a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask for vitiation of the quorum call. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to share my deep concern over what appears to be the trump administration's intention to go to war with north korea. north korea may have bent over backwards to appear conciliatory during the recently concluded winter olympics in south korea, but the kim jong un regime has not stopped its dangerous activities. far from it. north korea is a serious and ever-worsening threat to its people, to our allies partners in the region and to the united states. but the responsible course of action is to use all tools of

american state craft to reduce those threats. we have an obligation to american families, service members, and our allies to say unequivocally that we did everything in our power to curb north korea's dangerous behavior without resorting to armed conflict. instead, i fear that the trump administration is beating the drums of war. while the north korean regime was all smiles during the olympics, its maligned behavior continued. engineers raced to perfect a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile. north korean laborers around the world, modern-day indentured servants, sent paychecks home to the regime helping fund its

illicit military programs. illegal ship-to-ship transfers of refined petroleum products continued. north north korea's army of cyber warriors grew ever more capable. north korean military offices reportedly continued to assist and empower bashar al-assad's chemical weapons program in syria. and the kim regime's thugs made no efforts to scale back rampant human rights abuses. many smiled as the north korean regime won a gold medal in propaganda at the olympics all the while it got ever closer to its ultimate goal of perfecting a nuclear weapon that could reach the united states of america. and we missed an opportunity to

engage in talks with north korea because we did that at our own peril. while we must continue to ratchet up pressure on north korea, other elements of president trump's approach threatened to make an already bad situation even worse. first, we are all too familiar with the president's reckless rhetoric, promising, quote, fire and fury does not minimize tensions. threatening to, quote, totally destroy north korea only increases the chance of deadly miscalculation. and boasting about the size of a nuclear button only makes the united states less safe. how does donald trump think kim jong-un would react if he thought he believed his rule were under immediate threat?

would kim restrain himself? second, contradictory statements from the trump administration caused confusion that dampens the prospect of a peaceful solution. is the trump administration open to talks with north korea? we certainly should be. and if we are, what are the preconditions? and should we even have any? we hear different thoughts on different days. president trump routinely undercuts his secretary of state rex tillerson and with it our diplomatic high ground. confusing our allies in south korea and japan whose assistance in helping resolve the north korean crisis is indispensable only serves to embolden kim jong-un who seeks to drive a wedge between the united states and our allies. we saw during this olympics but we cannot allow that effort to

ever take hold. third, the trump administration's recently released budget request for fiscal year 2019 would drastically cut state department funding. yet there is no explanation as to why the president believes that it is prudent to cut diplomatic resources, especially in the middle of a crisis. the state department has already alarmingly understaff to handle the significant and increasingly more potent threats from north korea. just this week, we found out that the special representative for north korean policy, ambassador joseph un, the lead negotiator with north korea, is stepping down tomorrow. he is one of the key players in any strategy with pyongyang.

but wait. there is more. we still don't have a u.s. ambassador to south korea more than a year into the trump administration. we still don't have a confirmed assistant secretary for east asian and pacific affairs. we still don't have a special envoy for north korean human rights issues. we still don't have a sanctions coordinator. it seems the only thing this administration has to show its concern about with north korea is donald trump's twitter account. i sent a letter to secretary tillerson asking him to explain how the state department is sufficiently staffed to execute a wide-ranging strategy of diplomatic engagement and pressure. but as i wait for his response, the talk of conflict persists and the drumbeat of war grows

louder. sadly, we have heard this before. and less -- in less than three weeks, we will mark the 15th anniversary of the united states invasion of iraq. now, to be clear, the current situation we face with north korea is not the same as the one we faced in the runup to the iraq war in 2003. but as mark twain once said, while history does not repeat itself, it does tend to rhyme. we should recognize the similarities and learn the appropriate lessons regarding the use of military force. unlike iraq, north korea has nearly completed development of long-range miss ils -- missiles which will be capable of creating nuclear mushroom clouds in our cities. so we all agree we need to act to ensure that this never happens, but nowhere is there a convincing argument for military strikes.

there might be a military option for the north korean nuclear threat, but there is no military solution. according to july 2017 poll, 76% of americans are worried that the united states will become engaged in a major war in the next four years. and 86% of americans believe the military should only be used as a last resort. with should listen to the american people. congress must demand that the trump add ption exhaust all diplomatic and economic options in north korea short of war. i am not the only one who thinks another korean war would be horrific. warnings about consequences of conflict are coming from all corners, including from the senior most national security and defense officials.

secretary of defense jim mattis says that conflict on the korean peninsula would be, quote, catastrophic. former secretary of defense bill perry said that a u.s. strike, quote, could turn into a disastrous military operation and that a war in the korean peninsula that extends to japan and that goes nuclear would be ten times worse than the first korean war. victor char who was to be nominated to be ambassador to south korea before being removed from contention stated that, quote, the answer is not as some trump administration officials have suggested a preventive military strike. and reports suggest that john bolton whom president trump may be considering to replace h.r. mcmaster as national security advisor apparently, quote, supports preventive war through a massive strike if sanctions fail.

he said that the united states would have to, quote, simultaneously destroy all known north korean nuclear and ballistic missile sites, submarine bases, and artillery, mortar, and missile installment along the north border with south korea. and that doesn't include the sites we don't know about. in october, the department of defense stated that the only way to locate and destroy with complete certainty all components of north korea's nuclear weapons program is through a ground invasion. reports from a war game last week indicated that approximately 10,000 americans could be wounded in combat in just the first few days of a new korean war. apparently, general mark millie, the chief of staff of the united states army, stated that the

brutality of conflict on the korean peninsula would be beyond the experience of any living soldier. but even before these comments, 74% of americans were concerned about a full-scale war with north korea. so we must ask some fundamental questions. on what criteria will the administration judge that all nonmilitary options have been exhausted? who will be the arbiter of that decision? will the administration fulfill its constitutional obligation and come to congress to ask for support? and how will the members of congress respond to such a request? it is because of these questions that i am here today. and it is why i introduced the no unconstitutional strike against north korea act. this bill would prevent the department of defense and other

federal agencies from spending any money to carry out an attack, conventional or nuclear, on north korea without congressional approval because we must only use the united states military, the most powerful fighting force in the world, if it is absolutely necessary. and at the same time, i recognize that we must do more to stem the north korea threat. and that includes addressing actions by china, the primary enabler of three successive generations of north korean dictators. we should seek china's partnership in this process, but we must not fear offending the chinese communist party nor china's reaction. in the interest of our security and the interest of a peaceful resolution, we must, number one,

cut off the flow of crude oil from china to north korea. if we do not do this, then we are not going as far as we need to on a package of sanctions. number two, give the kim regime a warning that we expect them to stop selling the slave labor of its people and in fact receiving the revenues from that slave labor in order to prop up their regime and to fund a ballistic missile and nuclear program. three, eliminate north korea's illicit drug trade. four, halt the procurements of key rocket fuel chemicals and five, restrict its use of the internet to evade sanctions through theft of crypto currencies and commit other

cyber crimes. we must continue the pressure on north korea, but it must be combined with simultaneous and direct engagement with north korea. we have yet to use all of the sanctions which should be imposed upon the north korean regime. we have a responsibility to ensure that we exhaust all sanctions, and that includes doing everything we can to shut down the flow of crude oil into north korea, which props up the regime, props up the ballistic missile program, props up their nuclear weapons program. talks with north korea about these issues are not synonymous with concessions. talks, back-bited targeted pressure and stronger alliances is the path pursued by countries that are strong and confident

and wise. the drumbeat of war on the other hand is the sound of fear and insecurity. we are talking today about sanctions on imported steel and aluminum that comes into the united states of america but we're looking at that as a trade issue. if we want to do something about trade that truly endangers our country, we should be looking at the trade between north korea and china. we should be looking at the crude oil that continues to flow into north korea. we should not be talking about a military option until we have exhausted our diplomatic, our economic opportunities to bring north korea to the table. without china's agreement on this, we will reach a debate on this floor talking about war with north korea. but it will not be a debate that

took place with the united states, the trump administration having exhausted all of the opportunities which are cut off of crude oil would have and could have presented to bringing north korea to the table. it worked in 2006. it worked in 1994. and i expect for the sake of the american people that the president will try to make that work right now. he has no done that yet. this administration has not done that yet. so it is wrong to be hearing this talk about military possibilities, military options before we have exhausted the cutoff of oil, of slave wages, of drugs, of crypto currency. we have to do that first. we owe that to history so that we are not judged rationally to a war with north korea that

could quickly spiral out of control. so let us return to a united states of state craft allowing our diplomats to advance our interests using our economic tools, our economic strength as a way of ensuring that we avoid a frivolous loss of life in our country and other countries because we did not pursue a course that was wise. so i thank you, mr. president. at this point i will yield back to the chair.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous

consent the senate proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of the following nominations: executive calendar 398, 399, 698, 699. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the nominations. the clerk: executive office of the president, gregory doud of the kansas to be chief agricultural negotiator office of the united states trade representative. united states international trade commission, jason kearns of colorado to be a member. executive office of the president, dennis shea of virginia to be a deputy united states trade representative, geneva office with the rank of ambassador. c.j. mahoney of kansas to be deputy united states trade representative investment services labor, environment, africa, china and the western hemisphere with the rank of ambassador. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate,

that if confirmed the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and no further motions be in order and any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 700 through 709 and all nominations on the secretary's desk, that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and no further motions be in order, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action all en bloc. the presiding officer: is

there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 305, s. 1621. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 305, s. 1621 a bill to require the federal communications commission to establish a methodology, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3656 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3656, an act

to amend title 38 united states code and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the bill is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 2248 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2248, a bill to amend title 38 united states code and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 2372 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2372, a bill to amend title 38 united states code, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection, the bill is discharged and the senate shall proceed to consideration. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: s. 419, s. res. 419, s. res. 420, s. res. 421, s. res.

422 and s. res. 423. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the senate shall proceed to the resolutions en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the resolutions. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on the resolutions en bloc. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolutions are approved en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the preambles be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, march 5. further, that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour 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, and

morning business be closed. finally, i ask that following leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the scholer nomination under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday. u.s. senate today confirmed a judge to the south carolina district court and then voted to limit debate on three other judicial nominations. the senate will not be in session tomorrow confirmation both on those nominations will be held monday at 5:30 p.m. there were a number of four speeches today about gun policy. we will show you several of them followed by a brief with democrats. >> senator from fda