[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1801-S1813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

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

[[Page S1802]]

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

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

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

[[Page S1803]]

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

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

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

[[Page S1804]]

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

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

[[Page S1805]]

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

[[Page S1806]]

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

[[Page S1807]]

  



                   Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act

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

[[Page S1808]]

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

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

[[Page S1809]]

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

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

[[Page S1810]]

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

[[Page S1811]]

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

[[Page S1812]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S1813]]

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

                          ____________________