[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 196 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7482-S7503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

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

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

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

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

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

[[Page S7483]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

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

                                NAYS--3

     Cruz
     Lee
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--1

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


                      Yemen War Powers Resolution

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

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

             Opinion--Your Tax Dollars Help Starve Children

                         (By Nicholas Kristof)

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

[[Page S7484]]

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

[[Page S7485]]

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

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

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

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

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

  He continues:

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

  Kristof continues, and I want you to hear this:

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

  He continues:

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

  Let me repeat that:

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

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

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

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

[[Page S7486]]

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

[[Page S7487]]

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

[[Page S7488]]

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


                           Amendment No. 4080

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:


                           Amendment No. 4080

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

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

[[Page S7489]]

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

[[Page S7490]]

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


                              S.J. Res. 54

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

[[Page S7491]]

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

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

[[Page S7492]]

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

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


                   TIME Magazine's Person of the Year

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

[[Page S7493]]

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

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

  TIME magazine wrote in this week's issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S7494]]

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

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


                      Yemen War Powers Resolution

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

[[Page S7495]]

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

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

[[Page S7496]]

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


                        Tribute to Aaron Murphy

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

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

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

[[Page S7497]]

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


                        Tribute to Dayna Swanson

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


                                Zimbabwe

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

[[Page S7498]]

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


                              S.J. Res. 54

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

[[Page S7499]]

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

[[Page S7500]]

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

[[Page S7501]]

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

[[Page S7502]]

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

[[Page S7503]]

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

                          ____________________