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

[Pages S3457-S3462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 20 AND S.J. RES. 26

  Mr. PAUL. Under the previous order, and pursuant to the Arms Export 
Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations 
Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 20 and S.J. Res. 26, 
relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to 
the Governments of Bahrain and Qatar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motions are now pending and will be 
debated concurrently until the hour of 11:30 a.m., with 7 minutes each 
reserved for the chairman and the ranking member.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the Middle East is a hot caldron, 
continuing and continually threatening to boil over. I think it is a 
mistake to funnel arms into these century-old conflicts.
  There is no great certainty that the arms we send into the Middle 
East aren't one day used against our own soldiers. In fact, there is a 
real threat that someday our young soldiers will be sent to fight 
against the very weapons we send to these so-called allies.
  It has happened. In Iran, to this day, they still have some U.S. 
weapons that are left over from the weapons the United States supplied 
the Shah. In Iraq, some of the weapons we gave them to fight Iran were 
still there when we returned to fight Saddam Hussein. In Afghanistan, 
some of the weapons we gave to the mujahedin to fight the Russians were 
still there when we returned to fight the Taliban. These weapons have a 
life of their own. It is not certain that they will not be used against 
us and often have been. Proliferating arms in the midst of chaos is a 
recipe for disaster.
  It is hard to argue that sending arms into Libya and Syria has, in 
any way, advanced liberty. Dreamers often longingly speak of a peace 
plan for the Middle East. Maybe we should consider a peace plan that 
doesn't include dumping more arms into a region aflame with civil 
unrest, civil war, and anarchy.
  The argument goes that we must arm anyone who is not Iran. We are 
told that, because of Iran's threat, the United States must accept 
selling arms to anyone who opposes Iran, even bone saw-wielding 
countries brazen enough to kill a dissident in a foreign consulate.
  It doesn't matter how you act, how you behave, or whom you kill, we 
will still give you arms. What would happen if we just said no? What 
would happen if we simply conditioned arms sales on behavior? Are the 
Saudis so weak that Iran will run over them and run over the whole 
Middle East without our arms? Of course not.
  The Saudis now spend more on their military than the Russians. The 
Saudis have the third largest amount of military spending in the world, 
only behind the United States and China. Saudi is No. 3. Saudi Arabia 
is spending the

[[Page S3458]]

third most on arms of anybody in the world. The Saudis and their Gulf 
allies spend eight times more than Iran. They are perfectly capable of 
defending themselves against Iran.
  What are the Saudis doing with all the weapons we give them? For one, 
they are bombing civilians in Yemen. They have been using our bombs 
and, up until recently, they were refueling their bombers with our 
planes. We have no business in the war in Yemen. Congress never voted 
on it. It is unauthorized, it is unconstitutional, and we have no 
business aiding the Saudis in this massacre.
  The Saudis have used these bombs to bomb a funeral procession. They 
wounded over 400 at a funeral procession--they wounded over 400 and 
killed 150. The Saudis recently bombed and killed 40 children on a 
schoolbus.
  The Saudis, with our support, continue to blockade one of the main 
ports of Yemen. As a consequence of this blockade and the Yemeni civil 
war, 17 million people live on the edge of starvation.
  In addition, the Saudis indiscriminately fed arms into the Syrian 
civil war. Even Hillary Clinton admitted this. In an email from Hillary 
Clinton to John Podesta, she wrote: ``We need to use our diplomatic and 
more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the 
governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine 
financial and logistic support to Isis.''
  Does anybody remember? We went to war with ISIS because of their 
horrendous violence and killing of civilians. We had to go back into 
Syria. Who was funding ISIS? Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Why in the world--
what sane person would continue to send arms to countries that are 
giving arms to our enemies?
  I introduced a bill which, unfortunately, will not get a vote today, 
and that is to quit arming terrorists. You say: Well, certainly you are 
not serious. Yes, I am serious. We send arms to terrorists. We send 
them, and there is a stopoff point--they stop off in Saudi Arabia, they 
stop off in Qatar, they stop off in Bahrain--but these arms are winding 
up in the hands of al-Qaida and radicals whom we say we are pledged to 
defeat and that our soldiers risk life and limb defending against.
  Let's make sure no one misses this point. Hillary Clinton admitted 
that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were funding and arming ISIS. How 
insulting. Our brave soldiers are sent over there, risking life and 
limb, and we are supplying arms to the enemy.
  Hillary Clinton sent another State Department cable. In this, it 
read: ``Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-
Qaeda, the Taliban.'' That is whom we are fighting in Afghanistan.
  So we are fighting al-Qaida everywhere. We are fighting the Taliban 
in Afghanistan, and they are being aided and armed by Saudi Arabia. 
This is insane. This policy makes no sense at all; that your dollars 
are buying weapons to be thrown into the Middle East to be spread among 
who knows whom.
  Patrick Cockburn concludes the emails reveal ``the State Department 
and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar 
were funding Isis.''
  To add insult to injury, there are now reports that the Saudi-led 
coalition that is bombing Yemen are giving American weapons to al-
Qaida-linked fighters in Yemen, hardline Salafist militias, and anyone 
willing to fight the Houthis.
  The problem with Congress is they are so obsessed with Iran, Iran, 
Iran that they can't understand they are giving weapons to people who 
are giving weapons to enemies of the United States. Because they so 
want to combat Iran, they are willing to turn away and give anybody in 
the Middle East anything they want because we say: We have to 
stop Iran--when, in reality, the big power there is Saudi Arabia and 
the Gulf sheikdoms.

  On the one hand, we are told that al-Qaida is the enemy that attacked 
us on 9/11, which they did. On the other hand, we are told to turn a 
blind eye and send more arms to Saudi Arabia and Qatar that end up 
winding up in the hands of al-Qaida and ISIS. It is completely crazy. 
What sane person would sell arms to a regime that kills, tortures, and 
imprisons their dissidents? The Saudis routinely behead and then 
crucify their opponents.
  Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was executed and crucified, and his nephew sits 
on death row accused of sending text messages to encourage people to 
come to a protest rally. In Saudi Arabia, if you insult the government 
or insult the King, you can be put to death. These are the people whom 
this Congress, this Senate, will shortly vote on sending your weapons 
to these people. It is insane. America needs to say: Quit sending our 
weapons to crazy people. Quit sending our weapons to ISIS. Quit sending 
our weapons to people who hate us.
  How can this possibly be? Because people say: Oh, no, Iran. If we 
don't give money to Saudi Arabia, Iran will take over the world. Saudi 
Arabia spends eight times as much on their military as Iran. There is 
no danger of Iran taking over the Middle East with Saudi Arabia there. 
There is a great danger, though, if we keep funneling arms in there and 
fueling the arms race that the powder keg will blow up.
  Since the 1980s, the Saudis are estimated to have spent $100 billion 
exporting radical jihadism. This is a crazy ideology that preaches 
hatred of Jews, hatred of Christians, hatred of Hindus, and hatred of 
the West in general. This is whom they want to send weapons to: Saudi 
Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain. They don't like us. They take our money, they 
take our weapons, but they don't like us. They don't like Christians. 
They don't like Jews. They don't like Hindus.
  The Saudis fund tens of thousands of madrassas. Madrassas are 
religious schools that teach the radical form of jihadism that Saudi 
Arabia supports. There used to be a couple hundred in Pakistan. There 
are now tens of thousands of madrassas in Pakistan. At one particular 
madrassa, 80 percent of the students join the Taliban when they leave 
school.
  Why in the world would we send arms to a country like Saudi Arabia 
that is funding madrassas that are sending soldiers that we have to 
fight against in Afghanistan? What kind of bizarre world do we live in 
that we are arming people who arm our enemies?
  It has also been reported that the administration wants to give 
nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. That is genius. News reports reveal 
that the administration authorized giving U.S. nuclear technology to 
Saudi Arabia weeks after Jamal Khashoggi's murder, weeks after Saudi 
Arabia was implicated and the CIA actually concluded that the Crown 
Prince of the country was responsible for the bone saw-dismembering 
murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
  The administration says: Well, we should probably give them nuclear 
technology. Well, it is just going to be for energy purposes. One 
cannot overstate the calamity that awaits the Middle East and perhaps 
the world if Saudi Arabia should misuse peaceful nuclear technology in 
the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Without question, Iran would follow. A 
Middle East with three different countries with nuclear weapons is not 
something any sane person would want to contemplate.
  Today's vote is not directly about Saudi Arabia. We will have another 
vote next week or in the near future about selling arms to Saudi 
Arabia, but, indirectly, today's vote is about the wisdom of 
proliferating arms in the Middle East. Today's vote is specifically 
about disapproving U.S. arms sales to Qatar and to Bahrain.
  First, let's look at Qatar. Is Qatar a good actor in the Middle East? 
There are dozens of reports that U.S. weapons sold to Qatar wound up in 
the hands of al-Nusra. Who is al-Nusra? Al-Nusra is an al-Qaida-like 
affiliate of radical Islamists who hate the United States and hate 
Israel and would set up an extreme form of radical Islamist government. 
They are there to win. We didn't directly give them weapons, but we 
gave weapons to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which gave weapons to al-Nusra 
in the Syrian civil war.
  There are also reports that Qatar's weapons have been so 
indiscriminately distributed throughout the Middle East that many of 
these weapons have also wound up in the hands of ISIS. So al-Qaida, al-
Nusra, and ISIS are getting weapons from Qatar. Where does Qatar get 
the weapons? From the United States.
  The vote today is whether we should keep sending weapons to Qatar, 
which then sends them to our enemies, and

[[Page S3459]]

then we send our soldiers to the Middle East to fight against our own 
weapons. It is insulting; it is insane; and it needs to stop.
  There are also reports that Qatar has been linked to support for 
Hamas. I am not talking about one report. I am talking about dozens and 
dozens and dozens. Hamas is violently trying to remove or obliterate 
the State of Israel, our ally, but we are going to give weapons to 
Qatar, which is giving weapons to Hamas, which has pledged to devastate 
Israel. Does that make any sense at all? Why would we give weapons to 
Qatar, which gives them to Hamas, which would attack our ally Israel? 
It makes no sense at all.
  Former Under Secretary for Terrorism, David Cohen, writes: Qatar, a 
longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas. Cohen 
also noted that Qatar allows fundraisers to solicit donations for al-
Qaida and ISIS within Qatar.
  Many sources claim that Qatar has also provided safe haven for al-
Qaida leadership. Qatar is so distrusted that even the bone saw-
wielding Saudis think it is unwise to sell arms to Qatar. The Saudis, 
no stranger to terrorism, cut diplomatic relations with Qatar over 
allegations that Qatar was supporting terrorism. They both have 
supported terrorism, and now Saudi Arabia is saying: Qatar is even 
worse than we are. We are bad. We give arms to terrorists. Sure we do, 
yes, but Qatar is even worse, so we are not going to give any arms to 
Qatar because Qatar is giving them to even worse people than we give 
them to.
  In the chaotic aftermath of the overthrow of Qadhafi in Libya, there 
is civil war, there is chaos, and it is a breeding ground for 
terrorism. Qatar supports the faction opposed to the faction we 
support.
  It could change next week. But as of now, we are going to give Qatar 
weapons today, and they are involved in Libya on the side opposite of 
what we are supporting.
  Why would we give weapons to a country that opposes us in a civil 
war? There is a good question as to why we would be involved in the 
Libyan civil war at all and why we ever went over there to topple their 
government, but that is now water under the bridge. You have this chaos 
in Libya, where the United States is supporting one side and Qatar is 
supporting the other side. So why in the world would we give weapons to 
people who are opposing us in an armed conflict?
  No one disputes that Qatar has armed al-Qaida and other radical 
groups throughout the Middle East. People say: Oh, we have a base 
there. They let us land. They let us do stuff. So we need to look the 
other way and not care that they continue to support al-Qaida, ISIS, 
al-Nusra, and other radical elements throughout the Middle East.
  How much of a risk is it to sell arms to Qatar? Only time will tell. 
How much of a risk is it that in the future our soldiers may fight 
against U.S. weapons that Qatar passes along to extremists? I think 
that is a very real risk. It has already happened, and it will continue 
to happen. If you do not condition armed sales on behavior, they will 
not change their behavior.
  Some say: Oh, we have to do this. We have to have a base there. We 
have to do it.
  They say that particularly with Bahrain. Bahrain is an island nation, 
a small nation. We have a big Navy presence there and thousands of 
sailors there. So they say: Well, it is our naval base. It is a 
stopping port. We need this naval base, so we are going to look the 
other way.
  We look the other way for a country that is ruled by a monarchy 
composed of a minority. The Shia population, which is a form of Islam, 
is about 70 percent of the public. Twenty-five, thirty percent is 
Sunni, and that is the monarchy. If you are Shia, and you object to the 
government or you criticize the government, guess what--you are 
imprisoned.
  There are currently 4,000 political prisoners in Bahrain. Bahrain 
bans any political opposition. One opposition leader, Sheikh Ali 
Salman, is in prison for life for speaking out against the government. 
Student leader Moosa Abdulla Moosa Jaafar was sentenced to death for 
protesting against government policy. Nabeel Rajab was given 5 years in 
prison for exposing and tweeting about torture in Bahraini prisons. 
Famous Bahraini football player Hakeem al-Araibi was arrested on his 
honeymoon in Thailand and held for 76 days by the Bahraini Government. 
In January of this year, the prominent Shia cleric, Sayed Majeed Al 
Meshaal, was arrested for criticizing extrajudicial killings by the 
Bahraini Government.
  Should we be sending offensive weapons to a regime that uses violence 
to quell political dissent? Should we be funding a regime that is 
currently involved with the Saudis in bombing civilians in Yemen? 
Should we send offensive weapons to a country that has been 
indiscriminately killing civilians in Yemen? Should we send offensive 
weapons to a regime that tortures and unjustly imprisons and outlaws 
its political opponents?
  The weapons that this Congress will send to Bahrain, to this minority 
monarchy, to this authoritarian government may someday wind up in the 
hands of revolutionaries. How long will it be until the powder keg of 
Bahrain has its own revolution?
  We did this in Iran. We sent them to a ruler who didn't represent the 
majority in Iran, the Shah. We did it for a long time. But in the end, 
from the backlash that came in Iran and the downfall of the Shah, our 
weapons fell into the hands of people who hate our country. The same 
could happen in any one of these powder keg countries in the Middle 
East. The weapons we send to Bahrain today may well be in the hands of 
revolutionaries in the near future.
  The facts are not contested. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain have 
all allowed U.S. weapons to be funneled to radical Islamist groups 
throughout the Middle East. Dumping more weapons into the Middle East 
will not get us any closer to peace.
  A ``yes'' vote today is a vote for sanity. A ``yes'' vote is a vote 
to quit sending arms to people who abuse human rights. A ``yes'' vote 
today is a vote against aiding and abetting the Saudi-led war in Yemen. 
A ``yes'' vote today is finally a vote for restoring Congress's proper 
role as a check on Executive power.
  Our Founding Fathers were wary of granting any President too much 
power. James Madison wrote that the executive is the branch most prone 
to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, granted that 
power--the power to declare war--to Congress and not the President. I 
urge a ``yes'' vote today to help restore a semblance of the separation 
of powers that is necessary to preserve our great Republic.
  Thank you.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from 
Montana.


                      Remembering Jeannette Rankin

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, last week, we celebrated the 100th 
anniversary of Congress passing the 19th Amendment. This week, 
coincidentally enough, we celebrate the birthday of the only woman to 
vote on the 19th Amendment, Montana's own Jeannette Rankin.
  Jeannette Rankin, who helped women in Montana and Washington, earned 
the right to vote in 1914, 3 years before she became the first woman 
elected to Congress and 5 years before she helped pass the 19th 
Amendment, making her the only woman to vote for nationwide women's 
suffrage.
  I say ``nationwide'' because before Congress passed the 19th 
Amendment, women had already won the right to vote in more than a dozen 
States, almost all of which were west of the Mississippi. And that was 
no accident.
  The demands of frontier life were such that men and women often had 
to work side by side in order to meet those demands, and they still do 
that today. So it is no surprise that it was a western woman who led 
the effort on the House floor to pass a constitutional amendment 
granting women the right to vote.
  As a freshman Member of the minority party, Rankin was denied the 
chairmanship of the newly established Woman Suffrage Committee, but she 
was named ranking member. The group went to work drafting a women's 
suffrage amendment on the morning of January 10, 1918. The Capitol was 
crowded with people to hopefully secure a seat in the House Gallery for 
the suffrage debate. Rankin opened the debate with an impassioned 
speech that

[[Page S3460]]

helped convince her colleagues in the House to pass the amendment. It 
was passed by the thinnest possible margin.
  Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass that amendment in that 
Congress, but Rankin's victory in the House marked a major milestone in 
the suffrage movement and laid the groundwork for the 19th Amendment's 
passage just 18 months later.
  Today, in honor of her birthday on Tuesday and the suffrage 
centennial this past week, I would like to read an excerpt from that 
impassioned speech that Representative Rankin gave on the House floor 
more than 100 years ago.

       Today, as never before, the Nation needs its women--needs 
     the work of their hands and their hearts and their minds. 
     Their energy must be utilized in the most effective service 
     they can give.
       Are we now going to refuse these women the opportunity to 
     serve in the face of their plea--in the face of the Nation's 
     great need?
       Deep down in the hearts of the American people is a living 
     faith in democracy.
       Sometimes it is not expressed in the most effective way. 
     Sometimes it seems almost forgotten.
       But when the test comes, we find it is still there, groping 
     and aspiring, and helping men and women to understand each 
     other and their common need.
       It is our national religion, and it prompts in us the 
     desire for that measure of justice, which is based on equal 
     opportunity, equal protection, equal freedom for all.
       This proposed amendment should be passed as an act of right 
     and justice to the women of America.
       To my mind, this is one of the most important questions 
     that has been presented to Congress since I have been a 
     member.
       One that has far more wide-reaching effect upon the people 
     of the country--insofar as what the country stands for and 
     what we stand for--than any other question since the writing 
     of the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of our 
     Constitution.
       These are the people who are resting their faith in the 
     Congress of the United States because they believe Congress 
     knows what democracy means.
       Can we afford to allow these men and women to doubt for a 
     single instant the sincerity of our protestations of 
     democracy?
       How shall we answer their challenge, gentleman? How shall 
     we explain to them the meaning of democracy if the same 
     Congress that voted for war to make the world safe for 
     democracy refuses to give this small measure of democracy to 
     the women of our country?

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


              Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am delighted to join Senator Tester on 
the floor as ranking member of the Veterans' Committee, and he and I as 
chairman have worked together on many, many issues. And today, we are 
glad to come to the floor and tell the Senate how much we appreciate 
what they did last night in letting the unanimous consent motion pass 
to see to it that the blue water Navy legislation that we worked on for 
so many years became effective.
  I could take a long time explaining it, but basically it is very 
simple. Those who served in Vietnam and represented our country on the 
battlefields and at sea have been divided on the benefits they got for 
their service. Blue water Navy folks did not get service because it was 
not contemplated that they would have Agent Orange exposure by being on 
a ship, whereas our veterans who were on the ground got benefits 
because they were on the ground, and it was assumed that they did get 
exposure to Agent Orange.
  The fact of the matter is, sailors on the ships could have been 
exposed to Agent Orange. So the veterans on our ships were really as 
equal in their opportunity to have gotten exposed to Agent Orange, so 
they should be equally open to getting the benefit.
  Because of Senator Tester's work, the testament and work of every 
member, the committee--I can't name anybody who didn't work on it at 
one time or another. Some negative, some positively--but all positive 
in the end because we were unanimous.
  We passed blue water Navy and put to bed issues that affected our 
veterans for a number of years.
  I just want to thank Senator Tester immensely for his efforts, 
particularly in the end of last year we had a real battle to get it 
passed. We thought we had it passed, but we didn't at the last minute. 
It ended up in court and finally got a judge to rule our way and the 
veterans' way, and yesterday the Senate--by unanimously adopting the 
House bill which passed a month ago, the Blue Water Navy benefits are 
now available.
  So I want to thank Senator Tester, Senator Blumenthal on the other 
side, Senator Murray just did a great job. On our side, Senator Boozman 
did a great job. The ranking member on our side who is sitting next to 
me, Senator Moran, did a great job.
  Importantly, I want to talk about the staff for just a minute. Adam 
Reece is our new executive director of my staff. He has just done a 
great job to get this through.
  From my staff, Amanda Maddox has worked hard to make it happen. 
Annabell McWherter, Jillian Workman, and Pat McGuigan did extraordinary 
work to see to it we got this done at the last minute and got it 
through.
  So, on behalf of all the staff--for all the staff, minority and 
majority--on behalf of our veterans who risked their lives every day 
and a day or two after D-day when I happened to be with the President 
at Normandy to see the reenactment of that jump, it warms my heart to 
know that the Senate today is memorializing benefits that were intended 
a long time ago to go to those veterans who now will get it.
  I thank everybody who worked on it, and I am encouraged by the 
positive vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, first of all, it is indeed a pleasure to 
be on the Senate floor with the chairman of the VA Committee, Senator 
Johnny Isakson. I think we all know we wouldn't be talking about the 
blue water Navy legislation, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, 
without Johnny Isakson.
  Johnny has been an incredible leader on the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee since he took it over, and I can't thank him enough for what 
he has done to make this a reality. It has been a long time coming. If 
there is anybody that deserves this to happen, it is the folks who 
served in Vietnam. Quite frankly, the sacrifice that they made during 
that war was like all other wars, and it was pretty darn incredible.
  This victory is for the folks who were exposed to Agent Orange, and 
Agent Orange, by the way, is a herbicide that was not handled properly, 
and, quite frankly, causes real problems, and it has shown now that it 
causes real problems among the men and women who handled it, who were 
sprayed by it, who drank it, and who were exposed to it. So it is long 
past time that we deal with those folks in a way that meets their needs 
because of their sacrifice supporting that war.
  I would just say that I come to the floor a lot, and I am 
disappointed in the U.S. Senate almost every day because they don't do 
what they need to do as far as checks and balances in this country. But 
today I come and I say thank you to the U.S. Senate. Thank you to the 
folks who didn't put a hold on this bill, who were able to push it 
through, because, quite frankly, this rights a wrong that has been 
perpetrated by a government that has ignored them for far too long.
  Very quickly, since we do have the time, I just want to go through 
what this bill does. It ensures that veterans who served just off the 
shores of Vietnam are presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange, 
just like those who served on land. The fact is that they were exposed. 
The fact is that now this bill recognizes that.
  It restores VA benefits to literally tens of thousands of blue water 
Navy veterans who had their disability eligibility taken away back in 
2002. It requires the VA to contact veterans who filed denied claims 
and who are now eligible for retroactive benefits. That means that for 
those folks who had their benefits taken away, the VA now needs to 
contact them and say: Look, the playing field has changed.
  It extends presumption of Agent Orange exposure to veterans who 
served along the Korean DMZ, something we don't talk about much, and it 
expands benefits to include children born with spina bifida due to a 
parent's exposure in Thailand.
  I have said this many, many times. Taking care of our veterans is a 
cost of war. That is why we need to be very careful when we send our 
troops into battle, because they are exposed physically and mentally to 
things that normal people are never exposed to.

[[Page S3461]]

  For years, I have heard from veterans who were counting on us to pass 
the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act because, quite frankly, they 
weren't getting the benefits that they were promised when they signed 
up. When they were put in harm's way, the country turned their back on 
them.
  They are veterans like Mike Stone from Kalispell, who served as a 
blue water sailor in 1974 and has since been diagnosed with a variety 
of illnesses linked to Agent Orange, like diabetes and heart disease. 
Now Mike Stone can receive the benefits he has earned.
  This bill is for Mike and for so many veterans like him who have 
waited so long for the government to deliver. Once again, under the 
leadership of Chairman Johnny Isakson, we are able to live up to the 
commitment to justice for the blue water Navy veterans in Montana and 
across this country who have sacrificed to keep us safe and free.
  I would urge the President to quickly sign this bill into law. It is 
the right thing to do, and I am proud that the Senate has finally done 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                    Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 20

  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, fellow Senators, today, in a few moments, 
we are going to consider S.J. Res. 20, which is a joint resolution that 
it prohibits the sales of munitions to Bahrain. Actually, we are going 
to consider a motion to discharge, and the same is true of S.J. Res. 
26, which is a joint resolution that prohibits the issuance of a letter 
of offer with respect to the proposed sale to Qatar of 24 helicopters.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to consider these sales on their own 
merits and to avoid conflating these with unrelated controversies over 
the administration's recent emergency declarations. They are not 
related. They are different matters.
  These sales--the two that we are talking about regarding Bahrain and 
Qatar--address the legitimate security interests of both countries and 
strengthen the U.S. partnerships with both countries and support shared 
efforts to deter Iran. Congress should support these sales. The news 
this morning of attacks on two more civilian oil tankers in the Gulf of 
Oman lend further weight to the conclusion that our allies and partners 
in the region need greater capabilities to share the burden of defense 
in support of our mutual security interests.
  The State Department notified these sales in the standard process, 
and the chairs and ranking members of both House and Senate committees 
approved them last month.
  The sale to Qatar is not related to the activities of the Saudi-led 
coalition in Yemen. Denying this sale will not punish Saudi Arabia or 
influence its actions in Yemen, as Qatar ceased its participation in 
the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen 2 years ago. I think that is very 
important because there is a lot of discussion up here, as there should 
be, regarding the hostilities in Yemen, but they are not related at all 
to the matters we are dealing with today.
  Bahrain has not been implicated in any inappropriate strikes in Yemen 
and has focused on defensive operations, including border security. The 
Royal Bahraini Air Force patrols Saudi Arabia's borders to counter 
incursions from Yemen into Saudi Arabia. Just this week, we saw how 
real these threats are, as a missile from the Iranian-supported Houthis 
wounded 26 civilians at a civilian airport. Denying this sale will not 
punish Saudi Arabia or influence its actions in Yemen.
  As the ranking member said regarding the resolution brought up last 
November, this vote is not Yemen, it is not Saudi Arabia, and it is not 
the UAE. It is Bahrain. Bahrain is a critical ally to us, and there is 
absolutely no question about that. These sales will help Qatar and 
Bahrain rightfully assume the burden of their own defense and relieve 
U.S. forces that have been providing support. The helicopters will 
enable the Qataris to provide for their own defense against threats to 
its vital infrastructure. The munitions are critical for Bahrain's F-
16s and essential to any plans to defend Bahrain. The United States has 
critical and strategic interests in both of these matters.
  In addition to Qatar and Bahrain taking increasing responsibility for 
their own defense, they are taking an increasingly prominent role in 
U.S.-led coalition operations. Importantly, Qatari fighters conduct 
joint air patrols with U.S. forces to deter Iran.
  Qatar contributes more Naval forces to coalition patrols of the 
Arabian Gulf than any of its neighbors. Qatar C-17s have moved more 
than 3 million pounds of cargo in direct support of coalition 
operations in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan and is expanding its tanker 
fleet to become the No. 2 provider of coalition air refueling, ahead of 
the British.
  Bahrain has also contributed to stability in the region. Bahrain has 
been the key mediator in opening relations between the Gulf Cooperation 
Council and Iraq and contributes to counter-mine, counter-piracy, and 
intelligence sharing in support of regional security.
  The United States named Bahrain a major non-NATO ally in 2002, and 
since then, they have lived up to that designation. Bahrain holds 7,000 
U.S. troops in its borders, including the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, and 
it is home to the only U.S. naval base in the Middle East.
  For its part, Qatar hosts 10,000 U.S. forces and is home to the 
regional headquarters of U.S. forces, including air and special 
operations. Qatar provides access to key logistic nodes and overflight 
rights for U.S. aircraft. It has already invested more than $8 billion 
to develop Al Udied Air Base and is now providing more than $3 billion 
to upgrade U.S. facilities there to meet specific requirements of the 
United States. The Qataris are also providing $200 million a year to 
sustain these facilities. Duplicating or recreating the facilities in 
Qatar would result in a sizable and needless bill to the U.S. taxpayer.
  In recent years, Qatar and Bahrain have worked to strengthen 
cooperation with the United States on countering the financing of 
terrorism. As part of these efforts, Qatar has agreed to increase the 
sharing of information on terrorist financiers in the region, to place 
greater emphasis on preventing terrorist financing abuse in the 
charitable and money services business sectors, and develop a domestic 
designation regime in line with international standards. Bahrain, too, 
is a significant partner in cutting off terrorist financing and has 
assisted in blocking Iranian efforts to circumvent sanctions.
  Meanwhile, the credibility of the United States as a partner of 
choice is on the line. If the United States cannot reliably sell its 
partners weapons that are vital for defense, these partners will turn 
by necessity to China and Russia.
  The United States recently sent 1,500 more troops into the theater in 
protection of U.S. forces. As we ask partners like Qatar and Bahrain 
for their support in protecting their own forces, we should support 
them as they seek greater capabilities to protect themselves.
  In November, this body concluded that blocking sales to Bahrain over 
an unrelated issue was inappropriate and did not make sense. I urge my 
colleagues in the strongest possible terms to reach the same 
conclusions in this case.
  In closing, these sales should be considered on their own merits and 
should not be entangled with unrelated controversy. These sales address 
Qatar and Bahrain's legitimate security interests, strengthen U.S. 
partnership with Qatar and Bahrain, and, importantly, they deter Iran.
  I support these sales. I urge my colleagues to do the same. As we can 
see from what I have said here, these sales are minimal, really, in the 
overall scheme of what these countries are doing to help us. We should 
show these countries that indeed we are reliable partners, we are good 
friends, and we deeply appreciate their efforts to promote the same 
interests the United States of America has in the region.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.


                Vote on Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 20

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 20.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S3462]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--56

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Alexander
       
  The motion was rejected.


                Vote on Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 26

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 26.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
  (Mr. COTTON assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring the vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cruz
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--57

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Alexander
       
  The motion was rejected.

                          ____________________