[Pages S7482-S7503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN
THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 54.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
proceed.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Peters
Reed
Risch
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young

NAYS--39

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Cruz
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kyl
Lankford
McConnell
Perdue
Portman
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Toomey
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Tillis

The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 54) to direct the removal of
the United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the
Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe there are problems with the
law governing the consideration of these types of resolutions. One of
biggest is the consideration of amendments. I have a series of
parliamentary inquiries that I think will help clarify the problems
with the statute.
Parliamentary inquiry: Does this statute provide any guidelines for
the consideration of amendments on this resolution?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it does not. The statute does not set
forth the text to be used in the joint resolution, and this statute
uses the expedited procedures from the Arms Export Control Act, a
statute which does not allow amendments, so there are no parameters for
the consideration of amendments built into the language.
Mr. McCONNELL. I believe that most times the Senate uses expedited
procedures, we have either a germaneness requirement for amendments or
they cannot be amended. Can the Chair expound on what some of those are
and what that concept means in the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Generally speaking, when the Senate considers
a measure under statutory expedited procedures, like the Budget Act,
the Congressional Review Act, the Trade Act, or the Arms Control Act--
or

[[Page S7483]]

even under the Cloture Rule--there are guardrails for the consideration
of the measure and for amendments thereto. There are statutes and rules
with prescribed text, limits on debate time, jurisdictional fences,
filing deadlines, and germaneness requirements or a complete
prohibition on amendments. Often, there are points of order and waivers
written into the structure as well. The Senate trades its normal
procedure of unfettered debate and amendment and the need for 60 votes
to end debate and consideration for a more predictable, structured, and
streamlined process of consideration and a majority threshold vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. In the opinion of the Chair, is a statute with no end
point for consideration and no restrictions on text or amendments
consistent with the other expedited procedures which the Senate often
uses?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. The construct is inconsistent with the
concepts embodied in other expedited processes--even those that are
themselves flawed--and the opportunity for abuse of this process is
limitless.
Mr. McCONNELL. I agree with the Chair, and I think the Senate should
speak to this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I think it is important when using
expedited procedures, especially on matters of national security such
as this, the Senate limit consideration to the matter at hand.
Therefore, I raise a point of order that amendments offered under 50
U.S.C. 1546(a) must be germane to the underlying joint resolution to
which they are offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The laws governing the consideration of this
type of resolution do not prescribe what type of amendments can be
considered. The Senate has not previously considered this question;
therefore, the Chair submits the question to the Senate for its
decision, Shall amendments offered under 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) be germane
to the underlying joint resolution to which they are offered?
The question is debatable for 1 hour.
Mr. CORKER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I just wanted clarification. Was it
section 1546 or 1446?
You are right. OK.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded.
The question is, Shall amendments offered under 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) be
germane to the underlying joint resolution to which they are offered?
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

YEAS--96

Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--3

Cruz
Lee
Paul

NOT VOTING--1

Tillis

The point of order is taken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use an
oversized floor display.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Yemen War Powers Resolution

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about one of
the great humanitarian crises facing our planet, and that is the
horrific war in Yemen.
In March of 2015, under the leadership of Muhammad bin Salman, who
was then the Saudi Defense Minister and is now, of course, the Crown
Prince, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates intervened in Yemen's
ongoing civil war. As a result of the Saudi-UAE intervention, Yemen is
now experiencing the worst humanitarian disaster in the world.
According to the United Nations, Yemen is at risk of the most severe
famine in more than 100 years, with some 14 million people facing
starvation. In one of the poorest countries on Earth, as a result of
this terrible war, according to the Save the Children organization,
some 85,000 Yemeni children have already starved to death over the last
several years, and millions more face starvation if the war continues.
Further, Yemen is currently experiencing the worst cholera outbreak
in the world, with there being as many as 10,000 new cases each week,
according to the World Health Organization. This is a disease that is
spread by infected water that causes severe diarrhea and dehydration
and will only accelerate the death rate. The cholera outbreak has
occurred because Saudi bombs have destroyed Yemen's water
infrastructure and because people there are no longer able to access
clean water.
Last week, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an
article, which I urge all Members to read, that describes his recent
visit to Yemen.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York
Times article, ``Your Tax Dollars Help Starve Children.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Dec. 7, 2018]

Opinion--Your Tax Dollars Help Starve Children

(By Nicholas Kristof)

Aden, Yemen.--He is an 8-year-old boy who is starving and
has limbs like sticks, but Yaqoob Walid doesn't cry or
complain. He gazes stolidly ahead, tuning out everything, for
in late stages of starvation the human body focuses every
calorie simply on keeping the organs functioning.
Yaqoob arrived unconscious at Al Sadaqa Hospital here,
weighing just over 30 pounds. He has suffered complications,
and doctors say that it is unclear he will survive and that
if he does he may suffer permanent brain damage.
Some 85,000 children may have already died here in Yemen,
and 12 million more people may be on the brink of starvation,
casualties in part of the three-year-old American-backed
Saudi war in Yemen. United Nations officials and aid experts
warn that this could become the worst famine the world has
seen in a generation.
``The risk of a major catastrophe is very high,'' Mark
Lowcock, the United Nations humanitarian chief, told me. ``In
the worst case, what we have in Yemen now has the potential
to be worse than anything any professional in this field has
seen during their working lives.''
Both the Obama and Trump administrations have supported the
Saudi war in Yemen with a military partnership, arms sales,
intelligence sharing and until recently air-to-air refueling.
The United States is thus complicit in what some human rights
experts believe are war crimes.
The bottom line: Our tax dollars are going to starve
children.
I fell in love with Yemen's beauty and friendliness on my
first visit, in 2002, but this enchanting country is now in
convulsions. When people hear an airplane today in much of
Yemen, they flinch and wonder if they are about to be bombed,
and I had interviews interrupted by automatic weapons fire
overhead.
After witnessing the human toll and interviewing officials
on both sides, including the president of the Houthi rebels
who control much of Yemen, I find the American and Saudi role
in this conflict to be unconscionable. The Houthis are
repressive and untrustworthy, but this is not a reason to
bomb and starve Yemeni children.
What is most infuriating is that the hunger is caused not
by drought or extreme weather, but by cynical and failed
policies in Riyadh and Washington. The starvation does

[[Page S7484]]

not seem to be an accidental byproduct of war, but rather a
weapon in it. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,
backed by the United States, are trying to inflict pain to
gain leverage over and destabilize the Houthi rebels. The
reason: The Houthis are allied with Iran.
The governments of Saudi Arabia and the United States don't
want you to see pictures like Yaqoob's or reflect on the
suffering in Yemen. The Saudis impose a partial blockade on
Houthi areas, banning commercial flights and barring
journalists from special United Nations planes there. I've
been trying for more than two years to get through the Saudi
blockade, and I finally was able to by tagging onto Lowcock's
United Nations delegation.
After a major famine, there is always soul-searching about
how the world could have allowed this to happen. What's
needed this time is not soul-searching a few years from now,
but action today to end the war and prevent a cataclysm.
The problem in Yemen is not so much a shortage of food as
it is an economic collapse--GDP has fallen in half since the
war started--that has left people unable to afford food.
Yaqoob was especially vulnerable. He is the second of eight
children in a poor household with a father who has mental
health problems and can't work steadily. Moreover, the
father, like many Yemenis, chews qat--a narcotic leaf that is
very widely used in Yemen and offers an easy high. This
consumes about $1 a day, reducing the budget available for
food. The family sold some land to pay for Yaqoob's care, so
its situation is now even more precarious.
A few rooms down from Yaqoob was Fawaz Abdullah, 18 months
old, his skin mottled and discolored with sores. Fawaz is so
malnourished that he has never been able to walk or say more
than ``Ma'' or ``Ba.''
Fawaz's mother, Ruqaya Saleh, explained that life fell
apart after her home in the port city of Hudaydah was
destroyed by a bomb (probably an American one, as many are).
Her family fled to Aden, and her husband is struggling to
find occasional work as a day laborer.
``I used to be able to buy whatever I wanted, including
meat and fish,'' she told me. Since fleeing, she said, war-
induced poverty has meant that she hasn't been able to buy a
single fish or egg--and that is why Fawaz suffers severe
protein deficiency.
``They asked me to buy milk for Fawaz, but we can't afford
it now,'' she said.
We think of war casualties as men with their legs blown
off. But in Yemen the most common war casualties are children
like Fawaz who suffer malnutrition.
Some will die. Even the survivors may suffer lifelong brain
damage. A majority of Yemen children are now believed to be
physically stunted from malnutrition (46 percent were stunted
even before the war), and physical stunting is frequently
accompanied by diminished brain development.
``These children are the future of Yemen,'' Dr. Aida
Hussein, a nutrition specialist, told me, looking at Fawaz.
``He will be stunted. How will he do in school?''
The war and lack of health care facilities have also led to
outbreaks of deadly diseases like diphtheria and cholera.
Half of the country's clinics and hospitals are closed.
In the capital, Sana, I met a child who was suffering both
malnutrition and cholera. The boy was Saddam Hussein (he was
named for the Iraqi leader), eight years old, and the parents
repeat the mantra I hear from everyone: Life is much worse
now because of the war.
``We don't know what we will eat tomorrow,'' Saddam's
mother told me.
Yemen began to disintegrate in the aftermath of the Arab
Spring, and then the Houthis, a traditional clan in the
north, swept down on Sana and seized much of the country. The
Houthis follow Zaydi Islam, which is related to the Shiite
branch dominant in Iran, and the Saudis and some Americans
see them as Iranian stooges.
In some ways, the Houthis have been successful. They have
imposed order and crushed Al Qaeda and the Islamic State in
the parts of Yemen they control, and in Sana I felt secure
and didn't fear kidnapping.
However, the Houthis operate a police state and are hostile
to uncovered women, gays and anyone bold enough to criticize
them. They recruit child soldiers from the age of about 12
(the Saudi- and American-backed forces wait until boys are
about 15), interfere with food aid, and have engaged in
torture and attacks on civilians.
Still, the civilian loss of life has overwhelmingly been
caused not by the Houthis but by Saudi Arabia, the United
Arab Emirates and America, through both bombings and
starvation. It's ridiculous for the Trump administration to
be exploring naming the Houthis a terrorist organization. And
while the Houthis are allies of Iran, I think the Saudis
exaggerate when they suggest that the Houthis are Iranian
pawns.
The foreign minister on the Houthi side is Hisham Sharaf
Abdalla, a congenial American-educated official.
``I love the U.S.,'' Mr. Sharaf told me. ``We look to the
U.S. as the only force that can stop this war.''
Peace talks are now beginning in Sweden--few people expect
them to solve the crisis soon--and he insisted that his side
was eager to reach a peace deal and improve relations with
America.
After our conversation, he brought me over to his desk and
showed me his assault rifle and two handguns. ``When I was in
the U.S., I was a member of the N.R.A.,'' he told me. ``I
would like to have an N.R.A. chapter in Yemen.''
Mr. Sharaf talks a good game but is not himself a Houthi,
just an ally, so I wondered if he was a figurehead trotted
out to impress foreigners. Later I interviewed a man whose
power is unquestioned: Muhammad Ali al-Houthi, the president
of the Supreme Revolutionary Committee. As his name
signifies, he is a member of the Houthi clan.
An aide picked me up and ferried me to him, for President
Houthi changes locations daily to avoid being bombed by the
Saudis.
President Houthi, a large, confident man with a traditional
dagger at his belly, was friendly to me but also suspicious
of the United States and full of conspiracy theories. He
suggested that Washington was secretly arming Al Qaeda and
that the United States was calling the shots for Saudi Arabia
in Yemen, at the behest of Israel.
Still, he said that he wanted peace and that although the
Houthis have fired missiles at Saudi Arabia, his side would
pose no threat to Saudi Arabia if the Saudis would only end
their assault on Yemen.
``There's no need for enmity with the United States,'' he
told me in Arabic, and that seemed a message he wanted me to
convey to Washington and the American people.
I asked President Houthi about the sarkha, the group's
slogan: ``God is great! Death to America! Death to Israel!
Curses on the Jews! Victory to Islam!'' That didn't seem so
friendly, I said.
``It's nothing against the American people,'' he replied.
``It's directed toward the system.''
When I asked about Saudi and American suggestions that the
Houthis are Iranian pawns, he laughed.
``That's just propaganda,'' he said. ``I ask you: Have you
ever seen one Iranian in Yemen? Do we speak Farsi?'' This was
all a trick, he said, analogous to the allegations of weapons
of mass destruction used to justify war with Iraq.
While the Houthis are called ``rebels,'' they clearly rule
their territory. In contrast, the Saudi- and American-backed
``internationally recognized government'' of Yemen is a shell
that controls almost no territory--hence it is based in
Riyadh. The ``president'' of this exile government, Abdu
Rabbu Mansour Hadi, is said to be gravely ill, and when he is
gone it will be even more difficult to sustain the fiction
that this is a real government.
More broadly, I don't see any hint of a Saudi or American
strategy. There's little sign that bombing and starvation
will actually dislodge the Houthis, while the Saudi military
action and resulting chaos has benefited the Yemeni branches
of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. In that sense, America's
conduct in Yemen has hurt our own national security.
In one sign of the ineffectiveness of the Western-backed
government, the hunger is now as severe in its areas as in
the rebel-held north. I saw worse starvation in Aden, the
lovely seaside city in the south that is nominally run by the
internationally recognized government, than in Houthi-
controlled Sana.
And while I felt reasonably secure in Houthi-controlled
areas, I was perpetually nervous in Aden. Abductions and
murders occur regularly there, and my guesthouse offered not
a mint on the pillow, but a bulletproof vest; at night, sleep
was interrupted by nearby fighting among unknown gunmen.
What limited order exists in Aden is provided by soldiers
from the United Arab Emirates and allied militias, and I
worry that the U.A.E. is getting fed up with the war and may
pull them out without alternative arrangements for security.
If that happens, Aden may soon plunge into Somalia-like
chaos.
Mohamed Zemam, the governor of the central bank, believes
that there are ways to shore up the economy and prevent
starvation. But he cautions that the risk of another Somalia
is real, and he estimates that there may be two million
Yemenis in one fighting force or another.
``What they have is the way of the gun,'' he said. ``If we
don't solve that, we will have problems for 100 years.''
Another danger is that the Saudi coalition will press ahead
so that fighting closes the port of Hudaydah, through which
most food and fuel come.
I stopped in Saudi Arabia to speak to senior officials
there about Yemen, and we had some tough exchanges. I showed
them photos on my phone of starving children, and they said
that this was unfortunate and undesired. ``We are not
devils,'' one said indignantly. They insisted that they would
welcome peace--but that they must confront the Houthis.
``The most important thing for us is national security,''
the Saudi ambassador to Yemen, Mohammed Al-Jabir, told me.
Dr. Abdullah Al Rabeeah, an adviser to the royal court and
director of a fund that provides aid to Yemen, told me that
Saudis don't want to see hunger in Yemen but added: ``We will
continue to do what it takes to fight terrorism. It's not an
easy decision.''
Saudi and U.A.E. officials note that they provide an
enormous amount of humanitarian aid to Yemen. This is true,
and it mitigates the suffering there. But it's difficult to
give the Saudis much credit for relieving the suffering of a
country that they are bombing and starving.
To avert a catastrophe in Yemen, the world needs to provide
more humanitarian aid. But above all, the war has to end.

[[Page S7485]]

``You're not going to solve this long-term until the war is
ended,'' said David Beasley, the executive director of the
World Food Program. ``It's a man-made problem, and it needs a
man-made solution.''
That solution will entail strong American backing for a
difficult United Nations-backed peace process involving
Yemeni factions and outsiders, aiming for a measure of power
sharing. This diplomatic process requires engaging the
Houthis, not just bombing them. It also means a cease-fire
and pressure on all sides to ensure humanitarian access and
the passage of food and fuel. The best leverage America has
to make the Saudis part of the solution is to suspend arms
sales to Riyadh so long as the Saudis continue the war.
In conference rooms in Riyadh and Washington, officials
simply don't fathom the human toll of their policies.
In a makeshift camp for displaced people in Aden, I met a
couple who lost two daughters--Bayan, 11, and Bonyan, 8--in a
bombing in a crowded market.
``I heard the bomb and I went running after them,'' the
dad, Ahmed Abdullah, told me with an ache in his voice.
``They were dead. One had her skull burst open, and the other
had no arms or legs left.''
He told me that the family then fled, and he married off a
15-year-old daughter so that someone else would be
responsible for feeding her. This is common: The share of
girls married by age 18 has increased from 50 percent before
the war to two-thirds today, according to Unicef.
Another son died of fever when the family could not afford
to take the boy to a hospital. There are several other
children, and none of them are going to school any more; a
10-year-old daughter, Baraa, who is next in line to be
married, couldn't tell me what seven plus eight equals.
A bit hesitantly, I told Ahmed that I thought that my
country, America, had probably provided the bomb that had
killed his daughters. He was not angry, just resigned.
``I am not an educated person,'' he told me earnestly. ``I
am a simple parent.'' And then he offered more wisdom than I
heard from the sophisticated policy architects in America and
Saudi Arabia: ``My message is that I want the war to stop.''

Mr. SANDERS. Let me just take this opportunity to quote some of what
he said in that December 7 New York Times article:

Some 85,000 children may have already died here in Yemen,
and 12 million more people may be on the brink of starvation,
casualties in part of the three-year-old American-backed
Saudi war in Yemen. United Nations officials and aid experts
warn that this could become the worst famine the world has
seen in a generation.

``The risk of a major catastrophe is very high,'' Mark Lowcock, the
United Nations humanitarian chief, told me. ``In the worst case, what
we have in Yemen now has the potential to be worse than anything any
professional in this field has seen during their working lives.''
Nicholas Kristof continues:

What is most infuriating is that the hunger is caused not
by drought or extreme weather, but by cynical and failed
policies in Riyadh and Washington. The starvation does not
seem to be an accidental byproduct of war, but rather a
weapon in it. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,
backed by the United States, are trying to inflict pain to
gain leverage over and destabilize the Houthi rebels. The
reason: The Houthis are allied with Iran.

He continues:

The problem in Yemen is not so much a shortage of food as
it is an economic collapse--GDP has fallen in half since the
war started--that has left people unable to afford food.

Kristof continues, and I want you to hear this:

We think of war casualties as men with their legs blown
off. But in Yemen the most common war casualties are children
like Fawaz who suffer malnutrition.

He continues:

Some will die. Even the survivors may suffer lifelong brain
damage. A majority of Yemen children are now believed to be
physically stunted from malnutrition.

Let me repeat that:

A majority of Yemen children are now believed to be
physically stunted from malnutrition (46 percent were stunted
even before the war), and physical stunting is frequently
accompanied by diminished brain development.

``These children are the future of Yemen,'' Dr. Aida Hussein, a
nutrition specialist, told me, looking at Fawaz. ``He will be stunted.
How will he do in school?''

The war and lack of health care facilities have also led to
outbreaks of deadly diseases like diphtheria and cholera.
Half of the country's clinics and hospitals are closed.

That was written by Nick Kristof of the New York Times.
The fact of the matter is that the United States, with very little
media attention, has been Saudi Arabia's partner in this horrific war.
We have been providing the bombs the Saudi-led coalition has been
using, refueling their planes before they drop those bombs, and
assisting with intelligence.
In too many cases, our weapons are being used to kill civilians. In
August, it was an American-made bomb that obliterated a schoolbus full
of young boys, killing dozens and wounding many others. A CNN report
found evidence that American weapons have been used in a string of such
deadly attacks on civilians since the war began.
According to the independent monitoring group, Yemen Data Project,
between 2015 and March 2018, more than 30 percent of the Saudi-led
coalition's targets have been nonmilitary.
A few weeks ago, I met with several brave human rights activists from
Yemen in my office. They had come to urge Congress to put a stop to
this war. They told me, clearly, when Yemenis see ``Made in USA'' on
the bombs that are killing them, it tells them the USA is responsible
for this war, and that is the sad truth.
The bottom line is, the United States should not be supporting a
catastrophic war led by a despotic regime with a dangerous and
irresponsible military policy.
Some have suggested that Congress moving to withdraw support from
this war would undermine U.N. efforts to reach a peace agreement, but I
would argue that the exact opposite is true. It is the promise of
unconditional U.S. support for the Saudis that have undermined the
efforts toward peace. We have evidence for this.
Just yesterday, we received news that U.N. Special Envoy Martin
Griffiths made a breakthrough agreement for the exchange in that war of
some 15,000 prisoners--a significant development. This is an important
step in building the necessary trust for a broader peace agreement.
A piece published today in TRT World observes: ``[T]here seems to be
a firmer willingness to reach an agreement than in previous talks, as
the Yemeni government realises that the international pressure on its
backer, Saudi Arabia, is growing.''
So our effort to move this resolution forward may have already made a
positive impact. I thank all of my 18 cosponsors and all of the many
civil society organizations--progressive and conservative--who have
worked so hard to raise awareness of this horrific conflict.
Above and beyond the humanitarian crisis, this war has been a
disaster for our national security and for the security of the region.
The administration defends our engagement in Yemen by overstating
Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. Let me be clear. Iran's support
for Houthis is of serious concern for me, and I believe for all of us,
but the fact is, the relationship between Iran and the Houthis has only
been strengthened with the intensification of the war. This war is
creating the very problem the Trump administration claims it wants to
solve.
Further, the war is also undermining the broader effort against
violent extremists. A 2016 State Department report found the conflict
has helped al-Qaida and ISIS ``deepen their inroads across much of the
country.'' This war, as I see it, is both a humanitarian and a
strategic disaster.
Further--and I think it is important to state what everybody knows,
although we don't talk about it terribly often--Saudi Arabia is a
despotic regime, controlled by one family, the Saud family, one of the
wealthiest and most powerful families on Earth.
In a 2017 report by the Cato Institute--a conservative think tank--
Saudi Arabia was ranked 149th out of 159 countries for freedom and
human rights. For decades, the Saudis have funded schools, mosques, and
preachers who promote an extreme form of Islam known as Wahhabism.
In Saudi Arabia today, women are not treated as second-class
citizens; they are treated as third-class citizens. Women still need,
in the year 2018, the permission of a male guardian to go to school or
to get a job. They have to follow a strict dress code and can be stoned
to death for adultery or flogged for spending time in the company of a
man who is not their relative.
Earlier this year, Saudi activist, Loujain al-Hathloul, a leader in
the fight for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, was kidnapped from Abu
Dhabi and

[[Page S7486]]

forced to return to the country. She is currently being held without
charges. The same is true of many other Saudi political activists.
Human Rights Watch recently reported that imprisoned women activists
have been subjected to torture, including electric shocks, and other
forms of physical and sexual assault.
Further, as every Member of the Senate knows or should know, there is
now overwhelming evidence that Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman
was responsible for the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi
dissident who lived in the United States. He was a columnist for the
Washington Post. He made the mistake of going into the Saudi consulate
in Turkey and never came out alive. We believe his body was
dismembered, and nobody knows where it is.
Unbelievably, President Trump continues--despite the overwhelming
evidence of the Crown Prince's involvement in the murder of a man
living in the United States, a Saudi dissident journalist--to proclaim
his love and affection for the Crown Prince and the Saudi regime, but
that is not how, in my view, the American people feel.
For too many years, American men and women in our military have put
their lives on the line in the never-ending struggle for democracy and
human rights, and we cannot and must not turn their struggles, their
sacrifices aside in order to follow the military adventurism of a
despotic regime. That is not what this country is supposed to be about.
Finally, an issue that has long been a concern to many of us--
conservatives and progressives--is that this war has not been
authorized by Congress and is therefore unconstitutional. Article I of
the Constitution clearly states it is Congress, not the President, that
has the power to send our men and women into war--Congress, not the
President.
The Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of this country, gave
the power to declare war to Congress--the branch most accountable to
the people--not to the President, who is often isolated from the
reality of what is taking place in our communities.
The truth is--and Democratic and Republican Presidents are
responsible, and Democratic and Republican Congresses are responsible--
that for many years, Congress has not exercised its constitutional
responsibility over whether our young men and women go off to war.
I think there is growing sentiment all over this country from
Republicans, from Democrats, from Independents, from progressives, and
from conservatives that right now, Congress cannot continue to abdicate
its constitutional responsibility.
I believe we have become far too comfortable with the United States
engaging in military interventions all over the world. We have now been
in Afghanistan for over 17 years--the longest war in American history.
Our troops are now in Syria under what I believe are questionable
authorities. The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its
constitutional role in determining when and where our country goes to
war.
If you want to vote for a war, vote for a war. If you want to vote
against a war, vote against a war, but we as a Congress have to accept
our constitutional responsibility; that it is ours, not the Presidents
of the United States.
This resolution provides that opportunity. It finally says that in
this one war in Yemen--this terrible, horrific war--that Congress is
prepared to act, and I hope very much that all of us will seize this
opportunity.
For the sake of starving children in Yemen; for the sake of what this
country stands for in terms of democracy and human rights and not
following the leadership of a despotic, authoritarian regime; for the
sake of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that it is Congress and not
the President who has the authority to make war; for all of these
reasons and more, I ask strong support for this important resolution.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator for most of
the comments he made. I think they were made very eloquently. I share
many of the same concerns the Senator has.
I voted to cause this to come out of committee because I felt this
discussion on the Senate floor needed to take place.
The Senator from Vermont knows I have concerns about using this
vehicle to do it, but by causing this debate to take place, many of the
concerns the Senator has expressed will be expressed by others, and I
agree with many of those.
Saudi Arabia has not conducted this war in a manner, in my opinion,
that takes into account the great harm that is taking place with
civilians. I agree with that 100 percent.
I am more than nonplussed over the fact that I believe--and I have
sat in a very detailed--very detailed--intelligence review of what
happened with the journalist at the consulate in Turkey, and I
absolutely believe that if the Crown Prince came before a jury in the
United States of America, he would be convicted guilty in under 30
minutes. I absolutely believe he directed it; I believe he monitored
it; and I believe he is responsible for it.
I have had concerns about using this vehicle, and I have concerns
about what this may mean as we set a precedent about refueling and
intelligence activities being considered hostilities. I am concerned
about that.
I think the Senator knows we have operations throughout Northern
Africa, where we are working with other governments on intelligence to
counter terrorism. We are doing refueling activists in Northern Africa
now, and it concerns me--he knows I have concerns--that if we use this
vehicle, then we may have 30 or 40 instances where this vehicle might
be used to do something that really should not be dealt with by the War
Powers Act.
I will say, the strong passage of the germaneness issue we just
dispensed with helps. It helps a great deal. So now, in the future, if
this particular vehicle is utilized, we now know we have set the
precedent that only germane issues can be brought up.
I did have concerns--and we have now solved those--that other issues
might be brought up and all of a sudden, the leaders would lose control
of the floor. I would like to see Members have more votes. I agree with
that. But I think we have now narrowed this in a very appropriate way.
The Senator and I have discussed a resolution that is separate and
apart from this. I have agreed with Senators on the other side of the
aisle that I will not introduce that resolution until this issue has
been dispensed with. I do hope we will have a unanimous vote on it to
strongly condemn the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia for the actions he
has taken relative to killing the journalist--who was a resident of the
United States and has children living here--in the consulate in Turkey.
That is a separate issue that I hope we will take up almost immediately
after we dispense with this.
I want to thank the Senator for his concern. I share many of those
concerns. We have some legal concerns right now about using this
vehicle, and the Senator knows that. I am concerned about where this
goes down the road. We will have some amendments we will deal with over
the next day or so that may clear that up to a degree.
I just want to say to him that even though we have legal concerns
about this particular process, I thank him for his concern for the
citizens there, for his admonishment, for his demarching of a Crown
Prince in Saudi Arabia who I believe is out of control, doing things on
top of killing journalists--blockading Qatar without even thinking,
arresting a Prime Minister in Lebanon--things that no one would think
would be appropriate for international norms.
I know we will have other speakers coming to the floor. We may
disagree on process, but many of the issues the Senator has brought up
today I agree with wholeheartedly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S.J. Res. 54, a
pointed statement from the U.S. Senate that the status quo in Yemen is
not tenable, that we will not stand idly by as the President lends our
country's name to the calamitous military forays of another nation, and
that our security partners across the world do not have a blank check.
To my knowledge, this is the first time the Senate has considered a
joint

[[Page S7487]]

resolution under this provision, which is directly derived from the
Wars Powers Resolution. This is an important step to reasserting
Congress's role in authorizing the use of force. I was proud to see a
strong show of support for the procedural vote to move this resolution
forward, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle continue
to embrace that moral fortitude.
I am also pleased to support Senator Young's amendment to this
resolution, which I understand Senator Sanders also supports. This
language would clarify that refueling operations definitively
constitute U.S. support for hostilities in this context, and I know he
has been very focused on this issue of Yemen and a critical voice in
the Senate on this crisis.
Some may have been holding out hope that the administration would
show a good-faith effort to hold the Saudi coalition accountable for
its actions in Yemen or to hold the Saudi Government and the Crown
Prince accountable for all of their actions. Well, we haven't seen that
leadership. On the contrary, I believe that, in spite of concrete
evidence, the Trump administration is intent on doing nothing to hold
the Saudi Government or the Crown Prince responsible for their actions.
As we debate a path forward to address the tragic humanitarian crisis
in Yemen and to hold the Saudi coalition and the Houthi combatants
accountable for their actions, children in Yemen continue to starve,
people continue to die, and more reports about gruesome torture of
detainees continue to emerge. Sadly, we don't actually know the extent
of the devastation. Some humanitarian organizations on the ground
estimate that as many as 50,000 people have died, with more than 14
million on the brink of starvation. Save the Children recently posited
that as many as 130 children are dying each and every day.
We may not know the exact numbers, but we know enough to know that
the conflict in Yemen has produced the world's worst humanitarian
crisis. The Saudi coalition must take responsibility for its actions,
and, likewise, the Houthis and their Iranian backers also bear the
burden of this tragedy.
The United States can take concerted and strategic diplomatic steps
to ensure that our involvement--any involvement--promotes a net
positive outcome for regional stability, for our own security
interests, and for the Yemeni people. We can invest in the U.N.-led
talks in Sweden. We can wholeheartedly promote diplomacy as a path
forward to solve this conflict, which our own defense and diplomatic
leaders concede has no military solution.
But let's be clear. This resolution is very important, and I
wholeheartedly support it. I have worked so that it can be preserved
with only germane amendments. But the resolution itself will not stop
the war in Yemen, nor will it somehow stop the immense human suffering,
nor put an end to human rights violations.
What this resolution does do, however, is send a strong message to
the Saudis about U.S. global leadership. It is a message that says the
United States will not stand by as countries--even those with which we
have important security relationships--flagrantly violate international
norms.
The United States must assert moral leadership on the global stage.
We must proudly embrace the immutable fact that our strongest
relationships are those rooted in shared values, such as respect for
human life, respect for basic democratic freedoms, respect for
international institutions and norms that we have shaped to promote a
safer and more prosperous future.
When we fail to call out egregious offenses--the slaughter of
innocent civilians, the murder of American resident and journalist
Jamal Khashoggi, the effective kidnapping of heads of state, just to
name a few--we contribute to the steady erosion of fundamental freedoms
and values that have driven us to a position of global strength.
This resolution is a clear message that if the President of the
United States will not stand up in defense of our values, we in the
U.S. Senate will. When this President selectively condemns some
violations one day and then inexplicably ignores them and condones them
another day, the Congress will act as an effective check and balance.
As a coequal branch of government, we will defend American values, and
we will work to promote our long-term security interests.
At the end of the day, the Saudi Government must take responsibility
for its actions, for this ugly war does not serve Saudi Arabia's own
long-term interests.
Achieving a path toward stability and prosperity demands that the
Saudi Government hold itself to a higher standard. It must treat its
citizens with dignity and respect. It must engage its partners in the
region in responsible efforts to protect its borders from ever-growing
Iranian threats. Shortsighted, capricious actions will not serve Saudi
Arabia's long-term interests.
Yes, the United States has an important relationship with Saudi
Arabia. But we must also be true to our own long-term interests, and
that means we cannot sit idly by, waiting for the Crown Prince and the
Saudi Government to act. It should be clear to everyone in this body
that the resolution we are considering today is just one part of this
effort.
I am proud to have worked across party lines with Senators Young,
Reed, Graham, and others in introducing the comprehensive Saudi Arabia
Accountability and Yemen Act. This bill calls for a limited suspension
of offensive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, prohibits U.S. refueling of
Saudi coalition aircraft engaged in Yemen, sanctions persons blocking
humanitarian access in Yemen, sanctions persons supporting the Houthis
in Yemen, mandates Global Magnitsky sanctions on persons responsible
for the death of American resident Jamal Khashoggi.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to get to this legislation in
the timeframe that we have, but let me be clear. We will continue to
work at it, and we do not want to see a weak substitute that degrades
the intent of tangible action from the Senate.
I hope, after we get through this important vote on this resolution,
at the end of the day--whether it be in this Congress or the next--that
the only thing we do with reference to Jamal Khashoggi is not simply an
expression of our outrage. We need to do something far more than that
if we are going to send a global message. The time for waiting and
posturing is over.
This administration has made abundantly and disappointingly clear
that it will not act unless we force it to. President Trump has made
clear over and over again that the only way he takes the high road is
if he is dragged up to it, kicking and screaming. Taking their cue, the
Saudis at this moment see no incentive to change their behavior. It is
time for the Senate to act. It is time to stand up for the very values
that define us as a nation.
The passage of the Sanders-Lee resolution should signal to the world
that the U.S. Senate should hold Saudi Arabia accountable--including
the royal family. We will continue to demand that we consider
additional measures to make clear what we stand for as a nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for
his concern about this issue. I voted to dispense with this out of the
committee. I have concerns about the particular legal issues that are
being created here, but I wanted this debate to take place on the
floor.
I thank him for his concerns about the way the Crown Prince of Saudi
Arabia is conducting himself, about the war itself, and how ham-handed
the Saudis and others have been, having shown so little concern for the
citizens who live in Yemen. So I appreciate his efforts.
I know we are very unlikely to come to an agreement on the bill he
has offered, and I can understand why he would rather start the next
year with a bill that he feels is stronger. I have some operational
concerns, but I like the thrust of it very much.
I understand that, knowing we are not going to come to a conclusion
this year, he would rather start this next Congress with the strongest
message and bill that he can put forth. But I do want to thank him for
offering it. I hope that--again, with some operational concerns worked
out from my perspective--it comes along. I hope the thrust of it comes
along.

[[Page S7488]]

So I thank him for that, and I thank him for his concern for the
people of Yemen. I thank him, in particular, for his tremendous disdain
for what the Crown Prince has done relative to the journalist.
The Senator is right that expressing outrage in itself is not enough;
I agree with that 100 percent. I do hope that once this is done, so we
don't confuse that with what is happening here on this particular
message, if you will, that is taking place--he is right that it is not
going to change policy. The only thing that will change policy is a
refined Menendez-Young bill that will be dealt with next year. But I do
hope we will have the ability, after this is over, after this is
dispensed with tomorrow--I hope we can speak to that outrage. I think
it helps us. As it relates to the second Magnitsky letter that we sent,
I think it helps reinforce the fact that we hold him accountable, and I
think there could be some good there.
I also think, as it relates to Saudi Arabia, a strong admonishment of
the Crown Prince--I think they care about that a whole lot more than we
might think.
So I wish the Senator well as we move ahead with the other piece. I
would like to see some changes. I will not be here to make those
happen, but I thank him for the thrust. I appreciate the message that
is being put forth now. I do hope that, collectively, before we leave
here this year, we can admonish strongly what we believe the Crown
Prince has been involved in, and that is the murder of a journalist.
Mr. MENENDEZ. If my friend the distinguished chairman of the
committee will yield for a moment, let me just say first that I
appreciate his good intentions and commitment to having a process in
which the Sanders-Lee resolution could move forward. To keep it within
a germane sphere, I know that was one of the things the Senator said
very early on, which I embrace, and I am glad for his leadership in
that regard. I think passing this will be important, and I urge all of
our colleagues to vote for it.
I look forward to when he presents the resolution he has talked about
with reference to the Crown Prince. I do think that if he brings that
forward, it is likely something I will support because I think it is
important to make it very clear that you cannot kill with impunity just
because you are our ally and that human rights and democracy are still
values that we--at least in the U.S. Senate--believe are an integral
part of our foreign policy. Countries that observe human rights and
democracy and share our deepest values at the end of the day are our
most reliable allies and are less likely to drag us into conflicts in
other places. So I look forward to that debate and discussion when the
distinguished Senator offers that.
But I will reiterate--and I appreciate the Senator's somewhat
endorsement with some reservations. It is critical--I know Senator
Young is standing; I will cease in a moment--that we need to do more--
even though I will probably embrace what the Senator is doing--than
just say we are outraged that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is
complicit in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.
There is a long list of things the Crown Prince has already done
beyond that, some of which I mentioned in my remarks. But at the end of
the day, if all we do is express our outrage, then anybody in the
world, any leader in the world, any country we have a relationship with
could say: Well, they will publicly slap us on the wrist, but that will
be the total consequence.
If that is the total consequence, then at the end of the day, people
will act with impunity. When they do that, we go down a dangerous path,
not just for those who live in those countries and may be subjected to
those types of indiscriminate executions and other gross violations of
human rights; we send a global message that is a downward spiral. That
is what I and some of my colleagues I am going to join briefly to talk
about--we intend to pursue this in the next Congress--want to see
happen. I appreciate that the Senator supports that sentiment, and I
look forward to continuing to work with him until the very end of this
session.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, before yielding to Senator Young so he can
make his amendment pending, I just want to follow up and say--look, I
do want to go on record and say that I support the provisions of the
Senator's bill that block for a period of time offensive weaponry sales
to Saudi Arabia. I support that. I also support provisions of the bill
that sanction people who are blocking humanitarian aid for the people
there.
The Senator and his staff know we have some operational issues, and I
know those are going to get worked out. I know that the way to start
legislation and get it to where we really want it to be is to start out
strongly. I know the Senator knows he is not going to pass it this
year, and if I were the Senator from New Jersey, I would go about it
exactly the way he is going about it.
So I do appreciate the thrust, and I do hope we pass those into law
with some of the other provisions so that there is a price to pay for
what has taken place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 4080

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4080.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Young] proposes an amendment
numbered 4080.

The amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4080

(Purpose: To clarify that this resolution prohibits United States Armed
Forces from refueling non-United States aircraft conducting missions as
part of the ongoing civil war in Yemen)

On page 4, line 21, add after the period at the end the
following: ``For purposes of this resolution, in this
section, the term `hostilities' includes in-flight refueling
of non-United States aircraft conducting missions as part of
the ongoing civil war in Yemen.''.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support amendment No. 4080 to S.J. Res. 54. I introduced this amendment
this morning, and I am proud to report that Senators Shaheen, Collins,
and Coons are now cosponsoring this important bipartisan amendment.
Amendment No. 4080 would amend S.J. Res. 54 by simply defining the
term ``hostilities'' to include ``in-flight refueling of non-United
States aircraft conducting missions as part of the ongoing civil war in
Yemen.'' In other words, this amendment would prevent the resumption of
U.S. air refueling of Saudi coalition aircraft in Yemen--those very
aircraft that, in too many instances, have been responsible for
indiscriminate bombing and violations of international human rights
law. That is all this amendment would accomplish. It does not define
the term ``hostilities'' more broadly for the War Powers Resolution or
in any other instance.
Before discussing the amendment in more detail, allow me to zoom out
for a moment and explain how I see the broader picture related to Saudi
Arabia and Yemen.
The civil war in Yemen, as so many now know, is an unmitigated
national security and humanitarian disaster. The longer the civil war
continues, the more influential Iran and various terrorist groups will
become in Yemen. Meanwhile, approximately 14 million people are on the
verge of famine, and it is getting worse by the day.
Famine and the indiscriminate targeting of civilians by the Saudi-led
coalition will only push more Yemenis toward Iran and toward its
proxies, giving terrorists increasing opportunities to threaten
Americans, our partners, and our interests. So it is essential to
America's national security interests, as well as our humanitarian
principles, that the administration use all available leverage to end
the civil war in Yemen without delay.
The only way to end this civil war and make significant and durable
progress on the humanitarian crisis is through an inclusive political
process. Everyone agrees on this. It is positive that the parties to
the conflict are talking in Sweden as part of the U.N. envoy-led peace
process. We want that process to succeed. I know the administration
supports these talks, and I commend them for the encouragement of these
talks. There are many potential pitfalls in the peace process, though,
so we have to do all we can to support this effort here in Congress.

[[Page S7489]]

Since March of 2017, I sought to underscore the importance of the
humanitarian crisis in Yemen and to provide this administration
leverage that it can use to pressure the Saudis to support an urgent
and good-faith effort to end the civil war and to stop using food as a
weapon of war.
In that effort, I have used every available tool at my disposal as a
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That has included,
for example, a resolution that was passed by the Senate, legislation
passed into law, subcommittee hearings, letters, and even a hold on the
nomination of our former Secretary of State's top lawyer at the
Department of State. That was before the administration understood, as
they do now, the importance of having a negotiated political settlement
between all the parties.
But as I have provided additional leverage to the administration over
a period of time, we have to acknowledge that the civil war has
continued, the world's worst humanitarian crisis has deteriorated
further, Iran's influence has only increased, and the Saudi Crown
Prince has, unfortunately, been left with the impression that he can
get away with almost anything, including murder.
To be clear, with or without amendment No. 4080, S.J. Res. 54 may
never become law. Even in that case, I believe adoption of amendment
No. 4080 today would send an even stronger message at a critical moment
to our Saudi partners that we expect them to do everything in their
power to end this civil war.
Some may argue that no additional pressure is needed. I have heard
that argument. I reject that argument, and here is why. On October 30,
Secretaries Pompeo and Mattis called for a cease-fire in Yemen within
30 days. Those 30 days--for those who are checking your calendar--came
and went on November 29. Yet the Saudi coalition has continued
airstrikes.
I have a hard time believing that if Secretary Mattis picked up the
phone and told Riyadh to knock off the airstrikes in Yemen, the Saudis
would ignore him. If that call hasn't occurred, there may be a problem.
If it has and the Saudis have ignored that demand, then, that may be a
problem. Either way, we may have a big problem on our hands.
It is not in our national security interest to sit idly by as the
Saudis ignore the clear demands of our Secretaries of Defense and
State, especially when we are members of the coalition. Our taxpayers
are funding these military exercises that are exacerbating the worst
humanitarian crisis in generations and that are destabilizing a country
where Iran, al Qaida, and ISIS have a foothold.
Let's support our Secretaries of State and Defense. Let's support
them in their efforts. Let's give this administration yet more leverage
vis-a-vis the Saudis.
The number of innocent people confronting famine is growing by the
day. Innocent people are being bombed. Iran and terror groups are
benefiting from the status quo. The Saudis have ignored our
Secretaries' call for a cease-fire. My question to my colleagues here
on Capitol Hill who are still undecided about how they might vote with
respect to this amendment that I am bringing up is this: What are we
going to do about it? What are you going to do about it today, because
you have an opportunity to do something about it?
I will say that today, even if this resolution does not become law,
we can take an important step and send the right message to Riyadh.
There is no doubt that the Houthis have engaged in absolutely abhorrent
behavior in Yemen, and, then, it takes two sides to negotiate.
We don't have much leverage over the Houthis. We have significant
leverage over the Saudis, and we must utilize it. If S.J. Res. 54 does
become law, my amendment would ensure that it accomplishes its stated
purpose with respect to air refueling.
Some may continue to argue that the United States is not engaged in
hostilities in Yemen. It is a war. Our taxpayers are providing funding.
There is intelligence support and logistical support and refueling of
aircraft carrying bombs, but some will argue that we are not engaged in
hostilities in Yemen. In other words, this Senate joint resolution,
absent my amendment, risks leaving the status quo in place in Yemen.
With my amendment, the legislation would ensure that the administration
cannot resume refueling of Saudi aircraft conducting missions related
to this civil war.
To those principled colleagues--and there are a number of principled
colleagues on this issue--who are conversant on the issue and have been
studying it for a great deal of time, I have great respect for them. I
know there is at least one who is concerned about any precedents we may
be creating relating to the War Powers Resolution or other situations.
Let me be clear. My amendment explicitly says this definition for
hostilities only applies to this resolution we are considering today
and only to this case.
I will also reiterate that my amendment would not restrict U.S.
refueling on our own aircraft and would not restrict refueling of other
aircraft for missions focused on al-Qaida and associated forces. We
have it covered. Either way, Senators looking to send the right message
today to the Saudis and those looking to change the situation in Yemen
should support amendment No. 4080.
For a very quick word on the War Powers Resolution--the underlying
resolution--here again, principled and serious people are on both sides
of the War Powers Resolution debate, and I see merits on both sides of
that argument. The President is indeed the Commander in Chief. That
said, the Founders also establish clear article I constitutional war
powers and responsibilities for Congress.
For me, today, in this situation, and only with respect to Yemen, I
believe a reasonable reading of the Constitution leaves plenty of room
for a ``yes'' vote on this resolution. Our humanitarian principles and
national security interests require it. With that, I urge my colleagues
to support amendment No. 4080 and to support passage of the underlying
resolution and send a message to Riyadh.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, through the Presiding Officer I wish to
ask the Senator from Indiana, what you are saying is that you are doing
everything you possibly can do to ensure that if your amendment passes,
never in the future will your amendment be relied upon to say if we are
refueling, that means we are involved in hostilities; is that correct?
Mr. YOUNG. I thank the chairman for the clarification so that I can
further clarify for the record that this amendment only applies for
purposes of this resolution and in the section I offered it.
Let's say in Mali, for example, that our country in the future were
involved with refueling operations of our partner or our ally's
aircraft. This wouldn't apply. This would establish absolutely no
precedent.
We have had national security legal counsel look at this. We have
taken a belt-and-suspenders approach. No reasonable reading of this
could construe this to establish any legal precedent that ought to
cause concern for anyone concerned.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask again the Senator: For those of us,
many in this body, including the Senator from Indiana, who worry that
the mere refueling that may take place in Mali, where maybe we are
supporting French troops, or the refueling in other places--the mere
refueling in another country, the mere refueling itself--you are saying
that by voting for your amendment, you have no intention of ever
creating a precedent that another Senator could use the War Powers Act
simply because of refueling taking place; is that your intention?
Mr. YOUNG. My intention is to only address the situation in Yemen,
and that is precisely what this amendment does--nothing more, nothing
less.
Back to the example of Mali and French aircraft, there would be
absolutely no application of this amendment to that conflict, to the
refueling of those aircraft or to our own aircraft. That is why we have
doubled up on clarifying precautionary language, so that no one could
conceivably construe that in any legal analysis that makes any level of
common sense or legal sense, because the two don't always seem to be
consistent. But we have had attorneys look at this, and it applies
narrowly only to this context.

[[Page S7490]]

I will entertain any more questions, but I feel as though I am
restating this. It is a very important matter. So I am glad the
Chairman gave me an opportunity to answer it.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Indiana
answering those questions. Today, we are, as you know, establishing
precedent on a number of things. No. 1, we overwhelmingly decided that
if the War Powers Resolution is used in this matter, only germane
amendments can be put forth. I think that was a big step forward as it
relates to this type of debate and in using the War Powers Resolution
as it is being used.
I did want to get the Senate record to be very clear that the Senator
from Indiana, should his amendment pass, was in no way trying to create
a scenario where if we are refueling someplace, that automatically
means we are involved in hostilities. What he is trying to do is
address this specific issue.
Since we have been able to have this in the Record and since,
hopefully, future Senates will rely upon the Record to look at what is
taking place today, I want to thank the Senator for his amendment and
tell him that I plan to support it.
Mr. YOUNG. I thank the Chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this has been the center of a lot of
discussion, and it is a little confusing. I think there are a lot of
things that everyone in here agrees with, but how we are going to
express ourselves has to come down to all possibilities of the options
that are there.
I want to start off by saying that I oppose the Sanders-Lee
provision. I think the resolution would have us find that since March
of 2015, members of the U.S. Armed Forces have been introduced into
hostilities in Yemen between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthis,
including providing to the Saudi-led coalition aerial targeting
assistance, intelligence sharing, and midflight aerial refueling.
If enacted, Lee-Sanders could ultimately pull all U.S. support from
the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. The Sanders-Lee resolution is, I
think, fundamentally flawed because it presumes we are engaged in
military action in Yemen. We are not. We are not engaged in military
action in Yemen.
There has been a lot of discussion about refueling. I don't see any
stretch of the definition that would say that falls into that category.
The truth is that with the exception of the defense strike in October
2016, the U.S. Armed Forces are not engaged in direct military action
in Yemen.
The limited military support and intelligence sharing being provided
by the United States to the Saudi-led coalition does not involve the
introduction of U.S. Forces into hostilities, nor is the U.S.
involvement in hostilities imminent given the circumstances at hand.
U.S. forces in support of the coalition do not currently command,
coordinate, accompany, or participate in the movement of Saudi
coalition forces in the counter-Houthi operations.
As of November 11 of this year, the U.S. Armed Forces ceased
refueling support. That is no longer an issue. Even if it were an
issue, this is not one that would constitute the category we have been
talking about.
As for the Saudi coalition, the counter-Houthi operations in Yemen,
even if the refueling support we were providing were going on today, it
would not constitute involvement in hostilities. For that reason, I do
oppose it.
I don't know which of these resolutions is actually going to be on
the floor for a vote and in what order they would be on the floor, but
the resolution that has been put together by Senator Corker and our
leader I think is the best solution to the problem we are confronted
with now.
Like many of my colleagues, I was deeply disturbed by the killing of
the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at Saudi Arabia's consulate in
Istanbul in October. I deplore everything in conjunction with that.
While it may not be a smoking gun as such, I believe that Saudi
Arabia's leadership is responsible for Mr. Khashoggi's death.
Those responsible are going to have to be held accountable, and we
must condemn this terrible and unaccepted event. That is clearly what
the resolution says.
The resolution also acknowledges the Trump administration's important
decision to sanction 17 Saudis for their roles in Mr. Khashoggi's
murder.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia is an important Middle Eastern
partner. Its stability is vital to the security of our regional allies
and our partners, including Israel, and Saudi Arabia is essential to
countering Iran. We all know that. We know how tenuous things are in
that part of the world. We don't have that many friends. We can't
afford to lose any of them.
While we must be frank with our partners and let them know when they
have done, in our opinion, something wrong, we must be cautious and
avoid steps that would damage a strategic relationship that goes back
over half a century. For this reason, I am hoping that the resolution
will be introduced, in which case I will be supporting the resolution
the leader and Senator Corker have introduced. It criticizes the Saudi
Government for its recent behavior and encourages it to get on the
right path--the right path to redouble its reform efforts, the right
path to respect the rights of its citizens, and the right path to work
toward a peaceful resolution in Yemen.
You know, I don't like any of the choices we have. This is clearly
the best choice that is out there.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

S.J. Res. 54

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join many of
my colleagues in support of passage of the underlying resolution. I was
pleased to be one of the original cosponsors, along with the Presiding
Officer and Senator Sanders, amongst many others.
This is clearly not the first time I have been to the floor to talk
about the crisis inside Yemen and the broader crisis with respect to
our relationship with Saudi Arabia that has grown worse and worse,
especially in the last several months.
I want to thank Senator Menendez and Senator Corker for taking this
incredibly seriously, especially since the death of Jamal Khashoggi,
who was a resident of the United States here, ostensibly under our
protection. I am hopeful that we will get another big bipartisan vote
when this comes up for final passage.
I want to reiterate some of the reasons I think this is incredibly
important.
First, let me state what I hope is obvious even for those of us who
have been critics of Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is a very important ally of the United States. It is an
important partner for stability in the region. We continue to engage in
an important counterterrorism, intelligence-sharing relationship with
Saudi Arabia. They have helped us track down some very bad people. We
have helped them track down some very bad people. Sunni extremists--
separate and aside from the argument as to where that movement gets
some of its seed funding--are out to get the Saudi regime, just as they
are out to get the United States.
Second, it is important to note something that we take for granted in
the region--this now long-term detente that has existed between the
Gulf States and Israel, which did not used to be something you could
rely on. In fact, one of the most serious foreign policy debates this
Senate ever had was on the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia back in the
1980s. The objection then was that by empowering Saudi Arabia, you were
hurting Israel and Israeli security. No one would make that argument
today because Saudi Arabia has been a good partner in trying to figure
out a way to calm the tensions in the region and, of course, provide
some balance in the region, with the Iranian regime on the other side
continuing to this day to use inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric about
the future of Israel.
So this is an important partnership, and I have no interest in
blowing it up. I have no interest in walking away from it. But you are
not obligated to follow your friend into every misadventure they
propose. When your buddy jumps into a pool of man-eating sharks, you
don't have to jump with him. There is a point at which you say enough
is enough. I came to this floor 3 years ago and suggested that time had
already come.

[[Page S7491]]

Muhammad bin Salman, who is the Crown Prince, who is the effective
leader of the country, has steered the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia
off the rails. Folks seem to have noticed when he started rounding up
his political opponents and killing one of them in a consulate in
Turkey, but this has been ongoing. Look back to the kidnapping of the
Lebanese Prime Minister, the blockade of Qatar without any heads-up to
the United States, the wholesale imprisonment of hundreds of his family
members until there was a payoff, the size of which was big enough to
let some of them out.
This is a foreign policy that is no longer in the best interests of
the United States and cannot be papered over by a handful of domestic
policy reforms that are, in fact, intended to try to distract us from
the aggressive nature of the Saudis' foreign policy in the region.
Of course, the worst example of their regional behavior going off the
rails is Yemen. And I don't want to restate the case here; I think
Senator Sanders did a great job of it.
I have stood here before with posters of malnourished children with
distended bellies. Some 85,000 of them have died from malnutrition or
disease. The world's worst ever outbreak of cholera is happening right
now as we speak. Ten thousand Yemenis have died from warfare, from
bombings, or from siege campaigns. About two-thirds to three-quarters
of those were as a result of the Saudi side of the civil war, but let's
make clear that there are some really bad actors on the Houthi side as
well. Part of the reason the humanitarian aid can't get to where it is
needs to get to is because the Houthis are stopping it from getting
into the areas they control today. So the Saudis bear the majority of
the responsibility for the humanitarian nightmare, but there is enough
to be spread around.
I am appreciative that many of my colleagues are willing to stand up
for this resolution today to end the war in Yemen. I wish that it
weren't because of the death of one journalist, because there have been
tens of thousands who have died inside Yemen, and their lives are just
as important and just as worthwhile as Jamal Khashoggi's life was, as
tragic as that was. But there is a connection between the two, which is
why I have actually argued that this resolution is in some way, shape,
or form a response to the death of Jamal Khashoggi, for those who are
primarily concerned with that atrocity. Here is how I link the two:
What the Saudis did for 2 weeks was lie to us, right? In the most
bald-faced way possible. They told us that Jamal Khashoggi had left the
consulate, that he had gotten out of there alive, that they didn't know
what happened, when of course they knew the entire time that they had
killed him, that they had murdered him, that they had dismembered his
body. We now know that the Crown Prince had multiple contacts all
throughout the day with the team of operatives who did it. Yet they
thought we were so dumb or so weak--or some combination of the two--
that they could just lie to us about it.
That was an eye-opener for a lot of people here who were long-term
supporters of the Saudi relationship because they knew that we had
trouble. They knew that sometimes our interests didn't align, but they
thought that the most important thing allies did with each other was
tell the truth, especially when the truth was so easy to discover
outside of your bilateral relationship. Then, all of a sudden, the
Saudis lied to us for 2 weeks--for 2 weeks--and then finally came
around to telling the truth because everybody knew that they weren't.

That made a lot of people here think, well, wait a second--maybe the
Saudis haven't been telling us the truth about what they have been
doing inside Yemen.
A lot of my friends have been supporting the bombing campaign in
Yemen. Why? Because the Saudis said: We are hitting these civilians by
accident. Those water treatment plants that have been blowing up--we
didn't mean to hit them. That cholera treatment facility inside the
humanitarian compound--that was just a bomb that went into the wrong
place, or, we thought there were some bad guys in it. It didn't turn
out that there were.
It turns out the Saudis weren't telling us the truth about what they
were doing in Yemen. They were hitting civilian targets on purpose.
They did have an intentional campaign of trying to create misery. I am
not saying that every single one of those schoolbuses or those
hospitals or those churches or weddings was an attempt to kill
civilians and civilians only, but we have been in that targeting center
long enough to know--to know--that they have known for a long time what
they have been doing: hitting a lot of people who have nothing to do
with the attacks against Saudi Arabia.
Maybe if the Saudis were willing to lie to us about what happened to
Jamal Khashoggi, they haven't been straight with us as to what is
happening inside Yemen, because if the United States is being used to
intentionally hit civilians, then we are complicit in war crimes. And I
hate to tell my colleagues that is essentially what the United Nations
found in their most recent report on the Saudi bombing campaign. They
were careful about their words, but they came to the conclusion that it
was likely that the Saudi conduct inside Yemen would amount to war
crimes under international law.
If it is likely that our ally is perpetuating war crimes in Yemen,
then we cannot be a part of that. The United States cannot be part of a
bombing campaign that may be--probably is--intentionally making life
miserable for the people inside of that country.
So I would argue that this resolution is an appropriate response if
you are only concerned about Jamal Khashoggi because it is a way to
make clear that if you lie to the United States, there are
consequences. It is also a way to say to the Crown Prince: We are not
going to be partners with you in your most important foreign policy
endeavor--the war inside Yemen--if you are not being straight with us
about this or other matters.
If you care just about what happened to that journalist, this is
still an important vote for you to cast. And I get it that some people
have issues with the mechanism by which we get here, the War Powers
Resolution. I understand that it is new, that it hasn't been tested
before. But I believe this is the right moment to have this debate and
to have this vote.
I am hoping that we are going to come to a conclusion here as quickly
as we can in which we maintain bipartisan consensus. I just joined
several of my colleagues upstairs to express our desire--this isn't the
beginning and the end of our debate about what to do with Saudi Arabia
moving forward. I support Senator Menendez and Senator Young's
legislation to take some additional steps to halt arms sales. I support
imposing sanctions on the individuals who are responsible for this
crime. But I would also hope that all of us take a little bit of time
over the holidays to really think about how we reset this relationship
in the region and how we send a signal to the world that there is no
relationship in which we are the junior partner--certainly not with
Saudi Arabia.
If Saudi Arabia can push us around like they have over the course of
the last several years and in particular the last several months, that
sends a signal to lots of other countries that they can do the same
thing--that they can murder U.S. residents and suffer almost no
consequences; that they can bomb civilians with our munitions and
suffer no consequences.
This is not just a message about the Saudi relationship; this is a
message about how the United States is going to interact with lots of
other junior partners around the world as well. Saudi Arabia needs us a
lot more than we need them, and we need to remind folks of that over
and over again.
Spare me this nonsense that they are going to go start buying Russian
jets or Chinese military hardware. If you think those countries can
protect you better than the United States, take a chance. You think the
Saudis are really going to stop selling oil to the United States? You
think they are going to walk away from their primary bread winner just
because we say that we don't want to be engaged in this particular
military campaign? I am willing to take that chance.
We are the major partner in this relationship, and it is time that we
start acting like it. If this administration isn't going to act like
it, then this Congress has to act like it. As Senator Graham said,
sometimes Congress has

[[Page S7492]]

to go its own way. Sometimes Congress has to reorient American foreign
policy when an administration will not.
With respect to this bilateral relationship, with respect to this
egregious, unconscionable military operation inside Yemen, it is time
for Congress to step up and right something that today is very, very
wrong.
I appreciate all of the great work that Senator Sanders and Senator
Lee have done as partners in this, and I thank the chairman and ranking
member for helping guide us through this debate as painlessly as
possible. I look forward to coming to the floor again before final
passage and look forward to another big bipartisan vote at the end of
this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
I take this time to support the passage of S.J. Res. 54. I commend my
colleagues who have brought this resolution forward. The impact of this
resolution would be to end the U.S. military engagement in Yemen, and I
believe that military engagement should end for several reasons.
First, let me comment on what others have already pointed out, and
that is that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is one of the worst, if
not the worst, in the world. That is saying a lot because there are a
lot of areas around the world where we are seeing humanitarian
challenges.
In Yemen today, 10,000 people have been killed due to the war, and 22
million-plus--75 percent of the population in Yemen--are at grave risk
today. It is estimated that there are 400,000 children under the age of
5 who are at the risk of starvation due to hunger and malnutrition, and
85,000 children have died, according to Save the Children, from
starvation.
The U.S. military engagement has really not assisted in ending this
humanitarian crisis. There are 1 million people with cholera and 8.4
million people on the verge of famine. For a long time, we have been,
focused on the Port of Hodeidah, saying that it had to be opened in
order to be able to deliver humanitarian assistance. I think many of us
thought that because of our military involvement in Yemen, at a
minimum, we could get the port open. We find we are not able to have
safe routes for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, so through our
military we have not been able to impact the horrible tragedies that
are taking place because of this humanitarian disaster.
Secondly, I think most experts will tell us there is no military
solution to the war that is taking place in Yemen that dates back to
2014. The warring sides are not going to end as a result of the
military. It is going to take diplomacy, and our military involvement
has not assisted in a diplomatic answer. We have not made the progress
I think many of us would have expected. So, yes, I do believe America
needs to be engaged in Yemen, just not from our military. Let's do an
all-out press on diplomacy and bring the parties to the peace table and
end this horrible conflict.
Yes, make no mistake about it, the Houthis are not nice people. I
understand that, but we are not going to win this by our military. So
let's concentrate on diplomacy. I think many have pointed out that,
yes, we have been in this region since the attack on our country on
September 11. Nothing in this resolution would affect our ability to
fight against al-Qaida and its associated forces.
The resolution specifically exempts--specifically exempts--from the
withdrawal of American military our campaign against al-Qaida and
associated forces.
There is also no question that since the Saudis have engaged in this
conflict, there have been many violations of human rights. Yes, we are
facilitating and helping. I am not saying we are committing, but we
are certainly part of the Saudi effort. We are supposedly helping them
with targeting. That means giving them intelligence information to
minimize civilian casualties. I am certain the American military is
helping in that regard, but the bottom line is, we are told that 61
percent of casualties are due to coalition strikes. There is tremendous
civilian loss as a result of this campaign, and the United States is
one of the honest brokers in trying to minimize that. We have not been
successful through the use of our military.

The use of our military has never been authorized by Congress. Now,
this is a debate we have had many times. I know the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been part of
that debate and has wanted us to come to grips with a congressional
authorization for military use in Yemen. I applaud the chairman. I am
very proud to be on that committee. I think if it were left up to our
committee, we may have been able to agree on a resolution, but it was
clear we couldn't get it through the Senate, couldn't get it through
the Congress. That was clear. I am not saying we are culpable for not
passing authorization, but we have not passed authorization, and there
is no authorization for the use of military force in Yemen, despite the
fact that article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution of the
United States gives the Congress the sole power to declare war.
We are responsible for the military, and if you can't get that
authorization, there should at least be a presumption that we shouldn't
be using our military. If you can't get the support of Congress--if the
President, Commander in Chief, can't get the support of Congress for
the use of force, there should not be a sustained use. We know about
emergency situations. We expect it of the Commander in Chief. This is
not an emergency situation. This is a situation where there should be
an authorization for the use of force if we are to remain. I don't
believe we should remain.
We have had our disagreements with the President on the use of force.
Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973. The President didn't like
it. We passed it anyway. We believe the President should not only
notify but respect the will of Congress's power under article I to
declare war and authorize our military presence.
Section 5(c) gives the power to Congress to pass a joint resolution
to remove our troops where there has been no authorization. So what is
being done today--the resolution that is before us--is the vehicle that
we determined to be the appropriate way to remove our troops from
unauthorized war. Therefore, it is an appropriate action by the
Congress--probably the only action we can take in order to end the war
in Yemen with U.S. participation.
I want to make a comment about the relationship between the United
States and the Saudis. I heard many of my colleagues talk about it. I
think it is a very important relationship. I think the Saudis are a
strategic partner of the United States. I had many opportunities to
visit with the Saudis. I know about a lot of the things they are doing,
but make no mistake about it, that relationship is important to the
United States, but it is very important to the Saudis. It is more than
just our military support for a war in Yemen. It has a lot to do with
security issues generally. It has to do with intelligence sharing. It
has to do with economics.
Our relationship should always be wrapped in our values. Our foreign
policy should always be based upon our values as Americans, and our
values in regard to what is happening in this war in Yemen tell us we
should not be participating in it.
I haven't even mentioned the tragic death of Jamal Khashoggi. When
taking a look at what happened there and the involvement of the royal
family and the Crown Prince, that clearly cannot go unchallenged. Human
rights violations and the military campaign, all of that cries out for
the United States not to be engaged in the military aspects of what is
happening in Yemen, and the passage of S.J. Res. 54 will, in fact, make
that a reality, and I urge our colleagues to support that resolution.

TIME Magazine's Person of the Year

Mr. President, it is a related subject.
I am going to talk about TIME magazine for their selection of their
Person of the Year, the ``Guardians and the War on Truth.'' I say it is
related because Jamal Khashoggi is one of the figures that is on the
cover of TIME magazine as one of the guardians.
In making their selection, TIME magazine wrote: ``For taking great
risks in pursuit of greater truths, for the imperfect but essential
quest for

[[Page S7493]]

facts that are central to civil discourse, for speaking up and for
speaking out, the Guardians'' are the Person of the Year.
TIME magazine wrote:

As we looked at the choices, it became clear that the
manipulation and abuse of truth is really the common thread
in so many of this year's major stories . . . this ought to
be a time when democracy leaps forward, an informed citizenry
being essential to self-government. Instead, it's in retreat.
And the story of this assault on truth is, somewhat
paradoxically, one of the hardest to tell.

TIME magazine wrote in this week's issue:

In Annapolis, Md., staff of the Capital, a newspaper
published by Capital Gazette Communications, which traces its
history of telling readers about the events in Maryland to
before the American Revolution, press on without the five
colleagues gunned down in their newsroom on June 28. Still
intact, indeed strengthened after the mass shooting, are the
bonds of trust and community that for national news outlets
have been eroded on strikingly partisan lines, never more
than this year.
``I can tell you this,'' declared Chase Cook, a reporter
for the Capital Gazette [on that fateful day]. ``We are
putting out a damn paper tomorrow.'' Cook's promise . . .
came just a few hours after five of his colleagues were
killed. The man charged with their murders had been obsessed
with the paper since it wrote about his harassment of a high
school classmate--part of its routine coverage of local legal
proceedings. He made the office a crime scene. To put the
damn paper out, staffers set up laptops in the bed of a
pickup in a parking garage across the street.
When the next edition arrived--on schedule--the opinion
page was blank but for the names of the dead. Gerald
Fischman. Rob Hiaasen. John McNamara. Rebecca Smith. Wendi
Winters. Beneath their names was . . . written with a goose
quill: ``Tomorrow this page will return to its steady purpose
of offering our readers informed opinions about the world
around them, that they might be better citizens.''

I must tell you I am very proud of what the Capital Gazette has done.
They continued through very difficult times with the quality reporting
and opinion pages they have been known for, for a long time--a real
treasured institution in our State's capital.
One of the four TIME magazine covers includes the journalists of the
Capital Gazette, the Annapolis, MD, newspaper where five employees were
murdered by a gunman last June.
I spoke about this shooting on the Senate floor last June, and the
Senate unanimously adopted S. Res. 575, which I authored and which was
cosponsored by all Members of the Senate. This Senate resolution
commemorates the lives, careers, and service of five victims of the
Capital Gazette shooting in Annapolis, MD; honors the survivors of the
attack and the families of the victims and pledges to continue support
for their recovery; thanks law enforcement officers and other emergency
first responders for their heroic actions; and reaffirms the commitment
of the Senate to defending the First Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States.
Wendi Winters was among the five Capital Gazette employees killed in
the June 28 shooting. According to eyewitness accounts from survivors,
Wendi armed herself with the closest weapons at hand--her trash and
recycling bins--and charged the shooter, shouting for him to stop. It
is believed Wendi's actions distracted the shooter enough to enable
several of her coworkers to escape.
We think of violence against reporters as something that happens in
other countries, in war zones and the like, but not here, not in the
United States of America. All around the world, reporters work to
gather facts, ask questions, and report the news in the spirit of free,
open, and transparent societies and governments that all people
deserve. Too often, reporters are harassed, jailed, and even killed
simply because of the nature of their work, which often exposes
cronyism and corruption.
Jason Rezaian, a reporter with the Washington Post who was falsely
imprisoned in Iran for doing his job as a journalist, had this to say
earlier this year. He talks about the attack I referenced earlier in
Annapolis.

Mostly I have covered attacks on the media taking place on
the other side of the world, usually in countries where the
flow of information is restricted or conditions are such that
a sense of desperation or political or tribal affiliation can
compel individuals to take heinous action. . . . Writing
about a deadly attack that happened less than 30 miles away,
in an idyllic town that I recently visited with relatives
from overseas, is a new experience for me. And I have to say
that I don't relish the task.

We Americans have certain rights and responsibilities granted to us
through the Constitution, which established the rule of law in this
country. Freedom of the press is one of those most basic rights, and it
is central to the First Amendment of the Constitution: ``Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press.'' This precious freedom has often been under attack,
figuratively speaking, since our Nation's founding.
Today, attacks on the American media have become more frequent and
more literal, spurred on by dangerous rhetoric that has created an
``open season'' on harassing the media for doing its job--asking the
questions that need to be asked, investigating the stories that need to
be uncovered, and bringing needed transparency to the halls of power,
whether they are in Annapolis, Washington, DC, or elsewhere.
Then-candidate and now-President Trump's rhetoric--calling the media
``a stain on America'' and ``the enemy of the American people''--
certainly has caused damage. At the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the
President said to the audience that they are ``not to believe'' what
they see and hear. The President of the United States told a crowd of
veterans:

Stick with us. Don't believe the crap you see from these
people, the fake news. . . . What you're seeing and what
you're reading is not what's happening.

That is the President of the United States saying those comments--
again, demeaning the press and the importance of the free press.
Why is the President doing this? Earlier this year, CBS ``60
Minutes'' correspondent Leslie Stahl, an icon in the news business,
shared comments from President Trump from an interview she did with him
soon after the 2016 election win. Stahl recalled that she said to
Donald Trump about his attacks on the media:

Why are you doing this? You're doing it over and over. It's
boring and it's time to end that.

The candidate's response was straightforward and shocking. He said:

You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and
demean you all so that when you write negative stories about
me no one will believe you.

Let that sink in for a moment. A man who was about to assume the
position of President of the United States explicitly acknowledged he
was purposefully working to diminish the integrity of the free press.
After the Capitol Gazette shooting, Donald Trump said: ``Journalists,
like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently
attacked while doing their job.'' But how do we interpret his sincerity
when, more frequently, he is calling the media ``fake news'' or
``totally unhinged'' and telling the people of America that reporters
are truly bad people?
Donald Trump's constant dismissal needs to end. He needs to accept
that one of the press's most important roles is to speak truth to
power--truth to power, including to the President of the United States.
Here at home, we are left to wonder whether Donald Trump is more
inclined to agree with Russian President Vladimir Putin's view of the
press--where journalists are routinely jailed and physically attacked--
than with Thomas Jefferson, who famously said: ``Were it left to me to
decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or
newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to
prefer the latter.''
Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of
being violently attacked while doing their job--both figuratively and
literally. The right of journalists to report the news is nothing less
than the right of all of us to know. Media freedom and media pluralism
are essential for the expression of, or ensuring respect for, other
fundamental freedoms and safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, and a
system of checks and balances.
Every one of us in this body--Democrats and Republicans--has sworn an
oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. As
leaders of this great Nation, we have a responsibility to defend the
rights of our

[[Page S7494]]

citizens, including the freedom of press.
Yesterday, TIME magazine featured three covers in addition to the
Capital Gazette. One is Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post
contributor who was killed at the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Istanbul
in October. I would note that this is the first time that a TIME Person
of the Year is a deceased person.
The United States of America must stand up for justice and human
rights at home and abroad. I agree that Saudi Arabia is a strong ally
in a variety of important areas, but that should only strengthen their
understanding of America's commitment to the rule of law, and we as a
Nation cannot sanction extrajudicial killings. America's national
security is harmed, not helped, when dictators and strongmen believe
they can get away with such heinous actions as the killing of
journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Congress must act to demand accountability for those responsible for
Jamal Khashoggi's murder and to send the right signal to the world that
America will continue to be a beacon of justice and defender of human
rights.
Another cover features Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, two Reuters
journalists who were arrested 1 year ago in Myanmar while working on
stories about the killings of the Rohingya Muslims. These journalists
remain behind bars, but their wives were photographed for the cover.
From this floor, I stood in solidarity with these Reuters reporters who
were detained in Burma for shining a light on the horrific abuses that
occur in the Rakhine State.

I have stood in solidarity with Ethiopian journalists and bloggers
who are routinely arrested for criticizing the Ethiopian Government and
exposing human rights abuses in that country. I have talked frequently
about China, a country that engages in routine censorship and online
blocking, harassment, reprisals, and detention of journalists, visa
delays, and denials for journalists.
Another TIME cover shows Maria Ressa, the chief executive of the
Philippine news website, Rappler, who was indicted on tax evasion
charges by President Duterte's administration as part of a crackdown on
free speech and dissent.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent,
nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, more than
600 journalists and media workers have been killed in the last 10 years
while doing their job.
Of the member States of the Organization for Security and Co-
operation in Europe, Russia remains the deadliest country for
journalists.
Turkey is the largest jailer of journalists in the world, and scores
of media outlets have been closed since the attempted coup there. The
heavyhanded measures used against media freedom in Turkey, both before
and during the recent elections, illustrates the lengths to which the
government went to control the information available to voters. It also
serves as a reminder of the essential role of a pluralistic media for
free and fair elections.
I have also worked on many other countries that have infringed upon
the freedom of press in my role on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee as a ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission. I could
give you examples of what we have done in Malta, what we have done in
Slovakia, what we have done in Belarus--and the list goes on and on.
I therefore ask the Trump administration and my colleagues in the
Senate to redouble their efforts to protect the freedom of the press,
both at home and abroad. We must lead by example as the very
foundational legitimacy of a democratic republic is at stake.
America's leadership is essential to protect the freedom of the
press--an essential institution for a democratic state. We must lead by
first setting an example by our commitment to the freedom of press here
at home. We must demand that freedom of the press be a priority in our
global affairs, recognizing it is important to our national security.
TIME magazine got it right by naming the ``Guardians and the War on
Truth'' as persons of the year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The Senator from Utah.

Yemen War Powers Resolution

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering S.J. Res.
54. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation--lead cosponsor,
along with my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders. He
and I, along with Senator Murphy and a number of other Members of this
body, have engaged in this bipartisan effort, in a concerted endeavor
to make sure that the separation of powers among our three branches of
government is respected.
There is perhaps no more morally significant decision made in
government than the decision to go to war. Whenever we take an action
as a government that puts American treasure and, especially, American
blood on the line, we have a sacred responsibility to evaluate and
carefully weigh the relative risks and advantages of acting and the
relative risks and advantages of not acting.
To make sure that kind of analysis takes place, the Founding Fathers
wisely put this power squarely within the branch of government most
accountable to the people at the most regular intervals--the Congress.
This was a big distinction from our former National Government, based
in London, where the chief executive--the King--had the power to commit
troops to war without going to Parliament.
Alexander Hamilton explained this principle in Federalist No. 69. He
explained that it was no accident that this power was put in the hands
of Congress. To be sure, the power Congress has to declare war means
more than simply to state something in the abstract. It is something
that has to happen before we put American blood and treasure on the
line.
It is something that should never happen in the absence of some type
of dire emergency--some set of exigent circumstances in which the
President must protect the United States of America from an imminent
attack. It needs to be declared by Congress.
This isn't a mere formality; this is the only thing that guarantees
that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the
people. It is the only thing guaranteeing that we will actually have a
debate about the relative merits of the conflict in question. There are
a number of reasons why.
In addition to the fact that there is an obvious economic expense
associated with war, there is a tremendous human cost associated with
war on our side, on the side of those among whom we might be fighting,
and on the side of those against whom we might be fighting.
This particular conflict in Yemen provides one of many examples of
the moral perilousness associated with war, of the many moral questions
brought about as a result of war. We are involved in a conflict half a
world away. We are involved in providing targeting assistance, midair
refueling, reconnaissance, and surveillance. We are involved in this
conflict as cobelligerents.
As we are involved in that, we are responsible in one way or another
not only for the American lives that might one day be directly
implicated in this conflict--more than they are today because we know
how wars go; we know how they tend to spread. We know that once we put
the good name of the United States of America on the line, we are
understandably reluctant to walk away from it because of what that
might say to the rest of the world.
But in order to make it legitimate, in order to make that decision
authentic, in order to make it sustainable, it has to be done in the
appropriate way, which means it first has to go to Congress.
Many of my colleagues will argue--in fact some of them have argued
just within the last few minutes--that we are somehow not involved in a
war in Yemen. My distinguished friend and colleague, the Senator from
Oklahoma, came to the floor a little while ago, and he said that we are
not engaged in direct military action in Yemen.
Let's peel that back for a minute. Let's figure out what that means.
I am not sure what the distinction between direct and indirect is here.
Maybe in a very technical sense--or under a definition of warfare or
military action that has long since been rendered outdated--we are not
involved in that, but

[[Page S7495]]

we are involved in a war. We are cobelligerents. The minute we start
identifying targets or, as Secretary James Mattis put it about a year
ago, in December 2017, the minute we are involved in the decisions
involving making sure that they know the right stuff to hit, that is
involvement in a war, and that is pretty direct. The minute we send up
U.S. military aircraft to provide midair refueling assistance for Saudi
jets en route to bombing missions, to combat missions on the ground in
Yemen, that is our direct involvement in war.
Now, if you don't agree with me, ask any one of our armed services
personnel who is involved in this effort. I would imagine that he or
she would beg to differ. I would imagine that the parents, the
children, the family members, the loved ones of these brave men and
women who have been involved in this effort would beg to differ when
told that we are not involved in a war in Yemen.
In any event, regardless of how you define war, regardless of what
significance you might attach to direct versus indirect military
involvement in a civil war half a world away, it still triggers the
constitutional requirement that Congress and not merely the President
decide that we are going to get involved in this war.
Look, I understand that there are some competing powers in the
Constitution. It was set up deliberately that way. There is some
arguable gray area between, on the one hand, the outer limits of the
President's Executive authority as the Commander in Chief of the Armed
Forces and, on the other hand, the power enjoyed exclusively by
Congress to declare war. Because there is some gray area, some matters
on which people of reasonable minds might disagree as to where a war
begins, Congress, several decades ago, adopted the War Powers Act in an
effort to try to delineate the respective powers of these branches.
Congress decided, among other things, that it would be significant any
time we got involved in hostilities.
Many of my colleagues will argue and many of them have argued on this
very day, in fact, that we are not involved in hostilities in Yemen and
therefore the War Powers Act is not triggered. Yes, there are a couple
of problems with that argument.
One, it is just categorically untrue for the reasons I mentioned a
minute ago. We are helping them get to the bombing sites. We are
telling them what to bomb, what to hit, what to take out. That is
rather direct involvement in war.
Increasingly these days, our wars are high-tech. Very often, our wars
involve cyber activities. They involve reconnaissance, surveillance,
target selection, midair refueling. It is hard--in many cases,
impossible--to fight a war without those things. That is what war is.
Many of my colleagues, in arguing that we are not involved in
hostilities, rely on a memorandum that is internal within the executive
branch of the U.S. Government that was issued in 1976 that provides a
very narrow, unreasonably slim definition of the word ``hostilities.''
It defines ``hostilities'' in a way that might have been relevant, that
might have been accurate, perhaps, in the mid-19th century, but we no
longer live in a world in which you have a war as understood by two
competing countries that are lined up on opposite sides of a
battlefield and engaged in direct exchanges of fire, one against
another, at relatively short range. War encompasses a lot more than
that. War certainly encompasses midair refueling, target selection,
surveillance, and reconnaissance of the sort we are undertaking in
Yemen.
Moreover, separate and apart from this very narrow, unreasonably slim
definition of ``hostilities'' as determined by this internal executive
branch document from 1976 that contains the outdated definition, we
ourselves, under the War Powers Act, don't have to technically be
involved in hostilities. It is triggered so long as we ourselves are
sufficiently involved with the armed forces of another nation when
those armed forces of another nation are themselves involved in
hostilities. I am speaking, of course, in reference to the War Powers
Act's provisions codified at 50 USC 1547(c).
For our purposes here, it is important to keep in mind what that
provisions reads: ``For purposes of this chapter [under the War Powers
Act], the term `introduction of United States Armed Forces' includes
the assignment of members of such Armed Forces to command, coordinate,
participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular
military forces of any foreign country or government when such military
forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces
will become engaged, in hostilities.''
In what sense, on what level, on what planet are we not involved in
the commanding, in the coordination, in the participation, in the
movement of or in the accompaniment of the armed forces of the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-led coalition in the
civil war in Yemen? I challenge anyone to explain that to me--how it is
that we are not involved in the way described by 50 USC 1547(c). We
are. Because we are under this power-sharing agreement that was reached
in the War Powers Act that has been in place over the last four or five
decades, we need to follow those procedures. It is one of the reminders
we have that we need to respect the separation of powers.
We first brought up this resolution--or one like it--earlier this
year. It was about 8 or 9 months ago. At the time we brought it up and
got it to the Senate floor, we utilized a privilege status accorded to
resolutions like these in order to secure a vote on the Senate floor to
try to bring this bill out of committee. At the time, sadly, we
received only 44 votes to get it out of committee. That was not enough.
Fast-forward a few months to the week before last when we voted on it
again. It was, actually, the same vote, and it resulted in 63 Members
of this body supporting the idea of advancing it out of committee.
Then, today, we moved to the consideration of this bill, and we got,
if I am not mistaken, about 60 votes for that. I am thrilled, I am
ecstatic that we had that result, and I look forward to my colleagues
passing S.J. Res. 54 in the coming days. I urge my colleagues to vote
for it. I suggest, however, that it would have been even better had we
done it sooner.
What, you might ask, changed? What changed between when we voted for
this a few months ago and we fell short of the votes we needed and when
we brought it up the week before last to discharge it out of
committee and then voted today to move to the bill? Well, a number of
things have happened.

First, the war in Yemen has continued. We have had a whole lot of
people killed in Yemen as a result of this civil war. We have had a
whole lot more people in Yemen die as a result of causes related to
that war. There has been starvation. There have been all kinds of
atrocities that have accompanied that war.
Now, I know--this is war, and war inevitably involves atrocities. War
inevitably leads to some people dying as a result of a direct kinetic
attack, and it almost inevitably leads to other people dying as a
result of starvation or their being subjected to other violent acts or
tragic outcomes. I get it. That is what war does. That is precisely why
it is unconstitutional and morally bankrupt for us to get involved in a
war without the people's elected representatives in Congress voting to
do so, without our having the ability to debate it, to discuss it, and
to vote affirmatively to put our brave young men and women in harm's
way to engage in that war.
What else changed in addition to the fact that this war has gone on
and on with a lot of death and suffering and misery by a whole lot of
innocent people?
We have also seen that when we pulled back the mask a little bit,
when we pulled back the curtains and looked into exactly who we were
fighting for and why we were fighting, the people, understandably, got
a little freaked out. The death, the murder of a journalist got a lot
of people's attention.
I completely agree with the comments that have been made by several
of my colleagues that every life is sacred, that every human soul has
inestimable worth in the eyes of God and should be respected by each
and every one of us. It is therefore sad that it has had to take this
long for us to care about it. It shouldn't be the case that we had to
wait for a journalist to be murdered for us to care about this
unconstitutional, unjustified, and, I believe, immoral war.

[[Page S7496]]

Regardless of how we got here, we are here. The murder of Mr.
Khashoggi caused us to think long and hard--with good reason--about the
fact that we have gone somewhat blindly into war, first under a
Democratic President and then under a Republican President, where it
has been continued, following, somewhat blindly, the leadership of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The fact that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has been implicated in
the murder of Mr. Khashoggi has caused a lot of people to stop and say:
Wait a minute. Maybe this doesn't make sense. Wait a minute. Perhaps
this is a regime that we ought not be supporting or at least, at a
minimum, regardless of the fact that we may have some interest, some
reason to be allied with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in some ways,
maybe--just maybe--this is enough of a reason for us not to be fighting
a war on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We know this to be
true.
Those of us who serve in this body or who serve down the hall in the
U.S. House of Representatives know something very significant, which is
that if we went to almost any one of our constituents in any part of
the country and asked them ``Why should we, the United States of
America--the greatest military power, the greatest republic, arguably,
the greatest civilization the world has ever known--be putting American
blood and treasure on the line to fight as cobelligerents in a civil
war half a world away in Yemen?'' we know that 99 times out of 100--
perhaps 999 times out of 1,000--that it would not result in a confident
answer. We know that it would result in an answer full of uncertainty,
ambiguity, grave concern, and well-justified fear for the fact that we
are involved in somebody else's civil war--in a civil war in which we
have no business fighting, in a civil war in which we have blindly
followed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia into conflict.
This is our decision to make. That war results in bloodshed and the
shedding of blood that will be on our hands if we fail to exercise our
constitutional prerogatives under a system of government in which we
have taken an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States. I hope and expect that we will do our duty. I hope
and expect that we will respect the lives of those who put their lives
on the line to protect us.
I urge my colleagues, with all the emotion and all the compassion I
am capable of summoning, to vote for and pass S.J. Res. 54.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to condemn the Saudi military
campaign in Yemen, which is causing the worst humanitarian crisis since
World War II.
Tens of thousands of young children have already died of starvation,
and millions more in Yemen remain threatened by famine and disease.
Yemen is experiencing the worst cholera outbreak in history with there
being over 1 million cases. In recent months, the crisis has
accelerated and grown at a rate of 10,000 cases each and every week.
The air campaign in Yemen, led by Saudi Arabia, is now in its third
year, and every day, it makes the humanitarian crisis in Yemen worse.
Bombs dropped by Saudi Arabia are killing women and children,
destroying roads and bridges, disabling electricity and water services,
and leveling schools, hospitals, and mosques.
Meanwhile, the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Crown
Prince Muhammad bin Salman stand credibly accused of ordering the
murder of a U.S. resident journalist known for his critique of the
regime.
Currently, we are debating a resolution that directs the President to
remove the U.S. military from hostilities in Yemen and end our Nation's
unauthorized participation in this conflict.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 54. I voted to bring it to
the floor because the United States should not be providing aerial
refueling to Saudi jets bombing Yemen indiscriminately.
The U.S. Senate should pass this resolution and send a clear message
that our military will not prolong and will not worsen a humanitarian
tragedy led by an increasingly brutal regime.
This is also why I voted against arms sales of additional air-to-
ground munitions to Saudi Arabia. More arms sales and more military
support for Saudi Arabia are not how we are going to end this crisis.
We need meaningful, diplomatic, and political solutions to alleviate
human suffering in Yemen.
This is an issue that is deeply personal to me and many Michiganders.
I am proud to represent a vibrant and dynamic Yemeni community in
Michigan, and I share their heartbreak over the tragic situation
impacting innocent Yemenis.
Our Nation must show real leadership and take action to ensure that
food, water, medicine, and all necessary humanitarian supplies are made
available to those who so desperately need them.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting S.J. Res. 54.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Tribute to Aaron Murphy

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I am going to change pace a little bit
here. I want to talk about a couple of people on my staff who are going
to move on to greener pastures, you might say, and I want to
acknowledge them.
First of all, I want to acknowledge a man who has always been there
for me when I have needed him. Day or night, hell or high water, yes,
even during the first few weeks of his fatherhood, my chief of staff,
Aaron Murphy, has given himself to Montana and to this Nation.
For years, he and his wife Patience and their children Mira and Wes
have dedicated nights and weekends to ensuring that our State remains
the best place to live and raise a family.
Dating back to my first U.S. Senate campaign in 2006, Aaron has been
an integral part in shaping my message, crafting my political policy,
and ensuring that every word matters. He takes the job seriously, but
he never loses the ability to laugh at himself--the mark of a true
leader.
One 4th of July, he tasked his communications team to write a
statement honoring Independence Day. My team wrote:

We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We
will be united in our common interests.

Aaron was appalled by the hyperbole, and he began editing the
statement, only to find out that his team had pranked him by copying
and pasting lines from the Hollywood blockbuster movie ``Independence
Day.''
Aaron's no-nonsense style has kept us focused on what really matters,
and that is the people. His ability to see the big picture and the end
goal is one of his greatest gifts.
His work ethic is second to none. He is the first person in the
office in the morning, and he is the last one out at night. He is
rooted in his desire to create opportunity for the next generation, and
his passion drives him to excel every day--never settling for second
best.
He has worked as my press secretary, as my communications director,
and now he wraps up his time as my chief of staff.
I want to tell him, on behalf of my entire family and team Tester:
Thank you for your service.
Aaron has been at my side through three grueling elections and
countless national media appearances.
I remember the first time I met this man. He was working at a local
TV station. I was informed by my then-communications director that we
had this guy who wanted to work for my campaign. At the time, I said to
Matt McKenna: Why would he want to work for me? He has a good job.
Matt responded: Maybe he actually thinks you can win this election.
That is exactly what Aaron Murphy believes. He believes in the future
of this country. He believes in the future of Montana.
There was another time, before the 2012 election, when Aaron was
driving to my farm. He took the wrong road, and he ended up stuck in
the mud. He buried the car up to the frame, and, fortunately, he found
a spot where his cell phone worked and got ahold of me. I went out with
the tractor and pulled him out of the mud. I was laughing at the time,
making fun of his inability to navigate a muddy road, but Aaron saw an
opportunity. He later told that story to a national reporter, who used
it in a story to show that I hadn't lost my roots.
Thanks for getting stuck in the mud, Aaron.

[[Page S7497]]

Here is the thing about Aaron Murphy. He sees things differently. He
has the ability to connect with people and drive an agenda that matters
to everyday Americans. He is genuinely creative, full of passion, and
good for a terrible pun or a dad joke.
Aaron, on behalf of my family, on behalf of the entire staff--both
here in DC and in State--I want to thank you for your hard work, your
service, your dedication, and your willingness to come back to the
political fray and help me for the last 2 years.
Thank you very much.

Tribute to Dayna Swanson

Mr. President, I also want to talk about my State director, who is
also leaving for greener pastures. I guess that is what happens when
you get reelected.
My State director's name is Dayna Swanson. She is an incredible
woman. She is a leader, wise counsel, and friend. Anybody who knows
Dayna knows she is a package of dynamite.
A few years back, Dayna wanted to get an old pickup. She looked
around, and she found an old pickup. She found a 1949 Chevrolet pickup
that had a pretty, fresh, green paint job. In fact, it was a paint job
that also included part of the chrome bumper painted green. It looked
good to Dayna, and she bought it. Needless to say, it probably needed a
little work. When you went around the corner, the doors would fly open,
and sometimes it would start, and sometimes it wouldn't.
I figured, what the heck. It is an old pickup. It is a great parade
vehicle. We had a homecoming parade coming up in Missoula, so I asked
Dayna if we could use her new 1949 pickup in the parade. We were in the
parade with the vehicle and, as usual--it is what you would think--it
overheated, the hose blew, and before we knew it, the Lieutenant
Governor was pushing the rig down the road with me driving it, which
was kind of nice.
That is Dayna. She is not afraid to take a risk. She inherited these
traits from two marvelous people, her parents, Butch and Kathy.
Dayna and I come from different parts of the State of Montana, but we
still have some things in common. I come from North Central Montana,
where agriculture is the business. It is done there, and we dig in the
Earth to make a living. She comes from just east of the Continental
Divide, where hard-working miners dig in the Earth to find minerals
and, consequently, are able to put food on their table.
Her Anaconda roots--her Irish roots--define her, as evidenced by her
love of Jameson Whiskey, but it is her heart that makes her so special.
Dayna has compassionately lead my Montana team in the State, guiding
them through difficult times, overcoming government bureaucracy, and
putting some big wins on the board for the State she loves--Montana.
When a Montanan walks into one of my offices, regardless of what the
problem is, Dayna goes to work to make sure the problem is solved.
Dayna's team bends over backward to get them the help they deserve.
Her leadership skills literally save lives. When I first got elected
12 years ago, Dayna designed our constituent casework process. She knew
that my No. 1 goal would be to help the people of Montana, and every
day since then, she has committed her heart and soul to that mission.
She has ushered Cabinet Secretaries across the State, showing them
what rural America looks like. She has worked with county
commissioners, State legislators, and everyday Montanans to ensure that
Montana remains the last best place.
She has flown in the dead of winter with me when it has been so cold
you couldn't see the ground, and when you did land, you could see that
the wings of the plane were covered with ice.
For 12 years, she has been my eyes and ears on the ground in Montana.
We have spent hundreds of hours together--windshield time--from places
like Wibaux to Libby and all along the way. We have shared countless
laughs and have worked to make the State a better place.
While her time in my office comes to a close, I know there are great
opportunities on the horizon for Dayna and her partner Denise, who just
took over as superintendent of schools in the Seattle school system.
She will be heading out to Seattle, where she will make Seattle a
better place, just as she has made Montana a better place.
In Dayna Swanson's particular case, on behalf of my wife, the entire
Tester team, and the people of Montana, I say: Thank you for a job well
done.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Zimbabwe

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, last week I chaired a hearing in the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
that focused on Zimbabwe.
As a young man, I fell in love with the continent of Africa and,
specifically, with the country of Zimbabwe, where I served part of my
Mormon mission. The year was 1983, and the country had recently gained
its independence. A man by the name of Robert Mugabe was serving as
Prime Minister at the time. I don't think anyone could have predicted
back then that Mugabe would serve as leader of Zimbabwe until November
of 2017, nor could anyone have imagined the damage that he would do to
this beautiful country.
Jubilation erupted in the streets of Harare in November of 2017 when
Zimbabweans heard the news that Mugabe had been ousted by his own party
and forced to retire. The people of Zimbabwe burst into spontaneous
celebration, hoping that with Mugabe finally removed from power, the
country might begin to move forward after nearly 40 years of his reign.
I had the opportunity to visit Zimbabwe in February of 2016, where I
led a delegation to southern Africa. Mugabe's misrule of the country
was certainly evident at that time. The devastation had taken its toll
on the capital city of Harare. Yet, somehow, the people of Zimbabwe
were so capable, so resilient, and had persevered and were looking to a
brighter future.
I was able at that time to reconnect with friends whom I hadn't seen
for 30 years, including one of my missionary companions, Peter Chaya,
who despite severe physical disability brought on by polio as a child,
managed to raise four children and contribute a great deal to his
church, to his community, and to his country.
Zimbabwe's greatest potential has always been its people, and it is
time for the government to take steps to ensure that this potential can
finally be realized.
I want to work with Zimbabwe to make this happen, and that is why I
introduced the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Amendment Act,
along with Senator Coons, last March. Senator Coons has been a valued
partner in efforts to bring better governance to Zimbabwe, and I am
sure that we can play a constructive role.
The ZDERA Amendment Act, signed into law in August, reiterates that
in order for sanctions on Zimbabwe to be lifted, the government must
restore the rule of law, it must hold free and fair elections, and it
must demonstrate a sincere commitment to land reform, but--and this is
different from the prior statute--our changes send a signal to the
Government of Zimbabwe, to the opposition, and to the Zimbabwean people
that the United States is interested in improving the state of our
bilateral relationship, including in the areas of trade and investment.
The bill asks that the government of Zimbabwe take concrete, tangible
steps toward good governance and the enactment of economic reforms. It
asks that all statutes inconsistent with Zimbabwe's 2013 Constitution
are either replaced or amended to bring them in line with that
Constitution. Finally, it underlines the need for a robust civil
society that is allowed to function freely and without government
interference.
The conditions outlined in the ZDERA Amendment Act are reasonable and
will not take too long to achieve. I urge President Mnangagwa to move
ahead and repeal troublesome statutes and engage in meaningful economic
reform along the lines of what Finance Minister Ncube has already
recommended.
I remain concerned that a lack of momentum for reforming Zimbabwe

[[Page S7498]]

will squander the opportunity presented by the former President's
ouster. We can't expect Zimbabwe to flip a switch and reverse nearly
four decades of misrule in a few months' time, but we should expect
more urgency to reform the economy and to expand the political space
for the opposition.
There is no more outward sign that Zimbabwe has yet to turn the page
than the government leveling charges against opposition figures like
Tendai Biti and others. There is no purpose served by going after one's
political opponents, especially in the wake of a contested election.
The new government of Zimbabwe bears much of the responsibility for
forging a positive path forward, but the opposition party needs to play
a constructive role there as well. The leader of the Movement for
Democratic Change, Nelson Chamisa, is young and capable. He has a long
career ahead of him. It would be to his benefit and to the benefit of
all Zimbabweans to recognize the legitimacy of the new government and
to help create an inclusive process moving ahead.
As in any democracy, Zimbabwe needs a loyal opposition in the form of
an opposition party or parties to hold the government accountable
within the framework of the rule of law. There will be new elections to
contest and more chances to make the case to voters. Now is the time to
unify the country.
During this past few months, I have thought often about my friends,
like Peter Chaya and others in Zimbabwe, whom I know deserve far better
from their government than they have received in the past four decades.
They deserve a government that represents them, a government that
provides an environment that allows them to follow their dreams and to
realize the dreams of their children.
Zimbabwe deserves a government worthy of its people, and I encourage
my colleagues to look for ways to engage constructively with Zimbabwe's
new government moving ahead. The new ZDERA presents a good, worthy
framework.
By next month, my role will change, but I will remain involved, and I
will still be committed to a strong partnership between the United
States and Zimbabwe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Alaska.

S.J. Res. 54

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we have been debating for quite some
time on the Senate floor the Yemen war powers resolution introduced by
my colleagues Senator Sanders and Senator Lee, which would cut off
support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen--support that began under
President Obama.
Surrounding this vote today, many of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle have expressed extreme frustration with the Saudi Crown
Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, especially regarding the death of Jamal
Khashoggi, an American-based Saudi journalist murdered in Turkey. I
have a lot of respect for the Senators weighing in, making their
arguments all day today, including Senators Young, Lee, Corker, Paul,
Graham, Murphy, Menendez, and Cardin--many. We do need to understand
what happened, what our intelligence and our government have
surrounding this death. I am glad the CIA Director came to the Hill to
brief Members. But this debate has taken something of a much more
complex turn.
Certainly, the heinous murderers need to be held accountable. There
is no doubt about that. But what we have been discussing, and what is
really being implicated here on the floor--which hasn't really been
talked about too much--is the broader issue of U.S. or American
presence in the region, not just regarding the current conflict in
Yemen but also our broader strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia and
our national security interests in the region.
My colleagues are justified in their frustration--no doubt I share it
as well--with the Saudis, with what is happening, but removing American
leadership and oversight from this conflict through this resolution is
not the way we should go about addressing this issue. We are trying to
execute a policy that both reflects America's values and our national
security interests. That is what is being debated here today. We need
to send a strong message to the Saudis, but that message cannot
undercut our own national security or those of our allies. The message
cannot strengthen what clearly is the biggest threat in the region;
that is, Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, which almost
nobody on the Senate floor has been talking about over the last several
weeks. I intend to.
Today's vote has meant different things to different Senators. I have
watched and listened to floor speeches. I have participated in debates
with my colleagues within the Republican Conference and when all the
Senators have met when we were briefed by administration officials.
I thought I would try to unpack a little bit of some of these
different arguments as I have seen them and provide my views.
Generally, this debate is focused in three different areas: One,
about the constitutional authority--the War Powers Act--that we have
actually been undertaking these kind of operations with the Saudis in
Yemen. The other is limiting and ending U.S. assistance to Saudi
operations--U.S. military assistance--in Yemen. Finally, some Senators
have been focused on downgrading the U.S. relationship with the Saudis
because of what has been happening both in Yemen and with the Khashoggi
murder.
First, let me talk about the constitutional arguments on the War
Powers Act; that the Trump administration needs congressional
authority, either pursuant to the War Powers Act or, more important,
pursuant to article II of the U.S. Constitution, to conduct military
operations in support of Saudi Arabia's military goals in Yemen.
Senator Lee has done a great job of pressing this issue. There are
many issues on which I agree with Senator Lee of Utah. He is clearly
one of this body's most knowledgeable and passionate Members in
safeguarding constitutional prerogatives, but in this case, I simply
disagree with him and the other Senators whose views I view as way too
restrictive on the Commander in Chief's ability to utilize our
military.
If we set the precedent that even an operation such as the refueling
of aircraft of allied countries, not even occurring in a war zone,
needs congressional authority either through the War Powers Act or
article II, we would severely limit the executive branch's ability to
direct international crises and safeguard our global national security
interests. I believe the notion that refueling allied aircraft
constitutes hostilities would be an unworkable precedent and is a
stretch of the term.
I have also been skeptical of Senate attempts to vote to remove
Presidential authority on our military operations once those operations
have begun. For example, we had a debate on military operations and the
authority of our military to operate in Afghanistan, which I believe
sends the wrong message to our troops. It is a precedent that once
hostilities begin, we don't have the backs of our forces. I think that
is also a dangerous precedent.
That is not to say this is not an important debate. It is certainly
an important debate. Other Members such as Senator Kaine have talked
about the importance of the issue of military authority, but with
regard to this discussion, I think it is too limiting.
Let me talk about the second major issue involved that most Senators
have been focused on: whether to vote to affirmatively end U.S.
military assistance to Saudi Arabia and their actions in Yemen and
whether and how, in doing so, it will help end the humanitarian
disaster going on there.
I compliment Senator Young and Senator Murphy, who have been making
the case passionately on this topic with much expertise. Clearly, they
and this body have been focused on two goals: We all want a peaceful
resolution to the conflict in Yemen, and we all want an end to the
humanitarian disaster in Yemen.
The reason I voted against the resolution today is because I do not
believe that either of these goals will be made easier or advanced by
less American involvement in the conflict. To the contrary, if the
United States no longer has the ability to help guide the Saudis
militarily in Yemen, I believe these

[[Page S7499]]

two important goals--ending the humanitarian crisis and bringing a
peaceful resolution--will actually be harder to reach.
That is not just my view; that was the view of Secretary Mattis and
Secretary Pompeo when they came to brief all 100 Senators 2 weeks ago.
In particular, Secretary Mattis knows the region and certainly knows
about how hostilities end and begin in the region.
The basis of their arguments--with which I agree--was, first, there
is no doubt the Saudis have prosecuted the war badly, but both the
Obama administration's Department of Defense and the Trump
administration's Department of Defense have worked hard to minimize
casualties.
Does anyone actually believe the situation in Yemen will improve
without U.S. assistance and guidance? The question almost answers
itself. Having our military involved has helped the Saudis improve
their coordination and improve their targeting to minimize civilian
casualties. Having our military involved has helped the Saudis manage
disagreements between them and their Gulf coalition partners. These
partners also play an important role in helping to bring an end to this
war.
Having our military involved has also helped provide critical
leverage as we move into the hopeful peace negotiations underway in
Sweden as we speak. Yemen's Government and the Houthi rebels have
evidently agreed to a prisoner swap, which could include thousands of
prisoners and could be the beginning of a diplomatic breakthrough.
I had the opportunity to talk with Secretaries Mattis and Pompeo this
weekend. Both said this would be exactly the wrong time, at a key
diplomatic moment, to have the United States limit and end its military
assistance to Saudi Arabia.
I know sometimes people don't like to think this way, but military
strength and leverage is often critical--critical to successful
diplomatic negotiations. For the first time, there is promise--promise
in negotiations in Sweden. All of us want that to succeed. However, I
believe we undermine our chances of success in these diplomatic efforts
if Congress forces the United States to end military assistance to the
Saudis.
We also have an even more direct and real national security interest
in the region. Yemen is an important front in the war on terror: It is
the home to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP. They have
attempted multiple times to directly attack our homeland. They were
responsible for the attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 sailors and
severely wounded 39 others, and they were responsible for the 2015
massacre at Charlie Hebdo's offices in Paris. Limiting our military
involvement in Yemen could pose significant risk with regard to AQAP
that I believe would be unacceptable for the American people.
The third line of argument we have seen on the floor and many have
been discussing goes much broader than just the relationship between
our military involvement in Yemen and really implicates the entire
U.S.-Saudi strategic relationship. It is the desire of a number of my
colleagues to use this debate and the despicable Khashoggi murder as an
opportunity to fully downgrade this decades-old strategic relationship.
The Saudis are difficult partners, no doubt. They have been for
decades. Last week, when I was presiding, Senator Rubio gave an
excellent speech saying that he believed the Saudis are testing the
limits of their relationship with the United States and that we should
look to draw some hard lines and recalibrate elements of our
relationship while demanding improvements in other areas. I agreed with
much of Senator Rubio's speech, including his conclusion, like mine,
that we should not be cutting off our military assistance to the Saudis
in Yemen because it would do much more harm than good.
Nevertheless, some Senators have argued for much more downgrading of
the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. In fact, so much of this has
been exclusively focused on the Saudis, with no other reference to any
other country in the Middle East, that it seems this debate on the
floor has been in a vacuum, but as we know, there are a lot more
countries in the region, including the world's biggest sponsor of state
terrorism, Iran, which nobody is talking about. We should be talking
about them because, in fact, the war in Yemen began when Tehran-backed
Houthi rebels seized power in 2015. Again, there is not a lot of
discussion about how it began.
Tehran is trying to establish a Hezbollah-like entity on the Arabian
Peninsula in Yemen, including increased capabilities to target cities
in Saudi Arabia with ballistic missiles supplied by Iran. This is all
part of Iran's broader strategy in the region to encircle our
traditional allies--whether Saudi Arabia, Gulf Arab States, and of
course Israel--with proxy fighters throughout Syria, Lebanon, Yemen,
and close relationships in Iraq. Yet no one in this debate seems to
want to talk about Iran. I thought I would do so for a minute.
Let's talk about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. U.S. humanitarian
aid has totaled almost $697 million in the past 14 months. Yes, Saudi
Arabia could do a much better job, but they have invested well over $1
billion to try to end the suffering. Iran--the country which started
the war, the country nobody on the Senate floor is talking about--not a
dime to relieve the suffering. Sure, they have supplied weapons and
ballistic missiles in the tens of millions of dollars but nothing to
relieve the suffering.
If we cut off U.S. military assistance to Riyadh and Yemen, you had
better believe the one capital in the Middle East that will be cheering
the loudest is Tehran--again, the world's largest state sponsor of
terrorism. Such an action would further embolden Iran and no doubt
embolden its proxies, while at the same time our allies, including
Israel, would feel less secure.
As this debate has carried on in the Senate, with no one talking
about the largest state sponsor of terrorism, I have found it very
troubling because the lens through which we need to view security in
the Middle East is through Iran. Although we have dissatisfaction and
frustration with some of our allies, we must remember the most
significant and serious threat in the Middle East continues to be Iran.
There has been a lot of focus on the horrible death of Mr. Khashoggi.
Any death is horrible, but let me talk about some other deaths.
In the Middle East, in Iraq, we have had over 500 American military
members killed and almost 2,000 wounded by improvised explosive devices
supplied to Iraqi Shia militias by the Iranians. Let me say that again:
Over 2,000 Americans killed and wounded by the largest state sponsor of
terrorism. Yet nobody seems to talk about that. Yes, one death of an
American journalist is horrible. Over 2,000 American dead and wounded
is really horrible. Where was the outrage about those deaths? Where was
the outrage about those murders? Where were the editorials about those
murders of American citizens? The previous administration wasn't
focused on those because they were focused on the Iran nuclear deal.
All I am saying is, in this debate, nobody is talking about the real
enemy of the United States--the Iranians, who are watching this debate
and smiling because no one is talking about them. So I thought it was
important to come down and say: Some of us are. Some of us know you are
behind the war in Yemen. Some of us know you continually say you want
to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Some of us know the Iran deal
only emboldened you.
What we need to keep in mind is, yes, we have difficult partners. No
doubt the Saudis are difficult. They are not perfect by any sense of
the word.
But this is a difficult region, and these are difficult issues, and
if we think we can debate Yemen and our help there without talking
about the Saudis and the Iranians, who started the war and are trying
to circle our different allies, including Israel, and think somehow
that this debate is not emboldening them more, I think we are
misguided.
I voted against this resolution because I still think it is important
to keep in mind that the lens through which we need to assess our
security interests and those of our allies in the Middle East is
through what helps or undermines Iran. I am concerned that this
resolution can help them, and that is not good for the United States,
it is not good for the war in Yemen, it is not good for the
humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, and it is certainly not good for all
allies like Israel.

[[Page S7500]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking a number
of my colleagues who have contributed so much to bringing us to this
point on S.J. Res. 54. I have been very pleased and honored to work
with them in cosponsoring these measures in the past--most recently in
March and now today--to end all U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war
in Yemen that is killing innocent civilians and murdering children and
committing, arguably, war crimes.
The United States should have no complicity in these actions that
betray our values and our national interest, so this resolution would
direct the removal of all U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities.
There are many to thank--Senators Sanders and Lee, Senator Menendez,
and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy--but I want to thank
some people who have not been mentioned during this proceeding
Before Yemen and before the killing of Khashoggi--that is, before the
civil war in Yemen and the Saudi involvement in it and before the
brutal, heinous killing of the American journalist Jamal Khashoggi--
there was 9/11. The victims and loved ones of those victims are
remembered by me. They are friends. They are heroes. They have fought
relentlessly to hold the Government of Saudi Arabia accountable for its
culpability--not yet proven in court, but they are seeking to hold the
monarchy accountable for its possible involvement.
They have been largely absent from the discussion on this floor, but
they are the original champions of holding the Saudis responsible for
any and all possible involvement in supporting the 9/11 attack on our
Nation. Make no mistake--their loved ones were victims, but it was an
attack on our Nation, on the Twin Towers, on our Defense Department, on
a plane that was forced to crash in Pennsylvania.
I am pleased that the U.S. Senate is pursuing justice for Jamal
Khashoggi. He was a journalist, an opinion writer for an American
newspaper with two young children who are U.S. citizens.
The United States has a moral obligation to end support for a
government that engages in this kind of heinous, murderous action.
There is intelligence that points directly to the highest levels of the
Saudi monarchy--namely to the Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman.
The United States ought to end its support for the humanitarian
crisis caused by the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Make no mistake--it was
and is a Saudi-led attack, and the Kingdom is responsible for it, but
this monarchy was doing bad things and engaged in bad behavior well
before the Yemen civil war and Khashoggi's tragic death. The Saudis
have a long record of violating human rights and international norms.
They have funded extremism that led to the rise of terrorism. They may
well have provided financial support and even training for the Saudis
who went to the United States and thereafter enabled and led and
participated in the attack on this Nation.
We should never forget the survivors and the loved ones of 9/11. We
should never overlook the Saudi role in that horrific attack. We should
never relent in supporting those 9/11 families.
Fortunately, we have made progress in holding Saudi Arabia
accountable for its culpability in 9/11. In 2016, this Congress
unanimously passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act--
JASTA--to allow terrorist victims their day in court, their fair
opportunity to hold accountable state sponsors of terrorism, including
the Saudi Arabian Government. This September, the Senate unanimously
passed my resolution to release all classified documents related to the
9/11 attack. These documents are absolutely essential to giving those
families their day in court because they are the evidence that is
needed to establish the link the United States has--intelligence dating
from those days now seemingly long ago--that inculpates the Saudis.
We must support the continued investigation into 9/11 by our law
enforcement and intelligence agencies, and we must support those 9/11
families to ensure that the facts are made public and that the
necessary individuals, entities, and governments are held accountable.
The families of victims who perished on that horrific day deserve
answers about those events and circumstances surrounding the terrorist
attack. We know their pain and grief are very much with them. We should
respect their loss and honor it with action.
We should recognize those heroes like Brett Eagleson of Connecticut
and the families of Connecticut and New York and New Jersey and all
around the country--and so many are from our area of New York,
Connecticut, and New Jersey--who continue to demand justice and have
done so year after year--well before this resolution came before us.
I say to my colleagues today, we need to keep our resolve alive and
well to never forget, never yield to hopelessness, never allow our
support for these 9/11 families to diminish, never cease our quest for
justice in the name of Brett Eagleson's dad and his family and every
family who still suffers the pain and grief from 9/11.
Given the role of the Saudi Government in perpetrating the 9/11
attacks, the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and the Saudi-inflicted
humanitarian crisis, this reevaluation of the U.S. relationship with
Saudi Arabia is long overdue.
The Saudi-led war has consisted of an aggressive campaign as brutal
as the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, indiscriminately killing civilians
and Houthis alike. Day after day, the humanitarian crisis of famine,
cholera, other medical afflictions, and simple trauma to those children
trying to grow up in the midst of exploding bombs continues to get
worse. The United Nations warns that 14 million Yemenis could face
starvation--14 million--14 million innocent people facing starvation.
Diplomatic efforts, in coordination with the United Nations and
European allies, are vital to establish a peace framework and ensure
civilian access to humanitarian aid.
In the absence of meaningful action from the United States, the
humanitarian crisis in Yemen will only worsen. Regional instability
will be exacerbated. America's standing in the global community will be
further undercut and enduringly diminished.
In March of this year, I led a letter to the Department of Defense
with my colleague Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, along with many of
our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, stating our
concern regarding U.S. support for Saudi military operations against
the Houthis in Yemen and asking about the DOD's involvement, apparently
without appropriate notification of Congress, and its agreements to
provide refueling support to the Saudis and the Saudi coalition
partners. We were concerned that the DOD had not appropriately
documented reimbursements for aerial refueling support provided by the
United States.
Eight months later--just days ago--the Department of Defense
responded to our letter and admitted that it has failed to
appropriately notify Congress of its support agreements; it has failed
to adequately charge Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for fuel
and refueling assistance. That admission 8 months after our inquiry is
a damning indictment. These errors in accounting mean that the United
States was directly funding the Saudi war in Yemen. It has been doing
it since March of 2015.
In November, the administration announced an end to U.S. aerial
refueling support for Saudi military operations in Yemen, but we still
must determine whether the Department of Defense was incompetent or
disingenuous--or both--in failing to charge the Saudis and Emiratis for
previous refueling assistance. We need accountability, a full
explanation from the Department of Defense.
The Department will be seeking reimbursement for its refueling
support, but I will continue to demand and conduct oversight to get to
the bottom of this apparent negligence. I have made the DOD aware of my
concerns, and I will evaluate whether an inspector general
investigation is necessary to determine the extent to which U.S.
taxpayer funds--potentially millions and tens of millions of dollars--
were used to fund the Saudi war and used to fund it without the legally
required acknowledgment and approval from the Congress of the United
States.

[[Page S7501]]

Very simply, the United States should not be funding this war. We
should not be supporting this war. We should not be providing
intelligence or logistics support. We should not be complicit in the
indiscriminate targeting of civilians in Yemen, the murder of children,
the famine and humanitarian crisis that are ongoing right now. That is
why today we should pass this resolution.
It is all the more important today, as well, that the Senate take a
stand, given the Trump family ties to the Saudis and the President's
habit of undermining the intelligence community. In the absence of
leadership from the President, Congress must reassert its
constitutional responsibility to authorize the use of U.S. military
support.
We must take action to uphold the Constitution, as well as American
values and interests. Intelligence assessments indicate with high
certainty that members of the Saudi royal family, including the Crown
Prince MBS, ordered and orchestrated the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. But
both President Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner have undermined
these findings and tried to stifle the intelligence community
conclusions. They have undermined not only these conclusions but more
broadly the intelligence community itself.
President Trump has debased and dishonored brave intelligence
professionals by demeaning their fact-based conclusions as
``feelings.'' President Trump has falsely claimed that ``we may never
know all the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi.''
His Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, unfortunately, have
further demeaned those findings by saying that there is no direct
evidence or there is no smoking gun. The fact is that there is powerful
and compelling evidence.
We know from public statements of my colleagues coming from briefings
by the intelligence community, and we recently learned that the White
House Middle East adviser--I should put ``adviser'' in quotes--Jared
Kushner offered advice to his close friend Muhammad Bin Salman about
how to ``weather the storm'' during the warranted backlash of Saudi
Arabia after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Rather than ensuring
accountability, Jared Kushner is inexplicably offering support.
There is also stunning evidence that the Saudi Government lobbyists
reserved blocks of rooms at the Trump hotel in Washington, paying for
an estimated 500 nights in the luxury hotel just 3 months after
President Trump was elected, bringing veterans to Washington to lobby
against JASTA, the bill I mentioned earlier--the bill that enables the
9/11 victims to have their day in court, the bill that upholds American
interests and American values and American people.
The effort of the Saudi Government to bring those veterans to
Washington and fund their stays in the Trump hotel was a despicable
irony and insult to America, but it yielded the Trump Organization
$270,000 and millions of dollars, by the President's own
acknowledgment--indeed, his boasting--go to the Trump organization from
condos, apartments, and offices rented or bought in New York, Chicago,
and Washington, DC, to say nothing of deals that may be contemplated by
the Trump Organization now or after Donald Trump leaves office. These
kinds of payments and benefits directly implicate the emoluments clause
of the Constitution. They are part of the reason that I have enlisted
almost 200 of my colleagues in the U.S. Congress in a lawsuit called
Blumenthal v. Trump, and I believe this lawsuit, which claims that the
President violated the chief anti-corruption provision of the U.S.
Constitution, will shed even more light on those payments and benefits
from Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world. These
friendships and conflicts of interest demonstrate the very flawed and
likely corrupt basis for the Trump administration's foreign policy with
Saudi Arabia.
American credibility is at stake. We must end all U.S. involvement in
the Saudi war. We must sanction the top levels of the Saudi monarchy
under relevant statutes like the Global Magnitsky Act. We must ensure
that the President removes U.S. forces from any hostilities against the
Yemeni people.
There are countless reasons to vote for this resolution. I call on my
colleagues to support it and to make sure that U.S. support for this
unacceptable conflict in Saudi--the aggression and attacks by Saudi
Arabia on innocent civilians--is ended now.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, under our Constitution, we have article
I, which addresses the powers of Congress, and article II, the powers
of the Presidency. Our Founders were so concerned that the President
would take us into war without justification that they made sure to
explicitly place the power to go to war with Congress--with the House
and Senate.
But here we are, debating the issue of how the President took us into
war in Yemen as a facilitator of Saudi Arabia, providing intelligence,
providing advice, refueling planes, providing armaments. It is time for
us to take a powerful and clear stand and change this and end this.
Here is what has been going on. For multiple years now, Saudi Arabia
has been bombing the civilian infrastructure of Yemen, indiscriminately
slaughtering civilians, destroying schools and hospitals and
neighborhoods and water systems. What is the result of destroying the
water systems? The largest outbreak of cholera in the history of
humankind. We now have well over 100 children under the age of 5 dying
of hunger and starvation each day. We are told by the experts that 8 to
14 million people are at risk of starvation, but many are already
starving, and not just children under 5--the whole spectrum of society.
We have been directly involved in ways that, in my mind, violate the
War Powers Act by directly facilitating the movement of armaments and
assisting Saudi Arabia in this assault, and this assault must end. We
have to send a strong message, and we can do that through this vote we
are facing ahead of us. That is one piece of the conversation regarding
Saudi Arabia.
The other piece is that the Saudi Government has assassinated an
American resident--an American resident who is also an American
newspaper columnist. What do we have as a response? We have the weakest
possible response from President Trump, with President Trump saying
that we don't know what happened. The Saudi Crown Prince may have been
involved; he might not have been involved. Who will ever know?
We need a strong watchdog for American values. We need the President
to stand up to Saudi Arabia. We don't need to hear that we are going to
be weak in the face of an assassination of an American resident because
they happen to buy armaments from the United States. Yet that is what
we are hearing from President Trump--weakness, selling out American
values because they buy some American products.
What more trouble can we invite around the world if we don't stand up
for human rights and we don't stand up for our residents and we don't
stand up for our journalists, all tied in together here?
Let's be forceful in how we vote on this resolution. Let's send a
strong message.
This challenge of the President in ignoring the article I powers in
our Constitution, in which the power to be involved in war is vested in
this body, Congress, is not the only problem we have. We also have core
corruption of our Constitution in the form of gerrymandering and voter
suppression and dark money, all of which erode the fundamental vision,
the vision in our Constitution of a ``we the people'' government, one
that serves as President Lincoln so eloquently said, to operate ``of
the people, by the people, for the people.'' Instead, we have the
government operating of, by, and for the powerful in this country--the
1 percent in this country.
It certainly wasn't done in 2017 with a tax bill that took $1.5
trillion--or call it $2 trillion, if you include the interest on the
$1.5 trillion--out of our Federal Treasury and gave it to the very
richest Americans. Boy, that is not a ``we the people'' action.
We didn't invest in healthcare. We didn't invest in education. We
need apprenticeship programs. We need technical education. We need
better public

[[Page S7502]]

schools. We need affordable colleges. We didn't invest in education. We
didn't make our healthcare system more affordable. We didn't take on
the drug companies. We didn't proceed to invest in the challenge of
unaffordable housing. We didn't invest in infrastructure and create
living-wage jobs. Those are the four foundations of a thriving family--
healthcare, housing, education, and living-wage jobs. We ignored all of
that and had the government of the powerful giving $1.5 trillion or $2
trillion, if we include the interest, to the richest Americans--
government by and for the powerful.
Voter suppression is a key strategy in this. What did President
Reagan have to say about that? President Reagan said: ``For this Nation
to remain true to its principles, we cannot allow any American's vote
to be denied, diluted or defiled.''
Now, there is a statement by a man who understood that voting is the
foundation of our democratic republic--a core right of Americans--and
he believed we needed to stand up and make sure that core value remains
fully intact. But so often in our Nation we have seen those who wield
power for the powerful proceed to deny or dilute or defile the power to
vote, particularly in poor communities, particularly in communities of
color.
We have seen everything. We have seen poll taxes. We have seen
literacy tests. We have seen post-Civil War good character tests. We
have seen the use of felony charges to make it impossible for African
Americans to vote in the South. We have seen voter intimidation, and we
have seen it sometimes through racist dog whistling and political
postcards. We have a long history of these types of actions to deny,
dilute, and defile the power to vote.
I would like to say there is something of our past that we saw with
the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but that act was struck down by the Supreme
Court. We are seeing all kinds of forms of voter suppression emerge in
2016 and 2018.
In 2018, thousands of Native Americans in North Dakota living on
Tribal reserves and using their P.O. boxes for their mail address were
kept from casting a ballot because of a law that came into effect in
2018. It said you can't vote without a conventional address--the North
Dakota ``conventional address'' effort to dilute or deny or obstruct
the power to vote.
In Georgia, the then-secretary of State, Brian Kemp, who was himself
running for Governor, attempted to block 53,000 Georgians from voting--
70 percent of whom were African-American voters--because of minor
differences in the wording of the way they filled out their
registration form. If the name wasn't exactly identical or had some
other slight variation, he was sitting on those voting registration
cards--the ``identical name'' gambit from Georgia.
In Ohio, a county elections board proceeded on the orders of
Secretary of State Jon Husted to purge thousands of Ohioans from the
voting rolls. If you are not on the voting rolls, you can't vote when
the election comes. Again, who were disproportionately affected?
African Americans--the Ohio voting roll purge strategy of voter
suppression.
What did we see in North Carolina? Thanks to a law passed by the
Republican State legislature, nearly 20 percent of North Carolina's
early voting locations were closed, forcing voters to travel longer or
wait in long election-day lines to cast their vote. I will give you one
guess on who was impacted the most. Who was this target aimed at? Well,
it was aimed at African-American voters--the long line strategy from
North Carolina and Kansas, as well.
In Kansas, the county clerk in Dodge City, citing construction, moved
the only polling place in a town that is 60 percent Hispanic from a
spot downtown to an arena built for rodeo and farming shows outside the
city limits. This was a location that had no sidewalk and is separated
from the rest of the city by train tracks, making it as difficult as
possible for voters to get there. It was targeted at a Hispanic
community.
We saw voting suppression aimed at college students, too. In Iowa,
the legislature passed a bill to cut 11 days off early voting this year
in order to make it harder to vote. It also had a tricky little deal on
an ID requirement, which will not now go into effect until next year,
but it created a great deal of confusion about this year because it
made people think they weren't eligible to vote because it said your ID
had to have an expiration date on it. Why was this tricky little thing
done? Because college IDs often don't have an expiration date on them.
Well, it is a total violation of the vision Ronald Reagan laid out,
and really, of the foundation--the vision--of our Constitution and the
power to vote.
In New Hampshire, a bill was signed into law this past July aimed at
suppressing college-age voters as well. It says students and other
part-time residents have to become permanent residents. How do you
become a permanent resident in order to cast a ballot? You have to buy
an in-State license. If you have a car in another State, you have to
reregister it in New Hampshire, which means registration fees, fees for
license plates, and possibly separate State and municipal fees. It is
like a poll tax placed on college students. So there we have this 21st
century poll tax coming back aimed at college students.
Why are all these voting suppression strategies aimed at poor
communities, aimed at communities of color, African-American
communities and Hispanic communities? Why are they aimed at college
students? They are aimed at these three populations because those three
populations vote primarily on the Democratic side of the ballot. It is
wrong for any official in this country to simply target voters of the
other party to try to prevent them from voting. It is un-American. It
goes against the essence of what our Constitution is all about.
It is wrong, and yet, since the Voting Rights Act was torn down by
the Supreme Court of the United States, we see it time and again. We
don't just see it before the election. We see it during the election
day.
In Georgia, we saw hours-long lines to vote in majority-minority
districts, either because machines didn't happen to be working or they
didn't have the extension cords to turn them on.
In Arizona, one polling place didn't exist on election day because
even though people were told to vote there, it was in a building that
was locked up. Voting machines were inside, but the doors were locked.
The building had been foreclosed on, but they didn't bother to move it
next door or somewhere close by, enabling people to vote.
In Texas, we heard about the machines that were changing people's
votes from a Democratic candidate to Republican candidate.
All the while, President Trump was working to cast doubt on the
legitimacy of our normal election processes--tweeting out that ballots
coming in after election night shouldn't be counted. What was he
talking about down in Florida, about ballots that shouldn't be counted?
We are talking about the absentee ballots for our soldiers overseas.
But because the President was concerned that they might change the
outcome, he didn't want them counted.
If only Ronald Reagan could spend a few minutes with President Trump
and remind him of what our Nation is all about, what our Constitution
is all about, how important voting is, and that it should never be
denied or diluted.
None of these efforts are unique. We saw these efforts back in 2016,
as well, in the first election after the Voting Rights Act was torn
down by the Supreme Court. That was the Shelby County v. Holder
decision. The Court thought this wasn't necessary any more. Maybe they
should ask Congress whether it was necessary. Now that we find out it
was necessary, maybe they should reverse their decision. We need to put
a new issue before them. Maybe we need a new Voting Rights Act. Maybe
it should apply to every State, rather than just the States that were
in the 1965 Voting Rights Act bill.
In 2016, that first election after the Voting Rights Act was torn
down by the Supreme Court, we saw 900 fewer polling places open to
voters than in 2014--2 years earlier. Most of that change was in the
States that previously were under the regulation, the oversight of the
Voting Rights Act. We saw that in Texas, Arizona, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and North Carolina. When you
reduce the number of polling places in poor communities and communities
of color, you create long wait lines, and you deny the vote.

[[Page S7503]]

Nearly 17,000 Wisconsinites--disproportionately minorities--were kept
from the polls because of Wisconsin's voter ID law. The State saw its
lowest turnout in two decades. This law had nothing to do with
security. It had everything to do with voter suppression because it is
a known fact that residents in low-income and minority communities are
less likely to be able to access the IDs that are required for polls.
This is keenly targeted.
In fact, after North Carolina's voter ID law was struck down in 2016,
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision noted that it targeted
African Americans with ``almost surgical precision.'' The State
resorted that year--after it was struck down--to eliminating early
voting days, severely curtailing the number of polling places, and
affecting their hours of operation in communities of color.
By the way, the lead plaintiff in the case that challenged the voting
suppression strategy of the voter ID law passed away this weekend at
age 97. Ms. Rosanell Eaton was once described by President Obama as a
beacon of civil rights. She was a life-long devotee of and advocate for
voting rights. Now, that is a patriot.
It is because of unsung heroes like her that our Nation has come far
and why we must continue pushing ourselves forward to ensure justice
and equality for all.
In a ``we the people'' nation, can any of these efforts to suppress
the vote be allowed to continue? The answer is no--not if we want the
vision of government of, by, and for the people. How can any of us sit
by and allow citizens of this country--citizens like Rosanell Eaton--to
be systematically denied the most fundamental right?
We have to work together--Democrats and Republicans--to honor and to
strengthen the vision of the ability to vote. We need a fierce and
formidable voting rights bill for the 21st century, ensuring in every
way possible that every single American can exercise his or her right
to vote freely and fairly. We need a voting rights bill that bans the
type of shenanigans and the types of deceptive strategies that target
poor communities, communities of color, and college students that I
talked about today.
But we also need a voting rights bill that requires preapproval for
changes to voting procedures to make sure that they are not being
changed in order to take away the ability to vote and to make it more
difficult for some communities than for other communities within a
State. We need a voting rights commission with the power to ban new
voter suppression practices as they evolve because, surely, people will
try new strategies from people who do not believe in the vision of our
Constitution.
From the 15th amendment of 1870, which recognized African-Americans'
right to vote, to the 19th amendment of 1920, 50 years later, which
recognized a woman's right to vote, and all the way up to the civil
rights marches of the 1960s and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, America's
story has been of expanding opportunity for every American to have a
say in the direction of our government.
But we are far from ensuring that today every American has that
opportunity because the strategies of voter suppression are rampant,
they are extensive, and they are targeted. Voter suppression and voter
intimidation must end, and we need to ensure that every American has
the unfettered right to have a voice in their government, that every
American has the unfettered right to cast a ballot during the election.
President Reagan had it right back in 1981. He supported the
expansion of the Voting Rights Act. He said: ``For this Nation to
remain true to its principles, we cannot allow any American's vote to
be denied, diluted or defiled.''
Let's make it so.
Thank you, Mr. President.
(Mr. GARDNER assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Colorado.

____________________