[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 72 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2585-S2593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN
THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--VETO--
Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to legislative session to resume consideration of the veto
message on S.J. Res. 7, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Veto message, a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7) to direct
the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in
the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by
Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
(The remarks of Senator Cornyn pertaining to the submission of S.
1303 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Arkansas.
NATO
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
turned 70 last month. Congressional leaders invited NATO Secretary
General Jens Stoltenberg to deliver an address before a joint meeting
of Congress to mark the historic occasion.
The Secretary General began his speech with a vivid description of
two monuments outside of the organization's headquarters in Belgium--
one, a piece of the Berlin Wall and the other, a twisted steel beam
from the north tower of the World Trade Center. Both serve a special
purpose as powerful reminders for NATO members of where we have been
and are going and our commitment to one another.
The United States and our transatlantic allies have seen the world
change considerably during the seven decades of NATO's existence. The
threat posed by the Soviet Union--one of the main reasons the alliance
was formed--no longer exists, but the challenge of an increasing and
hostile Russia has now taken its place.
Since Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, Vladimir Putin has
stepped up his acts of aggression by arming pro-Russia rebels in
Ukraine, carrying out bombing campaigns on behalf of a murderous regime
in Syria, and conducting cyber attacks on Western democracies.
Russia continues to seize land and expand its presence in Georgia,
illegally occupying roughly 20 percent of Georgia's internationally
recognized territory. On top of this, Russia has deployed mobile,
nuclear-capable missiles in Europe. This clear violation of the INF
Treaty will have long-term ramifications for NATO countries.
As the Secretary General stated in his joint session address, ``an
agreement that is only respected by one side will not keep us safe.''
We don't have to return to a Cold War era arms race as a result of
Russia's actions. However, as Secretary General Stoltenberg noted, we
must ``prepare for a world without the INF Treaty and take the
necessary steps to provide credible and effective deterrence.''
While the threat posed by a resurgent Russia reinforces the need for
a strong NATO, it is far from the only concern facing the alliance.
China's expanding global influence and the aspirations of smaller rogue
nations, like North Korea and Iran, will continue to challenge the West
moving forward.
Additionally, while we have made great strides to eliminate ISIS on
the battlefield, the threat posed by radical Islamic terrorists remains
ever present and knows no boundaries.
The horrific Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka have been linked to
the terror group, proving that it clearly continues to export its
tactics and recruitment well beyond Syria and Iraq.
There is no doubt that Western democracies remain squarely on ISIS's
target list. In fact, the propaganda arm of ISIS just released a video
of the group's leader, where he makes that threat abundantly clear.
Amid all of these challenges, NATO stands as a very visible
deterrent. When half of the world's military stands together, bad
actors take notice. Collectively, NATO members also make up half of the
world's economic
[[Page S2586]]
might. The prosperity of NATO members makes the alliance that much
stronger. With that prosperity, however, comes responsibility.
The strength of NATO is contingent on each other and every member
paying its fair share. Every member nation must meet the agreed-upon
defense spending levels. Secretary General Stoltenberg stressed this
point during his address, and this message has begun to resonate with
NATO members. An additional $41 billion has been spent on defense by
our European allies and Canada in the last 2 years alone. That number
is expected to reach $100 billion--$100 billion--by the end of the
year.
President Trump deserves credit for bringing about this sea change.
His words to allies not living up to their commitments were conveyed in
a very direct manner. NATO must be a fair alliance. The President's
tough-love message has worked. The majority of our NATO allies have
pledged to meet their financial obligations by 2024. The United States
has been and must continue to be a strong example in this regard.
This is an important point to remember as we fulfill our funding
obligations for fiscal year 2020. We must build on the progress we have
made in recent years to end the chronic uncertainty that has negatively
impacted our military readiness for far too long.
The Trump administration and Congress's shared commitment to our
national security has helped to renew America's strength and given a
blueprint to our NATO allies for how they, too, can help achieve their
share of our common defense.
Congress has ushered through the largest investment in our national
defense since the Reagan administration, and President Trump has
initiated the modernization of our nuclear arsenal and a national
strategy for missile defense. These were not easy lifts, but the United
States has made them all happen. Our allies can as well.
We have accomplished a great deal together in the past, but many
challenges remain for NATO in the future. As we mark the 70th year of
the alliance, we do so with the knowledge that our friends from across
the Atlantic will continue to be trusted partners who stand by each
other in our hours of need.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his
comments in support of NATO and the alliance, one that we share on a
bipartisan basis here in the Senate.
Remembering Richard Lugar
Madam President, I wish to take a few moments to honor former Senator
Richard Lugar, who passed away on April 28.
Richard Lugar's leadership as chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee was a model of statesmanship--someone who put
country over party and principle over politics.
I did not have the privilege of serving as a Senator with Richard
Lugar, but I did have an opportunity to see him in action when I served
as a Senate staff member, working on national security issues for
another great Senator and statesman, Senator Mac Mathias, who also
served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
During that time, I witnessed Richard Lugar's work on a bipartisan
basis to achieve major foreign policy successes. He had the vision to
remain true to American values, and in a complex world, he took the
long view of what was best for our country. Those traits produced the
landmark law to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation, known as
the Nunn-Lugar Act, after its chief authors. The program has led to the
elimination of more than 10,000 nuclear warheads, more than 1,000
ICBMs, and almost 40,000 tons of chemical agents that had been
scattered across the former Soviet Union.
I was especially inspired by Senator Lugar's work to end the racist
apartheid regime in South Africa. At the time, the Reagan
administration was pursuing a policy of so-called ``constructive
engagement'' with that apartheid regime. The Reagan administration was
opposed to imposing sanctions on South Africa to help free Nelson
Mandela, who was imprisoned, and to bring about an end to apartheid
rule. Senator Lugar understood that continued engagement with that
regime undermined America's values and our interests. As chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee, he led the efforts to pass the
legislation to impose sanctions on South Africa, and when President
Reagan vetoed that bill, Senator Lugar lead the bipartisan effort to
overturn the veto of the President of his own party. That override was
successful. Richard Lugar spurned partisanship in order to do the right
thing for America.
S.J. Res. 7
Madam President, that brings us to the vote we will have today--
whether or not to override President Trump's veto of the bipartisan
legislation to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's brutal actions in
the catastrophic war in Yemen.
I see Senator Murphy, a colleague from Connecticut, on the floor. I
thank him for his leadership in this area.
I urge the Senate to stand up together for American values and for
our long-term interests and to vote today to overturn President Trump's
veto.
Whether it is Saudi Arabia's conduct in the war in Yemen, their
grizzly murder of American resident and Washington Post columnist Jamal
Khashoggi, their imprisonment of U.S. citizens, or their gross
violations of basic human rights, the United States must reevaluate and
reshape our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Let's look at Yemen. The Crown Prince has recklessly directed a
brutal war in Yemen for 5 years. That war has resulted in the world's
largest humanitarian catastrophe. More than 100,000 civilians have been
killed, and millions more are on the brink of starvation. More than 100
children die every day from extreme hunger there.
In fact, the United Nations has called the war in Yemen one of the
``greatest preventable disasters facing humanity.'' Even after waging
this brutal war, the result has been that the Iranian-backed Houthis
are more entrenched and more militarily sophisticated today than they
were at the start of this catastrophe, and Iranian influence in the
region has expanded.
In short, the Crown Prince's and Saudi Arabia's military adventurism
has been a major strategic blunder. So rather than vetoing the
bipartisan legislation from Congress, the President's administration
should be working overtime to help resolve the conflict and bring a
negotiated end to that catastrophe.
I mentioned the vile and brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, who was a
U.S. resident and a Washington Post columnist. Yet President Trump
threw his own intelligence community under the bus when it came to the
question of whether the Crown Prince had been complicit in the murder
of Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. It was the assessment
of CIA Director Gina Haspel and others who said that the Crown Prince
had been complicit in that murder. Yet President Trump said: ``Maybe he
did and maybe he didn't,'' and dismissed the whole thing. When the
United States dismisses a CIA determination that the Crown Prince is
responsible for the brutal killing and murder of an American resident,
and we do nothing, that sends an awful signal around the world that
puts Americans everywhere in danger.
Then, of course, we have seen just recently the terrible crackdown
with respect to human rights violations in Saudi Arabia. In fact, just
a week ago, Saudi Arabia beheaded 37 citizens, most of them minority
Shiites, in mass executions across the country for alleged terrorism-
related crimes, which Amnesty International pointed out were nothing
more than sham trials that relied on confessions extracted through
torture. Among those put to death was a young man convicted for
reportedly attending a pro-democracy rally during the Arab Spring when
he was just a teenager.
I have here a headline report: ``Young Man Set to Attend Western
Michigan University was Beheaded in Saudi Arabia.'' This was a man who
was a teenager, was part of a democracy movement, and was imprisoned by
the Saudi authorities. He had been intending to attend one of our
American universities, and yet he was beheaded. You also find that the
Saudis are detaining a number of American citizens, dual nationals, for
their activism on human rights. They were seeking greater freedom for
women in Saudi Arabia.
[[Page S2587]]
So rather than holding the Saudi regime accountable, this
administration instead seems determined to move forward, in a very
secret way, with providing nuclear assistance to the Saudi Government.
They have talked about providing the authority for U.S. companies to
engage in these conversations, even though Saudi leaders have openly
talked about acquiring nuclear weapons and have raised the possibility
of dumping spent nuclear fuel from their reactors on the border of
neighboring countries.
Instead of helping the Saudis with their nuclear program and instead
of vetoing bipartisan legislation to hold the Saudi Government and the
Crown Prince accountable, the President should be actually reaching out
on behalf of American interests, but he chose not to. He vetoed the
bill. It is now our duty, in a bipartisan way, to stand up for American
values and American interests, and I urge this Senate to vote to
override the veto of President Trump.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, let me thank my colleague from Maryland
for outlining one of the cases for why the override of the President's
veto is so important.
There is no question that Saudi Arabia has in no way moderated their
human rights behavior since the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi. In
fact, as Senator Van Hollen has rightly pointed out, the stick in
America's eye from Riyadh has just gotten sharper. The number of
executions has increased. More American citizens are being detained. I
didn't catch it as to whether Senator Van Hollen specifically
referenced the case of Dr. Fitaihi, a Harvard-trained physician who has
allegedly been tortured, including stripped to his underwear and
shocked with electricity. He has been in detention without charges or a
trial for 1\1/2\ years after his arrest.
The Saudis' behavior has gotten more outrageous, has crossed more
human rights lines, has compromised the safety of more American
citizens, and yet no response from the U.S. Congress and not a single
piece of legislation moving through the U.S. Senate that would hold the
Saudis accountable for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and now the
detention of multiple U.S. residents. We almost shut down our
relationship with Turkey over the detainment of an American pastor, but
there is no similar response from this body when it comes to the
continued detention of Americans in Saudi Arabia, with no trial, with
no charges, and with evidence of torture. How is that? How is that?
Today we specifically litigate the case of the disastrous war that
continues to rage inside Yemen today. I want to read a very short
excerpt written by a hardened U.S. diplomat. Jeffrey Feltman is not a
Democrat or Republican. He was a career Foreign Service officer. He did
some of the toughest duty in the Middle East, including a stint as our
Ambassador to Lebanon. Many people know him, and I know he commands
just as much respect from Republicans as he does from Democrats. Here
is what he wrote. He said:
The war in Yemen has been a disaster for U.S. interests,
for Saudi interests, and above all for the Yemeni people. It
has sparked the world's largest humanitarian catastrophe:
tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, and 14
million are at risk of starvation. It has been a strategic
blunder as well, producing the exact results the Saudi-led
military campaign was designed to prevent. The Houthis are
more militarily sophisticated and better able to strike
beyond Yemen's borders than they were at the start of the
war; Iranian influence has expanded; and the relationship
between the Houthis and Lebanon's Hezbollah has only
deepened. Although the United Arab Emirates has waged an
effective battle against al Qaeda in Yemen, terrorism remains
a grave threat.
Now, I could read you similar pronouncements from all sorts of other
Middle Eastern experts. There is a hegemony of opinion that this war
has been a disaster not just from a humanitarian standpoint.
I had to select a picture that, frankly, wouldn't induce sickness
from my colleagues. I chose a picture in which this young, starving
boy's back is turned to the camera, but there are plenty others in
which you would have a hard time holding down your lunch.
It is not just the humanitarian nightmare; it is the strategic
nightmare that is Yemen. Every single day that we stay involved in this
war, the battle lines do not change, and yet Iran and Hezbollah get
more and more involved inside the military fight.
There is a political deal to be had here. If the United States chose
to lead diplomatically instead of follow militarily, there is a
political deal that can be had, but for reasons I do not understand,
the United States does not lead the diplomatic negotiations. We
outsource that to the U.N. I am a big fan of the U.N., but there is not
going to be a peace settlement in Yemen without the United States as
the lead. Instead, we simply choose to follow the military campaign of
the Saudis by helping them engage in a bombing campaign that has
murdered thousands of civilians, either on purpose or by accident. It
has destroyed the civilian infrastructure of the country, and it does
not relent.
Every single time you meet with somebody from the administration,
they tell you: Well, it is getting better. It is getting better. There
is really no evidence of that. On March 26, airstrikes reportedly hit a
hospital supported by Save the Children in northwest Yemen, killing at
least seven, including four children. There is no excuse for that
because every single hospital is on the list of targets that the Saudis
can't hit, and yet they continue to do so.
Senator Romney and I just came back from the region, and here is what
we heard. All of the relief agencies that do the big heavy lifting in
Yemen flew into Amman, Jordan, to talk to our delegation. I thought it
was exceptional that they were making this trip, but then when they
delivered the news that they had, I understood why they were making the
trip into Jordan to meet with us. The report they gave us was
absolutely bone-chilling.
I want you to listen to this. Today, in Yemen, there are 250,000
Yemenis who are so malnourished and so sick that they are beyond
saving. They will die. One-quarter million Yemenis are so sick, are so
malnourished that they cannot be saved, and another 10 million are on
the cusp of entering that category. The only way to stop this
humanitarian disaster, of a scope and scale that we see nowhere else in
the world, is to end this civil war.
So long as the United States participates in the military campaign
with the Saudis, while not offering any meaningful pressure to get to a
political settlement, we are complicit in those deaths. One-quarter
million people are going to die in the next several months inside Yemen
from starvation and disease and malnutrition due to a military campaign
that we are a part of. Don't get me wrong. The Houthis bear a great
degree of responsibility for those who are starving inside territories
they control. There is still 15 to 20 percent of the relief supplies
that the Houthis steal and take for themselves, but hundreds of
thousands of those who are dying or who are subject to disease and
famine are in the parts of the country that are controlled by our
coalition. This isn't just a matter of the Houthis refusing to let
supplies get to people who need them. There are people dying in parts
of the country that the coalition, of which the United States is a part
of, controls, and we are standing by, largely idly, as this devastation
continues.
I hope my colleagues will consider voting to overturn the President's
veto. I hope you will do it because it is the only means by which we
force a political settlement. I hope you will do it because even if you
don't think that a political settlement is coming, the United States
should never willingly be a part of a bombing campaign that results in
this kind of starvation. I hope you will also do it because even if you
believe Iran is the No. 1 objective of U.S. interest in the region or
even if you believe that al-Qaida and ISIS are the No. 1 target of U.S.
interest in the region, they are getting stronger every single day that
the status quo continues.
The military campaign has been a massive failure. The battle lines
don't move, and al-Qaida and ISIS remain uniquely strong inside that
country because of the chaos, and Iran, every single day, becomes more
and more influential. Get out of the military campaign, take the lead
on the diplomatic effort rather than simply follow others, and we will
end that misery. It is within our power to send that message.
[[Page S2588]]
I agree with Senator Van Hollen. This is also about sending a message
to Saudi Arabia about the continued murder and detainment of American
citizens and residents. This is about standing up for human rights in
the face of 37 people convicted and beheaded inside Saudi Arabia,
several of them minors. But this is also about squaring U.S. policy
with national security interests and getting the blood off our hands as
250,000 Yemenis face certain death if we don't do something different
very soon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I really want to thank Senator Murphy
for his longstanding commitment to this humanitarian need. We are now
just a Senate vote away from making a major difference in regard to the
humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and every Member of the Senate will now
be on record.
I want Senator Murphy to know that his work has been extremely
important and is well understood. What he is saying I just really want
to underscore; that is, the U.S. military engagement with Saudi Arabia
and its partners is counterproductive, not just to the humanitarian
crisis that exists today in Yemen but to America's national security
interests.
The conflict in Yemen has become a humanitarian nightmare. At this
point our involvement does not advance the interests of the United
States, our partners, or regional stability.
I recognize that we have a strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia
and that we have a mutual desire to prevent the expansion of Iranian
influence and terrorist groups that seek to do us harm. However, our
current military support to Saudi Arabia in the Yemen conflict has
become detrimental to these shared goals and our broader partnership.
The suffering this conflict has caused is beyond measure. More than
22 million people, nearly 75 percent of the population, are at grave
risk. The country has now seen the world's largest cholera outbreak,
which has killed thousands. Hunger and malnutrition are threatening 2
million innocent children under the age of 5. A recent Save the
Children report concluded that some 85,000 children have already died
from starvation since the war began. Morally continuing our military
involvement in this disaster simply should not be an option.
I would also like my colleagues to look beyond our direct support to
the role U.S. arms sales play in worsening the conflict. These sales
cannot come at the expense of human rights, mass atrocities, and
regional destabilization. Saudi Arabia has shown a disregard for
international law by inflicting devastating losses on civilians,
including young children.
It is now well known that the Saudi-led coalition targets civilian
infrastructure vital to Yemen's recovery and reconstruction. In fact, a
recent U.N. report concluded that the coalition's air campaign is the
leading cause of civilian casualties in Yemen, with 61 percent due to
coalition air strikes. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and
Bellingcat have found that U.S. weapons have been used in these
unlawful air strikes. There is evidence that the coalition has used
banned and inherently indiscriminate weapons like white phosphorus and
cluster bombs.
The military conflict has produced staggering human rights abuses.
The AP, international organizations, and a special expert group
established by the U.N. Human Rights Council have found that all
parties in the conflict have committed grave violations of human rights
and the laws of war. Houthi war crimes and abuses are staggering;
however, reports indicate our supposed partners have also engaged in
horrific abuses, including widespread torture and sexual abuse at
coalition-run secret prisons.
For all of these reasons, it is imperative that there is a speedy and
peaceful conclusion to the conflict in Yemen. It is apparent that this
will not come from our military involvement. We must, instead, focus
our efforts on supporting U.N.-led efforts to foster dialogue, a
ceasefire, and humanitarian access.
It is critical to prevent expansion of the Iranian influence and
extremist groups in the region, but our military involvement is not
helping us in that regard. Experts from across the ideological spectrum
agree that the escalation of the conflict has increased Iran's and
extremist groups' influence in Yemen. Our military campaign is
counterproductive to our objective to minimize the influence--and
hopefully eliminate the influence--of Iran and extremist groups.
With all of these considerations in mind, Republicans and Democrats
in the Senate and House of Representatives came together to pass S.J.
Res. 7. For reasons that are still incomprehensible to me, the
President chose to veto this resolution. Oxfam recently responded to
this by stating that ``the people of Yemen and the parties to the
conflict are watching closely and the messages US leaders send have the
power to save lives.''
With a veto, they lose faith in the United States and see the end to
their suffering a little further out of reach. It is not, however, too
late for Congress to do the right thing. By overriding this veto we
assert this body's authority to support peace and human rights while
making America safer and more secure.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, over the past few months, the Members of
this body and the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives
resoundingly have voted in favor of S.J. Res. 7, which would remove
U.S. Armed Forces from Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. This
unconstitutional, unjustified, and ultimately immoral war has
repeatedly come up over the last year, and thankfully America's elected
lawmakers in Washington have taken a stand against it.
The President has vetoed our resolution, but today we have the
opportunity--and I believe we have the absolute constitutional duty--to
once again take a stand on this important matter. Today, we have the
opportunity to override the veto in pursuit of justice, prudence, and
upholding the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. This is
one of the most important, fundamental features of our constitutional
system. Congress and Congress alone may declare war. This is in direct
contrast to the way our old national government--the one in London--
worked. Under that system, the chief executive could take the country
to war, but not in America, not under our system, not in the U.S.
Constitution. In fact, it is one of the distinguishing characteristics
pointed out in Federalist 69.
As we have already heard, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is dire,
and estimates show that the crisis is even worse than we had previously
thought. The Yemen war has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of
people, including a whole lot of innocent civilians in attacks that can
only be described as horrific. It is believed that from 2016 to 2018,
over 60,000 combatants and civilians were killed in direct violence
attached to this war, but the full scale of suffering from starvation,
poverty, and disease is even more staggering than the stark numbers
that I have just quoted involving direct combat or direct violence.
Over half of the population of Yemen is considered currently to be in
the crisis stage of famine. An estimated 3.3 million children are
malnourished, and over 84,000 children have died just between the start
of the war in 2015 and October of 2018. Poor water and sanitation
conditions have also led to the largest cholera outbreak in history,
with more than 1.3 million suspected cases and over 2,600 related
deaths since the April 2017 outbreak.
Contrary to the claims of some of our critics, the United States has,
in fact, been aiding and abetting the horrors of this war. Indeed,
these critics claim that we have somehow not been involved in a war in
Yemen. But in March of 2015, shortly after Saudi Arabia launched its
war against the Houthi rebels, the Obama administration authorized U.S.
military forces to provide ``logistical and intelligence support'' to
the Saudi coalition. The
[[Page S2589]]
Obama administration provided this authorization without any kind of
approval from Congress. Since then, we have helped the Saudis with
surveillance, reconnaissance and information, target selection
assistance, and, until quite recently, with midair refueling, including
midair refueling involving combat missions. In other words, we have
been materially assisting a foreign power in its efforts to bomb its
adversaries and sometimes helping that foreign power to bomb innocent
civilians on the ground in the process. Other opponents of our
resolution claim that our involvement in this undeclared,
unconstitutional, immoral civil war half a world away in Yemen is
somehow constitutional, is somehow statutorily authorized under the War
Powers Act of 1973, which authorizes the executive branch to use Armed
Forces in cases of emergencies and under certain limited time
constraints.
The conflict in Yemen--a conflict between a regional rebel group on
the one hand and the Saudi-backed government on the other hand--by no
means constitutes or in any way presents a threat to the safety of
American citizens in the United States, and our involvement has far
surpassed the allotment of any emergency time constraint contemplated
under the war powers resolution. Still others say that we are not
engaged in ``hostilities'' that constitute a conflict of war under the
War Powers Act. But these critics, of course, are relying on an overly
narrow and outdated definition from a 1976 memorandum--a memorandum, I
would add, internal to the executive branch. In that respect, it is
self-serving and one that does not include the indisputably high-tech
activities of war today.
The way we fight wars today often ends up involving cyber activity,
reconnaissance, surveillance, and target selection--the precise
activities we are engaged in in this war in Yemen. Even aside from
that, under the War Powers Act, we ourselves do not have to be involved
in hostilities. We don't have to establish that in order to trigger the
War Powers Act--that we are involved in hostilities. The War Powers Act
is triggered so long as we are sufficiently involved with the armed
forces of another nation, when they--those armed forces of another
nation--are themselves involved in hostilities. There can be no doubt
in our minds--not in my mind, in your mind, not in the mind of any
American--that the Saudis are engaged in hostilities in Yemen, and we
are helping them. So it is immaterial; it is completely inconsequential
if you accept this crab, self-serving, narrow, outdated definition of
the word ``hostilities'' found in this 1976 Department of Defense
memorandum.
Finally, some opponents of this effort, of this resolution to call
for our withdrawal from this undeclared, unconstitutional, immoral war
in Yemen, are saying that removing U.S. forces would somehow hurt our
efforts to combat terrorism in the region, specifically against al-
Qaida and ISIS, and would endanger the lives of American citizens and
soldiers. In the first place, these critics are dangerously conflating
different geopolitical conflicts. The conflict in Yemen is a regional,
civil war. It is not about al-Qaida. It is not about ISIS. Even if it
were, our resolution, S.J. Res. 7, the one we are talking about today
in the context of a veto override debate--that resolution explicitly
states that it would not impede the military's ability to fight these
terror groups. Furthermore, there is evidence that our involvement in
Yemen might well have--in fact, probably has--further destabilized the
region and that it has actually undermined the effort against al-
Qaida's affiliates. A 2016 State Department report found that the
conflict between the Saudi-led forces and the Houthi insurgents has
actually helped al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, also known as AQAP,
and ISIS's Yemen branch to ``deepen their inroads across much of the
country.''
So, no, involvement in Yemen is far from being in the best interest
of the United States--not in the slightest, not even by a shred. Every
day it only becomes clearer and clearer that Saudi Arabia is not an
ally that deserves our unwavering, unflinching, unquestioning support
and military intervention, especially when our own security--the
security of the American people on U.S. soil--is not on the line.
Last October, there was of course the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. In
February, a report came out suggesting that the United Arab Emirates
have actually transferred American-made weapons to al-Qaida-linked
fighters and other military groups. In other words, the Saudi-led
coalition is possibly giving our own weapons, in violation of our own
end user agreements with them, to the very terrorist groups we are
trying to fight, the very terrorist groups that opponents of this
resolution incorrectly suggest would benefit from the passage of this
resolution.
Just this past week, news surfaced that the Saudis ruthlessly
beheaded 37 men who were mainly minority Shia Muslims, 5 of them gay
men who were suspected to have been tortured into a confession. Perhaps
we ought not be supporting that regime at all. Perhaps we ought not
give unflinching, unwavering, unquestioning devotion to a regime that
treats its own people that way and that has harmed others in its own
region in the way that it has. At a bare minimum, we should not be
fighting an unjust civil war on their behalf, half a world away,
without congressional authorization.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution unequivocally states that
Congress shall have the power to declare war--Congress, not the
President, not the Pentagon, not someone else in the executive branch,
not some expert anywhere in the executive branch of government, but
Congress. They did so. They made it this way because they understood
that the decision about whether to go to war is a decision fraught with
immense moral peril. There is nothing pretty about war. It always, when
we face such a decision, involves a decision to put American treasure
and American blood on the line. Even if you think that with modern-day
weaponry and/or the modern way in which we fight wars--if you think
that American blood and treasure is not being put on the line, that
simply isn't true. That is exactly why the Founding Fathers placed this
power in the legislative branch where it can be exercised squarely in
front of the American people by their elected Representatives. This
power was always intended to be exercised only by the branch of
government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals
because of the moral peril necessarily involved in any decision to go
to war--moral peril involving the use of U.S. resources, the putting on
the line of American blood, and also the moral peril that it creates
wherever we are going to war.
If you truly believe that our involvement in Yemen is crucial to the
safety of American citizens and America's best interests generally,
that is all the more reason to debate it and discuss it right here,
right now. In fact, the Constitution demands it. It already is the law.
We have to do this. If you are so confident that we should be involved
in this war, let's debate it. Let's vote on it. Let's let the American
people see what we are about. Let's let the American people have some
say in the extent to which we put America's good name, its treasure,
and its blood on the line.
Today, we still have an opportunity to have a say, to take a stand
over this most grave matter. I urge my colleagues to take it.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me thank Senator Lee and Senator
Chris Murphy for their outstanding and consistent leadership on this
issue. At a time when the country bemoans the fact that there is not a
lot of bipartisanship, this effort indicates that people with very
different political philosophies can come together on an issue of
enormous magnitude. I do want to thank Mike Lee for his great work on
this.
I rise today to speak in support of overriding the President's veto
of S.J. Res. 7. On April 16, despite telling us that he is opposed to
``endless wars,'' President Trump used the second veto of his
Presidency to reject S.J. Res. 7, which directs the removal of U.S.
Armed Forces from the Saudi-led intervention in the Republic of Yemen,
a war that began 4 years ago. The vote on that resolution that was
passed here in the Senate was 54 to 46--all Democrats voting for it and
7 Republicans
[[Page S2590]]
voting for it. The resolution passed the House on April 4 by a
bipartisan vote of 247 to 175.
The current situation in Yemen is the worst humanitarian disaster on
Earth. In March of 2015, under the leadership of Muhammad bin Salman--
then Saudi Arabian Defense Minister and now the Crown Prince--a Saudi-
led intervention in Yemen's ongoing civil war took place.
According to the United Nations, Yemen is at risk of the most severe
famine in more than 100 years, with some 14 million people--this is a
small, poor country--some 14 million people now face starvation as a
result of this war, this Saudi-led intervention we are supporting.
According to the Save the Children organization, some 85,000 children
have already starved to death, and millions more face death if the war
continues.
It gets much worse than that. A new United Nations-commissioned
report, just published by the University of Denver, states that the
impact of this war on civilians--particularly children--is actually far
more serious than previously thought. If this war continues, the report
estimates that by the end of 2019, it will have taken the lives of some
219,000 people in Yemen, including 140,000 children under the age of 5.
According to this report, every 12 minutes, a Yemeni child is dying as
a result of this war.
The magnitude of the suffering in that country is literally
unimaginable. We are talking about the possibility of millions of
people starving to death and of hundreds of thousands of people dying
by the end of this year.
The fact is that the United States, with relatively little media
attention, has been Saudi Arabia's partner in this horrific war. We
have been providing the bombs the Saudi-led coalition is using. We have
been refueling their planes before they drop those bombs. We have been
assisting with intelligence. In many cases, our weapons are being used
to kill women and children.
Late last year, I met with several brave Yemeni human rights
activists. They had come to urge Congress to put a stop to this war,
and they told me clearly that when Yemenis see ``Made in the U.S.A.''
on the bombs that are killing them, it tells them that the U.S.A. is
responsible for this war, and that is a sad and tragic truth.
The bottom line is that the United States should not be supporting a
catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and
irresponsible foreign policy.
Issue No. 1 is the horrific tragedy we are contributing to in Yemen.
Issue No. 2 is equally important, and that is that the involvement of
the United States in this war is clearly unconstitutional.
I hear many of my Republican friends claim they are strict
constitutionalists. If you are a strict constitutionalist, voting to
override Trump's veto should be a no-brainer because this war has not
been authorized by Congress. It is unconstitutional.
Let me remind my colleagues who may have forgotten what is in the
U.S. Constitution. Article I, section 8 states clearly that ``Congress
shall have power to . . . declare war.'' While the President has the
authority over the conduct of war once it has been declared, the
Founding Fathers gave the power to authorize military conflicts to
Congress--the branch most accountable to the people. Under the War
Powers Act of 1973, the assignment of a member of the U.S. Armed Forces
to ``command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or
accompany'' another country's military during a war constitutes the
introduction of the United States into a conflict. Our military
involvement in the war in Yemen, which has included logistical and
intelligence support, as well as aerial refueling of Saudi war planes,
clearly meets this definition.
For far too long, the Congress, under both Democratic and Republican
administrations, has abdicated its constitutional role with regard to
the authorization of war. The historic passage of this resolution--the
first time since the 1973 War Powers Resolution was passed that it has
been successfully used to withdraw the United States from an
unauthorized war--was a long-overdue step by Congress to reassert its
constitutional authority.
Finally, after years of abdicating that responsibility, Congress
stood up, in the Senate and in the House, and said: Mr. President, you
do not have the power to get U.S. troops involved in a war that we did
not vote upon. And that is a big deal. Congress is finally doing what
the Constitution of the United States mandates that it do. Within a
half hour or so, the Senate must act to protect that constitutional
responsibility by overriding the President's veto.
I respect that there are Members of this body who voted against the
initial resolution and that you support U.S. intervention in Yemen for
one of a number of reasons, and I respect your point of view, but if
you think the United States should be involved in the Saudi-led war in
Yemen, bring that resolution to the floor of the Senate. Let's have
that debate. You explain to the American people why we should be
spending significant amounts of money and putting American military
lives in danger and why you think it is a good idea. Come to the
floor--that is what the Constitution says you should do--and let us
vote that issue up or down. Maybe you win. Maybe you won't win. I think
you won't win, but maybe you will. But let's have that debate. What is
absolutely clear is that is the responsibility of the Senate and the
House, and the President alone cannot decide when he wants to send
American troops into conflict.
The last point I want to make is that this vote this afternoon must
make clear to Saudi Arabia that we will not continue to follow their
lead into disastrous military interventions. Let us be very clear.
Saudi Arabia is a despotic dictatorship that works overtime to prevent
any movement in that country toward democracy. That is a country run by
an incredibly wealthy family. I think Muhammad bin Salman has the
distinction of owning both the largest yacht and the largest house in
the world. They have endless wealth, and now they are using their
wealth and power in a dangerous and irresponsible military
intervention.
Saudi Arabia is a nation that treats women not as second-class
citizens but as third-class citizens. It is a nation that 7 months ago
murdered a journalist in cold blood in its own consulate in Turkey and
then dismembered his body. That was the signal to any dissident in
Saudi Arabia that if you dare speak out against the royal family, that
is what you have to look forward to--getting killed in cold blood and
having your body dismembered. Dozens of people were recently executed
in Saudi Arabia because of their opposition to government policy.
The word has to get out to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that, no,
we will not be following their lead and their interventions in wars
that are only causing horrific pain in that region.
In my view, what we should be doing in Yemen now is ending the
bombing, supporting a diplomatic solution to the civil war there that
finally brings peace to that region, providing immediate humanitarian
aid, and helping the people, along with the international community, to
rebuild their shattered economy, which is dysfunctional today.
This is an important vote. It is an important vote that says the
people of Yemen need humanitarian aid, not more bombs. It is a vote
that says the Senate believes in the Constitution of this country,
which says that it is Congress, not the President, that determines
whether and when we go to war. It is a vote that tells Saudi Arabia we
will not follow their lead in irresponsible intervention.
I hope very much that the Members of this body summon up their
courage and vote to override Trump's veto.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to cast my vote in support of the
resolution we will shortly be voting on, which sends an important
message that this body, directly representing the
[[Page S2591]]
American people, wishes to end direct U.S. military support for the
Saudi-led coalition's campaign in Yemen.
I am disappointed but not surprised that the President issued a veto,
choosing to stand by a campaign of devastating consequences for the
people of Yemen. Every time we have a vote on this resolution and every
day, the numbers get worse, but let us be clear. These numbers are
people: 3 million human beings have been forced to flee, more than 15
million are on the brink of starvation, and more than 1 million
individuals--children, mothers, fathers--are suffering from the largest
cholera epidemic in the world.
Even the coalition countries themselves insist there is no military
solution to this manmade conflict. As Houthis, backed with
destabilizing and increasing support from Iran, continue to launch
attacks into civilian population centers, Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates continue their campaign which has targeted hospitals and
threatened humanitarian access.
The fragile U.N.-brokered political process that emerged from
Stockholm is almost at a breaking point. To be sure, the Houthis slow-
walking the implementation of this plan presents a serious challenge,
but U.S. focus should now be on supporting a meaningful, inclusive, and
comprehensive process, even if it is one step at a time--a process that
must start by ensuring that vital humanitarian relief reaches those who
need it most desperately.
As some of my colleagues and the President have repeated, we do
indeed have important security and military partnerships with the
countries comprising the coalition, but these partnerships are not a
blank check for weapons and direct support for a campaign that is
decidedly working against U.S. interests in the region.
In addition to the truly horrific attacks on civilians, we have
credible, alarming reports that our partners are transferring U.S.
weapons to nonstate actors who have worked directly against the United
States. Moreover, the length and brutality of this campaign have
allowed Iran to exploit a vacuum and increase its influence and
presence in the gulf.
This resolution sends an important message, but much work remains to
be done.
I have a bipartisan bill that would authorize serious policy
regarding U.S. weapons sales, that would hold accountable those
blocking humanitarian aid, and help set the stage for supporting a
meaningful political process.
As I have said before, we should consider this resolution just as one
step, but one that must be taken, one that the Congress has shown it
supports.
While the President has made his decision clear, the Congress must
continue to assert our independence and continue to act where he will
not.
Finally, let me also repeat what I said this morning at the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee business meeting--the Executive has a
responsibility to share with us critical information that is directly
relevant to the work of the committee.
Last month, I discovered intelligence directly related to a topic
that the administration had regularly briefed the committee about but
completely omitted. Without going into the details, I called the
administration to provide committee members with more information. I
believe the full Senate should have this information, which is relevant
to votes we have taken, and I will be asking the majority and minority
leaders to convene an all-Senators briefing on this topic. I think they
should know before they cast votes.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of overriding
President Trump's veto of the Sanders-Murphy resolution.
The resolution would end U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen, which
I believe is long overdue.
Saudi Arabia's conduct in the war in Yemen has been deplorable.
It has purposefully attacked civilian infrastructure, including
electricity generation facilities, water sanitation plants and, medical
facilities. They have employed cluster munitions in civilian areas and
used disproportionate force to attack military targets. In one attack,
the coalition killed more than 40 children on a school bus, claiming to
this day that the bus was a legitimate military target.
While I am pleased that the United States is no longer refueling
coalition aircraft, I support ending all U.S. assistance for the Saudi-
led coalition before thousands more die. To date, more than 63,000
people have been killed as a direct result of the conflict. If the
conflict continues, an estimated 22,000 more people will be killed this
year. That is only direct combat deaths, which is highly misleading.
The ongoing war, with U.S. support, has indirectly killed far more,
with Yemen's children bearing the brunt of the suffering. Since 2014,
more than 85,000 children have died of starvation. That is worth
repeating: More than 85,000 children have starved to death in the last
4 years in Yemen.
By the end of 2019, the total number of people in Yemen who will die
from a lack of food, health services, and infrastructure is expected to
top 131,000. Sixty percent of those killed will be children under the
age of 5. In fact, a child in Yemen will die every 12 minutes unless we
end this war.
The Saudi coalition's purposeful destruction of Yemen's civilian
infrastructure, targeting of medical facilities and withholding of aid
has led to the world's worst humanitarian crisis: 14 million people
require emergency food aid. A majority of Yemen's population does not
have access to clean water, sanitation, or adequate public healthcare.
Cholera and other diseases are rampant throughout Yemen as public
services have collapsed. There have been 1.2 million suspected cases of
cholera, resulting in 2,500 fatalities from this entirely preventable
disease. Nearly three-quarters of the population--almost 22 million
people--need some form of humanitarian assistance.
Sadly, the actions of the Trump administration have worsened the
humanitarian harm. Through the President's ``Muslim ban,'' the
administration has effectively trapped civilians in Yemen, sealing
their fate.
The Trump administration has not accepted a single refugee from Yemen
since October 2017. It has banned permanent immigration from Yemen,
including immediate family members of U.S. citizens, and it has stopped
issuing temporary visas. The Trump administration has even refused to
redesignate Temporary Protected Status for Yemen, making more than a
thousand protected Yemenis subject to deportation.
The United States can help end the suffering in Yemen by halting all
assistance to the Saudi-led coalition. It could also accept Yemeni
refugees, resume normal immigration and extend TPS to Yemenis currently
in the United States. The Trump administration has callously decided to
do nothing.
The Sanders-Murphy resolution would direct the President to end all
U.S. support for the war in Yemen. Given the horrific consequences of
the conflict, I strongly supported the resolution when it passed the
Senate on March 13, 2019.
I am disappointed but not surprised by the President's veto of it.
The President's apparent plan is to continue to support the Saudi
coalition even though it is clear that there is no military solution to
this conflict. That is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, the President's unconditional support for Saudi Arabia
is not limited to its conduct in Yemen. Under the direction of Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia murdered, dismembered, and
disposed of the remains of a U.S. resident, Jamal Khashoggi. To this
day, the Saudi Government continues to blame ``rogue agents'' for this
heinous murder. They are holding a secret trial for the so-called
accused, refusing to cooperate with international investigations, and
continuing to rely on the Trump administration to shield it from
accountability.
Any nation that would murder a journalist inside its own diplomatic
facility is no friend of the United States. Any leader who would direct
another human being to be dismembered with a bone saw is not fit to
lead.
Let's be clear: Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for Khashoggi's
murder. He is not fit to lead the kingdom and must be held accountable
for this crime.
Saudi Arabia has also arrested, tortured and prosecuted peaceful
political activists, including women. It has kidnapped and forcefully
repatriated
[[Page S2592]]
Saudi nationals, executed religious minorities, and even illegally
detained U.S. citizens.
The vote before us today would send a clear message to Saudi Arabia
that we do not support its heinous policy and actions.
I urge my colleagues to join me in sending that message.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, today we begin to consider S.J. Res. 7,
which is a joint resolution that directs--and I quote from the
resolution--``removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in Yemen.''
This is the second time, of course, that we have considered this. We
passed it, the House passed it, and the President has vetoed it, and it
is now in front of us, under our constitutional responsibilities, to
consider whether the resolution becomes law, notwithstanding the
President's signature.
I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on this, that it does not become
law, and we sustain the veto the President has made.
As I have stated before, the premise of this resolution is
fundamentally flawed and I believe a mischaracterization of the actual
facts on the ground today in Yemen.
I want to start basically by, once again, making it absolutely clear
what is and, more importantly, what is not happening with respect to
U.S. engagement in Yemen.
What isn't happening is the injection of U.S. troops into active
hostilities in the Yemen civil war. To put it simply, our troops are
not cobelligerents in this conflict.
What we are doing, however, is providing limited noncombat support to
the Saudi-led coalition, including intelligence sharing and practices
that have been developed to minimize civilian casualties--I am sure a
goal everybody in this body supports.
This support is very narrow in focus, it is advisory in nature, and
helps defend the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia and the UAE,
which both face a very real threat from the Iranian-backed Houthis and
from Iran itself. Our limited support is intended to prevent the
conflict in Yemen from escalating.
Iran's support for the Houthis, notably the transfer of missiles and
other weaponry, threatens to undermine our partners' territorial
integrity, imperils key shipping routes, and puts U.S. interests at
risk, including thousands of U.S. personnel and citizens currently
within range of the Iranian-made missile systems under Houthi control.
This, of course, includes the airport in Saudi Arabia, which many
Members of this body have used from time to time when they go to codels
in Saudi Arabia.
Many of us have been, for a long time, proponents of resolving the
war in Yemen, and it could be resolved if the Iran regime will simply
turn their back and walk away. Unfortunately, that is not likely. When
I say many of us have been longtime proponents, I would certainly
include the Presiding Officer in that and commend him for his long and
hard work in that regard. He has been dedicated to this for a long time
and has been a leader on this, for which he is to be commended.
Like many of us here today, I am dissatisfied with the state of the
U.S.-Saudi relationship. Indeed, while Saudi Arabia has long been a
bulwark of our Middle East policy, there is a growing gap in U.S.-Saudi
relations.
Frankly, aspects of Saudi Arabia's behavior are cause for serious
concern. We are taking a comprehensive look at our relationship with
Saudi Arabia on the Foreign Relations Committee, and it is common
knowledge that there are a number of pieces of legislation floating
around here--some of which have been introduced and that are
circulating--that address this issue. We are attempting to craft
legislation that can garner support in the committee, address concerns
on both sides of the aisle, and actually become law.
I look forward to examining our interests in a measured and
responsible way that will put the relationship on the right trajectory.
This is not an easy needle to thread. All of us have concerns, all of
us have specific issues in that regard, and what is important is that
we don't just poke at this but that we actually develop legislation
that is bipartisan and that can be signed by the President and will
become law.
The debate today, however, is predicated on the notion that this
resolution will punish the Saudis and stop the devastating humanitarian
crisis in Yemen. It will do neither of those. In fact, the DOD has
assessed that this legislation would have no impact on the limited
support we are currently providing today.
That said, there can be no arguing that after years of conflict,
Yemen is now in the grip of the world's worst humanitarian crisis, and
that is in spite of the fact that many Members of this body--including
the Presiding Officer--have gone way past limits to attempt to try to
do things that would help that humanitarian crisis.
Just the simple delivery of humanitarian matters such as food in the
country have been frustrated by things that logistically should be very
easy but haven't been. I know the Presiding Officer has been very
active in that regard and has been successful in that regard, for which
he should be commended. An estimated 24 million--80 percent--of the
Yemeni population are in need of assistance, and 15.9 million people--
more than half of the country's population--remains severely food
insecure.
A solution to this conflict must be found. Make no mistake, many,
indeed, most of us, are committed to doing everything in our power to
restore peace in a country that has been ravished by years of proxy war
and fractious infighting.
I believe it is axiomatic that lasting peace can only be achieved
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 right now as we sit here today.
As this body considers ways to drive effective U.S. policy that helps
end the war and relieves humanitarian suffering in Yemen, I would urge
all parties to abide by the agreement reached last December in
Stockholm and find a political solution to the conflict. We should
remain committed to doing everything in our power to advance this
cause.
Thank you.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill (S.J. Res. 7)
pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the
contrary notwithstanding?
The yeas and nays are required under the Constitution.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio)
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NAYS--45
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
[[Page S2593]]
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
McSally
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Bennet
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
45.
Two-thirds of the Senators being duly chosen and sworn not having
voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution on reconsideration fails
to pass over the President's veto.
The majority leader.
____________________