Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 128 (Monday, July 29, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 128 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5126-S5134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED TRANSFER TO THE
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND, THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN, AND THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC OF
CERTAIN DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES--VETO

______

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED EXPORT TO THE
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND, AND THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE OF CERTAIN DEFENSE ARTICLES AND
SERVICES--VETO

______

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED EXPORT TO THE
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND OF CERTAIN DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES--VETO

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the veto messages to accompany S.J.
Res. 36, 37, and 38, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 36, a joint resolution
providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed
transfer to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain,
and the Italian Republic of certain defense articles and
services.
Veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 37, a joint resolution
providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed
export to the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of
France of certain defense articles and services.
Veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 38, a joint resolution
providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed
export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of certain defense
articles and services.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I just listened with interest to the
remarks of the majority leader and his accounting of history--his very
defensive remarks, based on an attack from, I guess, some journalist.
The majority leader, I would say, was liberally using words like
``McCarthy'' and ``McCarthyism'' and ``liar'' and how he proudly stood
up to the Soviet Union in the wake of Brezhnev and Chernenko and
Andropov. They are fascinating words, but you don't need x-ray vision
to notice a few things about the discussion the majority leader
launched. First of all, this weekend, the Director of National Security
resigned in frustration that his boss, the President of the United
States, has chosen to believe Russia instead of his own intelligence
officials.
One of most embarrassing moments in my lifetime was when the
President of the United States stood next to the dictator of Russia and
said that he believed Putin and not his own intelligence officials and
the consensus of his intelligence officials when it comes to
influencing our 2016 elections.
So I hear that the majority leader always has an acute sense of
history and his place in it. I am hopeful the majority leader, using
his knowledge of history, understands the influence Russia continues to
have in our country and on our elections and that this body will
actually address that instead of denying the obvious.

Opioids

Mr. President, America is in the middle of a public health crisis. In
my State, 14 people die, on average, every single day of a drug
overdose. The numbers are not much better in most of the other 49
States. We have known for a long time that addiction so often starts in
the family medicine cabinet and that drug companies were all too eager
to push these addictive drugs on the American people, but the evidence
we have seen in the past couple of weeks is staggering.
New data from the DEA released this month reveals that drug companies
flooded the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pills
from 2006 to 2012--76 billion pills in a nation of slightly more than
323 million people. Seventy-six billion pills is enough to supply every
person in the United States with 36 pills every one of those years from
2006 to 2012. This evidence makes clear these companies, these
corporations knew exactly what they were doing.
One wholesale drug distributor in Ohio wrote an email that the opioid
pills were ``flyin' out of there. It is like people are addicted to
these things or something. Oh wait, people are.''
Can you believe that? He acknowledged they are addicted, and he joked
about it. If that is not bad enough, then the drug company
representative responded: ``Just like Doritos, [people] keep eating.
We'll make more.''
They certainly did make more. That is what Big Pharma does. They push
their drugs on the American people to line their own pockets and the
cost in empty bank accounts and ruined lives be damned.
If that isn't bad enough, these corporations can actually write off
the cost of advertising these drugs on their taxes. In other words, all
of us as taxpayers subsidize this drug company advertising. All those
years that Big Pharma was pushing more and more opioids on the country,
selling them ad after ad, they were getting a tax break to do it. Yet
does this body do anything about that? Of course not.
For years, I tried to track down drug company ads. It is why I
introduced an amendment at our Finance Committee

[[Page S5127]]

markup last week based on my legislation with Senator Shaheen to end
taxpayer subsidies for Big Pharma's drug ads. We shouldn't be giving
tax breaks to Big Pharma to sell its drugs, period.
There are a lot of other ideas many of us have to crack down on these
companies and limit their power to push potentially addictive drugs on
people.
Senator Hassan filed an amendment during that same committee drug
pricing markup to increase transparency on these drug companies. Big
Pharma has a history of creating false grassroots organizations to do
their lobbying for them. Groups supposedly made up of ordinary citizens
but in reality are bought and paid for by drug companies. People have
the right to know if the groups pushing drugs on them are actually
bought and paid for by those pharmaceutical companies. The opioid
addiction crisis is one of the greatest public health emergencies of
our lifetime, and it is crystal clear Big Pharma purposefully and
deliberately helped to cause it, and the Federal Government gave them
tax breaks and continues to give them tax breaks to do it. We need to
hold these corporations accountable, and we need to make sure they
never again have the unchecked power to push addictive drugs or any
other drugs on the American people just to line their executives'
pockets.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Election Security

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday President Trump announced that
after nearly 2\1/2\ years of dedicated service, our former Senate
colleague Dan Coats would be stepping down from his post as Director of
National Intelligence.
Director Coats has led the intelligence community during a turbulent
time for our country, and with our country continuing to face
persistent threats from rogue and hostile states, as well as the
ongoing war against terror, he has done a magnificent job and one that
deserves all the accolades we can possibly bestow upon him. We know he
entered the job on the tail of a blatant attempt by the Russian
Government to interfere with our Nation's elections, and he made it a
top priority to ensure that the American people could cast a vote with
confidence in 2018 and beyond.
I just happened to come in the Chamber, when the Senator from Ohio
was continuing to question the majority leader's commitment to election
integrity, and I must say that it is ironic to me that the Russian
interference with the 2016 election was, by and large, met with
inaction, really nothing that the Obama administration did, even though
they knew it was ongoing as early as the summer of 2016.
The truth is, as a result of this administration's and this
Congress's efforts, the 2018 election was essentially interference
free, and that is because of tremendous actions being taken by the
Department of Homeland Security to work with our partners in the State
election systems to provide sensors that can identify attempts to hack
into their system as well as the movement of State election officials
to move to paper ballots and the like.
We also know we have been much more aggressive attacking the cyber
threats at their source, and while much of that is classified and can't
be discussed in a public forum, suffice it to say that if we can just
repeat the successes of 2018 during the Trump administration in 2020,
Americans can be confident their vote will be cast and be counted as it
should be.
That is not to suggest for a moment that we shouldn't remain vigilant
because we know the Russian Federation is going to continue to try to
sow discord and cause us to question our own institutions. They are
very good at it. They have been doing it a long time, but now they have
additional tools like social media and propaganda as well as the
complicity sometimes of the mainstream media in writing unverified and
unsourced stories that create more and more and contribute more and
more to this atmosphere in which we currently live.
Let me talk again about Director Coats because his remarkable career
as a public servant included, at times, a Congressman, an ambassador to
Germany, a U.S. Senator twice, and Director of National Intelligence.
I know I speak for others in this Chamber in saying that we are
grateful for Dan Coats' dedicated service to our country, and I am
honored to be one of those who can call him a friend. I wish him and
Marsha the best in whatever the next chapter brings, hopefully starting
with a well-deserved vacation.
I was also glad to see that the President has chosen a worthy
successor to that position, my friend John Ratcliffe. For 4\1/2\
years, John has faithfully and diligently served Texas's Fourth
District in Congress for the people of Texas.
Prior to that, he served with distinction as U.S. attorney,
prosecuting cases that spanned a wide spectrum of issues, including
counterterrorism and national security.
Mr. Ratcliffe is a Member of the House Intelligence, Homeland
Security, and Judiciary Committees, a pretty good portfolio for
somebody who would be the next Director of National Intelligence. So he
already has an understanding of the threats facing our country and the
challenges that lie ahead. I am confident he will continue Dan Coats'
strong leadership as a nonpartisan strong leader for the intelligence
community.
Sadly, though, we can already begin to see our Democratic colleagues
beginning to play their partisan games, threatening to defeat this
nomination at the expense of the American people. This position is
simply too important to the security of our Nation to be bogged down in
partisan politics. Since this job was created, every single Director
has been confirmed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. In fact, none of
these men received the support of fewer than 85 Senators. This one
should be no different.
I look forward to the President formally nominating John Ratcliffe
to be the next Director of National Intelligence.

Judicial Nominations

Mr. President, on another matter, during the first 2 years of the
Trump administration, the list of vacancies across the Federal
Government was a long one, particularly on the Federal bench. The
administration worked swiftly to find well-qualified nominees who were
eager to serve our country and our Federal judiciary. Once those
nominees were submitted to the Senate, the chairman quickly held
confirmation hearings and advanced the vast majority of these nominees
to the floor, but from there the process came to a screeching halt. But
from there, the process came to a screeching halt. Our colleagues on
the other side pulled every trick in the book to bog down and slow down
the nominations process. For no other purpose than delay, they forced
cloture votes on nominees with broad bipartisan support. Many were
confirmed without a single Senator voting against them. Our Democratic
colleagues didn't do this because these men and women were unqualified
or otherwise controversial, but they did so because they were willing
to do whatever it took to stymie President Trump and his administration
and bring the work of this body to a crawl.

The list of vacancies kept growing longer and longer until, earlier
this year, we were forced to pass a modest rules change that has
fortunately broken the logjam and allowed us to fill these critical
positions. As the majority leader likes to say, we are now making
serious headway in the personnel business. The number of vacancies has
gotten smaller, and the list of public servants who are now on the job
keeps getting longer.
Last week, we added more names to that impressive list. We confirmed
two district judges, inspector general for the Department of Homeland
Security, and both the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration. In addition, we approved two leaders
whose experience will provide needed stability and leadership at the
Pentagon.
After nearly 7 months with an Acting Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper
has finally been confirmed for the position of Secretary of Defense on
a permanent basis. Throughout his career, Secretary Esper has
demonstrated integrity, sound judgment, and unabashed patriotism. I saw
those qualities when I met with him most recently a few weeks ago and
we had the chance to speak about some of the most pressing global
threats we were facing as a nation today. Secretary Esper received
broad

[[Page S5128]]

bipartisan support, with 90 Senators voting for him. I am glad he is
now on the job, leading America's national security.
We also confirmed another important senior Department of Defense
official last week. GEN Mark Milley was resoundingly confirmed to be
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with only one Senator voting
against him. I can't think of anyone more prepared for the job than
General Milley, a former Army Ranger and Green Beret. He has a
remarkable military resume, including commander officer of the III
Corps in Fort Hood, TX, where I first got to know him years ago. I know
he and Secretary Esper will continue to have a strong working
relationship, and I look forward to continuing to work with both of
them in their new roles.
This week, we intend to keep our progress on nominations going
strong, and we have seven Texas district court judge nominees on the
docket. Among those well-qualified nominees is a former Army
paratrooper and Marine JAG officer, former and current intermediate
court judges, former and current Federal and State prosecutors, and a
Texas Supreme Court justice--a job I once held. They have all proudly
served the Lone Star State in a variety of capacities.
I am, again, impressed by the outstanding nominees that the President
has recruited to fill these important judicial vacancies. When these
nominees are confirmed, we will finally break down two barriers in the
Texas district courts. Ada Brown will be the first African-American
woman to sit in the Northern District of Texas, and Jason Pullman will
be the first African American in the Western District of Texas. Each of
these nominees has shown their legal acumen, clear judgment, and
unwavering commitment to the rule of law. I look forward to voting for
their nominations later this week.
In addition to confirming these Texans and a dozen other district
court judges, the Senate will confirm a critical Cabinet-level position
in the administration. When Nikki Haley announced that after 2 years of
dedicated service, she would leave her post as Ambassador to the United
Nations at the end of last year, we knew it would leave a major hole in
that organization. But the President didn't have far to look to find a
well-qualified nominee. Two years ago, the Senate unanimously confirmed
Kelly Knight Craft to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada. Looking
back on that 2 years now, it is safe to say it has been a dynamic time
during our relationship with our neighbor to the north, a fact that
made Ambassador Craft's job all that much more important.
Through each challenge and difference between our leaders, Ambassador
Craft has demonstrated her tact and diplomatic skills. In addition to
the usual duties of the office, Ambassador Craft facilitated the
renegotiation of NAFTA--the North American Free Trade Agreement--and
helped broker the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement--the USMCA. She helped
build consensus on this agreement, which will benefit North American
workers, farmers, and businesses, and won friends from both countries
in the process.
Once Trump nominated Ambassador Craft to represent the United States
in the U.N., we heard glowing endorsements from many of those people.
Canadian officials praised her role in NAFTA negotiations and border
conditions, and U.S. diplomats who served under Republican and
Democratic administrations spoke of their confidence in Ambassador
Craft and her ability to represent our country on the world stage.
For the last 2 years, Ambassador Craft has made our country proud as
the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, and I am confident her outstanding
record will continue at the United Nations. I appreciate her
willingness to serve in this important role and look forward to voting
for her nomination later this week.
As we prepare to head home for the August recess to spend time with
our constituents, I am glad to know these important positions
throughout the Federal Government will not be left vacant for much
longer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
(The remarks of Mr. Barrasso pertaining to the introduction of S.
2302 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
(Mr. DAINES assumed the chair.)
Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

Election Security

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, the majority leader
came to the floor to express his frustration at being accused of
blocking election security legislation. I would make three factual
points.
First, Russia did interfere in our 2016 elections. Every intelligence
agency, everyone who has looked at this is 100 percent clear Russia
interfered.
Two, Russia will attempt to interfere in the 2020 elections and is
already doing it. That is not only what Special Counsel Mueller said
but FBI Director Wray and many other appointees in the intelligence and
counterintelligence agencies appointed by President Trump.
Three, the Republican majority has done nothing--absolutely nothing--
to deal with this problem.
So here is an easy way for Leader McConnell to silence the critics
who accuse him of blocking election security: Stop blocking.
Leader McConnell doesn't have to put the bills that we Democrats have
proposed or the bill the House has passed--they were bipartisan bills--
and we can debate the issue.
America's democracy is at risk when a foreign power interferes. So if
Leader McConnell doesn't like being criticized on election security, I
challenge him: Let's debate it on the floor with amendments. I
challenge him: Support additional appropriations for States to harden
their election systems. In both cases, Leader McConnell has not done
that. In fact, he has said he opposes more money to the States even
though they say--I believe there are 21 attorneys general who have said
they need more money.
Despite our requests, Leader McConnell has not only blocked unanimous
consent requests but has not put any other legislation on the floor to
deal with this.
Again, I repeat, this should not be a political issue. This should
not be a political issue. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican,
Independent, whether you are a liberal, a conservative, in between, you
should despise the fact--any American should despise the fact--that
Russia has interfered in our elections and is attempting to do so
again. Putin wants to disrupt our democracy. He resents that we are a
free and open and wonderful democratic society. And for us to sit here
with our arms folded and do nothing? Unheard of in previous years.
I still don't have a really clear idea why Leader McConnell is so
adamantly opposed to doing anything on election security. Maybe it is
because President Trump, in his childlike way, resents the fact that
people point out that Russia interfered. He thinks it delegitimizes his
Presidential election. But that is not a good enough reason, if that is
the case. We have an obligation. Do you know whom we have an obligation
to, Mr. President? We have an obligation to the hundreds of thousands
of Americans--the millions of Americans who laid down their lives to
defend our right to vote in our free and open democracy throughout the
centuries.
If we are going to let a foreign power interfere and not do anything
about it for some kind of political reason, shame on us. Shame on this
body. And it is Leader McConnell who, as the majority leader, can
determine what is put on the floor, and he has put nothing on the floor
on elections.
When last year we attempted in the appropriations bill to add more
money to help the States harden their systems against cyber attack, to
make sure they have paper ballots in case someone tampers with the
ballots, Leader McConnell opposed it. He said it is not needed. Just
recently, I heard him say it is not needed. That is not true. That

[[Page S5129]]

is absolutely not true. Twenty-one attorneys general say they need it.
Nine States don't have backup systems with complete paper balloting.
So if Leader McConnell takes umbrage at his election security
critics, I challenge him: Prove them wrong. Support our amendment to
the appropriations bill. Bring election security legislation to the
floor because, as the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is chaired
by a Republican, the FBI Director, who was appointed by President
Trump, and former Special Counsel Mueller, who did an extensive
investigation, have all made clear, when it comes to Russian
interference in our elections, the case is certainly not closed.

Director of National Intelligence

Mr. President, yesterday the Director of National Intelligence, Dan
Coats--a former Member of this Chamber who is renowned for his
integrity and his bipartisanship--announced his resignation. With his
departure, the circle of advisers who are unafraid to speak truth to
President Trump continues to shrink. It seems that if you are going to
speak truth and tell the President something he doesn't want to hear,
you are fired or at least frozen out so that you quit. Coats is one of
many in a long line to whom this has been done. Now, making matters
worse, the President proposed replacing this longtime, fair, decent,
and honorable public servant with a partisan shill--Representative
John Ratcliffe of Texas.
The DNI--Director of National Intelligence--handles some of the most
sensitive responsibilities in the Federal Government. It requires a
high level of expertise. It requires trust from the intelligence
community. And it requires a track record of independence, an ability
in the closed confines of the White House to speak truth to power and
tell the President what is happening, not just what the President wants
to hear. On all these measures, it seems Representative Ratcliffe falls
far short of that high bar.
John Negroponte became the DNI after decades of working in the
Foreign Service. Dennis Blair, James Clapper, and Mike McConnell all
had decades of military experience. Dan Coats served as a diplomat,
Senator, and sergeant in the Army before assuming the post.
Representative Ratcliffe, on the other hand, is a three-term tea party
Congressman who, when he goes on TV, sort of appeals to the President's
sense of stridency and partisanship.
Representative Ratcliffe lacks the experience required to lead an
intelligence agency, much less the entire intelligence community. His
time in Congress--particularly over the past several weeks since it was
rumored he might be picked for the post--has been alarmingly partisan.
He has been a fierce critic of the Russia investigation. He has earned
praise from deep state conspiracy theorists.
During the Mueller hearings, Representative Ratcliffe badgered and
harassed the former special counsel with a baseless line of questioning
and repeatedly interrupted him when he was trying to respond. He showed
little regard for the seriousness of Putin's interference in our
election and the need for election security in the future.
Watching Representative Ratcliffe's performance in the Mueller
hearing, I was reminded of how I felt watching General Flynn. In the
summer of 2016, I saw this three-star general leading chants of
people--``Lock her up''--at the Republican convention and at rallies. I
said: Who is this guy? How does someone become a three-star and do
something like this? At the time I thought: There is something
seriously wrong with General Flynn here.
Well, I had the same feeling watching Mr. Ratcliffe at the Mueller
hearing. The same twisting and subversion and flatout ignorance, the
same partisan demagoguery to appeal to the worst instincts of Americans
all seem to be his MO. There is something wrong here. The DNI is
supposed to be the least partisan member of the President's Cabinet. It
would be a grave mistake for the Senate to elevate this partisan
warrior to that position.
I have to wonder, are my Republican colleagues comfortable with their
party's direction on national security? Are they comfortable going
along with Leader McConnell as he blocks legislation to protect our
elections and deter foreign adversaries from interfering? Are they
comfortable with a polarizing, partisan candidate taking charge of our
national intelligence community? Are they comfortable knowing that this
nominee may well not tell the President the truth when there is
evidence from our brave intelligence operatives around the world that
something we are doing is wrong?
I would hope my Republican colleagues would be deeply uncomfortable
with these developments. Ten years ago, I have no doubt, Mr. Ratcliffe
wouldn't have even been nominated, let alone approved by this body. So
I hope that is the case today. I hope we haven't gone so far away and
in such obeisance to a President who only likes to hear what he wants
to hear that we would nominate someone like this. It would be a shame
and it would weaken America because if we don't know the truth, we
can't act on the truth.
Will our Republican colleagues start speaking up and doing something
about this? When Mr. Ratcliffe comes before the Senate, he will have to
answer for his long history of partisan statements and blind fealty to
President Trump. Mr. Ratcliffe will have to answer tough questions
about Russia's meddling in our election, about his apparent disinterest
in election security, and about his inability or unwillingness to show
independence from the President. If he sounds anything like he did
while questioning Mueller, Senate Republicans would be making a grave
mistake by advancing his nomination--a mistake for the country we love.

China

Mr. President, finally, on China, starting today, the United States
will resume trade negotiations with China, which have recently stalled
over Chinese equivocation on a number of issues.
Anyone who has viewed China's behavior over the past year of
negotiations--or for that matter, the past decade of its behavior--
knows China is always reluctant to make concessions that would put its
businesses on a level playing field. China will resist, delay, and
offer bare-bones concessions and then retract them in hopes that it can
avoid meaningfully reforming its economy and playing fair on trade.
So, as negotiations begin again, I urge President Trump and his team
not to back down but to put unrelenting pressure on China to make
significant, concrete, and enduring commitments to trade fairly.
I don't agree with President Trump on much, but he has been tougher
on China than any of the previous administrations, and that is needed.
But to be tough on China and then surrender our leverage at the last
minute for nothing in return would be terrible.
One of our greatest leverage points against China is Huawei, a state-
supported Chinese telecom giant that our intelligence agencies have
labeled nothing less than a national security threat. The Trump
administration has correctly sought restrictions on Huawei, even while
they have sometimes waved on their severity.
Now, as negotiations are set to resume, the President must not give
up leverage on Huawei in exchange for anything less than concrete
commitments on market access, intellectual property theft, and forced
technology transfers.
These are issues paramount to the competitiveness of American
business and will cause us to lose millions of jobs and trillions of
dollars in the future, as we have lost in the past and as the President
correctly points out, to China's rapaciousness.
I am concerned enough now about the possibility the administration
will sell out, particularly in the wake of reports that President Trump
has agreed to soft pedal criticism of China over its Hong Kong policy,
hoping for smoother trade talks.
The administration is wrong on two fronts. First, it is always
crucial for the United States to stand up for democracy, human rights,
and civil liberties everywhere. The idea that the President of the
United States would sell the democratic aspirations of the brave people
of Hong Kong down the river in exchange for possible progress on trade
is shocking. But, second, the idea that going easy on China's human
rights record will ease trade talks is backward. China responds to
strength, not flattery or capitulation.
The best way to get China to do something fair is to stand tough on

[[Page S5130]]

Huawei. Don't sell out. Don't give Huawei half or three-quarters of
what it wants. Hold tough, and the Chinese in a few months will come to
us with real concessions. It is a game of who is stronger and who can
last longer. I hope it is us. If it is not, all of the President's
previous actions on China will be wasted and go down the drain.

9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

There are two more things, including the VCF bill signing. There are
some good things that happened in the last week in Washington. People
think nothing good comes out of Washington. Once in a while, we do
something good. Once in a while, our Republican colleagues will go
along with something that needs to be done, instead of blocking
everything and putting it in a graveyard, which they usually do. That
happened last week when this body finally passed the bipartisan 9/11
Victim Compensation Fund bill, and today the President signed it into
law, closing the book on nearly two decades of advocacy to provide the
care and compensation that 9/11 first responders deserve.
Nothing, nothing should or can get in the way of our first responders
getting their due. Finally, at last, these brave first responders had
to spend too much time here in Washington, often in their wheelchairs,
often dying of cancer, begging Senators to give them the help they
need--the same help we give to veterans who, like our first responders
after 9/11, in a time of war, rushed to danger and suffered injury. We
help them. We help our veterans, our soldiers, and our Armed Forces, in
the same way we should be helping 9/11 first responders. At long last,
we are doing that. It has been a long struggle, but because of the
courage of many who joined the cause, the memory of people like James
Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, Luis Alvarez, and so many others will live on in
this law. Their parents--and I know Mrs. Pfeifer and I know some of the
Alvarez family; I have met them--can know, despite the pain in their
hearts at their grave losses, that the deaths of their loved ones will
not be in vain.

Bipartisan Background Checks

Finally, my heart is filled with sadness and anger today after
reports of deadly shootings at festivals on opposite coastlines, one in
my hometown of Brooklyn and another across the country, in Gilroy, CA.
There are no words for the senselessness of these tragedies, which
continue unabated while the majority leader once again refuses to even
debate commonsense gun laws.
Put the bill the House passed on the floor. We have had bipartisan
efforts in this body to close the gun show loophole. Let's close the
loopholes and have universal background checks. Almost no Americans
object to preventing felons or spousal abusers or those adjudicated
mentally incompetent from getting guns, but Leader McConnell and the
Republican majority do, and we have made no progress and these awful
events continue.
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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Carper pertaining to the introduction of S. 2302
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CARPER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Montana.
(The remarks of Mr. Daines pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
289 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. DAINES. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Your resolution will be received and
appropriately referred.
The Senator from New Jersey.

Veto Override

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me
in voting to override the President's veto of three resolutions of
disapproval on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
As we all know, several weeks ago, the Secretary of State attempted
to bypass this body and the entire Congress on 22 separate arms sales
to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates--all on the pretext of an
urgent physical threat from Iran that was, at best, ill-defined and, at
worst, completely false.
Let me be clear. Iran has and will continue to pose a threat to U.S.
interests and allies in the region, and I have and will continue to
approve arms sales to partners and allies that address legitimate
security threats and advance American interests.
From the start, this administration has failed to demonstrate what
kind of national security threat or ``emergency'' from Iran warranted
fast-tracking the sale of these weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Indeed, Secretary Pompeo's own May 24 justification for the sales
lacked any persuasive information explaining how these sales would
address an Iranian threat so serious that it justified bypassing
Congress on an ``emergency'' basis.
That is why I introduced resolutions to disapprove these sales, and
that is why 6 weeks ago, this body came together in a bipartisan way to
reassert the role of Congress in reviewing arms sales and passed 22
separate resolutions of disapproval.
Today I ask that we come together again. In fact, not even President
Trump's own veto messages mention the word ``emergency.'' It is clear
this administration has had other motives from the start. We continue
to hear officials invent new reasons for pushing through these sales.
We heard these sales are necessary for ``sustaining the global supply
chain,'' for preventing ``loss of sale to peer competitors,'' for
maintaining U.S. ``credibility as an arms supplier,'' and so on.
So, look, many of us expected the President to use his veto powers.
That is his right, but the constitutional, strategic, and moral
imperatives that led the Senate to reject the sale of these arms 6
weeks ago still stand today.
Let me review three main reasons I hope we can unite today to
override the President's veto.
First is how these weapons are being used. By now, we are well
acquainted with what has been, at best, the incompetent, and, at worst,
criminal actions of Saudi Arabia's airstrikes in Yemen. All evidence
suggests that the Saudis have intentionally targeted hospitals,
bridges, power stations, apartment buildings, weddings, schools, and,
yes, even a schoolbus filled with children, leaving thousands of Yemeni
civilians killed or maimed.
Over the years, Congress has received many assurances about how U.S.
arms sales, advice, and assistance would supposedly help the Saudi Air
Force and command authority better identify military targets and
thereby reduce the risk to civilians. Those assurances no longer stand.
We cannot brand the sale of precision-guided munitions as humanitarian
weapons if the Saudis are intentionally targeting civilians in the
first place.
That is why, last year, I placed an informal hold on the sale of
60,000 precision-guided munitions, or PGMs, to Saudi Arabia, requesting
the administration explain how they would enhance efforts to reduce
civilian casualties. They failed to do so in a fulsome and convincing
way, and, believe me, I would like to be convinced.
After the slaughter of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in
October of last year, the Trump administration apparently flatout gave
up trying to convince anyone that the Saudis have any regard whatsoever
for human rights at home, in Yemen, or at their diplomatic consulates
abroad.
Last week, recognizing the abject failures of the Yemeni campaign,
the United Arab Emirates announced it was ceasing its support and
largely withdrawing from Yemen. I commend that as the right decision.
I do not doubt that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are
concerned about Iranian threats, but the indisputable reality is that
these precision-guided weapon kits were always headed for this
disastrous air war in Yemen. So, again, let's not delude ourselves.
These sales will in no way support Saudi Arabia or the United Arab
Emirates or the United States from an imminent Iranian threat. Full
stop.
Second, if we fail to override the President's veto, we will allow
this administration to transfer American jobs and sensitive military
technology to

[[Page S5131]]

the Saudis. That is right. With this sale, the Trump administration has
authorized Raytheon to allow the Saudis to begin manufacturing part of
the electronic guidance system for these precision-guided munitions. In
other words, the administration is not only selling the Saudis these
weapons but also portions of the blueprints for building these weapons.
This work has always and always should be done by American workers
right here in the United States. America's defense industry produces
the most sophisticated systems in the world. Yet the Trump
administration is opening the door for the Saudis to manufacture their
own similar weapons in the future or transfer our American-made
technical know-how to other countries.
Disturbingly, we also know that if the Trump administration gets its
way, this transfer will not be a one-time thing. State Department
officials have actually admitted to the Foreign Relations Committee
staff that this will be the first of many sales authorizing the Saudis
to manufacture even larger, more sensitive portions of these highly
advanced weapons.
My colleagues, that is simply madness. Not only is this sale a Saudi
jobs program, but it is also a giveaway of sensitive U.S. military
technology. The President's own veto message claims that not giving
away American jobs and sensitive military technology to Saudi Arabia
would ``abandon'' them. I am guessing by ``them,'' he means the royal
family the President is intent on praising and courting.
I ask my colleagues who oppose stopping this sale or are thinking of
allowing the President's veto to stand: Do you want to be on record
supporting a Saudi jobs program? Do you want to be on the record as
aiding and abetting the transfer of sensitive U.S. military technology
to Saudi Arabia, a source of extremism and bloodshed in the world?
S.J. Res. 37 disapproves a sale of precision-guided munitions to the
UAE at a time when the UAE is pulling its military forces out of Yemen.
Yet the President's veto message says that stopping this sale would
somehow prolong the suffering in Yemen, which goes against any logic
with which I am familiar.
S.J. Res. 38 disapproves a sale of fuzes for Saudi bombs. Yet the
President argues that stopping this sale will again prolong the
suffering of the innocent in Yemen, presumably by denying the Saudis
the ability to target them indiscriminately. It doesn't make sense.
Finally, I think all of my colleagues can agree that the United
States and Saudi Arabia need a course correction. The brutal murder of
Jamal Khashoggi, an American resident and journalist in a Saudi
consulate, may have been the final, violent straw that broke the
camel's back, but we must reexamine this relationship. Beyond the
Khashoggi killing and the atrocities in Yemen, the Saudi-led blockade
of Qatar and the ongoing rift within the GCC are not in the interests
of the United States. The Saudis kidnapping of the Lebanese Prime
Minister is not in the interest of the United States.
Finally, Saudi Arabia's detention and torture of human rights
activists calling for the same exact rights the Crown Prince himself
pretends to support--its suppression of dissent and speech--this
behavior does not reflect American values or our long-term interests.
My colleagues, America is better than this. This Senate and this
Congress must continue to stand up for reason, for decency, and for the
actual foreign policy and national security interests of the United
States--not the personal interests of the Trump family and their
misguided willingness to put profit over principle and profit over
people.
This administration's willingness to turn a blind eye to the
wholesale slaughter of civilians and the murder of journalists and move
forward with the sale of these weapons will have a lasting implication
for America's moral leadership on the world stage.
That is why, 6 weeks ago, in a bipartisan fashion, the Senate came
together to approve an unprecedented 22 separate bipartisan resolutions
of disapproval. That is why 5 weeks ago, the Committee on Foreign
Relations approved my bipartisan bill--the Saudi Arabia False
Emergencies, or SAFE Act--to prevent similar abuses of emergency
authority in the future.
That is why, 3 weeks ago, the House passed several amendments to
their National Defense Authorization Act to stop these same arms sales,
and, 2 weeks ago, the House passed three of the Senate joint
resolutions of disapproval and sent them to the President. It is the
first time, since 1988, that any such resolution has passed the
Congress, and it is the first time multiple resolutions of disapproval
had done so.
Finally, just last week, the Foreign Relations Committee approved on
a bipartisan vote the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act,
legislation I introduced with Senators Young, Murphy, Graham, Reed,
Collins, and Shaheen that would finally impose real sanctions,
including on arms sales, on Saudi Arabia for its atrocities--
legislation I hope Senator McConnell will swiftly bring to the floor.
I hope this administration appreciates the gravity of these actions
and those to come.
Today we have an opportunity to again demonstrate to the President,
the Secretary of State, and to the butchers of Saudi Arabia that the
U.S. Senate will stand up for our values, will stand up for our long-
term national security interests, and will put country over short-term
business interests.
I urge my colleagues to take this stand today, override these vetoes,
and stop the Saudi arms sales.
There are few days in this body where we can say that our votes will
save lives. Today is such a day.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to address an important
issue, that the Secretary of State did not comply with the law when he
made an emergency declaration on May 24 to bypass the Congress and
issue export permission for 22 separate arms sales to Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates. Because of this, a case can be made that some
or all of the export licenses and the letters of offer are not valid
because they did not comply with the Arms Export Control Act.
We have made clear in this body that there is strong bipartisan
opposition to the President and Secretary of State's reckless disregard
for the law, for common sense, for human rights, for basic human
decency, and even for our national security, when it comes to matters
involving Saudi Arabia. We voted to disapprove each and every one of
these 22 ``emergency'' sales, and I have no doubt, we will continue to
attempt to correct the President's self-serving myopia on Saudi Arabia
and its murderous leadership.
But the Secretary of State's failure to comply with statutory
obligations is a serious matter that we cannot allow to get lost in the
bipartisan outcry over the Secretary's incredible contentions that
these sales respond to an Iranian emergency. At the risk of losing some
in the minutia, let me briefly lay out how the Secretary's
``emergency'' declaration fails to comply with the basic requirements
of the emergency provisions in Arms Export Control Act and degrades
congressional prerogatives.
The Secretary's failure to comply with the statute materially and
adversely impacts the Senate's institutional interests. It undermines
the clear and intentional statutory balance between Congress and the
executive branch designed to govern individual arms sales, and it
impedes the Senate's ability to understand, conduct oversight, and
respond to each sale. As laid out below, in this instance, the blanket
approach taken with regard to these 22 sales demonstrates precisely why
a generalized determination and certification is insufficient to
protect the Senate's role in arms sales.
Mr. President, allow me to explain further. The Secretary indicated
that he determined that, pursuant to sections 36(b)(1), (c)(2), and
(d)(2), an emergency exists that requires the immediate sale of defense
articles and services to Saudi Arabia and UAE and thereby purported to
waive the congressional review requirements for the 22 certifications.
In support of this action, the Secretary submitted only one
determination and one memorandum of justification. The emergency
authorities cited above and upon which the Secretary relies, however,
do not allow

[[Page S5132]]

for a blanket determination and justification covering multiple
certifications. Rather, these provisions require submission of a
separate determination and justification for each individual emergency
certification.
This requirement is clear from both the structure and text of
sections 36 (b), (c), and (d). For example, subsection (b)(l) mandates
that the President submit an individual certification for each letter
of offer--``before such letter of offer is issued, the President shall
submit . . . a numbered certification with respect to such offer . . .
.''. The emergency authority available to the President in (b)(1) is
similarly limited and may be exercised only in relation to a specific
letter of offer covering a specific sale, with a justification and
determination required in each instance such authority is exercised.
The relevant statutory references are only in the singular, and not in
the plural, leaving no doubt as to what the law requires.
``If the President states in his certification that an emergency
exists which requires the proposed sale in the national security
interest of the United States, thus waiving the congressional review
requirements of this subsection, he shall set forth in the
certification a detailed justification for his determination, including
a description of the emergency circumstances which necessitate the
immediate issuance of the letter of offer and a discussion of the
national security interests involved.''
The structure and text of 36(c)(2) and (d)(1) are analogous in
requiring a specific determination and justification to accompany each
emergency certification.
Mr. President, given the extraordinary nature of the emergency
authority and the national security sensitivities involved in arms
sales, it is not surprising that Congress did not give the President
blanket authority to invoke an emergency and bypass Congress. The
requirement for a case-by-case exercise of such authority protects
congressional interests by ensuring that the Senate has sufficient
information on each sale to understand the sale, conduct oversight,
assess whether use of the emergency authority is consistent with the
AECA, and determine whether a resolution of disapproval is warranted.
The case-by-case approach set out in the statute was designed to
protect against the very situation the Senate faced as a result of the
Secretary's blanket use of the emergency authority to cover 22 sales at
once. The Secretary was abusing the emergency authority by invoking it
to cover sales for which there is no actual emergency need, e.g., the
manufacture of F-18 fighter aircraft side panels in Saudi Arabia for
export outside the region, when Saudi Araba doesn't even own the F-18.
Further, the senior State Department official responsible for arms
sales, Assistant Secretary of State R. Clarke Cooper, reinforced this
concern in a briefings to Senate staff when he cited justifications
other than Iran for the 22 sales, including the possible loss of arms
sales to China and Russia, the need for ``interoperability'' of weapons
systems, maintaining credibility as a reliable arms supplier, and
supporting the global supply chain for weapons sales.
By lumping all 22 certifications together with only one determination
and justification, the Secretary sought to mask obvious deficiencies in
his position that there is an actual and articulable emergency
applicable to each of the 22 sales. This tactic runs directly counter
to senators' ability to conduct oversight and the body's ability to
consider resolutions of disapproval in an informed manner.
Unfortunately, we must conclude that the Secretary intentionally took
this approach, given that he and the Department were not forthcoming
with the Senate as a general matter in relation to the 22 sales. For
example, just 2 days prior to the submission of the certifications, the
Secretary briefed all Senators on the enhanced threat from Iran and the
steps the United States is taking to counter that threat, yet did not
mention the arms sales or pending emergency certifications, which he
now justifies as necessary due to the Iran threat. Other Iran briefings
by the administration similarly omitted this issue. The view that the
omissions were purposeful is bolstered by official confirmation from
State that the decision to bypass Congress had been in the works for
months.

The Secretary's failure to comply with the statutory requirement for
individualized justifications materially and adversely impacted the
Senate's institutional interests. It undermined the clear and
intentional statutory balance between Congress and the executive branch
designed to govern individual arms sales, and it impedes the Senate's
ability to understand, conduct oversight, and respond to each sale.
Second, Mr. President, one of the statutory provisions that the
Secretary purports to use for these ``emergency'' sales does not
provide the Secretary the very emergency authority he claims. Article
36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, which covers the direct
commercial sales at issue in 13 of the 22 sales, allows for emergency
sales in very limited situations that do not include sales to Saudi
Arabia or the UAE.
So let me be clear: To proceed under an emergency basis for 13 of the
22 sales, the Secretary had to ignore the plain language of the Arms
Export Control Act and simply assume he had the power to do so. I have
asked the State Department on multiple occasions their legal analysis
of this provision--any legal analysis at all that would support the
Secretary's authority. To date, I have received none, not even
verbally. They simply do not want to talk about it. It therefore seems
clear that they know that the Secretary did not have the authority that
he claimed to use.
Mr. President, let me explain in further detail. Section 36(c)(2)
does not provide statutory authority for emergency certifications to
Saudi Arabia and the UAE. As a result, in each instance in which the
Secretary relies solely on that subsection as the legal basis for
waiving congressional review, the certification in question is invalid.
The Department has notified several of the arms sales at issue
pursuant to section 36(c)(2). That subsection clearly allows the
President to bypass Congress upon certification of an emergency if the
sale is to a NATO or other close ally--NATO + 5: Australia, New
Zealand, Israel, Japan, and South Korea, section 36(c)(2)(A)--or in
relation to certain launches of commercial communication satellites,
section 36(c)(2)(B). That authority does not extend to 36(c)(2)(C), a
``catch-all'' provision that covers sales to all other countries
including Saudi Arabia and UAE. In fact, while the statute explicitly
references the NATO + 5 and satellite launch emergency authority, it
omits (c)(2)(C), the catchall from the scope of the emergency
authority.
``If the President states in his certification that an emergency
exists which requires the proposed export in the national security
interests of the United States, thus waiving the requirements of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph, he shall set forth in the
certification a detailed justification for his determination, including
a description of the emergency circumstances which necessitate the
immediate issuance of the export license and a discussion of the
national security interests involved.''
Interpretation and application of section 36(c)(2) should hew closely
to the plain text of the statute and give effect to the omission of
subsection (c)(2)(C). Doing otherwise would entail reading an
extraordinary emergency power into the text for subsection (c)(2)(C)
where none exists, which would be a departure from traditional canons
of statutory construction and would significantly expand the
President's authority under the AECA at the expense of Congress. The
statute should be interpreted and applied to afford extraordinary
emergency powers to the President only where the text clearly provides
for such authority, and subsection (c)(2)(C) does not do so.
We note that, prior to a 2000 amendment, section 36(c)(2) previously
allowed for emergency certifications in relation to NATO + 5 and the
catchall/any other country category. The 2000 amendment added the
provision dealing with commercial satellites, new 36(c)(2)(B) and, at
the same time, removed the emergency authority from the catchall,
(formerly subsection (c)(2)(B) and, post-2000, renumbered as (c)(2)(C).
There is a strong policy rationale for Congress to have acted in this
manner.

[[Page S5133]]

Section 36(c) governs direct commercial sales, e.g., Raytheon to Saudi
Arabia, as opposed to government to government sales under 36(b)(1). In
the case of direct commercial sales, the executive branch has less
insight and control over the transaction than it would if the U.S.
Government were the seller and engaged directly with a foreign
government. It follows, then, that Congress would be willing to allow
extraordinary emergency authority with regard to NATO and a small set
of our closest allies and partners, as well as in certain highly
limited situations where there is a direct commercial need--satellite
launches. Given that level of control does not exist for direct
commercial sales, however, it also follows that Congress had a powerful
incentive to narrow the scope of the emergency authority so that it no
longer authorized the President to bypass congressional review via a
catchall applicable to almost every country in the world.
We have heard through the grapevine that the Secretary's position may
be that Congress screwed up in the 2000 amendment and neglected to
clarify that the emergency authorities continued to apply to the catch
11 category. This counterargument is problematic for several reasons.
It ignores the plain language of the statute; it presumes congressional
error where the presumption should be that Congress knew what it was
doing and intended the result absent clear evidence of an error; there
is no contemporaneous documentation or statements of intent of which we
are aware that would corroborate this counterargument; and it serves
only the interest of the executive branch at the expense and
diminishment of Congress' role in arms sales. Furthermore, the
Secretary has never even made this argument to us, indicating that even
he does not believe it.
We are in dangerous territory, my friends. The Secretary has moved
forward, seeking to eliminate Congress's role in arms sales, based on
an extraordinary emergency power that arguably does not exist in
statute and for which he and his team have been unable or unwilling to
provide a serious legal rationale or any legal justification
whatsoever. While his position may pass muster with or even have been
blessed by the self-serving opinions we have seen from the current
Justice Department, it is nothing more than an executive power grab at
the expense of Congress and unmoored from the law. It is our
responsibility, through these resolutions, to send the clear message
that the United States Senate rejects this lawless approach.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, tonight we will consider overriding
Presidential vetoes to S.J. Res. 28 through 48, resolutions regarding
arms sales that were the subject of a May 24 emergency declaration from
the Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues to sustain these vetoes,
and to consider these sales on their own merits.
I noted several key points when addressing these sales last month,
and those points remain valid today. This emergency declaration was
legal, and the sales are necessary for the legitimate security
interests of our partners. Rejecting these sales at this time will
reward recent Iranian aggression and risk Iranian miscalculation, which
will lead to disaster if Iran continues down its current path. These
sales are unrelated to Jamal Khashoggi, and these resolutions will do
nothing to achieve much-needed accountability for his murder or to
otherwise change Saudi behavior.
We have discussed at length in recent weeks the history of
Presidential emergency authorities and the fact that Presidents of both
parties have used such authorities on four previous occasions. I won't
repeat that discussion other than to note that this use of the
authority is consistent with historical precedent. I will also
emphasize that the administration has since returned to standard
practice for arms sales, has stated that this declaration was a one-
time event, and has committed to respecting the law and the role of
Congress in this process. I expect them to honor that commitment.
We have also talked about the reasons our partners need the
capabilities in these sales. Our partners have an obligation to protect
the lives of their citizens and their own national interests. These
sales provide critical capabilities for such protection. Their need for
these capabilities has only grown in the last month, as Iran and its
proxies have grown even more aggressive.
As it has escalated its use of force, Iran has so far avoided the
type of provocation that would demand a U.S. response. Neither the
President, nor Congress, nor the American people want war, but Iran's
actions and public statements remain separated from reality. Iran
appears eager to continue to test American resolve. Iran should not
mistake President Trump's reasonable restraint as an indicator of any
hesitation on his part to protect U.S. lives and interests. We, as the
Senate, should not add to any possible confusion. If we adopt these
resolutions, we risk inadvertently encouraging Iranian miscalculation.
I remain highly concerned with the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the
devastating impact of the war on Yemeni civilians, and the terrible
human rights record of the Saudi Government. I am encouraged by the
recent Emirati decision to end their involvement in the war in Yemen,
and I encourage others to see this as an opportunity to pursue a
political solution for a peaceful settlement.
I know many of my colleagues see these resolutions and similar
legislation as a means to send a message to the Saudi Government. I
fear, however, that the message the Saudis receive will not be the one
intended. So let me take this opportunity to say to our Saudi partners
that they must change their policies on human rights.
I will close by reemphasizing my key points. The emergency
declaration was legal, and the sales are needed for the legitimate
defense requirements of our partners. This vote also invites Iranian
miscalculation. I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor.

Vote on S.J. Res. 36--Veto

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the joint resolution,
S.J. Res. 36, pass, the objections of the President of the United
States to the contrary notwithstanding?
The yeas and nays are required.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz)
would have voted ``Nay''.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the
Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and
the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Durbin
Feinstein
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young

NAYS--40

Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
McSally
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker

NOT VOTING--15

Bennet
Cruz
Duckworth
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Harris
Isakson
Klobuchar
Paul
Perdue
Sanders
Sasse
Sullivan
Warren

[[Page S5134]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
40.
Two-thirds of the Senators voting or voting present not having voted
in the affirmative, the joint resolution on reconsideration fails to
pass over the veto of the President of the United States.
The majority leader.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S5134, July 29, 2019, first column, the following
appears: Two-thirds of the Senators voting or voting present not
having voted in the affirmative, the bill on reconsideration fails
to pass over the veto of the President of the United States. The
majority leader.

The online Record has been corrected to read: Two-thirds of the
Senators voting or voting present not having voted in the
affirmative, the joint resolution on reconsideration fails to pass
over the veto of the President of the United States. The majority
leader.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Order of Procedure

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, following the cloture vote on the Liburdi
nomination, the Senate vote on the cloture motion on the Welte
nomination; I further ask consent that if cloture is invoked, the
Senate vote on the confirmations of these nominations in the order
listed at 11:30 a.m., on Tuesday, July 30, and that if confirmed, the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
remaining votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote on Veto of S.J. Res. 37

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall S.J. Res. 37 pass, the
objections of the President of the United States to the contrary
notwithstanding?
The yeas and nays are required.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz)
would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) would
have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would
have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) would have
voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the
Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

YEAS--45

NAYS--39

Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
McSally
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker

NOT VOTING--16

Bennet
Crapo
Cruz
Duckworth
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Harris
Isakson
Klobuchar
Paul
Perdue
Sanders
Sasse
Sullivan
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
39.
Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not having
voted in the affirmative, the bill on reconsideration fails to pass
over the veto of the President of the United States.

Vote on S.J. Res. 38--Veto

The question is, Shall S.J. Res. 38 pass, the objections of the
President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding?
The yeas and nays are required.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Paul), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennett),
the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the
Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Durbin
Feinstein
Graham
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young

NAYS--41

Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
McSally
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker

NOT VOTING--13

Bennet
Cassidy
Crapo
Duckworth
Gillibrand
Harris
Isakson
Klobuchar
Paul
Perdue
Sanders
Sullivan
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
41.
Two-thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the
affirmative, the bill on reconsideration fails to pass over the veto of
the President of the United States.

____________________