[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 102 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3633-S3637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MOTION TO DISCHARGE--S.J. RES. 36

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam 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. 36, relating to the disapproval of 
the proposed transfer to the Kingdom of Saudi

[[Page S3634]]

Arabia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, the 
Kingdom of Spain, and the Italian Republic of certain defense articles 
and services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending and debatable for up to 
1 hour.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, the resolution I have just asked for 
the discharge of would disapprove the administration's sale of 
precision-guided munitions to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia--weapons they 
have used in the killing of an untold number of innocent civilians in 
their ongoing campaign in Yemen.
  This resolution is 1 of 22 that I have filed with a bipartisan group 
of Senators in response to the administration's flagrant disregard for 
congressional oversight over arms sales.
  On May 24, the Secretary of State attempted to bypass this body in 
order to push through 22 separate arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the 
United Arab Emirates, claiming an ill-defined emergency regarding Iran.
  Now, while Iran is a threat to the interests of the United States and 
the Middle East, I think no one in this body has been stronger on our 
sanctions efforts and in other legislation that I have been the 
architect of on sanctioning Iran. The question before us is whether 
these arms sales are specifically meant to be a response to that.
  These arms sales are a critical national security tool in terms of 
reviewing and approving them as a core function of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. We are responsible for considering how each 
proposed sale fits into the broader foreign policy goals and our 
national security interests, including the capacity and 
interoperability of our partners.
  The congressional review of arms sales is mandated for a reason: so 
the Secretary of State explicitly cannot do what he tried to do last 
month with these 22 sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
  The suggestion that this is an emergency, I think, was shown to be 
totally hollow when we had the testimony of the Assistant Secretary of 
State, Clarke Cooper, who admitted in an open House hearing that the 
decision to make the emergency determination was in the works for 
months--months.
  It doesn't take months to deal with an emergency.
  When pressed on how an emergency declaration could be in the works 
for months, he tried to argue that the emergency showed up sometime 
between the 2 days that the Secretary briefed Members and then made the 
notification.
  The Secretary of State was before this body briefing Members, and at 
that time, 3 days before this emergency was declared, he said 
absolutely nothing--nothing--about any pending emergency, even though 
Assistant Secretary Cooper said it had been in the works for months. So 
how can it be in the works for months, you are before this body, and 
you say nothing 3 days before you actually declare an emergency? So on 
the process itself, it is just false.
  Secondly, what is happening in Yemen is a humanitarian disaster that 
has been exacerbated by the very weapons we have been giving the Saudis 
in order to fight this conflict in Yemen and has created untold 
humanitarian disaster.
  These precision-guided missiles were meant to avoid civilian 
casualties, but they are not going to avoid civilian casualties when 
you aim them with precision at civilian targets. I will have a lot more 
to say about that when my colleagues who are joining with me, on a 
bipartisan basis, come to the floor. We hope to have a colloquy with 
all of our colleagues in this regard.
  The other point is, these weapons will not counter Iranian threats. 
This is all about using them in Yemen, and the Assistant Secretary of 
State, Clarke Cooper, admitted as much in a hearing before the House 
last week.
  Lastly, as a major point, which I will expound upon, this particular 
transfer is a transfer not only of sensitive technology but of American 
jobs to the Saudis. This export license will allow Saudi workers to 
begin to manufacture part of the electronic guidance system for these 
precision-guided munitions--work that has been done and should continue 
to be done by American workers in the United States. I don't think the 
transfer of those sensitive technologies and the creation of its 
components is something that is in the national interest, both 
economically or in terms of our security.
  Lastly, this is about this institution standing up for its 
congressional prerogatives to ensure that regardless of who the 
President is in the White House, arms sales are subject to review of 
the Congress. The day we give that up is the day we go down a dangerous 
path.
  This is the beginning of a process. I want to say that I appreciate 
the willingness and efforts of my cosponsor, Senator Graham, and of the 
majority leader, as well as their staffs, to chart an acceptable path 
forward on these resolutions and on the Saudi sanctions bill in the 
SAFE Act, which we also seek to have an opportunity on. I will have a 
lot more to say about these arms sales, but to start this process, I 
wanted to outline why we find ourselves here today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                            St. Louis Blues

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I want to talk about good news for two of 
our major cities in Missouri. I will start with the sporting news, 
which would be the July 12 victory of the St. Louis Blues, when they 
earned their spot in the history books when they defeated the Boston 
Bruins in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals.
  For the first time in franchise history, the Blues brought the 
Stanley Cup trophy to Missouri to celebrate their incredible 
achievement and to share it with some of the best sports fans in 
America.
  Senator Hawley and I look forward to a chance, before too long, to 
host the Stanley Cup here at the Senate so all my colleagues will get 
to see the joy we have in seeing that come to our State.
  It is hard to imagine that just 6 months ago, the Blues were the 
lowest ranked team in the NHL. I think at the first of the season the 
odds were 60 to 1 that the Blues would win the Stanley Cup. Those were 
the highest odds any team faced.
  As it turned out, the odds aren't always what counts. What counts is 
how you play the season. So they got off to a rough start, changed 
their coach in January, and then as the season progressed, at the end 
of the regular season, they won 11 straight games.
  A rookie, Jordan Binnington, led the team to an incredibly successful 
second half. His goalie performance in the second half of the season, 
and particularly in the Stanley Cup games, was extraordinary, 
especially in that last game.
  The Blues eventually moved on to get the third seed in the Western 
Conference playoffs. They won their series against Winnipeg in four 
games to two in the first round. They advanced to the second round to 
defeat the Dallas Stars in a really dramatic double overtime victory in 
game seven. They continued their historic run, defeating the San Jose 
Sharks in round three, and then the Blues made it all the way to the 
Stanley Cup final and ended the season with a decisive 4-to-1 victory 
in game seven and at Boston.
  I think, if you look back at the record on this, the Blues had 
clearly learned to win away from home, and they proved that in the 
Stanley Cup.
  They played as one team, they played as one unit, but they had lots 
of people helping. Ryan O'Reilly set a franchise record with 23 points 
in the playoffs. He ultimately went on to win the Conn Smythe Award as 
the postseason MVP. Jordan Binnington, whom I mentioned before, became 
the first and only rookie goalie to win 16 games in the Stanley Cup 
playoffs. Patrick Maroon, a Missouri native, scored a heroic goal in 
the double overtime of game seven against the Dallas Stars.
  There was another individual who was reflective of just lots of the 
fans whom the Blues had with them. This superfan, Laila Anderson, 11 
years old, didn't let her battle with a rare, life-threatening disease 
prevent her from cheering on the team she loved.
  At the beginning of game three in the Stanley finals, she took to the 
ice before the puck dropped and fired up the team and the nearly 20,000 
fans who filled the Enterprise Center.
  Laila became such an important factor to the Blues' victories that 
they flew this 11-year-old to Boston to make

[[Page S3635]]

sure their No. 1 fan would be there to cheer them on in game seven.
  Shortly after the Blues were presented with the Stanley Cup, she 
celebrated with the players on the ice as they passed around that 
iconic trophy.
  Her inspirational story is just another example of why this was a 
season right out of the storybooks. The city of St. Louis and our State 
will never forget the Blues' incredible achievement this year.
  I would like to congratulate Tom Stillman, the general manager; Doug 
Armstrong, the head coach; Craig Berube; and all the coaches, the 
players, the fans, and the staff who brought this incredible victory 
home to St. Louis.
  I look forward to hearing our fans sing ``Gloria'' many more times 
next year when the team defends its title as Stanley Cup champions.


                                  USDA

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, as the St. Louisans were celebrating the 
Stanley Cup, people on the other side of our State in Kansas City 
received some great news--this time great news from the Federal 
Government, when the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, 
announced on Thursday that two Federal ag research agencies would be 
moving their headquarters to the Kansas City region from Washington, 
DC.
  The Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture together will bring more than 500 jobs to the Kansas City 
area. It is fantastic news for our State, for our region, I think also 
for the workers at those two agencies and their families.
  The point of the move is to get these important government offices 
closer to the customers they serve and to save the taxpayers money. 
Kansas City will be a great place to do both of those things.
  Missouri is already home to more than 5,000 U.S. Department of 
Agriculture employees and contractors working for a dozen different 
Department offices in the Department of Agriculture, but bringing these 
two agency headquarters to the State will put them right in the middle 
of some of the most exciting and cutting-edge innovation happening in 
the ag industry.
  Talk about being closer to your customers, the farmers of America, 
and closer to examples of innovation, I think this move and Secretary 
Purdue's decision is clearly going to show that is the case.
  Kansas City is close to at least a dozen land-grant universities in 
our State. Two of those would be the University of Missouri in Columbia 
and Lincoln University in Jefferson City. These institutions, along 
with the other land-grant institutions in the region, are preparing for 
the next generation of ag leaders to meet maybe the greatest challenge 
of all time as world food demand moves toward doubling between now and 
2050 and world food need doubles between now and 2060. A lot more food 
is going to have to be grown on the same land with fewer inputs, to 
meet our environmental concerns, our climate concerns, our other 
concerns, but still feed the world in a way that we are uniquely 
positioned to be a lead partner in that partnership of feeding the 
world.
  The move the USDA has made will give them the opportunity to 
strengthen partnerships they already have and have even greater impact 
as they work to improve crop yields and develop risk management 
strategies.
  Our State is also a big part of the Kansas City Animal Health 
Corridor, which extends from Manhattan, KS, to Columbia, MO. That 
corridor is home to more than 300 animal health companies. It is the 
largest concentration in the world of that business and includes five 
of the world's largest animal health companies.
  Relocating these agencies will save taxpayers a lot of money. 
Secretary Perdue anticipates that almost $300 million will be saved 
over the next 15 years and all the moving costs will be earned back 
within 12 months of the move. It is hard to imagine an investment you 
make where you have 100 percent payback in 12 months, but that is going 
to happen with this one.
  That frees up more resources to go toward grants and research instead 
of being paid to the Department's landlords.
  (Mr. SCOTT of Florida assumed the Chair.)
  I think it will also be a huge upgrade for the lives of people who 
will be Federal employees living outside of Washington and in the 
middle of the country. Last month, the average house in Washington cost 
more than $600,000. In Kansas City, the average price was about a 
quarter of that. Now, you can find the $600,000 house in Kansas City, 
but it is not the average house being sold like it is here. I know 
local banks and mortgage companies are standing ready to help those 
Federal families as they move to Kansas City.
  Also--now that we have gone from Madam President to Mr. President, as 
the Senator from Florida has taken the seat and is in charge of the 
Senate here for a while--you are making that decision with the current 
employees in mind, but I think you are also making that decision, more 
importantly, with future employees. Where will be the best place to 
recruit? Where will be the best place to encourage people to do 
graduate work and other things that allow them to do their jobs better? 
I think there were other choices, but I certainly think the choice of 
Kansas City was a good one. There is a thriving economy right now, with 
lots of job opportunities. Like the rest of the country, there are more 
jobs available than people looking for work. Missouri added 8,200 jobs 
last year, and we continue to see that happen.
  Our new neighbors will also find that Kansas City is home to 
limitless cultural, educational, and recreational opportunities--very 
appropriate to mention with my native Missouri and now the Senator from 
Florida here in the Chair. We have major league sports teams, like the 
Royals, the Chiefs, and Sporting Kansas City. We have a thriving 
theater culture, a world-class museum at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of 
Art, the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, Science City at Union Station, 
and that names just a few.
  The motto of USDA is ``Do Right and Feed Everyone.'' By the way, we 
were doing research at the Federal level before there was a USDA. In 
the 1850s, ag research was going on right here in Washington sponsored 
by the Federal Government. In 1862, when the USDA was formed, one of 
the principle reasons was research. These two facilities will be an 
important part of that. When the people at ERS and NIFA join the many 
USDA colleagues they already have in our State, we think they will find 
their mission easier and more rewarding than ever.
  It is a great time to look forward toward the future of agriculture. 
Certainly Missouri and Kansas City and Kansas and that entire region 
that hubs around Kansas City, MO, are excited to be a bigger part of 
that. Congratulations to those employees, and congratulations to the 
decision Secretary Perdue has made to relocate those two Washington-
based organizations to a place where they are going to be closer to the 
work they do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I ask that I be permitted to speak for up to 7 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, as we move toward debate over the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, I wanted to 
remind my colleagues that while we stand prepared to negotiate its 
various provisions, our military men and women stand at the ready. They 
stand at the ready every single day. It is a 24/7 business for them for 
a much more serious task, and that is the defense of this great Nation.
  As we consider this year's NDAA, we must do so with the understanding 
that our Nation is faced with new, sophisticated threats to our way of 
life and to the world order.
  Two emerging warfighting domains--cyber and space--are capturing much 
of the attention of this body and our allies and, I will also add, 
capturing the attention of our enemies, of those who do not wish us 
well.

[[Page S3636]]

  It is these two domains--cyber and space--that pose increased threats 
to our national infrastructure and our way of engaging with both those 
allies and our adversaries. Debating defense spending means thinking 
beyond helicopters and submarines or equipment and artillery and 
viewing this authorization in the larger context of multi and unseen 
domain warfare. That is why my colleagues and I on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee have come to the table with a bill that shores up 
funding for these legacy programs and devotes new funding to address 
these emerging threats.
  First and foremost, this bill authorizes a 3.1-percent pay increase 
for the Members of our Armed Forces. That is so vitally important for 
the men and women at Fort Campbell, which is located right there on the 
Tennessee and Kentucky border. That is a post where I have spent much 
of my legislative career involved with those men and women and with the 
command team.
  This is a justified and well-earned raise that recognizes their 
commitment to defending against unfamiliar threats that rise above and 
beyond the everyday servicemember's scope of duty.
  We have found ourselves once more in the midst of great power 
competition. America will always have rivals on the world stage. Over 
the past decade, we have seen countries like China and Russia pursuing 
increasingly sophisticated and lethal weapons systems.
  We have no choice but to recognize this emerging reality and give our 
military men and women the tools they need to combat developing threats 
and preserve U.S. preeminence across all warfighting domains.
  With this funding, we will prioritize more sophisticated cyber 
security and space-based strategies, artificial intelligence, and other 
emerging technologies. We will take steps to protect the integrity of 
our supply chain so we can be confident the microelectronics we depend 
on have not been corrupted by foreign spyware.
  A good defense is only as strong as its weakest link, and this bill 
will allow us to shore up our relationship with the defense industrial 
base and ensure that contractors are not under the undue influence of 
foreign actors. This is all in addition to readiness projects here at 
home.
  Our mark includes full funding for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, which is critical to our nuclear modernization program.
  I think it is worth noting that our friends in the House cut over $70 
million from infrastructure and facility operations, which goes toward 
rebuilding crumbling buildings at the NNSA plants and labs. That is 
funding that should be restored. Modern and responsive nuclear 
infrastructure is an essential part of credible deterrence, which is a 
critical concern in great power competition. Funding for these projects 
must not end up as a casualty of budget negotiations.
  Now, it is true that this is a massive authorization and that much of 
the funding we authorize will not manifest itself in visible hardware, 
but I encourage my friends in this body, do not let this deter you from 
seeing the big picture. National defense is no longer limited to the 
tools and infrastructure we can see. It includes an enormous covering 
that is needed by our Nation and our allies in this virtual space.
  We must focus our defense budget on future threats, not those of the 
past, in order to not repeat the mistakes of the past. I believe that 
this year's NDAA accomplishes just that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                   Nomination of Matthew J. Kacsmaryk

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you study the recent course of American 
history, you can note there has been the emergence of opportunity and 
debates on freedom many times during the last 50 years.
  I think back to my time, my early years of education in high school 
and college, when America was in the midst of debate about the rights 
of African Americans--the civil rights movements in the 1960s.
  We have also had debates as well on the question of liberty and 
freedom--freedom from discrimination for women in America and for those 
who are disabled. It really is the hallmark of this democracy that we 
continue to expand opportunity and continue to question our own beliefs 
when it comes to the freedom which each of us cherishes.
  We are now in the midst of an interesting transformation in this 
country on the issue of rights of people with different sexual 
orientation. We have seen some dramatic changes in just the last few 
years as we find more and more people speaking out against 
discrimination against those of a different sexual orientation, and, of 
course, the landmark decision in Obergefell, where the U.S. Supreme 
Court recognized the right for same-sex marriage. This is not without 
controversy and not without dissenters, but the mainstream of America, 
the vast majority of Americans believe we are moving along the same 
path we did when we talked about the rights of those who are 
minorities, women, and the disabled, when we say people should be free 
of discrimination because of their own sexual orientation.
  That is why it strikes me as unusual, more than coincidental, that in 
June--the LGBTQ Pride Month--our Republican colleagues decided to bring 
to the floor the nomination of Texas district court nominee Matthew 
Kacsmaryk, who has repeatedly written in his personal capacity about 
his opposition to LGBTQ rights and the Obergefell decision.
  Mr. Kacsmaryk's nomination was reported out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee on a party-line vote in February, but for some reason, the 
Republican leadership decided to wait and force a vote on the floor of 
the Senate during Pride Month. Now they are calling for a vote this 
week.
  Mr. Kacsmaryk has not been shy about his hostility to marriage 
equality in transgender Americans. On June 24, 2015, he wrote an 
article in which he noted that the Supreme Court would decide the 
Obergefell case in the next few weeks and speculated whether five 
Justices would, in his words, ``invent a constitutional right to same-
sex marriage.''
  After the decision, Mr. Kacsmaryk wrote a disparaging summary--which 
I will not quote into the Record--but it certainly shows his opposition 
to the fundamental premise behind that decision. He was quoted in the 
Liberty Institute blog of October 16, 2014 saying ``the pro-marriage 
movement must prepare for the long war.''
  He signed a letter in 2016 relating to transgender Americans, calling 
them ``a delusion.'' Last December, the parents of 300 transgender 
children--including 39 from my State of Illinois--wrote the Senate in 
opposition to Mr. Kacsmaryk's nomination and said: ``Our children are 
not a delusion, and neither is our love and support for them.''
  Even though Mr. Kacsmaryk has expressed strident personal views 
opposing LGBTQ rights, and even though he has litigated frequently in 
cases involving these matters, he would not commit to recuse himself 
from cases involving this issue if he were to be confirmed by the 
Senate.
  I oppose the Kacsmaryk nomination. This is yet another extreme 
nominee outside the mainstream of American thinking who does not 
deserve to be rubberstamped for a lifetime appointment by the U.S. 
Senate.


                     The Kovler Center and Cameroon

  Mr. President, just 2 weeks ago, I had a meeting in Chicago with my 
colleague Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. We were at Heartland Alliance's 
Marjorie Kovler Center. What happens at this center is truly remarkable 
and a reflection of America's long history of welcoming those who are 
fleeing political violence.

  The Kovler Center is home to one of our Nation's oldest and most 
respected facilities, helping those recovering from complex 
consequences of politically sanctioned torture. This is its 32nd year 
in operation. More than 3,000 torture survivors from 80 different 
countries have received assistance and counsel at the Kovler Center in 
Chicago.
  The problem of torture among refugees is significant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3637]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. The problem of torture among refugees is significant, 
with an estimated 44 percent of refugees in the United States having 
been victims of such horrors. Those from Bosnia, Cambodia, and many 
other places all receive free treatment at the Kovler Center to recover 
from their trauma.
  During my visit I had the privilege of meeting refugees who had fled 
the mounting violence in Cameroon. Cameroon is a West African nation 
that is dealing with a complicated colonial legacy. Following World War 
I, the League of Nations appointed France and Great Britain as joint 
trustees to what was previously a German colony. Not surprisingly, the 
two colonial powers imposed their own cultures on the new Cameroon.
  Tragically, following the country's independence in the 1960s, 
Cameroonian strongman President Paul Biya, one of the world's longest 
serving leaders--now almost 40 years in office--further favored the 
French-speaking population over its Anglophone regions.
  The results were not surprising. The mounting resentment and calls 
for greater autonomy within the Anglophone population caused ensuing 
violent suppression from the Biya regime. The refugees I met with told 
harrowing stories of this crackdown and violence.
  I was pleased to join Senator Van Hollen last year in a letter urging 
Secretary Pompeo to focus attention on the unrest in Cameroon, and I 
was equally pleased when the administration scaled back U.S. military 
assistance to Cameroon due to this government's violent repression. As 
a Member of the Appropriations Committee, I will be watching carefully 
the level of violence in Cameroon and, when the day comes, when we 
consider any foreign aid to this Nation.
  The work of the Kovler Center is a reminder that if we are going to 
stand up for human rights we must be willing to be vigilant at all 
times, even for small countries as far away as Cameroon.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________