british people took. i believe absolutely we should not and we should ensure that we do leave the european union. that was the decision taken by the british people and that's the decision we will deliver on. >> dr. phillip lee. >> when i resigned from the government in june, i called for the suspension of article 50 because i feared this likely parliamentary impasse. i know the prime minister is a thoroughly decent person who has public service running through her veins. with that in mind and with the responsibility of government, could the prime minister outline to me the legal legislative and political requirements of suspending article 50 or indeed, revoking-- >> see the rest of this debate from the british house of commons on our website, c-span.org. find it by typing brexit in the search bar. we'll leave it here to go live in the u.s. senate. senators today considering the nomination of michelle bowman

to serve on the federal reserve board of governors. and vote on a r resolution from senator rand paul to block arms sales to bahrain. now to live coverage. will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you are our help in ages past and our hope for years to come. we find consolation from the knowledge that our times are in your hands. forgive us when we doubt your power, mercy, and love.

bless our lawmakers. help them to remember that you love them so much that you want what is best for them. you are so wise that you know what is best for them, and so powerful that you can bring about what is for their ultimate good. give each of our senators a fresh burst of enthusiasm for the next stage in the unfolding le your loving and powerful providence. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 15, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable cindy hyde-smith, a senator from the state of mississippi, who will perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the te senate will be in a period of

morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: we are not in a quorum, are we? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. so, madam president, the president of the united states swears an oath to protect and defend the constitution, including bedrock principles, rule of law, the sanctity of elections, but nearly every day president trump ignores this fundamental responsibility and tramples on the values that have made our country the light of the world. no president has come close to defaming and trying to destroy the democratic values of this country. no president has come close. none. this morning, for what seemed like the millionth time, the

president angrily, wildly, and baselessly ranted about the special counsel's investigation. it the doesn't matter to him that his claims have no basis. it doesn't matter to him that his words may degrade faith in our independent law enforcement agencies and the rule of law. he proceeds only according to self-interest. he's offended that someone might look into the fact that he did something wrong. this happens with every president, and he lashes out in ways that hurt our democracy permanently. just look at how over the past few weeks president trump has tried to intimidate and bully election officials in florida and arizona with fan fantastical claim of voter fraud. it doesn't matter to him that there's no evidence to the charges. it doesn't matter to him that in both states in arizona and

florida, republican officials said there is no fraud, debunking the president's claims that. it doesn't matter to him that his claims erode faith in the integrity of our elections among a segment of his supporters. if the president thinks it will help him personally, he'll say it. one of the most recent examples just happened yesterday. the president, he keeps getting more and more absurd. he makes up things. so he most recently claimed in an interview with the daily caller that, quote, illegal voters go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, and vote again. mr. president, name one. name a few. where did it happen and when? or did you just read this on some right-wing, nasty, dishonest blog and just repeat it? donald trump, you're the president of the united states.

because you read something in a blog that has no basis in fact, you don't have the right to repeat it if you're president and behaving presidentially, and yet he does it over and over again. it's the height of irresponsibility. it's the height of irresponsibility. since his first day in office, president trump has made these ridiculous claims about voter fraud, and even his sham voting commission, led by chris kovack, couldn't prove. the real disgrace is how low the president and some republicans will stoop to be preventing american citizens from exercising their right to vote and how far they'll go to undermine faith in our democracy, even to the point of disenfranchising military voters, people who may be overseas defending our freedom, risking their lives, who want to vote, and if their ballot

doesn't come in exactly at the right moment, they shouldn't be counted? disgraceful. the tendency is to treat the president's words, oh, that's our modern partisan politics. well, we have too much partisan politics, but the truth is the president's blatant disregard for basic norms, constitutional constraints, and truth is unique to him. no president has come close to going as far to destroying democratic norms. he is doing severe and possibly irreparable damage to our democracy, all to suit his goal and often, it seems, just his ego. so democrats, we condemn this behavior, but where are our republican friends? they should know better, they do know better. i hear the private chatter.

the silence of the republican majority as the president takes an ax to democratic norms will go down as one of the least right moments in the history of the republican party. it will go down as one of the bad marks in the history of the senate, and we don't hear a peep. are our republican colleagues afraid? are they just being mercenary? after this last election, i wouldn't think that would be the case. trump didn't lead them to overwhelming victory. when are we going to hear from them? this is not an issue of partisanship when a president, democrat or republican, does so much to destroy democratic norms, does so much to just make up things like people went into a car, put on a different hat and shirt and then voted. where are our colleagues decrying this, at least saying

the president shouldn't do it? they are embracing the president who they know has done so many bad things. i'm not talking ideologically. i'm talking about honor and respect for democracy. it is something they should not be proud of. now, on the russian investigation itself, there is this idea out there on the republican side that the president doesn't intend to interfere with the russian investigation. republicans, including my friend, the republican leader, say president trump has not threatened the special counsel investigation, so there is no need to protect it. that's a laugh. he threatens the investigation almost every day. he did this morning in his tweets. to say that the president hasn't threatened the special counsel is not only logically dubious, it's just dead wrong and untrue. a few weeks ago, president trump said the investigation should

end. this morning again, president trump made clear that he does not want the mueller investigation to reach a fair and impartial conclusion. and last week, president trump went around the traditional line of succession in the justice department, what many believe to be a violation of the constitution, to install an acting attorney general whose only qualification for the job seems to be that he is publicly -- he has publicly criticized the russia probe. my friends, particularly my friends again on the republican side, the writing's on the wall. let's avoid this constitutional crisis. let's at least stand up for rule of law. we should pass legislation now in the lame duck to protect the special counsel's investigation from the president and from his woefully unqualified henchman, mr. whitaker. senators flake and coons tried

yesterday bipartisanly. the republican leader objected. they are going to keep trying as they should, and democrats will try to add this proposal to the must-pass spending bill because we believe it's so important for our democracy. there is too much the a stake to sit around and wait until the president crosses the line, creating the constitutional crisis we all abhor. but waiting until that happens, it will be too late. we need to act on legislation to protect the special counsel, to protect the rule of law, to protect democracy, accountability, and the fundamental checks and balances that's a hallmark of our great nation. finally, mr. president, -- madam president, last tuesday's election was historic for not only the number of battles cast by americans in the midterms, but also for those for who those

ballots were cast. americans sent to our capitol the most diverse congress in the history of our nation, from several states, the first native american woman, the first african american woman, the first islamic woman were elected in those states. finally the men and women walking the corridors of power are beginning to look like the nation they represent, at least on our side of the aisle. we are not there yet but we are a lot closer. in light of this progress, it's perhaps fitting that exactly half a century ago, a fellow brooklynite, shirley chisholm, became the first african american woman elected to congress and eventually the first african american woman to run for a major party's nomination for president. breaking that glass ceiling and paving the way for so many others to follow. whether they know shirley chisholm or not, so many who are elected on the other side of the

aisle -- on the other side -- in the house of representatives owe a lot to her, as do all americans. so i have introduced a resolution in the senate, along with my friends, representative ebette clark, my congresswoman who i was proud to vote for in november, and barbara lee of california in the house to honor shirley chisholm's achievements and her legacy of public service. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: i note 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 arizona.

mr. kyl: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. madam president, yesterday, the national defense strategy commission released its report after about a year of study on the defense needs of the united states and our future requirements for a defense strategy and funding of that strategy. i had the honor of serving on that commission during the time that preceded my current presence in the united states senate. the commission was appointed by the members -- the chairman and the ranking members of the house and senate armed services committee. there were six from -- appointed from each of the two bodies, so a total of 12, and it was a division equally between republicans and democrats. i was privileged to have been appointed by my predecessor, senator john mccain. the commission is chaired by

ambassador eric edelman and retired admiral gary roughhead. it included defense experts who had served in congress, who had served in the intelligence community, the diplomatic community, the military, and there was one former political person, myself. as i said, we were tasked with the job of studying our national defense strategy, and advised to provide recommendations to the secretary of defense and to the congress about our future courses of action. the commission worked very hard to review all of the pertinent information related to the formation of the trump administration national defense strategy which had been issued earlier in the year, and this effort included examining the assumptions, the missions, the force posture, structure, as well as strategic and military risks associated with the

execution of that national defense strategy. the commission particularly focused on the threats to the united states and the size and shape of the force required to deter and if necessary defeat these threats. it focused on the readiness of our force, the posture and capabilities of the force, and the allocation of resources, and also examined the strategic and military risks that informed the development of both the national defense strategy and the national security strategy. this commission, madam president, has demonstrated that even in washington, d.c., it is possible to get a genuinely bipartisan consensus on something. in this case, our consensus on united states national security. we agreed that, for example, budget-driven strategies that assume too much risk will cost us more in the long run than

properly funded strategies based on the realistic assessment of the current strategic environment. that's kind of a long way of saying that what this bipartisan commission concluded on a consensus basis, no dissenting views at all, was that we risk more by proceeding with the rebuilding of our military, constrained by budget requirements than if we were to increase the budget for defense spending and eliminate the i am am -- impediments to sensible acquisition, such as the continuing resolution and the sequestration requirements that congress has been engaged in over the past several years. what this commission said in stark headlines is the united states faces a national

emergency. it concluded in very stark terms that we might lose a war with china or russia, and that the only way to avoid this is to adequately fund the strategy that the secretary of defense has set out. his prioritization, the commission concluded, is exactly right. we have to change from focusing solely or primarily on fighting a war in the middle east or conflicts with terrorists and instead change to focusing on the threats that are posed by potential adversaries, russia and china. if we have the capability of dealing with those threats by deterring them or if necessary defeating them, then we should also be able to have the ability to deal with terrorism, to deal with north korea, and deal with iran, but that our first

priority needs to be to focus on china and on russia. the n.d.s. commission report argues -- and i'm quoting now -- the u.s. military could suffer unacceptably high casualties and loss of major capital assets in its next conflict. it might struggle to win or perhaps lose a war against china or russia. the united states is particularly at risk of being overwhelmed, should its military forces be required to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously. end of quote. now, some might oppose such strong wording, but the commission believed that we have to be able to talk honestly about the state of our military preparedness and our national security. as ambassador edelman, chairman of the commission stated, and i'm quoting again, it is probably more dangerous to tell ourselves and other people that we're going to be able to do

these things when in fact we aren't able to do them because we're not paying for them. end of quote. the object of a strong military is to deter conflict from ever occurring, and you do that by demonstrating that you're able to prevail in a conflict, if necessary, so you have to have the capability of defeating any adversary you might face. if you have that capability, those adversaries are less likely to miscalculate, to assume that they might be able to advance their parochial interests without pushback from the united states, nato, or other allies, and they come to this belief if they examine their capabilities against ours and determine that we are lacking in the ability to stop them. what this report says is, we've got to get serious about

rebuilding our military or we run the risk of bad actors in the world deciding that they can take a chance that we won't respond. so let me summarize what this report says. and again i can't emphasize too much, i know it's washington, d.c., i know we're talking about difficult issues here, but these 12 democrats and republicans shall equally divided, reached a conclusion, a consensus about what we need to do, and were willing to speak very strongly about it. so it's possible for democrats and republicans to get together on something in this city, and i'm hoping that my colleagues in the house and in the senate will approach the issues in the same bipartisan spirit that characterized the deliberations of the commission. here's the summary. first, we're in a state of

national emergency. for the first time since the end of the cold war, the united states is at risk of losing a war against these peer competitors. that's a euphemism for china and russia. second, there's a bipartisan consensus that congress must provide predictable and sufficient funding for the department of defense to execute the strategy that it's developed -- the national defense strategy. and this must -- this means that congress must undo sequestration, which is the provision in law that says that if we don't meet certain budget requirements that all departments of the government, including the department of defense, have to cut right off of the top an equal percentage of funding in order to get back to those budget levels. for the defense department, it's impossible to both provide for our national security and comply with that requirement. so sequestration has to end. secondly, we have to return to the regular order of

appropriating funding for the department of defense on an annual basis at the beginning of each fiscal year so that the pentagon can do the planning necessary and the people who provide the weaponry and other products to the defense department can plan adequately for the development and production of these items on a sensible basis, on a basis that enables them to calculate in the future how much money they'll have over the period of time that they need. we can't do that if instead we continue to operate on what's called continuing resolutions, where congress throws up its hands sometime in the late summer and says, we're never going to agree on how much to fund the various departments of government, including the department of defense. let's just agree to continue to do the same amount of spending we did last year on the same things. think about that in your family urgent about. instead of each year you try to

figure out what we're going to need this year and it's going to be a little different than last year, we say we're going to spend the same amount we spent last year on the same things. it is a very illogical way and a very detrimental way to provide for our national defense. the third thing that the commission recommended is that we have to increase the top line or the total amount of money spent on defense over the next many years if we're going to truly rebuild our military. last year a deal was struck in which we agreed to a two-year funding for the department of defense that staunched the flow of blood from the inadequate funding from years previous. but all it did was to temporarily provide funds primarily to increase our readiness. it did not provide enough to rebuild our military.

it provided enough to start the journey, which may take us 15 or 20 years, but that's how long with increased funding it'll take to do the job. and we concluded that we ignore the issues at our peril. that today our adversaries undermine u.s. goals on a daily basis and that continued neglect of our defense capabilities put our nation at risk. well, what are the specific conclusions here? this report -- and i'm quoting here -- that america's military superiority -- these are quotations -- has eroded to a dangerous degree, that the united states is in a crisis of national security. quote, the united states is particularly at risk of being overwhelmed should its military be forced to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously, end of quote. in other words, we found a national emergency that this country is at risk of being

defeated by russia or china should we find ourselves at conflict with them. now, nobody is predicting a war today or even tomorrow, but we've seen the nationalistic designs that chain has in its region of the world, and we've seen repeated efforts by vladimir putin's russia to advance its sphere of influence, particularly in eastern europe, the taking of the crimea, the sanction of -- the invasion of ukraine, the shooting down of an airliner, the use of chemical agents prohibited by treaties, by the way, on foreign soil to deal with people with whom it disagrees. somebody has likened vladimir putin to the burglar in the hotel that walks down the hallway pushing on each door until he finds one that's not locked that he can go in and burglariesed. he is an opportunist that takes advantage of weakness. the last thing we want to do is suggest to him that we would not or could not respond to actions

that he takes. in other words, to prevent him from miscalculating, we've got to deter conduct that could lead to conflict. and the way that the russian military doctrine works this way these days, it starts with a -- it's done through cyberattacks, through propaganda, through actions that perhaps utilize contractors rather than russian military to go into another country so that they have plausible deniability. until they have achieved their initial goals. and then have the russian military move into the area and even potentially, according to russian doctrine, use nuclear weapons. they would d.o.d. this on a tactical -- they would do this on a tactical basis in order to

escalate to de-escalate. in other words, to suggest to nato, the united states, and other allies that for us to respond to had that attack could lead to a nuclear conflagration. the russians have the tactical weapons. ment they have ten times more than we do. so they could use them on a battlefield and then say, look, we've taken the territory we want to take. we're done -- for now -- and you just need to leave us alone, rather than getting involved in this conflict. that's the kind of way that we could be drawn into a conflict even though there's not a big army attack or air attack to begin such a conflict. it's the escalation ladder where tactical nuclear weapons mighting used and then it is up to the united states to decide what to do next. this is the kind of thing in which miscalculation can occur, and the united states can got to

persuade countries like russia and china that they shouldn't begin the process of calculating whether they could defeat us with the assumption that we wouldn't or couldn't respond. that's what deterrence is all about. nobody wants war, but you prevent war by demonstrating to the aggressor that it's not worth it for that aggressor to start the conflict. he's going to lose more than he could potentially gain. we don't get to define whether we have adequate detense. that's defined by our potential adversary. what do they think we can do? and in the last many years, both the chinese and russians have gone to war -- have gone to school on the united states in the way that we conduct our military activities. for example, in the middle east in afghanistan. they understand our strengths and weaknesses, and they've been spending a lot of money on research and development and readiness, weapon acquisition

and doctrine to -- and doctrine to take advantage of our weaknesses in an asymmetrical way in order to defeat us if there should ever be a conflict between us. the chinese have put a lot, for example, into their space-based capabilities, trying to knock the united states out of space, so that our satellites can't tell our troops where to get where they need to go. the russians are very good in cyber activity. they would like to be able to defend deny us the ability -- be able to deny us the ability to communicate with each other through cyberspace. they've developed very capable modern technology and weaponry that in some cases is much better than ours. they have the ability to deny us access to battlefields through their long-range air defenses, for example. so the united states no longer

has superiority in all military fields. we can expect not to have air superiority, for example, in a conflict with russia. these are problems that have to be remedied, and they can't be remedied overnight, and what our commission concluded was, we have to recognize the potential threat, the reason our adversaries have developed the kinds of weapons and doctrine they have is because they want to be prepared in the event of conflict between us. we're not going to start a conflict. but we want to make sure that they don't miscalculate to start one. and that starts with having a military which they understand is sufficient to defeat them. that's what real deterrence is all about. this report should not be understood as a criticism of the

secretary of defense or of the defense department. it is true that we say that there are areas that need improvement, but secretary mattis knows as well as anyone what the nature of this threat is. he is able to say, i will make do with what the congress gives us, but i don't think he's able to say -- and i know in my heart that that'll be sufficient. in fact, earlier in year he warned us -- and i am quoting -- that our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare -- air, land, sea, say, and cyber. the combination of rapidly changing technology, negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuing -- continuous period of combat in our nation's history, and a prolonged period of unpredictable and insufficient funding created an

overstretched and underresourced military. end of quoteation. so, madam president, he has recognized the problem. and i think it is up to the congress to respond to his recognition of the problem and to the report of this bipartisan commission. we've all heard plenty about the results of this underfunding. we've seen aircraft that aren't able to fly or that crash. we've seen navy ships that collide with each other. and other kinds of catastrophes that have befallen our military. today our military is the smallest that it's been since 1940, since before world war ii. we face munition shortages. we obviously need to refresh our warn-out troops and the equipment. there are convent requirements

to modern -- there are urgent requirements to modernize our deterrent. the deterrent that says to the chinese and north korea and iran, don't even think about a nuclear conflict with us. we have the ability to destroy you. we're in the process of modernizing and it will take a long time and a lot of money to do that. defense spending is near historic lows. we think because last year we agreed to slightly increase it for a two-year period of time that we solved the problem. that's not true. as a share of both the federal budget and the national economy, we are spending at near historic lows on defense. we now have enough evidence to know that mindless spending cuts, as would be required by sequestration, for example, don't make the department of defense more efficient. there's always savings to be had in the department of defense, but that's not the way.

reforming larger drivers of the pent gone's budget would require larger changes that the pentagon has been unwilling to make. so let's put the burden where it lies, and that is on the congress to fix a lot of these problems. between the fiscal years 2012 and 2019, the department of defense will have sustained $539 billion in cuts over the budget plan proposed by secretary gates in the year 2010. so secretary gates said here's our 20-year plan and we're almost halfway through that plan and we've already suffered almost half a trillion dollars in cuts over what he said we would need. if defense spending continues at the planned rate through 2021, it will take another 19 years to reverse all of the budget act

cuts that occurred as a result of sequestration. obviously we've got work to do. i've talked about the threat -- let me just mention a couple of other points that we made in the report. we commented on the defense department's national security report which the national defense strategy which was published in 2017 actually helped to make this case for us. it argued that we face, and i quote, an extraordinarily dangerous worlds that threats have intensified in recent years. we face a world -- and,, again quoting, where quote, the democratic people of korea and the republic of iran and active groups are trying to actively harm americans. when i speak of china and russia, i don't mean to demean other actors like north korea or

iran or the terrorists who continue to threaten us, i'm noting the most serious threat should conflict arise. this focus on china and russia, i think, is prudent because both countries, as i said, have extensively modernized their forces, including their nuclear weapons arsenals, and they have taken actions that threaten, coerce, and threaten others in the region. for the last 17 years, most of our forces have been organized, manned, and trained and equipped to fight smaller-scale wars in iraq and afghanistan. i think in the meantime some of our planners have forgotten how to operationallize for large-scale military conflicts. this we have to learn while we have time. our adversaries are not waiting. they don't face similar fiscal constraints as we do. i was asked the other evening,

isn't it true we spend more on our military than china and russia do? and the answer is this is not an apples and orange comparison. we are honest about this. we put out what our intelligence community top line budget is. the russians and chinese don't do that. they don't pay our forces the way we do. 70% of the budget is for the man power and in the pay and benefits and the health care that they need and we don't have the combined industrial base that -- with the military that the chinese do, for example, and that the russians do. so what we spend is all out there. we can hide a lot of their spending in the activities of their industrial companies that are doing the work of the chinese army, for example. so that's not a valid comparison. i think, madam president, i'll

just conclude this way. i've -- i was in the congress for 26 years. i served on the house armed services committee. i came to the senate and served on numerous commissions and task forces that the intelligence committee, for example, for eight years, that looked into the threats that we faced and what we need to do about those threats. i led efforts to deal with our strategic deterrent, our nuclear modernization effort. and i was sobered by the evidence that we received as a member of the defense strati diswri commission, -- defense strategy commission. i was taken aback. i haven't been in the senate in five years. i hadn't had the advantage of the classified briefings of the status of our adversary's

efforts and our own and i was shocked at the degree of the loss of advantage that we used to have. this could lead potential adversaries to miskal -- miscalculate that they could make moves. that has to change if we're to avoid war. therefore, i urge my colleagues, in the days and weeks to come, to review this commission report, to think about it in terms of a consensus document between republicans and democrats who unanimously agreed that it was critical to tell the american people the truth that we have a severe crisis in this country and to recognize that we, the congress, the house and the senate, have the first obligation to do something about this by setting the policy through our national defense authorization acts and then

funding those policies adequately through a series of eliminating sequestration, funding through the regular order appropriations process, rather than continuing resolution, and increasing the topline budget for the military enough to make up the gap that we discuss in this report here. that effort will begin in the administration with the development of its budget, which is under way right now, and will be submitted to the congress in the early spring. i urge the administration as well to recognize that its leadership in this effort will have a lot to do with the success of congress stepping up to do its job to fund that budget adequately. so, to my colleagues who are concerned about our national security, and who isn't? and to those who said during the last campaign, we want to work across the aisle to solve the problems that confront the american people, well, i can't think of a more serious problem

than this. this is a great opportunity to roll up our sleeves and work together. i pledge to work with my colleagues to do that and to review this strategy defense commission, to review it over the thanksgiving break that we're going to have here and come back ready to do work. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding adoption of the motion to concur on the house amendment to s. 140 with further amendment 4054, as

modified, amendment 4054 as modified be further modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so for the information of the senate, the modification that just occurred was necessary to fix a technical error that omitted a number of important charts and tables from the bill. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. con. res. 51. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 51. to correct the enrollment of s. 140. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: so, madam president, the senate's final order of business this week will be to confirm michelle bowman, the president's choice to serve on the federal reserve board. as i've highlighted in recent days we have before us a nominee whose skills and background are tailor made for the responsibilities of the office. ms. bowman has extensive experience in community banking and the seat to be filled is intended for and an expert in that very field. my colleagues hardly need to illustrate any further the role that small community banks play in the lives of family farmers, small businesses, and communities all across our country. it's time to take an important step for them and dwirm this well-equal -- confirm this well-qualified nominee. yesterday, we passed legislation to reauthorize the coast guard by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. the senate took action to reaffirm the current security

interdiction and rescue missions that keep americans safe and to streamline duplicative regulations at the same time. the provision to clarify the regulation of vessel incidental discharge delivered a much-needed victory for the communities and small maritime businesses, including so many in my state of kentucky, that rely on america's inland waterways for their livelihood. and the reauthorization delivered some well-deserved certainty to the brave men and women of the u.s. coast guard whose commitment to service should make all of us crowd. this is the latest installment of a long list of legislation passed by this congress on behalf of the american people. the big battles may be what captivates the press and the republicans are proud of our signature accomplishments like confirming justice gorsuch and

justice kavanaugh, but frequently it has been overlooked how congress's other major achievements have been truerly bipartisan. republicans and democrats passed landmark legislation that marshaled more resources to the country's fight against opioid. greater access to grant support for state and local authority, more support for treatment recovery and workforce reentry programs to heal the wounds of this devastating epidemic. together we refirmed some of the -- reaffirmled some of the excesses of dodd-frank. we ended the cycle of chronic continuing resolutions for defense funding that denied certainty to our armed forces and eroded our readiness. we rebuilt a regular appropriations process, it featured the largest year on year defense funding increase in 50 years and the biggest pay raise for service members in

nearly a decade. together we made new investments to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. together we brought new resources and new reforms to the systems that serve our veterans. together we approved comprehensive sanctions to target maligned behavior throughout the international system. we passed major bills to combat sex trafficking, i am prove school safety, expand opportunities for vocational and technical training, and prescribe new medical treatment to those with terminal illnesses. and, madam president, this isn't even an exhaustive list. so clearly the senate has proven to be fertile soil for bipartisan work. it's made life better for the american people in tangible ways. we should all take pride in this, and we'll need to keep up this momentum for the remainder of this year. as we consider more legislation and confirm more nominees. and we will need it throughout the next congress. we'll need to work across the

aisle within this body and this republican senate and democratic house. we'll need to learn to collaborate as well. the long list of accomplishments offers just the blueprint we will need. 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 kentucky. mr. paul: pursuant to the arms control act of 1976 -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. mr. paul: madam president, pursuant to the arms control act

of 1976, i move to discharge the foreign relation committee from further consideration of s.j. res. 65, relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sales of the government of bahrain. the presiding officer: the motion is now pending. mr. paul: madam president, i ask consent that until 12:15, the time be equally divided by opponents and proponents, with the first 30 minutes for the opponents of the bill, and the last 30 minutes for the proponents of the bill. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask consent that the quorum call -- we're not in a quorum call. madam president, i rise to discuss the firing of attorney general jeff sessions by president trump immediately after the midterm elections, as well as the ongoing justice department investigation by special counsel robert mueller into russia's interference in the 2016 u.s. presidential elections. the only transparency to be found in the trump white house is the president's disdain for the mueller investigation into the 2016 elections. after multiple guilty pleas and convictions among the president's campaign advisors on this ongoing investigation, president trump remains

relentless in his campaign to find any way possible to limit the scope of the ongoing investigation. i did not support jeff sessions' nomination to be attorney general, but he followed the law and rightly recused himself from overseeing the work of mr. mueller and his team of professional investigators. deputy attorney general rod rosenstein should continue to oversee the mueller investigation. deputy attorney general rosenstein has shown his fidelity to the rule of law with the much-needed announcement of the special counsel to investigate potential criminal activity and collusion between the trump campaign and the russian government in the 2016 elections. his choice of robert mueller was solid. mr. mueller served as the f.b.i. director under both democratic and republican presidential administrations. he has a well-earned reputation as a nonpartisan professional. let me remind my colleagues that when deputy attorney general

rosenstein made the special counsel appointment in may of 2017, he wrote, and i quote, madam president, i determined that it is in the public interests for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. what i have determined is that the -- that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command. considering the unique circumstances of this matter, however, i determined that a special counsel is necessary in order for the american people to have full confidence in the outcome. our nation is grounded on the rule of law, and the public must be assured that the government officials administer the law fairly. special counsel mueller will have all appropriate resources to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and i am confident that he will follow the facts, apply the law, and

reach a just result. end quote. that's what mr. rosenstein said when he appointed mr. mueller as special counsel. now we know just how right deputy attorney general rosenstein was to worry about protecting the independence and integrity of the special counsel's investigation so that the rule of law will be followed and the special counsel could follow the facts, apply the law, and reach a just result, regardless of what the president wants. indeed, at every turn, president trump has tried to undermine the rule of law and interfere with this investigation. he has relentlessly criticized the mueller investigation in the court of public opinion. somehow characterizing it as a witch hunt or conflicted angry democrats, notwithstanding the dozens of guilty pleas and convictions already obtained by the special counsel as well as mr. mueller's professionalism, nonpartisan legacy of service. the new acting attorney general,

matthew whitaker, who is an unconfirmed political appointee is already on the record making inflammatory comments on how to limit the scope of the investigation and cut off resources. he should immediately recuse himself from the investigation. serious legal questions have been raised about the legality and constitutionality of the designation of mr. whitaker by president trump who has not been confirmed by the senate and is heading a cabinet department. the constitution's appointment clause requires all principal officers of the government to be nominated by and with the advice and consent of the senate. this action by president trump imperils the very leadership of the justice department and its day-to-day operations and calls into consideration any decisions made by mr. whitaker during his temporary service. the senate has already confirmed deputy attorney general rosenstein on an overwhelming bipartisan basis 0 by a 94-6

vote in april of 2017. under justice department guidance and current law, deputy attorney general rosenstein, who has served with distinction under both democratic and republican administrations and who was nominated by president trump, should be designated as the acting attorney general until such time as the president nominates and the senate confirms a suck successor to the former attorney general sessions. under current oversight of deputy attorney general rosenstein, special counsel mueller's investigation must continue until its conclusion. the president must stop trying to impede its progress. congress has a responsibility to finally take legislative action to protect the investigation from meddling from the white house, especially from interference by the president. the senate has an obligation to pass legislation that would ensure the independence of the special counsel, provide judicial review for removal of the special counsel and require additional reporting to congress

on the special counsel's investigation, documents and additional finding. s. 2644 does exactly that and is a bipartisan bill that passed the judiciary committee by a vote of 14-7 in april of 2018. it has sat on the senate calendar ever ambassador for more than -- the senate calendar for more than six months. the senate should be able to vote on this immediately. madam president, i hope my colleagues agree the special counsel should be allowed to finish his work without interference, no one -- no one -- under the constitution, not even the president, is above the law, and congress cannot allow the president to obstruct the special counsel's investigation. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me tell you a story -- the presiding officer: senate is in a quorum call. mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i want to talk about a man named alton mills, a young african american in the city of chicago, an above-average high school student. it looked like he might even go on to higher education. but he had some bad luck when it came to employment and jobs, and he made a stupid decision. he made a stupid decision by becoming part of a gang in the neighborhood that was selling drugs. as a result of that, he was arrested, convicted of possession and sale of a small amount of narcotics, and the sentence was suspended because he had no previous criminal record. it happened a second time.

and again didn't serve a day in jail, was suspended, with the promise that he would never do it again, and he stumbled and did it a third time. as a result of that, in 1994, at the age of 24, alton mills was give an mandatory sentence of life in prison. he had never been involved in a violent crime. never used a firearm. but -- and never was a drug kingpin, but he had been involved in the sale of drugs. a life sentence at age 24 for the three incidents which i have been mentioned. how could we have ever reached a point where a person would be sent to jail for life for those three crimes? we reached that point because 25 years ago we did something which was just plain wrong. you'll seldom hear a senator say this in the course of a speech, but i'm going to say it -- the worst vote i ever cast in my

life in theous in or the senate -- in the house or in the senate was for the 100-1 sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. in other words, if you take the same amount of cocaine and it was in a powder form sitting next to the same amount of cocaine in a crystallized form that could be smoked and you were arrested for possession of one or the other, the sentence for crack cocaine was 100 times what it was for powder cocaine. why did we do that? why did we have such a gross disparity? because we were frightened. as a member of the house of representatives, i remember it well. they came to us and said, there's a new form of cocaine on the street. it costs $5. it is heavily addictive. and if a mother ingests this cocaine while she is pregnant, it could harm the fetus for life. do something. and about that same time there was this great scandal here in

washington, washington, d.c., an outstanding basketball player at the university of maryland named len bias overdosed on drugs and died. people were talking about his career in the n.b. aand this great talent and he was -- in the nba and his great talent and he was dead. ment it it was part of the environment and part of the overreaction that took place among politicians in washington. i was one of them. i voted for that 1 see-1 dis -- i voted for that 100-1 disparity to send a hard, you of it message. we did. it didn't have any measurable impact on drug sales in the united states. but it had a measurable impact on the number of people who were incarcerated in the united states and the length of their incarceration. those votes, the votes that i cast and many like me on both sides of the aisle, resulted in mandatory sentences for people like alton mills, a life

sentence. a life sentence. well, let me it tell you how the story ends. alton mills, after serving 23 years in prison, came to my attention through defender -- criminal defendants' attorney general name, of all things my angel cody. she was his angel, that's for sure. she fought for him. she deserved that he deserved better than to spend the rest of his life in prison for those stupid decisions he made in his early life. i appealed to president obama to commute his sentence. and president obama agreed to do that. after all that service behind bars, he was released. what's he doing today? he's a mechanic at the chicago transit this. he repairs the buses. he got married, is now working with his daughter and his new

grandchild. he is contributing to society. he is a community college student where he's pursuing an associate's degree -- finally his life is on the right track. if he hadn't received a pardon, alton mills would have died in prison because of our existing federal sentencing laws. but yesterday something happened which is remarkable. president donald trump had a press conference with representatives of law enforcement and announced that he was going to support legislation which i have been working on for quite sometime with senator lee and senator grassley to change the sentencing provisions that i've described to you. what an amazing coalition -- durbin on the democratic side, grassley and lee on the republican side, and now president trump? the stars are lined up in a way that we seldom see in washington, d.c. and what we're going to set out to do with this bill, if we can pass it in the closing weeks of

this session, is to give a chance to thousands of people still serving sentences for nonviolent offenses involving crack cocaine under the old 100-1 ruling to give them a chance to potential individually -- not as a group, to potential individually to the court for a reduction in their sentencing. i have been through this. it is not easy. they have to go right back to the u.s. attorney's office that prosecuted them to get the thumbs up and approval to go forward. many times they turn to victims, if there are victims in the crime, before any decision is made. they turn to the judges, particularly those sentencing judges who are still on the bench, and if they clear all those hurdles, they have a chance for a reduction in their sentence. senator grassley and i are about to introduce legislation that president trump endorsed yesterday and will begin working to build bipartisan support to pass it before we leave.

congress needs to pass this legislation. we have a different drug crisis facing us today. it isn't crack cocaine anymore. it is an opioid epidemic. it is a fentanyl epidemic. it is the deadliest drug epidemic that we've ever faced. and we have a totally different view of drugs than we did when alton mills was sentenced. in those days, most of the defendants were people of color, primarily african americans. but today this opioid epidemic has gone far beyond the hood. it's gong far beyond the inner city. it affects suburbs, even the wealthiest of suburbs, towns, rural towns, no matter how small they are. and people are starting to think anew about what to do with drug addiction. is our goal to put people in prison for drug addiction or our goal to end the addiction? we know that some cases, those that go to prison won't use again. many times they do. we know if people go

successfully through treatment, they may be spared the addiction and it may save their lives. we're coming of age when it comes to drugs in america. what we tried to do with this bill is also take into consideration criminal defendants who meet certain criteria, limited criteria -- drug offenses, which is the number one prosecution offense in our federal system. drug offenders who are not kingpins, they're the no the bosses, they're not involved in any violence in the crime, and there's no gun involved and they are willing to cooperate with the government in closing down the drug operation. if they meet all those criteria, we say that the court can take that into consideration in sentencing. i think that's a good thing. i think in alton mills situation, it would have resulted in a much, much different sentence than he faced before the commutation by president obama.

we also want to make certain that in the future those who were sentenced under the old 100-1 disparity, as i mentioned earlier, could petition the government for a a lower sentence. no guarantee that they'll be released. but the opportunity to petition in those situations. i think this is a step in the right direction. let me say that the bill also contains provisions which i think are extraordinary when it comes to prison reform. what are we going to do with all these people? most of them who are in prison are coming out someday. will they come out to commit another crime? that would be a failure of the system completely. so two senators -- one republican, senator john cornyn of texas, one democrat, senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island -- came together with the prison reform bill that's already passed the house with 386 votes. we improved it some in the senate but it basically gives to

those who are in prison an incentive to develop skills and training and education levels that will serve them when they leave to reduce recidivism and reduce the commission of crime in the future. i think that is humane. it's sensible, and it says to those who truly want to turns their lives around, we're going to give you a chance to prove it. prove it with your actions and we'll give you a chance to be released earlier. and to have a chance to go into society in a positive way. we brought these two together -- criminal sentencing and prison reform -- and it doesn't happen very often around here. the last time we had any measurable impact on the subject was eight years ago. it was eight years ago when i introduced my first bill on criminal sentencing reform. and i think that bill, which incidentally i cosponsored with former senator jeff sessions -- i think that bill worked. it gave the individuals an opportunity to petition for early release.

and in many cases, it saved their lives and gave them a chance. we're back -- we're back with a bipartisan bill. it's called the first step bill. and this bill i think deserves our consideration in the united states senate as quickly as possible. you see this empty senate floor? this is a place to do business. we have some business to do. in the three weeks we'll be in session in the month -- the end of november and month of december, we can easily pass this legislation. i sat down with senator grassley and republican and democratic leaders from the house. they are anxious, we're all anxious, to bring this up. i'm going to plead with senator mcconnell and ask everyone to join me to put this measure on the calendar. i believe it will have strong bipartisan support. democrats and republicans will join in an effort endorsed by president trump. how about that for your headline. you don't see often that sort of thing happening very often. we get a chance to do it here

with this revised first step act. i want to thank all those who worked so hard starting with mike lee, my original cosponsor. add to that chuck grassley who has been a terrific partner start to finish in making this a bipartisan effort. and special thanks to senators cornyn and whitehouse for merrying up their prison reform package with our sentencing reform package. this could be significant. it could be one of the most important things we do when it comes to criminal justice not only this year but for a long time. i commend my colleagues for their cooperation on that and i hop we can get this -- i hope we can get this job done in the closing weeks of this session. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i know looking back on the last two years since the 2016 election, time has flown. but it's important to reflect on what we have been able to accomplish and really it's pretty remarkable. and these are not just political accomplishments. these are things that have improved the lives of our constituents, the american people. so as time is running out on the 115th congress leading up to the holidays, yesterday i spoke about some of our larger

accomplishments. today i want to highlight some of the other important accomplishments that we've made that because they weren't particularly controversial, you didn't see them reported in cable news or in the media or the subject of massive social media campaigns. so in addition to the economic gains that we've seen from passing historic tax reform from the regulatory roleback we've seen which -- rollback we've seen which unleashed the american economy, we've also passed important public safety legislation like the opioid legislation which is designed to help thousands of americans suffering from drug addiction. it's important to remember the grim statistic that last year alone 72,000 americans died from drug overdoses. 50,000 died from opioid overdoses which include prescription drugs, fentanyl, and heroin, most of which comes from mexico. and i'll touch on that in a

moment. a little over a year ago, the gulf coast of texas sustained a rain event, the likes of which we hope we'll never see again. this was called hurricane harvey but instead of damaging winds, we had in addition incredible amounts of rain with catastrophic flooding that left texans dealing with months-long recovery efforts that are still going on today. i was proud to join with not only my text colleagues but also -- text yas colleagues but also colleagues across the aisle in both chambers to draft two disaster relief bills totals $47 billion for hurricane harvey aid as well as the other natural disasters affecting other parts of the country. about $30 billion of that i think is -- was texas specific more or less in terms of the needs, in terms of the resources that were required not only to

recover but also to help mitigate future threats. because we know it does little good to fix the problem today if it's going to be repeated tomorrow and we know hurricane harvey is not the last hurricane and the last rain event we're going to have. so we authorized a coastal study that will lead us ultimately to construction of a coastal spine that will help protect the important gulf coast region where most of the refining capacity in the country is located. and we know that is a national priority. as well as the flood mitigation projects i mentioned a moment ago by authorizing and funding the army corps of engineers. we tried to listen to what our constituents and i did in texas, what they said they needed most and we passed two other pieces of legislation particularly relating to the disaster. first we made houses of worship

eligible for certain fema grants to help them rebuild after disasters and the second was a tax relief provision similar to the one we passed after hurricane katrina which gave texans the ability to deduct their property damage costs and access retirement savings on an emergency basis without penalties. providing that relief was a big help to my constituents. disasters tend to bring out the best in all of us because it calls us to do things that we didn't know we could actually do. and the texas spirit was perhaps one of the things that was most reassuring following these disasters and it never wavered. we saw that spirit again rally around a community after an unthinkable act of violence at sutherland springs, texas, that left 26 people dead and 20 more wounded. because the united states air force had failed to upload a felony conviction for domestic

violence into the f.b.i.'s criminal background check system, the shooter in that case was able to acquire a firearm, multiple firearms by simply lying about his criminal background record. and so we came together in a bipartisan way to pass a bill i introduced called the fix nics. it fixed or at least took great strides toward fixing our broken background check system to ensure that violent criminals can't easily acquire firearms when they're convicted and ineligible under existing law. we saw that resiliency arise out of another tragedy at santa fe high school where we passed the stop school violence act. i'm not suggesting that by passing legislation we're going to magically wave our wand and

stop acts of violence, but we can do things that help provide planning, training, safety infrastructure and law enforcement support for our schools to make them a less soft target. in an open society, i doubt we'll ever be able to stop all acts of violence, but these i think are intended and will have a constructive effect and actually save lives. a third way that we spoke on the issue of public safety in our communities was through another bill i introduced called the project safe neighborhoods act that was signed into law earlier this year. it passed the senate unanimously. people think everything is divided here. well, on political -- on political lines. well, we pass legislation like this unanimously in the senate. it authorized the project safe neighborhood program at the department of justice which aims at reducing violent crime by pairing local, state, and federal law enforcement officials with federal

prosecutors and using tough federal laws to prosecute gun crimes. these partnerships are proven to reduce violent crimes and deserve our full support. we've also come together to provide help to victims of crime and for the vulnerable. the president has signed three bills into law, a bill i browsed when i -- introduced, the first called the safer act which is aimed at reducing the backlog of untested rape kits and forensic labs and the second called the justice serve act which assists law enforcement in prosecuting the most difficult cold cases using the seemingly magical power of d.n.a. testing in forensic labs. the third is a bill i championed called the protect our children act which reauthorizes important resources combating child exploitation online.

perhaps the best news story of the last couple of years has been our economy, how it's come roaring back. we've tried to reduce the regulatory burden on employers and job seekers alike, including in three bills that the president has signed into law. these were targeted bills not designed to change western civilization but to address specific real problems that will improve the lives of the people we work for. one of those is the new hope act which is an occupational licensing reform bill that gives states the tools to reduce barriers to certain professions. it makes no sense basically because of licensing requirements, to basically bar people from doing things that they can learn how to do without overly burdensome licensing and training requirements which essentially are designed to protect incumbents. and we've also passed the jobs for our heroes act which makes

it easier for our veterans to get commercial driver's licenses. we passed the american law enforcement heroes act to make sure veterans can get hired by local law enforcement agencies when they come out of the military with the very skills that are needed by our local law enforcement, and we know all of our police agencies are working hard to try to recruit good qualified people to help keep our communities safe. and they struggle with that. this will help make that better. but in each of these cases, we tried to listen to the needs of texans and people across the country and translate that into legislation that will improve their lives. they don't get top billing on the national news, but they deserve our support as do the people who i came in contact in my state who have inspired these laws. so as we close out the 115th

congress and move into a new congress in january, these are the types of things that we can continue to do together. because of the midterm election, our friends in the other body, the house of representatives now that miss pelosi will presumably be the next speaker, they have an important decision to make. do they want to make noise? do they want to harass the president? or do they want to work with us to make laws that improve the quality of life for the people we represent? i hope they choose the latter, and clearly there's more we can and should do together to help the american people. so, mr. president, i know i'm running out of time. i'm going to come back a little later on and talk about the caravans that are coming up from central america through mexico and what we need to do together to address those, but at this time i'll yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise to call for an end to the war in yemen. you might not know there is a war in yemen because the media seems to be involved with other things. we have been involved with the saudi coalition, nine other nations including bahrain who have been bamming yemen. you might not know.

about yemen either. yemen is one of the poorest countries on the planet, about 17,000 people who live on the edge of starvation there. this year they suffered cholera. over a million people had cholera and thousands of people died. this is a country so impoverished that scene when there is no -- that even when there is no war in yemen they live on the edge of being able to survive. the pictures are heartrending. when you see the pictures of swollen bellies because they don't have enough proit -- protein. your tax dollars are supporting this war, so i think there ought to be a debate, so that's what i stand up today to do, is to force a debate over whether or not we should be involved with aiding and abetting the saudi coalition in this war in yemen. you see, our founding fathers intended that congress would debate war. it was very, very clear. if you read the federalist

papers, if you read the constitution, if you read any of the founding fathers, if you read any of the first eight presidents, they said explicitly again and again that the prerogative to declare war was congress', that it was specifically taken from the president, specifically forbidden of the president to go to war without the permission of congress. so we've been having a little bit of this debate. about a month ago we had a debate, and you know what? the administration argued that bombs are not war, that refueling planes that bomb people is not war. that we are not involved with hostilities in yemen because we don't have troops marching on the ground with muskets. i think that's an absurd notion that you could be refueling bombing planes, supplying the bombs and as bombs are raining down on people and civilians are killed and the ones who survive pick up a scrap of the bomb and it says made in u.s., tell them we're not involved with the war in yemen. madison, among the founding

fathers, was quite clear in saying that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war. therefore, we have, with studied care, vested the power to declare war in congress. we have not obeyed that constitution maxim for a long time. for a long time we've basically abdicated our role, both parties, republican and democrat, have let presidents, republican and democrat, do what they will. this war started under the previous president. this war continues under the current president. and yet, congress doesn't have the spine, doesn't have the will to stand up and say that is our job to declare war. it's our job to represent the people, to listen to the people and decide whether we should be at war. the constitution in article 1, section 8, says congress shall declare war. it is unequivocal. and yet, here we are involved in yet another war.

we're involved in a war in yemen. we've been involved in a war in syria. we've also been involved in a war in libya. he we've also now been at war with people in afghanistan who had nothing to do with 9/11, 18 years later. these wars go on and on because congress, and specifically the senate, doesn't do their job. you've heard people on television yelling, do your job, do your job, at their legislators. well, that's fine, but let's debate what our job is. the constitution was very clear that one of our jobs is to declare war, and we have abdicated that responsibility and have not lived up to it. i would like to have a direct vote on whether we should be involved in yemen, a direct vote on whether we either declare war or we don't, but that is forbidden because i'm in the minority, not in the minority party but in the minority ideologicallal lly.

the vast part of the this party says the president has unitary authority. the commander in chief can do whatever he or she wants. that's what the vast majority of these people believe, so they will vote against this because they do not believe that congress really should tell the president when we go to war. i would like to vote directly that we should not be at war in yemen, not be involved with supplying refueling or bombs to the saudis and the bahrainis and their coalition. i'm forbidden from that vote, but because of a 1976 law, the arms export control act, i'm able to object to arms sales. we've done this twice in the last year. we objected in a bipartisan way to the sale of arms to saudi arabia because we thought their war was unjust, indiscriminate, killing civilians and was not in america's best interest. the first time we had the vote, we got a little over 20 votes to say we should not be continuing to sell arms to the saudis while

they continue this abomination. 20-something votes out of 100. we h lost overwhelmingly. we had another vote two or three months ago. we got 47 votes. now we've had the killing and dismemberment of a journalist by the name of khoshoggi. people are finally coming together yet the bombs continue to drop. we're still supplying the bombs. things are beginning to change. there is a movement among the public to hold their representatives accountable and say why are we at war in yemen? why don't you vote on whether we should be at war in yemen? why do you abdicate your responsibility to the president? you see, it's harder for someone like me because the president is of my party and i agree with him on many different issues. but where's the other side? the other side, they should be rising up and saying this is a

usurpation of power, the president is taking upon himself power that's not his. the other side should be rising up unanimously and saying enough's enough. we are taking back this power. you see, people talk about this all the time. people pretend to be believers in congressional checks and balances. there's all these groups out there for checks and balances. yet, this is a check and balance. this is a time in which the senate can tell the president what to do. but watch the votes. many of the people you see on tv saying we should stand up and the president this and the president that on this issue, which is an honest issue of disagreement with the president, stand up and restrict his power. stand up and tell the president the constitution says that war shall be declared by congress. but watch the votes here. we won't get a direct vote on the war. we'll get an indirect. we won't even get to vote today on saudi arms because they're afraid to put forth saudi arms because they think we might win. but we will vote on one of the

coalition partners, the bahrainis are part of a nine-country coalition fighting this war that have had casualties, they dropped bombs, been on the ground in yemen. they are part of a fighting coalition. the resolution today will be specifically about not selling one set of arms sales to bahrain. the other side will look for excuses to say no, oh my goodness, bahrain has been a great ally. i'm not disputing that. what i'm disputing is that they're getting the message that we are unhappy. we supply them with all of their arms, all right. we get to host our navy there. great. they're an ally. great. i'm not asking that we end our alliance. i'm not asking that we sanction them. i'm only saying stop one sale of arms to send a message that we are done with the war in yemen, that we are no longer going to sell weapons to countries that are fighting this war in yemen, that the war must come to a close.

and some will grew, well, it's already kind of winding down. we're no longer refueling their planes. and yet since secretary pompeo said about three weeks ago that the saudi coalition should quit bombing civilian centers, the saudis have dropped 200 bombs on hodayda. it is a city where most of the humanitarian and food comes in. yemen depends, 80% of their food must be imported, comes through this one port for the most part. the saudis, since we admonish them, since secretary pompeo said they need to cease and desist from bombing civilian centers, the saudis have dropped 200 more bombs on the city of hodayda where the humanitarian aid comes in. it must stop. someone must take a stand and say enough's enough. we are against the humanitarian disaster in yemen. they will argue, then vote on that. i can't have a direct vote on

that. they will not let me vote on whether or not we should be at war in yemen. i'm only allowed to vote on this one small thing, but this is a proxy vote. this is a vote that represents whether or not we should be at war in yemen. it's an incredibly important vote. it is a, an attempt to grab back power from the presidency. it's an attempt to have a check and balance on all presidents of all parties, of all beliefs. i don't think that we should ever set one arm, one musket, one shotgun to create a job. our arms industry is for our national defense. it is a unique industry that is not an entirely private enterprise industry. the arms manufacturer, the mill industrial complex is supported overwhelmingly by tax dollars. i'm not for anybody being able to buy an f-16. i'm not for selling f-16's to russia or to china, but i'm also not for selling any more to saudi arabia.