[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.
____________________