[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.
____________________