James Risch

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Madam 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Madam 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Madam 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to associate myself with those clear, concise comments of my friend and colleague from the great State of Alaska. He is absolutely right from not only a military standpoint but also from the standpoint of getting this resolved through a political resolution. We are going to consider the Senate joint resolution today, and it is a joint resolution that directs removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostility in the Yemen conflict unless authorized by Congress. The premise of this resolution is fundamentally flawed. Let's start here, though. Every single one of us--all 100 of us--can agree what a horrible situation this is and what a horrible catastrophe this is in Yemen. But this resolution sets a bad precedent for using the War Powers Act to express political disagreements with a President under expedited Senate rules. I want to start by making it absolutely clear what is and what is not happening with respect to our current U.S. engagement in Yemen. First of all, this is what isn't happening. What is not happening is the injection of U.S. troops into active hostilities in Yemen. We are not doing that. What we are doing, however, is most important. We provide limited, noncombat support, including intelligence sharing, and the practices that minimize civilian casualties to the Saudi-led coalition. This support is advisory in nature and helps defend the territorial integrity of the region, which faces a very real threat from the Iranians and the Iranian-backed Houthis. This point can't be understated. The United States conducts war operations entirely differently from any other country on the face of the Earth, and it is done with a direct and involved method of minimizing civilian casualties. Our presence here assists the parties in conducting operations to minimize those civilian casualties, and it is badly needed there because there are tremendous civilian casualties. Iran's support for the Houthis, notably the transfer of missiles and other weaponry, threatens to undermine our partners' territorial integrity. It imperils key shipping routes and puts U.S. interests at risk, including the thousands of U.S. personnel and citizens currently within the range of Iranian-made missile systems under the control of the Houthis. That said, there can be no argument that after 4 long years of conflict, Yemen, a country with a long history of socioeconomic challenges is now in the grip of the world's worst humanitarian crisis at this moment. An estimated 24 million--80 percent of the Yemeni population--are in need of some kind of assistance and 15.9 million people--more than half of the country's population--remain severely food insecure. A resolution to this conflict must be found, and make no mistake, many of us on a bipartisan basis are working regularly every day to do everything within our power to restore peace in a country that has been ravaged by years of proxy war and fractious infighting. But we all recognize that lasting peace can be achieved only through a political settlement brokered by the U.N. The U.N.-led peace talks are our best bet for achieving peace in Yemen, and they appear to be at a critical juncture at this moment. In the past, we have helped advance the negotiations by using the support we provide to the coalition as leverage over the parties to advance the negotiating process. In the past, parties have been reluctant to take on the negotiating process, but in the place we are in, we have the ability to leverage them to get there. As this body considers ways to drive effective U.S. policy that helps end the war and relieves humanitarian suffering in Yemen, I urge Members to bear in mind that the U.N. negotiations are our best hope for achieving peace. We must do everything in our power to advance this cause, and advancing this cause does not mean turning our backs on the negotiations and on what is going on there at this time. We need to stay engaged with the limited engagement that we have had. The peace envoys have come to this body and have testified over and over again, and they are telling us they want deeper U.S. engagement. Voting for this resolution sends a terrible message of U.S. division and lack of resolve. We need to send a signal and resolve that we are committed to playing an important role in pushing for a sustainable political settlement. As I stated, turning our backs at this critical moment is only going to empower them, and it is going to send a message to people that they don't need to negotiate right now and that they are actually making gains. I urge my colleagues to vote against this at this time and give peace a chance through the negotiations. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Madam 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Madam President, along with my colleagues Senator Mike Crapo and Representative Mike Simpson, I recognize an important anniversary being celebrated at the U.S. Department of Energy's, DOE, 890-square-mile site in eastern Idaho. On February 18, 1949, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission decided to build the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho. For 70 years, work done by the scientists, engineers, technicians, and support staff at Idaho's lab has helped promote American prosperity and contributed to our national security. Since 1967, research conducted at Idaho National Laboratory's, INL, Advanced Test Reactor has powered and modernized the U.S. Nuclear Navy. Fifty years ago, the Navy had to refuel its nuclear fleet frequently, an expensive and time-consuming process. Today, as a result of experiments conducted at the Advanced Test Reactor, ATR, the Navy's nuclear fleet can run the lifetime of the ship--more than three decades--without refueling. That saves American taxpayers millions of dollars and ensures that our fleet is actively defending U.S. national security instead of sitting in port waiting to be refueled. Roughly a decade and a half ago, Congress designated INL as the Nation's lead nuclear energy research and development laboratory. This is fitting because on December 20, 1951, INL first demonstrated nuclear fission could be used to generate power to light our homes and cities. Throughout its history, INL has built and operated 52 original nuclear reactors and helped establish an American industry that today produces approximately 19 percent of our Nation's electricity and more than half of our carbon-free electricity. INL has become a world leader in cyber security research and works actively with government and industry to protect and make the Nation's most critical infrastructure more resilient. INL has advanced broader clean energy research, informing electric vehicle deployment and developing bioenergy solutions that benefit the environment and our Nation's farmers. Even as we celebrate INL's 70 years, the lab's leadership and staff are looking ahead. Those seven decades of service provide a foundation upon which today's INL will help this Nation build a brighter future. INL leads the effort to maintain and extend the lives of America's nuclear reactor fleet, while helping industry develop advanced reactor designs, including small modular reactors and microreactors. INL's vital national and homeland security work grows more important every day as our systems become increasingly automated and interdependent. As we eye the energy systems that will power U.S. prosperity into the future, INL's clean energy research is developing breakthroughs that will help integrate renewables into the power grid and allow our manufacturing and transportation systems to operate more efficiently and with less environmental impact. It is our great honor to congratulate INL and DOE on this important anniversary, and to wish its employees well as they work to resolve our nation's pressing clean energy and national security challenges.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, the Committee on Foreign Relations has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 116th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Menendez, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the United States Central Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2020 and the Future Years Defense Program.'' Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the United States Central Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2020 and the Future Years Defense Program.'' Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the outlook for energy and minerals markets in the 116th Congress.'' Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting entitled ``Organizational business meeting to consider committee rules, subcommittee assignments, and an original resolution authorizing expenditures by the committee.'' Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting and the following nominations: Andrew Wheeler, of Virginia, to be Administrator, and Peter C. Wright, of Michigan, to be Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste, both of the Environmental Protection Agency, Nicole R. Nason, of New York, to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, John Fleming, of Louisiana, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, John L. Ryder, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct an organizational business meeting and the following nominations: Michael Faulkender, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary, and Michael J. Desmond, of California, to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General Counsel, both of the Department of the Treasury, Jeffrey Kessler, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and Elizabeth Darling, of Texas, to be Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``How Primary Care Affects Health Care Cost and Outcomes.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Neomi J. Rao, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, and Aditya Bamzai, of Virginia, and Travis LeBlanc, of Maryland, both to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, at 2.30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. RISCH

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

Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I rise to complete, I hope, the lengthy work we have done on S. 1--the first bill we introduced this year. It is from the Foreign Relations Committee, and it is a bipartisan piece of legislation which many people have had input into. It is a conglomerate of several pieces of legislation that we have worked on for a considerable period of time, and all of those I know are supported in a bipartisan way. I would like to walk through the five parts of this very briefly. The first one, of course, is the United States-Israel Security Authorization Assistance Act of 2019. That is one we spent a considerable period of time on. Without a doubt, Israel is one of the best friends we have in the world. Certainly, in the neighborhood they live in, which is a very dangerous neighborhood, they need our help. We work with them very closely in many respects--in many national security respects, with people who aren't out in the public realm and who will probably never be out in the public realm, but they are important for the security of Israel. The second is the Jordan Defense Authorization Act. I think all of us are aware, again, that Jordan is a great friend to have in the Middle East. Like Israel, it lives in a very dangerous neighborhood. Jordan has stood by us through thick and thin and through many challenges we have had. Jordan also has, in its great humanitarian view, taken in a number of refugees there. As we work with Jordan, it is a cooperative effort to help them as they sustain these populations of displaced people who hopefully will be able to return at some point in time. Thirdly, the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019 is also included in this piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that I think my friend from Michigan described quite aptly. It is named after an individual who is very brave and who brought out a lot of evidence of acts that people knew and suspected were happening. He brought them out into the public. This is a bill that will use America's power to sanction, and it will refresh some of the sanctions we have already put in place. It is just an excellent way to attempt to persuade Bashar al-Assad that he is going in a very wrong direction, hurting his people as he is. The Combating BDS Act of 2019 is an act that has some controversy to it. Again, the goals have already been discussed on the floor for many days and at considerable length. Without going into all of the details, it is designed to see that the BDS activity is tamped down and that it is not appropriate to use against our friend Israel. Lastly, the most recent addition, of course, was the McConnell amendment that has been added. This amendment has been badly mischaracterized by the national media for a number of days now. I keep reading where the national media writes that the U.S. Senate rebuked--they used the word ``rebuked''--President Trump. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when President Trump was running for office, he said his bottom line was to attempt to get us out of some of these entanglements that we have had. One, of course, is Afghanistan, which has been on our mind for 17 years. The other was Syria. He rolled out the idea that we shouldn't be considering that. This system worked exactly the way the Founding Fathers intended for it to work. When it comes to foreign relations, when it comes to these kind of matters, it is a joint operation between the first and the second branches of government--between the legislative and the executive branches of government. After the President put this on the table as the leader of the Nation, people began to talk. It was greatly debated both in this body--in the U.S. Senate--in the House of Representatives, and within the administration itself. What has happened with this piece of legislation is, first of all, it commends the President for all of the things he has been able to do in Syria and getting ISIS contained to a very small area that remains. It also lays out the challenges we face and commits to joining the President as we go forward and as we continue the work that is ahead of us in the Middle East. This is a great piece of legislation. I commend it to my fellow Senators. I yield the floor.

Mr. RISCH. Madam President, reserving the right to object, first of all, I want to agree with my distinguished colleague and friend from Michigan as to almost everything he said, with the exception of article IV. This BDS provision is a really important provision, and I understand what he is attempting to do with the exemptions. I understand he is putting them in for the small businesses, but having said that, we really believe this should apply across the board. Once we start the exempting process, it is going to be very difficult to stop. So given that, I object.

Mr. RISCH

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

Mr. RISCH

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

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 97.

Mr. RISCH. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, I want to respond to a number of things said by my distinguished colleague from Kentucky. He makes a number of points that he has been making over the years that deserve serious consideration. I say this is something that deserves a debate. I agree with him that the President of the United States should be commended, not condemned, for raising these issues for a debate. Indeed, that is the purpose of this resolution. As you know, this resolution is made up of many different parts, the most recent of which is the resolution that talks about the very things my good friend was speaking about. This resolution we have in front of us is not a rebuke or an insult to the President of the United States. Indeed, as I read it, it recognizes the President's efforts in this regard and recognizes his efforts for us to examine exactly what we are doing in these places, as Senator Paul has already so eloquently talked about. I think there are a lot of people both in Congress and outside of Congress who recognize that after World War II, the United States was very successful in nation building. Whether or not you agreed with it-- and there is always a debate as to what our obligation is, how far we should go, and how much of the American taxpayers' money we should spend on nation building--we rebuilt Germany, we rebuilt Japan, and after the Korean war, we rebuilt South Korea, and we were very successful in that regard. Not only did we rebuild the nation itself, but we also trained the necessary police efforts there and military efforts for ongoing work. Now, fast-forward to the Middle East and the difficulties we have had there. I don't think there is anyone who could stand up and successfully defend that this has been a successful nation-building effort in the areas Senator Paul referred to. Indeed, they have not been. My view is that before you can give something to somebody, they have to want it. I think we have spent a couple of trillion dollars in Afghanistan. As Senator Paul pointed out, there are things going on there that are very difficult and no better than when we got there 17 years ago. Indeed, in some places, it is probably worse than when we got there 17 years ago. It is appropriate to have that debate as to whether we should continue nation building and whether we should continue to try to stand up and train fighting units in Afghanistan or, for that matter, in other places. Senator Paul referred to only a minimum number of places where we have attempted to train fighters to fight like Americans. The fact is, they just don't. No matter how much training you give them and no matter what kind of equipment you give them, they just don't fight like America's finest. In addition to that, Senator Paul correctly pointed out that in some instances in the Middle East, there are places where tribal disputes have gone on for centuries, and they are still going on. When you try to stand them up to do something else, they just don't do it. They may train, but they will not train to fight for what we want and for the kinds of values and cultures we have. Having said all of that, again, I come back to what we are attempting to do here with the resolution we have in front of us, and that is, we are recognizing that President Trump has started this conversation, and we are encouraging him in that regard. I note that in recent days the national media has delighted in saying that Congress is rebuking the President of the United States. I have a different view of this. The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, as the Chief Executive, started this conversation, and after the conversation was started, there have been numerous discussions--both internally within the executive branch and between the legislative branch and the executive branch--as to the issues the President raised and the issues my good friend Senator Paul was talking about. The result of that is the language we have in front of us that recognizes that the President of the United States started this conversation. It recognizes that he thinks we ought to be talking about some of these things, just as Senator Paul has raised and has debated, and we should continue talking about those. So the purposes of the resolution are, I would urge, pretty much the opposite of what Senator Paul talks about when he says we are rebuking the President or criticizing the President or in any other way insulting the President. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. This progress--this process is working exactly the way it was intended to work, and that is for someone--in this case, the leader of the Nation--to raise these issues, and then discussions take place amongst all of the people who have an interest in this and everyone who believes they have some input into this, recognizing both the shortcomings and the successes of what we have had. Certainly, the President is to be commended for what he has said about defeating the vast majority of ISIS. That group is a shadow of its former self. As Senator Paul noted, the vast majority of the land holdings it had have been taken back, so there is a great victory there. There is certainly more work to be done. I agree with Senator Paul that this is a little bit like the laundry--it is never going to be completely done. As long as the Middle East exists, as long as there are people who are inclined to do this sort of thing, people who are radicals, this sort of thing is going to go on. Where I part company a bit with Senator Paul is that we can do things over there that will make us safer here. Senator Paul is right. Intelligence plays a huge role in this. Indeed, had we had a better handle before 9/11, that could have been disrupted, just as we have disrupted many other efforts to attack the homeland, the vast majority of which the American people will never hear about. In any event, I think we should all get behind this particular resolution. I think it encourages the President for the road that he is going down to take each of these elements, to look at them critically, and to determine what we need to do to continue to protect Americans. When the President first rolled out this idea, one of the things I think is important is that I don't think he ever indicated that he was somehow going to withdraw from the Middle East and give up all the platforms that we have and that we must have if, indeed, we get something going on to a point like we had right before 9/11 where there were these training camps in Afghanistan that were training people to come to America and do what they did. If the intelligence people are able to determine that, then I think we need to be able to hit that with an operation that will dismantle it. It doesn't have to be a war that goes on for very long; indeed, many of these are 1-night operations. That is the way these things need to be handled. In any event, I would urge everyone to get behind this particular resolution we have encouraging the President and encouraging people on all sides of the issue who have strong feelings about it, just as my good friend Senator Paul has, to get their two cents' worth in here and then we all work together to make this work right and not be pulling at each other and encouraging our enemies in that regard. Mr. President, I object to the request made.

Mr. RISCH. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, fellow Senators, again I part ways with my good friend Senator Paul on this one, to a large degree. The speech he gave, I am in absolute agreement that the government should not be stopping any individual from boycotting whatever they want to boycott for whatever reason they want to boycott. This is America. You have the First Amendment right to do that, but I would draw attention to section 402, which simply states: ``Nonpreemption of measures by state and local governments to divest from entities that engage in certain boycott, divestment, or sanctions activities targeting Israel or persons doing business in Israel or Israel- controlled territories.'' Look, if an individual wants to do this, this is America. People can do what they want, but if a government--State or local government--is going to use taxpayer dollars to engage in anti-Israel activities, that is a different ball game. They are then using people's funds who disagree with what they want to do, and that is not right. State and local governments should not in any way be involved in boycotting other countries, particularly--particularly--a country that is one of the best friends we have in the world, really the only democracy in the Middle East, and they are doing it, why? Because they are Jewish people. This is wrong. This is very wrong. The BDS Act we have here prohibits State and local governments from doing that. Any person who wants to do that has the First Amendment right to do that. In any event, we think this is a good measure that prohibits State and local governments from spending taxpayers' money in a way that many taxpayers don't want it spent. I object.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me thank Senator Kennedy. I think he has articulated a number of things that are important to us, and it is important that we do debate these things. When the Founding Fathers put the Constitution together, they were very clear on article I rights, legislative rights, and some on the executive branch rights. On foreign policy, I think that was a work still in progress with them, and they left it with both branches to have a role in both crafting the foreign policy of this country and also in execution of the foreign policy of this country. In essence, that is what we are doing with S. 1. S. 1 is a work that has been going on for a considerable period of time, and it addresses the relationships we have with a number of our friends in the Middle East. I think I heard the Senator say he did agree with S. 1 and the things that are in there, trying to help our friends the Israelis, trying to help our friends the Jordanians, and also trying to help what friends we have in Syria to help them shed the yoke of Bashar al-Assad, which is the Caeser bill, which is included in this. This is a conglomeration of about four different bills. It is bipartisan, not something that is common around here these days, but it is bipartisan in almost all respects, and it does do a lot of the things we want it to do. So I appreciate hearing his support for S. 1. I want to talk for just a minute about a couple of issues he raised. No. 1, talking about the debate that has been going on within the executive branch on certain issues. This is the way it is supposed to work. Most of the time, this is done in the Intelligence Committee and in the Foreign Relations Committee in closed hearings. Occasionally, it bubbles over, as it has recently, where there were some statements made by the intelligence community that the President didn't necessarily subscribe to, but the intelligence community was doing its job. There are 17 committed intelligence Agencies of the United States. Every day, they gather a massive amount of information which they try to boil down and understand where we are headed. Their job is to gather that and to submit it to policymakers--this body, to the Foreign Relations Committee, to the Intelligence Committee, this entire body, and, most importantly, to the President of the United States and all policymakers throughout government. They do that, and they do a good job doing it. Not everyone agrees. The intelligence communities--I think I can say without breaching confidences--from time to time have a different level of confidence as to a conclusion they reach regarding a certain situation. Sometimes we debate these things publicly. The vast majority of times, we don't. As policymakers, we do have to make decisions. The President of the United States has recently talked about the military activities we are doing both in Syria and in Afghanistan, and it has properly spawned a debate as to what we are doing there, as the Senator suggested, what we have accomplished there, and what our continuing work there should be. I think that is a work in progress today. I think everyone agrees that no matter what, the nation-building we did after World War II in Germany and Japan and after the Korean war in South Korea was incredibly successful. We spent a lot of money there, we imported American values there, and we did a great job. Over the last few decades, we have tried to use the same model in the Middle East, and it has been very unsuccessful. Before you can be successful, people have to want what you are giving them. That has not been unanimously accepted in the Middle East, and I think the President is right that we need to examine the nation-building and, for that matter, standing up our fighting forces that again have not been particularly competent in the Middle East. In any event, it is a good debate to have. We are in the middle of that debate right now. I think everyone agrees that, no matter what, we have to maintain a sufficient military presence in the Middle East in various places. I think the military people are better making that decision than we are, but we have to have a military presence in certain places so that when we get a threat to America, we can respond, and we will respond. I don't think there is anything the President has said that backs us away from our commitment to respond, when necessary, to threats to the United States by terrorists. We are going to continue to respond. I think he has rightly identified that we should reexamine our nation-building efforts and expenditures in some areas, and I think he is right there. I want to touch on, for just a minute, what the Senator said about the situation between the Turks and the Kurds, and then yield to my friend from Texas. You are absolutely right. The Kurds have been a great friend of ours for a long time. They have stood by our side. They have helped us in Syria and in other places when we have been fighting over the recent decades in the Middle East. They are good people. I met with them yesterday, and as I always do, I thanked them for their commitment to us and the sacrifices they have made. I realize they are there in their homeland and protecting their homeland. They have been magnificent fighters, and they are great people to have alongside us. Some elements of the Kurdish people have had issues with Turkey. Turkey has been a long ally of the United States. We have a significant military presence there and a significant base there. This has been going on for a long time. They are a member of NATO. They are an official NATO ally of ours, which gives us certain responsibilities and gives them certain responsibilities. The fact that the Kurds and the Turks are having issues with each other should very much concern us. No matter what happens, as the Senator mentioned, we have American values, and both the Turks and the Kurds have to understand that they need to respect human rights, they need to respect the rule of law, and we have to stand by and watch that this occurs. There have been conversations going on--I don't think it is a secret to anyone--about how this is going to play out and what role the United States plays in this regard, but it is a difficult situation, as the Senator referred to. At this time, I am going to oppose the amendment the Senator has proposed. I do so reluctantly because I think he is trying to speak to the fact that we need to stand by our friends, and we do need to stand by our friends. Our relationship with the Turks, I don't think it is a secret to anyone that it has hit a rough patch, but simply because we are in a rough patch doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are going to have to continue to keep our commitments. We are going to have to, as the Senator suggested, see that we stand by our friends. It is going to be difficult. It is difficult in the situation we are in, but we can do this, we are committed to do this, and we are going to continue to work at it. I yield the floor.

Mr. RISCH. I would like to ask Senator Menendez, is it your understanding that your amendment does not affect any existing legal authorities governing the use of military force?

Mr. RISCH. I thank Senator Menendez. Based on our understanding of your amendment, I will be supporting it.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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.