Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor again to urge my colleagues to stand up for Congress as a coequal branch of government and assert our institutional rights in the arms sales process.

I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined with me in this effort to bring us here today.

As we get ready to vote on these resolutions, I want to again remind my colleagues what is at stake here. At the end of the day, these votes are not about any one President or any one arms sale. There will be another President in the White House someday. There will be another President who will want to claim Executive authorities to run over Congress and who will want to use emergency declarations to push through their agenda. We in this body must embrace our article I responsibilities and ensure that we serve as an effective check on whoever that Executive is.

Regarding these resolutions, in particular, we must both assert our role in upholding the rule of law at home and use our position to ensure that when our government seeks to sell weapons, those sales advance our national security interests and our values. It is the Congress that provided the President with the authority to sell arms while retaining strong oversight in the process.

At the risk of getting in the weeds, I want to briefly explain why Secretary Pompeo's 22 emergency certifications don't meet the basic requirements laid out by Congress in the Arms Export Control Act. I will be submitting a further statement for the Record detailing my statutory concerns, and I encourage my colleagues to read it.

First of all, Secretary Pompeo provided us with one single emergency declaration for 22 separate arms sales, when the law requires each come with its own individual justification. It is obvious why the Secretary flouted the statute: His bogus emergency doesn't pass the laugh test, in general. Furthermore, the Secretary is trying to justify these sales by relying on a section of the Arms Export Control Act--article 36(c)-- that arguably does not grant him the authority to do what he is even trying to do.

Congress made fairly clear back in 2000 that this provision only allows for the United States to make emergency arms sales in very limited situations--for example, to sell arms to NATO partners and other steadfast allies that share our values, like Israel, Australia, and Japan.

This is a power grab, pure and simple, with lasting implications for the role of Congress in the sale of arms around the world. We cannot, as an institution, stand for it.

Let me turn to the proposed sales. As a number of my colleagues and I have already laid out, the administration's argument that this is an emergency meriting pushing through $8 billion worth of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates simply does not pass muster.

The weapons sales this administration is trying to push through without congressional review will not in any way equip the United States or our allies to better face any imminent threats from Iran.

The Assistant Secretary of State, R. Clarke Cooper, admitted as much multiple times last week before the House of Representatives. In one instance, he noted that the administration had been considering this emergency determination for months. In another, he conceded that a majority of these sales will not even be functional or come online for months or, even in some cases, years.

Let's take a moment to review why last year I decided to put a hold on a sale of 60,000 precision-guided munition kits. Saudi Arabia, at the helm of its coalition, has used these weapons to devastating effects in Yemen. The two resolutions we will consider individually relate to the sales of precision-guided munitions and parts.

We have heard that these weapons are humanitarian weapons. When they are used to precisely target civilians, how can we possibly continue to sell them? These are components of bombs that we know have killed thousands of civilians in Yemen--patients in hospitals, children on schoolbuses. In fact, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project last week released data showing more than 90,000 people have been killed in Yemen since 2015. The list goes on.

Yemen has become a humanitarian catastrophe. Twelve thousand people have died under the Saudi-led coalition. There are 85,000 children who have died from starvation in Yemen, an incomprehensible moral tragedy. Another 14 million people remain at risk, especially as cholera resurges across the country.

This is the challenge we have. It is our bombs that are dropping on those civilians. We cannot morally continue to support such a sale.

Secondly, Saudi Arabia, which continues to do this with impunity, also with impunity went ahead and dismembered Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist who was a resident here in the United States. The gruesome report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on this issue is chilling. If the Senate wants to make it very clear that even if you are an ally, you cannot kill with impunity, this is the moment.

It is also the moment to tell the UAE that you can't take our weapons and give it to others whom we consider people on the terrorist list. That is going on here too.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Constitution, stand up for article I in our rights here, stand up for the Senate's institutional role to ultimately ensure that it has a say on arms sales, stand up for the proposition that we will not let any ally, simply because they are an ally, kill a journalist with impunity--something we cherish under our Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the freedom of expression under the First Amendment--and stand up for the proposition that we will not let our bombs fall on innocent civilians and have the moral responsibility, which will be a blemish on our history for years to come.

This is the moment for the Senate to stand up to its institutional prerogatives. This is the moment for the Senate to stand up for the Constitution. I have heard so many of my colleagues speak of the Constitution. This is the moment. This is the moment to stand up for some moral clarity.

This is the moment to send a global message: You cannot kill journalists with impunity. That is the message we must send to Saudi Arabia.

Vote yes on the resolutions of disapproval. Stand up for these propositions. Let's have a moment in which the Senate can be a profile in courage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have been able to work on an agreement on the unanimous consent request that the majority leader just propagated that would provide for votes on these 22 joint resolutions of disapproval over the administration's proposed arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Emirates.

I thank the bipartisan group of cosponsors of these resolutions. The majority leader and our staff are diligently working through an unprecedented process. I would also like to briefly engage the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch, in a colloquy. I thank the chairman for agreeing to quickly take up two priority pieces of legislation.

Earlier this year, I led a bipartisan group of Senators, including a number on the Foreign Relations Committee, in reintroducing legislation to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for its devastating actions in Yemen, gross human rights abuses, and the murder of American resident Jamal Khashoggi.

I understand the chairman has also been working on such legislation, and we have agreed to use his legislation as

a base text to which we will be able to offer amendments, including those that reflect the bipartisan consensus contained in my bill, the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act.

Additionally, the chairman has agreed to a markup of the SAFE Act, which I believe will take place at a business meeting next week, which prospectively eliminates the ability of the President to use emergency authority to sell arms to any country that is not a NATO plus five member. These votes couldn't be more important.

I am happy to yield to the chairman.

Mr. President, with that and with the chairman's agreement that we will have a markup of these two bills moving forward, I thank the distinguished chairman, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to begin the debate in support of 22 resolutions of disapproval and ask my colleagues to join me in asserting congressional prerogative over arms sales to foreign governments and to say unequivocally that our security partnership with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, or any other nation is not a blank check.

On May 24, the Secretary of State attempted to bypass this body in order to push through 22 separate arms sales to Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, claiming an ill-defined emergency regarding Iran. Make no mistake. Iran continues to be a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East. It continues to jeopardize the greater stability of the region. It has been rightly designated a state sponsor of terrorism. I think it is safe to say that no one in this body has been tougher on Iran than I. But we must ask whether the administration's actions are making us safer from Iranian threats or actually putting us more at risk. Does this administration have a strategic, maximum pressure campaign in place to address Iran's nuclear capabilities or its destructive behavior or is the Trump administration's only plan to turn the Middle East into a pressure cooker with no release valve? I fear it is the latter.

Let me address the resolutions at hand, highlighting just a few. Arms sales are a critical national security tool, and reviewing and approving them are core functions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We are responsible for considering how each proposed sale fits into our broader foreign policy goals and our national security interests, including the capacity and interoperability of our partners.

The congressional review of arms sales is mandated for a reason--so that the Secretary of State explicitly cannot do what he tried to do last month with these 22 sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Despite the Secretary of State's claims, his May 24 justification lacks any detailed, persuasive information to demonstrate that these sales will somehow better enable the United States or our allies to address an imminent threat or ``emergency'' or that he was justified in trying to bypass Congress.

Beyond failing to consult with Congress, I am troubled by the administration's continued willingness to withhold information from Senators. Just 3 days prior to the announcement, this ``emergency,'' Secretary Pompeo briefed the Senate on the very threat he now claims justifies invoking emergency authorities. Yet during this briefing, the Secretary did not mention, not once, any need to sell more arms to Saudi Arabia to address such a threat.

An ``emergency'' by definition is an urgent and unexpected event requiring immediate action. Yet last week, Assistant Secretary of State Clarke Cooper admitted in an open House hearing that the decision to make the emergency determination was in the works for months--for months. When pressed on how an emergency declaration couldn't be in the works for months, Cooper tried to argue that the ``emergency'' showed up sometime in between the 2 days that the Secretary briefed members and then made the notifications.

It doesn't work that way. If it is in the works for months, as you testified, and you were thinking about it, you should have told us.

Their abuse of emergency authorities will ultimately be detrimental to the State Department, the defense industry, and U.S. national security.

For decades, the Congress, multiple Presidential administrations, and the defense industry have engaged in the arms sales process in good faith. The Senate has approved billions of dollars of arms sales to dozens of countries.

Whenever I am concerned about a particular sale, I have sought to work with the administration, the recipient country, as well as defense firms to explain those concerns and to reach a mutually acceptable solution. This approach has served all parties well. It ensures that there is a check on the Executive, whoever that Executive is. It ensures there is oversight over the number and types of U.S. weapons that make their way around the world.

Allow me to outline a little bit of background regarding two of the resolutions we will vote on individually: S.J. Res. 36 and 38, for those keeping score. Then I would like to address border concerns with Saudi Arabia and implications for some of the other sales.

These two resolutions are related to the sale of precision-guided munitions and parts to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, weapons they have used in the killing of untold numbers of innocent civilians in their ongoing campaign in Yemen.

Over the course of 4 years, Saudi Arabia's air operations in Yemen have killed and maimed thousands of Yemeni civilians. Ninety thousand Yemenis have died. Eighty thousand children have died of starvation. Seven thousand or more cases of cholera are reported. Three million people are displaced--3 million people are displaced. Some statistics tell us that there are 14 million more on the brink of starvation. The United Arab Emirates has joined in this coalition in this fight on Yemen, and there are credible reports, concerns that I raised about abusive torture at Emirati detention centers

and illicitly transferring U.S. weapons to third-party actors in Yemen, some of which the United States considers terrorist organizations.

These precision-guided munitions are supposed to be a way to avoid civilian casualties. Saudi Arabia has apparently intentionally targeted hospitals, bridges, power stations, apartment buildings, weddings, schools, and even a school bus filled with children--filled with children.

We have heard claims that these precision-guided munitions are ``humanitarian'' weapons and that they reduce the chance of accidently hitting and killing civilians. Well, that is not the case if the Saudis are purposefully targeting civilians in the first place. They only target them with greater precision.

In light of the harrowing conflict in Yemen and in line with our regular committee process, last year I placed, as the ranking Democrat on the committee, an informal hold on the sale of 60,000 precision- guided munitions, PGMs, to Saudi Arabia.

I sent a detailed letter to the Secretaries of State and Defense. I outlined my concerns and asked for more convincing information about how U.S. assistance would improve Saudi Arabia's appalling behavior.

Simply put, I followed every standard procedure in good faith and with respect for the executive branch's critical duty to protect our national security. Yet, for months upon months, this administration has failed to demonstrate how equipping the Saudis with more weapons would improve the Saudis' respect for human rights in Yemen or advance America's own values and national security interests, nor has this administration explained how these arms sales would improve the Saudi Air Force and command authority's ability and willingness to differentiate between military and nonmilitary targets and thereby reduce the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Yemen.

In fact, after last year's brutal murder of the Washington Post journalist and American resident, Jamal Khashoggi, in October inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey, the Trump administration apparently gave up on trying to convince anyone that the Saudis have any regard for human rights at home, in Yemen, or abroad.

Like a number of the other 22 proposed sales, these precision-guided munitions will not be used to counter a sudden emergency threat from Iran. This proposed sale of precision-guided weapons kits to Saudi Arabia is slated for one purpose, and that is the Saudi's disastrous air war in Yemen. Indeed, when asked this question directly in a hearing last week, Assistant Secretary of State Clarke Cooper admitted as much.

Let no Member of this body deceive themselves or the American people. These bombs will most likely be dropped on Yemen--and not just on Houthi rebels and what few legitimate military targets remain after 4 years of war. If Saudi Arabia acquires these weapons, American-made arms are likely to be used to kill Yemeni civilians.

Finally, as with some of the other proposed sales, President Trump and the Secretary of State are enabling the transfer of both American jobs and sensitive American military technology to the Saudis. With this particular export license, Saudi workers will begin to manufacture part of the electronic guidance system for these precision-guided munitions--work that has been done and should continue to be done by American workers right here in the United States. In other words, the administration is not only selling the Saudi these weapons but also portions of the blueprints for building these weapons.

In the midst of so much volatility in the Middle East, how could anyone possibly think that is a good idea?

America's defense industry produces the most sophisticated systems in the world, and yet the Trump administration is opening the door for the Saudis to manufacture their own similar weapons in the future or transfer our American-made technical know-how to other countries.

Disturbingly, we also know that the administration will not stop with this particular sale. State Department officials have actually admitted to Foreign Relations Committee staff that this is to be the first of many sales authorizing the Saudis to manufacture even larger, more sensitive portions of these highly advanced weapons.

My colleagues, I hope you hear me because this is nothing short of madness. There is no way, shape, or form that these precision-guided missile systems could be used to address any kind of emergency, large- scale Iranian threat that requires bypassing 30 days of congressional review. The same could largely be said of the rest of the 22 sales that this administration is trying to ram through.

Finally, let me stress that since placing a hold on this particular sale, I have actually cleared a number of other sales to the region. In fact, I have cleared some of the sales the administration saw fit to try to ram through. So let no one accuse me of stonewalling all arms sales, of doubting the Iranian threat, or of ignoring legitimate threats faced by the Saudis and worthy of our continued cooperation.

But there is simply no need at all for this administration to flagrantly disrespect this institution and longstanding norms that support good governance.

In light of the recent news about aggressive Iranian action and the administration's decision to send more troops to the region, we must always consider changing dynamics.

I urge the President to use the leverage he has indeed created from his campaign to find a serious diplomatic path forward that meaningfully constrains Iran's nuclear ambition and its other malign activities.

I continue to believe that upending congressional prerogative doesn't make us safer, and it is not in our long-term interest.

This administration's willingness to turn a blind eye to the wholesale slaughter of civilians and the murder of journalists suggests that a move forward with these arms sales will have lasting implications for our moral leadership on the world stage. This behavior sends a message that America is no longer exceptional and that our behavior should be no different than a Russia or a China--pursuing power, acting transactionally, and avoiding accountability.

My colleagues, America is better than this. It is well past time for the Senate and the entire Congress to stand up and push back--to stand up for our role as a coequal branch of government.

I would remind my colleagues that today it is President Trump. Tomorrow it will be some other President, maybe one you disagree with. If you set the precedent that you can just have arms sales go under this false emergency procedure, you will have no say in arms sales.

Stand up for the rule of law instead of the rule of lawlessness, and stand up for our greatest American values that transcend party and politics and together defend the long-term security interest of the United States.

Let me close by highlighting alarming and truly disturbing developments just over the past 48 hours. Yesterday we learned that over the objection of his own diplomats and belying numerous credible reports about its recruitment of children from Sudan to fight in Yemen, Secretary Pompeo blocked the inclusion of Saudi Arabia in the section detailing the use of child soldiers in the State Department's annual ``Trafficking in Persons Report''--over the objection of his own diplomats. This administration is protecting Saudi Arabia, declining to condemn its recruitment of children to fight its battles.

This morning, Agnes Callamard, the U.N. Special Rapporteur investigating the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, released a gruesome, scathing report about the murder itself and the appalling U.S. response. She details calculated, horrific details, including plans to cut up Mr. Khashoggi's body, with one participant saying that separating the joints should not be a problem. This is truly horrific.

I could go on. I plan to return to the floor to speak tomorrow. I know I have Senator Cardin here, a senior member of the committee, and others.

Let me now simply say that this report has reignited and even deepened the concern about why this administration seems incapable of criticizing Saudi Arabia.

I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about what these votes will signify to the American people, to our allies, to our fundamental values, and to the institutional rights the Senate has to review arms sales that are a critical part of our foreign policy. Do not give it away to this administration or any other.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me summarize. I don't know of any other colleagues at this point. I do know that some will probably speak right before the votes tomorrow morning.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, who has been such a clarion voice from the earliest days on this question of the Yemeni conflict. He has been there every step of the way in his arguing and pricking of the conscience of the Senate as it relates to this. Senator Cardin is also well-known for his advocacy of human rights in his many years between the House and the Senate.

This vote tomorrow is a vote for the powers of this institution to be able to continue to have a say on one of the most critical elements of U.S. foreign policy and national security--arms sales--to not let that be undermined by some false emergency and to preserve that institutional right regardless of who sits in the White House. Do not give up that power on behalf of this Senate and future Senates to come. Think about what you will do if you cede that right.

Stand up for the Constitution. Article I of the Constitution became the very first article. It is about this body's--the Congress'--being a separate, coequal branch of government as the Founders of the Nation envisioned. Stand up for the Constitution. Stand up for the proposition that our bombs will not be the ones that create an incredible humanitarian disaster for which our moral conscience will be stained forever.

All Members will have that moment to decide where they want to stand in history and whether their votes are to give the Saudis and the UAE arms that ultimately drop on innocent civilians. Can you live with yourself? Is this your moral compass?

Lastly, stand up for the proposition that the greatest country in the world--the United States of America--will not stand by when a journalist--someone who practices the First Amendment rights that we so cherish, whether it be here at home or around the world--because of nothing else but his criticism of the Saudi King, could be dismembered by a saw in a consulate of the Saudi Government's in a foreign country. How can we be silent in the face of that?

These are all of the elements that are involved in this vote tomorrow, and I trust the Senate will live up to its collective history and stand up for a moment of principle, a moment of courage, if you will, and stand up for all of these values that make America unique, a shining light to the rest of the world. That is what is at stake in the three votes we will cast tomorrow morning.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 36, relating to the disapproval of the proposed transfer to the Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Italian Republic of certain defense articles and services.

Madam President, the resolution I have just asked for the discharge of would disapprove the administration's sale of precision-guided munitions to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia--weapons they have used in the killing of an untold number of innocent civilians in their ongoing campaign in Yemen.

This resolution is 1 of 22 that I have filed with a bipartisan group of Senators in response to the administration's flagrant disregard for congressional oversight over arms sales.

On May 24, the Secretary of State attempted to bypass this body in order to push through 22 separate arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, claiming an ill-defined emergency regarding Iran.

Now, while Iran is a threat to the interests of the United States and the Middle East, I think no one in this body has been stronger on our sanctions efforts and in other legislation that I have been the architect of on sanctioning Iran. The question before us is whether these arms sales are specifically meant to be a response to that.

These arms sales are a critical national security tool in terms of reviewing and approving them as a core function of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We are responsible for considering how each proposed sale fits into the broader foreign policy goals and our national security interests, including the capacity and interoperability of our partners.

The congressional review of arms sales is mandated for a reason: so the Secretary of State explicitly cannot do what he tried to do last month with these 22 sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The suggestion that this is an emergency, I think, was shown to be totally hollow when we had the testimony of the Assistant Secretary of State, Clarke Cooper, who admitted in an open House hearing that the decision to make the emergency determination was in the works for months--months.

It doesn't take months to deal with an emergency.

When pressed on how an emergency declaration could be in the works for months, he tried to argue that the emergency showed up sometime between the 2 days that the Secretary briefed Members and then made the notification.

The Secretary of State was before this body briefing Members, and at that time, 3 days before this emergency was declared, he said absolutely nothing--nothing--about any pending emergency, even though Assistant Secretary Cooper said it had been in the works for months. So how can it be in the works for months, you are before this body, and you say nothing 3 days before you actually declare an emergency? So on the process itself, it is just false.

Secondly, what is happening in Yemen is a humanitarian disaster that has been exacerbated by the very weapons we have been giving the Saudis in order to fight this conflict in Yemen and has created untold humanitarian disaster.

These precision-guided missiles were meant to avoid civilian casualties, but they are not going to avoid civilian casualties when you aim them with precision at civilian targets. I will have a lot more to say about that when my colleagues who are joining with me, on a bipartisan basis, come to the floor. We hope to have a colloquy with all of our colleagues in this regard.

The other point is, these weapons will not counter Iranian threats. This is all about using them in Yemen, and the Assistant Secretary of State, Clarke Cooper, admitted as much in a hearing before the House last week.

Lastly, as a major point, which I will expound upon, this particular transfer is a transfer not only of sensitive technology but of American jobs to the Saudis. This export license will allow Saudi workers to begin to manufacture part of the electronic guidance system for these precision-guided munitions--work that has been done and should continue to be done by American workers in the United States. I don't think the transfer of those sensitive technologies and the creation of its components is something that is in the national interest, both economically or in terms of our security.

Lastly, this is about this institution standing up for its congressional prerogatives to ensure that regardless of who the President is in the White House, arms sales are subject to review of the Congress. The day we give that up is the day we go down a dangerous path.

This is the beginning of a process. I want to say that I appreciate the willingness and efforts of my cosponsor, Senator Graham, and of the majority leader, as well as their staffs, to chart an acceptable path forward on these resolutions and on the Saudi sanctions bill in the SAFE Act, which we also seek to have an opportunity on. I will have a lot more to say about these arms sales, but to start this process, I wanted to outline why we find ourselves here today.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 7 minutes.

Madam President, I rise in support of the motion to discharge Senator Paul's joint resolution, S.J. Res. 20, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the hopes of having an urgently needed discussion about these sales.

Over the past 2 weeks, Congress's legally mandated role in the arms sales process has recently garnered a lot of

attention among the Members of the body and the American people. Reviewing and approving arms sales across the world is a core function of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is an integral exercise of congressional oversight of the executive branch, and it is legally mandated.

So as we consider Senator Paul's resolution today regarding arms sales to Qatar and Bahrain, I would first like to make a few points of clarification.

First, the resolutions of disapproval before us today are completely unrelated to the administration's bogus ``emergency'' notification of the 22 sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the 22 resolutions I filed with a bipartisan group of Senators in objection to them.

Second, the resolutions before us today have already gone through the regular committee process. As is normal procedure, the administration notified us of these sales. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee then conducted our due diligence, after which we, in fact, agreed with the administration that these sales should go forward.

However, I do support the Senator from Kentucky's right to seek full consideration of them by the Senate. Given the administration's decision last month to completely flout congressional review over arms sales, I am supporting this motion in order to once again emphasize the importance of congressional oversight and due diligence.

With that in mind, I appreciate Senator Paul's--as well as Senator Graham's, Senator Young's, and Senator Lee's--cosponsorship of my 22 resolutions of disapproval regarding the administration's so-called emergency arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

I am glad to know I am not the only one in this body disturbed by the President's willingness to bypass Congress and sell this weaponry without any consideration of the recent events that have strained our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I certainly look forward to a more robust debate and vote on those sales next week.

But let me start by saying that I placed holds on specific sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates over serious, credible concerns that these weapons were being used to target civilians. Through the regular review process, I sought answers from the State Department about how these sales were promoting our interests and what steps we were taking to get guarantees from the Saudis and the Emiratis that these weapons were being used in a way consistent with our interests, with international humanitarian law, and with respect to human rights.

After the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Department of State ceased engaging with me on these questions and did not respond to inquiries about how these sales were furthering U.S. interests or about our relationship with Saudi Arabia. This is unacceptable. They could have engaged. They chose not to.

The bottom line is that we are a coequal branch of government, and we cannot stay silent when any administration attempts to override or circumvent legally mandated oversight by Congress.

The United States sells a significant amount of weapons to Gulf countries, but given the rhetoric and behavior coming out of the administration, the last thing we should be doing is weakening our scrutiny over arms sales.

Let's remember why we pursue these sales in the first place. Arms sales are one of our many tools to promote American foreign policy and military objectives. We use arms sales to bring like-minded countries in line with our goals and to promote interoperability with American defense systems.

As the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have always been diligent in reviewing every arms sale proposed by this administration, including these sales to Bahrain and Qatar. Through our standard process, I reviewed and cleared these sales for consideration by the Senate as part of our normal statutory procedures.

Now, let me turn to the particular sale to Bahrain, which I believe is in our interest at this moment. Make no mistake. I have serious concern about Bahrain's human rights record--concerns I have made clear to the Bahrain Government and to the State Department. I will be the first to say that Bahrain does not have a blank check for weapons systems from the United States. However, I am mindful that Bahrain hosts the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. This package of upgraded F-16s and related munitions will help Bahrain effectively defend its territory, including U.S. Naval facilities, as well as participate in multinational efforts like the former coalition against ISIS in Syria.

Now, regarding the other resolution concerning Qatar, I note that Qatar has requested additional attack helicopters to fill its operational requirements, including enhancing their long-term defensive and offensive capability and the ability to protect key oil and gas infrastructure and platforms important to the United States and Western economic interests. Qatar faces threats from everywhere, not the least of which is Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Finally, I would note that Qatar continues to host U.S. Armed Forces at Al Udeid Air Base, providing critical support to U.S. national security capabilities in the region.

So while I support the Senator from Kentucky's rights to have these resolutions considered, it is for these reasons that I will ultimately support the sale to Qatar and Bahrain, as will most of my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, May 18 marks the 10th anniversary of the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka. In May 2009, the war between the government and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, LTTE, ended. The civil war was a 27-year-long assault on the coexistence of the Sri Lankan people, leaving scars that remain today. Both the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE targeted dissidents and members of other ethnic communities, indiscriminately bombing places of worship, hospitals, and public transport. On this 10th anniversary, I urge the people of Sri Lanka to renew their commitment to peace, reconciliation, and accountability for human rights violations and crimes committed during the conflict. In the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks last month, the international community should also renew its commitment to supporting those Sri Lankan citizens committed to a peaceful and democratic society where the rights of all are protected under the law.

The final years of the war saw heightened intensity of fighting and soaring human rights abuses, including hundreds of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings of aid workers, arbitrary arrests, torture, and the use of child soldiers. The government labeled any reporters critical of the government's war against the LTTE as ``traitors'' and ``terrorists,'' and the LTTE tolerated no dissent in areas it controlled. The last few months of fighting resulted in the deaths of as many as 40,000 civilians in the final assault against the LTTE. Victims' groups say the fates of more than 100,000 people remain unknown. UN satellite images showed that the government repeatedly and indiscriminately shelled no fire zones, where it had encouraged civilians to concentrate, and where estimates show that as many as 330,000 civilians were trapped. UN investigations determined that ``gross violations'' of international rights law occurred on all sides of the conflict, including the thousands of civilian deaths in the military assault that ended the rebellion. Many deaths and tens of thousands of disappearances remain unaddressed.

For many Sri Lankans, the terrorist attacks last Easter Sunday, evoked emotions reminiscent of war times. I express my deepest condolences to the families who lost loved ones and denounce in the strongest terms this vile attack on the Sri Lankan people. As families recovered bodies of loved ones and buried and cremated them, they felt a pain that is sadly too familiar to so many Sri Lankans. While the perpetrators of the Easter Sunday attacks sought to sow hatred between communities and bring chaos to Sri Lanka, the government bears the responsibility to respond swiftly to retaliatory attacks against Muslim communities and ensure communal harmony and national unity. To be Sri Lankan is to be Buddhist, to be Hindu, to be Muslim, and to be Christian. All these communities have the right to exercise their religious identity and to live in peace and security in Sri Lanka.

On January 9, 2015, the Sri Lankan people voted to unseat President Mahinda Rajapaksa. A few months later, the government of Maithripala Sirisena cosponsored United Nations Human Rights Council, UNHRC, resolution 30/1 on ``Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka,'' ushering in what appeared to be a new era dedicated to justice and reconciliation. This enthusiasm and hope has unfortunately faded over the years. In 2017, Sri Lanka received a 2- year extension to implement the commitments in the resolution. This past March, the UNHRC adopted a new resolution again cosponsored by the government of Sri Lanka, extending the timeline to implement outstanding promises another 2 years.

Resolution 30/1 contains 36 actionable commitments. The Sri Lankan Government has fulfilled only six over a period of 4 years. These include recent decisions to criminalize enforced disappearances, create an office on missing persons, and appointing commissioners to the office for reparations. Why did these few steps require 4 years of time?

Despite the long list of promises, there has been little to no progress in establishing a commission for truth, justice, reconciliation, and nonrecurrence. Despite commitments made by the government, Sri Lanka has not adopted constitutional reforms that would address the long held grievances of communities across the country. The government has failed to strengthen the victim and witness protection law. Security sector reforms, including repealing and replacing the Prevention of Terrorism Act, have not taken place. The lack of accountability with respect to war crimes suspects remains a serious concern. Limited legal action has been taken to prosecute and hold alleged perpetrators to account. There is a lack of trust and confidence in domestic structures, so I echo the UN Human Rights Commissioner's calls that the international community use the principle of universal jurisdiction to hold accountable those who face allegations of serious human rights violations.

Sri Lankan people deserve justice, peace, and protections. The country cannot move forward, rebuild, and prosper without a timebound plan for the government to fully implement its HRC commitments. Accountability, transitional justice, and reconciliation are hard, but left unresolved, these issues fester over time and could lead to renewed instability. Clearly, such an outcome should be avoided as it benefits no one in or outside of Sri Lanka.

The war in Sri Lanka was a terrible episode in a country with a proud past. How Sri Lanka finally decides to deal with the legacy of the conflict is critically important for its future. My hope is that the government of Sri Lanka delivers on all its stated commitments, and that the international community maintains its focus on these postwar promises. As the country contends with the impact of reprehensible violence last month, it must renew its focus on the fundamentals of an inclusive multireligious and multi-ethnic society. I call on the friends of Sri Lanka around the world to support true reconciliation and healing as those constructive elements of society work hard to chart a positive future for all of the country's people.

Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak about rising tensions and potential challenges with Iran, but after my distinguished colleague's remarks and as a Member of the Senate Finance Committee who helped write the Affordable Care Act, I wouldn't want to have my silence be an acceptance of his views.

For nearly a decade Republicans have sought to tear down the Affordable Care Act, which some derisively call ObamaCare, with no substitute, with no plan. This administration is actually in a Federal court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional--the very law that gives protections to everyone in this country who has a preexisting condition, such as a child born at birth with some heart disease, a husband who had a heart attack, a woman simply because she is a woman and before was discriminated against because she was a woman. Somehow that was a preexisting condition and allowed insurance companies to charge twice as much as their male counterparts in the same age group and same geography. It was the Affordable Care Act that ended that discrimination and created the protections.

It was the Affordable Care Act that ended lifetime caps so that if you had a major illness such as cancer, before you hit the ceiling on your insurance and you were one illness away from bankruptcy--the Affordable Care Act ended lifetime caps so that if you had a serious illness you were still covered.

The Affordable Care Act created the possibility for our children to be able to stay on our insurance until the age of 26. That was not the law before.

The list goes on and on. So it is that which Democrats have been about and, expanding upon that, the opportunity to create a universal system for everyone--something we all desire.

Iran

Mr. President, as important as that issue is, I have come to the floor in alarm to demand answers by this administration about Iran, about its policy, about what intelligence the administration has. For more than a week we have seen press reports and heard rumors about the ``threats'' to U.S. interests and possibly American citizens by Iran.

For more than a week I have been demanding, along with others, that the administration provide senior level officials to brief Members of the U.S. Senate.

For more than a week, the administration has ignored these requests. For all intents and purposes, it has refused to provide Members of Congress with information critical to our national security-- information it says indicates that American citizens and American assets may be in harm's way.

After specifically requesting information on security posture at our diplomatic facilities in Iraq on Monday, this morning, I read from press reports that the administration is ordering the departure of staff from our Embassy in Baghdad and our consulate in Erbil. As the ranking member--the senior Democrat--of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is outrageous to be learning about the evacuation of an Embassy from media reports. There are only two reasons to make such an order: We have credible intelligence that our people are at risk, or there is some type of preparation for military action against Iran.

This behavior is unacceptable. By refusing to provide Members of Congress with critical information, this administration is blatantly disregarding the fundamental governing structures of the United States as outlined in our Constitution.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is charged with writing the laws that authorize the use of military force and of oversight of the State Department and the safety of those who work there. The administration must provide this committee with the information we need to judiciously and appropriately make policies.

While I hear there is a briefing for all Senators rumored for next week, that is not confirmed, nor is it an acceptable timeline. Next week may be too late. We do not need another Iraq weapons of mass destruction moment that led us to one of the worst, most disastrous military engagements when there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found. We need clarity. We need answers, and we need them now. We cannot make foreign policy and national security decisions while flying in the blind.

Make no mistake--I have no doubts that Iran continues to be a bad actor in the region and throughout the world. Iranian leaders continue to support dangerous proxy actors throughout the region. Iran continues to violate arms embargoes. Iran continues to oppress its own people. Indeed, I have spent the better part of two decades developing legislation and policies to stop Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon and attacks against our allies, including Israel.

Working across the aisle, often cajoling and prodding the executive branch and our allies, Congress led the effort to build an extensive economic and political pressure campaign to force Iran to the negotiating table. Our allies in Europe, Asia, and across the world, most of whom share our concern about Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon and its broader maligned activities, have been critical to this effort.

When building a policy to effectively confront an adversary, you must have an end goal, you must have clear objectives, and you must take actions in pursuit of those objectives. With Iran, our objective was to ensure that Iran never develops a pathway toward a nuclear weapon. So I am all for putting on as much pressure as we can, but that requires also having a clear way of showing how it can be alleviated. There must be a viable, tenable, diplomatic track. If I were to put you in a room, lock the door, throw away the key, and tell you there is no way out and no way to survive, you would sure as hell start looking for ways to fight and break down that door.

For a campaign of maximum pressure, when the moment of maximum leverage is reached, it must be seized. That requires working with our allies to offer a real, diplomatic path to negotiations.

British Major General Chris Ghika, the deputy commander of the American-led coalition to fight the Islamic State, has called into question some of the credibility of the intelligence our officials say we have regarding Iranian-backed forces in Iraq.

Yesterday, Spain pulled a frigate from a U.S.-led naval group that had been scheduled for a joint training mission 2 years ago, saying the original mission had changed.

Our allies are critical not just in confronting Iranian malign activity but in securing our interests across the world.

Let me conclude with two points.

Now is the moment to invest in a diplomatic surge to meaningfully engage our allies and Iran in serious negotiations to end its pathway toward nuclear weapons and its malign activities.

Second, Congress has not authorized war with Iran. The administration, if it is contemplating military action with Iran, must come to Congress to seek approval.

I call on every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle to assert our institutional and constitutional prerogatives and demand information from this administration, demand classified briefings. When matters this serious are at stake, we have to demand more. We cannot and we will not be led into dangerous military adventures. The administration must provide this critical information to Congress, and it must do so immediately.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to bring attention to the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian backers' latest assault on innocent civilians under a rain of airstrikes and barrel bombs, which has sparked the worst violence in a year and a half in the Idlib and Hama provinces. The regime and its enablers would yet again have us believe that they are striking ``terrorists.'' However, facts simply bely that worn-out ruse; their airstrikes have hit 18 hospitals in the past 2 weeks alone, denying lifesaving facilities to more than 100,000 people and destroying at least 10 schools, according to NGOs monitoring the situation. Relief workers on the ground assess that Assad's forces are responsible for scores of civilian deaths over the past 2 weeks, as well as displacing 150,000 desperate and terrified people.

Assad's barrel bombs and starvation campaign, along with violence from terrorist organizations, has already sent 5 million Syrians fleeing to neighboring Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iraq. Despite already fragile economic and political systems, these countries have shown an extraordinary openness in hosting those fleeing. It is absolutely critical that those refugees be allowed to return in a manner that is safe, voluntary, and dignified and that they not be forced to return to situations in Syria where they face conscription, retaliation, detention, torture, or murder at the hands of the Assad regime.

In the face of such wanton cruelty and profound suffering, the United States can and must show renewed leadership in Syria, but instead, President Trump froze and then terminated stabilization assistance in Syria. The Trump administration must restart stabilization funding in Syria. Furthermore, Congress can show leadership by passing the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which would impose new sanctions on the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian supporters.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Madam President, I come to the floor to once again discuss U.S. policy toward the Russian Federation. I fear this body is in the grips of a paralysis that has rendered us flat-footed in the face of a multitude of threats from Russia. This is not a paralysis due to a lack of knowledge, lack of facts, or lack of intelligence. It is a paralysis of our politics, a paralysis born out of a lack of political will to do what is necessary in the absence of Presidential leadership, a lack of will to stand up for our national security, a lack of will to defend our Democratic institutions, a lack of will to fulfill the oath that every single Member of this Chamber swore to uphold.

The inaction from this body since the beginning of the year on Russia has been astounding. It gives me no pleasure to think that political considerations could be compromising the Republican majority's willingness to respond robustly to the Russia threat, but how else can I explain why the party of Reagan has gone missing? What force, other than politics, can explain our failure to demand the administration robustly respond to Russia's seizure of Ukrainian ships in the Kerch Strait in the high seas in international waters? What force other than politics can explain our feeble response to Russia's chemical attack in the United Kingdom? What force other than politics can explain our failure to thwart Russia's hand in Syria and allow Putin to sit back and enjoy the political instability spawned in Europe by the resulting migration crisis? What force other than politics can have us playing right into Putin's hands? What force other than politics can explain the remarks made earlier today by Majority Leader McConnell in which he suggested that Democratic efforts to assess the full and unredacted Mueller report are impeding the ability of this body to shore up our election security?

Well, that is really rich. I might remind the American people that it was the majority leader who, when presented by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration with Russian efforts to help President Trump's candidacy, blocked efforts to inform the public?

Look, I am not here today to talk about conspiracy or obstruction or President Trump. Make no mistake, those issues are deeply concerning, and contrary to the majority leader's words, the case is not closed. The case is not closed. However, there will be other opportunities to address these issues, and when it comes to shoring up our defenses, we are running out of time.

So as the ranking member on the Foreign Relation Committee, I am here to flash a red warning light about what the Mueller report means for our national security, what it means for America's geopolitical standing with respect to Russia, what it means for our credibility on the world stage as Democratic institutions are attacked.

I am worried that in the face of Russian aggression, we are getting lost, not in the fog of war but in the fog of politics, and our inaction today will have consequences that outlast any Presidency, haunting us for years or even decades to come.

Let's review what we know about the Russian threat and how long we have known about it. It was over 2 years ago, in January of 2017, when the Director of National Intelligence determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Our intelligence community released that assessment that concluded Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 Presidential election ``demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.''

They concluded that this attack was ordered by President Putin himself and that ``Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.''

They concluded Russia's efforts ``[B]lend[ed] covert intelligence operations--such as cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or `trolls' to undermine our 2016 elections.''

In addition, our intelligence community warned that ``Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered

campaign aimed at the U.S. Presidential election to influence future efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their election processes.''

That was more than 2 years ago. Today, thanks to the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, we now have a more thorough understanding of Russia's interference in 2016. While much remains redacted, the special counsel's report describes in painstaking detail the scope of Russia's interference and the sophistication of their tactics.

Here is what we know.

First, Russian officials interfered in the U.S. Presidential election in support of Putin's preferred candidate and attempted to make inroads with his campaign.

Second, the Russian Government and individuals with strong ties to the Kremlin carried out what Mueller concluded was a ``sweeping and systematic'' campaign to influence and sway the support of U.S. voters.

Third, the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, or known by its acronym IRA, sought to use social media and embedded employees to influence U.S. voters in an effort that was funded in large part by an oligarch with known links to Putin. The IRA's malign social media influence campaign was nothing short of, in his words, ``information warfare.''

The Internet Research Agency employees created fake social media personas and posed as American citizens on sites like Facebook and Twitter. These Russian operatives were keenly aware of the politics of division. They capitalized on sensitive social and political issues, from immigration policy to police brutality, in an effort to divide Americans against each other.

They targeted voters in key swing States in an effort to dissuade certain demographics from turning out on election day. They staged real political rallies by masquerading as activists, and they destroyed evidence in an attempt to avoid detection and impede U.S. investigations.

Fourth, the Mueller report confirms that Russian military intelligence deployed ``multiple'' units to engage in ``large-scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.''

Officers with the GRU, Russia's intelligence agency, hacked into Democratic campaign networks and individual email accounts in order to steal emails and other sensitive information. Armed with those stolen emails, GRU officers timed the release of damaging information in order to maximize their impact. Subsequent releases were conspicuously timed in an apparent effort to help their preferred candidate.

Russian hackers also conducted cyber surveillance of at least 20 State election systems, and the Kremlin intended to use this information to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a Clinton victory.

This revelation should shake us to the core because, clearly, President Putin understands that for our democracy to work, the American people must have faith in the results of our elections. Chip away at that faith, and you chip away at our democracy itself.

Russian intelligence operatives, GRU operatives, also targeted employees of a voting technology company and successfully installed malware on their computer networks.

In a handful of States, they gained the capacity to actually manipulate and even delete voter registration data. To top it all off, Russian hackers successfully infiltrated the network of at least one county government in Florida.

Finally, following the election, Putin unleashed handpicked oligarchs to push back against anticipated U.S. sanctions. Let's remember who these Russian oligarchs are. They are billionaires handpicked by Putin who solidified his grip on power not only by oppressing the Russian people but also by systematically seizing their assets and transferring them to a select group of cronies and allies through business dealings, real estate transactions, shares of companies, shell corporations, money laundering, and more.

These oligarchs act as an extension of Putin's power. They advance Russia's economic influence and do Putin's bidding around the world. According to the Mueller report, that is exactly what they did after the 2016 election.

They reached out to the President's inner circle and members of his transition team to begin laying the groundwork for what Putin wanted in return for his help during the campaign--most prominently, protection from further sanctions and relaxation of those sanctions imposed for Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

This short summary of the Mueller report's findings should be offensive to any American elected official. This short summary should spur anyone to action to shore up the security of our elections at home and counter Russian aggression abroad.

Indeed, just last week, FBI Director Wray warned that Russia continues to pose a very significant counterintelligence threat. He also said that 2018 was a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.

This report cries out for action. It screams for legislation, and it demands preparation in advance of 2020.

We are in trouble, people. We can argue with each other, we can score political points against each other, but the United States of America remains in Russia's crosshairs, and we must act. Putin has set his sights on us again in 2020.

The Russian Government continues to pursue the eroding of democracy as we speak across Europe. It has partnered with dictators and war criminals in the Middle East. In Venezuela, Putin clearly sees an advantage in prolonging a destabilizing conflict in our hemisphere. He and his cronies are selling arms, striking oil deals, and robbing the Venezuelan people of future prosperity all to prop up Maduro's criminal regime.

So while President Trump may claim that ``Putin is not looking to get involved'' in Venezuela, we already know he is.

The Mueller report is the wake-up call of the century. It is a clarion call to action. We must treat it as a preview of what is to come.

We already know some of the actions that are worth taking. Senator Graham and I have a bipartisan bill called the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act or DASKA. I have come to this floor to talk about it again and again, but in the wake of the Mueller report, I wonder, where is our sense of urgency? Where is our outrage? Where is our sense of collective responsibility? If my colleagues take nothing else from the Mueller report, they should at least be willing and eager to respond to what Russia did to us 2 years ago and what FBI Director Wray tells us they will continue to do.

The Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act will ensure our diplomats have the tools to advance our interests and stand up to the bully in the Kremlin. The bill includes new sanctions but also provisions designed to harden our democratic institutions and make us less vulnerable to attack.

Our bill would improve our ability to coordinate with Europe on the Russia challenge. It would invest in Democratic institutions in countries most vulnerable to Kremlin aggression because we must remember that Russia's attack in 2016 did not occur in a vacuum. It is part of Putin's larger mission to disrupt democracies around the world from his support for dictators from Syria and Venezuela to Russian meddling in the political affairs of our European allies.

DASKA would also increase transparency with respect to real estate sales in the United States that we know is a go-to strategy for Russian oligarchs looking to launder money.

I know many of my colleagues have no interest in learning more about the President's own business dealings with these unsavory figures and whether those relationships influence his decision making about U.S. foreign policy, but we should agree, at least, that we must do more to prevent Russia from getting American businesses and leaders financially entangled in Russia's tentacles like the NRA.

DASKA would also protect our NATO alliance. Senator Graham and I have included an important provision that would prevent any President from pulling the United States out of NATO without Senate approval. To pull our Nation out of a military alliance so vital to America's security when we could have stopped it from happening would be a tragedy fit for the ages. A Senate vote was required to get us into the North Atlantic treaty, it should be required in any attempt to get us out.

This is critical to providing a sense of security and stability to our allies in NATO.

Finally, DASKA also includes new sanctions pressure on Moscow, including on Russian oligarchs complicit in the spread of Russia's malign actions. In addition, it includes increased sanctions on Russia's energy and financial sectors.

The bill has specific sanctions on the Russian shipbuilding sector to the extent that Russia continues to interfere with the freedom of navigation in the Kerch Strait or anywhere else and was complicit in the November attack.

In the final analysis, we have a few peaceful tools of diplomacy to address malign actors around the world: the court of international public opinion, insofar as a government or a leader in question cares about such things; our trade and aid as an inducement to behavior change; then there is the denial of trade or aid or access to our financial institutions, which we call sanctions.

President Putin is willing to use his military as a means of first resort to advance his interests. We are not. Therefore, sanctions are our tool of peaceful diplomacy. They are how we send the message and how we seek to defend ourselves.

Now I must state that growing up in New Jersey, I learned that if you didn't confront the bully in the schoolyard, his reign of terror would never end. He would create a climate of fear. He would create a climate of intimidation until you whacked him in the head with a 2 by 4, until you said enough is enough, until you made clear that you and your fellow students wouldn't accept that kind of behavior. If you didn't stand up for yourself, the bully would press ahead.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is what we have in Vladimir Putin. He will continue to push and push until he meets resistance, until he meets a 2 by 4. That is what we have in DASKA.

We have a responsibility in this body, a responsibility shared by all 100 Senators, to protect our national security and the integrity of our democracy. It is our most solemn responsibility. Some may not care. Some may think we have done enough to deal with the Russian threat, but our intelligence experts disagree, Bob Mueller disagrees, FBI Director Wray disagrees, and clearly those living under the threat of Kremlin aggression in Eastern Europe disagree.

This body has come together before. I have seen it. We came together in 2017 to pass the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, but since then we have struggled to get this administration to fully implement the law. Are we supposed to just throw up our hands and say, ``Oh, well,'' and hope they will see the light or are we supposed to demand nothing less than rigorous enforcement and take legislative action if needed?

I stand firmly for the latter, and I hope a majority of my colleagues will stand with me. It is long past time we send another message to the world and, most importantly, to the Kremlin that the Senate is prepared to defend American interests. We will not tolerate intrusions by a hostile foreign power. We will not leave our democratic institutions vulnerable to further interference. We will not allow any foreign adversary to meddle in our democracy.

The breadth of Russian interference laid out by the Mueller report demands the kind of comprehensive foreign policy response put forward in DASKA. The American people deserve a markup and a full vote in the Senate to make that happen.

I will just say, as the elected leaders of this country, we owe Americans action. We owe them fulfillment of our oath. We owe them a robust and unflinching defense of our democracy and our values. Enough with the delays. Enough with the excuses. Enough with the politics.

We have legislation ready to bolster our defenses. We have strong bipartisan support for it. Let's mark up the bill now. Let's send a clear and unequivocal message to Putin that we will not tolerate a repeat performance in 2020.

I would just say that this is not about President Trump. It is not about the last election other than that they attempted to influence it and that we should recognize and want to deal with it. But it is about preserving our national security, our democracy, and our interest in the world.

Putin is unbridled. This institution, Republicans and Democrats, have always joined together to meet Russia's challenge when Russia posed a challenge. The party of Reagan is absent. The party of Reagan is absent on this. If this had been going on during the Obama administration, I would have been peeling people off of the Capitol ceiling.

Let's get to work. Let's defend our interests. Let's stand up together. Let's send Putin a message. Let's defend our democracy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to cast my vote in support of the resolution we will shortly be voting on, which sends an important message that this body, directly representing the

American people, wishes to end direct U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalition's campaign in Yemen.

I am disappointed but not surprised that the President issued a veto, choosing to stand by a campaign of devastating consequences for the people of Yemen. Every time we have a vote on this resolution and every day, the numbers get worse, but let us be clear. These numbers are people: 3 million human beings have been forced to flee, more than 15 million are on the brink of starvation, and more than 1 million individuals--children, mothers, fathers--are suffering from the largest cholera epidemic in the world.

Even the coalition countries themselves insist there is no military solution to this manmade conflict. As Houthis, backed with destabilizing and increasing support from Iran, continue to launch attacks into civilian population centers, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates continue their campaign which has targeted hospitals and threatened humanitarian access.

The fragile U.N.-brokered political process that emerged from Stockholm is almost at a breaking point. To be sure, the Houthis slow- walking the implementation of this plan presents a serious challenge, but U.S. focus should now be on supporting a meaningful, inclusive, and comprehensive process, even if it is one step at a time--a process that must start by ensuring that vital humanitarian relief reaches those who need it most desperately.

As some of my colleagues and the President have repeated, we do indeed have important security and military partnerships with the countries comprising the coalition, but these partnerships are not a blank check for weapons and direct support for a campaign that is decidedly working against U.S. interests in the region.

In addition to the truly horrific attacks on civilians, we have credible, alarming reports that our partners are transferring U.S. weapons to nonstate actors who have worked directly against the United States. Moreover, the length and brutality of this campaign have allowed Iran to exploit a vacuum and increase its influence and presence in the gulf.

This resolution sends an important message, but much work remains to be done.

I have a bipartisan bill that would authorize serious policy regarding U.S. weapons sales, that would hold accountable those blocking humanitarian aid, and help set the stage for supporting a meaningful political process.

As I have said before, we should consider this resolution just as one step, but one that must be taken, one that the Congress has shown it supports.

While the President has made his decision clear, the Congress must continue to assert our independence and continue to act where he will not.

Finally, let me also repeat what I said this morning at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee business meeting--the Executive has a responsibility to share with us critical information that is directly relevant to the work of the committee.

Last month, I discovered intelligence directly related to a topic that the administration had regularly briefed the committee about but completely omitted. Without going into the details, I called the administration to provide committee members with more information. I believe the full Senate should have this information, which is relevant to votes we have taken, and I will be asking the majority and minority leaders to convene an all-Senators briefing on this topic. I think they should know before they cast votes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, freedom of the press is a fundamental human right, a foundational pillar of democracy, and an indispensable check on authoritarian overreach. Today, press freedom is under assault across the globe--including in the United States. As journalists fight to advance truth and objectivity, far too many governments and non- state actors are targeting them, seeking to thwart their efforts to promote transparency and accountability and expose abuses of power. Their focus on attacking journalists indeed serves to highlight their critical work.

Since 2009, 659 journalists and media workers have been killed in connection with their efforts to report and disseminate news and information. Stories of abuses of government power, of human suffering, of environmental disasters, and stories of the remarkable resilience of people abused and oppressed. 2018 marked the worst year on record for deadly violence and abuse toward journalists, with murders, imprisonment, hostage-taking, and enforced disappearances all on the rise.

Slovak journalist Jan Kuciak and his partner Martina Kusnirova were gunned down in their home after investigating organized crime in his country and in alleged retaliation for his reporting of tax fraud on a businessman with close ties to Slovakia's ruling party, a stark reminder of the danger reporters sometimes face when investigating corruption at the highest levels.

Just over a year ago, in the deadliest day for Afghanistan's media since the start of the war, nine journalists were killed in a second- wave suicide bombing in Kabul, and another was shot dead in the eastern city of Khost, a sign of the constant threat against the fundamental elements of a free, secure, and democratic Afghanistan.

Last October, at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Washington Post columnist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered by a group of Saudi operatives at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, showing the reach of political oppression and the silencing of dissent.

In many cases, crimes carried out against the media go unpunished-- this includes murder, the ultimate form of censorship. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, in nine out of 10 cases where a journalist has been targeted for murder, the perpetrator goes free, reflecting widespread impunity in this space.

In 2018, across the world 251 journalists remained imprisoned on charges related to their reporting. Last month, Burma's Supreme Court upheld the conviction and prison sentence of Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, who were arrested after exposing the massacre of ten Rohingya men in a village in Rakhine State. In Nicaragua, Miguel Mora and Lucia Pineda Ubau, directors of the country's only 24-hour cable news network, were jailed on charges of fomenting hate, spreading fake news, and terrorism, falling victim to President Daniel Ortega's widespread crackdown on dissent and freedom of expression. While in different countries, these ongoing imprisonments are in countries with degrading records on human rights and fundamental freedoms more broadly.

In the last year, governments have ramped up similar attempts to silence the press in places like Turkey and the Philippines. Beyond threats to journalists themselves, governments across the world from Poland to Sudan continue to pursue legislative efforts to restrict media freedom and free expression, ultimately weakening the ability of citizens to hold their governments accountable. In Bangladesh, photojournalist and human rights advocate Shahidul Alam faced torture and spent 107 days in prison for violating a law that forbids criticism of the government on digital platforms in his native Bangladesh. One of several journalists who were named Time's Person of the Year in 2018 for being one of ``the guardians'' in the face of the ``war on truth,'' he expressed, ``The world over, journalism is under threat. Whether you're a teacher, a dancer, a painter, or a journalist, each one of us needs to be constantly fighting.''

But the threat to press freedom isn't limited to foreign lands--it is something we've had to increasingly contend with here at home in the United States. President Trump continues to employ dangerous rhetoric in targeting the media, referring to the free press as the ``enemy of the people,'' and fostering an environment of hostility toward journalists. Moreover, he refuses to hold autocratic world leaders accountable as they attack press freedom in brazen ways, including targeting American journalists in places like Egypt. This only adds to the deterioration in free expression throughout the world. As a recent report from Reporters Without Borders highlights, ``The number of countries regarded as safe, where journalists can work in complete security, continues to decline, while authoritarian regimes continue to tighten their grip on the media.''

In spite of the unprecedented assault on the free press, journalists continue to take significant risks in the pursuit of truth and transparency. Journalists from Radio Free Asia have relentlessly covered the Chinese government's gross human rights abuses against the country's Uyghur minority, including mass internment and surveillance in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). If not for the work of these courageous reporters--many of whom are Uyghurs themselves, having to report on abuses exacted against their families and friends--Chinese authorities would be able to commit such abuses largely in secrecy. Instead, those who champion human rights will be able to use the reporting in order to hold this repressive government to account.

Over 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers had the foresight to recognize the importance of a free press to a fledgling democracy, enshrining it in our first amendment. Today, that importance cannot be overstated. Recognizing that societies where informed citizens can hold their governments accountable are more stable, secure, and prosperous, we have a responsibility to stand up for the fundamental right of free expression and free press. I join the international community in honoring and defending freedom of expression and the brave journalists seeking to tell a story that deserves to be told. In fact, the very fact the repressive governments, autocrats, and thugs continue to attack journalists is a tragic testament to the critical work they do. Just yesterday, the Maduro government in Venezuela took CNN off the air while the network was broadcasting live video of protestors being run over by military vehicles in Caracas, a transparent attempt by a criminal regime to silence journalists telling the story of brave Venezuelans standing up for their democratic aspirations.

This week, I introduced a resolution commemorating World Press Freedom Day. The resolution highlights increasing threats to freedoms of the press and expression worldwide, reaffirms the centrality of a free and independent press to the health of democracy, and reiterates freedom of the press as a priority of the United States in promoting democracy, human rights, and good governance. On this World Press Freedom Day, I call on the Trump administration to reverse course and recommit to advancing press freedom--both at home and abroad.''

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

Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of R. Clarke Cooper to be an Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the Department of State.

The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs plays a critical role in the State Department and in broader diplomatic and national security efforts around the world. Every day, the Bureau works to ensure that our foreign policy goals are driving our security partnerships and security assistance around the world, including nearly $100 billion annually in arms sales.

I am prepared to support Mr. Cooper's nomination as Assistant Secretary because I believe he brings experience, insight, and leadership that will benefit the Bureau and our foreign policy. I also expect Mr. Cooper to uphold the commitments he made during his confirmation hearing, including that he will not only be responsive to all inquiries from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its staff about the Bureau's work but that he will also proactively keep us fully informed about issues under his jurisdiction.

3D Guns

Madam President, if confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Cooper will assume his position at a time when the Bureau is at the center of, quite frankly, some appalling decisions by the Trump administration that will undermine the safety and security of Americans abroad.

I cannot wrap my head around the administration's policies, for example, on the issue of 3D-printed firearms. The Trump administration apparently believes it is a good idea to indiscriminately distribute around the world--to foreign adversaries, terrorist organizations, and future mass shooters--the literal blueprints for using 3D printers

to make nearly undetectable firearms and components.

Apparently, the Trump administration believes this information should be readily available to anyone as it seeks to transfer the export control licensing of military-style firearms and ammunition from the Department of State to the less stringent Department of Commerce. Even the Commerce Department has admitted that its own regulations will not permit them to effectively stop the publication of these firearm blueprints online.

It is not difficult to imagine the devastating consequences of this reckless decision, which will make more lethal weapons available to more thuggish regimes and facilitate their illicit transfer to criminals and terrorists. We are talking about making it easier for a criminal to build his own weapons without having to get a background check. We are talking about making it easier for terrorists to board a plane with deadly guns, perhaps to hijack them and use the aircraft as weapons, just as the 9/11 terrorists did. We are talking about making it easier for armed militants to enter a U.S. Embassy undetected, endangering the lives of our diplomats abroad. Simply put, we are talking about preventable tragedies made possible by the thoughtless actions of this administration. These are undetectable. That is the big challenge here. Indeed, this decision could place all American citizens and officials--even the President himself--at greater security risk.

It is not too late to reverse this mistake. The Trump administration can halt its decision to transfer the export jurisdiction to the Commerce Department. At the very least, the administration could leave the blueprints for producing undetectable, 3D-printed firearms under the stronger regulatory controls of the Department of State.

Human Rights

Madam President, on a separate note, I have made clear to Mr. Cooper that the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs has a moral and strategic imperative to consider human rights and end-use monitoring when it comes to making decisions about arms sales, transfers, and security assistance to foreign countries.

Over the past 2 years, it has been troubling to see human rights considerations take a backseat. That includes the President's recent decision to revise the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy to disregard a country's human rights record. With Saudi Arabia, the Khashoggi murder, and the debacle of the Yemen war fresh on our minds, we need no reminder of the consequences of the President's impulse to put profit above all else, including respect for basic human rights. Human rights are not just a nice gesture; they are fundamental American values and critical to advancing peace, justice, democracy, and stability around the world.

We must ask ourselves what we as a nation want America to be. Are we a beacon of hope for the oppressed or simply the biggest arms merchant to the world? Count me and many of my colleagues as standing firmly for the former, and I hope Mr. Cooper will stand with us.

Nomination Process

Madam President, finally, for weeks, we have heard from the President, the majority leader, and other Republicans about vacancies at the State Department and why that contributed to the supposed need for Senator McConnell to exercise the nuclear option on nominees. As I recently explained on the floor, Republicans need to point the finger at their President. In many cases, the President has simply failed to put forward nominees for key national security positions. When he does put forward nominees, too often these individuals have not been thoroughly vetted, and issues that would be disqualifying for nominees in any other administration have simply been glossed over.

It turns out there is another issue that speaks directly to the flimsiness of the majority leader's rationale for invoking the nuclear option, and that is the fact that Republicans themselves are blocking State Department nominees, including career employees nominated to be Ambassadors to Ecuador and Cambodia. These nominees were reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee by voice vote and without any controversies several weeks ago.

They could have been confirmed and on the ground in their posts prior to Easter recess. Instead, their nominations are languishing because the majority leader has refused to move. So I now call on Senator McConnell to stop playing politics with the State Department and get these career nominees confirmed.

As I have said repeatedly, when presented with qualified, well-vetted nominees, my staff and I will work around the clock to advance the confirmation process. I would ask for the same from my Republican colleagues.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the President's nominee for Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhardt. Once again, instead of draining the swamp, President Trump is flooding the swamp with a whole new breed of corporate-sponsored creatures. Already, we have a former coal lobbyist running the Environmental Protection Agency. We have chemical lobbyists running the EPA's chemical safety programs. And unless we put the brakes on Mr. Bernhardt's nomination, soon we will have a fossil fuel lobbyist running the Department of Interior.

For a State like New Jersey, which depends on a healthy, vibrant coastal

economy, Mr. Bernhardt's extensive ties to the fossil fuel industry are troubling, to say the least.

The Secretary of the Interior is charged with the stewardship of public lands and waters and safeguarding our natural resources for generations to come. Yet the Washington Post has reported that Mr. Bernhardt has so many conflicts of interest that he must carry a card around just to keep track of them. Think about that. Mr. Bernhardt has such deep ties to fossil fuel companies with business pending before the Interior Department that he cannot keep track of them.

How Mr. Bernhardt would approach his position if confirmed as Secretary of Interior is no mystery. During his time as Acting Secretary, he has gained a reputation as a general in the Trump administration's war on science. Reports suggest that he has suppressed scientific evidence in order to benefit corporate interests at the expense of environmental protection.

Rather than be responsive to Congress about our concerns, Mr. Bernhardt has displayed a stunning lack of transparency. Like many Trump nominees, he has failed to respond to basic inquiries from Congress. For example, on March 20, I sent a letter--along with Senator Feinstein, Senator Merkley, and 15 of our colleagues--requesting that the Acting Secretary respond to a series of questions about his views on offshore drilling. With his hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee quickly approaching, we asked Mr. Bernhardt to respond prior to coming before Congress. This way, committee members could have at least a baseline understanding of his views while crafting their questions. We received no response.

Mr. Bernhardt then came and testified before the committee. He could have used the opportunity to enlighten us about his views on offshore drilling. He chose not to. Now, 3 weeks later, we still lack answers, even as the majority seeks to confirm him as Secretary of the Interior.

When an individual seeking confirmation by the Senate refuses to answer basic questions posed by 18 Senators, that should be a red flag for all of us. The questions that were asked weren't technical. They weren't ``gotcha'' questions. They were straightforward questions about one of the most fundamental jobs the Secretary of the Interior has--the stewardship of our Nation's coastal waters.

We asked Acting Secretary Bernhardt: Do you support opening up any or all of the Atlantic Ocean to offshore oil and gas exploration, development, or production? No response.

We posed the same question about the Pacific, the Arctic, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Again, no response.

We asked the Acting Secretary if he would commit to meeting with the Governors of States in which he proposes to drill for oil. No response.

We asked if he would commit to meaningful public hearings in States impacted by offshore oil drilling. No response.

We asked how he could reconcile the opposition to offshore drilling of every Atlantic and Pacific Governor--Democrat and Republican--with President Trump's goal of opening all of those waters to drilling. Again, we got no response.

We asked whether the Acting Secretary could confirm to us that the Trump administration's revisions to the well control rule--the one major safety reform put in place after the Deepwater Horizon disaster-- wouldn't denigrate safety. No response.

I will not risk it. I will not risk New Jersey's $44 billion tourism industry. I will not risk over $800 billion in coastal property values. I will not risk a recreation and commercial fishing industry that supports 50,000 jobs in my State. I will not risk the economies of shore towns up and down the coast of New Jersey and the entire Atlantic. I will not risk the lives and livelihoods that depend on clean coastal waters because that is what we are risking if we vote for Mr. Bernhardt.

I cannot fathom going home to my constituents and telling them that I gave the nominee for Secretary of the Interior a free pass on basic questions about the job he is applying for.

With the radio silence from this nominee on offshore drilling, I have no reason to believe Mr. Bernhardt will deviate from the path chartered by this administration. Every Member of this Chamber knows what that path looks like.

We have seen the weakening of protections put in place after the BP oilspill, endangering the safety of workers and the livelihood of our vibrant coastlines. We will see the start of seismic blasting in search of oil up and down our coasts without any concern for the devastating impact on wildlife and our fisheries. We will see the finalization of President Trump's offshore drilling plan--one that would open the entire Atlantic Ocean, the entire Pacific Ocean, the entire Gulf of Mexico, and the entire Arctic Ocean to offshore drilling. If this plan comes to fruition, sooner or later we will see another crisis of the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon.

My friends, my colleagues, this is not a matter of if; it is a matter of when. When that day comes, every Member of this Chamber who supported David Bernhardt is going to have to answer to their constituents, to the shore businesses who see their livelihoods washed away in a slick of oil, to the fishermen who are suddenly out of a job through no fault of their own, to coastal towns that see their communities and the tourism and recreation industries their economies depend on wiped out.

I refuse to take that risk. A vote for David Bernhardt is a vote for offshore drilling. I ask my colleagues to oppose his nomination.

I yield the floor.