[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 30, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S756-S763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) 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.

  Pending:

       McConnell amendment No. 65, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the United States faces continuing threats from 
     terrorist groups operating in Syria and Afghanistan and that 
     the precipitous withdrawal of United States forces from 
     either country could put at risk hard-won gains and United 
     States national security.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the majority 
leader has put before the Senate an important piece of legislation that 
reemphasizes our support for our allies in the Middle East, a very 
dangerous neighborhood that has a tendency to have others drawn into 
the neighborhood and into the fight. This legislation is comprised of 
four bills that have enjoyed bipartisan support, but we weren't able to

[[Page S757]]

get them done before the deadline at the end of the 115th Congress.
  Each of these four bills speaks directly to our national security 
interests in the Middle East and the support for our allies, 
particularly allies like Jordan and Israel. Every day, the State of 
Israel faces attacks from adversaries in the region, ranging from 
rocket and missile attacks to various explosives and foot soldiers--
namely, Hezbollah, the Iranian-financed and trained effort to try to 
exterminate the Jewish State.
  Israel is also enduring a different type of warfare, this time an 
economic war known as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions or the BDS 
movement. This campaign began in 2005 with more than 170 Palestinian 
nongovernmental organizations lobbying foreign governments, 
corporations, and academic institutions to sever all their ties with 
Israel. In the years since, this movement has expanded with 
participants seeking to isolate Israel both economically and 
politically.
  For some, their participation in the movement is simply a means of 
voicing their opposition to Israeli policies in the Middle East--
something that at least in the United States, they have every right to 
do under the First Amendment. For others, though, it is part of a 
strategy to isolate Israel politically and economically, either to 
delegitimize the State or to force it to redraw its map.
  State-sponsored BDS is incredibly harmful. We have seen support for 
BDS in capitals across Europe and, sadly, even in the United Nations, 
where the movement has been supported by countries with questionable 
humanitarian records, such as China, Russia, and Venezuela. A few years 
ago, the U.N. Human Rights Council called for the creation of a so-
called blacklist, naming companies that do business with Israel. Then, 
in a report in January, the U.N. Human Rights Council laid the 
groundwork for utilizing those databases to boycott those businesses, 
including at least 22 American companies.
  It is shameful, really, that the U.N. has chosen to fuel this 
movement by encouraging countries to boycott these businesses for what 
they claim are illegal activities, even though that argument has 
absolutely no bearing on either the United States or Israel. This 
effort to choke off Israel's economy by ending business ties with other 
countries could have serious impacts. We want to make sure State and 
local governments have the flexibility to avoid business with entities 
that support the BDS movement if they wish.
  One of the bills included in the legislation we are considering is 
called the Combating BDS Act, led by our colleagues Senator Rubio and 
Senator Manchin.
  Before I talk about what the bill does, I want to talk about what it 
does not do. Nothing in this bill restricts constitutionally protected 
speech. The law only impacts commerce-related or investment-related 
activities in the course of interstate or international commerce. The 
law does not punish companies for expressing their opposition to Israel 
or its policies or engaging in anti-Israel boycotts, for example.
  What this legislation does do, however, is clarify that State and 
local governments have every right to counter boycotts of Israel 
without fear that they are somehow violating Federal law. It assures 
those local governments and State governments that if they decide not 
to issue contracts or otherwise do business with entities that are 
boycotting or divesting from Israel, they have every legal right to do 
so. This is not a new concept, as 34 States have already enacted 
legislation to combat BDS.
  In 2017, Texas became the 18th State to pass legislation preventing 
tax dollars being used to support the boycott of Israel. When Governor 
Abbott signed that bill into law, he said, at the time, ``Anti-Israel 
policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions 
against an important ally.''
  I agree with his sentiment, certainly, and I believe it is time to 
provide all 50 States with the flexibility to make this decision to 
forgo any business that would harm the Jewish State.
  It goes without saying, but perhaps we should reiterate that Israel 
is an important and valuable friend and ally to the United States. It 
is one of the main stabilizing influences in the Middle East, an 
admittedly dangerous neighborhood, with aggressors on all sides wanting 
to literally wipe the State of Israel off the map. Of course, Israel is 
the only democracy in the Middle East. Ensuring its viability is 
critical to protecting U.S. interests abroad and here at home, and it 
is important that we support our closest ally in the region.
  Passing this legislation is a step to support Israel in their efforts 
to promote democracy in the Middle East. It takes a strong stance 
against the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic BDS movement and confirms our 
longstanding support of Israel. So I look forward to voting yes on this 
important legislation when the time comes, hopefully, very soon.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 273 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  S. 1

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, the Senate is currently debating the 
Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act. These are 
issues that we need to deal with, and it is really an important time to 
be talking about these issues.
  Really, there are four different things that this bill does.
  The first thing this bill does is to go further in providing security 
for Israel. I think virtually everybody in the Senate--there may be an 
exception or two--understands that Israel is our greatest ally in the 
Middle East, that Israel is a great source of intelligence for us as we 
try to work our way through problems in the Middle East, and that we 
rely on Israel for the partnership we have there in the things that 
Israel has done to study and test. Unfortunately, it has gotten to test 
in real situations military defense systems that will intercept things 
that are coming at us. As for the whole concept of a bullet that can 
hit a bullet, which some people thought was such a farfetched idea when 
President Reagan talked about it in the 1980s, Israel has proven one 
can do it with our help with regard to some of the technology. It is a 
partnership. Israel, unfortunately, is in a place that actually uses it 
to really intercept things that are coming at its citizens, and we 
found out it works.
  Security for Israel is security for the United States. In 2016, the 
United States and Israel signed a 10-year agreement on security 
assistance. This bill makes sure that the agreement will continue to 
have the full force of law. This legislation makes sure that we are 
giving some concrete aid to help Israel protect itself and to protect 
its own security.
  It also states very clearly that the policy of the United States is 
to ensure that Israel can counter and defeat threats when it faces its 
enemies. These are countries and other groups that don't like Israel. 
It is in their schools, their propaganda, and their commitments as 
nations to talk about the importance of Israel's not existing. In fact, 
some of them use maps on which Israel doesn't exist. If you were to 
look at the educational structures of some of Israel's neighbors, you 
would have to find something outside of what you learn in school to 
understand that there even is an Israel. Of course, there is Iran, 
Hezbollah, and Hamas. There are plenty of threats to Israel and to what 
Israel and the United States stand for.
  This part of the bill has previously passed both Houses of the 
Congress in slightly different forms. Now it is time for both Houses to 
pass it in the same form, to put it on the President's desk

[[Page S758]]

so as to further defend and define the things that are there. This is 
an important thing to do.
  The second part of the bill extends our cooperation between us and 
Jordan. We have no more faithful partner outside of Israel than Jordan. 
Frankly, that Israeli-Jordan border is critically important in how that 
cooperation works. We saw what happened when the Syrians looked for a 
safe place to go, and they went to Jordan. So we have done our best to 
ensure that Jordan can meet its humanitarian crisis based on what has 
happened in Syria. The economic stability of Jordan--believe me--is 
critical to the economic stability of the region. This bill also comes 
up with new ways to assist our allies when they face these 
unanticipated situations, and some of these situations last for a long 
time once they start.
  The third part of the legislation imposes sanctions on anyone who 
does business with the Government of Syria. The tragedy of Syria--the 
tragedy of the Syrian people, the chemical warfare of Bashar Assad, the 
barrel bombs that have been dropped in neighborhoods where innocent 
people live, those being children and senior citizens, and where people 
are trying to work every day--makes it clear that this is not a country 
that we should support.
  Actually, this portion of the legislation already passed the House by 
voice vote. We need to join the House with its commitment to continue 
to put pressure on Syria for Syria to meet the standards that 
civilization should require of those we deal with. We can't deal with 
Syria as long as it continues to act in the way it has been acting. It 
is something we know needs to be done. Hopefully, we will have a vote 
that will move this further toward reality.
  The fourth part of the package we are talking about is another thing 
that we can do in our support for Israel. There are groups of people 
who seek to target Israel through a series of boycotts and 
disinvestments and sanctions. These are usually not governments. They 
are individuals and institutions that are trying to harm Israel by 
boycotting any kind of business there.
  This anti-Israel activity is shameful. Those who promote it should be 
penalized. If they want to find out what it is like to not be able to 
trade, we should show them what it is like not to be able to trade. 
There are 26 States that have already passed legislation that allows 
them to deal in different ways with people who have either disinvested 
in or boycotted Israel. This bill provides some further definition of 
how they can move forward. Boycotting Israel is unacceptable. That is 
an important part of this package.
  All of these things need to be done, and this is an important time to 
send that message around the world--that not only our allies inside 
world can count on us but that our enemies in the world--our 
adversaries--can also expect us to do what we should do to support our 
allies, to defend freedom, to look forward as one amendment that has 
been offered will do that I have cosponsored to meet our commitments to 
NATO, to understand the continued dangerous nature of terrorist 
threats, to be thoughtful as we make decisions that move us further 
away from the safe havens that those threats have used in the past. 
This is an important time for us to send the very message that this 
bill and the proposed amendment do send. I look forward to seeing that 
message sent first by the Senate and then by the House, with then, 
hopefully, a signature from the President of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, I associate myself with the 
remarks that we just heard from the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri, who made some wonderful points about how important the bill 
that we are discussing on the floor continues to be. I appreciate his 
remarks and his leadership in this body.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss a different topic, 
which is that the government has reopened for 3 weeks. It is welcome 
news that President Trump has signed the stopgap funding measure and 
has fully paid furloughed Federal workers.
  There was an important workforce story that, I believe, was lost over 
the last couple of weeks during the shutdown--the story about the great 
news of the American economy. I certainly feel it at home. I know the 
Presiding Officer does in Utah, as do others, as we head home and see 
the ``help wanted'' signs that are up and the people who are looking to 
hire more people.
  This economy continues to fire on all cylinders. It is fueled, 
certainly, in part by what Republicans have been able to accomplish due 
to our policy, which is a pro-job policy of tax cuts and regulatory 
relief. Since the tax cut law that was signed a year ago, this economy 
has created 2.6 million American jobs in the last year. There is 
additional good news. I hear it in Wyoming, I heard it last weekend, 
and I expect to hear it this weekend. Americans are seeing that there 
is actually more money in their paychecks. There is more money for a 
couple of reasons. One is that wages are up, and the other is that 
taxes are down. Last month, there was a 3.2-percent year-over-year 
increase in average hourly wages. It matched October as the biggest 
increase since 2009. This wage increase was even stronger for 
production workers and non-managers, who saw an additional increase in 
year-over-year growth.

  The economy is working well. It is producing more jobs. For 9 
straight months now, there have been more available jobs in this 
country than individuals looking for work. Last week, we saw jobless 
claims drop to the lowest level since November of 1969--1969, the year 
we put a man on the Moon and the year of Woodstock. That was 50 years 
ago. It was the lowest since then. That is half a century.
  Now that this partial shutdown is over, I believe we need to refocus 
our attention on continuing to grow the economy, continuing to increase 
wages, and continuing to create more high-paying jobs for American 
workers. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to want to put the brakes on the 
economy. They are proposing higher taxes and expansive new regulations.
  We still have our work cut out for us. This excellent economic news 
underscores the need for us to work together to resolve our differences 
on important government funding legislation. Let's keep in mind that 70 
percent of the government is already funded all the way through the end 
of the fiscal year. Congress still has the job to do of funding the 
remaining 25 percent, and we need to do that by the middle of 
February--by February 15.
  By signing the 3-week continuing resolution, the President has given 
Congress the opportunity to come together to secure the southern border 
and to fund the government. During the shutdown standoff, Democrats 
repeatedly called for the President to reopen the government. They 
asked for 3 weeks so they could seriously negotiate, they say, on 
border security. Well, we now have a 3-week agreement, but time is 
going to tell whether Democrats are serious about solving this border 
security crisis and protecting the American people.
  A full-year spending deal has to include significant funding for a 
comprehensive border security package. We need more personnel, we need 
more technology, and we need more physical barriers.
  Security barriers are not the sole solution, but they are an 
essential part of the solution. That is why the last four Presidents 
built 650 miles of physical barriers along our 2,000-mile border with 
Mexico. Democrats, including Speaker Pelosi, voted for all this 
construction. In fact, the Speaker's home State of California has a 
physical barrier on the border with Tijuana, Mexico.
  Like his four predecessors, President Trump has listened to the 
security experts. Those four were President Obama, President Clinton, 
President George W. Bush, and President George Herbert Walker Bush. 
Four Presidents prior to President Trump listened to the experts.
  The experts today say we need 200 more miles of physical barriers 
strategically located where illegal traffic is surging. Despite the 
experts' support, Democrats have abruptly changed their position on 
barriers--changed completely--and they have denied the President the 
funding he has requested.
  Given that Democrats had supported 650 miles of the physical barriers 
we

[[Page S759]]

currently have, why are they opposing the next 200 miles, strategically 
placed where illegal traffic is surging? To me, it seems personal, and 
it seems aimed at President Trump. The American people expect us to 
solve problems not as Democrats and Republicans but as elected 
representatives of the people.
  The priority is to move full-year Homeland Security Department 
spending legislation through Congress that provides wall funding. 
Today, House-Senate negotiators are working to produce a compromise 
package that can pass with the other six bills and get it done by 
February 15. This conference committee--a committee of the two Houses--
will be meeting later today. Conferees may also add other provisions, 
including immigration reforms.
  Already, the President has offered to extend protections for the 
Dreamers, who were brought here as children, and immigrants whose 
temporary visas are expiring. So the President has offered an 
opportunity and a solution. These modest proposals are an immigration 
policy bandaid. Yet they could be the start of broader bipartisan 
immigration talks. From a policy perspective, I believe we are not that 
far apart.
  Americans agree that border security is important and that our 
immigration system does need reform. The country's safety and security 
must always come first.
  In my opinion, the President is open to reasonable changes to his 
plan. I believe he has been very willing to compromise. As long as 
Democrats define victory as blocking President Trump, however, on his 
key priority, everyone loses, and that includes Federal workers, the 
American people, and immigrants.
  The American people expect us to work together to resolve our 
differences. This isn't a winner-take-all political game. It never 
should be. Members of both parties must be flexible. Once Congress 
passes a full-year spending bill, we can move on to other priorities 
facing us as a nation.
  President Trump has incredible determination to build physical 
barriers where Border Patrol tells us they are most needed, and the 
President is right when he says walls work. Democrats supported 
construction before President Trump took office; they should support it 
now. The President has presented a path to compromise. Now Democrats 
should follow suit. All we need to succeed is cooperation. The best 
position on this negotiation highway is the middle lane. It is time to 
move to the middle and move forward on border security. By working 
together, we can produce a winning solution for America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Economic Growth

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Republicans started out the last Congress 
with one goal, and that is to make life better for American families.
  After years of economic stagnation in the Obama administration, too 
many families were struggling, wages were stagnant, and opportunities 
were few and far between. Republicans were determined to change that. 
We knew American workers and American businesses were as driven, 
creative, and innovative as ever. We also knew we were facing a lot of 
obstacles, including burdensome regulations and an outdated tax code 
that acted as a drag on economic growth. So we took action.
  We eliminated excessive regulations. We undertook historic reform of 
our tax bill to put more money in Americans' pockets and get our 
economy going again. The Tax Code may not be the first thing people 
think of when they think about economic growth, but it is actually one 
of the key factors that determine how well our economy functions. The 
Tax Code can encourage growth and job creation or it can make it 
difficult for businesses to even operate, much less grow and create 
jobs.
  Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was 
not helping our economy. Large and small businesses were weighed down 
by high tax rates and growth-killing tax provisions and all the 
regulatory and compliance burdens that came along with it. Our outdated 
international tax rules left America's global businesses at a 
competitive disadvantage in the global economy. That had real 
consequences for American workers.
  A small business owner struggling to afford the annual tax bill for 
her business was highly unlikely to be able to hire a new worker or 
raise wages. A larger business struggling to stay competitive in the 
global marketplace, while paying substantially higher tax rates than 
its foreign competitors, too often had limited funds to expand or 
increase investment in the United States.
  In December of 2017, after months of work, we passed a comprehensive 
reform of our Nation's Tax Code. We took action to put more money in 
American families' pockets immediately by cutting tax rates, doubling 
the child tax credit, and nearly doubling the standard deduction. Then 
we focused on improving the playing field for American workers by 
improving the playing field for businesses. We lowered tax rates across 
the board for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms, and 
ranches. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which up 
until January 1, was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed 
world. We expanded business owners' ability to recover the cost of 
investments they make in their businesses, which frees up cash they can 
reinvest in their operations and in their workers. We brought the U.S. 
international tax system into the 21st century so American businesses 
are not operating at a competitive disadvantage next to their foreign 
counterparts.
  Now we are seeing the results. Our economy is thriving. The economy 
grew at a robust 3.4 percent in the third quarter of 2018. There were 
312,000 jobs created in December, and more than 2.6 million jobs have 
been created since tax reform was signed into law. In 2018, we saw the 
most impressive job growth in the manufacturing sector since 1997, and 
2018 also saw 19 States reach record-low unemployment rates. This 
month, initial jobless claims dropped below 200,000 for the first time 
since 1969.
  In 2018, for the first time ever, the number of job openings 
outnumbered the number of job seekers. The Department of Labor reports 
that for 9 straight months, there have been more job openings than 
people looking for work. Think about that. There were more job openings 
than people looking for work for 9 straight months. Wage growth has 
accelerated, which was stagnant for so many years in the previous 
administration. Wages are now currently growing at the fastest rate 
since 2009. Small businesses had a record optimism in 2018, and the 
list goes on.
  In human terms, this means job seekers are finding it easier to find 
jobs--and not just any job but jobs they actually want. Fewer families 
are having to choose between repairing the car or paying for a child's 
braces; more individuals are able to put money away for their 
retirement; more families can afford to take that family vacation or to 
put money away for their kids' college.
  I am proud the work we have done is making life better for American 
families. Republicans are going to continue working to expand 
operations for Americans even further, and I hope our colleagues on the 
Democratic side of the aisle will work with us in order to make that 
happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Military Readiness

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to address the state of our 
military readiness. We live in an uncertain world, one that is perhaps 
more unstable than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
  As Russia increases its belligerence abroad and China invests 
millions in a systemic effort to undermine us, we find ourselves 
confronted by strategic competitors in new and in dangerous ways.
  For decades, violent extremism was our No. 1 security challenge. 
While the threat from global terrorism remains a priority, the United 
States and our ideals are now being challenged by nations seeking to 
reshape the globe according to their own design. This is a design that 
does not include the respect for freedom and democracy that

[[Page S760]]

we so deeply cherish. We must not stand idly by and let the rising tide 
of totalitarianism and autocracy sweep away the free global order that 
America and her allies have fought so hard to establish and to 
preserve. As Americans, it is up to us to meet these challenges head-
on. That effort begins in the Senate.
  Every Member of this body took an oath of office to support and 
defend the Constitution. There is no greater service to that oath and 
to the people we represent than to ensure the defense of the Nation. 
That is why, in the 116th Congress, we must build on past efforts and 
continue to make the necessary investments to our military. Doing so 
will maintain the safety and security of our Nation for decades to 
come.
  As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have 
become deeply familiar with the warnings that senior leaders at the 
Department of Defense have been delivering for years. They warn of 
shortfalls in munitions, soldiers who are short on training, pilots 
without adequate time in the cockpit, and facilities that are crumbling 
from underfunding and neglect. Yet, in politically charged times, that 
message sometimes gets muffled against the backdrop of other debates.

  I am concerned that some may not appreciate how serious the issue of 
readiness has become. While we took a significant step forward with the 
funding that was authorized in last year's National Defense 
Authorization Act, we cannot fix this issue in just a single year. The 
depth of the problem is reflected in the very metrics that the services 
use to measure their ability to fight.
  For my colleagues who may be skeptical about the need to make these 
investments in our military, I would point to the following facts.
  In the U.S. Army, the world's most distinguished ground fighting 
force, only 50 percent of brigade combat teams are fully trained--50 
percent.
  In the Navy, which protects our Nation against threats around the 
globe and defends free commerce on the world's oceans, only 30 percent 
of ship maintenance has been completed on time since fiscal year 2012. 
Because of this, ships have been unavailable for training and 
operations for thousands of days. This has made the already significant 
workload placed on sailors even worse, and it has increased its risk of 
a catastrophic mishap.
  In the Marine Corps--a critical expeditionary force that is essential 
for 21st century combat--limitations that have been imposed by reduced 
training hours and a fleet of amphibious ships that have been cut in 
half since 1990 have impacted its ability to fight a major conflict.
  In the Air Force, there are 30 percent fewer airmen and 39 percent 
fewer aircraft today than during Desert Storm. With an average fleet 
age of 28 years, our airmen have a tall task of defending against a 
range of cutting-edge threats.
  Across all services, the physical infrastructure, which comprises 
everything from soldiers' barracks to runways, has become badly 
dilapidated. An average of one in four military facilities receives a 
poor or a failing grade.
  This is unacceptable not simply because it means we may not be 
prepared to defend ourselves should we need to fight against a nation 
that seeks to harm us but because it is our frontline soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines who suffer the consequences when we do not 
address readiness. Tragically, it is our men and women in uniform, who 
serve day in and day out--on holidays and at home and abroad--who are 
put at risk if we do not make the collective decision in this body to 
support our military by providing them with the necessary funding. 
These are problems we can fix, but it is going to require us to work 
together to find common ground so as to ensure that America's military 
remains the most capable and professional force the world has ever 
known.
  As we debate today in the U.S. Senate, hundreds of America's sons and 
daughters are standing the watch on every continent while protecting 
and defending our way of life. They are stationed across oceans, in 
arid deserts, in dense jungles, and here at home. No matter what 
happens, we know that they are serving faithfully, each and every day, 
to safeguard our liberty and our freedom.
  It is time for us to show them that they are not alone and that the 
U.S. Senate has their backs. Let's keep working together so that this 
year will be remembered as one in which, despite our other differences, 
we will have agreed on this--that our men and women in uniform should 
have the resources they need to fulfill their mission and that we will 
continue to provide for a strong defense of the United States of 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, as most people are painfully aware, we 
just went through a 35-day government shutdown. It didn't work for 
anybody. I am here today to talk about a very simple way to keep these 
shutdowns from happening in the future. I am also here to talk a little 
bit about how it fits into the broader discussion we are having.
  What I am not suggesting is that we somehow leave the border security 
issue aside. It is a very important issue. We have to address it. The 
President has presented a reasonable plan. His plan is, actually, to 
rely on the experts to determine what kind of barriers ought to be 
along the border. His funding of $5.7 billion that he talks about for 
these barriers is to fund exactly the top 10 priorities of what the 
experts are saying, which are within the Customs and Border 
Protection's ``Border Security Improvement Plan.''
  Along with many other things, I think that makes sense. A structure 
alone--a barrier alone--is not enough. You have to have cameras. You 
have to have ways to see who is coming, and you have to have ways to 
respond to it. You have to have more Border Patrol, and you have to 
have more technology. He also has more drones in his proposal. He has 
screening at the ports of entry to be able to stop some of these drugs 
from coming into our communities--the cocaine, the crystal meth, and 
the heroin, most of which are coming from Mexico.

  I think it is a good plan. I think we should provide him help on this 
plan. We have a true crisis at the border, no matter how you measure 
it--whether it is in terms of the drugs, whether it is in terms of 
people coming over, or whether it is in terms of the human trafficking 
that is occurring, according to the experts. Let's do it the right way. 
Let's do it through experts. Let's not do it because the politicians 
say it is the right thing to do; let's do it because the experts on the 
border say it is the right thing to do. Let's put the right kind of 
barriers in the right kind of place. That is what I see in the 
President's plan.
  He is also talking about working with Democrats on some immigration 
priorities they have had over the years. For the last 10 years, there 
have been Democrats who have talked about these young people who came 
here as children through no fault of their own. The President has said 
he would like to give them more certainty as part of this plan. Let's 
take him up on that. Why would we miss this opportunity? It is a good 
idea. It is the right thing from a policy perspective. By providing 
that kind of help to those DACA recipients--those young people who are 
now working, who are in school, and who are in our military--I think we 
can actually also get some Democrats to be helpful, to provide more 
border security at the same time we are helping those who are here and 
who are deserving of that help.
  The President has also proposed to help people who come from 10 
different countries around the world stay here with some certainty for 
another few years. These are people who are in the so-called TPS 
program, the temporary protected status program, people from 10 
countries where there is war, famine, and natural disasters, and you 
don't want to send those people back. They are working on that and 
working on getting them work authorizations. That is what this is 
about. A lot of employers here are eager for them to stay so they can 
continue to work for some period of time. So there would be some

[[Page S761]]

security for those individuals, tens of thousands of whom live in 
States where there are two Democratic Senators, States such as Maryland 
and Virginia. Those Senators have been stalwarts and advocates for 
making sure there is more certainty for these individuals. It seems to 
me we have a good combination here. Let's get it done.
  The conferees are talking right now, but in the meantime, let's not 
go back to a government shutdown. That is not going to help us get to a 
solution. In fact, I would argue that is not only not leverage on 
behalf of the President or any of us, it actually works the other way 
because when the government shuts down, everybody loses.
  I am hearing from Senators on both sides of the aisle who say they 
are fed up with these shutdowns. There is now a building bipartisan 
consensus that we need to end government shutdowns. I am encouraged 
because I am also hearing from people around the country about this. 
There is a bipartisan consensus among individuals about it.
  There is an interesting poll out today that will give you a sense of 
this. People were given three options. They were asked: What if these 
talks break down? Which one of these three things should we do: shut 
down the government again; turn to a national emergency, as the 
President has been talking about, as a possible option; or not do 
either of those first two but, rather, do the default, which is to have 
a continuing resolution and let the spending from last year continue? 
Guess what. Only 9 percent of those polled wanted another government 
shutdown. Ninety-one percent said: No, let's not go back there. I call 
that a consensus. I think it is time for us to take action here in the 
Congress to say: Let's stop this.
  By the way, people feel this way because they get it. They know that 
these shutdowns are a hardship for Federal employees who are furloughed 
or who are forced to go to work without being paid. They are a hardship 
for small businesses that can't get government work paid for--work they 
have done. They are a hardship for taxpayers who want good taxpayer 
services, such as having the national parks open or having food 
inspections or having the IRS hotline open, which we as taxpayers pay 
for.
  Of course, I heard from a lot of constituents in Ohio during the last 
35 days.
  I heard from a TSA officer in Cincinnati who, like most people I 
represent, lives paycheck to paycheck. He told me he could not sleep at 
night. Why? Because he had never missed a mortgage payment, and he had 
to miss one because he lost two paychecks.
  I heard about a butcher shop in Cleveland, OH. I actually went to 
visit it. It is a new butcher shop that just opened. It has an 
interesting mission. It is a deli and a butcher shop in a low-income 
neighborhood. They want to provide fresh, relatively inexpensive but 
quality and healthy food for this neighborhood. It is needed. It is one 
of these areas where you hear there is a food desert. In some areas, 
particularly in inner cities, sometimes there is just not good, healthy 
food anywhere. Well, this little butcher shop was excited about 
offering it, but guess what. Because of the shutdown, they couldn't get 
the required Federal permission to accept food stamps. So they had 
their opening, and everything was great, but they couldn't complete 
their mission. Their mission was to help these people have better food.
  I heard from others as well. I heard from our Federal prosecutors in 
Ohio. I do a lot of work in trying to push back against the opioid 
issue, the heroin and the fentanyl, and the fact that we have these 
drug rings in Ohio and elsewhere that are causing so much harm. These 
prosecutors said they couldn't pursue these cases. One said: We can't 
pay informants during the shutdown. Think about that. We are slowing 
down our prosecution of human trafficking, opioids, rape, and so many 
horrible issues we want to address. We can't do it during a shutdown as 
effectively because the funds aren't there to pursue these 
investigations.
  I heard from Ohio craft beer breweries. These are small businesses in 
Ohio. I am told there have been about 65 new ones in the last couple of 
years in Ohio. It is a big deal. It is probably in your State too. 
These are great businesses. They have not been able to expand over the 
last several weeks during this 35-day shutdown or to introduce new 
products, which is absolutely essential to their revenue stream. They 
come out every season with a new product in order to continue to get 
folks to drink these craft beers, but they need a permit from the 
Federal Government to do that, so they couldn't introduce their new 
products.
  By the way, I talked to one of them today. We have been trying to 
help them, and they told me they still can't get the necessary Federal 
permits and licenses to do this. Why? Because the Federal Government 
office is so backed up because of the shutdown. So here we are almost a 
week after the shutdown, but we are really still shut down for the 
purposes of these small businesses.

  I have heard from the young men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard. In 
Ohio, we have Lake Erie, we have Coast Guard stations, and we have a 
lot of great patriots who have been struggling financially as they 
worked for no pay. By the way, they were determined to do their duty, 
and I applaud their patriotism.
  I applaud the patriotism of all of the Federal workers who showed up 
without getting paid and did their duty and were proud to do their 
duty. A lot of these folks missed two paychecks, but they didn't miss a 
beat, and we appreciate them.
  In addition to the impact this shutdown has had on those Federal 
employees and their families, it has also had a real impact on our 
economy. We should pay attention to that.
  The Congressional Budget Office just released a report on Monday 
estimating the economic impacts the shutdown had on our economy. 
Remember, this was just a partial shutdown. Most of the funding for 
defense, as an example, we had appropriated, but for 25 percent of it, 
we had not.
  This is what happens: When paychecks don't flow into the economy, 
when furloughed Federal workers can't perform needed services and are 
paid after the fact anyway, and when there are sudden disruptions for 
Federal contractors and other businesses that rely on timely payment 
from these Agencies, it has a real impact, and taxpayers are worse off.
  CBO estimated that the partial shutdown reduced GDP by $11 billion in 
the near term, $8 billion in the first quarter of this year, and $3 
billion in the fourth quarter of 2018. Fortunately, the Agency expects 
an offsetting increase in economic activity now that the government has 
reopened and Federal employees are receiving backpay, but over the long 
term, CBO estimates that $3 billion will never be recovered in our 
economy. So it has an economic impact on all of us, and that goes for 
jobs, wages, and economic growth.
  Some of that economic impact, of course, also means less revenue. Is 
it significant in terms of the overall revenue for our government? Some 
would say no, but it is less tax revenue to the Federal Government.
  The aviation industry was hit particularly hard by the shutdown. The 
FAA was subject to the shutdown, and many of my constituents expressed 
concerns about aviation safety. We heard about the long delays at some 
of the airports. That has an economic impact.
  I will tell you that airlines, such as Delta Airlines and Southwest 
Airlines, reported that they lost tens of millions of dollars in 
revenue in January. So this is over and above the CBO estimate I was 
talking about. Delta lost about $25 million. Southwest lost between $10 
and $15 million. These lost earnings have decreased Federal tax 
revenues, of course, to the government. CBO didn't put a price on that, 
but, in fact, it is even worse than CBO estimates because of the 
budgetary impacts that lead to some of these revenue impacts as well.
  The bottom line is that the lower economic growth and the disruptions 
for Federal employees ultimately cost taxpayers more than if Congress 
had just passed these appropriations bills on time and we hadn't gotten 
into this shutdown.
  It doesn't have to be this way. Again, that is why I am working to 
ensure we don't go there again. In every Congress for the last five 
Congresses since I was elected in 2010, I have introduced legislation 
called the End Government Shutdowns Act. I was involved with this when 
I was on the House side

[[Page S762]]

under President Bush, and now I am involved with it here because I 
think these shutdowns make no sense. I have introduced it under 
Republican and Democratic Presidents. I have introduced it under 
Republican and Democratic control of the House and the Senate. So this 
is not a political issue to me; this is a good-government issue.
  The bill is a very simple, commonsense step that would continue 
funding from the previous year for any appropriations bill that is not 
done, and when there is a continuing resolution, as there is now, 
whenever that continuing resolution expires, we would just continue the 
funding from the previous year. Some have called that an auto CR. 
Instead of shutting down, at least the government would continue to 
operate.
  A CR is not the ultimate answer. What we really want to do is to get 
this place--Congress--to actually do its work and to pass the 
individual appropriations bills. That is how you reform government. 
That is how you ensure there is certainty and predictability, 
particularly at the Department of Defense, where they worry a lot about 
that.
  My bill also says that after the first 120 days--4 months--there will 
be a 1-percent across-the-board reduction in spending to get people to 
the table so that appropriators who like to spend money actually have 
some incentive to not just continue the CR. I think that is important. 
We would then reduce it by 1 percent every 90 days thereafter if 
Congress doesn't get its act together and put these bills together.
  I think this will help to not just stop shutdowns but also to keep us 
from having perpetual continuing resolutions. Only through passing 
these individual bills can we do our constitutional duty--and it is our 
duty.
  By the way, some Democrats have said they are not wowed by the 1 
percent across the board after 4 months. They have said that somehow 
Republicans would like that better than they would. I just don't agree 
with that. I will tell you, 53 percent of the spending in this category 
is defense spending. It is not security spending, which is more than 
that, but 53 percent of it--more than half--is defense spending. It is 
Republicans on this side of the aisle who talk about this every year, 
and we have accomplished increasing defense spending. We are not going 
to want to cut defense spending.
  By the same token, some on the other side will feel strongly about 
their priorities, and some of us have other priorities as well. We all 
have priorities. This is not meant to be an uneven balance; it is meant 
to be fair--1 percent across the board for everything.
  My hope is that we can pass this legislation. We now have 28 
cosponsors in the Senate. More than half of the Republicans are on this 
bill. We have the opportunity to actually move this forward, I hope, in 
this current negotiation over the border I talked about and over the 
immigration policies I talked about. Let's do it.
  On the other side of the Capitol, my friend Troy Balderson, a 
Republican Representative from Ohio, and a Democrat, Jeff Van Drew from 
New Jersey, have introduced this bill. They introduced it last week, so 
now we have a companion bill that is bipartisan in the House as well.
  You have heard Speaker Pelosi say she is against shutdowns. You have 
heard Chuck Schumer, who is the leader over here for the Democrats, say 
he is against shutdowns. You have heard a lot of our leadership say 
they are against shutdowns. Well, this might be something we can 
actually get together on and do something about.
  My hope is that we can move forward. We hope we can put a commonsense 
bill in place that doesn't allow us to fall back into another one of 
these painful government shutdowns. They are not good for anybody.
  Let's forge a bipartisan agreement on this funding. We are not that 
far apart, as I said earlier. Let's be sure we have border security. 
Let's deal with some of these lingering immigration issues where the 
President has extended the olive branch. Let's do something good for 
the people we represent, but at the same time, let's find a will to 
include in this package legislation that ends these government 
shutdowns while what happened these last several weeks is still fresh 
in our minds. Having gone through this bitter experience of the longest 
shutdown in history, let's be sure we don't let people down. Instead, 
let's make sure we do not let this moment pass and indeed stop these 
government shutdowns once and for all.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


              Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 65

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as you know, today, or very shortly, the 
Senate is going to be taking up S. 1, called the Strengthen America's 
Security in the Middle East Act.
  Through the Chair, I would say, S. 1 is being offered by Senator 
Marco Rubio, the senior Senator from Florida. He is, as we also know, 
whip smart, and Senator Rubio has forgotten more about foreign policy 
than I will ever know. I have enormous respect for him, and nothing I 
say today is meant to criticize his extraordinary efforts on this bill, 
much of which I have supported and will continue to support, but there 
is a deficiency in S. 1. We can do better by filling that hole.
  Once again, Congress is paying lip service to protecting our allies 
in the Middle East. We are calling this bill a protector of our allies 
in the Middle East, and in large part it is, with a major exception--
because, once again, the U.S. Senate is leaving behind our friends and 
allies, the Kurds.
  It is not the first time the Kurds have been left behind. The Kurds 
were left behind when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and they remained a 
stateless people. The Kurds were left behind as modern states grew up 
around them, in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, where they had no 
political representation, where the Kurds had no future besides 
oppression. The Kurds were left behind again in 2011, when allied 
troops pulled out of Iraq, and ISIS was just beginning to emerge. It is 
time we break that pattern, once and for all, and the Senate can do it 
in Senator Rubio's stellar effort in the form of S. 1.
  As I said, S. 1 does some really good things. I thank Senator Rubio. 
It will reaffirm our commitment to protecting Israel, certainly our 
closest friend in the region, maybe our best friend in the world. 
Sometimes I think Israel is our only friend in the world. S. 1 will 
strengthen our bond with Jordan, another key ally in fighting terrorism 
and the humanitarian catastrophe caused by the Syrian refugee crisis. 
It will combat a radical economic warfare campaign against Israel. Let 
me say that again because it is important. S. 1 will combat a radical 
economic warfare campaign against Israel. I support that 
unconditionally. S. 1 will create new sanctions on the Government of 
Syria that targets those who have been laundering money to help the 
Assad regime.
  I support all of those things, but with all the respect I can muster, 
I say, gently, it is a lie. It is a lie for anyone to say that S. 1 
protects all of our allies in the Middle East because it will not. S. 1 
makes no mention of our Kurdish allies at all. I have an amendment 
pending--I have offered an amendment, rather, that would fix that.
  There are 30 million Kurds in the Middle East. They don't have a 
state, they don't have a country to call their own. They are not really 
safe anywhere. As a result, the Kurdish people have suffered 
tremendously throughout history. They have been subjected to 
discrimination, massacres, forced relocation, and countless other human 
rights violations.
  Saddam Hussein attacked more than 4,000--4,000 Kurdish villages--not 
people, Kurdish villages--with poison gas and other chemical weapons 
during the Iran-Iraq war. One hundred eighty thousand people died. They 
were murdered. Many more were tortured. Even more were imprisoned. 
Thousands fled, not that they had anywhere to go.
  In the 1990s, Turkish soldiers made a hobby out of burning down 
Kurdish villages. Since 1984, more than 40,000 Turkish Kurds have been 
killed. They still face oppression today in nearly every country they 
inhabit. The Turkish Defense Minister made that clear in December, when 
he said that when the time comes, the Kurds ``will be buried in the 
ditches they dug. No one should doubt this.'' That is a quote.
  Through all this incomprehensible suffering, the Kurds have stood by 
America, and we have stood by them through the decades, through thick 
and

[[Page S763]]

through thin. The Kurds have been instrumental at every phase of U.S. 
engagement in Iraq and Syria, every phase.
  Going back to the 2003 invasion, Kurdish fighters have been crucial 
boots on the ground in the fight against Islamic tyranny, and that is 
just a fact. The parts of Iraq retaken and controlled by the Kurds were 
strongholds for Western values like democracy and capitalism and 
multiculturalism. In fact, when allied forces withdrew in 2011, not a 
single U.S. soldier had lost his or her life in Kurdish territory.
  The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, better known as the SDF, 
have been another set of boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS. 
With the help of coalition supplies, weapons, and airstrikes, the SDF 
recaptured large parts of Northern and Eastern Syria from ISIS's iron 
grip.
  Four years ago, the Presiding Officer will recall, there were 100,000 
ISIS soldiers. Thanks in large part to our Kurdish allies, those 
numbers today are 5,000. Today, ISIS has surrendered 99 percent of its 
territory, including its capital in Raqqa. The so-called caliphate 
fighters are now being held to a small sliver of territory on the 
eastern border with Iraq near the Euphrates River. Our Kurdish allies 
deserve much of the credit for these successes.
  It is plain to see that the Syrian Kurds have been invaluable in 
America's fight against jihadists and tyrants in the Middle East. The 
SDF, Syrian Kurds, controls nearly one-quarter of Syria right now. That 
is land that doesn't belong to ISIS; that is land that doesn't belong 
to Assad, a butcher; that is land that doesn't belong to Russia; and 
that is land that doesn't belong to Iran. More importantly, it is land 
where the Syrian Kurds know they will be free from persecution and from 
slaughter.
  For a while now, I have been asking my colleagues in the Senate to 
support my amendment to S. 1. My amendment would promote stability and 
security for our close friends in the Middle East because it is the 
right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do, and America's foreign 
policy has always had a moral component.
  My amendment will allow the United States to defend the Kurds in 
Syria by giving the President--not requiring the President to do 
anything. It would give the President the authority to use our military 
as he deems fit to keep our promise and to protect our allies--and all 
of our allies. After all, the Kurds have contributed to the fight 
against ISIS, and we owe them some peace of mind as we draw down our 
presence in the region. As we draw down our presence in the region, it 
is time to stand up and stand by our friends to make sure the fight 
stays won.
  The threat of U.S. military force has been a major deterrent for the 
reemergence of jihadists like ISIS and al-Qaida. As the Presiding 
Officer knows well, weakness invites in wolves. Our presence has held 
back Assad, it has held back Turkey, it has held back Russia, and it 
has held back Iran from gaining stronger footholds in the area. Without 
assurances of our support, as we wind down our effort in Syria, the 
Kurds will be left behind to fend for themselves. Without the Kurds, we 
cannot be certain who will step in to fill the power vacuum in the 
areas of Syria they currently control. We can only guess, and the 
answers to those guesses don't look good.
  If the Kurds are vulnerable to attack from Turkey or Syrian rebels, 
they might have to turn to their enemies for protection out of fear. 
Even if they don't, they can't fight off the Turkish military if the 
Turkish military decides to attack and pursue the remnants of ISIS at 
the same time.
  To abandon the Kurds now would be unconscionable. To abandon the 
Kurds now would compromise the security of our allies, Israel and 
Jordan, and it would risk exposing the region to more turmoil.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to think about the Kurds as they 
consider how best we can strengthen America's interests and security in 
the Middle East. It is time we make sure America keeps the promises we 
made to all of our allies--not just some of our allies, all of our 
allies--in the Middle East.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Toward that end, I hereby offer a second amendment that 
I am sending to the desk. This second-degree amendment will amend 
amendment No. 65 proposed by Senator McConnell. I ask that the 
amendment be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator offering the amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That requires unanimous consent because the 
Senate is in a period of debate only.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I hear no objection. May I ask that my amendment be 
read?
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Afterward, I would ask that my amendment be read.
  Now I would again ask for a quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to temporarily withdraw my 
unanimous consent on my amendment, although I reserve the right to 
return.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Consent is withdrawn.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative 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.

                          ____________________