AMENDING THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 197
(Senate - December 13, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[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.

       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.

     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.

       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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

                          ____________________