[Pages S1801-S1813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

S.J. RES. 54--MOTION TO DISCHARGE

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 1013 of the
Department of State Authorization Act, fiscal years 1984 and 1985, and
in accordance with the provisions of section 601(b) of the
International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976,
I make a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 54 from the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is
4 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided between the proponents
and the opponents.
Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states in no uncertain terms
that ``Congress shall have power to . . . declare war.''
Let me repeat it. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states it
is Congress that has the power to declare war.
The Founding Fathers gave the power to authorize military conflicts
to Congress, the branch most accountable--not to the President but to
Congress--and that is the issue we are going to be debating today.
For far too long, Congress, under Democratic and Republican
administrations, has abdicated its constitutional role in authorizing
war. The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert that
constitutional authority, and that is what today is about.
That is why I and 14 cosponsors of this resolution--Senators Lee,
Murphy, Warren, Booker, Durbin, Leahy,

[[Page S1802]]

Markey, Feinstein, Wyden, Merkley, Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Schatz, and
Baldwin--that is what we are doing with S.J. Res. 54.
What we are saying is, if Congress wants to go to war in Yemen or
anyplace else, vote to go to war. That is your constitutional
responsibility. Stop abdicating that responsibility to a President,
whether it is a Republican President or, as in the past, Democratic
Presidents.
I expect that colleagues today will be arguing about what the word
``hostilities'' means within the context of the 1973 War Powers
Resolution. What does the word ``hostilities'' mean? Some will argue
that American troops are not out there shooting and getting shot at,
not exchanging gunfire with their enemies, and that we are not really
engaged in the horrifically destructive Saudi-led war in Yemen. That is
what some will argue on the floor today--that we are really not engaged
in hostilities; we are not exchanging fire.
Well, please tell that to the people of Yemen whose homes and lives
are being destroyed by weapons marked ``Made in the USA'' and dropped
by planes being refueled by the U.S. military on targets chosen with
U.S. assistance. Only in the narrowest, most legalistic terms can
anyone argue that the United States is not actively involved in
hostilities alongside Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
Let me take a minute to tell my colleagues what is happening in Yemen
right now because a lot of people don't know. It is not something that
is on the front pages of the newspapers or covered terribly much on
television.
Right now, in a very poor nation of 27 million people--that is the
nation of Yemen--in November of last year, the United Nations Emergency
Relief Coordinator told us that Yemen was on the brink of ``the largest
famine the world has seen for many decades.'' That is from the United
Nations. So far, in this country of 27 million people--this very poor
country--over 10,000 civilians have been killed and 40,000 civilians
have been wounded. Over 3 million people in Yemen, in a nation of 27
million, have been displaced--driven from their homes. Fifteen million
people lack access to clean water and sanitation because water
treatment plants have been destroyed. More than 20 million people in
Yemen--over two-thirds of the population of that country--need some
kind of humanitarian support, with nearly 10 million in acute need of
assistance. More than 1 million suspected cholera cases have been
reported, representing potentially the worst cholera outbreak in world
history. That is what is going on in Yemen today as a result of the
Saudi-led war there.
Here is the bottom line: If the President of the United States or
Members of Congress believe that support for this war is in the U.S.
interests--and I think some do--if you think that the United States
right now, for our own interests, should be involved in the civil war
in Yemen, being led by Saudi Arabia, then Members of the U.S. Senate
should have the courage to vote for U.S. participation in that war. It
is nothing more complicated than that.
If you want to come to the floor of the Senate and make the case as
to why you think it is good public policy for us to be involved in the
civil war in Yemen, come to the floor and oppose our resolution, but
what I hope very much that we will not see today is the tabling of this
motion and the refusal by Members of the Senate to vote up or down as
to whether we wish to continue aiding Saudi Arabia in this humanitarian
disaster.
If you believe, as I do, that we should not get sucked into this
civil war, which has already caused so much human suffering, please
vote against tabling the motion to discharge and vote with us on final
passage. If you believe the United States should continue to assist
Saudi Arabia in this war, I urge you to have the courage to tell your
constituents that is your decision and why you have made that decision
when you vote against final passage. In other words, if you support the
war, have the courage to vote for it; if you don't, support the
resolution Senator Lee, Senator Murphy, and I have introduced.
Let me give my colleagues at least two reasons why Congress must
reassert its constitutional authority over the issue of war and why we
cannot continue to abdicate that responsibility to the President, and
those have everything to do with the two most significant foreign
policy disasters in the modern history of the United States--the war in
Iraq and the war in Vietnam. In both of these cases, Congress sat back
and failed to ask the hard questions as two administrations--one
Republican, one Democratic--led us into conflicts with disastrous
consequences.
Interestingly, today is a historically significant day for us to
debate this resolution. Fifteen years ago today, on March 20, 2003, the
war in Iraq began, and the bombs started falling in Baghdad--15 years
ago today. I was one of those who opposed the Iraq war in the
beginning, and today it is now broadly acknowledged that the war--that
war--was a foreign policy blunder of enormous magnitude. That war
created a cascade of instability around the region that we are still
dealing with today in Syria and elsewhere and will be for many years to
come. Indeed, had it not been for the war in Iraq, ISIS would almost
certainly not exist.
That war deepened hostilities between Sunni and Shia communities in
Iraq and elsewhere. It exacerbated a regional conflict for power
between Saudi Arabia and Iran and their proxies in places like Syria,
Lebanon, and Yemen, and it undermined American diplomatic efforts to
resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The devastation experienced by Iraq's civilians was enormous. A
recent academic study by U.S., Canadian, and Iraqi researchers found
that over 400,000 Iraqi civilians--nearly half a million people--were
killed directly or indirectly as a consequence of that war.
That war led to the displacement of nearly 5 million people, both
inside and outside Iraq, putting great stress on the ability of
surrounding countries to deal with these refugee flows.
We have also seen this more recently in Europe as the large numbers
of people fleeing the Syrian war have generated a backlash in European
countries, giving rise to anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiments.
The war in Iraq led to the deaths--to the deaths--of some 4,400
American troops and the wounding, physical and emotional, of tens of
thousands of others, not to mention the pain inflicted on family
members. By the way, that war in Iraq cost us trillions of dollars--
money that could have been spent on healthcare, education,
infrastructure, and environmental protection.
The Iraq war, like so many other military conflicts, had unintended
consequences. It ended up making us less safe, not more safe.
It must be said that the Bush administration and the President lied
when he told the American people: ``[Saddam's] regime is seeking a
nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a
year.'' That was not true.
Vice President Dick Cheney lied when he told us:

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to
use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

Dick Cheney--not true.
No one disagrees that Saddam Hussein was a brutal, murderous
dictator, but it is now known he had nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush
administration lied to the American people. Iraq had no weapons of mass
destruction. It was not connected to 9/11.
The American people were misled by the Bush administration into
believing that the Iraq war was necessary to prevent another 9/11, and
Congress did not challenge them on those claims in a way that Congress
should have--with disastrous consequences.
That was a Republican administration. Now let me tell you about a
Democratic administration where, once again, Congress refused to assert
its constitutional responsibility.
Let us go back to 1964, to a conflict that began under similarly
false premises. President Lyndon Johnson cited an attack on a U.S. ship
in the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext for escalating the U.S. intervention
in Vietnam and sending more and more and more troops into that
quagmire.
But we now know from declassified recordings that Johnson himself
doubted that the USS Maddox had come

[[Page S1803]]

under fire on August 4, 1964. As we all know, that alleged attack was
used to push for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing Johnson to
escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, and we now know that the
Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, misled Congress and the public
in order to generate support for that resolution.
You don't have to believe me. This is what LCDR Pat Paterson wrote in
a paper for the U.S. Naval Institute: ``The evidence suggests a
disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to
distort the evidence and mislead Congress.''
Paterson, interestingly enough, also quotes another author who wrote:

To enhance his chances for election, [Johnson] and McNamara
deceived the American people and Congress about events and
the nature of the American commitment in Vietnam. They used a
questionable report of a North Vietnamese attack on American
naval vessels to justify the president's policy to the
electorate and to defuse Republican senator and presidential
candidate Barry Goldwater's charges that Lyndon Johnson was
irresolute and ``soft'' in the foreign policy arena.

Interestingly enough, that author is H.R. McMaster, President Trump's
current National Security Advisor.
Lyndon Johnson's administration misled both Congress and the American
people into that war, just as the Bush administration misled us into
the war in Iraq, and what disasters both of those wars were. The war in
Vietnam nearly destroyed an entire generation of young people. Almost
60,000 died in that war, and God knows how many came back wounded in
body and in spirit. It almost destroyed an entire generation. Yet
Congress abdicated its responsibility in Vietnam, as it did in Iraq.
The truth about Yemen is that U.S. forces have been actively engaged
in support of the Saudi coalition in this war, providing intelligence
and aerial refueling of planes whose bombs have killed thousands of
people and made this humanitarian crisis far worse. U.S. involvement in
the Yemen war has also proved counterproductive to the effort against
al-Qaida's affiliates. The State Department's ``Country Reports on
Terrorism 2016'' found that the conflict between Saudi-led forces and
the Houthi insurgents has helped al-Qaida's and ISIS's Yemen branch to
``deepen their inroads across much of the country.'' In other words, as
we see again, when there is chaos, when there is mass confusion, ISIS
and their allies are able to jump in.
Furthermore, while Iran's support for Houthi insurgents is of serious
concern for all of us, the truth is that this war has increased, not
decreased, the opportunities for Iranian interference.
The Trump administration has tried to justify our involvement in the
Yemen war as necessary to push back on Iran. Well, another
administration told us that invading Iraq was necessary to confront al-
Qaida, and another told us that the Vietnam war was necessary to
contain Communists. None of that turned out to be true.
The Congress, at those times, should have asked the hard questions,
which they didn't ask. The Congress should have taken its
constitutional role seriously and should have done what the
Constitution demands that it do, and that is what my cosponsors and I
are doing today.
I see my colleague Senator Lee here. He has been very active in
standing up for the Constitution on this issue, and I will yield to him
in a minute. But here is the bottom line--and it is not a complicated
line; the Constitution is clear: The U.S. Congress decides whether we
go to war. There is no question in my mind that by aiding Saudi Arabia
in the way that we are doing, we are assisting in war. We are in a
conflict.
If Members of the Senate think that conflict makes sense and is good
public policy for the United States of America, vote down our
resolution. If you agree with Senator Lee and me that it is a bad idea,
support us. But what I would urge in the strongest possible terms is
that Members of the Senate have to end the abdication of our
constitutional responsibility. Accept it; vote yes or vote no. Do not
vote to table this resolution and duck the constitutional
responsibility that we have.
I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Mike Lee.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the issue we are confronting today is one
that deals with the separation of powers outlined in the U.S.
Constitution.
Our system of government was set up in such a way as to protect the
people from the dangers associated with the excessive accumulation of
power in the hands of a few. We knew from our experience under British
rule that bad things happen, especially at a national level, when too
few people exercise too much of the power. Nowhere is this more evident
than in the case of the war power. In fact, much of the Revolutionary
struggle that led to the creation of our Nation resulted from wartime
activities undertaken by a Monarch thousands of miles and an ocean
away. It is important today that we remember those same concerns and
the constraints placed in our Constitution as we run our government
nearly 2\1/2\ centuries later.
I am happy to be here with my colleague, Senator Sanders, to file a
discharge motion for our resolution, S.J. Res. 54.
Whether you are present in the Chamber today, physically with us, or
whether you are tuning in at home, I hope you will listen closely so
that we can fill you in on the unauthorized Middle East war that your
government--the government of the United States of America--is
supporting and actively participating in as a cobelligerent.
This war in Yemen has killed tens of thousands of innocent
civilians--human beings, lest we forget--each one of them possessing
innate, immeasurable worth and dignity. This war has created refugees,
orphans, widows; it has cost millions of dollars; and, believe it or
not, at the end of the day, it actually has, quite arguably, undermined
our fight against terrorist threats such as ISIS. I will expand on
these unfortunate facts in a moment, but for now, let's just focus on
one thing. Our military's involvement in Yemen has not been authorized
by Congress as required by the Constitution.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress
shall have the power to declare war--Congress, not the President, not
the Pentagon, not someone else within the executive branch of
government, but Congress. Yet in 2015, then-President Obama initiated
our military involvement in Yemen and did so without authorization from
Congress.
The current administration has continued Obama's war. Senator
Sanders, Senator Murphy, our cosponsors, and I are now giving Congress
a chance to fix this error by debating and voting on our Nation's
continued involvement in this unauthorized, illegal war in Yemen.
If, as our opponents claim, this war is necessary, then surely they
can defend that argument before this body and before the House of
Representatives and, ultimately, secure authorization from Congress,
just as the Constitution demands under article I, section 8. But if, on
the other hand, they cannot defend this war and they cannot persuade a
majority of the Members of this body and a majority of the Members of
the House of Representatives that this is a war that needs to be
fought, then it needs to end. Let's have an honest reckoning about this
war today.
Before this debate gets underway in earnest, there are a few points
that I would like to clarify.
First, let's talk about Iran for just a moment. Yes, the Houthis did
fire on a U.S. Navy vessel. This only reinforces the fact that Yemenis
view the United States as a participant in this war, regardless of
whether or not Congress wants to acknowledge that participation or
approve it, as the Constitution requires. But overall, there are
conflicting reports about the extent of Iranian support for the Houthi
rebels.
What we do know is this: The Houthis are a regional rebel group that
does not itself threaten the United States. While the Houthis are no
friends of ours, neither are they a serious threat to American national
security. The longer we fight against them, the more reason we give
them to hate America and embrace the opportunists who are our true
enemy in the region--Iran. And the more we prolong activities that
destabilize the region, the longer we harm our own interests in terms
of trade and broader regional security.
The bottom line is this: We are spending a great deal of time and
treasure to defeat a regional rebel group

[[Page S1804]]

with no desire to attack the homeland and unclear ties to Iran. Iran's
influence is much clearer in other parts of the Middle East with other
groups--for example, with the murderous terrorist group, Hezbollah.
If we want to counter Iran, let's have that debate in Congress and
vote to equip this administration with the necessary authorization to
use our vast and fearsome military resources to defeat its proxies--not
to create new proxies by turning rebel groups against us.
Let's talk about ISIS for a moment. Our resolution would not impede
the military's ability to fight terror groups, like ISIS, inside Yemen.
The resolution itself requires the removal of U.S. forces from
hostilities in Yemen, except--except, and I quote--``United States
Armed Forces engaged in operations directed at Al Qaeda or associated
forces.'' That is a direct quote from the text of the resolution
itself. It should put to rest the notion that this would somehow
jeopardize our ability to fight terrorists.
The Pentagon and the executive branch have long insisted that they
have adequate authority under the authorization for the use of military
force enacted in 2001--adequate authority under the 2001 AUMF to fight
against ISIS.
If those at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the executive branch or any
of my colleagues now claim that this resolution specifically needs to
exempt operations against ISIS, then what are we to make of their
previous confidence in the 2001 AUMF? Have they suddenly lost faith in
that document overnight or are they merely using this argument as a
pretense to oppose our resolution?
I personally believe that the 2001 AUMF has been stretched too far.
Our resolution, however, is completely agnostic on this point. It is
entirely agnostic about whether counterterror operations against al-
Qaida and ISIS can proceed in the wake of the resolution. Our
resolution is specific, and our resolution relates specifically to the
Houthis. Nothing in this bill may be interpreted as an AUMF.
Lastly, with regard to Saudi Arabia and the ongoing visit of Crown
Prince Mohammad bin Salman in Washington, DC, at the moment, I have
been deeply concerned about our illegal war in Yemen since its
inception and have taken steps to end our involvement in that war. I
presented questions to our combatant commanders on the topic, just as I
have for other unauthorized operations in the past. I had hoped the new
administration might take prompt action to end our unauthorized
activities in Yemen. Sadly, that has not occurred.

Last fall, after countless missed opportunities and some broken
assurances, my colleagues and I decided it was time to take matters
into our own hands. By ``matters,'' I mean those matters that are
specifically already in our hands, those matters that are already
granted to the Congress and to no other branch of government.
There may be some short-term impact on the U.S.-Saudi relationship,
but overall the Crown Prince should understand that this protracted and
clearly nonconclusive war only hurts his government's stability and
legitimacy. He, too, should want a quick end to this conflict. Saudi
Arabia is an indispensable partner in the region, without which the
United States would be less successful. But the Saudis themselves are
at an inflection point within their own government. Working with the
United States should be a goal for the Crown Prince and should be a
credibility-lending endeavor.
The resolution before you is the product of years of effort. It was
not timed in any way, shape, or form to coincide with the Crown
Prince's visit. It was drafted with one thing in mind, which is to make
sure that before we put U.S. blood and treasure on the line, before we
put the sons and daughters of the American people who have served in
harm's way into an area in which hostilities are ongoing, to get
involved in combat capacities in an area where conflict is brewing, we
owe it to them, we owe it to their parents, we owe it to their
families, and we owe it to ourselves, having taken an oath to uphold,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, to do it the
right way--not just because the Constitution requires that but also
because of the reasons the Constitution requires that.
It makes sense that when we are doing something that has a greater
capacity to impact our government, our standing in the world, our own
security, and the lives of those who were sworn to protect us, we do it
in the right way, not just through the appropriate branch of government
but through the appropriate branch of government in part because that
is the only place where an open, honest, public debate can occur.
It is one thing to make a decision somewhere within the military
chain of command on whether to undertake a particular action, but this
is one of the reasons why, in order to declare war, in order to get us
involved in a war in the first place, it requires action by Congress,
because this is the branch of the Federal Government most accountable
to the people at the most regular intervals.
Over the course of many decades, under the leadership of Congresses
and White Houses of every conceivable partisan combination, we have
seen a gradual shift of power in a number of areas--including
regulatory policy, trade policy, and the exercise of the war power--
over to the executive branch of government. When we don't exercise that
power, it starts to atrophy; the Constitution means less, and it is
less able to protect the American people. That is why this resolution
matters. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Let's do this the right way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, may I ask my colleague from Utah a very
simple question? Whether or not he agrees with me that we are talking
about two separate issues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. It seems to me we are talking about two separate issues,
one of which is really a no-brainer. The no-brainer is that the
Constitution is very clear that it is the Congress, not the President,
that determines whether we go to war; that we are currently in an
unauthorized war in Yemen; and that the first vote--if there is an
attempt to table this, that would be absolutely unacceptable because we
would be abdicating our decisionmaking. And then the second vote is the
vote on whether we think it is a good idea to be in Yemen.
Would the Senator agree with me that at least on the motion to table,
every Member of the Senate should allow us to go forward and vote
against tabling so that people in the Senate accept their
constitutional responsibility to vote yes or no on the war in Yemen?
Mr. LEE. I would certainly agree that the answer is yes in response
to that question. It is Congress that gets to decide whether we go to
war; it is not the executive branch.
For that very same reason, when we have brought up this resolution
calling into question whether we have authorized that war and whether
we should continue in the absence of an authorization for that war--if
we are asked to table that, that very request amounts to a request for
abdication of our constitutional responsibility.
A favorite song of mine called ``Freewill'' by the band Rush came out
several decades ago, and it says: ``If you choose not to decide, you
still have made a choice.''
If we choose in this moment to table this resolution, we are making a
choice to be willfully blind to the exercise of a power that belongs to
us, to allow someone else to exercise it without proper authority. That
is wrong. That cannot happen, not on our watch.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me concur with what Senator Lee just said. There may
be disagreements about the wisdom of being allied with Saudi Arabia on
the war in Yemen. There will be honest disagreements about that. But
there cannot be and there must not be an abdication of constitutional
responsibility in terms of making that decision.
If you think that U.S. participation in the war in Yemen is a good
idea, you can vote against our resolution. If you agree with us that it
is a bad idea, support our resolution. But simply to abdicate your
responsibility on this issue would be absolutely irresponsible.
I hope we have virtually unanimous support in voting against the
effort to table. Then let's get into the debate about the wisdom of the
war and vote it up or down. Needless to say, I hope

[[Page S1805]]

the Members support our resolution. Let's at least have that vote and
not abdicate our responsibility.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, some of our colleagues from time to time may
ask us how we would define the term ``hostilities'' and what the United
States might be doing that triggers that definition. I welcome that
discussion. It is important to note that the U.S. Code is somewhat
vague on that question, defining ``hostilities'' broadly to mean any
conflict subject to the laws of war. I don't necessarily view that
broad definition as problematic. It is something that allows Congress
to assess the unique circumstances in each instance on specific grounds
at each point in time.
Our involvement in war and in conflict has greatly changed over the
years, and it will continue to change as the nature of international
relations changes and as the technology we use in war changes and
develops. It doesn't mean we are not involved in hostilities. I welcome
further discussion on this matter.
Let's look at the facts of our involvement in Yemen today. Since
2015, U.S. forces have aided the Saudi coalition with midair refueling
and target selection assistance, or, as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis
said in December 2017, our military is helping the Saudis ``make
certain [they] hit the right thing.'' In other words, we are helping a
foreign power bomb its adversaries in multiple ways. If that doesn't
include and amount to and itself constitute hostilities, then such
words have lost their meaning.
There are those within the executive branch of government who would
define the term ``hostilities'' so narrowly that it would apply only
when our armed services personnel are on the ground firing upon or
being fired upon by an enemy force. It is understandable in some
respects that they would want to define it that way because if they
define it that way, that puts the executive in power.
That is one of the reasons we have to remember that there is a
natural tension built into our constitutional structure to make sure
that not all power is concentrated in any one branch of government. It
is one of the reasons Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist No.
69 that war power would not be exercised by the Executive in our system
of government. In this instance, as in many others, the Executive in
our system of government would differ from the monarch under the old
system, the one that was based in London. The King had the power to
take Great Britain to war. The King didn't have to seek a declaration
of war from Parliament; the King could act in and of himself to decide
when to take us to war. It is one of the reasons why it matters here.
When we see the definition of ``hostilities'' narrowed to the point
that it very often will not exist given the way we engage in
hostilities today, given modern technologies that frequently allow us
to engage in acts that anyone would have to acknowledge amount to
combat, amount to conflict, amount to hostilities, they can still
explain it away as something the Executive can do independently of
Congress.
This resolution will not do anything, according to some, because we
are not engaged in hostilities in Yemen. I am building upon this
argument that is based upon a very narrow, cramped, distorted
interpretation of the word ``hostilities.''
When people ask what we think the resolution would do if it were to
pass--first of all, it is clear that we are engaged in hostilities
because when we are involved as a cobelligerent, involved in midair
refueling in combat flights, when we are identifying targets for the
Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen against the Houthis, those are
combat operations, and those are clearly hostilities. But even if we
were to suppose that U.S. activities in Yemen somehow did not
constitute hostilities according to the War Powers Resolution, the text
of our resolution is crystal clear about what constitutes
``hostilities'' for its purpose; namely, ``aerial targeting assistance,
intelligence sharing, and mid-flight aerial refueling.'' Our resolution
would end those very specific activities against the Houthis in Yemen--
nothing more and nothing less.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I speak only for myself on this issue and
will tell you why I am so motivated about this resolution.
If we think back on the modern history of our country and if we think
of the two most significant foreign policy decisions--the war in
Vietnam and the war in Iraq and the unbelievable unintended
consequences that those two destructive wars had--what we conclude is
that in both of those wars--one under a Democratic President and one
under a Republican President--the Congress abdicated its
responsibility. It did not ask the right questions. In both instances,
we got into those terrible wars based on lies. The Johnson
administration lied as to why we should get involved in the war in
Vietnam, and the Bush administration lied as to why we should get
involved in the war in Iraq.
It just seems to me that if nothing else, based on those two examples
of what the war in Vietnam did and what the war in Iraq did, Congress
has to take a deep breath and understand that the people who wrote the
Constitution were not fools when they said it must be the elected
people who are closest to the constituents who have to debate these
issues and who know that decisions being made will result in the loss
of lives of the people in their own States, and we have abdicated that
responsibility.
No one can predict whether the decisions made by Congress are going
to be good decisions with regard to war and peace, whether we are going
to do better than Presidents did. I don't know. At the very least, we
have to accept our responsibility and not simply take the word of
Presidents who in the two most recent, significant wars have lied to
the American people.
Once again, I know there may be differences of opinion regarding the
wisdom of involvement by the United States in the war in Yemen. If you
think it is a good idea, vote against our resolution. There should be
no difference of opinion about accepting our responsibility under the
Constitution and voting on whether it is a good idea.
I yield to the Senator from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Senator Sanders mentioned some previous wars
and how this may or may not relate to those previous wars. One of the
other questions we get from time to time is also a related question:
How does this impact or influence operations somewhere else in the
world where the United States is engaged? Would the passage of this
resolution mean that every other type of operation anywhere else in the
world would have to stop too? What about our global counterterrorism
activities? We sometimes get those questions.
The main reason we drafted this resolution was to bring our
activities in Yemen into line with our laws as expressed in the
Constitution. So if we are fighting unauthorized wars in other places
around the globe, then those wars need to be authorized by Congress, or
else they would need to end. Importantly, however, this resolution does
not itself make law or set precedent for other operations. This
resolution applies just to this conflict in Yemen against the Houthis.
Each conflict or operation ought to be evaluated on its own merits and
measured against our national interest and any existing authorizations
for the use of military force. We can't evaluate this resolution as
being something that requires us to swallow the entire elephant at
once. This is just focusing on one issue in one part of the world. We
need not take any kind of a ``sky is falling'' approach that will say
this will immediately jeopardize everything else we are doing in any
and every other part of the world.
Global counterterror operations under title 10 or title 50 involve
U.S. action but arise in different ways, and any other activity that we
undertake or authority that we cite in introducing our armed service
personnel into hostilities cannot serve as a substitute for
congressional action as contemplated by the Constitution. The power to
declare war belongs to Congress and not to the Executive. Just because
government breaks the rules often--and sometimes with impunity--it does
not mean it has the right to

[[Page S1806]]

break the rules, nor does it mean, certainly, that we shouldn't call
out rule-breaking when we see it going on, but that is a debate for
another day.
The resolution before us today is specific to our activities against
the Houthis in Yemen. It does not authorize or deauthorize military
force in any other part of the globe or against any other foe. In fact,
the resolution specifies that it does not interfere with existing
operations against al-Qaida and its affiliates. Our resolution is
narrowly tailored to end our efforts to assist forces that are fighting
against the Houthis. It is deliberately narrow in order to address a
black-and-white situation that is clearly not covered by any existing
authorization for the use of military force. Counterterror operations
that are supported by the 2001 AUMF and other legitimate authorizations
would not be affected by this resolution.
I yield to Senator Murphy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am grateful to join for a few moments
the cosponsors of this resolution--Senator Lee and Senator Sanders.
It is important to pick up on what Senator Lee was just putting
down--the notion that this is a limited resolution that speaks to our
participation in an unauthorized, illegal partnership with the Saudis
to bomb the country of Yemen. It does not affect our partnership with
Saudi Arabia and others in the gulf region to continue to confront
terror, to continue to confront al-Qaida--a specific carve-out in this
legislation that allows for 2001 AUMF authorized activities to go
forward.
It is also important to note that if you care about the priority of
taking on al-Qaida and taking on ISIS in the region, then you should
support debating our resolution because all of the evidence suggests
that the continuation of this civil war inside Yemen is making ISIS and
AQAP, which is the arm of al-Qaida that has the clearest intentions of
attacking the homeland, both more powerful. The AQAP controls much more
territory inside Yemen than it did in the beginning of this civil war.
If you take the time to meet with Yemeni-Americans, they will tell
you that inside Yemen, this bombing campaign is not perceived as a
Saudi bombing campaign; it is perceived as a U.S.-Saudi bombing
campaign. What we are doing is radicalizing the Yemeni people against
the United States. Add to this the new information that suggests that
some of our partners in the coalition, although not directly working
with al-Qaida, are starting to arm some very unsavory Salafi militias
inside Yemen that are filled with the types of people--the types of
extremist individuals--who could take the training they have received
from the coalitions and the weapons they have received from the
coalitions and easily turn against the United States.
If you care about the mission against terrorism, then you should
support debating our resolution.
Just to recap the reasons we are here today, we need to have a debate
on the lack of authorization for military force because it is time for
Congress to step up and do our constitutional duty.
The administration wrote in its letter to us that we do not have the
authority as the U.S. Congress to weigh in on military activity that is
waged by the administration unless there are two armies firing at each
other on the ground in an area of conflict. That is the
administration's definition of ``hostilities,'' and admittedly that is
a definition that has been used by Democrats and Republicans. This is
not exclusive to the Trump administration. The problem with that is
that it would allow for the United States, through Executive decision
only, to wage an air campaign against a country that wipes it out
without there being any say from the U.S. Congress.
Clearly, what is happening in Yemen today meets the definition of
``hostilities.'' We have shown pictures on this floor before of entire
cities that have been wiped out. More than 10,000 civilians have been
killed in the largest outbreak of cholera in the history of the world
in terms of what we have recorded. Those are hostilities, and the
United States is clearly engaging in those hostilities because we are
helping with targeting and refueling the planes that are supplying the
munitions. If we cede to unlimited Executive authority with respect to
this engagement, there will be no end to that.
Lastly, let me speak to what is happening on the ground. There is
zero evidence that U.S. participation in this coalition has made things
better. Civilian casualties are not getting better. The day after
Christmas, over 60 civilians were killed in a series of airstrikes.
Reports are that last month, the Saudis engaged once again in something
called double tapping, by which they targeted an area in which
civilians lived, waited for the emergency responders to arrive, and
then hit again--something that is not allowed by international
humanitarian law. The humanitarian catastrophe itself is getting worse,
not better.
Maybe most important is that the battle lines inside Yemen are not
changing. The Saudis have been telling us for years: Stick with us. If
you keep on helping us bomb the Yemeni people, we will win this war. We
will get back control of Hudayda and of Sana'a.
That is not happening. At the beginning of this war, the Houthis
controlled about 70 percent of the population inside Yemen. Today, the
Houthis control about 70 percent of the population inside Yemen. If we
continue to support this bombing campaign, nothing will change except
that more people will die, except that more civilians will be hit by
the bombs we help to drop, except that al-Qaida will continue to
control big portions of that country.
While Senator Lee notes that this resolution is actually not on the
merits of our engagement there and that it is whether we have the legal
justification to be there, let's admit that if you do consider the
merits, other than backing the play of our historic ally, there is
nothing to suggest that our participation there is making things better
rather than worse.
I yield to Senator Sanders.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me ask my friend from Connecticut the same question
I asked Senator Lee, and that is whether he agrees with me that we are
really dealing with two separate issues here.
The first issue is really, in a sense, a no-brainer. It is whether
the Congress or, in this case, the Senate of the United States accepts
its constitutional responsibility on issues of war. We are now engaged
in a war in Yemen with Saudi Arabia. The Constitution is very clear in
article I, section 8 that it is the Congress that determines whether
this country goes to war.
I believe what will happen in a few hours is that a motion to table
will come up. Would you agree with me that it would be an act of
cowardice, in a sense, an irresponsibility, an abdication of
congressional responsibility, for somebody to vote to table that
resolution?
Mr. MURPHY. By voting to table the consideration of this resolution,
you are voting to stop a debate, a conversation, from happening in the
Senate about whether proper authorization exists.
Let's be honest about what this first vote is. This first vote is, do
we want to talk about whether there is authorization to perpetuate this
war? By voting to stop debate, by voting to table this motion and
refrain from proceeding to a conversation about this topic, we are, in
a very clear way, signaling to the administration and to the American
public that we are not interested in exercising our article I authority
on the issue of war-making.
Mr. SANDERS. In other words, no matter what one's view may be about
the wisdom of the war, to vote to table is to abdicate our
constitutional responsibility?
Mr. MURPHY. It sends a very clear signal to the administration that
we are not interested in even having a debate here about complicated
questions of legal authority for serious military engagements overseas.
Mr. SANDERS. All right. Let me just concur with Senator Murphy.
If you think it is a good idea for the United States to be involved
in the war in Yemen with Saudi Arabia, you can vote against our
resolution. Yet I can think of no reason at all as to why any Member of
Congress would vote to table this resolution and prevent that
discussion, and I would hope that we would have strong support against
any motion to table and allow that debate to go forward.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.

[[Page S1807]]

Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week we are discussing, among other
topics, the sad fact of sex trafficking online. The reason is because
yesterday we voted to advance a piece of legislation called SESTA, or
the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. The purpose of this legislation
is crystal clear. We want to put an end to this abominable practice,
and we want to stop shielding or protecting those web platforms that
promote it.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. Over the past year,
like many of my colleagues, I met with law enforcement and victims'
rights groups across the country who talk about this as a continuing
problem. I met with technology providers who want to end the practice
but want to make sure they maintain their independence from Federal
regulation writ large. I have been in regular contact with my
colleagues over at the House to make sure this bill is considered and
passed in a timely fashion. I think it is fair to characterize the
negotiations as delicate.
A small group of Senators, including our colleague John McCain, the
senior Senator from Arizona, wanted to make sure that everyone
understood what this bill does and what it does not do. What it does do
is to protect our children. It provides justice to victims, and it
makes sure that Federal laws don't protect those who profit from sex
trafficking online. What it does not do is somehow to stymie free
speech. It does not restrict web platforms from publishing
objectionable content.
For example, under the Communications Decency Act, now websites have
to screen for child pornography. That is one of the explicit exceptions
to the Communications Decency Act, which basically provides immunity to
these web platforms from liability. What we are doing is adding to that
human trafficking, and it is appropriate that we do so.
This does not discourage websites that are already taking steps to
proactively remove improper conduct and police their own networks. I
would say to those who do: Keep up the good work.
Today the internet and other forms of technology have made certain
forms of predatory behavior easier to engage in. This bill addresses
this development head-on. It would allow sex trafficking victims to
have their day in court by eliminating Federal liability protections
for technology providers who knowingly facilitate online sex
trafficking. It would allow State and local law enforcement to
investigate and prosecute providers that violate Federal sex
trafficking laws.
This bill was introduced last summer after a 2-year inquiry by the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which produced a report. That
report found that not only had sex trafficking run rampant in certain
online spaces but also that some websites had tried to cover it up.
Well, no longer. Last fall, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously
approved SESTA, the bill on the floor that the House passed last month.
Now it is our turn.
Senator Portman, the junior Senator from Ohio, has been this bill's
greatest champion since its inception. I believe he was one of the
members of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which produced
the report I mentioned. He has been involved in this issue for a long
time. He has been informing us time and again of the ways in which sex
trafficking has morphed from the street corner to the smartphone.
In the committee's investigation, one website in particular came up
time and again, and the name is no stranger to the Senate or the
Congress. It is backpage, a notorious publication now online that is
responsible for three-quarters of all child trafficking reports.
It eventually became clear that even though that site was actually
helping to sell young women for sex, and even the victims and their
families were suing backpage, none of the lawsuits were successful
because of what some people are coming to believe is an outdated
immunity protection for technology providers under the Communications
Decency Act, which I mentioned a moment ago.
The original law was intended to protect free speech online, which is
important. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment, as I know we
all are, but free speech is no license to engage in criminal activity.
At last count, 67 Senators have joined our effort as cosponsors. We
are joined in support of SESTA by anti-human-trafficking advocates, law
enforcement, State attorneys general, the civil rights community,
faith-based groups, and tech companies like Facebook and Oracle.
Our colleague from Oregon has introduced two amendments, which I
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose. The first would appropriate new
money for the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute website
operators that criminally facilitate sex trafficking. The problem is
that this would violate the blue slip rule and subject the bill to a
point of order. In other words, there are constitutional issues raised
about where that sort of legislation would originate. It has to
originate in the House. It would almost certainly guarantee the demise
of this legislation. In other words, it is a poison pill. It is not
that we will not support funding to prosecute traffickers. In fact, we
will provide ample funding through the Department of Justice later this
week. It is that those funds should be appropriated through the usual
process and then handed over to State and local officials who can use
them effectively.
The second amendment that will be offered is the ``Bad Samaritan''
amendment. This would prevent websites from being held accountable for
any efforts to moderate content, even when those efforts are taken in
bad faith or obviously intended to miss their mark and instead protect
sex traffickers. In some States courts have found that websites like
backpage might be held liable when they selectively edit sex
trafficking ads to make them more difficult to be identified by law
enforcement.
The ``Bad Samaritan'' amendment could protect platforms like
backpage.com from liability for bad-faith editing practices, leaving
victims with even less of a recourse than they have today. Simply put,
it could eviscerate the steps we are taking in SESTA. I am confident
that our colleague does not intend this result, but that would be the
consequence of adopting either one of those amendments.
So I hope my colleagues will join me in voting in favor of SESTA this
week and opposing these two amendments. That is the best way we can
ensure that these websites and online platforms can be held accountable
for facilitating sex trafficking.
Mr. President, later today the Senate will be voting on a privileged
resolution that I spoke on yesterday, offered by three of our
colleagues. Simply put, it would direct the President to cut off all
U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
Now, some people may be looking at a world map to figure out where
Yemen is and what the import of this conflict may be, but suffice it to
say that this is another proxy war being conducted against the United
States and its allies by Iran, now in Yemen, just to the south of Saudi
Arabia, our ally.
So as to the motion to table, I was interested to hear my friends
from Connecticut and Vermont suggesting that the motion to table would
stop debate. Well, that is not exactly true. What it will do is to
facilitate full debate and full consideration of the merits of the
underlying resolution, starting with the Foreign Relations Committee.
It is very unusual for resolutions like this to come immediately to the
floor, where 100 Senators vote on it, because, frankly, not all of us
are as up to speed on the details of this or what the unintended impact
might be as the Foreign Relations Committee that is set up for the
purpose of examining legislation with regard to our international
relationships in matters like this.
This is an important and timely matter, as high-level Saudi officials
are in Washington this week. The Crown Prince is scheduled to meet with
President Trump today. I met with him this morning, along with other
members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Saudi Arabia is an important partner in our counterterrorism
operations and as a counterpoint to Iran. In Yemen, we see both
terrorist operations--that is, ISIS and al-Qaida--and Iran actively
deploying missiles and using Yemen as

[[Page S1808]]

a launching pad to shoot missiles into Saudi Arabia.
I mentioned that this support for our Saudi coalition is narrowly
circumscribed. It takes the form of intelligence sharing, military
advice, and logistical support, including air-to-air refueling. This is
part of a plan that started under the Obama administration and now has
continued under the Trump administration not to put American troops on
the ground--boots on the ground, as we frequently refer to it--but
rather to facilitate for our allies by working by, with, and through
those allies to address the threat not only to them but ultimately to
the United States and to peace in the region.
The role we play in Yemen is clearly a noncombat support role, and it
is meant to minimize civilian casualties by improving the processes and
procedures and increasing compliance with the international law of
armed conflict. In other words, we are trying to help them target the
terrorists and the Iranian-backed rebels and not innocent civilians,
something they are not able to do as well without our assistance.
Contrary to the resolution's sponsors' claims, the United States is
not engaged in hostilities in Yemen, as it has been traditionally
understood, since it is not in direct conflict with the Houthi rebels.
We are not fighting the Houthi rebels. U.S. soldiers are not fighting
the Houthi rebels directly. We are providing support.
Proponents of this legislation rightly point out that there is a
humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Unfortunately, what they sometimes leave
out is that the humanitarian crisis only started when the Iranian-
backed rebels overthrew the existing government. Our military
assistance is helping the Saudis with their targeting to help prevent
civilian casualties, to restore law and order, and to create conditions
necessary to provide aid.
Let's remember, too, that it was President Obama who first
implemented the refueling and logistical support policy. This is not a
political matter. There is no real difference in the way that the Obama
administration and the Trump administration provide this support by,
with, and through our allies the Saudis and the Emiratis.
It is clear why this has been the policy of the last two
administrations. Yemen is a place of great geopolitical concern. When I
visited Bahrain recently with our colleagues--the U.S. Fifth Fleet is
housed in Bahrain--we heard concerns about a chokepoint near an area
called the Bab el Mandeb. I probably butchered that pronunciation, but
we have all heard more frequently about the Straits of Hormuz, through
which a lot of the world's commerce and oil flow.
Bab el Mandeb is off to the west of Yemen, only 18 miles at its
narrowest point, connecting the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. That is
one of the reasons why it is so important geopolitically--because 3.8
million barrels of oil pass through it each day, many of them in route
to the Suez Canal and beyond. Bab el Mandeb shows the geopolitical
importance of Yemen in the surrounding region. When rebels attempt to
shut down shipping in this passage, the impact is global, including on
the United States, and our Nation has every right to be concerned.
I fear the resolution I mention deals with our shared concerns in the
wrong way. We all want to avoid civilian casualties. Most everyone is
aware that Yemen has been suffering from a severe humanitarian crisis
for years, including a terrible cholera outbreak. But if we were to
remove U.S. involvement and logistical support for the Saudi coalition,
the humanitarian crisis would likely get even worse.
The Department of Defense has critiqued the resolution on which we
will be voting on the grounds that it would undermine our ability to
foster long-term relationships with allies in the Gulf region. We also
benefit from increased interoperability, burden-sharing, and strong
security architectures throughout the world. In other words, the
alliances we have in the Middle East fight the common enemy of ISIS and
al-Qaida and try to contain Iran, which has been at war with the United
States since 1979 in the Iranian Revolution in one form or another. All
of these are on the table and all of these should be matters of our
concern, but they are best considered, at least initially, in the
context of the Foreign Relations Committee. They can then make a
recommendation to us, and we can have the sort of fulsome debate that
people have come to expect in the Senate, I hope, on matters of global
importance. So all of the reasons I have mentioned here suggest that
the need for our auxiliary and limited role in Yemen remains important.

Secretary Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, has said that a
withdrawal of our noncombatant support could embolden Iranian-backed
rebels in the area, enable further missile strikes on Saudi Arabia, our
ally, and threaten the shipping lanes in the Red Sea, like the one at
Bab el Mandeb. All this combined could stoke the embers of an even
greater regional conflict in the Middle East.
So I hope our colleagues will vote for a tabling of this resolution,
which does not cut off debate but just moves that debate, at least
initially, to the Foreign Relations Committee, where, under the able
leadership of Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Menendez, I have every
confidence that they will explore every nook and cranny of this issue
and come out with a reasoned and reasonable recommendation to the
Senate and the Congress on how the U.S. Government should conduct
itself.
I believe in a strong congressional role when it comes to wars and
military conflict. This has been a fight, though, that has been going
on for a long time between the executive branch and the legislative
branch. We have the ultimate tool. We can cut off money, but that is a
rather blunt instrument. I think this administration, like previous
administrations, needs to recognize that the Congress is a partner in
making these decisions, not an adversary. It is important that we each
play our respective role, and I am confident that we will play that
role responsibly, which is really what this is all about.
If the Senate takes this vote and passes this resolution, we lose the
chance for that kind of careful, deliberate, informed consideration
that starts in our standing committees. We lose the chance to have the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee issue a thoroughly researched
recommendation.
So I hope our colleagues will vote to table the resolution and not to
close off debate but to insist that this debate take place, at least
initially, where it belongs, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
and that this debate then continue among all 100 Members of the Senate.
We will be better informed, we will be better prepared, and we will be
better able to prevent unintended consequences from taking a rash
action like voting for the resolution today.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Lee, Sanders,
and Murphy, as well as the other cosponsors of the resolution we are
debating, for their commitment to elevating this debate in the Senate.
I agree with my colleagues that this is an important debate with
significant implications. As the elected representatives of the
American people, we must serve as an effective check on the executive
branch, fulfill our commitments to protect the national security
interests of the United States, and be responsive to our constituents.
This debate is about how we best leverage the tools in our national
security toolbox, including military tools, to protect U.S. national
security. Although the resolution focuses on one particular element of
U.S. policy, limited military support--basically, refueling,
intelligence, and advice--to the Saudi coalition, I encourage my
colleagues to expand the aperture of this debate so we may call on the
administration to assert real leadership, diplomatic heft, and
nonmilitary resources to move the conflict in Yemen toward a political
tract.
As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I
remind

[[Page S1809]]

my colleagues that it is this committee that has the jurisdiction over
the questions of use of force. I remind my colleagues that it was also
under my leadership as chair of this committee that it twice voted on
authorizations for the use of military force--once in 2013, in response
to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against the Syrian
people, and once in 2014, in response to the rapid rise and spread of
the Islamic State. I remind my colleagues of these two committee votes
to underscore my commitment to open debate, my willingness to take
tough votes, and my enduring commitment to a robust role for the
legislative branch of the U.S. Government in the use of force and
oversight of that force.
Now, I am pleased that Chairman Corker has agreed to hold a public
hearing with administration witnesses on the war in Yemen--I think a
hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is critically
important--to look at the U.S. military support to the Saudi coalition
and our overarching U.S. policy for resolving the war in Yemen. I
appreciate that the chairman has also made a commitment to a markup in
the committee in the near future on legislation that deals with the
question of Yemen, and I also welcome his commitment to markup an AUMF,
or an authorization for the use of military force, in the committee.
Those are significant and actually will go a long way toward an
informed process about how we deal with this challenge.
In considering S.J. Res. 54, I encourage my colleagues to assess the
best way to promote core U.S. security interests in the Middle East,
including pushing back on Iran's aggressive and destabilizing actions
across the region, countering terrorism, and ensuring the freedom of
navigation. To achieve these goals, our longstanding policy has been to
partner with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to promote the
security and stability of the Arabian Peninsula.
As we consider this resolution, we must fully grasp the situation on
the ground and the scope of attacks on one of our traditional security
partners. Saudi Arabia has endured Yemeni-originated attacks inside its
territory on a scale that no American would accept--ballistic and Scud
missile attacks aimed at major Saudi population centers, cross-border
attacks by Iran-backed Houthis. Those are significant.
Now, having said that, I share the concerns, I think, of a majority
of my Senate colleagues regarding the conduct of the Saudi-led
coalition operations, the unacceptable scale of civilian casualties,
the severity of the humanitarian crisis, and the seeming lack of
momentum on all sides toward a political tract to negotiate an end to
this conflict.
The Saudi coalition bears significant responsibility for the
magnitude of human suffering and the scale of destruction in Yemen.
Seventy-five percent of the population is in need of humanitarian
assistance, and more than 8 million are on the brink of famine. The
conditions have also led to the worst outbreak of cholera in modern
history, with an estimated 1 million people suspected to be infected.
While the Houthis bear much responsibility for the violence, the
Saudi-led campaign has played a significant role in exacerbating,
however, the current humanitarian catastrophe. We must remember that
the Houthis overthrew the internationally recognized and lawful
government of Yemen and continue the conflict by resisting a political
solution. So we ask the Saudis to have a political solution, but we
need the Houthis to engage in a political solution as well. We also
have to remember that the Houthi insurgency has vastly expanded the
opportunities for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
At the same time, I worry that withdrawal of limited U.S. military
support to the Saudi coalition will weaken our leadership and our
ability to influence a political settlement, improve humanitarian
conditions, and could even make the situation worse.
Let us be clear-eyed about who will most benefit from an absence of
American power. As it has done in political vacuums throughout the
region, Iran will continue to expand its proxy power, and through its
Revolutionary Guard, Iran will continue shipping weapons to the Houthis
in violation of the arms embargo. With an emboldened Iran as patron,
the Houthis will continue their campaign within Yemen and their attacks
on Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, other nations in the region will be left questioning the
commitment of its long-term security partner, the United States. In
Saudi Arabia's darkest hours, as ballistic missiles are launched at
major population centers in Saudi Arabia and Lebanese Hezbollah is on
their border training Houthi fighters while Iran continues to transfer
lethal equipment, we risk sending a signal to our partners and to our
adversaries that the United States is not reliable.
Across the world, from Canada to the United Kingdom, President Trump
has damaged our credibility as a reliable partner, even to some of our
most stalwart allies. We must push against those concerns and show our
allies that the United States upholds its international commitments.
Consideration of withdrawal of support for the Saudi coalition must be
taken in concert with other ways in which the United States is working
to end this war--the totality of U.S. policy--which I fear is lacking.
The solution, I believe, is to bolster our diplomatic, humanitarian,
and political presence to help solve this crisis, to end the human
suffering, and to assert practical, concerted leadership. Thus far, the
administration's approach has effectively abdicated leadership on the
global stage. Thus far, while we have heard senior officials assure us
that there is no military solution to this conflict and a political
settlement is necessary, this administration is actively dismantling
the State Department and antagonizing the United Nations--the two
entities that have the potential to play the most critical roles in
moving toward a political settlement and addressing the humanitarian
crisis.

We have vacancies at the Assistant Secretary of State level for the
Middle East and the Ambassador in Riyadh--a failure of leadership.
With this dangerous approach to our diplomatic institutions, we will
not be in a position to promote political solutions, and our military,
once again, will be called on to do the critical work of diplomacy and
development, distracting their attention from other pressing
challenges--a failure of leadership.
Regarding a broader diplomatic strategy, the administration has also
failed to develop a comprehensive strategy to confront Iran, including
holding Iran accountable for continuing to provide missile supplies and
lethal training to the Houthis.
Across land and sea, we know Lebanese Hezbollah operatives are in
Yemen. Yet we have seen no sanctions and no action at the Security
Council for this illicit, illegal activity. The administration has not
made one designation for Iranian violations of arms embargoes, as
directed by the legislation passed here 98 to 2, the Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act--again, a failure of
leadership.
I expect the administration to articulate and implement a
comprehensive strategy for addressing Yemen that includes requisite
conditions for continuing to support the Saudi coalition, a strategic
push for a political settlement, efforts to alleviate the human
suffering, and a comprehensive strategy to decisively push back on
Iran's destabilizing actions in Yemen. This includes tough diplomacy
with countries that will continue to facilitate or, at a minimum, fail
to push back on Iran's actions.
I will continue pushing the administration to assert critical
American diplomatic leadership rooted in the values of democracy, human
rights, and human dignity.
Based upon Chairman Corker's commitments to those hearings and future
markups and based upon the totality of the situation, I will vote to
table the motion to discharge from the committee because I am not ready
to either abandon our partners that face an existential threat from
Iran run amok in Yemen, but my support is not unconditional, and I will
demand responsive actions.
I want to see, as I told the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia earlier
today, a renewed commitment and a rapid movement toward a political
track by the Saudi coalition. I want to see consistent demonstrations
of commitment

[[Page S1810]]

to humanitarian access and alleviating the humanitarian crisis. I want
to see followthrough in pledges of assistance to stabilize and rebuild
Yemen by members of the Saudi coalition. I want to see energy and
diplomacy from the Trump administration.
This week's visit of Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is an
opportunity to press forward on a path for ending the war and
addressing the civilian suffering. That certainly was my message to
him. The limited support the United States provides is leverage. Now
the Trump administration needs to use it.
In conclusion, I invite my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to join me in holding the administration to account and
pushing the administration to use our leverage to drive this conflict
toward a political track. I also invite my colleagues to join me in
conducting oversight of our policies and programs to counter Iran's
activities in the region, including implementing CAATSA.
Finally, I want to be very clear that my vote today is not a blank
check for U.S. military support, nor an endorsement of the current
policy and strategy, and, finally, not a thumbs-up for the Saudi
coalition that we should continue business as usual. I expect to see
improvements on all fronts, as I have previously stated, and I will
review future decisions with respect to potential arms sales and other
votes with that type of extreme scrutiny.
There is no more time to waste. We must move toward a political
settlement to end the war in Yemen, and the people of Yemen must see
improvements in their situation immediately.
I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure we are
working toward a policy that embraces American leadership in promoting
a political solution and alleviating the devastating humanitarian
suffering in Yemen. I look forward to this continuing debate before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New
Jersey, my good friend, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, for his comments.
Today we met with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, a very impressive
young man who is transforming the country. We talked about the
importance of our relationship, no doubt, but we strongly, strongly
pushed back on what is happening right now in Yemen and asked them to
take strong corrective action. I was there when this occurred, and I
certainly expressed the same.
We also talked about the enrichment they are pursuing and some of the
concerns that exist there. I want to thank the ranking member for his
leadership and the words he just spoke.
Let me just speak to the debate we are having on the floor. This is a
very entrepreneurial move. I don't say that to be pejorative. I know
one of the Members is on the Judiciary Committee that is bringing this
to the floor. I can imagine some highly important judicial issue not
being debated in the Judiciary Committee but just being wafted to the
floor for a debate. I know that is not the way the Judiciary Committee
operates.
One of the other Members is on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. I can imagine some complex cap-and-trade bill being offered,
and instead of it being worked through the committee--or some ethanol
bill or some other type of bill--instead of it being worked through the
committee, somebody just decides to bring it directly to the floor.
That is what is happening here today.
I certainly don't shy away from this debate. I appreciate the fact
that Mitch McConnell understood that very few Members of our body--
unless they are on the Foreign Relations Committee, Armed Services
Committee, or happen to take a particular interest--even know much
about what is happening in Yemen, and a lot is happening there. So I
appreciated the briefing that took place last week to give Members a
sense as to what is occurring there, but the proper way to deal with
these issues is to deal with them in committee.
One would think that maybe there is some Yemen legislation that the
committee is holding and not acting on. That is not the case. Any of
these Members could have offered Yemen legislation relative to this
issue, and the committee would take it up. That has not occurred.
So let me tell my colleagues what is happening in the committee. We
have a bill that is being worked on by Senator Young and Senator
Shaheen dealing with this very issue. They are building support. They
are working with the administration to make sure the definitions are
correct, and they have had numbers of people involved with them. We
plan to have a Yemen hearing in the next few weeks to deal with this
issue but also to take up appropriate legislation. That is the way we
typically deal with issues of such importance.
Let me say this: This is an issue of great importance. It not only
affects the tremendous humanitarian crisis that is occurring in Yemen
and the radicalization of the Houthis, supported by Iran--a proxy of
Iran--but also Saudi Arabia's own security. It also affects the way we
deal with other countries. I think many people here understand fully
that right now, or recently, we have been involved in the same kinds of
activities with France, as they have dealt with issues in Mali,
including refueling and helping them some with intelligence issues.
So this is something, again, that we need to take up in a serious
way, and the committee is committed to doing so.
What I hope will happen today is that Members of this body will let
the Foreign Relations Committee do its job and that we will bring a
bill forward that we can properly debate and amend.
I am hoping that later today, when I offer a tabling motion, Members
of this body will respect the members of the Foreign Relations
Committee who deal with this issue and let it go back to committee,
with the commitment that we plan to bring forth legislation to actually
deal appropriately with many of the issues relative to Yemen, Saudi
Arabia, Iran, and ourselves.
Let me mention one other thing. We have been working for some time to
deal with the authorization for the use of military force. It has been
an issue that has been before us for many years. It is the replacement
and revision of the 2001-2002 AUMF that many people in this body have
had concerns about because it has been so long since they were enacted.
We have activities that are taking place around the world still based
on those two authorizations. We have a markup on an AUMF on April 19
scheduled to try to revise so we can give people an opportunity to
weigh in on this issue on the floor.
By the way, the way the AUMF is being constructed at present, when we
go into new countries, when we take on new groups, the Senate would
have the ability to weigh in on those issues.
So I just would like to say to the body and those who are looking in,
we are not shying away from this debate. There has been no legislation
whatsoever that has been held up on this topic. Legislation is being
introduced soon in a bipartisan way to deal with this terrible issue
that is taking place in Yemen.
We are going to have a hearing. We will have a markup. In addition to
that, we are going to have a markup on a new AUMF to deal with the
issues our country is dealing with around the world with al-Qaida,
ISIS, and other entities that have been associated parties.
With that, I just want to let people know that is kind of the way we
deal with things around here. None of us is happy with the current
status, but I think a better way for us to come up with a prudent
solution to what is happening there is to go through the normal
committee process. I hope the other Members of the body will respect
that.
I am glad that, by the way, the ranking member--by the way, this
policy has been taking place in Yemen. It started under the Obama
administration, the same exact policy. The Senate has acted on it by
voting for appropriations, so it is not as if we have not taken action
ourselves. We have done that through the NDAA. We have done that
through various State Department authorizations. So we have acted upon
it. There are concerns about what is happening there. Legislation is
going to be introduced to try to deal with

[[Page S1811]]

this, and that is the way we deal with complicated issues. No one is
shying away from the debate. We just hope to table this and move it
back and deal with it in the orderly, appropriate way.
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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this afternoon there is going to be a vote
on the Senate floor which is of historic importance. It is rare that I
use those words to describe what is going on in the Senate Chamber. It
is equally rare for us to actually take up an issue and debate it in
this Chamber, but this afternoon we will face a critical vote.
I can recall, as can most Members, many votes we have cast in the
course of service in Congress, both in the House and the Senate, but
the votes that cause loss of sleep and worry, time and again, are votes
involving war. You see, part of my responsibility in the Senate, shared
by my colleagues, under article I, section 8, is to actually vote to
decide whether the United States of America shall go to war.
The Founding Fathers were explicit. They wanted to give to Congress
that responsibility so Members of Congress could represent their
constituents--House districts and States--whom we all represent. That
created an opportunity--in effect, an obligation--for us to really
measure this grievous, important, historic decision against the
feelings of the families who would be asked to support a war with their
tax dollars or with the lives of people they love.
I can recall, back in 2001, what occurred on 9/11. Those of us alive
on that date will never forget it, but I also recall that a year later
we faced a decision right here in the Senate Chamber about whether, as
a result of 9/11, we would go to war against Iraq and Afghanistan.
There was a long debate about whether we should invade Iraq. If you
will remember, the leaders of the government told us there were weapons
of mass destruction which threatened the region and the world,
including the United States, and if we didn't move into Iraq and take
out Saddam Hussein in his capacity, we would leave the United States in
danger.
The debate went on for a long period of time, and the final vote was
cast in the early morning hours in October of 2002. I remember it well
and, for reasons I can't explain, I stayed on the floor after the vote.
There were only two or three Members of the Senate still here. It was
one of those moments where we had voted to go to war and weren't
certain about what the next step would be. There were 23 of us--1
Republican and 22 Democrats--who voted against the invasion of Iraq. I
think it was one of the most important votes I ever cast.
The representations about weapons of mass destruction turned out to
be false. We had no intelligence to back up that assertion. Yet that
was the reason we were off to war. Well, here we are, some 16 years
later, still engaged in a war in Iraq. I don't believe there is a
single Member of the Senate who that night cast a vote for the invasion
of that country who believed that 16 years later we would still be
engaged in a war in Iraq.
Subsequently, there was a vote on the invasion of Afghanistan. It was
a different circumstance. We believed Afghanistan had literally been
the sourcing point for the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 and killed
3,000 innocent Americans. The argument made by the administration was,
no one can do that to the United States of America without paying a
price. I joined the overwhelming bipartisan majority supporting the
invasion of Afghanistan to go after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
I voted against invading Iraq. I voted for the invasion of
Afghanistan. I can tell you, I would never ever have been able to stand
here and say, with any certainty, that 16 years later, we would still
be engaged in a war in Afghanistan, but we are.
The obvious question to ask is, In 16 years of war in Iraq and
Afghanistan and other places in the world, how many other times has the
United States and the House of Representatives come together to debate
the wisdom of a decision about continuing a war or declaring a war? The
answer is none--not once.
For 16 years, we have been observers and bystanders, through
Presidents of both political parties, and the Congress has stood by and
observed military action being taken all over the world.
Brown University did a survey called the Costs of War Project and
recently published data saying that the United States fought terror in
76 countries, between October 2015 and October 2017, using its own
troops and bases, through training of host country counterterrorism
forces or through drone and air strikes.
In 76 different countries, we are engaged in military operations. How
often has the Senate or the House come together to debate the wisdom or
to even question whether those military actions were authorized? I
think none. Perhaps someone could point to one, but I can't think of
one time we have done it.
This afternoon is going to be different because we are being asked,
as Members of the Senate, whether we are going to exercise our
constitutional authority and responsibility when it comes to an ongoing
war in a country most Americans couldn't find on a map--the country of
Yemen.
Yemen now is embroiled in a civil war and an invasion by Saudi
Arabia, and we are part of that military operation. There has been no
vote in the U.S. Senate on those military activities. There is a loose
connection to al-Qaida, which was referenced in the invasion of
Afghanistan, as a rationalization for going after this terrorist
operation now being found in Yemen, but there is more to that war in
Yemen than just the presence of al-Qaida. There is an ongoing surrogate
battle between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the United States is engaged.
I believe we are engaged because of our friendship with Saudi Arabia;
some have argued because we sold them the planes we are now refueling.
At the very least, we ought to bring this case to the American
people. That is our constitutional responsibility, and that is why this
vote is important: Because we took an oath--each of us--when we became
Senators, to uphold the Constitution of the United States against
enemies foreign and domestic. That Constitution says the people of the
United States--the ones I represent in Illinois, the ones who are
represented in Oregon or in Texas--are going to have a voice in this
decision through us, through our debate, through our decision.
I thank the Senators who have brought this matter to the floor today:
Mr. Lee, a Republican Senator from the State of Utah; Mr. Sanders, a
Democratic Senator from Vermont; and Mr. Murphy, another Democratic
Senator, from Connecticut. I have joined in cosponsoring this effort.
It really is going to put us to a test to justify what we are doing in
Yemen today.
What is happening in Yemen has been characterized by the United
Nations as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world--and that is
saying something. Some 8 million people are dying of famine in Yemen
because of this war. Some 16 million are in desperate need of
humanitarian assistance immediately.
This is no skirmish. This is not just an exchange of fire. This is
carnage and destruction the likes of which the world has never seen,
and we are part of it. If we are part of it and should be part of it,
then we should make that decision as a Senate and a House of
Representatives, as the Constitution requires, but going to the
bleachers, standing by the sidelines, and watching more and more
military operations take place around the world without asserting our
constitutional responsibility is a mistake. That is why I have
cosponsored this measure this afternoon and look forwarding to voting
for it to move forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, America is very involved in a war in
Yemen, and it is time we have a debate as envisioned under our
Constitution.
Our Constitution did not lay out the power of deciding when to go to
war with the executive branch. It places it

[[Page S1812]]

very clearly here, with article I, Congress is to act, but we have
participated very directly, in partnership with Saudi Arabia, in the
assault on Yemen, on the Houthis, and the result is a dramatic,
dramatic humanitarian crisis. So we should absolutely hold that debate
on this floor, as envisioned in our Constitution.
Article I, section 8 states, unequivocally, that ``the Congress shall
have Power . . . to declare War.'' It is only Congress that is given
this power under our Constitution.
If anyone has any doubts, then let's pay attention to the other words
of our Founders, James Madison himself: ``In no part of the
constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which
confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to
the executive department.''
The Founding Fathers' vision was reinforced by the War Powers
Resolution of 1973, also often referred to as the War Powers Act. That
act was necessary because the executive branch tends to put our forces
into conflict without the permission of Congress, in violation of the
Constitution. So it is important to lay out the parameters under which
they are allowed to do so under emergency action and the circumstances
under which they are not allowed to do so.
The War Powers Act says: ``It is the purpose of this joint resolution
to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United
States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress
and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed
Forces into hostilities.''
It goes on to say that ``the constitutional powers of the President
as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into
hostilities . . . is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are
exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific
statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack
upon the United States.''
In the case of the Saudi war we are participating in against the
Houthis, it is not triggered by an attack upon the United States, nor
is there any specific statutory authorization--that is why we are going
to have this debate today--nor is there a declaration of war.
So the standards of the War Powers Resolution have not been met, and
I call upon my colleagues to shoulder your constitutional
responsibility to have this debate and hold the Executive accountable
when they are violating the law of the United States of America.
There are two components to our presence in Yemen which should not be
confused. One is where we are directly involved against forces
associated with al-Qaida. This debate is not about that. The
administration contends and we do not dispute today whether that is
covered by the 2001 authorization for use of military force.
I think many of us feel that initial 2001 AUMF, authorization for use
of military force, has been stretched beyond recognition. That is a
debate for a different day. This argument is directly about our support
of Saudi Arabia in bombing the Houthis in Yemen. That is the central
question.
For us to understand why this is so important is, one, the integrity
of the Constitution. If we do not hold the Executive accountable to the
Constitution of the United States of America, then we are essentially
taking that key, critical clause that gave us responsibility for when
military force is used by the United States out of the Constitution and
delivering it to the Executive. That certainly is not the vision. If
people want to have that vision, they will introduce a constitutional
amendment to that point. Introduce a resolution to declare war to make
this action in concert with the Constitution. Create specific statutory
authority in concert with the Constitution. But do not fail your
constitutional responsibility to hold this debate.

The War Powers Resolution lays out clearly that our participation in
the support of foreign forces engaged in hostilities is engagement
under the vision of our Constitution and certainly under the law of the
War Powers Resolution. It says under section 8:

Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into
hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall
not be inferred--(1) from any provision of law . . .
including any provision contained in any appropriation Act,
unless such provision specifically authorizes the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Again, specific authorization is required.
It goes on. In this section titled ``Interpretation of Joint
Resolution,'' it states:

``[I]ntroduction of United States Armed Forces'' includes
the assignment of member of such armed forces to command,
coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the
regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country .
. . in hostilities.

Clearly, the law states that our engagement, our coordination with a
foreign power engaged in war, is covered by this act. Our participation
in the movement of their military forces into hostilities is covered by
this act.
Therefore, we have to understand the details of our engagement.
First, the United States refueling the Saudi planes as they go to
bomb the Houthis is very directly participation in the movement of
military forces into engaged hostilities. We are refueling the planes
en route. How can that not be participation in the movement? Certainly
a plane is a part of a military force. Certainly refueling it is
participation in the movement of that plane. Could this be any clearer?
This is black and white. Not many things are. In terms of the violation
of the War Powers Resolution and the offense against our Constitution,
this is black and white.
Second, we provide intelligence.
Third, we provide the weapons.
Fourth, we provide targeting assistance.
Fifth, we established a joint combined planning cell operation center
to conduct military and intelligence activities in partnership with
Saudi Arabia.
All of that fits into this direct section of the War Powers Act
regarding coordination or participation in the movement of a foreign
force engaged in hostilities. If this were a minor involvement--it is
not. We have participated thousands of times in this manner. On a daily
basis, we are involved in coordination.
The airstrikes Saudi Arabia is conducting have produced one of the
worst humanitarian situations in the world. Think about the reports on
these different strikes.
There were 3 airstrikes in Sa'dah last month, killing 5 civilians and
wounding 14 more, including 4 children, as well as killing the
paramedics who were trying to pull the survivors out after the first
bomb dropped.
We had a strike on a hotel last August that turned the building's
ceiling black with the charred blood of 50 farmers who were in that
building.
It is one horrific circumstance after another as these bombs drop on
civilians in Yemen. It is time for us to reckon with the fact of our
participation in this carnage. This carnage has resulted in 10,000
Yemeni civilians killed, and there are 8 million people on the brink of
starvation. Why is it that humanitarian aid has not gotten to those
folks? Because Saudi Arabia has blocked it. We are partnering with a
country that is blocking humanitarian aid. Does that square with the
principles of the United States of America, to participate in
partnership with a country starving 8 million people?
Then we have the fact that the Saudi bombs have been dropping on the
infrastructure of Yemen, and they have destroyed the water systems.
When you destroy the water systems, the sewage contaminates the fresh
water, and a direct consequence of that is cholera. At this moment, the
cholera epidemic in Yemen has affected 1 million people. That is the
single largest cholera epidemic in the recorded history of mankind.
There are 8 million people starving and 1 million people sick with
the worst cholera epidemic ever. We are participating in creating this.
To my colleagues who say Saudi Arabia has partnered with us against
ISIS, fine and good, as they should. However, this issue is different.
This is about whether we are helping them and participating directly in
the hostilities of dropping bombs on civilians, Houthis, and creating a
massive famine and a massive cholera epidemic and massive deaths. A lot
of children are dying every day.

[[Page S1813]]

The Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency
Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock, warned that this famine could become
``the largest famine the world has seen for many decades, with millions
of victims.''
Every day, about 130 children die from hunger and disease. We pride
ourselves on going to the assistance in the world when children are
being slaughtered or starved or decimated by disease. In this case, we
are participating in this carnage. Does any Member of this Senate want
to stand up and say that is an appropriate mission for the United
States to participate in, this carnage? I certainly hope not.
The death and destruction in Yemen is unimaginable. It is appropriate
that we debate on the floor the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, a
bipartisan resolution to say: Let's honor the Constitution. Let's abide
by the 1973 War Powers Act. Let's hold the administration accountable
because it is not just this issue--although this issue is massive--it
is also the standard by which the Executive will operate in every
potential war theater around the world for a decade to come.
If we proceed to say that it is OK that you trample the Constitution
in Yemen, that you disregard the War Powers Resolution in Yemen, then
we will be giving carte blanche to this administration to do so in one
nation after another. We have long abdicated our responsibility. Let's
abdicate no more. Play the role, the responsibility the Founding
Fathers gave us in the Constitution, and bring an end to our
participation without authorization in this horrific conflict.

____________________