Floor Statements

Madam President, on Wednesday, just moments after Joe Biden took office, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs sanctioned 28 members of the outgoing administration, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien, and UN Ambassador Kelly Craft.

According to Chinese State media, these Trump administration officials were guilty of ``crazy moves which gravely interfered in China's internal affairs.'' Those ``crazy moves'' include presumably condemning the Chinese Communist Party's genocidal campaign against religious minorities in Xinjiang Province or its atheistic crackdown on Chinese Christians. In addition to interfering, these officials allegedly offended the Chinese people and seriously disrupted U.S.- China relations. I guess that refers to some, such as Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, who traveled to Taiwan.

Under the new sanctions, these officials are now barred from entering China, but more important and more ominous, institutions associated with them are also restricted from doing business with China.

Now, it is tempting to laugh off these sanctions, as I did last summer when China sanctioned me. You know you won't have a second honeymoon in Wuhan or you will have to vacation in a nongenocidal country.

But these sanctions are no laughing matter. They are not bluster. They are another step in China's long-term campaign to coerce Americans at every level of government and business. They are a direct attack on the independence of U.S. policy toward China and an attempt to blackmail the Biden administration with personal financial ruin in the future if they dare to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party.

Some may start to think about the potential damage to their future, and they may start to sweat a little bit. Now, you may say: Good. I am glad that former government officials can't cash in on their service and go to influence-peddling firms like WestExec or Albright Stonebridge and sell access to the Chinese.

I might even agree with that point, but consider a few other hypotheticals. The Chinese State media singled out book publishers as just one example of who could pay the price. Many public officials like to write memoirs, and these memoirs often add a lot to our understanding of current events, but Chinese State media singled out book publishers as an example of companies that would be banned from China if they associated with sanctioned individuals.

In fact, China has already used American books as pawns in the trade war with the United States. So will major publishing houses really risk losing access to the Chinese market for all their other titles to strike a book deal with, say, a former Biden Cabinet official who was tough on China and ended up getting sanctioned? It is unclear but, I would say, doubtful.

Other public officials practice at big law firms. And I know that we all make jokes about lawyers, but it is an honorable profession. There is nothing wrong with practicing at a big law firm, and they may plan to return to their firms after the administration is over. A lot of those firms have clients with close ties to China. And even if a former public official has no client with any business in China, will those law firms really take back their old employees if it means potentially losing valuable clients who are afraid of angering the Chinese Communist Party? Again, I would say it is unclear but, perhaps, doubtful.

Once you consider these hypotheticals and others that don't involve influence peddling or anything untoward, you can begin to see the insidious consequences of these new sanctions. Beijing wants to scare the Biden administration into doing its bidding, and they want to scare U.S. businesses into blacklisting any official who irritates the Chinese Communist Party.

Therefore, I call on the Biden administration to treat these sanctions as a day-one assault on the independence of its foreign policy by denouncing this intimidation in the strongest possible terms.

But as the Chinese Communist Party is determined to prove, actions speak louder than words, so I also call upon President Biden to act reciprocally by sanctioning Chinese officials who are responsible for this blackmail campaign against his administration.

Those officials shouldn't be able to ferret away their fortunes in the U.S. banking system the way so many corrupt Chinese oligarchs do, nor should

their princeling children get degrees from our top universities or internships at prestigious Washington think tanks.

President Biden should also refuse to nominate for senior positions individuals who are professionally or financially entangled with China, who could be compromised by the mere threat of sanctions.

Finally, President Biden should determine whether Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai was involved in these sanctions, and if so, he should be expelled immediately for this egregious effort to subvert American foreign policy.

And that is just for the short term. America must also begin to disentangle our economy from China, to decouple our economies. The Chinese Communist Party sanctions pose a threat only because American society is so deeply compromised by Chinese influence.

American corporations, the big banks, think tanks, universities, film studios, even our sports leagues--even LeBron James--are all addicted to Chinese cash. They are all part of a new China lobby that is deeply invested in the status quo and, thus, hostile to any efforts to redefine U.S.-China relations in America's interest.

This lobby makes their money in China. They make their products in China. They have made their bed in China, and now they are all vulnerable to pressure from the Chinese Government.

America hasn't been in such a bind since our earliest days, when our young Republic was encircled by hostile imperial powers.

Even during the Cold War, America had few entanglements of the sort we face today. The United States had very little trade with the Russians. We competed in separate lanes, like runners in a race.

The new Cold War with China isn't so orderly. Communist China is wealthier and has more people than did Soviet Russia, and our economies have become deeply entangled. These new sanctions are just the latest example of how that entanglement threatens our security and prosperity.

Here is how the United States can beat China in this strategic competition. First, the United States should impose restrictions on inbound and outbound investment with China. Wall Street has financed China's industrial and technological development for more than four decades and has become compromised for the bargain. That has to end.

Second, the United States should move supply chains for critical goods, such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, out of China and back to American soil. China, today, may be the so-called factory of the world, but it was corporate America, with its Army of bankers and lawyers and consultants, who built that factory. That has got to end as well.

Third, the United States must restrict the flow of knowledge and advanced technology between our country and China. American colleges, universities, and research laboratories are the finest in the world, but they allow Chinese nationalists to participate, even in cutting- edge research with military applications. This research has an alarming tendency to end up in China, in the weapons fielded by the People's Liberation Army against our own troops. That information pipeline needs to be shut off, and many of those Chinese nationalists need to go.

None of these steps will be easy, but the Chinese Communist Party's punitive sanctions against Trump administration officials and his blackmail campaign against the Biden administration officials demonstrate that decoupling our economies is both necessary and urgent.

The Communists in Beijing have lulled too many Americans into complacency and dependency over the course of many years. They now intend to blackmail even our government into inaction. Our intention must be different. The United States must break free of the Chinese Communist's suffocating grasp, fight back, and win.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the information of other Senators who want to know if we have a vote tonight specifically on the nomination of Avril Haines to be Director of National Intelligence, I was the last person to object to holding that vote. I no longer object.

I wanted to have a question for the record answered. Miss Haines, thankfully, responded to my question yesterday. I want to thank Senator Rubio and Senator Warner for helping us get that answer.

Specifically, in her open session yesterday, she gave an answer to Senator Wyden that suggested the intelligence community might reopen investigations into detention interrogation programs from 2001 to 2006. She clarified, in the private setting that we had, that she had no intention to open up those investigations and expose operations officers inside the CIA to criminal prosecution or adverse employment action or even holding it against them in potential future promotions or placements.

She has confirmed that in the written record. I am glad to see that we are not going to reopen that period.

I want to thank Ms. Haines for providing the answer.

Most importantly, I want to thank our brave operations and paramilitary operations officers in the CIA for what they do, always, to keep this country safe. I am ready to vote on this nomination. I believe the rest of the Senate is as well.

I yield back the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I want to call your attention to a story that is tragic but also heartwarming and uplifting.

Honorary Colonel River ``Oakley'' Nimmo of Camden, AR, passed away last month at the age of 5 after a protracted struggle with his enemy, a rare form of cancer called neuroblastoma. Oakley's family remembers him as a ``sweet, brave boy'' who liked to play with power wheels and toy guns, but all those who knew him or who have learned about him will remember Oakley for an act of service that perhaps only a child could perform.

Oakley wanted to be an Army man when he grew up. Even in the advanced stages of his fight with cancer, you would find him at the hospital wearing camouflage fatigues and a helmet, with his trusty rifle by his side and a smile on his face.

Oakley fought his cancer valiantly, going above and beyond the call of duty. He was strengthened along the way by his Arkansas neighbors, who held yard sales and sold bracelets to help the Nimmo family pay for his care. He was also supported by 20,000 prayer warriors on a Facebook page entitled ``Prayers for Oakley Nimmo.'' But ultimately it was God's will that Oakley should return home to him. He passed away on the 20th of June.

In light of Oakley's heroic struggle, as well as his dream of becoming an Army man, Oakley was named an honorary colonel in the Arkansas National Guard. In the days leading up to his funeral, his family made a simple request: that veterans and servicemembers show up at the funeral in their uniform to give Oakley the proper sendoff. Word got around, and dozens came. Some traveled from nearby towns. Most had never even met this little boy, but it didn't matter--he was a soldier like one of them. Soldiers from the Arkansas National Guard provided funeral honors for Oakley. They presented Oakley's mother, Shelby, with the flag and a special ID tag with

his name on it. Like a true soldier, Oakley was sent off from this world to the moving tune of ``Taps'' played by a military bugler.

Colonel Nimmo's tour of duty on this Earth was brief, but he did teach an important lesson to all of us. At times, some voices may express doubts about our military, but Oakley reminded us--as perhaps only a child could--that being an Army man, a brave protector of our Nation, is one of the highest honors to which an American can be called.

The veterans and the servicemembers who attended Oakley's funeral were there to honor him, but, in fact, it was a double honor because through his life and dreams, little Oakley honored them in return.

Oakley looked up to our troops in life. Now he looks down on them from above, where he will remain in God's presence and our memory as a brave fighter against cancer, an inspiration, and indeed, for all time, an Army man.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on whether to disarm our troops as they face a growing campaign of Iranian aggression in the Middle East. Tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on whether to empower the Ayatollahs as they continue to rampage across the Middle East, attacking U.S. aircraft, attacking ships in the high seas, threatening our troops in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Qatar, and elsewhere. That is because we will be voting tomorrow morning on an amendment that says, very simply: ``No funds may be used to conduct hostilities against the Government of Iran, against the Armed Forces of Iran, or in the territory of Iran, except pursuant to an Act or a joint resolution of Congress specifically authorizing such hostilities.''

That amendment is simple--I would say simple-minded--but it is simply an act of appeasement against the Ayatollahs who are currently conducting attacks against the United States and our interests on a regular and growing basis.

Let's just take a case in point. The earlier version of this amendment included no exception--no exception whatsoever--for our troops to defend themselves against an attack by Iran. You might say that is a careless omission. I would, however, say that even the fact that it was changed after I pointed out that omission just goes to show you that the root of this amendment is Trump derangement syndrome.

It does have an exception now. Let's look at that: ``Nothing can be construed to restrict the use of the United States Armed Forces to defend''--to defend--``against an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.''

What does that mean? What does it mean to defend against an attack? I don't know. I am not sure. If an F-15 pilot is shot upon in international airspace, I guess he can deploy countermeasures--chaff-- to disrupt the missile. Can he shoot back? Can he shoot back at the Iranian missile battery that shot at him?

Let's say our troops who are garrisoned in places like Iraq and Syria have incoming mortar fire by an Iranian proxy militia. I guess they can duck and cover in a concrete bunker. I guess that is defense. Can they use counterbattery fire to shoot back at that mortar firing position? I don't know. I don't know. Can they? Beats me.

We have thousands of troops stationed at Al Udeid Air Base, the main airbase from which we conducted operations against the Islamic State. Let's say they have a missile coming in. I guess they can use a patriot missile defense system to shoot that missile down. Can they fire back at the missile battery that shot that missile, which has many more to fire? I don't know. Can they? It seems like offense to me. Maybe it is defense.

Let's take a page from history. In 1988, Ronald Reagan authorized one of the largest naval engagements since World War II in response to the exact kinds of attacks against commercial shipping and the U.S. Navy on the high seas that we have seen from Iran in the last 2 weeks. However, that operation didn't commence for 4 days; it was 4 days after a U.S. Navy frigate hit one of the Iranian mines before we struck

back. Is that in defense against an Iranian attack? It doesn't seem that it would be, to me. I don't know.

What we are debating here is how many lawyers can dance on a head of a pin when our soldiers are in harm's way. They need to know that when they are shot upon, they can fire back, and they can eliminate that threat without any politician in Washington or any lawyer at the Department of Defense looking over their shoulders and second-guessing them. That is not what they get from this amendment, though.

Consider also the consequences. Many of the speakers today will say this is about deescalating tension in the Middle East--deescalating. Who is escalating it? Who is the one firing on American aircraft? Not Donald Trump. Who is interfering with the freedom of navigation on the high seas? It is not Donald Trump; it is the Ayatollahs. They are the ones who have manufactured this crisis because they know that the United States is on the strategic offensive and that we have the initiative against Iran for the first time in 40 years.

This amendment, though, would only embolden them to continue the campaign of the last 2 months of gradually marching up the escalatory ladder. It started with threats. Then it was an attack on foreign vessels at port. Then it was an attack on foreign vessels on the high seas. Then it was an attack on an unmanned American aircraft. Next it might be an attack on a manned American aircraft or a U.S. ship. And the message we are going to send is this: Well, the Congress thinks that the Commander in Chief and, for that matter, battalion commanders on the ground don't have the authority and the flexibility they need to take the appropriate response, as opposed to cowering inside bunkers and using some defensive measures.

Let's also think about the language of this amendment. A lot of people are going to come here and say that this is about our constitutional authority, and we need to reclaim our authority, and we have given up too much authority to the executive branch. In a lot of instances I would agree with that. But this amendment is only about Iran. It is not about China; it is not about Russia--even though this President has forced our Democratic friends to finally discover their inner cold warrior.

This is only about Iran in the context of Iran shooting down an American aircraft just a week ago. What better message can you send that this is not about our constitutional authority? This is about trying to tie the hands of a Commander in Chief whom they dislike at a time when a foreign nation is targeting our aircraft and our servicemembers.

This amendment would be a loud and clear message to the Ayatollahs that we will not strike back, that they can escalate even further, and that there will not be swift reprisal. If there is, it will generate intense controversy in our country. It will only embolden them further to march up that escalatory ladder and threaten American lives. It is a hall pass for Iranian escalation, really.

Look, there is no amendment, no bill, no paper resolution that can change the iron laws of geopolitics. Strength deters and weakness provokes. Wars are not won by paper resolutions. They are won by iron resolution. But this amendment embodies irresolution, weakness, timidity, diffidence.

This Congress on a good day can rename a post office, and that is only after months and months of debate about the post office. Are you telling me--are you telling me that if Iran shoots down an American aircraft or continues attacks on partners like the United Arab Emirates, then this Congress in a matter of minutes and hours is going to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force to respond to that kind of provocation? Please.

There is a reason we have one Commander in Chief, not 535 commanders in chief--or, I say again, 535 battalion commanders, the level at which some of these decisions ought to be made.

Think about the kind of debates we have, the know-nothings we have seen here in Washington over the last couple of weeks who would say: Oh, it wasn't Iran that made the attack. OK, it was Iran, but maybe it wasn't authorized by the senior leadership of Iran. OK, it was authorized, but it didn't really do that much damage. It is kind of like the old line of: It is not my dog. He didn't bite you. You kicked him first. That is what that debate would devolve into while our troops are at risk.

This is a terrible amendment. It will do nothing but put more American lives at risk and imperil our interests and our partners throughout the region.

I know that the minority leader said earlier that he is worried about the President bumbling into war. He said it last week on TV too. Nations don't bumble into war.

He and others have raised the prospect of endless wars, the wars we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are long, and we have made lots of twists and turns on the way. But let's not forget that many of the Democrats in this Chamber voted to authorize those wars. We didn't bumble into those. They were considered, deliberate decisions.

President Trump said just a couple days ago that he is not talking about that kind of operation. He is talking about the exact kind of thing that Ronald Reagan did in response to Iranian aggression on the high seas. That didn't start a war. Ronald Reagan didn't start a war when he retaliated against Libya for acts of terrorism against our troops in 1986. Donald Trump didn't start a war when he struck Syria in 2017 and 2018 for gassing its own people. If you want a Democratic example, Bill Clinton didn't start a war when he struck Iraq in 1993 and 1998.

This amendment purports to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief relative only to a single nation, which just so happens to be the nation that just shot down an American aircraft. The only result that will come of this amendment passing will be to embolden the Ayatollahs and make more likely that which its proponents wish to avoid.

I urge all of my colleagues to see the reality of this amendment and to vote no tomorrow morning.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, many State legislatures across the country have taken action recently to protect unborn babies from the violence of abortion. My home State, for instance, Arkansas, has just passed a law to protect unborn babies after 18 weeks of development. This reform is not just supported by Arkansans; it is supported by a large majority of all Americans, more than 70 percent of whom believe unborn babies ought to be protected at or before that stage of pregnancy.

These reforms are the work of the pro-life movement, which fights for the most vulnerable among us every day. The pro-life movement seeks change in the noblest tradition of our country and works within our democratic system so that our laws ultimately live up to our highest principle in the words of our Declaration of Independence--that all men are created equal and that all have a basic right to life.

Of course, this is a democracy. So not everyone agrees when or even if we ought to protect the unborn. I understand that. I know there are decent people on both sides of this sensitive issue. We resolve our differences and reach compromise through democratic debate. What should never happen, though, is a billion-dollar corporation's trying to dictate these moral questions to us. Politically correct CEOs shouldn't be in the business of threatening normal Americans, but that is exactly what we have seen lately.

The loudest objections to these pro-life laws haven't come from the bottom up, from normal citizens who happen to disagree with one another, but from the top down, from cultural elites and, increasingly, from giant corporations that wield their economic power as a weapon to punish the American people for daring to challenge their pro-abortion extremism.

Giant media companies, like Disney, Netflix, and WarnerMedia, have threatened to cripple Georgia's film industry if its residents don't bend the knee and betray their pro-life convictions.

Just last Monday, the New York Times ran a full-page advertisement that was organized by the pro-abortion lobby and was signed by the CEOs of hundreds of companies that read that legal protections for unborn babies are ``bad for business.'' How disgusting is that? Caring for a little baby is ``bad for business.''

Now, I get why outfits like Planned Parenthood and NARAL would say babies are bad for business. Abortion is their business, after all, and they are just protecting market share. Yet what about all of those other CEOs? Why do they think babies are ``bad for business''? It is, perhaps, because they want their workers to focus single-mindedly on working, not on building families and raising children.

All these politically correct CEOs want company men and women, not family men and women. They will support your individuality and self- expression just as long as you stay unattached and on the clock.

You couldn't find a more perfect example of this mindset than that of &pizza, one of those companies whose CEO signed the pro-abortion ad. This company, &pizza, doesn't even offer paid maternity leave to its employees, but it does celebrate their oneness and individuality. It will even pay employees to get a tattoo of the company logo. So if you want to be a walking billboard for your employer, &pizza will foot the bill, but if you are pregnant with a child, tough luck.

In the spirit of some of these CEOs, I might call for a boycott of &pizza for their political correctness, but you could just skip them because their pizza is lousy anyway.

There is a troubling trend among giant corporations using their wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people. As liberal activists have lost control of the judiciary, they have turned to a different hub of power to impose their views on the rest of the country. This time it is private power located in a few megacities on the coasts.

That is not an exaggeration. The overwhelming majority of companies that lashed out against the pro-life movement in that New York Times ad are headquartered on the coasts, hoping to rule the rest of us like colonies in the hinterlands. More than three-quarters are headquartered in New York or California alone. More than a dozen are foreign companies. Yet those same companies presume to tell all of America what we should think.

For some reason, this outrage only seems to go in one direction. As States like Arkansas have passed pro-life laws, other States have sadly gone down a different path, stripping unborn children of recognition and protection under the law. States like New York, Illinois, and Vermont recently passed laws declaring abortion a fundamental right, accessible until moments before birth for practically any reason as long as you have a doctor's note.

We have already begun to see the consequences of these laws which strain so mightily to defy and deny the humanity of the unborn. In New York City, prosecutors recently dropped a charge of abortion against a man who brutally stabbed to death his girlfriend and her unborn child. They dropped that charge because the pro-abortion law that had just passed the legislature in Albany removed all criminal penalties for killing an unborn child. According to the laws of New York State, that woman's child never existed.

The pro-abortion laws passed in New York, Illinois, Vermont, and elsewhere truly deserve the label ``radical.'' So why isn't the national media covering these radical laws with the same intensity they have reserved for States like Georgia? Where are the indignant CEOs who profess to care so much for their female employees? They are nowhere to be found because their outrage is very selective. They don't speak for the majority of Americans, much less for women. Instead, they are actively trying to force a pro-abortion agenda on an unwilling public.

These companies want to wield a veto power over the democratic debate and decisions of Arkansans and citizens across our country. They want to force the latest social fashions of the coasts on small towns they would never visit in a million years. They want us to betray our deeply held beliefs about life and death in favor of a specious account of equality. If there is one thing the New York Times ad got right, it is that ``the future of equality hangs in the balance'' when it comes to abortion, but their idea of equality doesn't include everyone. It omits, it degrades unborn babies as expendable, lesser than even bad for business. That is a strange kind of equality, if you ask me.

This trend of intolerance ought to alarm everyone, no matter your views on this sensitive question. It threatens democratic debate on this question and ultimately on all questions.

Despite the pressure campaign waged against us, I am heartened because I know the pro-life movement will carry on, as it always has, speaking to the inherent dignity of every human life. Not everything can be measured on a corporate balance sheet. Some things are bigger and more important than the bottom line or what wealthy, politically correct corporations consider bad for business. The cause of life is one of those issues worth fighting for.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Robert Wallace, of Wyoming, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior, and William B. Kilbride, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Kelly Craft, of Kentucky, to be the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador and the Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations, and to

be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Chad F. Wolf, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Jeffrey Byard, of Alabama, to be Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Troy D. Edgar, of California, to be Chief Financial Officer, all of the Department of Homeland Security, John McLeod Barger, of California, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service, and B. Chad Bungard, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorizd to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs 1s authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Special Committee on Aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection

The Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Commerce is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on National Parks

The Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on the Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Madam President, I wanted to speak today about the proposed disapproval of arms sales to our Gulf partners, Bahrain and Qatar. Last month, the administration notified Congress of its intention to sell Apache helicopters to Qatar. Those helicopters will help with security and counterterrorism patrols, especially ahead of the 2020 World Cup, which, of course, will be a prime target for terrorists.

We are also scheduled to sell air-defense missiles to Bahrain, where we have more than 8,500 Americans stationed in Manama at U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet. These sales would also yield more than $3 billion for America, while making Americans safer overseas--what you might call a win-win. By contrast, rejecting these arms sales in a fit of pique would endanger Americans and weaken American influence in the Persian Gulf at precisely the moment when we as a Nation are being severely tested.

Right now, the Iranian regime is engaged in a bloody campaign of terror, testing our resolve. Earlier this week, Iran's proxy on the Arabian Peninsula, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, launched a missile attack on a civilian airport in Saudi Arabia, wounding more than two dozen civilians, including women and children. Where did the Houthis get that missile? Yemen isn't known for its defense-industrial base. That missile came from Iran, as surely as if it were launched from Iranian soil itself.

In recent weeks, four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, flying the flags of our allies and partners--Norway, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates--were attacked with explosives, in effect, terrorizing all traffic through that strategic chokepoint. Public reports indicate that the Iranians perpetrated these attacks. Let's just say I am confident it wasn't the Swedes settling old grudges against their Nordic rival.

Just this morning, hours ago, two tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman, with early indications that the damage is consistent with a torpedo or other projectile. While the attack hasn't been attributed yet, I think it is a safe bet that it wasn't the Omanis.

Let's not be naive about what is happening in the Middle East. As Iran's economy staggers under the weight of new American sanctions, the ayatollahs are lashing out and raging against the world. It is essential that we support our Gulf partners during this dangerous time so they can defend themselves from Iranian aggression and its proxies.

Besides, the arms we sell to Qatar and Bahrain will also protect all those Americans and their families in Bahrain and Qatar.

But instead of helping Qatar and Bahrain to confront a common adversary, some of my colleagues want to hang them out to dry. If we snub our Gulf partners today, though, there will be consequences. Our joint efforts to fight terrorist financing could suffer. Our pressure campaign against Iran could also be jeopardized. If we back away from our partners now, their security needs will not disappear. There will just be adversaries swooping in to support them.

Qatar is already considering a major arms deal with Russia. Both Qatar and Bahrain are involved in China's Belt and Road Initiative, an attempt by the Chinese Communist Party to build a world order with itself at the top. So what we are debating today isn't only whether to help or hurt our Gulf partners. It is also whether to push them further into the Chinese and Russian spheres of influence.

I understand that a few of my colleagues have qualms about some of the countries with whom America must work as a matter of necessity to protect our security and our interests, but that is no excuse for rash actions that would weaken American influence, threaten Americans overseas, and embolden our adversaries in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow.

Make no mistake. The ayatollahs, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping are watching these votes. For those of you who are undecided, I suggest you consider how those men would want you to vote.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in the series be 10 minutes in length--I say again, 10 minutes in length.

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

Mr. President, we are here in the middle of National Military Appreciation Month. So I am pleased to join my colleagues in showing our Nation's gratitude for every single soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coastguardsman who is serving or has served our Nation with honor.

This month is specially dedicated to our Armed Forces, but, of course, we have ample reason to celebrate and appreciate them year- round, because our troops serve year-round and around the clock and willingly accepting limitations on their own freedom and comforts so their fellow Americans can live in freedom and security.

Right now, thousands of American troops serve in dangerous conditions overseas far from home. Even now, at this moment, our troops are engaged in combat, surrounded by the enemy, fighting courageously.

We are all thankful and proud of their service and indebted for their sacrifice. But it is not only them. Two weeks ago I had the privilege of attending a medal ceremony in Arkansas where seven veterans of the Korean war were honored for their service and for actions they took in defense of our freedom nearly seven decades ago, so that these long-ago actions were not forgotten.

One week ago, I had the opportunity to thank our military spouses-- the unsung heroes of our Armed Forces--for their work raising families despite the hardships of military life.

Those are just a couple of events from the last couple of weeks. Yet they are multiplied countless times every day across our country and around the world wherever our troops and their families are present. At airports, troops returning from overseas are greeted with hugs and cheers. The remains of our fallen heroes are greeted with odd silence.

At dinners and restaurants, a uniform or even a veteran's hat will sometimes still earn a veteran or soldier a free meal from a grateful neighbor and fellow citizen.

Here in Washington, honor flights for our veterans still get police escorts with flashing sirens, and children salute those veterans, sometimes asking innocently about their memories at battle.

Across the river at Arlington National Cemetery, sentinels of the Old Guard stand at attention and walk the mat around the clock and in all weather--just as they have for the past 82 years--to ensure that those unknown soldiers and every person whose headstone graces those beautiful rolling fields rest in eternal peace.

I am proud to live in a country that honors its military in such a fashion, but, more importantly, I am proud to live in a country whose military is worthy of such honor. So to every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and coastguardsman, I extend my gratitude, my respect, and my thanks to you and your family for your honorable service, not just today, not just this month but every day.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, 5 years ago, I, along with 46 of my fellow Senators, released a letter to Iran's Ayatollah letting him know that any nuclear deal he reached with President Obama wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on unless it was ratified as a treaty by two- thirds of the U.S. Senate. We wrote: ``The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.''

A lot of people were upset by this letter, but I don't really know why. All it did was state a straightforward lesson on American civics-- something any ninth grader who has read our Constitution should know. Yet the Ayatollah agreed to a deal with President Obama that was not, in fact, approved by two-thirds of the Senate. In fact, it was almost rejected by three-fifths of the Senate. Just as we cautioned, not 3 years later, a new President did, in fact, revoke that deal with the stroke of a pen.

Today is the 1-year anniversary of America's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, and a lot has happened since then.

Just this morning, Iran threatened to renew its rush to the bomb, stockpiling more uranium and producing more heavy water--even threatening to enrich nuclear fuels to dangerous levels in the months ahead if the civilized world does not cave to its demands.

We know better than to cave in to the ayatollahs. The United States will remain steadfast in our maximum pressure campaign against Iran until that regime abandons its nuclear and missile program and its support for terrorism. I welcome the news that the President is announcing new sanctions on Iran's mining industry as well.

As for our European allies and partners and members of the business community abroad, I hope Iran's threats will serve as a needed wake-up call. Any attempt to invest in Iran's market under any circumstances other than Iran's complete and verifiable cessation of its full range of malign activities will be fraught with huge legal and financial risks--huge risks. Businesses shouldn't put themselves in that compromising position, and European partners shouldn't give in to Iran's high-stakes nuclear blackmail.

Of course, today's announcement is just the latest dangerous provocation by the Iranian regime. In the past year, Iran and its well- armed proxies have continued their killing spree across the Middle East--the same spree they were on before and during the Iran nuclear deal. This time, the United States has stood up to Iran rather than rewarding its evil deeds.

We designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps for what it is--a foreign terrorist organization--for plotting attacks around the world and arming groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the very same groups that slaughtered innocent civilians in Israel just last weekend with no regard for the lives they purportedly represent in Gaza.

We reimposed sanctions on Iran that were waived by President Obama. We have also recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, affirming a close ally's right to defend itself against Iranian-backed aggression. These are good things. Iran is a weaker adversary today than it was a year ago when it was flush with bribe money from its nuclear deal with the Obama administration.

Not everyone sees it that way. At least six Democratic Presidential candidates have talked about reentering this outdated obsolete nuclear deal with Iran. They would give the ayatollahs and his armies sanctions relief yet again at a time when Iran's economy is on the mat, not just in recession but in borderline depression. If we were to give them sanctions relief, we know what they would do with that money. We have seen this movie before. They would use it to build ballistic missiles, to kill and maim innocent civilians, and to fuel chaos in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and further abroad.

A return to the Iran deal would be a disastrous decision, but more importantly, such a decision would be every bit as reversible as the first. When are these people going to learn? Everybody ought to keep in mind this simple fact, whether you are a politician making promises or on the campaign trail or a business leader considering major investments in Iran.

To make it abundantly clear, on the 1-year anniversary of our withdrawal from that horrific, terrible nuclear deal, I have a gift for them all. It is the first anniversary. So it is a paper gift. I have introduced a resolution with my colleagues that reaffirms the policy of the United States to never, never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the resolution reaffirms that sanctions can only come off of Iran once it meets the basic conditions approved by Congress under existing law. Among other things, that law requires that Iran must stop supporting terrorism and dismantle its ballistic missile program before sanctions can be waived. They can't simply be waived by a President using his so-called pen and phone.

I hope this resolution clears up any confusion about where the United States stands with respect to Iran and for anyone considering investing in the Iranian market. America will continue to apply maximum pressure against the ayatollahs' regime so long as they continue their campaign of terror and violence against the United States and our allies throughout the Middle East, and we will continue to assist those allies as they fight against Iranian-backed aggression.

To the Ayatollah and all of the rulers of Iran: Happy anniversary.

I yield the floor.