June 13, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 99 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S3454-S3457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES

                                 ______
                                 

                SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER SHANNON KENT

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, now, on a very important topic that 
affects New York and America, there is the renaming of a ship.
  The men and women who wear this Nation's uniform are some of the most 
inspiring people you will ever meet. There is no shortage of stories of 
their valor, of their courage under fire, or of their sacrifices made 
voluntarily on behalf of a grateful nation. Yet I have the 
responsibility and the honor this morning of sharing the story of a 
particularly exceptional servicemember from my State of New York, SCPO 
Shannon Kent.
  Shannon Kent was from Upstate New York. She was born in Oswego and 
was raised in Pine Plains. She graduated from Stissing Mountain High 
School and left college to join the Navy, following in the footsteps of 
her father and her uncle--a police commander and a firefighter--both of 
whom were first responders on September 11. Duty ran in the veins of 
the Kent family.
  Shannon was a pioneer in the special operations community. She was 
one of the first, if not the first woman to pass the course required to 
join Navy SEALs on missions. That is amazing in itself. Shannon was an 
outstanding linguist and a seasoned cryptologist, whose work 
``contributed directly to the capture of hundreds of enemy insurgents 
and severely degraded enemy combat capability,'' which earned her a 
slew of accolades, including multiple commendation medals--the Purple 
Heart and the Bronze Star.
  What an amazing woman--brave, strong, brilliant, and with a large 
body of knowledge. Amazing. Her courageous efforts and groundbreaking 
achievements have inspired numerous programs for integrating women into 
the special operations forces, with there being combat jobs and special 
operations training now open to female servicemembers. Senior Chief 
Kent was living proof that women could not only keep up with but lead 
our Nation's most highly trained and capable servicemembers.
  Of course, Shannon was more than just a sailor; she was a loving wife 
to her husband, Joe, a caring mother to her two children, a cancer 
survivor, a scholar, and an unstoppable athlete who stayed true to her 
New York roots, often going out for runs in her faded New York Yankees 
cap.
  On January 16 of this year, SCPO Shannon Kent was among four 
Americans and more than a dozen others who were killed in a suicide 
bombing in northern Syria.
  Senior Chief Kent was on her fifth combat deployment, once again 
conducting some of the Nation's most classified and dangerous missions. 
After her tragic death, one of her commanding officers said: ``Senior 
Chief

[[Page S3455]]

Petty Officer Shannon Kent deserves to be honored in a manner befitting 
of her noble service to our country and enduring contributions to the 
United States Navy.''
  I could not agree more. So, today, I am proud to introduce an 
amendment to the annual Defense authorization bill urging the U.S. Navy 
to name a ship after New York native and American hero, SCPO Shannon 
Kent.
  Of the 289 Active-Duty ships in the Navy, only five--only five--are 
named in honor of women. Of the 53 named vessels currently under 
construction, only one--just one--is named in honor of a woman. And no 
Navy ship has ever been named for a woman who fought and died in combat 
as Shannon Kent did.
  It is time to address this disparity, recognizing the integral role 
that female servicemembers play in protecting our great Nation. RADM 
Grace Hopper, the namesake of the USS Hopper, once said:

       A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are 
     built for. Sail out to sea and do new things.

  That is what RADM Grace Hopper said.
  Well, SCPO Shannon Kent was built to set out to sea to do good 
things. So should we. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to 
name the first naval vessel after a woman who has fought and died in 
combat, the brave, patriotic, wonderful Shannon Kent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have heard from other sources about 
Shannon Kent, to whom he is referring, and she is in fact an American 
hero. Everything he said about her is very true; however, everything he 
said about our President is not very true. Here we are, with probably 
the best economy we have had in my life--
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, will my colleague kindly yield the 
floor before I leave?
  I agree with the first half of his sentence.


                    Joint Resolution of Disapproval

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I just want to comment that every time I 
hear things about the President--you have to keep in mind that we have 
the best economy we have had. Unemployment is at 4 percent. We are 
better than we have ever been.
  We went through 8 years with the Obama administration taking down our 
military to the point where we allowed Russia and China to get ahead of 
us in many areas, such as hypersonics, and now we are going into this 
thing with a Defense authorization bill. But it is this President who 
is changing--trying to overcome the problems.
  I don't criticize President Obama because he was really feeling where 
his priorities should be, and they have not been to defend America. He 
set up this system that says for every dollar that you put into the 
military, you have to put a dollar into nonmilitary, and that is just 
not what we are supposed to be doing in this country.
  So we are going to get to the point at which the American people are 
going to be very proud that we are going to have systems, we are going 
to have weaponry, we are going to be back to where we used to be and we 
have been since World War II--having the best equipment, treating our 
people the best, having the best troops. We already have the best 
troops in the field. We need to do for them what they are doing for us. 
That is what this bill is all about.
  Again, this President has been very supportive in rebuilding the 
military.
  Look at the court system. Right now we have great new jurists. We are 
up to over 40 appellate judges who now have been confirmed.
  So good things are happening. This President is accountable for these 
good things, and I can assure you that the American people know better 
than some of the stuff they hear about President Trump. It is just not 
true.
  I want to get on record here because we have some votes coming up 
having to do with the joint resolution of disapproval regarding arms 
sales to Bahrain and Qatar.
  These two Arabian Peninsula states are important to the American 
partners in countering Iran and combating ISIS and other terrorist 
groups. We depend on them. They are our friends.
  Bahrain actually hosts about 7,000 U.S. personnel, and that would be 
in the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
  Qatar hosts about 10,000 U.S. personnel, as well as the Combined Air 
Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base.
  Through these arms sales, we can improve cooperation, enhance 
interoperability, and help our partners defend themselves and our 
American troops in the region. They are defending themselves. They are 
defending our American troops who are over there right now. I really 
get concerned when things like this come up. What is the rest of the 
world to say when we treat our allies this way and we renege on a 
commitment that we made?
  Through these arms sales, we can improve cooperation and we can 
improve our relationships in that whole part of the world, but, more 
importantly, if we renege on these arms sales, we will undermine the 
national defense strategy. The ``National Defense Strategy'' is a book. 
I should have brought it down to hold it up. I normally do when we talk 
about it. It is something in which Democrats and Republicans agree to 
get America back on top; this is what we need to do. Part of this and 
the recommendations of the national defense strategy made up of top 
Democratic and Republican leaders in the field of defending America--
they are all in agreement that we can't renege on the commitments that 
we have made on these arms sales.

  I recall that the top NDS priority is competing with Russia and 
China. That is one of the things that happened during the last 
administration. All of a sudden we find we have peer competitors. We 
have China and Russia doing things right now where they actually are 
exhibiting better equipment and better resources than we are. So we 
have to stand by our partners.
  Make no mistake about it. If something happens and they can't rely on 
us for their defensive needs, they are going to go someplace else. 
Where will they go? Will they go to Russia? Will they go to China? I 
can assure you, the main thing that people overlook is they are going 
to get the arms from someplace. They will either get them from us or 
they will get them from Russia and China.
  I have to ask my colleagues who support this resolution, do you 
expect Russia and China to ensure the freedom of navigation in the 
Middle East against Iranian threats? Will Russia and China lead a 
coalition to defeat ISIS? No. You know better than that.
  Will Russia and China deter Iran from attacking our partners and 
troops in this region?
  I understand that my colleagues have concerns about Saudi Arabia's 
terrible human rights record. I agree. I am offended by that. This is a 
different issue altogether. This is an issue of whether we are going to 
keep our commitment to our allies in that very sensitive region where 
we need more allies. Or are we going to renege on our commitments to 
them? Keep in mind, they are going to get them anyway.
  I know that some of my colleagues disagree with the administration's 
recent emergency declaration regarding arms sales to Saudi Arabia, but 
the leadership has assured me that we will have a vote on Saudi Arabia, 
so I urge my colleagues to raise their concerns about this at that 
time. That is the appropriate time to bring this up.
  More to the point, I urge them not to punish Bahrain and Qatar 
inappropriately and not to undermine U.S. national security interests 
in that region. The bottom line is everyone understands that Bahrain 
and Qatar are going to get arms anyway. They are going to get them 
either from us or from those who are our adversaries. That is why this 
is so important. I strongly urge that we defeat these efforts that are 
out there right now to try to stop the arms sales that are taking place 
now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last week I came to the floor to discuss 
the agriculture economy.
  While the broader economy is thriving, our Nation's farmers and 
ranchers are struggling. A combination of low commodity prices, 
protracted trade disputes, natural disasters, and weather-related 
issues have meant a tough few years for farmers. Nationwide, net farm 
income is about half of what it was in 2013.

[[Page S3456]]

  One of the biggest things we can do in Washington to help our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers is to negotiate favorable trade deals 
that expand existing and open new foreign markets for American 
agricultural products. That is why I have been pushing for a speedy 
conclusion to the various trade agreements that our country is 
currently negotiating.
  I strongly support the effort the administration has been making to 
secure more favorable export markets for American products. We have 
made real progress in negotiations. Now we need to wrap up the various 
agreements we are discussing as soon as possible so that we can get 
farmers and ranchers certainty about what international markets are 
going to look like.
  Of course, there is one agreement that has already been wrapped up--
the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. This is a hugely 
important agreement that will boost almost every sector of the American 
economy, from automotive manufacturing to digital services, to dairy 
farming. It will create 176,000 new jobs and increase wages for 
workers.
  Passing this agreement is a big priority for the ag industry. Mexico 
and Canada are huge importers of American agricultural products. The 
United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve and expand American 
farmers' access to these key markets.
  More than 950 food and agriculture companies and groups sent a letter 
to Congress, urging its passage. In my home State of South Dakota, 
Mexico and Canada are the No. 1 and No. 2 customers for our agriculture 
exports. Maintaining and expanding South Dakota farmers' access to 
these markets are critical.
  I am particularly pleased with the improvement that the United 
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement makes for U.S. dairy producers. Dairy is 
an important and rapidly growing industry in South Dakota. If you drive 
the I-29 corridor north of Brookings, you can see firsthand the massive 
dairy expansion that we have experienced in South Dakota over the past 
few years.
  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve the U.S. 
dairy farmers' role as a key dairy supplier to Mexico, and it will 
substantially expand market access in Canada, where U.S. dairy sales 
have been restricted.
  The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates the agreement will 
boost U.S. dairy exports by more than $277 million.
  The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement also makes targeted 
improvements for U.S. poultry, egg, and wheat producers. Wheat is 
another important South Dakota product, and I look forward to the boost 
this agreement will give South Dakota wheat growers.
  As I said earlier, one of the most important things we can do to help 
the struggling agriculture economy is to negotiate favorable trade 
agreements for U.S. producers and open new markets for American 
agricultural products. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is ready to go, 
and Republicans in Congress are ready to pass it. Now Speaker Pelosi 
needs to indicate her willingness to take up this agreement in the near 
future.
  This agreement will provide certainty for American producers and 
expand market access for a vast array of American goods and services. 
It is a win for our economy and a win for American workers. We should 
pass this agreement as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                    Joint Resolution of Disapproval

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I wanted to speak today about the 
proposed disapproval of arms sales to our Gulf partners, Bahrain and 
Qatar. Last month, the administration notified Congress of its 
intention to sell Apache helicopters to Qatar. Those helicopters will 
help with security and counterterrorism patrols, especially ahead of 
the 2020 World Cup, which, of course, will be a prime target for 
terrorists.
  We are also scheduled to sell air-defense missiles to Bahrain, where 
we have more than 8,500 Americans stationed in Manama at U.S. Naval 
Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet. These sales would also 
yield more than $3 billion for America, while making Americans safer 
overseas--what you might call a win-win. By contrast, rejecting these 
arms sales in a fit of pique would endanger Americans and weaken 
American influence in the Persian Gulf at precisely the moment when we 
as a Nation are being severely tested.
  Right now, the Iranian regime is engaged in a bloody campaign of 
terror, testing our resolve. Earlier this week, Iran's proxy on the 
Arabian Peninsula, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, launched a missile 
attack on a civilian airport in Saudi Arabia, wounding more than two 
dozen civilians, including women and children. Where did the Houthis 
get that missile? Yemen isn't known for its defense-industrial base. 
That missile came from Iran, as surely as if it were launched from 
Iranian soil itself.
  In recent weeks, four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, flying 
the flags of our allies and partners--Norway, Saudi Arabia, and the 
United Arab Emirates--were attacked with explosives, in effect, 
terrorizing all traffic through that strategic chokepoint. Public 
reports indicate that the Iranians perpetrated these attacks. Let's 
just say I am confident it wasn't the Swedes settling old grudges 
against their Nordic rival.
  Just this morning, hours ago, two tankers were attacked in the Gulf 
of Oman, with early indications that the damage is consistent with a 
torpedo or other projectile. While the attack hasn't been attributed 
yet, I think it is a safe bet that it wasn't the Omanis.
  Let's not be naive about what is happening in the Middle East. As 
Iran's economy staggers under the weight of new American sanctions, the 
ayatollahs are lashing out and raging against the world. It is 
essential that we support our Gulf partners during this dangerous time 
so they can defend themselves from Iranian aggression and its proxies.
  Besides, the arms we sell to Qatar and Bahrain will also protect all 
those Americans and their families in Bahrain and Qatar.
  But instead of helping Qatar and Bahrain to confront a common 
adversary, some of my colleagues want to hang them out to dry. If we 
snub our Gulf partners today, though, there will be consequences. Our 
joint efforts to fight terrorist financing could suffer. Our pressure 
campaign against Iran could also be jeopardized. If we back away from 
our partners now, their security needs will not disappear. There will 
just be adversaries swooping in to support them.
  Qatar is already considering a major arms deal with Russia. Both 
Qatar and Bahrain are involved in China's Belt and Road Initiative, an 
attempt by the Chinese Communist Party to build a world order with 
itself at the top. So what we are debating today isn't only whether to 
help or hurt our Gulf partners. It is also whether to push them further 
into the Chinese and Russian spheres of influence.
  I understand that a few of my colleagues have qualms about some of 
the countries with whom America must work as a matter of necessity to 
protect our security and our interests, but that is no excuse for rash 
actions that would weaken American influence, threaten Americans 
overseas, and embolden our adversaries in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow.
  Make no mistake. The ayatollahs, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping are 
watching these votes. For those of you who are undecided, I suggest you 
consider how those men would want you to vote.
  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.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in support of the motion to 
discharge Senator Paul's joint resolution, S.J. Res. 20, from the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the hopes of having an urgently 
needed discussion about these sales.
  Over the past 2 weeks, Congress's legally mandated role in the arms 
sales process has recently garnered a lot of

[[Page S3457]]

attention among the Members of the body and the American people. 
Reviewing and approving arms sales across the world is a core function 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is an integral exercise 
of congressional oversight of the executive branch, and it is legally 
mandated.
  So as we consider Senator Paul's resolution today regarding arms 
sales to Qatar and Bahrain, I would first like to make a few points of 
clarification.
  First, the resolutions of disapproval before us today are completely 
unrelated to the administration's bogus ``emergency'' notification of 
the 22 sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as 
the 22 resolutions I filed with a bipartisan group of Senators in 
objection to them.
  Second, the resolutions before us today have already gone through the 
regular committee process. As is normal procedure, the administration 
notified us of these sales. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 
the House Foreign Affairs Committee then conducted our due diligence, 
after which we, in fact, agreed with the administration that these 
sales should go forward.
  However, I do support the Senator from Kentucky's right to seek full 
consideration of them by the Senate. Given the administration's 
decision last month to completely flout congressional review over arms 
sales, I am supporting this motion in order to once again emphasize the 
importance of congressional oversight and due diligence.
  With that in mind, I appreciate Senator Paul's--as well as Senator 
Graham's, Senator Young's, and Senator Lee's--cosponsorship of my 22 
resolutions of disapproval regarding the administration's so-called 
emergency arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
  I am glad to know I am not the only one in this body disturbed by the 
President's willingness to bypass Congress and sell this weaponry 
without any consideration of the recent events that have strained our 
relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I certainly look forward to a more 
robust debate and vote on those sales next week.
  But let me start by saying that I placed holds on specific sales to 
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates over serious, credible 
concerns that these weapons were being used to target civilians. 
Through the regular review process, I sought answers from the State 
Department about how these sales were promoting our interests and what 
steps we were taking to get guarantees from the Saudis and the Emiratis 
that these weapons were being used in a way consistent with our 
interests, with international humanitarian law, and with respect to 
human rights.
  After the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Department of State 
ceased engaging with me on these questions and did not respond to 
inquiries about how these sales were furthering U.S. interests or about 
our relationship with Saudi Arabia. This is unacceptable. They could 
have engaged. They chose not to.
  The bottom line is that we are a coequal branch of government, and we 
cannot stay silent when any administration attempts to override or 
circumvent legally mandated oversight by Congress.
  The United States sells a significant amount of weapons to Gulf 
countries, but given the rhetoric and behavior coming out of the 
administration, the last thing we should be doing is weakening our 
scrutiny over arms sales.
  Let's remember why we pursue these sales in the first place. Arms 
sales are one of our many tools to promote American foreign policy and 
military objectives. We use arms sales to bring like-minded countries 
in line with our goals and to promote interoperability with American 
defense systems.
  As the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have 
always been diligent in reviewing every arms sale proposed by this 
administration, including these sales to Bahrain and Qatar. Through our 
standard process, I reviewed and cleared these sales for consideration 
by the Senate as part of our normal statutory procedures.
  Now, let me turn to the particular sale to Bahrain, which I believe 
is in our interest at this moment. Make no mistake. I have serious 
concern about Bahrain's human rights record--concerns I have made clear 
to the Bahrain Government and to the State Department. I will be the 
first to say that Bahrain does not have a blank check for weapons 
systems from the United States. However, I am mindful that Bahrain 
hosts the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. This package of upgraded F-16s and 
related munitions will help Bahrain effectively defend its territory, 
including U.S. Naval facilities, as well as participate in 
multinational efforts like the former coalition against ISIS in Syria.
  Now, regarding the other resolution concerning Qatar, I note that 
Qatar has requested additional attack helicopters to fill its 
operational requirements, including enhancing their long-term defensive 
and offensive capability and the ability to protect key oil and gas 
infrastructure and platforms important to the United States and Western 
economic interests. Qatar faces threats from everywhere, not the least 
of which is Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
  Finally, I would note that Qatar continues to host U.S. Armed Forces 
at Al Udeid Air Base, providing critical support to U.S. national 
security capabilities in the region.
  So while I support the Senator from Kentucky's rights to have these 
resolutions considered, it is for these reasons that I will ultimately 
support the sale to Qatar and Bahrain, as will most of my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________