July 29, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 128 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[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

     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--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.

                          ____________________