Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution reaffirming the United States commitment to Taiwan and the implementation of the Taiwan Relations Act.

I also want to thank my good friend Chairman Engel and Congressman Sires for offering this resolution, which gives us an opportunity to reflect on the importance of U.S.-Taiwan relations at a very critical time.

As the House considers this measure today, the United States and Taiwan share in a celebration, the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, which occurred on April 10 of this year. The Taiwan Relations Act remains one of Congress' most distinguished and lasting contributions to U.S. foreign policy.

The TRA built an unshakable foundation for U.S.-Taiwan relations, and the people of Taiwan have repaid this gesture by transforming Taiwan into a beacon of democracy and individual liberties. As is often said, Taiwan is a force for good in the world.

Reaffirming the U.S. commitment to Taiwan at this moment is also essential because we are standing together to face a growing threat. Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping is using all the tools at his disposal--military, economic, informational, and diplomatic--to try to destroy Taiwan's democracy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to remind him once again that he will not succeed on our watch.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a former chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my Championing American Business Through Diplomacy Act, which I was pleased to introduce with the support of my good friend, Chairman Engel.

Promoting American business abroad means promoting American leadership, prosperity, and our values. It has always been, and should remain, a key component of global diplomacy.

The very first edition of the Foreign Service Journal, then called American Consular Bulletin, published in March of 1919, included a letter from the editor that stated: ``The Consular Service was organized by our Government for the purpose of furthering the interests of American businesses abroad.''

This legislation makes the promotion of U.S. economic interests a principal duty of our missions abroad and requires economic and commercial training for our diplomats.

It also directs our foreign missions to promote trade agreements and establish points of contact who can assist American businesses interested in entering those foreign markets.

Promotion of American businesses abroad has never been more important. As transitioning economies work to expand their wealth and capacity, they look to America to bring expertise, financing, and ingenuity.

If America does not step up its economic engagement in the world, this vacuum will be filled by others, with a potentially devastating impact on American national security.

While I speak, China is aggressively filling that void. However, its approach does not respect the rights of workers, the environment, or even the sovereignty of other nations.

China's Belt and Road Initiative is ensnaring developing nations into Chinese debt traps from which they may never escape. This effort is also leading to a new Chinese adventurism, complete with military outposts and expanded leverage in various countries.

Ground zero for this competition in the developing world is Africa. I have spent much time with African Governments and business leaders. All have told me that America is just not there to compete. I applaud the administration for its new Prosper Africa efforts and know that this legislation is key to its success.

I can think of no better antidote to combat this predatory influence than unleashing the vitality of American values through our private sector. I naturally think of the world-class tech and energy companies in my own district and home State of Texas.

Creating more international opportunities for American businesses will help push back on growing Chinese influence across the globe.

It is time for America to fully wake up and get on the field, or we may ask ourselves later why we did not do more to contain the Chinese threat.

For these reasons, the Championing American Business Through Diplomacy Act is a critical initiative that deserves our unanimous support.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to just, again, thank Chairman Engel for his support of this bipartisan bill, which was adopted unanimously at our committee markup last month.

American businesses represent ingenuity, industry, and opportunity. Unlike our strategic competitors, they do not go overseas pushing large, government-subsidized construction projects that involve massive debt or giving up control of strategic infrastructure.

They seek only access to markets and a fair playing field, which allows the kind of win-win partnerships that are the genius of the free enterprise system.

In this era of strategic competition, supporting their access to these economies abroad should be a priority of American diplomacy. The stability that we help provide with our enterprise will help bring us and the world security as well. That is the aim of this bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that the climate is changing and we need to take positive steps to address it. However, I oppose H.R. 9 because it is just a messaging bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate and that the President will veto.

I oppose H.R. 9 because, among other problems, it attempts to codify President Obama's unrealistic and unilaterally determined greenhouse gas reduction pledge under the Paris Agreement. This pledge was submitted on behalf of the United States without any notification, consultation, or role for Congress.

At a recent hearing, when we asked whether any of the witnesses agreed that President Obama should have submitted the Paris Agreement to the

Senate for ratification, all four witnesses, including the three Democrat witnesses, agreed it should have been submitted to the Senate.

In addition to not involving Congress, the Obama administration also did not seek meaningful input from private-sector stakeholders, such as energy companies.

Not only that, the administration provided no cost-benefit analysis or economic justification to rationalize its pledge--its arbitrary pledge--to cut greenhouse gases by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

A recent study by the Chamber of Commerce estimates it could cost U.S. GDP $250 billion and 2.7 million jobs by 2025. By 2040, it could cost the United States economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs.

But the good news is that, even before the United States entered the Paris Agreement, the United States started making progress to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. According to the EPA, from 1990 to 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions per GDP declined by 40 percent, and we are at the lowest emissions levels since 2000.

In addition, over the last decade, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 14 percent, Mr. Chairman, while China's emissions doubled. Sadly, China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, under this agreement, will continue to increase its emissions through 2030 under its unenforceable Paris Agreement pledge.

Other major greenhouse gas emitters, like Russia, have signed the Paris Agreement but have not ratified it.

Instead of doubling down on a pledge that Congress had no role in setting that will have a potentially catastrophic impact on the United States economy and which will do nothing, Mr. Chairman, to address China and other countries' growing emissions, we should work on bipartisan legislation to boost research, advance technologies, promote innovation, and develop real solutions.

That is why I offered an amendment calling for bipartisan solutions to address this challenge, providing a meaningful role for Congress regarding the Paris Agreement, and requiring our greenhouse gas reduction commitments to undergo a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Sadly, this amendment failed by a party-line vote in the committee and the Rules Committee, denying it from even being debated on this House floor.

So for that, Mr. Chairman, and many other reasons, I oppose H.R. 9, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, let me first say to my good friend from New Jersey that there are many of us on this side of the aisle who agree the climate is changing, and I think it is a question of how we get there and the solutions and innovation and technology.

I hope that--it will not move forward; it will be, obviously, vetoed--maybe we can work together in a bipartisan way on something that can reduce emissions using innovation technology. I personally think nuclear power should be examined as well.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to start off by saying that I respect the chairman. I respect his point of view, and I respect the arguments that have been made on this floor. I believe they are genuine. I believe that most Members of this Chamber agree that climate change is real and that climate change presents a risk.

I sat down with a scientist from NASA, which is in my home State. We talked about the data. He said: I am not a policymaker. Here is the data. Here is what is going to happen if we do nothing.

But I think, as the majority leader said, H.R. 9 does not solve this problem.

You have heard from my side of the aisle very genuine arguments about the cost to the economy, the fact that we have reduced our emissions but countries like China and India have doubled theirs. We want to get something done to solve this crisis, and I admit it is a crisis.

This bill is a messaging bill. It is a feel-good bill. It won't get through the Senate. It will be vetoed by the White House. I submit to all those listening to this debate that when that happens, we work on something real, that is bipartisan.

We heard the ranking member from the new House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis say that he found out about this bill in the press. That is no way to lead a bipartisan effort in the Congress.

So when this fails, and it will, I submit we go back to the drawing board and do things that we know do work, and that is let's work on innovation, clean energy technologies, and, yes, nuclear power.

We are showing we are being a leader reducing our emissions while other countries are not. Let's lead by example. Let's come back with some real legislation that is going to make a difference, reduce emissions, and get us out of this crisis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I will close once the gentleman yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let me first say, like everyone in this Chamber, I support human rights and climate justice, but this amendment really does nothing to reduce our emissions. We should debate bipartisan solutions, such as boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me first say, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. I met today with U.N. officials on the refugee crisis. I have been to the camps in Jordan and Turkey, so I agree with the premise of this amendment. But, again, it does nothing to reduce our emissions.

We should be debating, I think, bipartisan solutions, such as boosting research, technology, and innovation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will close after the gentlewoman yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me first commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, for quoting me. I do think we should lead as a nation in the world. I support the United States leading the world on the international challenges we face. But, again, this amendment has nothing to do with reducing our emissions.

We should be a leader on the bipartisan approach to solutions to this crisis, like boosting research, innovation, and technologies.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I will close after the gentlewoman closes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me first say, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Addressing sea level rise is a serious issue as well as saltwater intrusion and flooding.

I am a member of the House Oceans Caucus, but, again, it does not reduce our emissions. It is not, to me, germane to the underlying bill.

I think we should debate, once again, bipartisan solutions on boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, let me say first to the gentleman from California, that I appreciate the Californians and the California tech companies expanding to my home city of Austin, Texas, but I find this amendment contrary to the premise of this bill, which prohibits withdrawing from the U.S. Paris Agreement. In fact, it withdraws funding.

So for that reason, I am in opposition to it, and, again, I think, as the gentleman stated, we should be advancing--if this bill doesn't make it through the Senate, doesn't get signed into law--advancing the clean energy technologies I think both of our States want to advance.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, but I am not opposed to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will close once the gentleman from New Jersey yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I stated, I am not opposed to this amendment. I think the international community should reduce emissions. I think the issue is that the international community is not living up to the expectations of this agreement, particularly China and India. While we have reduced emissions by 14 percent, they have doubled their emissions, and they have until 2030 to reduce any emissions. That is why fundamentally I think this is a flawed agreement.

But I am not opposed to an international consensus to reduce emissions. I don't think this is the right way to do it.

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

Madam Chair, I strongly support this amendment. It has been the thrust of our argument.

I support the U.S. Constitution Article I authority. This process circumvented that. I do believe it required Senate ratification. But not only that, the President didn't even consult with the Congress. There was not one hearing on this during the Obama administration and therefore circumventing the American people. For that reason, I strongly support this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, let me just say first, we all recognize the oceans' ecosystems, 70 percent of the Earth's surface. I am a member of the Ocean Caucus.

This really has nothing to do with reducing our emissions. It is simply a finding. We ought to be focused on bipartisan solutions and boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation.

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

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

Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we all agree with the premise of this amendment--food security, ending hunger. Again, this amendment does nothing to reduce our emissions. We need to debate bipartisan solutions, such as boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation.

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

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

Madam Chair, I will close once the gentleman has yielded back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment, but it does not address reducing emissions. We should debate bipartisan solutions, as I stated in the past.

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

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

Madam Chair, I agree with the premise that the world looks to the United States as a leader. Unfortunately, other countries are not leading--China and India, for instance.

This amendment, again, does not address reducing emissions. We need to look at leading as a nation on technology, innovation, and bipartisan solutions.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Clean energy technologies are important in my hometown of Austin.

We have a lot of clean energy in Irvine, California, a lot of clean energy, a lot of collaboration between our two States, but this is simply a finding and does not reduce our emissions.

I again would urge, since I do not think this will become law, that we work on a bipartisan solution, talking explicitly about what you are talking about. We can pass these bills out of the House; we can pass them out of the Senate; and if we can do it bipartisanly, we can get it signed into law.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Drought conditions, water scarcity are important in, I know, the gentlewoman's home State, certainly important in my home State of Texas. It will be--as climate change advances, the entire continent of Africa will face drought conditions.

But, again, this is a finding. It doesn't, in and of itself, reduce the emissions, and I would again urge bipartisan solutions to advancing technologies and promoting innovation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 148 inventors who will soon be inducted as the 2018 Fellows of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI) in an induction ceremony in Houston, TX that will feature a keynote address by U.S. Commissioner for Patents Andrew Hirshfeld. In order to be named Fellow, these men and women were nominated by their peers and have undergone the scrutiny of the NAI Advisory and Selection Committees, having had their innovations deemed as making significant impact on quality of life, economic development, and welfare of society.

Collectively, this elite group holds nearly 4,000 patents. The individuals making up this year's class of Fellows include individuals from 125 research universities and non-profit research institutes spanning the United States and the world. The now 1060-member group of Fellows is composed of more than 100 presidents and senior leaders of research universities and non-profit research institutes, nearly 500 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; 30 inductees of the National Inventors Hall of Fame, 57 recipients of the U.S. National Medal of Technology and Innovation

and U.S. National Medal of Science, over 30 Nobel Laureates, over 300 AAAS Fellows, 200 IEEE Fellows, and 164 Fellows of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, among other awards and distinctions.

The NAI was founded in 2010 to recognize and encourage inventors with patents issued from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, enhance the visibility of academic technology and innovation, encourage the disclosure of intellectual property, educate and mentor innovative students, and translate the inventions of its members to benefit society.

We are greatly indebted to innovators such as these for contributions to society through their inventions. I commend these individuals, and the organizations and taxpayers that support them, for the work they do to revolutionize the world we live in. As the following inventors are inducted, may it encourage future generations to strive to meet this high honor and continue the spirit of discovery and innovation.

The 2018 NAI Fellows include:

Seth Y. Ablordeppey, Florida A&M University; Rafi Ahmed,

Emory University; Pulickel M. Ajayan, Rice University; Rodney

C. Alferness, University of California, Santa Barbara; Emad

S. Alnemri, Thomas Jefferson University; Hal S. Alper, The

University of Texas at Austin; Evelina Angov, Walter Reed

Army Institute of Research; Bernard P. Arulanandam, The

University of Texas at San Antonio; Stephen F. Badylak,

University of Pittsburgh; Harrison H. Barrett, The University

of Arizona; Mark A. Barteau, Texas A&M University; Jacqueline

K. Barton, California Institute of Technology; Susan J.

Baserga, Yale University; Rashid Bashir, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Frank S. Bates, University of

Minnesota; J. Michael Bishop, University of California, San

Francisco; Elizabeth H. Blackburn, University of California,

San Francisco; Sylvia M. Blankenship, North Carolina State

University; Robert E. Burrell, University of Alberta; Ahmed

A. Busnaina, Northeastern University.

Yihai Cao, Karolinska Institute; Federico Capasso, Harvard

University; Ni-Bin Chang, University of Central Florida;

Constance J. Chang-Hasnain, University of California,

Berkeley; Russell R. Chianelli, The University of Texas at El

Paso; Young I. Cho, Drexel University; Sang H. Choi, NASA

Langley Research Center; Chih-Chang Chu, Cornell University;

Walter G. Copan, National Institute of Standards and

Technology; Mark S. Cushman, Purdue University; Karl A.

Deisseroth, Stanford University; Calum J. Drummond, RMIT

University; Lawrence T. Drzal, Michigan State University;

Igor R. Efimov, The George Washington University; Hesham M.

El Gamal, The Ohio State University; Mary K. Estes, Baylor

College of Medicine; Omid C. Farokhzad, Harvard Medical

School; Mauro Ferrari, Houston Methodist Hospital/Cornell

Medical College; Alan S. Finkel, Monash University/

Australia's Chief Scientist; Jessica Fridrich, Binghamton

University; Elaine V. Fuchs, The Rockefeller University.

Judy L. Genshaft, University of South Florida; Durham

Kenimer Giles, University of California, Davis; George T.

Gillies, University of Virginia; Jay R. Goldberg, Marquette

University; Jeffrey I. Gordon, Washington University in St.

Louis; Craig J. Gotsman, New Jersey Institute of Technology;

Linda G. Griffith, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;

John L. Hall, University of Colorado Boulder; Tayyaba Hasan,

Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School; Gary

M. Hieftje, Indiana University; M. Cynthia Hipwell, Texas A&M

University; Dean Ho, National University of Singapore; Peter

Hfj, The University of Queensland; Robert A. Holton, Florida

State University; Susan Band Horwitz, Albert Einstein College

of Medicine; Matthew A. Howard, Ill, University of Iowa; Alex

Qin Huang, The University of Texas at Austin; Shu-Yuen Ron

Hui, The University of Hong Kong/Imperial College London;

Bahram Javidi, University of Connecticut; Quanxi Jia,

University at Buffalo, The State University of New York;

Hongxing Jiang, Texas Tech University.

Jingyue Ju, Columbia University; Kenneth Kaushansky, Stony

Brook University; Pradeep K. Khosla, University of

California, San Diego; Robert P. Kimberly, The University of

Alabama at Birmingham; Joseph W. Kloepper, Auburn University;

Thomas L. Koch, The University of Arizona; Philip G. Koehler,

University of Florida Jindrich Kopecek, The University of

Utah; Sally Kornbluth, Duke University; William J. Koros,

Georgia Institute of Technology; Adrian R. Krainer, Cold

Spring Harbor Laboratory; Tei-Wei Kuo, National Taiwan

University; Joshua LaBaer, Arizona State University; Roger A.

Laine, Louisiana State University and A&M College; Edmond J.

LaVoie, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Abraham

P. Lee, University of California, Irvine; Anna M. Leese de

Escobar, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific; Warren J. Leonard,

National Institutes of Health; Johannes Lercher, Technical

University of Munich/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Teik C. Lim, The University of Texas at Arlington; Craig W.

Lindsley, Vanderbilt University; Elizabeth G. Loboa,

University of Missouri; Ted L. Maddess, Australian National

University; Elizabeth M. McNally, Northwestern University;

Muriel Medard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ellis

Meng, University of Southern California; Joachim Messing,

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Lalit K. Mestha,

The University of Texas at Arlington; Lyle R. Middendorf,

University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Shaker A. Mousa, Albany

College of Pharmacy and Health Science; William P. Murphy,

Jr., Florida International University; William L. Murphy,

University of Wisconsin-Madison; Prakash Nagarkatti,

University of South Carolina; Nathan Newman, Arizona State

University; Bert W. O'Malley, Baylor College of Medicine;

Aydogan Ozcan, University of California, Los Angeles;

Muthukumaran Packirisamy, Concordia University; Drew M.

Pardoll, Johns Hopkins University; Roderic I. Pettigrew,

Texas A&M University; Apparao M. Rao, Clemson University.

Theodore S. Rappaport, New York University; L. Rafael Reif,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Joshua Rokach, Florida

Institute of Technology; Yoram Rudy, Washington University in

St. Louis; Wheeler Ruml, University of New Hampshire; Thomas

P. Russell, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Jagannathan

Sarangapani, Missouri University of Science and Technology;

Vinod Sarin, Boston University; Rahul Sarpeshkar, Dartmouth

College; Steven J. Sasson, University of South Florida;

Christine E. Schmidt, University of Florida; Zheng John Shen,

Illinois Institute of Technology; Thomas E. Shenk, Princeton

University; Mark B. Shiflett, The University of Kansas;

Michael L. Simpson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory/The

University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Koji Sode, The University

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Costas M. Soukoulis, Iowa

State University; John W. Spirk, Cleveland Clinic; Gary

Stacey, University of Missouri; F. William Studier,

Brookhaven National Laboratory; Samuel I. Stupp, Northwestern

University; Koduvayur P. Subbalakshmi, Stevens Institute of

Technology.

Bruce A. Sullenger, Duke University; Xiuzhi S. Sun, Kansas

State University; Jing Sun, University of Michigan; Yu Sun,

University of Toronto; Wanchun Tang, Virginia Commonwealth

University; Susan S. Taylor, University of California, San

Diego; Bhavani Thuraisingham, The University of Texas at

Dallas; David A. Tirrell, California Institute of Technology;

Don M. Tucker, University of Oregon; Jeffrey S. Vitter, The

University of Mississippi; Israel E. Wachs, Lehigh

University; Albert Wang, University of California, Riverside;

Michael S. Waterman, University of Southern California; Alan

W. Weimer, University of Colorado Boulder; Louis M. Weiner,

Georgetown University; Robert G. Wilhelm, University of

Nebraska, Lincoln; Yushan Yan, University of Delaware; Jian

Yang, The Pennsylvania State University; Eui-Hyeok Yang,

Stevens Institute of Technology; Mark H. Yim, University of

Pennsylvania; Michael J. Yost, Medical University of South

Carolina; James M. Zavislan, University of Rochester; Ruiwen

Zhang, University of Houston; Huda Y. Zoghbi, Baylor College

of Medicine.

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

Madam Speaker, let me first say, at the outset, that the chairman and I work very closely together. There is a recent article that said that Chairman Eliot Engel and Ranking Member McCaul forge a rare bipartisan bond, and I think that is the way we like to conduct this committee. It is a national security committee, and it needs to be bipartisan. However, as the chairman mentioned, there are times when we do have policy differences, but we do have respect in those differences.

We did take this up on the floor several weeks ago. I did oppose it then, and I oppose it for the same reasons today, most importantly, because the resolution uses the war powers mechanisms to direct the removal of U.S. troops from hostilities.

The problem is there are no U.S. Forces to remove, and the basic premise of this resolution is that somehow we have forces in Yemen that need to be removed that are engaged in hostilities. As the Department of Defense

has repeatedly confirmed, no United States Forces are conducting hostilities against the Houthis in Yemen.

This resolution abuses a war powers tool to get at a completely different security assistance issue which Congress already has clear tools to address. If Members want to condition or cut off U.S. security assistance to Saudi Arabia, then bring forward a bill to do just that.

But this resolution does nothing to address the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. It does nothing to secure justice for the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi. It does not even make real decisions on U.S. security assistance to Saudi Arabia. The only thing it addresses clearly is the midair refueling of coalition aircraft, ended in November of 2018, which is not in danger of restarting.

Meanwhile, this resolution stretches the definition of war powers hostilities to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries. Specifically, it reinterprets U.S. support to these countries as ``engagement in hostilities.''

This radical reinterpretation has implications far beyond Saudi Arabia. This precedent will empower any single Member to use privileged war powers procedures to force congressional referendums that could disrupt U.S. security cooperation agreements with more than 100 countries around the world.

Just days after Israel was forced to respond to rocket attacks from Gaza, I believe this would be a dangerous precedent to legitimize this abuse of process.

It could also be used to call into question our commitments to NATO members. Let me remind my colleagues that we are celebrating NATO's 70th anniversary this week, as we saw the Secretary of NATO address a joint session of Congress.

Finally, this one-sided resolution completely ignores the destructive role of the Houthis and their backers in Tehran. The Houthis violently overthrew the Government of Yemen. They are attacking Saudi Arabia with weapons they got from Iran in violation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions. They have killed Saudi civilians and endangered many Americans living there.

Human Rights Watch accused the Houthis of taking hostages and torturing detainees. The United Nations says the Houthis use civilian human shields. The World Food Program has criticized them for illegally stealing urgently needed food aid. The Houthis have targeted ships in the Red Sea.

These realities are ignored in the text of this resolution. The only impact this resolution will have on the Houthis will be to encourage them.

In addition, Madam Speaker, this is very important because, since the last time we debated this on the floor, the Houthis engaged in a propaganda outlet, supported by Hezbollah, actively touting this very resolution online. They used our debate on the floor of the Congress to advance their propaganda, a proxy of Iran and Yemen.

This is what we are doing here today. I would submit, Madam Speaker, that is very dangerous. It is dangerous, and I believe it is reckless.

This will weaken the hand of the U.N. Special Envoy, as well, to Yemen, whose efforts currently represent the best hope we have of bringing a negotiated end to this conflict and ending the suffering of the people of Yemen.

So, for these reasons, I continue to oppose this pro-Iran, pro-Houthi resolution. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting against it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

As I close, I include in the Record a statement of administration policy issued on Monday.

Statement of Administration Policy

S.J. Res. 7--Directing the President to Remove United States Armed

Forces from Hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that Have Not Been

Authorized by Congress--Sen. Sanders, I-VT and 19 cosponsors

The Administration strongly opposes passage of S.J. Res. 7,

a joint resolution that purports to direct the President to

remove United States forces from hostilities in or affecting

the Republic of Yemen, with certain exceptions.

The premise of the joint resolution is flawed. Since 2015,

the United States has provided limited support to member

countries of the Saudi-led coalition, including intelligence

sharing, logistics support, and, until recently, aerial

refueling, to assist in the defense of United States allies

and partners. The provision of this support has not caused

United States forces to be introduced into hostilities. Such

support is provided pursuant to licenses and approvals under

the Arms Export Control Act, statutory authorities for

Department of Defense to provide logistics support to foreign

countries, and the President's constitutional powers. Because

the President has directed United States forces to support

the Saudi-led coalition under his constitutional powers, the

joint resolution would raise serious constitutional concerns

to the extent it seeks to override the President's

determination as Commander in Chief.

In addition to its erroneous premise, the joint resolution

would harm bilateral relationships in the region, negatively

affect our ability to prevent the spread of violent extremist

organizations--such as al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula and

ISIS in Yemen--and establish bad precedent for future

legislation by defining ``hostilities'' to include defense

cooperation such as aerial refueling for purposes of this

legislation. While we appreciate that sections 5 and 6 of the

resolution acknowledge these serious consequences to some

extent, after-the-fact reporting is not an effective means to

mitigate them. Our continued cooperation with regional

partner nations allows the United States to support

diplomatic negotiations to end the conflict, promote

humanitarian access, mitigate civilian casualties, enhance

efforts to recover United States hostages in Yemen, and

defeat terrorists who seek to harm the United States.

If S.J. Res. 7 were presented to the President, his senior

advisors would recommend he veto the joint resolution.

Madam Speaker, it really, basically, states yet again that the fundamental premise of this resolution is flawed, because U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities against the Houthis in Yemen, which is what the War Powers Act requires.

If we want to cut off economic assistance or logistic assistance, security assistance to Saudi, there is a way to do that, but it is not through the War Powers Act.

I think it is unfortunate that we couldn't work that out, but I think we are using the wrong vehicle here. I think this confrontation abuses the War Powers process, and we need to protect the integrity of the War Powers Act that Congress, in its wisdom, passed.

Also, what worries me is the resolution stays silent on the role of Iran. It does not condemn the Houthis, who are responsible for the killings. It tells them both to press on. It also undermines the peace negotiations going on, as I speak. The U.S. envoy is working with the full support of the United States to negotiate a political end to this conflict.

Getting all parties to the table has taken substantial pressure, which I believe this resolution would relieve.

Again, I think the fact that the Houthis are using this resolution as propaganda to advance their cause is concerning and disturbing.

The other side cannot tell us specifically what assistance this resolution would cut off. What I can say for sure is that this resolution says to the Houthis and to Iran to keep going, because you can gain more ground.

It only emboldens the rebels who violently overthrew Yemen's government and the radical regime that backs them. That would be Iran.

So I think this resolution would set a dangerous precedent with respect to the War Powers Act, a dangerous, damaging policy. Once again, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the Yemen resolution before us here today is pro-Iran and anti-Israel.

I rise today to offer a motion stating that it is in the national security interest of the United States to oppose the global movement to boycott the State of Israel. This motion will not kill the joint resolution or send it back to the committee. If adopted, the resolution will immediately proceed to final passage.

As we heard from the powerful speech of the Secretary of NATO yesterday, it is in our national interest to work with our allies to counter our shared threats and promote our shared values.

Since its founding in 1948, the United States has stood shoulder to shoulder with Israel against enemies that want to destroy it.

Let's be clear about the BDS movement: It is yet another enemy of Israel. It wants to exclude, isolate, and, ultimately, destroy Israel.

The founder of the BDS movement has stated: ``We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian . . . will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.''

The BDS movement is not about equality. It is not about peace. It is about undermining negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, and it is about placing all of the blame on one party, and that is Israel.

We do not support a movement that demands concessions from one party alone. We do not stand with a movement that seeks to isolate and shame our strongest ally in the Middle East.

By weakening Israel, the global BDS movement endangers American security. When foreign entities like the U.N. foster boycotts against Israel, they are interfering with the United States' foreign policy.

The Senate passed a bill, S. 1, in its wisdom, 2 months ago with overwhelming bipartisan support to tackle BDS, better support Israel and Jordan, and sanction Assad's brutal regime. Sadly, the House Democratic leadership won't let that bill or a House version of that bill to this floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close with this: As the son of a World War II veteran, a B-17 bombardier who bombed the Nazis and was part of the D- day air campaign, it saddens me that we are still struggling here today with the same issues that the Greatest Generation defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Cole for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act, under a rule that would allow an amendment to add a section recognizing the dangers of a precipitous withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan. This amendment would change H.R. 336 to mirror the text of the Senate companion bill S. 1.

S. 1 passed the Senate just last week by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 77-23.

I introduced this House companion in January.

This package of bipartisan bills from last Congress bolsters the security of America and our allies in the Middle East.

This bill authorizes U.S. security assistance to Israel over a 10- year period and updates key elements of our security cooperation to ensure that Israel can respond to the significant threats it faces from its neighbors.

It also reauthorizes the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act, allowing Jordan to remain eligible to receive special treatment for the transfer of U.S. defense articles and services.

Jordan is a critical ally in the fight against ISIS and other extremist groups. We need to make sure that they are adequately equipped to help maintain stability in the Middle East.

H.R. 336 also contains the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act. This bill passed the House earlier this year. It should have been law a long time ago.

This act will impose long-overdue sanctions against Syria's Assad regime and its backers, including Iran and Russia, for their egregious human rights abuses.

Finally, this bill empowers State and local governments in the United States to counter the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, otherwise known as BDS, movement's discriminatory economic warfare against Israel.

These provisions have already passed the Senate with bipartisan support. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question in order to consider this important bill to shore up U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East and take action against Assad's murderous regime.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act authored by my good friend Chairman Engel.

For nearly 7 years, we have watched the barbaric Assad regime launch countless attacks on the people of Syria. Since the conflict began in 2011, more than 500,000 people have been killed and 14 million have been forced from their homes.

This destabilizing exodus has imposed painful burdens on neighboring countries. Our committee has heard disturbing testimony directly from Syrians caught up in this horrific nightmare. In fact, I recently met with the brave defector known to the world as Caesar, for whom this bill is named.

His story is gut-wrenching. He told me about the shocking scale of torture and murder being carried out within the prisons of Syria. The photographic evidence he smuggled out and showed to us proves beyond any doubt the brutality of Bashar al-Assad. The images are shocking and indelible.

The bill before us today will increase international pressure on Assad and his backers by targeting their means of support. Foreign companies and banks will have to choose between doing business with Assad or with the United States.

The bill will also sanction anyone who flies weapons or fighters into Syria to support his murderous regime.

This bill is about creating leverage to push the parties to negotiate. It is about finding a way forward, to be determined by the Syrian people, that does not allow Assad to continue to exterminate them or drive them from their homes.

This bill, as the chairman said, has passed the House twice and is long overdue. I am confident it will pass tonight, and I hope that the Senate will take it up promptly in the new Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join us as we seek to ease the immense suffering of the people of Syria and give them a better hope for the future, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), an original cosponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I once again recognize the work of Chairman Engel, his cosponsors, and former Chairman Royce.

Those of us who have talked to eyewitnesses and seen video and photos will never forget the atrocities perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad: the bombing of the hospitals, the torture of prisoners, and the gassing of children who died agonizing deaths in their beds.

For 7 years international diplomats have debated ways to protect civilians in Syria, with no results. Today, we send a strong message that the United States will work to ensure that Assad's war machine is halted.

It is not too late to act, as Mr. Hill eloquently stated. The people of Syria cannot afford further delay. I urge all Members to support it, and I sure hope this time the Senate will be able to pass it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to help Taiwan regain observer status in the World Health Organization, introduced by my good friend from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

The House passed this bill unanimously last Congress. Because Taiwan has an especially distinguished record of international contributions to global health, Taiwan's exclusion from the WHO is not just unfair, it is also dangerous.

The world is more and more interconnected, and pandemics are a constantly growing threat that can cross borders at the speed of a jetliner. Unfortunately, President Xi and the Communist Party of China continue to jeopardize global health in their campaign to marginalize Taiwan.

Taiwan has been totally excluded from participating at the WHO's World Health Assembly for 2 years running. Ultimately, Taiwan's expulsion from the WHO illustrates a broader trend. Taiwan is a model democracy that makes the world better, while China is a revisionist authoritarian power that places the world at risk.

This year will be significant for U.S.-Taiwan relations as we look forward to the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act.

Xi Jinping just delivered a speech, where he reiterated a willingness to use force against Taiwan, and said: ``The Taiwan issue will disappear with the rejuvenation of the nation.''

I urge my colleagues to start this year on the right foot by supporting Taiwan's WHO participation and telling President Xi that Taiwan will never disappear under our watch.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, diseases and pandemics know no borders. Taiwan is a critical player in the global health and the internationally connected transportation hub. By excluding Taiwan from participation in the WHO, the Communist Party of China is placing the world at risk because of their own insecurities.

I again thank Mr. Yoho and Chairman Engel for this bill which deserves our unanimous support.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to endorse the NATO Support Act. We are rapidly approaching the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a fitting time for the House to reaffirm the importance of the transatlantic alliance.

NATO was born out of the chaos of World War II and built to fortify European democracies against Soviet totalitarianism. Time and again, the alliance has proven that the free peoples of the world are strongest when they stand together.

From the confrontation with communism during the Cold War, to the defeat of Milosevic in Kosovo, to the battlefields of Afghanistan, American soldiers and those of her NATO allies have fought and bled together to protect our country and to make others free.

This alliance has enhanced our military capability, increased our intelligence collection, and created a bulwark against international terror. NATO is critical to our national security and to the preservation of our military prowess around the world.

It solidifies our friendship with the individual countries in the alliance. But friends also must be honest with each other. That is why I am glad that this bill strongly supports the decision of the Wales Summit in 2014, that each member country should ramp up defense spending to 2 percent of their GDP.

An alliance of mutual defense is only as strong as each country's commitment to its spending goals. While some member countries have made great strides toward this commitment, others are still lagging behind.

Statements of support, like this bill, are important in affirming our relationships around the world. But actions speak louder than words. No statement about the importance of NATO speaks as loudly as the tangible commitment each country makes to ensuring the strength of the alliance.

In the meantime, I am glad to join this effort to reaffirm the continuing importance of NATO, which deserves our full support.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the bipartisanship behind supporting this bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, let me first say to Mr. Connolly, we have a lot of passionate partisan debates on this floor, but I have to say, that was a class act on his part, and I thank him for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd), an original cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot overstate the critical role that NATO has played in the history of the 20th century, and for 7 decades, it has been the cornerstone of international security and a force for freedom around the world.

I look forward to its continued vitality in defending America and our allies for another 70 years.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hack Your State Department Act, which will help address lingering cybersecurity gaps at the Department of State.

The massive breach of the State Department's unclassified computer network in 2014 exposed grave weaknesses.

In the years since that attack, problems have continued to mount. The Department's cybersecurity response program received a ``D'' rating, the lowest of any agency, on its Federal Information Security Management Act report card in 2017.

Last September, the Department revealed that it recently suffered a breach of its unclassified email system, which exposed the personal information of some of its employees.

The Department needs cost-effective solutions to these IT security challenges.

Today's legislation directs the Secretary of State to develop and implement a vulnerability disclosure process that will allow threat researchers from the private sector to identify and report cybersecurity flaws.

Currently, there is no legal avenue that allows them to do so. This bill fixes that problem.

The bill will establish a ``bug bounty'' pilot program to reward ethical hackers for discovering and reporting vulnerabilities at the Department.

These programs have been used successfully by the Defense Department and numerous private companies to improve their cyber defenses at minimal cost. In fact, I remember introducing a similar bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

As a national security agency, the State Department must do more to secure its networks. The Hack Your State Department Act is a small but important step towards cost-effective solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the author, Mr. Lieu, for putting his computer science background to work here in the Congress, and he understands, I believe, the nature of the threats that we face in the cyber realm and the importance of a strong cybersecurity partnership between the public and the private sectors.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In closing, I want to again thank the author, Mr. Lieu, and his primary sponsor, Mr. Yoho, for this creative effort to harness private- sector know-how to improve cyber defenses at the Department of State.

As the gentleman, Mr. Lieu, indicated, I moved this very same legislation when I was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee for the Department of Homeland Security, and I believe it is working very effectively. The Department of Defense has done the same thing. Now it is time for the Department of State to take on this challenge as well.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this joint resolution.

I have long maintained that provocations by Vladimir Putin and his cronies require a decisive and forceful response by the United States.

As the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I love the effort to strengthen our cyber defenses so that Russia cannot attack our political institutions and undermine our democracy. I have seen the classified reports and I know the threats. I take a back seat to no one in confronting Russia's malicious activities. The whole world has seen Russia's aggression in Ukraine and its support for Assad's brutality in Syria.

Bottom line, Putin's Russia is an adversary and must be treated as one. An effective foreign policy needs to use all economic and diplomatic tools to confront belligerent behavior by a foreign power. Those who threaten America and our allies need to understand that they will pay a heavy price so long as those threats persist.

As someone who believes that partisanship should stop at the water's edge, as the chairman often says at our Foreign Affairs Committee briefings, I don't believe that this issue should divide our two parties. In fact, it should unite us.

This also means that Congress must guard against playing partisan politics with sanctions. We must impose them when they are warranted, and we must allow them to be lifted when they have accomplished their goals.

I think many Members find Treasury's case for delisting these particular Russian companies to have an argument, but not very compelling.

For example, some still have questions about whether moving some of the oligarch shares to a family charity and to a sanctioned Russian bank will sufficiently sever the control and enrichment that he currently enjoys, and whether we can adequately monitor that with transparency.

Even though we may have a good-faith disagreement about the wisdom of this particular delisting at this point in time, I do want to commend the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. They implement and police many of the sanctions that Congress enacts, and there are good reasons for their bipartisan reputation for integrity and professionalism.

But because we cannot be sure that we have removed the heavy hand of this Russian oligarch, I cannot support the delisting of these sanctioned entities at this point in time. Therefore, I support this joint resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear, as the Republican leader of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that I support this resolution. I am not sure if my opening statement was properly heard by the other side of the aisle, but I join my

colleagues on the other side and support this resolution in a bipartisan manner, as it should be, against our enemy Russia, Putin, and the oligarchs.

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

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

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and, yes, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was in the October 2016 classified briefings on the interference by the Russians in our Federal elections and in our Presidential elections. I condemned it at that time, and I continue to condemn it. I supported sanctions then, and I support those sanctions today.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, until we have been fully satisfied by the Treasury Department, I support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Let me first congratulate Mr. Engel on his ascension to the chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I can't think of a better chairman to work with than Mr. Engel, who is always bipartisan, always says that partisanship stops at the water's edge. And I know, being a national security committee, that we will conduct ourselves with dignity and respect for each other. We may disagree from time to time, but we will always respect each other. I look forward to working with him in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill I sponsored with Mr. Castro of Texas, the Protecting Diplomats from Surveillance Through Consumer Devices Act.

Last year, a report revealed the risk of using wearable technologies such as Fitbits and Apple watches which use GPS tracking. As the report stated, researchers were able to track the movements of deployed troops in overseas locations. This obviously poses an enormous security risk for our soldiers overseas. Enemies could track patrol routes or discover the location of secret foreign installments.

This exposure puts our diplomats at risk as well. We have men and women engaging in diplomatic efforts all over the world, often in sensitive and high-risk areas. We must not make it easier for our enemies to track their movements.

As such, our bill requires the Department of State to establish a policy on the use of location tracking consumer devices by diplomats at U.S. facilities around the world. We introduced this bill last year, and it passed in a large bipartisan fashion.

I want to thank Mr. Castro for his leadership, as well as Chairman Engel for his work on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think protecting our diplomats and ensuring sensitive and classified areas is really critical to our national security. This bill does that.

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