[Pages S4131-S4145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONSIDERATION OF SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NOS. 27 THROUGH 48 EN BLOC--
Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume the en bloc consideration of following joint resolutions of
disapproval, which the clerk will report by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 27) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the
United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and Australia certain
defense articles and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military
sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles
and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 29) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military
sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles
and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 30) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military
sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles
and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 31) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military
sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles
and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 32) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military
sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles
and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 33) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military
sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles
and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res 34) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military
sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles
and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 35) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military
sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles
and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 36) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Italian
Republic of certain defense articles and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 37) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed export to the
United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and the Republic of France of certain
defense articles and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 38) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed export to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland of certain defense articles and
services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed export to the
United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom of certain defense
articles, including technical data and defense services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 40) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed export to India,
Israel, Republic of Korea, and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of
certain defense articles, including technical data and
defense services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed export to the
Government of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of
technical data and defense services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 42) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed export to the
United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland of certain defense articles, including
technical data and defense services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 43) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and
services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 44) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed retransfer of
certain defense articles from the United Arab Emirates to the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res 45) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and
services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 46) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the
United Arab Emirates certain defense articles and services;
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 47) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and
services; and
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 48) providing for
congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the
United Arab Emirates certain defense articles and services.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S4132]]

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business
for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

``This is Iowa'' Campaign

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Gov. Kim Reynolds of my State of Iowa
has unveiled what she calls the ``This is Iowa'' campaign. That
campaign has encouraged people to choose Iowa to live and work.
Iowa has the second lowest unemployment rate in the Nation. As I
travel Iowa with my county meetings, I hear from employers across Iowa
that have high-paying skilled jobs they cannot fill. That is why Iowa
was ranked the No. 1 State to find a job in 2019.
The cost of living is low and the quality of life is second to none.
Check out thisisiowa.com to learn more. In the words of Meredith
Wilson, of ``76 Trombones'' fame, from Mason City, IA: ``You really
ought to give Iowa a try.''
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

National Defense Authorization Act

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, by a wide bipartisan margin,
the Senate began considering this year's National Defense Authorization
Act.
The Senate has passed an NDAA each of the last 58 years. We authorize
the resources, the equipment, the support systems, and the pay that
keep our All-Volunteer Force the strongest in the world.
From the outside, this process may look routine, but as our
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee know best, keeping America
safe takes constant hard work and innovation.
We have all seen the recent headlines: ``Russia `successfully tests'
hypersonic intercept missile that can shoot down Western weapons,''
``China's Military Technology Now Close to Parity With U.S.''
In just the last few hours, Iran shot down an American surveillance
aircraft in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz.
Fortunately, the aircraft was unmanned.
Let me say that again. Last night, the Iranians shot down a U.S.
aircraft in international airspace.
It could certainly not be clearer that we need to keep modernizing
our national defense, continue rebuilding our readiness, and persist
with our new national defense strategy.
Fortunately, this legislation includes billions of dollars for
modernizing our capabilities, restoring the Navy's fleet strength, and
investing in the latest generation of combat aircraft. There are
billions more for critical research weapons aimed at keeping U.S.
weapons systems on the cutting edge and ensuring American
servicemembers never enter a fair fight. It prioritizes greater
efficiency and transparency at the Pentagon so we can better support
military families through the sacrifices of service.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jack
Reed for guiding the committee process. I hope the Senate can work
through this legislation swiftly and give it the overwhelming
bipartisan vote it deserves.

Arms Sales

Mr. President, on a related matter, in addition to completing the
NDAA, the Senate will today have to dispense with several more
privileged resolutions concerning arms sales to close American partners
in a troubled but important region.
These close partners deserve our support. I am glad we secured a
bipartisan understanding yesterday to expedite their consideration so
the 22 separate resolutions which Members have introduced will not
jeopardize the Defense bill or the emergency border funding we must
also consider next week.
Today this body, yet again, will debate and cast votes concerning our
relationship with Saudi Arabia, just like we did in March and December
and the previous March.
I think the vast majority of Senators share serious concerns over
some of the policies and actions of our Saudi partners, but rejecting
long-planned arms sales strikes me as an overly blunt tool with several
unintended consequences.
For example, the arms sales affected by this vote are not just for
Saudi Arabia but also for the United Arab Emirates, and they include
sales that affect Israel, India, Korea, and Jordan.
Last December, the Senate passed a nuanced resolution that delivered
exactly the message we wanted to deliver: our fury over the murder of
Jamal Khashoggi, our concerns about the war in Yemen, and our desire
for more accountability. That was the right approach.
There is no shortage of tools available to the United States that are
more appropriate to communicate frustrations and urge better behavior,
whether from the administration or our partners.
Senators could meet with Saudi officials to directly express their
concerns. They could travel to the region to see firsthand complicated,
fluid situations.
Rapid societal and economic change is providing Saudi citizens with
unprecedented political openness but also troubling human rights
concerns and erratic policy decisions. The dynamics at play are not
black and white.
We can best shape these dynamics by working closely with our partners
to encourage them in the right direction, rather than turning our back.
Concerned Members might also begin giving fairer treatment and more
prompt consideration to the well-qualified experts who are waiting to
contribute to our diplomacy. Recall that the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Near Eastern Affairs just started his job last Monday after
he had been held up for more than a year. The top State Department job
in the Middle East was held open for more than a year.
The nominees for Ambassador to the UAE, Egypt, and Libya are having
hearings today. I hope their confirmations will move more quickly than
those of other senior diplomats who languished for months.
So there is no shortage of productive steps at Members' disposal, but
recklessly canceling U.S. arms sales to key regional partners is not on
the list.
So the question the Senate will soon consider is really this: whether
we will lash out at an imperfect partner and undercut our own efforts
to build cooperation, check Iran, and achieve other important goals or
whether we will keep our imperfect partners close and use our
influence; whether we will push Riyadh and Abu Dhabi away from the
United States and push them closer to Moscow and Beijing or whether we
will stay engaged and help our partners course-correct where we can;
whether to signal at this hour of tension that we cannot be relied upon
to stand with our friends, sending a message that will embolden Tehran,
or whether to find more private, effective ways of encouraging better
behavior while sending a message of solidarity in troubled times.
The situation in the Middle East, as we speak, could hardly be more
fraught. The timing could not be worse for the Senate to send the wrong
signal.
In just the last several hours, we have seen reports that a missile
from inside Yemen has struck a utility plant in Saudi Arabia. This is
after other attacks--almost certainly from the Iran-backed Houthi
forces--on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, including attacks on civilian
vessels and on a civilian airport.
Again, just last night, Iran shot down a U.S. intelligence aircraft
that was flying in international airspace. So the Senate could hardly
pick a worse time for clumsy and ill-considered resolutions that would
hurt key relationships in the Middle East.
Let's not cut ourselves off from our partners. Let's not undercut the
administration at a time of such delicate diplomacy and tension with
Iran. So I ask my colleagues to vote down these resolutions.

Nomination of Kelly Knight Craft

Mr. President, on another matter, I had the opportunity to introduce
a skillful leader and fellow Kentuckian before the Foreign Relations
Committee only just yesterday. Kelly Knight Craft was confirmed by
voice vote in 2017 to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada. Now she
is the President's choice to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations.

[[Page S4133]]

Ambassador Craft's success in representing American interests in
Canada certainly rewarded the Senate's vote of confidence. During a
dynamic and sometimes challenging period in the U.S.-Canada friendship,
she has navigated it with care. She has helped to shepherd the USMCA.
She has helped to secure cooperation on sanctioning Russia for its
aggression against Ukraine and on pursuing democracy for Venezuela. She
has spoken out forcefully, when necessary, against China.
Not surprisingly, this talented diplomat has earned great respect
both at home and abroad.
The Premier of Ontario has said:

Every premier I know thinks the world of her. . . . She
really proved herself over some tough times.

The former Deputy to Ambassador Nikki Haley has described Ambassador
Craft as a worthy successor--``smart, capable, and knowledgeable about
the foreign policy challenges facing our country.''
This body confirmed Ambassador Craft to her current post by voice
vote. Since then, she has only gained even more experience, further
refined her expertise, and demonstrated her talent even more clearly.
Her testimony yesterday reinforced these things even further.
President Trump has made an excellent selection to serve our Nation
in this critical role at the U.N. She deserves bipartisan support from
the Foreign Relations Committee and, when the time comes, a swift
confirmation here on the Senate floor.

Border Security

Mr. President, on a final matter, for nearly 2 months, my Republican
colleagues and I have come to the floor constantly to raise the alarm
on the humanitarian crisis down at the border. Record numbers of
migrants have pressed upon the U.S.-Mexico border, including never-
before-seen numbers of families and unaccompanied children. The
agencies that care for these individuals and the facilities that house
them have been stretched dangerously thin.
We all know this. That is why the administration requested
supplemental funds 7 weeks ago. It is why agency heads and law
enforcement officials have literally begged Congress to act. Yet, until
yesterday, we had not seen progress, which leads one to ask why. It is
because--stop me if this sounds familiar--the Democratic House of
Representatives has been more interested in denying this White House
whatever it asks for, however necessary it might be, simply because it
has been this White House that has been asking for it.
My friend the Democratic leader has acknowledged publicly it has been
the Democratic-controlled House that has been the hurdle. One House
Democrat from a border State has likewise admitted that it has been the
left flank of his own conference that has been the stumbling block.
As the press has noted, some leading Democrats have let partisanship
so cloud their judgment that they have actually called the humanitarian
problem a manufactured crisis or an artificial crisis. Really?
Well, these 7 weeks of wasted time have made two things abundantly
clear--that partisanship doesn't change the facts and that ``the
resistance'' doesn't pay the bills. The House Democrats have failed to
get their act together, so now the Senate is going to move forward.
Yesterday, thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Senator
Leahy, the Appropriations Committee approved a significant funding
measure by an overwhelming vote of 30 to 1--just the kind of big,
bipartisan vote we ought to see in this particular situation for
noncontroversial funding for necessary programs to mitigate a national
crisis.
The Republicans have been urging this kind of consensus literally for
weeks, and now the Senate is finally rising to the occasion. We need to
vote on this legislation before we recess at the end of the month.
The Senate should not let even more time slip by without addressing
this crisis head-on, and if we receive the same kind of bipartisan
cooperation that was signaled in the committee vote yesterday, we will
not have to.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

Iran

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, over the past few months, tensions with
Iran have escalated. There have been a series of attacks on tankers in
the Gulf region, and this morning it was reported that Iran has shot
down a U.S. drone.
These events are deeply concerning--all the more so because the Trump
administration has not explained to Congress or to the American people
how it views these events, how it plans to respond, and, most
importantly, what the broader strategy for confronting Iran is.
President Trump left the diplomatic agreement a little more than a
year ago. It was obvious to anyone who even had a cursory knowledge of
Iran that it would create consequences. With that decision, there is a
course set for conflict--conflict whose purpose or strategy has never
been articulated to the American people.
The President says on TV: It is a much better Iran than when I took
office. Well, they were not building nuclear weapons--and I opposed the
Iran agreement, as you know. But they were not building nuclear
weapons. They were proceeding along the path of the agreement, and the
President, as he seems to, just gets a bug in his head, something he
said in the campaign without thinking, and then upends foreign policy--
another example of chaos in this administration. But he has done that.
He has done that.
So now the issue is what is our strategy to deal with the
consequences? The American people have to know this. We have seen too
many conflicts in the Middle East escalate into war--escalate into a
10-year war.
The American people are not for spending a fortune and, more
importantly, lives of Americans overseas. They want us to focus here at
home, but the kind of adventurism--almost unplanned, unthought out,
and, certainly, unexplained adventurism--of the President is the wrong
way to go and could lead to severe consequences. And, I must say, even
in closed-door briefings with Senators, the administration doesn't have
a strategy.
This is not how democracy is supposed to work. This is not how the
CEO of a major Nation or even a major company should behave, with no
articulated strategy. The President needs to explain to the American
people why he is driving us toward another endless conflict in the
Middle East.

Saudi Arabia

Madam President, on Saudi Arabia, another matter concerning the
administration's foreign policy, today the Senate will vote on
resolutions of disapproval for arms sales to the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia and the UAE.
These 22 resolutions introduced by Senator Menendez would block
billions of dollars in military sales, including the transfer of tens
of thousands of precision-guided munitions that the Saudis have
previously used to bomb innocent civilians in Yemen.
The timing of these votes is significant. Last night the United
Nations issued a report that documented evidence that the Saudis
meticulously planned the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and
``forensically''--their words--disposed of the evidence.
According to the report, the Saudis referred to Mr. Khashoggi as a
sacrificial animal and that dismembering the body would be easy--how
gross, how cruel, how beyond words.
Are we going to blithely go along and let the Saudis continue? They
are an ally. Everyone knows that. That doesn't mean you let allies do
the most horrible things and just treat it as if nothing happened. But
in the wake of such monstrosity, the Trump administration is proposing
another round of billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Well, we should at least have a debate about whether that is the
right course of action. Leader McConnell was on the floor saying: What
are the Democrats doing here? We are debating, Mr. Leader. You have one
view; I

[[Page S4134]]

may have another. But the American people are entitled to a debate on
this important issue, and that is what the law provides, and that is
the tool we use--one of the few tools we have to actually cause debate
in this Chamber, which the leader, with his legislative graveyard, has
assiduously avoided. With his reducing the amount of time that we can
talk about and vet nominees, he has assiduously avoided that, turning
this Chamber into a graveyard that the American people despise. But
here we have an opportunity to debate, and even here the leader seems
to be decrying that fact, in my view.
The administration is claiming emergency power and trying to
circumvent congressional review of these arms sales. That premise must
be rejected. It sets a dangerous precedent for congressional oversight
of future arms sales, and it can lead to renewed conflicts. We are also
discussing that, parenthetically, in relation to Iran. Should Congress
have some say there? You will hear more from me later on that.
The very least Congress can do is to debate the merits of sending
Saudi Arabia billions of dollars in military technology it may use not
to confront Iran but to perpetrate one of the largest humanitarian
catastrophes of its generation.
Saudi Arabia, even though it be an ally, must be held accountable for
its human rights abuses in Yemen and the grotesque murder of Jamal
Khashoggi.

Harriet Tubman

Madam President, now, on the Tubman issue, more than 3 years ago
then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced that he had ordered an
accelerated redesign of the $20 bill with a new design to feature
Harriet Tubman's portrait on the face of the bill. The design was set
to be released in 2020, the 100th anniversary of women getting the
right to vote--a fitting tribute to an extraordinary American and an
extraordinary New Yorker.
There are no women or people of color on our paper currency today,
even though they make up a significant majority of our population.
There haven't been for more than a century. The plan to put Harriet
Tubman on the $20 note was a long overdue way to recognize that
disparity and rectify it.
But shortly after the Trump administration took office, all mention
of the Tubman $20 bill was deleted from the Treasury Department's
website without any explanation. Then, Secretary Mnuchin testified that
a decision had been made to delay the release of the $20 note until
2028, and Treasury refused to confirm that Harriet Tubman's image would
ever appear on it.
The official word from the White House was that the delay was
required to accommodate anti-counterfeiting measures. But if you
believe that, I have a bridge that I can sell you. It is simply not
credible that with all the resources of the Treasury Department, a
decade or more would be required to produce a $20 bill.
A century ago, New Yorkers built the Empire State building in a
little over a year. We landed a man on the Moon in what seems to be
less time. Surely the 21st century Treasury Department can redesign a
bill in a reasonable period of time. The questions as to why the White
House, the Treasury, and maybe even the President delayed this are
looming and real, given the President's attitude toward women and
minorities.
I have asked the Department of Treasury inspector general to launch
an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Treasury's
decision. The official reasons given aren't credible. The whole thing
smacks of politics. President Trump has referred to efforts to replace
Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill as pure political correctness. To
recognize more than half the people in our society, to recognize more
than 25 percent of Americans who are people of color, all of whom have
worked so hard to strive for this great country--is that political
correctness? What is wrong with this President? What is wrong with this
President, and what instincts is he appealing to? What bad instincts is
he appealing to? It seems to be his practice, his way, his MO.
So among the questions the inspector general should examine is what
role President Trump played in this apparent effort to renege on
Treasury's 2016 commitment to honor Harriet Tubman.
Whatever the President's sentiments toward Jackson are, there is no
reason to reverse the original Treasury Department decision to
recognize Harriet Tubman's historic legacy on the $20 bill, which would
still feature our seventh President on the reverse side.
I hope the inspector general will get to the bottom of this, but in
the meantime, I hope President Trump himself is asked to answer for
these delays. It would truly be a sordid state of affairs if the
President or his team, for political reasons, interfered with and
infected the process for designing American currency.

Background Checks

Madam President, now, finally, on background checks, in the early
hours on Monday, a heavily armed man approached the Federal building in
downtown Dallas and started shooting. This was a civilian walking into
the middle of an American city with military-grade weapons, a mask, and
body armor, and he was prepared to inflict the maximum level of damage
possible.
It is to the credit of the incredible first responders that this
accident did not result in the loss of innocent life, but it is
remarkable that events like this now seem all too routine, and so the
news cycle barely covers them before moving on.
Barely a week goes by without an incident like this somewhere in
America. We are the only Nation in the developed world where these
kinds of things--these horrible things--happen with regularity.
Virginia Beach, Highland Ranch, Poway, and Aurora, IL, are all examples
of shootings that have taken place this year alone.
Later today, I will join several of my colleagues from the House and
the Senate, including our former colleague, the great Gabby Giffords,
to urge Leader McConnell to bring background check legislation to the
floor of the Senate. It has been 114 days since the House passed the
measure, which more than 90 percent of Americans support, including
more than 80 percent of Republicans and the majority of gun owners. But
it seems that Leader McConnell has set aside another plot in his
legislative graveyard for this potentially lifesaving bill.

For too long, the gun lobby has reflexively opposed gun safety
reforms, even the most obvious and noncontroversial reforms, like
closing loopholes in background checks, and, for too long, the
Republican majority has marched in lockstep with them.
The American people demand we do these rational acts. The House has
passed it overwhelmingly with a bipartisan vote. Where are Republicans?
Are they still cowering before the NRA? I remind them, the NRA is a lot
weaker today than it was a few years ago. It is time to do the right
thing and stop being scared.
Let's move this bill to the floor. Let Leader McConnell finally let
us debate an issue long overdue.

Election Security

Madam President, finally, as we continue to debate the NDAA, I urge
Leader McConnell once again to allow and support amendments to protect
our elections from future attacks.
Election security is a national security issue of the highest
urgency. There aren't two sides to this debate. No one can defend doing
nothing as the Russians, and maybe the Chinese, the Iranians, and the
North Koreans, mess with the wellspring of our democracy--our
elections.
As we have seen time and again from reports by the FBI, intelligence
agencies, and the Mueller report, our elections came under attack from
Russia in the last Presidential election. FBI Director Wray has warned
that they are coming for us again, and he thinks it could be worse than
in 2016.
Leader McConnell will not deny that this is true. So what are we
waiting for? We know the threat is there. We know we can take steps to
minimize it. So why won't Leader McConnell let us act?
We have several options for legislative action, many of them
bipartisan. People on both sides of the aisle--Democrats and
Republicans--care about this issue and have worked on legislation
together, something not done frequently enough around here, and Leader
McConnell just sits on these bills.
Last week, Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to simply say the
FBI should be informed when a foreign power tries to influence an
election. I believe Senator Blumenthal will try

[[Page S4135]]

to do the same thing today. Is Leader McConnell going to instruct one
of his Republicans to block it again? Will he have the courage to block
it himself if he wants it blocked?
The logical solution is to let us debate the bills. If Leader
McConnell will not cooperate on this matter, Democrats are going to
stand up for our democracy on our own, if we have to. We are going to
ask unanimous consent to allow debate on these bills. We will insist on
amendments to the NDAA. Leader McConnell has suggested he wants an open
amendment process, so let's press the matter, and we will continue to
push for more election security funding as part of a deal on budget
caps.
There are not two sides on this one; there are just not. There is
only one right answer: action to safeguard our election. I urge Leader
McConnell to let us move on this issue. Stop stalling, stop
obstructing. The legislative graveyard is full enough as it is. Let's
come together, Democrats and Republicans, to protect our grand,
imperiled democracy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

National Defense Authorization Act

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, we have begun consideration of this
year's National Defense Authorization Act, which is annual legislation
to authorize funding for our military and national defense.
Like last year's bill, this year's National Defense Authorization Act
emphasizes military modernization and readiness and the need to ensure
that we are prepared to counter threats from great powers like China
and Russia, as well as terrorists and rogue states.
I am offering a handful of amendments to this legislation, including
an amendment to address training opportunities for our Nation's
military pilots and aircrews.
In my home State of South Dakota, we are privileged to play host to
Ellsworth Air Force Base, home of two B-1 bomb squadrons of the 28th
Bomb Wing, the airmen who are the backbone of operations, as well as
the 89th Attack Squadron and its control stations for MQ-9 Reapers. It
is also home to the Powder River Training Complex, training airspace
for Ellsworth aircrews and crews from across the United States. In the
very near future, Ellsworth will be the home of the forthcoming B-21
bomber.
When I was first elected to the Senate, Ellsworth's future was not
looking bright. In fact, in 2005, just a few months into my first term,
Ellsworth was targeted for closure by the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of a lot of dedicated
people, we managed to demonstrate to the Commission that Ellsworth was
a vital national security asset and that closing the base and moving
its fleet of B-1s would actually cost money.
Since then, strengthening Ellsworth has been a priority for me and
for a lot of other people back home in South Dakota, and Ellsworth has
been going from strength to strength.
One of my proudest achievements as a Senator was helping secure the
expansion of the Powder River Training Complex, the training airspace
over Ellsworth. The expansion quadrupled the size of the airspace. But
prior to the expansion, the airspace was only large enough for one B-1
bomber to train at a time, which meant crews had to commute elsewhere
to meet their training needs.
Today, the airspace is large enough to hold large-force training
exercises, involving a variety of planes from other bases. In fact, the
Powder River Training Complex is now the largest training airspace in
the continental United States. In addition to the vast space it offers
for training exercises, it also provides a valuable opportunity for
pilots to train in conditions that resemble combat missions, such as
low-altitude flying over mountainous terrain.
Since the Powder River Training Complex was expanded, Ellsworth has
hosted a number of successful large-force exercises. This May,
Ellsworth hosted its most recent Combat Raider large-force exercise,
which featured B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers, J-STAR and AWACS radar
systems, F-16s, and KC-135 tankers. Notably, F-35s from Hill Air Force
Base in Utah also participated, marking the first of what I think will
be many training opportunities for the F-35 in the Powder River
Training Complex.
These Combat Raider exercises highlight the potential of the PRTC for
training our military aviators, and I want to make sure that we can
meet these training needs as we look to bring the B-21 into the fleet.
That is why I filed an amendment, Thune amendment No. 759, to require a
strategic airspace review.
My amendment would require a report on how far our current national
airspace system meets our national security requirements and how we
might improve this system to meet current and future training needs.
The Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration would be
required to consult on this report to develop a full picture of the
strategic value of our national airspace.
The report would also analyze whether the current airspace system
gives the military sufficient access to the airspace it requires to
meet its worldwide operational, training, and testing needs.
In particular, it seeks to determine whether current civil and
military cooperation mechanisms are providing for the effective and
efficient management of the national airspace system for military
training. It also asks whether the current Department of Defense and
FAA processes provide sufficient time to plan for large-force
exercises.
For example, in the Powder River Training Complex, the Air Force
needs to go through a lengthy process to secure altitude waivers from
the FAA to fly higher on just a few days a year for just a few hours a
day. We absolutely need to have appropriate procedures to ensure safety
and coordination with commercial airlines, but the Air Force also needs
enough lead time to schedule its aircraft and airmen traveling from
other bases. We shouldn't be missing out on critical training
opportunities because of a lengthy process that is ripe for expediting.

So my amendment would take a look at this process, including whether
FAA air traffic control centers could temporarily or permanently
realign their boundaries to streamline their role in military training.
For example, the Powder River Training Complex straddles the
convergence of the Minneapolis, Denver, and Salt Lake City air traffic
control centers, and coordinating with all three can be cumbersome.
This report would explore whether we can make the process more
efficient for both the FAA and the military.
It would also review whether the current airspace system is
sufficient to prepare military aviators to meet high-end threats,
including fifth-generation aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and
hypersonic weapons.
It is important that we ensure that our airmen can train in realistic
conditions so they can deliver when America is counting on them the
most. Just as in sports, you play like you practice--although we all
know this isn't play, and the stakes for getting it right are very
high.
That is why my amendment would investigate whether current civil and
military cooperation mechanisms are sufficient for our military to
replicate contested combat airspace, denied access airspace, and
airspace without the use of GPS--the kinds of conditions aircrews would
likely encounter if they got the call to fight tonight.
My amendment also takes a step back to look at the state of our
national airspace system. It calls for an audit of special-use
airspaces, military operations areas, commercial routes, and other
routes, and it asks if parts of underutilized airspaces can be
effectively returned to the national airspace to boost commercial route
efficiencies in high-traffic areas in exchange for more generous
military training flight permissions in low-traffic areas.
Comparatively, we don't get as much commercial airline traffic up in
the Powder River Training Complex, creating a great opportunity for
fifth-generation aircraft to really stretch their legs and meet their
training needs.
I have talked a lot about our military's need to have the best
training opportunities available. However, I want to clarify that this
is not a one-sided amendment.

[[Page S4136]]

Our military goes to great lengths to respect commercial and general
aviation needs, and that is reflected in my amendment. First and
foremost, the FAA is consulted throughout the entire report process.
Additionally, the bill reviews whether commercial and general aviation
receive sufficient notice regarding exercises and special-use waivers,
and, as I mentioned, it looks for ways to make Department of Defense
and FAA interaction more efficient.
As a former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and a current
member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation and Space, I know that
the management of the national airspace is complicated. My amendment
simply seeks to gather information so that we can take a productive
look at our national airspace and make sure our military aviators can
get the most out of their training opportunities while respecting the
needs of commercial and general aviation.
The Armed Services Committee chairman and ranking member, my
colleagues, and staff members have a lot of amendments to consider.
Hundreds of amendments have already been filed on the National Defense
Authorization Act, and there are more to come. I would ask that my
amendment No. 759 be considered for inclusion as we work together to
restore and modernize our military and ensure our men and women in
uniform have the tools they need to defend our country.
I thank my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Arms Sales

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, there has been a lot of confusion and
outright misinformation about some proposed arms sales to our gulf
partners--specifically, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. I am
grateful for the opportunity this morning to clear up a few things,
especially considering the current high stakes in the region.
As many of you probably have heard, the Islamic Republic of Iran just
this morning shot down an American surveillance aircraft over the
Strait of Hormuz--yet another act of reckless, unprovoked aggression
targeting lawful behavior on the high seas and in the skies. Still, I
know that for some of my colleagues here, Iranian acts of violence are
always to be excused or somehow always the fault of America and
especially of the Trump administration, to which the only appropriate
response is to continue to appease the ayatollahs, to send them pallets
of cash, as the last administration did, and give them billions of
dollars in relief for sanctions--essentially to say: Pretty please,
stop your acts of terroristic aggression and imperial ambition
throughout the region.
It is my duty to inform all those colleagues that this is dangerous
and misguided thinking. Iran, as it did in the mid-1980s, will meet
American restraint with continued aggression. It will watch the outcome
of today's votes in support for our friends in the gulf for signs of
resolve or weakness. I urge my fellow Senators to send the right
message to Tehran.
The administration plans to sell roughly $8 billion in arms to our
gulf partners so they can defend themselves, as well as the many
thousands of Americans within their borders--all from Iranian
aggression. Canceling those sales would not only endanger Americans
overseas and deprive American industry of billions in exports, it would
weaken some of the only countries in a position to effectively resist
Iran's violent rampage throughout the Middle East.
We have heard many objections to these arms sales. First and most
amazing, given the stakes, some Democrats object for procedural
reasons. They are upset that the administration is proceeding over an
informal hold placed by the senior Senator from New Jersey. In doing
so, they claim that the administration is violating a long tradition of
honoring informal holds by the chairman and ranking member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In effect, they are saying: Let's
block arms sales to our allies in an emergency because the Secretary of
State hurt the feelings of a few Senators.
The actual purpose of those holds--only a courtesy; not a rule; not a
law--is to give those Senators time to fully examine a proposal and to
foster engagement between the Senate and administration in good faith.
But that is not how this hold is being used. These arms sales have been
held for more than a year--more than a year. How much time does the
Senator from New Jersey need to make up his mind? How many times does
the Secretary of State have to call him and meet with him? How many
briefings do they have to provide? How many memos do they have to send?
This is not a request for more information or trying to work together
in good faith. This is a stalling tactic, through and through. It is
yet another example of the Democrats engaged in psychological
projection in accusing this administration of violating norms, when in
fact they are the ones who have been violating longstanding, unwritten
rules, customs, and norms.
The administration is moving forward with this sale by making an
emergency declaration, as provided by law and as Presidents have done
many times in the past. President Reagan proceeded with sales of air-
defense systems to, yes, Saudi Arabia using this very same provision.
President George H. W. Bush did so as well, selling tanks and fighter
aircraft to, yes, Saudi Arabia.
Even without this precedent, can there be any doubt--any doubt that
our partners in the gulf are facing a genuine emergency as they fend
off Iran? Oil tankers flying the flags of our allies and partners are
ablaze in the Gulf of Oman. Civilian airports, oil pipelines, and
American surveillance aircraft have all come under rocket attacks from
Iran's terror proxy in Yemen.
Make no mistake--this is a genuine emergency, but too few of my
colleagues are willing to see the plain facts. They want to talk about
anything that will change the subject from Iran and its campaign of
aggression throughout the Middle East.
A second objection is that some argue that our gulf partners are
somehow beneath our support. Really? It was the United Arab Emirates,
after all, that hosted Pope Francis earlier this year, and he conducted
a mass for Christians in that nation. The Kingdom of Jordan is another
important friend caught in the crossfire of this debate. Jordan has
been a reliable and trustworthy partner of the United States for many
years, and today it bears the brunt of the refugee crisis and chaos
created by Assad's Iran-backed butchery in Syria.
While Democrats try to frame this vote as support for our gulf
partners alone, let's not forget that numerous other strong allies of
the United States would be affected by these votes as well, countries
like the United Kingdom and France and South Korea and Israel--all part
of the supply chain affected by these deals. Rejecting these sales will
hurt them, too, and now is not the time to be rejecting our friends. Of
course, you couldn't make any of these observations about the Islamic
Republic of Iran, which is about as likely to host the Pope as it is to
host a Pride parade.
Lost in the criticism of our partners is a much more worthy
discussion about the elaborate architecture of torture and repression
supervised by Ayatollah Khameini, who is personally responsible for
American citizens being held in appalling captivity for years at a
time. One such American citizen, Bob Levinson, has been missing in Iran
for more than a decade.
The same media and politicians who trumpet every misdeed of America's
steadfast partners in the region--regardless of whether such misdeeds
are fact or fiction--are strangely silent about the undisputed fact
that Iran has the blood on its hands of more than 600 American troops
in Iraq in the last decade. Six hundred Americans were killed at the
hands of Iran. Yet we propose to deny arms sales to some of the only
countries that are committed to resisting Iran's bloodstained, anti-
American theocracy? It is time to get our priorities straight.

[[Page S4137]]

Third, still other critics fault our gulf partners for their
involvement in the civil war in Yemen, as though they are the
aggressors in Yemen rather than states that were pulled into a conflict
to push an Iranian-armed rebel group off of the Arabian Peninsula at
the request of the Government of Yemen and with the support of the
United Nations. Evidently, some of my fellow Senators would counsel our
gulf partners to do nothing as a rebel group, armed by their sworn
enemy, plunged a neighboring country into chaos, shooting rockets at
their airports and oil pipelines. That would indeed be quite a
restrained foreign policy. Some might also call it the height of
stupidity that we would never tolerate for our own citizens.
As to the appalling human rights conditions in Yemen, I think the
current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Matthew Tueller, said it best to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ``Almost 100 percent of the
humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen has been caused by the Iranian-backed
Houthis.'' Almost 100 percent. Mr. Tueller is not some Trump appointee.
He is not some partisan hack. He is a career Foreign Service officer
who served as Ambassador to Yemen under, yes, President Obama. If there
is anyone in the U.S. Government who is in a position to know what is
going on in Yemen and who is to blame for the carnage in Yemen, it is
the man on the ground rather than politicians in Washington.
Underlying this whole debate is a romantic wish--a naive delusion--
that our foreign policy can always be pristine, requiring no
compromises whatsoever, no acknowledgment of the messy facts around the
world, or even that we could flee away from that messy, complicated,
dangerous world entirely, relying solely on the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans to keep us safe. A cursory review of history proves that neither
option is available. A cursory review of newspaper headlines proves it
too.
Our main adversary in the Middle East--the Islamic Republic of Iran--
is a revolutionary power dedicated, from its inception years ago, to
the destruction of Americans and, indeed, America itself. They don't
try to hide it. ``Death to America'' is their slogan, and they chant it
all the time. Our departure from the field will not dissuade the
ayatollahs from that purpose; it will only embolden them, as will the
abandonment of our allies in the region.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the arms industry is a unique industry. It
is not like making shoes or apparel. It is not like selling watches.
You are selling things that, when used properly, kill other people.
They are deadly weapons that we have. We have accumulated the
technology by the taxpayer paying for this. We have helicopters,
planes, guided missiles, and we are able to refuel planes.
It is not a jobs program, and it is not something that--we don't
willy-nilly give weapons to everyone. We don't sell weapons to Russia
and we don't sell weapons to China because we have disagreements, and
we don't think it would be in our best interest to sell weapons to
them.
We also don't sell weapons, typically, to people we think are
untrustworthy. I think there is every evidence that Saudi Arabia can be
put in that category. When you have direct evidence and when our own
intelligence community has concluded that there is high confidence that
the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia butchered a dissident with a bone saw
in a consulate in a foreign country, you would think that would give us
pause as to giving Saudi Arabia or selling Saudi Arabia more weapons.
But it is worse than that. We are not only selling Saudi Arabia
offensive weapons, we are also talking about giving them nuclear
technology. The nuclear technology, they say, is only for energy, but
you have to wonder. A country that sits atop one of the largest oil
reserves in the world is now saying ``Oh, we don't have enough fossil
fuel. We need nuclear power''? There have been people who have gotten
nuclear technology and then have moved on to nuclear weapons.
What could possibly be the worst thing to happen to the Middle East?
It would be to have three powers there with nuclear weapons. We had
Iran before. They now have the knowledge to enrich. They made an
agreement not to enrich. They are still threatening to enrich uranium.
What do you think will happen if Saudi Arabia gets nuclear technology
and there is any rumor of their progressing on towards developing
nuclear weapons? What will Iran do? Automatically, they will do the
same thing.
It also happens in the conventional weapons arena. So every time we
sell or give missiles to Saudi Arabia, what do you think Iran does?
They have to either buy more or make more. It is an arms race. We are
feeding both sides of an arms race.
But you will hear people in Washington say: But Iran--they are a
malign influence. Well, yeah. So is Saudi Arabia. But what do we do
when we have two powers that show tendencies toward evil and show
tendencies toward acting in ways that are against our national
interest? Do we just blindly give weapons to anybody who is opposed to
Iran because Iran is a malign influence? Well, what about Saudi Arabia?
They have spent $100 billion spreading this radical jihadism to other
cultures; $100 billion around the world preaching hatred of Christians,
hatred of Jews, hatred of Hindus. Yet we give them more weapons.
There is a madrasa supported by Saudi Arabia--that is a so-called
religious school in Pakistan--and 80 percent of the boys who graduate
from the school--because, of course, girls aren't allowed to go to
school under this kind of religion--80 percent of the boys who graduate
from the school fight in the Taliban against the United States. Why
would we give weapons to a country that teaches hatred of our country
and actually trains fighters to fight against our soldiers? What person
in what insane world thinks it is a good idea to fund people who
fundamentally don't like us? Why in the world do we keep doing this?
Last week, we voted on sending weapons to Qatar. Do you know who
Qatar supplies weapons with? Hamas. I thought we were allies with
Israel. But we fund Qatar, which sends missiles and weapons to Hamas,
who then bombs Israel. Qatar also hosts fundraisers for ISIS. Remember
ISIS--the ones chopping people's heads off? Why would we give weapons
to countries that give weapons to our enemies?
In the Syrian civil war, we went in on the side of those who were
opposed to Assad. Now, Assad is no saint, no Democrat, no Jeffersonian
Democrat, no believer in freedom; yet the people on the other side--
most of them hate Israel. Most of them despise any rights for women.
Most of them--many of them are allied with al-Qaida. Who is al-Qaida?
The people who attacked us on 9/11. Al-Nusra, al-Qaida, ISIS--who do
they get weapons from? Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Even Hillary Clinton admitted this in one of the emails that were
released. Hillary Clinton was talking to John Podesta by email, and she
said: We have to do something about this. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are
arming and providing logistical help to ISIS.
So why does it go on? Some would say: Because people make a big
profit on this. This is a jobs program for the arms industry, and we
have to make sure they make their profit.
I disagree. This is an industry that uniquely has to do with our
national interests. It is uniquely paid for by the taxpayer. These
weapons are owned by the taxpayer, and we should not sell them to
people who are not our friends.
This is what the debate is about today. We will vote shortly on
whether or not we should sell offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia.
What are they doing with the weapons? Well, they are bombing
civilians in Yemen, for one. They are transferring some of the weapons
in Yemen to al-Qaida. Al-Qaida and the larger umbrella group that
attacked us on 9/11 are active. They are called AQAP in Yemen. There
are news reports in the last week that Saudi Arabia is indiscriminantly
giving arms to anybody who is opposed to the group they are fighting
against, the Houthis.
Who supports the Houthis? The Iranians.

[[Page S4138]]

Is one side better than the other?
Are we so blind to the malign influence of Saudi Arabia that we give
money and weapons to anybody regardless of what they do? You can chop
up a dissident. You can cut a dissident up to pieces with a bone saw,
and we will still give you weapons?
My goodness, I can't imagine. I do not think that people in this body
who will continue to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia are listening to the
people at home. I guarantee, if we asked the people at home, if we had
a national poll and everybody got to give their opinion, how many
people at home do you think are saying: Oh, well, they just chopped up
a dissident--no big deal. Let's just keep sending them weapons. Oh,
well, they are giving weapons to Hamas. Yes, you know, we don't really
care. Or, well, they are bombing civilians.
The Saudis killed 150 people at a funeral procession--people marching
at a funeral procession. They knew it was a funeral procession. This
was no fog of war, no mistake. This was an intentional act to kill
people at a funeral procession. There were 150 people killed and 450
wounded. About 1 year ago, they killed 40 schoolchildren on a
schoolbus.
They are indiscriminately bombing civilians, and they are blockading
Yemen, which is one of the poorest countries on the planet. Millions of
people--some estimate between 14 and 17 million people--live on the
edge of starvation because of this war. The Saudis are preventing food
from coming in. They have blockaded Hodeida, which is one of the key
ports where food needs to come in. Yemen imports 80 percent of their
food. The Saudis are blockading them and people are starving, and we
are allied with Saudis. We supply them with bombs that they drop on
civilians and until the last few months we were refueling the very
planes that were dropping the bombs.
People talk sometimes about, you know, a dream of peace in the Middle
East. If you want to have a peace plan in the Middle East, people say:
Well, it is Israel and Palestine who have to come to a peace agreement.
Do you know what the bigger problem is--an even bigger problem than
that conundrum--which is a conundrum? It is figuring out how to have
peace between Saudi Arabia and their allies and Iran. Everything around
here is Iran, Iran, Iran, Iran. Do you know who spends the third-most
amount of money on the military in the world? Saudi Arabia. First, it
is the United States. We spend more than the next 10 countries
combined. We spend more than all the rest of NATO combined, for that
matter. Then, a distant second is China, and, then, there is Saudi
Arabia.
Saudi Arabia spends more on their military than Russia and more than
most of our NATO allies. Yet people say: Oh, we have to give them more
arms because Iran is a bad actor. What if they are both bad actors?
Currently, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikdoms around them spend 8
times more than Iran. I am not saying Iran is a great place or that the
government is great. What I am saying is, when you have two bad actors,
when you have two malign influences, do you think we always have to
choose the lesser of two evils? Do we have to always look askance and
say: Oh, whatever--you know, as long as we are doing something that is
opposed to Iran.
One of our other so-called allies over there is Bahrain. We have a
naval base there, and we say: It is important to have a naval base, and
we have to look the other way. They have 4,000 political prisoners.
Saudi Arabia actually imprisons people for political reasons, and they
don't just kill them. They behead them and crucify them--I think, in
that order. They put the bodies out for public display.
They executed a guy named Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who was of a minority
religion. The Saudis are Sunnis. This guy was a Shia religious person
and spokesman. He was executed. His nephew is being held in prison and
has been for several years now. He was 17 when he was arrested. His
crime was sending a text message to encourage people to protest against
the authoritarian regime of Saudi Arabia.
I think the problem is that some people come to the conclusion that
arms are always good and we should never do anything to condition the
sale of arms to behavior. Well, I am not for sending more arms there,
period, because it is a cauldron always threatening to boil over.
Let's say you were someone who would say: Oh, no, we have to arm
them. Perhaps we should condition arms on good behavior. Perhaps, if
you are cutting up a dissident with a bone saw in a foreign country,
maybe we should stop arms for a while to see if maybe you can get
better people in the government or maybe to see if your ways will
change.
Saudi Arabia said: Oh, we are doing it differently now. We are not
going to fund radical jihadism around the world.
But they spent $100 billion infecting the world with the ideas of
hatred of the West, hatred of Christians, hatred of Jews, and hatred of
Hindus. There used to be a couple hundred of these schools in Pakistan.
There is now said to be 20,000 schools in Pakistan. The Saudis support
schools not just in Pakistan but throughout the world--in Indonesia and
India and all over the Middle East. They support these schools that
teach intolerance and hatred of the West. Yet we are one of their
biggest arms suppliers. It makes utterly no sense, and it should be
reconsidered.
We will have a chance to vote today, and the numbers are growing.
When I first introduced a resolution to disapprove of arm sales to
Saudi Arabia, I think I got 22 votes. We did it again a couple of
months later, and I think we got in the forties. I think there is a
chance today that we will get close to 60 votes.
We will have to get to 67 to overcome a Presidential veto. Look, I am
a big fan of the President on many fronts, but on this someone has to
stand up, even a Member of his own party and say: Arms sales are not
jobs programs, and they should be conditioned on behavior, and we
should not sell arms to countries that hate us.
As for these countries that burn our flag and chant ``Death to
America,'' we shouldn't be arming them.
At one point in time, there were reports about ISIS. Remember the
people who were beheading people in the desert over the last couple of
years and spreading throughout the region? There were reports that they
have $1 billion worth of Humvees. Some of them were captured, but some
came because of indiscriminate arms. There are arms everywhere.

So when we had the Syrian civil war going on, all throughout the news
media--public, private, everywhere--everyone was saying that Saudi
Arabia and Qatar were giving arms to anybody, indiscriminantly giving
arms to people. One of the groups that got arms and one of the groups
that got anti-tank weapons--these are shoulder-launched missiles--said
in a news report right after they got them: When we are done with
Assad--they didn't talk about ISIS, and most of them didn't care about
ISIS because they actually kind of agree with ISIS's religion--we are
going after Israel next.
So we are arming people who are potential if not real enemies of
Israel. We are arming people who are teaching hatred of the West,
hatred of Christians, hatred of Hindus, and hatred of Jews. We are
arming these people. Why are we doing that?
Let's say you don't agree with everything I have said, and you say:
Well, maybe we should get them to behave better. Why don't you withhold
arms for 6 months at the least?
Why don't we just stop for a while?
They have enough arms to blow up the Middle East 10 times over. Is
there just no stopping? Is there no limitation to what we will do? Do
we not believe that any of our arms sales should be conditioned on
behavior?
This is a big deal and a big vote, and it is my hope that the
American people will watch how people vote and decide: Is this who I
want representing me? Do I want someone representing me who is selling
arms to people who hate our country, who spend hundreds of billions of
dollars on schools teaching hatred of our country? Do I want to have
people representing me who continue to flood the Middle East with arms?
That is what this vote is about, and I hope the American public will
pay attention to how people vote today and to which direction they want
the country to go in.
We have had enough war. This is something I agree with the President
on. We have had enough war. We have

[[Page S4139]]

been at war too long in too many places.
We have been 19 years in Afghanistan, and to what end? I was for the
initial purpose of getting those who attacked us on 9/11. I would have
voted to go. But after 19 years, it is nation-building. We are spending
$50 billion a year. We build roads, and they blow them up. We build
schools, and they blow them up.
We have roads and schools crumbling in our country. We don't have an
extra $50 billion to spend in Afghanistan. We are $1 trillion short
this year. We are going to spend $4 trillion, and we are bringing in $1
trillion--not great economics, not great budget balancing on our part.
No. 1, we cannot afford to try to be everywhere all the time, and,
No. 2, the money we are spending overseas is counterproductive.
We went into Iraq and toppled a dictator. What did we get? Chaos. In
the chaos we get ISIS and other groups forming.
We went into Libya and toppled the dictator in Libya. What did we
get? Chaos. It is so confusing in Libya that I am not even sure which
side the U.S. Government is supporting. They were supporting the U.N.-
sanctioned government and now they appear to be supporting military
generals who are trying to overthrow that government.
One thing is for sure: The country of Qatar that we voted to send
arms to last week is supporting the side opposite us. So we give arms
to people who are directly involved in a civil war where we are
involved on the other side of the civil war. To me, it seems utterly
preposterous that we keep doing that. There is Qatar's support for the
other side in Libya and their support for Hamas. They are letting ISIS
and al-Qaida do fundraising in their country.
Maybe we need to take a break from the arms race in the Middle East.
I don't think that someone can make a practical or reasonable
argument that there has been more peace since we sent more weapons over
there. They have plenty of weapons to kill each other for another
thousand years. They have been killing each other for 1,000 years. They
have enough weapons to kill each other for another 1,000 years.
Maybe we don't need to be involved in every civil war in the world.
Maybe we can't afford it, and maybe when we have gotten involved, we
had the unintended consequences of actually making it worse.
People have this idea that when you topple a dictator, somehow the
next person they elect is going to be Thomas Jefferson. Well, guess
what. Every time we have toppled a dictator, the people they end up
electing are not Thomas Jefferson. Sometimes in the elections we don't
like whom they elected in the elections and people go back and topple
them again.
So when Egypt actually had an election, they elected somebody from
the Muslim Brotherhood. Many in the Middle East and many in our country
didn't want him. So we helped to get rid of him, and now we have a
military rule with no elections and with the idea that you can be
detained without trial. People say: Well, it is stable. It is another
military autocracy, but we are going to put up with it.

We need to rethink our approach to the Middle East. We need to
rethink the approach that we need to arm one or both sides in every
war. We need to think whether regime change is a good idea, and we need
to look at the practical effects of our foreign policy and say: Are we
safer somehow?
I think one universal truth is that we are usually poorer by the time
we are done, because what we end up doing is spending good money after
bad.
I will give you a couple of examples in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan
we spent $90 million in a luxury hotel in downtown Kabul. You say: How
does that $90 million hotel protect us? Well, it doesn't, but it is
money. Money runs through all this. Somebody is getting rich, but not
the American taxpayer.
The guy who built it, I think, was a Jordanian national, but he built
a shell of a hotel. He took the $90 million. He got all the payment,
and it was never built. It mostly doesn't have walls, and none of it
was completed. It is now a danger because it sits up across from our
embassy and snipers crawl up in the building.
So the thing is that we asked for $90 million, and we need more now
because, apparently, we now need to tear it down because it is a danger
to our embassy and our soldiers.
So if we could just get $200,000 more, they are going to spend
another couple hundred thousand dollars tearing down a hotel that we
asked you to build in the first place, which we had no business
building whatsoever.
We built a gas station for them in Afghanistan, too. But because our
purpose in the military is now sometimes to fight the enemy but also to
fight climate change--you didn't know this, but part of the military's
goal is climate change now--so we built them a gas station. But we want
to reduce the carbon footprint. So we built a gas station that sells
natural gas. Well, the problem was, No. 1, nobody in Afghanistan has a
car. The average income is about $800. Almost nobody has a car, and no
one has one that burns natural gas.
So what they did is that they had to give them credit cards and buy
them cars that actually ran on natural gas.
We wanted to visit over there and the military said it was too
dangerous to take us there. So we have no idea if it is even in
operation at this point.
I say we need to rethink this, and I urge today a vote against
selling more arms to Saudi Arabia.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be voting in support of the
resolutions of disapproval, and let me tell you why. A strategic
relationship with the United States should be coveted, and the
difference between a relationship and a strategic relationship is very
important.
We deal with people all the time that engage in practices that we
don't like, abhor, and are against. Sometimes you have to sit down and
talk with Putin about Syria. Sometimes you have to sit down and talk
with the Chinese, even though they imprison the Uighurs. And there are
even more egregious examples of the people you have to deal with,
because that is part of the world as it is. But when you have a
strategic relationship--and we have had one with Saudi Arabia for
years--it is different.
What brings me here today? I want the people in Saudi Arabia--I have
many friends there. I value my relationships there.

I appreciate all that Saudi Arabia has done in the past to work with
the United States, militarily and otherwise, but I want to be clear to
my friends in Saudi Arabia--and really throughout the world--a
strategic relationship has certain requirements attached to it. You
don't have to run your country like the United States would have you
do. You don't have to mirror the United States in terms of your values,
but you do have to respect the relationship.
There are certain minimum requirements that I think come with a
strategic relationship: No. 1, you cannot kill somebody in the most
brutal fashion in a consulate of another country--which violates every
norm known to the international community--because they wrote a bad
article about you.
You cannot imprison people and torture them in the fashion that has
been going on in Saudi Arabia.
You cannot hold the Prime Minister of another country captive for a
period of time to bend them to your will.
You cannot rendition people that just simply oppose your views.
Terrorism cannot be defined as simple dissent.
The reason I am voting with Senator Paul and others today is to send
a signal to Saudi Arabia that if you act the way you are acting, there
is no space for a strategic relationship. There is no amount of oil you
can produce that will get me and others to give you a pass on chopping
somebody up in a consulate. Did MBS do it? Yes--not because the U.N.
said so but because our intelligence and my common sense lead me to
believe there is no other viable alternative. You can figure this one
out pretty quickly.
What happens next? It cannot be business as usual. Saudi Arabia has
been a partner. They will have to be a partner in the future. Shooting
rockets into Saudi Arabia from Yemen--Iran supporting the Houthi
rebels--bothers me. Defensive armaments, I support, but the war in
Yemen is out of control.

[[Page S4140]]

I am trying to deliver the strongest message I know how to deliver:
Don't take this relationship for granted--and obviously you have.
It is disrespectful to the President of the United States to put him
in this position. It is disrespectful to all the allies in Congress for
you to put us in this position. Clearly, you don't care that much about
this relationship. You care more about the critics and maintaining
power at any and all cost.
Here is the deal: My relationship with Saudi Arabia is forever
changed, and it will not go back to the way it used to be until Saudi
Arabia changes its behavior. The leadership of Saudi Arabia has charted
a course that is unsustainable. I reject. There is no amount of oil
that can be produced to change my view that our values are more
important than oil. We can get oil from other people, but your values
come from within.
There is no amount of threat coming from Iran that is going to
require me to give a pass to this brutal, barbaric behavior. More is
expected of a strategic partner. Saudi Arabia doesn't protect the
United States from Iran. To believe otherwise is recasting conditions
on the ground.
Saudi Arabia has been a partner. I hope they can be in the future,
but Saudi Arabia, through their leadership, made a tremendously bad
decision, and it is just not Mr. Khashoggi. Until you change in Saudi
Arabia, until you embrace the concept that the strategic relationship
with the United States is important, therefore, I must respect it--I am
not telling you how to run your country. I am not saying you have to be
a Jeffersonian democracy. I respect the right of self-determination by
all people, but I will not bless or turn a blind eye to brutality that,
in my view, disqualifies a person or a country from being a strategic
partner.
If this doesn't do it, what would? If we give this a pass, what is
next?
We are going to stand up to the thugs in Iran. We are going to push
back against China's cheating. We are going after al-Qaida, ISIS, and
all the other bad actors on the planet. We are going to work with
people we don't like, but when it comes to a strategic partnership, we
need to put the world on notice: It comes with a minimum price, and
that price is you cannot have a strategic relationship with the United
States and behave in a fashion that shows no respect for human dignity,
no respect for international norms.
You have lost me, and that is too bad. I have been on this floor a
lot standing up for our friends in Saudi Arabia--which has not always
been easy to do--but the days of treating Saudi Arabia the way I used
to treat them are over.
My hope is we can find a way to restart this relationship, but it is
going to require change. That is why I am voting to support these
resolutions.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor again to urge my
colleagues to stand up for Congress as a coequal branch of government
and assert our institutional rights in the arms sales process.
I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have
joined with me in this effort to bring us here today.
As we get ready to vote on these resolutions, I want to again remind
my colleagues what is at stake here. At the end of the day, these votes
are not about any one President or any one arms sale. There will be
another President in the White House someday. There will be another
President who will want to claim Executive authorities to run over
Congress and who will want to use emergency declarations to push
through their agenda. We in this body must embrace our article I
responsibilities and ensure that we serve as an effective check on
whoever that Executive is.
Regarding these resolutions, in particular, we must both assert our
role in upholding the rule of law at home and use our position to
ensure that when our government seeks to sell weapons, those sales
advance our national security interests and our values. It is the
Congress that provided the President with the authority to sell arms
while retaining strong oversight in the process.
At the risk of getting in the weeds, I want to briefly explain why
Secretary Pompeo's 22 emergency certifications don't meet the basic
requirements laid out by Congress in the Arms Export Control Act. I
will be submitting a further statement for the Record detailing my
statutory concerns, and I encourage my colleagues to read it.
First of all, Secretary Pompeo provided us with one single emergency
declaration for 22 separate arms sales, when the law requires each come
with its own individual justification. It is obvious why the Secretary
flouted the statute: His bogus emergency doesn't pass the laugh test,
in general. Furthermore, the Secretary is trying to justify these sales
by relying on a section of the Arms Export Control Act--article 36(c)--
that arguably does not grant him the authority to do what he is even
trying to do.
Congress made fairly clear back in 2000 that this provision only
allows for the United States to make emergency arms sales in very
limited situations--for example, to sell arms to NATO partners and
other steadfast allies that share our values, like Israel, Australia,
and Japan.
This is a power grab, pure and simple, with lasting implications for
the role of Congress in the sale of arms around the world. We cannot,
as an institution, stand for it.
Let me turn to the proposed sales. As a number of my colleagues and I
have already laid out, the administration's argument that this is an
emergency meriting pushing through $8 billion worth of arms sales to
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates simply does not pass muster.
The weapons sales this administration is trying to push through
without congressional review will not in any way equip the United
States or our allies to better face any imminent threats from Iran.
The Assistant Secretary of State, R. Clarke Cooper, admitted as much
multiple times last week before the House of Representatives. In one
instance, he noted that the administration had been considering this
emergency determination for months. In another, he conceded that a
majority of these sales will not even be functional or come online for
months or, even in some cases, years.
Let's take a moment to review why last year I decided to put a hold
on a sale of 60,000 precision-guided munition kits. Saudi Arabia, at
the helm of its coalition, has used these weapons to devastating
effects in Yemen. The two resolutions we will consider individually
relate to the sales of precision-guided munitions and parts.
We have heard that these weapons are humanitarian weapons. When they
are used to precisely target civilians, how can we possibly continue to
sell them? These are components of bombs that we know have killed
thousands of civilians in Yemen--patients in hospitals, children on
schoolbuses. In fact, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project
last week released data showing more than 90,000 people have been
killed in Yemen since 2015. The list goes on.
Yemen has become a humanitarian catastrophe. Twelve thousand people
have died under the Saudi-led coalition. There are 85,000 children who
have died from starvation in Yemen, an incomprehensible moral tragedy.
Another 14 million people remain at risk, especially as cholera
resurges across the country.
This is the challenge we have. It is our bombs that are dropping on
those civilians. We cannot morally continue to support such a sale.
Secondly, Saudi Arabia, which continues to do this with impunity,
also with impunity went ahead and dismembered Jamal Khashoggi, a
journalist who was a resident here in the United States. The gruesome
report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on this issue is chilling. If the
Senate wants to make it very clear that even if you are an ally, you
cannot kill with impunity, this is the moment.
It is also the moment to tell the UAE that you can't take our weapons
and give it to others whom we consider people on the terrorist list.
That is going on here too.

[[Page S4141]]

I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Constitution, stand up for
article I in our rights here, stand up for the Senate's institutional
role to ultimately ensure that it has a say on arms sales, stand up for
the proposition that we will not let any ally, simply because they are
an ally, kill a journalist with impunity--something we cherish under
our Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the freedom of expression
under the First Amendment--and stand up for the proposition that we
will not let our bombs fall on innocent civilians and have the moral
responsibility, which will be a blemish on our history for years to
come.
This is the moment for the Senate to stand up to its institutional
prerogatives. This is the moment for the Senate to stand up for the
Constitution. I have heard so many of my colleagues speak of the
Constitution. This is the moment. This is the moment to stand up for
some moral clarity.
This is the moment to send a global message: You cannot kill
journalists with impunity. That is the message we must send to Saudi
Arabia.
Vote yes on the resolutions of disapproval. Stand up for these
propositions. Let's have a moment in which the Senate can be a profile
in courage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, in just a few moments, we are going to
consider S.J. Res. 28 through S.J. Res. 48. I urge my colleagues to
oppose these resolutions and to consider the sales that we are talking
about here on their own merits.
First of all, we are not talking about the killing of Mr. Khashoggi.
That was a murderous act; it was an awful act; and it cannot be
condoned or tolerated in any way, shape, or form. Yet it is not what we
are voting on here today. Indeed, we hope to eventually bring to the
floor a resolution, possibly even a bill, that speaks to that horrific
act. Those negotiations have been going on for some time, and we hope
to reach a conclusion, but we are not talking about that. We are
talking about arms sales that the administration has determined are
needed--and on which we have all been briefed--because of the current
situation in the Middle East.
I want to speak very briefly about recent events that have been
happening as far as Iran is concerned. Iran is conducting activities
that are very worrisome and very troubling. When you have these kinds
of things happen, it is obvious that a miscalculation can occur, which
is the most worrisome thing here.
In any event, these arms sales are needed. To be clear, in the
current statute, the administration is within its legal authority to
declare an emergency. As stipulated in the Arms Export Control Act,
which was passed by this body, the President can act swiftly if he
concludes an emergency exists that requires a proposed sale that is in
the national security interest of the United States. That has occurred.
Presidential authority to waive congressional notification was
invoked for the very first time by President Carter in 1979. It has
been used on three other subsequent occasions. The administration has
said, as in those cases, this is a one-time invocation of the waiver
authority in response to an acute threat from Iran. The administration
has since returned to the regular congressional notification process
for further arms sales, which is in place today.
These sales are needed to address the legitimate security
requirements of other countries we support in response to there being
numerous threats from Iran and its proxies. These threats are real. As
the events over just even the recent 24 hours have shown us, it is
important that these countries be ready to assist us and to act on
their own behalf to counter what Iran has been doing.
Yesterday, Iranian-backed Houthi militants struck a Saudi civilian
desalinization plant with a land attack cruise missile.
Last night, Iranian forces shot down a U.S. drone that was operating
in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. It is the third
U.S. aircraft they have targeted in recent weeks.
Last week, using limpet mines, Iran attacked two oil tankers that
were traveling near the Strait of Hormuz. Yesterday, German Chancellor
Merkel cited strong evidence that attributes that attack to Iran. There
are very few people in the world who don't know for a fact that it has
been Iran that has been responsible for all of this.
On that same day last week, the Iranian-supported Houthis fired a
missile at Abha International Airport, in southern Saudi Arabia, and
wounded 26 innocent Saudi civilians. Human Rights Watch announced this
Houthi attack as a war crime.
On May 19, a rocket--likely by Iran's proxies--landed near the
American Embassy in Baghdad.
On May 14, Iran's proxies used drones to strike two strategically
important Saudi oil facilities.
Just 2 days earlier, on May 12, four more tankers were targeted by
Iran while they were anchored in an Emirati port.
Each month, Iranian-sponsored Houthi rebels launch over 15 ballistic
missiles and weaponized, unmanned aerial systems against Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates. This poses a significant threat and
endangers the lives of 80,000 Americans who reside on the Arabian
Peninsula.
These are the most recent examples of Iran's destabilizing actions on
the world stage. These are serious, serious matters. As I said before,
this is worrisome; this is troubling. The miscalculation of these kinds
of things cause hostilities that lead to very large wars.
As Iran thinks through these things and calibrates them and tries to
make determinations as to what is in its best interest, it is not going
well. If you listen to Iran's public statements, they clearly do not
coincide with facts. More importantly, Iran is miscalculating the
resolve of the American people. It is miscalculating the fact that it
is dealing with President Trump; it is not dealing with a former
President.
I have talked to the President about this many times. He does not
want to go to war with Iran. The American people don't want to go to
war with Iran. This body does not want to go to war with Iran. This
President is absolutely committed to protecting U.S. lives and U.S.
interests, and he will do so. Iran should not miscalculate on that
matter, for the President is deeply committed to that proposition.
Iran needs to back away from the edge that it has taken everyone to
and deal with this matter entirely differently than it has, or there
are going to be dire consequences.
In the face of the attacks I have described and the intimidation, our
allies have an obligation to develop capabilities to protect their
citizens from such threats. These arms sales are an essential part of
our effort in helping them build those capabilities and resist Iranian
intimidation.
I share my fellow Senators' concerns about the humanitarian crisis in
Yemen and the need for all combatants to avoid civilian casualties.
This package includes the sales of precision weapons, which, when
combined with partner efforts to improve intelligence in targeting,
will enable those who use the weapons to ensure their actions are
precise, discriminate, and proportional so as to minimize civilian
casualties. The precision munitions in these sales would also prove to
be essential to other countries' efforts in defending themselves from
more direct attacks from Iran.
Some of us have been briefed by U.S. personnel who have worked
specifically with the Saudis to make these improvements, and I
encourage my colleagues to have similar conversations. If you care
about reducing civilian casualties, you should be an enthusiastic
supporter of providing these exacting capabilities, which will be
transferred pursuant to these sales. These are important for reducing
civilian casualties, and we should all support them.
In closing, I will repeat several key points.
First, the emergency declaration is legal.
Second, these sales are necessary to answer for the legitimate
security requirements of other nations that work to keep safe our
fellow Americans who work, travel, and live around the world.
Third, to reject these sales at this time and under these
circumstances is to reward recent Iranian aggression, to encourage
further Iranian escalation, and most importantly, to encourage the
miscalculation on the part of the Iranians, which will be disastrous if

[[Page S4142]]

they continue down the road they are going.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against these
resolutions.
I yield the floor.

Vote on S.J. Res. 36

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read
S.J. Res. 36 for the third time.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Graham
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young

NAYS--45

Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
McSally
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker

NOT VOTING--2

Gillibrand
Rounds

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 36) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 36

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of a manufacturing license, technical assistance
license, or export license with respect to any of the
following proposed agreements or transfers to the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Italian
Republic is prohibited:
(1) The transfer of the following defense articles,
including defense services and technical data, described in
Executive Communication 1427 (EC-1427) submitted to Congress
pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) of section 36 of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776) and published in the
Congressional Record on June 3, 2019:
(A) Coproduction and manufacture in Saudi Arabia of Paveway
Pre-Amp Circuit Card Assemblies (CCA), Guidance Electronics
Assembly (GEA) CCAs, and Control Actuator System (CAS) CCAs
for all Paveway variants.
(B) Coproduction and manufacture in Saudi Arabia of Paveway
II Guidance Electronics Detector Assemblies (GEDA) and
Computer Control Groups (CCG).
(C) The transfer of up to 64,603 additional kits, partial
kits, and full-up-rounds.

Vote on S.J. Res. 38

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read
S.J. Res. 38 for the third time.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

YEAS--53

NAYS--45

NOT VOTING--2

Gillibrand
Rounds

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 38) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 38

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to the following
proposed exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is
prohibited:
(1) The transfer of the following defense articles,
including services and technical data, described in Executive
Communication 1422 (EC-1422) submitted to Congress pursuant
to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on June 3,
2019: The proposed transfer of defense articles, defense
services, and technical data to support the manufacture of
the Aurora Fuzing System for the Paveway IV Precision Guided
Bomb Program.

Vote on S.J. Res. 27, S.J. Res. 28, S.J. Res. 29, S.J. Res. 30, S.J.
Res. 31, S.J. Res. 32, S.J. Res. 33, S.J. Res. 34, S.J. Res. 35, S.J.
Res. 37, S.J. Res. 39, S.J. Res. 40, S.J. Res. 41, S.J. Res 42, S.J.
Res. 43, S.J. Res. 44, S.J. Res 45, S.J. Res. 46, S.J. Res. 47, and
S.J. Res. 48 En Bloc

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read
for the third time the remaining disapproval resolutions en bloc by
number.
The joint resolutions were ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading and were read the third time.
The joint resolutions having been read the third time, the question
is, Shall the joint resolutions pass?
Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would
have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Graham
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones

[[Page S4143]]

Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young

NAYS--45

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
McSally
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker

NOT VOTING--4

Blackburn
Gillibrand
Lee
Rounds
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 27) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 27

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to the following
proposed exports to the United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom,
and Australia is prohibited:
(1) The transfer of the following defense articles,
including services and technical data, described in Executive
Communication 1424 (EC-1424) submitted to Congress pursuant
to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on June 3,
2019: The proposed transfer of defense articles, defense
services, and technical data to support the marketing, sale
and on-going support for the ScanEagle and Integrator
Unmanned Aerial Systems and for future Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) requirements for end-
use by the United Arab Emirates Armed Forces; and hardware
and defense services related to Wide Area Surveillance
Payload (Redkite), laser designator, and integration of
maritime search payload--Visual Detection and Ranging
(ViDAR).

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 28

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 29) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 29

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following proposed foreign military sale to the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia is prohibited:
(1) The sale of the following defense articles, including
defense services and technical data, described in Transmittal
No. 19-01, submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b) of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)) and published
in the Congressional Record on June 4, 2019: The proposed
sale of follow-on logistics support and service for the Royal
Saudi Air Force aircraft, engines, and weapons; publications
and technical documentation; support equipment; spare and
repair parts; repair and return; calibration support and test
equipment; personnel equipment; United States Government and
contractor technical and logistics support; and other
elements of program support.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 30) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 30

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 31) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 31

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following proposed foreign military sale to the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia is prohibited:
(1) The sale of the following defense articles, including
defense services and technical data, described in Transmittal
No. 18-31, submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b) of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)) and published
in the Congressional Record on June 4, 2019: The proposed
sale of spare and repair parts, United States Government and
contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support
services, and other related elements of program support for
the Tactical Air Surveillance System aircraft program.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 32) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 32

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following proposed foreign military sale to the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia is prohibited:
(1) The sale of the following defense articles, including
defense services and technical data, described in Transmittal
No. 18-21, submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b) of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)) and published
in the Congressional Record on June 4, 2019: The proposed
sale of follow-on support and services for Royal Saudi Air
Force aircraft, engines, and weapons; publications and
technical documentation; support equipment; spare and repair
parts; repair and return; calibration support and test
equipment; personnel equipment; United States Government and
contractor technical and logistics support; and other related
elements of program support.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 33) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 33

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 34) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 34

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 35) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 35

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following proposed foreign military sale to the United Arab
Emirates is prohibited:
(1) The sale of the following defense articles, including
defense services and technical data, described in Transmittal
No. 17-0B, submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b) of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)) and published
in the Congressional Record on June 4, 2019: The proposed
sale of 28 AH-64E Remanufactured Apache Attack Helicopters;
10 new AH-64E Apache Attack Helicopters; 76 T700-GE-701D
Engines (56 remanufactured, 18 new, 6 spares, 2 installed);
40 AN/ASQ-170 Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation
Sight/AN/AAR-11 Modernized Pilot Night Vision Sensors (28
remanufactured, 10 new, 2 spares); 32 remanufactured AN/APR-
48B Modernized Radar Frequency Interferometers; 47 AAR-57
Common Missile Warning Systems (31 remanufactured, 10 new, 6
spares); 150 Embedded Global Positioning Systems with
Inertial Navigation (60 remanufactured, 74 new, 16 spares);
45 Manned-Unmanned Teaming-International (MUMTi) systems (28
remanufactured, 10 new, 7 spares); and 15 new MUMTi System
Upper Receivers, training devices, helmets, simulators,
generators, transportation, wheeled vehicles and organization
equipment, spare and repair parts,

[[Page S4144]]

support equipment, tools and test equipment, technical data
and publications, personnel training and training equipment,
United States Government and contractor engineering,
technical, and logistics support services, and other related
elements of logistics support.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 37) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 37

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to any of the
following proposed exports to the United Arab Emirates, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or
France is prohibited:
(1) The transfer of the following defense articles,
including defense services and technical data, described in
Executive Communication 1425 (EC-1425) submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on
June 3, 2019: The proposed transfer of 44,000 GBU-12 Paveway
II Kits and the proposed transfer of 16,000 GBU-10 Paveway II
Kits.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 39

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to the following
proposed export to the United Arab Emirates and United
Kingdom is prohibited:
(1) The transfer to the United Arab Emirates and United
Kingdom of the following export of certain defense articles,
including technical data and defense services, described in
Executive Communication 1426 (EC-1426) submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on
June 3, 2019: The proposal to amend a technical assistance
agreement to support the installation, integration,
modification, maintenance, and repair of F110-GE-132 gas
turbine engines for use in F-16 Aircraft by the General
Headquarters of the Armed Forces of the United Arab Emirates.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 40) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 40

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to the following
proposed export to India, Israel, Republic of Korea, and
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is prohibited:
(1) The transfer to India, Israel, Republic of Korea, and
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of the following license for export
of certain defense articles, including technical data and
defense services, described in Executive Communication 1417
(EC-1417) submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(c) of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)) and published
in the Congressional Record on June 3, 2019: The proposed
manufacturing agreement with Huneed Technologies Company,
Ltd. in South Korea to transfer defense articles, defense
services, and technical data to support manufacture,
production, test, inspection, modification, enhancement,
rework, and repair of F/A18E/F and derivative series aircraft
panels for end use by the Boeing Company.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 41

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to the following
proposed export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United
Arab Emirates is prohibited:
(1) The transfer to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United
Arab Emirates of the following license for export of
technical data and defense services, described in Executive
Communication 1419 (EC-1419) submitted to Congress pursuant
to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on June 3,
2019: The proposed technical assistance agreement providing
technical data and defense services to Saudi Arabia and
United Arab Emirates in support of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia Ministry of Defense Transformation Project.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 42) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 42

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to any of the
following proposed exports to the United Arab Emirates and
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is
prohibited:
(1) The transfer to the United Arab Emirates and to the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the
following defense articles, including technical data and
defense services, described in Executive Communication 1421
(EC-1421) submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(c) of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(c)) and published
in the Congressional Record on June 3, 2019: The proposed
technical assistance agreement with Armed Forces of the
United Arab Emirates to transfer defense articles, defense
services, and technical data to support preparation shipment,
delivery, and acceptance of the Guidance Enhanced (GEM-T) in
support of the Patriot Program for end use by the Government
of the United Arab Emirates.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 43) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 43

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to the following
proposed exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is
prohibited:
(1) The transfer of the following defense articles,
including services and technical data, described in Executive
Communication 1418 (EC-1418) submitted to Congress pursuant
to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on June 3,
2019: The proposed transfer of technical data and defense
services in order to provide technically qualified personnel
to advise and assist the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) in
maintenance and training for the RSAF F-15 fleet of aircraft.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 44) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 44

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to the following
proposed retransfer of defense articles from the United Arab
Emirates to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is prohibited:
(1) The retransfer of the following defense articles,
including services and technical data, described in Executive
Communication 1428 (EC-1428) submitted to Congress pursuant
to section 3(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2753(d)) and published in the Congressional Record on June 3,
2019: The proposed retransfer of 500 Paveway II laser guided
bombs (including Mk-82 warheads, FMU-152A/B fuzes, and
guidance kits) from the United Arab Emirates to Jordan.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 45) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 45

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 46) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 46

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 47) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 47

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
issuance of an export license with respect to the following
proposed exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is
prohibited:
(1) The transfer of the following defense articles,
including services and technical data, described in Executive
Communication 1423 (EC-1423) submitted to Congress pursuant
to section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on June 3,
2019: The proposed export of defense articles, including data
and defense services, to support the performance of
maintenance and repair services of F110 engines to support
the Ministry of Defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 48) was passed, as follows:

S.J. Res. 48

[[Page S4145]]

section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record on June 3,
2019: The proposed transfer of defense articles, defense
services, and technical data to support the export and
integration of 60,000 FMU-152A/B Joint Programmable Bomb Fuze
systems into the United Arab Emirates Armed Forces General
Headquarters' fleet of the following aircraft and associated
weapons: F-16, Mirage 2000, AT-802 Air Tractor and S2R-600
Archangel.

____________________