[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 100 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3416-S3427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 
1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further 
consideration of S.J. Res. 42, relating to the disapproval of the 
proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Saudi Arabia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 
p.m. will be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of 
the motion to discharge.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today is an extraordinary day. Today is an 
auspicious day, for we will be discussing issues of war and peace.
  Believe it or not, we rarely discuss such important issues. We have 
been at war for 15 years. There have been a handful of debates--most of 
them indirect, most of them forced only under duress, and most of them 
would have been avoided if the leadership of both parties could avoid 
them, but today they cannot avoid this debate because this is what is 
called a privileged motion.
  Today we will discuss the involvement of the United States in the 
Middle East, and we will also discuss whether we should engage in a new 
war in Yemen. Today we will discuss an arms sale to Saudi Arabia that 
threatens the lives of millions of Yemenis, but we will discuss 
something even more important than an arms sale, we will discuss 
whether we should be actively involved. Should the United States be 
actively involved with refueling the Saudi planes, with picking 
targets, with having advisers on the ground? Should we be at war in 
Yemen?
  If you remember your Constitution, it says no President has that 
authority--only to repel imminent attack--but no President alone has 
the unilateral authority to take us to war. Yet here we are on the 
verge of war.
  What will war mean for Yemen? Seventeen million folks in Yemen live 
on the brink of starvation. I think to myself, is there ever anything 
important that can happen in Washington? Is there anything I can do to 
save some of the millions of children who are dying in Yemen? This is 
it. This is this debate today.
  It isn't about an arms sale, it is about children like Ali, who died. 
Why are they dying? Because the Soviets have blockaded the ports. 
Ninety percent of Yemen's food comes in from the ocean and they can get 
no food and they are starving and dying of cholera because of war. We 
think of famine being related to the weather. Sometimes it is, but more 
often than not famine is related to man, is manmade, and the most 
common cause is war.
  How bad is it in Yemen? Seventeen million people live on the edge of 
starvation. Some, like Ali, have already died. What are people saying 
about it? They say that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen may be worse 
than Syria.
  Let me repeat that because nobody in America is listening to this. 
Everybody is paying attention to some silly show trials and silly stuff 
going on in committees. Nobody is talking about this at all. They say 
it is worse than Syria. Millions of people have fled Syria. Hundreds of 
thousands have died, and people are now predicting Yemen may be worse.
  One refugee group said this: The impending famine in Yemen may reach 
Biblical proportions. Think about that. It is astounding what is going 
on there, and it is being done without your permission but with your 
weapons.
  Today I will force a vote with the help of Senator Murphy, who has 
been a prime mover in this, to tell you the truth, and has done a great 
job in bringing people together, but we will force this vote for these 
children in Yemen because we have a chance today to stop the carnage. 
We have a chance to tell Saudi Arabia we have had enough.
  The question is, Should we give money or arms to Saudi Arabia at all? 
What has Saudi Arabia done over the last 30 years? They have been the 
No. 1 exporter of jihadist philosophy, the No. 1 exporter of let's hate 
America, let's hate the Judeo-Christian ethic, let's hate the Judeo-
Christian tradition. It is coming from Saudi Arabia. They teach it in 
the schools in our country. They teach it in the schools in Indonesia. 
They corrupt the religion of Islam throughout the world, and we are 
going to give them weapons? I think it is a huge, huge mistake.
  If you say: Well, I doubt that. There is no way they are that bad. 
Don't they share intelligence with us? Don't they help us in the war on 
terror?
  Yes, every time they help us, they hurt us twofold worse. I will give 
you an example directly from Hillary Clinton. When she is writing 
honestly and not talking to the public, she sends an email to John 
Podesta. This is one that was leaked through WikiLeaks. Writing to John 
Podesta, Hillary Clinton said: We must put pressure on Saudi Arabia and 
Qatar because they are supplying logistical and financial support to 
ISIL.
  ISIS is the group we are fighting in the Middle East again, and Saudi 
Arabia was supplying them. This is according to Hillary Clinton, not 
indirectly but directly.
  Who in their right mind would give money, arms, or share our 
technology with a country that has been supporting ISIS? Who would do 
that? Who would think that is a good idea? Yet they will come here and 
say that it is about Iran, and we have to combat Iran everywhere.
  Guess what. This may make the situation with Iran worse. What do you 
think Iran thinks when Saudi Arabia gets weapons? They think to 
themselves, well, if the Saudis are getting more, we need more.
  What do you think Israel thinks? If the Saudis get more, we need 
more.
  Have you ever heard of an arms race? That is what this is. We are 
fueling an arms race in the Middle East. Every side wants more. You 
say: Well, we have to do this. We have to combat Iran.
  Do you know how much the Gulf sheikhdoms, Saudi Arabia, and all their 
allies--the ones who are bombing the hell out of Yemen--do you know how 
their military spending compares to that of Iran? It is 8 to 1. All of 
the money is in the Gulf h. All of the power, all of the weapons are in 
the Gulf sheikhdoms. They have more weapons and spend more on weapons--
8 to 1--than Iran.
  We are going to vote on Iran sanctions this week, and they say that 
they don't want ballistic missiles Iran. Well, I don't either. The best 
way to do that is to put pressure on Saudi Arabia.
  How would you put pressure on Saudi Arabia? Maybe we wouldn't sell 
them arms. Maybe we would withhold the sale of arms until they come to 
the table and we get a ballistic agreement with Iran. It is a naive and 
foolish notion to think that Iran is going to give up on their 
ballistic weapons. They are never giving up on their ballistic weapons 
unless Saudi Arabia did the same thing.
  People don't talk about this, but Saudi Arabia has ballistic 
missiles. They have Chinese missiles. They are called the Dongfeng-21 
N-3. They have dozens of these. Do you know where they are pointed? 
Tehran and Tel Aviv.
  Saudi Arabia is no friend of Israel. Do they cooperate with Israel 
some? Yes, but their missiles are pointed at Tel Aviv, Israel. Saudi 
Arabia's other missiles are pointed at Tehran. Are these missiles 
nuclear capable? Yes.

[[Page S3417]]

They are not thought to be nuclear tipped, meaning they haven't been 
armed with nuclear missiles, but everyone who is in the arms community 
acknowledges that these missiles could carry a nuclear payload if they 
were altered. They have the ability to do it.
  Should we send arms to Saudi Arabia? Here is another quote from Bob 
Graham, and this is a paraphrase. He says that there is an abundance of 
evidence that the Saudis were complicit in 9/11.
  Have we forgotten that 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi 
Arabia? Have we forgotten the missing 28 pages that they kept from the 
American public for over a decade? When you read those missing 28 
pages, which have now been released, they tend to implicate Saudi 
Arabia. They tend to indicate that the attackers, particularly in San 
Diego, were befriended by a government agent for Saudi Arabia.
  There is an abundance of information that implicates Saudi Arabia in 
9/11. In fact, less than a year ago, this very Congress voted 
unanimously or virtually unanimously to let American citizens--the 
victims of 9/11, their families--sue Saudi Arabia. This is an 
extraordinary thing. We almost never let people sue governments, 
particularly foreign governments, but we voted nearly unanimously. Why? 
Because people still have sympathy for the 9/11 victims and their 
families and because people obviously believe there is some information 
that may implicate Saudi Arabia.

  You say: Oh, no, they have changed. Well, how much could they have 
changed? It was only a year or two ago Hillary Clinton was writing that 
email saying that the Saudis are giving financial and logistical 
support to ISIL. Who in their right mind would sell arms to Saudi 
Arabia under those circumstances?
  If it doesn't persuade you that the Saudis are supporting ISIL and 
terrorism and may have been part of 9/11, perhaps we should look not 
only at the humanitarian disaster in Yemen--what they are doing to the 
public and that their goal basically is famine, to bring them to 
submission--but perhaps we should also look at Saudi Arabia as a 
country. Perhaps we should look at the human rights record of Saudi 
Arabia.
  I will give you a couple of instances of what it is like to live in 
Saudi Arabia. There was a young girl who was 19 years old. They haven't 
named her because her story is so traumatic. She was 19 years old. They 
call her the Girl of Qatif. She was 19 years old, and she was raped by 
7 men.
  The men were punished, a couple of years in prison. You know what 
happened? They arrested the victim because, you see, in Saudi Arabia it 
is your fault if you are raped. In Saudi Arabia, rape victims are 
arrested, put in prison, and publicly whipped. She was given 6 months 
in prison and 200 lashes. That was her sentence.
  Ultimately, it did not come to the fore. Do you know why? Partly 
because the United States stood up and said it was wrong and partly 
because, perhaps behind the scenes, we said: Maybe we are not going to 
sell you weapons if you behave like a bunch of barbarians.
  I will tell you another story about Ali al Nimr, a Shiite. The Middle 
East is somewhat divided between Sunni and Shia. He is a Shiite. They 
are about 10 percent of the public in Saudi Arabia. They are the 
minority. They are treated like dirt. His uncle was a sheikh. And by 
all accounts, he was one who called for peaceful elections, who wasn't 
an advocate of violence. He never was known or seen to have a weapon 
but was executed by the Saudis for leading protests. He was executed 
for standing up in front of people and saying: We should have 
elections. We should not have this authoritarian government that lords 
it over us and does not allow us even to practice our religion in 
public.
  Ali's uncle was beheaded. Ali was 17 at the time. It was the 
beginning of the Arab Spring, and Ali got excited and motivated. If you 
see the pictures of him, it is heartbreaking. You see pictures of him 
in western clothing. He liked poetry. He liked music. He was, by all 
means, the kind of person that we wish would come to leadership in 
Saudi Arabia.
  At 17, he went to a rally and he chose to be part of the Arab Spring 
to say: We don't want authoritarianism. We don't want despots. We don't 
want Kings and all of their lording over us. We want elections.
  For that, he was arrested and put on death row. Death row in Saudi 
Arabia, being Saudi Arabia, includes beheading and crucifixion. That 
will be his sentence--beheading and crucifixion.
  This is the regime that you are being asked to send weapons to. 
People say: Oh, they are buying them.
  The technology is ours. It is American technology that was developed 
for the defense of this country, and the companies would never have the 
technology had we not paid them to have it. The American taxpayer has a 
right to that technology, and while for almost every other good in the 
marketplace the government has no right to tell you how who to sell it 
to, arms are different because they are all developed by the U.S. 
taxpayer.
  I do believe there should be rules about who gets our arms. I don't 
think we should sell them to Saudi Arabia if they might wind up in the 
hands of ISIS. I don't think we should sell them to Saudi Arabia if 
they punish people for protests, if they punish people for speaking out 
by beheading them and crucifying them.
  I am not for selling them a rifle, much less precision-guided 
missiles. Some will say: Oh if we give them more accurate missiles, 
they will kill civilians. That presumes they are not targeting 
civilians.
  Do you think it was a mistake? Do you think they accidently bombed a 
funeral procession? Do you think their intelligence was so bad they 
didn't know it was a funeral procession? They killed 125 people at a 
funeral. They wounded 500. We wonder about why we have so much 
terrorism. Yes, maybe some hate us inherently, but some of it is 
blowback to policy.
  Do you think the people who died or the people who survived or the 
relatives of those who died in that funeral procession will ever forget 
it? They will remember it 100 years from now.
  The problem we face is that terrorism goes on and on as long as we 
keep supporting despots who treat their people like crap, who sentence 
them to beheading and crucifixion, who are starving their neighboring 
country, which is one of the poorest nations on the planet Earth.
  We are not getting better. We are not getting any closer to peace by 
supporting the Saudis. It is a huge mistake. The Girl of Qatif, a rape 
victim, was sentenced to prison and 70 lashes. Ali al Nimr, still on 
death row, was sentenced to beheading and crucifixion. Raif Badawi, who 
is he? I don't know much about him, but he is an outspoken blogger. He 
is somebody who writes his opinion and may have opinions that may not 
be orthodox. For that, the Saudis arrested him, and he is in jail for 
10 years, and he is sentenced to a thousand lashes.
  I don't think you can survive a thousand lashes, so the Saudis--in 
their great humanity--are dividing his treatment into 10 doses. He has 
already had 100 publicly applied. He has 900 more to go.
  Shouldn't we think a little bit about supplying arms to this country? 
If the human rights aspect of this is not enough, I think we should 
probably think about the region. There is a problem in the Middle East. 
There is conflict. Some of it goes very deep.
  Those who live in the Middle East member the Battle of Karbala in 680 
A.D., when a grandson of Muhammad and Khalifa came together and had a 
battle. They still remember, and they are still unhappy about a battle 
from 680 A.D.; they have long memories.
  I am reminded of what one Afghan told a reporter or a soldier 
recently. He said: You have all the watches, but we have all the time. 
They live there and have for centuries and will be there when we are 
gone. They have to fix their own problems. We can occasionally say that 
we are going to help some people destroy an evil empire or an evil 
group like ISIS, yes, but the people fighting--the people on the 
ground--need to be the people who live there. It cannot be foreigners, 
and it cannot be people whom they consider to be pagans or it is never 
going to work. Yet we are foolish if we do not look at the 
repercussions of what it means to sell arms to Saudi Arabia.

  How will Iran react?
  I was in a committee hearing the other day, and one of the Senators 
said: We do not care how Iran reacts. We do not care what it thinks.

[[Page S3418]]

  By golly, we ought to if we are going to put sanctions on them. 
Doesn't that mean we care enough that we are trying to modulate and 
change their behavior? The whole idea of sanctions means that we do 
care about what Iran thinks. It does not mean we agree with it, it does 
not mean we condone it, and it does not mean we say Iran is right. But, 
certainly, we do care about what it thinks. What do you think Iran 
thinks about supplying arms to Saudi Arabia? It thinks: We need more.
  Saudi arms alone are the third biggest in the world now. It is the 
United States, which is as big as the next 10 combined. Then, it is 
China. Then, it is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has these other gulf 
sheikhdoms, despots. They are all allies of ours. There are about five 
or six of them, and, altogether, they have eight times more weapons 
than Iran. So we are complaining--I think, justifiably so--because we 
worry about the mischief of Iran in the Middle East. We are complaining 
about that, and we want them to change their behavior.
  What do you think is the prime reason they create weapons and are 
creating the ballistic missiles?
  Some of it is because they fear our invasion, like in Iraq, but I 
think a great deal of why Iran develops weapons is its fear of Saudi 
Arabia. In fact, when you look back at Iraq and the whole weapons of 
mass destruction that never existed, one of the interesting stories is 
that--it may be a theory, but I think it has some evidence--Saddam 
Hussein pretended, valiantly, that he had weapons of mass destruction 
not to deter us but to deter Iran. Here is Saddam Hussein, sending all 
of these smoke signals up that he has weapons of mass destruction 
because he wants to keep Iran at bay.
  We think everything is about us, and we never acknowledge that maybe 
some of it is about the regional politics. When we give weapons or sell 
weapons to Saudi Arabia, there will be, for every action, a reaction. 
There will be significantly more pressure for Iran to come forward and 
have more weapons.
  What does it do to our ally Israel?
  There have been at least a few reports that say Israel believes that, 
every time we give a dollar to Saudi Arabia, they need to respond with 
a dollar and a half. There was a quote from one of their government 
ministers on this, which reads that he worries about their qualitative 
edge.
  I have a quote here from a colleague of mine--a friend of mine--who 
is a rabbi and a friend of the Constitution.
  Rabbi Nate Segal writes:

       While I understand the President's intentions, we must 
     proceed with great caution due to the challenges and the 
     history of the region. At this time, I don't see the benefits 
     of the arms deal for the United States or Israel.

  This is coming from someone who believes, with every fiber of his 
being, that Israel should be defended. He is worried that, by giving 
weapons to Saudi Arabia, it detracts from the qualitative edge that 
Israel currently has.
  Imagine what would happen if the Government of Saudi Arabia were 
overthrown. They have billions and billions of dollars of weapons. Many 
of these weapons are the most sophisticated weapons we have. Is there a 
chance that they could be overthrown? I don't know. They behead their 
citizens and crucify them. Do you think anybody who lives in Saudi 
Arabia might have some pent-up anger for the regime?
  William Wilberforce once said of slavery: ``In having heard all this, 
you can choose to look the other way, but you can never say that you 
didn't know.''
  I love that statement because so many people at the time of slavery 
looked away. They just said: It is something we do. It is part of our 
time. It is part of our age.
  So many people knew the horror of slavery. So many people knew the 
horror of what was happening to a people, and they looked away.
  I think, in having heard of the impending famine in Yemen, in having 
seen Ali, and in having heard of the impending famine, you can choose 
to look away. Many in this body will, today, choose to look away.
  They will say: Do you know what? Saudi Arabia gives us some benefit 
sometime, and we hate Iran more. So let's just give some more weapons 
to Saudi Arabia.
  They will be looking away from the human rights tragedy that is 
central to Saudi Arabia's whole being. They will be looking away from 
the fact that Saudi Arabia was supporting ISIS in the Syrian civil war. 
They will be looking away from the fact that the Saudi blockade is 
starving Yemeni children.
  Do you know what? I choose not to look away. Today I stand up for the 
thousands of civilians who are being killed in Yemen. Today I stand up 
for the millions of voiceless children in Yemen who will be killed by 
the Saudi blockade. Today I stand up for saying that we, the United 
States, should no longer be fueling the arms race in the Middle East. 
It has come to no good. The wars and the rage and the anger are 
thousands of years old. We will never get to the bottom of it. We 
should defend ourselves at all costs. We should be very careful as to 
whom is admitted into the country, and we should not get involved in 
every civil war in every misbegotten part of the planet.
  It is my hope and my prayer that enough Americans will wake up and 
say that we are tired of war, that we are tired of funding every war on 
the globe, and that we are tired of sacrificing our young in every 
civil war.
  Today this will be a bipartisan vote. There will be a large 
contingent from the other side of the aisle and a small contingent from 
this side. This is important. This is a rare day in Senate history, 
when we actually have the chance to stop an evil, but we will stop this 
evil by sending a loud message to the President and a loud message to 
Saudi Arabia that we are not going to blindly support the arms race.
  We are not going to be blind to your human rights transgressions, and 
we are not going to blindly give you weapons in the face of beheading 
your citizens and crucifying them.
  Today I take a stand for those who do not have a voice, and I hope 
the Senate will think long and hard and will vote against this arms 
sale to Saudi Arabia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I support 
the position from the Senator from Kentucky. I believe that what he has 
said about the situation between the United States and Saudi Arabia is 
timely and needs to be heard. People across the United States and 
around the world should be aware of the fact that we are witnessing 
four famines across this world. One of them is in Yemen, and three 
others are on the continent of Africa. This is a famine that is created 
not by drought, not by national defense, but by human disaster--by a 
war that has been created and is one that has been pushed largely by 
the Saudis at the expense of the people--the innocent people--who live 
in the country of Yemen.
  What the Senator from Kentucky is basically calling on all of us to 
do is to ask: What role is the United States playing in Saudi Arabia's 
aggressive activities? Should we be more vigilant in our knowing that 
what we are selling them is being used in ways that are inconsistent 
with the values of the United States of America? We know the record of 
the Saudi monarchy when it comes to human rights, and the Senator from 
Kentucky has spoken to that quite eloquently. We know what they have 
done to their own people, to the people who live in their country, and 
to those who seek to have the basic freedoms that we take for granted 
in America.
  We also know that, when it comes to the Saudi activity of promoting 
their version--the most extreme version--of Islam, they have been 
guilty of promulgating Wahhabism, which has led to extreme forms of the 
Muslim faith in some places in the world. Those are realities.
  We know the reality of 9/11. When we traced the origins of those who 
came and killed 3,000 innocent Americans, too many roads led back to 
Riyadh; too many roads led back to Saudi Arabia. So why can't we be 
more open and honest in our relationship with this country?
  The Senator from Kentucky has told us this morning that the amendment 
that will be offered shortly by him and by Senator Murphy is one that 
calls on the Senate to take an honest look at Saudi Arabia today and 
its relationship with the United States.

[[Page S3419]]

  May I add one other element on a personal basis?
  It is so rare on the floor of the Senate to see what we have just 
seen this morning--a proposal for an amendment to be debated and an 
amendment to be voted on on the floor of the Senate. I can count on one 
hand how many times that has happened this year in the Senate. What 
used to be the most deliberative body in America--the great debating 
society and so forth--has turned into a place of rubberstamps and 
unanimous consents. I am glad--win or lose in our effort here on this 
amendment--that the Senator is bringing this important issue to the 
floor. I thank him for making it a bipartisan effort in the process.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. President, what I have come to the floor to speak to is another 
issue that really calls on the Senate and asks the basic question: Why 
are we here?
  I think we know that we were elected to make America a better nation 
and to help families across this Nation realize the great opportunity 
and goodness of this Nation.
  One of the issues that most people worry about the most in their 
daily lives is healthcare. They should. Many times, I have said on the 
floor that, if you have ever been in a position in your life as a 
father of a seriously sick child and have had no health insurance when 
that has happened, you will never forget that as long as you live. I 
know. I have been there. I went through a period of time with my wife, 
in raising our daughter, when she needed the best medical care in 
America, and we did not have any health insurance. It was frightening 
to think what would happen to our little girl because we did not have 
the protection of health insurance and the quality care that everybody 
wants for themselves and for the people they love.
  At this moment in time, we are in a debate about the future of 
healthcare in America--the future of health insurance in America. I 
cannot think of a more serious topic. People say: Well, it is one-sixth 
of the American economy--our healthcare system. That is critically 
important. Even more so, this is such a personal matter for every 
individual.
  The Affordable Care Act, which was passed 6 or 7 years ago, I was 
proud to vote for. We couldn't get any support from the other side of 
the aisle--not one single vote, not one Republican vote in support of 
it. Our goal, of course, with the Affordable Care Act was to reduce the 
number of Americans who were uninsured when it came to health 
insurance. We achieved a major part of our goal. The rate of uninsured 
in health insurance in America was cut in half by the Affordable Care 
Act. We expanded opportunities for health insurance through the 
Medicaid Program, as well as through private insurance exchanges, which 
were moved in the right direction.
  We also said something else in that we wanted to build into the 
health insurance system of America protections for families. We wanted 
to make sure that you could not be discriminated against in buying 
health insurance simply because someone in your family had been sick. 
Think of how many of us--one out of three, I might add--have 
preexisting conditions or of someone in our family who has a 
preexisting condition. It happens--a child surviving cancer, a child 
with diabetes, somebody in the family who has a heart condition. Those 
are the realities of life for families across America.
  Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance 
companies could say not only no to you but, really, no when it came to 
coverage, or they could charge you premiums that were way beyond what 
people could afford to pay. We eliminated that in the Affordable Care 
Act--eliminated it. You cannot discriminate against an American on the 
basis of his having a preexisting medical condition.
  The insurance companies went wild in defining what a preexisting 
condition was that might raise your premiums or to deny you coverage. 
Having had acne in your adolescence was a preexisting condition. The 
fact that you were a woman who might give birth to a child was a 
preexisting condition. The list went on and on. We eliminated that and 
said that you cannot discriminate against Americans because of those 
things.
  We have people on the other side who have said that we have to get 
rid of that protection. If we do, what will happen to all of these 
people?
  On Saturday, I went to a march in Chicago, in Lincoln Park. It was 
the Children's Heart Foundation and the congenital heart defect 
alliance. Of course, it speaks for itself. The No. 1 birth defect among 
children in America is a heart defect, and 1 out of 100 babies born has 
a heart problem. These are kids with preexisting conditions. You should 
have seen the families show up in big, big numbers, supporting little 
kids--some of them just babies. They were proudly wearing T-shirts, 
standing up, and saying that we are going to fight for this little boy 
or little girl. They were trying to promote medical research to save 
their lives.
  It is something that really touched me as I looked at 600 people on 
that hot Saturday afternoon, marching in Lincoln Park in Chicago. I 
said to them: When it gets down to the basics in life, the most 
important thing in your life is your baby. The next most important 
thing is your family, whom you have standing behind that baby. Then 
there is the doctor--that doctor whom you are counting on to do 
everything in his power or her power to make sure your baby 
survives. But you need to bring into this conversation another group--
politicians, Senators, and Congressmen--because we are making decisions 
right here in Washington that will decide whether the families who 
marched in Lincoln Park in Chicago on Saturday and families like them 
all across America will have access to affordable health insurance, 
real health insurance that will cover them. That is what the debate is 
about.

  It was just a few weeks ago that the House of Representatives passed 
a measure to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to replace it. At the 
end of the day, not a single Democrat voted for the measure. It passed 
by two votes--two votes--in the House of Representatives.
  When they came back and analyzed what the Republicans had voted for 
in the House of Representatives when it came to healthcare, here is 
what they found: Their proposal to eliminate the Affordable Care Act--
the one that passed the House of Representatives several weeks ago--
according to the Congressional Budget Office--a nonpartisan, expert 
group--according to the CBO, 23 million Americans will lose their 
health insurance under the plan that passed the House of 
Representatives. In my State of Illinois, with 12.5 million people in 
our population, 1 million people would lose their health insurance.
  I will just tell my colleagues, I don't see how any Member of 
Congress can stand before us and say: I have a great solution for 
healthcare in America. We are going to take health insurance away from 
23 million people. But that is what the vote did. And their vote, 
sadly, eliminated the protection against discrimination because of 
preexisting conditions.
  So what has been the reaction to the House repeal bill that was 
passed? I can tell my colleagues that in my State there is not a single 
group, not one medical advocacy group, who supports what the House of 
Representatives did.
  I am from downstate Illinois, outside the city of Chicago. I have a 
congressional district down there in smalltown America, great people. 
If you went into that part of Illinois and said to them ``I am going to 
vote for a measure that is going to put in jeopardy the future of your 
local hospital,'' the people would literally rise up to resist it.
  The Illinois Hospital Association tells us that the Affordable Care 
Act repeal passed by the House of Representatives endangers hospital 
services all across our State but especially in small towns and in 
rural America. They estimate that we are going to lose 60,000 jobs at 
these hospitals in our State. I can tell you what those hospital jobs 
are in smalltown America, in rural America. They are the best jobs in 
the community. These are medical experts, doctors and nurses and 
supervisors and administrators who keep these hospitals operating, and 
they are paid well to do it, and they should be. Those are the jobs at 
risk of being eliminated by the vote in the House of Representatives.
  One million people in our State could lose health insurance, and our 
hospitals are threatened with closure.

[[Page S3420]]

That is why the Illinois Hospital Association opposes what the 
Republicans did in the House of Representatives, and that is why the 
Illinois State Medical Society--our doctors--and the Chicago Medical 
Society have come out against what happened in the House of 
Representatives. That is why the nurses have opposed what was passed in 
the House of Representatives as well. Not a single medical advocacy 
group supports what happened in the House of Representatives. Not one 
in my State. Can't find one of them.
  So now we remember from basic civics that after it passes the House, 
it is our turn in the Senate. What are we going to do with healthcare 
reform? Well, I wish I could tell you. We are told we are going to vote 
on it. Maybe as soon as 2 weeks from now, we will come to the floor and 
vote on changing the healthcare system of the United States of America.
  What is the proposal of the Republicans in the Senate when it comes 
to the future of our healthcare system in America? I don't know, and 
the reason I don't know is it is being done in secret. There have been 
no committee hearings, no opportunity to offer amendments. In fact, we 
haven't even seen the measure we are going to be asked to vote on in 2 
weeks.
  The Congressional Budget Office, which is supposed to analyze it, 
hasn't published any analysis of the Republican plan. Yet they are 
moving forward at a breakneck pace to have us vote on it, up or down, 
before we leave for the Fourth of July recess. It is a frightening 
prospect.
  They will do it under what is known as reconciliation. I won't bore 
people with Senate procedure, but what it basically means is they can 
move it through with a simple majority vote in the U.S. Senate. 
Amendments will be considered on what they call a vote-arama basis. And 
if it sounds like some kind of a game, it is almost a game. You offer 
an amendment and you get perhaps 1 minute to explain your amendment on 
changing healthcare in America, and the other side gets 1 minute to 
explain their opposition, and off you go to a vote and then another one 
and another one. Your head is spinning, trying to figure out what in 
the world each of these amendments and each of these votes is going to 
mean. Those are the measures to be taken by the Senate when it comes to 
healthcare.
  This is exactly the opposite of what happened when the Affordable 
Care Act was passed. We adopted 160 Republican amendments to the 
Affordable Care Act. None of them voted for final passage, but 160 
amendments were offered by Republicans to change it, and they were 
adopted. It was a bipartisan process on the amendments.
  How many amendments will we be able to offer to the Republican Senate 
proposal that is going to come before us in 2 weeks? The answer is that 
we don't know because we have never seen the Republican proposal. It 
has been done in secret. Thirteen Republican Senators were chosen by 
the majority leader to sit in private and come up with this bill. There 
was no open committee hearing, no open discussion. Some Republicans 
were invited in, and some were not. We don't know what the ultimate 
product will look like, but I can tell you this: Whatever the 
Republican Senators come up with, it is going to have a dramatic impact 
on each and every single American, every one of us in our communities 
back home.
  I know this idea of repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2 weeks is a 
solemn political promise that many Republicans made, but they also made 
a promise to the people they represent to do what they can to help 
these families through their difficult times. That is why we need to 
make sure the product that is passed by the Republicans in the Senate 
is one that serves the needs of people across the United States of 
America.
  If this product coming from the Republicans is like the House measure 
that takes away health insurance for 23 million Americans, then I can 
understand why the Republicans want to do this in secret. I can 
understand why they don't want us to see it until the very last minute 
and then vote on it and get out of town as fast as they can, because it 
is an embarrassment to think that the U.S. Senate and the House, for 
that matter, would vote to take away health insurance from 23 million 
Americans. That is a dereliction of duty, and from where I am sitting, 
it is just flat immoral to take away health insurance from that many 
people.
  What if we end up with a product like the House of Representatives' 
that jeopardizes rural hospitals and hospitals in the inner cities, 
that closes down these community healthcare clinics, reduces access. 
Well, I will tell you what will happen. People without health insurance 
will still show up at the hospital sick, in the emergency room, and 
they will still be treated, but they won't be able to pay for it. Who 
will pay for their care? We will pay for their care. Everyone else with 
health insurance will pay more because people who are uninsured will 
receive free medical care. That is the reality. And, of course, if you 
don't have a regular doctor or a regular medical home, as they call it 
these days, what started off as a minor problem could turn into a major 
problem, even life-threatening. That is why the Affordable Care Act 
builds into it community healthcare clinics and opportunities to create 
a medical home.
  When I met with the Chicago Medical Society at a convention they had 
in Chicago this last week, I was surprised by a few things. First, I 
was surprised to learn that out of the 5,000 physicians in the Chicago 
Medical Society, they received responses back from over 1,000 who said 
they thought the measure that passed the House of Representatives--the 
Republican repeal bill--was the worst news they had heard when it came 
to the future of healthcare. They preferred the Affordable Care Act. 
But they went on to say something that may surprise people. These 
doctors--over 1,000 of them responding to the survey--said they thought 
it was time for us to talk about very significant changes to our 
healthcare system in America. They are tired of fighting the private 
insurance companies. What they suggested is that we look at a plan like 
Medicare for all.
  Right now, Medicare serves 50 million or 60 million Americans. People 
can't wait to turn 65 and finally qualify for Medicare, with no 
exclusions for preexisting conditions, and they know that Medicare is 
going to give them quality care, and it is not going to bankrupt them 
as individuals.
  These doctors in the Chicago area have said it is now time for 
America to seriously look at Medicare for all, and I agree with them. I 
think it is time to look at it because the private health insurance 
system, even as we have tried to save it, salvage it, remake it through 
the Affordable Care Act, has real shortcomings.
  I hope those on the other side who are considering changes in our 
healthcare system will actually listen to doctors, listen to hospital 
administrators, and listen to the families they represent. Why they are 
doing this in secrecy, why they are refusing to give us a chance for 
committee hearings and amendments I can't tell you, other than the 
obvious: Clearly, what they have come up with is something they don't 
believe the American people will accept, so they need to push it 
through without disclosure at the last minute and get out of town in 
the hopes that people won't blame them.
  Well, when it comes to healthcare, people don't forget. I won't 
forget, and the people of Illinois won't forget the votes that were 
cast in the House of Representatives which threaten to take away health 
insurance from 1 million people in my State.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from Illinois for his comments. Certainly we hear those same things in 
town meetings in Vermont.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. President, on another matter, this afternoon, Attorney General 
Sessions will return to the Senate for the first time since his 
confirmation hearing. It has been more than 3 months since the press 
revealed that the Attorney General gave false testimony in response to 
questions from both myself and from Senator Franken about his contact 
with Russian officials; yet the Attorney General has made no effort to 
come back before the Judiciary Committee to explain these actions--
actions that some could construe as perjury.

[[Page S3421]]

  There are now countless new and troubling questions swirling around 
the Attorney General. In fact, he was scheduled to appear before the 
Appropriations Committee this morning--a committee that would have to 
vote on his request for a budget--but, for the second time in as many 
months, he abruptly canceled. Neither I nor Senator Franken sit on the 
Intelligence Committee, so we are not going to have the opportunity to 
follow up with the Attorney General in person. I am not going to be 
able to ask him why he hid his contacts with the Russian Ambassador, 
including a reported third meeting at the Mayflower Hotel, nor will I 
be able to ask about the timing of his recusal or his involvement with 
the Russia investigation both before his recusal and after. I will not 
be able to ask whether the President ever suggested he intervene in the 
Russia investigation in any way. And especially I will not be able to 
ask how the Attorney General can justify violating his recusal from the 
Russia investigation by working to fire its lead investigator.
  The American people deserve answers to each of these questions--not 
only answers, they deserve truthful answers. That is why I shared my 
questions for Attorney General Sessions on these topics. But I also 
shared them with members of the Intelligence Committee.
  So, at least, on the plus side, Attorney General Sessions will 
finally face some serious questions, but I am still concerned he is not 
going to be the most forthcoming witness. We saw last week that Trump 
administration officials have invented a brand new claim of privilege 
to insulate themselves from congressional oversight--and to protect 
themselves from giving answers that would be embarrassing or damaging 
to the President.
  I asked the Congressional Research Service to provide me with a list 
of valid reasons to refuse to answer a question from a Senator. There 
is executive privilege, of course, but it has to be invoked by the 
President, and it is not absolute. Of course, there are also 
constitutional privileges, such as the Fifth Amendment right to not 
incriminate oneself. Even in my days as prosecutor, I strongly 
protected the rights of people, no matter what crime they were charged 
with, to take the Fifth Amendment if they wanted to, but there is no 
``I would rather not answer'' privilege. That is not in the Fifth 
Amendment. That is not an executive privilege. Unless it necessarily 
involves disclosing classified information, the answer ``I would rather 
discuss this behind closed doors'' is not a valid response either. That 
is really not a valid response. That is just trying to get out of 
answering questions.

  The Attorney General's spokesperson said yesterday that Attorney 
General Sessions ``believes it is important for the American people to 
hear the truth directly from him and [he] looks forward to answering 
the committee's questions.'' Yet it was also reported yesterday he 
plans to invoke executive privilege in response to some inquiries. If 
true, the Attorney General is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
  I hope the Attorney General is not going to allow President Trump to 
follow the precedent of Richard Nixon and go down the path of invoking 
executive privilege to stop an inquiry into illegal or unethical 
conduct. These questions need to be answered. The American people 
deserve the truth. They deserve an Attorney General who is held 
accountable for his leadership of the Justice Department, not one who 
is embroiled in controversy and hides from the congressional committee 
of oversight jurisdiction of his Department.
  We must not lose sight of the fact that our democracy was attacked. 
It was attacked by a country that has no respect for us. If we do not 
take this seriously, we will be attacked again. We must know exactly 
how that happened so we can protect our democratic institutions and 
protect our country. This goes way beyond the Republican or the 
Democratic parties. That includes knowing whether members of the Trump 
campaign enabled Russian interference.
  Russia is not a friend. Just as they have tried to interfere with 
elections in some of the NATO countries in other parts of the world, we 
know they have tried to interfere with ours. The American people also 
deserve to know whether the President or his administration have 
attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation, knowing it was 
improper. Any such attempt would amount to obstruction of justice.
  Attorney General Sessions needs to answer critical questions today. 
He needs to answer for his leadership of the Justice Department in both 
the Senate Appropriations and the Judiciary Committees. He can keep 
ducking the questions, but sooner or later, the Attorney General must 
answer for his actions.
  We deserve to know whether he is acting in the public interest--which 
is what an Attorney General should do--or in Donald Trump's personal 
interest. If he cannot decide between those interests, if he cannot 
distinguish between the public's interests and Donald Trump's 
interests, well, he is not fit to serve as Attorney General.
  I pointed out, when Deputy Rosenstein came before the Appropriations 
Committee this morning, all the things the administration were cutting 
out of the budget--money for victims of crime, money to go after the 
opioid epidemic in this country, large cuts in the FBI. I could go on 
and on. However, there is one place they did put in money for more 
lawyers. They put in money for lawyers to work taking private property 
of people in Texas and Arizona and elsewhere to build this wall of the 
President's. So we will take out money for victims of crime or for 
fighting the opioid epidemic, but we will sure learn how to get money 
to hire private lawyers to go after people's private property along the 
Rio Grande to build a wall which will not really accomplish anything, 
other than to fulfill part of a campaign promise--a campaign promise to 
build a $40 billion wall. The other part, of course, was to have Mexico 
pay for it. The check is in the mail--very, very, very slow mail.
  I see--speaking of Attorneys General and people from Texas--my 
friend, the former attorney general of Texas, the distinguished senior 
Senator from Texas on the floor so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Vermont 
for his kind words. We do agree, occasionally, about a few things. We 
are, in some ways I think, the odd couple when it comes to things like 
open government and freedom of information. We agree on those things, 
somebody, I would say, from the left end of the political spectrum and 
somebody like me from the right end of the political spectrum, which I 
find particularly gratifying, but there are a lot of other things we 
have different views on. That is not unusual or to be unexpected, but I 
enjoy working with him when we can find those areas of common ground to 
work on.


                          Iran Sanctions Bill

  Mr. President, last night, the Senate voted to move forward with 
tough, new sanctions to hold Iran accountable for its continued support 
of terrorism. The unanimous vote we had is a strong message to the 
world that the United States will not tolerate Iran's complicity on 
terror and a clear indicator of just how important this legislation is.
  Just last month, Secretary of State Tillerson noted that ``Iran 
remains a leading state sponsor of terror.'' I would amend that 
slightly and say it is ``the'' leading state sponsor of terror.
  The Secretary said he would be undertaking a review of the success or 
failure of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action--what we know as the 
lopsided nuclear deal President Obama inked with Iran--because, 
unfortunately, as we have seen, the Obama administration's deal, 
relative to Iran's nuclear aspirations, did zero--zero--to stop Iran's 
investment in terrorism around the world. As a matter of fact, it 
generated quite a bit of new cash which Iran could use to pay for acts 
of terrorism around the world. So the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, all 
but cemented the status of the state sponsor of terrorism as a future 
nuclear power.
  I remember being in the House Chamber when Prime Minister Netanyahu 
of Israel talked about this paving the way to Iran achieving a nuclear 
weapon, albeit some 10 years hence, which may seem like a long time to 
us, but if you are the nation of Israel, 10 years is right around the 
corner if you are living in that neighborhood and going to be in its 
crosshairs.

[[Page S3422]]

  Part of the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, released billions of 
dollars to the Iranian regime and empowered our adversary--our avowed 
enemy--to engage in even more terrorist activities abroad. Instead of 
weakening Iran, it actually bolstered Tehran's hostile capabilities. On 
top of that, President Obama pushed aside our strongest ally in the 
region--I mentioned Israel--in order to lay a gift at the feet of one 
of greatest antagonists of the United States, with little or no benefit 
to our Nation. That is why it is no surprise Iran continues to violate 
international restrictions against ballistic missile testing and 
illicit arms transfers, flying in the face of any promises that were 
made in the agreement.
  Last year, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper 
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, confirming what 
we had all feared: ``Iran's ballistic missiles are inherently capable 
of delivering [weapons of mass destruction], and Tehran already has the 
largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East.''
  Under President Obama's nuclear deal, their conventional inventory 
and capability are essentially free to grow, and grow they have.
  So what kind of deal was the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal? It was a 
lopsided deal. More importantly, it was a dangerous deal as well.
  Of course, Iran's reach goes far beyond their own border. They 
support the Assad regime in Syria and the Houthi rebellion in Yemen, 
two groups which have continually encouraged violence against Americans 
and even murder of their own citizens.
  Last month, on his way to Saudi Arabia, Secretary of Defense James 
Mattis confirmed that Iranian-supplied missiles were being fired by the 
Houthis into Saudi Arabia. So not only is Iran breaking the nuclear 
deal but also U.N. Security Council resolutions as well.
  In Syria, Iran continues to prop up and shield the Butcher of 
Damascus, Bashar al-Assad, even after he has brutally used chemical 
weapons against his own people. Some 400,000 Syrians, at last count, 
have lost their lives in the Syrian civil war, supported by Iran, 
supported by Russia, propping up this butcher who is head of the 
regime.
  So last night's show of bipartisan support is more than just a 
message of unity against terrorism; it is a sign the Senate will fight 
to stop Iran from tightening its grip on power. The legislation we will 
pass this week introduces new sanctions and embargoes on Iran.
  First, it imposes new restrictions on persons who transact with and 
support Iran's ballistic missile programs, giving our President 
authority to impose sanctions on their weapons providers.
  The legislation also makes clear that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard 
Corps bears responsibility for destabilizing activities and terrorism 
in the region by extending new sanctions to them as well.
  This bill also addresses Iran's human rights abuses by directing the 
Secretary of State to submit a list of people who are guilty of human 
rights violations so we can take further action against them.
  Lastly, it reaffirms the arms embargo by allowing the President to 
block the property of any person or entity involved in the supply, 
sale, or transfer of prohibited arms and related materiel to and from 
Iran.
  I also submitted yesterday an amendment to this Iranian sanctions 
legislation that targets Mahan Air, which is Iran's largest commercial 
airline. As a transporter of terrorists and weapons, Mahan Air is 
nothing more than a commercial coverup for terrorist activities, and, 
with routes in and out of Europe, it is essential for us to stop their 
continued expansion and to understand how their activities bear on the 
safety of American lives.
  I am thankful for Chairman Corker's leadership on the Iran and now 
Russia sanctions bill, and the expediency in which we are moving 
forward. While we can't, in this bill, undo all of the harm caused by 
the foreign policy of the Obama administration, we can work to correct 
course, and I am glad we are doing so in a bipartisan way. Last night's 
vote was a sign of unity, and I am looking forward to getting this 
legislation through the Senate and onto the President's desk.
  Mr. President, I wish to take a moment and talk about the Saudi arms 
sale, which we will be voting on this afternoon at about 2:30 or in 
that timeframe. We know Saudi Arabia remains under threat from the 
violent ambitions of Iran, which I just got through speaking about, but 
that is not just a threat to us, it is a threat in the region, 
particularly to Sunni allies like Saudi Arabia.
  A stronger Saudi Arabia will provide a powerful deterrent to Iranian 
aggression. This particular sale of weapons, announced by the President 
when he was in Saudi Arabia a couple weeks ago, will help provide 
greater regional stability to pushing back the advancing tide of 
Iranian-backed terrorism. It will help against Iranian-backed Houthis' 
weak government control, which allows terrorism to flourish in the 
region.
  Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has been described by U.S. 
officials as the most active and dangerous affiliate of al-Qaida today, 
with several thousands of adherents and fighters inside of Yemen 
supported by the Iranian regime. AQAP, al-Qaida in the Arabian 
Peninsula, has continued to take advantage of the political and 
security vacuum. This arms sale will also bolster the kingdom's ability 
to provide for its own security and continue contributing to 
counterterrorism operations across the region, thereby reducing the 
burden on the United States and our own military forces by equipping 
them to do their own security and not depend on us.

  The sale will also help deter regional threats and enhance the 
kingdom's ability to protect its borders, contribute to coalition 
counterterrorism operations, and target bad actors more precisely.
  Finally, it will improve the kingdom's defensive military 
capabilities. Since 2015, Saudi Arabia has intercepted more than 40 
missiles fired at the kingdom by Iranian-backed Houthi militias. Nine 
of these missiles have struck Saudi territory itself.
  I look forward to voting in the 2:30 timeframe this afternoon against 
the resolution of disapproval filed by our colleague. I think it is 
important for us to help our allies defend themselves, to fill a power 
vacuum left that would otherwise be filled by U.S. forces and military 
effort.
  I think it sends a strong message to Iran and their affiliates in the 
Middle East that we will not stand quietly or stand silently in the 
face of the continued growth of their terrorist activities and support 
for terrorist activities around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to express 
my support for S.J. Res. 42 and my opposition to the transfer of 
specific defense articles to the Government of Saudi Arabia. I have 
arrived at this decision after extensive research and careful 
deliberation. I would like to state very clearly for the record why I 
have come to this decision. I have decided to support S.J. Res. 42 and 
oppose the transfer of specific defense articles to Saudi Arabia 
primarily because of the Saudi Government's refusal to take specific 
steps that I repeatedly requested to alleviate the horrible 
humanitarian suffering in Yemen.
  Before I further explain that decision, I would like to explain what 
is not informing my decision. I am not reflexively opposed to arms 
sales in general or to Saudi Arabia specifically. On the contrary, 
after a series of questions are satisfactorily addressed, I believe arm 
sales to key partners and allies can enable them to more effectively 
defend our common interests and oppose common threats. After all, the 
United States cannot and should not employ U.S. military forces in 
every instance. When the United States and our partners confront common 
threats, we should encourage and empower regional allies and regional 
partners to play prominent roles wherever possible. When our partners 
are defending our common interests, we want them to be as well-equipped 
and well-trained and effective as possible.

[[Page S3423]]

  I recognize that despite our differences, the Saudi Government is an 
important regional security partner for the United States of America. 
However, when we work through our allies and partners, we shouldn't set 
aside our national security interests, and we certainly shouldn't set 
aside our support for universal humanitarian principles. That principle 
certainly applies to the Saudis and to the situation in Yemen.
  My decision today is based neither on an opposition to arms sales in 
general nor an opposition to arms sales to the Saudis in particular. 
Instead, my decision today is based primarily on the persistent and 
misguided refusal of the Saudi Government to take specific steps that I 
have requested to alleviate some of the humanitarian suffering in 
Yemen.
  My decision should come as a surprise to no one. As I have said on 
the Senate floor before, the United Nations calls the situation in 
Yemen the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. According to the 
U.N.--which, incidentally, our intelligence resources rely on for much 
of their information--Yemen has almost 19 million people. Two-thirds of 
the population is in need of humanitarian or protection assistance, 
including approximately 10 million who require immediate assistance to 
save or sustain their lives--two-thirds of their population. If that is 
not a recipe for instability in a dangerous region of the world, I 
don't know what is. So 17 million people are food-insecure, while 7 
million people don't know where their next meal is coming from, and 
they are at risk of famine.
  In addition, according to the U.N. as of yesterday, the World Health 
Organization reports a cumulative total of over 124,000 suspected cases 
of cholera and over 900 associated deaths. Cholera is impacting the 
most vulnerable. In fact, children under the age of 15 account for 28 
percent of all deaths.
  The situation is growing far worse. An NGO with personnel on the 
ground in Yemen tells my office that the large majority of these 
cholera cases have taken place since late April. Perhaps the most 
heartbreaking statistic is that a child under the age of 5 dies of 
preventable causes every 10 minutes in Yemen.
  Throughout this process, rather than just mourning this terrible 
situation, I have tried to identify tangible steps that can save lives, 
that can lead to a political settlement in Yemen, and that can enhance 
both regional and national security interests of the United States. In 
the case of Yemen, it became clear quickly that there were specific 
steps the Saudis could take to help alleviate the horrible humanitarian 
situation in Yemen.
  Based on that realization back in April--April 27, I led a nine-
member, bipartisan letter to the incoming Saudi Ambassador, noting the 
important security partnership between the United States and the 
Government of Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia's role as a regional 
leader. I asked Riyadh to take some specific steps related to Yemen 
that would prevent thousands or even millions of additional people from 
dying there. Among several requests, I asked the Saudis to permit the 
delivery of U.S.-funded cranes to the Port of Hodeidah that would 
dramatically improve the ability to offload humanitarian supplies 
there. That is important because the Port of Hodeidah processes roughly 
70 to 80 percent of all of the food and other critical imports that 
come into the country of Yemen. This is the port that supplies people 
who are in the most desperate need of food and medical attention.
  I also asked Riyadh to address unnecessary additional delays that the 
Saudi-led coalition was causing for humanitarian and commercial 
supplies going into that port. Not receiving a satisfactory response, I 
subsequently raised these issues directly with the Saudi Foreign 
Minister when he met with me and other Senators here on Capitol Hill. 
Still not receiving a satisfactory answer, we have continued to raise 
these requests repeatedly with the Saudi Embassy. As recently as 
yesterday, the Saudis have refused to be responsive on the cranes. 
Further, in the face of clear evidence from the United Nations to the 
contrary, the Saudis have even denied a role in causing delays of 
humanitarian and commercial shipments into Yemen. So for almost 2 
months, the Saudis have failed to take my requests seriously.
  For those who are new to this issue, perhaps this discussion of 
cranes and delays at ports seems a bit wonkish--maybe in the weeds. Yet 
in a humanitarian situation as dire as Yemen--with a child under 5 
dying of preventable diseases every 10 minutes--every shipment of food 
or fuel, every day of delay can have life-and-death implications. The 
Saudis know this, yet they have been unresponsive to my requests.
  There is no doubt that the Iranians and the Houthis are up to no good 
in Yemen. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia has the right to defend 
its borders, and there is also no doubt that this situation in Yemen is 
complex. But it is a false choice to suggest that we have to choose 
between opposing Iran and helping the millions of suffering people in 
Yemen. I believe we have a moral responsibility and a national security 
imperative to do all we can to help the people in Yemen who are 
starving, who need medicine, who are dying.
  The longer this war in Yemen continues, the more we will drive the 
Houthis into the arms of the Iranians. The more leverage the Iranians 
and the Russians will gain in Yemen, the more terrorist groups like al-
Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula will thrive.
  Perhaps the Saudi Government isn't concerned about my vote. Perhaps 
they think this issue will just blow over, that attention will wane, 
that Senators will lose interest. I recognize I am just one Senator 
with just one vote, but I would caution the Saudi Government against 
such a view. I am not going to be losing interest in this issue anytime 
soon.
  To the Saudis I say this: When I make a request and your government 
is unresponsive--at least as far as I am concerned--there will be 
consequences for that decision. My vote demonstrates that fact.
  To my colleagues, I respectfully say that America's support should 
never be unconditional. It is in our interests and it is consistent 
with the humanitarian values that we profess to demand that the Saudis 
take some of these steps to alleviate humanitarian suffering in 
Yemen. For this reason, I am going to vote in support of S.J. Res. 42 
today, and I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to do the 
same.

  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Murphy-
Paul-Franken resolution of disapproval and to outline my concerns about 
the unfettered sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi-led war in Yemen 
has created a humanitarian disaster in one of the region's poorest 
countries. Many thousands of civilians have been killed, many more made 
homeless, and millions are at risk of starvation, according to the 
United Nations refugee agency. The chaos in Yemen has also been 
strategically disastrous for the United States, providing fertile 
ground for extremist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS and creating new 
opportunities for Iranian intervention.
  In addition to being morally indefensible and strategically 
shortsighted, the Trump administration's unconditional support for the 
Saudi coalition, including billions of dollars in arms sales, risks 
dragging the United States into yet another war in the Middle East.
  These are the reasons I strongly support the resolution of 
disapproval offered by my colleagues and their effort to block some of 
these arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
  I also think it is long past time that we begin to take a very hard 
look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia. This is a country that is 
run by a hereditary monarchy in which women are treated as third-class 
citizens.
  I would like to mention for a moment the case of Loujain Alhathloul, 
a Saudi Arabian human rights activist who was arrested at King Fahd 
International Airport on June 4. She has been an advocate for women's 
rights in Saudi Arabia.
  In 2014, she was arrested for defying the country's ban--are you 
ready for this--on women drivers and imprisoned for 73 days.
  In 2015, she ran as a candidate in a local council election--the 
third in the nation's modern history and the first in which women were 
allowed to both

[[Page S3424]]

vote and run--even though her name was never added to the ballot.
  More recently, Alhathloul criticized a Saudi Government-sponsored 
women's empowerment summit, which was attended by Ivanka Trump, for its 
lack of inclusiveness.
  While she has now been released from jail--and I am very glad to hear 
that--this is no way to treat a peaceful dissident. The human rights 
organization Amnesty International reported that during her detention, 
Alhathloul was not allowed access to an attorney, nor was allowed to 
speak to her family.
  Finally and perhaps more significantly, it is important that here on 
the floor of the Senate, we begin to discuss the decades-long effort by 
Saudi Arabia to export an ultra-reactionary form of Islam throughout 
the world.
  A recent piece in the Boston Globe by Stephen Kinzer, a journalist 
who has covered the Middle East for many years--Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent to have his article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Boston Globe, June 11, 2017]

                Saudi Arabia Is Destabilizing the World

                          (By Stephen Kinzer)

       Just a few months ago, the governor of Indonesia's largest 
     city, Jakarta, seemed headed for easy reelection despite the 
     fact that he is a Christian in a mostly Muslim country. 
     Suddenly everything went violently wrong. Using the pretext 
     of an offhand remark the governor made about the Koran, 
     masses of enraged Muslims took to the streets to denounce 
     him. In short order he lost the election, was arrested, 
     charged with blasphemy, and sentenced to two years in prison.
       This episode is especially alarming because Indonesia, the 
     world's largest Muslim country, has long been one of its most 
     tolerant. Indonesian Islam, like most belief systems on that 
     vast archipelago, is syncretic, gentle, and open-minded. The 
     stunning fall of Jakarta's governor reflects the opposite: 
     intolerance, sectarian hatred, and contempt for democracy. 
     Fundamentalism is surging in Indonesia. This did not happen 
     naturally.
       Saudi Arabia has been working for decades to pull Indonesia 
     away from moderate Islam and toward the austere Wahhabi form 
     that is state religion in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis' campaign 
     has been patient, multi-faceted, and lavishly financed. It 
     mirrors others they have waged in Muslim countries across 
     Asia and Africa.
       Successive American presidents have assured us that Saudi 
     Arabia is our friend and wishes us well. Yet we know that 
     Osama bin Laden and most of his 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, 
     and that, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a 
     diplomatic cable eight years ago, ``Donors in Saudi Arabia 
     constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni 
     terrorist groups worldwide.''
       Recent events in Indonesia shine a light on a Saudi project 
     that is even more pernicious than financing terrorists. Saudi 
     Arabia has used its wealth, much of which comes from the 
     United States, to turn entire nations into hotbeds of radical 
     Islam. By refusing to protest or even officially acknowledge 
     this far-reaching project, we finance our own assassins--and 
     global terror.
       The center of Saudi Arabia's campaign to convert 
     Indonesians to Wahhabi Islam is a tuition-free university in 
     Jakarta known by the acronym LIPIA. All instruction is in 
     Arabic, given mainly by preachers from Saudi Arabia and 
     nearby countries. Genders are kept apart; strict dress codes 
     are enforced; and music, television, and ``loud laughter'' 
     are forbidden. Students learn an ultraconservative form of 
     Islam that favors hand amputation for thieves, stoning for 
     adulterers, and death for gays and blasphemers.
       Many of the students come from the more than 100 boarding 
     schools Saudi Arabia supports in Indonesia, or have attended 
     one of the 150 mosques that Saudis have built there. The most 
     promising are given scholarships to study in Saudi Arabia, 
     from which they return fully prepared to wreak social, 
     political, and religious havoc in their homeland. Some 
     promote terror groups like Hamas Indonesia and the Islamic 
     Defenders Front, which did not exist before the Saudis 
     arrived.
       Eager to press his advantage, King Salman of Saudi Arabia 
     made a nine-day trip to Indonesia in March, accompanied by an 
     entourage of 1,500. The Saudis agreed to allow more than 
     200,000 Indonesians to make the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca each 
     year--more than come from any other country--and sought 
     permission to open new branches of their LIPIA university. 
     Some Indonesians are pushing back against the Saudi assault 
     on their traditional values, but it is difficult to deny 
     permission for new religious schools when the state is not 
     able to provide decent secular alternatives. In Indonesia, as 
     in other countries where the Saudis are actively promoting 
     Wahhabism--including Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bosnia--the 
     weakness and corruption of central governments create pools 
     of rootless unemployed who are easily seduced by the promises 
     of free food and a place in God's army.
       The surging fundamentalism that is transforming Indonesia 
     teaches several lessons. First is one that we should already 
     have learned, about the nature of the Saudi government. It is 
     an absolute monarchy supported by one of the world's most 
     reactionary religious sects. It gives clerics large sums to 
     promote their anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic 
     brand of religious militancy abroad. In exchange, the clerics 
     refrain from criticizing the Saudi monarchy or its thousands 
     of high-living princes. Saudis with close ties to the ruling 
     family give crucial support to groups like Al Qaeda, the 
     Taliban, and ISIS. This fact should be at the front of our 
     minds whenever we consider our policy toward the Middle 
     East--including when we decide whether to side with the 
     Saudis in their new dispute with neighboring Qatar.
       Saudi Arabia's success in reshaping Indonesia shows the 
     importance of the global battle over ideas. Many in 
     Washington consider spending for cultural and other ``soft 
     power'' projects to be wasteful. The Saudis feel differently. 
     They pour money and resources into promoting their world 
     view. We should do the same.
       The third lesson that today's Indonesia teaches is about 
     the vulnerability of democracy. In 1998 Indonesia's 
     repressive military dictatorship gave way to a new system, 
     based on free elections, that promised civil and political 
     rights for all. Radical preachers who would previously have 
     been imprisoned for whipping up religious hatred found 
     themselves free spread their poison. Democracy enables them 
     to forge giant mobs that demand death for apostates. Their 
     political parties campaign in democratic elections for the 
     right to come to power and crush democracy. This is a 
     sobering reality for those who believe that one political 
     system is best for all countries under all circumstances.
       The Saudi campaign to radicalize global Islam also shows 
     that earth-shaking events often happen slowly and quietly. 
     The press, focused intently on reporting today's news, often 
     misses deeper and more important stories. Historians of 
     journalism sometimes point to the northward ``great 
     migration'' of African-Americans after World War II as an 
     epochal story that few journalists noticed because it was a 
     slow process rather than one-day news event.
       The same is true of Saudi Arabia's long campaign to pull 
     the world's 1.8 billion Muslims back to the 7th century. We 
     barely notice it, but every day, from Mumbai to Manchester, 
     we feel its effects.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this article by Mr. Kinzer used the 
example--this is just one example--of Indonesia to demonstrate the 
incredibly negative impact Saudi financing has had in many places 
around the world.
  I will quote from his article:

       Saudi Arabia has been working for decades to pull Indonesia 
     away from moderate Islam and toward the austere Wahhabi form 
     that is state religion in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis' campaign 
     has been patient, multi-faceted, and lavishly financed. It 
     mirrors others they have waged in Muslim countries across 
     Asia and Africa.
       Successive American presidents have assured us that Saudi 
     Arabia is our friend and wishes us well. Yet we know that 
     Osama bin Laden and most of his 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, 
     and that, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a 
     diplomatic cable eight years ago, ``Donors in Saudi Arabia 
     constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni 
     terrorist groups worldwide.''
       Recent events in Indonesia shine a light on a Saudi project 
     that is even more pernicious than financing terrorists. Saudi 
     Arabia has used its wealth, much of which comes from the 
     United States, to turn entire nations into hotbeds of radical 
     Islam. By refusing to protest or even officially acknowledge 
     this far-reaching project, we finance our own assassins--and 
     global terror.

  That is the end of a quote from that excellent article from the 
Boston Globe.
  We all understand that there are times when we must work with 
problematic governments in order to advance our security goals, but for 
far too long, we have been giving a pass to a government in Saudi 
Arabia that supports ideas and policies that are fundamentally at odds 
with American values and that have led to extremely negative 
consequences for American security.
  I think the time has come for the Congress to take a very hard look 
at this relationship and assess whether it is actually serving the 
interests and values of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I take the floor to strenuously argue 
against

[[Page S3425]]

the proposition being pushed by Senators Paul, Murphy, and others to 
deny arms sales of about $500 million to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 
The package they are trying to exclude from the $110 billion arms deal 
is precision-guided munitions that would be used by the F-15s, a 
package of Joint Direct Attack Munitions, Paveway laser-guided bombs 
for Saudi Tornado and Typhoon aircraft. The bottom line is, the package 
we are talking about are precision weapons the Saudi Air Force and 
military could use in operations against Iran's proxy in Yemen and 
other threats that continue to plague us.
  The flaws of the Saudi Government are real. They are known to me. My 
friends on the other side, particularly Senator Paul, constantly put 
Saudi Arabia and Iran on the same footing. I think that is a very 
unwise analysis.
  To suggest that Saudi Arabia is as bad as Iran is just missing the 
point, big time. The Iranian bureaucracy is the most destabilizing 
force in the Mideast. They have aggressively pursued military action 
through proxies and have been directly involved in military actions in 
Syria. Iran's efforts to dominate Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and now Yemen 
have to be pushed back.
  Here is what Secretary Mattis said about this proposal when I asked 
him the question: How would Iran view passage of this proposal limiting 
precision-guided weapons to the Saudis by Congress? He stated: ``I 
believe Iran would be appreciative of us not selling these weapons to 
Saudi Arabia.''
  That is pretty direct. Iran would be really happy.
  On September 21, 2016, 71 U.S. Senators supported a tank sale to 
Saudi Arabia. The vote was 71 to 27. In other words, 71 U.S. Senators 
rejected Rand Paul's proposal to stop the sale of tanks. I would argue 
that a tank is not nearly as much of a precision weapon as the weapons 
we are talking about here to be given to the Saudi Air Force. If we are 
worried about collateral damage in Yemen, I understand the concern. 
Precision weapons would help that cause, not hurt it.
  We have to understand whom we are dealing with in Yemen. We are 
dealing with Iran. Saudi Arabia has a border with Yemen. The Iranians 
are backing a force called the Houthis to bring down a pro-Western 
government in Yemen. From a Saudi perspective, everywhere you look you 
see Iran encroaching throughout the Mideast.
  The bureaucracy in Iran is the biggest threat to the world order, and 
that is saying a lot, given the way the world is. I say that with 
confidence because what Iran is doing is trying to destabilize the 
Mideast in an unprecedented fashion. Our Arab allies are tired of it, 
and now is the time to stand with them--with their imperfections--
against Iran and their hostilities.
  This $500 million chunk of the $110 billion weapons sale is 
absolutely essential to the Saudi Air Force to get these weapons, not 
only to minimize casualties but to win the fight against the aggressive 
nature of Iran in Yemen and other places.
  I don't know where we are going with Iran, but the President has said 
the current nuclear deal is absolutely a terrible deal. He is right. 
This deal locks in a march toward a nuclear weapon by the Iranians if 
they don't cheat. They don't have to cheat. In 10 or 15 years, the 
agreement allows them to enrich and reprocess without limitation, so 
this deal has to be replaced.
  I hope we don't go to war with anyone, but if we go to war, I want 
allies that are capable to help us in the fight. We complain about our 
Arab allies not doing enough. When they want to do more, we say no to 
them. Guess what. No wonder people believe America is an unreliable 
partner. We say one thing and do another.
  To my Democratic colleagues: You were OK with voting to help 
President Obama increase the capability of the Saudi Army at a time 
when it was in our national security interest. What has changed between 
September 21 and today? What geopolitical situation has changed that 
all of a sudden Iran is no longer the threat they were in September of 
last year and Saudi Arabia is less reliable? Nothing, other than the 
election of Donald Trump. I have been a critic of Donald Trump--
President Trump--when I thought it was necessary for the good of the 
country, but all I can say is, this wholesale defection by Democrats 
really is disturbing. It is undermining, I think, our national security 
interests when it comes to containing Iran. It is sending the worst 
possible signal we could be sending to our Arab allies at a time when 
we need them the most. I don't question people's motives; I question 
their judgment.
  Here is my problem. I had no problem helping President Obama because 
I believe Saudi is the bulwark against Iranian expansion. Our allies in 
Saudi Arabia are imperfect, but they do share intelligence with us, 
they are in the fight, and we need to help them because it is in our 
interest to help them. You had absolutely no problem helping them when 
it was President Obama's idea. Everything Trump you seem to be against. 
That is absolutely disappointing, and quite frankly despicable.
  To my Republican colleagues: Rand Paul has been consistent. I respect 
his consistency. I just completely disagree with him. If you think 
containing Iran and keeping them from toppling Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and 
Lebanon is not in our national interest, you are making a huge mistake. 
The last thing we want is the Iranian Ayatollah to march through the 
Mideast and start spreading his form of radical Shi'ism in the 
backyards of all of our Arab allies.
  So I cannot urge this body more to reject this ill-conceived idea. It 
is $500 million out of a $110 billion package. It is the kind of 
weapons that will matter on the battlefield. It will lessen civilian 
casualties, which is a noble goal, and will also give capabilities to 
the Saudis to more effectively contain Iran that is marching through 
Yemen, through their proxies, the Houthis.
  General Mattis--Secretary Mattis has it right. Iran would be 
appreciative of our not selling those weapons to Saudi Arabia.
  We are going to sanction Iran this week, I hope, for what they have 
done outside of the nuclear agreement. Since the nuclear agreement was 
passed, they have humiliated our sailors. They captured them on the 
high seas and humiliated them. I don't remember Saudi Arabia doing 
that. They are test-firing missiles in the violation of a U.N. 
resolution that could destroy Israel and one day reach us and our 
allies throughout the Mideast and Europe. They are spreading their form 
of radical Shi'ism all through the world, all through the Mideast. The 
money they received from the Iranian nuclear deal is not going to build 
roads, bridges, and hospitals, it is increasing the lethality of the 
IRG and other Iranian combatant units.
  What we are trying to do and what President Trump is trying to do is 
give our allies the ability to contain the threat which is in our 
interest. Sanctioning Iran and denying Saudi Arabia the weapons they 
need to defend themselves and others against Iran is pretty 
inconsistent.
  There is a military necessity for these weapons. It will change the 
equation on the battlefield. It is in our interest that Iran lose this 
effort to take over Yemen and destabilize the Mideast at large. You 
have to remember that these are the same people--the Iranians--who 
built lethal IEDs and injected them into Iraq--IEDs that killed many, 
many American soldiers. This is the same regime that took over our 
Embassy years ago, humiliated our sailors, and chants ``death to 
America and Israel'' on a regular basis. Yet here we are, sitting as a 
legislative body, contemplating our not helping an ally who is willing 
to fight the threat that is posed by Iran in the Mideast. All I can say 
is that on September 21, 2016, almost every Democrat saw this as a good 
move to help Saudi Arabia.

  Now almost all of you are voting against an arms package that is more 
necessary today than it was in 2016. The only change is that we have a 
new President whom you hate.
  I was not a big fan of President Obama's, but when I thought it was 
right, I stood with him. President Trump is right to increase the 
capability of the Saudi military to deal with the Iranian aggression. 
There is no bigger threat to the Middle East and America, I believe, 
than this Iranian regime in the hands of an ayatollah who is really a 
religious Nazi.
  So I hope you will vote for what is best for America, which is to 
empower our allies to contain threats that we commonly enjoy. We enjoy 
the experience of being in the crosshairs of the

[[Page S3426]]

Ayatollah. They want to destroy the royal family in Saudi Arabia. They 
want to destroy Israel, and they want to destroy us. So the idea that 
we are not going to help an ally that is willing to fight is just 
inconceivable, and the idea that we are going to vote no for an arms 
package because Trump is President--and all of you over there voted yes 
before--is disappointing.
  To my Republican colleagues, if you really think Iran is a threat, do 
not vote with Senator Paul because you are sending the wrong signal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, while my friend's remarks on the motives 
of Democrats are fresh in people's minds, let me address this directly. 
There is a new President today, but there is a different policy, and 
that is what this resolution is about. Let me be very clear about what 
we are talking about today.
  Senator Graham would have you believe that we are about to vote on 
the entirety of the $110 billion in arms sales that was proposed--that 
was unveiled--by President Trump during his visit to Saudi Arabia. That 
is not the case. We are voting today on $500 million of that $110 
billion sale. You can still be friends with Saudi Arabia and sell it 
$109.5 billion worth of arms rather than $110 billion worth of arms. 
The specific set of arms that we are talking about--precision-guided 
munitions that are going to be used to perpetuate the Saudi bombing 
campaign in Yemen--was the specific set of weapons that the Obama 
administration refused to transfer to the Saudis at the end of 2016. We 
did not take a vote on this in 2016. We took a vote on a different arms 
sale.
  It is not simply that there is a new President and that Democrats are 
objecting to the arms sale that President Trump is moving forward with. 
It is that we have a new policy. This specific set of munitions that 
President Trump is asking us to consent to is one that President Obama 
would not sell. The policy is different, not just the personnel. Let's 
talk about why the policy is different.
  What is happening today in Yemen is a humanitarian catastrophe of 
epic proportions. There are four famines that exist in the world today. 
One of them is in Yemen, and only one of those four is caused, in part, 
by the United States. The United States supports the Saudi-led bombing 
campaign that has had the effect of causing a humanitarian nightmare to 
play out in that country such that 8 million people right now in Yemen 
are in starvation or are on the brink of starvation. Last week, we 
received word that 100,000 people in Yemen now have cholera. Cholera? 
All of this is directly a result of the civil war.
  The reason that the Obama administration decided not to transfer the 
precision-guided munitions to the Saudis is that the Saudis were using 
the weapons we were giving them in order to deliberately target 
humanitarian infrastructure and civilian infrastructure inside Yemen. 
The Saudis have made it pretty clear that time is on their side, that 
they can wait out the Yemeni population and drive it to the negotiating 
table. They suggest that this humanitarian catastrophe, ultimately, 
accrues to their benefit because it eventually will push the Houthis 
into supporting a better deal than they would have otherwise for the 
Saudis.
  Let me give you some direct evidence of how this bombing campaign is 
leading to the humanitarian crisis.
  This cholera outbreak, which has been covered in the news, began, in 
part, because the Saudi airstrikes were targeting water treatment 
facilities inside Sanaa. This is independent reporting from relief 
agencies that operate on the ground inside Yemen that tell us that the 
Saudi bombing campaign that has targeted civilian infrastructure--in 
this case, water treatment facilities--has led to the cholera outbreak.
  It continues. The bombing campaign that is leading to this 
catastrophe continues. The reason the Obama administration would not 
sell them this specific set of arms is that it did not have confidence 
that the arms would be used to hit purely military targets.
  What we are asking for is to hold off on selling these precision-
guided munitions until we get some clear promise--some clear 
assurance--from the Saudis that they are going to use these munitions 
only for military purposes and that they are going to start taking 
steps--real steps, tangible steps--to address the humanitarian crisis.
  Senator Young has been very articulate on the things that the Saudis 
are doing to stop--to halt--to slow the flow of relief supplies into 
Yemen today. There are some proactive things the Saudis could do, which 
they are not, that could save millions of lives inside Yemen today.
  More broadly, I think this is an important moment for U.S. policy in 
the Middle East. The Saudis are our friends. They are an important, 
stabilizing presence in the Middle East. They have helped to broker a 
kind of detente between Sunni nations and Israel, our sacred ally. They 
cooperate with us on counterterrorism measures. They share intelligence 
with us. Clearly, we have an important economic relationship, but they 
are an imperfect partner.
  This body should have a debate as to whether it is in the national 
security interests of the United States to get drawn more deeply into 
the set of proxy wars that is playing out in the region between the 
Sunnis and the Shia. That proxy battle plays out in Yemen; it plays out 
in Syria; and it plays out in other ways in places like Lebanon. Just 
because you have a friend does not mean that you have to back every 
single one of your friend's fights. If my friend asks me to hand him a 
rock to throw at the neighborhood kids, I am not going to do it, but if 
he wants me to help him stand up to the neighborhood bully, then maybe 
I will be there for him. Even with your friends you decide what fights 
you join them in and what fights you don't.
  In Yemen, it is not just I who is making the argument that the civil 
war is accruing to the detriment of U.S. national security interests; 
it is a broad swath of foreign policy experts and Middle East experts 
in this city and across this country and across the globe. Why? It is 
that this civil war is radicalizing the Yemeni people against the 
United States. They do not perceive this bombing campaign that is 
killing thousands of civilians as a Saudi bombing campaign. They 
perceive it as a U.S.-Saudi bombing campaign.
  Just get your intelligence briefing, and look at the difference in 
the amount of space that AQAP controls today versus what it controlled 
before the civil war began. AQAP, which is the arm of al-Qaida that has 
the most capability to hit the United States, has grown exponentially 
in terms of the territory it controls. ISIS has grown as well. These 
extremist groups take advantage of the civil war, and if our priority 
in the region is really about defeating these organizations, then this 
civil war is not helping in that effort. Civilians are dying; extremist 
groups are growing; and the Yemeni population is being radicalized 
against us.
  To exacerbate matters, the Trump administration has walked away from 
the political process. Secretary Kerry was actively involved in trying 
to bring the Houthis and the Saudi-backed government together. He got 
close to an agreement, but it fell apart. This administration has not 
restarted that process. For those who want to throw more arms into this 
contest, I think it is hard to believe that, ultimately, it will lead 
to any cease-fire or any peaceful transition to a new government if the 
United States is totally absent from the negotiating table as we are 
today.
  This is not about objecting to the entirety of the sale, and this is 
not about delivering a broader message to the Saudis. This is about 
saying that this specific conflict in Yemen is not going well and is 
hurting the United States. Until we get some real assurances from the 
Saudis that they are going to pay attention to the ``no strike'' list, 
until we get some commitments from the Saudis that they are going to 
let relief supplies flow into Yemen to address the famine and address 
the cholera outbreak, then let's press pause on this small slice of 
this arms sale.
  I am proud to join with Senator Paul and others, and I hope that my 
colleagues will see fit to support it when we vote in about an hour and 
a half.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S3427]]

  

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before we recess for the caucus lunches, 
I wish to comment on the upcoming vote on a resolution of disapproval 
regarding a portion of President Trump's recent arms sales to Saudi 
Arabia. I have announced that I am in favor of the resolution of 
disapproval for several reasons.
  First, the human rights and humanitarian concerns have been well 
documented with respect to Yemen. Yemen's story in the Middle East is a 
tragic one. Yemen's previous President ruled the country for decades 
with an iron fist and fleeced the country of its resources for his 
personal gain. He also allowed terrorist groups to enjoy safe haven in 
Yemen in the days after 9/11.
  Today, Yemen remains a country in dire straits. It is on the verge of 
a famine, and there have been over 100,000 cases of cholera.
  To make matters worse, the current conflict in Yemen, which includes 
the Saudi military, has worsened the humanitarian situation. Selling 
the kingdom precision weapons in this deal could further exacerbate the 
crisis.
  Second, and of equal concern to me, is an area that hasn't been 
talked about much in this debate; that is, that the Saudi Government 
continues to aid and abet terrorism via its support and funding of 
schools that spread extremist Wahhabi propaganda. Saudi Arabia's 
support for these Wahhabi madrassas goes back decades. It is 
responsible for much of the radicalization of Muslim youth in the 
Middle East and North Africa.
  In the past several months, we have witnessed lone-wolf attacks in 
London and in Tehran and elsewhere around the globe. Though the nature 
of terrorism has changed, many of the sources are the same. The 
propagation of Wahhabism, an extreme ideology, continues to fuel 
radicalism and terrorism around the globe. So if we want to get serious 
about cracking down on terrorism, the United States should focus--one 
of the focuses should be--on countering the spread of Wahhabism.
  The White House has not clearly articulated how the United States 
will put pressure on Saudi Arabia to end their support of Wahhabi 
schools, even as it claims that President Trump's recent visit to 
Riyadh was focused on curtailing terrorism. Furthermore, the 
administration has not sufficiently assured Congress that these weapons 
will not fall into the wrong hands.
  Look at Pakistan. It has become a radical place--it wasn't 15 years 
ago--in good part because of Saudi funding--Saudi individuals who are a 
good part of the government, some who are friends with the government--
of these madrassas, which taught radicalism to the Pakistani people.
  Look at Indonesia, one of the largest countries in the world. It had 
usually practiced a form of Islam that was mild and tolerant. The 
Wahhabi schools are now flourishing in Indonesia, and it is becoming a 
radical place of danger to us.
  We have to send a message to Saudi Arabia.
  They do some good things. I support their putting pressure, for 
instance, on the Palestinian Authority to finally make peace with 
Israel. But they do a lot of bad things. It seems there has almost been 
a rotten deal between the Saudi monarchy and the Wahhabi clerics to 
work together. It has to end.
  My vote for this resolution of disapproval hopefully can send a 
message to the Saudis that their behavior in regard to Wahhabism must 
change. It is hurting the world and eventually will hurt them.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________