to be gutted like a fish. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. we are in a quorum call. a senator: could i have consent that the quorum call be dismissed with? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. smith: men and women are being hurt by a government shutdown that president trump said he was proud to cause for the wall. so i rise today on behalf of minnesotans, on behalf of 4,790 federal employees and low-wage contractors going without pay in minnesota right now. and i rise today on behalf of the taxpayers of our country who just want the government to work for them.

now, since i became a senator just a little over a year ago, the government has been closed three times over the president's obsession with building an expensive, ineffective wall on our southern border. now i am all for border security but we need to focus on real solutions, not symbols. so let us start with the facts. in my home state of minnesota the federal government employs about 32,000 people as food safety inspectors, prison guards, postal workers and more. of this total number, the center for american progress estimates that 4,790 people are impacted by the shutdown today in minnesota and are furloughed or working without pay. over 750 of these workers have filed for unemployment benefits and others are being forced to face how to take care of their children and feed their families.

a couple of days ago i asked minnesotans how they are being hurt by this shutdown because i wanted to understand how this is affecting people in their everyday lives and just in the last 48 hours i heard from minnesota farmers who can't cash checks because the farm services agency offices are shut down, and tribal law enforcement centers who are working without pay. i've heard from air traffic controllers in minnesota who came by my office earlier this week with dozens of handwritten letters full of stories. the letters i'm about to read come from these air traffic controllers, and i really want to thank them for sharing these stories. these are public servants who have dedicated their careers to making our airports safe. tomorrow, january 11, marks the first day when these folks, americans who show up at work every day to protect us, will miss their first paycheck. and what's happening to these families? how will they be able to cover their credit card bills, their child care payments, their mortgages? these are the questions that are

keeping them up at night. so i wanted to share some of their stories with you today so that those of us in congress and the president can keep these people uppermost in our minds and the human impact of what is a wasteful and increasingly harmful shutdown. the first story comes from michael in rochester, minnesota, and this is what michael writes to me. my wife stays at home to care for our three-year-old daughter. she is also currently obtaining a master's degree in education so she can be a teacher when our daughter finally goes to school. i am the sole income in my home. needless to say, the prospect of not receiving a paycheck in a week has us wondering how we will make mortgage payments, buy food, et cetera. we are more fortunate than some of my coworkers, however. many of them are wondering how they are going to pay for child care while they continue to go to work as unpaid essential employees. the next letter is from jonathan from land owe -- land o lakes,

minnesota. for the last two weeks air traffic controllers remained on the job dedicated to the safety of every flight but we don't know when we will receive our next paycheck. my wife is due with our fourth child in two weeks, and this only adds -- this uncertainty only adds to an already stressful situation. here's another one, this is from mike from minetonka, minnesota. he's describing the impact of the shutdown on his family's future. mike writes i am a father to twin four-year-old boys, jax and finn and had to close their college fund account in order to pay bills through the end of the month. the shutdown has also prevented me from training and certifying on my last few positions to receive a $5,000 pay raise. these hardships are going to affect my family for years to come. the replenishment of my boys' college fund alone could take years as a single-income family.

mike goes on to say, this is going to have a lasting negative impact on me and my family. please help stop the shutdown to lessen the already great impact it has had on me and my family. my kids' future and our current financial hardship depends on it. next is christopher from dundiss, minnesota. he writes, as a cancer survivor, i have a huge stack of medical bills on structured and negotiated payments. my colleagues and i have suffered the sudden loss of our incomes due to this shutdown. it will be very hard to meet all of my financial obligations. and finally i want to share this really heartbreaking note which i received from a brand-new father, joe from lakeville, minnesota. joe enclosed two photos of his brand-new baby boy, oliver, and here's a picture of oliver.

this is the picture that joe sent to me, and this is what he wrote: this is a picture of my son oliver. he was born on new year's eve ten weeks early. the only local hospital to take babies born before 32 weeks is not in network for our insurance. i cannot change our insurance with this qualifying life event because those government services are closed due to the shutdown. further, because there is no paid leave during a shutdown, i'm spending my days at the nicu on unpaid furlough status. i don't know when i'll be able to pay my insurance or when i'll get paid again. i take solace in what matters most. oliver is getting a little stronger and a little closer to home every day. and joe closes by saying, please do what you can to reopen the government and leave us with one less worry. president trump and my

republican colleagues, listen to these stories and think about the consequences of this reckless and increasingly harmful shutdown. the senate could put an end to this right now. we could take up and pass bipartisan bills passed by the house, bills that have already passed the senate, bills that would help baby oliver and his dad joe and the hundreds of thousands of other people around the country who never asked and don't deserve to be pawns in this fight. it is our job to do this. colleagues, we can do this. i don't just sit in this chamber and say what my vote -- whether my vote is what the president wants me to do. i think about what minnesotans want me to do. we must reopen government. i know, colleagues, that each of you have thousands of families with stories like this in your state, and i know that you are hearing them. so let's resolve this and let's end this shutdown now and not

let american families down. and to the minnesotans who are speaking up and sharing your stories, i want to thank you and i want to tell you to keep it up. you deserve to be heard by our president and you deserve a government that works for you. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: madam president, yesterday president trump and republican leaders once again tried to sit down with democrats to break the impasse over border security funding and fully reopen the government. and yet again democrats proved

unwilling to offer any serious solution or agree to work with the president in any way. when the president asked speaker pelosi yesterday if she would be willing to commit to funding the border wall if the government was reopened, she said no. no. democrats are saying we need to end this partial government shutdown and reopen the government, and i completely agree with that. but it is democrats who are standing in the way of that happening. instead of seriously trying to resolve the shutdown, they're holding show votes in the house and trying to score political points. the administration made an offer on sunday, yet four days later, and democrats have yet to respond. they really want to reopen the government, they'll sit down and negotiate in good faith with the president to arrive at a solution that both parties can support and that the president will sign. madam president, i have to ask when did securing our borders become immoral?

it used to be that members of both parties recognize that border security was a basic obligation of our government, that we had a duty to ensure that our borders were protected and that dangerous individuals or goods were not entering our country. but apparently, apparently democrats don't agree with that anymore. according to speaker pelosi, building barriers to protect our borders is, quote, immoral. that's right, madam president. immoral. according to the speaker of the house protecting our barriers to prevent illegal entry is immoral. madam president, contrary to what democrats would like people to believe, border security isn't an issue dreamed up by hard-hearted republicans to oppress various groups of people. border security is a national security imperative, something that both parties recognized until recently. no country can be secure if dangerous individuals can creep across borders unchecked and unobserved. democrats talk about border

barriers as if they were meant to prevent anyone from entering our country. and, madam president, that is just false. america is a land of immigrants, and we always welcome new faces to america with open arms. in fact, i, like many others in this chamber, am the grandson of immigrants who came through ellis island. my grandparents obviously came and settled in south dakota. but we had to make sure that individuals who are coming into this country are coming here legally and that we know who they are and why they're coming. and we do that by enforcing our laws and by securing our borders with physical barriers, border patrol agents and technology so individuals can't cross our borders illegally and undetected. leaving our borders open to any criminal drug dealer or human trafficker who wants to sneak across isn't compassion. it's an abdication of our responsibility. right now we're facing a security and a humanitarian

crisis along our border. tens of thousands of individuals try to across our southern border illegally each month. that's a serious security problem. it's also a humanitarian problem. individuals attempting to journey to come here illegally are vulnerable to exploitation, illness and abuse. one out of every three women attempting the journey to the united states is assaulted. seven out of ten individuals become victims of violence along their way and illness is a serious problem. by failing to discourage illegal immigration we are perpetuating this humanitarian crisis. inadequate state of our border security around barriers and through our ports of entry also allows other problems to flourish, like the flow of illegal drugs that are pouring into the country. every week in this country 300 americans die from heroin.

90% of the heroin supply -- 90%r southern border. now democrats will say that doesn't come across. that comes through ports of entry. a lot of it does come through ports of entry. that's a part of our border and the president in his proposal has advanced measures that would also deal with those drugs that are coming through our ports of entry. but the fact of the matter is we've got to secure our border, and that requires a whole range, a whole range of measures as part of that solution. madam president, democrats didn't always think that securing our borders was complorl. -- immoral. in 2006 the democratic and ranking member on the judiciary committee voted to authorize a border fence. they were joined in their vote by then-senator biden, then-senator clinton, and then-senator obama. in 2013, every senate democrat, bar none, supported

legislation requiring the completion of a 700-mile fence along our southern border. this legislation would have provided $46 billion for border security and $8 billion specifically for a physical barrier. 2013. as recently as last year, last february nearly every senate democrat, 46 out of 49, supported $25 billion for border security just last february. in 2009 the senate democratic leader said in a speech, and i quote, any immigration solution must recognize that we must do as much as we can to gain operational control of our borders as soon as possible. let me repeat that, madam president. in 2009 the democrat leader said, and i quote, any immigration solution must recognize that we must do as much as we can to gain control of our borders as soon as possible.

then he went on to discuss progress that had been made on our border security between 2005 and 2009, including, and i quote, construction of 630 miles of border fence that creates a significant barrier to illegal immigration on our southern land border. end quote. that's right, madam president. in 2009 the democrat leader not only didn't oppose border fences, he was praising them for their effectiveness. so what's changed? well, the need to secure our border certainly hasn't changed. everybody says is this a crisis or isn't it a crisis? i would say that having 300 people a day dying from heroin in this country is a crisis. , particularly given the fact that 90% of that heroin is coming across our southern border. that strikes me, madam president, as a crisis. well, the president has

changed, and that more than anything else, is the thing that's changed, i think, that has changed the minds of a lot of democrats here in the senate. because we used to have a president the democrats like. now we have one that they don't like. and in many cases are openly hostile to. and so for democrats, owe poasing this president -- opposing this president and catering to the far-left antiborder wing of this party seems to be more important than the humanitarian crisis. i v -- i venture to say that a lot of democrats realize that we need to secure our boards. i think a lot of them realize that how important a physical barrier is in making the border security. those who protect our border would tell you that and certainly those who observed what happened here 20 years, border fences that have been built in certain areas of the

border have been effective. i think it is important to listen to the experts and allow the experts to shape the policies we put in place. i think the experts have been telling us that, yes, we need a comprehensive solution that includes manpower. all of which the president and his team have been willing to negotiate but none of which the senate democrats here or in the house have been willing to sit down here at the table and be a partner in working out. madam president, with their partial shutdown now into its 20th day, i hope they will soon end this political theater and fulfill their obligations to keep americans safe. madam president, i yield the floor. madam president, i have one request for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. thune: thank you, madam

president. pr. the presiding officer: the senator -- the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i thank you for the recognition. we heard about the shutdown and we heard about the impacts on families and on businesses and on our society in general. we've heard a speech just recently on the floor of the senate about how democrats don't want border security which cannot be further from the truth. the fact of the matter last year we appropriated $21 billion for border security. for 2008 -- that was in 2017, for 2018, it was $2.5 billion. the truth is everybody that i know of that serves in this country, whether democrat or republican, want to make sure that we have our border secure. unfortunately, the president, or

fortunately, however you want to look at it, the president came in with his budget request last year to the homeland security subcommittee appropriations which i serve on and asked for $1.6 billion for a wall. guess what that subcommittee did and guess what the appropriations committee did. we gave him $1.6 billion for that wall. and then sometime later -- now the senate didn't pass that bill, i might add. but sometime later the president came in and said, no, i want $5 billion for a wall and now it's $5.7 billion for a wall. we had asked for a report on how this money was going to be spent and they sent us a report on how the $1.6 billion was going to be spent with no comparative analysis on how technology or manpower or anything else to secure that border might work more wishly to keep -- beneficially to keep our border

secure and be more cost effective for the american taxpayer. so what did the president do? well, 25 times he said i'm going shuts the government down. and guess what happened. the government's shut down. it doesn't take a genius to do that. and now we've heard the stories and they'll continue, especially after tomorrow and working folks won't get their paycheck, of the impacts on this country, on average americans who could lose their homes, their autos, not be able to send their kids to school, not be able to afford health care. the list goes on and on. and i ask, is this how you make america great again? is this how it's done? because it's not working. and so senator cardin came to to the floor a bit ago and he said,

i want to put up not show bills, i want to put up republican bills that this body has already passed and that the house just passed this last week. so that the senate would do their job and hopefully reopen the government. i think there's enough votes to do it. i think there's enough votes to override a veto and the majority leader's response was, no, we don't want to do this. we're going to take up a bill on israel. i support israel, but i take a -- i take an oath of office to protect this country first, and we're turning our back on this country. we can continue to have the debate about the best way to secure the border, but it should not be done holding the american people hostage. it should be done by having the debate that this body, the most

deliberative body in the world i was told before i got here, got to serve with great senators. got to serve with robert c. byrd and richard lugar and kennedy and bachus, the list goes on and on. we don't debate. we don't even vote. in fact, we don't even live up to the constitution's goals for us, requirements for us, whatever you want to call it. we're a coequal branch of government. we shouldn't be allowing the president, as senator durbin said, asking for permission slip from the president to be able to do our business. bring the bills to the floor to open this government and vote on it. if they go down, they go down. i think they'll pass. if the president vetoes them -- if the president vetoes them, bring them back for a veto override.

it is as simple as that. i wonder what the forefathers would think today if they saw this body, a shell of its former self. and it's not due to the rules, it's due to the fact that we have a leadership that won't live up to the obligation of this body it was set up to begin with. we've got work to do here. we've got a lot of work to do, and that work starts with opening the government of the united states. if we don't do it or if we say we're only going to do it with permission from the president, then we all ought to hold our head in shame. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. lankford: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: is the senate currently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. lankford: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: we're in day 20 of a government shutdown. it's exceptionally avoidable but also exceptionally painful and distracting to the american

people. the usda, the farm service agency loans have stopped. t.s.a. employees are worked without pay. if we can't get this resolved by tomorrow they'll miss a paycheck but still be at work. home landing programs have hamented. for the f.a.a., the new air traffic controllers are not being trained. we have air traffic controllers in the tower working by tomorrow without pay coming in but new training has stopped. that means a year from now when we need to have those new air traffic controllers take their spot in that tower, there won't be someone in that tower because we've halted the training at this point. our taxpayer advocate services are closed. indian health services being stretched. bureau of indian affairs, most employees have been furloughed. department of commerce and many others have been affected. this doesn't affect most agencies in the federal government. it affects a lot. and it affects real lives and

real people. let me give you some examples just from my state in oklahoma. a technology company in tulsa that will have to begin furloughing employees because one of their contractors -- they're a contractor for the federal workforce. for those folks that are selling their cattle right now that have a relationship with farm services, they can't cash that check because they can't get a second cosigner for the check and it definitely affects them. we have a federal worker that contacted us and said she's a contractor and as of a couple of days from now, she's not going to be able to pay for the tuition for her son's tuition to be able to get back to college because it will be too far of a stretch. the food banks in my state have already started stocking up and reaching out to federal employees that if they don't get a check starting tomorrow, they're going to be stretched to be able to get a check and will need additional assistance, many of them for the first time ever.

we have a family that's in the norman area south of oklahoma city that typically handles the contract for housing for those students that are coming to f.a.a. and to the academy. obviously those academy student vs all gone home and they're losing $5,000 a week due to the shutdown and the lack of housing for those folks. and it's not just empty facilities, that's employees that are now being furloughed that are contractors there. this affects real lives and real people. this is an exceptionally avoidable shutdown. the president of the united states months and months ago announced publicly and repetitively he's not going to sign a funding bill at the end of the year that does not add additional border security. over and over again in public speeches and in private conversations on this hill, the president repeated over and over i am not going to sign a funding

bill unless it adds additional boarder security. and for some reason half of this hill ignored it and said he's just kidding. he's not just kidding. he sees the issue of border security which i do, by the way, as well as being a serious issue that has been talked about for decades but has not been addressed. now, all of these families are being impacted because half of this hill said they thought the president was kidding. we should be able to do basic border security. this used to not be a partisan issue. it was just a decade ago that this body voted to add 650 miles of additional fencing along the border between mexico and the united states because at that time a decade ago, this body said it is a serious issue with border security. we should add fencing to the border. and outspoken liberals like senator clinton and senator obama voted to add fencing to

the border in 2006 and said that is the right thing to do. but suddenly now, a decade and a couple of years later, it's a partisan issue and we can't allow president trump to have additional fencing. it seems very odd to me. this seems like a personal attack on the president rather than a realization of where we've been as a country for a long time. we should have basic border security. and for the president to be actually very mallable in this, shocking so to some people that he stepped out and said i want $5.7 billion for a wall or for fencing or steel barriers or whatever you want to call it, we need some additional barriers on it, to negotiate during the christmas time period and to be stuck because the white house makes an offer to senator schumer and senator schumer's response apparently was we will wait to negotiate this after nancy pelosi becomes speaker. so for ten days we sat with no

negotiations going because we had to wait until there was a speaker pelosi. and now speaker pelosi steps up and says we're going to do nothing on this. and the president says no, we need to do something. and suddenly something that the american people saw as obvious, why wouldn't we do basic things for border security has suddenly become political and controversial. the president even in his speaking earlier this week from the oval office started by saying we should do additional technology at the border. i fully agree. in fact, the department of homeland security just in the last two years has added 31 new fixed surveil hasn't towers to the southern border, 50 mobile systems to the border and added ground sensors and tunnel detection capabilities to the southern border. those are all technology aspects of helping the southern border. the president stepped up and

said we need to do more in that area. he said we need to add additional agents which has not been a partisan issue in the past. we need to add immigration judges which has not been controversial. we have 800,000 people waiting in immigration courts to get due process right now. many of them will wait three years or more just to get to a court. it's because we have too few judges handling the many immigration cases that are out there. there should be a commonsense issue to say let's add additional judges so people can get to due process faster. but suddenly that's become controversial. and the president said we need to add a steel barrier. now, i i'm fully aware he's talked about wall in the past and he said wall, wall, wall over and over. and some people have this picture that it's going to be the berlin wall complete with graffiti on the side of it. that's not what d.h.s. is putting up nor what they have put up.

they put up these big steel slats because the customs and border patrol folks don't want a solid wall. they need to be able to see through it to see if there's a threat coming to them. has it made a difference? it's absolutely made a difference. some of my team was down at the border there at san diego just a month ago. they visited with the customs and border patrol folks there. they stated that the old fencing that's there and there's some very old fencing in that area, that old fencing had more than a dozen penetrations through it a day. a day. it was meaningless. but the new fencing they're putting up, these big steel slats, that steel barrier has one person a month, one a month. so it moved from ten to 12 a day to one a month. that's a pretty big difference. that's helping actually manage our border. that's why fencing actually does work and i'm fully aware folks say you put up a 30-foot fence,

you get a 31-foot ladder. what happens if you climb a 31-foot ladder, you have to slow down in the process and gives time for the border patrol to interdict. that's what a fence is all about to say you can't just cross here easily. you have to be able to slow down through the process so we can actually interdict folks. this is a completely avoidable and quite frankly very recognizable problem. we should not have a government shutdown happening right now. interestingly enough, some of my democratic colleagues that i have spoken with over the last two days will quietly whisper in these hallways, i hope the president will just declare a national emergency and so the fencing can get built and we can say we fought it. rather than actually bring a piece of legislation here and solve it. you know, there are real

families and real lives that are getting affected by this. let's resolve this. this is not a big number. this is not a complicated issue. we can come to common agreement on basic border security and be able to protect our communities and our cities. we should have the ability for individuals to come into this united states and to be able to work. we have always been that way. interestingly enough, i remind people all the time the 5,000 people that are coming in the migrant caravan from honduras, they are camped out 250 yards from the largest legal border crossing in the world, the san ysidro crossing. we have 5,000 people that are trying to illegally cross the border literally 250 yards from where 100,000 people a day cross legally every single day. but the cameras are all focused on the 5,000 people trying to cross illegally, not turning the camera 90 degrees to focus in on

the 100,000 people a day that filled out the form and that did it right that are coming into our country. we're still a country open to immigration, and we should be. we just ask people to do it the right way. i don't think it's that unreasonable. so how do we get out of this? the most basic way we get out of this is just to do what we've all talked about for months. let's sit down and figure out how to be able to do border security. just the most simple process of that. my colleagues say the president says we need to open the government, then we'll talk about border security. that will be the same argument we have had for a couple of years now where they have said some other time we'll talk about it. the president has said for months and months and months now is the time to talk about this, so let's resolve it as quickly as we possibly can. lest not overcomplicate it is the second thing. people have said let's add all these additional things to the negotiation and make the deal

bigger. that slows it down even more. federal employees need answers right now. let's not try to make this a bigger and bigger and bigger argument that stretches out longer into debate. let's solve the issue we have in front of us right now and keep debating the other issues. finally let's get a permanent resolution of this issue of government shutdown. it's been interesting to me to be able to see some of the media that were comparing this shutdown to the one happening during the jimmy carter presidency or during the clinton presidency or the three that happened during the reagan presidency or those that happened in the bush presidencies. this is a bad habit this congress is in. there were 16 of us that met this last year from april all the way to december. eight democrats, eight republicans. half from the house, half from the senate to try to resolve the budget process. many of us spoke up, myself included, over and over again that this is a broken budgeting process. saying that we've got to end the government shutdowns. by the time we get to the middle of december, that group of 16 could not come to a resolution

to address this problem. well, how about now? are we willing to admit now there's a problem with budgeting? here was one of the solutions that i brought to that committee. i think it's very straightforward. the simple solution is if you get to the end of the budget year and we don't have things resolved at that point, go into a continuing resolution, that is, continue to fund the government, hold the agencies and the employees harmless, but members of congress have to stay in washington, d.c., and the cabinet and the white house has to stay in washington, d.c. no travel for anyone. we have to be here. you want to hit members of congress where it hurts? don't let anyone go home for the weekend to see their families. we have families, too, that we want to be able to see, but we shouldn't be able to walk away when there is still work to be done. the greatest pressure point that we could have in this body is we have to stay in continuous session until the negotiations are finished. make everyone stay here.

now, that may sound overly simplistic, but when i bring that up to other members of congress, they are like whoa, that's too much. really? everyone needs to be able to stay here, keep the negotiations from the house, the senate, the cabinet of the white house and the white house staff itself. the second thing that you can do is each week, through any kind of fight that goes on to get the budgeting done, cut everyone's budget in the house, the senate, and the white house operating budget 5% that week. now, again, holding all the agencies harmless, but those that are doing the negotiations start feeling the pressure. not only can you not travel, you can't go see your families, you are having to stay in continuous session, but your budget is getting cut every week for 5% each week until it gets resolved. again, the pressure is on the people it should be on and holding the american people that aren't in the middle of this fight harmless in the process. there are ways to solve this, simple commonsense ways.

and i'll continue to be able to bring those up again and again, because when this shutdown is complete, there will be a fight over another one coming, and in the meantime, we need to try to end this loop that we're in that destabilizes our system. let's do border security. let's not fight over, okay, let's open the government up and then we'll talk about it later. everyone knows that really won't happen. everyone knows that game. let's resolve what all the american people know need to be resolved, basic functional real commonsense security. not putting up a big wall across the whole border. no one wants to see a 2,000-mile-long wall. it's not even needed, but in areas where there is a city on both sides of the border and literally you cross the border within seconds, unless there is a barrier there, makes sense to have a barrier in those locations. it makes sense to put technology in other areas to be able to monitor folks that are illegally

crossing the border in other areas. we can do this in a commonsense way. we can do this quickly. let's get it resolved. with that, i yield the floor. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: .

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: in a few minutes here, 1:45 or so, the senate is going to vote to decide whether or not we're going to begin debate on the senate bill before us, senate bill 1. this is the strengthening american security in the middle east act. i want to remind everybody of why we began with this bill. i don't know what the number is but i would say the overwhelming majority of the members of the senate did not agree when the president decided that he was going to pull us out of syria for various different reasons. and everybody was asking us why don't you guys do something about it? as you know, it's difficult for the -- congress can't order the president to take military action. it can authorize it, fund it, defund it but it can't compel it. that's the role of the commander in chief. there are some things we can do because there were things we

were concerned about in this decision. there are some things we can do to sort of deal with the consequences of what i believe would be a mistake. and this bill endeavors do it. we went through and we said let's find some bills that would help our allies in the region -- israel, jordan -- that deals with the human rights catastrophe in syria. let's find things that are bipartisan and have support so we're not starting something controversial and put it together into one bill so the country can see the senate is engaged in the foreign policy of this country and acting out its constitutional role of checks and balances on the executive. that's what we did. no good deed goes unpunished though, because as that bill was filed apparently the democratic leader and, has asked and others in the leadership have asked their members to vote against even beginning debate on a bill that overwhelming numbers of them support, the majority of democrats support. yet they asked them not to proceed on the bill. the argument is because of the

government shutdown. i still -- i ask, i don't know how it makes any sense to respond to a government shutdown by shutting down the senate. in essence, why do we even come up here this week? obviously they're not making any progress on the negotiations, it appears. we're not moving on any bills or legislation. i don't know if it gives any people comfort to know at least the senate is shut down too. i don't know how that fixes the government shutdown situation. this should be a place that can walk and chew gum at the same time meaning that works on solving and ending this shutdown which is bad for everybody, securing our borders, which is something we need to do for our country, but also deals with something like this especially as timely as the decision that was just made last month and the threats facing our allies in the region. that's what this bill is about. we're going to have another vote here for the second time this week, and all this vote is for, so everybody understands, this bill is not even in favor or against the bill. it's just a question of whether or not we can start debate on this bill. and i hope that a few more democrats will join us so we can

get the 60 votes we need just to begin debating the bill. if you still want to make your point at the end of the day, then go ahead and vote against it. i hope you don't. but let's at least begin debate on it. we'll see what happens here in about 30 minutes. my sense is we still don't have the votes to do that, and it's unfortunate. i do want to address two things that have been brought up with regard to this bill. one thing that has been brought up and one element of the bill that i hope will change people's minds in terms of beginning debate on it. first let me talk about a provision in this bill that deals with b.d.s. boycott divestment and sanctions, an international effort to wave economic war on israel to punish them for their supposed treatment of palestinians. and what it asks for is to pressure companies that do business in israel, boycott those companies until they cut ties. boycott or pressure banks and investment firms until they

divest of investments that help israel. that's b.d.s. some people support it. there's two members of the house who openly support it, newly elected. i assume that's their right. i think they're wrong, but that's their right. but the vast majority of people do not. and what's happened across america is that there are states and there are counties and cities that have decided we don't support b.d.s. it's not illegal. we're not going to make it illegal if you want to be a company that participates in b.d.s., but we, the government, the city, the state, are not going to buy services or goods from any company that's boycotting israel. and all this bill does is protect them from lawsuits so they make that decision. the argument against this has been, and i've seen this now in numerous statements from the other side of the aisle, that this infringes on the first amendment rights of individuals. i don't know what bill does

that, but it isn't this one. to begin with, this bill doesn't even apply to individuals. an individual can do whatever they want. if you don't want to buy stock in a company that does business in israel, i think it's shortsighted but no one's stopping. if you want to divest your investments from companies that do business in israel, no one is stopping you from doing that. if you don't want to shop or buy from companies that do business with israel, that's not illegal. this doesn't apply to any individuals. by the way, it doesn't make it illegal for companies to make that decision. this is not banning participating in b.d.s. you have every right to support it. you're wrong but you have every right to support it. you have every right to carry it out if you're a company or an individual. this bill, by the way, does not apply to individuals. so any time anyone says they're protecting the individual first amendment rights of americans by opposing this legislation, be i don't know what they're talking about, because this doesn't apply to individuals. that said, all this says is you

go ahead and do it. if you, company x, want to boycottively -- boycott israel, you can. but the people who disagree with you can boycott and divest from you. free speech is a two-way street. if you want to proclaim something you have every right to do it but the people who disagree with you have a right to do that as well. there is a first amendment right for companies to boycott or divest from israel, then there has to be a first amendment right to boycott and divest from those companies. and if you oppose this bill, then you are in favor of shielding from counter boycotts anyone who decides to take these actions. that's what you're for, which is de facto support for b.d.s. what you're basically saying is go ahead, boycott israel, divest from israel, but no one can do that to you. that's not what the first amendment is. the first amendment protects your right to speech and protects you from government

infringement on an individual's right to speak. it does not protect you from people disagreeing with you. it does not protect you from people speaking out against you. and so if you are a boycotter, you yourself can be boycotted. if you are a divester, people can divest from you. and i'm talking about cities and counties who are elected representatives, if the members of that community do not agree with that decision, they can vote them out of office. but why does a city or county have to be forced to buy products from companies that are undertaking a foreign policy action which is what this is -- this is not an effort to influence domestic policy. this is an effort to influence the policies of a foreign country. why should a city or county be forced by law to have to do business with those that that city or that county or that state disagrees with? that's all this bill is. and so when people go around talking about this infringes on the first amendment rights of individuals, it's just not

honest. it's just not true. this doesn't even apply to individuals. in fact, the bill says in writing, right there, it says clearly nothing under this act shall be construed to infringe upon the first amendment rights of any american. so as they continue to say that, just know that this bill only applies to cities, counties, and states being able to not buy things from companies. this doesn't give you the right to fire an employee who posts a pro-b.d.s. thing on facebook. this doesn't give you the right to refuse to sell a home or provide housing or discriminate in any way from individuals who support b.d.s. this doesn't give anyone the right to put you in jail for supporting b.d.s. it doesn't do anything to infringe anyone's individual first amendment rights. all it does is protect the first amendment right to be against b.d.s. and to do to the boycotters what the boycotters are doing to israel. a two-way street. that's a fact.

and if you're hiding behind that to oppose this bill, you're not being frank about what the bill does. the second part of this bill that i want to talk about today shouldn't be controversial at all, because we are all now painfully familiar with the grave humanitarian crisis that we've seen in syria. i would say, and most would agree, that what we've seen over the last eight years in this conflict is the worst humanitarian crisis since the end of the second world war. it began as anti-government protests but it led to a fighting for political freedoms thattesque laifted into a bloody civil war. a bunch of foreign fighters float in, and now it's a mess of all kinds of different groups and foreign countries, of radical jihadists and caught in the middle are innocent people, innocent people who have been bombed and gassed. in fact, this administration has had to take action to punish the assad regime militarily for

dropping chlorine bombs and chemical weapons on civilian populations. we've seen these images of children, babies, everyday people, bakers and plumbers and small business owners and professionals who one minute were walking around and the next minute are choking to death because their own government, with the support of russia and iran, dropped chemical weapons on their community and killed countless people. not only is this sort of activity horrifying, it's a war crime. it is a war crime to deliberately target civilian populations, and it is particularly cruel to do it with a gruesome form of death that is deaths by chemical weapon. and that's what we've seen, and that's what we've seen supported, by the way, by vladimir putin. he knows for a fact what they're doing and doesn't care and gives them cover and makes up

ridiculous stories about how it's the opposition that did it. everyone knows who did it. there's zero doubt about it. that's why they don't allow inspectors to go in there and find evidence and point it out but it's abundantly clear who's doing this and they've done it. even as this administration is deciding to pull out, the prospects and the likelihood grows every day that the people who have made these decisions will never be held accountable for what they have done. these war criminals, these savages will never be held accountable for what they have done if trends continue the way they're going. and so what this bill does is it tries to address that. and the now chairman of the foreign relations committee, the senator from idaho, senator risch, filed a bill last year called the caesar syria civilian protection act that is now included in this bill. i believe he'll be here shortly to speak about it. it's call the caesar bill. it has nothing to do with rome.

it's named after a syrian military defector, someone that was in the syrian military whose code name was caesar who smuggled out tens of thousands of pictures of what was going on inside of syria. the pictures, the images of thousands of, images of the people, thousands of people killed while being detained in syria. the torture, the brutalization of women, innocent men, and sometimes children by the assad regime and by those who support them. the pictures, they show the true face of what we're dealing with here, the face of an evil and criminal regime, a regime that needs to be held to account and all those who support them and allowing them to do it should be held accountable. what senator risch's bill does is provide the trump administration new legal authority to bring some

accountability to the people -- for the people who have done this. first, it requires a determination and a report by the treasury on whether the central bank of syria is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern. why does that matter? because they are using that bank to clean and launder money to remain in power and ultimately to gas and kill their own people. it imposes new sanctions on anyone who does business with or provides financing to the government of syria, including syrian intelligence and security services or the central bank of syria. it provides aircraft -- that provide aircraft or spare aircraft parts used for military purposes in syria, or telecommunication sectors controlled by the syrian government. these aren't just about punishing them. it's about hurting them in the pocketbook so they cannot afford to put the planes up there to

drop the bombs on innocent people. it gives the authority, the administration, to now do this. this bill requires the administration to brief congress. talking about holding administrations accountable and hold oversight. this bill requires them to tell us what their plan is to deliver humanitarian aid. i want know how we're going to deliver humanitarian aid if there's no u.s. presence on the ground and the only people are the russians, turks, iranians and assad regime. it will be interesting to be briefed on that plan with us not there. it requires them to tell us what their plan is or admit there isn't a plan because we're not there anymore. that's what this bill does. and i would love everyone here to support it, but before you can even vote for it, we have to start debate on it through the rules of the senate and here in about 15 minutes we're going to vote on this thing and there's going to be people who vote against even starting the debate on it. and the argument is because of

the shutdown. i hope people reconsider. i don't understand the logic of it, but when you talk about the threats that are facing israel, which the overwhelming majority of senators say they are strong supporters of. when you talk about the importance of jordan and that alliance with israel, something that every single person here basically agrees with for the most part and when you talk about these horrifying war crimes for which there should be accountability for which i believe everybody here was outraged by, how to stop a bill or refusing to move on to debate a bill that deals with those things help end the shutdown? it doesn't. it makes no sense. but that's what some apparently are willing to do. so they probably aren't watching a this point. -- at this point. they are probably at their conference lunches or doing something else, but i hope over the last 48 hours some mf my

democratic -- of my democratic colleagues thought about it and i said it doesn't make sense to not deal with this. i hope they think about it differently. if they don't i'm not sure how we can explain to people why it is that we won't agree to even begin debate on something almost all of us agree on for reasons completely unrelated to it because that is, in essence, what happened earlier this week and what could potentially happen here very shortly. i actually oftentimes wonder what must go through the minds of visitors to the capitol. i understand most people in america aren't watching this, very few people probably are. but i would wonder, you come up here, these groups close up are here, great organization, brings high school kids up here. and you try to explain to normal, regular human beings that there is a bill like 90 of the 100 senators support but

we're not even going to be able to debate it because they are voting against debating it. and they look at you like you have three heads, like what you are -- are you talking about? they support the bill but they don't want to have a debate on the bill yet. why? because of the government shutdown. well, what does that have to do with it? because there's no other aspect in our lives where we would do that. i never heard that in my life. i never heard one say, i'm not going to work today because i'm upset that my favorite team lost the game yesterday or i'm not paying my bills this month because i don't like, you know, the fact that -- that they charged me too much for changing my tires. if you did that in any part of your life, people would think you are crazy and yet that's what's happening here. what kind of leverage is this that you're going to hold up a bill that we all agree is

leverage, the democratic leader knows that in order for pa bill to become law, it needs the support of the house, and 60 senators, and a president that can sign it. they know full well that this has nothing to do with that, but nonetheless, a majority of them seem to be prepared to vote against even debating it. so i don't know how to explain that. i certainly don't know how to explain it to high school students visiting on close up or anyone else for that matter, but that's what happened earlier this week and that's what might happen here later today in fa few minutes. -- in a few minutes. i hope i'm wrong and people have reconsidered. this is an issue that deserves our urgent attention. i will close with this. please do not go around saying that congress needs to do more to hold the administration accountable or to conduct oversight over policy. when we started this congress trying to do that and you decide

to keep us from doing it for some other reason, don't say that congress needs to be more involved in the foreign policy of the united states when this is exactly what we're trying to do here today and you won't let us for reasons unrelated to it. and this country needs a strong senate more than ever before, not one that's shut down, and i hope that people will change their minds so we can get to work on this right now. the senate should be able to walk and chew gum, write, and read at the same time. there are a lot of us, 100 people here. we should be able to do multiple things at the same time. we've done it all the time. you don't need to shut down the senate and you don't need to stop debate on this bill to solve the government shutdown. one thing has nothing to do with the other. everyone knows that. americans understand that. normal people recognize that. let's act normal. let's stop being weird about these things and let's move on

something like this and get the debate going even as we work on the government shutdown and on border security. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. risch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. risch: i ask unanimous consent that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: mr. president, and senators, i rise today again to discuss senate bill 1 and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this. we had a vote just the other day on this and it's been

reconsidered. all republicans voted for it, four of our friends on the other side of the aisle also with us on this, and i would urge a few more to do so. and if that happens, we will actually pass -- we will actually pass this package of bills which is so important. these have been kicking around for some time. they have near, although not complete, unanimous approval of this body -- the substance of these bills. indeed, members of this body have voted for these both in committee and on the floor individually in the past, but they have not gotten across the finish line because we ran out of time in the last congress. essentially it's a package of three bills that support our friends. one, of course, supports israel, one supports jordan, one of our best friends in the middle east, and lastly one of the bills

refreshes the sanctions and strengthens sanctions against bashar al-assad and his government in syria. now, these should pass, and you might ask yourself, well, what's going on here. why are we having these party line votes on this? well, my friends on the other side of the aisle said that we're not going to vote on anything while the government is shut down and we are focused on this. i will remind many many of us that there are those who are veterans of the obama-harry reid shutdown. now, dug that shutdown, the united states senate continued to do its job. it continued to consider resolutions, it considered to pass bills, it considered to -- it continued to do confirmations that it's required to do, and that's what we have here today is something that we should be doing that reinforces our friends in the middle east,

particularly with times of being somewhat tumultuous there. it's important that we do support our friends in the middle east and it's important that we put these sanctions on the people in syria that they should be put on. i would also remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that they are forcing a vote on the treasury regulations regarding surrounding mr. durapaska, the russian person who has had sanctions placed on him and who has gone through the process of getting them removed. and we're going to -- my friends on the other side are requiring that we debate those and then vote on those, which is a good thoing do. first of all, the issue needs to be -- there are some issues that need to be aired there, and secondly it's important that we

have the process for reviewing actions by the treasury department under the sanctions legislation that we passed, so it's good that we do that. but to say we can't do this but we can do that because they want to do it really doesn't make sense. they also want to do this. i think if we had a straightup vote on this, i would suspect the democrats would vote unanimously to do this. so this is just the wrong way to do business. we are the united states senate. we are open for business. we're doing business. in the last shutdown, we did business. there is no reason we can't do this. so, mr. president, fellow senators, for all the reasons that i have just said, i would urge an affirmative vote on this good legislation, get it on its way, and get it doing the things that we want to see done. thank you, mr. president. 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 motion to proceed to calendar number 1, s. 1, a bill to make improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions, and so forth and for other purposes, 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 motion to proceed to s. 1, an act to make improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions, and to authorize the appropriation of funds to israel, to reauthorize the united states-jordan defense cooperation act of 2015, and to halt the wholesale slaughter of the syrian people, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: