[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S982-S989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REPEALING THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                            Amendment No. 9

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 9, and I ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 9.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide findings related to the President's constitutional 
authority to use military force to protect the United States and United 
                           States interests)

       On page 2, line 3, strike ``The Authorization'' and insert 
     the following:
       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Article II of the United States Constitution empowers 
     the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to direct the use of 
     military force to protect the Nation from an attack or threat 
     of imminent attack.
       (2) This authority empowers the President to use force 
     against forces of Iran, a state responsible for conducting 
     and directing attacks against United States forces in the 
     Middle East and to take actions for the purpose of ending 
     Iran's escalation of attacks on, and threats to, United 
     States interests.
       (3) The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against 
     Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 
     50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is not independently required to 
     authorize the activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (b) Repeal.--The Authorization

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, there is no responsibility we have as 
Members of Congress more serious than protecting the men and women who 
defend this Nation. We are facing a national security crisis due to Joe 
Biden and his administration, which have repeatedly been unwilling to 
act against repeated hostilities from the nation of Iran. They have 
looked repeatedly for excuses to justify that inaction.
  Now, I want to be clear. I am not where some Members of this body are 
who want to maintain this authorization for use of military force. I 
want to vote to repeal this authorization for use of military force. 
The Iraq war was a long time ago, and I believe the Iraq war was a 
mistake at the time it was fought. I would be enthusiastic about 
Congress reasserting its war-making and war-declaring power by 
repealing the AUMF.
  But, at the same time, I don't want the repeal of the AUMF to be used 
as an excuse by the Biden administration to roll over and do nothing if 
and when Iran attacks and murders American soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines in the Middle East. And this is not hypothetical.
  Just last week, General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, testified before the House that from January 2021 until last 
week, there were 78 attacks against American forces in the Middle East 
by Iranian-linked fighters--78. The Biden administration responded 3 
times; 75 of them went unresponded. Tragically, but predictably, 
appeasement doesn't work.
  On Thursday morning, the CENTCOM Commander was testifying in front of 
the House. Here on the floor of the Senate, we were debating this very 
issue of the AUMF and Iranian aggression. We now know that, at 6:30 in 
the morning eastern time on Thursday, Iran attacked U.S. forces, 
murdered a U.S. citizen--a U.S. contractor--and wounded six other 
Americans. That happened at 6:30 in the morning eastern time on 
Thursday.
  The Presiding Officer didn't know that on Thursday. I didn't know 
that on Thursday. None of us knew that on Thursday. Why? Because the 
Biden administration kept it a secret for 12 hours because they didn't 
want to tell the Senate, while we were debating this issue, that an 
American had just been murdered by Iran. That is disgraceful. The 
Presiding Officer should be angry about it; I should be angry about it.
  My amendment is very simple. My amendment restates that under article 
II of the Constitution, the President has the authority to defend U.S. 
troops and to respond to Iranian aggression.
  The opponent of this bill, my friend Senator Kaine, will speak 
shortly. What he said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was 
that the amendment is unnecessary; that article II already does that. 
Well, good. If it is unnecessary, then the Democrats ought to support 
my amendment and add it. Because I will tell you what it will get: If 
we add this amendment, I will vote yes on the AUMF repeal. If we don't 
add this amendment, I am a no.
  Here is why: I don't want to give an excuse for the Biden 
administration, the next time Iran attacks, to do nothing. If it is 
unnecessary legally, it ought to be an easy give to say, ``Let's add 
it, to be clear, that if you attack U.S. forces, the President has the 
authority to respond,'' because I don't

[[Page S983]]

want the Biden administration using the repeal of the AUMF as an excuse 
for their weakness or as an excuse for their appeasement.
  There are some in the political world who are in favor of unending 
wars. I am not one of them, but I am in favor of the United States 
defending our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines.
  Let me say this: I don't know if the amendment is going to get the 
votes or not to pass. I think we will get most of the Republicans, and 
I don't know if any Democrats will vote for it or not. But if this 
amendment is defeated and the Congress goes on to repeal the AUMF and 
Iran takes that as encouragement that the Biden administration will not 
retaliate, I believe the consequences will be lives lost. I believe we 
will be back on this floor with American soldiers and sailors and 
airmen and marines having lost their lives due to Iranian aggression 
because the Ayatollah believed the Biden administration would not 
respond. The Presiding Officer doesn't want to see that. I don't want 
to see that. I believe no Member of this body wants to see that.
  If it is legally redundant, all the better to say: Let's send a 
message to the Ayatollah that if you attack American forces, the 
President--the Commander in Chief--has the authority to respond and 
defend American forces.
  That is the No. 1 responsibility of every Member of this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The bill that is on the floor is the effort to repeal authorizations 
for war against Iraq that were passed by this body in 1991 and 2002. 
These are not Iran authorizations. Iran and Iraq are not the same 
nation. The wars against Iraq are over, and we need to repeal these.
  This morning, in the Armed Services Committee, we heard from General 
Austin. He talked about his visit to Iraq. He was there when we were 
fighting against them as an adversary. Now they are a strategic partner 
in the region against nonstate terrorists and against Iranian 
aggression. They are an ally and a partner.
  Senator Cruz's amendment does restate article II powers in part of 
the findings in a way that I don't find objectionable; but then in 
another part of the amendment, it goes on to authorize affirmative 
military action by the United States against the nation of Iran.
  Iran is a bad actor and is getting worse--I don't disagree with 
that--but if what we need is a debate about a war authorization with 
Iran, we shouldn't do it on the basis of a 1-minute amendment offered 
on the floor of the Senate. That is how we got into this problem in the 
first place. The Iraq authorization in 2002 was considered in the 
Senate for 1 day, with no committee proceeding. There were five 
amendments in 1 day, and we went into a war that most would agree was 
one of the worst blunders strategically that this body has made. Let's 
not rush into a war authorization with Iran. If there needs to be 
military authorities to take offensive action against Iran, let's, at 
least, give it the dignity of a debate--a full debate--and not a 1-
minute amendment vote.
  Finally, this amendment is opposed by groups all over the political 
spectrum, from Concerned Veterans for America to the Friends Committee 
on National Legislation to the American Legion, because they don't 
think we should be rushing into war. Iran and its challenging activity 
and aggression warrant some significant attention, not a 1-minute 
amendment vote on a bill that it is not related to.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I respect my friend from Virginia, but he is 
mistaken. This amendment is not a new authorization for military force. 
It restates current law. The language in the finding is, word for word, 
the finding that President Trump put in place when he authorized the 
strike that took out General Soleimani.
  After that strike against General Soleimani, I introduced an 
amendment on this floor to commend President Trump and the Armed Forces 
for taking out General Soleimani; and we voted on this, commending 
President Trump and our Armed Forces for taking out Soleimani. This is 
not breaking new ground. This is reiterating the proposition that the 
Commander in Chief has the authority to defend U.S. Armed Forces.
  To my friend from Virginia, I would note, by the way, earlier last 
week, we voted on Senator Graham's amendment that would have been a new 
authorization for use of military force. Many Senators voted against 
it. This is a much narrower amendment. This says if Iran attacks U.S. 
troops, the Commander in Chief can defend those troops. That is current 
law, but it is important for Iran to hear. It is important for our 
troops to hear. It is important for the Biden administration to hear.
  Nowhere in my friend from Virginia's remarks did he dispute that Iran 
has attacked the United States 78 times in the last 2\1/2\ years and 
that the Biden administration has responded only three times. We owe 
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to have their backs.
  I urge support of this amendment.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 9

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Cruz amendment 
No. 9.
  Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     Mullin
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker

                                NAYS--55

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coons
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     McConnell
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Welch). On this vote, the yeas are 41, the 
nays are 55.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 9) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                            Amendment No. 33

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 33 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 33.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide that nothing shall be construed to hinder the 
 ability of the United States to respond rapidly and decisively to any 
                  attacks by Iran or its proxy forces)

       Strike section 2 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE 
                   AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2022.

       The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
     Resolution of 2002 (Public

[[Page S984]]

     Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby 
     repealed 30 days after the Director of National Intelligence 
     certifies in an intelligence assessment to Congress that 
     repeal will not degrade the effectiveness of United States-
     led deterrence against Iranian aggression.

     SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING ABILITY TO COUNTER 
                   ATTACKS BY IRAN AND ITS PROXY FORCES.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict the 
     ability of the United States to respond rapidly and 
     decisively to threats by the Government of Iran or its proxy 
     forces against United States facilities or persons, or those 
     of United States allies and partners, as appropriate under 
     the authorities provided to the President in Article II of 
     the Constitution.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relationship to 
Sullivan amendment No. 33.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, Iranian proxies have attacked U.S. 
forces in the Middle East 80 times since President Biden took office. 
Deterrence is failing.
  Many of us are deeply concerned that removing the 2002 AUMF will 
further erode American deterrence relative to Iran, further 
jeopardizing our troops in the region.
  Why are we concerned about this?
  First, the 2002 AUMF was, as recently as 2020, used to support the 
very justified killing of the Iranian Quds Force leader Qasem 
Soleimani.
  And, second, even as we are debating removing the 2002 AUMF right 
now, Iranian proxies have stepped up attacks on Americans.
  My amendment is simple and prudent and common sense. It requires the 
DNI to certify that the removal of the 2002 AUMF will not undermine 
American deterrence against Iran. This is prudent, and it is due 
diligence.
  Why wouldn't every U.S. Senator want to know whether the actions we 
are taking right now here in the Senate enhance or diminish deterrence 
against Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism?
  Under my amendment, the DNI has 30 days to do this analysis, and 30 
days should not be considered an inconvenience when American lives are 
literally at stake.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this prudent, commonsense 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I respect my Armed Services colleague from 
Alaska, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Iraq is not Iran. The bill that is on the floor is to repeal war 
authorizations voted on by this body against Iraq in 1991 and 2002. 
Iraq is not Iran.
  The President of the United States has sent two messages to this body 
saying that the repeal of the Iraq war authorizations are necessary 
because Iraq is now a partner of the United States and that the repeal 
will neither jeopardize any current military operation, make the United 
States less safe, or take options away from the President to defend 
against Iranian aggression.
  The certification has been given by the President. This is a bill 
that would ask one of his subordinates, who has been available to talk 
to any of us by phone in the 2 weeks this bill has been on the table--
it would basically say: OK, Mr. President, you said this, but we want 
to hear from one of your subordinates.
  Avril Haines has been available to talk to any Member of this Senate 
in the 2 weeks this bill has been on the floor. The President has 
indicated this would not jeopardize our ability to defend against the 
activities of Iran-backed militias. We should not conflate Iraq, now a 
partner of the United States, with Iran, an adversary of the United 
States.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 seconds.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am not conflating Iran and Iraq. Iran 
right now is the threat, and, again, I ask my colleagues--none of whom 
have an answer--why wouldn't we do the due diligence, 30 additional 
days, to ask the DNI if what we are doing on the Senate floor right now 
undermines American deterrence relative to Iran?
  It is a simple request. It shows that we are acting to make sure we 
protect our troops in the region. And, again, 30 days is not a lot of 
time----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. To make sure our troops in the region are safe and 
secure.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 33

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
33.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Tillis).
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Capito
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Braun
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cortez Masto
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Lujan
     Markey
     Marshall
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Coons
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     McConnell
     Tillis
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are 
57.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 33) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, we hear from Democrats a lot these days 
about ``ending the Iraq war.'' Let's pause for a moment to remember the 
first time they ``ended the Iraq war.''
  President Obama pulled American troops out of Iraq just over a decade 
ago. The ``dumb'' war, as Obama called it, was finally over--except it 
wasn't. It turns out those American troops had kept a lid on a lot of 
chaos. When they left, the bad guys came back with a vengeance. 
President Obama dismissed ISIS as the ``JV team'' of the terrorist 
world, but even he couldn't turn a blind eye when ISIS seized Fallujah 
just 2 years after our troops left Iraq, then Mosul a few months later, 
and then threatened to bring all of Iraq into their so-called 
caliphate.
  So, ultimately, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and 
great ender of the Iraq war, had to start a new Iraq war not even 3 
years after he had bugged out, although actually it was an Iraq-Syria 
war. Obama's retreat backfired so badly that he had to deploy our 
troops to two countries this time, not one. And guess which use-of-
force resolution President Obama cited to fight ISIS. The same one that 
President Trump relied on in 2020 to kill Iran's terrorist mastermind, 
Qasem Soleimani, which is the same resolution Democrats want to repeal 
today. All of which goes to show that this debate is not about Saddam 
Hussein; it is about whether the President--whether any President 
should have maximum authority to pursue America's enemies in Iraq and 
Syria.
  The Democrats have argued that the 2002 resolution wasn't necessary 
to stop

[[Page S985]]

ISIS because the 2001 War on Terror use-of-force resolution also 
applied. That is true. But apparently President Obama didn't think the 
2001 resolution was sufficient since he also invoked the 2002 
resolution. I would welcome any Democrat to explain why the leader of 
their party was wrong.
  Somewhat to my amusement, some Democrats and a few Republicans have 
contended, not to worry, the President can always rely on his Commander 
in Chief authority under article II of the Constitution to order 
military operations like the Soleimani strike. I agree. Yet these are 
the very same Senators who usually argue that article II authorizes 
only the most immediate and modest actions in self-defense. Everything 
else, they say, takes congressional approval. I will be curious to hear 
from them the next time a President relies primarily on his article II 
authority to take necessary action to defend America.
  But enough with debating how many JAG lawyers can dance on the head 
of a pin. Let's ask a more important question. In the real world, will 
repealing these resolutions make America more safe or less safe? To 
which I answer, just look around the region.
  Iran's proxies are trying to kill Americans every day, and that is 
hardly an exaggeration. Just last week, a suicide drone made by Iran 
killed an American contractor and wounded six other Americans in Syria. 
An Iranian rocket attack wounded another American after that. 
Meanwhile, ISIS still carries out dozens of massacres and suicide 
bombings every year. That is not to mention new terrorist groups who 
may be waiting in the wings, ready for their shot at the title as 
America retreats.
  If we repeal these resolutions, will it make America more safe or 
less safe?
  The answer to that question is obvious. Threats still originate in 
and emanate from Iraq, whether terrorist groups like ISIS or Iran's 
proxies. We should not lightly throw away additional authorities to 
target them.
  Furthermore, we shouldn't give Joe Biden any more reason to avoid 
taking necessary action to protect America. President Biden is already 
in full flight from the Middle East. It was President Biden who ended 
the war in Afghanistan, just like President Obama ended the Iraq war. 
Now the Taliban rules in Kabul, harboring terrorists who threaten our 
country.
  Iran killed an American last week because Joe Biden never acts until 
Iran kills an American. Since he became President, Iran has attacked 
American positions at least 83 times. Yet President Biden has only 
retaliated four times. Little wonder the ayatollahs think they can get 
away with it, as they have with that latest strike, because after we 
finally hit back last week, Iran struck our positions again, injuring 
yet another American. Yet Joe Biden, as of this moment, has not 
retaliated.
  A couple months ago the administration also cited an obscure 
legalistic grounds for why President Biden didn't shoot down a Chinese 
spy balloon over the Aleutian Islands. The last thing this President 
needs is more encouragement from Congress to turn the other cheek.
  Besides the message to the President, we should also consider the 
signal we send to our friends and enemies in the Middle East. President 
Biden has made matters worse through his shabby treatment of America's 
best friends. He has attacked the Netanyahu government over its 
domestic policies and funded its political opponents. He has attacked 
Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and promised to turn the Kingdom 
into a ``pariah'' state.
  If we send the message that we are abandoning our friends, we 
shouldn't be surprised if they begin to hedge their bets. Already, our 
allies are doing just that, turning to China as a new power broker. 
Just this month, Beijing brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. 
It has encouraged the Saudis to trade oil in Chinese currency instead 
of dollars. China has also undertaken to build a secret port in the 
United Arab Emirates.
  The trend is unmistakable. China looks like a rising power in the 
region, while America appears to be on the decline and on the way out. 
We can reinforce that impression today or not. Democrats can say that 
is not the message they intend, but what matters more is what our 
friends and foes hear. We will vote on it soon.
  And it is not just China that is exploiting our weaknesses. Iran sees 
our retreat as a green light to dominate Iraq. Already it is 
manipulating in Iraq's politics and arming Shia militias. Iran just 
signed a border deal with Iraq to send more arms and cash to its 
proxies. Tehran's influence will only grow if ours recedes. We will 
vote on that soon too.
  In short, repealing these resolutions will embolden terrorists, 
embolden Iran, and embolden China, while demoralizing our allies and 
making it harder to punish attacks on Americans. Do Senators really 
want to sign up for these consequences?
  When another ISIS rears its head or Iran's proxies use Iraq's 
territory for safe haven, do Senators really want to be responsible for 
stripping our troops of these additional legal authorities?
  I don't, and I won't. But if they do, let them say so plainly. Let 
them say that this academic exercise, which even they admit won't 
legally constrain any President, is worth these deadly real-world 
consequences.
  Our men and women deserve that honest debate. After all, it is their 
lives depending on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, this week, the Senate debates whether to 
end two authorizations of the use of military force against Iraq. 
Congress passed the first authorization in 1991 for the original Gulf 
war, a strategic and narrowly scoped campaign to liberate Kuwait and 
punish Saddam Hussein's unlawful aggression.
  Congress passed the second one in 2002, paving the way for the 
disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq and the biggest blunder in 
the history of American foreign policy.
  We have spent far too little time on this floor considering the 
legacy of both wars, and I want to thank Senators Kaine and Senator 
Young for this long overdue debate about the constitutional 
responsibility of Congress in our foreign policy.
  Most Americans, I think, would be surprised to learn that Congress 
has much of a role in foreign policy because for virtually my entire 
time in the Senate, there has been very little evidence that we have 
played one.
  The Founders envisioned a very specific role for Congress, and it 
wasn't to micromanage foreign policy. They knew matters of war and 
peace required a level of coherence and action at odds with a 
legislative branch that, by design, often moves slowly and encourages 
disagreement and some would say sometimes even incoherence.
  But if the Founders had a reason for giving the Executive broad 
flexibility to conduct war, they also had a reason for giving Congress 
sole power to declare war.
  They wanted to make it hard to start a war, not easy. They knew that 
Presidents would often find war tempting as a means to amass power, run 
roughshod over our constitutional checks and balances. From their study 
of ancient times, they also understood the ways in which endless war 
threatened and undermined democracy.
  Here is what James Madison wrote in 1795, just 6 years after 
ratification of the Constitution:

       Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the 
     most to be dreaded. . . . No nation could preserve its 
     freedom in the midst of continued warfare.

  The Founders understood this because they studied history. They knew 
our history better than we know it ourselves, and they sought to apply 
its lessons to decisions in their time. For example, they read about 
how the 27-year war between Athens and Sparta corroded Athenian 
democracy from within by straining its economy, by feeding unrest, and 
creating a vacuum for strongmen who were peddling easy answers to 
difficult questions.
  That is why they gave Congress--not the President--the sole power to 
declare war, but also to ratify treaties, confirm our military and 
diplomatic leaders, and approve our budget for national security. And 
they expected Congress to oversee foreign policy actively on behalf of 
the American people.
  If we look back over the last 30 years--twice the length of time that 
the pages on this floor have even been

[[Page S986]]

alive. If you look at the last 30 years from when Congress first 
authorized the use of force against Iraq until today, what can we say 
about how Congress has lived up to its responsibility? Has Congress 
fulfilled the responsibility that the Framers gave it? I am afraid 
there is not very much that is good in that record.
  For 30 years, I would argue, this body has been derelict in its 
responsibility, and it has come at a terrible time and with a terrible 
price--a terrible price. If we go back three decades to the early 
nineties, I had just started law school. The first President Bush was 
in the White House, and we were living in the early years of a post-
Cold War world. President Bush had inherited what he called a new world 
order following the collapse of the Soviet Union. We didn't really 
appreciate it at the time, but when the Soviet Union collapsed, the 
United States lost a fundamental organizing principle that had been 
with us, really, for decades.
  The Cold War was not just a fight against the Soviets; it was a fight 
against tyranny. For Americans of my generation, the Cold War defined 
our foreign policy for good and for ill. It also defined us as a people 
and defined who we were not. It gave us purpose. It unified us. It made 
us deliberate about our role in the world.
  The Presiding Officer may have read today--I did--a new poll from the 
University of Chicago where, for the first time, there is a vast 
minority of Americans who say patriotism is important to them; for the 
first time, there is a vast minority of Americans who say religion is 
important to them. You know, the vast majority of people are worried 
that they are not going to provide something better for the next 
generation, which is where I think a lot of that comes from.
  But think about that change--that change--from when we were being 
raised to how people feel about it today. It is dramatic. I would say 
we can't give up. There is a lot of patriotic business for us to do, 
not just on the floor of the Senate but in America today. I would 
argue--and I will in a minute--there is as much for us to do now as 
when we were in the Cold War and we were having our fight with the 
Soviet Union.
  Those principles of sort of engagement and disengagement, of 
agreement and disagreement, but a way of thinking about the world also 
had an important effect in terms of constraining our actions, limiting, 
to some extent, our behavior abroad and disciplining our politics at 
home.
  In the fight against communism, we made more than our fair share of 
egregious mistakes, to be sure. Among them--the worst--the Vietnam war. 
But I would say, still, our foreign policy in those days and the values 
that underlay it in total, in sum, strengthened our democracy at home 
and advanced U.S. interests abroad--not perfectly but mostly.
  The fall of the Berlin Wall disoriented us. Could America continue to 
lead the world without the moral and political organizing principle of 
an ideological foe? That was the question. One answer was to reject the 
question, to sort of assume it away; that to imagine that the triumph 
over Soviet communism meant that the liberal order--our democracy and 
capitalism--had prevailed. And there were people writing books about 
the end of history, if the Presiding Officer will remember, saying that 
is exactly what had happened.
  When Saddam Hussein threatened that new world order by invading his 
neighbor Kuwait, the U.S. rallied the world to drive him out. In just 7 
months, our military routed the Iraqi Army, liberated Kuwait, and 
effectively put Saddam Hussein in a box. George H.W. Bush showed 
restraint. The first President Bush showed restraint. No country in the 
world--no tyrant in the world--was more locked down by our no-fly zone 
than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
  We had built international support from all over the world for what 
George Bush had done. You think it wasn't a hard decision for him to 
say we could go into Baghdad--we could go in and get that terrible 
dictator--but he knew we didn't have an answer for the sectarian 
violence that would break out in the aftermath of toppling Saddam 
Hussein, so he showed restraint.
  I think, at the time, our total and swift victory gave confidence to 
those who believed that our political project was done; that history 
had ended; that we had finally swept tyranny into the dustbin of 
history; and that all we had to do was clap our hands, sit back, and 
watch democracy spread.
  Unfortunately, as is often the case in human events--as is always the 
case in human events--reality turned out to be far messier. That naive 
optimism ended when al-Qaida flew planes into the World Trade Center 
and the Pentagon and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania, murdering 3,000 
of our fellow Americans.

  So the first decade of the 2000s was characterized by a single-minded 
focus on responding to the pain, to the shock, and to the tragedy of 9/
11.
  All of this, I think, had an incredibly disorienting effect. Since 
those times, since those days, we have been fighting not a Cold War 
against a single rival power but a perpetual Global War on Terror that 
finds enemies everywhere and has led to catastrophic decisions; a 
perpetual war on terror that has terrorized us. And this endless war 
led Congress to cede vast authority to the President to wage that war, 
surrendering our constitutional responsibility to set the boundaries, 
to debate the wisdom, and oversee the use of lethal force in the name 
of the American people, which is one of the reasons that we were sent 
here in the first place.
  In the first Gulf war, Congress's deference to the executive had no 
significant consequences because the first Bush administration actually 
had a coherent strategy based on limited and achievable objectives: 
liberate Kuwait, defeat the Iraqi Army, contain Saddam.
  After 9/11, congressional deference cost the American people and our 
leadership in the world dearly.
  In Afghanistan, what began as a limited mission to destroy al-Qaida 
metastasized into a 20-year campaign to transform the country into a 
liberal democracy, something Afghanistan would never become--certainly 
not over that time period and probably not in our own lives--and a cost 
of over 2,300 American servicemembers, nearly 4,000 contractors, and 
over 46,000 Afghan civilians.
  In 2002, when the second President Bush came to Congress and 
misrepresented the threat of weapons of mass destruction--which Saddam 
had destroyed years before and which many of our allies and our own 
intelligence Agencies doubted that he had--when they claimed that 
Saddam's secular regime was somehow tied to al-Qaida, a terrorist group 
driven by religious fanaticism, when they said the war could pay for 
itself with Iraqi oil, conclude in months, not years, and that we could 
somehow turn a Nation whose sectarian rivalries Saddam had prevented 
from exploding through violence and oppression into yet another 
pluralistic democracy; most people in Congress went along for the 
ride--except, I should say, for a few of my colleagues still in this 
body, including Senator Durbin; Senator Murray; Senator Reed; Senator 
Stabenow; Senator Wyden; my former senior Senator Mark Udall, then a 
Member of the House--I say to the pages that are here: Mark their names 
into history books for the vote that they took. That was a courageous 
vote that they took. I believe the Presiding Officer's--he is not 
here--but I believe the Presiding Officer's predecessor, Chairman Leahy 
from the great State of Vermont, took that courageous vote as well.
  Except for the handful of them and my colleague Mark Udall, then a 
Member of the House--except for them, almost no one here asked if there 
was even a strategy or what it was. They didn't ask how toppling a 
Sunni dictator in a Shia majority country would strengthen Iran. And I 
can assure you, they didn't ask what China was doing, as we committed 
ourselves to a second nation-building project in the Middle East.
  And by acquiescing to the President, Congress essentially cut off the 
American people from the vital debate about the true cost and 
consequences of the war.
  And in the end, the cost was terrible. The Iraq war killed over 4,600 
American servicemembers and over 3,600 contractors. Over 50 times--50 
times--more troops were killed or injured in the post-war insurgency 
than in the original march to Baghdad. The war killed

[[Page S987]]

200,000 Iraqi civilians and displaced over 9 million people. It left 
the country in ruins and its identity in tatters.
  Twenty years later, Iraqis are still trying to pick up the pieces. 
Since the war, corruption has stolen $150 billion of Iraq's wealth. 
That is over half of the country's entire GDP last year. Twenty years 
later, Iran is also in a stronger position than ever, seizing on the 
vacuum we created with proxies from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon to Yemen, 
threatening our troops in the region and vital allies like Israel.
  China is cutting deals today. Having avoided those 20 years of 
bedlam, they are now showing up and making peace agreements between the 
Iranians and the Saudis, not having paid the price that we've paid. And 
20 years later, America's global leadership and credibility have yet to 
recover as a result of the decisions that we made.
  In the name of spreading freedom across the globe, we, instead, 
spread images of chaos and civil strife, of torture at Abu Ghraib, of 
waterboarding and black sites--all violations of the values that we 
claimed to serve; that I believe we do serve.
  And to pay for it all, we borrowed $8 trillion from our children--$8 
trillion--from the next generation of Americans.
  In fact, we were so committed to not paying for that war, to not 
sacrificing the way our parents and grandparents did when they were 
engaged in wars, we were so committed to not bearing the burden that we 
cut taxes twice and borrowed another $10 trillion from our children to 
pay for those.
  Imagine what we could have done for this country if we had spent that 
$18 trillion here at home, the good-paying jobs we could have created, 
the 21st-century industries and infrastructure we could have built, the 
opportunities we could have created for the next generation of 
Americans. Instead, from their perspective, we would have been better 
off lighting that $18 trillion on fire.
  I bring this up not to relitigate the past but to remind us of the 
profound cost to America and the world of giving Presidents a blank 
check in foreign policy, of shirking our constitutional responsibility, 
our duty to provide real oversight and hold the Executive accountable 
to our democratic values, to the rule of law, and to the voices and 
opinions of the American people.
  We should acknowledge that there will be moments when doing so will 
be inconvenient for us in the short term. There are countries around 
the world that are not inconvenienced by the set of values we purport 
to live by. The fact that they are inconvenient doesn't mean they are 
not right.
  As the Founders understood, there is always going to be a temptation 
to trade freedom for the illusion of security, to act instead of 
consult, to ignore our commitment to human rights and the rule of law 
for expediency, or to turn a blind eye to corruption or incompetence by 
a President of your own party--especially of your own party. But over 
the long term, our willingness to resist those temptations I think is 
what makes America different. It is what makes our foreign policy 
different at its best. It is what has made us a beacon to the world 
even if our light has flickered at times. It is why the world doesn't 
look to China or to Russia for moral leadership; it looks to us. 
Because American foreign policy at its best has never been about 
serving the whims of a tyrant or a party boss; it is about serving the 
American people and offering a better vision for humanity through the 
power of our example and our partnership with the world. And it is why 
we in Congress have to take our roles seriously in this democracy--we 
really do--to take our obligation to the American people just as 
seriously and not simply honor our constitutional balance of power in 
the breach but every single time.
  So my hope is that this modest vote we are going to take is the 
beginning of a new commitment by Congress to fulfill our constitutional 
responsibility, to bring the American people back into this 
conversation about what our global leadership should look like in the 
21st century, and to work in partnership with the President to define a 
new organizing principle for our leadership because we don't have 
another 30 years to wait, and the whole world is watching.
  I, for one, know that--I think when we pick up the enduring values 
that reflect our foreign policy at its best, that reflect a sense of 
justice here at home as well, when we can stand for both freedom and 
for opportunity, which we have decade after decade after decade, there 
is a coalition of countries all around the world that would rather sign 
up to that vision than sign up to the tyranny that is on offer from 
other societies.
  But we have to remember what the Founders told us. In our time, we 
have to exercise this responsibility that we have here in Congress, and 
we need to do the work faithfully that the American people sent us here 
to do.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 13

  (Purpose: To establish a Joint Select Committee on Afghanistan to 
conduct a full investigation and compile a joint report on the United 
States withdrawal from Afghanistan.)
  Mr. Scott of Florida. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 13 
and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida, [Mr. SCOTT], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 13.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of March 21, 2023, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. In September 2021, President Biden's misguided 
and dangerous decisions in his botched withdrawal of U.S. forces from 
Afghanistan led to America's most stunning, unforced, and humiliating 
defeat in decades.
  Due to President Biden's carelessness and failed leadership, 13 U.S. 
servicemembers were lost; billions of dollars of U.S. military 
equipment were left for the Taliban, and here is a picture of some of 
it; and hundreds of American citizens were stranded behind enemy lines.
  The world is now a more dangerous place. Our enemies, like Russia, 
Communist China, and Iran, are emboldened, and the American people are 
rightfully furious.
  We must have accountability, and the best way to do that is 
establishing a bipartisan, bicameral Joint Select Committee on 
Afghanistan--similar to the Iran-Contra committees--to conduct a full 
investigation and compile a thorough report on President Biden's 
tragically failed withdrawal from Afghanistan.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I appreciate very much my colleague from 
Florida's continued focus on the need to fully account for what went 
wrong with the Biden administration's horribly botched withdrawal from 
Afghanistan; however, I regret that I must oppose his amendment because 
this is not the right venue for establishing a committee of this 
nature.
  In the coming months, we are going to consider the annual National 
Defense Authorization Act, and important oversight issues such as the 
ones raised in the amendment by the gentleman from Florida should be 
debated within that context and that framework.
  This legislative effort to remove outdated authorities that were put 
in place two decades ago for a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq to 
prevent them from abuse in the future has to be kept, in my estimation, 
as clean as possible to enable them to be signed into law without 
further delay.
  As I said before, by allowing these authorizations to live on long 
past their original purpose, Congress has forfeited the power to 
authorize military force to the executive branch.
  I know my colleague from Florida cares deeply about oversight issues, 
as evidenced by this amendment, so I hope he and I can work together 
both to pass a clean repeal of these two outdated authorizations and 
then discuss

[[Page S988]]

robust oversight measures for Afghanistan within the confines of the 
NDAA process.
  In closing, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment 
in order to keep this bill a clean repeal of the 1991 and 2002 
authorizations.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 13

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 13.
  Mr. YOUNG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the vote begin 
now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Mullin
     Paul
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Tuberville
     Wicker

                                NAYS--62

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Coons
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     McConnell
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). On this vote, the yeas are 33, 
the nays are 62.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed.
  The amendment (No. 13) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                            Amendment No. 40

  (Purpose: To establish the Office of the Special Inspector General 
for Ukraine Assistance.)
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 40 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Hawley], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 40.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to 
Hawley amendment No. 40.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, this body has spent to date $113 billion 
on the war in Ukraine and counting. Yet we do not have any direct 
oversight of any of the money that is being spent.
  My amendment is very simple. Let's create 1 government watchdog--not 
2, not 3, not 20; 1 government watchdog--to oversee every cent that is 
spent on Ukraine and to report back to this Congress and to the 
American people as to how their hard-earned money is being spent.
  Currently, there are dozens of reporting requirements. There are 
multiple bureaucrats who are involved.
  Listen, we learned this the hard way in Afghanistan, where, after 
years of lack of oversight, billions of dollars wasted, and, 
tragically, many lives lost, this body finally created a special 
inspector general to oversee the Afghanistan effort and reporting 
requirements, to report back to the public on what we knew and were 
learning. That is what we should do in this case.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I don't have an objection to the notion 
that the funds we are spending together in Ukraine should have careful 
analysis. We know from past experience, if there is not that careful 
analysis done, there could be problems. This is not the bill to do it.
  When we do war authorizations, we don't put other amendments on, no 
matter how good they might be, if they are extraneous to the war 
authorization. The 1991 and 2002 war authorizations did not include 
additional items, no matter how meritorious they might have been.
  So while this idea is an idea that I think people can gravitate 
toward, I think this is the wrong bill, the wrong vehicle, to insert 
something about Ukraine into this repeal of the Iraq war 
authorizations.
  We have not done a repeal for 52 years. The authorizations themselves 
were clean authorizations.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote so that the repeal, when we vote on it 
tomorrow, will be a clean repeal. I would urge my colleagues to vote 
no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, very briefly, first of all, I want to 
compliment Senator Hawley for pursuing this route.
  There isn't a person in this room, there isn't a person in America 
who doesn't want to see that every dollar spent for the taxpayers is 
looked after. In this particular instance, I am going to oppose this 
simply because there are already 64 ongoing or planned audits and 
reports on U.S. assistance to Ukraine.
  This piece of legislation would require a quarterly schedule, and 
that actually reduces the number. For instance, USAID direct budgetary 
support comes every 2 months.
  So this is being looked after, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, where we 
are talking about enormous amounts of money--not that this isn't a 
large amount, but those were enormous, and the work in auditing was not 
very good. In this case, it is very good. We have been looking at it in 
the Intelligence Committee, and we have been looking at it in the 
Foreign Relations Committee and have found zero siphoning of U.S. 
dollars. So this really is an expenditure that is not necessary because 
it is being looked after already.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 49 seconds.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I would just say, in response to my 
friend's point about there being 60-plus reporting requirements already 
in place, that is part of the problem. When everybody is in charge, 
nobody is in charge.
  Currently, the oversight requirements are spread across three 
different Agencies of the inspector general. The State Department, the 
Defense Department, and USAID each would have a little piece of this--
dozens of disparate requirements.
  Let's unify it. We have done this before--one inspector general, one 
staff, one set of requirements. Make it public. Give the American 
people the accountability they deserve.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield the floor.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 40

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ: I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania

[[Page S989]]

(Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Tuberville).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 26, nays 68, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Cruz
     Daines
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Moran
     Ossoff
     Paul
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Vance

                                NAYS--68

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Coons
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Tuberville
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). On this vote, the yeas are 26, the 
nays are 68.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 40) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________