S.J. Res. 54--Motion to Discharge

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am grateful to join for a few moments the cosponsors of this resolution--Senator Lee and Senator Sanders.

It is important to pick up on what Senator Lee was just putting down--the notion that this is a limited resolution that speaks to our participation in an unauthorized, illegal partnership with the Saudis to bomb the country of Yemen. It does not affect our partnership with Saudi Arabia and others in the gulf region to continue to confront terror, to continue to confront al-Qaida--a specific carve-out in this legislation that allows for 2001 AUMF authorized activities to go forward.

It is also important to note that if you care about the priority of taking on al-Qaida and taking on ISIS in the region, then you should support debating our resolution because all of the evidence suggests that the continuation of this civil war inside Yemen is making ISIS and AQAP, which is the arm of al-Qaida that has the clearest intentions of attacking the homeland, both more powerful. The AQAP controls much more territory inside Yemen than it did in the beginning of this civil war.

If you take the time to meet with Yemeni-Americans, they will tell you that inside Yemen, this bombing campaign is not perceived as a Saudi bombing campaign; it is perceived as a U.S.-Saudi bombing campaign. What we are doing is radicalizing the Yemeni people against the United States. Add to this the new information that suggests that some of our partners in the coalition, although not directly working with al-Qaida, are starting to arm some very unsavory Salafi militias inside Yemen that are filled with the types of people--the types of extremist individuals--who could take the training they have received from the coalitions and the weapons they have received from the coalitions and easily turn against the United States.

If you care about the mission against terrorism, then you should support debating our resolution.

Just to recap the reasons we are here today, we need to have a debate on the lack of authorization for military force because it is time for Congress to step up and do our constitutional duty.

The administration wrote in its letter to us that we do not have the authority as the U.S. Congress to weigh in on military activity that is waged by the administration unless there are two armies firing at each other on the ground in an area of conflict. That is the administration's definition of ``hostilities,'' and admittedly that is a definition that has been used by Democrats and Republicans. This is not exclusive to the Trump administration. The problem with that is that it would allow for the United States, through Executive decision only, to wage an air campaign against a country that wipes it out without there being any say from the U.S. Congress.

Clearly, what is happening in Yemen today meets the definition of ``hostilities.'' We have shown pictures on this floor before of entire cities that have been wiped out. More than 10,000 civilians have been killed in the largest outbreak of cholera in the history of the world in terms of what we have recorded. Those are hostilities, and the United States is clearly engaging in those hostilities because we are helping with targeting and refueling the planes that are supplying the munitions. If we cede to unlimited Executive authority with respect to this engagement, there will be no end to that.

Lastly, let me speak to what is happening on the ground. There is zero evidence that U.S. participation in this coalition has made things better. Civilian casualties are not getting better. The day after Christmas, over 60 civilians were killed in a series of airstrikes. Reports are that last month, the Saudis engaged once again in something called double tapping, by which they targeted an area in which civilians lived, waited for the emergency responders to arrive, and then hit again--something that is not allowed by international humanitarian law. The humanitarian catastrophe itself is getting worse, not better.

Maybe most important is that the battle lines inside Yemen are not changing. The Saudis have been telling us for years: Stick with us. If you keep on helping us bomb the Yemeni people, we will win this war. We will get back control of Hudayda and of Sana'a.

That is not happening. At the beginning of this war, the Houthis controlled about 70 percent of the population inside Yemen. Today, the Houthis control about 70 percent of the population inside Yemen. If we continue to support this bombing campaign, nothing will change except that more people will die, except that more civilians will be hit by the bombs we help to drop, except that al-Qaida will continue to control big portions of that country.

While Senator Lee notes that this resolution is actually not on the merits of our engagement there and that it is whether we have the legal justification to be there, let's admit that if you do consider the merits, other than backing the play of our historic ally, there is nothing to suggest that our participation there is making things better rather than worse.

I yield to Senator Sanders.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MURPHY. By voting to table the consideration of this resolution, you are voting to stop a debate, a conversation, from happening in the Senate about whether proper authorization exists.

Let's be honest about what this first vote is. This first vote is, do we want to talk about whether there is authorization to perpetuate this war? By voting to stop debate, by voting to table this motion and refrain from proceeding to a conversation about this topic, we are, in a very clear way, signaling to the administration and to the American public that we are not interested in exercising our article I authority on the issue of war-making.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MURPHY. It sends a very clear signal to the administration that we are not interested in even having a debate here about complicated questions of legal authority for serious military engagements overseas.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source