To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant to States and local governments easements and rights-of-way over Federal land within Gateway National Recreation Area for construction, operation, and maintenance of projects for control and prevention of flooding and shoreline erosion.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1142 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1142, providing for further consideration of H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act. The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have cointroduced the underlying legislation considered in this rule today, H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act, to return management of the gray wolf species to the States. The States are best equipped to provide more effective and accountable management that responds to the needs of the ecosystem, other species, as well as local communities.

On June 13, 2013, under the Obama administration, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would have removed the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This determination was made after Fish and Wildlife evaluated the classification status of gray wolves currently listed in the contiguous United States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and found the ``best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entity is not a valid species under the act.''

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to recover species to the point where they are no longer considered endangered or threatened. The gray wolf is currently found in nearly 50 countries around the world and has been placed in the classification of least concern for risk of extinction by the Species Survival Commission of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Some of my colleagues have asked, well, if Fish and Wildlife has proposed to delist the species, why haven't they done so?

That is a completely fair and reasonable question. Unfortunately, it is due to the fringe environmentalist efforts that any action from moving forward under the law has been stalled. So long as the courts are abused to prevent the proper adjudication of the law, we will not see progress made.

It is because of this exploitation of the law that communities like those in central Washington suffer the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, in my home State, the great State of Washington, the gray wolf is not listed in just the eastern third of the State, forcing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to rely on an arbitrary political boundary when delineating and managing a species.

I am sorry to share with you, Mr. Speaker, that as it turns out, surprisingly, wolves don't know boundaries or borders.

The arbitrary nature of this current status of the law is broken, and it is impairing the ability of Fish and Wildlife managers on the ground to properly manage the species, as well as the ecosystem, including the harm it poses on other indigenous species.

Mr. Speaker, this is why Congress, as a coequal branch, must act. This legislation directs the U.S. Department of the Interior to follow through with the proposed rule and delist the gray wolf from the list of endangered species.

We have a responsibility to protect the incredibly diverse species both in Washington State and across this country. These efforts to protect our wildlife species must be based on sound science and an open, transparent process. Unfortunately, that is far from the case when it comes to the process dictating endangered species policies, particularly in this case of the gray wolf.

For years now, Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife has asked the Federal Government to delist the gray wolf and provide relief from the burdensome, broken process dictating species management. I have received letters from the director of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, one in 2015 and one earlier this year. In them, the letters read: ``Dear Congressman Newhouse, The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife appreciates your continued assistance to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete the delisting of the gray wolf and remove it from Federal protection under the Endangered Species List.''

It continues: ``In 2008, the first wolf pack was documented in Washington State. Today, we have 22 known packs. During this time, the State's wolf population has increased by an average of more than 30 percent per year. . . . As demonstrated with the current rate of recovery, the Department is well suited to facilitate the recovery and management of wolves across the State. . . . Under the current Federal designation and management, we cannot fully implement our plan in the western two-thirds of the State. To ensure ongoing success in wolf recovery, the Federal listing needs to keep pace with the on-the-ground recovery status and allow the State to fully implement its management plan. Therefore, I support your efforts to advance the delisting of wolves and return management to the State.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the two letters I referenced.

Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Olympia, WA, April 27, 2015.

Hon. Dan Newhouse,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Newhouse: The Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife (Department) would appreciate your

assistance to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) to complete the delisting of the gray wolf (Canis

lupus) and remove it from federal protections under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). As you may know, gray wolves in

the western two-thirds of Washington State remain federally

classified as ``endangered'' and are under federal

management.

The original delisting proposal was published on June 13,

2013, and then on March 27, 2014, the USFWS closed the second

round of public comments. The Department submitted letters of

support for delisting in December 2013 and March 2014. While

we have been working closely with the USFWS at the state,

regional and headquarter levels to ensure we are meeting our

shared conservation and recovery objectives, we are concerned

with the lack of progress on federal delisting.

Washington has a strong Wolf Conservation and Management

Plan that has received broad support, and we are committed to

maintaining a viable wolf population in Washington. The

Department is well positioned to facilitate the recovery and

management of wolves across the state.

Protection under Washington State Laws--The Department has

state-specific authority (RCW 77.12.020 and 77.15.120) to

designate and protect species at risk of extinction and has

classified wolves as endangered since 1980, an action akin to

federal protection granted under ESA). Wolves will remain

protected until their population reaches the levels

established in the state recovery plan.

The Department is equipped for wolf conservation and

management--In 2013, the Washington State Legislature acted

to provide $1.6 million per biennium for wolf management from

a permanent increase in the cost of personalized license

plates. Since then, the Department has hired two permanent

wolf biologists and has deployed 11 conflict specialists

across the state to address wildlife conflict issues.

Wolves are recovering in Washington State--In 2008, the

first wolf pack was documented in Washington State. Today we

have 16 known packs. During this time our wolf population has

increased by an average of more than 30 percent per year. At

current rates, we expect to meet our recovery objects within

six years. We want to have consistent management of wolves

across the state of Washington. For us, successful wolf

recovery means that we have a sustainable wolf population

distributed throughout the state, the public accepts the

presence of wolves on the landscape, and Washington citizens

are confident in the Department's wolf management.

The Washington wolf management plan establishes strong

expectations that livestock operators will use preventive

strategies to avoid wolf-livestock conflict. But sometimes we

may need to remove wolves that become habituated to livestock

as a food source. Under the current federal designation and

management, we cannot implement our plan in the western two-

thirds of the state. Therefore, I ask you for any help you

can provide to advance the federal proposal to delist wolves.

Thank you for considering this request. The Department is

available to assist you with any information you may need.

Sincerely,

James Unsworth, Ph.D.,

Director.

So, Mr. Speaker, to close, I would just like to say that, as a farmer and a lifelong resident of central Washington State, I consider myself a conservationist and a steward of our rich natural heritage, and that includes our incredible wildlife.

State governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage gray wolf populations and are better able to meet the needs of local communities, ranchers, livestock, wildlife populations, and ecosystems.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of points in response to my good friend from the State of Massachusetts. Certainly, there are a lot of important issues in front of us and things that we should and will be addressing. But I have to say, as a representative of central Washington who represents communities that deal with wolf populations on a daily basis, I don't think it is fair or proper, even, for my good friend to minimize or diminish the importance of the issue that we have in front of us today. So with all due respect, the importance of managing wolves in our country deserves just as much attention as many of the other issues that my good friend from Massachusetts referenced.

Also, as relates to the Khanna resolution, just as you said, in just a few short weeks, your party will assume the majority. You will have the opportunity to hold the hearings and the markups and to take the votes of the all-important regular order that you continually talk about. I am looking forward to that. But forcing this type of vote on Members in the remainder of this Congress, in my view, is unnecessary at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), my good friend, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is afraid to debate anything here on the House floor. The fact is, though, that the U.S. is no longer providing the very support that the Khanna resolution seeks to cut off, making this action unnecessary.

It is based on a factually faulty premise: We are not involved in hostilities in Yemen, so the War Powers Act should not apply. As a result, even if this resolution passed both Chambers, DOD would not need to alter any of its activities.

Like I said, again, in a few short weeks, the Democrats will assume the majority. They will be able to hold all the hearings and markups and votes that they want on this matter, as it should be. Forcing this type of vote now, in the remainder of this Congress, in my humble opinion, is simply unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, the organization that stands for finding solutions to the challenges that we face, not only in the Western United States, but all over the country to help steer debate back to the issue on the agenda that we are considering today.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing for the consideration of H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act, wolves were once hunted to near extinction in the lower 48 States. The gray wolf was listed by the Federal Government as an endangered species in 1974. Today, though, gray wolves are thriving both in my State of Washington, as well as throughout the United States, with more than 5,000 wolves now living in the contiguous United States.

According to Washington State's Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State's wolf population has grown over the past 9 straight years to 22 packs that contain at least 120 wolves.

Mr. Speaker, the gray wolf reaching recovered status truly is an Endangered Species Act success story, and we should celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, permanently listing species under the Federal Endangered Species Act is not how the process was ever intended to work. The process should rely on the best available science. It is a sign of progress that the species has recovered from the brink of extinction and no longer merits protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act. That is the key point here. While we seek to delist the gray wolf from the Federal ESA, we are empowering each State to manage their respective populations.

Washington State has a strong wolf conservation and management plan that has received broad support, and the State Department of Fish and Wildlife is committed to maintaining a viable wolf population in the State of Washington. Wolves remain protected in the State recovery plan, but so long as an arbitrary Federal line divides our State and, as you heard, the State of Oregon, listing the wolf on one side and not on the other, our State managers are prevented from effectively managing the population within our States. As I mentioned, wolves do not know borders.

Mr. Speaker, States are equipped to be more responsive and accountable to the needs of local communities than Federal agencies are, and they deserve the flexibility to manage the growing gray wolf populations. We should celebrate the return of the iconic species like the gray wolf. But meanwhile, States must be empowered to manage populations to ensure the healthiest balance between humans, wildlife, and the ecosystem.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and its underlying legislation, again, H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are here today considering our first rule following a long district work period. During that time, we had a big national debate about the direction of our country. According to exit polling, the top issue for voters was healthcare and, in particular, protecting coverage from preexisting conditions.

But that is not what the bill before us addresses. Nor does it involve immigration, another top issue for voters, or strengthening the economy or combating gun violence. All of these are what our constituents just said was important to them.

But instead of doing anything on any of that, we are here today considering a bill to undermine endangered species protections. Are you kidding me?

And get this: Also, last night in the Rules Committee, the majority placed a provision in the rule that would remove the privileged status of Representative Khanna's War Powers Resolution, H. Con. Res. 138. This resolution states that Congress never authorized the United States' support of Saudi-led forces in Yemen and would direct the President of the United States to end his support.

This measure is a privileged resolution under the terms of the War Powers Resolution, which provides that resolutions concerning the involvement of the U.S. military in armed conflict have a direct path to the floor to be debated and to be voted on.

The rules provide this privileged status because such questions are among the most important that the people's House can debate. Such privileged resolutions or a negotiated substitute have come before the House under Republican and Democratic majorities.

Yet, with this rule before us today, Republicans have taken the unprecedented step of striking this privilege, preventing us from doing our constitutional duty and foreclosing the only available mechanism to compel an up or down vote in Congress regarding our military involvement in the Yemen war.

As of this morning, this bill, introduced by Congressman Khanna, has over 80 bipartisan cosponsors, including Democratic Whip Hoyer and Ranking Members Smith, Lowey, Engel, and myself.

The U.S.-Saudi military campaign in Yemen has triggered the world's worst humanitarian crisis, prompting the late Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi to call for an end to the war. Published just weeks before his murder, Khashoggi's Washington Post column was headlined, ``Saudi Arabia's crown prince must restore dignity to his country by ending Yemen's cruel war.''

It is unconscionable for Republican leadership to take this unprecedented action to strip Members of their right to bring such measures to the floor for debate.

Mr. Speaker, what is the majority afraid of? We should be debating this.

Instead, the Republican majority continues to turn a deaf ear to this and many other issues.

We are 11 days away from our government running out of funding. Five appropriations bills have been signed into law so far. They have funded 75 percent of the government, but there is more work that we need to do.

We should be continuing that momentum and getting the job done, keeping the lights on, not wasting time considering a bill to attack an endangered species.

Or how about reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program that expires at the end of this month or putting a comprehensive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act on the House floor that is set to expire December 7, not to mention the need to reauthorize the farm bill that expired back on October 1.

Our country's farmers are depending upon this Congress to put into place a new bill that provides them with certainty, especially in light of the trade war that President Trump has started; yet the majority has, instead, prioritized a bill that completely ignores all the important issues that we face in this country.

The American people have clearly had enough. They demanded a new direction and a new Congress that actually addresses what they care most about, and they demanded an end to this closed process. This rule marks the 102nd closed rule of this Congress. Now, let me repeat that: the 102nd closed rule. Mr. Speaker, that is a staggering number.

Now, I am not suggesting that every rule needs to be an open one or that there is never a time for a closed rule, but there is never a time for more than 100 closed rules. There is no justification for that at all.

Since the election, I heard my friends on the other side of the aisle express a hope that the next Congress is a more accommodating one. That is ironic since the Republicans have voted in lockstep for one closed rule after another, after another, after another.

But to them, I ask: Why wait? A Democratic majority will certainly be better than the current one. But Republicans don't have to wait until January. They could demand a more open process here today by voting against this closed rule.

This is your chance to prove that your newfound calls for openness are above more than politics. Vote against this record-breaking closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington State, my good friend, Mr. Newhouse, seemed to imply that it would be an inconvenience for us to have the House consider a measure on Yemen, and I am a little bit puzzled by that. The reason why Representative Khanna took the step is because, for months, while this terrible carnage has unfolded in Yemen, this House has done nothing.

We just learned that the Saudi Government was directly involved in the killing of a Washington Post journalist and, again, nothing-- nothing at all. The Republicans took the unprecedented step of basically derailing this privileged resolution. It is unprecedented.

Over 100,000 Yemeni children have already perished because of war- triggered

hunger and disease over the past 2 years. Why is the Republican leadership stripping us of the right to debate?

According to the U.N., 14 million people in Yemen--half the population--face an imminent and catastrophic famine not seen in 100 years if this war is not ended.

Why is the Republican leadership stripping our right to debate? I don't understand what they are afraid of. It is not like they have a lot to do. We are going to be talking about gray wolves today, and we are not voting on this until Friday. They have nothing going on. Certainly, we should have time to debate this important humanitarian issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when my Republican friends want to dedicate the next 3 days to talking about gray wolves, people are being murdered every single hour in Yemen. The Saudi-led effort even bombed a school bus filled with innocent children. So it seems to me that there could be no more important time for debate in the House on ending U.S. military support for this war.

I just don't know what the Republican majority is afraid of. Privileged resolutions--I want my colleagues to understand this--by Members of this House, have always been allowed to be debated on this House floor, under Republican and Democrat majorities alike until now; until today. I don't know what the Republican majority is afraid of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me begin by reminding my colleagues what the Republicans are proposing here, it is that the next 3 days be dedicated to the gray wolf. We are not debating healthcare, we are not debating the economy, or jobs, or keeping the government running, but it is to this.

They bring it to us under a rule that is completely closed, so there are no amendments to be made in order, and the rule is even worse because it basically undercuts the privilege resolution introduced by Mr. Khanna so we could debate this horrific war going on in Yemen.

It takes my breath away at the lengths that this majority goes through to basically deny Members of Congress the right to be able to talk about important issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), who is the author of the privileged resolution on Yemen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Vermont an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, undermining endangered species protections isn't a national emergency. We shouldn't be prioritizing it today.

Not only is this rule a closed one, as you have heard from our side over and over and over again, Republicans took the unprecedented step of removing the privileged status of a resolution that would have given us the chance to debate the United States' support of the war in Yemen. We should be voting on this.

People are dying every minute in Yemen. Our silence and our inaction mean that we are complicit.

I have always believed that if the United States stands for anything, then we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. There was a time when the issue of human rights was a bipartisan concern. But it is clear that this administration doesn't give a damn about human rights. But that doesn't mean that this institution should follow suit. Human rights ought to be the centerpiece of our foreign policy.

There are innocent people being killed every single day. Children were riding to school in buses where the buses have been bombed, where these children have died, have been murdered, and all my Republican friends can say is: Oh, you can take care of that after January when you are in charge. We are just going to spend the next 3 days dedicated to the issue of gray wolves.

Really?

There is so much real work in front of us, including our most basic responsibility of funding this government and reauthorizing programs like the National Flood Insurance Program, the Violence Against Women Act, and the farm bill. I could go on and on and on. Education costs are skyrocketing. Americans are afraid coverage for their preexisting conditions will be ripped away by this administration and its allies in Congress because you have tried to do it dozens and dozens and dozens of times. How about doing something about that?

It was interesting, during the campaign, my Republican colleagues were rushing to every microphone they could find to say that they somehow supported covering preexisting conditions. Let me remind everybody, and especially my Republican colleagues, that that was a Democratic idea that you opposed.

This was the worst election for Republican Presidents since Watergate. Maybe that is why Republicans are trying to rewrite history.

But here is another politically popular idea Republicans should follow: bringing an end to the most closed Congress in history. Let's let some sunlight in. Don't wait until January. Start today by voting against this closed rule and demand action on things that our constituents actually care about.

Just one final note, again, on this unprecedented move of basically denying us the right to debate this war in Yemen: I agree with what Mr. Khanna said. History is going to look back on our inaction not only on the war in Yemen, but on our inaction dealing with the brutality of the Saudi regime.

I would have thought that when we came back that one of the first items up on the agenda would be holding the Saudi Government accountable. Instead, we got nothing. Not only we get nothing, you take the unprecedented step of denying a Member of this House the right that he has under the privileges of this House to debate this issue of war.

This is so wrong. This is damaging to the institution, and it shows a callous disregard for what is happening in Yemen.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, do the right thing and vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington State for bringing this rule to the floor and addressing this issue. It is literally one of great importance in my district and in the West.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the underlying bill, the Manage our Wolves Act, because we need to clarify the management of wolves in Oregon and put us on a path to follow the locally State- written Oregon wolf plan.

For years, Mr. Speaker, ranchers across my district have watched as wolf packs have grown. They harass cattle herds and they kill livestock and they are brutal.

When you lose a heifer, you don't just lose one cow. You have lost 10 years' worth of calves that will never be born and that will never be able to be sold. Those that aren't killed are harassed, often losing weight and value. They are chased all over by the wolf packs.

The cattle and sheep these ranchers raise are their livelihoods. Every day--sun, rain, or snow--they raise and care for these animals.

When a first-time mom is struggling to feed a new calf, the rancher nurtures them, sometimes even literally bringing them into their own home next to the wood stove to warm them up and keep the calf alive in the winter. That care makes it all the harder to come upon a calf that has been torn apart by wolves.

If you are of young age, or whatever, I would just give you a fair warning that this is a graphic picture of what happens when a wolf gets ahold of a calf.

A rancher wrote me earlier this year that three of her calves were attacked, and she described them as ``wild-eyed with terror after being mutilated by wolves . . .''--just like this one you see here from a calf that was killed by wolves in Wallowa County, ripped apart.

This rancher went on to write, ``the rush of emotions one feels when you see an animal you have nurtured crying for help, panic in their eyes, searching for escape,'' she said no one wants to see that and described it as watching your worst horror movie in slow motion.

Now, the ranchers have done a lot in this effort. They have watched as attacks continue, though, despite their efforts to implement largely ineffective, nonlethal control techniques they were asked to do. Meanwhile, the issue at the heart of this matter is that there are arbitrary lines on a map that created a jurisdictional mess in my State of Oregon where wolves in eastern Oregon are managed by the State, and right across this highway they are managed by the Federal Government.

Today's legislation that we will consider fixes that by ensuring that all wolves in Oregon are removed from the Federal endangered species list. This would then return the management to the State and allow wolves, like other wildlife, to be managed under collaboratively developed Oregon law.

There are still challenges with State management; there is no doubt about that. We have seen times when the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Service has been slow to take action and implement the hard-fought agreements in the wolf plan to help prevent predation and control the wolf packs.

The State needs to step up and uphold thes agreements, but those are issues we can work out as Oregonians. The last thing we need, however, is the Federal Government trying to micromanage wolves from thousands of miles away.

This legislation that, hopefully, we are able to bring up because of this rule will get the Federal Government out of the way, will simplify the jurisdiction, and will place all wolves in Oregon under the State management plan.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in this rule, the wolves bare their fangs-- not American wolves, but Saudis, who are willing to sever heads, dismember opponents, and bomb the innocent.

This rule is truly a wolf in wolf's clothing. By blocking a vote on whether America should continue to aid and abet Saudi atrocities, this Congress would remain an obedient lapdog to President Trump's impulses, and not the watchdog for American values.

The Saudi ruthless war in Yemen has created what so many have described as the largest humanitarian disaster on our planet today, and yet it continues. American support for Saudi atrocities is truly a stain on our Nation with which so many of our country members are not familiar.

But without American spare parts, American targeting, American weapons and bombs, and until recently, American refueling, this killing could not occur. My colleague mentioned the school bus. Forty children were murdered in August, and sprawled across the bomb that was next to their bus were words that meant: ``Made in America.'' That is the message that we are sending there. That is where American tax dollars are going.

The Trump administration last week belatedly said it would stop refueling. That is insufficient. If we are to stop Saudi killing, we must stop all of the assistance that they are receiving.

Now, of course, there has been attention on Saudi murders of late in a different area: about one person, about the dismemberment of a legal American resident who was a leading journalist in this city.

Mr. Speaker, after taking the standing Trump approach of denying everything--saying he accepted the lies and the denials of the Saudis--Mr. Trump dodged again by saying, ``I am going to leave . . . it up to Congress.'' And so what is this Congress doing about the Khashoggi atrocity? Absolutely nothing. That is what should have been in this rule, doing something about the sanctions and the disclosure.

Forty of us asked this past month for the administration to brief us on what they knew before Mr. Khashoggi was murdered, and whether they warned him about that, and we have had a deafening silence in response to our request on that, and on cutting off assistance to Yemen.

Even an audio of the gruesome murder of Mr. Khashoggi--we don't know whether it included the sound of the bone saw that the Saudis apparently used to dismember him--but even a murder will not cause some in this leadership to stand up to President Trump and this atrocious regime.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a Congress with the courage to end support for these crimes, to cease American sales to the Saudis, and to do something to hold Mr. Khashoggi's killers accountable.

But to say, wait until a much-improved new Congress comes into session to do anything about it means that tonight and every day going forward to January 3, more children will be starved; will be victims of cholera; and will be victims of bombings and blockades. When this Congress has the power to do something about it now, we ought to act today by rejecting this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern and Representative Khanna for all they have done to help lead the efforts to end the United States' unauthorized war in Yemen.

Congress' sole responsibility over offensive use of force is outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: ``Congress shall have power to . . . declare war.'' James Madison argued that this power ``is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.'' Yet, today, House Republicans are attempting to avoid their responsibilities by sneaking unrelated language into this rule which will prohibit consideration of a War Powers Resolution pertaining to the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen.

To be clear, they took a bill about removing gray wolves from the endangered species list in North America and included a provision prohibiting even just the discussion of war in Yemen.

Now, there are rare Arabian wolves native to Yemen--about 1,000 to 2,000--roaming in the Middle East. Canis lupus arabs is a subspecies of gray wolf. But this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is the deprivileging of H. Con. Res. 138, which is just another abdication of our responsibilities as Members of Congress.

We are literally elected to make decisions about war and peace, and we are failing to do the most basic function of our job: to uphold the Constitution. We should at least have the courage to make the decisions about war and about conflicts in which we are entangling our constituents who serve in the military.

Today, as Mr. McGovern said, Yemen is the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, with the U.N. saying that 14 million people--half the population of Yemen--are either experiencing full-blown famine at the risk of death by starvation as soon as the end of the year.

Since 2015, U.S. forces have been backing the Saudi war by assisting in targeting, logistical support, and refueling deadly Saudi airstrikes in a war that has nothing to do with fighting al-Qaida.

Mr. Speaker, by reasserting Congress' authority over war, we can end active U.S. participation in a Saudi-led conflict in which the Saudis are imposing a blockade to literally starve millions of Yemenis to death. If the U.S. ends its involvement, Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman will be forced to the negotiating table to end his brutal bombing campaign and blockade on food.

Even the Senate isn't afraid to take this up. In March, under Leader Mitch McConnell, the Senate debated and voted on the unconstitutional war in Yemen: 44 Senators voted for the measure. A bipartisan group led that.

Unfortunately, rather than upholding our founding values, the leadership in this House has chosen to quietly insert a measure to block the House from debating the war.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this cynical tactic. Whether you agree or not about ending the illegal U.S.-Saudi war, vote against this rule so you can allow us to do our jobs and vote to do what we swore to uphold: our sole authority to debate and vote on war.