syria and Afghanistan. My amendment would acknowledge the plain 
fact that al-Qaida, ISIS, and their affiliates in Syria and Afghanistan 
continue to pose a serious threat to us here at home. It would 
recognize the danger of a precipitous withdrawal from either conflict 
and highlight the need for diplomatic engagement and political 
solutions to the underlying conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan.
  We have seen the costs of a precipitous withdrawal before in Iraq, 
and in Afghanistan, we have seen the downsides of telling the enemy 
they can just wait us out; we will be gone on a date certain.
  My amendment would also urge continued commitment from the U.S. 
military and our partners until--until--we have set the conditions for 
the enduring defeat of these vile terrorists. This measure would 
reflect the conclusions of our Nation's military and national security 
professionals. It would speak directly to our allies and reassure our 
local partners who are doing the bulk of the fighting against a shared 
enemy.
  Simply put, while it is tempting to retreat to the comfort and 
security of our own shores, there is still a great deal of work to be 
done, and we know that left untended, these conflicts will reverberate 
right here in our own cities.
  We are not the world's policemen, but we are the leader of the free 
world, and it is incumbent upon the United States to lead, to continue 
to maintain a global coalition against terror, and to stand by our 
local partners who are

[[Page S730]]

engaged in the daily fight against the terrorists.
  My amendment would further condemn Iran for its hampering of 
diplomatic efforts and its destabilizing work throughout the region. It 
would call for greater consultation with the United States' allies and 
partners in the region, especially Israel, with regard to future 
stability we seek in a critical region, and it would reiterate the 
importance of the administration's consulting and coordinating with 
Congress on its long-term strategies for success in these struggles, 
including a thorough accounting of the risk of withdrawing too hastily.
  I am glad that, after needless political delays, our Democratic 
colleagues finally allowed a first procedural vote on this legislation.
  I am proud to support its provisions that concern Israel, Jordan, and 
Syria, and I will be proud to offer this amendment so the Senate can 
speak equally clearly on the fight against al-Qaida, ISIS, and other 
bad actors that needs to continue in both Syria and Afghanistan.


                                 H.R. 1

  Mr. President, on a totally different matter, this week Democrats in 
the House are beginning the committee process for a bill they are 
saying is their party's signature priority for this Congress--their 
signature priority. They are so focused on this legislation that they 
have given it the ceremonial designation of H.R. 1--their top priority.
  I think it more accurately could be described another way: the 
``Democratic Politician Protection Act.'' This sprawling proposal--
sprawling, comprehensive proposal--is basically the far left's entire 
Christmas wish list where our Nation's political process is concerned.
  What would it do? It would pile new Washington-focused regulations 
onto virtually every aspect of how politicians are elected and what 
Americans can say about them.
  My Democratic friends have already tried to market this unprecedented 
intrusion with all the predictable cliches: ``restoring democracy,'' 
``for the people.''
  Really? The only common motivation running through the whole proposal 
seems to be this: Democrats searching for ways to give Washington 
politicians more control over what Americans say about them and how 
they get elected. It is an attempt to rewrite the rules of American 
politics in order to benefit one side over the other.
  I expect I will be talking about the ``Democratic Politician 
Protection Act'' here on the floor for a long time, but I wanted to 
just take a few minutes today to give my colleagues a quick tour--just 
a quick tour through a few of its components.
  To begin with, Democrats want to make the Federal Elections 
Commission a partisan institution. Since Watergate, the FEC has been a 
six-member body. Neither party gets more than three seats--neither 
party. After all, the reason for that is this is a Commission with the 
sensitive duty of regulating Americans' speech--Americans' speech about 
politics and campaigns themselves.
  The FEC should not be a weapon that one political party can wield 
against its rivals, but the legislation the Democrats are moving 
through committee would throw away--throw away--the bipartisan split. 
It would reduce the FEC to a five-member body and--listen to this--let 
sitting Presidents pick the majority--let sitting Presidents pick the 
majority. Obviously, this is a recipe for turning the FEC into a 
partisan weapon.
  Democrats also empower the newly partisan FEC to regulate more of 
what Americans can say. That 3-to-2 FEC would get to determine what 
they subjectively see as ``campaign related,'' a new vague category of 
regulated speech.
  There would also be new latitude to decide when a nonprofit's speech 
has crossed that same fuzzy line and subsequently force the publication 
of the group's private supporters.
  All of this appears to be custom built to chill the exercise of the 
First Amendment and give Federal bureaucrats and the waiting leftwing 
mob a clearer idea of just whom to intimidate.
  And this just scratches the surface of this proposal. The House 
Democrats are also eyeing an expensive new set of taxpayer subsidies 
for political campaign consultants. They want a new six-fold government 
match for certain types of political contributions--a new federally 
funded voucher program to line politicians' pockets with even more 
taxpayer dollars, plus--listen to this. That wasn't enough--taking our 
tax money to spend on attack ads and bumper strips and the like. Listen 
to this: 6 additional days of paid vacation for any Federal bureaucrat 
who decides they would like to hover around a polling place while 
Americans cast ballots.
  So the new taxpayer subsidies don't even pass the laugh test, but 
other aspects of the bill are even more disturbing. Perhaps most 
worrisome of all is the unprecedented proposal to federalize our 
elections, giving Washington politicians even more control over who 
gets to come here in the first place.
  Hundreds--literally hundreds--of pages are dedicated to telling 
States how to run their elections, from when and where they must take 
place to the procedures they have to follow, to the machines they have 
to use.
  Democrats want to import the inefficiencies of State and Federal 
bureaucracy to ballot boxes and voter rolls, while making it harder for 
States and localities to clean inaccurate data off the voter rolls, 
harder to remove duplicate registrations, ineligible voters, and 
errors, and harder to check every box Washington Democrats demand 
before allowing you to pick your representatives.
  Provision after provision would make it easier for campaign lawyers 
to take advantage of disorganization, chaos, and confusion. Yet the 
proposal does practically nothing to combat the real live voter fraud 
that does happen right before our eyes.
  It is suspiciously silent on the murky ``ballot harvesting'' 
practices that recently threw North Carolina's Ninth Congressional 
District into total chaos. There are pages and pages rewriting election 
law but nothing on this actual problem, perhaps because similar 
practices are perfectly legal in California--perfectly legal--where the 
Democratic Party made big gains in the House just last November.
  So like I said, this has just been an introductory tour I am giving 
this morning--just an introductory tour. This sprawling power grab 
clocks in at 570 pages--570 pages. Seemingly every one of these pages 
is filled with some effort to rewrite the rules to favor the Democrats 
and their friends.

  I have to say this: Our colleagues across the Capitol know what they 
are after. So I am going to continue to shed light on these far-left 
proposals many mornings. I want to make sure the American people 
understand what this is all about. I want to assure the American 
people, right from the outset, that my colleagues and I will fight to 
prevent this one-sided power grab. It may pass the House, but not the 
Senate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________