Rejecting anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred in the United States and around the world.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and introduce extraneous material into the Record on the topic of this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, tonight is a reminder of exactly whose House this belongs to. We hear much in the political circles as far as who makes the call and who gets to speak when. Today, customarily, is a very unique and special day had our President not been disinvited.

Well, tonight we will have a few Members speaking on the importance of hearing from the Members that Americans have elected to talk about the issues of the past 2 years, and some of the things that we need to accomplish over the next couple of years.

We have some wonderful speakers this afternoon and this evening, to be able to share some of the topics that are important to our constituents as well as to all Americans.

The first speaker I would like to introduce to you is Mr. Mike Johnson, who represents the Fourth District of Louisiana, and is currently leading the largest caucus in all of Congress as chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his wonderful words of wisdom and inspiration.

A lot of times in the House, we hear politicians say, even throughout our State, that we are doing things for the people. And I guess, to some degree, some of that is okay. But for us to be successful, I think we have to get back to the place that we are doing things with the people. No one embodies that more in the House than past chairman and ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr. Kevin Brady.

In taking a moment of personal privilege here, I get a chance to meet lots of figures: lots of politicians, lots of Presidents, kings, and queens throughout this country--and throughout this world, actually-- but few people I have ever met who carried the servant spirit and the servant heart more than our top Republican on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), proudly representing Texas' Eighth District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking Republican on our Ways and Means Committee, Kevin Brady, for the wonderful service that he continues to display not just to the good people of the Lone Star State, but to all Americans.

We had a lot of retirements this past election, but not all the adults left the building. We have a wonderful veteran and former Korean veteran--actually, OB/GYN doctor, who delivered nearly 5,000 babies-- the ranking member, past chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I ask Phil Roe from Tennessee to share a few things on his heart; because there are few people who have had his experience level, and I believe it would behoove us all to listen to the words of wisdom from Mr. Phil Roe.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).

Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Phil Roe for sharing. The gentleman is one of the heroes around here. He not only talks the talk, but he walks the walk.

Speaking of somebody who walks the walk, that is Dan Crenshaw from Texas' Second District, a 10-year Navy veteran, a lieutenant commander. He is one bad dude. I would probably use a different expression, but my mother may be watching at this particular time.

``Saturday Night Live'' made him famous, but his work already has put him out as one of our leaders. It is my privilege to introduce and to hear from the former lieutenant commander.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Dan Crenshaw.

What a privilege it is for me to serve with Lieutenant Commander Dan Crenshaw, two Bronze Stars a Purple Heart. He has sacrificed much for this country and serves with honor and integrity.

Speaking of service, somebody who serves next door to my district in North Carolina is the past chairwoman and top Republican on our Education and Labor Committee. If there is anyone who works any harder among the 434, 435 Members, I have not met that person yet. It is my privilege to honor and to acknowledge her.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. Virginia Foxx.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Foxx for sharing her heart and our continued pro-Israel stance.

There are few who would be able to speak more to that issue than one of our two Jewish Members in the House, the co-chair of the House Republican Israeli Caucus and an Iraqi war veteran. Some would say he has three beautiful daughters, but I think he just married well and has two children. He serves on our Foreign Affairs Committee and is a classmate of mine from the 114th Congress. It is my privilege to introduce and to hear from him.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Lee Zeldin.

Mr. Speaker, you can see why Representative Lee Zeldin is thought so highly of in the United States House of Congress. I appreciate his remarks and, even more, his passion.

When we talk about going through some tough things in life, I don't believe there is anyone that I know who can relate to the journey that our whip, Representative Steve Scalise, has been through.

I will never forget getting word that Thursday, and we did not know for sure whether Representative Scalise would actually make it through the day, but somehow he did. The thing that I remembered most is his gift with policy. There are lots of things that he does well. The thing that I will always remember is how he let his faith shine through all of this darkness.

I yield to Louisiana's finest and our whip, Representative Steve Scalise.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Whip, Representative Steve Scalise, for his example and courage in standing up for what is right and true.

Many Members whom I have run across in this House are studious in their work, but I don't know of any more than Representative Gary Palmer.

In this town, there is probably a dinner every night somewhere. Mr. Palmer chooses to take his time going back to his office, preparing for the next day, constantly reading and staying informed.

I was born in the State that he represents. I lived there only 6 months. We have a mutual love for the Crimson Tide. It is my privilege to acknowledge and yield to Representative Gary Palmer from Alabama.

Madam Speaker, as I enter my fifth year serving in these hallowed Halls, I am still in awe of the sacred duty we have been given. We are truly the people's House. However, I believe that the people's House should give a voice to every single American, including the unborn.

This past Congress, we were able to pass, in the House, two major bills protecting life. The Born-Alive Protection Act and the Pain- Capable Child Protection Act both affirmed the humanity of the unborn and our firm belief that they are worthy of protection. Sadly, these bills were not taken up in the Senate, and with the new Democratic-led House, their future is uncertain.

But each January gives us hope. It is a critical time to talk about the importance of life and what it means to all Americans. Not only does the beginning of the year bring new goals and ambitions, but it contains important events that celebrate life, justice, and human potential.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose life we recently celebrated, knew this potential. He said that any person cannot succeed if he or she is willing to ``sacrifice the future of his children for immediate personal comfort.'' He also professed the value and hope of every single human life.

We also witnessed tens of thousands of marchers just recently arriving from all across America to march and boldly speak for those who can't speak for themselves.

Last week, we saw what my friend Benjamin Watson says is a ``sad and evil day.'' Throughout history, there are pivotal moments that sober us up to the point of engagement. Such a moment happened 1 week ago as we watched the New York State Assembly celebrate expanding the path for late-term abortions in their State.

Mr. Watson said this: ``It is a sad and evil day when the murder of our most innocent and vulnerable is celebrated with such overwhelming exuberance.''

This law allows for abortion up to birth, practically without limits. It authorizes the legal murder of a fully viable human baby. This is what was being celebrated. This is why the Freedom Tower was lit bright pink on a cold winter's night.

That celebration is now seared into our Nation's conscience, and many are now realizing, more than ever, that we should not, that we must not, that we cannot look the other way. Even our sleeping churches are beginning to awaken to this just and righteous cause.

New York already faces a cataclysm. In New York City, more than 500 abortions are performed for every 1,000 births. These numbers are more staggering for African American babies, more of whom are now aborted than actually born.

The Governor of New York has even suggested that those who are pro- life are not--and get this--welcome in his State.

I support federalism and the idea that New York can make its own laws for New York. My question is not a legal one, but a moral one. How long will our American society allow this injustice? Can we expect the new House Democratic majority to continue down this path? Will there be consequences?

As my friend Kay Cole James likes to say: ``The right to life is the most fundamental of all civil rights.''

To revive the American Dream, we must reclaim America's soul. That means standing with the majority of the American people who reject the Federal funding abortions; that means putting the life and health of women and babies ahead of the desires of abortion giants like Planned Parenthood.

But in many cases, we must also regain our credibility in valuing the birth at all stages of life. Do we care--tough question. Do we care, 20 weeks after the baby is born, as much as we value the baby 20 weeks before birth?

In closing, Mark Twain said this: The two most important days are when you are born and when you find out why. How many babies, how many children will never get to discover either?

Please continue to stand for those who have no voice. In the name that is everything just, never stop raising yours.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker) for the work he has done as our past chairman of the Republican Study Committee and now in leadership and our Conference, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight.

I remember, about 2 years ago, I was up late at night watching the election returns, and then-President-elect Trump announced his acceptance speech. He was not 3 minutes into his speech when he said that he wanted to help our Nation's veterans.

It was very near and dear to my heart because I am a generation of veterans. That was during the Vietnam war, and we were not so much appreciated and treated rather shabbily by our country.

So I knew what was in President Trump's heart, and I wish he were here tonight to be able to express that. Because every time I have been in the room with him, he has appreciated the service of our Nation's 21 million living veterans.

Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, we had an opportunity to do something about it, and, in a bipartisan way--and I do want to give thanks to both sides of the aisle. This would not have happened without their help. We started on a mission to really reform the way the VA provides healthcare.

For those out there who don't know about our VA system, there are over 150 VA medical centers, over 800 outpatient clinics that we have.

The VA is divided into, actually, three parts: It is healthcare, and it is benefits, and it is cemeteries.

If you haven't visited a VA cemetery, you should, because it will really make your heart feel good to see how we treat our Nation's heroes.

We started, 2 years ago, with the idea that not all employees at work at the VA are good employees and should be there. When I got to Congress in 2010--I have been here, now, 10 years--there were 250,000 employees at the VA.

Now, the VA employs almost 370,000 people. But there were some egregious acts that some of these folks had carried out, and they could not be fired.

We passed a bill in a bipartisan way that allows us to terminate poorly performing employees while maintaining the rights of those employees who are there, 99.9 percent of whom are doing a great job for our Nation's heroes.

The second thing most of us Congressmen hear about is disability claims. When I got to Congress in 2009, there were a million backlogged disability claims, veterans sometimes waiting until they died to get their disability claim adjudicated. That number now is down to around 350,000--far too many.

We passed a bill at that point, about 18 months ago, the appeals reform bill, and it has been piloted--called the RAMP program--which has sped up.

Last Friday, I was in Nashville, Tennessee, going to our regional office to

see how they were doing, and I ran into a gentleman who was using the VA--just happened to be there, a veteran, about my age. He said: ``I have been trying for 7 years to get my claim adjudicated, get taken care of.'' In 90 days, with the new RAMP program--he had waited 7 years. In 90 days, it was solved.

That program goes live next month. The Secretary has approved it, and, hopefully, now we can speed the claims and appeals process up.

A third bill that we passed, that I used in 1975 when I got out of the Army and came back stateside from the Southeast Asia, is called the GI bill. For those out there, it is an education bill, and it was written, initially, by a World War II vet Harry G. Colmery. Mr. Colmery wrote a bill and thought that we could really change our Nation by educating veterans who were getting out of the military; and we did just that, and it changed our Nation.

I am still appreciative, to this day, of the $300 a month that my country invested in me when I had a young family, when I went back to finish my education at the University of Tennessee, College of Medicine. I was able to use that money to help me finish my training and my education. But that terminated at 10 years. If I didn't use it within 10 years, it went away.

Today, we passed a bill, fully paid for, that allows a veteran to use their GI bill the rest of their life. And we know if someone is 23 when they get out, when they are 40, maybe they might need retraining. Well, now, they can get that.

The second thing we did in that bill--again, very personal to me--is some veterans hadn't served long enough. If they earned a Purple Heart, they didn't get the full benefit because they hadn't served enough time. Now, if you shed blood for this Nation, you get the full GI bill, and it should be that.

We also improved payment for our Gold Star families and others, and we have added time for technical training. We know those courses sometimes take longer.

We also funded, what is called the Veterans Choice Program three times during the last Congress, and that is how veterans get care outside the VA. We know that most VA hospitals can't provide everything to everybody, and many veterans have to travel long, long distances to see a doctor, to see a specialist.

I was visiting Oregon a couple years ago and found out that one congressional district in Oregon had more square miles than the State of Tennessee did. We had to develop a bill that allowed veterans in rural areas to see a doctor and veterans in urban areas to do so.

We passed the VA MISSION Act, which was signed into law, appropriately, on June the 6th of 2018, 74 years after D-day.

What this bill will do is the following. It will revise how veterans get their care outside the VA. It has a second very important part called the VA caregiver bill. Catastrophically injured, post-9/11 GIs who were injured in battle now can have a caregiver given a stipend to stay home so that they can stay out of the hospital.

But that did not apply to pre-9/11 veterans, Vietnam-era veterans like I am, Korea, and World War II. We now provide that benefit for those veterans.

Thirdly, we are looking at what is called an asset review of the VA. This is something that really surprised me when I looked at the data. The actual number of patients in hospital beds peaked in 1981. The population has grown 40 percent, and we actually have 10 percent fewer people in hospital beds than we did almost 40 years ago.

So medicine is changing, and the VA needs to change. It needs to go through a self-evaluation, get right-sized, and get the VA healthcare out where the patients live, where the veterans are.

We know that patients are moving, veterans are moving, from the Northeast to the South and West, so we need to put those assets there. That is what the VA bill will do.

There are a few other small things, Madam Speaker, that we did that might not be big to some people but were huge to me, because my Scoutmaster was killed in 1965 in Vietnam. His name was Thomas E. Thayer. He was a first sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division, a great man with four children.

When we have Gold Star families that sign a lease, let's say--and we had this happen where they signed a lease. One was in North Carolina, and the person would not release that woman from her lease, and she had to pay that.

Now, if you lose your husband or your wife in combat, you can get out of those. We also did the same thing for cable TV, for internet, and for cell phones. If you are deployed, you can't use those things, so you can get out of those long-term contracts.

The Veterans' Affairs Committee passed over 80 bills. Almost 50 of them were signed into law to help our Nation's veterans.

We did have one very disappointing failure to me, and I have already dropped a bill this term. It is called the blue water Navy bill. Just to let our audience out there, the folks viewing this, know what it is, there are veterans who served on surface ships in the territorial waters just off Vietnam, off the coast. Actually, Agent Orange was used in Korea, where I was. If you put your boots on the ground, then you are given the presumption for certain diseases for disability benefits. That does not occur for those men and women who served on surface ships.

We passed it 382-0 in the House and could not get it moved in the Senate. We are going to give them an opportunity to do the right thing this next Congress.

Madam Speaker, it has been a privilege for me to serve for 10 years on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and we are committed in that committee to continuing to serve our Nation's heroes and to give them the benefits they have earned that allow us to be free.

I thank Mr. Walker for allowing me a few minutes to come down and share these few things we did for our Nation's heroes.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the great State of North Carolina for inviting me to speak on this topic.

I stand before you in disbelief and in sorrow tonight. It has been mentioned that the State of the Union Address was originally scheduled to take place today, and it has been rescheduled for next week.

I think it is appropriate for us then to bring attention to what is happening here in the people's House. I think the American people deserve to know that. As we speak, I think the American people need to know that partisan tactics are underway by certain House Democrats to undermine American values and traditions that have been cherished and practiced here since the time of our founding.

As we finally begin our committee work in the 116th Congress, I am proud to serve again on the Judiciary Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee. We have just begun the process of adopting our committee rules there, and today, we were issued a list of proposed rule changes that the Democrat majority and the Natural Resources Committee will apparently push through at our hearing tomorrow.

Among the radical new changes to the rules is a stunning action to remove the phrase, ``So help me God'' from the oath taken by witnesses before they testify to Congress. Did you hear that? Let me repeat it. Among the radical new changes in our committee is a stunning action to remove the phrase ``So help me God'' from the oath taken by witnesses before they testify to Congress.

This latest example of the aggressive surge to the far left that we are seeing

has to be stopped. This new agenda is threatening the very fabric of our Nation. Throughout America's history, our Presidents and elected officials have taken a solemn oath of office including the words, ``So help me God.''

This goes back to our founding. Since the Judiciary Act of 1789, every justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower-court judges have taken an oath of office which concludes with the same phrase and, of course, every court of law across this land, in every one of them, all witnesses have always been sworn in for testimony with those same concluding words.

For more than two centuries, immigrants from all around the world have come here and taken America's oath of allegiance to become naturalized citizens which also concludes with the phrase, ``So help me God.''

Madam Speaker, some of our Democrat colleagues need to be reminded of our history. Why did the Founders institute this practice? Well, let's remember what they said. Our first President, George Washington, was the Father of our country. And in his famous farewell address, he gave his advice that echoes down through the generations to you and to me as the elected Representatives of the people. He said, famously: ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.''

John Adams was our second President. He came next. What did he say? He said: ``Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''

In other words, what these two Founders and their fellow patriots all understood from our history, was that there are many important rules and practices that can help sustain and build a healthy republic, but the key they said, the essential foundation of a republic has to be a common commitment among the citizenry to the principles of religion and morality and accountability to God himself.

The Founders acknowledged this self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that God gives all men the same inalienable rights. However, they knew, that in order to maintain a government ``of the people, by the people, for the people,'' as Lincoln later said, those inalienable rights must be exercised in a responsible manner.

They, thus, believed in liberty that is legitimately constrained by a common sense of morality, and a healthy fear of the God who granted all men our rights.

The Founders understood that all men are fallen and that power corrupts. They also knew that no amount of institutional checks and balances or decentralization of power and civil authorities would be sufficient to maintain a just government if the men in charge had no fear of eternal judgment by a power higher than their temporal institutions.

That is just a quick review of our history, but that is the reason we conclude our oaths in this country with the phrase ``So help me God.'' Heaven help us if we ever forget that obligation.

Inscribed on the third panel of the Jefferson Memorial right here in Washington, D.C., just a few blocks from here, is his sobering reminder to every single one of us as American citizens. He said this, it is right there on the wall: ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.''

Madam Speaker, I just want you to know and I want the American people to know back home here on the night that should have been the State of the Union Address, as we talk about the State of our union, I want you to know that we are going to fight this radical rules change tomorrow in our committee because it matters. And we will continue to raise the alarm about the dangerous leftist agenda that is taking hold here in this Congress.

While I am at it, I would be remiss if I did not note, Madam Speaker, that this is not the end. The radical agenda is advancing in State legislatures now as well.

Last week, New York's Governor signed the infamous Reproductive Health Act, the RHA, into law. This bill's extreme provisions eliminate protections for the unborn, endangering the health of mothers, and eliminate New York's few remaining safeguards for developing human life.

As enacted, the RHA establishes the fundamental right to abortion. It permits nonphysicians to perform abortions; it repeals State protections for children born during an abortion; and it eliminates all fetal homicide provisions. The bill's broad health exception allows for an abortion at, literally, any point in their pregnancy.

Look, this measure is unconscionable. It is disturbing. And we expect our friends and all people of good conscience--even on the other side of the aisle--to condemn this outrageous attack on the vulnerable.

Madam Speaker, we are forgetting our history. We have to remember why we as Americans believe in the sanctity of human life.

I will conclude with this, by just reminding us, again, that our Founders openly acknowledged, they broadly proclaimed what has been called the American Creed. It is listed in the second paragraph of the Declaration that ``we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,'' and that God is the one that gives us our rights, and our rights are unalienable. The first listed is the right to life.

Have we thought about why the Founders said that? Because they understood that every single person is made in the image of God. And because every person is made in the image of God, every single person has inestimable dignity and value. Your value is not related in any way to where you grew up or the color of your skin or how intelligent you may be, what your talents are, what you make for a living. Those are irrelevant. Your value is inherent because it is given to you by your creator.

Madam Speaker, I conclude with this: As we reflect upon the State of the Union, the state of the Union is strong in so many ways, but we have our challenges. Among the challenges is an assault, an aggressive agenda to remove and erase these critical and important foundations.

So here on the People's Night, here in the people's House, we want to remind the people of what is happening on our watch. We will stand against these things. We will continue to defend what is best about our American traditions, and we are honored to have that opportunity.