[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.
____________________