Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. No question. I thank the Senator for those comments. Our staffs have been remarkable, and the years of experience and knowledge they bring to this no doubt allowed us to do something so substantial in an amount of time, yet do so in a methodical way. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank all those involved in the message that is being sent. I support the amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. Thank you.

Mr. CORKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month by a vote of 18 to 3. I would like to thank the members of our committee and the coauthors of this bill for working in a constructive, bipartisan fashion to craft this legislation. I think it is a good example of how the Senate can still work together to tackle complex and difficult issues. I was in the SCIF recently--it is a place where Senators go to read classified information--reviewing intelligence. It truly is astounding--I know the Acting President pro tempore knows this well-- what Iran continues to do around the world. For a people who are capable of so much, their foreign policy is shockingly counter to their own interests. We see destabilizing act after destabilizing act, from missile launches to arms transfers, to terrorist training, to illicit financial activities, to targeting Navy ships and detaining American citizens. The list goes on and on, and it is past time for us to take steps to protect the interests of the United States and our allies. This bill is the first time Congress has come together since the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal, to do just that. For far too long the agreement--which I strongly opposed, as did our ranking member, as did our Acting President pro tempore--has dictated U.S. policy throughout the Middle East. It is worth noting that the JCPOA is not unlike the Paris climate accord. I don't think many people in our country nor many people in this body realize it is a nonbinding political agreement that was entered into by one man using Presidential Executive authority and can easily be undone by one man using Presidential Executive authority. In fact, in many ways it is easier than the Paris accords, considering the President doesn't have to take action to exit this agreement. I don't think most Americans understand that he doesn't even have to take action to exit the agreement. All he has to do is decline to waive sanctions. I think that has been missed. I know the Acting President pro tempore is very aware of that. I know the ranking member is very aware of that. No matter what the President decides, this bill makes it clear that Congress intends to remain involved and will hold Iran accountable for their nonnuclear destabilizing activities. What the nuclear agreement failed to do was allow us to push back against terrorism, human rights issues, there are violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions relative to ballistic missile testing, and to push back against conventional arms purchases which they are not supposed to be involved in. As many of us predicted at the time, Iran's rogue behavior has only escalated since implementation of the agreement, and this bipartisan bill will give the administration tools for holding Tehran accountable. Let me say this. I don't think there is anybody in this Chamber who doesn't believe the Trump administration--and I know there has been a lot of disagreements recently about foreign policy issues in the administration--but I don't think there is anybody here who believes they are not going to do everything they can to push back against these destabilizing activities. What we will be doing today and tomorrow with passage of this legislation is standing hand in hand with them as they do that. It also sends an important signal that the United States will no longer look the other way in the face of continued Iran aggression. I want to recognize the important work of my colleagues in making this legislation possible. Senator Menendez has been a champion for holding Iran accountable in this bill but also in decades of work on this issue. He is truly an asset to the Senate, and I thank him for his commitment to many issues but especially this one. Senators Cotton, Rubio, and Cruz all played an important role in crafting this legislation as well. Finally, let me say this. This would not have been possible without the support and tireless effort of the ranking member, Senator Cardin, and his great staff. It has truly been a pleasure for me to work with him on the Russia bill that we will be voting on today at 2 p.m. but also this legislation--we have come from two very different places, representing two very different States, and yet are joined by the fact that we care deeply about making sure the foreign policy of this country is in the national interests of our citizens and that we as a Congress and as U.S. Senators are doing everything we can to help write positive foreign policy. I thank him for that, and I am proud of the strong bipartisan momentum behind this legislation, which his leadership has helped to happen, and I look forward to passage of this bill.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 240.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I respect my friend from Kentucky. We work together on the Foreign Relations Committee. I could not disagree more on this issue, and I will give a brief outline. The Houthis are an Iran-backed entity that overthrew a Western-backed government in Yemen. Last year on the floor, with a vote of 71 votes, this body voted to support the selling of tanks to Saudi Arabia. Foreign policy partisanship generally stops at the shores. I know Senator Paul has been very consistent on this, but I am afraid this vote is somewhat about some Members wanting to get a piece of President Trump's hide on an issue that is far more important than something like that. I am fearful that this is what is happening today on the floor. A lot of people don't realize that Saudi Arabia already has the bombs. What we would be selling to them is the precision-guided weaponry systems that allow these bombs to be smart bombs and not dumb bombs. Most people have been concerned about Saudi Arabia when they have been involved in pushing back the Houthis, who, by the way, are firing weapons into their country from the southern border. It would be no different than if Mexico were doing that to ours. I know that is not going to happen. But, obviously, we would be firing back. So what is happening here is that they bought the bombs from Italy, and what they want to buy from us is these precision systems that allow them to not kill civilians. It is to protect civilians. Think about this. Here in the Senate we want to protect civilians in Saudi Arabia, and in our wisdom we are looking at blocking the sale of the very mechanisms that would allow that to happen--in some cases, I am afraid, just to make a point against the Trump administration. Actually, their policies here have been very sound. The meeting they had in Saudi Arabia was very beneficial. Saudi Arabia has flaws, but they have been an ally. This would show us as stepping away from an ally in a way that is cutting our nose off to spite our face by not allowing them to have the precision mechanisms to keep them from killing civilians. We have taken Senators down in the SCIF. There is absolutely no evidence that Saudi Arabia tried to kill civilians--none. As a matter of fact, there is evidence to the contrary. So, please, let's be rational. I know there are disagreements over some foreign policy issues. This should not be one of them. I urge defeat of this proposal.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am glad to be down here with our ranking member, Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland. I want to thank him and his staff for working until 10:20 last night to complete negotiations on a Russia amendment. I want to thank Senator Crapo and his staff and Senator Brown and his staff for the work they did on the sanctions component, where over the last 5 months they have worked with our counterparts around the world to make sure that what we did in this piece of legislation was something that was workable. Truly, I think it has been a great effort by four different offices. I am glad that cloture has been filed on that amendment, and I understand we are going to vote on it tomorrow at 2 o'clock. I will be very brief. Senator Cardin and I are here on the floor together, and I know he wants to make some comments about this. Let me just give a brief summary, if I could. The amendment enhances Congress's role in determining sanctions policy on Russia. It provides for the President to use a national security waiver or sanctions termination after giving Congress 30 days to review the proposed action. I think everyone here knows I am a strong proponent of congressional review. We began that under President Obama. To me, it gets us in a place where we are playing an appropriate role in foreign policy. The amendment codifies existing sanctions on Russia for their activities in Ukraine and cyber space. The amendment strengthens and expands existing conduct-based sanctions by requiring the imposition of sanctions on actors undermining cyber security, supplying arms to Syria, human rights abusers, and those involved in corrupt privatization of government- owned assets. It mandates sanctions on Russian deep-water, Arctic, and shale projects worldwide and yet allows for waivers to be made based on national security interests of the United States. This amendment prioritizes U.S. foreign assistance to allies in their fight against Russian aggression. This is something I know Senator Cardin worked hard on, and I appreciate his efforts. It authorizes $250 million to establish the Countering Russian Influence Fund to implement programs in EU and NATO member countries-- Senator Portman played a role in this as well, and I appreciate his efforts--as well as candidate nations, to combat Russian interference, with a priority given to programs that develop cyber security, address public corruption, respond to humanitarian crises, counter disinformation, and support democratic institutions. It requires the State Department and other Federal agencies to collaborate and develop a plan to reduce Ukraine's dependence on Russian energy imports, which we know Russia has used to extort Ukraine. I think it is a very good piece of legislation. I appreciate the contributions of many Members here. I know Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Senator Rubio, and so many people here have been involved in wanting to produce legislation that pushes back in this way. We have tried to utilize the best of many bills that have been put forth. Again, I cannot thank the ranking member and his staff enough for the way they have worked with us to get us to this point.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his comments. Again, I wish to reiterate that the Banking staff, Senator Crapo and his staff, and Senator Brown and his staff did an outstanding job of focusing on sanctions that would work in the appropriate way, as was just laid out, and really brought out the best of the two committees to come up with the legislation that we have. I hope we will have a very strong vote tomorrow. I think this very much supports U.S. foreign policy. I look forward to that taking place tomorrow at 2 o'clock. 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 unaminous 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, 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, 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 constent 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, 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, 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. 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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, we find ourselves at an interesting point. Let me start by saying what a tremendous privilege it is to serve in this body. Every single day that I come to the building from where I live, I express that to myself--what a tremendous privilege it is for all of us to serve in this body, denoted by many as the greatest deliberative body in the world. Certainly, we find ourselves here in a place where we can effect so many things that not only affect our citizens but citizens across the world. What a privilege that is. The Presiding Officer and I have had numerous conversations in the past. I spent a life in business before coming to the Senate, and I know the Presiding Officer did a lot of unique things as well. At the age of 25, I was fortunate enough to build a business, starting with a small amount of money. It ended up operating all around the country. One of the things we did after every project--I built shopping centers around the country--is that we would get together and analyze the things we had done well and the things we had done not so well in an effort to become better. At the end of each year, we would sit down and look at our company, which was growing very rapidly, and try to analyze those things. Sometimes we would have setbacks, but generally speaking, the company continued to operate on an upward trend. What I find here is just the opposite. I have been here now a decade, and what we do is just the opposite of that. What we do is we continue a downward trend because the way the two parties operate with each other is when it gets to a point where there is something very critical that has to happen, the other side says, well, if they were in power, this is what they would do, so let's go ahead and do this ourselves. So what we have in the Senate, at least since I have been here in the last decade, is instead of an escalating situation where we continue to operate better and deal with these things in a more balanced way, what we do is we are on this continual downward trend. One of our younger Members mentioned the other day as we were discussing this--and I thought it was a great point--that what has happened in the Senate is that neither party has had the ability to withstand the pressure that is brought to them by their base in either party. I have seen that play out right now. What happens is their base puts pressure on, and we end up breaking the traditions of the Senate. We did it legislatively with the cloture vote being the scored vote by outside groups. So that is where we find ourselves. What is happening in our own caucus--I just realized over the weekend--is that we are now trying to figure out whom to blame. I heard a discussion last Wednesday that was totally divorced from reality as far as how we had gotten where we are today. I realized that we are getting ready to do some things here that will change the Senate dramatically. What is really happening is that both sides are trying to make sure history records that it was the other side that caused this to happen. We are now starting to see editorials in various publications--some that we Republicans read and some that Democrats read--to try to set the story straight. I about came out of my chair last Wednesday with regard to one of the explanations as to how we got where we are today. My guess is, today at lunch on the other side of the aisle, the same thing will be taking place. Obviously, on our side, it is the other side. On their side, it is our side. Let me go back to 2013. We had a breakdown taking place. President Obama was bringing forth some nominations, and it was right after he was elected for a second term. We went through the summer of 2013 with some of his nominees not getting cloture votes. I was called, as were a few other Senators, to make what we would call some tough votes. These were nominees whom we did not support. Cloture had again become the vote that people were scoring, but I and John McCain and Lamar Alexander and a few others were asked to make some votes that, candidly, were not very pleasant to keep us from getting to a place at which Senator Reid would impose the nuclear option. We made it through the summer, and we went into the fall. We had just confirmed a new circuit court judge for the DC Circuit, which is just below the Supreme Court relative to importance for lots of reasons. So we had a 4-to-4 balance on this circuit court. Senator Reid brought forth three more nominees, and they were not bad nominees. I think most people thought they were actually pretty decent nominees. But we did not want the balance of the DC Circuit to change; it was at 4-to-4. We know that a lot of administrative rulings that are relative to the administration take place in the DC court, so we made the argument that there were already enough judges there and that they did not have a very good case. It was the same argument, by the way, that Democrats made back in 2006 when Bush was also trying to make some nominations. We do the same to each other. So we ended up filibustering those three nominees. What we thought was going to take place was a negotiation on how many judges would actually go when all of a sudden Senator Reid, out of the blue, with some of his Members not realizing what had happened, did the nuclear option. He ruled and called upon the person sitting in the Chair and the Parliamentarian. All of a sudden, we destroyed what had been the case of it taking 60 votes to move beyond to an actual vote on the nominee. I was livid. Somebody said the other day that that was fine and that we had just gotten to where we had wanted to be. Are you kidding me? We were livid. We were livid that on some circuit court nominees, Senator Reid had pulled the nuclear option. I will tell you this: There were days--not days, months--where people who had normally worked with people on the other side of the aisle just kind of shut down. It was hard to believe the nuclear option had been invoked. Last Wednesday, somebody acted like it was no big deal, that it had just gotten us back to where we had always been. The fact is that we have not used filibusters much--years ago. The fact is that we are using them a lot today. Look, this was a big deal. Now we find ourselves in a situation in which we are getting ready to take the last step, if you will, on nominations. Let's face it: We have a nominee in this judge who is on the floor who is really beyond reproach. I realize my friends on the other side of the aisle have pressures. I have talked to some of them, and I respect them. I understand that their base is saying that because of what we did last year. Remember, it had been an hour since the great Justice passed away, and we had already declared we were not going to allow another Justice to be confirmed until after the Presidential race. It was a pretty audacious move, let's face it, and obviously it created some hard feelings on the other side of the aisle after the election was determined. Within their base, many of them are saying they are going to invoke the filibuster here. Our leadership is saying: If that happens, then we ourselves have to invoke the nuclear option on the Supreme Court Justice. We understand where this is going. I do not know what has been said on the floor other than during the hearings, but let's face it: One side is reacting to their base, to their pressure. They are having ads run against them if they are even considering voting to move beyond the cloture vote to an actual vote on the nominee. On our side, obviously, we are in a situation in which, if that happens, then our leader is going to call the nuclear option. By the way, everybody says: Oh, we are never going to do it on legislation. Come on. Let me go back to that for a minute. Back in 2010, the Democrats passed a healthcare bill with 60 votes. Then there was an election, and it took them down below 60 votes. They just needed to fix a little element on the healthcare bill with a reconciliation bill, and the Republicans went crazy over that. How many times have we talked about their passing this healthcare bill with reconciliation? It has been going on for 7 years. Now we are in the driver's seat. We have the majority. We are writing an entire bill through reconciliation because we understand the power of being able to do something with 51 votes. I understand. So what we do is we just keep upping the ante with each other. Are you kidding me? If we continue on the path we are on right now, the very next time there is a legislative proposal that one side of the aisle feels is so important, they cannot let their base down, the pressure builds, then we are going to invoke the nuclear option on a legislative piece. That is what will happen. Somebody will do it. Somebody will say that if they were in control, they would do it. That is the way trust has gotten around here. So we ought to do it because this is our opportunity to really change history. Look, I hope that before we move to the place that we all know we are going--I do not think anybody here would deny that pressures have built. Let's face it. If we do not have respect for the institution we serve and for ourselves, no one else will. Who will? These people know what we are getting ready to do to this place. For us to act like if we do it here, there is no way we would ever do it on a legislative piece--let me tell you this: Two years ago, after Senator Reid did what he did--a friend of mine and somebody I worked very closely with, I think most people know it took me a while to get back to normal with him. Two years ago, there would not have been a single Republican in our caucus who would have even considered voting for the nuclear option. As a matter of fact, we had discussions about changing it back. Then the election occurred, and we decided not to do that. What it looks like to me is that there is a whole host of Republican Senators who are willing to do that today. Everyone knows that on the other side of the aisle--maybe everyone; I don't know. Yet to say that we will never get to the point at which we will not change a legislative piece--give me a break. Somebody is not living in reality, because we each continue to take the other down. Again, I do not really care how history writes it; I am going to tell you how I am going to write it. Neither side of the aisle has had the maturity or the willingness to stand up to the pressures and cause this institution to operate in the way it should--neither side of the aisle. As for anybody who tries to say that one side of the aisle is worse than the other, come on. It takes two of us to take the institution to the place at which we are getting ready to take it next week. That is my history. I have been here 10 years. I have watched it. Neither side of the aisle has clean hands. We have one side. They have a decision to make. Are they really going to filibuster this judge? Let's face it. If you go back and look at the principles of the Gang of 14 that were put in place back in the 2000s, when both sides came together and said: We are not going to do the nuclear option as long as a judge meets these criteria--this judge meets that criteria. It is clear. By the way, I am not criticizing; I am just observing. We both have pressures. We know that if a filibuster takes place--and you will know that immediately; of course, it would be after a few filibuster votes just to show that it cannot happen--the leader on this side is going to invoke the nuclear option. You all know that. I do not know if people are saying that it could happen, but of course that is what is going to happen. And then the very next time another big legislative issue comes up, the same thing is going to happen unless we have the ability to sit down and talk about this. I would love to do it out on the floor. Typically, we do not do those kinds of things because things get out of control when we talk about things honestly here on the floor, but I would like for us to do that. I would love for us to have maybe a 4-hour discussion about what we are getting ready to do here in the Senate. To me, that would be a healthy thing. I think all of these staffers who work up here, whom we respect, know exactly what is getting ready to happen here in the Senate. I think we owe this to people who are getting ready to run for the Senate or maybe to people who are thinking about running for reelection. We should go ahead and have this discussion so that they will know whether they are running for a 6-year House term--a 6-year House term because we do not have the maturity, because we do not trust each other, because we are on this constantly deescalating deal and our leaders do not talk to each other and fight and all of those kinds of things happen, because we are getting ready to take this institution to a place that I do not think many of us are going to be proud of. But, again, for the people who are thinking about running for the Senate, let's go ahead and clear it. Let's have a discussion about this legislative issue so that people will know, if they are seeking election to the U.S. Senate, that they are, in essence, going to sign up, possibly, for a 6-year House term. I am at a place in my Senate life where I have tremendous respect for the people with whom I have served. Every day I come here, I look at the things I have the ability to affect as one Senator. I look at that with such honor, to be able to be in a body that debates these kinds of things and affects people in the way we do. What an honor it is to be here. I am here with no malice. I am here, though, at a time when I see what is getting ready to happen without a lot of discussion, and I hope that somehow or another, we will have the ability to avoid what I see as something that is very, very detrimental to the Senate and, in the process, very detrimental to our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, one of my chief responsibilities as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to help protect the men, women, and institutions that keep America safe, including not only the State Department but the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. NATO was founded in 1949 as an alliance that was committed to the collective defense of its members--that an attack on one constitutes an attack on all. The alliance's self-defense clause has only been invoked once, after 9/11, when our allies deployed with us to Afghanistan. Our militaries, in their working together, allow NATO to function. NATO members have committed to spending 2 percent of their GDPs on their militaries, but only the United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland, Greece, and the United States currently hit that goal. While the other members are working on growing their defense budgets, I have long held the belief that they must do so faster. Regardless, part of what makes NATO great is its open doors. States that are interested in becoming allies are encouraged to join the Partnership for Peace. When those states then meet the criteria for membership, they are welcomed into the alliance. This process is exactly what occurred with Montenegro. Just after becoming an independent country in June of 2006, Montenegro joined the Partnership for Peace in December 2006. Exactly 3 years later, Montenegro obtained its Membership Action Plan. Six years after that, NATO recognized that Montenegro had met all of the necessary standards for membership and invited the country to begin talks to become part of the alliance. Then, in May of 2016, NATO's Foreign Ministers signed the protocol to formally open the way for Montenegro to join. As of today, every other NATO member has already ratified this treaty and Montenegro's inclusion. Beyond such procedural steps, Montenegro has long been contributing to shared security challenges. For example, Montenegro actively supported the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan from 2010 until its end in 2014 and now is supporting the follow-on mission to train, advise, and assist Afghan security forces. It is important to note that Montenegro has taken these steps despite Russia's best efforts to undermine their progress every step of the way. I thank Senator Ben Cardin; the Europe and Regional Security Cooperation Subcommittee chairman, Ron Johnson; and my other colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their support and constructive work during this process. We have moved this treaty ratification twice now--once in the last Congress and again in January--to demonstrate our commitment to NATO and to Montenegro. I also thank Senator McCain, both as a former member of our committee as well as the chair of the Armed Services Committee, for his unwavering support in bringing Montenegro into the alliance. Lastly, on behalf of the committee, I urge all of my colleagues to support this treaty amendment that serves American security interests for a strong NATO. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.