Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, over the weekend, Indiana lost a giant in Richard G. Lugar. Senator Lugar spent 36 years as a Member of this body, and I rise today to celebrate his life, which made the world a better, safer place to live.

I had the pleasure in the early 2000s to work on Senator Lugar's staff, and I had a front row seat to history, watching a true statesman at work. He stood by me as I took my oath right here in this Chamber. I will never forget his support of me and of so many others throughout the years.

Senator Lugar's reserved and quiet demeanor sometimes might have led people to believe he was something less than competitive. In truth, he was one of the most competitive people I have ever encountered. Senator Lugar was a runner, and his office competed every year in the Capital Challenge, the competitive race between legislative staffs. Senator Lugar had a member of his staff actually track everyone's time and their improvement, or lack thereof, from year to year. I think that spreadsheet still exists somewhere today. When I was going through the hiring process to be a legislative assistant in the Senator's office, I went through the normal series of questions--my academic background, my professional experiences, my policy knowledge, my interest in working in the office. But at the very end of the interview, the Senator asked me a pointed question. He led into the question by indicating that he had seen listed some hobbies on my resume, and one of those hobbies was running. So he asked me pointedly: How fast can you run 3 miles? I quickly told him I thought I could break 18 minutes. A half hour later, I got a phone call saying I was hired. Looking back, I am not so sure it was because of my policy chops.

I learned a lot working for this man. I fondly remember his penchant for ice cream and the stacks and stacks of books in his office. I believe he read every one.

Senator Lugar would from time to time invite staff members or interns to run with him on the Mall. There was one rule: Never ever run in front of the Senator. He was, after all, a leader, a Rhodes Scholar, a Navy veteran, mayor of Indianapolis where he spurred economic growth, which is still spoken of today, by consolidating the city and county governments into Unigov.

As a U.S. Senator, he led on food security, energy independence, and free trade. At a time when nuclear proliferation was regarded as civilization's greatest threat, Senator Lugar helped save the world. The Nunn-Lugar Act, for which he is most well known, has led to the securing and destruction of thousands of weapons of mass destruction and delivery devices.

Dick Lugar was a very shrewd politician until his last days. His instincts were very good. I know this from personal experience. In fact, last year, he and I did a forum together at Indiana University. Present on the panel were a former World Food Prize winner, the leader of an international NGO, Senator Lugar, and I. After formal presentations were done and some questions were asked by the moderator, questions were opened up to the audience. Some particularly difficult questions were tendered initially, and whenever one of those questions was asked, Senator Lugar would put on that trademark smile of his--and everyone back

home knows what I am talking about. He would just look over at me and let the junior Senator from Indiana field that question. After about three or four times, I decided it was his turn, so I tried to use his method right back at him. He simply smiled back at me until I couldn't stand the silence anymore. I was the first to break. The man still had the gift. The entire audience laughed. He was not to be underestimated.

He was not to be underestimated as a boss in the impact he could have on a young, idealistic staffer looking for role models in public life. He was not to be underestimated as a mentor who understood that the most important thing a leader can do is to simply set a good example-- comport yourself in a way that others might want to model. He was not to be underestimated as a human being. Richard Lugar had a heart. He ran for office not to be somebody, but to do things, important things to improve the lives of hundreds of millions--in the end, billions of people around the world.

Dick Lugar was the gold standard. He leaves a legacy as an exemplar of wisdom, civility, and bipartisanship. Always staying true to his temperament, he was a quiet man, a dignified statesman. He thought before he spoke. He emphasized substance over personality. In short, he set the bar for public leaders, and he set it high. I would go further and say that he set the bar high for leaders, more generally.

We should all look to Dick Lugar. We should all learn from his example.

I am not sure we will ever see another Richard Lugar. I sure pray we do. May God watch over him and his family during this difficult time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our booming economy and the stellar jobs report we saw on Friday, thanks in part to tax reform.

With tax day just around the corner, I would like to briefly highlight the many benefits American families, workers, and job creators have experienced as a result of lower tax rates.

Since Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, 3.2 million new jobs have been created. Our 3.8 percent unemployment rate is near a 50- year low. The unemployment rate for women in particular matches the lowest rate since 1953. Ninety percent of middle-class workers have experienced a tax cut, and jobless claims have recently dropped to the lowest level since 1969. Additionally, in 2018, manufacturing job creation was the highest it has been in over 20 years.

As the most manufacturing-intensive State in the Nation, Indiana particularly benefits from this tax cut bill.

Last year, in conjunction with tax day, I spoke on the Senate floor about the many stories that have already poured into my office from Indiana businesses that are paying their workers more and constituents who are earning more. This year, I am proud to say these stories continue.

My guest to last year's State of the Union, Chelsee Hatfield, is a prime example. When tax reform was signed into law, Chelsee, a young mother of three, was working as a teller at a rural bank, First Farmers Bank and Trust Company in Tipton, IN. She received a raise and a bonus as a result of tax reform. This additional income helped Chelsee go back to school to earn her associate's degree, and it enabled her to put money away for her children's future college education. I am proud to say that this summer, Chelsee graduated with her degree, and she has been promoted to a commercial loan administrative assistant position. What a powerful story.

I recently had the opportunity to visit with a third-generation small business owner in Fort Wayne. Dan Parker is the owner of Parker Towing & Recovery. He was able to purchase several new trucks thanks in part to tax reform. This means more trucks will be available to assist Hoosiers who have been in a car accident or have had their cars break down. Parker also recently expanded the company's office space and gave his staff raises. Parker said: ``As a result, we have less turnover now.''

Another Indiana employer, Cardinal Manufacturing Company in Indianapolis, rewarded its team members with bonuses and pay raises.

Albanese Confectionery, a candy manufacturing company in Merrillville, provided bonuses that it says will happen annually as long as the tax reform bill stays in effect.

Lastly, I would note that this new Tax Code incentivizes new investment into distressed rural and urban communities to help the least among us through the creation of tax-advantaged opportunity zones around the State of Indiana.

The bottom line is that Hoosiers continue to benefit from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Workers are taking home more of their hard-earned money, and businesses of all sizes are expanding, hiring, and investing in their employees.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue supporting policies like tax reform that have our economy booming.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the so-called Green New Deal and its impact on Indiana's agricultural community and our Hoosier farmers.

As I said last week, this misguided Green New Deal is unaffordable, unattainable, and unrealistic. In fact, over the next decade, this so- called deal would cost up to $65,000 per American household per year.

This proposal is a job killer, and it is bad news for hard-working Hoosiers. This is especially true for Hoosiers who rely on our vital agriculture industry for their incomes.

Allow me to run through a few numbers. In Indiana, agriculture supports more than 107,000 Hoosier jobs. Agriculture also contributes an estimated $30 billion to Indiana's economy. Indiana is the 10th largest farming state in the Nation, and we are the 8th largest ag export. Perhaps most importantly, 97 percent of Hoosier farms are family owned or operated.

Agriculture is a main driver of our State's economy. It is often said that Indiana feeds the world, and we take a lot of pride in that. We need our ag community to continue thriving. Yet the sponsors of this Green New Deal have spoken about cutting back on the farming practices that employ Hoosiers and put food on the table.

Imagine the crushing cost to Hoosier farmers of changing out all farm equipment for electric vehicles or the cost of upgrading every single building on every farm in Indiana. This is on top of the sharp climb in energy prices that we would see under the Green New Deal. This bad deal would force the cost of doing business to skyrocket for Hoosier manufacturers and our farmers, which would mean higher prices for consumers and less money in the pockets of hard-working Hoosiers.

Jim, a small business owner from Muncie, wrote to my office recently. He said: ``Please stop the Green New Deal in its tracks NOW.''

I also heard from Patrick in Bloomington, who said: ``As a man who has served my country in combat in Vietnam 50 years ago and someone who loves my country deeply--I am very concerned about the direction our nation is heading.'' Regarding the Green New Deal, he added: ``I hope you won't give this idea a second thought.''

Dennis from Greenwood wrote: ``My wife and I are strongly against the `Green New Deal'. . . . We would recommend that you not support this crazy idea.''

Well, Dennis, I don't intend to.

Susan from Lafayette wrote: ``Please hold strong and promote the values of Indiana and many Americans. . . . ''

The bottom line is this: Hoosiers don't want this harmful Green New Deal. It sets unattainable goals that are bad for Hoosier farmers. It is bad for our economy, and it is bad for our families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the so-called Green New Deal. This unaffordable, unattainable, and unrealistic proposal is bad for all Americans, but it is especially bad for the people who live in my home State of Indiana.

Indiana is the most manufacturing-intensive State in the country, and my Hoosiers are rightfully proud of that distinction. We make America's planes, our trucks, our recreational vehicles, our boats, and our pipelines. We produce the aluminum and steel that go into those products. We mine the coal that makes it affordable to power all of those factories.

Indiana is home to those respectable, high-paying jobs because of the highly skilled Hoosier workforce, our world-class infrastructure network, and, yes, our low energy costs. But the Green New Deal would crush Indiana's affordable energy prices, forcing the cost of doing business to skyrocket for Hoosier manufacturers and farmers alike and eliminating jobs in the process.

What would this Green New Deal mean for American families?

Over the next decade, the so-called deal would cost up to $65,000 per American household per year. That is roughly 50 percent--47 percent more than the median Hoosier household income.

Yes, America must continue to support an ``all of the above'' energy strategy, and I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to get that done. We must continue to develop renewable energy sources like wind and solar, but we must also continue to utilize our important baseload energy sources--that is your coal, your natural gas, your nuclear power. We simply cannot afford to eliminate these critical sources from our Nation's energy mix, and that is what the Green New Deal would call for.

In Indiana, approximately 92 percent of our electricity is generated by coal and natural gas--92 percent. Wind and solar account for just 6 percent of Indiana's electricity, and they cannot reliably and affordably produce the electricity Indiana needs.

So instead of turning a blind eye to coal and natural gas--energy sources that power America--let's continue to incentivize research and development. Instead of promoting job-killing legislation like the Green New Deal, we should be promoting proposals like the USE IT Act. This is bipartisan legislation put forward by my colleague from Wyoming that would promote carbon capture research and development.

We agree on the need to incentivize market-based carbon capture systems.

I would like to continue until I complete my remarks. I thank my colleague.

We really need to incentivize market-based carbon capture systems and ensure America can continue to cleanly and affordably produce baseload energy. By my reckoning, this is just one of many areas in which Republicans and Democrats can find common ground and work together to protect God's green Earth.

Indiana is an environmentally conscientious State. We continue to expand solar and wind production each year. We love to protect our important natural resources, such as the Indiana Dunes and Hoosier National Forest, but we cannot support a proposal like the Green New Deal that would endanger tens of thousands of Hoosier jobs. The Green New Deal is widely out of touch with Indiana's priorities. Hoosiers know a bad deal when they see one. This is a bad deal.

My fellow Hoosiers are greatly concerned that this radical proposal will cause utility bills to skyrocket and force Indiana factories to shutter. For these reasons, I am a resounding no on the Green New Deal. I stand with Hoosier farmers, I stand with Hoosier manufacturers, and I stand with Hoosier families in opposing this $93 trillion deal.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I will.

Well, that is an easy one. I thank my good colleague. I have publicly said for a long period of time--and you can check my record--that I believe the climate is changing. I believe that all flora, fauna, and human beings have some impact on that. I also fervently believe that we can protect our environment without wrecking our economy. We can do that through energy efficiency initiatives, investment in energy R&D, carbon capture and sequestration, and adoption of free market principles.

I read a very impactful book, in response to my good colleague, early on in my adulthood, and I recommend it to him. It is titled ``Ecocide in the USSR,'' and it explains how centrally planned economies and fatal, conceit-like efforts to engineer a better environment centrally, to plan an economy centrally, end up decimating our natural environment. That continues to have an impact on how I look at these issues. Perhaps we will find an opportunity to work together, though, and find some common ground. It won't be on the Green New Deal.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is very important to my constituents in my State of Indiana. It is also an issue that is very close to my heart--the sanctity of life.

Tomorrow we know thousands of pro-life advocates from around the country, including many Hoosiers, will convene in Washington for the March for Life. This is the world's largest annual pro-life demonstration.

You may not be able to tell this by watching today's television or movies, but there is bipartisan agreement among most Americans that we must protect human life. This is no old-fashioned point of view. In fact, a recent survey of millennials showed that 70 percent supported limits such as parental notification, blocking abortions at 5 months of pregnancy, and ending government funding for abortion.

In Indiana, concerned citizens from all corners of the State are fighting tirelessly to protect pro-life principles. These are the unsung heroes of the pro-life movement--those who have dedicated their lives to saving innocent children. These and other Hoosiers, of course, elected me to represent their interests in the Senate, but they also elected me to represent their values. I have been proud to work on legislation that reflects those values.

Already in this new Congress, I have joined dozens of my Senate colleagues on a letter to President Trump asking for a public commitment to only support pro-life legislative and administrative policies. To be clear, this President has indeed been supportive of pro-life policies, but House Democrats have already indicated they intend to move forward with pro-abortion legislation this Congress. We would like the President to let the House know that he is going to veto any kind of legislation that doesn't respect the sanctity of life.

I have also joined several of my colleagues this week to sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act of 2019, which we just voted on. This bill would have established a governmentwide statutory prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion or abortion coverage. Federal taxpayer dollars should absolutely not be used to fund abortion.

I am incredibly disappointed that my colleagues didn't join me in voting to pass this important legislation today. I will continue looking for ways to advance this needed reform.

I am also a cosponsor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which ensures that a baby who survives an abortion will receive the same treatment as any child naturally born premature at the very same age. We must do all we can to protect innocent life.

Before being elected to the Senate, I sat on the board of directors of the Hannah House in Bloomington, IN. This is a maternity home that offers women loving support during their pregnancy. I also spent 2 years as a smalltown attorney in Southern Indiana. During that time, I offered free legal services to parents who wanted to adopt. I am passionate about helping children find loving forever homes and helping caring adults become parents. I have come to appreciate firsthand, through my own life experiences, the importance of advocating for those who cannot advocate for themselves.

We are divided on so many issues today, but protecting the lives of unborn children should not be one of those issues. I will continue working on legislation that advances pro-life values, and I am hopeful we can soon turn these actions into law.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

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. President, I rise in memory of Fred M. Fehsenfeld, a Hoosier, an innovator, a philanthropist, and a true American hero.

Fred was born in Indianapolis in 1924, and he graduated from Shortridge High School. As a sophomore at Purdue University in 1942, he left school to enlist in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Fred flew 89 missions in Europe with the 354th Pioneer Mustang Fighter Group. He was awarded the Air Medal with three silver clusters and a Silver Star. He also led the 353rd fighter squadron on the last official flight in the European theatre, where he barrel-rolled over an Austrian POW camp to signal that the war in Europe was over.

After the war, Fred returned to Indiana and married Midge, his college sweetheart. He graduated from Purdue in 1948. The couple had seven children. He was married to Midge for 57 years before she passed. In 2003, he married Barbara, his lovely second wife.

Upon entering the workforce, Fred was operating Crystal Flash Petroleum, which owned gas stations around the State of Indiana, when he decided he needed a new adventure. So, in 1960, Fred went to the library and taught himself how to manufacture asphalt. His companies literally began paving what we in Indiana call the Crossroads of America.

Over the years, Fred gave his company his all. He grew The Heritage Group to more than 6,500 employees worldwide, and he tackled real-world problems along the way. In fact, Fred is credited with creating and promoting separate lanes for cars and trucks to save lives, reduce pollution, and alleviate congestion. His companies detoxified waste from circuit boards and solved environmental problems facing the steel industry.

Fred asked that his tombstone simply read ``I tried.'' I am here to report that Fred Fehsenfeld did far more than try--he succeeded. Fred's forward-thinking leadership has truly made America a cleaner, safer, and more prosperous nation. For that, I recognize him today.

Fred will be dearly missed by all who loved him and all who came to know him. He was a great Hoosier and a great American.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4080.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 4080 to S.J. Res. 54. I introduced this amendment this morning, and I am proud to report that Senators Shaheen, Collins, and Coons are now cosponsoring this important bipartisan amendment.

Amendment No. 4080 would amend S.J. Res. 54 by simply defining the term ``hostilities'' to include ``in-flight refueling of non-United States aircraft conducting missions as part of the ongoing civil war in Yemen.'' In other words, this amendment would prevent the resumption of U.S. air refueling of Saudi coalition aircraft in Yemen--those very aircraft that, in too many instances, have been responsible for indiscriminate bombing and violations of international human rights law. That is all this amendment would accomplish. It does not define the term ``hostilities'' more broadly for the War Powers Resolution or in any other instance.

Before discussing the amendment in more detail, allow me to zoom out for a moment and explain how I see the broader picture related to Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The civil war in Yemen, as so many now know, is an unmitigated national security and humanitarian disaster. The longer the civil war continues, the more influential Iran and various terrorist groups will become in Yemen. Meanwhile, approximately 14 million people are on the verge of famine, and it is getting worse by the day.

Famine and the indiscriminate targeting of civilians by the Saudi-led coalition will only push more Yemenis toward Iran and toward its proxies, giving terrorists increasing opportunities to threaten Americans, our partners, and our interests. So it is essential to America's national security interests, as well as our humanitarian principles, that the administration use all available leverage to end the civil war in Yemen without delay.

The only way to end this civil war and make significant and durable progress on the humanitarian crisis is through an inclusive political process. Everyone agrees on this. It is positive that the parties to the conflict are talking in Sweden as part of the U.N. envoy-led peace process. We want that process to succeed. I know the administration supports these talks, and I commend them for the encouragement of these talks. There are many potential pitfalls in the peace process, though, so we have to do all we can to support this effort here in Congress.

Since March of 2017, I sought to underscore the importance of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and to provide this administration leverage that it can use to pressure the Saudis to support an urgent and good-faith effort to end the civil war and to stop using food as a weapon of war.

In that effort, I have used every available tool at my disposal as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That has included, for example, a resolution that was passed by the Senate, legislation passed into law, subcommittee hearings, letters, and even a hold on the nomination of our former Secretary of State's top lawyer at the Department of State. That was before the administration understood, as they do now, the importance of having a negotiated political settlement between all the parties.

But as I have provided additional leverage to the administration over a period of time, we have to acknowledge that the civil war has continued, the world's worst humanitarian crisis has deteriorated further, Iran's influence has only increased, and the Saudi Crown Prince has, unfortunately, been left with the impression that he can get away with almost anything, including murder.

To be clear, with or without amendment No. 4080, S.J. Res. 54 may never become law. Even in that case, I believe adoption of amendment No. 4080 today would send an even stronger message at a critical moment to our Saudi partners that we expect them to do everything in their power to end this civil war.

Some may argue that no additional pressure is needed. I have heard that argument. I reject that argument, and here is why. On October 30, Secretaries Pompeo and Mattis called for a cease-fire in Yemen within 30 days. Those 30 days--for those who are checking your calendar--came and went on November 29. Yet the Saudi coalition has continued airstrikes.

I have a hard time believing that if Secretary Mattis picked up the phone and told Riyadh to knock off the airstrikes in Yemen, the Saudis would ignore him. If that call hasn't occurred, there may be a problem. If it has and the Saudis have ignored that demand, then, that may be a problem. Either way, we may have a big problem on our hands.

It is not in our national security interest to sit idly by as the Saudis ignore the clear demands of our Secretaries of Defense and State, especially when we are members of the coalition. Our taxpayers are funding these military exercises that are exacerbating the worst humanitarian crisis in generations and that are destabilizing a country where Iran, al Qaida, and ISIS have a foothold.

Let's support our Secretaries of State and Defense. Let's support them in their efforts. Let's give this administration yet more leverage vis-a-vis the Saudis.

The number of innocent people confronting famine is growing by the day. Innocent people are being bombed. Iran and terror groups are benefiting from the status quo. The Saudis have ignored our Secretaries' call for a cease-fire. My question to my colleagues here on Capitol Hill who are still undecided about how they might vote with respect to this amendment that I am bringing up is this: What are we going to do about it? What are you going to do about it today, because you have an opportunity to do something about it?

I will say that today, even if this resolution does not become law, we can take an important step and send the right message to Riyadh. There is no doubt that the Houthis have engaged in absolutely abhorrent behavior in Yemen, and, then, it takes two sides to negotiate.

We don't have much leverage over the Houthis. We have significant leverage over the Saudis, and we must utilize it. If S.J. Res. 54 does become law, my amendment would ensure that it accomplishes its stated purpose with respect to air refueling.

Some may continue to argue that the United States is not engaged in hostilities in Yemen. It is a war. Our taxpayers are providing funding. There is intelligence support and logistical support and refueling of aircraft carrying bombs, but some will argue that we are not engaged in hostilities in Yemen. In other words, this Senate joint resolution, absent my amendment, risks leaving the status quo in place in Yemen. With my amendment, the legislation would ensure that the administration cannot resume refueling of Saudi aircraft conducting missions related to this civil war.

To those principled colleagues--and there are a number of principled colleagues on this issue--who are conversant on the issue and have been studying it for a great deal of time, I have great respect for them. I know there is at least one who is concerned about any precedents we may be creating relating to the War Powers Resolution or other situations. Let me be clear. My amendment explicitly says this definition for hostilities only applies to this resolution we are considering today and only to this case.

I will also reiterate that my amendment would not restrict U.S. refueling on our own aircraft and would not restrict refueling of other aircraft for missions focused on al-Qaida and associated forces. We have it covered. Either way, Senators looking to send the right message today to the Saudis and those looking to change the situation in Yemen should support amendment No. 4080.

For a very quick word on the War Powers Resolution--the underlying resolution--here again, principled and serious people are on both sides of the War Powers Resolution debate, and I see merits on both sides of that argument. The President is indeed the Commander in Chief. That said, the Founders also establish clear article I constitutional war powers and responsibilities for Congress.

For me, today, in this situation, and only with respect to Yemen, I believe a reasonable reading of the Constitution leaves plenty of room for a ``yes'' vote on this resolution. Our humanitarian principles and national security interests require it. With that, I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 4080 and to support passage of the underlying resolution and send a message to Riyadh.

I yield the floor.

I thank the chairman for the clarification so that I can further clarify for the record that this amendment only applies for purposes of this resolution and in the section I offered it.

Let's say in Mali, for example, that our country in the future were involved with refueling operations of our partner or our ally's aircraft. This wouldn't apply. This would establish absolutely no precedent.

We have had national security legal counsel look at this. We have taken a belt-and-suspenders approach. No reasonable reading of this could construe this to establish any legal precedent that ought to cause concern for anyone concerned.

My intention is to only address the situation in Yemen, and that is precisely what this amendment does--nothing more, nothing less.

Back to the example of Mali and French aircraft, there would be absolutely no application of this amendment to that conflict, to the refueling of those aircraft or to our own aircraft. That is why we have doubled up on clarifying precautionary language, so that no one could conceivably construe that in any legal analysis that makes any level of common sense or legal sense, because the two don't always seem to be consistent. But we have had attorneys look at this, and it applies narrowly only to this context.

I will entertain any more questions, but I feel as though I am restating this. It is a very important matter. So I am glad the Chairman gave me an opportunity to answer it.

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. President, I, too, rise to recognize my distinguished colleague, Joe Donnelly, for his years of dedicated service to the State of Indiana. I also want to commend his family for their dedication. I know this is a team effort in public life to work on behalf of our country and our States and our constituents. They have been all in for the people of Indiana, and I just want to rise them up during this important time as they turn to a new chapter in their lives.

Joe Donnelly has a heart for service, clearly, from his service on the school board, to serving as a Member of Congress--our terms overlapped--to the last 6 years he has spent in the U.S. Senate. I have to say it has been a real privilege to have Joe as my partner in the Senate over the last couple of years.

Back home, he describes himself as the hired help. Throughout his time in public life, Joe has never forgotten whom he works for. That is because he genuinely likes people--not in the abstract; he likes individual Hoosiers and individual Americans and servicemembers and veterans and our seniors and young children. That is why he has such a magnetic personality. That is why he is beloved by colleagues on the right and the left, who represent red States and blue States. That is why I have enjoyed working with Joe as well. Hired help.

Joe touched on the casework and the challenges he has been able to resolve on behalf of the people of Indiana, individual problems people have had with this vast government maze that sometimes we have to navigate. He does have a reputation for having done very well on that front. I think that is a reputation he is rightly proud of. He has also been able to get some important legislative initiatives done on behalf of the people of Indiana, and I would like to emphasize a couple on which we had an opportunity to work together--again, consistent with his bipartisan nature.

Joe and I worked together to ensure that our brave law enforcement officers have greater access to mental health services. Actually, truth be told, Joe was really the champion of that effort. That is certainly one of his legacies during his time in the Senate. I can think of no more important legacy as I look at his record of achievements.

We worked to make sure that we properly commemorated the Landmark for Peace Memorial in Indianapolis, where Robert F. Kennedy delivered some stirring words the evening of Martin Luther King's assassination. It was a moving moment for all present, Black and White and people of modest means and wealthier means. They all came together that evening because of that stirring speech. Joe and I worked together to make sure that memorial park is tastefully recognized from here into the future. It is a nice piece of legacy, and it wouldn't have happened but for the efforts of Joe Donnelly.

Joe and I worked on a resolution to designate August 3, 2018, as National Ernie Pyle Day. We are proud of that in Indiana. Ernie Pyle is a celebrated war correspondent and Hoosier journalist who deserves memory in the consciousness and imagination of future generations of journalists. There, again, Joe and I had an opportunity to work together.

We worked together on perhaps the most consequential issue of our time--fighting this scourge of opioid abuse. We have worked on multiple bills on that front.

One of the more fun areas we worked together was actually one of the first things Joe and I did after I was sworn in to the Senate. We struck from all government publications the word ``Indianan.'' We don't use that back home. Because of Joe Donnelly and our work together, the word ``Indianan'' will never appear in government publications. Instead, it will forever hereinafter be the word ``Hoosier.'' The word ``Hoosier'' is the proper word and will now be used to describe someone from the State of Indiana.

I think Joe would characterize himself as a regular guy. I actually think he is an extraordinary guy in so many ways. He is uncommonly approachable for a U.S. Senator. That is very important in this democratic republic in which we live. We want to make sure that the people we hire to help us--we want to make sure our elected representatives are people we can talk to and people who will listen. He has developed a reputation that I think he should be very proud of as being regarded as someone who is really approachable.

Joe is refreshingly plainspoken. There is not a lot of flowery language that he brings to bear. He is who he is, and he is very comfortable with that, and he speaks in such a way that is equally accessible to all Hoosiers and all Americans. That is really important, too, and I think it is something that others will seek to model moving forward.

You have been an example on that front.

Perhaps most important to me, he is a really good guy. He is authentic. We don't want our public servants to be phony-baloney, plastic figures. Joe is not. Joe will tell you what is on his mind and how he is feeling. He is just a really good guy. He is somebody you might want as your neighbor.

I know Joe has an incredible future. I know he is going to stay engaged in making sure his community is taken care of. I know he will continue to care about Indiana and America and things going on around the world.

Perhaps we will have an opportunity, my friend, to partner together moving forward and do some good together and--as I think you put it, plainly but very directly--to leave this world a little better than you found it. Thank you for your service, Joe. Thank you to your family.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my vote on the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 54. This resolution is a joint resolution to direct the removal of the U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by this Congress.

As my colleagues well know, since March of 2017, I have focused on the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and ending the civil war that has made it so much worse. During that time period, I have spent as much time as anyone I can conceive of here on Capitol Hill focusing on this humanitarian tragedy in Yemen--this national security disaster. I have studied all sides of this issue and have tried to approach it with the seriousness it deserves.

Before saying where I am going to come down on today's vote, I wish to discuss why I opposed S.J. Res. 54 in March, what has happened since then, and why I plan to vote the way I do today.

In March, I voted to table S.J. Res. 54. In a speech here on the Senate floor on March 20, I explained my three reasons for doing so at that time.

First, I expressed concern that the bill hadn't been considered and marked up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member.

Second, I said that it would never become law because the administration has threatened to veto it, and even if Congress were able to override a veto, I said it would fail to achieve its stated objective, because the administration rejects the premise that the legislation is related to hostilities in Yemen.

Third, I said I wanted to introduce legislation that could actually pass and provide the administration with the leverage it needs to pressure the Government of Saudi Arabia to do two things: No. 1, end the civil war in Yemen, and, No. 2, improve the humanitarian situation.

What has transpired since then? Well, I, along with Senators Shaheen, Collins, and Coons, introduced S.J. Res. 58 on April 11.

Our bill required the Secretary of State to repeatedly certify the Government of Saudi Arabia is taking urgent steps to end the civil war in Yemen, alleviate the humanitarian crisis, and reduce the risk to civilians. If he cannot make these written, detailed, and unclassified certifications, the legislation would prohibit U.S. air refueling for Saudi-led coalition aircraft, conducting missions exclusively focused on the civil war in Yemen.

We, in a bipartisan way, worked successfully to ensure the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee passed versions of our legislation. We then worked, in a bipartisan way, to ensure it was included in the National Defense Authorization Act as section 1290, which the President of the United States signed into law.

In September, pursuant to section 1290, Secretary of State Pompeo sent to

Congress the required submission regarding Saudi actions in Yemen. Secretary Pompeo chose not to use the national security waiver and instead certified that Saudi Arabia was indeed taking urgent steps to end the civil war in Yemen, to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, and to reduce risk to civilians.

There were numerous problems with the Secretary of State's certifications. No. 1, the Secretary certified that Saudi Arabia was undertaking demonstrable actions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure resulting from military operations in Yemen. That was not a credible certification because we saw in the preceding months a dramatic increase in civilian casualties and deaths.

No. 2, the Secretary certified that the Saudis were complying with applicable agreements and laws regulating defense articles purchased or transferred from the United States. That also was not a credible certification because the Secretary's own memorandum of justification for the section 1290 submission explicitly said the Saudis were not doing so. The document was directly and explicitly self-contradictory.

In summary, as a group of us wrote in a letter I led on October 10 to our Secretary of State, it was ``difficult to reconcile known facts with at least two of [the] certifications.'' In other words, the Secretary's September section 1290 certification--the law of the land, a statute signed into law by the President of the United States--was not credible.

Despite repeated requests for answers to our questions regarding Saudi Arabia and Yemen, we couldn't get responsive or timely answers from the administration. After repeatedly calling for the administration to do so, I appreciated the decision to no longer provide air refueling to the Saudis in Yemen. Again, I appreciated that decision. However, I was disappointed the administration didn't use section 1290 to end the air refueling.

Why is this important? Such an approach would have demonstrated respect for the law and this article I branch of government. It would have also provided the administration additional leverage to persuade the Saudis to support our objectives--not the Saudi's objectives, our objectives--in Yemen.

I also thought the claim the Saudis requested to end the refueling was, shall I say, lamentable. In our October 10 letter, seven of us-- again, a bipartisan group--asked for answers on a number of questions related to Saudi Arabia and Yemen and the section 1290 certification. We asked for a response by October 31.

Failing to receive those answers from the administration on November 15, more than 2 weeks after that deadline, I worked with Ranking Member Menendez to introduce the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act of 2018, S. 3652. Among other things, this bill seeks to ensure effective congressional oversight of U.S. policy on Yemen, provide leverage to push the stakeholders in Yemen's civil war toward a political process, and address the world's worst humanitarian crisis. I am told this is the worst crisis since the 1940s.

Yesterday, the day before a potential vote on this legislation, we finally received a response to the October 10 letter. It was late, and it was unresponsive. For me, the briefing today with Secretaries Pompeo and Mattis, though appreciated, raised more questions than it answered.

Let me now turn to today's vote. Recall my reasons for voting to table this bill in March. I wanted legislation to go through the Foreign Relations Committee, and I wanted something that could actually become law. With the support of the chairman and the ranking member, that is exactly what we did with my legislation, which ultimately became section 1290 of the Defense bill and was signed into law.

Unfortunately, as I have laid out, the administration did not take that law seriously, and it submitted a certification with highly troubling and problematic elements. That puts me in a very different place than last March. Plus, with 14 million people on the verge of starvation in Yemen and things getting worse by the day, there is no time to lose. I believe the Senate must speak clearly that we expect all parties--all parties--to the civil war to come urgently to the negotiating table to end the civil war.

Let me lay out my thoughts on Iran in the big picture. There is, of course, Iranian influence in Yemen. Iran is the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, and Iran has played an immoral and illegal role in Yemen. I will take a backseat to no one as an Iran hawk.

I have studied the situation in Yemen as closely as anyone, and I believe the best way to oppose Iran and Yemen and stop ballistic missile attacks on our partners is to bring all parties to the negotiating table, to end this civil war, and to address the humanitarian crisis.

Famine and the indiscriminate targeting of civilians will only push more Yemenis toward Iran and its proxies, giving Tehran increased opportunities to threaten Americans, our allies, and our interests.

If you are not sure about this, ask yourself the following questions: Does Iran have more or less influence in Yemen now than it did a year ago or than it did when the civil war started? Will Iran have more or less influence in Yemen if the civil war continues indefinitely?

Solely from an anti-Iran perspective, I think an objective assessment of those questions demonstrates the need to end the civil war and the need to pursue an inclusive political solution that seeks to drive a wedge between the Houthis and Tehran.

In addition, there is no way we are going to make any real or sustainable progress in the world's worst humanitarian crisis unless we end the civil war. Ending the civil war would also allow us to focus more effectively on isolating and killing members of ISIS and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen.

To counter Iran, to help 14 million people on the verge of starvation, and to more effectively go after ISIS and AQAP, we need the civil war over now. The United States has leverage with the Saudis to help bring this about, and we need to use all of that leverage immediately. We have not done so thus far.

Since March of 2017, I have tried to give the administration all the leverage it needs to accomplish the outcomes I have laid out. The administration has failed to fully utilize the leverage I provided, and so I have no choice. Based on that history, based on those facts, based on our national security interests, based on our humanitarian principles, I plan to support S.J. Res. 54 today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Fledderman family and the employees at Batesville Tool & Die, Inc., BTD, as they celebrate their 40th anniversary. Headquartered in Batesville, IN, BTD has become a global manufacturer of superior metal stampings for appliance, industrial, and automotive markets.

Founded in 1978 by Ron Fledderman, BTD started with a single press and a small tool room. The current second-generation president and CEO, Jody Fledderman, took the reins in 1989 with the same promise to his customers: to provide quality, low-cost products with technical expertise. Today the company is estimated to be a multimillion-dollar business with nearly 1,000 employees. As a member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, it is important that we recognize the value small and medium-sized businesses have in rural communities like Batesville, IN.

I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring the Fledderman family and the workers at Batesville Tool & Die, Inc., for their 40 years of dedicated customer service and economic innovation.