A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and services.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the arms industry is a unique industry. It is not like making shoes or apparel. It is not like selling watches. You are selling things that, when used properly, kill other people. They are deadly weapons that we have. We have accumulated the technology by the taxpayer paying for this. We have helicopters, planes, guided missiles, and we are able to refuel planes.

It is not a jobs program, and it is not something that--we don't willy-nilly give weapons to everyone. We don't sell weapons to Russia and we don't sell weapons to China because we have disagreements, and we don't think it would be in our best interest to sell weapons to them.

We also don't sell weapons, typically, to people we think are untrustworthy. I think there is every evidence that Saudi Arabia can be put in that category. When you have direct evidence and when our own intelligence community has concluded that there is high confidence that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia butchered a dissident with a bone saw in a consulate in a foreign country, you would think that would give us pause as to giving Saudi Arabia or selling Saudi Arabia more weapons.

But it is worse than that. We are not only selling Saudi Arabia offensive weapons, we are also talking about giving them nuclear technology. The nuclear technology, they say, is only for energy, but you have to wonder. A country that sits atop one of the largest oil reserves in the world is now saying ``Oh, we don't have enough fossil fuel. We need nuclear power''? There have been people who have gotten nuclear technology and then have moved on to nuclear weapons.

What could possibly be the worst thing to happen to the Middle East? It would be to have three powers there with nuclear weapons. We had Iran before. They now have the knowledge to enrich. They made an agreement not to enrich. They are still threatening to enrich uranium. What do you think will happen if Saudi Arabia gets nuclear technology and there is any rumor of their progressing on towards developing nuclear weapons? What will Iran do? Automatically, they will do the same thing.

It also happens in the conventional weapons arena. So every time we sell or give missiles to Saudi Arabia, what do you think Iran does? They have to either buy more or make more. It is an arms race. We are feeding both sides of an arms race.

But you will hear people in Washington say: But Iran--they are a malign influence. Well, yeah. So is Saudi Arabia. But what do we do when we have two powers that show tendencies toward evil and show tendencies toward acting in ways that are against our national interest? Do we just blindly give weapons to anybody who is opposed to Iran because Iran is a malign influence? Well, what about Saudi Arabia? They have spent $100 billion spreading this radical jihadism to other cultures; $100 billion around the world preaching hatred of Christians, hatred of Jews, hatred of Hindus. Yet we give them more weapons.

There is a madrasa supported by Saudi Arabia--that is a so-called religious school in Pakistan--and 80 percent of the boys who graduate from the school--because, of course, girls aren't allowed to go to school under this kind of religion--80 percent of the boys who graduate from the school fight in the Taliban against the United States. Why would we give weapons to a country that teaches hatred of our country and actually trains fighters to fight against our soldiers? What person in what insane world thinks it is a good idea to fund people who fundamentally don't like us? Why in the world do we keep doing this?

Last week, we voted on sending weapons to Qatar. Do you know who Qatar supplies weapons with? Hamas. I thought we were allies with Israel. But we fund Qatar, which sends missiles and weapons to Hamas, who then bombs Israel. Qatar also hosts fundraisers for ISIS. Remember ISIS--the ones chopping people's heads off? Why would we give weapons to countries that give weapons to our enemies?

In the Syrian civil war, we went in on the side of those who were opposed to Assad. Now, Assad is no saint, no Democrat, no Jeffersonian Democrat, no believer in freedom; yet the people on the other side-- most of them hate Israel. Most of them despise any rights for women. Most of them--many of them are allied with al-Qaida. Who is al-Qaida? The people who attacked us on 9/11. Al-Nusra, al-Qaida, ISIS--who do they get weapons from? Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Even Hillary Clinton admitted this in one of the emails that were released. Hillary Clinton was talking to John Podesta by email, and she said: We have to do something about this. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are arming and providing logistical help to ISIS.

So why does it go on? Some would say: Because people make a big profit on this. This is a jobs program for the arms industry, and we have to make sure they make their profit.

I disagree. This is an industry that uniquely has to do with our national interests. It is uniquely paid for by the taxpayer. These weapons are owned by the taxpayer, and we should not sell them to people who are not our friends.

This is what the debate is about today. We will vote shortly on whether or not we should sell offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia.

What are they doing with the weapons? Well, they are bombing civilians in Yemen, for one. They are transferring some of the weapons in Yemen to al-Qaida. Al-Qaida and the larger umbrella group that attacked us on 9/11 are active. They are called AQAP in Yemen. There are news reports in the last week that Saudi Arabia is indiscriminantly giving arms to anybody who is opposed to the group they are fighting against, the Houthis.

Who supports the Houthis? The Iranians.

Is one side better than the other?

Are we so blind to the malign influence of Saudi Arabia that we give money and weapons to anybody regardless of what they do? You can chop up a dissident. You can cut a dissident up to pieces with a bone saw, and we will still give you weapons?

My goodness, I can't imagine. I do not think that people in this body who will continue to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia are listening to the people at home. I guarantee, if we asked the people at home, if we had a national poll and everybody got to give their opinion, how many people at home do you think are saying: Oh, well, they just chopped up a dissident--no big deal. Let's just keep sending them weapons. Oh, well, they are giving weapons to Hamas. Yes, you know, we don't really care. Or, well, they are bombing civilians.

The Saudis killed 150 people at a funeral procession--people marching at a funeral procession. They knew it was a funeral procession. This was no fog of war, no mistake. This was an intentional act to kill people at a funeral procession. There were 150 people killed and 450 wounded. About 1 year ago, they killed 40 schoolchildren on a schoolbus.

They are indiscriminately bombing civilians, and they are blockading Yemen, which is one of the poorest countries on the planet. Millions of people--some estimate between 14 and 17 million people--live on the edge of starvation because of this war. The Saudis are preventing food from coming in. They have blockaded Hodeida, which is one of the key ports where food needs to come in. Yemen imports 80 percent of their food. The Saudis are blockading them and people are starving, and we are allied with Saudis. We supply them with bombs that they drop on civilians and until the last few months we were refueling the very planes that were dropping the bombs.

People talk sometimes about, you know, a dream of peace in the Middle East. If you want to have a peace plan in the Middle East, people say: Well, it is Israel and Palestine who have to come to a peace agreement.

Do you know what the bigger problem is--an even bigger problem than that conundrum--which is a conundrum? It is figuring out how to have peace between Saudi Arabia and their allies and Iran. Everything around here is Iran, Iran, Iran, Iran. Do you know who spends the third-most amount of money on the military in the world? Saudi Arabia. First, it is the United States. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. We spend more than all the rest of NATO combined, for that matter. Then, a distant second is China, and, then, there is Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia spends more on their military than Russia and more than most of our NATO allies. Yet people say: Oh, we have to give them more arms because Iran is a bad actor. What if they are both bad actors?

Currently, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikdoms around them spend 8 times more than Iran. I am not saying Iran is a great place or that the government is great. What I am saying is, when you have two bad actors, when you have two malign influences, do you think we always have to choose the lesser of two evils? Do we have to always look askance and say: Oh, whatever--you know, as long as we are doing something that is opposed to Iran.

One of our other so-called allies over there is Bahrain. We have a naval base there, and we say: It is important to have a naval base, and we have to look the other way. They have 4,000 political prisoners. Saudi Arabia actually imprisons people for political reasons, and they don't just kill them. They behead them and crucify them--I think, in that order. They put the bodies out for public display.

They executed a guy named Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who was of a minority religion. The Saudis are Sunnis. This guy was a Shia religious person and spokesman. He was executed. His nephew is being held in prison and has been for several years now. He was 17 when he was arrested. His crime was sending a text message to encourage people to protest against the authoritarian regime of Saudi Arabia.

I think the problem is that some people come to the conclusion that arms are always good and we should never do anything to condition the sale of arms to behavior. Well, I am not for sending more arms there, period, because it is a cauldron always threatening to boil over.

Let's say you were someone who would say: Oh, no, we have to arm them. Perhaps we should condition arms on good behavior. Perhaps, if you are cutting up a dissident with a bone saw in a foreign country, maybe we should stop arms for a while to see if maybe you can get better people in the government or maybe to see if your ways will change.

Saudi Arabia said: Oh, we are doing it differently now. We are not going to fund radical jihadism around the world.

But they spent $100 billion infecting the world with the ideas of hatred of the West, hatred of Christians, hatred of Jews, and hatred of Hindus. There used to be a couple hundred of these schools in Pakistan. There is now said to be 20,000 schools in Pakistan. The Saudis support schools not just in Pakistan but throughout the world--in Indonesia and India and all over the Middle East. They support these schools that teach intolerance and hatred of the West. Yet we are one of their biggest arms suppliers. It makes utterly no sense, and it should be reconsidered.

We will have a chance to vote today, and the numbers are growing. When I first introduced a resolution to disapprove of arm sales to Saudi Arabia, I think I got 22 votes. We did it again a couple of months later, and I think we got in the forties. I think there is a chance today that we will get close to 60 votes.

We will have to get to 67 to overcome a Presidential veto. Look, I am a big fan of the President on many fronts, but on this someone has to stand up, even a Member of his own party and say: Arms sales are not jobs programs, and they should be conditioned on behavior, and we should not sell arms to countries that hate us.

As for these countries that burn our flag and chant ``Death to America,'' we shouldn't be arming them.

At one point in time, there were reports about ISIS. Remember the people who were beheading people in the desert over the last couple of years and spreading throughout the region? There were reports that they have $1 billion worth of Humvees. Some of them were captured, but some came because of indiscriminate arms. There are arms everywhere.

So when we had the Syrian civil war going on, all throughout the news media--public, private, everywhere--everyone was saying that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were giving arms to anybody, indiscriminantly giving arms to people. One of the groups that got arms and one of the groups that got anti-tank weapons--these are shoulder-launched missiles--said in a news report right after they got them: When we are done with Assad--they didn't talk about ISIS, and most of them didn't care about ISIS because they actually kind of agree with ISIS's religion--we are going after Israel next.

So we are arming people who are potential if not real enemies of Israel. We are arming people who are teaching hatred of the West, hatred of Christians, hatred of Hindus, and hatred of Jews. We are arming these people. Why are we doing that?

Let's say you don't agree with everything I have said, and you say: Well, maybe we should get them to behave better. Why don't you withhold arms for 6 months at the least?

Why don't we just stop for a while?

They have enough arms to blow up the Middle East 10 times over. Is there just no stopping? Is there no limitation to what we will do? Do we not believe that any of our arms sales should be conditioned on behavior?

This is a big deal and a big vote, and it is my hope that the American people will watch how people vote and decide: Is this who I want representing me? Do I want someone representing me who is selling arms to people who hate our country, who spend hundreds of billions of dollars on schools teaching hatred of our country? Do I want to have people representing me who continue to flood the Middle East with arms?

That is what this vote is about, and I hope the American public will pay attention to how people vote today and to which direction they want the country to go in.

We have had enough war. This is something I agree with the President on. We have had enough war. We have

been at war too long in too many places.

We have been 19 years in Afghanistan, and to what end? I was for the initial purpose of getting those who attacked us on 9/11. I would have voted to go. But after 19 years, it is nation-building. We are spending $50 billion a year. We build roads, and they blow them up. We build schools, and they blow them up.

We have roads and schools crumbling in our country. We don't have an extra $50 billion to spend in Afghanistan. We are $1 trillion short this year. We are going to spend $4 trillion, and we are bringing in $1 trillion--not great economics, not great budget balancing on our part.

No. 1, we cannot afford to try to be everywhere all the time, and, No. 2, the money we are spending overseas is counterproductive.

We went into Iraq and toppled a dictator. What did we get? Chaos. In the chaos we get ISIS and other groups forming.

We went into Libya and toppled the dictator in Libya. What did we get? Chaos. It is so confusing in Libya that I am not even sure which side the U.S. Government is supporting. They were supporting the U.N.- sanctioned government and now they appear to be supporting military generals who are trying to overthrow that government.

One thing is for sure: The country of Qatar that we voted to send arms to last week is supporting the side opposite us. So we give arms to people who are directly involved in a civil war where we are involved on the other side of the civil war. To me, it seems utterly preposterous that we keep doing that. There is Qatar's support for the other side in Libya and their support for Hamas. They are letting ISIS and al-Qaida do fundraising in their country.

Maybe we need to take a break from the arms race in the Middle East.

I don't think that someone can make a practical or reasonable argument that there has been more peace since we sent more weapons over there. They have plenty of weapons to kill each other for another thousand years. They have been killing each other for 1,000 years. They have enough weapons to kill each other for another 1,000 years.

Maybe we don't need to be involved in every civil war in the world. Maybe we can't afford it, and maybe when we have gotten involved, we had the unintended consequences of actually making it worse.

People have this idea that when you topple a dictator, somehow the next person they elect is going to be Thomas Jefferson. Well, guess what. Every time we have toppled a dictator, the people they end up electing are not Thomas Jefferson. Sometimes in the elections we don't like whom they elected in the elections and people go back and topple them again.

So when Egypt actually had an election, they elected somebody from the Muslim Brotherhood. Many in the Middle East and many in our country didn't want him. So we helped to get rid of him, and now we have a military rule with no elections and with the idea that you can be detained without trial. People say: Well, it is stable. It is another military autocracy, but we are going to put up with it.

We need to rethink our approach to the Middle East. We need to rethink the approach that we need to arm one or both sides in every war. We need to think whether regime change is a good idea, and we need to look at the practical effects of our foreign policy and say: Are we safer somehow?

I think one universal truth is that we are usually poorer by the time we are done, because what we end up doing is spending good money after bad.

I will give you a couple of examples in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we spent $90 million in a luxury hotel in downtown Kabul. You say: How does that $90 million hotel protect us? Well, it doesn't, but it is money. Money runs through all this. Somebody is getting rich, but not the American taxpayer.

The guy who built it, I think, was a Jordanian national, but he built a shell of a hotel. He took the $90 million. He got all the payment, and it was never built. It mostly doesn't have walls, and none of it was completed. It is now a danger because it sits up across from our embassy and snipers crawl up in the building.

So the thing is that we asked for $90 million, and we need more now because, apparently, we now need to tear it down because it is a danger to our embassy and our soldiers.

So if we could just get $200,000 more, they are going to spend another couple hundred thousand dollars tearing down a hotel that we asked you to build in the first place, which we had no business building whatsoever.

We built a gas station for them in Afghanistan, too. But because our purpose in the military is now sometimes to fight the enemy but also to fight climate change--you didn't know this, but part of the military's goal is climate change now--so we built them a gas station. But we want to reduce the carbon footprint. So we built a gas station that sells natural gas. Well, the problem was, No. 1, nobody in Afghanistan has a car. The average income is about $800. Almost nobody has a car, and no one has one that burns natural gas.

So what they did is that they had to give them credit cards and buy them cars that actually ran on natural gas.

We wanted to visit over there and the military said it was too dangerous to take us there. So we have no idea if it is even in operation at this point.

I say we need to rethink this, and I urge today a vote against selling more arms to Saudi Arabia.

Thank you.

Mr. President, over the next few days, Senator Reed and I will be leading the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2020. I consider this--and I think he would probably join me on this--the most significant bill of the year, and it is the most important bill.

There is an old document no one reads anymore called the Constitution, which says what we are really supposed to be doing here. No. 1 on the list is defending America, and now this bipartisan bill is more important than ever.

The world is more unstable and dangerous than at any time in my lifetime. The National Defense Strategy gave it to us straight. This is the document; the National Defense Strategy Commission put this together. It was made up of experts, equally divided, Democrats and Republicans. We have had several hearings on this. We have had meetings and discussed it with our Members. In fact, Senator Jon Kyl, during the brief time that he was back as a Member of the Senate, dropped out of this and then went back in. He is very active in this, and so are the rest.

None of the individuals here have ever been accused of being in any way partisan. What they put together is a defense strategy that is the best thing for this country, and they have done a masterful job of this and actually put it straight to us.

The strategic competition with China and Russia is something that is relatively new. During the last administration, China and Russia started surfacing, and they became more prominent and were challenging us in several areas.

The continuing threats from rogue countries are still important too. We are talking about Iran and North Korea and the other terrorist organizations.

New technology and new warfighting domains in outer space and cyberspace are things that in recent years have become very prominent, and we have to compete. Our peer competitors are out there even stating that they are ahead of us, not to mention the years of underfunding by the previous administration.

When you think about the last administration, if you look at using fiscal year 2018 dollars and you want to take the last 5 years of the previous administration, 2010 had appropriations using constant dollars of $794 billion. In 2015, 5 years later, it was $586 billion. So stop and think about that. I can't think of any bureaucracy that has taken that much of a dive in that period of time. We are talking about 20 percent.

So that is the reality we are facing, and this is what we are doing right now in trying to get our Defense authorization bill. Again, it will pass. That is one of the few things you can do that you know is going to pass. It has passed for the last 58 years, and it is going to pass this year too.

Yet we are facing a real national security crisis. There are real threats to our military and our way of life, and we are ready to meet and defeat these threats. We have to continue rebuilding our military, catching up with our competitors, and making strategic and holistic improvements to our national defense. I said catch up, and that clearly states that we are not ahead right now.

Using the National Defense Strategy Commission report as our blueprint, this year's NDAA pursues ``urgent change at significant scale'' to meet the needs of our Nation.

Our military leaders have said time and again that stable, predictable, on-time funding is the single most important way Congress can help support a strong national defense. We did this last year, and we are going to do it again this year. It is incredibly important that we stare down the barrel of sequestration cuts that would, in the words of former of Air Force Secretary Wilson, ``be absolutely devastating in scope and scale.''

It is not just her. Others have come before us and said that if we were to be subjected to sequestration, it would undo all of the corrections that have been made in the last 2\1/2\ years. This would undo all of the work we have done to rebuild our readiness. I am talking about fiscal years 2018 and 2019.

We also know that continuing resolutions are no way to do business, especially for our military. We have had the military in hearings we have had. We have traditionally--this year--two very long hearings on defense authorization in our committee. Each witness who comes in talks about how devastating it would be if we were to move back to sequestration or if we have to undo the improvements that we have made.

I know this firsthand. When I go out and visit military installations in Oklahoma, across the country, and around the world, it is true that we sit down with the commanders and the base leaders. But also--and I know my good friend Senator Reed does--we go and sit down and eat in the mess halls with our kids out there on the frontlines and talk to them. I have to tell you, they know what is going on. They know when we are dragging our feet on efforts that we have to fund our military. They know who is doing it, who isn't doing it, and they are the best source of getting that information.

The NDAA is the first step in the process of getting them that military funding. This year, we provided a total of $750 billion to ensure our troops have the resources they need to defend our Nation. This represents a bare minimum. People talk about $750 billion, but stop and think about it. This report says that until we get back to the point at which we have the military where it should be, we are going to have to increase each year, during this timeframe, somewhere between a 3 and 5 percent increase--net increase--each year. That is in this book here, and that is considered to be a bare minimum. Ironically, that is the same figure that our military uses. The NDAA aligns our defense resources and policies with our National Defense Strategy, which is found in this book.

Fully funding our military at $750 billion means we will be more ready to address great power competition like China and Russia. We are seeing our military lose ground. Anything less would keep us from regaining our combat advantage and our duty to deter aggression. I am using the words carefully. When we say regain, that is what we need to do, because we are not there

now. We can't plan to fight the wars of tomorrow with the weapons and equipment of yesterday.

The NDAA fully funds the Nuclear Modernization Program at or above request, including the nuclear triad, and directs funding to procure critical equipment.

The Nuclear Modernization Program has been suffering for a long period of time. A lot of people look at the triad system and assume that somehow that is a redundancy. It is not. It talks about systems that can project a nuclear weapon, and there are three different classifications. That is what the triad is all about. It is not as if you can take one or two out of it and still do the job.

In this bill, we have 94 Joint Strike Fighters, 12 new battle force ships, 105 naval aircraft, new aircraft for the Air Force, including the 15 KC-46As, and new helicopters for the Army, including 9 new Chinooks.

We also have to be prepared to meet challenges in new domains. Space is one of those. General Raymond, who is nominated to lead the U.S. Base Command, told our committee when we were having a hearing on this that our superiority in space is questionable. It is not guaranteed. That is work that has to be done. That is what we are finding in this bill that we are going to ultimately be voting for in the next few days.

Our society relies on satellites and space technologies. We need to address this problem now before it is too late, and I am glad President Trump has made this a key initiative.

We took President Trump's directive to establish a space force and came up with a bipartisan plan to establish a force that meets our needs in space. Our bill would stand up the U.S. Space Force in the Air Force. This will create a cohesive strategy to protect our interests in space, improve how we acquire space assets, and improve our space warfighting culture.

People say: Of all the things we are doing right now, we are doing a lot of things in space. What does this do that we are not doing currently? My answer is nothing. We are doing it all now, but this would allow us to do it better. Our plan prevents additional costs and bureaucracy and gets us off on the right foot to better fulfill our mission in space.

The legislation also implements policies that would change the way the Pentagon is run, allowing it to respond more nimbly and effectively to the current defensive landscape.

Last, but arguably the most important, the NDAA makes our all- volunteer force--the backbone of our national defense--the biggest priority.

I happen to be one of the few people--in fact, I think I am the only one in this Senate Chamber who is a product of the draft. That was back in the days when we didn't have an all-volunteer force. I came here absolutely convinced that was the best way to go until I started seeing what we have out there. When you see these kids and what they are doing, it is amazing how effective they are. They are truly the backbone of our national defense. Even though our military advantage may have been diminished, what hasn't changed are our troops. They are still the best in the world. We have to continue to look out for them. It is one of the biggest ways we stand apart from our adversaries or actors like Russia or China. They don't care about their people. We do.

A lot of times people ask me: Why is it we have to spend so much money on defense? We are spending more money than Russia and China.

That is easy. Our largest single expense to putting together a military is its end strength. It is the people.

It is the people. We care about the people. We make sure we are doing things that are good for the people. I remember we had this big discussion on the privatization of commissaries not too long ago. That was something where that is a benefit. It doesn't cost us any more, I contend, but that is a great benefit for those people--the spouses and members of the military--in remote places. That is where they go. That is where everybody wants to go. So it is true that it costs more, but that is because Russians--it goes without saying, Russians and the Chinese, they don't really care about the people. They are going to tell them to go out and fight. They have to do it. That is the largest single item. They don't have that; we do, and we are better off for it. That is what this is all about. It will put us back to where we are on top. We are not second in any of these areas.

It provides the 3.1-percent pay raise for our troops, and that is the largest we have had in 10 years.

We improved the quality of life for our troops and their families, making sure our troops have quality healthcare and a solid roof over their heads.

Just a few months ago, our committee became aware of some really serious problems in housing. This is only just about last February. This is something--frankly, I was one of the guilty parties because we privatized housing some time ago. That was something that--yes, in a way, it sure makes it easier for us. It makes it easier for the military. All of a sudden, we found ourselves in a situation where we sent out bids. We had contractors who were bidding to do the housing work. Then we found out that--it worked fine for a couple years, but then, as time went by--this is human nature--people got careless. I think the contractors got a little bit greedy. So all of a sudden, we found out we had housing for our people that had mold and all kinds of serious problems. So we had a hearing on this. Actually, we had two hearings on this. One was to listen to the tenants all throughout America who were talking about how deplorable that condition was, and the other one was we brought in the contractors and talked to them. The thing that impressed me was, during the second hearing of the contractors, they admitted there was a problem. They said: There is. We have become a little too relaxed. They started to clean up their act, but just in case they did not do that, we actually put a lot of those provisions in this bill that we are going to be considering now. It includes a Tenant Bill of Rights. We weren't going to do this until the end of the summer. We were going to have another hearing and talk about what we needed to do to correct the problem, but we already know. They went out there, and they looked.

So in this bill, we have a Tenant Bill of Rights. We have private housing partners being held accountable, ensuring each installation has the right personnel to conduct oversight. Overall, we make sure our military has the infrastructure to support it. Within the funding for military construction, $3.6 billion is set aside to replenish funds that may be used to build a wall. There has been a lot of criticism. People are saying: Well, you used some military funds--maybe some of the funds that were going to be used for military construction. If that is the case, we have $3.6 billion set aside here to replenish any funds that might have been used to build a wall. So they don't have that argument anymore.

As I said before, this legislation is legislation that all of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle can support. Defense needs to be our No. 1 priority. We may not agree on everything, but we can definitely agree on that.

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill on an overwhelming bipartisan basis--25 to 2--in only 6 hours. This is kind of interesting. Each year it falls this way--I guess, intentionally. On a Wednesday, we get together at 9 in the morning. The Defense Authorization Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee meet. We go over what we are going to have to do in terms of this bill, and we get it done. We got this done actually in 6 hours. I thought that was a record, and we did it in a little less than that time this time, but we had a product that was 25 to 2. Only two people voted against it. We completed this work quickly--less than 2 months after receiving the administration's budget request. It was my goal to get this done as soon as possible. I thank the committee and the staff for helping to get this done.

We all understand the importance of this bill. This is the most important bill of the year. I think most people understand that and agree to that. On this committee, we considered 433 amendments and approved nearly 300 of them. Our markup took 6 hours just because of our shared commitment to working together.

So I want to thank, particularly, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Reed, and every member of the committee

working to pass this critical legislation. I want to thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, for his leadership and for continuing to fight for a budget deal that includes a strong top line for our defense.

I look forward to continuing this fair, corroborative process on the floor in the coming days. We are going to consider amendments. Both Senator Reed and I want an open amendment process. Then we are going to pass this bill for the 59th straight year in a row. For nearly 6 decades, Congress has understood the necessity of a strong, capable, lethal force. The main reason America is the leader of the free world is because of our military might. Our Armed Forces are the very best in the world. Our leadership values pave the way for liberty, prosperity, and security across the globe. We preserve peace through our strength. Who else said that? Ronald Reagan talked about the necessity to be strong so we can avoid the very type of threats that are out there. Freedom isn't free. We understand that. We want to preserve this vital role--a role that guarantees a future of freedom and democracy for our children and grandchildren. We have to prioritize our national security. That is what we have been doing with this NDAA, and that is why we are going to continue to do it with the passage of this bill.

Again, I want to express my appreciation. It is a tough bill, and we have spent a lot of hours together, Senator Reed and I, and I think we have something now that is going to be going through. We do have an amendment process. It is an open amendment process, and we plan to do that and get that done.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, over the past few months, tensions with Iran have escalated. There have been a series of attacks on tankers in the Gulf region, and this morning it was reported that Iran has shot down a U.S. drone.

These events are deeply concerning--all the more so because the Trump administration has not explained to Congress or to the American people how it views these events, how it plans to respond, and, most importantly, what the broader strategy for confronting Iran is.

President Trump left the diplomatic agreement a little more than a year ago. It was obvious to anyone who even had a cursory knowledge of Iran that it would create consequences. With that decision, there is a course set for conflict--conflict whose purpose or strategy has never been articulated to the American people.

The President says on TV: It is a much better Iran than when I took office. Well, they were not building nuclear weapons--and I opposed the Iran agreement, as you know. But they were not building nuclear weapons. They were proceeding along the path of the agreement, and the President, as he seems to, just gets a bug in his head, something he said in the campaign without thinking, and then upends foreign policy-- another example of chaos in this administration. But he has done that. He has done that.

So now the issue is what is our strategy to deal with the consequences? The American people have to know this. We have seen too many conflicts in the Middle East escalate into war--escalate into a 10-year war.

The American people are not for spending a fortune and, more importantly, lives of Americans overseas. They want us to focus here at home, but the kind of adventurism--almost unplanned, unthought out, and, certainly, unexplained adventurism--of the President is the wrong way to go and could lead to severe consequences. And, I must say, even in closed-door briefings with Senators, the administration doesn't have a strategy.

This is not how democracy is supposed to work. This is not how the CEO of a major Nation or even a major company should behave, with no articulated strategy. The President needs to explain to the American people why he is driving us toward another endless conflict in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia

Madam President, on Saudi Arabia, another matter concerning the administration's foreign policy, today the Senate will vote on resolutions of disapproval for arms sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

These 22 resolutions introduced by Senator Menendez would block billions of dollars in military sales, including the transfer of tens of thousands of precision-guided munitions that the Saudis have previously used to bomb innocent civilians in Yemen.

The timing of these votes is significant. Last night the United Nations issued a report that documented evidence that the Saudis meticulously planned the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and ``forensically''--their words--disposed of the evidence.

According to the report, the Saudis referred to Mr. Khashoggi as a sacrificial animal and that dismembering the body would be easy--how gross, how cruel, how beyond words.

Are we going to blithely go along and let the Saudis continue? They are an ally. Everyone knows that. That doesn't mean you let allies do the most horrible things and just treat it as if nothing happened. But in the wake of such monstrosity, the Trump administration is proposing another round of billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Well, we should at least have a debate about whether that is the right course of action. Leader McConnell was on the floor saying: What are the Democrats doing here? We are debating, Mr. Leader. You have one view; I

may have another. But the American people are entitled to a debate on this important issue, and that is what the law provides, and that is the tool we use--one of the few tools we have to actually cause debate in this Chamber, which the leader, with his legislative graveyard, has assiduously avoided. With his reducing the amount of time that we can talk about and vet nominees, he has assiduously avoided that, turning this Chamber into a graveyard that the American people despise. But here we have an opportunity to debate, and even here the leader seems to be decrying that fact, in my view.

The administration is claiming emergency power and trying to circumvent congressional review of these arms sales. That premise must be rejected. It sets a dangerous precedent for congressional oversight of future arms sales, and it can lead to renewed conflicts. We are also discussing that, parenthetically, in relation to Iran. Should Congress have some say there? You will hear more from me later on that.

The very least Congress can do is to debate the merits of sending Saudi Arabia billions of dollars in military technology it may use not to confront Iran but to perpetrate one of the largest humanitarian catastrophes of its generation.

Saudi Arabia, even though it be an ally, must be held accountable for its human rights abuses in Yemen and the grotesque murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Harriet Tubman

Madam President, now, on the Tubman issue, more than 3 years ago then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced that he had ordered an accelerated redesign of the $20 bill with a new design to feature Harriet Tubman's portrait on the face of the bill. The design was set to be released in 2020, the 100th anniversary of women getting the right to vote--a fitting tribute to an extraordinary American and an extraordinary New Yorker.

There are no women or people of color on our paper currency today, even though they make up a significant majority of our population. There haven't been for more than a century. The plan to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 note was a long overdue way to recognize that disparity and rectify it.

But shortly after the Trump administration took office, all mention of the Tubman $20 bill was deleted from the Treasury Department's website without any explanation. Then, Secretary Mnuchin testified that a decision had been made to delay the release of the $20 note until 2028, and Treasury refused to confirm that Harriet Tubman's image would ever appear on it.

The official word from the White House was that the delay was required to accommodate anti-counterfeiting measures. But if you believe that, I have a bridge that I can sell you. It is simply not credible that with all the resources of the Treasury Department, a decade or more would be required to produce a $20 bill.

A century ago, New Yorkers built the Empire State building in a little over a year. We landed a man on the Moon in what seems to be less time. Surely the 21st century Treasury Department can redesign a bill in a reasonable period of time. The questions as to why the White House, the Treasury, and maybe even the President delayed this are looming and real, given the President's attitude toward women and minorities.

I have asked the Department of Treasury inspector general to launch an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Treasury's decision. The official reasons given aren't credible. The whole thing smacks of politics. President Trump has referred to efforts to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill as pure political correctness. To recognize more than half the people in our society, to recognize more than 25 percent of Americans who are people of color, all of whom have worked so hard to strive for this great country--is that political correctness? What is wrong with this President? What is wrong with this President, and what instincts is he appealing to? What bad instincts is he appealing to? It seems to be his practice, his way, his MO.

So among the questions the inspector general should examine is what role President Trump played in this apparent effort to renege on Treasury's 2016 commitment to honor Harriet Tubman.

Whatever the President's sentiments toward Jackson are, there is no reason to reverse the original Treasury Department decision to recognize Harriet Tubman's historic legacy on the $20 bill, which would still feature our seventh President on the reverse side.

I hope the inspector general will get to the bottom of this, but in the meantime, I hope President Trump himself is asked to answer for these delays. It would truly be a sordid state of affairs if the President or his team, for political reasons, interfered with and infected the process for designing American currency.

Background Checks

Madam President, now, finally, on background checks, in the early hours on Monday, a heavily armed man approached the Federal building in downtown Dallas and started shooting. This was a civilian walking into the middle of an American city with military-grade weapons, a mask, and body armor, and he was prepared to inflict the maximum level of damage possible.

It is to the credit of the incredible first responders that this accident did not result in the loss of innocent life, but it is remarkable that events like this now seem all too routine, and so the news cycle barely covers them before moving on.

Barely a week goes by without an incident like this somewhere in America. We are the only Nation in the developed world where these kinds of things--these horrible things--happen with regularity. Virginia Beach, Highland Ranch, Poway, and Aurora, IL, are all examples of shootings that have taken place this year alone.

Later today, I will join several of my colleagues from the House and the Senate, including our former colleague, the great Gabby Giffords, to urge Leader McConnell to bring background check legislation to the floor of the Senate. It has been 114 days since the House passed the measure, which more than 90 percent of Americans support, including more than 80 percent of Republicans and the majority of gun owners. But it seems that Leader McConnell has set aside another plot in his legislative graveyard for this potentially lifesaving bill.

For too long, the gun lobby has reflexively opposed gun safety reforms, even the most obvious and noncontroversial reforms, like closing loopholes in background checks, and, for too long, the Republican majority has marched in lockstep with them.

The American people demand we do these rational acts. The House has passed it overwhelmingly with a bipartisan vote. Where are Republicans? Are they still cowering before the NRA? I remind them, the NRA is a lot weaker today than it was a few years ago. It is time to do the right thing and stop being scared.

Let's move this bill to the floor. Let Leader McConnell finally let us debate an issue long overdue.

Election Security

Madam President, finally, as we continue to debate the NDAA, I urge Leader McConnell once again to allow and support amendments to protect our elections from future attacks.

Election security is a national security issue of the highest urgency. There aren't two sides to this debate. No one can defend doing nothing as the Russians, and maybe the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, mess with the wellspring of our democracy--our elections.

As we have seen time and again from reports by the FBI, intelligence agencies, and the Mueller report, our elections came under attack from Russia in the last Presidential election. FBI Director Wray has warned that they are coming for us again, and he thinks it could be worse than in 2016.

Leader McConnell will not deny that this is true. So what are we waiting for? We know the threat is there. We know we can take steps to minimize it. So why won't Leader McConnell let us act?

We have several options for legislative action, many of them bipartisan. People on both sides of the aisle--Democrats and Republicans--care about this issue and have worked on legislation together, something not done frequently enough around here, and Leader McConnell just sits on these bills.

Last week, Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to simply say the FBI should be informed when a foreign power tries to influence an election. I believe Senator Blumenthal will try

to do the same thing today. Is Leader McConnell going to instruct one of his Republicans to block it again? Will he have the courage to block it himself if he wants it blocked?

The logical solution is to let us debate the bills. If Leader McConnell will not cooperate on this matter, Democrats are going to stand up for our democracy on our own, if we have to. We are going to ask unanimous consent to allow debate on these bills. We will insist on amendments to the NDAA. Leader McConnell has suggested he wants an open amendment process, so let's press the matter, and we will continue to push for more election security funding as part of a deal on budget caps.

There are not two sides on this one; there are just not. There is only one right answer: action to safeguard our election. I urge Leader McConnell to let us move on this issue. Stop stalling, stop obstructing. The legislative graveyard is full enough as it is. Let's come together, Democrats and Republicans, to protect our grand, imperiled democracy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, yesterday, by a wide bipartisan margin, the Senate began considering this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

The Senate has passed an NDAA each of the last 58 years. We authorize the resources, the equipment, the support systems, and the pay that keep our All-Volunteer Force the strongest in the world.

From the outside, this process may look routine, but as our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee know best, keeping America safe takes constant hard work and innovation.

We have all seen the recent headlines: ``Russia `successfully tests' hypersonic intercept missile that can shoot down Western weapons,'' ``China's Military Technology Now Close to Parity With U.S.''

In just the last few hours, Iran shot down an American surveillance aircraft in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. Fortunately, the aircraft was unmanned.

Let me say that again. Last night, the Iranians shot down a U.S. aircraft in international airspace.

It could certainly not be clearer that we need to keep modernizing our national defense, continue rebuilding our readiness, and persist with our new national defense strategy.

Fortunately, this legislation includes billions of dollars for modernizing our capabilities, restoring the Navy's fleet strength, and investing in the latest generation of combat aircraft. There are billions more for critical research weapons aimed at keeping U.S. weapons systems on the cutting edge and ensuring American servicemembers never enter a fair fight. It prioritizes greater efficiency and transparency at the Pentagon so we can better support military families through the sacrifices of service.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jack Reed for guiding the committee process. I hope the Senate can work through this legislation swiftly and give it the overwhelming bipartisan vote it deserves.

Arms Sales

Mr. President, on a related matter, in addition to completing the NDAA, the Senate will today have to dispense with several more privileged resolutions concerning arms sales to close American partners in a troubled but important region.

These close partners deserve our support. I am glad we secured a bipartisan understanding yesterday to expedite their consideration so the 22 separate resolutions which Members have introduced will not jeopardize the Defense bill or the emergency border funding we must also consider next week.

Today this body, yet again, will debate and cast votes concerning our relationship with Saudi Arabia, just like we did in March and December and the previous March.

I think the vast majority of Senators share serious concerns over some of the policies and actions of our Saudi partners, but rejecting long-planned arms sales strikes me as an overly blunt tool with several unintended consequences.

For example, the arms sales affected by this vote are not just for Saudi Arabia but also for the United Arab Emirates, and they include sales that affect Israel, India, Korea, and Jordan.

Last December, the Senate passed a nuanced resolution that delivered exactly the message we wanted to deliver: our fury over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, our concerns about the war in Yemen, and our desire for more accountability. That was the right approach.

There is no shortage of tools available to the United States that are more appropriate to communicate frustrations and urge better behavior, whether from the administration or our partners.

Senators could meet with Saudi officials to directly express their concerns. They could travel to the region to see firsthand complicated, fluid situations.

Rapid societal and economic change is providing Saudi citizens with unprecedented political openness but also troubling human rights concerns and erratic policy decisions. The dynamics at play are not black and white.

We can best shape these dynamics by working closely with our partners to encourage them in the right direction, rather than turning our back.

Concerned Members might also begin giving fairer treatment and more prompt consideration to the well-qualified experts who are waiting to contribute to our diplomacy. Recall that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near Eastern Affairs just started his job last Monday after he had been held up for more than a year. The top State Department job in the Middle East was held open for more than a year.

The nominees for Ambassador to the UAE, Egypt, and Libya are having hearings today. I hope their confirmations will move more quickly than those of other senior diplomats who languished for months.

So there is no shortage of productive steps at Members' disposal, but recklessly canceling U.S. arms sales to key regional partners is not on the list.

So the question the Senate will soon consider is really this: whether we will lash out at an imperfect partner and undercut our own efforts to build cooperation, check Iran, and achieve other important goals or whether we will keep our imperfect partners close and use our influence; whether we will push Riyadh and Abu Dhabi away from the United States and push them closer to Moscow and Beijing or whether we will stay engaged and help our partners course-correct where we can; whether to signal at this hour of tension that we cannot be relied upon to stand with our friends, sending a message that will embolden Tehran, or whether to find more private, effective ways of encouraging better behavior while sending a message of solidarity in troubled times.

The situation in the Middle East, as we speak, could hardly be more fraught. The timing could not be worse for the Senate to send the wrong signal.

In just the last several hours, we have seen reports that a missile from inside Yemen has struck a utility plant in Saudi Arabia. This is after other attacks--almost certainly from the Iran-backed Houthi forces--on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, including attacks on civilian vessels and on a civilian airport.

Again, just last night, Iran shot down a U.S. intelligence aircraft that was flying in international airspace. So the Senate could hardly pick a worse time for clumsy and ill-considered resolutions that would hurt key relationships in the Middle East.

Let's not cut ourselves off from our partners. Let's not undercut the administration at a time of such delicate diplomacy and tension with Iran. So I ask my colleagues to vote down these resolutions.

Nomination of Kelly Knight Craft

Mr. President, on another matter, I had the opportunity to introduce a skillful leader and fellow Kentuckian before the Foreign Relations Committee only just yesterday. Kelly Knight Craft was confirmed by voice vote in 2017 to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada. Now she is the President's choice to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Ambassador Craft's success in representing American interests in Canada certainly rewarded the Senate's vote of confidence. During a dynamic and sometimes challenging period in the U.S.-Canada friendship, she has navigated it with care. She has helped to shepherd the USMCA. She has helped to secure cooperation on sanctioning Russia for its aggression against Ukraine and on pursuing democracy for Venezuela. She has spoken out forcefully, when necessary, against China.

Not surprisingly, this talented diplomat has earned great respect both at home and abroad.

The Premier of Ontario has said:

Every premier I know thinks the world of her. . . . She

really proved herself over some tough times.

The former Deputy to Ambassador Nikki Haley has described Ambassador Craft as a worthy successor--``smart, capable, and knowledgeable about the foreign policy challenges facing our country.''

This body confirmed Ambassador Craft to her current post by voice vote. Since then, she has only gained even more experience, further refined her expertise, and demonstrated her talent even more clearly. Her testimony yesterday reinforced these things even further.

President Trump has made an excellent selection to serve our Nation in this critical role at the U.N. She deserves bipartisan support from the Foreign Relations Committee and, when the time comes, a swift confirmation here on the Senate floor.

Border Security

Mr. President, on a final matter, for nearly 2 months, my Republican colleagues and I have come to the floor constantly to raise the alarm on the humanitarian crisis down at the border. Record numbers of migrants have pressed upon the U.S.-Mexico border, including never- before-seen numbers of families and unaccompanied children. The agencies that care for these individuals and the facilities that house them have been stretched dangerously thin.

We all know this. That is why the administration requested supplemental funds 7 weeks ago. It is why agency heads and law enforcement officials have literally begged Congress to act. Yet, until yesterday, we had not seen progress, which leads one to ask why. It is because--stop me if this sounds familiar--the Democratic House of Representatives has been more interested in denying this White House whatever it asks for, however necessary it might be, simply because it has been this White House that has been asking for it.

My friend the Democratic leader has acknowledged publicly it has been the Democratic-controlled House that has been the hurdle. One House Democrat from a border State has likewise admitted that it has been the left flank of his own conference that has been the stumbling block.

As the press has noted, some leading Democrats have let partisanship so cloud their judgment that they have actually called the humanitarian problem a manufactured crisis or an artificial crisis. Really?

Well, these 7 weeks of wasted time have made two things abundantly clear--that partisanship doesn't change the facts and that ``the resistance'' doesn't pay the bills. The House Democrats have failed to get their act together, so now the Senate is going to move forward.

Yesterday, thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy, the Appropriations Committee approved a significant funding measure by an overwhelming vote of 30 to 1--just the kind of big, bipartisan vote we ought to see in this particular situation for noncontroversial funding for necessary programs to mitigate a national crisis.

The Republicans have been urging this kind of consensus literally for weeks, and now the Senate is finally rising to the occasion. We need to vote on this legislation before we recess at the end of the month.

The Senate should not let even more time slip by without addressing this crisis head-on, and if we receive the same kind of bipartisan cooperation that was signaled in the committee vote yesterday, we will not have to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, there has been a lot of confusion and outright misinformation about some proposed arms sales to our gulf partners--specifically, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. I am grateful for the opportunity this morning to clear up a few things, especially considering the current high stakes in the region.

As many of you probably have heard, the Islamic Republic of Iran just this morning shot down an American surveillance aircraft over the Strait of Hormuz--yet another act of reckless, unprovoked aggression targeting lawful behavior on the high seas and in the skies. Still, I know that for some of my colleagues here, Iranian acts of violence are always to be excused or somehow always the fault of America and especially of the Trump administration, to which the only appropriate response is to continue to appease the ayatollahs, to send them pallets of cash, as the last administration did, and give them billions of dollars in relief for sanctions--essentially to say: Pretty please, stop your acts of terroristic aggression and imperial ambition throughout the region.

It is my duty to inform all those colleagues that this is dangerous and misguided thinking. Iran, as it did in the mid-1980s, will meet American restraint with continued aggression. It will watch the outcome of today's votes in support for our friends in the gulf for signs of resolve or weakness. I urge my fellow Senators to send the right message to Tehran.

The administration plans to sell roughly $8 billion in arms to our gulf partners so they can defend themselves, as well as the many thousands of Americans within their borders--all from Iranian aggression. Canceling those sales would not only endanger Americans overseas and deprive American industry of billions in exports, it would weaken some of the only countries in a position to effectively resist Iran's violent rampage throughout the Middle East.

We have heard many objections to these arms sales. First and most amazing, given the stakes, some Democrats object for procedural reasons. They are upset that the administration is proceeding over an informal hold placed by the senior Senator from New Jersey. In doing so, they claim that the administration is violating a long tradition of honoring informal holds by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In effect, they are saying: Let's block arms sales to our allies in an emergency because the Secretary of State hurt the feelings of a few Senators.

The actual purpose of those holds--only a courtesy; not a rule; not a law--is to give those Senators time to fully examine a proposal and to foster engagement between the Senate and administration in good faith. But that is not how this hold is being used. These arms sales have been held for more than a year--more than a year. How much time does the Senator from New Jersey need to make up his mind? How many times does the Secretary of State have to call him and meet with him? How many briefings do they have to provide? How many memos do they have to send?

This is not a request for more information or trying to work together in good faith. This is a stalling tactic, through and through. It is yet another example of the Democrats engaged in psychological projection in accusing this administration of violating norms, when in fact they are the ones who have been violating longstanding, unwritten rules, customs, and norms.

The administration is moving forward with this sale by making an emergency declaration, as provided by law and as Presidents have done many times in the past. President Reagan proceeded with sales of air- defense systems to, yes, Saudi Arabia using this very same provision. President George H. W. Bush did so as well, selling tanks and fighter aircraft to, yes, Saudi Arabia.

Even without this precedent, can there be any doubt--any doubt that our partners in the gulf are facing a genuine emergency as they fend off Iran? Oil tankers flying the flags of our allies and partners are ablaze in the Gulf of Oman. Civilian airports, oil pipelines, and American surveillance aircraft have all come under rocket attacks from Iran's terror proxy in Yemen.

Make no mistake--this is a genuine emergency, but too few of my colleagues are willing to see the plain facts. They want to talk about anything that will change the subject from Iran and its campaign of aggression throughout the Middle East.

A second objection is that some argue that our gulf partners are somehow beneath our support. Really? It was the United Arab Emirates, after all, that hosted Pope Francis earlier this year, and he conducted a mass for Christians in that nation. The Kingdom of Jordan is another important friend caught in the crossfire of this debate. Jordan has been a reliable and trustworthy partner of the United States for many years, and today it bears the brunt of the refugee crisis and chaos created by Assad's Iran-backed butchery in Syria.

While Democrats try to frame this vote as support for our gulf partners alone, let's not forget that numerous other strong allies of the United States would be affected by these votes as well, countries like the United Kingdom and France and South Korea and Israel--all part of the supply chain affected by these deals. Rejecting these sales will hurt them, too, and now is not the time to be rejecting our friends. Of course, you couldn't make any of these observations about the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is about as likely to host the Pope as it is to host a Pride parade.

Lost in the criticism of our partners is a much more worthy discussion about the elaborate architecture of torture and repression supervised by Ayatollah Khameini, who is personally responsible for American citizens being held in appalling captivity for years at a time. One such American citizen, Bob Levinson, has been missing in Iran for more than a decade.

The same media and politicians who trumpet every misdeed of America's steadfast partners in the region--regardless of whether such misdeeds are fact or fiction--are strangely silent about the undisputed fact that Iran has the blood on its hands of more than 600 American troops in Iraq in the last decade. Six hundred Americans were killed at the hands of Iran. Yet we propose to deny arms sales to some of the only countries that are committed to resisting Iran's bloodstained, anti- American theocracy? It is time to get our priorities straight.

Third, still other critics fault our gulf partners for their involvement in the civil war in Yemen, as though they are the aggressors in Yemen rather than states that were pulled into a conflict to push an Iranian-armed rebel group off of the Arabian Peninsula at the request of the Government of Yemen and with the support of the United Nations. Evidently, some of my fellow Senators would counsel our gulf partners to do nothing as a rebel group, armed by their sworn enemy, plunged a neighboring country into chaos, shooting rockets at their airports and oil pipelines. That would indeed be quite a restrained foreign policy. Some might also call it the height of stupidity that we would never tolerate for our own citizens.

As to the appalling human rights conditions in Yemen, I think the current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Matthew Tueller, said it best to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ``Almost 100 percent of the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen has been caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis.'' Almost 100 percent. Mr. Tueller is not some Trump appointee. He is not some partisan hack. He is a career Foreign Service officer who served as Ambassador to Yemen under, yes, President Obama. If there is anyone in the U.S. Government who is in a position to know what is going on in Yemen and who is to blame for the carnage in Yemen, it is the man on the ground rather than politicians in Washington.

Underlying this whole debate is a romantic wish--a naive delusion-- that our foreign policy can always be pristine, requiring no compromises whatsoever, no acknowledgment of the messy facts around the world, or even that we could flee away from that messy, complicated, dangerous world entirely, relying solely on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to keep us safe. A cursory review of history proves that neither option is available. A cursory review of newspaper headlines proves it too.

Our main adversary in the Middle East--the Islamic Republic of Iran-- is a revolutionary power dedicated, from its inception years ago, to the destruction of Americans and, indeed, America itself. They don't try to hide it. ``Death to America'' is their slogan, and they chant it all the time. Our departure from the field will not dissuade the ayatollahs from that purpose; it will only embolden them, as will the abandonment of our allies in the region.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.