[Pages S5944-S5946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, this afternoon, I rise to urge my 
colleagues here in the U.S. Senate to support the pending cloture 
motion on H.R. 3055 so we can get the appropriations process moving. It 
is already day 22 of the current fiscal year. The entire Federal 
Government, as you know, is now operating under a continuing 
resolution, and in less than a month, that continuing resolution will 
expire.
  By this time last year, Congress had already funded 75 percent of the 
government, including America's military. It was the first time in 10 
years that Congress had funded the military on time. That success paid 
huge dividends for our country and for our men and women in uniform. 
Now, they face an uncertain future. The prospect of serial continuing 
resolutions or, worse, another government shutdown casts a dark shadow 
over our previous success. Such uncertainty also wreaks havoc on every 
Federal agency's abilities to plan, and it is acute when it comes to 
the military.
  As our military leaders seek to ensure that planning and operations 
keep pace with activities and challenges around the globe, they are 
faced with the hard reality that Congress is not keeping pace with our 
own duties here. Congress' failure to do its own job makes that of the 
military all the more difficult in this troubled world. I believe that 
is unacceptable.
  Nonetheless, we have hit a stalemate in the appropriations process 
lately. The clock is ticking on the continuing resolution, as I said, 
and we have to break through the logjam. I hope we can do it today. The 
only way to do that is through bipartisan cooperation, as the Presiding 
Officer knows, as a member of the Appropriations Committee and chair of 
a very important subcommittee.
  The vice chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, my good friend, 
Senator Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, suggested that the Senate 
proceed first to a package of domestic spending bills to try to break 
the stalemate. This is what we are trying to do today. In an effort to 
demonstrate good faith and get off the dime, that is what we are 
hopefully going to do later today.
  I want to take a minute to thank Senator Leahy for proposing a path 
forward out of our stall. I would also just like to emphasize to all my 
colleagues that this path leads to success if it ends with Congress 
funding the entire government, not just part of it. We have a lot of 
work to do, but we can do it. We have also before us the opportunity to 
get it done, so this is where we pick up today.
  Last month, the Appropriations Committee, as the Chair knows, 
reported 10 bills to the full Senate. If we are able to proceed to H.R. 
3055, it is my intention here on the floor to offer a substitute 
amendment that includes four of these bills that we passed out of the 
committee, each of which passed unanimously in a bipartisan way. What 
are those bills, and what do they fund? The Commerce Department, the 
Justice Department, Science bill--we call it Commerce, Justice, and 
Science--the Agriculture bill, the Interior bill, and the 
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development bill.
  I want to take a minute to thank the chairs of these subcommittees 
for their diligence in producing balanced bills: Senator Moran, Senator 
Hoeven, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Collins. I also want to thank 
their respective ranking members, the Democrats, for their bipartisan 
cooperation here: Senator Shaheen, Senator Merkley, Senator Udall, and 
Senator Reed.
  Together, these four measures before us today account for nearly one-
third--one-third--of all nondefense discretionary spending. Consistent 
with the bipartisan budget agreement, they contain no new poison pills, 
and I would caution my colleagues on both sides of the aisle against 
pursuing poison pill amendments if we are able to proceed today. If we 
are to make any progress on the 2020 appropriations bills, I think we 
must be true to our commitment, enshrined in terms of the budget 
agreement, to refrain from such provisions to move the process.
  I would also like to move this package through regular order so we 
can return quickly to a second package that the majority leader spoke 
to us at lunch today about that funds the military and many more other 
agencies. There is simply no excuse for further delay.
  With all that we ask for our military, with all the challenges it 
already faces, with all the additional uncertainties that stopgap 
funding creates, and with all that has been said recently about the 
need to support our allies and counter our adversaries around the 
world, I hope that our colleagues will not say to our men and women in 
uniform: We will get to you later.

[[Page S5945]]

  We should instead capitalize on the good will that we are trying to 
generate in this first package on appropriations by immediately moving 
to the next one that funds the military and so many other agencies.
  This process only works if we work together in a bipartisan way, as 
Madam President knows. Let's work together this afternoon, and let's do 
our job so we can move forward for the American people. I think we 
should not leave our military and others to think that the government 
is in limbo any longer.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as the distinguished senior Senator from 
Alabama has said, we are going to be voting soon on our ``domestic 
minibus.'' We will vote on a cloture motion to proceed to H.R. 3055.
  I understand that once we are on the bill, Chairman Shelby is going 
to offer a substitute amendment that will include four bills that were 
reported from the Appropriations Committee with every Republican and 
every Democrat voting for them--the Agriculture bill, the Interior 
bill, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, and the Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development bill.
  I know that some feel that sometimes the Congress gets so polarized 
that we could not have a unanimous vote that the Sun rises in the east, 
but this was a case where we did in our committee, which has 
representatives of all wings of the Republican Party and all wings of 
the Democratic Party. We all voted aye, and I would urge Members to 
vote aye.
  I am pleased that the substitute package will not include the 
Military Construction and the Veterans Affairs bill, and let me explain 
why.
  The underlying House vehicle we are moving to contains the House 
version of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, but the 
Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet considered this bill. We 
have not had debate in the committee. We have not had a vote on it in 
committee. It would be premature to bring it to the Senate floor.
  It is an important bill. It is an important bill that I have always 
supported because it funds critical programs, particularly for our 
veterans. But President Trump wants to insist on using the bill to take 
funding from our troops and their families to fund his ineffective 
wall--a wall that he gave his word Mexico would pay for--and that is 
unacceptable.
  Look at the people who are affected by the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs bill. Let's not get them tied up in a Presidential 
campaign promise. Let's look at the military families who are now 
living in substandard housing. Let's look at the veterans who are not 
getting the care they need. Let's have a clean bill.
  Had the bill with the President's wall been in this--the American 
people would be paying for it and not Mexico, as the President 
promised--I would have been unable to support the cloture motion.
  I am going to have more to say about each of the four bipartisan 
bills included in Chairman Shelby's substitute when we turn to them. 
Hopefully we can by tomorrow. Each one funds programs that are 
important to the American people and our economy. They make critical 
investments in affordable housing, infrastructure, rural development, 
our farming communities, our small businesses, and our environment. 
They are good bills. I was glad to work with Senator Shelby so we could 
have these bills before the Senate. They speak to real needs of the 
American people.
  Now we have only 4 short weeks before the continuing resolution we 
are operating under expires. Four weeks can go by very quickly around 
here. We need to do our work. We need to do it quickly. We should be 
able to enact all 12 appropriations bills into law. I was going to say 
the Senate deserves no less, but it is the American people who deserve 
no less. So I will continue to work with Senator Shelby and others, 
both Republicans and Democrats alike, to get these bills done.
  We have a vote coming up soon.
  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. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Vote on Bremberg Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Bremberg nomination?
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 329 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Booker
     Harris
     Isakson
     Sanders
     Warren
     Whitehouse
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                Unanimous Consent Request--H.J. Res. 77

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am rising once again to ask the 
Senate's consent to move to the H.J. Res. 77 condemning the President's 
abrupt decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria.
  Despite the Pandora's box of problems the President's decision has 
opened, the slaughter of our partners, the Kurds--and I think many of 
us on both sides of the aisle ache for the Kurds who risked their 
lives. Many of them lost their lives so our soldiers would not be in 
harm's way.
  With the strategic gains of our adversaries in Tehran, Moscow, and 
Damascus and, most troubling, the potential resurgence of ISIS, the 
President has failed to articulate any strategy at all. We have asked 
to have Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Esper, and Director Haspel come 
before us. They have canceled again today because they don't have a 
plan.
  Now, this is America at risk. We in New York know better than anybody 
else how a small group of people thousands of miles away--evil people--
can

[[Page S5946]]

cause terrorism and hurt us. There is no strategy about what to do with 
the tens of thousands of ISIS prisoners and their fellow travelers who 
had been locked up and guarded by the Kurds.
  No one believes--and I have talked to the top military intelligence 
people--that either Syria or Turkey has the interest in preventing ISIS 
from escaping that we do. Erdogan, in fact, hates the Kurds far more 
than he hates ISIS.
  So every day this lack of policy and this lack of common sense from 
the President and this White House puts American lives in danger. What 
is the best way to get the President to act? Well, my friends, you know 
it. It is you. When Republican Senators protest what the President has 
done, he sometimes acts. Witness Doral. I guarantee you my speeches had 
very little effect on him, but yours did. Well, this is far more 
important than Doral. This is America, and lives are at stake. Our 
battle against terrorism, to be fought jointly most of the time, is now 
being jeopardized. Frankly, when Leader McCarthy and Representative 
Scalise and Representative Cheney can vote for this kind of resolution, 
why should we not be doing the same? It will send a better message to 
the President than anything else we can do.
  My friend, the Republican leader, said we need a stronger resolution. 
Quibbling over words at a time when America is in danger doesn't make 
sense to me--particularly a resolution that he knows will not pass the 
House and not go to the President's desk.
  So I would plead with my colleagues, let's move forward. I plead with 
my friend from Kentucky--they are both my friends from Kentucky--but I 
plead with the junior Senator from Kentucky, do not stand in the way.
  He has a different world view than almost all of us. We talked 
earlier this morning. I asked him if he was against going after the 
Taliban and bin Laden when they hit us in America, in New York, and he 
said no. Well, this is the same kind of thing. We are happy to vote on 
his resolution. Let's vote on both. This is momentous.
  These terrorist acts from escaped ISIS prisoners might not occur 
tomorrow, they might not occur 6 months from now, and they might not 
occur a year from now, but they may. They certainly--almost certainly 
will at some point in the future, and we will risk lives: the American 
lives of our intelligence officials, of our Special Forces, and we will 
risk the security of America and spend millions of dollars.
  The sooner we can put this back--and the only person who can is 
President Trump, and the only people who can really pressure him are 
sitting right here. I would plead with my colleague from Kentucky and 
with all of us because even if he objects, we could pass this joint 
resolution within a few days to do it. Our security, the security of 
this wonderful country and its beautiful 320-some-odd million people 
deserve no less.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 
246, H.J. Res. 77; that the joint resolution be read a third time, and 
the Senate vote on passage with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object. If 
Democrats want to send our young men and women to fight in the Syrian 
civil war, let's have that debate. By all means, let's have a 
constitutional debate today on the Senate floor, right here, right now. 
If Democrats are so hungry for war, let's have that debate.
  Our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutional method to go to war. If 
there be a national security interest in Syria, let's hear it. The 
other side does not want that debate. They want to lob invectives at 
the President, but they aren't prepared to debate about whom we are to 
go to war against.
  Do they wish to declare war on our NATO ally, Turkey? Do they wish to 
declare war on our former ally, the Free Syrian Army? Do they wish to 
declare war on Syria's Assad? They don't know.
  No, Democrats just want to heap abuse on the President. They don't 
want to debate war because they have no clue on whom to declare war.
  In reality, the President made the wise decision to move 50 soldiers 
out of the way of tens of thousands of Turkish troops. Ironically, the 
President's decision may finally allow the Kurds to negotiate with 
Assad for a semiautonomous region in northern Syria. Perhaps, if the 
Kurds pledge their battle-proven fighters to Assad, they might receive 
in exchange some autonomy and a share of the oil receipts, much as the 
Kurds did in Iraq. Already we are seeing promising cooperation between 
the Kurds and Assad.
  This week, Turkey's Erdogan met with Putin. Putin already is allied 
with Assad. There is a possibility diplomacy may actually break through 
here. There is a real chance that the Syrian civil war could come to an 
end if Assad, with the Kurds' help, would agree to secure the border 
and not allow Kurdish raids into Turkey.
  The permanent war caucus on both sides of the aisle claims that 
repositioning 50 troops is the end of the world. Perhaps, just maybe, 
less of our presence in Syria will actually lead to diplomacy and, 
ultimately, peace. Only time will tell.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I don't want to prolong this. I will 
make two quick points. No. 1, my friend from Kentucky thinks he knows 
what is better for the Kurds than the Kurds know. The Kurds hate going 
into the arms of Syria--hate it.
  Second, if our friend from Kentucky believes that any time we have a 
small number of Special Forces in different places--and we have them 
all over--we need a declaration of war, then his view is different from 
99.9 percent of America and every other single person in this Chamber.
  We do not need a declaration of war for a small number of Special 
Forces to be there to protect us against terrorism, and my friend from 
Kentucky knows that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, if our goal is to create a Kurdish 
homeland and to defend it for them, hell yes, we need a debate and a 
vote and an authorization of force.
  You can't just say that we are going to stay there forever. It would 
take tens of thousands of troops if you want to pacify Syria. It has 
not been pacified for 8 years. It is an utter and complete mess, and it 
is time we get the hell out.

                          ____________________