[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 99 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3457-S3462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 20 AND S.J. RES. 26
Mr. PAUL. Under the previous order, and pursuant to the Arms Export
Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations
Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 20 and S.J. Res. 26,
relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to
the Governments of Bahrain and Qatar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motions are now pending and will be
debated concurrently until the hour of 11:30 a.m., with 7 minutes each
reserved for the chairman and the ranking member.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the Middle East is a hot caldron,
continuing and continually threatening to boil over. I think it is a
mistake to funnel arms into these century-old conflicts.
There is no great certainty that the arms we send into the Middle
East aren't one day used against our own soldiers. In fact, there is a
real threat that someday our young soldiers will be sent to fight
against the very weapons we send to these so-called allies.
It has happened. In Iran, to this day, they still have some U.S.
weapons that are left over from the weapons the United States supplied
the Shah. In Iraq, some of the weapons we gave them to fight Iran were
still there when we returned to fight Saddam Hussein. In Afghanistan,
some of the weapons we gave to the mujahedin to fight the Russians were
still there when we returned to fight the Taliban. These weapons have a
life of their own. It is not certain that they will not be used against
us and often have been. Proliferating arms in the midst of chaos is a
recipe for disaster.
It is hard to argue that sending arms into Libya and Syria has, in
any way, advanced liberty. Dreamers often longingly speak of a peace
plan for the Middle East. Maybe we should consider a peace plan that
doesn't include dumping more arms into a region aflame with civil
unrest, civil war, and anarchy.
The argument goes that we must arm anyone who is not Iran. We are
told that, because of Iran's threat, the United States must accept
selling arms to anyone who opposes Iran, even bone saw-wielding
countries brazen enough to kill a dissident in a foreign consulate.
It doesn't matter how you act, how you behave, or whom you kill, we
will still give you arms. What would happen if we just said no? What
would happen if we simply conditioned arms sales on behavior? Are the
Saudis so weak that Iran will run over them and run over the whole
Middle East without our arms? Of course not.
The Saudis now spend more on their military than the Russians. The
Saudis have the third largest amount of military spending in the world,
only behind the United States and China. Saudi is No. 3. Saudi Arabia
is spending the
[[Page S3458]]
third most on arms of anybody in the world. The Saudis and their Gulf
allies spend eight times more than Iran. They are perfectly capable of
defending themselves against Iran.
What are the Saudis doing with all the weapons we give them? For one,
they are bombing civilians in Yemen. They have been using our bombs
and, up until recently, they were refueling their bombers with our
planes. We have no business in the war in Yemen. Congress never voted
on it. It is unauthorized, it is unconstitutional, and we have no
business aiding the Saudis in this massacre.
The Saudis have used these bombs to bomb a funeral procession. They
wounded over 400 at a funeral procession--they wounded over 400 and
killed 150. The Saudis recently bombed and killed 40 children on a
schoolbus.
The Saudis, with our support, continue to blockade one of the main
ports of Yemen. As a consequence of this blockade and the Yemeni civil
war, 17 million people live on the edge of starvation.
In addition, the Saudis indiscriminately fed arms into the Syrian
civil war. Even Hillary Clinton admitted this. In an email from Hillary
Clinton to John Podesta, she wrote: ``We need to use our diplomatic and
more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the
governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine
financial and logistic support to Isis.''
Does anybody remember? We went to war with ISIS because of their
horrendous violence and killing of civilians. We had to go back into
Syria. Who was funding ISIS? Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Why in the world--
what sane person would continue to send arms to countries that are
giving arms to our enemies?
I introduced a bill which, unfortunately, will not get a vote today,
and that is to quit arming terrorists. You say: Well, certainly you are
not serious. Yes, I am serious. We send arms to terrorists. We send
them, and there is a stopoff point--they stop off in Saudi Arabia, they
stop off in Qatar, they stop off in Bahrain--but these arms are winding
up in the hands of al-Qaida and radicals whom we say we are pledged to
defeat and that our soldiers risk life and limb defending against.
Let's make sure no one misses this point. Hillary Clinton admitted
that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were funding and arming ISIS. How
insulting. Our brave soldiers are sent over there, risking life and
limb, and we are supplying arms to the enemy.
Hillary Clinton sent another State Department cable. In this, it
read: ``Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-
Qaeda, the Taliban.'' That is whom we are fighting in Afghanistan.
So we are fighting al-Qaida everywhere. We are fighting the Taliban
in Afghanistan, and they are being aided and armed by Saudi Arabia.
This is insane. This policy makes no sense at all; that your dollars
are buying weapons to be thrown into the Middle East to be spread among
who knows whom.
Patrick Cockburn concludes the emails reveal ``the State Department
and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar
were funding Isis.''
To add insult to injury, there are now reports that the Saudi-led
coalition that is bombing Yemen are giving American weapons to al-
Qaida-linked fighters in Yemen, hardline Salafist militias, and anyone
willing to fight the Houthis.
The problem with Congress is they are so obsessed with Iran, Iran,
Iran that they can't understand they are giving weapons to people who
are giving weapons to enemies of the United States. Because they so
want to combat Iran, they are willing to turn away and give anybody in
the Middle East anything they want because we say: We have to
stop Iran--when, in reality, the big power there is Saudi Arabia and
the Gulf sheikdoms.
On the one hand, we are told that al-Qaida is the enemy that attacked
us on 9/11, which they did. On the other hand, we are told to turn a
blind eye and send more arms to Saudi Arabia and Qatar that end up
winding up in the hands of al-Qaida and ISIS. It is completely crazy.
What sane person would sell arms to a regime that kills, tortures, and
imprisons their dissidents? The Saudis routinely behead and then
crucify their opponents.
Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was executed and crucified, and his nephew sits
on death row accused of sending text messages to encourage people to
come to a protest rally. In Saudi Arabia, if you insult the government
or insult the King, you can be put to death. These are the people whom
this Congress, this Senate, will shortly vote on sending your weapons
to these people. It is insane. America needs to say: Quit sending our
weapons to crazy people. Quit sending our weapons to ISIS. Quit sending
our weapons to people who hate us.
How can this possibly be? Because people say: Oh, no, Iran. If we
don't give money to Saudi Arabia, Iran will take over the world. Saudi
Arabia spends eight times as much on their military as Iran. There is
no danger of Iran taking over the Middle East with Saudi Arabia there.
There is a great danger, though, if we keep funneling arms in there and
fueling the arms race that the powder keg will blow up.
Since the 1980s, the Saudis are estimated to have spent $100 billion
exporting radical jihadism. This is a crazy ideology that preaches
hatred of Jews, hatred of Christians, hatred of Hindus, and hatred of
the West in general. This is whom they want to send weapons to: Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain. They don't like us. They take our money, they
take our weapons, but they don't like us. They don't like Christians.
They don't like Jews. They don't like Hindus.
The Saudis fund tens of thousands of madrassas. Madrassas are
religious schools that teach the radical form of jihadism that Saudi
Arabia supports. There used to be a couple hundred in Pakistan. There
are now tens of thousands of madrassas in Pakistan. At one particular
madrassa, 80 percent of the students join the Taliban when they leave
school.
Why in the world would we send arms to a country like Saudi Arabia
that is funding madrassas that are sending soldiers that we have to
fight against in Afghanistan? What kind of bizarre world do we live in
that we are arming people who arm our enemies?
It has also been reported that the administration wants to give
nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. That is genius. News reports reveal
that the administration authorized giving U.S. nuclear technology to
Saudi Arabia weeks after Jamal Khashoggi's murder, weeks after Saudi
Arabia was implicated and the CIA actually concluded that the Crown
Prince of the country was responsible for the bone saw-dismembering
murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
The administration says: Well, we should probably give them nuclear
technology. Well, it is just going to be for energy purposes. One
cannot overstate the calamity that awaits the Middle East and perhaps
the world if Saudi Arabia should misuse peaceful nuclear technology in
the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Without question, Iran would follow. A
Middle East with three different countries with nuclear weapons is not
something any sane person would want to contemplate.
Today's vote is not directly about Saudi Arabia. We will have another
vote next week or in the near future about selling arms to Saudi
Arabia, but, indirectly, today's vote is about the wisdom of
proliferating arms in the Middle East. Today's vote is specifically
about disapproving U.S. arms sales to Qatar and to Bahrain.
First, let's look at Qatar. Is Qatar a good actor in the Middle East?
There are dozens of reports that U.S. weapons sold to Qatar wound up in
the hands of al-Nusra. Who is al-Nusra? Al-Nusra is an al-Qaida-like
affiliate of radical Islamists who hate the United States and hate
Israel and would set up an extreme form of radical Islamist government.
They are there to win. We didn't directly give them weapons, but we
gave weapons to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which gave weapons to al-Nusra
in the Syrian civil war.
There are also reports that Qatar's weapons have been so
indiscriminately distributed throughout the Middle East that many of
these weapons have also wound up in the hands of ISIS. So al-Qaida, al-
Nusra, and ISIS are getting weapons from Qatar. Where does Qatar get
the weapons? From the United States.
The vote today is whether we should keep sending weapons to Qatar,
which then sends them to our enemies, and
[[Page S3459]]
then we send our soldiers to the Middle East to fight against our own
weapons. It is insulting; it is insane; and it needs to stop.
There are also reports that Qatar has been linked to support for
Hamas. I am not talking about one report. I am talking about dozens and
dozens and dozens. Hamas is violently trying to remove or obliterate
the State of Israel, our ally, but we are going to give weapons to
Qatar, which is giving weapons to Hamas, which has pledged to devastate
Israel. Does that make any sense at all? Why would we give weapons to
Qatar, which gives them to Hamas, which would attack our ally Israel?
It makes no sense at all.
Former Under Secretary for Terrorism, David Cohen, writes: Qatar, a
longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas. Cohen
also noted that Qatar allows fundraisers to solicit donations for al-
Qaida and ISIS within Qatar.
Many sources claim that Qatar has also provided safe haven for al-
Qaida leadership. Qatar is so distrusted that even the bone saw-
wielding Saudis think it is unwise to sell arms to Qatar. The Saudis,
no stranger to terrorism, cut diplomatic relations with Qatar over
allegations that Qatar was supporting terrorism. They both have
supported terrorism, and now Saudi Arabia is saying: Qatar is even
worse than we are. We are bad. We give arms to terrorists. Sure we do,
yes, but Qatar is even worse, so we are not going to give any arms to
Qatar because Qatar is giving them to even worse people than we give
them to.
In the chaotic aftermath of the overthrow of Qadhafi in Libya, there
is civil war, there is chaos, and it is a breeding ground for
terrorism. Qatar supports the faction opposed to the faction we
support.
It could change next week. But as of now, we are going to give Qatar
weapons today, and they are involved in Libya on the side opposite of
what we are supporting.
Why would we give weapons to a country that opposes us in a civil
war? There is a good question as to why we would be involved in the
Libyan civil war at all and why we ever went over there to topple their
government, but that is now water under the bridge. You have this chaos
in Libya, where the United States is supporting one side and Qatar is
supporting the other side. So why in the world would we give weapons to
people who are opposing us in an armed conflict?
No one disputes that Qatar has armed al-Qaida and other radical
groups throughout the Middle East. People say: Oh, we have a base
there. They let us land. They let us do stuff. So we need to look the
other way and not care that they continue to support al-Qaida, ISIS,
al-Nusra, and other radical elements throughout the Middle East.
How much of a risk is it to sell arms to Qatar? Only time will tell.
How much of a risk is it that in the future our soldiers may fight
against U.S. weapons that Qatar passes along to extremists? I think
that is a very real risk. It has already happened, and it will continue
to happen. If you do not condition armed sales on behavior, they will
not change their behavior.
Some say: Oh, we have to do this. We have to have a base there. We
have to do it.
They say that particularly with Bahrain. Bahrain is an island nation,
a small nation. We have a big Navy presence there and thousands of
sailors there. So they say: Well, it is our naval base. It is a
stopping port. We need this naval base, so we are going to look the
other way.
We look the other way for a country that is ruled by a monarchy
composed of a minority. The Shia population, which is a form of Islam,
is about 70 percent of the public. Twenty-five, thirty percent is
Sunni, and that is the monarchy. If you are Shia, and you object to the
government or you criticize the government, guess what--you are
imprisoned.
There are currently 4,000 political prisoners in Bahrain. Bahrain
bans any political opposition. One opposition leader, Sheikh Ali
Salman, is in prison for life for speaking out against the government.
Student leader Moosa Abdulla Moosa Jaafar was sentenced to death for
protesting against government policy. Nabeel Rajab was given 5 years in
prison for exposing and tweeting about torture in Bahraini prisons.
Famous Bahraini football player Hakeem al-Araibi was arrested on his
honeymoon in Thailand and held for 76 days by the Bahraini Government.
In January of this year, the prominent Shia cleric, Sayed Majeed Al
Meshaal, was arrested for criticizing extrajudicial killings by the
Bahraini Government.
Should we be sending offensive weapons to a regime that uses violence
to quell political dissent? Should we be funding a regime that is
currently involved with the Saudis in bombing civilians in Yemen?
Should we send offensive weapons to a country that has been
indiscriminately killing civilians in Yemen? Should we send offensive
weapons to a regime that tortures and unjustly imprisons and outlaws
its political opponents?
The weapons that this Congress will send to Bahrain, to this minority
monarchy, to this authoritarian government may someday wind up in the
hands of revolutionaries. How long will it be until the powder keg of
Bahrain has its own revolution?
We did this in Iran. We sent them to a ruler who didn't represent the
majority in Iran, the Shah. We did it for a long time. But in the end,
from the backlash that came in Iran and the downfall of the Shah, our
weapons fell into the hands of people who hate our country. The same
could happen in any one of these powder keg countries in the Middle
East. The weapons we send to Bahrain today may well be in the hands of
revolutionaries in the near future.
The facts are not contested. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain have
all allowed U.S. weapons to be funneled to radical Islamist groups
throughout the Middle East. Dumping more weapons into the Middle East
will not get us any closer to peace.
A ``yes'' vote today is a vote for sanity. A ``yes'' vote is a vote
to quit sending arms to people who abuse human rights. A ``yes'' vote
today is a vote against aiding and abetting the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
A ``yes'' vote today is finally a vote for restoring Congress's proper
role as a check on Executive power.
Our Founding Fathers were wary of granting any President too much
power. James Madison wrote that the executive is the branch most prone
to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, granted that
power--the power to declare war--to Congress and not the President. I
urge a ``yes'' vote today to help restore a semblance of the separation
of powers that is necessary to preserve our great Republic.
Thank you.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from
Montana.
Remembering Jeannette Rankin
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, last week, we celebrated the 100th
anniversary of Congress passing the 19th Amendment. This week,
coincidentally enough, we celebrate the birthday of the only woman to
vote on the 19th Amendment, Montana's own Jeannette Rankin.
Jeannette Rankin, who helped women in Montana and Washington, earned
the right to vote in 1914, 3 years before she became the first woman
elected to Congress and 5 years before she helped pass the 19th
Amendment, making her the only woman to vote for nationwide women's
suffrage.
I say ``nationwide'' because before Congress passed the 19th
Amendment, women had already won the right to vote in more than a dozen
States, almost all of which were west of the Mississippi. And that was
no accident.
The demands of frontier life were such that men and women often had
to work side by side in order to meet those demands, and they still do
that today. So it is no surprise that it was a western woman who led
the effort on the House floor to pass a constitutional amendment
granting women the right to vote.
As a freshman Member of the minority party, Rankin was denied the
chairmanship of the newly established Woman Suffrage Committee, but she
was named ranking member. The group went to work drafting a women's
suffrage amendment on the morning of January 10, 1918. The Capitol was
crowded with people to hopefully secure a seat in the House Gallery for
the suffrage debate. Rankin opened the debate with an impassioned
speech that
[[Page S3460]]
helped convince her colleagues in the House to pass the amendment. It
was passed by the thinnest possible margin.
Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass that amendment in that
Congress, but Rankin's victory in the House marked a major milestone in
the suffrage movement and laid the groundwork for the 19th Amendment's
passage just 18 months later.
Today, in honor of her birthday on Tuesday and the suffrage
centennial this past week, I would like to read an excerpt from that
impassioned speech that Representative Rankin gave on the House floor
more than 100 years ago.
Today, as never before, the Nation needs its women--needs
the work of their hands and their hearts and their minds.
Their energy must be utilized in the most effective service
they can give.
Are we now going to refuse these women the opportunity to
serve in the face of their plea--in the face of the Nation's
great need?
Deep down in the hearts of the American people is a living
faith in democracy.
Sometimes it is not expressed in the most effective way.
Sometimes it seems almost forgotten.
But when the test comes, we find it is still there, groping
and aspiring, and helping men and women to understand each
other and their common need.
It is our national religion, and it prompts in us the
desire for that measure of justice, which is based on equal
opportunity, equal protection, equal freedom for all.
This proposed amendment should be passed as an act of right
and justice to the women of America.
To my mind, this is one of the most important questions
that has been presented to Congress since I have been a
member.
One that has far more wide-reaching effect upon the people
of the country--insofar as what the country stands for and
what we stand for--than any other question since the writing
of the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of our
Constitution.
These are the people who are resting their faith in the
Congress of the United States because they believe Congress
knows what democracy means.
Can we afford to allow these men and women to doubt for a
single instant the sincerity of our protestations of
democracy?
How shall we answer their challenge, gentleman? How shall
we explain to them the meaning of democracy if the same
Congress that voted for war to make the world safe for
democracy refuses to give this small measure of democracy to
the women of our country?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am delighted to join Senator Tester on
the floor as ranking member of the Veterans' Committee, and he and I as
chairman have worked together on many, many issues. And today, we are
glad to come to the floor and tell the Senate how much we appreciate
what they did last night in letting the unanimous consent motion pass
to see to it that the blue water Navy legislation that we worked on for
so many years became effective.
I could take a long time explaining it, but basically it is very
simple. Those who served in Vietnam and represented our country on the
battlefields and at sea have been divided on the benefits they got for
their service. Blue water Navy folks did not get service because it was
not contemplated that they would have Agent Orange exposure by being on
a ship, whereas our veterans who were on the ground got benefits
because they were on the ground, and it was assumed that they did get
exposure to Agent Orange.
The fact of the matter is, sailors on the ships could have been
exposed to Agent Orange. So the veterans on our ships were really as
equal in their opportunity to have gotten exposed to Agent Orange, so
they should be equally open to getting the benefit.
Because of Senator Tester's work, the testament and work of every
member, the committee--I can't name anybody who didn't work on it at
one time or another. Some negative, some positively--but all positive
in the end because we were unanimous.
We passed blue water Navy and put to bed issues that affected our
veterans for a number of years.
I just want to thank Senator Tester immensely for his efforts,
particularly in the end of last year we had a real battle to get it
passed. We thought we had it passed, but we didn't at the last minute.
It ended up in court and finally got a judge to rule our way and the
veterans' way, and yesterday the Senate--by unanimously adopting the
House bill which passed a month ago, the Blue Water Navy benefits are
now available.
So I want to thank Senator Tester, Senator Blumenthal on the other
side, Senator Murray just did a great job. On our side, Senator Boozman
did a great job. The ranking member on our side who is sitting next to
me, Senator Moran, did a great job.
Importantly, I want to talk about the staff for just a minute. Adam
Reece is our new executive director of my staff. He has just done a
great job to get this through.
From my staff, Amanda Maddox has worked hard to make it happen.
Annabell McWherter, Jillian Workman, and Pat McGuigan did extraordinary
work to see to it we got this done at the last minute and got it
through.
So, on behalf of all the staff--for all the staff, minority and
majority--on behalf of our veterans who risked their lives every day
and a day or two after D-day when I happened to be with the President
at Normandy to see the reenactment of that jump, it warms my heart to
know that the Senate today is memorializing benefits that were intended
a long time ago to go to those veterans who now will get it.
I thank everybody who worked on it, and I am encouraged by the
positive vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, first of all, it is indeed a pleasure to
be on the Senate floor with the chairman of the VA Committee, Senator
Johnny Isakson. I think we all know we wouldn't be talking about the
blue water Navy legislation, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act,
without Johnny Isakson.
Johnny has been an incredible leader on the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee since he took it over, and I can't thank him enough for what
he has done to make this a reality. It has been a long time coming. If
there is anybody that deserves this to happen, it is the folks who
served in Vietnam. Quite frankly, the sacrifice that they made during
that war was like all other wars, and it was pretty darn incredible.
This victory is for the folks who were exposed to Agent Orange, and
Agent Orange, by the way, is a herbicide that was not handled properly,
and, quite frankly, causes real problems, and it has shown now that it
causes real problems among the men and women who handled it, who were
sprayed by it, who drank it, and who were exposed to it. So it is long
past time that we deal with those folks in a way that meets their needs
because of their sacrifice supporting that war.
I would just say that I come to the floor a lot, and I am
disappointed in the U.S. Senate almost every day because they don't do
what they need to do as far as checks and balances in this country. But
today I come and I say thank you to the U.S. Senate. Thank you to the
folks who didn't put a hold on this bill, who were able to push it
through, because, quite frankly, this rights a wrong that has been
perpetrated by a government that has ignored them for far too long.
Very quickly, since we do have the time, I just want to go through
what this bill does. It ensures that veterans who served just off the
shores of Vietnam are presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange,
just like those who served on land. The fact is that they were exposed.
The fact is that now this bill recognizes that.
It restores VA benefits to literally tens of thousands of blue water
Navy veterans who had their disability eligibility taken away back in
2002. It requires the VA to contact veterans who filed denied claims
and who are now eligible for retroactive benefits. That means that for
those folks who had their benefits taken away, the VA now needs to
contact them and say: Look, the playing field has changed.
It extends presumption of Agent Orange exposure to veterans who
served along the Korean DMZ, something we don't talk about much, and it
expands benefits to include children born with spina bifida due to a
parent's exposure in Thailand.
I have said this many, many times. Taking care of our veterans is a
cost of war. That is why we need to be very careful when we send our
troops into battle, because they are exposed physically and mentally to
things that normal people are never exposed to.
[[Page S3461]]
For years, I have heard from veterans who were counting on us to pass
the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act because, quite frankly, they
weren't getting the benefits that they were promised when they signed
up. When they were put in harm's way, the country turned their back on
them.
They are veterans like Mike Stone from Kalispell, who served as a
blue water sailor in 1974 and has since been diagnosed with a variety
of illnesses linked to Agent Orange, like diabetes and heart disease.
Now Mike Stone can receive the benefits he has earned.
This bill is for Mike and for so many veterans like him who have
waited so long for the government to deliver. Once again, under the
leadership of Chairman Johnny Isakson, we are able to live up to the
commitment to justice for the blue water Navy veterans in Montana and
across this country who have sacrificed to keep us safe and free.
I would urge the President to quickly sign this bill into law. It is
the right thing to do, and I am proud that the Senate has finally done
it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 20
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, fellow Senators, today, in a few moments,
we are going to consider S.J. Res. 20, which is a joint resolution that
it prohibits the sales of munitions to Bahrain. Actually, we are going
to consider a motion to discharge, and the same is true of S.J. Res.
26, which is a joint resolution that prohibits the issuance of a letter
of offer with respect to the proposed sale to Qatar of 24 helicopters.
I strongly urge my colleagues to consider these sales on their own
merits and to avoid conflating these with unrelated controversies over
the administration's recent emergency declarations. They are not
related. They are different matters.
These sales--the two that we are talking about regarding Bahrain and
Qatar--address the legitimate security interests of both countries and
strengthen the U.S. partnerships with both countries and support shared
efforts to deter Iran. Congress should support these sales. The news
this morning of attacks on two more civilian oil tankers in the Gulf of
Oman lend further weight to the conclusion that our allies and partners
in the region need greater capabilities to share the burden of defense
in support of our mutual security interests.
The State Department notified these sales in the standard process,
and the chairs and ranking members of both House and Senate committees
approved them last month.
The sale to Qatar is not related to the activities of the Saudi-led
coalition in Yemen. Denying this sale will not punish Saudi Arabia or
influence its actions in Yemen, as Qatar ceased its participation in
the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen 2 years ago. I think that is very
important because there is a lot of discussion up here, as there should
be, regarding the hostilities in Yemen, but they are not related at all
to the matters we are dealing with today.
Bahrain has not been implicated in any inappropriate strikes in Yemen
and has focused on defensive operations, including border security. The
Royal Bahraini Air Force patrols Saudi Arabia's borders to counter
incursions from Yemen into Saudi Arabia. Just this week, we saw how
real these threats are, as a missile from the Iranian-supported Houthis
wounded 26 civilians at a civilian airport. Denying this sale will not
punish Saudi Arabia or influence its actions in Yemen.
As the ranking member said regarding the resolution brought up last
November, this vote is not Yemen, it is not Saudi Arabia, and it is not
the UAE. It is Bahrain. Bahrain is a critical ally to us, and there is
absolutely no question about that. These sales will help Qatar and
Bahrain rightfully assume the burden of their own defense and relieve
U.S. forces that have been providing support. The helicopters will
enable the Qataris to provide for their own defense against threats to
its vital infrastructure. The munitions are critical for Bahrain's F-
16s and essential to any plans to defend Bahrain. The United States has
critical and strategic interests in both of these matters.
In addition to Qatar and Bahrain taking increasing responsibility for
their own defense, they are taking an increasingly prominent role in
U.S.-led coalition operations. Importantly, Qatari fighters conduct
joint air patrols with U.S. forces to deter Iran.
Qatar contributes more Naval forces to coalition patrols of the
Arabian Gulf than any of its neighbors. Qatar C-17s have moved more
than 3 million pounds of cargo in direct support of coalition
operations in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan and is expanding its tanker
fleet to become the No. 2 provider of coalition air refueling, ahead of
the British.
Bahrain has also contributed to stability in the region. Bahrain has
been the key mediator in opening relations between the Gulf Cooperation
Council and Iraq and contributes to counter-mine, counter-piracy, and
intelligence sharing in support of regional security.
The United States named Bahrain a major non-NATO ally in 2002, and
since then, they have lived up to that designation. Bahrain holds 7,000
U.S. troops in its borders, including the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, and
it is home to the only U.S. naval base in the Middle East.
For its part, Qatar hosts 10,000 U.S. forces and is home to the
regional headquarters of U.S. forces, including air and special
operations. Qatar provides access to key logistic nodes and overflight
rights for U.S. aircraft. It has already invested more than $8 billion
to develop Al Udied Air Base and is now providing more than $3 billion
to upgrade U.S. facilities there to meet specific requirements of the
United States. The Qataris are also providing $200 million a year to
sustain these facilities. Duplicating or recreating the facilities in
Qatar would result in a sizable and needless bill to the U.S. taxpayer.
In recent years, Qatar and Bahrain have worked to strengthen
cooperation with the United States on countering the financing of
terrorism. As part of these efforts, Qatar has agreed to increase the
sharing of information on terrorist financiers in the region, to place
greater emphasis on preventing terrorist financing abuse in the
charitable and money services business sectors, and develop a domestic
designation regime in line with international standards. Bahrain, too,
is a significant partner in cutting off terrorist financing and has
assisted in blocking Iranian efforts to circumvent sanctions.
Meanwhile, the credibility of the United States as a partner of
choice is on the line. If the United States cannot reliably sell its
partners weapons that are vital for defense, these partners will turn
by necessity to China and Russia.
The United States recently sent 1,500 more troops into the theater in
protection of U.S. forces. As we ask partners like Qatar and Bahrain
for their support in protecting their own forces, we should support
them as they seek greater capabilities to protect themselves.
In November, this body concluded that blocking sales to Bahrain over
an unrelated issue was inappropriate and did not make sense. I urge my
colleagues in the strongest possible terms to reach the same
conclusions in this case.
In closing, these sales should be considered on their own merits and
should not be entangled with unrelated controversy. These sales address
Qatar and Bahrain's legitimate security interests, strengthen U.S.
partnership with Qatar and Bahrain, and, importantly, they deter Iran.
I support these sales. I urge my colleagues to do the same. As we can
see from what I have said here, these sales are minimal, really, in the
overall scheme of what these countries are doing to help us. We should
show these countries that indeed we are reliable partners, we are good
friends, and we deeply appreciate their efforts to promote the same
interests the United States of America has in the region.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 20
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 20.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S3462]]
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Udall
Van Hollen
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--56
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Warner
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--1
Alexander
The motion was rejected.
Vote on Motion to Discharge S.J. Res. 26
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The question is on
agreeing to the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 26.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
(Mr. COTTON assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring the vote?
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cruz
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Udall
Van Hollen
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--57
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cardin
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Warner
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--1
Alexander
The motion was rejected.
____________________