MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 65; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 181
(Senate - November 15, 2018)

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 S7020-S7027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 65

  Mr. PAUL. Pursuant to the Arms Export Act of 1976, I move to 
discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of 
S.J. Res. 65, relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign 
military sale to the Government of Bahrain.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is now pending.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that until 12:15 
p.m., the time be equally divided by opponents and proponents, with the 
first 30 minutes for opponents of the bill and the last 30 minutes for 
proponents of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                     Special Counsel Investigation

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the firing of Attorney 
General Jeff Sessions by President Trump immediately after the midterm 
elections, as well as the ongoing Justice Department investigation by 
Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 
U.S. Presidential elections.
  The only transparency to be found in the Trump White House is the 
President's disdain for the Mueller investigation into the 2016 
elections. After multiple guilty pleas and convictions among the 
President's campaign advisers on this ongoing investigation, President 
Trump remains relentless in his campaign to find any way possible to 
limit the scope of the ongoing investigation.
  I did not support Jeff Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General, 
but he followed the law and rightly recused himself from overseeing the 
work of Mr. Mueller and his team of professional investigators. Deputy 
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should continue to oversee the Mueller 
investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein has shown his 
fidelity to the rule of law with the much needed announcement of a 
special counsel to investigate potential criminal activity and 
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government in the 
2016 elections. His choice of Robert Mueller was solid. Mr. Mueller 
served as the FBI Director under both Democratic and Republican 
Presidential administrations. He has a well-earned reputation as a 
nonpartisan professional.
  Let me remind my colleagues that when Deputy Attorney General 
Rosenstein made the special counsel appointment in May of 2017, he 
wrote:

       I determined that it is in the public interest for me to 
     exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume 
     responsibility for this matter. . . . What I have determined 
     is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public 
     interest requires me to place this investigation under the 
     authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence 
     from the normal chain of command. . . . Considering the 
     unique circumstances of this matter, however, I determined 
     that a Special Counsel is necessary in order for the American 
     people to have full confidence in the outcome. Our Nation is 
     grounded on the rule of law, and the public must be assured 
     that government officials administer the law fairly. Special 
     Counsel Mueller will have all appropriate resources to 
     conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and I am 
     confident that he will follow the facts, apply the law and 
     reach a just result.

  That is what Mr. Rosenstein said when he appointed Mr. Mueller as 
special counsel. Now we know just how right Deputy Attorney General 
Rosenstein was to worry about protecting the independence and integrity 
of the special counsel's investigation so that the rule of law would be 
followed and the special counsel could follow the facts, apply the law, 
and reach a just result regardless of what the President wants. Indeed, 
at every turn, President Trump has tried to undermine the rule of law 
and interfere with this investigation. He has relentlessly criticized 
the Mueller investigation in the court of public opinion, somehow 
characterizing it as a ``witch-hunt'' by conflicted, ``angry 
Democrats,'' notwithstanding the dozens of guilty pleas and convictions 
already obtained by the special counsel, as well as Mr. Mueller's 
professional, nonpartisan legacy of service.
  The new Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, who is an 
unconfirmed political appointee, is already on the record making 
inflammatory comments on how to limit the scope of the investigation 
and cut off resources. He should immediately recuse himself from the 
investigation. Serious legal questions have been raised about the 
legality and constitutionality of the designation by President Trump of 
Mr. Whitaker, who has not been confirmed by the Senate and is heading a 
Cabinet Department. The Constitution's appointment clause requires all 
principal officers of the government to be nominated and have the 
advice and consent of the Senate.

[[Page S7021]]

  This action by President Trump imperils the very leadership of the 
Justice Department and its day-to-day operations and calls into 
question any decisions made by Mr. Whitaker during his temporary 
service. The Senate already confirmed Deputy Attorney General 
Rosenstein on an overwhelming bipartisan basis, by a 94-to-6 vote, in 
April of 2017. Under Justice Department guidance and current law, 
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, who has served with distinction 
under both Democratic and Republican administrations and was nominated 
by President Trump, should be designated as the Acting Attorney General 
until such time as the President nominates and the Senate confirms a 
successor to former Attorney General Sessions.
  Under the current oversight of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, 
Special Counsel Mueller's investigation must continue until its 
conclusion. The President must stop trying to impede its progress. 
Congress has a responsibility to finally take legislative action to 
protect the investigation from meddling by the White House, especially 
from interference by the President.
  The Senate has an obligation to pass legislation that would ensure 
the independence of the special counsel, provide judicial review for 
the removal of the special counsel, and require additional reporting to 
Congress and the American people on the special counsel's 
investigations, documents, and ultimate findings. S. 2644 does exactly 
that and is a bipartisan bill that passed the Judiciary Committee by a 
vote of 14 to 7 in April of 2018. It has sat on the Senate's calendar 
for more than 6 months. The full Senate should be able to vote on this 
measure immediately given the active and ongoing interference by 
President Trump into the special counsel's investigation.
  I hope my colleagues agree that the special counsel should be allowed 
to finish his work without interference. No one under the 
Constitution--not even the President--is above the law, and Congress 
cannot allow the President to obstruct the special counsel's 
investigation.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Criminal Justice Reform

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to share with the Senate and 
those following this debate a story about a man named Alton Mills.
  Alton Mills was a young African American in the city of Chicago. He 
was an above-average high school student. It looked like he might even 
go on to higher education, but he had some bad luck when it came to 
employment and jobs, and he made a stupid decision. He made a stupid 
decision by becoming part of a gang in the neighborhood that was 
selling drugs.
  As a result of that, he was arrested and convicted of the possession 
and sale of a small amount of narcotics. The sentence was suspended 
because he had had no previous criminal record.
  It happened a second time. Again, he didn't serve a day in jail. It 
was suspended with the promise that he would never do it again, but he 
stumbled and did it a third time. As a result of that, in 1994, at the 
age of 24, Alton Mills was given a mandatory sentence of life in 
prison. He had never been involved in a violent crime. He had never 
used a firearm, and he never was a drug kingpin but had been involved 
in the sale of drugs. At the age of 24, he received a life sentence for 
the three incidents I just mentioned.
  How could we have ever reached a point at which a person would be 
sent to jail for life for those three crimes?
  We reached that point because 25 years ago we did something that was 
just plain wrong. You will seldom hear a Senator say this in the course 
of a speech, but I am going to say it. The worst vote I ever cast in my 
life in the House or in the Senate was for the 100-to-1 sentencing 
disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. In other words, if 
you took the same amount of cocaine and if it were in a powder form, 
sitting next to the same amount of cocaine in a crystallized form that 
could be smoked and if you were arrested for the possession of one or 
the other, the sentence for crack cocaine was 100 times what it was for 
powder cocaine.
  Why did we do that? Why did we have such a gross disparity? It was 
because we were frightened.
  As a Member of the House of Representatives, I remember it well. They 
came to us and said that there was a new form of cocaine on the 
streets. It cost 5 bucks, and it was heavily addictive. If a mother 
were to ingest this cocaine while being pregnant, it could harm the 
fetus for life. So do something.
  At about that same time, there was this great scandal here in 
Washington, DC, of an outstanding basketball player at the University 
of Maryland, named Len Bias, who overdosed on drugs and died. People 
were talking about his career in the NBA and this great talent, and he 
was dead. It had nothing to do with crack cocaine, but it was part of 
the environment and part of the overreaction that took place among 
politicians in Washington. I was one of them. I voted for that 100-to-1 
disparity and said we had to accept a hard, tough message right now. We 
did--100 to 1.
  It didn't have any measurable impact on drug sales in the United 
States, but it had a measurable impact on the number of people who were 
incarcerated in the United States and the lengths of their 
incarcerations. Those votes that I and many like me cast on both sides 
of the aisle resulted in mandatory sentences for people like Alton 
Mills--life sentences. Let me tell you how the Alton Mills story ends 
before I go on.
  After serving 24 years in prison for those three street sales, Alton 
Mills came to my attention through a criminal defense attorney named--
of all things--MiAngel Cody. She was Alton's angel. That is for sure. 
She fought for him, and she believed that he deserved better than to 
spend the rest of his life rotting in prison for those stupid decisions 
he made in his early life. I appealed to President Obama to commute his 
sentence, and the President agreed to do that. So, after all of that 
service behind bars, Alton Mills was released.
  What is he doing today?
  He is a mechanic at the Chicago Transit Authority. He repairs the 
buses that I ride on. He got married. He is now working with his 
daughter and his new grandchild. He is contributing to society. He is a 
community college student, where he is pursuing an associate's agree. 
Finally, his life is on the right track. If he had not received a 
pardon, Alton Mills would have died in prison because of our existing 
Federal sentencing laws.
  Yesterday, something happened which is remarkable. President Donald 
Trump had a press conference with representatives of law enforcement 
and announced that he was going to support legislation, which I have 
been working on for quite some time with Senator Lee and Senator 
Grassley, to change the sentencing provisions that I have described to 
you. What an amazing coalition--Durbin on the Democratic side, Grassley 
and Lee on the Republican side, and now President Trump. The stars are 
lined up in a way that we seldom see in Washington, DC.

  What we are going to set out to do with this bill, if we can pass it 
in the closing weeks of this session, is to give a chance to thousands 
of people who are still serving sentences for nonviolent offenses 
involving crack cocaine under the old 100-to-1 ruling to petition 
individually, not as a group, to the court for a reduction in the 
sentencing.
  I have been through this. It is not easy. They have to go right back 
to the U.S. Attorney's Office that prosecuted them to get the thumbs up 
and approval to go forward. Many times, they turn to victims, if there 
are victims in the crime, before any decision is made. They turn to the 
judges, particularly those sentencing judges who are still on the 
bench. If they clear all of those hurdles, they have a chance for 
reductions in their sentences.
  Senator Grassley and I are about to introduce legislation that 
President Trump endorsed yesterday, and we will begin working to build 
bipartisan support to pass it before we leave. Congress needs to pass 
this legislation. We have a different drug crisis facing us

[[Page S7022]]

today. It isn't crack cocaine anymore. It is an opioid epidemic. It is 
a Federal epidemic. It is the deadliest drug epidemic that we have ever 
faced.
  We have a totally different view of drugs than we did when Alton 
Mills was sentenced. In those days, most of the defendants were people 
of color--primarily African Americans. Yet today this opioid epidemic 
has gone far beyond the hood. It has gone far beyond the inner city. It 
affects suburbs, even the wealthiest of suburbs, and towns--rural 
towns--no matter how small they are.
  People are starting to think anew about what to do with drug 
addiction. Is our goal to put people in prison for drug addiction or is 
our goal to end the addiction? We know that in some cases those who 
have been imprisoned will not use again. Many times, they will. We 
know, if people go successfully through treatment, they may be spared 
the addiction, and it may save their lives. We are coming of age when 
it comes to drugs in America.
  What we try to do with this bill is also to take into consideration 
criminal defendants who meet certain limited criteria, such as with 
drug offenses, which is the No. 1 prosecution offense in our Federal 
system. It takes into consideration drug offenders who are not 
kingpins, who are not the bosses and are not involved in any violence 
in the crime, when there is no gun involved and if they are willing to 
cooperate with the government in closing down the drug operation. If 
they meet all of those criteria, we say that the court can take that 
into consideration in sentencing. I think that is a good thing.
  I think, in Alton Mills' situation, it would have resulted in a much, 
much different sentence than what he faced before the commutation by 
President Obama.
  We also want to make certain that in the future those who were 
sentenced under the old 100-to-1 disparity, as I mentioned earlier, 
could petition the government for a reconsideration of their sentencing 
on an individual basis. There will be no guarantee that they will be 
released, but they will have the opportunity to petition in those 
situations. I think this is a step in the right direction.
  The bill also contains provisions which, I think, are extraordinary 
when it comes to prison reform. What are we going to do with all of 
these people? Most of those who are in prison will be coming out 
someday. Will they come out to commit another crime or create another 
victim? That would be a failure of the system completely.
  Two Senators--one Republican, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and one 
Democrat, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island--came together 
with the prison reform bill that has already passed the House with 386 
votes, and we have improved it some in the Senate. Basically, it gives 
to those who are in prison an incentive to develop skills and training 
and education levels that will serve them when they leave in order to 
reduce recidivism and reduce the commission of crime in the future.
  I think that is humane. It is sensible. It says to those who truly 
want to turn their lives around that we are going to give you a chance 
to prove it. Prove it with your actions, and we will give you a chance 
to be released earlier and have a chance to go into society in a 
positive way.
  We brought these two together--criminal sentencing and prison reform. 
It doesn't happen very often around here. The last time we had any 
measurable impact on the subject was 8 years ago. It was 8 years ago 
when I introduced my first bill on criminal sentencing reform. I think 
that bill worked, which, incidentally, I cosponsored with former 
Senator Jeff Sessions. It gave the individuals an opportunity to 
petition for early release. In many cases, it saved their lives and 
gave them a chance. We are back with a bipartisan bill that is called 
the FIRST STEP Act. This bill, I think, deserves our consideration in 
the Senate as quickly as possible.
  Do you see this empty Senate floor? This is a place to do business. 
We have some business to do. In the 3 weeks we will be in session at 
the end of November and in the month of December, we can easily pass 
this legislation. I sat down with Senator Grassley and Republican and 
Democratic leaders from the House. They are anxious--we are all 
anxious--to bring this up. I am going to plead with Senator McConnell 
and ask everyone to join me to put this measure on the calendar. I 
believe it will have strong bipartisan support. Democrats and 
Republicans will join in an effort endorsed by President Trump. How 
about that for your headline? You don't see that sort of thing 
happening very often. We have a chance to do it here with this revised 
FIRST STEP Act.

  I thank all those who have worked so hard on it, starting with Mike 
Lee, my original cosponsor. I would add to that Chuck Grassley, who has 
been a terrific partner from start to finish in making this a 
bipartisan effort. Special thanks to Senators Cornyn and Whitehouse for 
marrying up their prison reform package with our sentencing reform 
package. This could be significant. It could be one of the most 
important things we do when it comes to criminal justice, not only this 
year but for a long time.
  I commend my colleagues for their cooperation on that, and I hope we 
can get this job done in the closing weeks of this session.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.


                         Senate Accomplishments

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know looking back on the last 2 years 
since the 2016 election, time has flown, but it is important to reflect 
on what we have been able to accomplish, and, really, it is pretty 
remarkable. These are not just political accomplishments; these are 
things that have improved the lives of our constituents--the American 
people.
  As time is running out on the 115th Congress leading up to the 
holidays, yesterday I spoke about some of our larger accomplishments. 
Today I want to highlight some of the other important accomplishments 
we have made. Because they weren't particularly controversial, you 
didn't see them reported in cable news or in the media or the subject 
of massive social media campaigns. In addition, there are the economic 
gains we have seen from passing historic tax reform to the regulatory 
rollback we have seen, which has unleashed the American economy. We 
have also passed important public safety legislation, like the opioid 
legislation, which is designed to help thousands of Americans suffering 
from drug addiction. It is important to remember the grim statistic 
that last year alone, 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, 50,000 
died from opioid overdoses, which include prescription drugs, fentanyl 
and heroin, most of which come from Mexico. I will touch on that in a 
moment.
  A little over a year ago, the gulf coast of Texas sustained a rain 
event the likes of which we hope we will never see again. This was 
called Hurricane Harvey, but instead of damaging winds, in addition, we 
had incredible amounts of rain, with catastrophic flooding that left 
Texans dealing with months-long recovery efforts that are still going 
on today.
  I was proud to join with not only my Texas colleagues but also 
colleagues across the aisle in both Chambers to pass three separate 
disaster relief bills totaling $147 billion for Hurricane Harvey aid, 
as well as the other natural disasters affecting other parts of the 
country. About $30 billion of that, I think, is Texas-specific, more or 
less, in terms of the needs, in terms of the resources that were 
required not only to recover but also to help mitigate future threats. 
We know it does little good to fix the problem today if it is going to 
be repeated tomorrow, and we know Hurricane Harvey is not the last 
hurricane and the last rain event we are going to have. So we 
authorized a coastal study that will ultimately lead us to construction 
of a coastal spine that will help protect the important gulf coast 
region, where most of the refining capacity in the country is located--
and we know that is a national priority--as well as the flood 
mitigation projects I mentioned a moment ago, by authorizing and 
funding the Army Corps of Engineers.
  We tried to listen--and I did in Texas--to what our constituents said 
they needed most, and we passed two other pieces of legislation 
particularly relating to the disaster.
  First, we made houses of worship eligible for certain FEMA grants to 
help

[[Page S7023]]

them rebuild after disasters. The second was a tax relief provision 
similar to the one we passed after Hurricane Katrina, which gave Texans 
the ability to deduct their property damage costs and access retirement 
savings on an emergency basis without penalties. Providing that relief 
was a big help to my constituents.
  Disasters tend to bring out the best in all of us because it causes 
us to do things we didn't know we could actually do. The Texas spirit 
was perhaps one of the things that was most reassuring following the 
disasters, and it never wavered.
  We saw that spirit again rallied around a community after an 
unthinkable act of violence at Sutherland Springs, TX, that left 26 
people dead and 20 more wounded. Because the U.S. Air Force had failed 
to upload a felony conviction for domestic violence into the FBI's 
criminal background check system, the shooter in that case was able to 
acquire multiple firearms by simply lying about his criminal background 
record. So we came together, in a bipartisan way, to pass a bill I 
introduced called the Fix NICS Act--NICS is the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System, hence the name--that fixed or at 
least took great strides toward fixing our broken background check 
system to ensure that violent criminals can't easily acquire firearms 
when they are convicted and ineligible under existing law.

  We saw that resiliency arise out of another tragedy at Santa Fe High 
School, where we passed the STOP School Violence Act. I am not 
suggesting that by passing legislation, we are going to magically wave 
our wand and stop acts of violence, but we can do things that provide 
planning, training, safety infrastructure, and law enforcement support 
for our schools to make them a less soft target.
  In an open society, I doubt we will ever be able to stop all acts of 
violence, but I think these are intended and will have a constructive 
effect and actually save lives.
  A third way we spoke on the issue of public safety in our communities 
was through another bill I introduced called the Project Safe 
Neighborhoods Act that was signed into law earlier this year. It passed 
the Senate unanimously. People think everything is divided here along 
political lines. Well, we actually pass legislation like this 
unanimously in the Senate. It authorized the Project Safe Neighborhoods 
Program at the Department of Justice, which aims to reduce violent 
crimes by pairing local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials 
with Federal prosecutors and using tough Federal laws to prosecute gun 
crimes. These partnerships are proven to reduce violent crimes and 
deserve our full support. We have also come together to provide help to 
victims of crime and for the vulnerable.
  The President has signed into law three bills I introduced that built 
upon my work when I was attorney general of Texas. The first is called 
the SAFER Act, which is aimed at reducing the backlog of untested rape 
kits in forensic labs. The second is called the Justice Served Act, 
which assists law enforcement in prosecuting the most difficult cold 
cases using the seemingly magical power of DNA testing in forensic 
labs. The third is a bill I championed called the PROTECT Our Children 
Act, which reauthorizes important resources combating child 
exploitation online.
  Perhaps the best news story of the last couple of years has been our 
economy, how it has come roaring back. We have tried to reduce the 
regulatory burden on employers and job seekers alike, including in the 
three bills the President has signed into law.
  These were targeted bills not designed to change Western civilization 
but to address specific, real problems that will improve the lives of 
the people we work for. One of those is the New HOPE Act, which is an 
occupational licensing reform bill that gives States the tools to 
reduce barriers to certain professions. It makes no sense because of 
licensing requirements to basically bar people from doing things they 
can learn how to do without overly burdensome licensing and training 
requirements which essentially are designed to protect incumbents.
  We have also passed the Jobs for Our Heroes Act, which makes it 
easier for our veterans to get commercial driver's licenses.
  We passed the American Law Enforcement Heroes Act to make sure 
veterans can get hired by local law enforcement agencies when they come 
out of the military with the very skills that are needed by our local 
law enforcement. We know all of our police agencies are working hard to 
try to recruit good, qualified people to keep our communities safe. 
They struggle with that, and this will help make that better.
  In each of these cases, we tried to listen to the needs of Texans and 
people across the country and to translate that into legislation that 
will improve their lives. They don't get top billing on the national 
news, but they deserve our support, as do the people whom I came in 
contact with in my State who have inspired these laws.
  As we close out the 115th Congress and move into a new Congress in 
January, these are the types of things we can continue to do together. 
Because of the midterm elections, our friends in the other body, the 
House of Representatives--now that Ms. Pelosi will presumably be the 
next Speaker--have an important decision to make: Do they want to make 
noise, do they want to harass the President or do they want to work 
with us to make laws that improve the quality of life for the people we 
represent? I hope they choose the latter, and, clearly, there is more 
we can and should do together to help the American people.
  I know I am running out of time. I am going to come back a little 
later on to talk about the caravans that are coming up from Central 
America through Mexico and what we need to do together to address 
those.
  At this time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Kentucky.


                              S.J. Res. 65

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to call for an end to the U.S. 
involvement in the war in Yemen. There might be a good excuse for not 
knowing there is a war in Yemen because the media seems to be 
preoccupied with other things, but we have been involved with 
supporting the Saudi coalition, the Saudi alliance with nine other 
nations, including Bahrain, which has been bombing Yemen.
  You might not know much about Yemen, either. Yemen is one of the 
poorest countries on the planet. There are about 17 million people who 
live on the edge of starvation there. This year they suffered an 
epidemic of cholera. Over 1 million people had cholera, and thousands 
of people died. This is a country so impoverished that even when there 
is no war in Yemen, they live on the very edge of being able to 
survive. The pictures are heartrending. If you see the pictures of the 
small children with their swollen bellies--swollen because they don't 
have enough protein so that the fluid literally drains from their blood 
system into their bellies. The pictures are heartrending, and your tax 
dollars are supporting this war.
  So I think there ought to be a debate. That is what I stand up today 
to do: to force a debate over whether we should be involved with aiding 
and abetting the Saudi coalition in this war in Yemen.
  Our Founding Fathers intended that Congress would debate war. It is 
very, very clear. If you read the Federalist papers, if you read the 
Constitution, if you read any of the Founding Fathers, if you read any 
of the first eight Presidents, they said explicitly again and again 
that the prerogative to declare war was Congress's--that it was 
specifically taken from the President. It is specifically forbidden for 
the President to go to war without the permission of Congress.
  We have been having a little bit of this debate. About a month ago we 
had a debate, and, you know what, the administration argued that bombs 
are not war, that refueling planes that bomb people is not war, that we 
are not involved with hostilities in Yemen because we don't have troops 
marching on the ground with muskets. I think it is an absurd notion 
that you can be refueling bombing planes, supplying the bombs, and, as 
bombs are raining down on people and civilians are killed and the ones 
who survive pick up a scrap of the bomb that says ``Made in U.S.,'' 
tell them we are not involved with the war in Yemen.
  Madison, among the Founding Fathers, was quite clear in saying that

[[Page S7024]]

the executive branch is the branch most prone to war; therefore, we 
have, with studied care, vested the power to declare war in Congress. 
We haven't obeyed that constitutional maxim for a long time. For a long 
time we have basically abdicated our role. Both parties, Republican and 
Democrats, have let Presidents, Republican and Democratic, do what they 
will.
  This war started under the previous President, and this war continues 
under the current President. Yet Congress doesn't have the spine, 
doesn't have the will to stand up and say: It is our job to declare 
war. It is our job to represent the people, to listen to the people, 
and decide whether we should be at war.
  The Constitution in article I, section 8 says ``Congress shall 
declare war.'' It is unequivocal. Yet here we are, involved in yet 
another war. We are involved in a war in Yemen. We have been involved 
in a war in Syria. We have also been involved in a war in Libya. We 
have also now been at war with people in Afghanistan, who had nothing 
to do with 9/11, 18 years later. These wars go on and on because 
Congress--and specifically the Senate--doesn't do their job.
  We have heard people on television yelling ``do your job, do your 
job'' at their legislators. That is fine, but let's debate what our job 
is. The Constitution is very clear that one of our jobs is to declare 
war, and we have abdicated that responsibility and have not lived up to 
it.
  I would like to have a direct vote on whether we should be involved 
in Yemen, a direct vote on whether we either declare war or we don't, 
but that is forbidden because I am in the minority--not in the minority 
party but in the minority ideologically. The vast majority of this body 
doesn't care about directing foreign policy; they say that the 
President has unitary authority, and the Commander in Chief can do 
whatever he or she wants. That is what the vast majority of these 
people believe. So they will vote against this because they do not 
believe Congress really should tell the President when we go to war.
  I would like to vote directly that we should not be at war in Yemen; 
we should not be involved with supplying, refueling, supplying bombs to 
the Saudis, the Bahrainis and their coalition. I am forbidden from that 
vote, but because of a 1976 law called the Arms Export Control Act, I 
am able to object to arms sales.
  We have done this twice in the last year. We objected in a bipartisan 
way to the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia because we thought their war 
was unjust, indiscriminate, killing civilians, and not in America's 
best interests. The first time we had the vote, we got a little over 20 
votes to say that we should not be continuing to sell arms to the 
Saudis while they continue this abomination--20 something votes out of 
100. We lost overwhelmingly. We had another vote about 2 or 3 months 
ago, and we got 47 votes. Now we have the killing and dismemberment of 
a journalist and dissident by the name of Jamal Khashoggi--something so 
brazen, so bizarre, so uncivilized that people are now coming together.
  In the last few weeks we have quit refueling planes, yet the bombs 
continue to drop. We are still supplying the bombs.
  Things are beginning to change. There is a movement among the public 
to hold their representatives accountable and say: Why are we at war in 
Yemen? Why don't you vote on whether we should be at war in Yemen? Why 
do you abdicate your responsibility to the President?
  It is harder for someone like me because the President is of my party 
and I agree with him on many different issues. But where is the other 
side? The other side should be rising up and saying: This is a 
usurpation of power. The President is taking upon himself power that is 
not his. We should be rising up unanimously in saying: Enough is 
enough; we are taking back this power.
  People talk about this all the time. People pretend to be believers 
in congressional checks and balances. There are always groups out there 
for checks and balances. This is a check and a balance. This is a time 
in which the Senate can tell the President what to do. But watch the 
votes. Many of the people you see on TV say: We should stand up, and 
the President this and the President that. On this issue, which is an 
honest issue of disagreement with the President, stand up and restrict 
his power. Stand up and tell the President that the Constitution says 
that war shall be declared by Congress.
  But watch the votes here. We will not get a direct vote on the war, 
though; we will get an indirect vote. We will not even get to vote 
today on Saudi arms; they are afraid to bring up Saudi arms because 
they think we might win. But we will vote on one of the coalition 
partners. The Bahrainis are part of a nine-country coalition fighting 
this war. They have had casualties, they have dropped bombs, and they 
have been on the ground in Yemen. They are part of the fighting 
coalition.
  So the resolution today will be specifically about not selling one 
set of arms sales to Bahrain. The other side will look for all kinds of 
excuses to say: No, oh, my goodness, Bahrain has been a great ally. I 
am not disputing that. What I am disputing is that they are getting the 
message that we are unhappy. We supply them with all of their arms, all 
right. We get to host our Navy there, great. I am not asking that we 
end our alliance. I am not asking that we sanction them. I am only 
saying to stop one sale of arms to send a message that we are done with 
the war in Yemen, that we are no longer going to sell weapons to 
countries that are fighting this war in Yemen, and that the war must 
come to a close.
  Some will argue: Well, it is already kind of winding down; we are no 
longer refueling their planes. Yet, since Secretary Pompeo said about 3 
weeks ago that the Saudi coalition should quit bombing civilian 
centers, the Saudis have dropped 200 bombs on Hodeida. Hodeida is a 
city where most of the humanitarian effort and food comes in. Yemen 
depends--80 percent of its food must be imported. It comes through this 
one port, for the most part.
  The Saudis--since we admonished them, since Secretary Pompeo said 
that they need to cease and desist from bombing civilian centers--have 
dropped 200 more bombs on the city of Hodeida, where humanitarian aid 
comes in. It must stop. Someone must take a stand and say: Enough is 
enough; we are against the humanitarian disaster in Yemen.
  They will argue: Well, then vote on that. I can't have a direct vote 
on that. They will not let me vote on whether we should be at war in 
Yemen. I am allowed to vote only on this one small thing. This is a 
proxy vote. This is a vote that represents whether we should be at war 
in Yemen. It is an incredibly important vote. It is an attempt to grab 
back power from the Presidency. It is an attempt to have a check and 
balance on all Presidents of all parties of all beliefs.
  I don't think we should ever sell one arm--one musket, one shotgun--
to create a job. Our arms industry is for our national defense. It is a 
unique industry that is not an entirely private enterprise industry. 
The arms manufacturer, the military industrial complex is supported 
overwhelmingly by tax dollars. I am not for anybody being able to buy 
an F-16. I am not for selling F-16s to Russia or to China, but I am 
also not for selling any more to Saudi Arabia. I am not for fixing 
their planes. I am not for giving them replacement parts. Their air 
force would be shut down in a matter of months if we stopped funding 
them.
  People say: That is too dramatic. You are doing things--they have 
been such a great ally. We had a Senator yesterday rise at our lunch, 
and he said: Well, we know he is not a democrat. We know he doesn't 
believe in representative government. We know he is a thug. Of course 
they execute and crucify people--crucify people--in Saudi Arabia. It is 
the best we can do, and we need him vis-a-vis Iran. What will happen? 
Iran will take over the world if we don't combat them in every little 
misbegotten civil war in the Middle East.

  Here is the point, and this is the point which we should debate and 
which nobody debates: Who is more evil--the Revolutionary Guard and the 
Ayatollah of Iran or the Saudi Arabia Kingdom? If you look at it 
objectively, Saudi Arabia has spent over $100 billion teaching hatred 
of Christians, Hindus, and Jews around the world. They have opened tens 
of thousands of madrassas. The Haqqani network that has actually killed 
our soldiers in Afghanistan is supplied with money from the Saudis.

[[Page S7025]]

The Taliban has gotten money from the Saudis. There was a report that a 
Saudi royal dropped off a check for $267 million to the Taliban at one 
point. So we are fighting these people, and we are arming these people. 
We should not be arming the enemy.
  It is not just one side; the other side has admitted this as well. It 
is not just Republicans saying this; in a cable that was leaked, 
Hillary Clinton said that Saudi Arabia was the ``most significant 
source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.''
  What is it like to live in Saudi Arabia? We might ask Baqir al-Nimr. 
He was arrested at 17 at a protest. He is still in jail and is 
scheduled to be executed. They have a real ``gloriful'' way of 
executing you in Saudi Arabia: They chop your head off, and then they 
crucify you. So his head will be chopped off, and then his body will be 
displayed in a crucifixion post. That is what they will do to him. He 
was 17 when he was arrested. They have beheaded minors in Saudi Arabia. 
Oh, but we buy their oil, and we are such good friends with their 
sheikhs and their Kings.
  In Saudi Arabia right now, there are 3,000 people in prison who have 
not gotten a trial. There are nearly 1,000 people who have been in 
prison for 3 years without a trial--3 years without a trial, 1,000 
people, and yet we continue to say: Oh, yes, but they oppose Iran.
  Who is worse--Iran or Saudi Arabia? Maybe neither one of them is 
good. Do you want to send your son or daughter to fight for the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard? No. Do you want to send your son or daughter to 
fight for the Saudi Kings who crucify people? No. Maybe we don't always 
have to pick sides. Maybe there is a time that comes when the thousand-
year-old war between Sunni and Shia--let them fight it. Is there a 
reason we always have to send our sons and daughters to the Middle 
East?
  People used to say we have to do it for oil, which was offensive to 
me. We are doing it for oil and oil profits? We are now independent of 
their oil. We export oil. We do not need Saudi Arabia.
  People say: We have to have them, or Iran will take over the world. 
Saudi Arabia and their coalition partners spend eight times more on 
military than Iran does. What happens every time we send a dollar to 
Saudi Arabia? Iran then asks Russia for stuff. So it is an arms race 
that is fueled by both of the larger outside powers with their proxies, 
and everything is a proxy war.
  But if you fool yourself into thinking that Saudi Arabia is the good 
guy and Iran is the bad guy, you have to ask yourself about the $2 
billion that Saudi Arabia is spending in India--$2 billion over a 2-
year period--teaching hatred of Hindus, hatred of Jews, hatred of 
Christianity, teaching that violent jihad is OK.
  Hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars are spent by the 
Saudis, and people say: We can make a buck, and we can create a job. I, 
for one, would not try to create one job by selling arms to people who 
are our enemy. I don't care about jobs if we are going to have to sell 
arms to our enemies. The arms belong to the American people, and the 
arms should be seen as a national security asset. We don't sell arms to 
Russia, we don't sell arms to China, and we shouldn't sell arms to the 
Saudis who teach hatred of Christianity.
  There are Saudi cities you can't even go to. Christians can't go to 
Mecca or Medina. You can't carry a Bible in Saudi Arabia. If you try to 
visit Saudi Arabia and bring a Bible in, you will be rejected at the 
border. This is not what we are for.
  Even those who have advocated for the war are now admitting there is 
no military solution. Recently, Secretary Pompeo said: No military 
solution in Yemen; let's cease the bombing. General Mattis has said the 
same thing--no military solution. But they are not getting the signal. 
We are telling them there is no military solution, we are telling them 
to quit bombing civilian areas, and they are still bombing the areas. 
Since Secretary Pompeo told them a few weeks ago to quit bombing 
civilian areas, they dropped 200 bombs on Hodeidah. The Saudis aren't 
getting the message.
  The Bahrainis are part of the coalition. Send them a message. I am 
not saying we sanction Bahrain. I am not saying we kick them out as an 
ally. I am not saying we end our relationship with the Bahrainis. I am 
saying don't sell them arms one time. Do you think they will get the 
message? See, that is a message of strength. A lot of people around 
here talk about, we must have peace through strength, and we need to 
have a strong military. Well, do you know what? We need to have a 
strong foreign policy that says that we are not going to be pushed 
around by a bunch of two-bit dictators in the Middle East, that we are 
not going to be led astray and reject all of our values by sending arms 
into a war where civilians are being killed by the thousands. Seventeen 
million people in Yemen live on the edge of starvation. The city that a 
lot of the humanitarian aid comes in through, Hodeidah, is blockaded by 
the Saudis.
  I think that when we make decisions on foreign policy, they first 
should be made here. The Constitution intended that we declare war and 
that, really, foreign policy come from the people through the Congress, 
both House and Senate. If we were to have that debate, we would ask the 
question: Is our involvement in the war in Yemen in our national 
security interests? Is our national security enhanced by being at war 
in Yemen? I think the answer is unequivocally no.
  To those who say ``Well, we must combat Iran,'' Iran is being 
combatted by Saudi Arabia, but Iran is not a threat to come across the 
ocean to see us. Guess who has come across the ocean. Do you remember 
9/11? Do you remember who the hijackers were? Fifteen of nineteen of 
them were from Saudi Arabia. Do you remember the 28 pages of the ``9/11 
Report'' that they wouldn't let the American public read for years and 
years and years, for over a decade? You can now read those, and the 
implication is that Saudi Arabia was involved in 9/11, perhaps in the 
financing, perhaps in the planning. We actually voted overwhelmingly to 
allow American people's--descendants of those who died on 9/11 to 
actually sue Saudi Arabia over this because of the implication that, 
yes, the 28 pages show that they were involved.
  So what we should be debating here is, is there a national security 
risk, or is there a national security enhancement? Is it better for our 
country? Is it good for America to be involved in the war in Yemen, or 
does it actually enhance the risks that we will be involved in further 
war and further drawn into the Middle East?

  If you look at the history of our involvement in the Middle East--and 
President Trump gets this very well. One of the things he says over and 
over again is that the Iraq war was a mistake, that it was a 
geopolitical blunder of immeasurable proportions. Why? It is the same 
thing that has happened over and over in the Middle East: We go in and 
we topple a strongman. The strongman has a horrible human rights 
record, and we say we are bringing freedom and democracy. Do you know 
what we get? We topple the strongman, and we get chaos.
  Even decades later, in Afghanistan decades later, we still have 
chaos. You have chaos in Iraq, you now have chaos in Syria, you have 
chaos in Yemen, you have chaos in Libya, but it is not made better by 
our intervention, it is actually made worse. Out of the chaos comes 
more terrorism. Terrorism loves chaos. It is sort of like, nature 
abhors a vacuum; well, terrorism loves a vacuum. Terrorism grows and 
thrives and becomes more organized when they have a vacuum.
  My fear in Yemen is that, as the war goes on, as both sides destroy 
each other in a war that has no real end, then maybe al-Qaida of Yemen 
will come back and al-Qaida of Yemen will become a dominant player.
  Where did ISIS come from? People said ISIS was from Iraq. ISIS grew 
in Syria, from Raqqa. They started there and moved into Iraq because 
even after 15 years, the Iraqis were feckless to stop them, but they 
grew in the chaos of Syria.
  Who did we supply, in Syria, with weapons? There was another post 
from Hillary Clinton to Podesta saying: We have to do something about 
Saudi Arabia and Qatar because they are indiscriminately supplying arms 
to al-Qaida and ISIS in Syria.
  So because we always think we have to be involved--there can never be 
a time when we are not fighting on one side or the other--we get 
involved in

[[Page S7026]]

the lesser of the two evils, and so often, the lesser of the two evils 
is--guess what--still evil. So what has happened is we are drug into 
everybody's war--war on end in the Middle East--without resolution. 
They have been killing each other for a thousand years, and we think 
somehow siding with the Sunnis against the Shia is going to bring this 
war to a conclusion.
  The thing is, I think it has been a mistake, and I think it has been 
counterproductive. I think the war in Yemen is counterproductive. I 
think our involvement there is leading to more chaos. I think the 
Senate has abdicated their duty and their role. Under article I, 
section 8, the Senate is allowed to and should be deciding when we go 
to war.
  People talk about checks and balances, and we should be involved. 
Somehow we should check the President, who is assuming too much 
authority. This is your chance today. This is the check-and-balance. 
This is your proxy vote on the war in Yemen. There will be no direct 
one because they won't allow it. This will be a proxy vote because it 
will be about weapons to Bahrain because we are not being allowed a 
direct vote on the war in Yemen. We should be. It should be one of the 
most important things we do in the Senate, and that is to direct 
foreign policy, to decide when we go to war. It is probably the most 
important thing we do under the Constitution, and we have abdicated it 
for decade after decade.
  I think the American people's frustration with Saudi Arabia is 
growing. I think the American people want a loud message sent. If you 
send any other message--some are proposing sanctions on killers. Well, 
they are in jail, and in all likelihood, they are going to be executed. 
So we are going to sanction a bunch of people who are in jail and are 
going to be executed? The Saudis will laugh at that. That is weakness.
  Even in the last 3 weeks since Secretary Pompeo said ``You need to 
quit; you need to cease and desist from bombing civilian areas,'' the 
Saudis have dropped 200 bombs on civilian areas in Hodeidah. They are 
not getting the message. If we want to send them a message and send 
them a message loud and clear, we need to tell them no more arms. The 
next time they post a weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, we will do the same 
thing. But this is about the entire coalition of nine countries that 
are involved in this. Today, it will be about Bahrain, but today is 
really about Yemen. It is about the question I began this with.
  My call today is to end the U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen. We 
should have debated this in advance. We should have debated this before 
we got involved in the war in Yemen. Yet there is this creeping mission 
that happens all the time: The wars begin with the executive branch, 
they creep and grow larger and larger, and we abdicate our duty and 
role to vote on these things. Today is an opportunity to say: Enough is 
enough. The war in Yemen should end.
  It won't be the direct message I would like to send to Saudi Arabia, 
but it will be an indirect message. If this resolution were to pass, 
yes, it would be a loud and clear message that we are serious. But what 
will happen--and watch closely--is that many Members will say: Oh, 
Bahrain is our ally. We can't do this to our ally.
  I am not talking about ending our relationship with Bahrain. I am not 
talking about never selling arms to them. I am talking about one time, 
today, don't send them arms. What is the drama about? That, to me, is a 
very modest step--one time, do not sell our arms. They can be sold in 6 
months. Quit bombing Yemen, pull out of the coalition, stop the fight, 
and we will talk about arms sales.
  One time, we should stand up and should send a message from the 
Senate to the President that we are in charge. Under Article I, Section 
8, a declaration of war comes from Congress. We have abdicated that 
role for too long.
  My hope is that today there will be enough of us to send a message, 
and the message should be loud and clear: The United States should end 
its involvement in the war in Yemen.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes with the chairman as well, the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, split between us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object. We had an 
agreement to have an hour's worth of debate, where the opponents of the 
bill were given 30 minutes and the proponents of the bill were given 30 
minutes, and the unanimous consent allowed me the remaining 30 minutes. 
The time period has expired. I think we ought to go by some rules and 
structure around here. Those who are against the bill should come in 
the allotted time. The time was used by all kinds of other people 
talking about things not related to the debate. It does a disservice to 
the debate that we did that.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, if I may, through the Chair, say to 
the Senator, No. 1, there was nobody on the floor when the Senator made 
a motion to ultimately reserve all the time in opposition to the end. 
Had I been on the floor, had I known such a motion was going to be 
made, I would have objected to that. There was a certain lack of 
courtesy in that regard.
  I say to the Senator, an opposition now will be remembered as an 
opposition in the future when the Senator is seeking an opportunity. 
All we are asking for is 5 minutes. If the Senator needs more time to 
make a final comment----
  Mr. PAUL. I think a fair response is that we will grant an additional 
5 minutes to opponents of the bill, and if you allow me to conclude in 
5 minutes, I am fine with that.
  I will respond to the objection to include what I have stated. If 
that is acceptable, I remove my objection to the modified motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey so modify his 
request?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I rise in opposition to the resolution. As we evaluate 
the resolution, we have to consider the characteristics of a specific 
military system and the context in which it will be used, as well as 
how we utilize arms sales as a foreign policy tool.
  I have much in common with Senator Paul on the question of Yemen. I 
have moved in his direction. The Saudis had their opportunity. I am 
promoting legislation, with several of our colleagues, on a bipartisan 
basis, to deal with exactly that. If I am the one holding up arms sales 
to Saudi Arabia, as we speak, as the ranking member on the Foreign 
Relations Committee, that is why it has not come to the floor because I 
am not letting it go through unless the administration breaks through a 
hold at the end of the day, which would violate all of the existing 
processes we have.
  This vote is not Yemen. It is not Saudi Arabia. It is not the United 
Arab Emirates. It is Bahrain. Bahrain is a critical ally to us. It 
hosts the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, providing a vital naval base from 
which the United States protects its national security interests in the 
gulf and throughout the region, and its willingness to host our naval 
forces also places Bahrain at greater risk from attack from Iran and 
terrorist groups seeking to do harm to the United States. It is also a 
security partner as it comes to piracy, al-Qaida, ISIS, and Iran. It 
hosted an Israeli UNESCO delegation in late June.
  I have great disagreement with the Bahranians as it relates to their 
human rights record. It is abhorrent. We are going to continue to fight 
on that issue with them. At the end of the day, halting the sale of 
weapons intended to defend Bahrain's security is not the solution in 
this particular case.
  I will close and yield the balance of time to the chairman. Arms 
sales to foreign countries provide the United States and this body with 
important influence and leverage on those countries' views and 
activities on foreign policy. Sometimes, if used smartly, they can 
shift a country's actions in a positive direction.
  As I said, I am currently opposing an important arms sale to Saudi 
Arabia due to my concern the Saudis are using these weapons in a 
specific context inappropriately. Civilian casualties are

[[Page S7027]]

on the rise, and the weapons sale is not part of a comprehensive 
strategy to end the Civil War in Yemen. I urge us, on this particular 
occasion, to oppose this particular resolution, and I probably will 
stand with the Senator when the moment comes as it relates to denying 
the Saudis arms sales, particularly in the midst of what they are doing 
in Yemen.
  With that, I yield to the distinguished Senator of Foreign Relations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I want to thank the ranking member for 
his comments, his friendship, and welcome him back. I look forward to 
his leadership on foreign policy issues for many years.
  I share his views. I have concerns about the trajectory that Saudi 
Arabia is on right now. I have concerns about the war in Yemen. We have 
had hearings. We have people on our committee who are trying to take 
steps to deal with the war in Yemen.
  Obviously, we are very upset with what has happened with the 
journalist. I think a price needs to be paid. The administration today 
sent out notice that they were sanctioning 17 individuals who were 
involved. Hopefully, additional steps will be made.
  I asked for a high-level briefing with Mattis, Pompeo, and Gina 
Haspel to come in as soon as we get back, to share with us what is 
happening with Saudi Arabia on both fronts, both Yemen and what is 
happening as it relates to the journalist who was assassinated, in my 
opinion, at the direction of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. I have a 
lot of concerns.
  I think when you have concerns, though, you address those concerns to 
the people you have concerns with. Bahrain is not one of those. Bahrain 
certainly has had some issues with human rights, and we have dealt with 
those. It is a city state in the Persian Gulf where we have 7,800 men 
and women in uniform who are protecting our interests there, who are a 
buffer against Iran.
  For us to block sales, offensive sales, to the country of Bahrain 
that is housing one of our most important naval bases over something 
that has nothing to do with them but has something to do with another 
country is not a pragmatic nor a sensible step. I hope we will oppose 
this. I think we will.
  I understand the frustrations of the Senator from Kentucky. I do. He 
shared those many times in the Foreign Relations Committee. I do 
understand those, but it seems to me that taking something out on a 
country that is unrelated to what is happening is a very inappropriate 
and not a mature step for the U.S. Senate to take, and hopefully we 
will defeat this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Let's be very clear. Bahrain does have something to do with 
the war in Yemen. They are part of a nine-country coalition. They have 
lost soldiers in Bahrain. They have flown bombing missions. Bahrain is 
an intimate part of the coalition fighting the war.
  You might ask yourself, is it enough to do nothing? We are going to 
put sanctions on people who are in jail. Do you think they care? They 
are probably going to be beheaded. Sanctions is a way of pretending to 
do something and doing nothing. The arms sales--I am not saying we 
never sell arms to Bahrain. I am saying one time we don't. That might 
get them the message.
  People say we don't like the human rights record of Bahrain, it is 
abominable, but do you think they will react to weakness: Please don't 
hurt your people, please don't commit atrocities on the majority Shia 
population?
  No, we will sell them arms one time, and they will sit up and say 
let's have a talk. People respect strength. We don't show strength 
unless we do something that is more dramatic than putting sanctions on 
people who are already in prison. This is about Saudi Arabia, but it is 
also about the coalition of nine countries of which Bahrain is.
  If you think meek words will stop the Saudis, listen to this. Three 
weeks ago, Pompeo said they should cease all bombing of civilian 
centers. How many bombs have dropped on Hudaydah since he asked them to 
cease? Two hundred bombs have dropped on Hudaydah--the port where 
humanitarian aid needs to come in for a starving population--since we 
told them not to. We said we are not going to refuel their planes 
anymore. We are not refueling their planes. They are refueling their 
planes with our planes. Everything they fly is our plane. Their pilots 
are trained by us. Their mechanics are trained by us. We need to be 
stronger. It is a sense of weakness. It is a display of weakness not to 
at least block one arms sales. This is a modest proposal, and it is the 
least we can do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I move to table the motion to discharge 
S.J. Res. 65 and 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Perdue
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--21

     Baldwin
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hirono
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Sanders
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coons
     Nelson
       
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________