but the fact that saudi arabia is an ally, an ally with whom we have a track record of selling arnlings is not in and of itself a sufficient reason to endorse this particular deal. it's not a reason why this deal should move through, should take effect without so much as a whimper from members of congress who might feel the need to raise possible concerns, concerns that relate to our own national security. yes, we want our allies to be strong. and, yes, we want our allies to be capable of defending themselves. and, yes, sometimes this means that we should offer them assistance in times of need. but the first and most fundamental responsibility of the united states government is not to satisfy the requests of

our allies reflexively, unflinchingly and without asking a few questions. rather, the fundamental responsibility, the first job of the united states government is to protect the lives and liberties of the american people. that's where we need to be focused. the saudi government clearly believes that intervening in this civil war in yemen and participating in the decades-long sectarian conflict underlying that civil war in yemen is in the best interest of the saudi people. i don't doubt that, and it's not my place to question it even if i did doubt it. that's why the saudi military has been fighting in yemen since it first launched its intervention in march 2015. but can the same be said of the united states government? is intervening in this civil war a national priority for the

american people? is intervening in that civil war in our national security interests? is it something that's going to make the american people safer? astoundingly, these are questions that have never been fully discussed, certainly have never been fully debated in this institution. , an institution that likes to call itself and loves to be referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. mr. president, this is more of an abdication of responsibility by congress. it's more than just that. it is a national security hazard it's not just that we're abdicating. it's not just that we're not doing something we're supposed to. we're making things more dangerous than we need to. the framers of our constitution gave important and exclusive

foreign policy powers to the legislative branch because their framers believed that the process of defining america's national interests and developing a foreign policy to pursue those interests must involve the participation of the people's representatives in congress. but in recent years congress, in general and the senate in particular has happily taken a back seat to the executive branch in debating, developing and defending to the public our nation's foreign policy and grand strategy in the middle east. that explains how it's possible that our military has actively supported the saudi military's intervention in yemen, including hundreds of air-to-air refueling sorties. at a time when our military leaders unanimously contend that

they're suffering from readiness and personnel shot falser. -- shortfalls. and that explains how it's possible that the u.s. military would be actively involved in the civil war in yemen even though many security experts point out that by supporting saudi arabia in saudi arabia's fight against the houthis we could be unintentionally assisting al qaeda and isis affiliates in yemen. madam president, i urge my colleagues today to support this resolution of disapproval. let us pause our intervention in this foreign conflict and show the country, show our country that the legislative branch can fulfill its obligations to the american people faithfully, that we can openly and thoughtfully evaluate interventions abroad, that we are focused on protecting the security, safety and interests

of the american people above all else. thank you, madam president. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president today the senate will consider a motion to discharge a resolution of disapproval from foreign relations committee. i oppose that motion because i believe it would harm our nation's long-term strategic interests in the persian gulf and in the broader middle east. it would further damage our alliance and our partnership with the kingdom of saudi arabia. at a time when our moderate sunni arab allies are questioning whether our nation is able to meet our traditional commitment to the region. the resolution would also ignore the shared interests we have with saudi arabia in combatting al qaeda and isil. were this resolution disapproval ever to be adopted, it would further convince the world that

the united states is retreating not only from its commitments, but also as the guarantor of the international order we've worked to create after the second world war. i'll move to table this motion and encourage all of my colleagues to support the motion. we're nearing the end of the obama administration, and the next president will have a stark choice upon assuming office, whether to continue the drawdown of america's conventional military power across the globe, or to restore our war-fighting capabilities to renew our alliances and restore america to its position as the guarantor of the international security order. after nearly eight years, the president's approach to foreign policy has become all too clear. to end the war on terror, draw down our conventional forces and capabilities and to deploy special operations forces, an economy of force, train and

assist missions all across the globe. the essence of the foreign policy was captured in his speech at west point just this past may. in that speech, the president described a network of partnerships from south asia to be funded by a $5 billion counter terror partnership fund for which congress has yet to receive a viable plan. and in those cases where indigenous forces proved insufficient and a need for direct action arises, the president announced his intervention to resort to the use of armed unmanned aerial for strikes as had been done in yemen and somalia. so by deploying special operations forces for train and equip missions the president hoped to manage the defused threat posed by al qaeda in the

peninsula, boko haram that now threaten egypt, the al-nusra front, taliban, isil and other terrorist groups. the concept of operations allowed the president to continue the force structure cuts to the conventional forces and sought to manage the threat from global terrorism. he envyingsed no need to reversd to reverse the defense sequestration, to rebuild conventional and nuclear forces or to accept that leaving behind residual forces in iraq and afghanistan was a means by which this nation preserves the strategic gains that we have made through sacrifice. the threat of some of these al qaeda affiliates, associated groups or independent terrorist organizations has outpaced the president's economy of force concept. in some cases the host nation military which we had trained and equipped have proven inadequate to defeat the insurgency in question as was the case with aqap, the taliban

or isil. and the obama administration never answered the question, what was to be done -- what was to be done when the host nation force we trained for counterterrorism was incapable of counterinsurgency? iraq, libya, yemen. the department of defense efforts to train a moderate syrian opposition never provided sufficient reason for the president to rethink basic strategy. the president's concept of operations countenance, a persistent, enduring terrorist threat from aqap, the taliban and other groups in those countries, where insufficient ground combat power could be generated by the force which we train. in riyadh, our traditional long-standing ally saudi arabia warned of iran's efforts to arm and support shia proxies and

foment unrest across the region all of which was lost upon the white house. instead they were called free riders and saudi arabia's concerns with what a muslim brotherhood and cairo and the slaughter of sunnis would mean within the region were ignored. the c obama administration sounded an uncertain trumpet but the words that resounded across saudi arabia and the region were a commitment to the allies that negotiating a brand to end the nuclear weapons program, no deal is better than a bad deal. this proved not to be true. the administration accepted the bad deal, and in its negotiation with iran, the administration made concession after concession after concession, allowing iran to retain a nuclear enrichment program to allow for the retention of working centrifuges and a research and development program, providing financial

relief and support and lending legitimacy to the world's chief state sponsor of terror. under any net assessment, iran has emerged from the nuclear deal with the obama administration stronger, stronger than before the deal. the funds derived from the lifting of sanctions enabled iran to engage in proxy forces, capabilities such as advanced defense systems and to threaten israel and saudi arabia. even more consequential is the fact that the obama administration single minded pursuit of achieving and preserving the deal has held the other elements of our foreign policy toward iran hostage. iran is free to harass american vessels within the persian gulf, to test ballistic missiles and to fund proxy forces. after agreeing to the joint comprehensive plan of action, the president gathered the leaders of the gulf cooperation council at camp david. at that meeting our president

made commitments to those allies that we would help them. we would help them in l building their respective defense capabilities. a vote in support of this resolution today undermines that commitment made by the president to help the saudis. our allies in the region, especially saudi arabia and the united arab emirates, came to understand that after the fall of the mubarak government, the decapitation of the government in libya and civil war in syria, that they must act in pursuit of their own sovereign interests whether the united states would lead or not. the specific foreign military sale in question here is for abrams tank structures to saudi arabia. we've been selling ground combat equipment to saudi arabia for decades. for decades. there is no evidence -- none -- that the saudis have

used the abrams tank in ground combat within yemen. these systems have been used along the saudi border to defense against houthi incursions. united states is actively working to improve saudi targeting capability and to deliver humanitarian relief to the people of yemen. so let us also remember that denying the sale of abrams tank structures will simply lead some of our allies to pursue weapons systems from other countries. the saudis don't have to buy this equipment from us. they can buy it from somebody else. so, this motion comes at a singularly unfortunate time and would serve to convince saudi arabia and all other observers that the united states does not live up to its commitments. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, let's be clear about what the

arms sale is all about. it's about giving a nation that's under attack by iranian-sponsored militia the arms it needs to defend its people and its territory. the houthi militia, which is iran's proxy in yemen, is attacking saudi arabia's southern border, has carried out hundreds of cross-border raids and the saudi arabia fired numerous missiles deep into saudi territory. and make no mistake, this aggression is fueled by the iranians. earlier this year the united states seized a shipment of arms bound for the houthi militia. have no doubt that the houthi militia are the clients and the stooges and the agents of iran who are attempting to take over control of yemen which is an important nation, particularly because it would steer graphic

location on the straits of hormuz. have no doubt about what the situation would be strategically if the iranian sponsored houthis control yemen. have no doubt about the threat that is to the united states of america and freedom of navigation. houthi aggression against saudi arabia has displaced over 75,000 saudis and killed hundreds of civilians. if if militias were attacking our borders and launching missiles into our territory and our friends refused to help us defend ourselves, we would certainly question the value of that friendship. this is why this sale is more important than just a sale. it is a message. the sale will give saudi arabia tanks it has used to defend its own country from houthi attacks. the united states has no evidence that saudi arabia has used the tanks outside of saudi territory. in fact, 20 of the tanks in the

case would be intended to replace those damaged by houthi artillery while the tanks were on saudi territory deployed in defensive positions to counter offensive houthi cross-border raids. these tanks will be reviewed and monitored like all u.s.-origin defense articles to ensure their use in the manner intended or consistent with legal obligations, foreign policy goals and values. i say to my colleagues blocking this sale of tanks will be interpreted by our gulf partners, not just saudi arabia, as another sign that the united states of america is abandoning our commitment to the region and is an unreliable security partner. that's what this vote is all about. nations in the region already have the impression because

president obama has reneged on his promise made at the u.s. gulf cooperation council meeting in camp david in may of 2015 to fast track arms transfers. so as we support the saudis in the defense of their territorial integrity, we do not refrain from expressing our concern about the war in yemen and how it's being conducted. we remain concerned by the high number of casualties resulting from the fighting. we have repeatedly expressed our deepest concern about the ongoing strikes that have killed and injured civilians, the heavy toll paid by the yemeni people and the urgent and compelling need for humanitarian assistance. and there has been some progress including the establishment of the joint incidents assessment team, a commission to investigate civilian casualties. but we cannot forget an iranian-backed houthi-controlled

yemen will be a chaotic, unstable place ripe for exploitation, not only by iran but also by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and isil. that's why it must be our goal and the goal of the international community to arrive at a political solution to bring stability and security back to yemen. saudi arabia has been seeking such a solution. saudis were cooperative and participated in good faith in the peace negotiations in kuwait before those talks unfortunately broke down over houthi intransigence. they have shown considerable restraint in not responding with air strikes to houthi cross-border attacks which continue. in the meantime, we must continue to support an important regional partner against iran's destabilizing behavior in yemen and beyond. so i say to my colleagues this

vote is more important than the sale of tanks. this vote, this vote is a message to our friends and our enemies alike. this message is that we will continue the commitment that president obama made at a meeting in 2015 with the nations in the region that we would expedite arms sales to them, not prohibit them. this is a message that one of the strongest forces against al qaeda in the region and other terrorist organizations isn't going to be allowed to acquire weapons with which to defend their sovereign nation. so this vote, this vote will resonate throughout the entire middle east. that's why i hope my colleagues will understand the importance of this vote transcends anything to do with military equipment, and i urge my colleagues to vote

against this resolution, and i urge my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina.

mr. graham: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. graham: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be termed. the presiding officer: without objection -- be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: would you let me know when ten minutes expires? the body is going to have a voto have a vote in a couple of hours about whether or not we should approve an arms sale to our friends in saudi arabia. i use the friend term because that's what i think they are when it comes to the efforts to win the war against terror. internal problems in saudi arabia are real. they need to modernize the way they do business. they have double-dealing in the past of helping terrorist organizations. at the end of the day, the middle east is a very complicated place. but here's what's not complicated. saudi arabia shared intelligence with us that's made americans safe. they have allowed us to use their air bases in time of conflict. they are all in against isil, and they are great -- a great

ally against the ambitions of the iranians. when you add up the pluses and minuses of the relationship with saudi arabia, in my view it is not close. the pluses outweigh the minuses. and to those who wish to sever this relationship, be careful what you wish for. saudi arabia is the center of gravity of the islamic world. most holy sites in islam are in saudi arabia. i have met with the king, the crown prince, the deputy crown prince. they have shown willingness to work with us at a time we need partners. and if you drive this good partner saudi arabia away, you will one day regret it. here's what's going on in the middle east. iran is marching to through the middle east with terror. they are destabilizing the entire region. the saudi kingdom is not perfect, but they are aligned with us on the big issues when it comes to terrorism and

pushing back against iran. the iranian regime is controlled by a radical ayatollah who openly chants and tweets that the state of israel must be destroyed. this regime is in the hands of a religious nazi. the ayatollah and iran controls everything. there are no moderate voices there left. since the deal with iran has been signed regarding their nuclear program, they have test fired four missiles in violation of u.n. resolutions. one of the missiles basically had in hebrew israel must be destroyed. they constantly threaten our neighbors, our ally israel. they have taken over four asia capitals. the houthis who threw out a pro-american government in yemen by force of arms is being supplied arms by the iranians. the $150 billion the iranian regime will receive in sanctions relief is finding its way into the hands of terrorist

organizations. hezbollah, a mortal enemy of israel is being provided missiles to threat especially the jewish state. they have disrupted all of our gains inside of iraq. they're influencing baghdad in a very bad way. so when this comes to yemen, when it comes to iraq, when it comes to syria, iran is just creating havoc. so this body has a choice. we're talking about a billion-dollar package of armaments that will upgrade the saudi capability to fight more aggressively common enemies like al qaeda and isil, and it will give them military capability to challenging the increasing threats to the region from iran. if we say "no" to the saudis, not only will that be seen as a slight by the saudis, they'll buy the arms somewhere else.

if you want to talk about a body that would have things ass-backwards, this would be the moment in history where you will be seen in history as not understanding the world. there are some of my colleagues on the other side worried about how the saudis are using military force inside of yemen to protect their borders from an iranian intrusion that is being basically carried forward by the houthis. there is an effort to bring about peace in yenl, but iran has -- in yemen, but iran has empowered a pro--western government creating havoc for the saudis. they have dropped bombs on civilians. floss way to conduct war without mistakes being made. we're trying to sell them new equipment, precision-guided weapons that will lessen civilian casualties when saudi arabia has to defend themselves. but i think it would be pretty odd for members on the other side of the aisle who almost unanimously supported the iranian nuclear agreement to give sanctions relief to an

ayatollah who on the day of the vote said he hopes to destroy israel in 25 years. and deny a weapons sale to somebody who is in the fight with you. you're talking about ass-backwards. flush the iranian regime with capabilities they have dreamed of to try to pursue a nuclear deal that i think is a nightmare for the region and in the same context, a matter of months, start denying arab allies who are willing to fight with you the capability to fight. if you want to send a significant mall to the ayatollah -- signal that the ayatollah that america is out of the fight and we're no longer a reliable ally, stop helping saudi arabia and the gulf arab states who have been helping us, as imper tect as they may be -- as imperfect as they may be. what a world we live in where this body wants to be tough on saudi arabia because they're in a shooting war in yemen sponsored by the iranians iranit on their border, that we want to cut off military a i had to them because of human rights

violations, when people on the other side are watching iran destroy us. not one person over there has risen their hand to say, "no" you know, maybe we should revisit sanctions on iran based on what they've done since we signed the deal. here is the answer: the iranians have tested four missiles after signing the nuclear agreement with us in violation of u.n. resolutions ans our response to is to cut off weapons to saudi arabia in we haven't done a damn thing to send a signal to the ayatollah, hey, you're going to pay a price if you keep doing thsm the iranians are shipping weapons to the hewittties who have destroyed a pro--american government, creating havoc inside of yemen and our response is to cut off weapons to the saudi arabians. if you really want to change the mideast forever, do this. if you really bant to tell everybody who has fought with

america you are no longer a reliable ally, do this. if you want to tell the russians that we're going to cede authority and power to them, do this. the russians are pulling for us. the russians would like nothing better than america to cut off arms sales and alivenses with --ate lines with the gulf arab states, particularly saudi arabia, because that would give them opportunity of a lifetime. if you care about the american homeland, you better put iran in a box as soon as you can. not only are the iranians trying to take over, they're developing ballistic missiles to deliver something. they're not going to put the ayatollah in sparkes but i'd like to do that myself. they're going to put something on top of that missile and i know exactly what it is. all of the arabs know what it it isances and the realize know what it is. at a time of great and clear conflict -- and it is clear to me that the iranians are the bad guys and our allies in the arab world are imperfect, but they

are still our allies, that we're going to send a signal to the radical regime in tehran that we're going to roll back supporting our allies and do nothing about your provocative behavior would be a mistake for the ages. i wish the body would have a different debate than we're having today. i wish somebody would come here and talk about reimposing sanctions on the iranians. they have captured american sailors and humiliated them. they're allies of bashar assad who has butchered 450,000 of his own people. they are a empowering hezbollah, the mortal enemy of israel. they're humiliating every force of good, and our response is to stand up and undercut an ally? what a world we live in where the united states senate is

considering stopping selling arms to somebody who would fight with us at a time when we're doing nothing to a country who has called us the great satan, and if they could would destroy us and have killed american soldiers by providing radical groups inside of iraq with i.e.d.'s that's killed hundreds of american soldiers. you're talking about a body and an idea that is ass-backwards, this is one for the ages. so to my friends from saudi arabia, i will push you to do better and you need to look in the mitterrer about who you are and what -- in the mirror about what you are and what you you have done. as long as i'm here with my colleagues, we're going to push back against iran. we're going to hispanic our arab allies more, not less, as long as you're doing what you're doing. to those who want to vote today to suspend this aid to the --

saudi arabia, people in iran will cheer you on. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president, while he's still on the floorks i want to tell the senator from south carolina how much i appreciate his remarks. i agree with virtually everything he said, and he is one of the most knowledgeable and articulate members of the congress on national security matters, and he knows wherever he speaks and he -- where of he speaks and he speaks the truth. i have come to the floor a few times this last week to talk about another piece of legislation called the justice against sponsors of terrorism act known as jasta. this is -- this might as well be known as the 9/11 families -- the justice for the 9/11

families bill. but i support the position articulated by the senator from south carolina and will vote against the resolution of disapproval to block the saudi arms sale. i believe that's the same position ar telecommunication lated by the -- articulated by senator mccain and the majority leader, senator mcconnell. and i find myself in agreement with each of them. now, some might say, well, how can you agree to maintain the relationship with saudi arabia when it comes to providing them with the necessary arms that they need in order to fight this proxy war by iran against the gulf state allies? and how can you at the same time support this justice for -- against state sponsors of terrorism act, which some say may be focused on the saudis?

well, i'd like to explain that. first of all, let me just say, when i think about the senate, i'm reminded of comments made by robert byrd, the distinguished senator from west virginia who is no longer with us. he has written books on senate procedure. he has written a history of the united states senate. he's really -- he was a remarkable man. he was also former majority leader of the united states senate and a force to be reckoned with. when i came to the senate, senator byrd said, among other things, in the senate, you have no permanent allies. in the senate, he said, you have no permanent enemies. what he meant by that, i believe, was that on a case-by-case basis, people who come from different regions of the country, different states with different interests will

work together where their interests are aligned and when they are not, they're going to differ, respectfully, i would hope. but they're not going to always do the same thing or see the world in exactly the same way. but that doesn't mean we're enemies. that doesn't mean we're adversaries. that's just the way it works. and as i think about our relationship with countries like saudi arabia -- but it's not just saudi arabia; it's all of our international relationships -- we are going to agree with them on matters of principle when our interests are aligned. we are. and certainly in the case of this arms sale, our interests are perfectly aligned. saudi arabia finds itself in a very rough neighborhood, subjected to violence and war perpetrated by iran, frequently through proxy groups like hezbollah, the hewittties and other -- houthis and other

forces. but it is invoke cloture in the united states -- but it is very much in the united states' interest that iran not continue to dominate the middle east. obviously they have made great strides in dominating and influencing iraq. unfortunately, as a result of the misguided nuclear deal negotiated by the white house, iran is now on a pathway toward a nuclear weapon. you can imagine what our other allies like saudi arabia and the other gulf states are thinking. if our number-one adversary in the region is going to get a nuclear weapon, we may need to defend ourselves by what? well, by getting nuclear weapons. that makes the world a much more dangerous place. but my point is, when it comes to relationships between senators different states representing different regions and different interests, even

though we sometimes agree with each other, sometimes disagree with each other, that's just the way the senate works, and that's the way i believe that the world works. when our interests are aligned with countries like saudi arabia, we will stand with them. and we hope they would stand with us. when they diverge, we're going to take a little different approach. i believe it's absolutely imperative that we override the forthcoming veto of the justice against sponsors of terrorism act so that the families who suffered so much and lost so much on 9/11 can go to court and make the case, if they can, to hold whoever was responsible accountable. that's just as basic as anything in our system of justice. that's not for us to decide here. we're not a court of law. the rules of procedure and the

rules of evidence don't apply here. sometimes i wish they did. because in court you can't just introduce hearsay or conspiracy theories and not back them up. they have to be based on reliable testimony, as determined by a judge. well, that's what the 9/11 families are going to get is the opportunity to make their case, if they can. i don't know if they are going to be successful or not, but i do believe one of the most fundamental things about our system of government is the opportunity to try. if you think you have a case to make, to present it to the judge and to try to make your case. you may win, you may lose. i spent 13 years of my adult life as a trial judge and on an appellate court, the texas supreme court, so i -- maybe i just became too familiar with how courts operate. maybe i have more confidence in the ability of the courts to sift through these matters and get to the bottom of them than

some of my other colleagues dovmendo.but i have confidence d large in the federal judiciary, and i believe under a good -- under the oversight of a good federal judge, they're going to enter the appropriate sort of protective orders necessary to protect people sued against overreaching and fishing expeditions when this comes to discovery, for example. and the judge is going to make sure everybody plays by the rules and not take unfair advantage. so enough about -- enough about that. but i believe that, unlike a few of my colleagues whose comments i've read about, the justice against sponsors of terrorism act does not target a specific country. as i mentioned time and time again, it doesn't even mention -- we don't even mention a specific country in the legislation. all it does is it extends a law dating back to 198 -- 1978, the

foreign sovereign immunities act and it says in a narrow set of facts, you may be able to sue a foreign government. in this case, if you sponsor or facilitate a terrorist attack on american soil, you will have been deemed by law to have waived your sovereign immunity and be held accountable in court. again, i've read the 28 pages that remain classified from the 9/11 report. i've read other responses from othe-- from our law enforcement intelligence authorities. i won't talk about that here. but i believe that the families do deserve an opportunity to make their case. and i trust that we will override the president's veto once it arrives here after friday. but it is absolutely imperative that we keep our promises to our

allies, like saudi arabia, particularly where it serves our own national security interests. they live in the region. they are working as a counterbalance and a check on iranian hedgeinimi. as the senator from south carolina noted, iran is the biggest troublemaker not only in the middle east but maybe on the planet. they've been trying to wipe israel off the map using proxy forces like hezbollah and hamas. obviously they've been working their mischief in iraq after saddam hussein was deposed. president maliki was put in place but unfortunately because of his favoritism toward the shiite muslims and his opposition to sunni muslims, he essentially joined common cause

with iran. and now we find ourselves in the uneverybodiable -- uneviable position, forces that are assisting iranian and security forces as they march forward to mosul to take that back from the islamic state, we are literally going to be fighting side by side with iranian militias directed by the number one state sponsor of terrorism. it's just outrageous that we find ourselves in this situation. so i would encourage our colleagues to vote against the resolution of disapproval. this bill would keep the united states from supporting saudi arabia in ways that benefit our country strategically. as we've heard that includes tanks and other equipment to help the saudis maintain control of its border in a very dangerous and tumultuous part of

the world. and most importantly to help them protect themselves from an emboldened iran that is awash in cash as a result of the president's misguided bad nuclear deal and lifting sanctions on the iranians. in the long run i think voting for this bill would actually help iran and strengthen its hand. i certainly cannot and will not support that. madam president, i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i would ask the quorum call be rescinded briefly. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these requests have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cornyn: thank you. i note the absence.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana don madam president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection don madam president, i ask unanimous consent that sarah thompson, a member of my staff be granted floor privileges for the day. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. donnelly: i rise today in recognition of suicide prevention month. to continue to shine a light on the impact of suicide and to discuss the importance of efforts to strengthen mental health care. sadly too many hooziers and americans ndz taken from us by suicide shattering families and

communities. today i want to talk about suicide prevention as it relates to our service members, our veterans, and their families. last year sadly for the fourth straight year, more u.s. troops were lost to suicide than in combat. in 2015, 475 service members took their own lives. prior to that, we lost 443 service members in 2014 and 474 service members in 2013. we are painfully aware of the statistic that an estimated 20 veterans a day take their own lives. these numbers allude to hundreds upon thousands of individual tragedies that have rocked our families, our communities, and our nation. these numbers represent sons and

daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives who have dedicated their lives to the service of this nation and who have succombed to invisible wounds. these numbers illustrate the terrible fact that we're losing too many of our service members and veterans to suicide. these numbers demand that we keep efforts to improve military and veterans' mental health services and suicide prevention efforts at the top of our to-do list here in the senate. despite gridlock in congress, this is an issue where we have solid bipartisan consensus. i've seen it firsthand, working year after year with my colleagues, republicans and democrats, to work to improve military mental health care. in 2014 my bipartisan jacob sexton military suicide prevention act was signed into

law. the sexton act named for a young hoosier who we lost far too soon established for the first time a requirement that every service member, active, guard, reserve, receive an annual mental health assessment. building on the success of the sexton act, last year we had provisions of my bipartisan service member and veterans mental health care package signed into law which helped expand access to quality mental health care for service members and delivered mental health health care in a way that meets the unique needs of service members and veterans, whether through department of defense or civilian providers right in our home communities. passing these laws is a step in the right direction. it will take a consistent

concerted effort to bring the number of service member suicides down to zero. we need to ensure the laws we pass, including the sexton act and the care package, are implemented correctly so these services reach the troops and veterans who need them the most. and we need to keep working on smart legislation that streamlines access and strengthens the quality of mental health care. this has been a top priority for me since i first introduced the sexton act in 2013. my first bill as a united states senator. it remains a top priority for me today. this year the final provision of my bipartisan care package passed the senate as part of the national defense bill. it expands the ability of physician assistance to provide mental health care evaluations in services for service members

and their families. the bill establishes a pilot program to expand the use of physician assistance, specializing in psychiatric care to help address the mental health care provider shortage. this can help make a difference for our service members in indiana and across the entire country. i urge congress to come together on a final defense bill that can be sent to the president and signed into law. there's no single solution that ends suicide. we may never fully understand the internal battles that lead to an individual taking his or her own life. this much is clear, however. we must do more to help prevent military and veteran suicides. throughout september we'll recognize suicide prevention month, but this issue, it

demands our attention and our every single day every single day of of the year. to our service members struggling with health challenges and it to your loved ones, we're here for you and we won't stop working until you receive the care you deserve and the support you need. we will be there with you every step of the way. mr. president, i yield back. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: thank you, mr. president. you wouldn't think that i would have to keep coming here to talk about our responsibility to do everything in our power to grow american manufacturing jobs, to keep american manufacturing jobs, and to make sure that american manufacturers are competitive in the global economy. when young people come to my office and we talk about the future, the one thing that i tell them -- and it's critical that you never forget this -- today in the world, 95% of all potential consumers do not live in this country. if you are going to be successful going into the future, you're going to have to be competitive. you're going to have to be innovative, and you're going to have to do everything that you can to grab that market share. that's how our economy's going to grow. that brings new wealth to our country. that gives us the opportunity to continue to advance an economic and political agenda that will move our country and the values that we have in this democracy forward. so what do we do?

we stall out by saying even though 90 or 80 other countries have an export credit agency that can, in fact, assist in financing those manufacturing jobs, financing those purchases, what we're going to do as the united states of america is we're going to tie the hands of a 70-year-old institution that has functioned incredibly well to bring jobs and wealth to our country, and we're going to do it because not because the will of this body and the will of this congress hasn't been expressed. in fact, it's opposite. when we reauthorize the export-import, the export-import bank, we were able to secure almost 70% of the senate and over 70% of the house. sounds like a mandate to me. stowndz like an understanding that most of the people in this institution understand the importance of a credit export

agency. guess what? we have now told our export agency that we are not going to give you the structure or the power to function. if you want to do a deal that's more than $10 million, we're not there. we're not there with the assistance, we're not there with the guarantee, and we're not there helping american businesses be competitive internationally. and you know, a lot of people will say well, those are just the big guys, those are the guys that, you know, the boeings of the world or the g.e.'s of the world or the caterpillars of the world. it totally ignores how american manufacturing gets done. american manufacturing is done in little small shops all across this country, small businesses, small businesses that have been in part of that supply chain for decades and have relied on the corporate innovation and selling

of large aircraft, of large construction equipment, of large gas turbines and generators. and you know what? what's going to happen when those manufacturers or asemiblers do not have export financing, guess what they do. they say i've got to move someplace elsewhere i can get it. if i am going to be able to sell my products in the global market, i've got to be able to qualify for export financing. and that means that i have to move those manufacturing jobs, manufacturing gas turbines or manufacturing small parts, i have to prove them to france where there is an environment and where there is a government that understands the importance of providing this important trade resource. so as we sit here today collectively worried about the middle class, collectively worried about americans' competitiveness in

manufacturing, as we look at trying to glow our global presence and our global exports, we take one critical piece of trade infrastructure and we say can't use it. and you know, not because people here don't think so, not because the american people don't think that's a good idea, because when you talk about this to the american people, guess what? they say that's crazy. something that returns dollars to the treasury and provides us resources to grow american jobs, and we're not going to do it? we're not going to do it because the think tanks, the conservative think tanks in washington, d.c., whose influence is outsized from their idea, outsized from their political support decided it's not a good idea. whether it's club for growth, whether it is the heritage foundation, whether it's kato, whoever comes forward and says not a good idea. so when we are talking about american jobs and we're talking

about american manufacturing and we can do some simple act which in this c.r. we have to do because we can't move the nominee that would give us a quorum on the ex-im bank, which is the thing that's holds us up. the ex-im bank operates like a lot of banks. they have a board of directors, and when that board of directors doesn't have a quorum, they can't make decisions on credits over $10 million. so we have $20 billion of business that we could be doing internationally that is held up by the lack of a quorum. so i get it. you know, we're about regular order, right? i don't know what regular order says not sending in a nominee out of a committee so we can vote them up or down. the argument that i get is we've never had a debate. really? i can't tell you how many times i have stood in this spot debating the ex-im bank, debating the values of the ex-im bank, debating the importance of the ex-im bank.

but we haven't had a debate. i say you want a debate? move the nominee to the floor. let's have a debate. you don't want to have a debate you can lose. that's the debate they don't want to have because they will, in fact, lose in this pod if that nominee comes up. so recognizing the support that we see for regular order, if we can call it that, regular order to me means getting your job done. it doesn't mean stalling out and stopping american innovation and american exports. but let's say we have regular order. now we're working on trying to change the quorum rules so that people can actually make a decision and move these credits forward and get americans back to work, get us back to exporting. so -- so where are we right now? well, a lot of people -- we read in the press that once again the outsized for their political support interest groups in this town are saying don't do it,

don't do it, and american manufacturing is hurt and american manufacturing is calling, saying we must do it, and we can't wait until the end of the year. we can't wait to do this credit. the last time i came here, i brought what i call a front end loader, i brought a loader here and i talked about the manufacturing of that piece of equipment in my state and i stalked about a huge credit and a huge deal that we could do that involved international credit with a dealership, that involved manufacturing in iowa, manufacturing in kansas and manufacturing in north dakota, all american jobs. didn't move any -- or influence anyone, obviously, or we would have it done. so now i am asking that everybody who says they're for american workers, they're for american progress, they're for

american exports, i'm asking everyone call leadership. this is something we have to do. it is bipartisan, it's nonpartisan. i know that the democrats have put it on their list of asks. but we shouldn't be a republican-democrat issue. i have good allies on the other side of the aisle who want to move this forward as well. and when we can't move a piece of legislation and an idea that has supermajority support, that's when the american public says guess what, this is a broken institution. this is an institution that doesn't function for the american people. and when american jobs and american workers get pink slips because we aren't doing our job here, that's a sad day for the united states congress. and it's a sad day for what we do here. standing on principle is one thing. you fought the fight. the bank was reauthorized. let's get the bank fully

functioning. let's get a resolution. let's get a provision in the continuing resolution that actually provides for reinvigorating and moving the ex-im bank forward. as i have said before in this very spot, i don't go to bed worried about c.e.o.'s of major companies. guess what? they have options. they can move those jobs overseas. they'll function just fine. they're multinational businesses. i go to bed worried about that worker who has to come home with a pink slip because there is no longer the opportunity to sell what they manufacture. and don't think it's not happening right now in the united states of america because it is. those pink slips are on us. those pink slips are happening because we have an institution that does not function in a majority fashion and for the people of this country, and certainly for the middle class.

so everybody who says they aren't for the middle class, why don't we just quit engaging in lip service and why don't we start taking action that tells american manufacturers and american workers and american business we're going to stand with you as you innovate and as you export and you grow the economy of this country. when everybody says our economic growth is sluggish, i look at them and say you know what? you know how we could amp it up? by exporting. you know why we're not exporting $20 billion worth of goods in this country? because we do not have a fully functioning ex-im bank. there is no way anyone logically could look at this and say this is good public policy. and so, mr. president, i couldn't be more distraught, i couldn't be more sympathetic to what's happening for american workers, and it is time that we all work together, as i know,

mr. president, you're very interested in moving the bank forward as well, that we all make sure that we get this problem taken care of before we leave in october. so with that, i would yield my time, yield the floor and note an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. a senator: i rise to speak about the vote that's going to owe cur at 2:15. i urge my colleagues to table this motion. the motion would keep us from being able to follow through on a sale of arms to saudi arabia. mr. corker: it is nigh belief that the appropriate policy here is to table that. let me just for a few moments share why. first of all, this is not a subsidized sale. this is a sale where a country is trying to buy u.s. weaponry with their own money. this is not something like the united states giving foreign aid to another country. this is a situation where an ally that's certainly an imperfect ally -- they are very aware they have public relations issues within our own country for lots of reasons, but they are an ally nonetheless. and they have decided -- they've

looked around -- and they've decided that the best thing for them to do -- by the way, the tanks, they already own tanks like this lmplet and the -- alr. and they can go someplace else to purchase. let me start out that we had a huge debate here in the senate about the iran nuclear deal. and we ended up in differing places. 58 people here decided they duntdidn't like think it was a d deal. but i think everyone here has concerns about iran and what they're doing in the middle east. during that time frame, the administration met at camp david with saudi arabia and some of our other arab friends in the region and mentioned that in order to counter the nefarious activities that iran is involved in -- and i think everyone in this body would agree that they are involved in nefarious activities; they are a country that we stated is a state

sponsor of terrorism -- in order to counter that that we would expedite sales to friends like saudi arabia and u.a.e. and other countries in the region. and this is a part of that. and for us to -- for us to back away from this is in essence saying that we do not want to counter the ne nefarious activities, the terrorism that iran is conducting in the region. now, i understand that my friend from kentucky -- and i really think his heartfelt concern about providing sail aid to some of the other countries -- this again is not aid. this is an ally that we're ute lighting in our alliance as balance of power against what iran is doing in the region. and so in essence by not following through on sales to friends like saudi arabia and other countries, what we're

really saying is we want to undermine the balance of power that create this -- that is create there had in the region. let me say something else. i've noticed in this body that people are far less willing to want to commit u.s. troops in foreign places. there is a range of feelings about that but i would say generally speaking, i don't think there's any question that americans are far less willing to commit massive ground troops to efforts in the middle east. and if we know that to be the mood of the public today, the last thing we would want to do is to not provide the armets necessary -- armaments necessary for countries who might be willing to counter terrorism in the region. so again this is one of those cases to me where i think the sponsors and those who are advocating are well-meaning people, but it's a case where i think we're cutting our nose off despite our face. i don't understand any policy objective that we could be

achieving by saying that we have a country that wants to buy our equipment with their money -- no foreign aid involved whatsoever -- and we're unwilling to sell it to them. and let me just make one last point. we have an infrastructure here in our country that is utilized to protect us in tough times. these are lines of building equipment that we utilize if we ever have to gear up -- and i hope that's not the case again in the near future -- if we ever have to gear up for operations in other countries, we rely upon these lines. so what other countries do in purchasing equipment from us is they keep those lines and keep those employees and keep that technology building in such a way that it's useful for in the future. i cannot identify a single policy objective that we could achieve here by blocking a sale to someone who's been an ally, although not perfect but an

ally, someone who is helping us with the balance of power, someone who's helping us in the fight against some of the efforts that are under way with iran now in yemen -- we're not involved in that directly -- that they are helping with us that, and a country that again is willing to buy u.s.-made equipment that helps us keep in place the infrastructure that's necessary for us over time to protect our country. i'm glad we're having this debate. i hope that we table this overwhelmingly to send a message that again we see no good policy objective in carrying out the blocking of this sale. and with that, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum

call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: today the senate will discuss questions of war and peace. today the senate will do its constitutional duty for a change. let's be very clear, though, that the senate does this under duress. the senate has abdicated its role in foreign policy for too long. we have been at war nearly continuously for 15 years, and the initiation, the conclusion, and the resumption of war has not had debate in this body. the last time we voted on whether or not he should be at war was the iraq war, a very emotional vote and a war that's long been over. there's now a new war in iraq and syria, but there's been no congressional authorization. therefore, it's illegal and unconstitutional. today's debate will attempt to debate whether or not we should initiate war in yemen.

now, it's an indirect vote because they won't allow a direct vote. in fact, they would not allow this debate had i and several others not forced it. but this is a bipartisan coalition that has brought this issue to the floor and said, we should debate issues of war. i know young men who have lost limbs this the war. i know young men and their families who have sacrificed their lives. they deserve to have the country debate when and where we should be at war. it should never be something that we slide into. now, some will say no, you're debating over whether to sell arms to yemen. yes. but i would also argue that we are at war in yemen, and whether or not we sell arms to saudi arabia, i meant to say for the war in yemen is something that should be debated because it's not just about selling arms. it's about whether or not we will be complicit in a war in yemen.

if there is no debate in congress, if there's no debate in the public, are we ready to spend lives and money and treasure on another war in yem yemen? people will say, oh, no big deal. we're not really at war in yemen. yes, we are. we are refueling saudi bombers that be dropping bombs in yemen. there's said to be over 3,000 innocent people who have died in yemen from saudi bombs. what do you think happens to those families when a hundred people die at a wedding in yem yemen? what do you think happens to those families? do you think they have a warm, fuzzy feeling for saudi arabia and the united states that's helping to pick the targets and fuel the planes? don't you think we as a country ought to have a debate before we go to war? don't you think we ought to read the constitution? our founding fathers had a significant detailed and explicit debate over war.

they explicitly took the power to declare war and they gave it to the legislature. madison wrote that the executive is the branch most prone to war. therefore, with studied care, the constitution took the power to declare war and vested it in the legislature. this is repeated throughout the "federalist papers." it is repeated by all of our founding fathers that the power to initiate war was too important to place in the hands of one individual. but over the last decade and a half, we've been at war in libya without the permission of the american people or congress. we've been at war in syria and iraq without the permission of the american people. and now we are at war in yemen without the -- without the approval of congress or the american people. so this is a twofold debate today. it's a debate over whether or

not the united states should be at war without a vote of congress. and i think our founding fathers were clear on this. it was absolutely certain that it was supposed to be a prerogative of congress. but there's also practical concerns. some have come to the floor and said, well, saudi arabia is an imperfect ally. well, i'd go a little bit farther. saudi arabia has often done things that have not been good for america and not been in our national interest and not been consistent with our understanding of human rights. let's give a few examples. the girl was raped by seven men. saudi arabia put her in prison for the crime of being alone with a man. you see, it's a woman's fault because women don't get to testify. the testimony comes from her attackers and the woman was given seven years in prison and

200 lashes. there is a poet who is writing in indonesia who is saudi arabian, picked up by interpoll and taken home to be given the death penalty for possible criticism of the state religion. there's a young 19-year-old man who is a shia, a minority, who was a protester at a rally. i think he's 21 now. been in prison for four years. his uncle was beheaded by the government, a month or two ago and was by all appearances a religious leader, not a collaborator, not an espionage perpetrator. the young man is now 21, been in prison for four years. he faces beheading in sawed rake. you might say -- saudi arabia. you might say human rights aren't important. we need to do what's important for us in the region. we've given saudi arabia $100 billion worth of weapons.

a hundred billion dollars. okay, we didn't give it to them. we sold it to them. but you know what? i think the taxpayer owns our weaponry. we have an ownership interest in our weaponry. this is not the free market. the weaponry was developed with taxpayer money and with explicit reservations that we, congress, can control who it's sold to. so we do need to ask and it's an important debate and we should be having it here in this body instead of leaving it up to the president having the debate, is saudi arabia a good ally? well, we've had this war in syria for some time now, and it's a messy war. and it's a sectarian war. most of the rebel groups are sunni muslim and the government is more's lined with the shiites. so in this war, there have been hundreds and hundreds of tons of weapons, some by us, but maybe

ten fold more by saudi arabia cutter. and there has been public report after public report after public report saying these weapons that saudi arabia is pouring into saudi arabia have been given indiscrime nantzly -- indiscriminately. they have been weapons that some would say they're being given to the pro-americans. one said when they were done they would go after israel. doesn't sound like people who are necessarily our friends. but many of these weapons, according to public reports that saudi arabia has bought from us and channeled into syria have gone to al-nusra, a branch of al qaeda. they use the justification to go to war in syria, the 9/11 justification that said we would go after those who attacked us. i no the that was al qaeda and now we're giving arms to saudi arabia that is giving arms to al qaeda, al-nusra, and there have been reports that the arms have

gone directly to isis. i think it's been indiscriminate, inexcusable and not in our national interest. how do we know what's in our national interest? you have to have a debate. instead congress wants to be a lap dog for an imperil -- imper yal presidency, rubber stamp, here you go. not even a rubber stamp. no vote, no discussion, nothing. we are forcing this debate against the wishes of both parties. because both parties are complicit in this. this is not a republican versus democrat thing. this is a bipartisan consensus, foreign policy don census that -- consensus that says we should always give weapons without conditions, indiscriminately. a hundred billion dollars of weapons to saudi arabia, more than any other president. president obama has given more and you say why does he do this? well, because we released about a hundred billion dollars worth of iranian assets and the saudis

say, well, iran is getting all this money. we need to get some, too. we need weapons as well because you let iran have money back to buy weapons. so it fuels an arms race over there. but the real -- the great irony of this and it's something that is so ironic that this body cannot overcome is that unanimously this body voted to let 9/11 victims sue saudi arabia. now, why would we let them sue that unless the people who voted unanimously actually believe that there's a possibility saudi arabia had something to do with 9/11 so the body that voted unanimously that there's a possibility that saudi arabia had something to do with 9/11 is now going to vote overwhelmingly to send weapons to the country they think might have had something to do with 9/11. saudi arabia, ally or enemy?

i sometimes call them frenemy. i'm not arguing that they never do anything that's good us for. they do on occasion but they also do many things that aren't good for us. as we look through the list of things and we look through the arms that have been channeled into this region, you know, we wonder will we be better off? will our national security be better off or worse off? so, for example, as the weapons that saudi arabia poured into syria, they pushed back assad and there became a vacuum in the syrian civil war. guess who came to occupy that vacuum? guess who grew stronger and stronger in the absence of assad and the chaos of the civil war? isis. in yemen, you have several factions fighting, maybe not quite as complicated as syria. but you have is a laugh --

salafists, people who believe in the primitive form that saudi arabia practices. these people are allied with saudi arabia and they're fighting against rebels they call the houthi rebels. the houthi rebels are aligned with iran and in all likelihood supplied by iran. somewhat of a proxy war between saudi arabia and iran. you say, don't we hate iran so much that we have to be involved everywhere to stop iran? well, i don't know. i mean, saudi arabia funds hatred around the world. does iran fund madras sus in our -- madrassus this our country? good question. is iran -- i'm not apologizing for iran by any means but iran to my knowledge does not fund ma dramadrassas. saudi arabia funds madrassas

that teaches hatred of the west, christianity. by the way, if you're a christian, don't bother going to sawed rake. you're not allowed and god forbid you try to bring a bible into your country. this is who you want to send more weapons to? what of the yemen war? what happens as the weapons pour into yemen? is it possible that isis and al qaeda and the arab peninsula sit by laughing and rubbing their hands and watching the war between the houthis and the salafists and stepping into the breach? it's what happened in syria. are we not to learn the lessons of the middle east? are we to completely stick our head in the sand and say we must always give weapons and if we don't give weapons, that's isolationism. that's literally what some people are saying.

oh, it's isolationism not to send a hundred billion dollars worth of weapons. to send one billion less would somehow be isolationism. perhaps it would send a message. there have been people who have described saudi arabia as both arsonists and firefighter. throwing fuel, adding fuel to the flames, and at times being our friend and being helpful. maybe giving us some information or some intelligence. the syrian civil war, nothing good has come from that civil war. arms have been plowed into on both sides and nothing good but one concrete thing has come from the syrian civil war. millions of refugees, millions of displaced people. they have flooded europe and they're wanting to come to america also. what do you think happens in yepmen if we put -- yemen if we put more weapons in there?

what do you think happens in yemen if we put more arms in yemen? more or less refugees? there will be millions of refugees coming. they will be flooding out of yemen if they can get out of there as the war accelerates. does saudi arabia help with the refugees? does qatar help? do any of the gulf states take any refugees? zero. saudi arabia has taken zero refugees. so while they fan the flames, while they send arms into syria and arms into yemen and bombs into yemen, they take zero refugees from yemen or from syria. somehow it always seems to be america's responsibility to pay for everything and to absorb the brunt of the civil wars throughout the middle east. i think there's another answer. i'm not saying that we