MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 42--Continued; Congressional Record Vol. 163, No. 100
(Senate - June 13, 2017)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S3427-S3428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 42--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes of debate remaining on the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 42, 
equally divided between Senator Paul or his designee and the opponents 
of the motion.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
resolution before us.
  It has obviously been tried before, and I think there is no doubt 
that if it were to pass, this could pose a very dangerous threat to our 
relationship with Saudi Arabia at a time when the Iranians have now 
achieved a peninsula all the way across from Tehran all the way to 
Baghdad, and there is no doubt that the Iranians have continued their 
aggressive behavior.
  If we vote down this arms sale to Saudi Arabia, it would have a 
devastating effect on our standing in the Middle East and a long-term 
impact on our ability to counter what is clearly Iranian aggressive 
behavior. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to join with Senator McCain very 
quickly.
  At 71 to 27, on September 21 of last year, we voted to approve tank 
sales to Saudi Arabia because they need more weapons and equipment to 
counter the Iranian aggression in Yemen and other places.
  Most of the people who are now going to vote against precision-guided 
weapons that will reduce civilian casualties voted for tank sales. This 
$500 million carved out of this package gives Saudi Arabia a 
qualitative edge on the battlefield against Iranian proxies who could 
care less about civilian casualties. It is the most upside-down 
thinking I have ever seen, and many of you over there actually approved 
this because it was worked on before President Trump became President. 
So it is really disheartening to see you support President Obama's tank 
sales but that you are not going to support President Trump's selling 
weapons, which gives us an advantage over Iran in Saudi Arabia and 
actually reduces civilian casualities.
  Secretary Mattis said it the best: Iran would appreciate killing this 
deal and taking these weapons off the table. I urge everybody in here, 
if you are serious about standing up to Iran, stand with Saudi Arabia, 
as imperfect as they are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the question is, Should we sell arms to 
Saudi Arabia--a country that many suspect was involved in 9/11; a 
country that many suspect gave weapons to ISIS, the people we are 
fighting in the Middle East; a country that imprisons the victims of 
rape because it is apparently or presumably the fault of the woman who 
is raped in Saudi Arabia?
  One woman, the girl of Qatif, was given a sentence of 70 lashes and 6 
months in jail. They increased her penalty to 200 lashes, and finally, 
only when we protested, was it reversed.
  They sentenced a poet to 1,000 lashes. Sometimes you don't survive 
1,000 lashes. So they gave him 100 at a time. He is going to be 
imprisoned for 10 years.
  They are not the kind of persons we should be sending your weapons 
to. These weapons were funded and supported by the American taxpayer, 
and we should not be willy-nilly giving them to people who imprison 
their people for protesting.
  Currently, a young man, 17 years old, named Ali al-Nimr is on death 
row. But it is not enough just to kill him for protesting for free 
speech and free press. They will behead him and crucify him.
  This barbaric nation should not be getting our weapons. We should not 
sell them weapons.
  Currently, there is a blockade of Yemen, and 17 million people risk 
starvation. We should not be supporting this effort.
  There is probably no greater purveyor of hatred for Christianity and 
Judaism than Saudi Arabia. We should not be giving them weapons. They 
have madrassas across the world teaching hatred of us, preaching hatred 
of the West, hatred of Christianity, hatred of Judaism, and these 
people want to give them weapons. I don't get it. It makes no sense.
  Some will argue that it is a jobs program. Well, isn't that swell. We 
are

[[Page S3428]]

going to give money to people who behead you and crucify you to create 
jobs. That should never be the way we make a decision about arms sales 
in our country.
  A famous Republican and general, General Dwight Eisenhower, said he 
worried that someday we would make decisions not based on our defense 
but based on the military industrial complex.
  I am embarrassed that people are out here talking about making us 
some money and making a buck, while 17 million people live on a 
starvation diet and are threatened with famine. I am embarrassed that 
people would bring up trying to feather the nest of corporations in 
order to sell these weapons. This should be made, pure and simple, on 
our national defense.
  Saudi Arabia is not a reliable ally. Saudi Arabia should not get 
these weapons. For every supposed good thing they do, they do five 
things that are bad for America. They are the biggest purveyor of 
hatred of Christianity and Judaism.
  I request a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Portman). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I respect my friend from Kentucky. We work 
together on the Foreign Relations Committee. I could not disagree more 
on this issue, and I will give a brief outline.
  The Houthis are an Iran-backed entity that overthrew a Western-backed 
government in Yemen. Last year on the floor, with a vote of 71 votes, 
this body voted to support the selling of tanks to Saudi Arabia.
  Foreign policy partisanship generally stops at the shores. I know 
Senator Paul has been very consistent on this, but I am afraid this 
vote is somewhat about some Members wanting to get a piece of President 
Trump's hide on an issue that is far more important than something like 
that. I am fearful that this is what is happening today on the floor.
  A lot of people don't realize that Saudi Arabia already has the 
bombs. What we would be selling to them is the precision-guided 
weaponry systems that allow these bombs to be smart bombs and not dumb 
bombs.
  Most people have been concerned about Saudi Arabia when they have 
been involved in pushing back the Houthis, who, by the way, are firing 
weapons into their country from the southern border. It would be no 
different than if Mexico were doing that to ours. I know that is not 
going to happen. But, obviously, we would be firing back. So what is 
happening here is that they bought the bombs from Italy, and what they 
want to buy from us is these precision systems that allow them to not 
kill civilians. It is to protect civilians.
  Think about this. Here in the Senate we want to protect civilians in 
Saudi Arabia, and in our wisdom we are looking at blocking the sale of 
the very mechanisms that would allow that to happen--in some cases, I 
am afraid, just to make a point against the Trump administration.
  Actually, their policies here have been very sound. The meeting they 
had in Saudi Arabia was very beneficial. Saudi Arabia has flaws, but 
they have been an ally. This would show us as stepping away from an 
ally in a way that is cutting our nose off to spite our face by not 
allowing them to have the precision mechanisms to keep them from 
killing civilians.
  We have taken Senators down in the SCIF. There is absolutely no 
evidence that Saudi Arabia tried to kill civilians--none. As a matter 
of fact, there is evidence to the contrary. So, please, let's be 
rational. I know there are disagreements over some foreign policy 
issues. This should not be one of them. I urge defeat of this proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Saudi Arabia bombed a funeral procession. 
There was no mistake here. There was no cloud cover. There was no 
growth or coppice of trees and they accidentally bombed a funeral 
procession. They bombed them and killed 125 civilians in a funeral. 
They wounded 500. This was no mistake. This was no error. This was 
them, pointedly dropping bombs on civilians.
  They put protestors in jail. They have a 17-year-old--he is now 20--
who has been in jail for 3 years. He will be beheaded and then 
crucified. We should not be giving these people weapons. They supported 
ISIS. They are on the wrong side of the war. They are the greatest 
purveyor of hatred for Christianity and Judaism. They do not deserve 
your weapons. They are going to give your weapons. They belong to the 
American people. They are going to give them to people who behead and 
crucify protesters.
  You can't take a Bible into Saudi Arabia. You can't visit their major 
cities.
  We can't make them be like us, but we don't have to encourage their 
behavior by giving them weapons that may well fall into the hands of 
people who are our enemies.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. I think we should not be selling arms to Saudi 
Arabia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________