[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] .. will

you're watching live senate coverage here on c-span two. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, stay close to us and we will have no need to fear. enable us to feel the joy of

your saving presence. you have been our refuge in ages past; you continue to be our hope for the seasons to come. inspire our senators to live with the sense of accountability to you. remind them that you are the only constituent they absolutely must please. lord help them to emulate the depths of your caring in their relationships and responsibility, ever seeking to glorify your name. we pray in your sacred name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: this will be a busy week here in the senate. we begin by making more progress on the president's nominees. later today we'll vote to advance the nomination of president trump's choice to serve

as deputy secretary at the department of the treasury, justin muzinich. this nomination was reported favorably by our colleagues on the finance committee earlier this year. chairman hatch has characterized the nominee as, quote, qualified, competent and ready to get to work. mr. muzinich is already serving as senior counsel to secretary mnuchin and putting experience to work through public service. he holds an m.b.a. from harvard business schedule and a j.d. from yale. he has a distinguished record in the private sector, and as an instructor at columbia business school. as the treasury department continues its work implementing the new tax code, developing foreign sanctions and a variety of other important areas, it's more important than ever that the deputy secretary position be filled.

therefore, i would urge each of my colleagues to join me in filling that vacancy with this well-qualified nominee as we advance his nomination later today. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i have spoken on the senate floor on a number of occasions recently about the migrant crisis on our southern border and tried to shed a little more context, a little more light on what is happening there and why this is so important, not only to the united states but to our -- our neighbors to the south as well as central america as well. i know there is a -- this idea out there that all we need to do is to build more infrastructure along the border and somehow this problem will be resolved, and i'm here to say that that is

not the case, that border infrastructure, some people like the president call it a wall. others called it a fence. that is certainly a critical piece of the puzzle, but it's much more complex than that. and it affects not only public safety here in the united states, it affects our economy and jobs here in the united states. so while the focus happens to be on what's happening in tijuana or another flash point across the border, what i would encourage all of us to do is not just to take a narrow focus but to pull back to, let's say, a 30,000-foot perspective and try to understand all this in context. we know that unfortunately sometimes in the political arguments that get made here, the facts get missed or misconstrued, and sometimes political expediency is

inconsistent with our need to do the hard work necessary to find a right solution. this, of course, is part of the general debate we have here about what should be our immigration policies here in the united states. i personally believe that legal immigration has been to the benefit of our country. virtually all of us came from somewhere else at some point in our family history, but the important point is legal immigration is very different from uncontrolled illegal immigration, which is what we are seeing still flooding across our southern borders. when the public's paying attention, when things like the migrant crisis at tijuana has occurred, but the fact of the matter is this is a daily occurrence, so it's not just large caravans of migrants from central america. we have many caravans -- mini caravans showing up on a daily

basis, and these problems certainly aren't going away. i had the honor of representing about 28 million texans, 40% of whom are hispanic, but i also represent a large number of indian americans and vietnamese americans, chinese americans, korean americans. in other words, we are a very diverse state. i know many people aren't aware of that, but it's absolutely true, particularly when i tell people that the third most commonly spoken language in texas today is vietnamese. it usually surprises people. but of course like every member of the senate, i consult with my constituents on a regular basis to try to learn from them what they think we ought to be advocating for on their whatever. the border communities that i represent have experienced very real consequences, negative consequences from the migrant crisis, and they have also seen the humanitarian consequences of people making this treacherous journey across next -- mexico up

from central america and traveled to the united states, but of course it should be no surprise that in some cases, that journey is simply too strenuous, it proves to be too much, and a number of these migrants actually lose their lives. they die trying to make their way to the united states. in brooks county, which is near -- which includes falfurious, which is a border checkpoint about 50 or so miles north of the rio grande river, these communities don't have the resources to recover all the remains from those migrants who die in their counties, causing the cost to be placed on local government and in turn local taxpayers. the burden falls on them to come up with forensic experts, medical exercise, for example, who are already overburdened and understaffed. this is a real problem for many of our border communities, and this is why i joined with

senator cruz, congressman hurd, and congressman gonzalez to introduce a bill to help local jurisdictions improve the recording and reporting of missing persons and unidentified remains found along the u.s.-mexican border. my hope is that this bill will help our local communities identify those who have gone missing, process those unidentified remains, and invest in forensic expertise to provide closure to the families in the united states and abroad who ar. texas, i understand, is unique in many respects, given our long common border with mexico, but both of our nations benefit from the commerce and trade that comes across that 1,200-mile border. as a matter of fact, mexico is one of our closest trading partners. it shouldn't surprise any of us. but that also means that our border communities are on the front lines of some of the challenges that go with an unsecured border like drug trafficking and gang violence.

recently, i talked about the many complex facets of the migrant crisis, as well as the way we can combat the violence and exploitation by the cartels and gangs and transnational criminal organizations. i've talked about the fact that the very same organizations that charge migrants $8,000, for example, to transport them from central america across mexico into the united states are the very same organizations that transport the heroin that's grown in mexico, processed there, and brought into the united states, the poison that unfortunately has killed far too many americans who have died from overdoses. these criminal organizations are commodity agnostic. they really don't care about the human beings. the only thing they care about is the money. so they will transport the migrants, they will traffic in children and women for sex, sex slaves in the united states, and they will also traffic in the illegal drugs that kill

thousands upon thousands of americans every year. i have mentioned the fact we need to focus on strengthening our partnerships in mexico and central america in order to address this crisis, but i want to focus on one aspect of this relationship in my remaining time and talk about why trade remains such an important piece of the puzzle. a lack of sufficient resources at the border including outdated ports of entry, including lack of personnel, technology, and equipment, these have been a contributing factor to the crisis. in fact, you look at how most of the high-value drugs, how they get into the united states, it's through the ports of entry, and we need to upgrade those ports of entry and make sure they are staffed, not only to monitor these trade as it comes across the border but also to identify the heroin and other illegal drugs coming into the united states so we can stop them.

and the only way we're going to be able to do that is by investing in our ports of entry, this antiquated infrastructure and inadequately staffed ports of entry. then again, i have heard people say what we ought to do is just cut off our border, close it all down. can you imagine that will do with the legitimate trade that comes across our border that supports millions of american jobs. about five million american jobs depends on our trade with mexico and eight million jobs depends on our trade with kennedy. to close -- canada. to close down the border is unrealistic and even if it were, it would be harmful to many people in the united states. my state has the second-largest economy. so closing off the border would have a significant negative

impact, as i said, not only for texas but nationwide. we have about 29 air, land, and seaport of entry into texas. that includes the busiest inland port along the entire u.s.-mexico border in terms of volume. the borders in texas communities know when the bordz are tied up with -- borders are tied up with illegal contraband, can slow to a halt. it has a swift impact on the pocketbooks and livelihoods of all of our bored residents and, indeed, many people beyond people living on the border. congress has taken some steps to increase the volume of trade across our ports of entry, which include my cross-border trade

enhancement act which is now law which is a pilot program that will ultimately lead to staff efficiencies and allow for further infrastructure improvement at our ports of entry. more than ten texas land ports, including the passo delporto bridge has taken opportunities that this program provides and have seen great benefits. many texas air and seaports have begun to utilize this valuable program as well. in addition, last week i joined the junior senator from michigan to introduce a bipartisan bill that will require the department of homeland security to conduct a threat and operational analysis at all of our u.s. ports of entry because the same ports that let in legitimate trade and commerce can also be points of exploitation and access for people who wish to do us harm. this analysis will become thes basis of an implementation plan to ensure that our ports have

wait times to keep illegal contraband from crossing our borders. we have long thrived on international trade and travel through our many ports, but we need to look at the inefficiencies in the system. it's important to find solutions to enhance trade and travel while ensuring that the bad actors have fewer opportunities to thwart our protections. it's a message that says first do no harm, a hippocratic oath of sorts, and that's the same advice i gave ambassador lighthizer when he worked on the trade deal with mexico and canada which i was glad was signed by the three countries in argentina at the g-20 at the end of last month. i look forward to reviewing the agreement with my colleagues and i look forward to implement this important legislation. but the new u.s. m.c.a.

agreement is not just about the texas economy, a modernized pact will provide long-term stability for the mexican economy. this is an important point when discussing the pays -- ways that mexico and the united states can work together. this is a partnership that i hope to see continue, especially under mexico's new president. i was able to attend -- secretary perry and other members of the administration, including ivanka trump representing her father. the future of the u.s.-mexico relationship is important. it's one that we all ought to care about, and i think the opportunities are there for us to engage in strategic partnerships with mexico in a number of ways, for example, dealing with the asylum problem that secretary nielson has

already begun to negotiate. through our partnership we can work together to solve this myi grant crisis to improve the opportunities that people have to live and work in their home country as well as protect trade which supports so many jobs here in the united states. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of the treasury, justin george muzinich, of new york, to be deputy secretary. mr. wyden: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: the senate will soon

cast the first procedural vote on the nomination of justin muzinich to serve as deputy secretary of the treasury. i am going to oppose this nomination, and i'd like to lay out exactly why beginning with a basic rule that i intend to maintain going forward. if a treasury nominee says that the trump tax handouts will pay for themselves, i intend to oppose them. the reason why is by sticking with this debunked claim, you're basically laying out the economic policy version of being a flat earther. you're either peddling an idea

you know is untrue or you can't do math. either way, you shouldn't have pivotal, powerful job at the treasury department. when mr. muzinich came before the finance committee for his nomination hearing, it was a titanic battle just to try to get him to offer any kind of substantive answer on pretty much anything. one question he finally answered straight up was whether he agreed that the trump tax handouts would, quote, pay for themselves and reduce our deficits. there he gave a one-word response which was yes. now, some call this trickle-down

economics, others call it voodoo economics. i call it plain and simple rainbow and unicorn math. no matter what you call it, it just isn't connected to reality. the trump tax handout will not pay for itself, and even after independent, nonpartisan economic analysis demonstrated that was the case, even after months of data were released showing that the trump tax law has failed to live up to the administration's fantasyland promises, mr. muzinich continues to cling to this false claim.

i'll give him credit. he has what my relatives, what jewish people call huhtzpah. it raises a fundamental question of honesty. before his nomination hearing newspaper reports ran glowing quotes about him from several key officials at the treasury department. they praised mr. muzinich's financial expertise and they talked about the expansive role that he would play in a whole host of areas at the treasury department. not just tax policy but debt management and republican committee members talked all

about the work he had put into the development of the trump tax law. so i was pretty interested in mr. muzinich's substantive views on these big questions because i had read these glowing tributes from his colleagues, and i thought, well, if we're going to have someone promoted to this important position, we really ought to get a sense of what he believes on the really important substantive economic issues. so i began to ask the nominee about these questions and he pretty much, as i indicated, just put any response sort of in the, well, you know, i couldn't possibly get into that, and i wanted to know why because eventually we got around to him

saying he really wasn't going to get into these issues because he said if he was confirmed he would just be, in his words, a building manager. now, madam president, a build manager is somebody who doesn't get praised by his colleagues as being an expert on debt management and tax policy. building managers have important responsibilities. they are involved in things like acoustics and ventilation. they've got responsibilities, that's what building managers do. they certainly don't have duties like those described by mr. muzinich's colleagues. so i have some real difficult reconciling the way his own

colleagues described him, in these important publications, and what he told me about his spoments as the build -- responsibilities as the building manager. so i think he really is not reflecting what his job is all about, and the fact that he would misrepresent that to me in our discussions prior to his nomination misrepresented to the ranking democrat in the senate finance committee in charge of the nomination is, in my view, very troubling. i also have had very serious questions about the way mr. muzinich responded to my questions about the trump administration's new policy, really just a couple months old, that would open the floodgates

to more foreign dark money in american elections. now, we all know from this last election about what dark money means. we had our airways, tv sets from sea to shinning sea dominated by television commercials that had a tag line on it something akin to americans for high school football or americans who believe in our flag or various other things that none of us would possibly disagree with but would in no way reflect who actually paid for that commercial that found its way to our tv sets. so there were that increased flood of dark money commercials

through the past november election and right before that the trump administration adopted a rule that would make it even easier for foreign dark money to make its way into our elections. now, we will be talking about that rule later this week, madam president. there's going to be an effort, senator tester and i, to overturn that flawed policy. but the fact is this is something that an individual who was nominated for the important position, mr. muzinich, would have some views about, and particularly because the rule

change -- the rule change made by the trump administration to allow more dark money in american elections was announced just hours after the american people learned about the elicit activities that an accused russian spy maria butina had used to infiltrate conservative groups and undermine our democracy. so if that was a coincidence, madam president, that the trump administration announced this new rul rule making it easier fr foreign dark money to make its way into our elections, if it was just a coincidence that they announced it just a few hours after the american people learned about maria butina, i've got to tell you, that is a

coincidence for the ages. and the trump administration and other tbicials, -- and other officials, of course, say that maria butina was just an innocent college student attending american university. i can just tell you, madam president, i don't know of many college students who go to south dakota with an n.r.a. political operative to set up a shell company. that is not common behavior for an american college student. but given the fact that the trump administration had made it easier to get foreign dark money into our elections and a common vehicle for doing that would be using a shell company, it certainly again raises very troubling signs that a nominee

for this key position will take no position whatsoever on something so important to protecting our elections. the fact is with this new policy, the president is essentially blinding law enforcement and telling foreigners and dark money groups that it is open season, open season for election cash to flow. and i asked mr. muzinich about this. i said, what do you think about this problem in terms of preventing foreign influence and enforcing election law? i couldn't get a straight answer, and finally he told me that, quote, the intent was to further efficient tax administration. i can tell you something, madam president. i don't think maria butina was

interested in anything that had to do with efficient tax administration. i don't think she was interested in anything close to that when she went to south dakota with an n.r.a. operative so ted up a shell company -- to set up a shell company. now, maybe this was just mr. muzinich's way of dodging the question. if not, then he's basically suggesting it's just fine with him for special interests and foreign actors to buy american elections because they may be able to sell the american people on the proposition and makes tax reporting easier. i'm going to close with this, madam president. i have said before that i don't agree with every treasury nominee from the trump administration on every issue. i realize that. and there have been individuals on key economic questions whose

nominations i've supported. i thought powell was a wise choice to head the federal reserve, donald trump's nominee. so i have supported the president on important economic positions. and i voted for plenty of republican nominees to the treasury department before. but i do expect nominees to be straight with me and with the committee. and after all the bobbing and weaving on issue after issue, this is a nominee who doesn't come close to passing that bar. he hasn't met, in my view, a commonsense basic test of giving some sense of where he stands on the important issues.

i see my good friend and seat mate on the finance committee here and we talk often about niece issues -- about these issues. and i'll just say to my colleagues, the proposition that mr. muzinich is going to be the building manager for the department of treasury, that's just a little bit much to swallow when you look at what his colleague said he had talked about in the past with respect to tax -- debt management and tax reform and other important questions. and finally, in claiming, mr. muzinich, that the trump tax handouts will pay for themselv themselves, he's failed on that issue by $1.5 trillion. i am not going to support a nominee for this position who is

going to bring unicorn and rainbow fantasies to tax policy and these key questions that are so important to the american people. i urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination of mr. muzinich, and i yield the floor.

mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i rise to speak today on a subject that our colleagues here know is very dear to my heart, america's space program. and although this is the last of many, many floor speeches that i've made on that subject, i stand before the senate with a heart full of gratitude, joy, and hope for the future of our space program. i've been extremely privileged to have witnessed and in some cases participated in the extraordinary triumphs of our

nation's 60-year quest to explore the heavens. i flew to orbit and marveled at the beauty, fragility, and seemingly peacefulness of mother earth, our planet. i had the honor of that trip with one of the finest crews to have ever flown in america's space program. captain robert gibson, our commander, major general retired charlie bolden, our pilot, who went on to command three missions, hoot having flown five missions, four as commander and of course general bol bolding

ultimately becoming the administrator for nasa for the entire time of the obama administration. dr. george nelson, otherwise known in the astronaut office to all as pinky, dr. steve holy, dr. franklin chang diaz, the first american -- hispanic american astronaut, and bob sinker, an engineer at the time with r.c.a., the satellite that we launched while on orbit. it was a profound and humbling experiment. it was a profound and hum fling experience of many experiments, but the whole experience

reinforced my belief that we need to not only be good stewards of our planet but we should always strive to treat others who we may differ culturally, ethically, or socially, to treat them with dignity, compassion, and respect. looking back at earth from the window of a spacecraft, you don't see political divisions. you don't see racial divisions. and you don't see religious differences. you don't see the suffering or the injustice facing those back home on the planet. instead you quickly realize that we on this planet, our planet earth, are all in this together. i've been filled with wonder over some of the greatest

scientific discoveries of our age, the discovery of signs of water and perhaps even life on mars. the discovery that our galaxy is full of countless planets, many of them very possibly inhabitable and the discovery that our universe is being driven apart by mysterious forces known as dark energy and is filled with a mysterious material known as dark matter. and i've grieved along with my fellow americans as we tragically lost two space schultzs and the brave astronauts aboard, and grieved as we have lost astronauts along the way and even before in the apollo i fire.

and i grieved with america as we thought apollo 13 was lost and how miraculously in one of the greatest success stories of na nasa, with three humans on the way to the moon when the explosion occurred, not having any idea how we could get them back, and the whole team of nasa came together. the engineers, the mathematicians, the astronauts on the ground, the comptrollers, the contractors, and they all devised a way to bring back jim lovelle's crew. as everyone in nasa's family is keenly aware, navigating the heavens is as dangerous now, if

not more so, than the crossing of the oceans was 100, 200, 300 years ago. and leaving the relative safety and comfort of home to explore new frontiers is every bit as important now as it was then. so we must proceed with caution lest we foolishly put the lives of explorers at risk, but we must also proceed with courage, lest we risk remaining stuck on the ground. i've also had the honor of collaborating with heroes like john glenn and tom stafford and neil armstrong on the future of our space program.

and i've been very proud to have played a little part in the establishment of our thriving commercial space industry with the drafting and passage of the commercial space launch act back when i was a young conman in 198 -- congressman in 1984 and 1988 and witnessed the rise of and contributions of present day space entrepreneurs like elon musk and jeff bezos and at the same time i appreciate the steady hand and transformative contribution of nasa leaders, like charlie bolden and bill girstenmier and bob cabanna. i can't help but remember the guiding hand that was so strong of george abby at the johnson space center, and i've

celebrated the long overdue emergence of female superstars, like marilyn hussin and glen shotwell among the space industry leadership. in congress, it's been a pleasure of working with a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance the space ambitions of our country because, as i've said many times before, space is and should always remain a nonpartisan issue. nasa is a nonpartisan agency. i'm also encouraged by nasa administrator bridenstine's leadership at the early tenure at the helm of this agency and i wish him much success. i applaud him for continuing to make good on his promises to keep nasa out of partisan

politics and to heed the advice of the agency's talented and experienced space professionals and the scientists. nasa is a unique agency. the head of which is like the department of the -- of defense. the secretary of defense is not looked upon as partisan. neither is the administrator of nasa. so, mr. president, i could not be more gracious and humbled to be here today and to tell you that as we celebrate nasa's 60th birthday this year, our space program has a spectacular and an exciting future. it's a future full of opportunity, and it is a future

that will require everyone -- industry, congress, and the agency, as well as our international partners -- pulling in the same together to make it a reality. go back a few years to 2010, senator kay bailey hutchison, she and i recognized this back then that when we set nasa's human spaceflight program on its current dual path to build private-sector capabilities in low-earth orbit and a government-led program for deep space and ultimately mars, we recognized that out of some of the misdirection and lack of direction that the space program had had, you needed that

direction. and once kay bailey hutchison and i passed that nasa authorization of 2010, that dual-path approach is now bearing fruit, including our recapturing of a majority of global commercial launch market, a market we had almost completely lost to overseas competitors. we're also constructing the building blocks of the systems that will take us to mars. the last administration, president obama said we are going to mars. and within a year we should have two different u.s. vehicles safely transporting our astronauts to and from the international space station, which will allow us to increase the number of crew aboard the

station and dramatically bolster our research there, and research that will ultimately help us on our journey to mars with humans. and i remain confident that we will continue to operate the i.s.s. well past the middle of the next decade. as a matter of fact, senator cruz and i are still trying in this congress to get the date for extension of the international space station extended to the end of the decade. it would be foolish to dispose of the orbital laboratory designated a national laboratory, which is our toehold on the space frontier, just as it is reaching the most

productive period, and that's what it's doing in its research on orbit. but there's still a lot more work to be done. we must focus our technology investments to ensure that the mars journey is safe, productive, and affordable. we need a new propulsion system to get us to mars faster. that is in the stages of research right now, and we must begin conducting human missions farther and farther from earth. we must ensure that each activity gets us closer to achieving the goal that president obama laid out in the decade of the 2030's of boots on mars. we also need to prepare workers for the high-tech, good-paying

jobs of the 21st century. it's been one of my singular achievements to have worked with other leaders in government and industry to help bring about the dramatic modernization of the historic launch infrastructure at cape canaveral and the kennedy space center. all of these exciting developments would not have been possible without the talent, dedication, and commitment of the thousands of workers who poured their hearts and soul into the space shuttle and the space station. that same dedication and pride of accomplishment continues today with the building of new spacecraft, like dragon, starliner, and owe -- and orion. a few short years ago ago,

remember, business at the cape was much different than it is today. commercial launch companies were looking elsewhere to take their business, he is spite all of the -- he is spite all of the available infrastructure -- despite all of the available infrastructure and the work on the space coast. too much bureaucracy stood in the way of progress. and so to address the problem, i conveniented the top leaders from the air force, nasa, and the f.a.a. in chairman rockefeller's o i brought an -- in chairman rock fell's office. i brought an aerial photo of all the launch pads at the cape. i worked to bring these pads back to life. and it's just amazing from that photograph of all those abandoned launch pads, all of

which the older generation will remember gave so much -- so much inspiration to america in its early space days, abandoned and they are roaring back to life with launches and landings on those very same pads. i'd be remiss if i didn't acknowledge, as i already had, senator cruz and his leadership, along with that of many of my colleagues here for joining in the fight to pass legislation to force the agencies to reduce the overlap and duplication in regulations. and i'm grateful to have worked with so many to pave the way for the exciting future that lies ahead for commercial space endeavors. i want to thank the appropriations committee.

i want to thank the leadership of the appropriations committee, including the senator here on the floor, the senator from vermont. and the proof is in the pudding how over the years they have provided the appropriations as we have brought nasa back to life on this dual track of commercial going to and from low-earth orbit as well as exploring the heavens, which is nasa's mission. and i can say proof is also in the pudding of the space launches coming back to life because cape canaveral hosted two-thirds of the nearly 30 american launches last year, and the day is fast approaching where we'll see multiple

launches in the same day as well as the largest, most powerful rocket ever assembled lifting off from the launch pad beginning our journey to mars. quite simply, jobs and ingenuity are soaring because rockets are soaring. and as goes florida's space coast and the houston area, so goes the u.s. space industry as a whole. and as we continue to move forward, it's also imperative that we continue our world-leading science and aeronautics activities. nasa pursues the most challenging and endearing questions facing humanity -- how does life come to exist? are we alone?

what is to become of us and our planet? engaging and empowering the u.s. science community should remain a top, enabling us to -- a top priority, enabling us to inspire future generations of scientists and engineers. mr. president, history has shown us that the nations that cease to explore begin to decline and collapse. it is our very nature as americans to explore. would humanity still exist if humans had not spread from africa to asia to europe, the americas and eventually to the remote reaches of the arctic and isolated islands of polynesia? would we as a nation have fulfilled our destiny we did not

push our frontier forward? i think not. will humanity still exist far in the future if we chose to stop exploring now? and the cosmos offers us limitless opportunities to expand, not just to survive but to thrive. imagine the first baby girl or boy born away from planet earth. imagine the first artist to paint a sunset on mars. imagine our so similar system inhabited by 100 billion dreamers, innovators and creators. imagine a future where those people, perhaps the grandchildren or

great-grandchildren of those in primary school today, look back on our era as the time when humanity began to journey outward. and i believe that, as we discover and experience the wonders of the cosmos, we will achieve the greatest outcome of all -- we will find that our home planet, earth, and all of life and love that inhabits us, has become even more beautiful and all the more precious to us. mr. president, with that, i say resoundingly, on-ward and upward. and as the command given from the ground after the space shuttle has passed through

maximum dynamic pressure, as the main engines have throttled back and the shuttle has ascended into the atmosphere and the mission can press forward to orbit, the command is given -- go at throttle out. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, of course the senior senator from florida can speak with experience, because he's been there. something no other senator currently serving has ever done. mr. president, i believe they're bringing a chair over. if not, i'll go get it.

mr. leahy: on friday, december 21, coming up fairly soon, 11 days from today, the continuing resolution, or what we call the c.r., under which much of the government currently operates, is going to expire. if we don't pass the remaining seven appropriations bills, bills that i believe the senate is prepared to pass, the government will shutter the doors of nine federal departments. dozens of agencies and services the american people rely on are going to halt.

coincidentally, three days before christmas. now there is absolutely no reason for the government to shut down. the senate and house appropriations committees have been negotiating for weeks, and i commend senators on both sides of the aisle. they worked with us and certainly our staffs in doing these negotiations. we have a seven-bill, called minibus that would fully fund the federal government through the remainder of the fiscal year. we're very close to a deal. six of the seven bills are nearly complete. most of the funding issues are resolved. only a few policy issues remain. a few hours debate and they'd be all done. we're also, because we're the united states of america, and we have to care about all parts of

the country, we're working on disaster package for the victims of hurricanes florence and michael. the california wildfires, the hawaii volcano, the earthquake in alaska, and other disasters from this year that devastated the homes, communities, and lives of so many of our fellow americans. these bills could be finished in short order. they could be put before the congress for a vote. i suspect they would pass virtually unanimously and sent to the president for signature into law. so republicans and democrats work together, the appropriators have worked together. there is only one thing that stands between fully funding our government and a shutdown, and that's president trump. for months now he's repeatedly called for a government shutdown unless we provide $5 billion for

his boondoggle border wall. last month alone president trump publicly threatened to shut down the government over his wall at least five times. saying things in his presidential statement, as we'll point out here, this would be a very good time to do a shutdown, as though any american believes this is a good time, with disaster funding and everything else pending, for a shutdown. and those reckless and damaging threats are not new for president trump. he said -- set an uncompromising tone for negotiations earlier in the year. he said i will shut it down with this issue. and then, something i never thought i would hear from the president of the united states of either party, he said i'd love to see a shutdown during a february press conference.

this from a man who's supposed to have an obligation to all americans. time and again, though, instead of showing his obligation to americans, president trump has used the government of the american people as a bargaining chip for his fabricated solution to a manufactured crisis. and now just days before the c.r. is set to expire, the president appears ready to make good on his threat. he wants to score a made for reality tv moment. he doesn't care how many thousands of hardworking american men and women are going to suffer for it. now we've been negotiating the department of homeland security appropriations bill for weeks, but as we get closer to the december 21 deadline, the president is digging in. his position is fund the wall, his wall.

or he -- he will shut down the government. now the president likes to start drama, but a government shutdown is not the backdrop for one of his reality tv shows. a government shutdown is a dreadful thing to do to so many loyal americans. it's the real world. it's real-world consequences. i'll give you some examples. if the government shuts down on december 22, an estimated 380,000 federal employees will be furloughed without pay just days before christmas. nearly 430,000 federal employees, including f.b.i. agents, u.s. marshals, the coast guard, procedure -- border patrol agents, t.s.a. agents will be forced to work without

pay. the secret service who will protect the president if he goes to one of his golf courses over the holidays will be working without pay. but here's even worse, millions of americans, farmers, small businesses, homeowners, veterans, veterans and the disabled, the elderly will go without the government services on which they rely, for which they pay their taxes. there's no reason -- in fact, it's unconscionable to put the country through this. i opposed the president's plan for a 30-foot high wall along the southern border, especially -- aside from the fact it will do no good, this is a wall the president gave his solemn promise to the american people that mexico, not american taxpayers, would pay for it. he gave his word over and over

and over again at rallies throughout the country. mexico would pay for it. i haven't seen one cent coming from mexico. the president is going to pun sht the american -- is going to punish the american taxpayers if they don't pay the money that he said mexico would pay for. walling ourselves off to our neighbors to the south is not only an expensive waste of america's taxpayer dollars, it's immoral, an affront to everything this country stands for. we're better than this. if we want to do what the president wants to do we have to seize land from ranchers and farmers in texas and other border states, seize land from them that's been in their families for generations. it would require building walls through wildfire refuges and

natural preserves. and we'd end up cutting ourselves off from the rio grande in the process because you can't build a wall down the center of it. basically we're saying to mexico, by the way, we're going to pay for the wall that president trump promised us you'd pay for, and to help you out, we're going to give you the rio grande. you can have our half too. this is a cockamamie idea. after all that and the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars, what would be accomplished? would it stop people from fleeing violence from their countries and seeking sanctuary? of course not. would it stop drug smugglers and human traffickers? definitely not. the fact is it is one of my republican friends bho said show me a 30-foot wall and i'll show

you a 31-foot ladder or a tunnel. these are complex issues. we need real solutions, not bumper sticker slogans or empty tweets. we had such a solution in 2013. the senate passed bipartisan immigration reform, two to one vote, republicans and democrats joining in comprehensive immigration reform. the republican leadership in the house would not bring it up because they were afraid it might violate the sacred dennis hastert rule. now, as they said to us, now everyone agrees we need to keep our borders safe and secure. that's not a republican or democratic idea. we all believe our borders should be safe and secure. president trump is not the first person to say that. we've all said that. in fact, over the last two years we in congress have invested

more than $3 billion -- 3 thousand million dollars for that purpose. it is the largest infusion of border security funding in recent history. i'm on the appropriations committee who gave that money. we directed u.s. customs and border protection to acquire new technologies that are proven to work on the border and our ports of entry, purchase new air and marine assets, hire additional personnel. and that approach has resulted in the acquisition of integrated fixed towers on the border, remote video surveillance systems, enforcement helicopters, other aircraft, upgrades to existing unmanned aerial systems. and i visited the border and have seen some of those. from the ports of entry narcotics and other contraband entered.

we significantly increased funding for nonintrusive inspection equipment. we've hired over 360 new customs officers. these are successes, these are things that work. these are things that do better than we've ever done before. but does the president tweet about this? no. he's fixated on building his wall not because it's good policy, but he hopes to fire up his base. this is not about border security. it's about politics, pure and simple. over the last two years congress has provided nearly $1.7 billion to build or replace fencing on the southern border. but the administration hardly spent any of that money, and the project as undertaken ballooned in effect of what we gave them. they only spent 6%. six percent, if this is such an

amazing need, you only spend 6%? we've recently learned that one project in the rio grande valley that was supposed to cost, according to the administration, $445 million, will now cost the taxpayers nearly $787 million. that's a 77% cost overrun, $31.5 million each mile. not for roads. it's for barriers. the president doesn't talk about that. nor does he talk about that the american taxpayers have to pay it, not mexico. the administration is not responsible with the money we've already provided. why trust it to spend responsibly the additional money they're demanding? but the president wants hardworking american taxpayers, not mexico, even though he promised the american taxpayers, gave his word that the american taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for this.

mexico would. now he says forget what i said before. give me a check for $5 billion more or i'm going to waste hundreds of billions of dollars bill shutting the government down. that's a cynical political stunt. the president's own budget requests of congress for fiscal year 2019 was $1.6 billion for his wall. not $5 billion. i opposed this request in the spring. i still do. i don't want to appropriate another dime to advance an ineffective agenda that i fundamentally oppose, knowing the president will not keep his word to have mexico pay for it. but our system of divided government requires compromise. so we came up with a bipartisan compromise to meet the president's $1.6 billion with restrictions of where the money could be used and what type of barriers could be built.

but instead of taking yes and declaring victory, the president repeatedly moved the goalpost and predefined victory. so much for the art of the deal, it's more the art of the steal. by manufacturing a crisis over his wall, president trump appears willing to shutter the doors of the justice department, the farm service agency, the food and drug administration, the small business administration, the national park service, the department of transportation, among others. that's just a few. it will heart services to the -- it will halt services the american people have paid for with their taxes all to protect his ego and satisfy his base. those actions have real-world consequences. hundreds of thousands of federal employees and their families and millions of americans who pay taxes, depending on government

to function properly. taxpayers don't send their hard-earned money to washington so the president can shut down their government. our job is to be good stewards of taxpayer money, not bend to the whim of the president's tweets. congress controls the power of the purse, not the president. it's our job to make responsible, thoughtful decisions. there is a bipartisan path forward. we could pass this minibus, address the bipartisan needs to meet the country or we could pass the continuing resolution for homeland security. but republicans do control the house, the senate, and the presidency, and they're in the driver's seat. the only reason the government shuts down december 22, three days before christmas, is that the president wants it to, and the republican leadership lets

the president close the government. let's hope that doesn't happen. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of justin muzinich to be deputy secretary of the treasury, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of justin george muzinich of new york to be deputy secretary of treasury shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all members voted? any senator wishing to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 43. the motion is agreed to. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent the senate veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 299, the blue water navy vietnam veterans act and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i want to take a couple of minutes to give my members all the facts they need to make a decision tonight. i want to say a couple things. i am the chairman of the veterans' committee. we have many chair in this

committee. they know their responsibility to that committee, greater than any other. i come down to an issue that's been used for years to try to get a solution to it. no one has ever done it. nobody has ever done the hard work of saying, this is what we need to do and this is why we need to do it this way. the house finally did it this way and we've done it. granted, this is a u.c. motion and not debate on the floor. it is because we finally addressed all those things everybody said about the blue water bill they didn't like except some people like it to say something different than it does. some people want another study before we study enough to do it. some people want to wait until the v.a. says we need this or that. somebody says we don't have the numbers of how many people this might affect. nobody has the right number of how many people will get sick in the future from a disease that we didn't know existed at the time they contracted it. the veterans administration years ago decided if someone contracted one of the cancers for which a contributing factor

was the napalm and agent orange, they qualified for blue water navy -- for benefits. except if they served in -- on the blue water, which is not the rivers, and didn't serve on the ground, they didn't. so in other words we have ground troops who fought this vietnam. we have river fighters in vietnam who get the benefit. if you served on the one hand a navy ship caring napalm but you never touched the ground and only stayed on the blue water, you are not eligible. we've got two classes of victims that are veterans of the united states of america that fought and risked their lives, who have been trying for years to get an equal treatment for their other brothers. this was done for many -- i'm not going to go over all the things i've heard because some of them are outrageous. but nonetheless, everybody looked ford way to get some of the benefit back once the v.a. had taken it over. what the congress -- the house has now passed the bill that will benefit from this motion, unanimously this year.

the senate has had two hearings on it. we've done a lot of work on it. i have done a lot of work on it bass i knew how big the issue was. i realize everybody can go find somebody who said they don't like it. there are people in the v.a. who don't like it. i don't like having two classes of beneficiaries for disease and health. i don't like shooting straight for the same people. and i don't like putting off a decision one more year until we get one more study. this thing has been studied as long as it needs to be studied. i've tried my best to give some of the members the exact information they've asked for but c.b.a. would give it to me. i just would ask everybody member before they consider casting a no vote against a unanimous consent to think about p what you're doing. you're saying to those had a benefit taken away from them by the v.a. itself. you're putting off a decision we're going to have to make in the future. you're not allowing uses to do what we need to do.

i would ask each of you to search your heart, to think about the veterans in your state and cast a vote for doing the right thing for the right people at the right time and not object to the motion made by the lady from new york. i have no objection. mr. enzi: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i aappreciate my colleague's work on this legislation. i am very sure that i have never opposed a bill that senator isaac was involved in. if you are looking for thoroughness in legislation, he is the epitome of it. but 0en this bill, many of us have been made aware of the potential cost growth from the potential and the budgetary and the operational pressures that would happen at the v.a. they're having a lot of problems anyway. but the v.a.'s analysis shows the costs could be nearly five times what congress assumed it was when the house of representatives passed it and they did pass it by those strong

numbers, and then a recent letter from the congressional budget office estimated an increased cost from their first one of about $1.3 billion. so there's clearly more work to do just on figuring out the spending and the administration of this and the deficit impacts that this bill will have while we still want to make sure that the veterans that are having a problem get the solutions that they need. there will be a report out in june that's going toll maybe narrow down the risks. i'm not that excited about any studies. but another concern that i've heard from veterans is the pay-for, the increase in the interest rate for housing for some veterans that are trying to buy a house. that isn't enough known cover the renewed estimates of how much this is. i think that the bill can be made more specific, which is

really tough if johnny has been working on it because it will be specific. but we need to get some way to justify the numbers that range somewhere between 60,000 people and 440,000 people. that's a pretty big gap on who we let n and if they've got a problem, we need to take care it. i think we need to just spend a little bit more time doing it. i know that's a difficult thing at the end of a session. but as a result, i'm going to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: the house of representatives has already passed this bill unanimously, 382-0. the bill is fully paid for, and it is long past time that we do the right thing. we have to right this wrong and help these veterans. the only thing standing in the wait of this bill to help our vietnam veterans is the u.s. senate. and that is shameful. we have just days before this congress is finished and our

blue water navy ernst haves are waiting for us. their families are waiting for us. some of them are dying waiting for us. these patriotic americans went to vietnam. they risked their lives. they were exposed to the chemical agent orange, which we now know is highly toxic. some of them were exposed on the ground, some while patrolling the rivers, and some were exposed while stationed on ships off the vietnamese coast. these are called our blue water navy vets. now all these years later, agent orange has made many of them sick, and they are severely ill. there have been four different health studies by the c.d.c. about the detrimental effects of agent orange exposure, and the blue water navy veterans have been shown to suffer those exact diseases as the -- at the same rate of the other exposed veterans. but some of my colleagues are wrongly insisting on a fifth

study. we do not have another year to wait. some of our veterans will not last that long. many blue water veterans have already passed away from the disease associated with agent orange exposure. the 1991 bill to provide coverage for veterans exposed to agent orange didn't discriminate between those who served offshore and those who served on rivers or on the ground, yet due to a decision by a v.a. bureaucrat in 2002, the coverage for those who served offshore was wiped out. it doesn't make any sense, and we must help all our veterans. it would be tragic. it would be an absolute failure of this institution if we did not respond to this call for help from our veterans community. so i urge my colleagues to reconsider their choice to block this legislation. the bill has had multiple

hearings. it has gone through multiple drafts over the years. it has been subject to numerous studies. i have a letter right here to the c.d.o. from the military veterans advocacy association literally going through each of the arguments that senator enzi just made to explain why those aren't true. so i would like unanimous consent to submit this letter attached to my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: so i hope that all of us can come together to do the right thing by our veterans, to make sure that they get the coverage that they need, and to stand by them in their greatest time of need. i yield the floor to my colleague. mr. daines: mr. president. i'm the lead republican on this bill. i want to thank my colleague, senator gillibrand, for her leadership on this issue. i'm a fiscal talk. i look at every penny spent by the federal government. i have respect for senator enzi and senator lee in their views

here certainly on some of the fiscal issues. but i urge the body to pass the blue water navy bill by unanimous consent because this is about justice, this is about a bureaucracy making a decision and really not following the intent of this congress. this is correcting something that was done wrong back in 2002. senator gillibrand has already laid out so eloquently, our u.s. navy veterans who were exposed to agent orange while serving in vietnam have been denied proper care through the v.a. even though both houses of congress extended presumptive health coverage to all illnesses linked to agent orange, the v.a. has thwarted congressional intent by choosing the narrowest possible definition of, quote, service in the republic of vietnam, end quote, which excluded the country's territorial waters. our veterans deserve much better. it is unacceptable that a tech

cattle in the -- technicality in the law and a functional federal bureaucracy has resulted in the prolonged suffering of thousands of our nation's heroes. this legislation will ensure that victims of agent orange-related disease receive the care and the compensation they have long deserved. i will continue to fight for our veterans just as they have fought for us. i want to thank you, and i yield to my fellow montana senator, senator tester. pyrite the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you. i want to tell you the only thing that's standing in the way of this bill passing is the united states senate. i have a tremendous amount of respect for senator enzi, and i know as chair of the budget committee, he has a job to do, but we have a job to do. people sign up in our military and promises are made. and the promises that are made are a cost of war. the vietnam war has been over for decades. these folks are dying every day.

and this deals with agent orange exposure. if you served on the mainland of vietnam, you're covered, but if you were on a boat, on the ocean next to vietnam, you are not. now, i want to tell you something. if you have been around weed spray, which is what agent orange is, it's a defoliant, if you have been around it, you don't have to be sprayed with it to be exposed to it. all you have got to be is downwind. and these folks on the ocean were downwind. and why do we know that? because there has been study after study that have shown that these folks who served in the ocean next to vietnam are suffering from a higher -- from a higher level of cancer, hypertension, and heart disease. we've got a job to do here, folks. there are 30 v.s.o.'s, maybe more than that, veteran service

organizations, that expect us to act and do the right thing here today. i'll tell you that the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee, johnny isakson, has done a marvelous job this congress doing what's right for our veterans, making sure the v.a. has what it needs to serve our veterans. this is not the v.a. i know there are some in the administration that don't want to see us do this, but the truth is this is a cost of war. it is our obligation to meet the needs of those folks who have sacrificed for this country. it's time to step up today, folks. we are the only thing standing in the way of this bill being passed and doing right by our vietnam veterans. and i just want to -- i just want to close with one thing. since i have been ranking membea member of the veterans' affairs committee, i have talked to a lot of vietnam veterans.

these are the folks that came back from war and there was nobody at the airport waiting for them, nobody. they couldn't wear their uniforms on the streets of their towns. and now we're going to deny them the benefit that they have earned because they were exposed to agent orange. and there is no doubt they were exposed to agent orange. it's time to look at ourselves here in the united states senate and step up and say you know what? it does cost a lot of money. you know what? it's been studied to death and it can be studied some more. but the bottom line is we need to do right by the folks who are willing to serve in the vietnam war. some of them were drafted, some of them signed up on their own, but the bottom line is they all expected to get the benefits. this is a benefit that they should get. i yield the floor.

mr. brown: i might thank senator tester, senator isakson, senator gillibrand and senator blumenthal. mr. president, senator tester is right. this is the cost of war. but it's pretty simple. if you were exposed to poison while serving our country, you deserve the benefits you earned, no exception. my office holds roundtables with veterans all over the state. we've held more -- more than a dozen over the past several months. we hear ohio veteran after ohio veteran raise this issue time and time again. joe benedict from cleveland talked about how important these benefits are to veterans like him. last week, i met with mike cavinnis, another blue water navy veteran from cambridge, ohio. 71 years old. drove four hours from his home in eastern ohio to get here. he talked to members of congress of what a burden this senseless policy is for so many veterans who he knows who have already sacrificed for this country. he urges us to put politics

aside. that's what senator tester and senator gillibrand and senator isakson have asked us to do. we introduced last year the blue water navy vietnam veterans act that would guarantee that all vietnam veterans exposed to toxic agent orange chemicals have equal access to the care and the benefits that they have earned. a number of us, myself included, have raised the issue with v.a. secretary wilkie both in private meetings in our office and the veterans' affairs committee, pressing him to expand benefits to all veterans. mr. caventis, mr. benedict, veterans in all of our states, georgia, connecticut, montana, new york, and ohio. we all hear this. we all know that these veterans put themselves in harm's way. it's the cost of war. we need to show the american people we can work together. we should start by putting partisanship aside, passing this bill tonight, finally getting the care for veterans which they deserve. i yield to senator blumenthal.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i want to thank my colleagues, senators brown and tester, and most important senator gillibrand and our good friend, senator isakson. senator isakson and i and senator gillibrand worked together closely on this issue when i was the ranking member of the senate veterans' affairs committee. we engaged the v.a. through hearings, through meetings, through any way that we could reach the v.a. so that it would grant the presumption to all veterans who served in the territorial waters of vietnam during the vietnam war and were exposed to agent orange, to give them simple justice. simple justice. to treat them with the same presumption of service-connected disability as their fellow

veterans who served in the vietnam conflict with boots on the ground. if they served in those territorial waters, they deserve that same presumption. beyond the abstraction here, i want to talk about the face and voice of this problem, which for me is my good friend, jerry wright. jerry wright rode across this country on a motorcycle, and the mantra on the motorcycle was sprayed and betrayed. jerry wright is a victim of agent orange. he suffers from some of the same conditions as those brave veterans who served with boots on the ground, and he joined me, along with paul scapatini,

cynthia johnson, gary mung, on veterans day. just as he rode across the country, we came together to raise awareness about this issue. if americans saw and heard those faces and voices, if my colleague heeded their call, there would be no objection in this body to this legislation. and it is all of us who share responsibility and it is the v.a. that has to acknowledge responsibility as well for its opposition over the years and its action blocking simple justice for these veterans. in the absence of justice from the v.a., we have fought over these years, just as the blue water navy veterans have fought for decades to achieve that

justice. and five months ago, that justice seemed within reach when the house passed unanimously 382-0 the blue water navy vietnam veterans act. the senate veterans' affairs committee held a hearing on this legislation in august. members have had more than sufficient time to consider the language. there are more than ample funds to cover it. there is no reason, none whatsoever, for delay in this legislation which has such broad support from the veterans service organization, stakeholders, and members of this body. i want to remind my colleagues that this legislation also includes a provision that i led with senator moran and senator tester that would grant the -- that would treat with fairness

our korean veterans. in fact, it is called the fairness for korean d.m.c. veterans act, ensuring all veterans who served in the korean d.m.z. when agent orange was used there will also receive the health care and benefit they deserve. this measure is about justice for our vietnam veterans, for our korean war veterans, and it is a symbol as well as a tangible and profoundly significant benefit of our commitment to cover the cost of war. this measure is not about a gift. it is not about charity. it is about what we owe the veterans. it is about keeping faith and making sure that we leave none

of those veterans behind, that we gave them the simple justice that they deserve. they have fought for this recognition over years and sprayed and betrayed will be the appropriate designation if we fail in this duty for them. ip - i want to thank again senator gillibrand and senator daines for their leadership and urge my colleagues to support this measure. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate

completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., tuesday, december, 11, further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session an resume consideration of the muzinich nomination with all postcloture time on the nomination expiring at 11:30 a.m. finally that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. 2:15 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there's no further business to come before further business to come before

>> and the senate gaveling out. today they voted to limit debate on the deputy treasury secretary. the senate will take a final vote on his nomination. also on the agenda possibly this week, funding the government past the december 21st deadline. you can follow live senate coverage on c-span2. >> when the new congress takes office in january, it'll have the youngest, most diverse freshman class in recent history. new congress, new leaders. watch it live on c-span starting january 3rd. >> sunday night on "q&a," -- >> this american nazi party came to a rally at madison square garden, and in the middle of new york, stormtroopers giving the nazi salute with a swastika next

to a picture of george washington. there was a very active american fascist movement in the '20s and the '30s, earlier than people think, that it was associated with the phrase america fist. >> university of london literature professor sarah churchwell looks at the history of the terms america first and the american dream in her book, "behold america." sunday night at eight eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> steve dennis covers capitol hill for bloomberg.pi he previously spent several years in the white house briefing room for "roll call," joins us this morning as we look atng the week ahead from both es of pennsylvania avenue. let's start at the white house, the search for the next chief of staff. just bring us up to the latest on how that search process isea ising, when we're expecting some sort of announcement here. >> guest: well, we had been expecting an announcement sort of today or maybe even on twitter over the weekend, and what's happening is, you know, sort of anybody's guess what's

happening at the white house right now. they need a chief of staff, and they need one in the next three weeks because the president said that john kelly was going to be leaving on twitter, and then the person that seemed to be the heir apparent, which is vice president mike pence's chief of staff, nick ayers, decided on twitter to say that he was going to be taking his family to georgia instead of to become the chief of staff. and so now there's a scramble, and everybody who's a name in washington seems to be as part of the parlor game whether it be mark meadows of north carolina or any bunch of a number of other names who could theoretically get the job. >> host: when was the last time there was a chief of staff departure announced when there sowasn't a replacement announce? >> guest: yeah, i've been racking my brain, it's not

uncommon for chiefs of staff to be chewed up and spit out by washington. barack obama i had five, i believe. everything comes to the chief of staff. it's one of the toughest jobs in washington. and certainly for trump it's been even tougher because you have to deal with tweets that happen at six in the morning or eleven at night and change policy, and you have to figure out how to deal with that. so it's a very tough job especially for this president. >> host: so we spent the first hour of our program talking about the potential government shutdown, a key negotiation happening tomorrow. nancy pelosi, chuck schumer going over to the white house to have this discussion. does john kelly join those conversations? >> guest: i assume so. >> host: who joins the president in the oval office? >> guest: i mean, the big negotiation is obviously over the wall money and what trump is willing to give as a carrot to democrats or not and what the democrats willing to offer him or not. john kelly's been intimately involved with the wall discussions for two years, the

former homeland security secretary. so i would imagine he's going to be the chief of staff, you know, until he's not. he's also, you know, a general. so i expect him to sort of salute and keep on doing his job until he's not in there. but that is the big question is, is trump now going to be in the mood of sort of wanting to absolutely get a win, because he's had a whole bunch of non-wins lately, for lack of a better term. i mean, friday with all the mueller conviction, indictment, sentencing paul manafort, michael cohen. there's a whole bunch of legal trouble headed the president's way as well. so if he can get, have a distraction and maybe a shutdown would be a distraction and maybe even a win to get some money for the wall, that could shift the narrative a little bit. >> host: is there any discussion here aboutut some sort of grand deal coming together? we've talked before about wall funding for the dreamers. is there the potential for that

at this point? is anybody talking about that? >> guest: no. and i think the main reason is the timing is really bad. i mean, nancy pelosi is not yet the speaker. she is sort of the presumptive speaker, but she doesn't yet have 218 votes. there'll be a vote on january 3rd making her the speaker. it's really hard for her to cut any kind of compromise right now and cut some big,ging giant deal. we're in a lame duck congress. there's a new congress about to take hold. the democrats are feeling like they just won the house. many more voters voted for their candidates than the republican candidates. a deal that that they would have accepted a year ago which would have been wall funding for the daca population, about two million people, was a deal that they were willing to support a year, two years ago. now it's, it's not enough. you know? they want more. so i think the most likely scenario is that we get some kind of a can kick. the last two time that is the house flipped -- times that the

house flipped there was a can kick until about marcs and the next congress has to -- march, and the next congress has to finish up the business. >> host: republicans, 202, 748-8001, independents, 202-748-8002. before we leave the white house, mr. kelly's departure is one of a series of staff reshuffling that's taking place including a new ambassador to the united nations. the president announcing his nomination of william barr as attorney general. i know last week you dug in a little bit to that william barr nomination and sort of the qualities that he brings to donald trump. can you talk a little bit about that? >> guest: yeah. i think if you imagine how hard it is going to be to confirm somebody in the senate where almost every senator supports the mueller investigation at least verbally and a president who's intent on either killing it or thwarting it or not giving

it any oxygen and wants an attorney general to rein it in, that is a very small key hole to get through. and william barr just might be the guy. he's a former attorney general under george bush, george h.w. bush, so he has the biggest credential you can have which is being senate confirmed to the same position decades ago. and yet for trump, he had a role in basically shutting down the iran contra criminal probe by advocating for a wave of pardons as the first george bush was leaving office. so there was about six pardons, and bill barr was an advocate for having a big wave of pardons and, essentially, that shut down the investigation. and so he's also been a critic of independent counsels. now, this is a special counsel, a little bit different thing,

but he had been critical of the mueller probe, pieces of it, last year. so there are a lot of reasons for trump to think, hey, he might be my guy who could rein in the mueller probe and get confirmed. lindsey graham told me he's going to likely be the new chairman -- >> host: of the judiciary committee. >> guest: -- of the judiciary committee and controls sort of the confirmation hearings. he expects him to be confirmed easily and says he's an outstanding pick. and they only need republicanan votes. it's not going to be a 53-47 senate even though rand paul has said he has concerns about bill barr and other issues. they don't necessarily need his vote. >> host: and this all happens in the 116th congress. there's no chance that any of this, whether it's bill barr or heather gnaw earth at the u.n. happens in the weeks before finish. >> guest: i think there's ape chance for some picks, maybe heather could get confirmed if it's seen as uncontroversial. but i think it's more likely that democrats are going to want

to have full hearings, and you not going -- you're not going to want to do that right before new year's. >> host: we'll let helen join the conversation, arlington, virginia. you're on with steve dennis, go ahead. >> caller: yeah, hi, good morning. i had -- i guess it's more of a question. i know that people are anxious to push through things with the wall before people leave, but it's my understanding, and i'm not sure i have it right, but there's an anti-semitism bill that they want to push through? i don't know the number of it or not.t. and i know, obviously, the israelis are potentially helping us with building any potential wall. i'm wondering if you could maybe speak a little bit about that and what you may know about -- >> host: steve dennis, is that something you cover? >> guest: i'm not aware of that bill. i mean, itm is, you know, maybe -- i'll have to go check it and look it up. basically, right now is the end of the congress, so every bill dies on january 3rd. and then some of them get d

reborn, and some of them are dead forever. so everybody who's got a bill is trying to get it in this last package, the big spending package and try to shoe horn it in as a christmas ornament, right? so that might be out there as a bill that somebody somebody's trying to make it a hanukkah ornament, christmas ornament, whatever, on to that big spending package, or there's also talk of a bunch of tax cuts, mostly for corporations, bipartisan. you know, there are kinds of things that sometimes finish. >> and you can see the rest of that interview at c-span.org. we go now live to george mason university where several former intelligence and national security officials discuss accountability from the intelligence community. we'll hear from former acting cia director michael morrell. it's hosted by george mason university and the michael hayden center. this is live coverage on c-span2.