Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, as we speak, the brave people of Hong Kong are demonstrating to protect their freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. Chinese state TV has portrayed these millions of demonstrators as violent anarchists and separatists, but these Hongkongers are merely insisting that China live up to the promises it made to Hong Kong and the United Kingdom--promises China made as binding conditions of the transfer of sovereignty from London to Beijing. The Chinese Government promised that Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy, including many of the freedoms that Beijing denies to its more than 1 billion subjects on the mainland, but, as the world has learned through bitter experience, the Chinese Communist Party's promises aren't worth the paper they are written on. Slowly but surely, Beijing has chipped away at the independence it promised Hong Kong-- disappearing citizens guilty of wrongthink, undermining Hong Kong's longstanding political and judicial systems, and issuing menacing threats of military intervention to crush the demonstrations. Most Americans are rightly outraged by China's brutal crackdown in Hong Kong. Daryl Morey is one of them. He is the general manager of the Houston Rockets. Just a few days ago, he tweeted a simple and justified phrase: ``Fight for freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.'' Morey probably knew his words would offend the Chinese Communist Party, but he was also violating a different party line--that of his own league, the NBA. For daring to speak up about Hong Kong, Morey was disavowed by his team, his fellow executives, and some of the most famous athletes in the NBA. That is because he was threatening not only the powers that be in China but the cash cow that China represents for American business, including professional basketball. China's government may be red, but its money is green, and plenty of people are willing to cash its checks, no matter the cost. The league's biggest star, LeBron James, said that Morey's support for Hong Kong was ``misinformed'' and ``not educated.'' He reportedly called for Morey to be punished. Perhaps it is no coincidence that LeBron James stands to make billions of dollars from the Chinese market--not only from a higher NBA salary cap, shoe sales, and Nike ads, but also from his own movie company. Often known as King James, perhaps ``Chairman LeBron'' would be a better honorific today. Joe Tsai, owner of the Brooklyn Nets, called the protest in Hong Kong a separatist movement that was trying to carve up Chinese territories like colonial powers or Imperial Japan. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Mr. Tsai is an executive at Alibaba, a Chinese company that developed a Communist propaganda app that hijacked cell phones of anyone who downloaded it. At a Wizards game last week, security confiscated a protest sign that said simply ``Google Uighurs,'' referring to the native people of western China whose culture and religion are being exterminated by the Chinese Communist Party. That sign was not confiscated in China by the secret police but right here in America's national capital. Steve Kerr, the head coach of the Golden State Warriors, drew a moral equivalence between Communist China and the United States. ``None of us are perfect,'' he said, ``and we all have different issues we need to get to.'' Nobody is perfect. That is what he says of an authoritarian regime that starved, shot, or beat to death 50 million of its own people on a forced march to modernity and a regime that runs a network of concentration camps in its western provinces and harvests the organs of political prisoners for its own pampered elite. Nobody is perfect, indeed. This is craven and greedy behavior, and it stands in stark contrast to how America has historically used sports to promote our interests and our aspirations, from the triumph of Black Olympians in Hitler's Germany to the Miracle on Ice against the Soviet Union. Even our diplomatic opening to China happened in part through sports with ping- pong diplomacy. Today, the tables have turned. China has used sports to export its authoritarian model to our soil. So far, it has found too many willing enforcers in the NBA. But it doesn't have to be this way. Commissioner Adam Silver, after a slow start, defended Daryl Morey's right to speak his mind about Hong Kong. He said: Free expression is ``what you guys stand for.'' Too many American companies kowtow to China not because they love its government but because of the tremendous pressure that government can exert on their operations. But the NBA is in a unique position. Beijing can ban an airline, or it can ban a hotel that lists Taiwan as a country in its online drop-down menu, and the Chinese people can use a different airline, or they can use a different hotel, but there is only one NBA. Beijing can't create another one. And here is the rub: There are more than 500 million basketball fans in China. More people in China follow the NBA than there are people in the United States. No doubt Beijing has some leverage over the NBA, as it does over all businesses, but the NBA has a lot of leverage over Beijing. Is Beijing really going to ban the entire league, as they have done with the Houston Rockets, at the risk of alienating more than 500 million people who follow the league and the resultant public backlash that could create? So instead of acting as a bullhorn for Communist propaganda in America, the NBA could be a beacon of freedom in China. They could dare China to shut them out. Let me urge all of these NBA executives and players who say they care about social justice, don't just speak out when the stakes are low for you personally or when the cause is popular among your friends; speak out now when the stakes are deadly high for millions of Hongkongers and more than a billion Chinese, including so many of your fans. LeBron James tweeted not long ago: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Live out that principle consistently. There are a million Uighurs in concentration camps yearning to hear a champion who speaks out on their behalf, particularly since the NBA runs an elite training academy in proximity to those camps. Steve Kerr never held back on expressing his opinion about our President. That is fine. That is his right as an American. But how about some outrage for the authoritarian regime in Beijing? Joe Tsai was born in Taiwan. His fellow Taiwanese live in constant fear of meddling, attack, and subjugation by the Chinese Communist party. Are they separatists for wanting to maintain their way of life? Speak out proudly on behalf of your homeland about the true nature of the government in Beijing. I realize it is a hard thing to ask any person. No doubt this is a harder path than the path many in the NBA are traveling at present. It would require sacrifice, and it would certainly invite the wrath of the Chinese Communist Party. But if the league used its unique leverage for freedom, millions of ordinary Chinese would surely notice, despite an army of Chinese Communist censors arrayed against them. The NBA didn't pick this fight. It probably prefers to avoid this fight. The Chinese Communist Party wants this fight. So the choice isn't to fight or not; it is to win or lose. And perhaps alone among American businesses, the NBA has a shot to win against Beijing. And in any fight against Communists, there can only be one strategy and one policy: victory. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, earlier today, this body confirmed Gen. John Hyten as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The vote was 75 to 22. It should have been 100 to 0. General Hyten has weathered a storm of malicious attacks on his character--attacks that have been elevated by credulous pundits and politicians, even as they have been debunked again and again by independent investigations. Today, General Hyten got his due, and Joint Chiefs gained a great leader--all because he refused to back down and because a majority of this body was willing to follow the facts where they lead. General Hyten has devoted his life to public service. He attended Harvard University on an ROTC scholarship and spent the next three decades mastering warfare in a new domain: space. Today, he is an undisputed expert in space technology and operations, having served in senior positions at Strategic Command, Central Command, Air Force Space Command, and the 50th Space Wing at Schriever Air Force Base. Gen. Hyten's expertise and leadership will only grow more valuable in the years ahead, as the United States competes with China for dominance in space and cyberspace. Unfortunately, we haven't spent the past few months discussing General Hyten's qualifications for the job or the strategic challenges we face as a nation. Instead, Gen. Hyten's nomination was marred by false accusations of misconduct by a subordinate. This accuser has a long and disturbing history of responding to professional setbacks with serious accusations against her superiors. These accusations--all of them, against General Hyten and others in her chain of command--have been dismissed by competent, independent military investigations. Multiple inspectors general have now looked into these claims. Countless manhours have been devoted to uncovering the truth. And the truth is that General Hyten is innocent. Today the Senate said ``enough'' to the malicious claims against him. Ensuring justice for General Hyten meant nothing more and nothing less than following the facts where they lead. When we follow the facts, it sends a clear message to our men and women in uniform that they will be treated fairly by the armed service, not railroaded by a media mob or hung out to dry by their chain of command. For victims of sexual assault and harassment, following the facts will ensure that justice is done. It will mean the same for victims of false claims like General Hyten. I know of few leaders who take sexual misconduct more seriously than my colleague, Senator Martha McSally--herself a victim of sexual assault. It speaks volumes about this case, as well as her own courage, that Senator McSally has stood up for a good man in the face of truly reprehensible attacks. I will close with her words. ``[T]he full truth was revealed in this process,'' she said. ``The truth is that General Hyten is innocent of these charges.'' Indeed he is. So today he has been confirmed as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, with our full confidence that he will continue to serve with the courage and brilliance that have so far distinguished his career.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I would like to speak today about an old friend and mentor, Gene Scalia. Gene is a devoted husband and father, a brilliant lawyer, and a fairminded advocate for workers and the rule of law, and he is an outstanding choice to be our next Secretary of Labor. Gene has proven himself as a top legal mind both in government and in private practice. During the Presidency of George W. Bush, he served as the top lawyer for the Department of Labor, where he stood up for workers by vigorously enforcing the law. When Enron's executives defrauded and bankrupted the company, Gene fought to recover the retirement savings of employees and pensioners. In private practice, Gene fought out-of-control bureaucrats who threatened to undercut America's position as an industrial power. When Washington bureaucrats tried to stop Boeing from building its world- class Dreamliner in South Carolina, he fended off the attack. As a result, thousands of South Carolinians today are employed in good- paying manufacturing jobs, and the world's best airplanes continue to be made right here in America. Gene's resume tells the story well enough. It proves that he is a top expert in labor law who has devoted his life to ensuring that workers and industry alike get a fair shake. But his resume doesn't tell the whole story. I met Gene early in my short career as a lawyer. He was one of my very first bosses. So I got a window into his leadership style and legal mind. I have relied on his hard-earned wisdom and counsel ever since, although, I have to say, Gene was one of the very few lawyers I knew who discouraged me from leaving the law and joining the Army. I think that is less a commentary on my skills as a young lawyer and more a commentary on his need to keep his lawyers on his cases. But he came around and introduced me to his brother Matt, who remains an Army officer to this day, and the Scalia family have been good friends all along. Gene Scalia is one of the most capable and decent men I know in Washington. His dedication to the law and its just application is absolute. Working folks in this country deserve a Labor Secretary of such integrity and conviction, and Gene Scalia will be just such a Secretary. I urge all of my colleagues to confirm him as our next Secretary of Labor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about our resolution, which is to instruct the conferees to adopt the bipartisan Defending America's 5G Future Act into the conference report. Huawei is no ordinary telecom company. It is the eyes and ears of the Chinese Communist Party. That is why the administration earlier this year put it on the Commerce Department's blacklist. It is a rare action that both Republicans and Democrats can support. Our legislation, to a large extent, codifies that decision to keep Huawei on the blacklist and to ensure that Congress has a say on any exclusion, say for a small rural telecom that needs time to transition. We might pass a resolution of disapproval if we oppose that action. But, most importantly, it is to ensure that Congress affirmatively acts to pass a resolution of approval to remove Huawei from the blacklist, because that is where Huawei belongs and where they should stay without a decision of the people's representatives in Congress.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, September 11 is a solemn anniversary. Eighteen years later, we still remember the toll from that terrible day. Nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives in the attacks on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and United Flight 93, but every American experienced the pain of loss that day. Just as we mourn the innocent lives lost, we also remember the heroism of our first responders who ran toward danger and death to help their fellow Americans. Out of the ashes of that terrible tragedy arose a strength and unity that the whole world came to admire. September 11 altered the course of our Nation's history in a blaze of fire and smoke, and for so many Americans, it altered the course of our lives. Our fighting men and women deployed overseas just weeks later and remain in the fight today. So many Americans joined them, enlisting to defend our Nation. Young kids who witnessed firefighters rushing into the burning towers grew up and themselves joined units with old- fashioned names like ``engine'' and ``ladder.'' A generation of intelligence officers dedicated themselves to preventing another 9/11, and they have and still do. Our lives continue to be altered because the consequences of September 11 are still with us. The attacks of 18 years ago continue to claim new victims, as first responders and others succumb to injuries and illnesses that trace back to that morning. The al-Qaida terrorists who attacked us are bloodied, yet undefeated, while the Taliban terrorists who gave safe haven threaten to regain control in Afghanistan. Most tragic of all, our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines continue to fall in the line of duty and defense of our country. Just last week, Army SFC Elis A. Barreto Ortiz was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan. September 11 is his story, too--the story of valor and sacrifice. So the story of September 11 continues to unfold many years after the fact. May its memory strengthen our resolve to continue fighting the enemies of freedom, and may we never ever forget. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 10 years ago today, CPL Benjamin Kopp's spirit departed from this world, but he remains with us in far more than memory. Ben was raised in Minnesota, where his mother described him as a boy's boy. He played in the dirt with toy trucks and revered his great- grandfather, a decorated veteran from World War II. Then came 9/11, which changed Ben's life forever, just as it changed the lives of so many Americans. Ben was only 13--little more than a boy--but on that day of tragedy, he felt the call of duty to his country. Moreover, he sensed a rendezvous with destiny. Remembering his great-grandfather, the heroic veteran, Ben enlisted in the U.S. Army at the age of 18, shipping off for basic training at Fort Benning not long after his high school graduation. There, he grew into a man and an Army Ranger. He was assigned to fight with the Army's famed 75th Ranger Regiment. He served two deployments in Iraq and then went to Afghanistan in 2009. There, Ben and his buddies were exposed to heavy combat, as Rangers usually are. On June 10, 2009, they were engaged in an hours- long, intense firefight with Taliban insurgents in Helmand Province. Ben was leading a machine gun crew, providing suppressive fire for a group of Rangers amid enemy onslaught. Ben exposed himself and was shot behind the knee right in an artery. He was evacuated from the battlefield and placed in an induced coma. Despite the surgeon's best efforts, Ben never recovered from the loss of blood and cardiac arrest he had suffered. Eight days later, on July 18, 2009, at the age of only 21, at Walter Reed Medical Center, Ben Kopp returned home to the Lord. Yet Ben is with us still. The heart of this Ranger beats on even today. Let me explain. Before deploying, Ben did a lot of paperwork, as all soldiers do. On one form, he checked the box to be an organ donor. Where it asked which organs he wished to donate, he simply wrote ``any that are needed.'' In death, as in life, Ben lived up to the Ranger creed. He shouldered more than his share of the task, ``one-hundred-percent and then some.'' So just 2 days after Ben's heart stopped beating, it beat anew in the chest of Judy Meikle, an Illinois woman who waited 7 months just to get on the organ donation list. ``How can you have a better heart,'' Judy said as she recovered. ``I have the heart of a 21-year-old Army Ranger war hero beating in me.'' Ultimately, scores of people came to benefit from the sacrifice of this young soldier in Minnesota from his very blood and bones. Four lives were saved, all told, because Ben gave his all, his very body, for their sake. Ben departed 10 years ago, but his legacy lives on in the patients whose lives he touched and through the brave work of his mother, Jill, who has devoted her life to veterans' causes. This year, she organized the second annual Freedom Walk to the Wall and challenged America to walk 1 million miles in honor of our fallen heroes. The tragedy of Ben's loss has touched Jill in unexpected ways as well. She has remained close with the Army Rangers who served alongside Ben and even with those who had never met him. Just recently, two freshly minted Rangers from Minnesota reached out to speak with Jill. You could say that she lost her son but gained a family of Rangers. In Genesis, it is written that the Lord God created Eve in the rib of Adam, the first man. When God brought her to Adam, He said, ``This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.'' That mysterious passage takes on new meaning when we reflect on stories like Ben's. Thanks to his willing sacrifice, Ben connected with scores of his countrymen in one of the most intimate ways imaginable. For all time, they will remain bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. Rangers lead the way. That is what new Rangers learn at Fort Benning. In life and in death, CPL Ben Kopp led the way, and his story will inspire us for many years to come, for, indeed, he is with us still. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I want to call your attention to a story that is tragic but also heartwarming and uplifting. Honorary Colonel River ``Oakley'' Nimmo of Camden, AR, passed away last month at the age of 5 after a protracted struggle with his enemy, a rare form of cancer called neuroblastoma. Oakley's family remembers him as a ``sweet, brave boy'' who liked to play with power wheels and toy guns, but all those who knew him or who have learned about him will remember Oakley for an act of service that perhaps only a child could perform. Oakley wanted to be an Army man when he grew up. Even in the advanced stages of his fight with cancer, you would find him at the hospital wearing camouflage fatigues and a helmet, with his trusty rifle by his side and a smile on his face. Oakley fought his cancer valiantly, going above and beyond the call of duty. He was strengthened along the way by his Arkansas neighbors, who held yard sales and sold bracelets to help the Nimmo family pay for his care. He was also supported by 20,000 prayer warriors on a Facebook page entitled ``Prayers for Oakley Nimmo.'' But ultimately it was God's will that Oakley should return home to him. He passed away on the 20th of June. In light of Oakley's heroic struggle, as well as his dream of becoming an Army man, Oakley was named an honorary colonel in the Arkansas National Guard. In the days leading up to his funeral, his family made a simple request: that veterans and servicemembers show up at the funeral in their uniform to give Oakley the proper sendoff. Word got around, and dozens came. Some traveled from nearby towns. Most had never even met this little boy, but it didn't matter--he was a soldier like one of them. Soldiers from the Arkansas National Guard provided funeral honors for Oakley. They presented Oakley's mother, Shelby, with the flag and a special ID tag with his name on it. Like a true soldier, Oakley was sent off from this world to the moving tune of ``Taps'' played by a military bugler. Colonel Nimmo's tour of duty on this Earth was brief, but he did teach an important lesson to all of us. At times, some voices may express doubts about our military, but Oakley reminded us--as perhaps only a child could--that being an Army man, a brave protector of our Nation, is one of the highest honors to which an American can be called. The veterans and the servicemembers who attended Oakley's funeral were there to honor him, but, in fact, it was a double honor because through his life and dreams, little Oakley honored them in return. Oakley looked up to our troops in life. Now he looks down on them from above, where he will remain in God's presence and our memory as a brave fighter against cancer, an inspiration, and indeed, for all time, an Army man. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on whether to disarm our troops as they face a growing campaign of Iranian aggression in the Middle East. Tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on whether to empower the Ayatollahs as they continue to rampage across the Middle East, attacking U.S. aircraft, attacking ships in the high seas, threatening our troops in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Qatar, and elsewhere. That is because we will be voting tomorrow morning on an amendment that says, very simply: ``No funds may be used to conduct hostilities against the Government of Iran, against the Armed Forces of Iran, or in the territory of Iran, except pursuant to an Act or a joint resolution of Congress specifically authorizing such hostilities.'' That amendment is simple--I would say simple-minded--but it is simply an act of appeasement against the Ayatollahs who are currently conducting attacks against the United States and our interests on a regular and growing basis. Let's just take a case in point. The earlier version of this amendment included no exception--no exception whatsoever--for our troops to defend themselves against an attack by Iran. You might say that is a careless omission. I would, however, say that even the fact that it was changed after I pointed out that omission just goes to show you that the root of this amendment is Trump derangement syndrome. It does have an exception now. Let's look at that: ``Nothing can be construed to restrict the use of the United States Armed Forces to defend''--to defend--``against an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.'' What does that mean? What does it mean to defend against an attack? I don't know. I am not sure. If an F-15 pilot is shot upon in international airspace, I guess he can deploy countermeasures--chaff-- to disrupt the missile. Can he shoot back? Can he shoot back at the Iranian missile battery that shot at him? Let's say our troops who are garrisoned in places like Iraq and Syria have incoming mortar fire by an Iranian proxy militia. I guess they can duck and cover in a concrete bunker. I guess that is defense. Can they use counterbattery fire to shoot back at that mortar firing position? I don't know. I don't know. Can they? Beats me. We have thousands of troops stationed at Al Udeid Air Base, the main airbase from which we conducted operations against the Islamic State. Let's say they have a missile coming in. I guess they can use a patriot missile defense system to shoot that missile down. Can they fire back at the missile battery that shot that missile, which has many more to fire? I don't know. Can they? It seems like offense to me. Maybe it is defense. Let's take a page from history. In 1988, Ronald Reagan authorized one of the largest naval engagements since World War II in response to the exact kinds of attacks against commercial shipping and the U.S. Navy on the high seas that we have seen from Iran in the last 2 weeks. However, that operation didn't commence for 4 days; it was 4 days after a U.S. Navy frigate hit one of the Iranian mines before we struck back. Is that in defense against an Iranian attack? It doesn't seem that it would be, to me. I don't know. What we are debating here is how many lawyers can dance on a head of a pin when our soldiers are in harm's way. They need to know that when they are shot upon, they can fire back, and they can eliminate that threat without any politician in Washington or any lawyer at the Department of Defense looking over their shoulders and second-guessing them. That is not what they get from this amendment, though. Consider also the consequences. Many of the speakers today will say this is about deescalating tension in the Middle East--deescalating. Who is escalating it? Who is the one firing on American aircraft? Not Donald Trump. Who is interfering with the freedom of navigation on the high seas? It is not Donald Trump; it is the Ayatollahs. They are the ones who have manufactured this crisis because they know that the United States is on the strategic offensive and that we have the initiative against Iran for the first time in 40 years. This amendment, though, would only embolden them to continue the campaign of the last 2 months of gradually marching up the escalatory ladder. It started with threats. Then it was an attack on foreign vessels at port. Then it was an attack on foreign vessels on the high seas. Then it was an attack on an unmanned American aircraft. Next it might be an attack on a manned American aircraft or a U.S. ship. And the message we are going to send is this: Well, the Congress thinks that the Commander in Chief and, for that matter, battalion commanders on the ground don't have the authority and the flexibility they need to take the appropriate response, as opposed to cowering inside bunkers and using some defensive measures. Let's also think about the language of this amendment. A lot of people are going to come here and say that this is about our constitutional authority, and we need to reclaim our authority, and we have given up too much authority to the executive branch. In a lot of instances I would agree with that. But this amendment is only about Iran. It is not about China; it is not about Russia--even though this President has forced our Democratic friends to finally discover their inner cold warrior. This is only about Iran in the context of Iran shooting down an American aircraft just a week ago. What better message can you send that this is not about our constitutional authority? This is about trying to tie the hands of a Commander in Chief whom they dislike at a time when a foreign nation is targeting our aircraft and our servicemembers. This amendment would be a loud and clear message to the Ayatollahs that we will not strike back, that they can escalate even further, and that there will not be swift reprisal. If there is, it will generate intense controversy in our country. It will only embolden them further to march up that escalatory ladder and threaten American lives. It is a hall pass for Iranian escalation, really. Look, there is no amendment, no bill, no paper resolution that can change the iron laws of geopolitics. Strength deters and weakness provokes. Wars are not won by paper resolutions. They are won by iron resolution. But this amendment embodies irresolution, weakness, timidity, diffidence. This Congress on a good day can rename a post office, and that is only after months and months of debate about the post office. Are you telling me--are you telling me that if Iran shoots down an American aircraft or continues attacks on partners like the United Arab Emirates, then this Congress in a matter of minutes and hours is going to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force to respond to that kind of provocation? Please. There is a reason we have one Commander in Chief, not 535 commanders in chief--or, I say again, 535 battalion commanders, the level at which some of these decisions ought to be made. Think about the kind of debates we have, the know-nothings we have seen here in Washington over the last couple of weeks who would say: Oh, it wasn't Iran that made the attack. OK, it was Iran, but maybe it wasn't authorized by the senior leadership of Iran. OK, it was authorized, but it didn't really do that much damage. It is kind of like the old line of: It is not my dog. He didn't bite you. You kicked him first. That is what that debate would devolve into while our troops are at risk. This is a terrible amendment. It will do nothing but put more American lives at risk and imperil our interests and our partners throughout the region. I know that the minority leader said earlier that he is worried about the President bumbling into war. He said it last week on TV too. Nations don't bumble into war. He and others have raised the prospect of endless wars, the wars we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are long, and we have made lots of twists and turns on the way. But let's not forget that many of the Democrats in this Chamber voted to authorize those wars. We didn't bumble into those. They were considered, deliberate decisions. President Trump said just a couple days ago that he is not talking about that kind of operation. He is talking about the exact kind of thing that Ronald Reagan did in response to Iranian aggression on the high seas. That didn't start a war. Ronald Reagan didn't start a war when he retaliated against Libya for acts of terrorism against our troops in 1986. Donald Trump didn't start a war when he struck Syria in 2017 and 2018 for gassing its own people. If you want a Democratic example, Bill Clinton didn't start a war when he struck Iraq in 1993 and 1998. This amendment purports to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief relative only to a single nation, which just so happens to be the nation that just shot down an American aircraft. The only result that will come of this amendment passing will be to embolden the Ayatollahs and make more likely that which its proponents wish to avoid. I urge all of my colleagues to see the reality of this amendment and to vote no tomorrow morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, there has been a lot of confusion and outright misinformation about some proposed arms sales to our gulf partners--specifically, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. I am grateful for the opportunity this morning to clear up a few things, especially considering the current high stakes in the region. As many of you probably have heard, the Islamic Republic of Iran just this morning shot down an American surveillance aircraft over the Strait of Hormuz--yet another act of reckless, unprovoked aggression targeting lawful behavior on the high seas and in the skies. Still, I know that for some of my colleagues here, Iranian acts of violence are always to be excused or somehow always the fault of America and especially of the Trump administration, to which the only appropriate response is to continue to appease the ayatollahs, to send them pallets of cash, as the last administration did, and give them billions of dollars in relief for sanctions--essentially to say: Pretty please, stop your acts of terroristic aggression and imperial ambition throughout the region. It is my duty to inform all those colleagues that this is dangerous and misguided thinking. Iran, as it did in the mid-1980s, will meet American restraint with continued aggression. It will watch the outcome of today's votes in support for our friends in the gulf for signs of resolve or weakness. I urge my fellow Senators to send the right message to Tehran. The administration plans to sell roughly $8 billion in arms to our gulf partners so they can defend themselves, as well as the many thousands of Americans within their borders--all from Iranian aggression. Canceling those sales would not only endanger Americans overseas and deprive American industry of billions in exports, it would weaken some of the only countries in a position to effectively resist Iran's violent rampage throughout the Middle East. We have heard many objections to these arms sales. First and most amazing, given the stakes, some Democrats object for procedural reasons. They are upset that the administration is proceeding over an informal hold placed by the senior Senator from New Jersey. In doing so, they claim that the administration is violating a long tradition of honoring informal holds by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In effect, they are saying: Let's block arms sales to our allies in an emergency because the Secretary of State hurt the feelings of a few Senators. The actual purpose of those holds--only a courtesy; not a rule; not a law--is to give those Senators time to fully examine a proposal and to foster engagement between the Senate and administration in good faith. But that is not how this hold is being used. These arms sales have been held for more than a year--more than a year. How much time does the Senator from New Jersey need to make up his mind? How many times does the Secretary of State have to call him and meet with him? How many briefings do they have to provide? How many memos do they have to send? This is not a request for more information or trying to work together in good faith. This is a stalling tactic, through and through. It is yet another example of the Democrats engaged in psychological projection in accusing this administration of violating norms, when in fact they are the ones who have been violating longstanding, unwritten rules, customs, and norms. The administration is moving forward with this sale by making an emergency declaration, as provided by law and as Presidents have done many times in the past. President Reagan proceeded with sales of air- defense systems to, yes, Saudi Arabia using this very same provision. President George H. W. Bush did so as well, selling tanks and fighter aircraft to, yes, Saudi Arabia. Even without this precedent, can there be any doubt--any doubt that our partners in the gulf are facing a genuine emergency as they fend off Iran? Oil tankers flying the flags of our allies and partners are ablaze in the Gulf of Oman. Civilian airports, oil pipelines, and American surveillance aircraft have all come under rocket attacks from Iran's terror proxy in Yemen. Make no mistake--this is a genuine emergency, but too few of my colleagues are willing to see the plain facts. They want to talk about anything that will change the subject from Iran and its campaign of aggression throughout the Middle East. A second objection is that some argue that our gulf partners are somehow beneath our support. Really? It was the United Arab Emirates, after all, that hosted Pope Francis earlier this year, and he conducted a mass for Christians in that nation. The Kingdom of Jordan is another important friend caught in the crossfire of this debate. Jordan has been a reliable and trustworthy partner of the United States for many years, and today it bears the brunt of the refugee crisis and chaos created by Assad's Iran-backed butchery in Syria. While Democrats try to frame this vote as support for our gulf partners alone, let's not forget that numerous other strong allies of the United States would be affected by these votes as well, countries like the United Kingdom and France and South Korea and Israel--all part of the supply chain affected by these deals. Rejecting these sales will hurt them, too, and now is not the time to be rejecting our friends. Of course, you couldn't make any of these observations about the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is about as likely to host the Pope as it is to host a Pride parade. Lost in the criticism of our partners is a much more worthy discussion about the elaborate architecture of torture and repression supervised by Ayatollah Khameini, who is personally responsible for American citizens being held in appalling captivity for years at a time. One such American citizen, Bob Levinson, has been missing in Iran for more than a decade. The same media and politicians who trumpet every misdeed of America's steadfast partners in the region--regardless of whether such misdeeds are fact or fiction--are strangely silent about the undisputed fact that Iran has the blood on its hands of more than 600 American troops in Iraq in the last decade. Six hundred Americans were killed at the hands of Iran. Yet we propose to deny arms sales to some of the only countries that are committed to resisting Iran's bloodstained, anti- American theocracy? It is time to get our priorities straight. Third, still other critics fault our gulf partners for their involvement in the civil war in Yemen, as though they are the aggressors in Yemen rather than states that were pulled into a conflict to push an Iranian-armed rebel group off of the Arabian Peninsula at the request of the Government of Yemen and with the support of the United Nations. Evidently, some of my fellow Senators would counsel our gulf partners to do nothing as a rebel group, armed by their sworn enemy, plunged a neighboring country into chaos, shooting rockets at their airports and oil pipelines. That would indeed be quite a restrained foreign policy. Some might also call it the height of stupidity that we would never tolerate for our own citizens. As to the appalling human rights conditions in Yemen, I think the current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Matthew Tueller, said it best to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ``Almost 100 percent of the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen has been caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis.'' Almost 100 percent. Mr. Tueller is not some Trump appointee. He is not some partisan hack. He is a career Foreign Service officer who served as Ambassador to Yemen under, yes, President Obama. If there is anyone in the U.S. Government who is in a position to know what is going on in Yemen and who is to blame for the carnage in Yemen, it is the man on the ground rather than politicians in Washington. Underlying this whole debate is a romantic wish--a naive delusion-- that our foreign policy can always be pristine, requiring no compromises whatsoever, no acknowledgment of the messy facts around the world, or even that we could flee away from that messy, complicated, dangerous world entirely, relying solely on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to keep us safe. A cursory review of history proves that neither option is available. A cursory review of newspaper headlines proves it too. Our main adversary in the Middle East--the Islamic Republic of Iran-- is a revolutionary power dedicated, from its inception years ago, to the destruction of Americans and, indeed, America itself. They don't try to hide it. ``Death to America'' is their slogan, and they chant it all the time. Our departure from the field will not dissuade the ayatollahs from that purpose; it will only embolden them, as will the abandonment of our allies in the region. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, many State legislatures across the country have taken action recently to protect unborn babies from the violence of abortion. My home State, for instance, Arkansas, has just passed a law to protect unborn babies after 18 weeks of development. This reform is not just supported by Arkansans; it is supported by a large majority of all Americans, more than 70 percent of whom believe unborn babies ought to be protected at or before that stage of pregnancy. These reforms are the work of the pro-life movement, which fights for the most vulnerable among us every day. The pro-life movement seeks change in the noblest tradition of our country and works within our democratic system so that our laws ultimately live up to our highest principle in the words of our Declaration of Independence--that all men are created equal and that all have a basic right to life. Of course, this is a democracy. So not everyone agrees when or even if we ought to protect the unborn. I understand that. I know there are decent people on both sides of this sensitive issue. We resolve our differences and reach compromise through democratic debate. What should never happen, though, is a billion-dollar corporation's trying to dictate these moral questions to us. Politically correct CEOs shouldn't be in the business of threatening normal Americans, but that is exactly what we have seen lately. The loudest objections to these pro-life laws haven't come from the bottom up, from normal citizens who happen to disagree with one another, but from the top down, from cultural elites and, increasingly, from giant corporations that wield their economic power as a weapon to punish the American people for daring to challenge their pro-abortion extremism. Giant media companies, like Disney, Netflix, and WarnerMedia, have threatened to cripple Georgia's film industry if its residents don't bend the knee and betray their pro-life convictions. Just last Monday, the New York Times ran a full-page advertisement that was organized by the pro-abortion lobby and was signed by the CEOs of hundreds of companies that read that legal protections for unborn babies are ``bad for business.'' How disgusting is that? Caring for a little baby is ``bad for business.'' Now, I get why outfits like Planned Parenthood and NARAL would say babies are bad for business. Abortion is their business, after all, and they are just protecting market share. Yet what about all of those other CEOs? Why do they think babies are ``bad for business''? It is, perhaps, because they want their workers to focus single-mindedly on working, not on building families and raising children. All these politically correct CEOs want company men and women, not family men and women. They will support your individuality and self- expression just as long as you stay unattached and on the clock. You couldn't find a more perfect example of this mindset than that of &pizza, one of those companies whose CEO signed the pro-abortion ad. This company, &pizza, doesn't even offer paid maternity leave to its employees, but it does celebrate their oneness and individuality. It will even pay employees to get a tattoo of the company logo. So if you want to be a walking billboard for your employer, &pizza will foot the bill, but if you are pregnant with a child, tough luck. In the spirit of some of these CEOs, I might call for a boycott of &pizza for their political correctness, but you could just skip them because their pizza is lousy anyway. There is a troubling trend among giant corporations using their wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people. As liberal activists have lost control of the judiciary, they have turned to a different hub of power to impose their views on the rest of the country. This time it is private power located in a few megacities on the coasts. That is not an exaggeration. The overwhelming majority of companies that lashed out against the pro-life movement in that New York Times ad are headquartered on the coasts, hoping to rule the rest of us like colonies in the hinterlands. More than three-quarters are headquartered in New York or California alone. More than a dozen are foreign companies. Yet those same companies presume to tell all of America what we should think. For some reason, this outrage only seems to go in one direction. As States like Arkansas have passed pro-life laws, other States have sadly gone down a different path, stripping unborn children of recognition and protection under the law. States like New York, Illinois, and Vermont recently passed laws declaring abortion a fundamental right, accessible until moments before birth for practically any reason as long as you have a doctor's note. We have already begun to see the consequences of these laws which strain so mightily to defy and deny the humanity of the unborn. In New York City, prosecutors recently dropped a charge of abortion against a man who brutally stabbed to death his girlfriend and her unborn child. They dropped that charge because the pro-abortion law that had just passed the legislature in Albany removed all criminal penalties for killing an unborn child. According to the laws of New York State, that woman's child never existed. The pro-abortion laws passed in New York, Illinois, Vermont, and elsewhere truly deserve the label ``radical.'' So why isn't the national media covering these radical laws with the same intensity they have reserved for States like Georgia? Where are the indignant CEOs who profess to care so much for their female employees? They are nowhere to be found because their outrage is very selective. They don't speak for the majority of Americans, much less for women. Instead, they are actively trying to force a pro-abortion agenda on an unwilling public. These companies want to wield a veto power over the democratic debate and decisions of Arkansans and citizens across our country. They want to force the latest social fashions of the coasts on small towns they would never visit in a million years. They want us to betray our deeply held beliefs about life and death in favor of a specious account of equality. If there is one thing the New York Times ad got right, it is that ``the future of equality hangs in the balance'' when it comes to abortion, but their idea of equality doesn't include everyone. It omits, it degrades unborn babies as expendable, lesser than even bad for business. That is a strange kind of equality, if you ask me. This trend of intolerance ought to alarm everyone, no matter your views on this sensitive question. It threatens democratic debate on this question and ultimately on all questions. Despite the pressure campaign waged against us, I am heartened because I know the pro-life movement will carry on, as it always has, speaking to the inherent dignity of every human life. Not everything can be measured on a corporate balance sheet. Some things are bigger and more important than the bottom line or what wealthy, politically correct corporations consider bad for business. The cause of life is one of those issues worth fighting for. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Robert Wallace, of Wyoming, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior, and William B. Kilbride, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Kelly Craft, of Kentucky, to be the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador and the Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations, and to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Chad F. Wolf, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Jeffrey Byard, of Alabama, to be Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Troy D. Edgar, of California, to be Chief Financial Officer, all of the Department of Homeland Security, John McLeod Barger, of California, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service, and B. Chad Bungard, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorizd to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs 1s authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection The Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Commerce is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on National Parks The Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on the Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 19, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I wanted to speak today about the proposed disapproval of arms sales to our Gulf partners, Bahrain and Qatar. Last month, the administration notified Congress of its intention to sell Apache helicopters to Qatar. Those helicopters will help with security and counterterrorism patrols, especially ahead of the 2020 World Cup, which, of course, will be a prime target for terrorists. We are also scheduled to sell air-defense missiles to Bahrain, where we have more than 8,500 Americans stationed in Manama at U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet. These sales would also yield more than $3 billion for America, while making Americans safer overseas--what you might call a win-win. By contrast, rejecting these arms sales in a fit of pique would endanger Americans and weaken American influence in the Persian Gulf at precisely the moment when we as a Nation are being severely tested. Right now, the Iranian regime is engaged in a bloody campaign of terror, testing our resolve. Earlier this week, Iran's proxy on the Arabian Peninsula, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, launched a missile attack on a civilian airport in Saudi Arabia, wounding more than two dozen civilians, including women and children. Where did the Houthis get that missile? Yemen isn't known for its defense-industrial base. That missile came from Iran, as surely as if it were launched from Iranian soil itself. In recent weeks, four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, flying the flags of our allies and partners--Norway, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates--were attacked with explosives, in effect, terrorizing all traffic through that strategic chokepoint. Public reports indicate that the Iranians perpetrated these attacks. Let's just say I am confident it wasn't the Swedes settling old grudges against their Nordic rival. Just this morning, hours ago, two tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman, with early indications that the damage is consistent with a torpedo or other projectile. While the attack hasn't been attributed yet, I think it is a safe bet that it wasn't the Omanis. Let's not be naive about what is happening in the Middle East. As Iran's economy staggers under the weight of new American sanctions, the ayatollahs are lashing out and raging against the world. It is essential that we support our Gulf partners during this dangerous time so they can defend themselves from Iranian aggression and its proxies. Besides, the arms we sell to Qatar and Bahrain will also protect all those Americans and their families in Bahrain and Qatar. But instead of helping Qatar and Bahrain to confront a common adversary, some of my colleagues want to hang them out to dry. If we snub our Gulf partners today, though, there will be consequences. Our joint efforts to fight terrorist financing could suffer. Our pressure campaign against Iran could also be jeopardized. If we back away from our partners now, their security needs will not disappear. There will just be adversaries swooping in to support them. Qatar is already considering a major arms deal with Russia. Both Qatar and Bahrain are involved in China's Belt and Road Initiative, an attempt by the Chinese Communist Party to build a world order with itself at the top. So what we are debating today isn't only whether to help or hurt our Gulf partners. It is also whether to push them further into the Chinese and Russian spheres of influence. I understand that a few of my colleagues have qualms about some of the countries with whom America must work as a matter of necessity to protect our security and our interests, but that is no excuse for rash actions that would weaken American influence, threaten Americans overseas, and embolden our adversaries in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow. Make no mistake. The ayatollahs, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping are watching these votes. For those of you who are undecided, I suggest you consider how those men would want you to vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

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