Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support this amendment which simply says that none of these funds may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act in Yemen. We are…
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support this amendment which simply says that none of these funds may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act in Yemen.
We are involved in a critical effort to defeat enemies of our country who took action on 9/11. Al-Qaida and their affiliates have been declared enemies, an authorized force, for nearly 16 years now. And in Yemen, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has found sanctuary.
Unfortunately, we also find ourselves in conflict with other enemies there. It is clear that the Houthis, who are Shia, are not affiliates of al-Qaida. In fact, they are engaged in a civil war there.
Over the years, we have sold arms and munitions, built a great alliance with a good ally in Saudi Arabia, and they are involved there. An enemy of the United States, Iran, is also involved as supporters of the Houthis, and so it is important to maintain our relationship with our ally Saudi Arabia.
It is important to recognize the strategic, operational, and tactical threats posed by Iran and their proxies like the Houthis, but it is also important that
we restore the emphasis of Article I of our Constitution and our clear duty in Congress to authorize our Nation's wars. So this amendment simply says nothing outside of the War Powers Act may be engaged in without further future authorization.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I respect the arguments of my colleagues in support of our national command authority. I wholeheartedly support that. In fact, I wore our Nation's uniform for nearly 12 years, served in Ranger Regiment, though I was not involved as a combat veteran.
I would not want to do anything to limit our ability to fight and win the war on terror. Indeed, the sole intent of this is to keep us laser- focused where we can. Resources are scarce, and the need to focus on defeating our enemies who have already been authorized by combat to engage in combat is critical.
In fact, it does alarm me to see that there is some concern that this is overly broad and limiting, as it is the law of the land. The War Powers Act is recognized as something that does give our Commanders flexibility. It gives them 90 days to engage in combat anywhere where there is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.
That could very well happen in that region of the country. The waters are tight. The threats are real. As I said, there are strategic, operational, and tactical concerns at play.
But this is nothing different than what President Eisenhower foresaw. In an enduring conflict, he said: ``We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method.
``Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle--with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.''
I couldn't say it better, so I borrowed President Eisenhower's words.
I hope we can respect our Constitution, as our duty under it, the oath we have sworn to support and defend it, to limit the scope of our war to things that are Congress-authorized and not passive-aggressively through funding and cutting the checks, but through full authorization. We do not have such authorizations with respect to the Houthis, whether they are in Yemen or other Iranian proxies outside the scope of the War Powers Act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.