Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 270, submitted earlier today.

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the bills, en bloc, be considered read a third time.

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the bills, en bloc.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following Calendar items, en bloc: Calendar Nos. 110, 41, 73, 42, 64, 49, 34, 37, and 33.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Now Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 5 a.m., Friday, June 28; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the Senate resume consideration of the Udall amendment No. 883 under the previous order; further, that following disposition of the Udall amendment, the Senate adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no business being conducted on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Tuesday, July 2, at 4:45 p.m.; Friday, July 5, at 11:45 a.m. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, July 5, it next convene at 3 p.m., Monday, July 8, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Bress nomination; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m., Monday, July 8.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 220.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first and foremost, the American people are continuing to hear elected officials talk a great deal about the humanitarian and security crisis down on the southern border. Both sides of the aisle have talked a lot about this issue for the past 2 months. Here is the difference. It is the Republicans who have actually supported giving the administration and the Agencies the emergency funding they have been begging for. The Republicans have raised the alarm about the conditions on the border and have actually wanted to do something about it. Our Democratic colleagues have talked a lot about the issue as well, but for weeks and weeks, talk is all the House of Representatives has been willing to do. The House Democrats have been consistently uncooperative and uninterested in anything except political posturing. They have talked endlessly about the suffering at the border but have resisted every effort to actually make a law and get help on the way. For 8 weeks now, the men and women and children on our southern border have learned the hard way that the ``resistance'' does not pay the bills. The New York Times' editorial board, of all places, wrote 7 weeks ago: ``Congress, give Trump his border money.'' This was the New York Times. Yet, week after week, from the House--nothing. First, they objected to including the funding in the disaster bill, and now that they finally passed something last night, it is a go- nowhere proposal that is filled with poison pill riders that the President has indicated he would veto. They had to drag their bill way to the left to earn the support of most Democrats. As a result, the House has not made much progress toward actually making a law--just more ``resistance theater.'' The Senate has a better and more bipartisan way forward. The bill negotiated by Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy won huge bipartisan support in committee. It is a productive compromise that will go a long way to beginning to address the border crisis. There are no poison pills--just a clean bill to provide the emergency appropriations the White House requested 2 long months ago. We have waited long enough. We should not wait any longer. We must pass this measure this week.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3401, which was received from the House. I further ask that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders for debate only; that at 2 p.m., the Senate vote on the bill, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; that if the bill is not passed, it remain pending and open to amendment, with the only amendments in order being the following: Shelby substitute amendment No. 901; the text of S. 1900, as reported; a Paul amendment, No. 902, to pay for spending by cutting foreign aid; further, that the Senate vote in relation to the Paul amendment and, following its disposition, vote on adoption of the Shelby amendment, with a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption; finally, that following disposition of the Shelby amendment, the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage and that the only debate in order be 2 minutes, equally divided, prior to each vote.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, following the disposition of H.R. 3401, there be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided between the managers, remaining on the cloture motions filed during Monday's session of the Senate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed on Senate amendment No. 764 and S. 1790 occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am glad that the bipartisan Senate border supplemental has passed with an overwhelming vote. I commend Chairman Shelby, Senator Leahy, and the members of the Appropriations Committee for breaking the logjam.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 26, 2019, during schedule votes, to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Daniel Habib Jorjani, of Kentucky, to be Solicitor, and Mark Lee Greenblatt, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, both of the Department of the Interior. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and nominations. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Peter Joseph Phipps, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Charles R. Eskridge III, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, William Shaw Stickman IV, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Jennifer Philpott Wilson, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Wilmer Ocasio, to be United States Marshal for the District of Puerto Rico, Department of Justice. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Water and Power The Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 26, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me first associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of the Finance Committee. These tax treaties are extremely important to a number of American businesses, and I thank him for his advocacy.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Senate and the Nation are closely watching the situation in the Gulf. Last week, the recent recklessness from Tehran reached a new level. Iran fired on an unmanned U.S. intelligence aircraft that was flying over international waters. This is as violent and dangerous an overt provocation as any nation has aimed at the United States in, literally, years. This is not a time for partisanship, but, unfortunately, we are already seeing extreme voices on the far left that are so afflicted by the ``Trump derangement syndrome'' that they repeat Iranian talking points and advertise the absurd notion that our country, our administration, our President are somehow to blame for Tehran's violent aggression. Blame America first. By 2019, nobody should need a history lesson on Iran, but, apparently, some need a refresher, because there should be no question about who is at fault. Iran has disregarded international law and violated the laws of armed conflict since the first days of the Islamic Republic. Its malign activities as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism include its crusade to destroy Israel, including its sponsorship of countless terrorist attacks; the malevolence throughout the Persian Gulf, including proxies in Yemen who have recently attacked civilian targets; perennial threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key international waterway that is essential to global commerce; and, of course, the longstanding asymmetrical war it has waged against us that began with the infamous takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and the 50-plus hostages who were held captive for 444 days; the provision of weapons, training, funding, and direction to terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, and Shiite militias in Iraq, which are responsible for the murders of hundreds of U.S. servicemembers from Lebanon to Iraq to Afghanistan, and more attacks plotted on U.S. targets worldwide, including in our own homeland. The record is blindingly obvious. It is why so many of us opposed the Obama administration's deal with Iran. Many of us understood that the agreement not only failed to properly address the nuclear threat but that it also completely ignored the other threats that Iran posed to international peace and stability. In fact, some prescient Members of this body warned that the deal would amplify Iran's dangerous behavior. I remember back in 2015 when the current ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee insisted the Obama administration's policy would invite the kind of mess we see today. Here is what he said: If there is a fear of war in the region, it will be one fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program and enough money in sanctions relief to significantly continue to fund its hegemonic intentions. This was said by our colleague from New Jersey, who was the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee back in 2015. Here is my colleague from New York, the current Democratic leader, and what he said: ``Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East and, perhaps, beyond.'' That was from the Democratic leader in that same year. He acknowledged that the hard-liners' ``No. 1 goal [is] strengthening Iran's armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and terrorist actions.'' This is exactly the situation President Trump inherited in 2017, as emboldened Tehran was committed to spending its new resources on military capabilities, exporting terrorism, and pursuing regional hegemony. So President Trump was right to seek a better deal and apply maximum pressure on Tehran until it changed its destabilizing behavior. Tough sanctions are compounding the economic pain the mullahs have brought on their own people through corrupt mismanagement. Iran is responding to this legitimate and judicious application of diplomatic and economic pressure the way it has effectively operated for years--what do they always do?--through violence, attacks against commercial vessels in international waters, sponsored attacks against civilian targets in the Gulf, and then last week's unprovoked attack on our unarmed aircraft. We face a choice here. Will we legitimize and incentivize Iran's use of terror and aggression or will we stay resolute and apply appropriate and proportionate pressure until Tehran respects the fundamental norms of international behavior? Last Thursday, President Trump consulted with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders and national security chairmen and ranking members. The President weighed advice from a number of sources. It is clear he was listening to congressional leaders. Clearly, the President wants to avoid war--hence the deliberate and judicious approach he has taken since the shoot-down; hence his repeated efforts to give Iran's leaders an off-ramp toward negotiations. Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that this act of aggression cannot stand. Tehran must understand it may not respond to legitimate diplomatic pressure with illegitimate violence. It is in our national security interest for the United States to deter attacks against American forces that are operating legally in international waters and to honor our long history of defending the freedom of the seas and the freedom of international commerce. Since Iran's aggression and threats to global commerce threaten everyone, I hope all nations will join the United States and its allies in condemning Tehran and imposing significant consequences for its hostile acts. Look, I understand the significant appetite in Congress for the President to consult with us as he continues to deliberate. Obviously, that is appropriate. My colleagues should share their views with the administration. I understand that the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees will be holding hearings with senior administration officials after July 4. What is not productive is an effort being promoted by the Democratic leader that would preemptively tie the hands of our military commanders, weaken our diplomatic leverage, embolden our adversaries, and create a dangerous precedent. Therefore, I will strongly oppose the Udall amendment, which would gratuitously take crucial options off the table. It would hamstring both our commanders and our diplomats, all of whose leverage depends on the knowledge that the United States reserves the right to act forcefully if and when necessary. Ten years ago, my friend the Democratic leader said verbatim: ``When it comes to Iran, we should never take the military option off the table.'' That is exactly what the amendment he supports would do. Nearly every President has utilized a limited use of force against adversaries without pre-authorization from Congress. Nearly every President has done that. Of course, major hostilities require congressional concurrence and the support of the American people. So the Democrats should stop their fear mongering because no one is calling for major military operations--not the President, not his military commanders, not the Republicans in Congress. This amendment would impose unprecedented limitations that would go far beyond the War Powers Resolution. As drafted, it could prevent U.S. military forces from defending themselves against an attack or conducting a timely counterattack. If we had actionable intelligence that an attack were imminent, it would prevent U.S. forces from doing anything about it. If Israel were attacked, it would prevent U.S. forces from providing immediate assistance to our closest ally in the region. This amendment flies in the face of many Democrats' past clarity about Iran, and it casts doubt on our seriousness in defending our own military personnel, much less the freedom of the seas. The Democrats must set aside the habit of unthinking, reflexive opposition to every single thing this President does. That is why I call it the Trump derangement syndrome. Perhaps it would help if they were reminded of what the Democratic candidate for President in 2016 had to say about what her policy would have been toward Iran and the Gulf had she been elected. Here is what Hillary Clinton had to say: I will reaffirm that the Persian Gulf is a region of vital interest to the United States. . . . We'll keep the Strait of Hormuz open. We'll increase security cooperation with our Gulf allies, including intelligence sharing, military support, and missile defense to ensure they can defend against Iranian aggression, even if that takes the form of cyberattacks or other nontraditional threats. She went on: Iran should understand that the United States, and I as President, will not stand by as our Gulf allies and partners are threatened. She concluded by saying: We will act. That was from Hillary Clinton. So nearly every word of that statement accurately describes the policy the Trump administration has pursued for the last 2 years. Our Gulf allies and partners are threatened by Iran. Israel is threatened by Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is threatened by Iran. And America has been attacked by Iran. The threat is not in doubt. The question is whether Democrats still mean what they said or whether they completely changed their minds about how the U.S. must respond simply because--simply because--the White House has changed parties.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, on a related matter, this week the Senate is considering the National Defense Authorization Act. The current situation with Iran is a stark reminder of our urgent responsibility to ensure our military remains equipped and ready to deter threats and defeat potential challenges to our security. When we pass the NDAA this week, the Senate will extend a 58-year tradition of authorizing the resources U.S. forces need to stay on the cutting edge. And I hope we will do so with wide, bipartisan support. This year's NDAA directs $750 billion to fund the priorities of the Department of Defense, from the Navy's fleet strength to missile defense capabilities. It increases procurement for critical weapons systems, doubles down on research and development of next-generation technologies, and makes new investments in training and support services for servicemembers and their families. In short, this is legislation that sends a clear signal to our men and women in uniform and to the rest of the world. Here is what it says: The United States takes today's challenges seriously. We take our commitments seriously. And we take our defense seriously. So especially in light of current events, I was incredulous to hear the Democratic leader call yesterday to postpone moving forward with the NDAA. Apparently, some of our Democratic friends need to go hit the Presidential campaign trail. They can't be here because they have to go campaign for not 1 day but 2 this week. They are too busy to stay in the Senate and authorize the resources that our All-Volunteer Armed Forces rely on. Postpone legislation on our national defense to accommodate the Presidential race in the middle of this ongoing crisis overseas? Come on. Come on. I am sorry our Democratic friends feel compelled to skip out so they can compete for the favor of ``the resistance.'' The rest of us, the Republican majority--we are going to be right here. We are going to be right here working and voting to make America stronger and safer. Of course, the NDAA does not exhaust the urgent priorities we should attend to this week. As my Republican colleagues and I have been arguing for 2 months now--2 months--Congress must address the humanitarian crisis down on the southern border. The situation is well documented. Nobody is in doubt. For months, record numbers of people have arrived at the border, overwhelming--completely overwhelming agencies and facilities. The Department of Homeland Security has had to redirect resources and personnel from other critical missions to assist the Border Patrol. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has said: ``We are running out of money.'' This is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. ``We are functionally out of space.'' I was encouraged last week when badly needed emergency funding finally garnered some momentum. Under the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy, the Appropriations Committee approved funding 30 to 1. That is about as close to bipartisan as it could ever get. There is no reason, no excuse, why this noncontroversial measure should not get a similar, overwhelmingly bipartisan vote here on the floor this week--this week, not some other time. Actually, there is no reason it shouldn't happen today. Partisan delays have exacerbated this crisis long enough. It is well past time my Democratic colleagues stop standing in the way and let the Senate get this done. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 26; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 1790; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during Monday's session ripen at 12 noon tomorrow.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senators Fischer, Risch, and Brown.