Government Funding
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, a few moments ago we welcomed our new colleague, my colleague for the State of Florida, former Governor and now U.S. Senator Rick Scott, who will do a phenomenal job here on behalf of the State of Florida. I welcome him to the U.S. Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body--and, on occasion, perhaps the strangest as well.
In about 1 hour 15 minutes, the Senate is going to take up S. 1, which is a combination of four separate bills that enjoy widespread support in this Chamber from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, all of them sponsored and cosponsored by both sides of the aisle, and apparently we will fail to get a significant number of votes to get on this bill, nonetheless.
So it is perhaps one the few places on Earth where people vote against things they are for because of reasons unrelated to the issue at hand. I don't want to dig too deep into that. That will be a topic for conversation later on, and maybe I will be wrong. Maybe they will change their minds in the next 1 hour 15 minutes, and we will have the votes we need, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say: I am upset about the government shutdown--by the way, the Senate voted unanimously to fund the government by a voice vote. We didn't even have a rollcall vote. So this Chamber has already enacted in that regard. At this point, it is incumbent on the leaders of the Democratic Party in the Senate, combined with the White House, to come up with a deal to reopen the government. This government shutdown is not good for anybody. I have never seen anybody win one of these.
That said, I don't know why we would shut down the Senate, too, given the issues we face.
About 3 weeks ago, the President announced that the United States was withdrawing from our engagement in Syria. I--and I think the majority of the people in the Senate--believed that decision was a mistake and is a mistake.
While I was certainly encouraged by some of the comments by the head of the National Security Council, Ambassador John Bolton, on the pace and scale and scope of the withdrawal, nonetheless, there have been conflicting statements since then which put this all in question.
At the time he made this decision, we walked through all of the reasons why this was a mistake--not because we want to be in war in Syria forever. That is false. Of course, it has to come to an end, but it needs to come to an end in a way that is in the interest of the United States of America. It is not in the interest of the United States of America to see ISIS reemerge the way they did after 2011, when the United States left Iraq.
When the United States left and pulled back its presence in Iraq, it allowed ISIS to reconstitute itself and reemerge. They were called something different then, but they were basically a spinoff of al- Qaida. They started out as an insurgency and grew very rapidly. They are larger today and they are more powerful today than when they reconstituted themselves almost a decade ago. I have no doubt that if this moves forward, ISIS will reconstitute itself, maybe not as a caliphate but as something equally dangerous, and that is an insurgency with the capability not just to create havoc, mayhem, murder, and destruction in Syria and potentially once again in Iraq but also to externally plot and attack us here on Homeland.
This raises all other types of possibilities, like the Iraqi troops along with irregular forces sponsored by Iran--the Shia militia that have been on the ground in Iraq--coming across the border and into Syria. We all have read and heard about the Turkish troops that want to come into the Kurdish areas.
If Assad is sitting there now with the United States pulling out and all of this is going on, he figures that at this point what does he need a political solution for, what does he need the U.N. or anybody for? The saddest part is that this diminishes the chances that Assad will ever have to face accountability for the crimes committed by his regime against innocent civilians--children, women, and others--not just for the gassing and use of chemical weapons but for widespread torture and murder. We will discuss that more as the week goes on.
We are also concerned about Iran's growing influence with the United States leaving, especially in southeast Iraq and on the border of Jordan and Israel, with Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies and Iran itself, or the IRGC and General Soleimani, who is a maven of murder in that area, basically doing whatever they want. They have more freedom of movement, and there is the direct threat that it poses to both Israel and to Jordan.
By the way, when the Turks come in or potentially Iraqi troops come in--when ISIS is reconstituted and starts killing people again--you are going to have new refugee flows. Maybe it will be mostly Kurds this time, maybe folks from the Syrian defense forces who had fought alongside us for a while and their families. Where will all of these new refugees go? Potentially, some will wind up in Jordan, further destabilizing or testing that country's ability to deal with all of this.
On that last point, both the Kurds and the Syrian defense forces have in excess of 700 ISIS fighters in custody, in prison. Are they going to let them all go? Because without us there supporting them, I don't know how they are going to hold them, and none of the countries they came from want them back. So you can potentially face hundreds of ISIS fighters being released overnight. These are all the consequences--and more.
What are we going to do if in a few days, a few weeks, or months from now ISIS decides to deploy chemical weapons against the Kurds or others in these areas? That is the parade of horribles, and the possibilities are extraordinary. We could go on and on for a while.
That is why, among other reasons, it was a mistake, and when we came out and said it was a mistake, a lot of people said: What are you going to do about it? Don't just talk; act.
It is difficult in an issue like this. Congress can stop wars. Congress can defund them and deauthorize actions, but Congress cannot force the Commander in Chief to stay in a military engagement. We cannot force the President to deploy troops or keep them somewhere. We can keep him from doing it, but we can't force him to do it. Our options in this field are limited.
We wanted to do something. We felt so strongly about this. The response is S. 1, which is the item before us here today. S. 1, as I said, combines these four bills that enjoy widespread bipartisan support. You would think that in the midst of everything else that is going on, this would be a really good way to start the new Congress, in foreign policy, in an area that traditionally has not been partisan--or shouldn't have been--by combining these four bills into S. 1, which is what is before us today.
I want to briefly outline the four provisions combined in this bill. Two of them deal directly with our ally in Israel. First, it makes very clear that ``it shall be the policy of the United States to provide assistance to the Government of Israel in order to support funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, projectile, and other defense capabilities to help Israel meet its security needs and to help develop and enhance United States defense capabilities.''
That last line is important because much of the technology that is being innovated and developed by Israel to defend Israel can also be used by the United States to protect us from rocket attacks there or when we are deployed abroad. The reason why this is so critical is that Hezbollah has a large presence in Syria and has their base of operations in Lebanon. Today, Hezbollah is better funded, better equipped, and has more armaments than at any time in its history.
We all recall the Hezbollah-Israel war from about over a decade and a half ago. The next Israel-Hezbollah war will be far deadlier and costly because Hezbollah no longer simply depends on Iran to provide them the weapons. They make them themselves. Hezbollah no longer has a few rockets. It has enough to potentially overwhelm defenses. That means you could have the best missile defense system in the world, but if you fire enough of them, eventually some of them will get through, and when they get through in a small country like Israel--which at its narrowest point is only 9 miles wide--and it hits a population center and kills thousands of people, then, you know we are facing a catastrophe. Israel will respond to that sort of attack with overwhelming force. This could spiral quickly out of control.
How could we wind up at that point? We could wind up at that point because now that the United States is leaving Syria, the Israelis are going to say: We are not going to allow Iran and Hezbollah to build up its presence. We are going to step up our military attacks inside of Syria.
It is possible, when they step it up, that it is likely that Iran and Hezbollah will respond by hitting back. Then, Israel will hit back even harder. At that point of escalation, you could easily see the missiles start coming out of Lebanon into Israel, and Israel responding with overwhelming force, and then we have a much broader conflict, with thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of people whose lives are on the line.
So making it clear to Hezbollah or to any enemy of Israel that the United States stands ready to equip them in the case of such a contingency is one of the best things we can do to prevent it from happening. If Israel's enemies believe there is any doubt that the United States will step forward and help Israel resupply in case of such conflict, you have increased the probability that they will miscalculate and take such action.
But if they know that we are committed to rearming Israel as often and as much as possible and necessary in order to help them defend themselves, then, the chances of them attacking are diminished. That is why this bill authorizes U.S. security assistance in foreign military financing to Israel at an amount no less than $3.3 billion a year for the next 10 years.
By the way, this, in essence, is authorizing a memoranda of understanding signed between the Obama administration and Israel. We are authorizing that and putting it into law. We are also authorizing the President to transfer precision-guided munitions to reserve stocks as needed for legitimate self-defense by Israel. The world now knows-- and Israel's enemies now know--that the United States has put aside reserve precision-guided munitions that are there if Israel needs them for us to quickly transport them to them in case they come under attack and run low on the munitions they need to defend themselves. That is the first thing this bill does.
Another thing it does, by the way, is the Combating BDS Act of 2019. For those not familiar with BDS, it is boycott, divestment, and sanctions. It is, in essence, by and large, to punish Israel by convincing companies--international companies and others--to boycott doing business with Israel or Israeli entities, to divest of investments in Israel or Israeli entities, and convincing governments to sanction Israel.
This provision of the law does not outlaw boycott, divestments, and sanctions. If a United States company caves to this pressure and decides it is going to boycott or divest from Israel, they have the legal right to do so. This doesn't outlaw it. However, it does say if a State or local government decides that it is not going to do business or if the government is not going to issue contracts for goods or services with any company that is boycotting or divesting from Israel, they have a right to do that.
I have heard the argument that this is about free speech. First of all, it is not about free speech. It is about foreign policy. We will talk about that more as the week goes on, but there are court cases out there that talk about how this is not an effort to influence a domestic political debate or to speak or take action in the form of speech that influences a domestic political debate. This is about influencing the behavior of a foreign government's foreign policy. The courts give broad discretion to Congress and the President in the setting of our foreign policy.
Putting that aside for a moment, as I told already you, this doesn't in any way prevent anyone from participating in boycotting or divesting from Israel. All it says is that if you do, your clients, in the form of State or local governments, can boycott or divest from you in return. Free speech is a two-way street.
Beyond that, it makes it very clear in the law that nothing in this law should be construed to violate anyone's First Amendment rights.
These are the two provisions that help Israel and to prevent the sort of economic warfare that is being driven against them and to make clear to their adversaries that the United States stands ready to resupply and strengthen Israel's ability to defend itself--not just helping Israel defend itself if it comes under attack but, frankly, in the hopes of deterring an attack against Israel. We do that by authorizing and putting into law the memorandum of understanding that was signed by the Obama administration in September of 2016.
In addition, the third thing the bill does is to deal with Jordan. Jordan is a U.S. ally. It is, by the way, a nation that, along with Egypt, has been a linchpin of Israel's security in the region, and it is also a nation that has faced an onslaught of refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria. They face the threat from ISIS, as well. In S. 1, we reauthorize the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act, which passed in 2015. It is an act that, among other things, includes Jordan on the list of countries that are eligible for certain streamlined defense sales, because Jordan itself is facing many of the same challenges, particularly because of our pullout from Syria.
If you think the pullout from Syria--especially from southeastern Syria--is a good thing for Jordan, you are wrong. Once the United States leaves that area, the Iranian influence will grow, and potentially, the ISIS influence will grow. It will become harder--not easier--on Jordan. This is the least we can do to strengthen an important ally in this legion.
The last piece is one sponsored by the soon-to-be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch--the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act. It does three principle things. It requires the Treasury to determine whether the Central Bank of Syria is a financial institution that launders money for the regime. I am not sure it will take them long to conclude that they are, but that opens the door for the second thing it does, and that is new sanctions on anyone who does business with or provides financing to the Syrian regime.
It also, by the way, requires the administration to brief us here in Congress as part of our oversight role on what our strategy is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian products and humanitarian assistance inside Syria.
Hopefully, we will be on this bill, but as the week goes on, I sadly will have to come to the floor and point out the horrifying atrocities that have been committed and that, I believe 50 and 100 years from now, people will look back at as one of the most horrifying things that have happened in this century. The people who have done this should be held to account.
This law puts in place not just requiring the administration to tell us what they plan to do in the short term to help people to the extent possible, but it also puts in place the ability to hold those who have done this responsible and accountable for what they did and what they continue to do.
I sincerely hope that we can get on this because the American people in the face of all this noise that is out there are in desperate need of reassurance that our Republic still works and that, at a minimum, we can still agree on what we agree on and we don't use the pretext of a shutdown to shut down the Senate.
As I remind everyone again--and I know we have some new Members--this body unanimously passed a bill to fund the government. I have my views on this shutdown, and I don't understand the objection. It is $5 billion for spending on border security. By the way, it is not $5 billion on a wall. It is $5 billion to fund the top 10 priorities of the border security plan, and included in those top 10 are those of strengthening existing walls and barriers and building some new ones, but it includes far more than just a wall. I remind many of my colleagues who were here in 2013 that when we sponsored the Senate bill on immigration, we authorized four times as much in that bill for border security. Of course, the politics have changed, and so people's positions on the issue of border security have changed.
That said, I am not in favor of government shutdowns. I don't think they make sense. The people have nothing to do with this. They are not responsible for this. Border agents, TSA employees, and Federal employees from these Agencies all across the country are missing paydays now. Their mortgage companies and their credit card companies don't care that there is a shutdown. They want to get paid or they will ruin your credit. I hope we can find a resolution for them--but also for the country--without our abandoning the reality that we need to deal with border security.
Here is what I know, though. I don't believe shutting down the Senate and not allowing us to move forward on something as important as a Syria policy is the way to resolve the shutdown issue. You don't solve a shutdown with a shutdown. Shutting down the Senate and saying we are not doing anything here until we resolve this issue is not a constructive approach, and it is certainly not the way to start this new Congress.
At a time when, I think, the Senate serves as important a role as it has in two decades, this country needs a Senate that is capable of functioning and agreeing on the things we agree on--on passing bills that have broad support and not allowing them to fall victim to debates that are unrelated to the issues at hand. I remind all of my colleagues who, just 2 or 3 weeks ago, joined me and others in criticizing the decision to draw down from Syria; that there isn't a lot we can do in Congress to force the President to stay there, but there are some things we can do to reassure our allies in the region that at least in the U.S. Senate they have our support--that Israel and Jordan and the innocents who have been tortured and killed in Syria have our support. We have a bill before the Senate, S.1, that does that, and I don't know why we are not looking forward to at least debating it.
The vote we are taking in about 60 minutes or 59 minutes from now is not a vote to pass it. It is just a vote to begin debate on it. That is all it is. It is a vote to begin debate on it. To not even allow debate to begin on something we basically largely agree on may make a lot of sense in the hallways here, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to the men and women back home who are already watching the government shutdown with disdain and who then, on top of it, see that not even the Senate can function in the midst of all of this.
I hope, whether it is today or later this week, my colleagues across the aisle will reconsider their objection to even beginning debate so we can get on this and get to work on behalf of the men and women of this country for whom we work and represent.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source