Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about what occurred yesterday on the Senate floor when the Senate and the House of Representatives overrode a veto in order to ensure that the victims of 9/11 had an outlet, if you will, to try to seek justice and compensation. It was not as satisfactory as most in this body would hope. I am hopeful that over the course of time between now and the lameduck, or shortly thereafter, we will have a way to rectify some of the issues that concern us. I don't think many Members are aware of that fact that Senator Cardin and I attempted throughout the last weekend to set up a meeting with the White House to go over options that could, in fact, be more beneficial to our country and, at the same time, give some justice to the people of 9/11. I think many people here know that there were Saudi officials here seeking to come up with some option that might work better than the option that we all opted for, with none other available, yesterday. We were unable to get the President to convene a meeting that we had hoped would include the Secretary of State--we had a couple of conversations with Secretary Kerry and I also had conversations directly with the White House--and to set up a meeting between the President and Secretary Kerry, and, of course, Leader McConnell, Leader Reid, Senator Cardin, and myself, as well as the two major sponsors of the bill. The purpose was to see if the issues with the bill that we voted on yesterday could be resolved via a better route. Was there another option that we could consider, and could we develop a timeframe where that could be considered to take us to an improvement over where we were yesterday? For reasons that still are unknown to me, that was not achievable. There was no desire whatsoever to sit down and meet. I am unaware of any meetings that took place to try to resolve this issue. My friends on the other side of the aisle mentioned that they did have a letter read to them at lunch one day regarding the President's views. But now we have passed a bill. In fact, the victims of 9/11, whom many of us have met with, now have an outlet to try to seek justice. I think there was a desire--as was written yesterday in a letter, which many Senators here signed and many others have discussed--to amend what occurred yesterday to put us in a better place. So it is my hope, now that we have a piece of legislation that has become law, that maybe the executive branch--which, by the way, we tried to get to engage in this issue over this entire last year--will sit down with us and figure out an option that might work a little better than what passed yesterday on the floor. That hasn't occurred. There just has been no engagement. Even at the last minute, with the first veto override facing the administration, there was just an unwillingness to sit down and discuss routes that can take us to a better place. So I know there is a desire on the House side, I know there is a desire in this body, as was widely expressed yesterday, and I know there is a desire--no doubt--for the victims to be able to get answers to the questions they have had and to seek, in their minds, justice. There is a desire for that. But there is also a desire to do so in a manner that will not possibly undermine other equities that the U.S. Government and our people have. So I am hopeful that over the course of the next 6 weeks--last night I had a discussion with a Saudi official whom I know is desirous of sitting down and pursuing that, as they have been over the course of the last week--now that this has become law, the administration will be willing to do the same. My sense is that, with some of the comments that are going to be made publicly and some of the back-and-forth that will occur over the next 6 weeks, I am hopeful that the major sponsors of this bill, who are leaders in this body, will be willing to do that so that we will be able to create some alterations that, unfortunately, were not available to us yesterday to cause this piece of legislation to better serve U.S. national interests. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, over the course of the last several days, I have met with the victims of 9/11 and, like many people in this body have, I don't think I have ever met a more gracious, genuine, sincere group of people. I know they have sought some way of expressing their desire to seek justice in what happened on 9/11. We all have constituents who come up and meet with us. These people certainly have not been from the State of Tennessee, but I have to say, they have presented their case in a way that is most heartfelt, and I have tremendous empathy for all they and their families have gone through. Yesterday, on the way outside the building, a gentleman came up to me, recognized me, and told me about sitting in his home and seeing the planes go overhead, seeing them kill his wife. He talked to me about the conversation he had with the FBI agent, whom they have now gotten to know, about what had happened. Senator Schumer and Senator Cornyn have done a remarkable job in shepherding through this piece of legislation. I give them tremendous credit for what they have done. I do want to say, I don't think the Senate nor House has functioned in an appropriate manner as it relates to a very important piece of legislation. We have had no hearings in the U.S. Senate this Congress, and we have had no vote--no vote whatsoever--of record on this piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, today will be the first vote. There is no doubt by fact that we went through the unanimous consent process and no one objected. No one objected. No doubt that registered our ``yes'' votes, if you will, without a record on this piece of legislation. Yesterday I brought my niece and nephew to this building before it opened, and I told them about the fact that there is a place in the back here that from time to time I have gone to pray before a big vote, and how in recent times there haven't been many votes that have been that decisive or that have weighed on me as much as this vote today. Today is one of those votes. I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that could be set in place by other countries as a result of this vote. I do. For that reason, I have circulated a letter that lays out those concerns, and numbers of people within this body have signed that letter. They have said we feel there could be in fact unintended consequences as a result of what we know is going to happen today. I have seen our country's standing in the world be eroded over the course of the last several years. I know there is debate over that. In my opinion, I have seen our standing erode. I am concerned about the consequences that over time this vote will have on that. At the same time, I believe the victims of 9/11 do deserve an outlet, a way, themselves, of seeking justice in this particular case. This, to me, is not about Saudi Arabia, it is about us, and I don't think the Senate has yet gotten it right as it relates to the best way for the 9/11 victims to seek that justice. I know this bill provides them a way for that to occur. I don't think it is perfect. I think a better way might have been to establish some type of tribunal, where experts could come in and really identify what actually happened on discretionary decisions that took place within the country of Saudi Arabia. We make decisions around here that we believe are to be in our national interests. I have had tremendous difficulty with this one. That is the reason we have generated a letter of concern to the two sponsors of this bill who have handled this in the manner they have. They have done an exemplary job. To me, the Senate has not functioned quite in the manner that it should, nor has the House, and I think we end up today with an imperfect solution. I have concerns about this legislation not having a waiver. I have concerns about the fact that over time, if this continues to build upon itself, we as a body--a body that, to me, could use some great strengthening. To me, we have a body that is in the process of building itself back to the place it ought to be, and we have done that over the last couple of years. Let's face it. The institution of the United States Senate itself has diminished over time, and we have work to do to overcome that. On balance, I think this bill has problems. I think we will be dealing with overcoming this over time, and I know numbers of us have joined together to express that, but I do think that to be consistent and to give the victims who have lost so much an opportunity to express themselves in this way is the appropriate thing to do at this time. I have read the concerns that have been expressed by the head of our Joint Chiefs. I read the letter that came over from the President. Certainly, there are significant and important points to have been made. As a matter of fact, 6 months ago those points might have led us to a slightly different place today. So with tremendous reservations and concerns about where this legislation is going to lead us, with tremendous empathy toward the victims--who have lived through so much, have seen loved ones gone, it has affected their lives and will affect their lives for the long term--I am going to support passage of this legislation today, but I do so understanding that there could be in fact unintended consequences that work against our national interests, and with a determination-- should that occur--to work with others within this body to try to overcome that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bipartisan letter to Senators Cornyn and Schumer regarding S. 2040, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, from myself and Senators Cardin, Graham, Feinstein, Alexander, Warner, Rounds, Reed, Roberts, Coons, Flake, Udall, Coats, Nelson, Thune, Shaheen, King, Carper, Cotton, McCaskill, Sullivan, Merkley, Risch, Schatz, McCain, Heitkamp, Hirono, and Bennet be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. CORKER. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know the distinguished Senator from New York who sponsored this bill wishes to speak.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am thrilled to be here. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Senator Enzi for the way he conducts committee business, as the Senator just mentioned. We are on a committee where basically the way it is set up, it binds both his arms and his legs behind his back, meaning that just the process we have in place makes it impossible for us to deal with our country's fiscal issues. With the Senator from Georgia joining the committee, having been a person who has dealt with businesses throughout the world, and quickly seeing these frailties that Chairman Enzi has to deal with, the Senator has thrown himself into trying to deal with those issues, and I admire him for it. I think the Senator from Georgia and I both know this is going to take a while because, in essence, we are talking about a total reorder. We really don't have a budget process. To even call what we do a budget, for most human beings' understanding of what a budget is, is obviously not realistic. So I thank my colleague for that. I am an advocate for what Senator Perdue and Senator Enzi are trying to do. We have to, in essence, get a process in place that actually works. That is impossible with the process we have today, and today is the perfect example of that, right? We passed a CR through December 9, and, by the way, we make no policy changes. Now, think about an entity the size of our Federal Government, where we spend $4 trillion of the American people's money each year, and yet we don't do the authorization process which lays out policies. If you can imagine IBM or Apple or Google or any company like that just continuing each year to do things exactly the same way and thinking there is going to be a different result, that is not possible. Worse than that, in spending the $4 trillion we spend each year, we only have a budget over $1.2 trillion, $1.3 trillion, and the rest is on autopilot. It is the part that is on autopilot that is the greatest threat to our country's national security. So I actually think we need to do two things at once. One is we need to continue working through the processes that Senator Perdue and Senator Enzi are working on. It will take a while to get that done. We are going to have a total reordering of how we do business. That affects Senate careers and staff, and we understand how difficult that is. We are dealing with human beings. We are dealing with people who have an investment in what they have been doing for years, and it is going to take us a while to overcome the culture that has been established here. Simultaneously, as my good friend Senator Gregg from New Hampshire had laid out, we also need to begin putting in place policy changes that begin saving our Nation. One of the problems with the budget process is, we pass a budget that makes assumptions, but those assumptions never become reality. So we say the budget balances over 10 years, but we never do the tough things it takes for those policies to actually be put in place. So a forcing mechanism--I know several thoughts have been put forth--to force us to do that, to force us to do that and to keep government open and functioning is something that has to occur. I am proudly a part of this effort as a wingman. I appreciate all the meetings that are taking place. I hope we are going to get to a result. I agree with Senator Enzi that it would have been good to have done it when we didn't know who the President was going to be or who was going to be in the majority. That is not going to happen, but things like this that matter, that save our Nation, take years to happen. Senator Perdue is a young Senator here by tenure. These things take a long time. I look forward to working with him to ensure we get the right outcome to save our Nation and to keep us from this moral depravity that is taking place where, in essence, every day that goes by, we are involved in generational theft because we are not doing this. We are really laying a huge burden on future generations. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague for his effort.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators .

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the vote that is going to take place at 2:15 p.m., and I urge my colleagues to vote to table this motion. The motion itself would keep us from being able to follow through on a sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. It is my belief that the appropriate policy here is to table this motion, and let me take a few moments to share why I feel that way. First of all, this is not a subsidized sale; this is a sale where a country is trying to buy U.S. weaponry with its own money. This is not the United States giving foreign aid to another country. This is a situation where an ally that is certainly an imperfect ally--they are very aware they have public relations issues within our own country for lots of reasons, but they are an ally nonetheless--has looked around and decided and feels it is the best thing for them to do relative to the purchase of the tanks and other weaponry listed here. By the way, they already own tanks like this already, and they can go someplace else to purchase them. Let me start out by saying that we had a huge debate in the Senate about the Iran nuclear deal. We ended up in different places. Fifty- eight people decided they didn't like it, but I think everyone probably has concerns about Iran and what they are doing in the Middle East. During that timeframe, the administration met at Camp David with Saudi Arabia and some of our other Arab friends in the region and mentioned that in order to counter the nefarious activities Iran is involved in--and I think everyone in this body would agree they are involved in nefarious activities; they are a country we stated is a state sponsor of terrorism--in order to counter that, we would expedite sales to friends like Saudi Arabia and the UAE and other countries in the region, and this is a part of that. In essence, for us to back away from this would be saying we do not want to counter the nefarious activities of terrorism Iran is conducting in the region. I understand my friend from Kentucky has heartfelt concerns about some of the aid we have provided other countries, and we have had very responsible discussions. Again, this is not aid. This is an ally we are utilizing in our alliance as a balance of power against what Iran is doing in the region. In essence, by not following through on sales to friends like Saudi Arabia and other countries, what we are really saying is, we want to undermine the balance of power that is created there in the region. Let me say something else. I have noticed in this body that people are far less willing to want to commit U.S. troops in foreign places. There is a range of feelings about that, but I would say, generally speaking, I don't think there is any question that Americans are far less willing to commit massive ground troops to efforts in the Middle East. If we know that to be the mood of the public today, the last thing we would want to do is to not provide the armaments necessary for countries that might be willing to counter terrorism in the region. Again, to me, this is one of those cases where I think the sponsors of the legislation and those who are advocating for it are well-meaning people, but it is a case where I think we are cutting our nose off to spite our face. I don't understand any policy objective we can be achieving by saying we have a country that wants to buy our equipment with their money--no foreign aid involved whatsoever--and we are unwilling to sell it to them. Let me make one last point. We have an infrastructure in our country that is utilized to protect us in tough times. These are lines of building equipment that we utilize if we ever have to gear up, and I hope that is not the case again in the near future. If we ever have to gear up again for operations in other countries, we rely upon these alliances. So what other countries do in purchasing equipment from us is they keep those lines and keep those employees and keep that technology building in such a way that it is useful for us in the future. Again, I cannot identify a single policy objective we can achieve by blocking a sale to someone who has been an ally. Although not perfect, they are an ally. They are helping us with the balance of power. They are helping us in the fight against some of the efforts that are underway with Iran now in Yemen--we are not involved in that directly; they are helping us with that--and they are a country that again is willing to buy U.S.-made equipment that helps us keep in place the infrastructure that is necessary for us over time to protect our country. I am glad we are having this debate. I hope we table this motion overwhelmingly to send a message that again we see no good policy objective in carrying out the blocking of this sale.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. No question. As a matter of fact, we have actually demarched, in some ways, Saudi Arabia because we felt in some ways, using what we might call ``dumb bombs,'' that civilians were being killed in inappropriate ways. They have moved to using other weaponry, smart bombs, and other kind of things to move away from that. So we don't think Saudi Arabia has been perfect in Yemen. No doubt civilians have been killed. But the facts that you are stating about pushing back against an Iranian proxy are true. Had they not done that, the country would have fallen into their hands, no question.

Mr. CORKER. It creates greater instability in a region that already has had tremendous amounts of it. But no question--I mean, it borders the Straits. Again, it puts more of that in Iranian hands, no question.

Mr. CORKER. I think it sends----

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I have respect for my friend from Kentucky. We have had numbers of conversations about this. I think he is aware that I am holding up, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, subsidies going to Pakistan in their purchase of F-16s. I do so because I don't believe we should be subsidizing a country that has been so duplicitous with us in so many ways. So there are some issues we agree with, including the fact that I am glad to be having this debate. I do think Congress is playing a role today. Regardless of how you vote, Congress is exercising itself. I am glad that is occurring. I just think it is cutting our nose off to spite our face to block a sale--a sale. This is not being subsidized. Saudi Arabia is not a perfect ally, but they have chosen to pursue and purchase U.S. equipment versus Russian equipment or Chinese equipment or some other equipment. This is a sale that benefits us. It benefits our country in a number of ways. If I may, I will lay those out one more time. No. 1, one of the things that have occurred with the Iran deal is that we have upset, to a degree, perceptually the balance of power in the Middle East. Even the President, who brought forth the Iran deal that I opposed and the majority of people on the floor opposed, realized that was going to be a problem. He convened Saudi Arabia and the UAE and some of our other Arab allies at Camp David and suggested that we would expedite sales to these countries in order to push back against the nefarious activities that we know Iran is conducting. All of us agree with that. They are a state sponsor of terror. So, in essence, if we block a sale to a country that we have agreed, in order to strengthen our alliance with them and to counter what Iran is doing--all we are doing is cutting our nose off to spite our face.

Mr. CORKER. Yes.

Mr. CORKER. No question.

Mr. CORKER. We have interdicted them several times.

Mr. CORKER. I don't think that is even debatable.

Mr. CORKER. That is correct.

Mr. CORKER. Look, I was speaking earlier about this issue, which no one knows more about than the Senator from Arizona, but one of the basic national interests that we have in the Middle East is the balance of power. As you know well, people in our country have been far more reticent to have our own men and women on the ground in the Middle East. I mean, that is just a fact. We know that. If that is the case, then if you have a country like Saudi Arabia that is willing to push back against these efforts which, again, further Iran, it seems to me that we would want to allow them to buy equipment to be able to do that. So it helps us with the balance of power. It helps us with an ally. It helps us push back against Iran, and the thing I know you care so much about is our own readiness in the United States. It also keeps the lines of building equipment open. That could be very useful to us down the road. So I don't understand what policy objective could possibly be achieved by blocking this sale.

Mr. CORKER. That is correct.

Mr. CORKER. That is right. One thing that is sad about this in some ways is that everything you have said is true. But in addition to that, there are some intelligence community affidavits that go on top of these and explain even more fully that that is the case. Yet those documents, because they are classified, likely will not be made available to the U.S. public. But I have seen them, you have seen them, and others here have seen them. There is a huge misunderstanding, if you will, about what these 28 pages contain. Then, what has come after that by other intelligence agencies within our own country further state with even greater strength some of the things that you just said. There is just no evidence.

Mr. CORKER. Yes. No, I think it sends a signal. Look, I don't think anybody can debate--we have had these discussions in our Foreign Relations Committee. I know you have had them in Armed Services, where you are the distinguished chairman. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle understands what a blow to our credibility--this is not a pejorative statement--has occurred to us since August-September of 2013. People understand in the region and in the world our credibility has diminished over the redline. This is just sending a signal to people even more fully that we cannot be counted upon; that the objectives we lay out to achieve a balance of power, to help our friends, to counter the nefarious activities that everyone acknowledges Iran is conducting cannot be conducted. It is another stake in the heart about what we value most about our Nation; that is, our credibility to others. I hope this is defeated. I appreciate my friend from Kentucky and his feelings about this particular issue. I don't look at this as a proxy for some other issue relative to the declaration of war. That, to me, is a stretch. This is about a direct relationship and other relationships that you are referring to and--basically--demonstrating that we as a nation cannot be counted upon.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I think it would be wonderful to debate many of the things, at any time, that any Senator wishes to debate, but to use this as a proxy for something totally unrelated, to me, is a most unusual way of approaching the other issues that have been discussed. This has nothing to do with a declaration of war. This has nothing to do with any of those things. This is about whether we want to consummate a sale, a purchase--an arm's length purchase--between two countries that we have said, as a national policy, would help strengthen our own U.S. national interests. If we will remember, the President actually convened--by the way, in a bipartisan way, we supported this--convened these countries to share with them that we were going to be willing to expedite the sale of arms to counter Iranian influence in the region and to continue to have the balance of power that is on the ground. Again, I think, today, based on just the conversations I have had, Republicans and Democrats are going to come together overwhelmingly to table this motion that is definitely, from my standpoint, not in U.S. national interests. I do think what they are speaking to is going to occur. My sense is, there is going to be an overwhelming vote to table this because people realize that while the optics of it--you know, Saudi Arabia, people are wondering about them, which is true--at the end of the day, a vote for this resolution, again, cuts our nose off to spite our face. We are here to do those things that are in our own country's national interest, and I hope today we will bind together and continue to do that by tabling this motion. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.