Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, Mr. Grenell has a deep background in diplomacy and strategic communications. He received his master's degree in public administration from Harvard University at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He spent 8 years as spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York and worked for every U.N. Ambassador appointed by George W. Bush. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is scheduled to arrive in DC tomorrow for a 1-day working trip to meet with President Trump. Her visit comes at a time of heightened importance, with a number of critical items on the agenda, including transatlantic trade, the Iran nuclear deal, as well as Russia and Syria. I think it is very fitting that we are voting on this Ambassadorship today. I hope he will be quickly confirmed and sworn in. I yield the floor.

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, 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, thank you for acknowledging me and letting me speak on behalf of our nominee to be Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. I did not know Mike Pompeo well. As a matter of fact, I am not sure I ever met him until he was nominated. I just want to say to the people in this body, I don't think anybody would view me as an apologist in any way for the administration, and I view Mike Pompeo as a highly qualified nominee. I spent a lot of time with him privately and on the phone. He did, I thought, an excellent job in his hearing. We have had a tradition of confirming people to important positions. Just to give a little history, John Kerry was confirmed as Secretary of State by Republicans and Democrats by a vote of 94 to 3. Obviously, John Kerry, my friend, no doubt, had been involved in partisan activities. He ran for President. He is someone, no doubt, who I am sure has said things people did not agree with. Secretary Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State by a vote of 94 to 2--no doubt, the same case. I am sure she said things many Republicans disagreed with when she was a political person as a U.S. Senator running for President. Condoleezza Rice was confirmed to be Secretary of State in a vote of 85 to 13, and Colin Powell was unanimously confirmed as Secretary of State. So we have had a history of the last Secretaries of State to be overwhelmingly confirmed. I realize we are in an atmosphere now where that is just not going to be the case. I realize that my Democratic friends in many cases feel that in supporting Pompeo, it is a proxy for support of the Trump administration policies, which many of them abhor. I understand that. There will be a few Democrats who I believe will support him. I want to say to people in this room, our President has very entrepreneurial tendencies. He talks to people on the phone late at night. He comes in in the morning sometimes with differing points of view than he had the day before. We had evidence of that recently on Syria, where one day, we are going to leave Syria, and the next day, General Mattis and others intervened, and thankfully we are going to stay there and complete the work we are doing against ISIS. I would argue to people here that we need to have someone like Mike Pompeo, who serves the Nation so well. This is a person, by the way, who graduated first in his class at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, in 1986. He served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He also served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, in the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division. After leaving Active Duty, Mr. Pompeo graduated from Harvard Law School, having been editor of the Harvard Law Review. Sometimes we meet people in life who are just sharper than we are, who have had an incredible academic background. I can't even imagine having accomplished some of the things he has accomplished in life. I know the Presiding Officer served, thankfully. We appreciate that he served in our military. People who have served in the military typically have more respect for diplomacy than those who have not because they understand that their diplomatic effort, if successful, is the thing that keeps our men and women out of harm's way. They know that. Pompeo is committed to that. He was there at the Iron Curtain and understood what diplomacy did to free people and keep conflict from occurring. I know he is highly committed to that. We have had cultural issues at the State Department, there is no question. I think everyone understands that. Our former Secretary of State is someone with whom I had a good relationship. No doubt there were some things that were left undone at the State Department. We have a lot of positions that are unfilled. All I can say is that I know our nominee is highly committed to promptly filling those positions. We have some culture issues there as a result. We do, there is no question. We know that. We acknowledge that. As head of the CIA, every month Mike Pompeo sits down with CIA employees in a casual setting where they call him Mike, and they talk with him about what is going on. He is a person who knows how to build culture. He has done so at the CIA. He understands the importance of the professionals who have committed their lives--just like the Foreign Service officers at the State Department--to the CIA. So we have someone who I know is going to build culture. We have someone who I know is committed to diplomacy. Let's talk about where we are in the world today. We have crises all over the world. We have issues with North Korea, Syria, Russia, concerns about some of the things China has done, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq. Who in the world can possibly know more currently about where we are than our Director of the CIA? I can't imagine there is a person in Washington who has more current knowledge about threats--the people involved in those threats, the people we can use to help us deal with those threats--than the Director of the CIA. There could be no one here more qualified or more knowledgeable to step in immediately and deal with the kinds of issues we have to deal with around the world. Look at what has happened in North Korea just recently. We know that the back channels to North Korea have always been through intelligence. We understand that. He was exactly the right person to be there to talk and do the precursor work that needs to be done. Many others need to be involved--Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Defense; many other people, obviously--but Director Pompeo was exactly the right person to go and demonstrate his ability to be dealt with with respect. I will be leaving this body in 8\1/2\ months. It has been the greatest privilege of my life to serve here. As I said to my Republican colleagues yesterday at lunch, I actually think the talent and the caliber of people here in the Senate have risen since I have been here. I think we have the best group of Senators today serving in the Senate that we have had since I have been here. I see a crop of people running for these seats, and I think it may even improve next time. It pains me to know that my friends on the other side of the aisle know that this is a qualified person, this is a person who has demonstrated incredible excellence in his life--he served his country. He has been in the private sector. He served in this body; he was a Congressman. Now he has distinguished himself with his service as Director of the CIA. By the way, in this position, I know many of my Democratic friends have lavished praise on him because of his transparency and honesty in dealing with them but also the way he has built an excellent culture there. We will have a vote on Monday night in the committee. I hope we are able to send him out of committee and to the floor. I hope that the Members on the other side of the aisle who have not yet said how they are going to vote will think about the circumstances we are in today and feel that they can support a highly qualified Secretary of State because they know that having someone like him giving advice to the President, leading diplomacy, making sure the State Department, with the great professionals we have there, is given the ability to do what it does best by leveraging its efforts around the world--I hope that people will think about this and realize that we are much better as a nation having Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State than not having him as Secretary of State and will vote aye on the floor. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

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.

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. The changes that have occurred at the White House in the last several hours, and this--it has been an unusual day, I will say.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the House sent a bill over today a little after 1 o'clock, and it is 11:56 p.m. I know that every Senator here has the right to object, and I assume some people have objected to voting. We are not going to close. I had called down earlier and asked the Secretary if we are not going to vote by 10 o'clock, if we could just vote at 8 o'clock in the morning. This is ridiculous. It is juvenile. This is a juvenile process that we go through every time we do one of these. I would respectfully ask our leader, who has been dealing with a lot today--and I am glad that he has the job he has and I don't, and the Secretary has the job that she has and I don't--could you explain to us what has occurred over the last 11 hours that keeps us here voting on a bill that we all know is going to pass, regardless of how we vote on it and that has kept us from just going ahead and voting? Could you explain to the body, just very quickly, what has happened? And could we in the future possibly try to resolve these things at a decent hour, or come back the next morning and vote?

Mr. CORKER. Well, if I could, reserving the right to object, I would like for us to have some degree of discussion about this in the future--either to finish our business at a normal time or to come back the next morning. This is a ridiculous process that we go through where people extort us until we get so tired that we are willing to do whatever it is they wish for us to do. I don't know what the issues were today. For instance, I would love to have a week's debate on an AUMF at some point. Now, I can hold this vote up on a legitimate issue and say: No, we are not going to vote until you agree that we are going to have an AUMF debate. I haven't done that. To my knowledge, I have never in my life held a vote up. Maybe I did 10 years ago and I can't remember. But I just think that, again, we ought to have a little more certainty around here. I appreciate that people have flights in the morning and that there are some codels going out. So I am not going to object. However, I am going to discuss with other Members, whether in the future, if we cannot finish our business at a reasonable hour, let's just come back the next morning and start. With that, I do not object.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the omnibus bill that we are going to be voting on either later today or tomorrow. I came to the Senate almost 12 years ago. I have 9 months left in my term. I told folks back home that I couldn't imagine serving more than two terms. Yet it has been an incredible privilege to be here. When I ran, I ran concerned about our Nation's fiscal issues, and I ran on the combination of pro-growth tax reform and entitlement reform and dealing with the tremendous deficits that our country has. I really thought we would do something about it. We had the financial crisis that took place back in 2007, 2008, 2009--building in 2007 and occurred in 2008. We dealt with much of it over 2009. I remember talking to people around our country not just about the financial crisis but about the tremendous deficits that our Nation was creating. I was still hopeful in my first term that we would rise to the occasion and actually deal with the fiscal issues that are going to haunt these young people who are our pages sitting before me. We have $21 trillion in debt today and over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities with our long-term programs, our mandatory spending programs. So during that period of time, near the end of my first term, I kept saying to people around the country: There is no question that the Senate and the House, with leadership from the executive branch, will deal with this fiscal issue. I am convinced today that that is not going to happen until there is a crisis in our Nation. Let me say it one more time. Without extreme leadership at the very top, I do not think we will deal with this issue until there is a crisis, because I just don't see the will here to do the things that need to be done. During December we had a debate on the pro-growth tax reform side of this, and I think it is well documented that I had concerns about it. As a matter of fact, when the bill came through the Senate, I voted against it. I continued to work with some of my counterparts on the Democratic side--Chris Coons and others--and the White House, to see if there was some way to potentially alter the bill so that if growth projections didn't achieve what we thought they might be, we had some way of ensuring that we would not have deficits. At the end of the day, when it came to the floor, I supported it--pro-growth tax reform, again, being one of those things that I ran on back in 2006. What concerns me is that today, or maybe tomorrow, we have a 2,232- page omnibus bill before us that sets a base in spending that will be about $2 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years. By the way, that doesn't include some of the supplemental items. I am talking about just the baseline in spending. I think everyone knows that, like the Presiding Officer, I am a very strong supporter of our men and women in uniform. No doubt we all understand that the defense numbers in this bill are way beyond even what the executive branch asked for. Somehow, in these negotiations, we have ended up, over a 2-year period, with an average increase in base spending of about $150 billion. When you multiply that times 10, that is $1.5 trillion. We know there are going to be increases over that 10- year period. Then, if you look at the interest on the debt that it is going to create, we are voting on a bill tonight or tomorrow that is going to add--there is no question--a minimum of $2 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. What was fascinating during the month of December, when we were dealing--let me stop for a second. Let me just say this. There are a lot of discussions about the fact that maybe the Republican Party has lost its soul. There is a lot of discussion about that around the country--that maybe the Republican Party has lost its soul. I will say that for the Republican Party to have the Presidency, for the Republican Party to have the Senate, and for the Republican Party to have the House of Representatives, and for us to be passing a bill today--obviously, it couldn't happen without us; we control the agenda here--for us to be in this situation where we are getting ready to pass a bill that adds $2 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years, or sets the stage for that by passing the first 2 years with a huge increase in base spending with no offsets to speak of, does have to be a wake-up call for people as for whether that is the case. I can't imagine, for instance, had the 2016 election gone a different way and we had a Democratic President and we controlled the House and Senate, our being in a situation where we would vote tonight or tomorrow for a bill that is going to add $2 trillion in debt without offsets. As a matter of fact, I can just tell my colleagues, absolutely, that would not be the case. So here we are. There are going to be all kinds of things in this bill that people don't even know about. It is just human nature. When you have the pen in your hand and you are working in a back room some place--and I don't criticize back rooms; that is how these bills get written--people do things that benefit themselves. They just do. That is the way it works. I don't even want to speak to that. That will be something I hope the media will speak to over the next two or three weeks, when we find, in these 2,232 pages that no one has read, the things in this bill that are going to be egregious to the American people--highly egregious. I hope people will find them. I hope the media will report them. I know they are in there. I just don't know what they are yet because the bill has just been produced. That is of concern. What is of grave concern to me is that we have made no attempt whatsoever to create any kind of offsets and no attempt whatsoever to try to solve our fiscal issues. Together, Republicans and Democrats are running off a cliff and passing a bill. Now, let me speak to Democrats. I am criticizing Republicans, as I should, with this piece of legislation, when we control the executive branch, we control both Houses of Congress, and we are getting ready to pass a bill that will add $2 trillion for these young people to pay for down the road, which will compound, compound, compound. We have $21 trillion in debt today, not to speak of the $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities. My Democrat friends, raised unmitigated H-E-L-L over the tax bill that was potentially going to create some deficits if growth projections didn't occur. I have not heard a word from them--not a word, not a word--about the fact that there is no question that we are adding $2 trillion in debt here--no question. This is money gone, down the tube, out the door, and no way to pay for it. I haven't heard a word from them--not a word. My friends in the media were beside themselves--beside themselves--in December. I mean, the world was going to come to an end if the growth projections that were laid out didn't occur, and the deficits that might be created by this tax bill if we didn't have the growth projections. They were just beside themselves. I have not heard a word from them. It is amazing. Somehow or another, spending more money than we have is different than hoping to create pro-growth tax reform. So let me just say this. I am optimistic about our future. I see young people around our country who are just so impressive. I go to schools. I go to colleges. I see people in townhall meetings, in restaurants, at the grocery store and in other places, and I could not be more upbeat about the generation of people coming after us--who care about others, who care about the future, and who are engaged in issues. We will have a big crowd up here this weekend, caring about a particular issue that they should care about. But I could not be more discouraged about where we are today with our adult leadership here in Congress and at the White House. This is one of the most grotesque pieces of legislation I can remember. One of the best votes I ever made was the Budget Control Act. It was criticized, but it kept domestic and discretionary spending on a level. We should have done the rest of it. The rest of it was people getting together to solve our long-term problems. That didn't happen. We created sequester, and I know that has built some of the pressure that leads us to where this bill is today. This is a grotesque piece of legislation--grotesque--that we would pass a piece of legislation that would set the standard for $2 trillion in deficit spending not offset. I am discouraged. I am discouraged about where we are today. I am discouraged about the fact that we continue to be engaged in generational theft--my generation. We will not deal with mandatory spending--mandatory spending that benefits my generation. To these young people sitting in front of me, we are engaged right now in generational theft because we are transferring from you to us your future resources, because we don't have the courage or the will to deal with issues. By the way, unfortunately, the American people are not there. The American people do not care about this issue because we are living fat and happy today and because the crisis has not yet occurred and because we can slough it off on you and keep ourselves from making these tough decisions. By the way, these tough decisions play themselves out in the polls because people get angry about the fact that we need to be responsible and that we need to make sure that you guys are not going to pay these huge tabs. By the way, your standard of living, when we pass this bill, will be diminished. When you go on to college and graduate and start working in your job, just know that what we are getting ready to do tonight or tomorrow is going to diminish your standard of living, because we are going to pass a huge bill, unpaid for, that you are going to pay for and your children are going to pay for. That is what we are doing. That is what we are doing because we don't have the will as a body to say: OK, if we are going to spend this additional money, what is it that we are going to cut over here? What are we going to do relative to the fact that right now Medicare recipients take about three times out of the program what they put in. What are we going to do about that? Well, see, we are going to do nothing about it because that is unpopular, and people don't want to hear the truth about these things. Instead, what they would rather do is say: Well, let's worry about that down the road. But let me tell you who is going to be worrying about it. You are going to be worrying about it. I know you have seen some outstanding people. I serve with outstanding people in this body. I really do. They are intelligent, hard-working people. I really do. It has been a great privilege. But what you are going to see tonight and tomorrow is a bunch of hard- working people pass a piece of legislation that is going to make your lives and your kids' lives worse. I will not support this piece of legislation. I know it is going to pass overwhelmingly because there is too much in it to make people happy for the moment. But let me just say that down the road the American people are going to be very unhappy with our lack of responsibility. Not only do I question the soul of my own party, I question the soul of the other party, and I wonder where the media is and why they are not out crying over what we are getting ready to do. With that, I yield the floor. 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, yes.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I have enjoyed hearing the discussion about the item before us. I must say that I would feel a whole lot better about this debate if it were focused on our refueling French jets going into Mali--the same exact debate. I assume these individuals would consider those to be hostilities, but, somehow or another, that doesn't rise to congressional approval. This one, I think, is politically tinged. Saudi Arabia certainly has issues. They have conducted themselves in manners that we wish were better. The Crown Prince was here today, and all of us who met with him ``demarched'' him, if you will, on the conduct relative to Yemen. Yet, at the same time, we know that because American folks are involved in refueling and because we are helping, to a degree, with intelligence, we know that less civilians are being killed there. We know that. We know that our being there has affected their conduct. I wish to talk about process here. The sponsors of the resolution, who I have great respect for, have used a very entrepreneurial method to bring this to the floor, and I don't say that to be pejorative. They have reached into the War Powers Act and pulled out something that was unintended for this purpose. I think everyone understands that, and I think everyone understands that if we don't table this, we will be setting a precedent here. It will be a situation of first impression where from now on, when our Air Force is refueling jets in the air, we are involved in hostilities. I don't think that is a standard that we wish to set. I want to argue this on a different level. It is hard for me to believe that we would take up an issue of this serious nature and not allow the committee of jurisdiction to work its will. We had a hearing last week that Senator McConnell set up for all Senators to come in and be briefed on Yemen. His stated reason for doing that was that most people in the Senate don't know much about what is happening in Yemen. People on the Foreign Relations Committee do, and the people on Intel do, and the people in Armed Services do. But most of the Senate has not really been involved recently in that issue. Typically, the way we work around here is that the committee does its work. It does its recommendation. It works with the administration, and you come forth with a piece of legislation. Can we imagine, for instance, with tax reform, if we just had some kind of entrepreneurial way of bringing tax reform to the floor without the Finance Committee working, or bringing FISA to the floor without Intel working? That is not the way we are supposed to do things here. So we have a bill that is being generated right now--it is a bipartisan bill--by Jeanne Shaheen and Todd Young. It may not be the bill we deal with on Yemen, but it is just now being developed. By the way, I skipped a beat here. I want to refresh people's memory as to what we are voting on. We are not voting on anything but a decision to discharge the Yemen issue from the committee without the committee taking any action, without the committee having any hearings. This is a vote to say that we are going to skip the Foreign Relations Committee and we are going to set precedent here on the floor in this entrepreneurial way and that we have reached into the War Powers Act to find a clause to bring it to the floor, which was never intended for this purpose. So what I would say to people is that a better way of handling this would be to table this motion, to let the Foreign Relations Committee do the work that you have assigned the Foreign Relations Committee to do. We are going to have a hearing on Yemen. We have a piece of legislation that is being developed in a bipartisan way, with the Republicans and Democrats, to deal with this issue. Let us work our will in the appropriate way--by the way, in a way that actually will generate an outcome. In addition, I know there are Members on the floor who have been frustrated, as someone referenced earlier, that the 2001-2002 AUMF is still being used. The Presiding Officer has been very involved in trying to develop a new AUMF that would supersede those two AUMFs and give the Senate and the House the ability to weigh in every 4 years on these types of actions. We are going to have a markup on a bill that our Presiding Officer, Senator Kaine from Virginia, Senator Young from Indiana, and many people have been involved in. That markup is going to take place on April 19. So, hopefully, the Senate will not only have an ability to deal with a real bill on Yemen that actually will generate a real outcome coming through committee but also will have the ability to deal with an AUMF that will set aside the fact that for years the Congress has not weighed in on this issue. To me, that is a much better outcome. I urge everyone in this body, instead of following this unique process that is not going to generate an outcome regardless, to allow the Foreign Relations Committee to do its work and to bring a bill to the floor that will generate an outcome. I am going to make a motion in a moment to table it, but I realize there may be one more speaker before I do so.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, that is correct. So, in closing, I would just ask--just like every other committee here in the Senate that hopefully takes its work seriously and does work especially on important matters like this that affect people's lives--that this body would think that a better recommendation would be to table this effort to have this wild West debate on the floor over the course of the next several hours and, instead of doing it in that manner, to give the committee of jurisdiction the ability to work its will with Yemen through hearings, through a process on the committee that would actually bring a bill to the floor that has been thought through and where we had worked with other bodies of government to get it in a place where then it could be amended and dealt with in a more methodical and appropriate way. I would like to remind people one more time that we also plan to mark up an AUMF on April 19 to deal with the lingering issue of having an open situation where we are still dealing with ISIS and al-Qaida and others based on something that was authorized to be done in Afghanistan years ago. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, very briefly, I just want to set the record straight. The House of Representatives voted to say that the war in Yemen is not covered by the 2001-2002 AUMF, and I think this body would agree. They did not do as was just mentioned by the Senator from Vermont. As a matter of fact, they decided not to take up this measure that we are taking up today because they thought it was not a good measure to take up. I don't want anybody in this body to think that the House has already supported this effort. The House not only didn't support it, they wouldn't take it up because they thought it was damaging to our country's foreign policy. I hope that today people will join me in voting to table this motion and to let the committee do its work as it is supposed to do. Let's bring something to the floor that will actually have an outcome, and then let's have a debate down the road on the AUMF--the 2001 and 2002 AUMF--which I hope will be given floor time. With that, I think all time has expired. Mr. President, I move to table the Sanders motion to discharge S.J. Res. 54, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New Jersey, my good friend, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for his comments. Today we met with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, a very impressive young man who is transforming the country. We talked about the importance of our relationship, no doubt, but we strongly, strongly pushed back on what is happening right now in Yemen and asked them to take strong corrective action. I was there when this occurred, and I certainly expressed the same. We also talked about the enrichment they are pursuing and some of the concerns that exist there. I want to thank the ranking member for his leadership and the words he just spoke. Let me just speak to the debate we are having on the floor. This is a very entrepreneurial move. I don't say that to be pejorative. I know one of the Members is on the Judiciary Committee that is bringing this to the floor. I can imagine some highly important judicial issue not being debated in the Judiciary Committee but just being wafted to the floor for a debate. I know that is not the way the Judiciary Committee operates. One of the other Members is on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I can imagine some complex cap-and-trade bill being offered, and instead of it being worked through the committee--or some ethanol bill or some other type of bill--instead of it being worked through the committee, somebody just decides to bring it directly to the floor. That is what is happening here today. I certainly don't shy away from this debate. I appreciate the fact that Mitch McConnell understood that very few Members of our body-- unless they are on the Foreign Relations Committee, Armed Services Committee, or happen to take a particular interest--even know much about what is happening in Yemen, and a lot is happening there. So I appreciated the briefing that took place last week to give Members a sense as to what is occurring there, but the proper way to deal with these issues is to deal with them in committee. One would think that maybe there is some Yemen legislation that the committee is holding and not acting on. That is not the case. Any of these Members could have offered Yemen legislation relative to this issue, and the committee would take it up. That has not occurred. So let me tell my colleagues what is happening in the committee. We have a bill that is being worked on by Senator Young and Senator Shaheen dealing with this very issue. They are building support. They are working with the administration to make sure the definitions are correct, and they have had numbers of people involved with them. We plan to have a Yemen hearing in the next few weeks to deal with this issue but also to take up appropriate legislation. That is the way we typically deal with issues of such importance. Let me say this: This is an issue of great importance. It not only affects the tremendous humanitarian crisis that is occurring in Yemen and the radicalization of the Houthis, supported by Iran--a proxy of Iran--but also Saudi Arabia's own security. It also affects the way we deal with other countries. I think many people here understand fully that right now, or recently, we have been involved in the same kinds of activities with France, as they have dealt with issues in Mali, including refueling and helping them some with intelligence issues. So this is something, again, that we need to take up in a serious way, and the committee is committed to doing so. What I hope will happen today is that Members of this body will let the Foreign Relations Committee do its job and that we will bring a bill forward that we can properly debate and amend. I am hoping that later today, when I offer a tabling motion, Members of this body will respect the members of the Foreign Relations Committee who deal with this issue and let it go back to committee, with the commitment that we plan to bring forth legislation to actually deal appropriately with many of the issues relative to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and ourselves. Let me mention one other thing. We have been working for some time to deal with the authorization for the use of military force. It has been an issue that has been before us for many years. It is the replacement and revision of the 2001-2002 AUMF that many people in this body have had concerns about because it has been so long since they were enacted. We have activities that are taking place around the world still based on those two authorizations. We have a markup on an AUMF on April 19 scheduled to try to revise so we can give people an opportunity to weigh in on this issue on the floor. By the way, the way the AUMF is being constructed at present, when we go into new countries, when we take on new groups, the Senate would have the ability to weigh in on those issues. So I just would like to say to the body and those who are looking in, we are not shying away from this debate. There has been no legislation whatsoever that has been held up on this topic. Legislation is being introduced soon in a bipartisan way to deal with this terrible issue that is taking place in Yemen. We are going to have a hearing. We will have a markup. In addition to that, we are going to have a markup on a new AUMF to deal with the issues our country is dealing with around the world with al-Qaida, ISIS, and other entities that have been associated parties. With that, I just want to let people know that is kind of the way we deal with things around here. None of us is happy with the current status, but I think a better way for us to come up with a prudent solution to what is happening there is to go through the normal committee process. I hope the other Members of the body will respect that. I am glad that, by the way, the ranking member--by the way, this policy has been taking place in Yemen. It started under the Obama administration, the same exact policy. The Senate has acted on it by voting for appropriations, so it is not as if we have not taken action ourselves. We have done that through the NDAA. We have done that through various State Department authorizations. So we have acted upon it. There are concerns about what is happening there. Legislation is going to be introduced to try to deal with this, and that is the way we deal with complicated issues. No one is shying away from the debate. We just hope to table this and move it back and deal with it in the orderly, appropriate way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr President, I have 9 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 is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 9:30 a m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 10:10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: John J. Bartrum, of Indiana, to be an Assistant Secretary, and Lynn A. Johnson, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, both of the Department of Health and Human Services. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Need to Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.'' Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a closed hearing. Subcommitee on Seapower The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. Subcommitee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Update on NHTSA and Automaker Efforts to Repair Defective Takata Air Bag Inflators.'' Subcommitee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nomination of John L. Ryder, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I enjoyed listening to the comments of my friend from Ohio. I think you guys are going to like the amendment I am getting ready to offer. Today I rise to offer an amendment to S. 2155--the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act--of which I am a cosponsor. My amendment is a simple correction that would clarify the intent of this original bill as it relates to custodial banks. As originally introduced, section 402 was intended to provide better tailored capital requirements for true custodial banks. However, there have been concerns raised that the current definition of this section, following revisions during the committee consideration, could open this provision to a wider group of financial institutions. I know that was not the intent of my colleagues, and this technical correction amendment makes clear that section 402 applies only when the primary focus of the banking organization is custodial activities. Section 402 is not intended to provide relief to an organization engaged in consumer banking, investment banking, or other businesses, and that also happens to have some custodial business or a banking subsidiary that engages in custodial activities. In conclusion, section 402 was intended as a very narrowly tailored provision, focused on true custodial banks. This technical correction amendment would clarify the scope of 402. I am requesting a vote and urge my colleagues to support adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor. 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, I will be very brief as I know numbers of people here would like to speak to this bill, which will be an accomplishment for us, and we greatly appreciate the Senator's leadership in making it happen. I was here when Dodd-Frank was passed. I was on the Banking Committee at that time. I didn't support it. The reason I didn't support it is for the many reasons and the many things we are doing today to correct it. Whenever regulation passes, it begins at the targeted group, which, in this case, was made up of the larger institutions in our country which failed. Then, over time, the regulatory processes seeped down to the smaller entities, the smaller banks, that were housed in the communities all across our respective States--the members of the Rotary Club, the Kiwanis Club, the Lions Clubs International, the Chamber of Commerce--the people who make things happen in our communities back home. We have ended up in a situation now in which our community banks and credit unions, which serve our communities and cause economic growth to occur, have these large back office operations that are spread over a smaller asset base. It has made them noncompetitive and has made it very difficult for them to do the jobs we all cherish that they do back home, which is to help to grow those economies. This bill is focused on them. Senator Tester, I know, has been focused on this for many years, but what we are doing here is giving relief to those institutions. It is about time. We have had enough time to see what needs to happen. This was done in a bipartisan way, for which I am thankful. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Crapo for his leadership here in working with people on both sides of the aisle to create a responsible bill that is not an overreach. Some of the provisions of Dodd-Frank, we all know, are good. Some of them are good, and we are leaving many of those in place. At the same time, what we are doing is taking a very constructive step to make sure that these smaller institutions, which represent a very small amount of the assets in our Nation but have such outsized impact on the communities they are in, have the ability again to flourish and do the things that are necessary for our economies back home to grow. I thank Senator Crapo. I am proud to be a part of this and a cosponsor. I thank Senator Crapo for letting us be a part of it, and I hope that collectively we will ensure that this is a very successful effort. I yield the floor. (Mr. HOEVEN assumed the Chair.)

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.

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.