Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, before I get into my main remarks on Syria, I just heard the majority leader, Leader McConnell, say that he wants to see if we can do appropriations bills, that he will see if the Democrats want to legislate. Give me a break. Since we have started to legislate, we have been waiting for 6 months, 9 months. It is well- known in the country that the Senate is the legislative graveyard, that Leader McConnell has not put on the floor bill after bill on major issues that affect the country and that demand attention. Most everybody knows that he is proud that he is the Grim Reaper. So now, in his asking if the Democrats want to legislate, it is all up to Leader McConnell.

On the appropriations bills, of course, we want to legislate when it is being done in a fair way. There are some bills that came out of the Appropriations Committee in a bipartisan way. I think there are four of them that the leader is thinking of putting on the floor, and we would like to move forward on those and have a vigorous process as we go forward.

There are certain bills that were not done with any consultation--the taking of money out of things like MILCON and HHS and putting it for a wall that he knows the Democrats will not go for. Those kinds of things we can't legislate until they become bipartisan, until we work together. There are certain bills--HHS, Defense, MILCON, DHS--that we can't move forward on until we have some bipartisan agreement. Yet, on the bills on which there is agreement, we would be happy to move forward. Of course, that doesn't solve the problem.

After that happens, our House colleagues--Speaker Pelosi, Chair Lowey--have since suggested that there be a 302(b) conference because even the 302(b)s are different than these bills, and that is the right place to go once the Senate passes these less controversial bills.

I hope we can move forward. I hope we can. The first package of bills--four of the five--is not controversial. The fifth, they didn't even bring to the floor of the Committee on Appropriations--MILCON. Yet, on those four, moving forward would be a fine thing. Hopefully, we could work out an amendment process whereby Members could offer amendments.

So we will finally legislate after 9 months, not just move judges and other appointees, and that is a good thing. I am glad that Leader McConnell has finally, maybe, felt the pressure and wants to legislate. Turkey and Syria

Madam President, let's go to Syria.

Saturday night, President Trump announced on Twitter that he was reversing his decision to host next year's G7 summit at his golf resort in Doral, FL. The President's original decision was the textbook definition of self-dealing--an outrageous move that provoked immediate and rightful condemnations. Over the weekend, multiple outlets reported that the President decided to back down only after hearing of intense opposition from members of his own party, many of whom told him privately they would not defend him on the issue.

It is obvious to almost everyone in America that you don't suggest a resort that you own as the place to have a conference. It makes no sense. Is the President so interested in making a few extra dollars-- reports are that he brags what a multibillionaire he is--that he would risk violating the rules and laws of this country, the emoluments clause? It makes no sense.

It is unfortunate that this wasn't the only decision that made no sense. There is an obvious parallel between the President's decision about the G7 and his decision to precipitously withdraw our forces from Syria. Both were done in a sort of whimsical way whereby, from all reports, the President didn't consult with the experts in this latter case--with the military, the State Department, and the CIA.

Both have resulted in condemnation from across the political spectrum. In fact, last week, over 120 House Republicans voted in favor of the resolution criticizing the President's Syria policy. Leaders McCarthy, Scalise, and Cheney are hardly moderates, in the middle, who always seek compromise. These are pretty hard-nosed people, and they voted to condemn it, so it must be pretty bad. Of course, it is. Former military commanders and some of the President's staunchest allies in the Senate have echoed those sentiments.

Just like the President reversed course on the G7 after a torrent of criticism from his own party, President Trump must dramatically and drastically rethink his policy in Syria, which is far more dangerous because of one word above all else--``ISIS.'' By his abruptly having pulled troops out of northern Syria, the President has betrayed and deserted our partners and allies and has created a security vacuum that our longest standing adversaries--Iran, Putin, and Assad--are exploiting. He put American lives in danger by letting hardened ISIS fighters escape captivity and regroup.

As American troops leave Kurdish areas, videos show Kurdish locals hurling rotting vegetables and shouting ``America lies.'' That is painful. Do you know to whom it is the most painful? Our soldiers who fought alongside the Kurds. The Kurds sacrificed some of their own people so that Americans wouldn't have to die.

One leading Russian newspaper, which is, no doubt, part of the Putin propaganda machine, ran a column this week that proclaimed Russia's unexpected triumph in the Middle East and that Putin won the lottery. Meanwhile, public reports suggest that at least 200 people with suspected links to the Islamic State have escaped the displacement camp in northeast Syria as a result of the Turkish invasion, and we in New York know better than anyone what a small group of bad, bad terrorists--evil terrorists--can do in untold damage to our homeland.

This policy is reckless, unthought out, and dangerous. It has been 3 weeks since the announcement of the President's decision, and he has yet to articulate any plan for what happens next. As a 5-day pause on hostilities comes quickly to an end tomorrow, every Member of this Chamber ought to be asking: What is President Trump's strategy to secure the enduring defeat of ISIS? How does the President plan to find the escaped ISIS prisoners? How does he plan to fix this mess? These ISIS people are dangerous and can create a problem right here in our homeland.

This morning, according to the New York Times, the President is now considering leaving a small force in eastern Syria. We need to know if that is true. If so, how many? What would be the force's mission and for how long? Maybe the most pressing question is, How would a deployment in eastern Syria secure ISIS prisoners and help track down those who have escaped? This presents such a great danger to our country.

The President is flitting from one idea to the next and has no coherent, apparent strategy. His own Cabinet officials have yet to even agree on a time to brief the Senators on the administration's plan. We have been waiting, and we want to hear from the top people--Secretary Esper, Secretary Pompeo, and CIA Director Haspel. This is serious stuff. The Congress has to be briefed. We are worried the reason we are not being briefed is that there is no strategy and that these three people who are in charge of major portions of the American Government-- the military, the CIA, the diplomatic corps--don't have any idea what the President is up to.

The quickest, simplest, and most powerful way to send that message to the President would be for the Senate to take up and pass the bipartisan House resolution on Syria. Last week, I asked for the Senate's consent to take it up, but unfortunately it was blocked. We are going to keep going back to it.

It makes a difference when my Republican colleagues stand up to the President. That can affect him more than anything else, so they shouldn't duck it or be allowed to duck it. When the Republicans pressure the President, as they did on the G7, he considers changing course. So, when it comes to our national security, vital matters of foreign policy, and, yes, especially when it comes to the Constitution, the rule of law, or the integrity of our democracy, the Republicans must put the country over the party.

On Syria and the fight against ISIS, that means Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans should let us vote on the House resolution criticizing the President's withdrawal.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source