Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just begin by extending my appreciation for the chairman. I know his arguments are well-intentioned, as are mine. I believe that we both completely agree and completely support Congress' solemn duty under Article I of the Constitution, to authorize the commitment of U.S. troops to foreign hostilities; and perhaps there will be another example where we can join forces in that. But that is not the issue here.

Allow me to quote the actual War Powers Act, from Title 50 of the United States Code. This procedure applies to ``the removal of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States.''

This has always meant, historically, and today, U.S. troops being directly involved in live-fire combat. As the Department of Defense has repeatedly confirmed, U.S. Armed Forces are not engaged in hostilities against the Houthi forces in Yemen.

This resolution is directing us to remove troops that simply, Madam Chair, are not there. Even the aerial refueling of coalition jets, which does not constitute traditional hostilities, ended last November.

This resolution, in my judgment, misuses the tool to try to get at the different issue of security assistance to third countries. It provides no clear decisions on which forms of assistance are cut off. It does not address the humanitarian catastrophe inside Yemen and, alarmingly, it completely ignores the destabilization role that Iran is playing in Yemen and the region.

This irresponsible measure is trying to hammer a square peg in a round hole.

This resolution really stretches the definition of ``hostilities'' to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries. It reinterprets U.S. support to those countries as ``engagement in hostilities.''

This overreach has dangerous implications far beyond Saudi Arabia. This approach will now allow any single Member to use this privileged mechanism to second-guess U.S. security cooperation relationships with more than 100 countries throughout the world.

Under this model, if one Member doesn't like something that any of our security partners does overseas, that Member can force quick consideration of a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities ``in or affecting'' that situation. It no longer matters that U.S. forces are not actually conducting those hostilities.

This could impact our assistance to Israel. It could affect our cooperation with our NATO allies. It could impact counterterrorism cooperation with African nations in the Sahel. We could recklessly undo critical security relationships that we have spent decades building.

That is not what the War Powers Resolution has ever meant, and I don't think that is what Congress designed it to do, and it should not be used in this way now.

No one is saying that U.S. security assistance to Saudi Arabia, or anyone else, is beyond congressional scrutiny. Congress has many tools at its disposal. Our committee receives regular arms sales notifications. Congress can condition or cut off security assistance through targeted legislation or the annual appropriations process.

But this resolution is the wrong tool. It is vague and irresponsible. It will create new doubts for our partners and allies around the world.

For those reasons, Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the ranking member on the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), the ranking member on the Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Watkins), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

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

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, so I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let me state a few points.

We all condemn the murder of Khashoggi. I have condemned it publicly, very strongly, what happened with the Saudis killing Khashoggi, executing him.

We are talking about the situation in Yemen.

Who started this humanitarian crisis in the first place? The Houthis tried to take over the Yemeni Government--the Houthis, backed by Iran.

This is about the geopolitics of Iran, Houthis in Yemen, Iran and the Shia crescent in Iraq and Syria, and a direct threat to Israel by the largest state-sponsored terror, Iran, that is a mortal sworn enemy to Israel, as they chant ``death to Israel,'' ``death to America.''

So let's put this all in proper context of what we are really talking about here. Are we defending Iran and the Houthis here today?

So I would like to close by putting two documents in the Record. The first is a letter sent by the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel stating that ``DOD opposes the resolution because the resolution's fundamental premise is flawed'' because the United States support to the Saudi-led coalition ``does not involve any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities.''

Are we going to go around and second-guess every security cooperation agreement we have with 117 countries, including Israel and NATO and other partners?

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record this letter from the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.

General Counsel of the

Department of Defense,

Washington, DC, Feb. 27, 2018.

Hon. Mitchell ``Mitch'' McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Majority Leader: On February 22, 2018, the

Department of Defense (DoD) briefed your staff concerning DoD

support to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's (KSA) operations in

Yemen. Subsequently, you requested an unclassified letter

reflecting DoD's views on a draft joint resolution that would

``direct[] 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 in the Arabian Peninsula or associated

forces. . . .'' DoD opposes this Joint Resolution. Even if

enacted into law, the Joint Resolution would not achieve its

apparent purpose of restricting U.S. support to the KSA-led

coalition, because, as described below, that support does not

constitute ``hostilities.'' In addition to the potential

constitutional concerns raised by such a proposal, the draft

resolution's restrictions on U.S. military support to our

partners could undermine our ability to foster long-term

relationships, increase interoperability, promote burden

sharing, and build strong security architectures throughout

the world. The KSA is a key U.S. partner in the Middle East

and we rely on our strong military partnership to promote

regional security.

DoD opposes the resolution because the resolution's

fundamental premise is flawed. Specifically, the draft

resolution incorrectly asserts that U.S. forces have been

``introduced into hostilities between the [KSA-led] coalition

and the Houthis. . . .'' The limited military and

intelligence support that the United States is providing to

the KSA-led coalition does not involve any introduction of

U.S. forces into hostilities for purposes of the War Powers

Resolution or of section 1013 of the Department of State

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 USC 1546a).

Since 2015, the United States has provided limited support

to KSA-led coalition military operations against Houthi and

Saleh-aligned forces in Yemen. With the exception of a

defensive strike in October 2016, U.S. forces are not taking

direct military action in this Saudi-led effort in Yemen.

Instead, the United States provides the KSA-led coalition

defense articles and services, including air-to-air

refueling; certain intelligence support; and military advice,

including advice regarding compliance with the law of armed

conflict and best practices for reducing the risk of civilian

casualties.

The draft resolution incorrectly describes United States

support to the KSA-led coalition as an operation that

introduces U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent

involvement in hostilities for purposes of the War Powers

Resolution. It has been the longstanding view of the

Executive Branch that ``hostilities'' refers to ``a situation

in which units of U.S. armed forces are actively engaged in

exchanges of fire with opposing units of hostile forces.''

U.S. personnel providing support to the KSA-led coalition are

not engaged in any such exchanges of fire. Further, the

limited U.S. support to the KSA-led coalition does not

implicate the activities identified in section 8(c) of the

War Powers Resolution. Section 8(c) defines the term

``introduction of United States Armed Forces'' but does not

address the term ``hostilities.'' ``[W]hen applying section

8(c), the

relevant question remains whether U.S. forces--not the

foreign forces they are accompanying--are introduced into

hostilities or situations involving the imminent threat

thereof.'' With respect to U.S. support to the KSA-led

coalition, U.S. forces do not currently command, coordinate,

accompany, or participate in the movement of coalition forces

in counter-Houthi operations. Thus, no U.S. forces are

accompanying the KSA-led coalition when its military forces

are engaged, or an imminent threat exists that they will

become engaged, in hostilities. Accordingly, U.S. forces

supporting the KSA-led coalition have not been introduced

into hostilities or situations where hostilities are

imminent.

Although the resolution's requirement to remove U.S. forces

from hostilities would not implicate U.S. support to the KSA-

led coalition, this requirement could call into question the

statutory authority for ongoing U.S. counterterrorism

operations in Yemen. Pursuant to the 2001 Authorization to

Use Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40), U.S. armed

forces are currently engaged in hostilities against both al

Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the Islamic State

of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Yemen. Hostilities against AQAP

and associated forces are explicitly exempted from the

resolution's termination requirement, but hostilities against

ISIS are not similarly exempted.

The resolution also asserts incorrectly that there is no

authorization for U.S. participation in a Joint Combined

Planning Cell with the KSA and mid-air refueling of KSA-led

coalition aircraft. President Obama directed such military

and intelligence support pursuant to his authority under

Article II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief and

Chief Executive and his authority to conduct U.S. foreign

relations. See Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615

(1850) (explaining that the President ``is authorized to

direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed

by law at his command''); Training of British Flying Students

in the United States, 40 Op. Att'y Gen. 58, 62 (1941)

(``[T]he President's authority has long been recognized as

extending to the dispatch of armed forces outside the United

States, either on missions of goodwill or rescue, or for the

purpose of protecting American lives or property or American

interests.''). Because, as discussed above, this limited

support to the KSA does not involve the introduction of U.S.

forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent

involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated, it does

not implicate section 4(a)(l) of the War Powers

Resolution. See 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1543(a)(l). The Obama

Administration published its summary of that limited

support to the KSA-led coalition as part of the December

2016 ``Report of the Legal and Policy Framework Guiding

the United States Use of Military Force and Related

National Security Operations.'' As discussed further

below, DoD and the Department of State have implemented

the President's direction through statutory authorities

available to the respective Secretaries.

Article II of the Constitution likewise supplied the legal

authority for the October 2016 strikes against radar

facilities in Houthi-controlled territory in defense of U.S.

Navy ships in international waters. The President has

authority pursuant to Article II to take military action that

furthers sufficiently important national interests. The

limited October 2016 strikes were taken to protect U.S.

vessels and personnel. Consistent with the War Powers

Resolution, President Obama notified Congress of these

strikes on October 14, 2016. The Obama Administration also

published a summary of its legal analysis for the strike in

its December 2016 report.

In late July 2017, President Trump completed a review of

the Obama Administration's policy of limited support to the

Saudi-led coalition. President Trump decided to continue that

support, adjusting the priorities in light of the

recommendations of Secretary of Defense James Mattis and

intervening developments in Yemen. President Trump's policy

guidance for support to the KSA-led coalition's operations in

Yemen is to focus on ending the war and avoiding a regional

conflict, mitigating the humanitarian crisis, and defending

Saudi Arabia's territorial integrity and commerce in the Red

Sea. Authorized types of support continue to include

intelligence, logistics, and advisory support to the KSA-led

coalition.

DoD and the Department of State have implemented the

President's policy guidance to provide limited support to the

Saudi-led coalition pursuant to legal authorities available

to the respective Secretaries. The most prominent forms of

support to the KSA and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as

well as the corresponding legal authorities, are detailed

below.

Arms and Other Defense Articles: The Arms Export Control

Act (AECA) is the underlying authority through which the

United States provides or licenses defense articles and

defense services to the KSA, UAE, and other members of the

KSA-led coalition; many of these defense articles and defense

services have been used in the conflict in Yemen. The AECA

and associated delegations of authority provide the Secretary

of State with the authority to approve the transfer of arms

and other defense articles and defense services, primarily

through the Foreign Military Sales program (which is overseen

by the State Department and implemented through DoD) and

through the State Department's licensing of Direct Commercial

Sales to foreign partners. The authority to approve such

transfers or licenses is not contingent upon whether the

foreign recipient is engaged in an ongoing armed conflict,

although the existence of such a conflict clearly increases

demand and can be a policy factor in approval decisions.

Transfers and licenses made pursuant to the AECA are subject

to various requirements (such as notifications to Congress

when transfers are above certain monetary thresholds) as well

as restrictions on end-use (including no further transfer by

the end-user without U.S. consent and that proposed uses must

be consistent with the law of armed conflict).

Logistics: Pursuant to licenses issued by the State

Department under the AECA, U.S. contractors provide defense

services in the form of essential maintenance and sustainment

for KSA and UAE combat aircraft engaged in hostilities in

Yemen. The in-flight refueling of KSA and UAE aircraft,

including combat aircraft, and certain other support, may

also be provided pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2341 et

seq., which authorizes DoD to provide logistic support,

supplies, and services to the military forces of a country

with which DoD has an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing

Agreement (ACSA) in force. DoD must first obtain State

Department approval to conclude an ACSA; DoD has ACSAs with

the Ministry of Defense of the KSA (applied provisionally

pending its formal entry into force) and with the Armed

Forces General Headquarters of the UAE.

I trust that this response will be helpful to your

understanding of U.S. support to the KSA's operations in

Yemen, and the reason for the DoD's opposition to this

proposed Joint Resolution. Thank you for your continued

support of the Department of Defense.

Sincerely,

William S. Castle,

Acting.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record this second document, which is a Statement of Administration Policy on this point.

Statement of Administration Policy

S.J. Res. 54--To Direct the Removal of United States Armed Forces from Hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that Have Not Been Authorized by

the Congress--Sen. Sanders, I-VT and 16 cosponsors

The Administration strongly opposes passage of S.J. Res.

54, a joint resolution that purports to direct the removal of

United States Armed Forces that have not been authorized by

the Congress from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen. The

fundamental premise of S.J. Res. 54 is flawed--United States

forces are not engaged in hostilities between the Saudi-led

coalition and Houthi forces in Yemen. Since 2015, the United

States has provided limited support to member countries of

the Emirati and Saudi-led coalition, including intelligence

sharing, logistics, and, until recently, aerial refueling.

This support is provided in accordance with licenses and

approvals under the Arms Export Control Act, statutory

authorities to provide logistics support, and the President's

constitutional powers. United States counterterrorism

operations and an October 2016 strike on radar facilities in

Houthi-controlled territory, which was the subject of a prior

report consistent with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, are

separate matters. Other than those engagements, no United

States forces have been introduced into hostilities, or into

situations where hostilities are clearly imminent, in

connection with ongoing support to the Saudi-led coalition.

As a result, this United States support does not implicate

the War Powers Resolution.

In addition to its erroneous premise, the joint resolution

would harm bilateral relationships in the region and

negatively impact the ability of the United States to prevent

the spread of violent extremist organizations such as al-

Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS in Yemen. The

continued cooperation of the United States allows the

Administration to support diplomatic negotiations to end the

war, ensure humanitarian access, enhance efforts to recover

United States hostages in Yemen, and defeat terrorists that

seek to harm the United States.

Accordingly, if S.J. Res. 54 were presented to the

President in its current form, his advisors would recommend

that he veto the joint resolution.

Mr. Chair, I am deeply troubled by the one-sided nature of this resolution and what is missing from this resolution, which I just stated earlier, and that is Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terror and the Houthis' benefactor. By staying silent on Iran and by not condemning the Houthis in this resolution, it sends a green light to the Houthis and to the Iranian backers to press on.

This resolution is counterproductive, also, to the efforts that are ongoing right now to negotiate peace in Yemen between the Houthi rebels and the Government of the Yemen Republic.

As we speak, the U.N. envoy is working with the full support of the United States to negotiate a political resolution to this conflict. Getting to these talks has required placing substantial pressure on all parties involved.

The U.N. is encouraging the Houthis to uphold these agreements and to make further agreements with the Yemini Government and the Saudi-led

coalition. But this resolution might cut the U.N. efforts off at its knees.

The Democrats can't tell specifically what assistance this resolution cuts off, but what I can say for sure is that what this resolution says to the Houthis and to Iran is: You have got a green light. Keep going on. You can gain more ground and cause more destruction and humanitarian crisis and cause more problems for Israel and our Saudi ally.

Advancing this pro-Houthi, pro-Iran, anti-Israel resolution does not help to end this war. In Yemen, it only emboldens the rebels in Iran who violently overthrew Yemen's Government and the radical regime that backs them, Iran.

So I would say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, this resolution is not only a dangerous precedent legally--it violates the construction of the War Powers Act--but it is damaging and very bad policy, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 122 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, who is the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 122, providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 37, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It also provides same-day authority for fiscal year 2019 appropriations measures, suspension authority, and authority for the Appropriations chair to insert explanatory language into the Congressional Record, all through February 17.

Madam Speaker, the Constitution specifically empowers Congress with the responsibility to declare war; and for more than 4 years, there has been a Saudi-led, U.S.-supported conflict happening in Yemen that is a war by any logical definition.

Nearly all of the bombs that have fallen say the same thing: ``Made in the United States of America.'' They fall on weddings. They fall on hospitals and on homes. They fall on funerals, refugee camps, and school buses. It is an aerial bombing campaign that hammers children, families, and civilian neighborhoods every single day.

The U.S. military has supported this reign of terror with logistics, intelligence, ground support, midair refueling of bombers, and the sale of bombs and munitions dropped on Yemen.

The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project estimates that more than 60,000 civilians and combatants have been killed in Yemen over the last 2 years. This total is increasing by more than 2,000 people every single month.

Madam Speaker, 85,000 children under the age of 5 have died from hunger and disease; 18 million people there are food insecure; and 75 percent of Yemen's population is in need of humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations has said Yemen is suffering from the fastest growing cholera epidemic ever recorded, as well as the world's biggest food emergency.

These are not abstract numbers. These are human lives--tens of thousands of children lost.

Given all of this, Americans would be forgiven for believing that Congress actually declared our involvement in this war, but we have not. We abdicated our responsibility to the executive branch instead, across multiple Presidents, Democratic and Republican alike.

Some may dance around this fact by calling what is happening there a conflict, but let's call it what it is. It is a war. And our involvement in this war is unconstitutional.

Despite being one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, others, like the President, don't mention Yemen at all. In his State of the Union Address last week, President Trump, right here in this Chamber, discussed his ineffective wall with Mexico, encouraged Congress to stop upholding our oversight responsibilities over his administration, and highlighted how Americans will once again be sent into space.

It was the longest State of the Union Address in nearly 20 years, but the President didn't utter the word ``Yemen''--not once. He couldn't even spare 2 minutes to update this Congress and the American people on our involvement there. Are you kidding me?

The President may not want to talk about it, but a free press has been delivering the grisly details day after day, in spite of the roadblocks the Saudis have thrown up to limit media access to Yemen.

Perhaps none spoke more vocally than the late Saudi dissident and Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi. He called for an end to this conflict in a column titled: ``Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Must Restore Dignity to His Country--By Ending Yemen's Cruel War.'' That was published in The Washington Post just weeks before his death.

Let's be honest. What happened to Jamal Khashoggi was a murder. All evidence makes it clear that it was likely at the behest of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. A recent New York Times article even revealed that American intelligence agencies intercepted a conversation where bin Salman threatened to use a bullet on Mr. Khashoggi if he didn't end his criticism of Saudi Arabia and this conflict.

Madam Speaker, is this really the kind of regime Congress wants as our Nation's partner?

There was even a report that Saudis and the UAE are transferring American-made weapons to al-Qaida fighters and other rebels. This would expose sensitive national security technology that could endanger the lives of our military.

President Trump has said of Saudi Arabia: They have been a great ally.

Really? Really? This is a country that is responsible for killing and dismembering a Washington Post reporter.

Madam Speaker, if this is what the President considers a friend, then I would hate to see what he considers a foe.

Even Republicans are angry with this administration's apparent affinity towards Saudi Arabia. Politico reported: ``Senate Republicans are fuming at President Donald Trump for telling lawmakers that he would disregard a law requiring a report to Congress determining who is responsible for the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.''

No Member of Congress should be okay with a President showing such disregard for the laws that we pass, and we certainly shouldn't look the other way when it comes to the murder of a resident of the United States.

I say to all my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you want to send a message that United States foreign policy respects human rights, join with us on this resolution.

Prior Republican Congresses have used every legislative trick in the book to prevent this debate. They even took the unprecedented step of stripping war powers resolutions related to our involvement in Yemen of their privileged status--not once but twice.

These tactics may have delayed us, but they did not deter us. Speaker Boehner may have been content ceding our constitutional duties to the executive branch. Speaker Ryan may also have been happy to do so. Thankfully, Speaker Pelosi is not. She is empowering this Congress to do its job.

I am glad that, under her leadership, this Congress has strengthened its political will and is reasserting our Article I constitutional responsibilities. This is the system our Founders intended, and it is what our constituents expect of all of us.

This Congress is not turning a blind eye to U.S. involvement in Yemen. This Congress is not looking away from the civil war the world sees unfolding on its television screens.

I want to thank the Congressional Progressive Caucus and, especially, Congressman Khanna for leading this matter. Congressman Khanna has been the conscience of Congress when it comes to our involvement in Yemen. He has pushed us again and again and again to do something as these atrocities mount.

We not only have a constitutional responsibility to pass the underlying resolution, we have a moral responsibility.

No Congress should be complicit in the bombing of children or the bombing of water treatment plants during a cholera outbreak or the decimation of hospitals during a humanitarian catastrophe or the creation of a blockade that leads thousands of people to die by starvation.

Considering this measure in the opening weeks of this Congress represents a clear break from the old ways of doing business, where matters of war and peace were routinely swept under the rug.

I am proud that this is a structured rule that makes in order a bipartisan amendment and a minority amendment. The bipartisan amendment is mine, and, among other things, it says that nothing in this resolution may be considered as authorizing the use of military force and nothing may alter the 2001 AUMF because, as important as this measure is, it is also targeted specifically to our involvement only in and affecting the war in Yemen.

It is something Republicans and Democrats agree on. Members ranging

from conservative Republican Tom Massie to progressive Congresswoman Barbara Lee have signed on as cosponsors. It should not be controversial.

Madam Speaker, there is bipartisan agreement that the U.S. involvement in Yemen needs to end, so I urge all my colleagues to seize this opportunity that we have fought for for so long. Vote ``yes'' on this rule and the underlying joint resolution. Let's finally end our Nation's complicity in the greatest humanitarian crisis taking place on our planet today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just so there is no misunderstanding, in this resolution, it is written, Section

3: ``Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to influence or disrupt any military operations and cooperation with Israel.'' I mean, it is written here for everybody to see.

Secondly, my good friend talked about the consequences of moving this legislation forward. Let me tell you what the consequences of not moving this resolution forward are. It means that we are totally content to sit back and say nothing and not admit that our government has its fingerprints all over one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. It means that we will be complicit in the continuing destruction and murder in Yemen.

If this country stands for anything, if the United States of America stands for anything, we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. For too long, especially under this administration, human rights have become an afterthought.

What makes us great is the fact that we do have a high standard when it comes to human rights, that we are there to speak up for those who are being persecuted and those who are being murdered.

This is a statement, this is a signal, to the administration and to the Saudi Government that when it comes to human rights, there are people in this Congress--hopefully, a bipartisan group of people in this Congress--who are not going to be silent, who are going to demand that things change.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for his kind words. I have a great deal of respect for him, as I do for the ranking member, Mr. Cole. I am hoping that this week maybe we will have a bipartisan moment where we all stand together and keep the government open and prevent another shutdown.

But on this bill in particular, the bill that we are taking up here today is virtually identical to the bill that passed the United States Senate last year with a bipartisan vote. That bill that

passed the Senate last year was prevented by the then-Republican majority from even being considered on this House floor on at least two occasions. So I can appreciate the fact the gentleman may not agree with the statement we are trying to make today or the bill that we are putting forward here today, but the process, I think, has been pretty good.

It just had a hearing in the committee of jurisdiction. It had a markup. We had a long hearing in the Rules Committee. All the germane amendments were made in order, a bipartisan amendment and a Republican amendment, and we are going to debate it here today under regular order. So the process has been very, very, very good.

I think, for many of us, we are bringing this forward in large part because we believe that this institution has been silent for too long.

I am not here to defend the Houthi rebels or, certainly, to cover up for any Iranian meddling here, but I will say this: We know that 85,000 children under the age of 5 have died of hunger and disease since 2015. Eighty percent of all children in Yemen require humanitarian assistance, according to UNICEF, the U.N.'s children's agency.

We need to do everything in our power to encourage a political solution to this terrible humanitarian crisis. I mean, this is unbelievable. Every person who cares about human rights should be outraged by what is going on.

We are having this debate here today to say that enough is enough and to let the Saudi Government hear loud and clear that we will no longer be complicit in this.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

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

First, on process, just so everybody understands, we are bringing a bill to the floor today under a structured rule that has a bipartisan amendment and a Republican amendment.

What my Republican friends are suggesting is that they want to bring up a bill, and all amendments are blocked, with the exception of one if offered by a Republican, sight unseen.

Boy, old habits die hard. This is the way they were in the majority. And thank God they are no longer in the majority, but, wow, what a lousy process this is.

Then secondly, I want to say that we are having a debate about Yemen, about one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, where the Saudi Government is bombing weddings and funerals and school buses, where thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of people are on the verge of starvation, where children are dying every day.

The previous question has nothing to do with Yemen. I mean, it is as if this entire horrific catastrophe that is now unfolding in Yemen doesn't even exist. I mean, how sad.

This is an important issue, and we have a responsibility to debate and to vote on this issue, because we have been involved in supplying so much assistance to the Saudi Government, and not even a mention, not even a mention of this.

Maybe this doesn't matter to my Republican friends. Maybe they are perfectly fine turning a blind eye to this horrific horror show that is happening in Yemen. But I am going to tell you, I think most people in this country, when they are made aware of what is going on and they are made aware of our involvement, are horrified. This is not what the United States Government is about.

So, in any event, it is a little bit disappointing.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), the author of H.J. Res. 37, and I want to thank him for his leadership on this.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for his comments. I just would inform the gentleman that, you know, another bill that passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote is the bill that we are discussing here today on Yemen.

The other thing I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, one of the things that we are trying to do is return to regular order, something that I think a lot of people don't know what it looks like. A number of the bills that the gentleman is referring to had no markup. Let's go through the committee process. Let's do markups, and let's do this the way we are supposed to do it.

I appreciate that my friends don't want to talk about the horrific situation in Yemen, but that is what we are going to do here today because it is horrific, and it is about time that this body take a stand.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Madam Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from New York that I appreciate his comments, but that is not what we are talking about here today.

I would just say to him, while we appreciate the cooperation of the minority in the Rules Committee and trying to facilitate a process dedicated more to regular order--and we are going to continue to work that way--that he should make sure that these bills have hearings and markups and that the Members of the House have an opportunity to be able to deliberate on them, and then bring them to the Rules Committee and we can have that debate.

But I am going to say to the gentleman, this is a new day. We, hopefully, will discuss process less and ideas more.

I would also say that we have an emergency right now when it comes to Yemen. It is one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. I am a little bit struck by the fact that the last couple of speakers haven't even used the word ``Yemen'' once.

So, in any event, there is a right way to bring legislation to the floor. We want to have regular order. We want to do this the right way. We did this bill the right way. It did pass the Senate. We had a hearing, we had a markup. It came to the Rules Committee. We made in order a bipartisan amendment, a Republican amendment, one that I strongly disagree with; but, nonetheless, we hope we can defeat it on the floor. If not, that is the way it goes.

That is the process we ought to adhere to. And I would say that, if we adhered to a better process, we are going to end up with better legislation and more, hopefully, bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the work of Ranking Member Cole on these issues. We may not agree on this specific bill, but we have worked together on matters like the Authorization for Use of Military Force for many years. He is always thoughtful in urging Congress to reclaim authority on matters of war and peace, and I do look forward to working with him in the months ahead.

Let me just remind my colleagues about how this bill came to the floor.

It was introduced in January. There was a hearing in the Foreign Affairs Committee. They held a markup, and the Rules Committee did a hearing and made amendments in order.

Some of my Republican friends may not agree with the underlying bill, but there shouldn't be much disagreement about the process, because this is how the process should work. We even made in order a Republican amendment from Congressman Buck that I strongly oppose. That amendment would allow the President to maintain unfettered intelligence sharing with any foreign country, even when the sole objective is to help determine which targets to bomb in offensive airstrikes not authorized by Congress.

I don't believe we should preemptively cede our own purview over intelligence sharing, and certainly not as part of a resolution designed to reassert Congress' constitutional war authority.

Maybe this amendment passes--I hope it doesn't--but it will be debated, voted upon, and this House will decide.

Let me say to my colleagues what is happening in Yemen is horrific. It should shake every Member of this institution to their core: bombings of weddings, funerals, and school buses; thousands dead; children starving--a humanitarian nightmare.

I don't know what is going to happen over in the Senate, but I know what this institution should do, and that is reclaim our responsibilities and make clear that the Constitution matters, that human rights matter; the lives of people in Yemen and the children in Yemen, they matter. This Chamber, under this majority, is going to provide a consequence for the actions of the Saudi Government.

And I hope that this resolution is just our first step in responding to the humanitarian issues across the region. I look forward to the Foreign Affairs Committee holding more hearings and markups and bringing more bills to the Rules Committee.

I have introduced a bipartisan bill with 20 colleagues that will immediately stop all military aid and armed sales to the Government of Saudi Arabia. I think it is the right thing to do when our democratic values are on the line. I would like to see that come up for a vote, but I want to have a hearing and a markup before it comes to this floor.

But, Madam Speaker, this Congress needs to start somewhere so we can step up our response as a country.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank my good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Normally, Madam Speaker, I would be agreeing with my good friend, Mr. McGovern, on the issue of congressional war powers, and, frankly, I want to applaud his efforts over the years to reassert congressional war powers.

It is a responsibility, in my view and, I know, my friend's view, that Congress has abdicated and one which we must work to reclaim in the weeks and months ahead. I commit to work with my friend, as I have in the past, to do just that in the future. But, in my view, this particular issue is not about congressional war powers.

Madam Speaker, we had a spirited debate on this joint resolution in the Rules Committee Monday night, and I expect that today's debate will be just as spirited. The reason is because this measure concerns one of the most important of Congress' powers: the power under Article I of the Constitution to declare war and to say when, where, and with whom the American Armed Forces will be committed to combat.

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which is intended to give Congress and the President procedures to follow when committing U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities and to give Congress a method to instruct the President to remove U.S. forces from hostilities.

Today, the majority is bringing up H.J. Res. 37, a resolution ostensibly arising under Congress' powers under the War Powers Resolution, to instruct the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Yemen. Specifically, this refers to United States support for key allies, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia in their intervention in the civil war in Yemen against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I believe this resolution is fatally flawed, misstates the facts, and will not accomplish what the majority is promising. For that reason, I oppose this rule and oppose this joint resolution.

Let's start with the text of the resolution.

Section 2 of the resolution 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-Qaida or associated forces.''

Of course, the problem with this resolution is that, under the terms of the War Powers Resolution, American Armed Forces are not currently engaged in hostilities. Hostilities, under the War Powers Resolution, means firing weapons or dropping bombs.

As we heard on Monday night at rules, the United States is presently providing assistance to the Saudi-led coalition that falls short of actual hostilities. We are providing intelligence and logistics support to an ally, but that is a far cry from the threshold necessary to be considered hostilities for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution.

This came up during Monday night's Rules Committee debate. I note that even Representative Connolly, who spoke in favor of this resolution at the Foreign Affairs Committee a few weeks ago, stated that ``the United States is not technically involved on the ground in hostilities.''

If we are not ``technically involved'' in hostilities--we don't have troops on the ground, we don't have flights in the air, and we are not engaging in combat missions of any kind against the Houthis in Yemen-- then what does this resolution actually accomplish?

The majority attempts to get around this by redefining hostilities to mean ``in-flight refueling non-United States aircraft conducting missions as part of the ongoing civil war in Yemen.''

Even if I did accept, for the sake of argument, that this is a legitimate definition--and I don't--this is still a false statement. The United States is not currently providing Saudi Arabia with in- flight refueling assistance and has not since early November of last year. That fact is just one of the many problems with the resolution.

I do point out the last administration certainly did that. It is actually this administration that canceled that procedure, which it inherited from the Obama administration.

But even if the statement, again, were accurate, I believe the majority's resolution raises significant questions that should give us pause.

Across the globe, the United States has security agreements with 117 countries, including Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Saudi-led coalition. We as a nation and the President of the United States have obligations under those security agreements, including to provide them with support when they find themselves in combat situations. The resolution the majority is asking us to consider today is putting all of those security agreements--all 117 of them--into jeopardy.

When the President provides assistance short of hostilities to allies and to countries with whom the United States has a security agreement, the President is generally well within his or her rights as Commander in Chief to do so and well within his or her statutory authority to do so.

It is only when American troops enter hostilities that the War Powers Resolution applies, and today, in Yemen, American forces are not involved in hostilities.

I think that the majority should sit back and think about the possible consequences of this resolution. For allies around the globe, this resolution should give them pause; and, for our adversaries, this resolution should give them hope.

For the first time, the United States Congress would be saying that the President of the United States no longer has the authority to provide assistance short of hostilities that we have agreed to under our security agreements with these countries. For our allies and NATO, this would put in jeopardy our commitment to the collective defense of Europe.

For our allies in the Pacific, like South Korea and Japan, it would put into question our ability to continue to provide support in the event of a conflict with North Korea.

For potential adversaries like Russia or Iran, this resolution provides the hope that America will not live up to its security commitments and will not support our allies during their time of need.

Perhaps most disturbingly, it would put our ongoing security arrangements with the state of Israel in question. In 1973, shortly before the War Powers Resolution was passed, Israel was subject to a surprise attack. During the resulting Yom Kippur War, while Israel was fighting for its survival, the United States launched an effort to resupply Israel. The United States military airlifted supplies, ammunition, and vehicles to Israel, helping to ensure their continued survival. However, we were never engaged in hostilities. We never committed forces to combat.

If the majority has its say, U.S. assistance to Israel under similar circumstances could be put in jeopardy. Under the type of resolution the majority is putting forward today, Israel would have good cause to question the U.S. commitment to that nation and to question our commitment to providing Israel with support in the future.

Should the United States provide Israel with the support it needs, our allies would have good reason to fear that a portion of the House of Representatives would try to shut off the tap by putting forward a resolution like this. I suggest to my friends that they rethink whether the War Powers Resolution should or even can be used in this way.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My friends talked a great deal about human rights, and I just want to make the point that I don't believe--I surely don't believe they think that the Houthi rebels in Yemen are great defenders of human rights or that the Iranian forces who are on the ground in Yemen are actually there to advance human rights and are defending them.

Frankly, I think this issue has more to do with whether or not we are involved in hostilities, which we clearly are not.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the text of H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019. One of the four constituent parts of this bill has already passed the House by voice vote in this Congress, and three of the four constituent parts passed the House by voice vote last Congress.

The four parts of this bill authorize assistance and weapons transfers to Israel, extend defense cooperation with Jordan, establish additional sanctions related to the conflict in Syria, and allows States to divest from entities boycotting Israel. On the whole, unlike the resolution on the floor today, it will preserve and strengthen our relationship with our allies and reaffirm America's commitment to a peaceful and more secure Middle East.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), my distinguished colleague and the chair of the Republican Conference.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will turn to my friend from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his comments. And we do; we just disagree. I do not see this as appropriate for the War Powers Resolution, because we don't have troops in common; we have not committed anybody to hostilities. But the Commander in Chief historically has had broad authority to assist countries that we have agreements and arrangements with that he thinks are important in our own security, short of committing troops into combat. I think that is precisely what he is doing.

Frankly, that is what his predecessor did. It would have been nice if our friends were as equally concerned when President Obama actually was committing us to the kinds of activities we are talking about. I don't recall hearing a lot about it then, but I am happy to discuss it now.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and the current ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying measure.

The majority has brought up a resolution under the War Powers Resolution instructing the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Yemen. Unfortunately, this resolution is misguided. United States Armed Forces are not currently involved in hostilities in Yemen, and it is unclear exactly what this resolution will accomplish.

Further, passage of this resolution would likely damage our relationships with our allies, who would have reason to question our commitments to them, and embolden our potential adversaries in the future.

I want to take just a moment to, frankly, reaffirm and thank my friend for his strong assertion of Congress' powers under war powers. I think he has absolutely been a leader in this area, and I have tried to work with him on many occasions.

I want to state for the Record, I look forward to working with him in this area again, because I think this body, under both Republicans and Democrats, has far too often abdicated its responsibilities and simply left it to the executive branch to determine when we were at war.

Frankly, when President Bush 41 went to war in the Gulf, he came to Congress and asked for its permission; when President Bush 43 went to war, he came to Congress and asked for its permission in both Afghanistan and Iraq--and they received it.

President Obama never bothered to do that. Whether it was in Libya or whether it was extending the mission, in many cases, he simply did not choose to do that. And, frankly, it was President Obama who began the actions that concerned my friends in Yemen.

So, again, my friend has appropriately tried to pursue, over the course of his career, the reassertion of congressional war powers, and I commend him for that. This case is not one of those cases.

The President of the United States does have legitimate powers as Commander in Chief to support friends and allies short of war without congressional approval. That has happened time and time and time again in American history.

We have 117 security agreements with various countries around the world. Some of those are with countries we have formal alliances with, some of them are not. They do not commit the United States to hostilities, but they do say, in certain situations, we will be there to render support.

I agree with my friend that there have been atrocities in Yemen. I think he is absolutely right about that. I think, unfortunately, we didn't talk very much about the Iranian role in that. We didn't talk very much about the Houthi role in that. We didn't talk very much about who overthrew a legitimate government and what other countries were involved in that. This is a lot more complex than that.

But, in this case, unlike Libya, for instance, where President Obama did commit us to military activity without coming to this Chamber and asking permission, somehow stretched the NATO alliance to cover our participation in a conflict within a country that had not attacked any member of NATO, let alone the United States of America, that was a time we should have done something like this.

Right now, in my view, whether you agree with him or not, the President is exercising his legitimate authority as Commander in Chief. And it is worth noting for the Record, he is actually doing less than his predecessor, President Obama, did. He actually is the person, President Trump, who ordered the cessation of aerial refueling operations with the Saudi Air Force.

Again, there is room for disagreement here. I know, on the underlying issue of congressional war powers, my friend and I agree. I look forward to working with him on that issue as we go forward, as I know we will. But, in my opinion, this is the wrong place and the wrong time to have this debate.

I think the President is operating well within his rights. He has made it clear he will veto this legislation should it pass the United States Senate. None of us know whether it will. But I can assure you this: that veto will have more than enough votes to sustain it.

So, again, I thank my friend for the spirited debate and discussion. It is always thoughtful.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, I want to share and join in with him in the tribute that has been paid to our former colleague John Dingell.

I served proudly on the House Energy and Commerce Committee with Chairman Dingell, and what a giant, what a true institutionalist of this House, the longest serving Member, a colleague of whom we will have fond memories and will share those fond memories, I am sure, in the days and weeks to come.

I know, Madam Speaker, and to my colleague from Maryland as well, every time we go into that room, the committee room for the Energy and Commerce Committee, we always get to look up now and know that it is named after our colleague John Dingell and always remember his wit-- because he was tough, but he had a great wit to share along with the combat that you would always get to engage in with him.

I will always remember, when the vote was finally called, he always had his own unique way. As the clerk would be calling the roll of the committee and they would call a member and the member would say ``aye'' or ``nay,'' he would always say: ``Dingell votes aye.''

He would have his unique way of addressing the issue of the day, and we will always remember him. To his wife, Debbie, and his family, we keep him in our prayers.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for going through the schedule, and I would share that assessment as well, that if those arrangements are made early next week, I would expect a large contingent of our colleagues to want to be there. We will all be there in spirit with John and his memory, as well as our wishes to his family.

As he and I may have disagreed on some issues, he was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and we would talk about that. Mostly, when I had those conversations with Chairman Dingell, it was about this great institution, this people's House that we both have the honor to serve in, and his appreciation for what this institution means to our great Nation. Those will be memories I will always cherish.

As we look to the schedule, I know the gentleman alluded to the conference committee that is meeting. I am encouraged, as I talk to different conferees, by the conversations, the issues that they are tackling. Clearly, the issue that has been at the front and center of the differences that we are trying to work through deals with border security.

As we look to resolve the differences, ultimately, it is my hope that we find a way to properly fund the tools that are needed to actually secure the border, as our experts, our men and women who risk their lives to keep our border safe, have laid out in detail: obviously, technology to help them do their jobs better, the need to increase security at ports of entry and to have more of the drug-testing equipment that can do a better job of keeping drugs out of our country.

Clearly, part of that solution has to be some form of physical barriers--whatever you want to call them, wall, physical barrier--along areas where we have the worst problems.

If I can bring to the gentleman's attention, there was a story yesterday in the Washington Examiner titled, ``Border agents just apprehended convicted child molesters and an MS-13 member at the Texas border where there's no barrier.'' This is a Washington Examiner article from yesterday, and I include it in the Record.

[From the Washington Examiner, Feb. 7, 2019]

Border Agents Just Apprehended Convicted Child Molesters and an MS-13

Member at the Texas Border Where There's No Barrier

(By Eddie Scarry)

U.S. Border Patrol agents said Thursday that they

apprehended several illegal immigrants at the southern border

in Texas, in places where there are no physical barrier walls

to deter illegal crossings.

Among those caught crossing into the U.S. were a Mexican

man with a previous conviction in Georgia for child

molestation, a Honduran man with a record in North Carolina

showing a conviction for ``Indecent Liberties with Child,''

and another Honduran male with a Florida record that

identified him as a member of the violent M-13 gang.

The apprehensions occurred in the Rio Grande Valley sector

of the southern border on Monday and Tuesday, according to a

release by the Border Patrol.

I toured a portion of that sector in January, and agents

said that areas that feature a 25-foot barrier of concrete

and steel have proven critical in blocking illegal border

crossers, forcing them to attempt their crossings in specific

areas where they can be apprehended. They've asked for more

of the same kind of border wall to fill in the long gaps that

current exist.

When President Trump said during his State of the Union

address Tuesday that his proposal is for new barrier that

``will be deployed in the areas identified by the border

agents as having the greatest need,'' this is what he meant.

Madam Speaker, for my friend, the majority leader, I want to read this comment and ask a question about this.

Among the other things that they were able to identify as they were able to stop, just earlier this week, some of these people coming in, a person with ``a previous conviction in Georgia for child molestation, a Honduran man with a record in North Carolina showing a conviction for `indecent liberties

with a child,' and another Honduran male with a Florida record that identified him as a member of the violent MS-13 gang.''

This is just one more example, earlier this week, of people who are coming across our border illegally in areas--and the article notes that this happened in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the southern border on Monday and Tuesday, according to our Border Patrol agents, in areas where there is no physical barrier.

So as the gentleman himself has said just a few days ago, and I quote, ``physical barriers are part of the solution'' to improve border security, I would ask the gentleman, when we get this conference report hopefully wrapped up this weekend, can the gentleman give an assurance that there will be money to properly not only secure the border but to include the physical barriers that are not there in those areas where we have child molesters and gang members coming across our southern border?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I think we are all going to be encouraging those members of the conference committee to continue the work that they are doing. That headway seems to be going in the right direction.

Hopefully, we come up with a bill by early next week that we can vote on next week before we get to the deadline on the 15th to continue to properly fund those other areas of the government that haven't been funded. That includes the border security that is necessary, including physical barriers.

Shifting gears, I would ask the gentleman about a piece of legislation that we filed that we have been trying to get unanimous consent to bring up, and this is H.R. 962, a bill by my colleague, Ann Wagner from Missouri.

As we saw earlier, in these last few days, you had the Governor of New York signing legislation that, among other things, would allow for a baby that comes out of the womb alive, whether it is from an abortion that wasn't successful--whatever the case, if a baby comes out of the womb alive, the fact that in the State of New York, and now we saw the Governor of Virginia talking on a radio show about how that process and procedure would be carried out where the baby, after it is born alive, can be killed legally in those States.

As we talk about the sanctity of innocent life, clearly, there are many different divisions amongst the parties on the issue of abortion. But to many, this issue transcends abortion. This isn't related to abortion anymore. If a baby comes out of the womb and is alive, the fact that in only 26 States there are protections that that baby can't be killed, that means in nearly half of the States in this country, that baby still can be killed legally.

I still don't completely grasp how that is legal in America, that someone who is born alive can still be killed and have that be legal in certain States.

So we have a bill called the Born-Alive Protection Act that would ensure that, regardless of how you feel about abortion--pro-life, pro- choice--after the baby comes out of the womb alive, it shouldn't be able to be killed. H.R. 962 gives that protection that it can't be killed. I would ask the gentleman if he would allow that bill to come to the House floor for a vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that when we did bring that piece of legislation last year, the Born-Alive Protection Act, it did pass the House, 241-183, in a bipartisan way, with six Democrats voting with us to pass that bill to the Senate. It did not get passed in the Senate.

However, as you look now, there have been a number of alarming developments that have raised the profile of this issue.

When the Governor of New York signed into law his legislation and celebrated the fact that, in his State, you can kill a baby after it has been born, and you saw applause in the legislature over that, it shocked people across the country. It horrified and angered people across the country.

When the Governor of Virginia, just a few days ago, went to a radio station and described, in detail, how a baby born alive can still be killed, can be killed after it is born alive, and it is legal in that State, it is legal, and not protected in nearly a majority of our States, this issue has come to the forefront of Americans.

Again, pro-life, pro-choice, wherever you are on this issue, the vast majority of Americans feel strongly that you should not be able to kill the baby after it is born alive.

So we can talk about a long, drawn-out legislative process, but now there is more interest and more anger to confront this violent act of murder. How can it be anything other than murder to kill a child after it comes out of the womb? So I know we can talk about a long, drawn-out procedure.

I have made it very clear I will be filing a discharge petition if we can't get to the point where we get this bill brought to the floor in a quicker way. There is a quicker way to do this and address this problem.

Again, if you ask most pro-choice people in America, they don't think it is right that you can kill the baby after it comes out of the womb. And so, as the gentleman can talk about a regular order procedure, this bill has passed the House before, and now there is more interest in the Senate to confront this issue. We have the ability to give them that opportunity.

I would just ask if the gentleman would reconsider, to move this in a quicker way and allow the unanimous consent motion to go through. If no one objects, we can bring that bill to the floor. And so far, as we have been making the motion for unanimous consent, there has been no opposition expressed. They have just not allowed the motion to go forward and be recognized.

So I would just ask the gentleman to reconsider and allow us to, at least, have that opportunity to try to bring this bill to the floor in the quickest way possible, to stop this barbaric process from being allowed anywhere in America.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. I would just ask if the gentleman would urge the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to move swiftly to bring this bill up for a vote as we continue to use every legislative tool we have available to, hopefully, try to get a unanimous consent agreement to bring the bill to the floor. But ultimately, if that is not allowed, and if the committee process doesn't work and actually take attention to this in a quick way, then we will go a different route and use the discharge petition route.

So we have continued to try to make the point that this issue needs to be addressed by this Congress. The President, in his State of the Union Tuesday night, was very clear that Congress ought to address this issue. And the President, in his speech--and I thought it was an incredibly eloquent speech, confronting the challenges we face, but also talking about the greatness of this country and highlighting some of the people who achieved greatness, the three men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, and the challenges they faced to liberate Europe, to keep America free.

Ultimately, one of those gentlemen actually went on to help liberate Dachau; and to see the Holocaust survivor who was at Dachau, and liberated by that very gentleman, to both be on the same row of the gallery, was a special moment, a special moment that reminds us of the greatness of this country.

And as the President talked about that at the end, he challenged us, he challenged Congress to reach for greatness, not gridlock, but for that same greatness as we confront the challenges that this great Nation faces today.

This action, the fact that, in many States of this Nation, it is allowed to kill a baby after it has been born, is a moral wrong that we need to fix. That is another act of greatness that we need to rise up to; and I hope we do in the quickest way possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 37.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is an important moment for the House, Madam Chair. For years, under administrations of both parties, the Congress has handed away our authority and abrogated our responsibility when it comes to foreign policy, particularly the questions of how and where our military is engaged around the world.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to declare war, yet we have given Presidents of both parties a virtual blank check to send our brave servicemembers into harm's way while we have stood on the sidelines.

With the measure we are considering today, we take some of that power back, and we do so to restore a sense of American values and American leadership to the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world.

For the last few years, we have all seen horrific images of the civilian casualties in the Yemen war: starving children, millions displaced, outbreaks of deadly disease.

Madam Chair, 85,000 children have starved to death. Fourteen million are on the brink of famine. More than a million suffer from cholera. And the ongoing military operations are bringing us no closer to a resolution. The only way out of this mess is for parties to sit down and work toward a political solution.

The United States can and should play a role pushing for that solution, pushing parties to make a commitment to negotiations. This measure, introduced by Mr. Khanna, will help us do exactly that.

Let me explain why this is so important and why I support passing this resolution right now.

In the last few years, the Saudi-led coalition has carried out 18,000 airstrikes. A full one-third of those strikes hit nonmilitary targets. This is absolutely reckless.

I am not naive, Madam Chair. I know we have critical strategic interests in that region. The Houthis are a problem. They get support from Iran. They launch missiles into Saudi territory and international waterways, threatening Saudi civilians. They are starving the Yemeni people, diverting assistance, and holding civilians hostage to their political demands. But we cannot just give the coalition a blank check when so many innocent lives are being lost. And if the administration won't demand any sort of accountability from the Saudis and Emiratis, it is time for Congress to act.

I want to acknowledge my friend from Texas, the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. McCaul. I believe that he also wants to see Congress reclaim our prerogatives on foreign policy, though I understand we have an honest difference of opinion on the approach we are dealing with today.

I am glad that we moved this measure through regular order, that we had a hearing with experts and a markup, and that the gentleman from Texas and I could make our cases before the Rules Committee. It allowed me to hear the arguments from all perspectives on this issue.

I think, during this debate, we will hear my friends on the other side call this resolution misguided. I think because this resolution has to do with our security agreements with the Saudis and Emiratis, we will hear them question what impact this may have on other security agreements.

It is a fair question, to be honest. That is why this measure is tailored so specifically to deal with just this situation. This is not a broad, blanket policy that is going to tie the hands of the executive branch. There is no dangerous precedent being set here, just an attempt to stop a war that is costing far too many innocent lives.

I think we will hear my friends question whether this measure would even do anything because this measure withdraws American forces engaged in hostilities, and the Pentagon says ``hostilities'' only applies to situations where American troops are firing weapons at an enemy. I have two reactions to that.

First of all, this measure would specifically define ``hostilities'' to include aerial refueling of warplanes carrying out airstrikes against Houthi militants. Now, I understand the Defense

Department has stopped refueling as a matter of policy, but policies can be reversed, so this resolution would cut off refueling as a matter of law.

My second point is broader and gets at the heart of today's debate. This body is not subject to the definitions conjured up by the Defense Department. We don't ask permission to exercise our Article I authority. Of course, the Pentagon will try to define things in a way that consolidates the power of the executive branch, but Congress, with authority over war powers, need not accept that definition.

The Congress has lost its grip on foreign policy, in my opinion, by granting too much deference to the executive branch, by failing to examine the decisions, determinations, and definitions that are used to justify sending Americans into harm's way. Our job is to keep that branch in check, not to shrug our shoulders when they tell us to mind our own business.

Lastly, I think we will hear my colleagues on the other side ask: Isn't this just all politics? No, Madam Chair. Politics is what the former majority did to this resolution twice during the last Congress. Politics is stifling debate on national security issues because we are uncomfortable with the message it might send or we don't want to take a tough vote.

Politics is walking away from our constitutional responsibilities, as Congress has done for far too long; and frankly, we have done it for far too long, Congresses in both parties with a majority and Presidents in both parties.

Our Article I responsibilities are things that we cannot just simply turn the other way. We are a coequal branch of government, and we have not had a declaration of war, for instance, since 1941. We are content to just tell whatever administration is in, go ahead, you handle it. We don't have any responsibility. I hope that that stops this afternoon.

The other body has already weighed in on this measure. It passed with bipartisan support. Today, the Members of the House get our chance to go on record finally and say where we stand.

I joined this resolution as an original cosponsor because I think it will lead to a sort of reckoning for our government.

What is our role in the conflict in Yemen?

What is Congress' voice in our foreign policy?

How will we exercise American leadership and American power?

What will we provide and what will we withhold to push warring parties toward peace?

I want to thank Mr. Khanna for his hard work and for his leadership in shining the light on this issue.

I want to thank our members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who have contributed so far to a valuable debate.

I want to thank Mr. McCaul, who has made his opposition to this about the policy, not about the politics or the personalities. We are going to have a lot more debates; sometimes we will be on the same side and sometimes not, but I hope we can always grapple with these challenges in a substantive way.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), the author of this joint resolution.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, a very valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a new member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who is already making his mark.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a very well-respected member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), another very valuable member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone), another new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a champion of progressive causes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), another very valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

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

Today is the day that Congress begins to take back its jurisdiction over war and peace. For time after time and year after year, administration after administration, Congress after Congress, the Congress has relinquished its responsibility given to us by the Constitution.

The Constitution clearly says that Congress has the power to wage war, and yet, since President Roosevelt declared war against Japan on December 7, 1941, we have had war after war and conflict after conflict, and Congress has not had anything to do with it. Congress has been silent.

This is not a matter of whether a war is a good war or a bad war. This is a matter of the fact that this Congress needs to make that determination.

Article I makes us a coequal branch of government. And, again, for too long, we have had administration after administration, Republican and Democratic, usurp the power that should be the Congress'. So this is the day my colleagues would begin to take it back.

Mr. Chair, I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been saying that this is not the best way to do it, but, you know, I have learned through the years that, if you don't take the bull by the horns, it is never the best way to do it.

There is always a reason not to do it. There is always a reason to point out certain things and say, well, this is not a perfect situation. This isn't the perfect situation. I will be the first to say that. But it is perfect in terms of saying we will take back our jurisdiction and do what the American people elected us to do.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Khanna for his tireless work on this issue.

As I mentioned, this measure is an important step in Congress reclaiming its role in foreign policy by debating where and when the United States military is engaged abroad. I don't think that is too much to ask. I think that is what we should be doing.

With the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, it is critical that we act now. We can go after Iran another time--and heaven knows I have been the sponsor of many resolutions and bills sanctioning Iran--but this is not to mix apples with oranges.

There is a civil war going on now in Yemen, and innocent children are dying. We have an ability to put an end to that, and that is what we should do. With this humanitarian crisis, it is critical that we don't delay.

So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. I actually support intelligence sharing. We need to work to reduce civilian casualties and ensure that the United States has a clear picture into the security threats in the region.

However, this amendment is unnecessary. The underlying resolution does not implicate intelligence sharing. I have been very clear about what this resolution would do. We have made necessary changes to this resolution, but I do not support adding unnecessary rules of construction to a resolution which has already passed the Senate.

For that reason, I am opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I accept this resolution, and I agree with everything that Mr. Kustoff just said. Anti-Semitism is a scourge. It is a scourge on humanity; it is a scourge on this country; and it has to be fought just the way prejudice of any kind has to be fought.

I think that this entire House should support this and say, once and for all, with a united voice, we will not tolerate anti-Semitism in any shape or form.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the joint resolution, H.J. Res 37, back to the House with an amendment.