[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1813-S1827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.


                           Judicial Vacancies

  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, 1 year ago today, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
opened its hearing on the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Neil 
Gorsuch. The Stanford Law & Policy Review has now published my article 
on one of the opposition's arguments made in that hearing and sure to 
be repeated should President Trump have the opportunity to make another 
Supreme Court nomination.
  Today, I want to look at the lower courts because no fewer than 138 
positions on the Federal district and appeals courts are vacant. That 
does not include 33 vacancies that we already know will occur in the 
next year or so. Everyone must understand both the seriousness and the 
cause of this crisis.
  By itself, 138 is just a number. It is a big number, but it needs a 
frame of reference or a standard for us to know whether this number of 
judicial vacancies is normal or a serious problem that has to be 
addressed. I certainly don't want to be accused of partisanship, so I 
will rely solely on the standards and criteria used in the past by my 
Democratic colleagues. Let's first use some Democratic standards to 
evaluate the number of judicial vacancies that we face today.
  One standard is that the Democrats have specifically identified how 
many vacancies are unacceptable. In February 2000, with a Democrat in 
the White House, the Democrats said that 79 vacancies were ``too 
high.'' In September 2012, with the Democrats both in the White House 
and controlling the Senate, they declared a ``judicial vacancy crisis'' 
when there were 78 vacancies.
  If 78 vacancies is a crisis, what is the label for 138 vacancies? 
This is the highest judicial vacancy total since September 1991, but 
more than half of those vacancies were fresh from Congress's having 
created new judgeships several months earlier. So I think it is fair to 
say that in either total or percentage terms, we face today the most 
serious judicial vacancy crisis that anyone in this body has ever seen.
  A second Democratic vacancy standard is that, as they did in April 
2014, we can compare judicial vacancies today with vacancies at the 
same point under previous Presidents. If that Democratic standard is 
valid, vacancies today are 35 percent higher than at this point under 
President Obama and 46 percent higher than at this point under 
President George W. Bush.
  There is a third Democratic vacancy standard. In June 2013 and at 
least as far back as April 1999, the Democrats have complained that the 
Senate was not confirming enough judicial nominees to keep up with 
normal attrition. Well, judicial vacancies today are 30 percent higher 
than when President Trump took office, and, as I said, at least 33 more 
have already been announced.
  Finally, the Democrats have frequently said that the 107th Congress--
the first 2 years of the George W. Bush administration--should be our 
judicial confirmation benchmark. During that time, the Senate confirmed 
an average of just over four judicial nominees per month. The Senate 
has so far confirmed 28 of President Trump's district and appeals court 
nominees or fewer than two per month.
  Take your pick. By any or all of these Democratic standards, we face 
a much more serious judicial vacancy crisis than in years past. In 
addition to the gravity of this crisis, however, the American people 
need to know its cause. I can tell you what is not causing this vacancy 
crisis. President Trump started making nominations to the Federal 
district and appeals courts on March 21, 2017, just 61 days after 
taking office, as you can see on this chart. By August of last year, he 
had made more than three times as many judicial nominations as the 
average for his five predecessors of both parties. President Trump has 
nominated 86 men and women to the Federal bench since he took office 14 
months ago.
  If the President is making so many nominations, perhaps the problem 
lies somewhere in the Senate confirmation process. Once again, my 
Democratic colleagues can help figure this out. In November 2013, then-
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy spoke about obstructing 
judicial nominees ``in other ways that the public is less aware.'' The 
Democrats are using such below-the-public-radar obstruction tactics at 
each stage of the confirmation process.
  The first stop in the confirmation process is the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. Under Chairman Chuck Grassley's leadership, the committee 
has held a hearing for 62 of President Trump's judicial nominees--more 
than under any of the previous five Presidents at this point. So that 
is clearly not the problem. The first sign of Democratic obstruction is 
the unwarranted and partisan opposition to reporting judicial 
nominations from the Judiciary Committee.

  In February 2012, 3 years into the Obama administration, the 
Democrats complained that five nominees to the U.S. district court had 
been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. This, 
they said, departed dramatically from Senate tradition. Today, just 14 
months into the Trump administration, eight nominees to the U.S. 
district court have been reported by the Judiciary Committee on a 
party-line vote. The present rate of such party-line votes in the 
Judiciary Committee is more than four times what the Democrats 
criticized just a few years ago.
  The below-the-radar obstruction tactics continue when the Judiciary 
Committee sends judicial nominees to the full Senate. The Democrats, 
for example, refuse to cooperate in scheduling confirmation votes. They 
can't prevent confirmation votes altogether because they abolished 
nomination filibusters in 2013, but if they can't make judicial 
confirmations impossible, they are determined to make them very 
difficult. Here is how they do it.
  The Senate must end debate on a nomination before it can vote on 
confirmation. The majority and minority have traditionally cooperated 
to end debate and set up confirmation votes. In March 2014, not for the 
first time, the Democrats said that refusing consent to schedule votes 
on pending nominees was obstruction. When the minority refuses that 
consent, the only way to end debate and set up a confirmation vote is 
by the formal cloture

[[Page S1814]]

process, which requires a cloture vote and can add up to several days 
to the confirmation timeline, as seen here.
  Since President Trump took office, the Democrats have forced the 
Senate to take 28 cloture votes on judicial nominations, compared to 
just two cloture votes at this point under the previous five Presidents 
combined. Even when cloture is invoked, Senate rules provide for up to 
30 hours of debate before a confirmation vote can occur. Nearly half 
the time under President Obama, a judicial nomination cloture vote was 
followed by a confirmation vote on the same day. Under President Trump, 
that has plummeted to 17 percent. The average time between cloture and 
confirmation votes for President Trump's judicial nominations is more 
than 55 percent longer than it was under President Obama.
  When a judicial nomination gets out of the Judiciary Committee, 
survives an unnecessary cloture vote, and then is subjected to 
postcloture delay, Democratic obstruction is still not over. In March 
2012, the Democrats complained about Senators having voted against 
nominees to the U.S. district court who were supported by their own two 
Senators. In fact, the Democrats called this a new standard of 
obstruction because it departed so far from Senate tradition.
  OK. Let's assume for the moment that this Democratic standard is also 
valid. At this point in the previous five Presidencies--from President 
Reagan to President Obama--U.S. district court nominees had received a 
combined total of 10 negative votes. So far, under President Trump, his 
confirmed district court nominees have received 72 negative votes.
  Two weeks ago, the Pew Research Center released a new analysis 
showing that President Trump's confirmed judges have ``faced a record 
amount of opposition.'' In fact, this analysis concluded that President 
Trump's judges have each received an average of more than 22 negative 
votes, ``by far the highest average for any president's judges since 
the Senate expanded to its current 100 members in 1959.'' This level of 
opposition is more than four times what it was under President Obama--
or should I say oppositional delay.
  These tactics don't involve high-profile filibusters or headline-
grabbing confirmation defeats but, rather, internal Senate rules and 
unwritten traditions. That is why they operate below the radar. Yet the 
Democrats have criticized these tactics precisely because they take 
their toll. Individually and especially in combination, they can add 
days and weeks to the time it takes to confirm a single judicial 
nomination even when the final confirmation vote is unanimous.
  In November 2013, for example, the Democrats said that taking cloture 
votes on unopposed nominees amounted to ``obstruction and abuse of 
Senate rules.'' At that point, almost 4 years into the Obama 
administration, the Senate had taken one cloture vote on a judicial 
nominee who was later confirmed without opposition--just one. We are 
only 14 months into the Trump administration, and the Democrats have 
already forced the Senate to take five cloture votes on nominees who 
were later unanimously confirmed. It has already happened twice this 
month. If doing this once amounted to obstruction and abuse, what would 
my Democratic colleagues call doing it five times as often in one-
fourth the time?
  These are just a few of what then-Chairman Leahy called obstruction 
tactics that the public may not be aware of. Believe me. There is more 
where these came from. As I said, I want to avoid partisanship. Each of 
these is a Democratic standard. These are Democratic criteria. If my 
colleagues who once thought these were valid standards want to abandon 
them now, then perhaps they were also wrong the first time around. 
Otherwise, we have to face the conclusions that follow from applying 
these Democratic standards and criteria.
  We face an unprecedented judicial vacancy crisis. Since President 
Trump is making nominations and the Judiciary Committee, under Chairman 
Grassley's leadership, is steadily processing them, there remains only 
one explanation for the vacancy crisis we face today--plain, old-
fashioned, partisan obstruction. The Democrats are manipulating this 
process at every stage, using the very tactics that they have loudly 
condemned in the past to make confirmations as difficult and time-
consuming as possible.
  Even in politics, actions speak louder than words. In July 2012, when 
there were 76 judicial vacancies, Chairman Leahy said that ``we should 
be doing better.'' Today, with nearly twice as many vacancies, I 
challenge my Democratic colleagues to put actions to those words.
  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. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about the 
continued deterioration of the situation in Yemen and to share my views 
about the resolution that is currently before us.
  The military conflict going on in Yemen has gone on for far too long 
and has affected tens of millions of civilians who face displacement, 
famine, and a widespread cholera outbreak. According to the United 
Nations, more than 15,000 Yemenis have been killed or injured since the 
war began in March of 2015. The humanitarian situation there has been 
described as the worst in the world, with more than two-thirds of 
Yemen's approximately 29 million people facing severe food shortages. 
An outbreak of cholera has already infected at least 1 million people, 
marking the worst such outbreak in decades.
  Continued instability in Yemen also benefits our adversaries. While 
we have sought to maintain pressure on al-Qaida in the Arabian 
Peninsula, or AQAP, and ISIS, the lack of a functioning government or 
state security apparatus inhibits our ability to go after these groups. 
Additionally, it is clear that Iran has taken advantage of the current 
situation to spread its malign influence and provide lethal support to 
the Houthis, thereby further undermining regional stability and 
security.
  Unfortunately, we have yet to hear any strategy from the 
administration as to how they would propose to use U.S. diplomatic 
leadership to help bring about an end to the conflict in Yemen. We 
still do not have an Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and occasional visits 
by White House officials are not a replacement for sustained diplomatic 
efforts by our experts in the Foreign Service. I am encouraged, though, 
by the appointment of a new United Nations Special Envoy to Yemen, 
Martin Griffiths, and hope that the U.S. Government will seek to 
support his efforts wherever possible.
  While the primary conflict in Yemen is between an Iranian-backed 
Houthi insurgency and a Saudi-led coalition, the United States is 
involved.
  As stated in a letter sent by Secretary Mattis to congressional 
leadership last week, ``Since 2015, the United States has provided 
limited support to Saudi-led coalition military operations to restore 
the U.N.-recognized government of Yemen and preserve Saudi territorial 
integrity from Houthi aligned forces in Yemen.'' Moreover, according to 
Secretary Mattis, U.S. forces are not authorized to use force against 
the Houthis but do support the Saudi-led coalition with ``intelligence 
sharing, military advice, and logistical support, including air-to-air 
refueling.''
  Last week, the commander of U.S. Central Command, General Votel, 
testified before the Armed Services Committee that our support to the 
Saudi-led coalition is ``primarily defensive'' in nature and focused on 
the Iranian-supported ballistic missile threat to Saudi Arabia that 
originates in Yemen, maritime threats to international shipping in the 
Bab el Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea, the defense of Saudi Arabia's 
southern border, and counterterrorism.
  However, General Votel also acknowledged that when the United States 
provides aerial refueling to coalition aircraft, we do not know where 
those aircraft then go; therefore, they could be going to conduct 
offensive strikes against Houthi targets, which may result in civilian 
casualties, which is a major concern for me. Even more troubling, if 
these aircraft went to conduct strikes against targets outside of

[[Page S1815]]

Yemen, the United States would be complicit in a much more dangerous 
and provocative activity.
  I have significant concerns about persistent reports of civilian 
casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure caused by the Saudi-
led coalition in Yemen. Far too many of the strikes by the coalition 
have killed or injured civilians and resulted in the destruction of 
infrastructure needed to provide basic services to the population, 
thereby exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.
  It is also clear that more must be done by both the coalition and the 
Houthis to facilitate the flow of humanitarian aid into and throughout 
Yemen. The United Nations and humanitarian organizations continue to 
express concern about their ability to access seaports and airports and 
difficulties in distributing aid to vulnerable populations once it is 
inside the country.
  It is important that shipments into Yemen be subject to inspection by 
the U.N. Verification and Inspection Mechanism to help prevent the 
transit of illicit materials in violation of the U.N. arms embargo, but 
all parties to the conflict in Yemen have a responsibility, including 
under international humanitarian law, to allow access to aid by those 
in need.
  We are faced with a very difficult set of issues, and I certainly 
understand and commend my colleagues, Senators Sanders, Murphy, and 
Lee, for bringing this issue to the floor. The Saudi-led coalition 
clearly must do more to end this war and must prosecute this war in a 
way that limits civilian casualties and the humanitarian crises. On the 
other hand, Saudi Arabia and the United Emirates, or UAE, remain 
important partners for the United States, and we share many common 
interests in the region, including in the fight against al-Qaida, ISIS, 
and other violent extremist groups.
  The resolution before us would establish a blanket prohibition on all 
assistance to the Saudi-led coalition except for the purposes of 
countering al-Qaida and associated forces. While I understand the 
argument for this approach, I believe it would prevent us from exerting 
influence to limit and hopefully end the conflict. Indeed, it may even 
cause harm as both sides potentially act more violently.
  We can and should engage if there is a possibility that we can help 
minimize collateral damage by providing the coalition with training and 
advice on best practices. General Votel testified last week that U.S. 
assistance has contributed to improvement by the coalition on these 
issues. Specifically, the Department of Defense told us that engagement 
by U.S. military personnel has resulted in the introduction of a ``no-
strike'' list. That is a process which actually puts targets off-limits 
and ensures that pilots and others understand those targets. They also 
caused a cessation--an ending--of the use of cluster munitions by 
Saudi-led forces and the formation of a body to investigate 
noncombatant casualties. These are positive steps, but it is clear that 
much more must be done to minimize the impact of the war on Yemeni 
civilians. I support our continued engagement for that purpose.
  Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE face a significant threat from Houthi 
rebels armed with ballistic missiles, apparently with the technical 
assistance of the Iranians. There have reportedly been dozens of 
attacks against Saudi Arabia since the spring of 2015, including 
against civilian targets like the international airport in Riyadh, 
which was attacked in December. I strongly support the right of our 
partners to defend themselves against these threats and believe that 
continued sharing of U.S. intelligence for defensive purposes is 
appropriate, especially in light of the fact that tens of thousands of 
U.S. civilians, military, and diplomatic personnel also face these 
threats while living and working in the region around Riyadh and 
throughout Saudi Arabia.
  I also have concerns that ending all support to the Saudi-led 
coalition may cause the conflict to escalate. As Secretary Mattis wrote 
to congressional leadership this past week, restrictions on our 
``limited U.S. military support could increase civilian casualties, 
jeopardize cooperation with our partners on counterterrorism, and 
reduce our influence with the Saudis--all of which would further 
exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis.'' Secretary Mattis 
also expressed concern that withdrawal of our support would ``embolden 
Iran to increase its support to the Houthis, enabling further ballistic 
missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and threatening vital shipping lanes in 
the Red Sea, thereby raising the risk of a regional conflict.''
  Therefore, I believe that support by the U.S. military of the Saudi-
led coalition in Yemen should not be absolutely prohibited but should 
be explicitly limited to the following objectives: No. 1, enabling 
counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida and ISIS; No. 2, defending 
the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, including 
against ballistic missile threats; No. 3, preserving freedom of 
navigation in the maritime environment around Yemen; and No. 4, 
enhancing the training and professionalism of their armed forces, with 
a primary focus on adherence to the law of armed conflict and 
prevention of civilian casualties.
  Our support for the Saudi-led coalition needs to be considered in a 
thoughtful and deliberate manner. From a policy perspective, we should 
distinguish between assistance that is provided for defensive or 
noncombat purposes and that which could be used to enable offensive 
military operations in the Yemeni civil war.
  Let me be clear. I am not in favor of giving the Saudi-led coalition 
a blank check. In fact, I believe we should no longer provide aerial 
refueling assistance unless it is used to enable aircraft conducting 
counterterrorism missions pursuant to the 2001 authorization for use of 
military force or countering specific identified threats to Saudi 
territorial integrity. Indeed, use of our military assets to support 
Saudi-led coalition efforts or the efforts of other nations to conduct 
other operations outside this narrow scope would raise very serious 
legal questions.
  Given its comprehensive approach, I do not believe the Sanders 
resolution is the appropriate vehicle for these issues to receive the 
careful and deliberate consideration they are due. I understand the 
Foreign Relations Committee may soon take up this issue, and I urge 
them to do that. I look forward to engaging further in those 
discussions when presented with the opportunity.
  The administration must make clear to both the Saudi-led coalition 
and the Houthis that there is no military solution to this conflict and 
that the time has come to reach a negotiated settlement. Congress also 
has an important role in setting the policy framework for the use of 
U.S. Armed Forces overseas and ensuring that U.S. military capabilities 
are only used for authorized purposes. At the same time, we should not 
take action that would unduly restrict our engagement with partners for 
legitimate purposes and, in doing so, undermine our ability to help 
bring an end to the conflict in Yemen, ease civilian suffering, and 
defend the territorial integrity of our partners.
  With that Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is about time we had a debate, if only 
for a few hours, on the participation of the U.S. military in the civil 
war in Yemen. Frankly, I cannot comprehend nor am I able to explain to 
my Vermont constituents the ongoing involvement of U.S. troops in 
support of the Saudi-led coalition as it flies U.S.-origin planes and 
drops U.S.-made bombs--purchased at a discount thanks to American 
taxpayers--amid continued reports of indiscriminate targeting and 
horrific civilian casualties.
  These are not isolated incidents in Yemen. They have occurred time 
after time over the past 3 years. Houses, health clinics, and markets 
are destroyed, millions of people uprooted from their homes. Whether 
extreme negligence or intentional and a war crime, the effect is the 
same for those who are killed, wounded, or displaced. There is no 
evidence that U.S. military involvement nor the recurrent appeals of 
international humanitarian and human rights organizations has improved 
the situation.
  This is not just a matter of the carnage we have observed. It is that 
we are supporting these military operations at all. Only Congress has 
the power to declare war, and the ongoing participation of U.S. forces 
in the Saudi-led coalition's war against the

[[Page S1816]]

Houthis in Yemen clearly meets the definition of the ``introduction of 
United States Armed Forces into hostilities'' under the War Powers 
Resolution. The War Powers Resolution also authorizes Congress to 
direct the removal of U.S. forces if their introduction has not been 
authorized by law, as is the case in the war against the Houthis.
  That is why I support the resolution before us, S.J. Res. 54, which 
would exercise Congress's prerogative to limit the involvement of U.S. 
forces, in this case to the narrow purpose of combatting al-Qaida, 
which does serve our national security interests in the region. I 
recognize, as some others have pointed out, that the war in Yemen is 
part of a larger conflict of interests and ideology between Iran and 
Saudi Arabia. If there are other legitimate and compelling national 
security interests that justify the deployment of U.S. forces in that 
region, let us debate them.
  We should also be doing more to demand greater transparency and 
accountability for civilian casualties in Yemen, regardless of the 
context in which they occur. If the Saudis want U.S.-taxpayer 
subsidies, they need to focus their efforts on terrorists, take 
effective steps to minimize civilian casualties, and credibly 
investigate such casualties when they occur.
  I have heard Senators who oppose this resolution say they intend to 
hold hearings and focus more attention on what is happening in Yemen. I 
welcome that, but I have to wonder why it has taken so long and whether 
anything will change as a result. Yemen has been a humanitarian 
disaster for years, and there is no end in sight. The Foreign Relations 
Committee should have held hearings and voted to invoke the War Powers 
Resolution when the U.S. military first became involved in Yemen.
  This is not a new crisis, and other than the increasing toll of death 
and destruction. the facts on the ground have not materially changed. 
The Saudis have seemingly done nothing to improve the conduct of their 
air force in Yemen.
  The least we can do is support this sensible resolution to put an end 
to the unauthorized involvement of the U.S. military in this civil war, 
as the War Powers Resolution compels us to do. The alternative is 
conceding unchecked power to the executive branch to use U.S. troops in 
support of any armed conflict, without congressional debate or 
authorization. That is just what the War Powers Resolution was designed 
to prevent. It is time to live up to the responsibility entrusted to us 
in the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war. If we are unwilling 
to do so, we have no business asking the men and women of the U.S. 
military to risk their lives in Yemen today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                     Human Trafficking Legislation

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, our Chamber is 
focused on a heavy subject at the moment--human trafficking.
  An estimated 25 million people are victims of human trafficking all 
around the world. Smuggling people for forced labor and sex slavery is 
a heinous crime. It is the kind of crime that we tend to think happens 
in some far-off place, but these atrocities are happening all across 
the globe--sadly, including, unfortunately, here in the United States. 
In fact, human trafficking appears to be on the rise in our country, 
according to data released by Polaris, which shows a 13-percent jump in 
cases reported to the help lines it runs.
  Since Polaris began operating over 10 years ago, its help lines have 
received reports of 203 cases of human trafficking from my home State 
of Arkansas. Almost half of those were reported in the last 2 years. 
Fortunately, our State is fighting back. Last year, Arkansas 
legislators approved a law requiring State-licensed truckers to be 
trained in spotting the red flags of human trafficking. Using their 
position on the road, these drivers have the tools to recognize the 
signs of human trafficking and alert the authorities to any suspicious 
activity.
  Congress is also increasing its efforts to combat human trafficking. 
In September, the Senate unanimously passed two pieces of legislation 
to renew existing programs in support of survivors and help bring 
perpetrators of these horrific crimes to justice.
  The Abolish Human Trafficking Act provides more resources to law 
enforcement in its effort to combat human trafficking and establishes 
human trafficking justice coordinators at every U.S. attorney's office 
and at the Department of Justice. In addition, the legislation helps 
survivors rebuild their lives by extending the Department of Justice 
Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund.
  The Trafficking Victims Protection Act reauthorizes key programs to 
help survivors in their recovery, as well as offering specialized 
training on human trafficking to judges and Federal investigators.
  We have made progress, but more needs to be done, and the legislation 
on the floor this week will help by giving law enforcement and 
prosecutors additional tools to crack down on crimes involving 
exploitation of the vulnerable. It will help us to take on nefarious 
actors like Backpage, which hid behind the Communications Decency Act 
to avoid prosecution for trafficking crimes.

  It is time to rip the cover away from these bad actors. We are going 
to do that by making narrowly crafted changes to the law to ensure that 
websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking online are held 
accountable. ``Knowingly'' is the keyword here.
  During the last session of Congress, the Homeland Security Committee, 
under the leadership of Senators Portman, McCaskill, and Johnson, 
uncovered just how much Backpage knew. It was a lot. In fact, 
Backpage's operators helped customers modify their ads to hide 
references to underage prostitutes. I think we can all agree that rises 
to the threshold of knowingly facilitating sex trafficking online.
  Should this bill pass--and I believe it will in a very bipartisan 
way--these bad actors will not be able to fade quietly into the dark, 
as we are going to give State attorneys general the authority to 
prosecute websites that violate sex trafficking laws. That is why I 
support this bill. That is why I cosponsored similar legislation here 
in the Senate. It is also why I supported the inclusion of at least $90 
million in Federal funding to combat human trafficking. As a member of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will continue to support funding 
for these important programs, and I look forward to the Senate's 
completing work on fiscal year 2018 funding bills.
  I am pleased to see all levels of government lending their support to 
help fight this crime. Together we can end this attack on human rights 
in our State, our country, and around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, in light of the vote later today on the 
Sanders-Lee-Murphy legislation, or S.J. Res. 54, I rise today to 
discuss the situation in Yemen and the path forward. As many know, over 
the last year I have focused persistently on the humanitarian crisis in 
Yemen.
  My activities have been manyfold. I have issued letters to the 
administration and the Saudi Government, an administration nomination, 
hearings, a Senate resolution, and countless meetings, briefings, and 
phone calls with senior administration officials, Saudi officials, and 
leaders of the NGO community.
  My goal? My goal has been to address impediments to the delivery of 
humanitarian assistance--food, fuel, and medicine--into the country of 
Yemen.
  Now, we have seen some progress, and I have been encouraged by this. 
The USAID-funded World Food Programme cranes have been delivered, and 
the Red Sea ports have been opened. According to the United Nations, 
since the ports were open, we have seen more than 884,000 metric tons 
of food and more than 410,000 metric tons of fuel delivered to the 
ports of Hodeidah and Saleef alone.
  Of course, we understand the importance of the food. But why is the 
fuel so important? Well, without the fuel, you can't run the water 
treatment facilities and, therefore, the cholera epidemic that has 
broken out in Yemen will only get worse. So 884,000 metric tons of food 
and more than 410,000 metric tons of fuel have resulted in the saving 
of countless of lives in Yemen.

[[Page S1817]]

  Look, there is a continued humanitarian crisis in Yemen. A lot of 
problems persist, and we need to address those. We have seen progress 
with respect to the delivery of some of the humanitarian assistance I 
mentioned, but commercial and humanitarian vessels have been offloading 
their lifesaving cargo less quickly than we would like. So there is a 
lot left for us to do.
  The National Security Council presidential statement issued on March 
15 related to Yemen indicated that there are still over 22 million 
people in need of humanitarian assistance. This is the world's largest 
humanitarian disaster. The risk of famine persists for millions of 
Yemenis.
  The Saudi-led coalition continues, unfortunately, to impose 
unacceptable delays on ships carrying food and fuel into Yemeni ports. 
According to the U.N., the Saudi-led coalition caused 5.9 days of 
additional delay in the month of February on ships going to the major 
ports of Hodeidah and Saleef. Those delays continue this month.
  Now, why does this matter? Well, this matters, of course, because we 
don't want people to suffer. It is inconsistent with our basic human 
values. It is inconsistent with what we Americans believe. When people 
suffer, it also exacerbates a national security crisis. It facilitates 
radicalization.

  In fact, last week I chaired a Foreign Relations Committee 
subcommittee on this very topic--the connection between food 
insecurity, specifically, and the instability or radicalization of 
those who are food insecure. The hearing demonstrated that there is now 
a strong, evidentiary, and academic basis to conclude that it is in 
America's clear national security interest to address food insecurity, 
as well as a lack of fuel and medicine. A retired Marine Corps general 
testified at that hearing, Lieutenant General Castellaw. I thought he 
put it succinctly. He said: ``Food crises [can] grow terrorists.'' 
Well, we have seen a lot of terrorists grown in Yemen in recent years.
  The longer the civil war persists in Yemen, the worse the 
humanitarian crisis will grow. This will radicalize yet more people and 
provide even further opportunities to Iran to undermine our national 
security interests and those of our partners.
  What are our objectives in Yemen? That is a fair question. It is one 
that all of us as policymakers and, really, all Americans ought to be 
asking. Well, consistent with our humanitarian principles and our 
national security interests, I believe we have to continue to pursue 
two primary objectives. First, we want to address the largest 
humanitarian crisis in the world, and, second, we want to press all 
parties to end the civil war.
  The real question here--because I don't think there is agreement on 
those two primary objectives--is how can we best achieve these two 
goals? That takes me to the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution before us 
today. We, of course, need to fulfill our article I constitutional 
responsibilities. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution indicates 
that it is Congress's responsibility to declare a war, and it is 
Congress's responsibility to authorize the use of military force. I 
share Senator Lee's conviction, Senator Sanders' conviction, and 
Senator Murphy's conviction that we need to take that responsibility 
very, very seriously. This is why I introduced an authorization for the 
use of military force last year. It is also why I have been working 
with Chairman Corker of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator 
Kaine, and other members of the committee to break a logjam in 
negotiations--some principled disagreements that exist with respect to 
what the authorization for the use of military force should look like 
moving forward.
  We have finalized an updated AUMF against Islamic terrorist groups 
like al-Qaida and ISIS that will merit consideration in coming weeks. 
In fact, we heard from Chairman Corker. He has now offered a public 
assurance that there will be hearings on the issue of authorizing 
military force and there will be marking-up and reporting of 
legislation so that this 17-year-old authorization for the use of 
military force can be re-upped. My own view is that whatever one thinks 
of the legal merits of this long war under the authorizations given in 
2001 and 2002, the further away we get from that point in time, where a 
past Congress authorized force, the more attenuated that argument is 
and the less power it has. Moreover, we owe it to the men and women in 
uniform to consistently debate our involvement in overseas conflicts. 
So I commend the chairman for agreeing with other members of the 
committee that we need to have hearings and to pass legislation 
specifically on this matter through the committee of jurisdiction 
through what we call regular order.
  Let me share with those who are watching my remarks here today what I 
believe the wrong approach is. I believe S.J. Res. 54 is the wrong 
approach. That resolution sidesteps the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee. It doesn't lead to the sort of fulsome debate. It doesn't 
allow us to hear from professional witnesses and members of the 
administration the way a formal committee hearing and markup would 
allow.
  Moreover, the legislation is never going to become law. It will never 
become law. It is an exercise in messaging. Now, messaging is 
important. We need to make the argument, and I respect my colleagues 
for making their principled arguments. They are strong in conviction, 
and they make each of them quite articulately. But the administration 
has already indicated that the President wouldn't sign this into law. 
The administration has already indicated that they do not regard, under 
the law, that we are engaging in hostilities, which is required to 
trigger the law they have invoked. So this will never become law.
  Moreover, we most certainly will not be overriding a Presidential 
veto should this pass out of the Senate and the House and go to the 
President, whereupon he would veto it. So this will never become law.
  The last reason I think S.J. Res. 54 is the wrong approach is because 
it will not achieve our shared objectives. It would fail to achieve its 
stated objective because the administration rejects the premise of the 
Sanders-Lee legislation related to hostilities, as I have already 
stated.
  So there is a better approach. Rather than just criticizing S.J. Res. 
54--and let me be careful to distinguish between criticizing the 
legislation that we will be voting on later and my colleagues, because 
I have great respect for my colleagues and their motives. I wanted to 
play a more constructive role in this debate. So I wanted to introduce 
legislation that would provide leverage to pressure the Saudis to 
actually end the civil war in Yemen and to actually improve the 
humanitarian situation. At the same time, we have to acknowledge and 
respond to Iran's malign behavior in Yemen, as well as the presence in 
Yemen of ISIS and AQAP--al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. This is 
arguably the most aggressive and most dangerous al-Qaida franchise in 
the world. We also have to recognize Saudi Arabia's legitimate right to 
not have ballistic missiles launched into their cities. This is our 
partner.
  So I wanted to develop a bipartisan compromise that could actually 
pass out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be passed by both 
Chambers, and signed by the President of the United States. I think we 
are well on our way to doing that. I wanted to develop legislation that 
would actually further its stated purpose and our objectives in Yemen--
ending the civil war and addressing the humanitarian crisis.
  So that is why I and Senator Shaheen introduced S.J. Res. 55 on March 
8. Now, since then, we worked with the committee, we have worked with 
members of both parties, and we have worked with the administration and 
outside experts to further refine our legislation, making numerous 
substantive changes and principled compromises.
  The current version of our legislation would require the Department 
of State to certify in an unclassified and written report that Saudi 
Arabia is undertaking the following: No. 1, an urgent and good-faith 
effort to conduct diplomatic negotiations to end the civil war in 
Yemen; No. 2, appropriate measures to alleviate the humanitarian crisis 
in Yemen by increasing access for Yemenis to food, fuel, and medicine, 
including through Yemen's Red Sea ports, the airport in Sana'a, and 
external border crossings with Saudi Arabia; and, No. 3, demonstrable 
action to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian 
infrastructure resulting from its

[[Page S1818]]

military operations in Yemen, including by complying with applicable 
agreements and laws regulating the use of cluster munitions and other 
defense articles and services purchased or transferred from the United 
States.
  Now, if the Department of State can't make that certification, then 
U.S. air refueling missions, which are essential to the Saudi 
coalition's operations, would end. They would be prohibited under our 
law. Given the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and our national security 
interests there, I appreciate Chairman Corker's commitment today to 
mark up Yemen legislation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
when we return from recess in April.

  So based on this reasoning, which I have laid out quite clearly here 
today, I plan to oppose the Sanders-Lee-Murphy legislation today. 
Instead, I will support legislation like ours that could actually 
become law and would provide the administration the leverage they need 
to result in real change in Yemen.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I note that the Senator who was to be 
on the floor is not, so I ask to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to participate in the 
discussion on the conflict in Yemen.
  In 2015, I received a phone call from a Saudi official informing me 
that the kingdom was about to take military action in Yemen. The 
official said the conflict would not last long. They would launch 
airstrikes to push the Houthis out of Sana'a, restore Hadi to power, 
and broker a political compromise. That was nearly 3 years ago, and the 
conflict has since grown into the world's worst humanitarian disaster.
  More than 10,000 civilians have died, and more than 40,000 have been 
wounded. More than half of Yemen's healthcare facilities have been 
destroyed. Three-quarters of the population--almost 22 million people--
need humanitarian assistance. Eleven million require urgent assistance 
to survive, which means they are close to starvation.
  The situation for children is especially dire: 1.8 million children 
under the age of 5 are malnourished. Of that, more than 400,000 are so 
malnourished that they are now 10 times more likely to die.
  On top of the bloodshed and famine, the people of Yemen are facing a 
horrific outbreak of cholera. More than 1 million cases of cholera have 
been reported, potentially the worst cholera outbreak in world history. 
More than 2,200 people have died from it, almost one-third of whom are 
children. Cholera has spread because more than 80 percent of the 
population lack clean drinking water.
  We can't turn away from suffering because we are a party to this 
conflict. The United States is providing intelligence, military advice, 
logistical support, and aerial refueling to Saudi Arabia. The fact is, 
we are enabling a major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
  We do all that despite there being no military solution. This has not 
been a brief war. It has turned into a major war that must end. The 
longer we permit suffering to continue, the more innocent men, women, 
and children are going to die. Instead of facilitating endless 
fighting, we should be pushing for reconciliation.
  I have personally urged Saudi and Iranian officials to meet to 
discuss their differences. To my great disappointment, they have 
refused to do so. Iran is expanding its influence across the Middle 
East. It continues to arm Hezbollah, back President Assad in Syria, and 
support the Houthis. Saudi Arabia and its partners will not back down. 
Just last week, Crown Prince Salman said his nation would pursue the 
same nuclear capabilities as Iran. What does that say to us?
  Their fight in Yemen offers no military solution. Only a political 
resolution will end this miserable war.
  It is time we separate ourselves from this bloodshed. The United 
States must make it clear that we will not continue to support unending 
conflict. That is why I support the Sanders-Lee resolution, which would 
require the United States to stop refueling Saudi and Emirati aircraft.
  Now, this seems like just a small step, and it certainly will not 
immediately end the war, but it is a deeply symbolic one. This 
resolution will send a clear message that we will no longer enable this 
proxy war.
  There is no reason a diplomatic solution can't be found to end this 
violence, and a strong push for reconciliation will save the lives of 
thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children in Yemen, but that 
peace is only achievable if we speak with one voice and pass the 
Sanders-Lee resolution, otherwise we will continue to enable this 
barbaric war.
  Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                             Foreign Policy

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a series of my 
colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Democratic 
side to enter into a colloquy about this administration's chaotic and 
incoherent approach to foreign policy--an approach that has left our 
allies confused and our adversaries emboldened and undermines the 
standing of the United States on the global stage.
  To be fair, the President's own national security strategy echoes 
decades of bipartisan recognition that the founding values of the 
United States--democracy, the rule of law--should continue to drive our 
foreign policy. Yet the President himself has shown a fundamental 
disrespect for these very principles: declining to publicly champion 
the importance of human rights and good governance, refusing to condemn 
dictators around the world who brutally repress their own citizens, sow 
instability across the world, or even attack those who attack the 
United States--something I fear will ultimately weaken our ability to 
promote the security and prosperity of all Americans.
  Last week's unceremonious firing of our Nation's top diplomat was the 
President's latest and brazen example of disrespect for the role of 
diplomacy, diplomats, and of the State Department itself. While I had 
my differences with Secretary Tillerson, the reality is, it does not 
serve the interests of the United States when the President undermines 
his top diplomat on major foreign policy initiatives, from the crisis 
in the gulf to, ironically, his outreach to North Koreans.
  Secretary Tillerson's legacy will be shaped not just by the 
President's misguided efforts but also his own ill-advised attempt to 
dismantle the State Department, leaving the United States without key 
voices to advance our interests around the world.
  The administration has failed to even nominate critical, high-level 
positions--Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries--leaving a void of 
empowered voices. Meanwhile, there are gaping vacancies in some of the 
world's most troubled regions. For example, as we confront a nuclear-
armed North Korea, the President has yet to nominate an ambassador to 
South Korea, our critical ally on the peninsula--one that has 
historically relied upon American assurances and allegiance.
  Similarly, the President took more than a year to nominate an 
Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. The impact of 
these vacancies was on full display last week when the President--
without the knowledge of his top diplomat--announced a meeting with 
North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un, an assertion that was then 
ultimately walked back and modified by his Secretary of Defense and his 
White House Press Secretary.
  In the Middle East, as the President continues to send more and more 
American troops and we face an emboldened Iranian regime creeping 
further into Syria, facilitated by the Kremlin's military support, he 
has yet to appoint Ambassadors to consequential posts, including Saudi 
Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and Jordan, which has proved a critical 
partner in our fight against terrorism in the region and in supporting 
refugees--two essential components of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
  How can we possibly expect to assert American leadership and secure 
our interests with these posts unfilled and with no empowered 
individuals at the Department itself? Under the President's watch, the 
number of career Ambassadors, which is basically the State

[[Page S1819]]

Department's equivalent to four-star generals at the Department of 
Defense, has plummeted by 60 percent. If we were shedding four-star 
generals this quickly, we would be sounding the alarm of a national 
security crisis.
  We have just one career-level Ambassador left at the State 
Department. Let me say that again: One career-level Ambassador left, 
and this administration has seen fit to ship him off to an academic 
institution rather than to engage him in frontline diplomacy.
  We are witnessing a mass exodus of experienced diplomatic and 
security professionals who have dedicated their lives to this country. 
This is a forced exodus, and I am deeply alarmed to see reports 
revealing what we have feared for some time.
  We just started to learn about disturbing efforts to purge the 
Broadcasting Board of Governors and impose a partisan editorial voice 
on U.S. international media. Alarmingly, last week, press reports 
highlighted emails that provided concrete evidence of the 
administration's efforts to effectively purge the Department of anyone 
they do not believe would be a purist for the President's vision. 
Emails showed political leadership describing some civil servants as 
``turncoats, leakers, and troublemakers.''
  The conversations showed senior political appointees working with 
outside organizations engaged in vicious smear campaigns against career 
civil servants and dismissing death threats against some of these same 
career officials. Diplomats who have served Republican and Democratic 
Presidents alike, who have spent their careers working to build a more 
prosperous and secure world so a Commander in Chief would not have to 
send our sons and daughters into war.
  This is America. Our government functions because of apolitical civil 
servants across agencies who dedicate their lives to advance the 
interests of their fellow citizens, from distributing Social Security 
checks to negotiating nuclear arms treaties. It is outrageous. It is 
disgraceful. It is dangerous.
  We face challenges from every corner of the globe. We simply cannot 
confront them if we are not present, and we cannot overcome these 
challenges when the President himself does not acknowledge them.
  As China's political leadership consolidates power and as the country 
expands into the South China Sea and pursues an aggressive economic 
agenda around the world, the President, for his part, praises these 
dictatorial moves. Meanwhile, he has failed on his promise to deliver 
better trade deals.
  In Latin America, while the President calls our neighbors to the 
south drug dealers, criminals, and rapists, China is expanding its 
economic and cultural presence in our own backyard.
  In Mexico, one of our most integral bilateral partners--Mexico is the 
second largest market for U.S. goods and services in the world--we will 
soon lose our Ambassador, as we hear about how the Russian Government 
is seeking to interfere in their upcoming elections.
  When it comes to Russia, again and again, the President's own 
intelligence officials have made clear that the Russian Government not 
only meddled in our election in 2016 but continues its interference in 
the American political system to this day. Yet the President refuses--
refuses--to condemn Vladimir Putin or impose congressionally mandated 
sanctions to hold them accountable for their attack on the United 
States. I understand today he congratulated him on his ``election.'' 
That is not an election. Putin is seeking to be a czar, not to be a 
President.
  The Russian Government continues its military aggression in the 
Ukraine and its disinformation campaigns across Europe.
  In the Middle East, it continues to enable Bashar al-Assad's 
slaughter of innocent civilians and Iran's efforts to expand its 
presence and threaten Israel. In a brazen move this month, the Kremlin 
used an unlawful chemical agent to commit murder on British soil, 
showing how far they will go if they are unchecked.
  Beyond these great power threats, we must also confront nonstate 
actors and new tools designed specifically to destabilize free and 
democratic societies.
  We must demand more information to learn about Cambridge Analytica 
and the efforts of this organization to exploit private information 
from social media users across the world to promote particular 
political agendas.
  The only way to confront old and emerging threats is to stand united 
with our allies. We have spent decades building these alliances based 
on mutual respect, accountability, and vigorous engagement in the 
international institutions and security agreements that are essential 
to promoting peace and security around the world. We ourselves must be 
a reliable ally and partner. We must speak with an authoritative voice. 
We must have our national security agencies executing clear, 
integrated, coherent strategies.
  The President himself must champion the fundamental ideas that have 
made America secure and prosperous: democracy, human rights, free 
expression--values we champion not because simply they are right but 
because they are also strategic. We stand for these values because, 
globally, governments that uphold the rule of law, that respect human 
rights and freedom of expression, that welcome economic competition--
these are the nations that form America's most reliable allies, most 
prosperous economic partners, and most strategic security relations.

  Let me close with this: The American people and the institutions we 
have built remain resilient. Now more than ever, Congress must exercise 
its role as a coequal branch of government when it comes to our foreign 
policy. We need Republicans and Democrats in Congress to uphold our 
duty to conduct oversight, to ensure that bipartisan values that have 
guided American foreign policy for decades can be executed by an 
experienced, empowered, fully funded and fully staffed State 
Department.
  Together, we must ensure that our reputation as a leader of nations 
is not eroded by a President and an administration that thus far, in my 
view, far from putting America first, threaten to leave America 
isolated and behind. That is our challenge. That is our choice. I 
appreciate my colleagues who join us in this regard.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I would like to say how glad I am to have 
Senator Menendez back in the saddle as our ranking member on Foreign 
Relations, and I thank him so much for his speech and for his 
leadership on our very important committee.
  I join my colleagues from the Foreign Relations Committee in their 
critique of President Trump's handling--or maybe we would call it 
mishandling--of foreign policy. I am most concerned about how U.S. 
power, prestige, and diplomacy have been weakened across the world as a 
direct result of this President. The United States has stood as a world 
leader of liberal democracy, the rule of law, and human values since 
the end of World War II. Our actions abroad have not always been 
perfect, but over the decades, we have earned the world's respect 
because we have acted on our principles.
  After the fall of the Berlin Wall, authoritarian regimes were in 
retreat. Today, authoritarianism is back on the march. The President 
himself even cheers them on, praising Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and 
others who fashion themselves President for life of one-party, 
repressive regimes.
  In this President's short but raucous and chaotic tenure, he has 
diminished our standing within the world community by grossly offending 
other nations and their leaders, including many of our closest allies, 
by abruptly changing foreign policy with no clear policy basis, and by 
denigrating countries and an entire continent with comments laced with 
racism. The President issues conflicting messages. World leaders and 
international diplomats cannot rely on his word or his tweets. He has 
plenty of criticism for our friends and allies but little for strongmen 
like Vladimir Putin. The world is alarmed. It is less stable under this 
Presidency.
  Secretary Tillerson had disagreements with the President, and early 
on, the President undercut and sidelined him. The day before Mr. 
Tillerson was shown the door, the Secretary broke with the White House 
by directly pointing the finger at Russia for using a chemical weapon 
on the ex-British spy in his homeland, and this incident shows that the 
President will not tolerate daylight between his own corrupt

[[Page S1820]]

political beliefs and the views of his lieutenants.
  During confirmation hearings for Mr. Pompeo, our committee must find 
out whether he will hold fast to traditional American values or bend to 
the President's servility to Vladimir Putin and other autocrats around 
the world.
  The President's own diplomacy has been chaotic and dangerous. He has 
alienated one of our closest friends and biggest trading partners--the 
country of Mexico. He insists that Mexico will pay for this offensive 
wall that he says is necessary to keep out rapists and criminals.
  The President has imperiled our relationships with both Mexico and 
Canada with his threats to tear up NAFTA, which he seems to say over 
and over again. In my home State of New Mexico, border communities rely 
on the integrated border, and border communities rely on the economy 
that has been built up over the last 24 years. We have a trade surplus 
with Mexico. NAFTA negotiations continue, but there has been a chill on 
economic activity in States like New Mexico, Texas, California, and 
Arizona.

  The President has shaken the world with his grade-school taunts about 
nuclear weapons--a deadly serious subject. He chided Secretary 
Tillerson that talking to North Korea won't work, undercutting the 
Secretary once again, and then suddenly agreed to meet and even 
negotiate with Kim Jong Un without the careful diplomatic work needed 
to ensure success. I support diplomacy as the best solution, but rash 
diplomacy can easily lead to rash wars, and impulsive decisionmaking is 
extremely risky.
  I hope the President seriously studies the issues between now and any 
meeting, brings an experienced team, and sets realistic and achievable 
goals for any negotiation. He must understand that diplomatic failure 
is potentially catastrophic. A war would likely result in 20,000 
casualties a day in the opening week, and Secretary Mattis has warned 
that there would be, in his words, ``the worst kind of fighting in 
people's lifetimes.''
  I do not trust this President to follow the constitutional process 
required to go to war. That is why I am cosponsoring S. 2047, 
prohibiting any President from launching a preemptive strike on North 
Korea. Starting a war with North Korea would only undermine the 
security of the United States and our regional allies and should not be 
done without approval of the American people through the Congress.
  The President's attitude toward Russia and Vladimir Putin complicates 
our ability to gain support for our efforts overseas. Russia interfered 
with our democracy and continues to interfere in the affairs of our 
allies.
  There is no good explanation why he has not directed our Nation's 
security agencies to take all possible action in response to Russia's 
interference with the 2016 election, and increasingly we see in the 
special counsel's investigation how Russia is playing a bigger and 
bigger part. There is no reason why this administration took so long to 
begin to implement Congress's sanctions against Russia. Special Counsel 
Mueller's investigation has already produced indictments against 
Russians and key officials from President Trump's campaign, but the 
President himself does not send the message to deter future 
interference by Russia. The President's failure to fight back, his 
resistance to sanctioning the Russians, and his subservience to Putin 
betray the national trust.
  The President's hostility toward Iran's agreement to disarm its 
nuclear weapons program is mind-boggling. Director Pompeo reportedly 
shares this hostility. But just last week, the commander of U.S. 
Central Command, Army GEN Joseph Votel, testified before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee that the Iran deal is in our national 
interest. Defense Secretary Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, also agree. Our close allies--also 
signatories to the deal--agree it is in the international community's 
interests.
  This is not the United States the world has come to know, rely upon, 
and believe in. The President's failure to protect our national 
interest weakens our position within the world community.
  Morale at the State Department is suffering as our foreign policy 
suffers. Any new Secretary of State must work to reverse this. This 
Congress and the world have watched as the President and the Secretary 
of State have hollowed out the State Department.
  Highly experienced and talented Foreign Service officers have been 
fired, pushed out, reassigned to menial tasks, and ignored. Many senior 
diplomats have just packed up and left. Nicholas Burns and Ryan 
Crocker, who served as Ambassadors in both Republican and Democratic 
administrations, have warned that ``we are witnessing the most 
significant departure of diplomatic talent in generations.'' On top of 
retirements, the number of people who took the Foreign Service exam 
dropped by more than half between 2016 and 2017. There is real concern 
that this will have a lasting and negative impact long after the Trump 
administration.
  Director Pompeo will need to answer tough questions during 
confirmation: Will he impose congressionally mandated sanctions on 
Russia? What actions will be taken to counter Russia's ongoing cyber 
warfare? We are on the razor's edge with North Korea. As chief 
diplomat, does he support a preemptive strike against North Korea? What 
will he do to avoid a disaster? Does he agree with our military leaders 
about staying in the Iran denuclearization deal? Will he certify 
Iranian compliance if the facts show compliance? Does he support the 
President's proposal to decimate the State Department's budget? Will he 
continue Secretary Tillerson's plan to decrease staff by 8 percent? 
What will he do to recover agency morale, which we hear over and over 
is at an alltime low? Will he stand up to this President when long-held 
American values are at stake?
  Director Pompeo will need to prove to the Senate that he will put the 
State Department and the U.S. standing in the world back on track. Our 
international partners do not view the United States as the reliable 
and strong partner they had in the past. Dictatorships and harsh 
regimes are emboldened by our lack of attention to free speech and 
human rights.
  President Ronald Reagan said at the Berlin Wall that ``the 
totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence 
to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to 
worship.''
  Dictators now smirk and echo our President, saying ``fake news'' 
about any news outlet that shines a light on their indiscretions. 
Leaders like Vladimir Putin are emboldened to continue to try to 
undermine our democracy and sow conflict and division within the 
American public.
  The world is less stable without a strong, principled United States 
to lead. It is imperative that the United States preserve and 
strengthen its diplomatic power, not sabotage it.
  With lack of leadership in the executive branch, Congress must step 
up, particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As I said at 
the beginning, I am so pleased that Senator Menendez is back to work 
with Senator Corker to try to assert the role that Congress should be 
playing in these very important issues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, a 
key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for his insight, 
input, and continuing efforts to make sure we have a diplomacy in the 
world that ultimately pursues our national interests and security.
  I understand there are some colleagues who are on their way to the 
floor--Senator Shaheen and Senator Cardin. When they get here, we will 
hopefully have the Chair recognize them at that point.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Menendez, 
the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and my 
colleagues from the committee to talk about the importance of diplomacy 
as

[[Page S1821]]

we look at the many challenges and conflicts that the world is facing 
right now.
  From North Korea to Syria to Venezuela, there is really no end in 
sight for growing tensions and conflict in the world. Our military 
presence in Afghanistan is growing, we have approved lethal weapons for 
Ukraine, and we are forging a new partnership with NATO in Iraq. I 
support these efforts, but without a vigorous diplomatic capability to 
back our military, these initiatives risk failure. Sadly, instead of 
providing for a robust diplomatic corps, the administration has laid 
the foundation for a weakened U.S. hand on the international stage. 
Ultimately, this places Americans at risk. As Secretary of Defense Jim 
Mattis said, it forces his men and women to buy more bullets. Equally 
critical is the opportunity this provides for the great power conflicts 
to continue and to fester.
  In November, I wrote to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with 
the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator John McCain, to 
express bipartisan concern over the administration's State Department 
hiring and promotion rates. I was told that the statistics we had 
received from the American Foreign Service Association were wrong and 
that the redesign of the State Department is not forcing anyone from 
their jobs.
  Unfortunately, since that time, the State Department has lost even 
more precious, diplomatic talent. Congress has received a budget 
request that cuts even more personnel, and Foreign Service hiring and 
promotion rates continue to plummet. Last month, the highest ranking 
senior Foreign Service officer, Tom Shannon, announced that he, too, 
would be retiring. With his retirement, we will have no senior Foreign 
Service officers serving in the Department's leadership.
  To date, we have only one active career ambassador who will serve in 
the entire State Department, and he is not even working in the 
building. Aside from the mass exodus of critical talent, we are 
allowing decades of investments made by our country and our diplomats 
to dwindle along with their ranks.
  For the past 2 years, the Senate has also received abysmally low 
budget requests for the State Department and USAID.
  Meanwhile, our problems aren't declining. The Kremlin continues to 
sow chaos across the globe. China increasingly flexes its muscle by 
buying strategic properties throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle 
East. We are facing the greatest refugee crisis since World War II. Our 
intelligence community repeatedly warns that in this year's midterm 
elections, Russia will repeat another hybrid operation against the U.S. 
election. The obvious response to these challenges should not and 
cannot be to reduce the operational capacity and personnel of the lead 
agency that is responsible for alleviating global crises and promoting 
the United States' public face throughout the global outreach. That is 
the State Department.
  Just this month, the New York Times revealed that the State 
Department had failed to spend any of the $120 million allocated to 
fund the Global Engagement Center, which is aimed at countering state-
led misinformation campaigns. While America is under attack and Western 
democracies are under attack by misinformation campaigns, the State 
Department's response has been totally insufficient. It has been not to 
spend any of the money that Congress has allocated. It seems the 
administration is completely unaware of Special Counselor Mueller's 
indictment against Russia's Internet Research Agency.
  I wish to spend a minute to read from excerpts of Mueller's 
indictment of 13 Russians, which came out last month. If we can look at 
this through objective eyes, it reminds us all of the threats we face 
because of Russia's interference.
  This is stated in Mueller's document:

       The [Internet Research Agency] is a Russian organization 
     engaged in operations to interfere with elections and 
     political processes.

  I am quoting now from the indictment.

       By in or around September 2016, the [Internet Research 
     Agency's] monthly budget for Project Lakhta (its interference 
     operation in the U.S.) exceeded 73 million Russian rubles 
     (over 1,250,000 U.S. dollars).

  They are spending, on a regular basis, 1.25 million in American 
dollars on this interference operation. For all of the people out there 
who think this is a partisan issue, this is not a partisan issue. This 
is an issue about interfering in our democracy. We can see how much 
they are willing to spend to do that.
  Continuing to quote from the indictment:

       Defendants and their co-conspirators also traveled, and 
     attempted to travel, to the United States under false 
     pretenses in order to collect intelligence for interference 
     operations.
       In or around 2016, the defendants and their co-conspirators 
     also used, possessed and transferred, without legal 
     authority, the social security numbers and dates of birth of 
     real U.S. persons without those persons' knowledge or 
     consent. Using these means of identification, defendants and 
     their co-conspirators opened accounts at PayPal; created 
     false means of identification, including fake driver's 
     licenses; and posted on Internet Research Agency-controlled 
     media accounts.

  That is the Russian entity that is doing this.
  Think about that. We know of the Kremlin's efforts to influence and 
use the American people to its own advantage. It is laid out pretty 
clearly in this indictment from Robert Mueller. Yet, somehow, the State 
Department is incapable of spending $1 of the money that has been 
allocated by Congress toward countering Russia's most overt, public 
messages against the United States.
  This is truly remarkable and, sadly, disappointing. The American 
people deserve better. Unfortunately, the Global Engagement Center is 
not alone in its lack of support from the administration. According to 
an analysis of data from the Office of Management and Budget, last year 
the State Department spent just 79 percent of the money that Congress 
had authorized for the conduct of foreign affairs, the lowest level in 
the last 15 years.
  Many of us on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would agree that 
most of our greatest global achievements--the Marshall Plan, the end of 
the Cold War, and the reduction of nuclear weapons--have been secured 
through diplomacy. Without it, I fear we will stray far from President 
Trump's ideal of brokering deals and instead cause irreparable damage 
to one of America's most precious resources--our diplomatic corps. That 
will harm this country's standing in the world and will have us viewed 
as weak by our great power adversaries.
  The hollowing out of the State Department under this administration 
will cause irreparable damage to America's diplomatic efforts, and it 
will harm our country's standing in the world. Congress has to step in 
and make sure this doesn't happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee and under the leadership of Senator Menendez to 
point out that now--I guess it has been 14 months under President 
Trump's leadership--we have seen a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign 
policy that jeopardizes our standing globally and our national 
security. It starts with this administration's hollowing out the State 
Department and our capacity to participate in diplomacy.
  As my colleagues have pointed out, so many vacancies exist today, 
unfilled by this administration. It is not the slowness of the Senate 
in confirming the positions. Many of these positions are not even 
positions that require Senate confirmation. We have seen an exodus of 
the most experienced people in the State Department, and the capacity 
of the State Department has been dramatically reduced. President 
Trump's budget speaks volumes about his support for diplomacy, as we 
see 30-percent reductions in the State Department budget being proposed 
by this administration.
  The role of diplomacy in solving international issues is at an all-
time low. There are many times I disagreed with Secretary Tillerson, 
but he at least was an independent voice in the White House as it 
related to certain issues on Iran or climate change. Now his voice has 
been silenced in this administration.
  America first is America alone. It is the isolation of our country. 
We have seen that with the United States under

[[Page S1822]]

President Trump and pulling out of the climate talks--the only country 
in the world. We see it now, potentially, in Iran, with reports that 
the President may unilaterally withdraw the United States from the 
nuclear agreement, putting the United States as the outlier where we 
should be putting our attention on Iran. This is reflected in the 
Gallup polls, showing that the global opinion toward the United States 
has dropped dramatically. We see the President embracing oppressive 
leaders around the world, such as the leaders of Russia, China, Turkey, 
and Egypt, and embracing the autocratic practices of the President of 
the Philippines. Then, he attacks our closest allies, calling into 
question the transatlantic partnership.
  Perhaps more than anything else, this administration has trampled on 
America's values. As Secretary Tillerson said early in this 
administration, America's interests will no longer be dictated by our 
values. That is not what the trademark of America is about. The 
President over and over has questioned universally what America stands 
for when he gave space to hate in his response to Charlottesville and 
when he implies that people who come to our country of certain 
religions or certain races are less favored than others. When he 
suggests he cannot have a conflict because he is President of the 
United States and does not have to divest of his business interests or 
when he says things that we know are not true and the President of the 
United States is standing up for matters that are outright lies, it 
diminishes the value and strength of America and our global leadership.

  One issue I want to talk about in the time I have is that of ignoring 
one of our greatest national security threats--what Russia is doing to 
the United States under Mr. Putin. We just saw in Russia's most recent 
election that it was neither free nor fair. The opposition candidates 
were not allowed to participate, as they were handpicked by Mr. Putin, 
and he controlled the media. As the OSCE observed, the election took 
place in an overly controlled legal environment, and it had pressure on 
the critical voices of the Russian people.
  We find a Russia today under Mr. Putin that is contrary to the values 
we stand for. In January, I authored a report on Russia, with the other 
Democrats on the committee, that talked about the asymmetric arsenal 
Mr. Putin uses that includes propaganda. We saw this on display when he 
was asked about what happened in the United States. According to the 
transcript, as reported by the Washington Post, these are Mr. Putin's 
own words: ``Maybe they're not even Russians,'' in his talking about 
who attacked our country and referring to those behind the election 
interference. ``Maybe they're Ukrainian, Tatars, Jews--just with 
Russian citizenship.'' He also speculated that France, Germany, or Asia 
might have interfered in the election or even Russians who were paid by 
the U.S. Government.
  That type of rhetoric is straight out of the Soviet and Russian 
playbook to cast Jews and other minorities as undesirables--enemies of 
the state. As an American Jew who has family roots in Eastern Europe 
and Russia, I find that kind of rhetoric to be dangerous and 
frightening, but at its most basic, such rhetoric is part of Mr. 
Putin's grand design. That is what he does.
  We saw it play out in the UK just 2 weeks ago when a person was 
poisoned in England who was an enemy of Mr. Putin's. We see it play out 
over and over again. Prime Minister May spoke out. She called it for 
what it was. She sent a clear signal to Moscow that that type of 
behavior by the Russian state against the British people would not be 
tolerated and that there would be consequences. This is how a leader of 
a great nation should speak out in defense of its people to counter a 
major threat from a global adversary.
  Yet what happened here in Washington with the threat we saw to our 
own country by Mr. Putin? The President has said virtually nothing. His 
spokesperson condemned the crime but ignored that likely Russian link. 
The Secretary of State later did what the President could not or would 
not do by calling out the Russians. Maybe that was his swan song 
because it was the last thing we heard before he was silenced by Mr. 
Trump.
  Never before in America's history has such a clear threat to our 
national security been so clearly ignored by the President of the 
United States. The President's difficulty in publicly acknowledging the 
Russia threat and leading our country forward to combat that threat is 
one of the most perplexing and reckless pieces of Mr. Trump's 
disastrous foreign policy. We in Congress took action. We passed 
legislation. We passed mandatory sanctions against Russia. Yet this 
administration has not taken full advantage of the law we passed. The 
President needs to protect America's interests, not appease Mr. Putin.
  Congress's role in shaping and advancing U.S. foreign policy has 
never been more important. I will continue to advance legislation, 
conduct oversight, and speak out about these important issues in the 
name of the American people and the values and norms that define us and 
our place in this complicated world. I am proud to be a part of the 
group of Senators who will stand on this floor and work to make sure we 
protect our national security interests.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to share my deep 
concern over the Trump administration's approach to North Korea.
  I thank the Senator from New Jersey, the leader of the Democrats on 
the Foreign Relations Committee, for asking the Members to come out 
here to speak to the Trump administration's foreign policy.
  North Korea is a serious and ever-worsening threat to its people, to 
our allies and partners in the region, and to the United States. 
Unfortunately, the Trump administration has mismanaged our North Korea 
policy, and the potential consequences of failure are too great to 
ignore. North Korea may have bent over backward to appear conciliatory 
during the Winter Olympics and through its offers of talks with South 
Korea and the United States, but Kim Jong Un has not stopped his 
dangerous activities--far from it. While the North Korean regime is all 
smiles and open arms, its malign behavior continues.
  Its engineers race to perfect a nuclear-tipped intercontinental 
ballistic missile. North Korean laborers around the world--modern-day 
indentured servants--send paychecks home to the regime to help fund its 
illicit military programs. Illegal ship-to-ship transfers of refined 
petroleum products continue. North Korea's army of cyber warriors grows 
more capable, and the Kim regime's thugs make no efforts to scale back 
rampant human rights abuses.
  However, President Trump's approach to date threatens to make an 
already bad situation even worse. Despite his recent announcement that 
he would accept a meeting with Kim Jong Un, President Trump has 
systematically undermined the effectiveness of the very agency--the 
U.S. Department of State--he will need to make talks successful. By so 
doing, he has harmed U.S. foreign policy right as the United States is 
poised to embark on a crucial diplomatic effort with North Korea.
  By firing Rex Tillerson, President Trump threw the State Department 
further into chaos when what we need right now is more consistency. 
This is indicative of a President who considers himself to be his own 
diplomat, negotiator, and strategist. Yet the gutting of the State 
Department goes much deeper. It has been badly depleted of both staff 
and resources by the Trump administration and is consistently ignored 
in the opaque process the White House is using to try to conduct 
American foreign policy.
  President Trump has stifled dissent, ignored experience, politicized 
key diplomatic and national security agencies. The Special 
Representative for North Korea Policy, Ambassador Joseph Yun--the lead 
American negotiator with North Korea--has stepped down. One wonders 
whether he felt his advice was being heeded. We still don't have a U.S. 
Ambassador to South Korea more than a year into the Trump 
administration. We still don't have a confirmed Assistant Secretary for 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs. We still don't have a special envoy for 
North Korean human rights issues. We no longer have a sanctions 
coordinator.

[[Page S1823]]

  Going into talks at the senior-most level with a hollowed-out State 
Department is no way to peacefully resolve a crisis. To the contrary, 
it exposes us to greater risk, and as if these vacancies were not 
enough, it gets worse.
  The Trump administration's recently released budget request for 
fiscal year 2019 would drastically cut State Department funding. The 
State Department is already alarmingly underresourced and understaffed 
to handle the significant and increasing threats from North Korea. Yet 
there is no explanation as to why the President believes it is prudent 
to cut diplomatic resources, especially in the middle of a crisis.
  We deserve an answer as to why the administration believes the State 
Department deserves fewer resources while trying to execute a wide-
ranging strategy of diplomatic engagement and pressure. All the while, 
the White House is subjecting our allies and partners to contradictory 
statements that cause confusion and dampen the prospects of a peaceful 
solution.
  We hear different thoughts on different days. Before firing him, 
President Trump routinely undercut Secretary Tillerson and, with it, 
our diplomatic high ground. Confusing our allies in South Korea and 
Japan, whose assistance in helping resolve the North Korean crisis is 
indispensable, only serves to embolden Kim Jong Un, who seeks to drive 
a wedge between the United States and our allies.
  We cannot afford to fail. I am concerned that if these talks do not 
go well, President Trump will be able to claim he tried both economic 
pressure and diplomacy, with neither path having solved the problem. He 
will be left with the conclusion that the only approach remaining will 
be military force. We must be clear. There is no military solution to 
the North Korea crisis.
  Today marks the 15th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. 
Although the current situation we face with North Korea is not 
identical to the one we faced in the runup to the Iraq war in 2003, the 
North Korea situation is, in fact, worse, and the consequences are even 
more severe. Unlike Iraq, North Korea has nearly completed the 
development of long-range nuclear-armed missiles that will be capable 
of creating nuclear mushroom clouds in our cities.
  We all agree we need to act to ensure that this never happens. The 
only responsible course of action is for the administration to use all 
tools of American statecraft to reduce the threats from North Korea. We 
have an obligation to American families, servicemembers, and our allies 
to say, unequivocally, that we did everything in our power without 
resorting to armed conflict.
  Let's return the United States of America to the forefront of 
statecraft and allow for our diplomats to advance our interests without 
having to risk a frivolous loss of life. That is what is at stake as 
the President moves further away from using the kinds of tools which 
are available that can try to peacefully resolve this conflict with 
North Korea.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Coons, Cardin, Lee, Sanders, and I be recognized for up to 5 minutes 
each and then Senator Corker be recognized for up to 15 minutes prior 
to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I just returned from a trip to a major transatlantic 
conference in Europe. While the Europeans have spent a lot of time over 
the course of the last 12 months hand-wringing about whether the United 
States is committed to Europe, committed to NATO, committed to our 
common defense, my feeling upon going to Brussels for this particular 
conference is, they are kind of over the hand-wringing. They are now 
just making plans to move on without us. They are making plans to 
protect themselves without us. They are making plans to set the rules 
of the road economically, politically, and culturally around the world 
without the United States. The evidence of that was very clear.
  The Europeans are setting up something called the European Defense 
Initiative, in which they are going to start doing military planning 
and purchasing outside of NATO because they are just not convinced, not 
confident that the United States is going to be seriously engaged in 
NATO. That compromises our security as the Europeans start to make 
plans for their defense without us, even though we still have an 
obligation under the treaty to protect them.
  Over and over, you see the world moving on as they watch this massive 
withdrawal of America from the world. The President said at a rally in 
Alabama a few months ago that the world is starting to respect the 
United States of America again. That could not be further from the 
truth. The Pew organization charts other countries' opinions of the 
United States. It also charts whether other countries believe the 
United States is going to act in the best interests of the world. The 
numbers are, frankly, startling.
  Of the 37 countries they surveyed, only two of them have higher 
confidence in the United States under Trump than they did under Obama. 
One is a rather statistically significant increase, that being Russia, 
which by 42 percentage points is more confident that the United States 
is going to act in that country's best interests. South Korea had 88 
percent confidence under Obama and has 17 percent confidence under 
Trump. Canada had 83 percent confidence under Obama and has 22 percent 
confidence under Trump. Germany is 86 to 11. They have come to this 
belief because, as my colleagues have mentioned, the Trump 
administration had signaled its unwillingness to try to set a moral 
tone for the world in the way that it budgets. The budget they 
presented to us reduces accounts dedicated to countering Russian 
aggression around its periphery by 63 percent. It is a clear telegraph 
to Europe that they are on their own, that countries that are trying to 
fight back against a country that wants to reestablish a new version of 
the Soviet Empire will have no help from the United States.

  In this budget, the National Endowment for Democracy is cut by $100 
million. It is no secret that countries like Hungary and Poland are 
starting to slip away from traditional democratic norms. Countries like 
the Philippines are doing the same because there is not a moral force 
here in the United States committing to bring them closer to the ideals 
of participatory democracy.
  There is a $1.6 billion cut in humanitarian aid, telling the rest of 
the world: If you want to solve these enormous problems of humanitarian 
catastrophe--famine and refugee displacement--you can't look to us 
anymore. You are on your own again.
  There is a 35-percent cut in overall international narcotics and law 
enforcement funding, just at a time when record amounts of fentanyl are 
finding their way into the United States.
  The moment of panic is over for the world. They have watched this 
administration walk away from its traditional obligations to try to 
stand up for the rule of law, to try to promote democracy and human 
rights, and to try to protect America's interests and our allies. They 
are simply making other plans. I hope the next administration will be 
able to correct that, but those plans are hard to break once they are 
made.
  I hope Republicans and Democrats will stand up to make sure that 
America does not become any weaker in the world than it already is 
today, 15 months into this administration. We are less safe as a nation 
because of this wholesale withdrawal from the global stage. It is not 
too late to try to turn it around.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the floor this 
afternoon to address the mounting concerns we have with the foreign 
policy of the Trump administration. I want to thank my colleague, 
Senator Menendez of New Jersey, the ranking member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and comment at the outset on two things that have 
been widely said that I don't think are true.
  First is that Democrats are bottling up the President's vitally 
needed nominees for senior ambassadorial positions

[[Page S1824]]

or senior Department of State nominations and that we are holding key 
nominees.
  Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. Earlier today, in a 
business meeting, our Foreign Relations Committee, which works well on 
a bipartisan basis, voted out a whole series of Ambassadors, treaties, 
and Assistant Secretaries of State.
  Second, I heard it said by some pundits that Democrats wish President 
Trump ill, that we are working to do everything we can to hold him back 
and prevent him from being successful.
  Let me start by saying that I think all of us know that we are 
strongest when we stand together and work together. All of us have at 
some point heard the old adage that politics should stop at the water's 
edge, and nothing would make me happier then to see our foreign policy, 
our military, and our diplomatic efforts succeed around the world.
  I do not wish our President ill or our State Department a lack of 
success, but I think it deserves mentioning for the few minutes I am 
taking on the floor today that President Trump, who promised as a 
candidate to be unpredictable and nontraditional, has overperformed in 
that category. His foreign policy has been defined by inconsistency, 
volatility, unpredictability, and at times, a failure to advance our 
values. This comes exactly at a time, as my colleague from Connecticut 
was just reciting, when our allies and partners crave stability and 
leadership and when the threats to our democratic way of life from 
Russia and China are on the rise.
  Trump's ``shock and awe'' style of governing was demonstrated 
recently by his abrupt firing of the Secretary of State in a tweet and 
his further humiliation of the Secretary of State in stories that 
dribbled out about exactly how and when and where he was fired. We 
should not be conducting foreign policy in the same way that one might 
host a reality TV show like ``The Apprentice.''
  In just a year, as I have attended a variety of conferences and 
meetings around the world, I have been struck by the number of ways in 
which the President has undermined alliances and friendships that have 
taken decades to build. Let me briefly review a few of the ways our 
European and Asian allies have been puzzled or confounded--by our 
withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership; by imposing a travel 
plan on citizens from majority Muslim countries; by withdrawing from 
the Paris climate accord; by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum, 
including against our close North American and European allies; by 
questioning our commitments to NATO; and by denigrating an entire 
continent when discussing the value of potential immigrants from 
Africa.

  Real and consistent leadership around the world that reflects 
American values is needed now more than ever. In the dozen countries I 
have visited for regional security conferences in the past year, I have 
heard the same from our vital allies. Senator McCain and I traveled to 
Halifax in Canada and to Singapore in Southeast Asia for a series of 
bilateral meetings of representatives of close and trusted allies. 
Senator Flake and I have traveled to Africa. Senator Graham and I have 
traveled to the Middle East. In all of these trips, what I have heard 
is that our allies are concerned, that they need reassurance about how 
and where we stand, and that in many cases, yes, they are beginning to 
move on past us and to reach accommodations with China or Russia, 
having concluded that we are not committed to engagement with the 
world.
  Every time I go on a visit to a foreign embassy--an embassy of the 
United States overseas--I sit down with our Foreign Service officers 
and I ask about their work and service, and I am overwhelmingly 
impressed with the professionalism and dedication of our career 
development professionals and our diplomats. Yet, overwhelmingly, the 
big number of vacancies at the State Department and a budget that 
proposes a more than 30-percent cut in the State Department and USAID 
have had a significant, demoralizing impact on these people whom we 
count on to advance America's interest and values around the world.
  Let me also say briefly that on the continent of Africa, where I have 
spent a great deal of my time on the Foreign Relations Committee, we 
are missing Ambassadors to some of the biggest and most important 
countries--South Africa and Tanzania being just two, for example. It is 
a continent where China's pervasive presence is not being countered by 
an America that is robustly engaged. Why does this matter? Because in 
this century, Africa will become the fastest growing and largest market 
for our goods and should be the continent in which we have the closest 
alliances and partnership. But instead of building partnerships and 
helping to extend markets here at home, the Trump administration is 
squandering the current momentum and watching from the sidelines as 
democratic norms deteriorate.
  As a member of both the Appropriations and Foreign Relations 
Committees, I was gravely concerned that for a second year in a row, 
the Trump administration budget proposed deep cuts in diplomacy and 
development. We must recognize that while these investments serve a 
humanitarian purpose, they also make us stronger by spreading American 
values, safer by building coalitions, less susceptible to terrorism by 
creating a more stable world, and more prosperous by creating stronger 
export markets for our goods. If we want to remain a global leader, we 
need a strong State Department and USAID that are sufficiently funded.
  Let me turn to the matter of Russia before I conclude. Throughout his 
administration, President Trump has not only turned away from some of 
our critical allies and weakened our commitments to international 
coalitions but has also refused to head-on, clearly address the real 
and multifaceted threats we face from Russia.
  Russia's activities, as has been testified to by senior 
administration officials over many hearings, now are directly 
interfering with our democracy--our last election and likely our next 
election, as well as those of our closest allies throughout the world. 
Rather than sending a clear and forceful signal to Russia that our 
political affairs are not to be meddled with, President Trump has 
instead at times turned aside from this challenge and failed to address 
it.
  Let me conclude by simply saying that now more than ever, the United 
States must lead in the world, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee on a bipartisan basis to 
advance our interests.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time because I think this 
issue is an extremely important issue. I am talking about the authority 
of the Congress of the United States versus the President on the 
introduction of our troops into war or hostilities. This has been a 
struggle we have been debating for a long time. Congress passed the War 
Powers Act over the objections of the President because we recognize 
that the Constitution gives us the power to introduce troops into 
harm's way.
  The resolution says very clearly that the introduction of the U.S. 
Armed Forces into hostilities will allow Congress to have an expedited 
process if the administration has not gotten the authorization for the 
use of that military force. The Supreme Court decision made it very 
difficult for us to enforce that, causing us to pass, in the State 
Department authorization, a process in which a joint resolution could 
be filed in order for Congress to express itself if the President has 
not sought the authorization for the use of military force.
  We now have a circumstance where the United States, in my view--the 
President has introduced American troops into hostilities by assisting 
the Saudis in refueling missions in regard to the campaign in Yemen. To 
me, that is introducing troops. Whether it is right or wrong, Congress 
has a responsibility to respond to this. I say that knowing that our 
Presiding Officer has been very articulate about the need for us to 
pass an authorization for the use of military force in regard to our 
campaign against ISIS.
  Here is the challenge we have. The administration and previous 
administrations have interpreted hostilities in such a narrow way, it 
would take away

[[Page S1825]]

from Congress our ability to have the authorization for the 
introduction of American troops into hostile circumstances. Yet compare 
that with this administration's and previous administrations' 
interpretations of the 2001 authorization for use of military force, 
which we passed after the attack on our country on 9/11. They would 
have you believe that authorization, which was limited to those who 
planned the attack against us in 9/11, applies to our military campaign 
against ISIS in Syria or ISIS in Yemen or wherever we may find ISIS 
anywhere in the world. I think that is an absurd interpretation.
  Yes, I know the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee is on the floor. I think our committee needs to 
take up this issue. We need to take up what is happening in Yemen with 
our support of the Saudis and what is happening in regard to the 
authorization for the use of military force. But this campaign has been 
going on for a long time. Congress needs to weigh in whether we are for 
or against it. We need to exert our jurisdiction, and we haven't done 
that. It is very frustrating that those of us who believe very deeply 
in our constitutional responsibilities, assume that responsibility--and 
I have a lot of confidence in the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, but I question whether we are going to get 
more time in the future to debate this issue. I know the chairman will 
give us time in committee, but will we have time on the floor of the 
Senate to debate this issue? I think we need to debate it and vote up 
or down whether American troops should be assisting in this mission.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand to urge a ``no'' vote on the motion 
to table. We are involved as cobelligerents in hostilities in someone 
else's war--in a civil war in Yemen.
  It is very difficult to dispute the contention that there is no 
decision made by a government that is more severe, more serious, that 
carries with it more dire consequences than sending brave young men and 
women sworn to protect us into harm's way, into battle, into 
hostilities.
  We have been faced with the debate here about what amounts to 
hostilities. We have the executive branch of government that 
understandably has defined that term narrowly but in this case so 
narrowly as to obliterate any meaning behind that word, basically 
suggesting that we are not in hostilities unless we have people on the 
ground firing upon an enemy and being fired upon. That is not always 
the way modern warfare is conducted and hasn't been for some time.
  The fact is that we have our uniformed military personnel who are 
engaged in things like midair refueling on combat missions, refueling 
the combat aircraft of another country when those combat aircraft are 
in route to a battlefield, to a theater of warfare. If those aren't 
hostilities, I don't know what is.
  We have been told that we need to do this in regular order. Let's 
talk about regular order for a minute because, as I mentioned a moment 
ago, there is nothing more serious than sending our uniformed military 
personnel into hostilities. We have in this body adopted laws and 
procedures making it possible for us to receive fast-track 
consideration of measures that indicate that the executive branch of 
government has overstepped its power.
  We are in our third year involved in this civil war in Yemen--3 
years--and yet this hasn't come up for a vote; 3 years and we haven't 
had anything come out of committee and voted on the Senate floor. Three 
years ought to be long enough. In fact, the War Powers Resolution gives 
us expedited consideration. It gives the committee 10 days to consider 
that. The committee has now had more than twice that time to consider 
that, and the committee has not put anything out. This is why we are 
well within our rights, well within the boundaries of what is 
appropriate, in fact, and well within what the Constitution already 
grants us, which is the power to declare war. That power, with good 
reason, was not vested in the executive branch of government. It was 
vested only in Congress--that branch of government most accountable to 
the people at the most regular intervals.

  The reason this is so important is that before we send our young 
people into a place where they could die, we want to make sure that an 
open, honest debate is held in public view, not behind closed doors at 
the Pentagon or at some other government office building, but right 
here on the Senate floor and in the House of Representatives. We cannot 
exercise that power capably, we cannot claim to be mindful, and we 
cannot be deemed faithful to our oath to uphold, protect, and defend 
the Constitution of the United States if we don't look out for our 
authorities and if we don't make sure that someone else isn't 
exercising authority that was granted to this body. That authority 
belongs not to any one person; it belongs to the people.
  If we refuse to take this vote today, if we choose instead to table 
this measure rather than to allow it to come up for a vote on the 
Senate floor, we are choosing not to decide, and we will still have 
made a choice--a choice to abdicate our responsibility. If we make that 
decision today, then shame on us. It is our prerogative as a coequal 
branch of government to make sure that we do our job, to do that which 
only Congress can do.
  This is, in fact, a war. There are, in fact, grave humanitarian 
concerns presented by that war, and that makes it all the more 
important, not less important, for us to debate this and for us to 
discuss this under the light of day, in public, and on the Senate 
floor.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms I am capable of 
communicating to vote against the motion to table.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I have enjoyed hearing the discussion 
about the item before us. I must say that I would feel a whole lot 
better about this debate if it were focused on our refueling French 
jets going into Mali--the same exact debate. I assume these individuals 
would consider those to be hostilities, but, somehow or another, that 
doesn't rise to congressional approval.
  This one, I think, is politically tinged. Saudi Arabia certainly has 
issues. They have conducted themselves in manners that we wish were 
better. The Crown Prince was here today, and all of us who met with him 
``demarched'' him, if you will, on the conduct relative to Yemen. Yet, 
at the same time, we know that because American folks are involved in 
refueling and because we are helping, to a degree, with intelligence, 
we know that less civilians are being killed there. We know that. We 
know that our being there has affected their conduct.
  I wish to talk about process here. The sponsors of the resolution, 
who I have great respect for, have used a very entrepreneurial method 
to bring this to the floor, and I don't say that to be pejorative. They 
have reached into the War Powers Act and pulled out something that was 
unintended for this purpose. I think everyone understands that, and I 
think everyone understands that if we don't table this, we will be 
setting a precedent here. It will be a situation of first impression 
where from now on, when our Air Force is refueling jets in the air, we 
are involved in hostilities. I don't think that is a standard that we 
wish to set.
  I want to argue this on a different level. It is hard for me to 
believe that we would take up an issue of this serious nature and not 
allow the committee of jurisdiction to work its will. We had a hearing 
last week that Senator McConnell set up for all Senators to come in and 
be briefed on Yemen. His stated reason for doing that was that most 
people in the Senate don't know much about what is happening in Yemen. 
People on the Foreign Relations Committee do, and the people on Intel 
do, and the people in Armed Services do. But most of the Senate has not 
really been involved recently in that issue.
  Typically, the way we work around here is that the committee does its 
work. It does its recommendation. It works with the administration, and 
you come forth with a piece of legislation. Can we imagine, for 
instance, with tax reform, if we just had some kind of entrepreneurial 
way of bringing tax reform to the floor without the Finance Committee 
working, or bringing

[[Page S1826]]

FISA to the floor without Intel working? That is not the way we are 
supposed to do things here.
  So we have a bill that is being generated right now--it is a 
bipartisan bill--by Jeanne Shaheen and Todd Young. It may not be the 
bill we deal with on Yemen, but it is just now being developed.
  By the way, I skipped a beat here. I want to refresh people's memory 
as to what we are voting on. We are not voting on anything but a 
decision to discharge the Yemen issue from the committee without the 
committee taking any action, without the committee having any hearings. 
This is a vote to say that we are going to skip the Foreign Relations 
Committee and we are going to set precedent here on the floor in this 
entrepreneurial way and that we have reached into the War Powers Act to 
find a clause to bring it to the floor, which was never intended for 
this purpose.
  So what I would say to people is that a better way of handling this 
would be to table this motion, to let the Foreign Relations Committee 
do the work that you have assigned the Foreign Relations Committee to 
do. We are going to have a hearing on Yemen. We have a piece of 
legislation that is being developed in a bipartisan way, with the 
Republicans and Democrats, to deal with this issue. Let us work our 
will in the appropriate way--by the way, in a way that actually will 
generate an outcome.
  In addition, I know there are Members on the floor who have been 
frustrated, as someone referenced earlier, that the 2001-2002 AUMF is 
still being used. The Presiding Officer has been very involved in 
trying to develop a new AUMF that would supersede those two AUMFs and 
give the Senate and the House the ability to weigh in every 4 years on 
these types of actions. We are going to have a markup on a bill that 
our Presiding Officer, Senator Kaine from Virginia, Senator Young from 
Indiana, and many people have been involved in. That markup is going to 
take place on April 19.
  So, hopefully, the Senate will not only have an ability to deal with 
a real bill on Yemen that actually will generate a real outcome coming 
through committee but also will have the ability to deal with an AUMF 
that will set aside the fact that for years the Congress has not 
weighed in on this issue. To me, that is a much better outcome.
  I urge everyone in this body, instead of following this unique 
process that is not going to generate an outcome regardless, to allow 
the Foreign Relations Committee to do its work and to bring a bill to 
the floor that will generate an outcome. I am going to make a motion in 
a moment to table it, but I realize there may be one more speaker 
before I do so.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief moment?
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership of the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I agree with his 
proposed outcome on this vote. That is not to diminish the importance 
of the issues raised by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from 
Vermont, but I do agree with him that it is the preferred, careful, 
cautious way of dealing with competing interests in a complex world.
  I just ask the Senator further to that point whether he can confirm 
my understanding that actually using this unique process--is it his 
understanding, as it is mine--that there would actually be a vote-
arama; that is, we would end up voting on multiple different proposals, 
not just this one proposal, and create perhaps some confusion and some 
more chaos in what is admittedly a complex and sensitive foreign 
relations and national security matter?
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, that is correct.
  So, in closing, I would just ask--just like every other committee 
here in the Senate that hopefully takes its work seriously and does 
work especially on important matters like this that affect people's 
lives--that this body would think that a better recommendation would be 
to table this effort to have this wild West debate on the floor over 
the course of the next several hours and, instead of doing it in that 
manner, to give the committee of jurisdiction the ability to work its 
will with Yemen through hearings, through a process on the committee 
that would actually bring a bill to the floor that has been thought 
through and where we had worked with other bodies of government to get 
it in a place where then it could be amended and dealt with in a more 
methodical and appropriate way.
  I would like to remind people one more time that we also plan to mark 
up an AUMF on April 19 to deal with the lingering issue of having an 
open situation where we are still dealing with ISIS and al-Qaida and 
others based on something that was authorized to be done in Afghanistan 
years ago.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the resolution that we will soon be 
voting on is really very simple. It has two basic points. Point No. 1, 
I and the 14 other cosponsors of this resolution believe that under the 
definitions laid out in the 1973 War Powers Resolution, U.S. forces 
have been introduced into the Saudi-led war in Yemen, a war which is 
causing a humanitarian disaster.
  I would say to my good friend Senator Corker, the chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, that this war has been going on for 3 
years. Some 10,000 civilians in Yemen are dead and 40,000 have been 
wounded. A million are dealing with cholera right now, and millions 
have been displaced. You come tonight on the floor and you say: We are 
going to hold a hearing. That is good, but it is 3 years too late.
  The issue that we are dealing with right now is whether or not the 
U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress accepts its constitutional 
responsibility on the issues of war. This is not a complicated issue, 
and I don't think anybody here disagrees. Article I, section 8, of the 
Constitution says not that the President can make war and send our 
young people into harm's way. It is the Congress of the United States 
that should make war.
  Our role now in Yemen working with the Saudi-led intervention there 
is one of hostilities under the War Powers Resolution of the United 
States. It is not just my view on this. As many may know here--as I 
suspect the chairman of the committee knows--last November, by a vote 
of 366 to 30, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed with the essence 
of what Senator Lee and I are trying to do, and the House passed a 
nonbinding resolution stating that U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil 
war is unauthorized. Every Member of the Democratic leadership voted 
for that, as did the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee, Ed Royce.
  An editorial in the New York Times today states:

       The United States initially deployed forces to combat Al 
     Qaeda in Yemen under post-Sept. 11 congressional 
     authorization measures. But Congress never specifically 
     approved military involvement in the Saudi-Houthi war even 
     though the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act give 
     lawmakers a role.

  The New York Times:

       For too long, Congress has abdicated its role as America 
     prolonged its stay in some wars and expanded into others. And 
     presidents have been too reluctant to share these crucial 
     decisions with lawmakers. Resolutions like this--

  The one we are debating--

     can and must force serious debate and accountability.

  I say this to my friend the chairman: I think now of the two major 
foreign policy disasters that have taken place in our lifetime--No. 1, 
the war in Vietnam. In that war--a Democratic administration under an 
otherwise very good President, Lyndon Johnson--he and the Secretary of 
Defense misled and lied to the American people with regard to the Gulf 
of Tonkin Resolution. That is now established fact as a result of 
declassified information. The United States got sucked into that war, 
and my generation--the young men of my generation--suffered so 
terribly. Over 60,000 died, and many others came home wounded in body 
and in spirit. The U.S. Congress abdicated its responsibility at that 
point in 1964.
  Fifteen years ago--oddly enough, on this day--there was the war in 
Iraq, under a Republican administration, and the administration lied to 
the American people again. Where was Congress getting the facts? We had 
the

[[Page S1827]]

Vice President of the United States: Oh, Saddam Hussein is building 
weapons of mass destruction. There is a connection between Saddam 
Hussein and Iraq and the 9/11 perpetrators.
  It was a lie. It was a lie. Mistakenly, Congress voted to approve the 
war based on false information.
  So what I say today is that it is time for the Congress to accept its 
constitutional responsibility. I don't know how well we will do. Maybe 
we will screw it up as well. It is very possible. But that is what the 
Founding Fathers suggested, and I think they were right. We are closer 
to the people--the House and the Senate--than is the White House, this 
White House or any other White House.
  So there are two issues today. Do we accept our constitutional 
responsibility to vote on matters of war? I would suggest that every 
Member of the Senate vote yes. Don't duck your responsibility. Don't 
abdicate your responsibility. Second of all, this war in Yemen, in my 
view, has been a humanitarian disaster as a result of Saudi 
intervention. But the most important vote is, do we actually have a 
vote on whether American troops are involved in the war in Yemen?
  I hope very much we will vote against Senator Corker's motion to 
table, and I hope that after we do that, we will vote for the 
resolution that says it is time for the United States to get out of 
Yemen.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, very briefly, I just want to set the 
record straight. The House of Representatives voted to say that the war 
in Yemen is not covered by the 2001-2002 AUMF, and I think this body 
would agree. They did not do as was just mentioned by the Senator from 
Vermont. As a matter of fact, they decided not to take up this measure 
that we are taking up today because they thought it was not a good 
measure to take up.
  I don't want anybody in this body to think that the House has already 
supported this effort. The House not only didn't support it, they 
wouldn't take it up because they thought it was damaging to our 
country's foreign policy.
  I hope that today people will join me in voting to table this motion 
and to let the committee do its work as it is supposed to do. Let's 
bring something to the floor that will actually have an outcome, and 
then let's have a debate down the road on the AUMF--the 2001 and 2002 
AUMF--which I hope will be given floor time.
  With that, I think all time has expired.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Sanders motion to discharge S.J. 
Res. 54, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                        [Rollcall Vote 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________