Motion to Discharge--S.J. Res. 65

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Pursuant to the Arms Export Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 65, relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Bahrain.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to call for an end to the U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen. There might be a good excuse for not knowing there is a war in Yemen because the media seems to be preoccupied with other things, but we have been involved with supporting the Saudi coalition, the Saudi alliance with nine other nations, including Bahrain, which has been bombing Yemen.

You might not know much about Yemen, either. Yemen is one of the poorest countries on the planet. There are about 17 million people who live on the edge of starvation there. This year they suffered an epidemic of cholera. Over 1 million people had cholera, and thousands of people died. This is a country so impoverished that even when there is no war in Yemen, they live on the very edge of being able to survive. The pictures are heartrending. If you see the pictures of the small children with their swollen bellies--swollen because they don't have enough protein so that the fluid literally drains from their blood system into their bellies. The pictures are heartrending, and your tax dollars are supporting this war.

So I think there ought to be a debate. That is what I stand up today to do: to force a debate over whether we should be involved with aiding and abetting the Saudi coalition in this war in Yemen.

Our Founding Fathers intended that Congress would debate war. It is very, very clear. If you read the Federalist papers, if you read the Constitution, if you read any of the Founding Fathers, if you read any of the first eight Presidents, they said explicitly again and again that the prerogative to declare war was Congress's--that it was specifically taken from the President. It is specifically forbidden for the President to go to war without the permission of Congress.

We have been having a little bit of this debate. About a month ago we had a debate, and, you know what, the administration argued that bombs are not war, that refueling planes that bomb people is not war, that we are not involved with hostilities in Yemen because we don't have troops marching on the ground with muskets. I think it is an absurd notion that you can be refueling bombing planes, supplying the bombs, and, as bombs are raining down on people and civilians are killed and the ones who survive pick up a scrap of the bomb that says ``Made in U.S.,'' tell them we are not involved with the war in Yemen.

Madison, among the Founding Fathers, was quite clear in saying that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war; therefore, we have, with studied care, vested the power to declare war in Congress. We haven't obeyed that constitutional maxim for a long time. For a long time we have basically abdicated our role. Both parties, Republican and Democrats, have let Presidents, Republican and Democratic, do what they will.

This war started under the previous President, and this war continues under the current President. Yet Congress doesn't have the spine, doesn't have the will to stand up and say: It is our job to declare war. It is our job to represent the people, to listen to the people, and decide whether we should be at war.

The Constitution in article I, section 8 says ``Congress shall declare war.'' It is unequivocal. Yet here we are, involved in yet another war. We are involved in a war in Yemen. We have been involved in a war in Syria. We have also been involved in a war in Libya. We have also now been at war with people in Afghanistan, who had nothing to do with 9/11, 18 years later. These wars go on and on because Congress--and specifically the Senate--doesn't do their job.

We have heard people on television yelling ``do your job, do your job'' at their legislators. That is fine, but let's debate what our job is. The Constitution is very clear that one of our jobs is to declare war, and we have abdicated that responsibility and have not lived up to it.

I would like to have a direct vote on whether we should be involved in Yemen, a direct vote on whether we either declare war or we don't, but that is forbidden because I am in the minority--not in the minority party but in the minority ideologically. The vast majority of this body doesn't care about directing foreign policy; they say that the President has unitary authority, and the Commander in Chief can do whatever he or she wants. That is what the vast majority of these people believe. So they will vote against this because they do not believe Congress really should tell the President when we go to war.

I would like to vote directly that we should not be at war in Yemen; we should not be involved with supplying, refueling, supplying bombs to the Saudis, the Bahrainis and their coalition. I am forbidden from that vote, but because of a 1976 law called the Arms Export Control Act, I am able to object to arms sales.

We have done this twice in the last year. We objected in a bipartisan way to the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia because we thought their war was unjust, indiscriminate, killing civilians, and not in America's best interests. The first time we had the vote, we got a little over 20 votes to say that we should not be continuing to sell arms to the Saudis while they continue this abomination--20 something votes out of 100. We lost overwhelmingly. We had another vote about 2 or 3 months ago, and we got 47 votes. Now we have the killing and dismemberment of a journalist and dissident by the name of Jamal Khashoggi--something so brazen, so bizarre, so uncivilized that people are now coming together.

In the last few weeks we have quit refueling planes, yet the bombs continue to drop. We are still supplying the bombs.

Things are beginning to change. There is a movement among the public to hold their representatives accountable and say: Why are we at war in Yemen? Why don't you vote on whether we should be at war in Yemen? Why do you abdicate your responsibility to the President?

It is harder for someone like me because the President is of my party and I agree with him on many different issues. But where is the other side? The other side should be rising up and saying: This is a usurpation of power. The President is taking upon himself power that is not his. We should be rising up unanimously in saying: Enough is enough; we are taking back this power.

People talk about this all the time. People pretend to be believers in congressional checks and balances. There are always groups out there for checks and balances. This is a check and a balance. This is a time in which the Senate can tell the President what to do. But watch the votes. Many of the people you see on TV say: We should stand up, and the President this and the President that. On this issue, which is an honest issue of disagreement with the President, stand up and restrict his power. Stand up and tell the President that the Constitution says that war shall be declared by Congress.

But watch the votes here. We will not get a direct vote on the war, though; we will get an indirect vote. We will not even get to vote today on Saudi arms; they are afraid to bring up Saudi arms because they think we might win. But we will vote on one of the coalition partners. The Bahrainis are part of a nine-country coalition fighting this war. They have had casualties, they have dropped bombs, and they have been on the ground in Yemen. They are part of the fighting coalition.

So the resolution today will be specifically about not selling one set of arms sales to Bahrain. The other side will look for all kinds of excuses to say: No, oh, my goodness, Bahrain has been a great ally. I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is that they are getting the message that we are unhappy. We supply them with all of their arms, all right. We get to host our Navy there, great. I am not asking that we end our alliance. I am not asking that we sanction them. I am only saying to stop one sale of arms to send a message that we are done with the war in Yemen, that we are no longer going to sell weapons to countries that are fighting this war in Yemen, and that the war must come to a close.

Some will argue: Well, it is already kind of winding down; we are no longer refueling their planes. Yet, since Secretary Pompeo said about 3 weeks ago that the Saudi coalition should quit bombing civilian centers, the Saudis have dropped 200 bombs on Hodeida. Hodeida is a city where most of the humanitarian effort and food comes in. Yemen depends--80 percent of its food must be imported. It comes through this one port, for the most part.

The Saudis--since we admonished them, since Secretary Pompeo said that they need to cease and desist from bombing civilian centers--have dropped 200 more bombs on the city of Hodeida, where humanitarian aid comes in. It must stop. Someone must take a stand and say: Enough is enough; we are against the humanitarian disaster in Yemen.

They will argue: Well, then vote on that. I can't have a direct vote on that. They will not let me vote on whether we should be at war in Yemen. I am allowed to vote only on this one small thing. This is a proxy vote. This is a vote that represents whether we should be at war in Yemen. It is an incredibly important vote. It is an attempt to grab back power from the Presidency. It is an attempt to have a check and balance on all Presidents of all parties of all beliefs.

I don't think we should ever sell one arm--one musket, one shotgun-- to create a job. Our arms industry is for our national defense. It is a unique industry that is not an entirely private enterprise industry. The arms manufacturer, the military industrial complex is supported overwhelmingly by tax dollars. I am not for anybody being able to buy an F-16. I am not for selling F-16s to Russia or to China, but I am also not for selling any more to Saudi Arabia. I am not for fixing their planes. I am not for giving them replacement parts. Their air force would be shut down in a matter of months if we stopped funding them.

People say: That is too dramatic. You are doing things--they have been such a great ally. We had a Senator yesterday rise at our lunch, and he said: Well, we know he is not a democrat. We know he doesn't believe in representative government. We know he is a thug. Of course they execute and crucify people--crucify people--in Saudi Arabia. It is the best we can do, and we need him vis-a-vis Iran. What will happen? Iran will take over the world if we don't combat them in every little misbegotten civil war in the Middle East.

Here is the point, and this is the point which we should debate and which nobody debates: Who is more evil--the Revolutionary Guard and the Ayatollah of Iran or the Saudi Arabia Kingdom? If you look at it objectively, Saudi Arabia has spent over $100 billion teaching hatred of Christians, Hindus, and Jews around the world. They have opened tens of thousands of madrassas. The Haqqani network that has actually killed our soldiers in Afghanistan is supplied with money from the Saudis. The Taliban has gotten money from the Saudis. There was a report that a Saudi royal dropped off a check for $267 million to the Taliban at one point. So we are fighting these people, and we are arming these people. We should not be arming the enemy.

It is not just one side; the other side has admitted this as well. It is not just Republicans saying this; in a cable that was leaked, Hillary Clinton said that Saudi Arabia was the ``most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.''

What is it like to live in Saudi Arabia? We might ask Baqir al-Nimr. He was arrested at 17 at a protest. He is still in jail and is scheduled to be executed. They have a real ``gloriful'' way of executing you in Saudi Arabia: They chop your head off, and then they crucify you. So his head will be chopped off, and then his body will be displayed in a crucifixion post. That is what they will do to him. He was 17 when he was arrested. They have beheaded minors in Saudi Arabia. Oh, but we buy their oil, and we are such good friends with their sheikhs and their Kings.

In Saudi Arabia right now, there are 3,000 people in prison who have not gotten a trial. There are nearly 1,000 people who have been in prison for 3 years without a trial--3 years without a trial, 1,000 people, and yet we continue to say: Oh, yes, but they oppose Iran.

Who is worse--Iran or Saudi Arabia? Maybe neither one of them is good. Do you want to send your son or daughter to fight for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? No. Do you want to send your son or daughter to fight for the Saudi Kings who crucify people? No. Maybe we don't always have to pick sides. Maybe there is a time that comes when the thousand- year-old war between Sunni and Shia--let them fight it. Is there a reason we always have to send our sons and daughters to the Middle East?

People used to say we have to do it for oil, which was offensive to me. We are doing it for oil and oil profits? We are now independent of their oil. We export oil. We do not need Saudi Arabia.

People say: We have to have them, or Iran will take over the world. Saudi Arabia and their coalition partners spend eight times more on military than Iran does. What happens every time we send a dollar to Saudi Arabia? Iran then asks Russia for stuff. So it is an arms race that is fueled by both of the larger outside powers with their proxies, and everything is a proxy war.

But if you fool yourself into thinking that Saudi Arabia is the good guy and Iran is the bad guy, you have to ask yourself about the $2 billion that Saudi Arabia is spending in India--$2 billion over a 2- year period--teaching hatred of Hindus, hatred of Jews, hatred of Christianity, teaching that violent jihad is OK.

Hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars are spent by the Saudis, and people say: We can make a buck, and we can create a job. I, for one, would not try to create one job by selling arms to people who are our enemy. I don't care about jobs if we are going to have to sell arms to our enemies. The arms belong to the American people, and the arms should be seen as a national security asset. We don't sell arms to Russia, we don't sell arms to China, and we shouldn't sell arms to the Saudis who teach hatred of Christianity.

There are Saudi cities you can't even go to. Christians can't go to Mecca or Medina. You can't carry a Bible in Saudi Arabia. If you try to visit Saudi Arabia and bring a Bible in, you will be rejected at the border. This is not what we are for.

Even those who have advocated for the war are now admitting there is no military solution. Recently, Secretary Pompeo said: No military solution in Yemen; let's cease the bombing. General Mattis has said the same thing--no military solution. But they are not getting the signal. We are telling them there is no military solution, we are telling them to quit bombing civilian areas, and they are still bombing the areas. Since Secretary Pompeo told them a few weeks ago to quit bombing civilian areas, they dropped 200 bombs on Hodeidah. The Saudis aren't getting the message.

The Bahrainis are part of the coalition. Send them a message. I am not saying we sanction Bahrain. I am not saying we kick them out as an ally. I am not saying we end our relationship with the Bahrainis. I am saying don't sell them arms one time. Do you think they will get the message? See, that is a message of strength. A lot of people around here talk about, we must have peace through strength, and we need to have a strong military. Well, do you know what? We need to have a strong foreign policy that says that we are not going to be pushed around by a bunch of two-bit dictators in the Middle East, that we are not going to be led astray and reject all of our values by sending arms into a war where civilians are being killed by the thousands. Seventeen million people in Yemen live on the edge of starvation. The city that a lot of the humanitarian aid comes in through, Hodeidah, is blockaded by the Saudis.

I think that when we make decisions on foreign policy, they first should be made here. The Constitution intended that we declare war and that, really, foreign policy come from the people through the Congress, both House and Senate. If we were to have that debate, we would ask the question: Is our involvement in the war in Yemen in our national security interests? Is our national security enhanced by being at war in Yemen? I think the answer is unequivocally no.

To those who say ``Well, we must combat Iran,'' Iran is being combatted by Saudi Arabia, but Iran is not a threat to come across the ocean to see us. Guess who has come across the ocean. Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember who the hijackers were? Fifteen of nineteen of them were from Saudi Arabia. Do you remember the 28 pages of the ``9/11 Report'' that they wouldn't let the American public read for years and years and years, for over a decade? You can now read those, and the implication is that Saudi Arabia was involved in 9/11, perhaps in the financing, perhaps in the planning. We actually voted overwhelmingly to allow American people's--descendants of those who died on 9/11 to actually sue Saudi Arabia over this because of the implication that, yes, the 28 pages show that they were involved.

So what we should be debating here is, is there a national security risk, or is there a national security enhancement? Is it better for our country? Is it good for America to be involved in the war in Yemen, or does it actually enhance the risks that we will be involved in further war and further drawn into the Middle East?

If you look at the history of our involvement in the Middle East--and President Trump gets this very well. One of the things he says over and over again is that the Iraq war was a mistake, that it was a geopolitical blunder of immeasurable proportions. Why? It is the same thing that has happened over and over in the Middle East: We go in and we topple a strongman. The strongman has a horrible human rights record, and we say we are bringing freedom and democracy. Do you know what we get? We topple the strongman, and we get chaos.

Even decades later, in Afghanistan decades later, we still have chaos. You have chaos in Iraq, you now have chaos in Syria, you have chaos in Yemen, you have chaos in Libya, but it is not made better by our intervention, it is actually made worse. Out of the chaos comes more terrorism. Terrorism loves chaos. It is sort of like, nature abhors a vacuum; well, terrorism loves a vacuum. Terrorism grows and thrives and becomes more organized when they have a vacuum.

My fear in Yemen is that, as the war goes on, as both sides destroy each other in a war that has no real end, then maybe al-Qaida of Yemen will come back and al-Qaida of Yemen will become a dominant player.

Where did ISIS come from? People said ISIS was from Iraq. ISIS grew in Syria, from Raqqa. They started there and moved into Iraq because even after 15 years, the Iraqis were feckless to stop them, but they grew in the chaos of Syria.

Who did we supply, in Syria, with weapons? There was another post from Hillary Clinton to Podesta saying: We have to do something about Saudi Arabia and Qatar because they are indiscriminately supplying arms to al-Qaida and ISIS in Syria.

So because we always think we have to be involved--there can never be a time when we are not fighting on one side or the other--we get involved in the lesser of the two evils, and so often, the lesser of the two evils is--guess what--still evil. So what has happened is we are drug into everybody's war--war on end in the Middle East--without resolution. They have been killing each other for a thousand years, and we think somehow siding with the Sunnis against the Shia is going to bring this war to a conclusion.

The thing is, I think it has been a mistake, and I think it has been counterproductive. I think the war in Yemen is counterproductive. I think our involvement there is leading to more chaos. I think the Senate has abdicated their duty and their role. Under article I, section 8, the Senate is allowed to and should be deciding when we go to war.

People talk about checks and balances, and we should be involved. Somehow we should check the President, who is assuming too much authority. This is your chance today. This is the check-and-balance. This is your proxy vote on the war in Yemen. There will be no direct one because they won't allow it. This will be a proxy vote because it will be about weapons to Bahrain because we are not being allowed a direct vote on the war in Yemen. We should be. It should be one of the most important things we do in the Senate, and that is to direct foreign policy, to decide when we go to war. It is probably the most important thing we do under the Constitution, and we have abdicated it for decade after decade.

I think the American people's frustration with Saudi Arabia is growing. I think the American people want a loud message sent. If you send any other message--some are proposing sanctions on killers. Well, they are in jail, and in all likelihood, they are going to be executed. So we are going to sanction a bunch of people who are in jail and are going to be executed? The Saudis will laugh at that. That is weakness.

Even in the last 3 weeks since Secretary Pompeo said ``You need to quit; you need to cease and desist from bombing civilian areas,'' the Saudis have dropped 200 bombs on civilian areas in Hodeidah. They are not getting the message. If we want to send them a message and send them a message loud and clear, we need to tell them no more arms. The next time they post a weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, we will do the same thing. But this is about the entire coalition of nine countries that are involved in this. Today, it will be about Bahrain, but today is really about Yemen. It is about the question I began this with.

My call today is to end the U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen. We should have debated this in advance. We should have debated this before we got involved in the war in Yemen. Yet there is this creeping mission that happens all the time: The wars begin with the executive branch, they creep and grow larger and larger, and we abdicate our duty and role to vote on these things. Today is an opportunity to say: Enough is enough. The war in Yemen should end.

It won't be the direct message I would like to send to Saudi Arabia, but it will be an indirect message. If this resolution were to pass, yes, it would be a loud and clear message that we are serious. But what will happen--and watch closely--is that many Members will say: Oh, Bahrain is our ally. We can't do this to our ally.

I am not talking about ending our relationship with Bahrain. I am not talking about never selling arms to them. I am talking about one time, today, don't send them arms. What is the drama about? That, to me, is a very modest step--one time, do not sell our arms. They can be sold in 6 months. Quit bombing Yemen, pull out of the coalition, stop the fight, and we will talk about arms sales.

One time, we should stand up and should send a message from the Senate to the President that we are in charge. Under Article I, Section 8, a declaration of war comes from Congress. We have abdicated that role for too long.

My hope is that today there will be enough of us to send a message, and the message should be loud and clear: The United States should end its involvement in the war in Yemen.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. We had an agreement to have an hour's worth of debate, where the opponents of the bill were given 30 minutes and the proponents of the bill were given 30 minutes, and the unanimous consent allowed me the remaining 30 minutes. The time period has expired. I think we ought to go by some rules and structure around here. Those who are against the bill should come in the allotted time. The time was used by all kinds of other people talking about things not related to the debate. It does a disservice to the debate that we did that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. I think a fair response is that we will grant an additional 5 minutes to opponents of the bill, and if you allow me to conclude in 5 minutes, I am fine with that.

I will respond to the objection to include what I have stated. If that is acceptable, I remove my objection to the modified motion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Let's be very clear. Bahrain does have something to do with the war in Yemen. They are part of a nine-country coalition. They have lost soldiers in Bahrain. They have flown bombing missions. Bahrain is an intimate part of the coalition fighting the war.

You might ask yourself, is it enough to do nothing? We are going to put sanctions on people who are in jail. Do you think they care? They are probably going to be beheaded. Sanctions is a way of pretending to do something and doing nothing. The arms sales--I am not saying we never sell arms to Bahrain. I am saying one time we don't. That might get them the message.

People say we don't like the human rights record of Bahrain, it is abominable, but do you think they will react to weakness: Please don't hurt your people, please don't commit atrocities on the majority Shia population?

No, we will sell them arms one time, and they will sit up and say let's have a talk. People respect strength. We don't show strength unless we do something that is more dramatic than putting sanctions on people who are already in prison. This is about Saudi Arabia, but it is also about the coalition of nine countries of which Bahrain is.

If you think meek words will stop the Saudis, listen to this. Three weeks ago, Pompeo said they should cease all bombing of civilian centers. How many bombs have dropped on Hudaydah since he asked them to cease? Two hundred bombs have dropped on Hudaydah--the port where humanitarian aid needs to come in for a starving population--since we told them not to. We said we are not going to refuel their planes anymore. We are not refueling their planes. They are refueling their planes with our planes. Everything they fly is our plane. Their pilots are trained by us. Their mechanics are trained by us. We need to be stronger. It is a sense of weakness. It is a display of weakness not to at least block one arms sales. This is a modest proposal, and it is the least we can do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source