Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S775-S776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
S. 1
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, earlier this week, Senate Democrats
stopped filibustering the important legislation before us. They finally
joined Republicans and voted to advance these measures to renew our
commitment to Israel, deepen our cooperation with Jordan, and deliver
justice for the victims of Assad's brutality in Syria.
But it appears some of my Democratic colleagues are not finished with
their obstruction just yet.
On Tuesday, I offered a straightforward amendment to allow for a
straightforward debate about the Senate's continued commitment to
ongoing missions in Syria and Afghanistan. It is not a partisan
amendment. It is not complicated. There is no poison pill--just an
opportunity for Senators to go on the record about what our country
should be doing in Syria and Afghanistan.
I have been clear about my own views on these subjects. I believe the
threats remain. ISIS and al-Qaida have yet to be defeated, and American
national security interests require continued commitment to our
missions there.
But I guess some Senate Democrats don't want to vote on these
important subjects. Perhaps it could have put some of my colleagues
with aims beyond the Senate at odds with parts of the far left.
Whatever the reason, our colleagues tried to avoid taking a position
and tried to block my amendment from getting a vote.
Make no mistake. Today, the Senate will vote on this amendment.
Members will go on the record for our allies and our partners in the
Middle East.
When Senator Rubio introduced S. 1, which is just a collection of
bipartisan bills, I hoped for an open amendment process so that the
Senate could debate important matters of national security. I am
disappointed that our friends on the other side of the aisle have
chosen to make that impossible.
Another issue I had hoped we could address is America's ironclad
commitment to the transatlantic alliance. NATO has a proud history of
delivering greater security to America and our allies and greater peace
to the world. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies
throughout the Cold War; they stood with us following 9/11. NATO's
mission in Afghanistan today is an essential element of bringing peace
and stability to that troubled country.
NATO will continue to be critical to transatlantic security, but it
must adapt to new challenges. The United States has made significant
new investments in our security posture in Europe, most notably through
troop deployments all along the eastern flank and through the European
Deterrence Initiative, which has bipartisan support here in Congress.
Former Secretary Mattis was also instrumental in pushing NATO to
reform, especially in the areas of capabilities modernization,
readiness, and military mobility. These reforms are essential to
ensuring NATO readiness.
President Trump has also reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to NATO.
As recently as just a few days ago, he said the United States will ``be
with NATO 100 percent.''
The President is right to call upon our allies to contribute their
fair share toward our collective defense. As NATO's Secretary General
recently explained, President Trump has ``clearly stated that NATO
allies need to invest more. . . . we agreed to do more . . . and now we
see the results. . . . by the end of next year, NATO allies will add .
. . 100 billion extra U.S. dollars [for] defense.''
Here is how the Secretary General summed it up: ``So we see some real
money, and some real results, and we see that the clear message from
President Trump is having an impact.''
We need to build on this momentum and continue strengthening NATO,
dispelling all doubt--all doubt--about America's commitment to this
alliance, which has reshaped history for the better.
NATO deserves the Senate's support. I believe it has the Senate's
support, and at some point I hope this institution is able to debate
that matter
[[Page S776]]
____________________
