Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 197 (Thursday, December 13, 2018)

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 197 (Thursday, December 13, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7540-S7565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AMENDING THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3749, introduced earlier
today by Senator Klobuchar and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3749) to amend the Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995 to reform the procedures provided under such Act
for the initiation, review, and resolution of claims alleging
that employing offices of the legislative branch have
violated the rights and protections provided to their
employees under such Act, including protections against
sexual harassment, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be
considered and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3749) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 3749

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES IN ACT; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act''.
(b) References in Act.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a section
or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be
made to that section or other provision of the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.).
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; references in Act; table of contents.

TITLE I--REFORM OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

Subtitle A--Reform of Procedures for Initiation, Preliminary Review,
and Resolution of Claims

Sec. 101. Description of procedures available for consideration of
alleged violations.
Sec. 102. Reform of process for initiation of procedures.
Sec. 103. Preliminary review of claims by hearing officer.
Sec. 104. Availability of mediation during process.

Subtitle B--Other Reforms

Sec. 111. Requiring Members of Congress to reimburse Treasury for
amounts paid as settlements and awards in cases of acts
by Members.
Sec. 112. Automatic referral to Congressional Ethics Committees of
disposition of certain claims alleging violations of
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 involving
Members of Congress and senior staff.
Sec. 113. Availability of remote work assignment or paid leave of
absence during pendency of procedures.
Sec. 114. Modification of rules on confidentiality of proceedings.
Sec. 115. Reimbursement by other employing offices of legislative
branch of payments of certain awards and settlements.

TITLE II--IMPROVING OPERATIONS OF OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE
RIGHTS

Sec. 201. Reports on awards and settlements.
Sec. 202. Workplace climate surveys of employing offices.
Sec. 203. Record retention.
Sec. 204. Confidential advisors.
Sec. 205. GAO study of management practices.
Sec. 206. GAO audit of cybersecurity.

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS REFORMS

Sec. 301. Application of Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of
2008.
Sec. 302. Extension to unpaid staff of rights and protections against
employment discrimination.
Sec. 303. Clarification of treatment of Library of Congress visitors.
Sec. 304. Notices.
Sec. 305. Clarification of coverage of employees of Helsinki and China
Commissions.
Sec. 306. Training and education programs of other employing offices.
Sec. 307. Support for out-of-area covered employees.
Sec. 308. Renaming Office of Compliance as Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights.

TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 401. Effective date.

TITLE I--REFORM OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

Subtitle A--Reform of Procedures for Initiation, Preliminary Review,
and Resolution of Claims

SEC. 101. DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES AVAILABLE FOR
CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

(a) Procedures Described.--Section 401 (2 U.S.C. 1401) is
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 401. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS.

``(a) Filing and Review of Claims.--Except as otherwise
provided, the procedure for consideration of an alleged
violation of part A of title II consists of--
``(1) the filing of a claim by the covered employee
alleging the violation, as provided in section 402;
``(2) the preliminary review of the claim, to be conducted
by a hearing officer as provided in section 403;
``(3) mediation as provided in section 404, if requested
and agreed to by the parties under that section; and
``(4) a formal hearing as provided in section 405, subject
to Board review as provided in section 406 and judicial
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit as provided in section 407.
``(b) Right of Employee to File Civil Action.--
``(1) Civil action.--Only a covered employee who has filed
a claim timely as provided in section 402 and who has not
submitted a request for a hearing on the claim pursuant to
section 405(a) may, during the period described in paragraph
(3), file a civil action in a District Court of the United
States with respect to the violation alleged in the claim, as
provided in section 408.
``(2) Effect of filing civil action.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (a), if the covered
employee files such a civil action--
``(A) the preliminary review of the claim by the hearing
officer as provided in section 403 shall terminate upon the
filing of the action by the covered employee; and
``(B) the procedure for consideration of the alleged
violation shall not include any further review of the claim
by the hearing officer as provided in section 403.
``(3) Period for filing civil action.--The period described
in this paragraph with respect to a claim is the 70-day
period which begins on the date the covered employee files
the claim under section 402.
``(4) Special rule for employees who fail to state a claim
for which relief may be granted.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(3), if a covered employee receives a written notice from the
hearing officer under section 403(d)(2) that the employee has
the right to file a civil action with respect to the claim in
accordance with section 408, the covered employee may file
the civil action not later than 90 days after receiving such
written notice.
``(c) Special Rule for Architect of the Capitol and Capitol
Police.--In the case of an employee of the Office of the
Architect of the Capitol or of the Capitol Police, the
Office, after receiving a claim filed under section 402, may
recommend that the employee use the grievance procedures of
the Architect of the Capitol or the Capitol Police for
resolution of the employee's grievance for a specific period
of time. Any deadline in this Act relating to a claim for
which the employee is using the grievance procedures, that
has not already passed by the first day of that specific
period, shall be stayed during that specific period.
``(d) Election of Remedies for Library of Congress.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:

[[Page S7541]]

``(A) Direct act.--The term `direct Act' means an Act
(other than this Act), or provision of the Revised Statutes,
that is specified in section 201, 202, or 203.
``(B) Direct provision.--The term `direct provision' means
a provision (including a definitional provision) of a direct
Act that applies the rights or protections of a direct Act
(including rights and protections relating to nonretaliation
or noncoercion) to a Library claimant.
``(C) Library claimant.--The term `Library claimant' means,
with respect to a direct provision, an employee of the
Library of Congress who is covered by that direct provision.
``(2) Election after proceedings initially brought under
this act.--A Library claimant who initially files a claim for
an alleged violation as provided in section 402 may, at any
time before the date that is 10 days after a hearing officer
submits the report on the preliminary review of the claim
under section 403(c), elect to bring the claim for a
proceeding before the corresponding Federal agency under the
corresponding direct provision, instead of continuing with
the procedures applicable to the claim under this title or
filing a civil action in accordance with section 408.
``(3) Election after proceedings initially brought under
other civil rights or labor law.--A Library claimant who
initially brings a claim, complaint, or charge under a direct
provision for a proceeding before a Federal agency may, prior
to requesting a hearing under the agency's procedures, elect
to--
``(A) continue with the agency's procedures and preserve
the option (if any) to bring any civil action relating to the
claim, complaint, or charge, that is available to the Library
claimant; or
``(B) file a claim with the Office under section 402 and
continue with the corresponding procedures of this title
available and applicable to a covered employee.
``(4) Timing.--A Library claimant who meets the initial
deadline under section 402(d) for filing a claim under this
title, or any initial deadline for bringing a claim,
complaint, or charge under the applicable direct provision,
and then elects to change to alternative procedures as
described in paragraph (2) or (3)(B), shall be considered to
meet any initial deadline for the alternative procedures.
``(5) Application.--This subsection shall take effect and
shall apply as described in section 153(c) of the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) (except
to the extent such section applies to any violation of
section 210 or a provision of an Act specified in section
210).
``(e) Rights of Parties to Retain Private Counsel.--Nothing
in this Act may be construed to limit the authority of any
individual (including a covered employee, the head of an
employing office, or an individual who is alleged to have
committed personally an act which consists of a violation of
part A of title II) to retain counsel to protect the
interests of the individual at any point during any of the
procedures provided under this title for the consideration of
an alleged violation of part A of title II, including as
provided under section 415(d)(8) with respect to individuals
subject to a reimbursement requirement of section 415(d).
``(f) Standards for Assertions Made by Parties.--Any party
in any of the procedures provided under this title, as well
as any counsel or other person representing a party in any of
such procedures, shall have an obligation to ensure that, to
the best of the party's knowledge, information, and belief,
as formed after an inquiry which is reasonable under the
circumstances, each of the following is correct:
``(1) No pleading, written motion, or other paper is
presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
resolution of the matter.
``(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions the
party advocates are warranted by existing law or by a
nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
existing law or for establishing new law.
``(3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or,
if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for further review or
discovery.
``(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on
the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are
reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
``(g) Procedure.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
supersede or limit section 225(d)(2).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Civil Action.--Section
408(a) (2 U.S.C. 1408(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``section 404'' and inserting ``section
401'';
(2) by striking ``who has completed counseling under
section 402 and mediation under section 403''; and
(3) by striking the second sentence.
(c) Other Conforming Amendments to Title IV.--Title IV is
amended--
(1) by striking section 404 (2 U.S.C. 1404); and
(2) by redesignating section 403 (2 U.S.C. 1403) as section
404.
(d) Miscellaneous Conforming Amendment.--Section 225 (2
U.S.C. 1361) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e).
(e) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents is
amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 404; and
(2) by redesignating the item relating to section 403 as
relating to section 404.

SEC. 102. REFORM OF PROCESS FOR INITIATION OF PROCEDURES.

(a) Initiation of Procedures.--Section 402 (2 U.S.C. 1402)
is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 402. INITIATION OF PROCEDURES.

``(a) Claim.--
``(1) Filing of claim.--To commence a proceeding under this
title, a covered employee alleging a violation of law made
applicable under part A of title II shall file a claim with
the Office. The Office shall not accept a claim which is
filed after the deadline applicable under subsection (d).
``(2) Contents of claim.--The claim filed under this
section shall be made in writing under oath or affirmation,
shall describe the facts that form the basis of the claim and
the violation that is being alleged, shall identify the
employing office alleged to have committed the violation or
in which the violation is alleged to have occurred, and shall
be in such form as the Office requires.
``(3) No effect on ability of covered employee to seek
information from office or pursue relief.--Nothing in
paragraph (2), or subsection (b) or (c), may be construed to
limit the ability of a covered employee--
``(A) to contact the Office or any other appropriate office
prior to filing a claim under this section to seek
information regarding the employee's rights under this Act
and the procedures available under this Act;
``(B) in the case of a covered employee of an employing
office of the House of Representatives or Senate, to refer
information regarding an alleged violation of part A of title
II to the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives
or the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate (as the case
may be); or
``(C) to file a civil action in accordance with section
401(b).
``(b) Initial Processing of Claim.--
``(1) Intake and recording; notification to employing
office.--Upon the filing of a claim by a covered employee
under subsection (a), the Office shall take such steps as may
be necessary for the initial intake and recording of the
claim, including providing each party with all relevant
information with respect to the rights of the party under
this Act, and shall transmit immediately a copy of the claim
to the head of the employing office and the designated
representative of that office.
``(2) Special notification requirements for claims based on
acts by members of congress.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a claim alleging a
violation described in subparagraph (B) which consists of a
violation described in section 415(d)(1)(A) by an individual,
upon the filing of the claim under subsection (a), the Office
shall notify immediately such individual of the claim, the
possibility that the individual may be required to reimburse
the account described in section 415(a) for the reimbursable
portion of any award or settlement in connection with the
claim, and the right of the individual under section
415(d)(8) to intervene in any mediation, hearing, or civil
action under this title with respect to the claim.
``(B) Violations described.--A violation described in this
subparagraph is--
``(i) harassment that is unlawful under section 201(a) or
206(a); or
``(ii) intimidation, reprisal, or discrimination that is
unlawful under section 207 and is taken against a covered
employee because of a claim alleging a violation described in
clause (i).
``(c) Use of Secure Electronic Reporting and Tracking
System.--
``(1) Establishment and operation of secure system.--The
Office shall establish and operate a secure electronic
reporting system through which a covered employee may
initiate a proceeding under this title, and which will keep
an electronic record of the date and time at which the
proceeding is initiated and will track all subsequent actions
or proceedings occurring with respect to the proceeding under
this title.
``(2) Accessibility to all parties.--The system shall be
accessible to all parties to such actions or proceedings, but
only until the completion of such actions or proceedings.
``(3) Assessment of effectiveness of procedures.--The
Office shall use the information contained in the system to
make regular assessments of the effectiveness of the
procedures under this title in providing for the timely
resolution of claims, and shall submit semi-annual reports on
such assessments each year to the Committee on House
Administration of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.
``(d) Deadline.--A covered employee may not file a claim
under this section with respect to an allegation of a
violation of law after the expiration of the 180-day period
which begins on the date of the alleged violation.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by amending the item relating to section 402 to read as
follows:

``Sec. 402. Initiation of procedures.''.

[[Page S7542]]

SEC. 103. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF CLAIMS BY HEARING OFFICER.

(a) Preliminary Review Described.--Title IV (2 U.S.C. 1401
et seq.), as amended by section 101(c), is further amended by
inserting after section 402 the following new section:

``SEC. 403. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF CLAIMS.

``(a) Preliminary Review by Hearing Officer.--
``(1) Appointment.--Not later than 7 days after
transmission to the employing office of a claim pursuant to
section 402(b), the Executive Director shall appoint a
hearing officer to conduct a preliminary review of the claim.
``(2) Process for appointment.--The Executive Director
shall appoint a hearing officer under this subsection in the
same manner and in accordance with the same requirements and
procedures applicable to the appointment of a hearing officer
under section 405(c).
``(b) Assessments Required.--In conducting a preliminary
review of a claim under this section, the hearing officer
shall assess each of the following:
``(1) Whether the claimant is a covered employee authorized
to obtain relief relating to the claim under this title.
``(2) Whether the office which is the subject of the claim
is an employing office under this Act.
``(3) Whether the individual filing the claim has met the
applicable deadlines for filing the claim under this title.
``(4) The identification of factual and legal issues
involved with respect to the claim.
``(5) The specific relief sought by the individual.
``(6) Whether, on the basis of the assessments made under
paragraphs (1) through (5), the individual filing the claim
is a covered employee who has stated a claim for which, if
the allegations contained in the claim are true, relief may
be granted under this title.
``(7) The potential for the settlement of the claim without
a formal hearing as provided under section 405 or a civil
action as provided under section 408.
``(c) Report on Review.--
``(1) Report.--Not later than 30 days after a claim is
filed under section 402, the hearing officer shall submit to
the individual filing the claim and the office which is the
subject of the claim a report on the preliminary review
conducted under this section, and shall include in the report
the hearing officer's determination as to whether the
individual is a covered employee who has stated a claim for
which relief may be granted under this title (as described in
paragraph (6) of subsection (b)). The submission of the
report shall conclude the preliminary review.
``(2) Extension of deadline.--The hearing officer may (upon
notice to the individual filing the claim and the employing
office which is the subject of the claim) use an additional
period of not to exceed 30 days to conclude the preliminary
review.
``(d) Effect of Determination of Failure to State Claim for
Which Relief May Be Granted.--If the hearing officer's report
on the preliminary review of a claim under subsection (c)
includes the determination that the individual filing the
claim is not a covered employee or has not stated a claim for
which relief may be granted under this title--
``(1) the individual (including an individual who is a
Library claimant, as defined in section 401(d)(1)) may not
obtain a formal hearing with respect to the claim as provided
under section 405; and
``(2) the hearing officer shall provide the individual and
the Executive Director with a written notice that the
individual may file a civil action with respect to the claim
in accordance with section 408.
``(e) Transmission of Report on Preliminary Review of
Certain Claims to Congressional Ethics Committees.--In the
case of a hearing officer's report under subsection (c) on
the preliminary review of a claim alleging a violation
described in section 415(d)(1)(A), the hearing officer shall
transmit the report to--
``(1) the Committee on Ethics of the House of
Representatives, in the case of such an act by a Member of
the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to the Congress); or
``(2) the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate, in the
case of such an act by a Senator.''.
(b) Deadline for Requesting Hearing After Preliminary
Review.--Section 405(a) (2 U.S.C. 1405(a)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(a) Requirement for Hearings to Commence in Office.--
``(1) Hearing required upon request.--If, not later than 10
days after a hearing officer submits the report on the
preliminary review of a claim under section 403(c), a covered
employee submits a request to the Executive Director for a
hearing under this section, the Executive Director shall
appoint an independent hearing officer pursuant to subsection
(c) to consider the claim and render a decision, and a
hearing shall be commenced in the Office.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply with
respect to the claim if--
``(A) the hearing officer's report on the preliminary
review of the claim under section 403(c) includes the
determination that the individual filing the claim is not a
covered employee who has stated a claim for which relief may
be granted under this title (as described in section 403(d));
or
``(B) the covered employee files a civil action as provided
in section 408 with respect to the claim.''.
(c) Prohibiting Hearing Officer Conducting Preliminary
Review From Conducting Hearing.--Section 405(c) (2 U.S.C.
1405(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Prohibiting hearing officer conducting preliminary
review from conducting hearing.--The Executive Director may
not appoint a hearing officer to conduct a hearing under this
section with respect to a claim if the hearing officer
conducted the preliminary review with respect to the claim
under section 403.''.
(d) Deadline for Commencement of Hearing; Permitting
Additional Time.--Section 405(d) (2 U.S.C. 1405(d)) is
amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the
following:
``(2) commenced no later than 90 days after the Executive
Director receives the covered employee's request for the
hearing under subsection (a), except that, upon mutual
agreement of the parties or for good cause, the Office shall
extend the time for commencing a hearing for not more than an
additional 30 days; and''.
(e) Other Conforming Amendments Relating to Hearings
Conducted by Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.--
Section 405 (2 U.S.C. 1405) is amended as follows:
(1) In the heading, by striking ``complaint and''.
(2) In subsection (c)(1), by striking ``complaint'' and
inserting ``request for a hearing under subsection (a)''.
(3) In subsection (d) in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``complaint'' and inserting ``claim''.
(4) In subsection (g), by striking ``complaint'' and
inserting ``claim''.
(f) Other Conforming Amendment.--The heading of section 414
(2 U.S.C. 1414) is amended by striking ``of complaints''.
(g) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents, as amended
by section 101(e), is further amended as follows:
(1) By inserting after the item relating to section 402 the
following new item:

``Sec. 403. Preliminary review of claims.''.
(2) By amending the item relating to section 405 to read as
follows:

``Sec. 405. Hearing.''.
(3) By amending the item relating to section 414 to read as
follows:

``Sec. 414. Settlement.''.

SEC. 104. AVAILABILITY OF MEDIATION DURING PROCESS.

(a) Availability of Mediation.--Section 404(a) (2 U.S.C.
1403(a)), as redesignated by section 101(c), is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Availability of Mediation.--
``(1) Notification regarding mediation.--
``(A) Covered employee.--Upon receipt of a claim under
section 402, the Office shall notify the covered employee who
filed the claim about the process for mediation under this
section and the deadlines applicable to such mediation.
``(B) Employing office.--Upon transmission to the employing
office of the claim pursuant to section 402(b), the Office
shall notify the employing office about the process for
mediation under this section and the deadlines applicable to
such mediation.
``(2) Initiation.--
``(A) In general.--During the period described in
subparagraph (B), either the covered employee who filed a
claim under section 402 or the employing office named in the
claim may file a request for mediation with the Office, which
shall promptly notify the other party. If the other party
agrees to the request, the Office shall promptly assign a
mediator to the claim, and conduct mediation under this
section.
``(B) Timing.--A covered employee or an employing office
may file a request for mediation under subparagraph (A)
during the period beginning on the date that the covered
employee or employing office, respectively, receives a
notification under paragraph (1) regarding a claim under
section 402 and ending on the date on which a hearing officer
issues a written decision relating to the claim under section
405(g) or the covered employee files a civil action with
respect to the claim in accordance with section 408, as
applicable.
``(3) Failure to request or accept mediation to have no
effect on treatment of claim.--The failure of a party to
request mediation under this section with respect to a claim,
or the failure of a party to agree to a request for mediation
under this section, may not be taken into consideration under
any procedure under this title with respect to the claim,
including a preliminary review under section 403, a formal
hearing under section 405, or a civil action under section
408.''.
(b) Requiring Parties to Be Separated During Mediation at
Request of Employee.--Section 404(b)(2) (2 U.S.C.
1403(b)(2)), as redesignated by section 101(c), is amended by
striking ``meetings with the parties separately or jointly''
and inserting ``meetings with the parties during which, at
the request of any of the parties, the parties shall be
separated,''.
(c) Period of Mediation.--Section 404(c) (2 U.S.C.
1403(c)), as redesignated by section 101(c), is amended by
striking the first 2 sentences and inserting the following:
``The mediation period shall be 30 days, beginning on the
first day after the second party agrees to the request for
the mediation. The mediation period may be extended for one
additional period of 30 days at the joint request of the
covered employee and employing office. Any deadline in this
Act relating to a claim for

[[Page S7543]]

which mediation has been agreed to in this section, that has
not already passed by the first day of the mediation period,
shall be stayed during the mediation period.''.

Subtitle B--Other Reforms

SEC. 111. REQUIRING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO REIMBURSE TREASURY
FOR AMOUNTS PAID AS SETTLEMENTS AND AWARDS IN
CASES OF ACTS BY MEMBERS.

(a) Mandating Reimbursement of Amounts Paid.--Section 415
(2 U.S.C. 1415) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(d) Reimbursement by Members of Congress of Amounts Paid
as Settlements and Awards.--
``(1) Reimbursement required for certain violations.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (D), if
a payment is made from the account described in subsection
(a) for an award or settlement in connection with a claim
alleging a violation described in subparagraph (C) committed
personally by an individual who, at the time of committing
the violation, was a Member of the House of Representatives
(including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the
Congress) or a Senator, the individual shall reimburse the
account for the amount of the award or settlement for the
claim involved.
``(B) Conditions.--In the case of an award made pursuant to
a decision of a hearing officer under section 405, or a court
in a civil action, subparagraph (A) shall apply only if the
hearing officer or court makes a separate finding that a
violation described in subparagraph (C) occurred which was
committed personally by an individual who, at the time of
committing the violation, was a Member of the House of
Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to the Congress) or a Senator, and such
individual shall reimburse the account for the amount of
compensatory damages included in the award as would be
available if awarded under section 1977A(b)(3) of the Revised
Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3)) irrespective of the size of
the employing office. In the case of a settlement for a claim
described in section 416(d)(3), subparagraph (A) shall apply
only if the conditions specified in section 416(d)(3) for
requesting reimbursement are met.
``(C) Violations described.--A violation described in this
subparagraph is--
``(i) harassment that is unlawful under section 201(a) or
206(a); or
``(ii) intimidation, reprisal, or discrimination that is
unlawful under section 207 and is taken against a covered
employee because of a claim alleging a violation described in
clause (i).
``(D) Multiple claims.--If an award or settlement is made
for multiple claims, some of which do not require
reimbursement under this subsection, the individual described
in subparagraph (A) shall only be required to reimburse for
the amount (referred to in this Act as the `reimbursable
portion') that is--
``(i) described in subparagraph (A), subject to
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) included in the portion of the award or settlement
attributable to a claim requiring reimbursement.
``(2) Withholding amounts from compensation.--
``(A) Establishment of timetable and procedures by
committees.--For purposes of carrying out subparagraph (B),
the applicable Committee shall establish a timetable and
procedures for the withholding of amounts from the
compensation of an individual who is a Member of the House of
Representatives or a Senator.
``(B) Deadline.--The payroll administrator shall withhold
from an individual's compensation and transfer to the account
described in subsection (a) (after making any deposit
required under section 8432(f) of title 5, United States
Code) such amounts as may be necessary to reimburse the
account described in subsection (a) for the reimbursable
portion of the award or settlement described in paragraph (1)
if the individual has not reimbursed the account as required
under paragraph (1) prior to the expiration of the 90-day
period which begins on the date a payment is made from the
account for such an award or settlement.
``(C) Applicable committee defined.--In this paragraph, the
term `applicable Committee' means--
``(i) the Committee on House Administration of the House of
Representatives, in the case of an individual who, at the
time of the withholding, is a Member of the House; or
``(ii) the Committee on Rules and Administration of the
Senate, in the case of an individual who, at the time of the
withholding, is a Senator.
``(3) Use of amounts in thrift savings fund as source of
reimbursement.--
``(A) In general.--If, by the expiration of the 180-day
period that begins on the date a payment is made from the
account described in subsection (a) for an award or
settlement described in paragraph (1), an individual who is
subject to a reimbursement requirement of this subsection has
not reimbursed the account for the entire reimbursable
portion as required under paragraph (1), withholding and
transfers of amounts shall continue under paragraph (2) if
the individual remains employed in the same position, and the
Executive Director of the Federal Retirement Thrift
Investment Board shall make a transfer described in
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Transfers.--The transfer by such Executive Director
is a transfer, from the account of the individual in the
Thrift Savings Fund to the account described in subsection
(a), of an amount equal to the amount of that reimbursable
portion of the award or settlement, reduced by--
``(i) any amount the individual has reimbursed, taking into
account any amounts withheld under paragraph (2); and
``(ii) if the individual remains employed in the same
position, any amount that the individual is scheduled to
reimburse, taking into account any amounts to be withheld
under the individual's timetable under paragraph (2).
``(C) Initiation of transfer.--Notwithstanding section 8435
of title 5, United States Code, the Executive Director
described in subparagraph (A) shall make the transfer under
subparagraph (A) upon receipt of a written request to the
Executive Director from the Secretary of the Treasury, in the
form and manner required by the Executive Director.
``(D) Coordination between payroll administrator and the
executive director.--The payroll administrator and the
Executive Director described in subparagraph (A) shall carry
out this paragraph in a manner that ensures the coordination
of the withholding and transferring of amounts under this
paragraph, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the
Board under section 303 and such Executive Director.
``(4) Administrative wage garnishment or other collection
of wages from a subsequent position.--
``(A) Individual subject to garnishment or other
collection.--Subparagraph (B) shall apply to an individual
who is subject to a reimbursement requirement of this
subsection if, at any time after the expiration of the 270-
day period that begins on the date a payment is made from the
account described in subsection (a) for an award or
settlement described in paragraph (1), the individual--
``(i) has not reimbursed the account for the entire
reimbursable portion as required under paragraph (1), through
withholdings or transfers under paragraphs (2) and (3);
``(ii) is not serving in a position as a Member of the
House of Representatives or a Senator; and
``(iii) is employed in a subsequent non-Federal position.
``(B) Garnishment or other collection of wages.--On the
expiration of that 270-day period, the amount of the
reimbursable portion of an award or settlement described in
paragraph (1) (reduced by any amount the individual has
reimbursed, taking into account any amounts withheld or
transferred under paragraph (2) or (3)) shall be treated as a
claim of the United States and transferred to the Secretary
of the Treasury for collection. Upon that transfer, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall collect the claim, in
accordance with section 3711 of title 31, United States Code,
including by administrative wage garnishment of the wages of
the individual described in subparagraph (A) from the
position described in subparagraph (A)(iii). The Secretary of
the Treasury shall transfer the collected amount to the
account described in subsection (a).
``(5) Notification to office of personnel management and
secretary of the treasury.--
``(A) Individual subject to annuity or social security
withholding.--Subparagraph (B) shall apply to an individual
subject to a reimbursement requirement of this subsection if,
at any time after the expiration of the 270-day period
described in paragraph (4)(A), the individual--
``(i) has not served in a position as a Member of the House
of Representatives or a Senator during the preceding 90 days;
and
``(ii) is not employed in a subsequent non-Federal
position.
``(B) Annuity or social security withholding.--If, at any
time after the 270-day period described in paragraph (4)(A),
the individual described in subparagraph (A) has not
reimbursed the account described in subsection (a) for the
entire reimbursable portion of the award or settlement
described in paragraph (1) (as determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury), through withholdings, transfers, or
collections under paragraphs (2) through (4), the Secretary
of the Treasury (after consultation with the payroll
administrator)--
``(i) shall notify the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, who shall take such actions as the Director
considers appropriate to withhold from any annuity payable to
the individual under chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5,
United States Code, and transfer to the account described in
subsection (a), such amounts as may be necessary to reimburse
the account for the remainder of the reimbursable portion of
an award or settlement described in paragraph (1); and
``(ii) shall (if necessary), notwithstanding section 207 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 407), take such actions as
the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate to
withhold from any payment to the individual under title II of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and transfer
to the account described in subsection (a), such amounts as
may be necessary to reimburse the account for the remainder
of the reimbursable portion of an award or settlement
described in paragraph (1).
``(6) Coordination between opm and treasury.--The Director
of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of
the Treasury shall carry out paragraph (5) in a manner that
ensures the coordination of the withholding and transferring
of amounts under such paragraph, in accordance with

[[Page S7544]]

regulations promulgated by the Director and the Secretary.
``(7) Certification.--Once the Executive Director
determines that an individual who is subject to a
reimbursement requirement of this subsection has reimbursed
the account described in subsection (a) for the entire
reimbursable portion, the Executive Director shall prepare a
certification that the individual has completed that
reimbursement, and submit the certification to--
``(A) the Committees on House Administration and Ethics of
the House of Representatives, in the case of an individual
who, at the time of committing the act involved, was a Member
of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to the Congress); and
``(B) the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate, in the
case of an individual who, at the time of committing the act
involved, was a Senator.
``(8) Right to intervene.--An individual who is subject to
a reimbursement requirement of this subsection shall have the
unconditional right to intervene in any mediation, hearing,
or civil action under this title to protect the interests of
the individual in the determination of whether an award or
settlement described in paragraph (1) should be made, and the
amount of any such award or settlement, except that nothing
in this paragraph may be construed to require the covered
employee who filed the claim to be deposed by counsel for the
individual in a deposition that is separate from any other
deposition taken from the employee in connection with the
hearing or civil action.
``(9) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Non-federal position.--The term `non-Federal
position' means a position other than the position of an
employee, as defined in section 2105(a) of title 5, United
States Code.
``(B) Payroll administrator.--The term `payroll
administrator' means--
``(i) in the case of an individual who is a Member of the
House of Representatives, the Chief Administrative Officer of
the House of Representatives, or an employee of the Office of
the Chief Administrative Officer who is designated by the
Chief Administrative Officer to carry out this subsection; or
``(ii) in the case of an individual who is a Senator, the
Secretary of the Senate, or an employee of the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate who is designated by the Secretary to
carry out this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8437(e)(3) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``an obligation
of the Executive Director to make a transfer under section
415(d)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1415(d)(3)),'' before ``or an obligation''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall apply with respect to claims made on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 112. AUTOMATIC REFERRAL TO CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
COMMITTEES OF DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN CLAIMS
ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995 INVOLVING MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS AND SENIOR STAFF.

Section 416(e) (2 U.S.C. 1416(e)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(e) Automatic Referral to Congressional Ethics Committee
of Dispositions of Claims Involving Members of Congress and
Senior Staff.--
``(1) Referral.--Upon the final disposition under this
title (as described in paragraph (6)) of a claim alleging a
violation described in section 415(d)(1)(C) committed
personally by a Member of the House of Representatives
(including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the
Congress) or a Senator, or by a senior staff of the House of
Representatives or Senate, the Executive Director shall refer
the claim to--
``(A) the Committee on Ethics of the House of
Representatives, in the case of a Member or senior staff of
the House; or
``(B) the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate, in the
case of a Senator or senior staff of the Senate.
``(2) Access to records and information.--If the Executive
Director refers a claim to a Committee under paragraph (1),
the Executive Director shall provide the Committee with
access to the records of any preliminary reviews, hearings,
or decisions of the hearing officers and the Board under this
Act, and any information relating to an award or settlement
paid, in response to such claim.
``(3) Review by senate ethics committee of settlements of
certain claims.--After the receipt of a settlement agreement
for a claim that includes an allegation of a violation
described in section 415(d)(1)(C) committed personally by a
Senator, the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate shall--
``(A) not later than 90 days after that receipt, review the
settlement agreement;
``(B) determine whether an investigation of the claim is
warranted; and
``(C) if the Select Committee determines, after the
investigation, that the claim that resulted in the settlement
involved an actual violation described in section
415(d)(1)(C) committed personally by the Senator, then the
Select Committee shall notify the Executive Director to
request the reimbursement described in section 415(d) and
include the settlement in the report required by section
301(l).
``(4) Protection of personally identifiable information.--
If a Committee to which a claim is referred under paragraph
(1) issues a report with respect to the claim, the Committee
shall ensure that the report does not directly disclose the
identity or position of the individual who filed the claim.
``(5) Committee authority to protect identity of a
claimant.--
``(A) Authority.--If a Committee to which a claim is
referred under paragraph (1) issues a report as described in
paragraph (4) concerning a Member of the House of
Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to the Congress) or a Senator, or a senior staff
of the House of Representatives or Senate, the Committee may
make an appropriate redaction to the information or data
included in the report if the Chairman and Vice Chairman of
the Committee reach agreement--
``(i) that including the information or data considered for
redaction may lead to the unintentional disclosure of the
identity or position of a claimant; and
``(ii) on the precise information or data to be redacted.
``(B) Notation and statement.--The report including any
such redaction shall note each redaction and include a
statement that the redaction was made solely for the purpose
of avoiding such an unintentional disclosure of the identity
or position of a claimant.
``(C) Retention of reports.--The Committee making a
redaction in accordance with this paragraph shall retain a
copy of the report, without a redaction.
``(6) Final disposition described.--In this subsection, the
`final disposition' of a claim means any of the following:
``(A) An order or agreement to pay an award or settlement,
including an agreement reached pursuant to mediation under
section 404.
``(B) A final decision of a hearing officer under section
405(g) that is no longer subject to review by the Board under
section 406.
``(C) A final decision of the Board under section 406(e)
that is no longer subject to appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under section 407.
``(D) A final decision in a civil action under section 408
that is no longer subject to appeal.
``(7) Senior staff defined.--In this subsection, the term
`senior staff' means any individual who, at the time a
violation occurred, was required to file a report under title
I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 101
et seq.).''.

SEC. 113. AVAILABILITY OF REMOTE WORK ASSIGNMENT OR PAID
LEAVE OF ABSENCE DURING PENDENCY OF PROCEDURES.

(a) In General.--Title IV (2 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 417. OPTION TO REQUEST REMOTE WORK ASSIGNMENT OR PAID
LEAVE OF ABSENCE DURING PENDENCY OF PROCEDURES.

``(a) Options for Employees.--
``(1) Remote work assignment.--At the request of a covered
employee who files a claim alleging a violation of part A of
title II by the covered employee's employing office, during
the pendency of any of the procedures available under this
title for consideration of the claim, the employing office
may permit the covered employee to carry out the employee's
responsibilities from a remote location (referred to in this
section as `permitting a remote work assignment') where such
relocation would have the effect of materially reducing
interactions between the covered employee and any person
alleged to have committed the violation, instead of from a
location of the employing office.
``(2) Exception for work assignments required to be carried
out onsite.--If, in the determination of the covered
employee's employing office, a covered employee who makes a
request under this subsection cannot carry out the employee's
responsibilities from a remote location or such relocation
would not have the effect described in paragraph (1), the
employing office may during the pendency of the procedures
described in paragraph (1)--
``(A) grant a paid leave of absence to the covered
employee;
``(B) permit a remote work assignment and grant a paid
leave of absence to the covered employee; or
``(C) make another workplace adjustment, or permit a remote
work assignment, that would have the effect of reducing
interactions between the covered employee and any person
alleged to have committed the violation described in
paragraph (1).
``(3) Ensuring no retaliation.--An employing office may not
grant a covered employee's request under this subsection in a
manner which would constitute a violation of section 207.
``(4) No impact on vacation or personal leave.--In granting
leave for a paid leave of absence under this section, an
employing office shall not require the covered employee to
substitute, for that leave, any of the accrued paid vacation
or personal leave of the covered employee.
``(b) Exception for Arrangements Subject to Collective
Bargaining Agreements.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the
extent that it is inconsistent with the terms and conditions
of any collective bargaining agreement which is in effect
with respect to an employing office.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by adding at the end of the items relating to title IV the
following new item:

[[Page S7545]]

``Sec. 417. Option to request remote work assignment or paid leave of
absence during pendency of procedures.''.

SEC. 114. MODIFICATION OF RULES ON CONFIDENTIALITY OF
PROCEEDINGS.

(a) Mediation.--Section 416(b) (2 U.S.C. 1416(b)) is
amended by striking ``All mediation'' and inserting ``All
information discussed or disclosed in the course of any
mediation''.
(b) Claims.--Section 416 (2 U.S.C. 1416), as amended by
section 112 and subsection (a) of this section, is further
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a);
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (f) as
subsections (a) through (e), respectively;
(3) in subsection (b), as redesignated by paragraph (2) of
this subsection, by striking ``subsections (d), (e), and
(f)'' and inserting ``subsections (c), (d), and (e)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Claims.--Nothing in this section may be construed to
prohibit a covered employee from disclosing the factual
allegations underlying the covered employee's claim, or to
prohibit an employing office from disclosing the factual
allegations underlying the employing office's defense to the
claim, in the course of any proceeding under this title.''.

SEC. 115. REIMBURSEMENT BY OTHER EMPLOYING OFFICES OF
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF PAYMENTS OF CERTAIN
AWARDS AND SETTLEMENTS.

(a) Requiring Reimbursement.--Section 415 (2 U.S.C. 1415),
as amended by section 111, is further amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Reimbursement by Employing Offices.--
``(1) Notification of payments made from account.--As soon
as practicable after the Executive Director is made aware
that a payment of an award or settlement under this Act has
been made from the account described in subsection (a) in
connection with a claim alleging a violation of section
201(a) or 206(a) by an employing office (other than an
employing office of the House of Representatives or an
employing office of the Senate), the Executive Director shall
notify the head of the employing office that the payment has
been made, and shall include in the notification a statement
of the amount of the payment.
``(2) Reimbursement by office.--Not later than 180 days
after receiving a notification from the Executive Director
under paragraph (1), the head of the employing office
involved shall transfer to the account described in
subsection (a), out of any funds available for operating
expenses of the office, a payment equal to the amount
specified in the notification.
``(3) Timetable and procedures for reimbursement.--The head
of an employing office shall transfer a payment under
paragraph (2) in accordance with such timetable and
procedures as may be established under regulations
promulgated by the Office.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to payments made under section 415
of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1415) for claims filed on or after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

TITLE II--IMPROVING OPERATIONS OF OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE
RIGHTS

SEC. 201. REPORTS ON AWARDS AND SETTLEMENTS.

(a) Annual Reports on Awards and Settlements.--
(1) Requiring submission and publication of reports.--
Section 301 (2 U.S.C. 1381) is amended--
(A) in subsection (h)(3), by striking ``complaint'' each
place it appears and inserting ``claim''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Annual Reports on Awards and Settlements.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the rules issued by the
applicable committee pursuant to paragraph (2):
``(A) Requirement.--The Office shall prepare and submit to
Congress, and publish on the public website of the Office, an
annual report regarding payments from the account described
in section 415(a) that were the result of claims alleging a
violation of part A of title II (referred to in this
subsection as `covered payments').
``(B) Reporting.--The reporting required under this
paragraph shall--
``(i) for a covered payment, or the reimbursable portion of
a covered payment, described in paragraph (2), conform to the
requirements of the rules issued by the applicable committee
under such paragraph; and
``(ii) for a covered payment, or the portion of a covered
payment, not described in paragraph (2)--

``(I) include the amount of the covered payment or portion
of the covered payment and information on the employing
office involved; and
``(II) identify each provision of part A of title II that
was the subject of a claim resulting in the covered payment
or portion of the covered payment.

``(C) Reporting periods and dates.--The reporting required
under this paragraph--
``(i) for 2019, shall be submitted by the 60th day after
the date on which the committees described in paragraph (2)
issue the rules described in paragraph (2) and shall reflect
covered payments made in calendar year 2019; and
``(ii) for 2020 and each subsequent calendar year, shall be
submitted by January 31 of that year and shall reflect
covered payments made in the previous calendar year.
``(2) Rules regarding reporting of covered payments for
employing offices of the house and employing offices of the
senate.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this subsection, the Committee on House
Administration of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate shall
each issue rules establishing the content, format, and other
requirements for the reporting required under paragraph
(1)(B)(i) with respect to--
``(i) any covered payment made for claims involving an
employing office described in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (C) of section 101(a)(9) of the House of
Representatives or of the Senate, respectively; and
``(ii) the reimbursable portion of any such covered payment
for which there is a finding requiring reimbursement under
section 415(d)(1)(B) from a Member of the House of
Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to the Congress) or a Senator, respectively.
``(B) Applicability.--The rules issued under subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) by the Committee on House Administration of the House
of Representatives shall apply to covered payments made for
claims involving employing offices described in subparagraph
(A)(i) of the House; and
``(ii) by the Committee on Rules and Administration of the
Senate shall apply to covered payments made for claims
involving employing offices described in subparagraph (A)(i)
of the Senate.
``(3) Protection of identity of individuals receiving
awards and settlements.--In preparing, submitting, and
publishing the reports required under paragraph (1), the
Office shall ensure that the identity or position of any
claimant is not disclosed.
``(4) Authority to protect the identity of a claimant.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (3), the
Executive Director, in consultation with the Board, may make
an appropriate redaction to the data included in the report
described in paragraph (1) if the Executive Director, in
consultation with the Board, determines that including the
data considered for redaction may lead to the identity or
position of a claimant unintentionally being disclosed. The
report shall note each redaction and include a statement that
the redaction was made solely for the purpose of avoiding
such an unintentional disclosure of the identity or position
of a claimant.
``(B) Recordkeeping.--The Executive Director shall retain a
copy of the report described in paragraph (1), without
redactions.
``(5) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `claimant'
means an individual who received an award or settlement, or
who made an allegation of a violation against an employing
office, under part A of title II.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)(B)
shall take effect on January 1, 2019.
(b) Report on Amounts Previously Paid.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights shall submit to Congress and make available
to the public on the Office's public website a report on all
payments made with public funds (to include funds paid from
the account described in section 415(a) of the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1415(a)), an account of
the House of Representatives or Senate, or any other account
of the Federal Government) prior to the date of the enactment
of this Act for awards and settlements in connection with
violations of section 201(a) of the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1311(a)), or section 207
of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1317), and shall include in the report
the following information:
(A) The amount paid for each such award or settlement.
(B) The source of the public funds used for the award or
settlement.
(2) Rule of construction regarding identification of house
and senate accounts.--Nothing in paragraph (1)(B) may be
construed to require or permit the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights to report the account of any specific office
of the House of Representatives or Senate as the source of
funds used for an award or settlement.
(c) Rulemaking Powers.--Section 501 (2 U.S.C. 1431) is
amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting
``, section 301(l),'' before ``and 304(c)''.

SEC. 202. WORKPLACE CLIMATE SURVEYS OF EMPLOYING OFFICES.

(a) Requiring Surveys.--Title III (2 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 307. WORKPLACE CLIMATE SURVEYS OF EMPLOYING OFFICES.

``(a) Requirement to Conduct Secure Surveys.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section,
and every 2 years thereafter, the Office shall conduct a
secure survey of employing offices under this Act regarding
the workplace environment of such offices. Employee responses
to the survey shall be voluntary.
``(b) Special Inclusion of Information on Sexual
Harassment.--In each survey conducted under this section, the
Office shall survey respondents on attitudes regarding sexual
harassment.

[[Page S7546]]

``(c) Methodology.--
``(1) In general.--The Office shall conduct each survey
under this section in accordance with methodologies
established by the Office.
``(2) Confidentiality.--Under the methodologies established
under paragraph (1), all responses to all portions of the
survey shall be anonymous and confidential, and each
respondent shall be told throughout the survey that all
responses shall be anonymous and confidential.
``(3) Survey form.--The Office shall limit the use of any
information code or information on the survey form that makes
a respondent to the survey, or the respondent's employing
office, individually identifiable.
``(d) Use of Results of Surveys.--The Office shall furnish
the information obtained from the surveys conducted under
this section to the Committee on House Administration of the
House of Representatives and the Committees on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs and Rules and
Administration of the Senate.
``(e) Consultation With Committees.--The Office shall carry
out this section, including establishment of methodologies
and procedures under subsection (c), in consultation with the
Committee on House Administration of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and Rules and Administration of the
Senate.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by adding at the end of the items relating to title III the
following new item:

``Sec. 307. Workplace climate surveys of employing offices.''.

SEC. 203. RECORD RETENTION.

Section 301 (2 U.S.C. 1381), as amended by section 201(a),
is further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(m) Record Retention.--The Office shall establish and
maintain a program for the permanent retention of its
records, including the records of preliminary reviews,
mediations, hearings, and other proceedings conducted under
title IV.''.

SEC. 204. CONFIDENTIAL ADVISORS.

Section 302 (2 U.S.C. 1382) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (f) as
subsections (e) through (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Confidential Advisors.--
``(1) In general.--The Executive Director shall--
``(A) appoint, and fix the compensation of, and may remove,
1 or more confidential advisors to carry out the duties
described in this subsection; or
``(B) designate 1 or more employees of the Office to serve
as a confidential advisor.
``(2) Duties.--
``(A) Voluntary services.--A confidential advisor appointed
or designated under paragraph (1) shall offer to provide to
covered employees described in paragraph (4) the services
described in subparagraph (B), which a covered employee may
accept or decline.
``(B) Services.--The services referred to in subparagraph
(A) are--
``(i) informing, on a privileged and confidential basis, a
covered employee who has been subject to a practice that may
be a violation of part A of title II about the employee's
rights under this Act;
``(ii) consulting, on a privileged and confidential basis,
with a covered employee who has been subject to a practice
that may be a violation of part A of title II regarding--

``(I) the roles, responsibilities, and authority of the
Office; and
``(II) the relative merits of securing private counsel,
designating a non-attorney representative, or proceeding
without representation for proceedings before the Office;

``(iii) advising and consulting with, on a privileged and
confidential basis, a covered employee who has been subject
to a practice that may be a violation of part A of title II
regarding any claims the covered employee may have under
title IV, the factual allegations that support each such
claim, and the relative merits of the procedural options
available to the employee for each such claim;
``(iv) assisting, on a privileged and confidential basis, a
covered employee who seeks consideration under title IV of an
allegation of a violation of part A of title II in
understanding the procedures, and the significance of the
procedures, described in title IV, including--

``(I) assisting or consulting with the covered employee
regarding the drafting of a claim to be filed under section
402(a); and
``(II) consulting with the covered employee regarding the
procedural options available to the covered employee after a
claim is filed, and the relative merits of each option; and

``(v) informing, on a privileged and confidential basis, a
covered employee who has been subject to a practice that may
be a violation of part A of title II about the option of
pursuing, in appropriate circumstances, a complaint with the
Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives or the
Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate.
``(C) Continuity of service.--Once a covered employee has
accepted and received any services offered under this section
from a confidential advisor appointed or designated under
paragraph (1), any other services requested under this
subsection by the covered employee shall be provided, to the
extent practicable, by the same confidential advisor.
``(3) Qualifications.--A confidential advisor appointed or
designated under paragraph (1) shall be a lawyer who--
``(A) is admitted to practice before, and is in good
standing with, the bar of a State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, or a territory of the United States;
and
``(B) has experience representing clients in cases
involving the workplace laws incorporated by part A of title
II.
``(4) Individuals covered.--The services described in
paragraph (2) are available to any covered employee (which,
for purposes of this subsection, shall include any staff
member described in section 201(d) and any former covered
employee (including any such former staff member)), except
that--
``(A) a former covered employee may only request such
services if the practice that may be a violation of part A of
title II occurred during the employment or service of the
employee; and
``(B) a covered employee described in this paragraph may
only request such services before the expiration of the 180-
day period described in section 402(d).
``(5) Restrictions.--A confidential advisor appointed or
designated under paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall not act as the designated representative for
any covered employee in connection with the covered
employee's participation in any proceeding, including any
proceeding under this Act, any judicial proceeding, or any
proceeding before any committee of Congress;
``(B) shall not offer or provide services described in
paragraph (2)(B) to a covered employee if the covered
employee has designated an attorney representative in
connection with the covered employee's participation in any
proceeding under this Act, except that a confidential advisor
may provide general assistance and information to such
attorney representative regarding this Act and the role of
the Office as the confidential advisor determines
appropriate; and
``(C) shall not serve as a mediator in any mediation
conducted pursuant to section 404.''.

SEC. 205. GAO STUDY OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the management practices of the
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to Congress a report on the
study conducted under subsection (a), and shall include in
the report such recommendations as the Comptroller General
considers appropriate for improvements to the management
practices of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.

SEC. 206. GAO AUDIT OF CYBERSECURITY.

(a) Audit.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct an audit of the cybersecurity systems and
practices of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to Congress a report on the
audit conducted under subsection (a), and shall include in
the report such recommendations as the Comptroller General
considers appropriate for improvements to the cybersecurity
systems and practices of the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights.

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS REFORMS

SEC. 301. APPLICATION OF GENETIC INFORMATION
NONDISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2008.

Section 102 (2 U.S.C. 1302) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.--
``(1) In general.--The provisions of this Act that apply to
a violation of section 201(a)(1) shall be considered to apply
to a violation of title II of the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff et seq.),
consistent with section 207(c) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2000ff-
6(c)).
``(2) Construction.--
``(A) No limitation on other laws.--Nothing in this section
limits the provisions of this Act that apply to a violation
of a law described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Other laws.--A law described in this subparagraph is
a law (even if not listed in subsection (a) or this
subsection) that explicitly applies one or more provisions of
this Act to a violation.''.

SEC. 302. EXTENSION TO UNPAID STAFF OF RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS
AGAINST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION.

(a) Extension.--Section 201 (2 U.S.C. 1311) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d) Application to Unpaid Staff.--
``(1) In general.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply with
respect to--
``(A) any staff member of an employing office who carries
out official duties of the employing office but who is not
paid by the employing office for carrying out such duties
(referred to in this subsection as an `unpaid staff member'),
including an intern, an individual detailed to an employing
office, and an individual participating in a fellowship
program, in the same manner and to the same extent as such
subsections apply with respect to a covered employee; and

[[Page S7547]]

``(B) a former unpaid staff member, if the act that may be
a violation of subsection (a) occurred during the service of
the former unpaid staffer for the employing office.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) may
be construed to extend liability for a violation of
subsection (a) to an employing office on the basis of an
action taken by any person who is not under the supervision
or control of the employing office.
``(3) Intern defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `intern' means an individual who performs service for an
employing office which is uncompensated by the United States
to earn credit awarded by an educational institution or to
learn a trade or occupation, and includes any individual
participating in a page program operated by any House of
Congress.''.
(b) Technical Correction Relating to Office Responsible for
Disbursement of Pay to House Employees.--Section 101(7) (2
U.S.C. 1301(7)) is amended by striking ``disbursed by the
Clerk of the House of Representatives'' and inserting
``disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House
of Representatives''.

SEC. 303. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
VISITORS.

(a) Clarification.--Section 210 (2 U.S.C. 1331) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
``(h) Election of Remedies Relating to Rights to Public
Services and Accommodations for Library Visitors.--
``(1) Definition of library visitor.--In this subsection,
the term `Library visitor' means an individual who is
eligible to bring a claim for a violation under title II or
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (other
than a violation for which the exclusive remedy is under
section 201) against the Library of Congress.
``(2) Election of remedies.--
``(A) In general.--A Library visitor who alleges a
violation of subsection (b) by the Library of Congress may,
subject to subparagraph (B)--
``(i) file a charge against the Library of Congress under
subsection (d); or
``(ii) use the remedies and procedures set forth in section
717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16), as
provided under section 510 (other than paragraph (5)) of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12209).
``(B) Timing.--A Library visitor that has initiated
proceedings under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) may
elect to change and initiate a proceeding under the other
clause--
``(i) in the case of a Library visitor who first filed a
charge pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i), before the General
Counsel files a complaint under subsection (d)(3); or
``(ii) in the case of a Library visitor who first initiated
a proceeding under subparagraph (A)(ii), before the Library
visitor requests a hearing under the procedures of the
Library of Congress described in such subparagraph.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 210(d)(2) (2 U.S.C.
1331(d)(2)) is amended by striking ``section 403'' and
inserting ``section 404''.
(c) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments made
by subsection (a) shall take effect as if such amendments
were included in the enactment of section 153 of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-
141), and shall apply as specified in section 153(c) of such
Act.

SEC. 304. NOTICES.

(a) Requiring Employing Offices to Post Notices.--Part E of
title II (2 U.S.C. 1361) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 226. NOTICES.

``(a) In General.--Every employing office shall post and
keep posted (in conspicuous places upon its premises where
notices to covered employees are customarily posted) a notice
provided by the Office that--
``(1) describes the rights, protections, and procedures
applicable to covered employees of the employing office under
this Act, concerning violations described in subsection (b);
and
``(2) includes contact information for the Office.
``(b) Violations.--A violation described in this subsection
is--
``(1) discrimination prohibited by section 201(a)
(including, in accordance with section 102(c), discrimination
prohibited by title II of the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff et seq.)) or
206(a); and
``(2) a violation of section 207 that is related to
discrimination described in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by adding at the end of the items relating to part E of title
II the following new item:

``Sec. 226. Notices.''.

SEC. 305. CLARIFICATION OF COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES OF HELSINKI
AND CHINA COMMISSIONS.

(a) Clarification of Coverage.--Section 101 (2 U.S.C.
1301), as amended by section 302(b), is further amended--
(1) by striking ``Except as otherwise'' and inserting ``(a)
In General.--Except as otherwise''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Clarification of Coverage of Employees of Certain
Commissions.--
``(1) Coverage.--With respect to the China Review
Commission, the Congressional-Executive China Commission, and
the Helsinki Commission--
``(A) any individual who is an employee of such Commission
shall be considered a covered employee for purposes of this
Act; and
``(B) the Commission shall be considered an employing
office for purposes of this Act.
``(2) Authority to provide legal assistance and
representation.--Subject to paragraph (3), legal assistance
and representation under this Act, including assistance and
representation with respect to the proposal or acceptance of
the disposition of a claim under this Act, shall be provided
to the China Review Commission, the Congressional-Executive
China Commission, and the Helsinki Commission--
``(A) by the Office of House Employment Counsel of the
House of Representatives, in the case of assistance and
representation in connection with a claim filed under title
IV (including all subsequent proceedings under such title in
connection with the claim) at a time when the chair of the
Commission is a Member of the House, and in the case of
assistance and representation in connection with any
subsequent claim under title IV related to the initial claim
where the subsequent claim involves the same parties; or
``(B) by the Office of Senate Chief Counsel for Employment
of the Senate, in the case of assistance and representation
in connection with a claim filed under title IV (including
all subsequent proceedings under such title in connection
with the claim) at a time when the chair of the Commission is
a Senator, and in the case of assistance and representation
in connection with any subsequent claim under title IV
related to the initial claim where the subsequent claim
involves the same parties.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) the term `China Review Commission' means the United
States-China Economic and Security Review Commission
established under section 1238 of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (22
U.S.C. 7002), as enacted into law by section 1 of Public Law
106-398;
``(B) the term `Congressional-Executive China Commission'
means the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's
Republic of China established under title III of the U.S.-
China Relations Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-286; 22 U.S.C.
6911 et seq.); and
``(C) the term `Helsinki Commission' means the Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe established under the
Act entitled `An Act to establish a Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe', approved June 3, 1976 (Public Law
94-304; 22 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.).''.
(b) Coverage of Stennis Center.--
(1) Treatment of employees as covered employees.--Section
101(a)(3) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (I);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(K) the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service
Training and Development.''.
(2) Treatment of center as employing office.--Section
101(a)(9)(D) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)(9)(D)) is amended by striking
``and the Office of Technology Assessment'' and inserting the
following: ``the Office of Technology Assessment, and the
John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and
Development''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraphs (7) and (8) of
section 101(a) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)) are each amended by
striking ``subparagraphs (C) through (I)'' and inserting
``subparagraphs (C) through (K)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.

SEC. 306. TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS OF OTHER EMPLOYING
OFFICES.

(a) Requiring Offices to Develop and Implement Programs.--
Title V (2 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 509 as section 510; and
(2) by inserting after section 508 the following new
section:

``SEC. 509. TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS OF EMPLOYING
OFFICES.

``(a) Requiring Offices to Develop and Implement
Programs.--Each employing office shall develop and implement
a program to train and educate covered employees of the
office in the rights and protections provided under this Act,
including the procedures available under title IV to consider
alleged violations of this Act.
``(b) Report to Committees.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the
beginning of each Congress (beginning with the One Hundred
Seventeenth Congress), each employing office shall submit a
report to the Committee on House Administration of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate on the implementation of the
program required under subsection (a).
``(2) Special rule for first report.--Not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of the Congressional
Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act, each employing office
shall submit the report described in

[[Page S7548]]

paragraph (1) to the Committees described in such paragraph.
``(c) Exception for Offices of Congress.--This section does
not apply to an employing office of the House of
Representatives or an employing office of the Senate.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended--
(1) by redesignating the item relating to section 509 as
relating to section 510; and
(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 508 the
following new item:

``Sec. 509. Training and education programs of employing offices.''.

SEC. 307. SUPPORT FOR OUT-OF-AREA COVERED EMPLOYEES.

(a) In General.--Title V (2 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), as
amended by section 306(a), is further amended--
(1) by redesignating section 510 as section 511; and
(2) by inserting after section 509, as inserted by section
306(a), the following:

``SEC. 510. SUPPORT FOR OUT-OF-AREA COVERED EMPLOYEES.

``(a) In General.--All covered employees whose location of
employment is outside of the Washington, DC area (referred to
in this section as `out-of-area covered employees') shall
have equitable access to the resources and services provided
by the Office and under this Act as is provided to covered
employees who work in the Washington, DC area.
``(b) Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.--The Office
shall--
``(1) establish a method by which out-of-area covered
employees may communicate securely with the Office, which
shall include an option for real-time audiovisual
communication; and
``(2) provide guidance to employing offices regarding how
each office can facilitate equitable access to the resources
and services provided under this Act for its out-of-area
covered employees, including information regarding the
communication methods described in paragraph (1).
``(c) Employing Offices.--It is the sense of Congress that
each employing office with out-of-area covered employees
should use its best efforts to facilitate equitable access to
the resources and services provided under this Act for those
employees.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents, as amended
by section 306(b), is amended--
(1) by redesignating the item relating to section 510 as
relating to section 511; and
(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 509, as
inserted by section 306(b), the following new item:

``Sec. 510. Support for out-of-area covered employees.''.

SEC. 308. RENAMING OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE AS OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS.

(a) Renaming.--Section 301 (2 U.S.C. 1381) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``office of
compliance'' and inserting ``office of congressional
workplace rights''; and
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Office of Compliance''
and inserting ``Office of Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995.--The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995,
as amended by section 305(a), is further amended as follows:
(1) In section 101(a)(1) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)(1)), by striking
``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(2) In section 101(a)(2) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)(2)), by striking
``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(3) In section 101(a)(3)(H) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)(3)(H)), by
striking ``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(4) In section 101(a)(9)(D) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)(9)(D)), by
striking ``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(5) In section 101(a)(10) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)(10)), by
striking ``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(6) In section 101(a)(11) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)(11)), by
striking ``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(7) In section 101(a)(12) (2 U.S.C. 1301(a)(12)), by
striking ``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(8) In section 210(a)(9) (2 U.S.C. 1331(a)(9)), by striking
``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(9) In section 215(e)(1) (2 U.S.C. 1341(e)(1)), by striking
``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(10) In section 220(e)(2)(G) (2 U.S.C. 1351(e)(2)(G)), by
striking ``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(11) In the title heading of title III, by striking
``OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE'' and inserting ``OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS''.
(12) In section 304(c)(4) (2 U.S.C. 1384(c)(4)), by
striking ``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(13) In section 304(c)(5) (2 U.S.C. 1384(c)(5)), by
striking ``Office of Compliance'' and inserting ``Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents is
amended--
(1) by amending the item relating to the heading of title
III to read as follows:

``TITLE III--OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS''; and

(2) by amending the item relating to section 301 to read as
follows:

``Sec. 301. Establishment of Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights.''.
(d) Effective Date; References in Other Laws, Rules, and
Regulations.--The amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. Any
reference to the Office of Compliance in any law, rule,
regulation, or other official paper in effect as of such date
shall be considered to refer and apply to the Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights.

TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period which begins
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) No Effect on Pending Proceedings.--Nothing in this Act
or the amendments made by this Act may be construed to affect
any proceeding or payment of an award or settlement relating
to a claim under title IV of the Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) which is pending as of
the date after that 180-day period. If, as of that date, an
employee has begun any of the proceedings under that title
that were available to the employee prior to that date, the
employee may complete, or initiate and complete, all such
proceedings, and such proceedings shall remain in effect with
respect to, and provide the exclusive proceedings for, the
claim involved until the completion of all such proceedings.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, without losing my right to the floor, I
yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for remarks on the
matter we just moved.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank the chairman.
I wanted to speak for a minute to thank Senator Blunt for his work on
the bill. This is a bill that fundamentally changes the way sexual
harassment cases are handled in the Senate and in the House. The
process we have will now protect victims of harassment instead of
protecting politicians.
This was the work of many people. I thank Leader McConnell and
Senator Schumer, as well as the House leaders. I thank Senators
Gillibrand, Murray, Cortez Masto, Capito, and Fischer from the
Committee on Rules. And there are so many staff members I will thank
later when we do additional speeches.
This was something we had to get done by the end of the year. Getting
rid of that cooling-off period, getting rid of a lot of the Byzantine
way these cases were being handled--this is going to be better for
victims. I am proud the Senate has come together on a bipartisan basis
to get this bill done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

S.J. Res. 54

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I commend my two friends, the Senator
from Missouri and the Senator from Minnesota, for what they have done.
I am going to speak briefly about S.J. Res. 54. It would remove U.S.
Armed Forces from hostilities either in or affecting the country of
Yemen--except those forces engaged in operations directed at al-Qaeda
or associated forces--unless and until a declaration of war or specific
authorization for such use of U.S. Armed Forces has been enacted.
I commend my distinguished friend from Vermont, Senator Sanders, for
the leadership and perseverance he has shown on this issue. He has
rightly insisted that the Congress, which alone has the power to
declare war, act in response to the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen--
a catastrophe, we have to acknowledge, that the United States shares
responsibility for causing as a result of our support for the Saudi
military.
The Saudi military, by any objective measure, is guilty of war crimes
in Yemen, and it is long past time for us to say: enough.
International outrage over this issue has been building steadily as
the number of civilian casualties in Yemen--one of the world's poorest
countries--has swollen into the thousands as a result of Saudi Arabia's
intervention and ongoing aerial bombardment. We have all seen the
photographs of the dead and the dying, of children who are nothing but
skin and bones. Some

[[Page S7549]]

85,000 children have starved to death--85,000 children--and another 13
million Yemenis civilians are at risk of starvation, according to the
United Nations.
Of course, the Houthis and the Iranians who support them share the
blame for the death and destruction in Yemen, but we are not supporting
them. We are not sharing intelligence with the Houthis and the Iranians
or providing targeting assistance. We are not selling them weapons.
That is what we are doing for the Saudis.
This joint resolution is about more than that. As if the kidnapping
of the Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, the blockade of Qatar, the
imprisonment of Saudi women's rights activists, and the carnage in
Yemen were not enough, the outrage toward Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad
bin Salman finally boiled over with the horrific, premeditated murder
of Jamal Khashoggi--a respected journalist who dared to criticize the
royal family. Mr. Khashoggi's murder by Saudi Government agents at the
Saudi consulate in Istanbul and the blatant lies by top officials in
Saudi Arabia who tried to cover it up exposed the depth of the
depravity of the Saudi royal family.
I have spoken about that despicable crime multiple times already so I
will not repeat what I have said, but we know the Saudi royal family is
still lying about who was involved. We also know that since long before
murdering Mr. Khashoggi, the Saudi Government has had a sordid history
of abducting, imprisoning, and executing dissidents and others after
sham trials that violate international law.
The vote today on S.J. Res. 54 is the Senate's first response to the
Saudi royal family and to the Trump administration. The disaster in
Yemen is so appalling, and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was so wicked,
so repulsive, that no amount of money, no amount of oil, and no amount
of lies can obscure it.
The Trump administration lobbied hard against this resolution,
warning that despite the Saudi royal family's many misdeeds, the U.S.-
Saudi relationship is too important to risk. No one is seeking to sever
relations with Saudi Arabia. Far more important is that the United
States, which is a great country, stands for the truth, for justice,
for the laws of war, and that we don't stand by when a whole society of
impoverished, innocent people is being destroyed or when top officials
of another government--whether ally or adversary--conspire to murder a
journalist or dissident and lie about it.
We have to make clear, the United States is not for sale, our
integrity is not for sale. If the Saudi royal family hopes to salvage
its tattered reputation and its relations with the United States, it
will need to take far more decisive action to end the war in Yemen and
bring to justice all those responsible, at the highest level, for
murdering Jamal Khashoggi.
Mr. President, my distinguished colleague and dear friend is here to
seek the floor, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Arizona.

Farewell to the Senate

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to begin by noting that had the
people of Arizona and America been truly lucky, my mother or father
would have served in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the
Senate. Everything I know about what matters most in life I learned
first at their dinner table. For many reasons--they were otherwise
preoccupied raising and feeding 11 children, working the land, running
cattle to keep the F-Bar business going, and serving their church and
community daily, and in too many other ways to count--my parents were
too meaningfully occupied in life to detour to something that can be so
frivolous as politics. So you got their son instead.
I rise to say, it has been the honor of my life to represent my home,
Arizona, in the U.S. Senate and, before that, in the House of
Representatives; that is, it has been the honor of my life after being
Dean and Nerita's son, Cheryl's husband, and Ryan's, Alexis's,
Austin's, Tanner's, and Dallin's father.
Through 18 years in Washington, our kids grew up thinking it was
normal to have their faces plastered on campaign signs along the
roadside when campaigns rolled around. They were dragged to countless
fundraisers and campaign events. They were used to having their dad
join them, sort of, with a choreographed wave on C-SPAN at dinnertime.
They spent summers in Washington catching fireflies and voting with
their dad on the House floor. They served as interns and congressional
pages. Much of it they enjoyed, some of it they endured, but through
all of it, they were not just good sports but were extraordinarily
understanding and supportive.
And Cheryl--well, Cheryl is the rock upon which our family is built.
Her strength, equanimity, endless patience and love--her good humor
even when congressional life was not always funny, and her belief, when
disbelief would have been perfectly reasonable--these are but a few of
the long list of things that leave me simply awestruck by my wife.
I think all of us who presume to hold these positions owe someone who
loves us a debt we can never ever repay. If they cannot be repaid, they
can at least be properly recognized--Cheryl, that girl I met on a beach
so long ago, our wonderful children, my brothers, my sisters, our
extended families.
John McCain often joked that the only way I ever got elected to
anything was because of my hundreds of siblings and thousands of
cousins. Well, the truth hurts, I reckon; Senator McCain just may have
been on to something there. It was my honor to serve with him, as it
has been my honor to serve with Senator Kyl.
Today I am filled with gratitude--gratitude for the privilege of
loving and being loved by those people I mentioned and of serving the
State and the country I love as well; grateful beyond measure and
luckier than I deserve to be.
I leave here grateful and optimistic. I will always treasure the
friendships that began here and the kindness shown to me and my family
by all of you, my colleagues. I will forever cherish the work of our
country that we were able to do together. From the bottom of my heart,
I thank you all.
As I stand here today, I am optimistic about the future, but my
optimism is due more to the country my parents gave to me than it is
due to the present condition of our civic life. We, of course, are
testing the institution of American liberty in ways that none of us
ever imagined we would and in ways we probably never should again. My
colleagues, to say that our politics is not healthy is somewhat of an
understatement.
I believe we all know well that this is not a normal time and that
the threats to our democracy from within and without are real, and none
of us can say with confidence how the situation we now find ourselves
in will turn out. Over the past 2 years, I have spoken a great deal on
the subject from this Chamber, and there will be time enough later to
return to it in other settings, but in the time I have here today, and
with your indulgence, I instead wish to speak somewhat more personally.
As the authoritarian impulse reasserts itself globally, and global
commitment to democracy seems to now be on somewhat shaky ground, I
have been thinking a lot recently about the American commitment to
democracy--where it comes from and how, if the circumstances were
right, it might slip away.
This got me thinking back to when I was a much younger man and had
the privilege of witnessing the birth of a new democracy in Africa.
When I was about half the age I am now, for my church mission, I went
to South Africa and Zimbabwe. I fell in love with the people in these
countries.
When Cheryl and I were drawn back to Southern Africa a few years
later for a job, we were in Windhoek, Namibia, in February of 1990, at
the very moment that much of the world enslaved by totalitarianism was
throwing off its shackles, and the free world that the United States
had led since World War II was growing exponentially.
The Soviet Union was in a glorious free fall, shedding republics
seemingly by the day, and Eastern Europe was squinting out into the
light of liberation for the first time in 40 years. Free markets and
free minds were sweeping the world. Freedom was breaking out in the
Southern Hemisphere as well. The country where I was sitting that very
morning was itself only days old.
In November of 1989--the same week the Berlin Wall came down--Namibia
held its first election as an independent

[[Page S7550]]

nation, freed from the apartheid administration in South Africa. This
had come to pass in no small part because of leadership from the United
States, through the United Nations.
Just days earlier, an awe-inspiring document had been drafted only a
few blocks away from where I sat in Windhoek--a new democracy's
founding Constitution, the inspiration for which had been the marvel of
free people everywhere and those who aspire to be free: the U.S.
Constitution.
At the time, I was in Africa working for the Foundation for
Democracy, trying to ensure that Namibia emerged from the process of
gaining its independence as a democratic country. In my role at the
foundation, I evangelized for democracy and democratic values, the
benefits of which had been a given for me for my entire life.
I can safely say, though, that I learned more about democracy from
the lives of those around me who aspired to it than those who
experienced it as a birthright.
As I sat there in the brandnew African democracy, I read the speech
that the playwright and new President of a newly democratic
Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel, had just delivered before a joint session
of the U.S. Congress, right across the way in the House Chamber. Havel,
who had much of the previous decade in a Communist dungeon and whose
last arrest as a dissident had been mere months before, was quite
astonished to find himself president of anything, much less a country
of his oppressors.
I sat there in Africa and read Havel's speech--an encomium to
democracy, a love letter to America, literary and inspiring--and I was
overcome by his words. There is nothing quite like the sensation of
having someone who has been stripped of everything but his dignity
reflecting the ideals of your own country back at you in such a way
that you see them more clearly than ever before and maybe for the first
time. In some ways, that man knows your country better than you know it
yourself.
I can only imagine how surreal it must have felt for Havel as he
stood before the entire Congress, the President's Cabinet, the
diplomatic corps, Joint Chiefs of Staff assembled before him in the
House Chamber of our Capitol Building, with the Vice President and
Speaker of the House behind him, all standing in a sustained ovation, a
deep respect from the oldest democracy in the world to the newest,
whose leader had been a political prisoner just a season earlier.
Havel soberly poured out his gratitude to the United States for the
sacrifice our country had made in liberating Europe once again and for
the moral example of its leadership around the world in opposing the
Soviet Union, ``the country,'' he said, ``that rightly gave people
nightmares.''
Havel's awed appreciation for the values that too many of us might
take for granted brought home to me, an American in my midtwenties
sitting there in Africa, the power of the American example to the whole
world and the humbling responsibilities that come with that power. It
is no exaggeration to say that Havel's disquisition on democracy before
Congress that day in 1990 was a turning point in my civic education.
Havel similarly called out to the whole world from Washington on that
day in 1990, with grace and without rancor, but for one mistaken
prophecy, which to me now reads as tragic, especially in the context of
the here and now.
At the time, as the wall fell and the Soviet bloc that had been
encased in Stalinism thawed, it was vogue among some historians,
scholars, and others to declare ``the end of history''--that the big
questions had been settled, that liberal democracy was triumphal and
inexorable, and that the decline of the impulse to enslave whole
countries was also inexorable. Freedom had won, it was said, and
forever.
The historian Francis Fukuyama, who had coined ``the end of history''
in an essay a year before, was much in demand, and it was likely that
Havel would have been inspired by the fervor, which might explain this
passage from his speech.
He said:

I often hear the question: How can the United States of
America help us today? My reply is as paradoxical as my whole
life has been. You can help us most of all if you help the
Soviet Union on its irreversible but immensely complicated
road to democracy.

Of course, history was not over. The road to democracy is not
irreversible--not in Moscow, not in America, not anywhere.
After erecting a Potemkin village for democracy for an agonizing
decade or so, the Russians thrust forward a strongman amid the chaos, a
strongman who was determined to reassemble the pieces of a broken
empire, in the process strangling Russian democracy in its cradle.
Vladimir Putin would go on to be President, and he is President
still, and just as he hijacked democracy in his own country, he is
determined to do so everywhere.
Denial of this reality will not make it any less real. This is
something that is staring us in the face, right now, as we are gathered
here today.
As we in America--during this moment of political dysfunction and
upheaval--contemplate the hard-won conventions and norms of democracy,
we must continually remind ourselves that none of this is permanent,
that it must be fought for continually.
Civilization and the victories of freedom--history itself--are not a
matter of once achieved, always safe. Vaclav Havel lived this.
The lovers of democracy I met in Namibia lived this. Our children,
whose rights and prerogatives have never been in doubt, are for the
most part unaware of it. But we are being powerfully reminded just how
delicate all of it is right now.
The stability of tested alliances, the steadiness of comportment, and
the consistency of words and deeds sum up the best of water's-edge
postwar American consensus on foreign policy.
It might seem that all of this has lately been tossed around like
pieces on a board, but it is important to remember that we have seen
such tumult before, and it is the genius of the architects of our
liberty that we withstand it and emerge the stronger for it.
What struck me in Namibia that day with such force and has stayed
with me ever since is how vital a beacon the United States is and has
always been to the peoples of the world--both to those who are already
free and those who still suffer tyranny.
It is a solemn obligation that we have as Americans. Let us recognize
from this place here today that the shadow of tyranny is once again
enveloping parts of the globe, and let us recognize as authoritarianism
reasserts itself in country after country that we are by no means
immune.
I stand here today, recognizing that I have had the good fortune
during my time in the Senate to have been surrounded by supremely smart
and dedicated staff, some of whom have worked for me for my entire 18
years in Washington.
My chiefs of staff--Steve Voeller, Margaret Klessig, Matt Specht,
Chandler Morse, and Roland Foster have ably supervised a legislative
team that included over the years people like Colleen Donnelly, Helen
Heiden, Chuck Podalak, Kris Kiefer, Sarah Towles, Emily Nelson, Brian
Canfield, Blake Tonn, Flaka Ismaili, Chance Hammock, Matt Sifert, Colin
Timmerman, Melanie Lehnhardt, Hannah Grady, Brian Kennedy, Katie
Jackson, James Layne, Andrea Jones, Kunal Parikh, Gary Burnett, Michael
Fragoso, and so many others who drafted substantive legislation and
consequential amendments that have been signed into law.
My schedulers, office managers, and press shop have been asked to
explain a lot over the years, including my penchant for marooning
myself on deserted islands, sometimes with people like Senator Martin
Heinrich, or forced to explain why I had been chased by elephants in
Mozambique with Senator Chris Coons--people like Celeste Gold, Meagan
Shepherd, Caroline Celley, Megan Runyan, Christine Chucri, Michael
Christifulli, Jacob McMeekin, Jason Samuels, Brownyn Lance, Liz Jones,
Dan Mintz, Krista Winward, Jonathan Felts, Elizabeth Berry, and many
more.
They have kept me largely out of controversy, if not out of
elevators, during my entire time in office.
Dedicated caseworkers in my State offices have helped countless
Arizonans with matters of immigration to veterans' issues to Social
Security.
I am frequently stopped, as I am sure many of my colleagues are, in
airports

[[Page S7551]]

and grocery stores and thanked for the good work done by my staff.
Thank you to Buchanan Davis, Mary Baumbach, Julie Katsel, Melissa
Martin, Mike Nelson, Jeremy Thompson, Michael Vargas, Chris Stoller,
Bob Brubaker, Blake Farnsworth, Chelsea Lett, Elizabeth Bustamante-
Lopez, and so many others for such dedicated constituent work over the
years.

To all who have served in my office: I will miss your wise counsel
but, most of all, your friendship. Thank you.
I would also like to say a word of thanks to the institutional
officers who serve the Senate so ably: the clerks, Parliamentarians,
the floor staff, the pages, the Sergeant at Arms and his employees, and
the Capitol Police, who keep us safe here in the Capitol and at times
on distant baseball fields. I quite literally owe my life to them.
Thank you.
As I give this last speech from the Chamber, I cannot help but look
to my maiden speech I gave here just 6 years ago.
In it I talked about how 12 newly elected Senate freshmen in 2012
were invited to the National Archives and taken to the legislative
vault, where we viewed the original signed copy of the first bill ever
enacted by Congress, as well as other landmark pieces of legislation
and memorabilia. Oaths of allegiance signed by Revolutionary War
soldiers, witnessed by General Washington, documents and artifacts
related to the Civil War, segregation, women's suffrage, and the civil
rights movement were also on hand.
I noted that it was an affirmation to me of the tumultuous seas
through which our ship of state has sailed for more than 200 years,
with many brilliant and inspired individuals at the helm, along with
personalities ranging from mediocre to malevolent. But our system of
government has survived them all.
I also noted then and I will echo today that serious challenges lie
ahead, but any honest reckoning of our history and our prospects will
note that we have survived more daunting challenges than we now face.
Ours is a durable, resilient system of government, designed to
withstand the foibles of those who sometimes occupy these Halls,
including yours truly.
So as I start a new chapter in the coming weeks, I am grateful most
of all for the privilege of having served with all of you here.
It is my sincere hope that those in this body will always remember
the words of Lincoln who said: ``We shall nobly save or meanly lose the
last best hope of Earth.'' The way forward, he said, ``is plain,
peaceful, generous, just--a way which, if followed, the world will
forever applaud and God will forever bless.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Tribute to Jeff Flake

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to make just a couple of
comments on my friend's having left the Senate and with respect to the
remarks that he just made.
The Senate has had some very good people over the years, and
currently, but none have been more principled than my friend from
Arizona, Jeff Flake.
It started for us to see when he was a Member of House of
Representatives and at first singlehandedly fought inappropriate
earmarks. He even managed to get himself appointed to the
Appropriations Committee for a while so that he could carry on his
crusade from within. In the end, he was successful.
I was pleased to support him as my successor to the U.S. Senate. He
has his priorities right: faith, family, and country. He has spoken
about both his faith and his family here.
Not very many of us have the opportunity to serve from a town named
after our own family, and that is how far Senator Flake's roots go back
in the State of Arizona.
He has spoken, not just today but on earlier occasions, from his
heart about things that he sees need improvement here in the U.S.
Senate. I think we are all aware of the things of which he speaks, and
it has been appropriate for him to do so because, as he pointed out, in
order for us to be a beacon to others around the world in support of
liberty, individual freedom, we have to demonstrate how it can be
practiced right here in the United States of America.
We would all like to leave this place better than we found it, and it
is not easy to do, but Senator Flake has tried his best.
He also spoke about our democratic republic and our focus on
individual liberty and how that has had an impact around the world and
how others have tried to emulate what we do here. These are universal
principles that we need to focus on. What he has reminded us of here
today is that freedom is not free, and each day we all have to do our
part from wherever we sit to ensure that future generations will enjoy
the kind of freedom that we have had, and that starts with our
representatives in the U.S. Government. It was a fitting subject for a
farewell address, and wise counsel was given, as always.
I want to salute my colleague Jeff Flake as a person, though, as much
as a public servant and Senator. He embodies what is right about the
people of the United States of America. As I said, he has his
priorities right, and he has been willing to serve based upon those
priorities.
I wish him and his family all the best in their next endeavors. I
know because of his dedication to this country and the principles in
which he believes that his service will not end at the end of his time
here in the U.S. Senate, and we will all be beneficiaries of that.
So to my friend and colleague Jeff Flake, Godspeed. I appreciate your
remarks today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am proud to stand before you today to
honor my dear friend and colleague, Senator Flake of Arizona, and to
pay tribute to his remarkable work here in the Senate as this
optimistic evangelist of democracy.
I have been asked a fair amount in recent weeks about my friendship
with Jeff--with Senator Flake--whose political beliefs differ very
widely from my own. Yes, Senator Flake is a staunch conservative, and
if you took a score card of the things on which we have voted the same
or believe the same, there would not be a ton of overlap.
But he is also a patriot. He is a patriot who deeply loves our
country and is willing to work across the aisle to stand up for the
values and principles that have made our Nation the greatest on this
Earth.
Our friendship stems from a foundation in similar experiences and
similar worldviews formed at the same time. We are almost exactly the
same age.
As you heard in his remarkable farewell address, time spent in
Namibia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa as a young man truly shaped him and
his view of the United States and our place in the world. At just about
the same time, I was spending time in Kenya and South Africa having
very similar experiences. This period in our young lives shaped our
sense that this democracy is special, is important, is worth fighting
for, and requires greater sacrifice of us than might be obvious here in
the comforts of the United States.
Because of these shared experiences, we understand the ways--when our
democracy is dysfunctional, when the world sees gridlock, especially
today, especially on the continent we have both come to know and love
in Africa--that there are competing models for how to organize a
society that is rising in their visibility and their confrontation and
their competition with our own. We know democracy matters, and believe
we have to fight for it.
We respect each other and listen to each other, and over the years, I
have been blessed to have the chance for us to work together. In a time
marked by division and partisanship, Senator Flake rightfully
recognizes that we need to get back to a time when compromise was
rewarded rather than punished, when we worked together to do what is
right rather than what is politically expedient.
Senator Flake has spent his career doing just that, unafraid to stand
up for what is right--even when it is hard, even when it is
inconvenient, even when it might go against President or party. He
deeply respects our rule of law and has been willing to take risks for
it.
He worked toward broad bipartisan immigration reform and stood up for
the independence of the Federal Reserve. He has helped to pass
legislation

[[Page S7552]]

to promote free and fair elections and political and economic reforms
in Zimbabwe, where we have both traveled together twice, as well as to
a dozen other countries.
He has come and stood on this floor time and again to demand a vote
on legislation to protect the special counsel and to prevent an
imminent constitutional crisis. He has taken risks and opened his heart
in a way determined to help us come together rather than be torn apart,
and for that, I am eternally grateful.
Whether meeting personally with world leaders or fighting for the
people of Arizona here on the Senate floor or advocating for new
policies in committee, Senator Flake's courage and his convictions have
always been evident. His service as a Senator stands as a model and a
challenge for many of us in this Chamber.
I look back fondly on our 6 years serving together. I was chair of
the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee when he
first arrived, and he succeeded me in that role. That has given us
opportunities to flee from elephants in Mozambique, to dine with
dictators in Zimbabwe and elsewhere, and to advance democracy on
continents we have come to know and love.
This year alone, we have been to nearly a dozen countries as we have
tried in a bipartisan way to advance America's interests in places
around the world where other models of governance are on the march. His
leadership, his engagement, his deep respect and admiration for the
people of Africa will be sorely missed in this Chamber and impossible
to replace.
For me, personally, I will miss his humor, his friendship, his
kindness, and his leadership. I know him as a decent, earnest, and kind
man and a great husband and father, who loves nothing more than his
talented wife Cheryl and his children, Tanner, Dallin, Austin, Alexis,
and Ryan. He has also been blessed with a very talented staff who have
worked tirelessly and been great partners in legislation and in
service. My high view of his character comes, I will remind you, in
this divided context, despite differences in our States and
backgrounds, divergent voting records and different specific faith
backgrounds. But all of that is wrapped up in a shared commitment to
evangelize for democracy.
Despite our differences, I believe Senator Flake has exemplified how
Washington and this Senate should work, particularly when it comes to
respecting each other, holding true to our core values and principles,
and defending them here and around the world, yet listening to each
other and being willing to trust each other.
I only wish I had the blessing of Senator Flake's partnership in this
Chamber for 6 more years, but it gives me hope thinking of the impact
he will undoubtedly have on our country and world in the years to come.
I know he has so much more good left to do, and I look forward to
supporting him in whatever path he chooses to accomplish that goal.
I want to close with some words Senator Flake spoke on this floor
more than 1 year ago in announcing his decision to retire rather than
seek reelection. He said:

[T]o have a healthy government, we must have healthy and
functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an
atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity, and
good faith. We must argue our positions fervently and never
be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our
fellow man and always look for the good. Until that day
comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if
our country depends on it because it does.

Senator Flake, thank you. Thank you for being unafraid to speak out
for what is right, what is true, and what is just, and to risk
friendship with this junior Senator from a much smaller State on the
other side of the continent. Thank you for your service and your
friendship.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here this morning to
join my colleagues in saluting the public service of our friend Senator
Jeff Flake.
In his remarkable book, ``The Conscience of a Conservative,'' Senator
Jeff Flake offered these words that apply to both sides of the aisle
and across the political spectrum. Rather than constantly pursuing
partisan advantage, he wrote, ``the better path always is to break out
of rigid ideological thinking, to listen to reasoned arguments on both
sides, and to use your best judgment.''
Reason and courage have defined Senator Flake's 18 years in
Congress--12 in the House of Representatives and 6 here in the Senate.
Throughout these years of service, he has always been knowledgeable,
insightful, and dedicated to America and its values.
It has been a privilege to work closely with him on many vital
issues. Senator Flake has always been willing to take on the most
difficult challenges and offer constructive solutions, as his work on
immigration reform demonstrates. As my colleague from Delaware has
said, he is unafraid. He will take on any challenge, no matter the
consequences.
As chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, I have appreciated his
commitment to the well-being, safety, and security of seniors across
the Nation and in his beloved home State of Arizona. Senator Flake was
especially helpful in our committee's examination of international
criminal cartels that were using unsuspecting American seniors as drug
``mules'' to smuggle narcotics across international borders, not
realizing the cargo that they were carrying.
Senator Flake has been an outstanding leader on the Foreign Relations
Committee as chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health
Policy. His firsthand knowledge of issues from his early mission work
in South Africa and Zimbabwe has helped to guide his efforts. I was
proud to have been a cosponsor of a bill he authored with Senator Coons
to combat the wildlife trafficking crisis, which became law in 2016. In
fact, it was on a congressional trip that I first met my friend Jeff
Flake, and I remember thinking that he was so fascinating. He knew so
many things of which I had very little knowledge.
He talked about his time in Africa, and I will always remember--and
this will bring a smile to his lips as well--when he told me that the
words for describing it being very cold outside were the equivalent of
a phrase that sounded like ``buy a coat.'' I am sure I ruined the
pronunciation, but he is nodding affirmatively. I always loved that and
will remember that little vignette.
When Senator Flake announced last year that he would not seek re-
election, he offered these words on the Senate floor:
``We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts
and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions
fervently and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of
our fellow man and always look for the good.
I think it is significant that those words resonated both with the
Senator from Delaware and with me, and I am sure with many others.
Senator Jeff Flake always gave his best, and he always helped us to
find the good. I join my colleagues in wishing him, Cheryl, and his
family well, and in expecting many more contributions from this leader
of many gifts and determined principles.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

S.J. Res. 54

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there has been a long conversation about
Yemen. Yemen is in a civil war. It has been a brutal civil war. There
have been a lot of civilians killed and a lot of damage done to the
country's interior.
Of the 30 million people who are living in Yemen, 22 million,
currently, need humanitarian assistance. We have over 8 million people
who are what is called ``at risk'' of severe starvation. It has the
largest cholera outbreak in the world right now, and its currency has
plummeted in value. We have over 2 million people inside the country
who have been internally displaced. They, literally, can't live in
their homes because the war is around their homes,

[[Page S7553]]

and they have had to flee from those spots--2 million people. It is a
terrible situation.
Yet, while this body is arguing about supporting or not supporting
the Saudis--should we be around it or should we not be around it?--our
Ambassador, the leadership of the U.N., and our U.S. military--which
this body is arguing we shouldn't engage to help--are currently putting
people at the negotiating table in Sweden. For the past week, our
military, which this body is saying shouldn't be engaged, has actually
been the prime mover in getting all of the same players to the table to
negotiate.
In just the last few hours, the Secretary General of the U.N., along
with the rebel leadership and the legitimate leadership of Yemen in the
civil war, have stepped out to make major announcements. The first
major announcement they just released within the last hour was that
they have committed to halting fighting around the seaport so that
humanitarian assistance can get in.
The Houthis have, actually, dominated the seaport and taken all of
the income from the seaport to finance their fighters. Their weapons
are coming from Iran, and their income is coming from the port because
they have taken the port over. Now the U.N. is going to run the port.
That is a dramatic shift. Revenues from the seaport will be deposited
into a central bank so that the rightful government, when this is all
resolved, will actually give the revenue back to the people of Yemen.
There will be a release in fighting--a pull-out in the major city
around the seaport there. They have agreed that they are going to have
a secondary meeting next month in order to work out the final details
to actually shut this down.
So while this body is arguing about whose side we should take--the
Iranians' or the Saudis'--and that is really what the body is arguing
about--we are, actually, actively pushing the players to the table to
resolve this.
This is the worst possible moment for this body to start arguing
about whose side we should be on. I am fully aware that the Saudis'
humanitarian history is deplorable. The whole world praises them
because they now allow women to drive. I mean, we are in that bad of a
humanitarian situation and of a human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.
I am fully aware of the murder of Khashoggi and am fully aware of what
they have done in other areas, but the Saudis have also been the only
entity to give humanitarian aid to Yemen in order to help assist this.
The United States, by far, is the largest donor to what is going on
in the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, but the civil war is not our
problem. This is a proxy fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran that is
being fought right on Saudi Arabia's southern border in Yemen. We
shouldn't take sides in this other than to stand up against Iran's
aggression as it has moved into Iraq, as Iran has moved into Syria, and
as Iran has moved into Lebanon. We don't want to see Iran dominate the
entire region and destabilize the region, but we do want to bring peace
to this region.
So what should we do in this situation?
I think we should speak with a very clear voice about the human
rights violations of Saudi Arabia and call Saudi Arabia out to be a
part of the civilized world, but I think punishing the innocent
civilian casualties in Yemen is the wrong way to do it.
We should speak out on the issue of Khashoggi, and we should speak
out on human rights in the entire region. We should stand up and ask:
What can we do to stop the fighting and protect the civilians there?
The best thing we can do is to be engaged with the Saudis but not in
selecting targets and not in refueling their jets--we have already
stopped all of that--but in being a presence there.
As Americans, we forget that most of the world does not try to
protect civilians in battles like we do. Most of the world just carpet
bombs and destroys and burns down cities. Do you want a good example of
where America is not present? Look at Syria right now and at the year
after year of barrel bombs, of chemical weapons--Americans are out; we
are not advising--and at the destruction that is happening to the
civilians.
If we want to see even more of that in Yemen, then let's back this
out entirely. If we want to give Iran the upper hand in the peace
negotiations that are happening right now, then let's tell them through
this body that we don't support the Saudis anymore but that we support
the Iranians, who started this civil war in Yemen.
The best thing we can do is to give the peace negotiations the
opportunity to finish and to go well; to support, in every way that we
can, the protection of civilians in that region; and to make sure that
we are assisting with our advice on how to protect them and how to move
forward. That is the best thing we can do--not argue about whether we
are going to pull out or not pull out or engage in Yemen or not engage.
Let me be clear. Yemen is not our fight. That civil war is not our
fight. Yet, in the ungoverned spaces of Yemen, there is a group called
al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. They use those ungoverned spaces and
use the cover of the civil war to actively recruit worldwide. The most
aggressive part of al-Qaida that is directly pointed at the United
States in planning attacks, in orchestrating attacks, in putting out
information for lone-wolf individuals all over the world on how to
conduct attacks on airlines or in cities or in bus terminals originates
from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen.
So while the civil war off to the west is not our fight, though we do
want to protect civilians and get them humanitarian aid--and we are
helping with that--it is absolutely our fight to take it to al-Qaida in
the Arabian Peninsula. Hadi, the rightful leader of Yemen, has given us
the authority to take the fight to the terrorists there in his own
country because he doesn't want al-Qaida in his country either.
As long as we are working with Hadi as the rightful leader--he is
giving us the go-head to fight against al-Qaida in the Arabian
Peninsula, and we should for our own security.
So I understand the politics of this, and I understand the messaging
saying that we shouldn't have all of these things and painting this
picture of us pulling out of Yemen for humanitarian reasons. But the
fact is, the humanitarian assistance is going in because we are there.
The fact is, we are helping reduce civilian casualties in that area,
not increasing them. The fact is, the terrorist group al-Qaida in the
Arabian Peninsula--the most aggressive group against us from al-Qaida--
lives right there in Yemen, and we should be able to take the fight to
them before they bring it to us again.
These are difficult issues. There is no simple solution to any of
these, and I get that. It is a very messy civil war. But the last thing
we should do is just pretend our disengagement protects civilians. It
does not.
I have a unanimous consent request that is coming up that is
currently in conversation to try to figure how out to bring it to the
floor. I see there are some other speakers here on the floor who are
ready to speak. I would like to yield the floor to others who want to
speak and then speak again in a moment on a unanimous consent request.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pending
resolution to end U.S support for the Saudi-led coalition's military
action in Yemen and to reiterate my previous calls for our country to
respond more clearly, more forcefully, and with moral purpose to the
murder of Jamal Khashoggi by holding the Saudi Government accountable
at the highest levels.

Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act

Mr. President, before my remarks on this resolution, I want to speak
about another important matter before the Senate, and that is the Blue
Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, which I urge my colleagues to take up
and pass in this Congress. I thank Senator Gillibrand and a number of
other leaders for their work on this bill. I have cosponsored it, along
with more than 50 of my Senate colleagues.
This important legislation would ensure that thousands of Navy
veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, and their
families, are able to receive the benefits they have earned.
When our soldiers signed up to serve, we made a promise to provide
them

[[Page S7554]]

with the healthcare and benefits they deserve when they return home.
The men and women who have served our country on the frontlines should
not return home to find themselves left waiting at the end of the line
and left waiting to get the healthcare they need or the benefits they
have earned.
This bipartisan legislation has already passed the House of
Representatives. It is time for us in the Senate to do the same and
maintain our commitment to our veterans.
I do want to thank the Presiding Officer for the work we are doing
together in a somewhat related area, and that is the area of burn
pits--a modern-day version of what many of our soldiers experienced
during the Vietnam war with Agent Orange. We have something going on
right now where our soldiers who were stationed next to these major,
expansive burn pits have come home sick. It is the same principle as
Agent Orange.
I thank the Presiding Officer for his support for the bipartisan bill
we are leading given that we have many good veterans from both Alaska
and Minnesota who have come home with health problems.

S.J. Res. 54

Mr. President, turning to the pending matter, I would like to join
those of my colleagues who have spoken in support of this bipartisan
resolution. I have come to the floor before on this issue because it is
so important.
It is time for Congress to speak with a clear voice in opposition to
U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition's operations in Yemen. We must
make clear that we will not turn a blind eye to civilian casualties, as
well as the ongoing humanitarian crisis that continues to devastate the
country of Yemen and its people.
With this resolution, we can end U.S. support for the Saudi-led
military action in Yemen. This is an important step. It demonstrates
that Congress will perform its constitutional duty in authorizing
military action and demanding that our policies and actions are
consistent with our values.
In light of the bipartisan support for this resolution, which, of
course, includes Senator Sanders and Senator Lee--I would also mention
that former Senator Franken from Minnesota had been involved in this as
a leader when he served in the Senate--the administration should more
forcefully advocate for a meaningful political process to end the
fighting.
Following the war in Yemen and the horrific murder of Mr. Jamal
Khashoggi, I am concerned that this administration lacks a
comprehensive strategy for dealing with Saudi Arabia.
I have also been deeply concerned that the President continues to
ignore human rights violations, the suppression of dissent, and the
deaths of thousands of civilians in Yemen in order to maintain good
relations with the Saudis. Yes, we have an important alliance with
Saudi Arabia and an important trade relationship, but that doesn't mean
that you don't stand up when you see the kind of horror we have seen in
Yemen and when you see the kinds of human rights violations we have
seen in the death of Mr. Khashoggi.
Look no further than how the President has repeatedly dismissed his
own intelligence community's assessment of the murder. This is after
reports have made clear that the CIA believes with high confidence that
this murder was called for at the highest levels of the Saudi
Government, by the Crown Prince. His response stands in stark contrast
to the founding principles of our democracy. If the President refuses
to defend these values, then Congress must.
This is not who we are as a country. So I call on my colleagues to
join me--and I am so glad we have bipartisan support for this
resolution--in defending our values. But this is not all we should do.
I support the comprehensive, bipartisan legislation introduced to
ensure effective oversight of the U.S. policy on Yemen and demand
meaningful accountability from the Saudi Government. This legislation
includes provisions to suspend weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and impose
mandatory sanctions on people involved in the death of Mr. Khashoggi.
While I support the recent decision to support U.S. aerial
refueling--a decision of the administration--for Saudi coalition
aircraft, as well as the sanctions that the administration imposed on
17 Saudi officials, this falls far short of the forceful response that
our democratic values require.
In addition, I have previously voted to limit arms sales to Saudi
Arabia, and I will continue to oppose the sale of certain weapons--
particularly offensive weapons--to the Kingdom.
These are steps that we can and should take. While there is no
question that we have common interests with Saudi Arabia and that Saudi
Arabia has been our partner, these facts do not require our country to
completely sacrifice our values.
The civil war in Yemen has now raged on for almost 4 years, resulting
in widespread destruction in the country and one of the worst
humanitarian crises in the world. More than 22 million people--half of
them children--are in need of assistance, and 8 million people in the
country are on the brink of starvation. The country's sanitation
system, electrical system, and other critical infrastructure have been
destroyed, leading to the most serious cholera outbreak in half a
century. The ongoing violence has hindered the delivery of lifesaving
humanitarian aid, including food and medicine.
Finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict is both a humanitarian
imperative and critical to stability on the Arabian Peninsula.
The United States has a long history of being a global leader in
providing humanitarian aid, and we cannot just stand by and put our
heads in the sand as this crisis continues. Our response to the
fighting and the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen must demonstrate
that U.S. foreign policy and global leadership will always be rooted in
our values. It must show that we will not overlook violations of human
rights, whether by Saudi Arabia or by Houthi rebels in Yemen.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important
resolution and to really show the administration, to show the country,
and to show the world that this Congress is actually fulfilling its
obligations and constitutional duties. This is a very important moment
for the U.S. Senate.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senate minority leader.

Opioid Epidemic

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today to address the saddest and
one of the most depressing issues of the moment, and that is the drug
epidemic that faces America.
The reality of this drug epidemic is felt in every corner of this
country. There is no suburb too wealthy, no town too small, no place in
this country that hasn't been touched by the opioid and heroin
epidemic.
The Centers for Disease Control put out a statement this morning that
is important for us to truly understand this drug epidemic. What the
Centers for Disease Control said is that fentanyl has become the
deadliest drug in the United States. On Wednesday, they reported that
fentanyl was involved in more deadly drug overdoses in 2016 than any
other drug. There was a total of 63,632 drug overdose deaths in 2016,
with fentanyl found to be involved in nearly 29 percent of those cases.
By comparison, fentanyl was involved in only 4 percent of drug
fatalities just 7 years ago--in 2011. That year, oxycodone ranked
first; it was involved in 13 percent.
Lawmakers are struggling to deal with the sweeping opioid epidemic,
and the CDC data shows that the problem goes further than the
overprescription of opioid drugs.
From 2011 to 2016, cocaine consistently ranked second or third.
During the study period, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths
involving heroin more than tripled, as did the rate of drug overdose
deaths involving methamphetamine.
Why do I bring up this issue of fentanyl? Because if you are
discussing border security in America, you are talking about a number
of things. You are talking about those who would assault our borders
for a variety of reasons. You are talking about people who present
themselves at our borders for a variety of reasons.
Let me try to make several concessions here that I think both parties
agree with.
First, America needs border security. We cannot allow every person in
the

[[Page S7555]]

world who wishes to come to this country entry into this country.
Second, we know people are trying to ship into this country things
that are deadly and items that are contraband, that should not be part
of America.
Third, we don't want anyone who is dangerous outside of our country
to knowingly come into this country. Those who are here undocumented,
if they are dangerous to our country, should be removed.
I hope that you would agree there is unanimous consensus on those
three points.
The third point I am going to make and not dwell on at this moment is
the fact that our immigration legal system is in shambles. It is awful.
We currently are placing in tent camps on the border with Mexico
hundreds and hundreds of children because of a circumstance created by
this administration, which is almost impossible to understand or to
explain.
But I want to focus specifically on fentanyl--on this drug fentanyl,
which the CDC has told us is the deadliest drug in America today,
overwhelmingly the deadliest drug in America today.
Where does it come from? Much of the production is in China, but it
is produced in other places. Much of it transits into the United States
across that Mexican border. So when we talk about border security and
stopping the drug epidemic in America, let's be honest about it.
Building a wall from one side of the United States to the other does
not stop the flow of fentanyl into our country. Fentanyl is coming in
through ports of entry--openings, legal openings--in the wall.
We heard yesterday from the experts that some 80 percent of the drugs
that flow into the United States from Mexico come through our ports of
entry. They are not putting them in backpacks and storming across the
desert at night, trying to come across the Rio Grande. That may be a
part of some effort, but when it comes to the deadliest of drugs coming
into the United States, they are coming through our ports of entry.
What can we do about it? Well, the interesting thing we can do about
it is to look at the obvious. I asked one of the experts, a Mr.
McAleenan, who is with the Customs and Border Protection system--he
does this for a living.
I asked him last year: If I gave you a blank check and said ``Make
our borders safer with Mexico,'' what would you spend it on?
He said two things immediately: technology and personnel. That makes
sense.
I said: Give me an idea of the kind of technology you think would
make America safer.
He said: There is something called a Z-Portal.
I had never heard the term before. A Z-Portal is a scanning device;
if you drive a car or a truck across our border, it scans it, x rays
it, and can tell basically what is inside. If you are trying to smuggle
people in the back of a semitruck, it will show it. If you have
firearms, it will show it. It will show contraband that is not supposed
to be part of the declared shipment that is coming into the United
States.
Doesn't it sound like a good idea to try to make sure that anything
entering this country has been scanned?
Well, it turns out that 98 percent of the railroad cars that come
into the United States are scanned. That is good news. I wish it were
100 percent, but 98 percent is good. What percentage of other vehicles
coming into the United States are scanned currently? Eighteen percent.
Fewer than one out of five vehicles are scanned.
I asked Mr. McAleenan, when he appeared before our Judiciary
Committee this week: Why not more?
He said: Well, we need to buy more technology. We need to buy more
scanners so that we can spot those who are trying to ship people or
contraband or drugs into the United States.
I said: Well, I looked at President Trump's request for your Agency,
and he asked for $44 million for scanners.
What would it take, Mr. McAleenan, to have scanners to make sure that
all of the vehicles coming into the United States are scanned?
He gave me the number: $300 million.
That is a lot of money. But when you consider the cost of our drug
epidemic and the deadly results of that drug epidemic, it is not a lot
of money. And when you put it to the idea of a $5 billion wall, it is
laughable that this administration is insisting on a medieval wall as
opposed to the technology that lets us look inside the vehicles that
are shipping these deadly drugs into the United States and killing
people in our country. That is the reality of what we face today.
I would say to this President: Don't shut this government down over
border security; make smart border security choices. Listen to your
professionals. Put aside your campaign speeches about ``a wall from sea
to shining sea'' and listen to the professionals who will tell you, Mr.
President, as they educated me, that there are better ways to keep
America safe than to build a god-awful wall.
Walls can be overcome by ladders and tunnels underneath, but this
technology we are talking about is inescapable. When you bring your
vehicle through these scanning devices, we know a lot more about what
you are trying to do.
And while we are on the subject, the hearing yesterday was about
Mexican drug cartels. Some of the things that were told to us in that
Judiciary Committee hearing were stunning. They estimate that the
current economic activity of the Mexican drug cartels is part of a
transnational network whose global revenue exceeds the gross domestic
product of Mexico. What they are doing in creating this narcotic trade
and exporting is now surpassing the entire Mexican economy's production
of goods and services. Breathtaking, isn't it? And it turns out that 10
years ago, we identified Mexican drug cartels as our greatest criminal
threat at that time, and it still is today.
How do they do it? How do they produce so much narcotics in Mexico at
our expense? Well, certainly the answer is obvious: We pay for the
drugs. American dollars flow back into Mexico so that the cartels can
keep in business, and something else flows back into Mexico: guns from
America. Seventy percent of the crime guns that were seized in Mexico--
70 percent of them had come from the United States. How did they get
across the border? Well, first, it is not legal to export guns across
that border. Secondly, it turns out they buy them the same way they buy
them in the Midwest and come to Chicago to shoot up our streets. They
go to gun shows where there are no background checks, and they buy
these guns in volume, and they surreptitiously ship them across the
border to the Mexican drug cartels. So it is a circle. The narcotics
come here; the money and the weapons go from here back to Mexico. That
circle is growing in size and in intensity.
So I asked an obvious question: Do we check on the vehicles that are
southbound out of the United States, headed down to Mexico? The answer
is almost not at all.
How are we going to deal with this drug epidemic and how are we going
to deal with border security if, instead of addressing these very real
issues that directly impact the drug epidemic in America, we are
sitting here talking about $5 billion for a wall?
All of us have voted for the Department of Homeland Security to build
barriers where needed, to build fences--and they tell us they don't
need a wall; they need a fence they can see through. We put money on
the table for that year after year, and I will continue to because I
think it is a smart thing to do, to have a border that is actually
secured. But this President is prepared to shut down the Government of
the United States not for the technology that I have described to you--
the successful technology that can reduce the flow of fentanyl, this
deadliest of chemicals into the United States, not for the technology
that could detect in these vehicles if they had a trailer full of
people who are being smuggled in for whatever reason--no. This
President is fixed on one issue: a $5 billion wall.

I hope someone close to the President will sit down with him and
explain the reality of border security. It goes way beyond a campaign
speech. There are plenty of votes, Democrats and Republicans, for
border security that is smart and border security that will work.
The hearings this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee really told
the story. I am sure the President didn't follow those hearings, but I
hope someone at the White House can and did

[[Page S7556]]

convince him: Don't shut down this government to build a wall. Appeal
to Congress on a bipartisan basis to give our government the resources
to make America safe.
If we could stop the deadly flow of fentanyl across that border, we
will save American lives. We can do it. We know the technology that
will accomplish it. Now, all we lack is the political will to get it
done.

Tribute to Jeff Flake

Madam President, I am sorry I wasn't here earlier when he was on the
floor, but I know that my friend and colleague, Senator Jeff Flake,
gave his farewell address to the Senate, and he will be leaving soon. I
wanted to honor him for his service in the Senate and thank him for all
the things we have worked on together.
When the political history of our time is written, I think one of the
most interesting chapters will be about my friend, Senator Jeff Flake,
of Arizona. I hope that history will be able to explain to me how one
of the ideological sons of Barry Goldwater, who was, in fact, the
father of modern American conservatism--how this ideological son named
Jeff Flake came to be viewed as a suspect conservative in Senator
Goldwater's home State of Arizona.
I have always found Jeff Flake to be a conservative with a
conscience, and I have been privileged to work closely with him on some
of the most important questions of our time.
Most people, in observing Washington, think all we do is fight like
cats and dogs, and Democrats and Republicans won't work together. That
is not true. Jeff Flake and I were members of something called the Gang
of 8. We produced a comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform bill
that passed on this Senate floor overwhelmingly 15\1/2\ years ago.
Other members of the Gang of 8 included our current Democratic leader,
Chuck Schumer; Mike Bennet, the Senator from Colorado; Lindsey Graham,
the Senator from South Carolina; Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Senator
Marco Rubio of Florida; and that old iconoclast himself, Senator John
McCain.
We met day after day and night after night to write an immigration
reform bill. We fought like cats and dogs over some of the provisions,
but in the end we agreed. We came up with a compromise bill, and it
passed overwhelmingly. We spent hundreds of hours together because we
knew that America needed immigration reform.
Senator Flake was a voice of conservatism in those discussions, but
he was also a voice of conscience, compassion, and reason. I had to
laugh at the description of my friend, Senator Flake, in an article in
the Atlantic magazine last year. The reporter wrote:

Flake doesn't relish criticizing other people, but when he
does, it is usually in a fatherly tone of disappointment. . .
. He sometimes seems as if he just crash-landed here in a
time machine from some bygone era of seersucker suits and
polite disagreements.

Country before party--that is the North Star of Jeff Flake's
political life. Adhering to that principle may have made him a one-term
Senator from Arizona, but it also made him an extraordinarily good
Senator and public servant.
The problems Jeff Flake tried honorably to solve haven't gone away.
They still demand our attention. If we can approach these challenges
with the same principles and openmindedness of Senator Jeff Flake,
America will be a winner.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Amendment No. 4096, as Modified

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cornyn
amendment No. 4096, as modified, be called up and reported by the
clerk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Corker], for Mr. Cornyn,
proposes an amendment numbered 4096, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that nothing in the joint resolution shall be
construed to influence or disrupt any military operations and
cooperation with Israel)

At the end, add the following:

SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING CONTINUED MILITARY
OPERATIONS AND COOPERATION WITH ISRAEL.

Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to
influence or disrupt any military operations and cooperation
with Israel.

Farewell to the Senate

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, it is probably no surprise for my
colleagues to know that I don't like much the idea of a farewell
speech. I haven't spent a great deal of time contemplating it over the
years I have been here. I am not a big fan of the concept. But I want
to respect the tradition, especially since I have witnessed so many
Senate traditions crumble over the last 12 years. So I will do my best
to get through this without breaking up.
A traditional farewell speech in the U.S. Senate is full of
accomplishments and thanks. I am going to skip half of that. I am
extremely proud of my body of work over 34 years of public service, but
it is for others to judge, and I won't dwell on it today, other than to
say it is a long list and a tangible demonstration of the value of hard
work.
The wonderful Barbara Bush said: ``Never lose sight of the fact that
the most important yardstick of your success will be how you treat
other people--your family, friends, and coworkers, and even strangers
you meet along the way.''
So rather than talk about what I have done, I want to speak a few
moments about my family, and I have three different families I want to
talk about today: my actual family, my family I like to call Missouri,
or ``Missouri''--we argue about it a lot--and my family here in the
Senate.
First, my actual family--because they are the most important. In the
words of author Andre Maurois, ``without a family, man, alone in the
world, trembles with the cold.'' I have been very warm my whole life. I
have not ``trembled'' in the cold because I have always had my family.
My parents taught me that caring about the community around us was
noble and good and that holding public office was an honorable
endeavor, even though my parents were largely spectators and supporters
and not candidates or officeholders. They just cared, and they wanted
me to care too.
At the risk of going down the road of too many family stories, it may
explain a lot that my dad fell in love with my mom when he saw her
smoking a cigar and belting out, ``Won't you come home, Bill Bailey,''
at a party; that my mother said I must say ``trick or treat'' and vote
for JFK when I was 7; and that my father insisted that I not only learn
the rules of football but that I also learn to tell a good joke and
learn to laugh at myself.
My siblings. My two sisters and my brother have simply been the port
in every storm.
My children. We have a large, blended family of many children and
grandchildren that is close and loving. I adore them all, but I need to
specifically mention my three children--Austin, Maddie, and Lily--
because they were there from the beginning--infants in car seats going
to political events, toddlers sitting sometimes not so quietly as I
gave a speech, and, then, amazing troopers in the almost decade of my
career when I was a single working mom, hauling them all over the State
on campaigns. They now have forgiven me for the missed recitals and the
missed field trips and the fact that I couldn't be the homeroom mom.
Today, they have grown into amazing, strong adults who make me very
proud.
And yee howdy, those grandchildren--I have 11, going on 12. I can't
wait until they are all old enough to yell at them what my mom used to
say to us when we were dawdling and too slow in getting to the car:
``Last one in is a Republican.''
My husband, Joseph--how lucky I am to have him as my best friend. We
were married 16 years ago, after I was well into my political career
and after he had achieved great success in business. He is proud and
supportive of me always, but he certainly didn't bargain for the
incredibly unfair treatment we got at his expense because of his
business success. Let the record of the Senate now say what my
Republican colleagues did not during my campaigns: Thank you, Joseph,
for your integrity, your honesty, your generosity, and your heart,
which has always directed you to do good, as you do well.
Then there is my Missouri family. I love my State--all of it, every
corner

[[Page S7557]]

of it, even the parts that aren't very crazy about me. My honor to work
for Missourians has been immense. I am incredibly grateful to them for
the opportunity I have had to get up every day and work my heart out in
an interesting, challenging career of public service, and so lucky to
have made many, many good friends along the way. I am excited that I
will now have more time for them.
David Stier said: ``Family means no one gets left behind or
forgotten,'' and that is how I feel about Missouri. That is why my
office has tried very hard to help every individual who has come to us
for help, every veteran who has needed assistance, every senior caught
in Social Security redtape--no matter who they were or where they lived
or what their politics were.
Then there is my staff family--my staff, here and in Missouri, in
this job, in my previous jobs, and in many, many campaigns
Richard Bach said it best: ``The bond that links your true family is
not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life.'' They
have been my rock, my compass, my inspiration, and my coach--the best
and the brightest, looking not for money or fame but just to make a
difference.
To my Senate staff here today and watching and to all the staff in my
offices of the prosecutor's office, the auditor's office, the county
legislature, and the State legislature, I respect each of you
immensely. As you go forth in the world, remember the McCaskill office
motto--they could cite it for you right now if I asked them: If you
work hard, you can do well. But if you are having fun, you will do
great.
We were happy, and it made a difference. George Bernard Shaw said:
``A happy family is but an earlier heaven.'' Working with my staff was
heaven.
Finally, to all my fellow Senators and all of the many people who
work here in the Senate, I would be lying if I didn't say I was worried
about this place. It just doesn't work as well as it used to. The
Senate has been so enjoyable for me, but I must admit that it puts the
``fun'' in dysfunction.
Peter Morgan, an author, said: ``No family is complete without an
embarrassing uncle.'' We have too many embarrassing uncles in the U.S.
Senate and lots of embarrassing stuff. The U.S. Senate is no longer the
world's greatest deliberative body, and everybody needs to quit saying
it until we recover from this period of polarization and the fear of
the political consequences of tough votes. Writing legislation behind
closed doors, giant omnibus bills that most don't know what is in them,
K Street lobbyists knowing about the tax bill managers' package before
even Senators--that is today's Senate--and no amendments.
Solving the toughest problems will not happen without tough votes. We
can talk about the toughest problems, we can visit about them, we can
argue about them, we can campaign on them, but we are not going to
solve them without tough votes. It will not happen. My first year in
the Senate was 2007. We voted on 306 amendments in 2007. This year, as
of yesterday, we have voted on 36. That is a remarkable difference.
Something is broken, and if we don't have the strength to look in the
mirror and fix it, the American people are going to grow more and more
cynical, and they might do something crazy like elect a reality TV-star
President. I am not kidding. That is one of the reasons this has
happened.
Power has been dangerously centralized in the Senate. We like to say:
Oh, we can't change the rules or we would be just like the House. We
kind of are like the House, guys. We kind of are. A few people are
writing legislation and a few people are making the decisions. We have
to throw off the shackles of careful, open the doors of debate, reclaim
the power of Members and committees, and, most of all, realize that
looking the other way and hoping that everything will work out later is
a foolish idea. For gosh sakes, debate and vote on amendments.
But with all the problems I have outlined, know that I love this
place and you--almost all of you. You have filled my life with
interesting work and unforgettable memories. We have argued, we have
sung, we have fought, we have cried, and we have laughed together--just
like family. You are family, and I will miss you terribly.
Desmond Tutu, a very wise man, said: ``God's dream is that you and I
and all of us will realize that we are family, that we are made for
togetherness, for goodness, and for compassion.''
Thank you very much.
I yield the floor.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, while our colleagues show their affection
for Senator McCaskill, let me talk a little bit about my relationship
with her and her service to our State. She chose not to do that, but
she has served Missourians at every level of government--as a county
legislator, as a State legislator, as an extraordinary prosecutor, and
as the State auditor, when her particular talent to find out exactly
what was going wrong and point it out was maybe at its best use, and 12
years in the U.S. Senate.
I know that not too long ago Claire and Joe took their family on a
vacation to a ranch in the West. I was thinking about that, and
thinking about her reminded me of a story I had heard about a wrangler
at one of those ranches, who was just perfect on a horse. Somebody who
was visiting asked: How do you get that good riding a horse?
He said: Well, first of all, you get on the horse and you put your
boot in the stirrup. You put your heel right up against the back of the
stirrup. You sit easily in the saddle, and you ride for about 30 years.
You ride for about 30 years.
If you had paid any attention to either the last Senate campaign in
Missouri or the one I was involved in before that, you heard a lot
about 30 years. In the case of Senator McCaskill and me, we have our
own 30 years. About that long ago, she was starting her second term in
the Missouri legislature--smart, well-prepared, all she always is. I
was the first Republican elected secretary of state in 52 years and
only a couple years older than her. In fact, we never had much of a
fight about who was going to be called a senior Senator because neither
wanted to be the particular senior anything at this point, but we began
to work together.
Claire was smart, she was quick, she was funny, she was insightful,
and she was always well-prepared. She was also, by the way, on the
Appropriations Committee that I had to report to. The questions were
always tough and usually I could answer them. Even then, I often
wondered how somebody as smart and well-prepared as Claire could so
often wind up on the wrong side of the issue of the day based on my
view of the issue of the day. We still have that--the 8 years we were
here together.
Let me tell you, on anything that involved Missouri, I think you
would have a hard time finding an exception where we didn't get to the
same place, where we didn't get there quickly, and where we didn't do
everything we both could do to figure out how to reach a conclusion.
In fact, all week I was thinking, is there any way I can get to St.
Louis to where the property transfer will be made for the new NGA, the
National Geospatial West facility--$1.3 billion facility--right where
Pruitt-Igoe used to be, something new that will be the center of
activity and something that was built at the site of a really bad
government decision. We worked very hard to get that done. I was
thinking, I am going to do that, until I found out it wasn't going to
be next Tuesday; it was going to be today when Senator McCaskill was
going to give this speech, and I knew I needed to be here and wanted to
be here for that.
I also say that our staff--and her Washington staff is here--our
staff in Washington, our staff in Missouri, to the best of my
knowledge, have always worked closely on everything. They would even be
at meetings where one of them would be explaining why I voted the way I
did and the other would be explaining why Claire voted the way she did,
and they would often ride together. That was the way we worked together
on citizen concerns, on Missouri concerns. That happened here as well.
Claire talked about her family. Joe Shepard, a great friend of mine
for--frankly, Joe was helping me before he started helping Claire, but
she pretty well totally converted him to her side

[[Page S7558]]

of the aisle, but we are still good friends.
I have gotten to know Claire's sisters and appreciate her sisters.
They are the best. They are always there for her. Occasionally, they
will look just enough like Claire that they could ride in her car in a
parade and she could be in a parade somewhere else. Claire's mom: The
last person in the car is a Republican--I can absolutely hear Claire's
mom saying that. In fact, after I was elected to the Senate, I was in
the Senate and happened to see Joe and Claire's mom and went over to
say hi. Claire's mom said: Well, I would like to say it is nice to see
you here, but based on everything I said in the campaign, I would be
two-faced.
That was Betty McCaskill, and I liked her for it. I was at Betty
McCaskill's memorial service during Claire's campaign that year for her
second election to the Senate. She was at my dad's memorial service
during my election campaign to the Senate this time. As Claire and Joe
were leaving, Claire said to me: What a perfect service for Leroy
Blunt. Nobody in this body could say that like Claire could say it
because she knew my dad. When family got up, we talked about my dad,
but Claire knew that was not just a passing comment; it was knowing who
we were and knowing who she is and what she knew about that.
Of all the times we voted differently, we have a relationship without
pretense, as much as you can possibly have between two Members of the
Senate from the same State. The best part of the last 8 years--we have
been friendly for 30 years, but in the last 8 years, we really have
become good friends. Old friends are hard to make. It takes a long
time, say 30 years, to really make old friends.
I look forward to our time together after you leave here. I have
benefited from our time together while you were here. Our State has
benefited from your service in incredible ways at all levels. Even on
the days we didn't disagree, I never doubted your sense that you were
doing the right thing. It is an honor to be your friend, and it is an
honor to have worked for you. Thanks for all you have done for the
State of Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, the last thing one does in life is
not necessarily the best. I have come to respect Claire McCaskill over
a long period of time. I have watched her walk in a room and watched
heads turn. I have listened to her up front, answering questions: no
nonsense, direct, truthful, to the very best of her ability. I found in
her a great sense of conscience. She has this marvelous exterior. I
think the interior is a little different.
There is a sensitivity there that is very special, Senator. I hope
you never ever lose it because it is what gives you the ability to do
what you do. Now I expect to turn on my television set and turn on my
radio and hear you many times and take a lot of good advice and have a
few laughs listening to you.
I want to say thank you. You have represented your State well. You
have stood tall. You have spoken out in our caucuses. You have let
people know what you feel. You wear your heart on your sleeve, and you
are one great woman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I stand here today with a heavy heart,
as we pay tribute to our friend and colleague, Claire McCaskill of
Missouri. Senators represent their State and, not surprisingly, they
often reflect their State's heritage, traditions, and values.
The people of Missouri rightly prize their reputation as independent,
straightforward, and trustworthy--qualities that define my friend,
Senator Claire McCaskill.
To that, I add another quality that defines this accomplished leader
from the Show Me State. Like her inspiration in public service,
President Harry Truman, Senator McCaskill is feisty. In her two terms
in the Senate, Senator McCaskill has demonstrated her belief that no
one party holds a monopoly on good ideas. It has been such a pleasure
to work with her across the aisle on so many issues. She was always the
best of partners: strong, strategic, determined, and she got a lot
done.
An issue that brought us together as leaders of the Senate Aging
Committee was the extensive bipartisan investigation we launched in
2015 into the extreme spikes in the prices of many prescription drugs.
The findings of our investigation were appalling, and the reform
legislation we coauthored is producing results in spurring approval of
lower cost generic drugs and increasing transparency in the
pharmaceutical industry.
Our work together on drug pricing uncovered the gag clauses that
industry uses that can prohibit your local pharmacists from telling
consumers if their prescription would cost less if they paid for it out
of pocket rather than using their insurance. The Patient Right to Know
Drug Prices Act that Senator McCaskill and I coauthored and that was
signed into law this October ends this egregious practice, saving
consumers money and improving healthcare.
We also investigated numerous financial scams that attempted to rob
seniors of their hard-earned savings. Once again, working together, we
were able to get a new law passed that tackled this serious issue as
well. There is nobody in this body who is more talented at questioning
individuals who came before our committee and were trying to shape the
truth or deceive or distract than Claire McCaskill. She, as Senator
Blunt mentioned, was always well-prepared; she was always insightful;
and she was always tough.
I remember one hearing we had where the GAO was testifying before us,
and sure enough, Claire had read the entire GAO report--not just the
executive summary, the whole report. Thus, her questions were so
penetrating that she brought out information that never would have
surfaced in that hearing.
As Missouri State auditor, a prosecutor, and a Senator, Claire
McCaskill has always been a champion for accountability, dedicated to
rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs. She has
always been determined to get to the truth and to get to the bottom of
an issue. During the damaging shutdown of 2013, she stepped forward as
a charter member of our Common Sense Coalition to help restore the
faith of the American people and to reopen government.
I have worked so closely with Senator McCaskill during her entire
time in the Senate, and I will miss her so much. She is a tough, no-
nonsense leader, a dedicated public servant, and, most of all, a good
friend.
Claire, I thank you for your public service, and I wish you, Joseph,
and your family all the best in the years to come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today, as we all are, to
recognize a marvelous person in Claire McCaskill. I am going to go back
to 2006, when Claire was running for the U.S. Senate and I was too. The
first time I saw Claire McCaskill on TV was on C-SPAN. She was in a
debate. I thought to myself: My, oh my. This lady has skills--because
it is something I do, I study people who are good and I try to steal as
much as I can from them and there was plenty to steal in her ability to
get to the truth.
Then, Claire and Jim Webb and I all won close elections in 2006 and
showed up in this body. Those of you who know Webb, Webb was maybe the
most intense person I ever have met in my life--an incredible human
being in his own right--and I became good friends with Jim.
Claire, I can't tell you the first time we met, but I can tell you
when we met, it was like we had known one another our whole lives.
Claire had this ability to instill--and still has this ability. I want
to talk in the future, not in the past. Claire has the ability to
welcome you and make you feel as good about yourself as you feel about
her.
We got to be fast friends. She and Joseph are Sharla and my best
friends in this body. In fact, when I got on the train a few weeks
ago--and I probably shouldn't have done this, but it just happened--I
happened to get on the train with Senator-elect Hawley. I didn't know
him. I never met him. I never looked at the debates this time around
when I was campaigning. He introduced himself to me. I will probably
owe him an apology for this, but I said:

[[Page S7559]]

Yes, you just beat my best friend in the U.S. Senate--because she has
been.
She is one of the reasons I have been able to come to this body and
really enjoy it. As everybody said before, she is smart, she is very
articulate, and she has a heart. Those three things are qualities that
serve one well in the U.S. Senate.
And I, for one, am going to miss her presence here and her ability to
tell the truth in a way that you have to be hard of hearing not to
understand what she says because she has been a great Senator over the
lasts 12 years. She has represented Missouri, and because we all have
those two letters in from of our names--``U.S.'' Senator--she has
represented this country in an amazing way. I, for one, will miss her
but will make a point to make sure the relationship we have developed
in this body continues for the rest of our lives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I just wanted to address the Senator
from Missouri to tell her that she has been a wonderful colleague for
this Senator.
As someone of more moderation in her politics who comes from a
Republican-dominated State, she has negotiated the political winds so
well and has always kept her eye on representing her State. This
Senator from Florida particularly appreciates that, because being a
Democrat in a Republican State is not an easy task, and she has done it
with such dignity, looking out for her people, looking out for the
people who are voiceless. I just want her to know she has the
appreciation of this Senator from Florida.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we recently heard a farewell speech from
my colleague and friend, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. I grew
up across the river from St. Louis in the town of East St. Louis, IL,
and feel a familiarity with Missouri and St. Louis probably more than
most residents of my State. We have had many great reminisces about the
city and her life, and I wanted to say a few words on the floor today
as she ends her service in the U.S. Senate.
My boyhood hero was Stan Musial--``Stan the Man''--St. Louis
Cardinals Hall of Famer and one of greatest ball players who ever
lived. He retired in 1963 holding National League career marks for
games played, at-bats, and hits. Asked to describe the habits that kept
him in baseball for so long, Musial once said: ``Get eight hours of
sleep regularly. Keep your weight down, run a mile a day. If you must
smoke, try light cigars. Then cut down on inhaling.''
``One last thing,'' he added: ``Make it a point to bat .300.''
Claire McCaskill has always brought the same sort of natural-born
talent and relentless work ethic to public service that Stan Musial--
``Stan the Man''--brought to baseball in St. Louis. She has stood for
office 24 times--lost twice. That makes her batting average
considerably better than .300.
Five years ago, Senator McCaskill and I teamed up to suggest a name
for a beautiful new bridge that spanned the mighty Mississippi River
between her State of Missouri and mine of Illinois, near St. Louis.
Thanks to Claire's leadership, it is called the Stan Musial Veterans
Memorial Bridge. Locals all call it the Stan Span for short. It is a
well-deserved, fitting tribute to my boyhood hero and a fitting tribute
to Claire McCaskill's tenacity.
In an age of hyperpartisanship, Claire McCaskill is a bridge builder.
She doesn't ask whether ideas come from the left or the right; she asks
whether they will work. Like her own political hero, Harry Truman, she
is a straight talker, and she can be a bulldog when it comes to
demanding accountability for the people who pay for this government and
those who rely on it. She has cast historic and heroic votes on the
Senate floor. She voted for an economic stimulus package that helped
prevent a second Great Depression. She voted to create the Affordable
Care Act--one of the most important social and economic justice laws of
our lifetime.
One story about Claire McCaskill seems especially telling. Nearly 2
years ago, she was ready to vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch, a Trump
appointee, to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Missouri, a red State, that
was a pretty good vote for her politically. But when she met privately
with then-Judge Gorsuch, she asked him about a case in which he had
ruled that a trucking company was within its rights when it fired a
driver who left his broken-down truck briefly on a sub-zero night to
find help.
Senator McCaskill asked Judge Gorsuch: Did you ever think about what
you would do if you had been that truckdriver?
The judge said: No.
Senator McCaskill changed her vote to no. It cost her politically,
but that is the kind of Senator Claire McCaskill is. Her idea of
governing is to spend money wisely, punish misbehavior, and give people
what they need in order to get through their daily lives. She has been
a voice for truckdrivers and farmers and factory workers and a lot of
ordinary people who work hard and still struggle to pay their bills.
She has been a fearless champion of my Dreamers, and for that I will
forever be grateful. Her votes to help these young people always were
risky politically, but she never ever flinched. I will forever be in
her debt for her show of courage on that one issue.
Incidentally, she showed the same courage and compassion when calling
for an end to this administration's cruel policy of separating
immigrant families at our border.
This past year, she used her influence as ranking member of the
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to
investigate the causes of the opioid epidemic devastating America. That
investigation showed how pharmaceutical companies knowingly sold
dangerous and addictive pain killers in order to maximize profit. She
worked diligently on a bipartisan basis to ensure passage of a law that
will help combat the opioid epidemic and provide treatment for those
who are addicted. And she has never ever wavered in her efforts to
protect Americans with preexisting medical conditions.
Results, not just rhetoric--that is Claire McCaskill.
As Stan Musial approached the plate for the last time before he
retired, legendary sportscaster Harry Caray said: ``Take a look, fans.
Take a good long look. Remember the swing and the stance. We won't see
his like again.''
As Senator McCaskill leaves the Senate, take a look. Remember Claire
McCaskill and her personal brand of Missouri courage. May we all try to
be bridge builders, as she has been.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Tribute to Captain Mark D. Bedrin

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you.
We all are surrounded by exceptionally dedicated young men and women
who work side by side with us and whose lead we sometimes follow on
issues--our staff. I am honored to have such a capable, dedicated, and
loyal staff--to me but more importantly, to Kansans and to Americans.
Today I want to take just a moment to recognize the contributions of
a member of that staff, U.S. Army CPT Mark Bedrin, who has spent the
last year working in my personal office as part of the U.S. Army
Congressional Fellowship Program.
Before Mark departs from my office to return to the Army, at the
Pentagon, at the start of the new year, I rise to express my admiration
and appreciation to Captain Bedrin for all the hard work and dedication
in his service to our Nation.
Exactly 1 year ago, when I first learned that Captain Bedrin would be
joining our office and our team, I called and welcomed him to the
office, and I immediately was struck by his determination and his sense
of duty. Since that first conversation with Mark, I knew he would be an
asset to our team, and he absolutely has never disappointed.
Mark's nearly 9 years of service in the U.S. Army have developed his
leadership capabilities and shaped his perspective on defense issues
that are of such national significance, making him a unique asset to
our team who, as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, helps us work to
serve Kansans and their families.
Mark's assignments have taken him and his wife, Katie, and their
children,

[[Page S7560]]

Elizabeth and Patrick, around the world in service to our country. Mark
has completed two combat deployments encompassing more than 22 months
in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, as a rifle platoon leader during the
Afghanistan surge and as regimental battle captain overseeing most of
the Regional Command South. He also completed a peacekeeping deployment
to the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, where he commanded a rifle company
supporting the Multinational Force and Observers maintaining the treaty
of peace between Egypt and Israel. Mark planned and completed multiple
missions supporting Atlantic Resolve in Central and Eastern Europe as
well.
Although Mark is a native of New York and he had never been to Kansas
prior to his working in my office, he immediately got familiar with
issues that Kansans face each day and made it a priority to spend time
in Kansas and to see firsthand our way of life.
Following his trip to our military installations and equities in
Kansas, I was grateful to learn of his impressions at each stop along
the way. Like many in the military who visit our State, Mark returned
to Washington, DC, with an appreciation for the quality of life that
Kansans ensure that their servicemembers have in our State. We take
care of their families. I appreciate Mark's noticing that, and it is so
true.
Over the past year, I have continually been impressed by Mark's
leadership. At every opportunity, he has proven himself to be an
important and fully integrated member of our office, our team, and has
carried that with equal weight and responsibility with my personal
staff. His seamless communications and his skill in tackling issues big
and small have been a great benefit to me. Mark has exceeded all of my
expectations and has demonstrated a commitment to excellence that has
been nothing short of outstanding.
Although I am sad that he will be leaving our office at the end of
the month, I know he will serve the Army well next year in the budget
liaison office, where I am confident he will be a highly effective
ambassador to Congress for the Army.
Mark is one of the most impressive military officers I have had the
honor of knowing, and I hold him in the highest regard personally and
professionally. He is a significant asset to our country and to the
U.S. Army. Mark represents the best that the Army has to offer, and I
know he will continue to benefit the future of our Nation.
There is no group of people I hold in higher regard than those who
serve our Nation, and I want to reiterate my gratitude to Mark and his
wife, Katie, as an Army family dedicated to serving our country.
Once again, thank you, Mark, for all you have done for Kansans this
year. Thank you for being an inspiration to me, causing me to work
harder and care more. You have been a model of selfless service and
leadership. Our entire office, our staff here in Washington, DC, and
our staff in Kansas will miss you. All know how much you contributed to
the cause, and I know you will continue to do great things throughout
your Army career and your life of service wherever that path may lead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

S.J. Res. 54

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
the U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship in the broader context of America's
interests in the Middle East.
I want to begin by responding to an op-ed Secretary of State Pompeo
published in the Wall Street Journal in which he called the U.S.-Saudi
Arabia partnership ``vital.'' That statement reflects a distorted view
of the U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship that has permeated the Trump
administration in which the United States is somehow dependent on the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for regional stability and security
cooperation. It is a view perhaps best articulated by the President's
own unhinged pre-Thanksgiving statement in which he suggested that
selling weapons to the Saudis was more important than America's
enduring commitment to human rights, democratic values, and
international norms, or the President and Secretary Pompeo's continued,
incredulous insistence that we still don't know whether the Crown
Prince is directly responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Desperate to justify this myopic view, Trump officials whimper that
Saudi Arabia's military operations in Yemen are the only means to
``root out'' Iranian influence and defend the status quo of U.S.
support for the Saudi-led coalition.
To put it another way, these morally blindered and blinded
individuals believe that to advance America's interests in the region,
there is no other option than dependence on Riyadh and no other way
than business as usual. So the United States should just stay the
course, resign to accept, with a so-called ``vital'' partner, a
government that lures a Washington Post columnist--an American resident
with U.S. citizen children--to its consulate in a third country with
the express intent of eliminating his dissenting views from public
discourse in the most gruesome way possible.
I, for one, reject Secretary Pompeo's false choice. We can be tough
on Iranian aggression, and we can continue our efforts to eliminate al-
Qaida and ISIS. At the same time, we can have a reality-based debate on
the strategic utility of the U.S.-Saudi partnership. Our security
interests and our values demand such a debate.
I believe that we can pursue an effective strategy to counter
terrorism and Iranian aggression while also demanding better from the
U.S.-Saudi Arabia partnership. That means standing up for transparency,
accountability, and truth when our partners flagrantly violate American
values, disregard international norms, and take actions that undermine
our broader strategic interests and run counter to regional security.
The Trump administration has cynically framed this vote as a binary,
zero-sum choice: You are either for Iran, or you are for Saudi Arabia.
Well, my answer to that is, I am for the United States of America. I
am for America's security interests. I am for American values. And I am
for partnerships and alliances deeply rooted in both.
I can't imagine that any one of my colleagues on either side of the
aisle would put me in the pro-Iran camp. I take a backseat to no one in
the Senate in taking the lead to end Iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon
and to end its nefarious promotion of terrorism across the world.
To be clear, the vote on S.J. Res. 54 is not about the totality of
the U.S.-Saudi relationship; it is a vote about whether U.S. support
for the Saudi-led coalition's actions in Yemen are in our national
interests.
We do indeed have important security interests with the Saudis. Both
of our nations benefit from cooperation in confronting threatening
forces. Yet we cannot sweep under the rug the callous disregard for
human life and the flagrant violations of international norms the
Saudis have shown. That is why, as ranking member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, I continue to look for the opportunity to continue
to examine components of the U.S.-Saudi relationship and determine
whether that relationship requires a course correction.
Beyond Saudi Arabia, I do not want any of our security partners to
interpret our relationship as a blank check. Unfortunately, whether due
to the President's possibly unconstitutional financial entanglements or
his family's overly cozy relationship with the Crown Prince, this
administration is putting the Saudi Government on a pedestal that
stands above America's values. They continue to extend a blank check to
certain players within the Saudi Government, no matter how brazen their
actions, rather than meaningfully seeking to influence Riyadh or ensure
that U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia is properly balanced and in line
with our strategic interests, not directed by the personal and
financial motives of select individuals in our government.
This refusal to stand up for American values, to assert true
leadership, is part of the Trump administration's willful adherence to
a misguided understanding of the most effective ways to bring stability
to the Middle East. It is an outgrowth of the President's reckless,
morally bankrupt approach to foreign policy and a love affair with
authoritarian strongmen.
Mr. President, I hope today to frame some critical questions about
the U.S.-

[[Page S7561]]

Saudi relationship in the context of America's long-term interests in
the region. Let's start with taking stock of actions taken by Saudi
Arabia over the last 2 years--the 2 years that, according to Secretary
Pompeo, the Trump administration has been ``rebuilding'' the U.S.-Saudi
partnership while we here in the ``salons of Washington'' were
caterwauling about human rights.
In June of 2017, a quartet of Arab countries announced a full
blockade of a fellow Gulf Cooperation Council member, Qatar. The Saudi-
led bloc justified this blockade by accusing Qatar of transgressions
that, while seriously concerning, are not unique to Qatar or even to
some members of the Saudi-led bloc, such as financial support for
terror.
This blockade tosses out decades of investment by Republicans and
Democratic U.S. administrations to partner with the entire Gulf
Cooperation Council--Qatar included--on security challenges ranging
from Iran, al-Qaida, missile defense, maritime security, and cyber
threats.
Put another way, the Saudi-Qatar dispute has translated into a lot
more work for our military professionals and diplomats for the past
year as the gulf Arabs have fought amongst each other and have
interrupted critical priorities like defeating ISIS and countering
Iranian aggression. It has also complicated the coordination with our
Arab partners on U.S. foreign policy priorities, like stabilizing Libya
and Syria, and, potentially, deeply undermined U.S. objectives, like
stability in the Horn of Africa.
Who is the winner of this rift that has been constructed by our
Saudi-led partners? Iran.
Mr. President, in turning to Yemen, the Saudis and their partners
have continued their brutal air campaign in Yemen, often
indiscriminately. Tens of thousands of innocent Yemenis have died, and
millions more are on the brink of starvation. Meanwhile, Iran's
influence has increased within the country, and al-Qaida has taken
advantage of the chaos to expand its reach and control of Yemeni
territory.
The winners of this fruitless war? Iran and al-Qaida.
Then, in November 2017, Mr. President, the Prime Minister of Lebanon
traveled to Saudi Arabia for what he reportedly believed was to be a
friendly visit with the Saudi Crown Prince.
Instead, the Crown Prince detained Prime Minister Saad Hariri and, on
TV, forced him to resign from his position. Let that sink in for a
moment. A newly minted Crown Prince effectively hoodwinked and
intimidated a sitting Prime Minister into publicly resigning his
position. This entire stunt was reportedly intended to push back on
Iran's expanding influence in the region.
After days of high drama and uncertainty, including a refusal by
Lebanon's President to accept the Prime Minister's resignation, Hariri
left Saudi Arabia via Paris and returned to a Lebanon where Iran's
proxy Hezbollah remains not only a part of the Lebanese Government but,
arguably, in a stronger position for rallying public support behind
Hariri.
The winner of this foolish plunder? Iran.
Mr. President, that very same month of November 2017, Crown Prince
Muhammad bin Salman directed the detention of hundreds of Saudi princes
and executives at the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh. While this effort was
spun as a crackdown on corruption, it was clearly a crackdown on the
Crown Prince's political competitors. Reports from this dark period in
the gilded prison of the Ritz indicate that Saudi Government-directed
forces tortured detainees and coerced them into transferring money to
the government or giving up real estate and shares in companies.
Now, I don't know how they obtained those resources, and I am, in no
way, condoning any graft and exploitation in the Kingdom, but this
opaque process--outside any semblance of the rule of law and driven
purely by the will of the Crown Prince--is not actually a sustainable
approach to promoting transparency and accountability. In fact, it
should and did send chills down the spines of investors and American
companies that seek to expand commercial and economic ties in the
Kingdom. A strong respect for the rule of law is an essential condition
for doing business.
So when Trump points to the value of business ties with Saudi Arabia
as a reason for not imposing consequences for Khashoggi's murder, let's
remember that in the hands of the Crown Prince, anyone can be shaken
down, locked up, or tortured at a five-star hotel in Muhammad bin
Salman's Saudi Arabia. Let's also continue asking who exactly is
benefiting from potential business ties.
Mr. President, Secretary Pompeo mentioned in his op-ed last week that
the Crown Prince has ``moved the country in a reformist direction, from
allowing women to drive and attend sporting events, to curbing the
religious police and calling for a return to moderate Islam.''
What the Secretary did not mention, however, are the deeply
disturbing reports that, at the same time MBS was granting Saudi women
the right to drive, he also detained many female activists who were
themselves calling for the rights of women, including their right to
drive. Now we are hearing reports that these women are being tortured
and sexually harassed, bound to iron beds, electrocuted, and beaten.
Is this the kind of reform that Secretary Pompeo believes the United
States should endorse?
As for calling for a return to moderate Islam, the Anti-Defamation
League reports that Saudi state television hosted several hour-long
programs this Ramadan that featured a preacher who called for God to
destroy the Christians, Shiites, Alawites, and Jews. Other analyses
published by the Anti-Defamation League this November found that Saudi
Government-published textbooks for the 2018-2019 academic year promote
incitement to hatred or violence against Jews, Christians, women, and
homosexual men.
As ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said:

The United States must hold its ally Saudi Arabia to a
higher standard. The U.S. cannot look the other way while
Saudi Arabia features anti-Semitic hate speech year after
year in the educational material it gives its children.

Mr. President, let's take stock of Saudi Arabia's contributions to
regional stability. It seems a fitting time to ask if an approach that
involves bullying another U.S. regional partner, holding the Prime
Minister of Lebanon hostage, torturing female activists, business
executives, and other princes, and carrying out a military campaign in
Yemen that will result in the death of millions more civilians by
year's end is an approach that is in line with U.S. values or
priorities.
Has Iran been weakened by these actions? Is the focus still on al-
Qaida and defeating ISIS? I don't think so.
Mr. President, the President has made it clear that no U.S. foreign
policy objective, especially human rights, is as important to him as
securing tens of billions of imaginary dollars to create million
fantasy jobs through weapons sales to the Saudis.
Congress has long and well established the overseeing of the sale of
weapons as part of U.S. foreign policy. We have learned throughout our
history that selling weapons is a complex matter and that without close
attention to the human rights practices of foreign buyers, the United
States can easily find itself in the situation that we are now in with
Saudi Arabia.
U.S. arms, today, are being used irresponsibly, tragically, and in
possible violation of international law in the deaths and injuries of
tens of thousands of innocent civilians, including of helpless
children. The United States must elevate human rights concerns in all
aspects of its foreign security assistance, including arms sales.
Otherwise, the abuses that result will do more to foment the conditions
of unrest and despair that are the breeding ground of conflict, war,
and terrorism.
Secretary Pompeo also suggested that if the United States in any way
reassesses its relationship with Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom will rush
into Russian arms.
I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, that most countries in the Middle
East are already hedging against perceptions that the United States is
not invested in the region and that those assessments are based on the
President himself--how else to explain Putin's high five with the Crown
Prince at the G20 in Argentina? Is it from the parade of gulf rulers in
Russia who are doing deals on the margins of the World Cup

[[Page S7562]]

earlier this year or by the announcements by several U.S. partners of
talks to purchase the Russian S-400 system, despite the prospect of
congressional sanctions under the CAATSA law?
Given not just the war in Yemen but also the murder of Khashoggi and
the blockage of Qatar, I believe we need to take steps to recalibrate
the future of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
That is why I am disappointed that the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee did not take up the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act
of 2018, which is legislation that I am leading, along with Senators
Young, Reed, Graham, Shaheen, Collins, and others. We will continue to
work on this legislation next year. It does not seek to tear down the
entire Saudi-U.S. relationship. Instead, it is carefully calibrated to
force a rebalancing in priorities.
The United States should no longer be selling weapons to the Kingdom
that will be used to kill women and children in Yemen. We should,
however, continue to support Saudi Arabia's legitimate defensive needs,
like intercepting Houthi missiles coming from Yemen.
The United States should no longer refuel Saudi coalition aircraft
for operations in Yemen, which is clearly correlated with a rise in
civilian casualties.
The United States must now take a stand against all stakeholders in
this conflict that are blocking humanitarian access, preventing forward
movement under the U.N. peace process, or receiving weapons from Iran.
Our bill also ensures that Congress right-sizes its oversight over
this relationship. The Trump administration must follow the letter of
the Global Magnitsky Act, and it must take a firm stand in support of
human rights when it comes to Saudi Arabia.
This is not caterwauling or the media piling on. This is Congress
doing what the American people elected us to do--ensure that the U.S.
Government conducts foreign policy in a manner that protects the United
States and the American people. We are not doing our job if foreign
governments believe they can murder journalists and dissidents with
impunity and disregard international norms without damaging their
relationships with the United States.
Saudi Arabia has joined a sinister clique, along with North Korea,
Russia, and Iran, in its assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. A few more
weapons purchases cannot buy our silence, and they should not buy our
silence. If the President will not act, Congress must.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me congratulate Senator Menendez for
his leadership role in addressing this crisis in Saudi Arabia.
In a few minutes, we are going to begin voting on a historical piece
of legislation, because I think, as conservatives have understood and
as progressives have understood, for too many years, Congress has
abdicated its historical and constitutional responsibility to be the
body that determines whether or not this country is at war. What we
have seen for a long time now under Democratic Presidents and under
Republican Presidents and under Democratic Congresses and Republican
Congresses is an abdication of that responsibility. I hope that today
we begin the process of taking that back.
The war in Yemen is unauthorized. There has never been a vote in
Congress to allow our men and women to participate in that war.
Therefore, that war is unconstitutional, and it has to end. That is the
vote that we will be having this afternoon.
Second of all, I think all Members are aware of the unbelievable
humanitarian crisis that now exists in Yemen. It is the worst
humanitarian crisis on Earth. Unless we use the power of this country
not to help more bombs being dropped to kill people in that country but
to use our power to bring the warring parties together, that situation
will become even worse. The United Nations and others are telling us
that Yemen is on the brink of the worst famine that we have seen in a
very long time and that millions of people may die.
Third, it is time for the U.S. Congress to tell the despotic
Government of Saudi Arabia that we do not intend to follow its lead in
its military adventurism. Its intervention in the civil war in Yemen is
the cause of the humanitarian disaster, as 10,000 people are developing
serious illnesses--cholera and other illnesses--because the water
infrastructure in Yemen has been destroyed by Saudi attacks.
Right now we have the opportunity to go forward in a strong
bipartisan way.
I want to thank all of the Members of the Senate who gave us 60 votes
yesterday in order to proceed and who gave us 96 votes on what I
thought was a sensible germaneness point of order.
Now we have a number of amendments in front of us. Two of them,
authored by Senator Cotton, will essentially undermine everything we
are trying to accomplish. I very much hope that we defeat those
amendments and that we tell the world we want the United States out of
Yemen.
I would end on a positive note. As some may know, right now in
Sweden, there are peace negotiations going on, and, as I understand it,
just yesterday, a major breakthrough took place that allows for an
exchange of some 15,000 prisoners of war. So some progress is being
made in bringing the warring factions together, and there is evidence
that the pressure from the international community and the U.S. Senate,
making it clear that we will not continue to participate in that war,
is helping the peace process.
Let us go forward today and defeat the amendments that are trying to
undermine this important resolution and tell the world that the United
States of America will not continue to be part of the worst
humanitarian disaster on the face of the Earth, that we want peace in
that region, that we want humanitarian aid in that region, and that we
don't want any more bombs or destruction.
Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Order of Procedure

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, we have eight votes, two of which I think
we may be able to take. I hope that those who wish to have votes may
talk just a little bit so that we can speed up the process.
The first vote will be 15 minutes; the remainder of the votes will be
10 minutes. We will begin that process with Young No. 4080. I think
there is agreement for him to speak for 1 minute.

Amendment No. 4080

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to the vote in relation to Young amendment No. 4080.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I just want to thank the chairman and his
staff for working constructively with me on this amendment. I want to
thank the Senator from Vermont and other Senators who have tried to do
all they can to make sure that we hold Saudi leadership accountable
over the course of this and maintain our norms of acceptable behavior,
making sure that our military forces are respecting international
humanitarian laws, that we assist our security partners, and that we
stabilize the country of Yemen so that ISIS, al-Qaida, and Iran--the
largest state sponsor of terror--cannot further entrench in the country
and perpetuate their nefarious activity.
We wouldn't be at this point but for a lot of leadership across the
aisle. I just thank all of those involved. I appreciate the
consideration of my colleagues in voting for this amendment.
I yield back.
Mr. SANDERS. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

[[Page S7563]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
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
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young

NAYS--41

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

NOT VOTING--1

Tillis

The amendment (No. 4080) was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 4096, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Cornyn amendment No. 4096, as
modified.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all future
votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the joint resolution before us today will
impact U.S. operations with allies beyond the Saudi-led coalition; it
will affect our relationships with allies beyond the Saudi-led
coalition against Houthi forces in Yemen, which is literally a proxy
battle against Iran.
Members of this Chamber assert that this resolution is confined to
Yemen and sends a strong message to Saudi Arabia. I disagree with that.
This resolution also sends a message to our allies that question the
reliability of the United States as a partner. It brings into question
valuable U.S. intelligence-sharing operations around the globe,
including with Israel and other regional allies, like Jordan, Japan,
South Korea, and NATO.
Further, it risks emboldening Iran and global adversaries who intend
to fill the voids left by our absence. Russia and China have been
actively expanding their presence in the region and will see this as an
opportunity to fill the vacuum.
Senator Inhofe and I offer this amendment to reassure Israel and our
regional partners that the United States intends to honor our
commitments as the leader of the free world.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I just want to clarify with Senator
Cornyn so there is no confusion: His amendment deals strictly with
Israel and not regional allies; am I correct on that?
Mr. CORNYN. The amendment says: ``Nothing in this joint resolution
shall be construed to influence or disrupt any military operations and
cooperation with Israel.''
Mr. SANDERS. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4096, as modified.
Mr. CORNYN. 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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
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
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
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

NOT VOTING--1

Tillis

The amendment (No. 4096), as modified was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, we were going to have 10-minute votes. We
have had two votes in 54 minutes. Can we not just vote? OK. All right.
I think we have two rollcall votes left. A number of Senators are
doing voice votes, and then we will have the journalist resolution at
the end, by voice also.
Go ahead, Senator Cornyn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

Amendments Nos. 4090 and 4095

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendments, Nos. 4090 and 4095, be made pending and reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes en bloc
amendments numbered 4090 and 4095.

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 4090

(Purpose: To require a report assessing risks posed by ceasing support
operations with respect to the conflict between the Saudi-led coalition
and the Houthis in Yemen)

At the end, add the following:

SEC. 2. REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY CEASING SAUDI ARABIA SUPPORT
OPERATIONS.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this joint resolution, the President shall submit to Congress
a report assessing the risks posed to United States citizens
and the civilian population of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
and the risk of regional humanitarian crises if the United
States were to cease support operations with respect to the
conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in
Yemen.

Amendment No. 4095

(Purpose: To require a report assessing the increased risk of terrorist
attacks in the United States if the Government of Saudi Arabia were to
cease Yemen-related intelligence sharing with the United States)

At the end, add the following:

SEC. 2. REPORT ON INCREASED RISK OF TERRORIST ATTACKS TO
UNITED STATES FORCES ABROAD, ALLIES, AND THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES IF SAUDI ARABIA
CEASES YEMEN-RELATED INTELLIGENCE SHARING WITH
THE UNITED STATES.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this joint resolution, the President shall submit to Congress
a report assessing the increased risk of terrorist attacks on
United States Armed Forces abroad, allies, and to the
continental United States if the Government of Saudi Arabia
were to cease Yemen-related intelligence sharing with the
United States.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the bipartisan support for the amendments
and hope they can be adopted by voice vote, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 4090 and 4095) were agreed to en bloc.
The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendments Nos. 4097 and 4098

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask that my amendments Nos. 4097 and
4098 be made pending and reported by number.

[[Page S7564]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Cotton] proposes en bloc
amendments numbered 4097 and 4098.

The amendment are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 4097

(Purpose: To clarify that the requirement to remove United States Armed
Forces does not apply to the provision of materials and advice intended
to reduce civilian casualties or further enable adherence to the Law of
Armed Conflict)

On page 4, line 16, insert after ``associated forces'' the
following: `` or involved in the provision of materials and
advice intended to reduce civilian casualties or further
enable adherence to the Law of Armed Conflict''.

Amendment No. 4098

(Purpose: To clarify that the requirement to remove United States Armed
Forces does not apply to forces engaged in operations to support
efforts to disrupt Houthi attacks against locations outside of Yemen,
such as ballistic missile attacks, unmanned aerial vehicle attacks,
maritime attacks against United States or international vessels, or
terrorist attacks against civilian targets)

On page 4, line 16, insert after ``associated forces,'' the
following: ``or to support efforts to disrupt Houthi attacks
against locations outside of Yemen, such as ballistic missile
attacks, unmanned aerial vehicle attacks, maritime attacks
against United States or international vessels, or terrorist
attacks against civilian targets,''.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I understand there will be 2 minutes of
debate on amendment No. 4097.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. COTTON. On amendment No. 4097, I will not ask for a recorded
vote. I understand opposition is enough to defeat it. I want to simply
say, though, that the geopolitical realities here are, if we withdraw
our support for the coalition in the Arabian Peninsula, the fight is
not going to stop. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are not
going to allow Iran to supply a rebel insurgency with missiles and UAVs
and boats that can reach their citizens.
I suggest we should try to do everything we can to minimize civilian
casualties. That is why this amendment simply says: The United States
can provide information and material that would minimize civilian
casualty and that would help those nations adhere to the law of armed
conflict.
I regret that this amendment will not pass, but I think it will be a
wise course of action for U.S. policy.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. I understand it will be on a voice vote. This exemption,
just like the amendment that will follow, is so broad as to render the
underlying resolution impotent.
Let's be clear. The existing conflict the United States is supporting
is the primary cause of the humanitarian catastrophe that exists today.
Eighty-five thousand kids under the age of 5 have died of starvation
and disease. This is the world's worst cholera epidemic in the history
of the globe. If we were to adopt this amendment, it could potentially
allow for continued unlimited assistance for the Saudi coalition to
continue to exacerbate that nightmare.
I urge my colleagues, on a voice vote, to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there no further debate?
The question occurs on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4097) is not agreed to.

Amendment No. 4098

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the Cotton amendment, No. 4098.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, my last amendment was about the law of
armed conflict and citizens of foreign nations. This amendment is about
our citizens and our troops.
The Houthi rebels have fired more than 100 missiles into the Arabian
Peninsula, into the Red Sea, and into the Gulf of Aden. They have used
armed, unmanned aerial vehicles and boats to attack in international
waters. They have supported terrorist attacks. All of these things can
range coastguardsmen, sailors, airmen, soldiers, marines, and hundreds
of thousands of U.S. citizens we have in the region.
My amendment will simply say that U.S. forces can engage in force
protection of our own troops and our own citizens in the region. I hope
we can agree that our Armed Forces should be able to take action in
self-defense of themselves and our citizens in the region.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, once again, I urge rejection of this
amendment. If passed, it would, again, render the underlying resolution
a moot point.
I would make two additional arguments against it: First, the entire
rationale that the Saudis used for the military campaign in Yemen is to
prevent Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia. So if this was an
exemption, then the United States could fully participate. Second,
existing law already allows the U.S. Commander in Chief to protect U.S.
troops against an attack or an imminent attack, and nothing in the
resolution would take away the Commander in Chief's power to protect
U.S. troops either here in the United States or abroad.
For those reasons, I would strongly oppose--that we object to this
amendment which, if passed, would essentially gut the underlying
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment
No. 4098.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 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 senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]

YEAS--45

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

NAYS--54

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

NOT VOTING--1

Tillis

The amendment was rejected.
The joint resolution, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to the vote on passage.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we are actually at a historic moment here
in the U.S. Senate. I want to thank all of the Senators who in a very
bipartisan way have come together to say that the United States will no
longer participate in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which has
caused the worst humanitarian crisis on Earth, with 85,000 children
already starving today.
Today, we tell the despotic regime in Saudi Arabia that we will not
be part of their military adventurism. Today, maybe in the most
profound way, 45 years ago, the War Powers Act was passed--45 years
ago. Today, for the first time, we are going to go forward utilizing
that legislation and tell the President of the United States--and

[[Page S7565]]

any President, Democrat or Republican--that the constitutional
responsibility for making war rests with the U.S. Congress, not the
White House.
Let us pass this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The joint resolution having been
read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
Mrs. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Heller), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

YEAS--56

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

NAYS--41

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

NOT VOTING--3

Graham
Heller
Tillis
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 54), as amended, was passed, as
follows:

S.J. Res. 54

Whereas Congress has the sole power to declare war under
article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States
Constitution;
Whereas Congress has not declared war with respect to, or
provided a specific statutory authorization for, the conflict
between military forces led by Saudi Arabia, including forces
from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt,
Jordan, Morocco, Senegal, and Sudan (the Saudi-led
coalition), against the Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah,
in the Republic of Yemen;
Whereas, since March 2015, members of the United States
Armed Forces have been introduced into hostilities between
the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis, including providing
to the Saudi-led coalition aerial targeting assistance,
intelligence sharing, and mid-flight aerial refueling;
Whereas the United States has established a Joint Combined
Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia, in which members of the
United States Armed Forces assist in aerial targeting and
help to coordinate military and intelligence activities;
Whereas, in December 2017, Secretary of Defense James N.
Mattis stated, ``We have gone in to be very--to be helpful
where we can in identifying how you do target analysis and
how you make certain you hit the right thing.'';
Whereas the conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and
the Houthis constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a)
of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)), either
hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into
which United States Armed Forces have been introduced;
Whereas section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50
U.S.C. 1544(c)) states that ``at any time that United States
Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory
of the United States, its possessions and territories without
a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization,
such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress
so directs'';
Whereas section 8(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50
U.S.C. 1547(c)) defines the introduction of United States
Armed Forces to include ``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,'' and activities that the United States is
conducting in support of the Saudi-led coalition, including
aerial refueling and targeting assistance, fall within this
definition;
Whereas section 1013 of the Department of State
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C.
1546a) provides that any joint resolution or bill to require
the removal of United States Armed Forces engaged in
hostilities without a declaration of war or specific
statutory authorization shall be considered in accordance
with the expedited procedures of section 601(b) of the
International Security and Arms Export Control Act of 1976
(Public Law 94-329; 90 Stat. 765); and
Whereas no specific statutory authorization for the use of
United States Armed Forces with respect to the conflict
between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen has
been enacted, and no provision of law explicitly authorizes
the provision of targeting assistance or of midair refueling
services to warplanes of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab
Emirates that are engaged in such conflict: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM
HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE
NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.

Pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C.
1546a) and in accordance with the provisions of section
601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms
Export Control Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-329; 90 Stat. 765),
Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States
Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of
Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in
operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces, by not
later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the
adoption of this joint resolution (unless the President
requests and Congress authorizes a later date), and unless
and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for
such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted. 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.

SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING CONTINUED MILITARY
OPERATIONS AND COOPERATION WITH ISRAEL.

Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to
influence or disrupt any military operations and cooperation
with Israel.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY CEASING SAUDI ARABIA SUPPORT
OPERATIONS.

SEC. 4. REPORT ON INCREASED RISK OF TERRORIST ATTACKS TO
UNITED STATES FORCES ABROAD, ALLIES, AND THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES IF SAUDI ARABIA
CEASES YEMEN-RELATED INTELLIGENCE SHARING WITH
THE UNITED STATES.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

____________________