REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 28
(House of Representatives - February 13, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H1543-H1556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN YEMEN THAT 
                  HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS


                             General Leave

  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 37.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 122 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the joint 
resolution, H.J. Res. 37.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. 
Plaskett) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1407


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) directing the removal of United States 
Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not 
been authorized by Congress, with Ms. Plaskett in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is considered 
read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an important moment for the House, Madam Chair. For years, 
under administrations of both parties, the Congress has handed away our 
authority and abrogated our responsibility when it comes to foreign 
policy, particularly the questions of how and where our military is 
engaged around the world.
  Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to 
declare war, yet we have given Presidents of both parties a virtual 
blank check to send our brave servicemembers into harm's way while we 
have stood on the sidelines.
  With the measure we are considering today, we take some of that power 
back, and we do so to restore a sense of American values and American 
leadership to the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world.
  For the last few years, we have all seen horrific images of the 
civilian casualties in the Yemen war: starving children, millions 
displaced, outbreaks of deadly disease.
  Madam Chair, 85,000 children have starved to death. Fourteen million 
are on the brink of famine. More than a million suffer from cholera. 
And the ongoing military operations are bringing us no closer to a 
resolution. The only way out of this mess is for parties to sit down 
and work toward a political solution.
  The United States can and should play a role pushing for that 
solution, pushing parties to make a commitment to negotiations. This 
measure, introduced by Mr. Khanna, will help us do exactly that.
  Let me explain why this is so important and why I support passing 
this resolution right now.
  In the last few years, the Saudi-led coalition has carried out 18,000 
airstrikes. A full one-third of those strikes hit nonmilitary targets. 
This is absolutely reckless.
  I am not naive, Madam Chair. I know we have critical strategic 
interests in that region. The Houthis are a problem. They get support 
from Iran. They launch missiles into Saudi territory and international 
waterways, threatening Saudi civilians. They are starving the Yemeni 
people, diverting assistance, and holding civilians hostage to their 
political demands. But we cannot just give the coalition a blank check 
when so many innocent lives are being lost. And if the administration 
won't demand any sort of accountability from the Saudis and Emiratis, 
it is time for Congress to act.
  I want to acknowledge my friend from Texas, the ranking member on the 
Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. McCaul. I believe that he also wants to 
see Congress reclaim our prerogatives on foreign policy, though I 
understand we have an honest difference of opinion on the approach we 
are dealing with today.
  I am glad that we moved this measure through regular order, that we 
had a hearing with experts and a markup, and that the gentleman from 
Texas and I could make our cases before the Rules Committee. It allowed 
me to hear the arguments from all perspectives on this issue.
  I think, during this debate, we will hear my friends on the other 
side call this resolution misguided. I think because this resolution 
has to do with our security agreements with the Saudis and Emiratis, we 
will hear them question what impact this may have on other security 
agreements.
  It is a fair question, to be honest. That is why this measure is 
tailored so specifically to deal with just this situation. This is not 
a broad, blanket policy that is going to tie the hands of the executive 
branch. There is no dangerous precedent being set here, just an attempt 
to stop a war that is costing far too many innocent lives.
  I think we will hear my friends question whether this measure would 
even do anything because this measure withdraws American forces engaged 
in hostilities, and the Pentagon says ``hostilities'' only applies to 
situations where American troops are firing weapons at an enemy. I have 
two reactions to that.
  First of all, this measure would specifically define ``hostilities'' 
to include aerial refueling of warplanes carrying out airstrikes 
against Houthi militants. Now, I understand the Defense

[[Page H1544]]

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

  My second point is broader and gets at the heart of today's debate. 
This body is not subject to the definitions conjured up by the Defense 
Department. We don't ask permission to exercise our Article I 
authority. Of course, the Pentagon will try to define things in a way 
that consolidates the power of the executive branch, but Congress, with 
authority over war powers, need not accept that definition.
  The Congress has lost its grip on foreign policy, in my opinion, by 
granting too much deference to the executive branch, by failing to 
examine the decisions, determinations, and definitions that are used to 
justify sending Americans into harm's way. Our job is to keep that 
branch in check, not to shrug our shoulders when they tell us to mind 
our own business.
  Lastly, I think we will hear my colleagues on the other side ask: 
Isn't this just all politics? No, Madam Chair. Politics is what the 
former majority did to this resolution twice during the last Congress. 
Politics is stifling debate on national security issues because we are 
uncomfortable with the message it might send or we don't want to take a 
tough vote.

                              {time}  1415

  Politics is walking away from our constitutional responsibilities, as 
Congress has done for far too long; and frankly, we have done it for 
far too long, Congresses in both parties with a majority and Presidents 
in both parties.
  Our Article I responsibilities are things that we cannot just simply 
turn the other way. We are a coequal branch of government, and we have 
not had a declaration of war, for instance, since 1941. We are content 
to just tell whatever administration is in, go ahead, you handle it. We 
don't have any responsibility. I hope that that stops this afternoon.
  The other body has already weighed in on this measure. It passed with 
bipartisan support. Today, the Members of the House get our chance to 
go on record finally and say where we stand.
  I joined this resolution as an original cosponsor because I think it 
will lead to a sort of reckoning for our government.
  What is our role in the conflict in Yemen?
  What is Congress' voice in our foreign policy?
  How will we exercise American leadership and American power?
  What will we provide and what will we withhold to push warring 
parties toward peace?
  I want to thank Mr. Khanna for his hard work and for his leadership 
in shining the light on this issue.
  I want to thank our members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee 
who have contributed so far to a valuable debate.
  I want to thank Mr. McCaul, who has made his opposition to this about 
the policy, not about the politics or the personalities. We are going 
to have a lot more debates; sometimes we will be on the same side and 
sometimes not, but I hope we can always grapple with these challenges 
in a substantive way.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. 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.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Khanna), the author of this joint resolution.
  Mr. KHANNA. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Engel for his extraordinary 
leadership to help bring a war in Yemen to an end. I want to thank him 
and Chairman McGovern, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Hoyer, for 
finally speaking up for the millions of Yemenis who are on the brink of 
starvation.
  This is not a complex issue. For the last 2 years, we have been 
assisting the Saudis in bombing Yemeni civilians; and the reports say 
there are 14 million Yemenis who face starvation; 14 million.

  Let's put that in context: 800,000 people died in Rwanda; 100,000 in 
Bosnia, and 14 million face famine in Yemen. And it is not because the 
world doesn't have enough food or medicine to get in there. It is 
because there is a systematic bombing preventing the food and medicine 
to get in.
  We want to send the food. We want to send medicine, but the Saudis 
aren't allowing that food and medicine to get in.
  And what do we know about Saudi Arabia? We know that they were 
responsible for the murder of Khashoggi. We know recently, that MBS 
admitted that he wanted Khashoggi dead.
  We know that they, the Saudis, are supplying arms to al-Qaida in 
Yemen who are fighting our troops. The Saudis are giving arms to the 
very people who are fighting our troops. This is why Senator Lindsey 
Graham has said he may support this resolution.
  The only patriotic thing, if you care about our troops, if you care 
about American interests, if you care about the outrage that the Saudis 
are inflicting on Americans, and on the world, the only patriotic thing 
to do is to vote

[[Page H1545]]

for this resolution. I am convinced it will pass with a bipartisan 
majority.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), ranking member of the House 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, this resolution is misguided, and let me take a few 
moments to illustrate some of the reasons.
  Number 1, as the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. 
McCaul, has described, this is a misuse of the War Powers Resolution. 
It conflates two different sections. It has definitional problems. I am 
not going to repeat all the arguments he has used.
  My point is that, if we use that powerful law, it should be clear, 
direct, and applicable. To misuse it in this way actually weakens the 
authority of Congress, the exact opposite of what the chairman of the 
committee was talking about.
  Secondly, the message coming from this resolution is, Iran, you can 
do whatever you want to.
  Now, it is clear we do not have troops in the fight against the 
Houthis. We do, however, want other countries to join in trying to 
constrain Iran's aggression in various parts of the world. But with 
this resolution, we are saying, Okay, you are on your own. We are not 
going to assist you in any way. And that message reverberates 
throughout the Middle East. It will have lasting consequences.
  Third, if anything, this resolution will make our military more 
cautious when targeting ISIS and al-Qaida.
  Now there is a section in here that says, Well, it doesn't really 
apply when you are going against terrorists. But Yemen is a messy 
place. You have individuals commingled in the same location. Sometimes 
the same individual can have multiple loyalties.
  Our military will be overly cautious in interpreting this resolution. 
They will be less likely to target ISIS and al-Qaida.
  Mr. Chairman, don't forget. It wasn't very long ago the most serious 
threats coming to our homeland, to Americans emanated from Yemen. This 
adds danger to the world.
  Fourth, I think this resolution makes a humanitarian situation worse. 
As long as rockets are fired from Yemen into Riyadh, there will be a 
military response.
  Now, the U.S. has been assisting the Saudis in targeting, so that it 
is narrower; so that they are only targeting military targets and 
minimizing civilian casualties. And yet, this resolution says, No, you 
can't offer that sort of help.
  So what is the result? It is going to, unfortunately, be less 
specific targeting, and I am afraid that the humanitarian situation 
will only grow worse.
  Fifth, and finally, if this passes and signs into law, it will not 
help the people of Yemen one iota. There are lots of things we just 
heard from the author of the resolution, why he does not approve of 
some of the actions going on with Saudi Arabia. This does not help any 
of that.
  It is an attempt to make us feel better, that we have at least done 
something. And yet, the result is, we reduce our influence in the 
Middle East; we encourage and enhance the position of Iran; and we lead 
to a more dangerous world for us. That is quite an afternoon's work.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bera), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee's 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, a very valued member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 37, and 
applaud Chairman Engel, as well as my colleague from California, Mr. 
Khanna, on their leadership.

  This joint resolution would direct the removal of U.S. forces from 
supporting the Saudi and Emirati that campaign in Yemen. We will still 
be supporting our fight against ISIS and al-Qaida in the Arabian 
Peninsula, which Congress has specifically authorized. We are not 
debating that.
  We are also not debating, as some might suggest, setting a precedent 
when it comes to cooperating with our allies. This is about hostilities 
we are engaged in because we are supporting a coalition in war.
  We have not authorized our military to act in the Yemeni civil war. 
This is about reclaiming the jurisdiction of Congress in making a war. 
That is our job. That is what we were elected to do. I would say that 
if there were a Democrat or a Republican in the White House.
  Now, if the administration wants to be involved there, they need to 
come to Congress and make a compelling case. But let's have that 
discussion.
  For that reason, I support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in helping to move this resolution out of the House.
  Mr. McCAUL. 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. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to H.J. 
Res. 37, directing the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from the 
hostilities in Yemen. Actually, the U.S. is not directly engaged in any 
hostilities in Yemen. This is not my independent assessment, but the 
determination of the Department of Defense.
  The U.S. is currently supporting the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen by 
providing targeting assistance, intelligence sharing, and joint 
planning to defeat the Houthi rebels who are armed by Iran, with 
missiles that they have directed at civilian airports in Saudi Arabia.
  There is no doubt that the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen has made 
terrible targeting mistakes. But what would happen if the U.S. were to 
pull the plug on our intelligence-sharing and targeting cooperation?

                              {time}  1430

  Would this improve the coalition's targeting or possibly make it 
worse, increasing the chances for collateral damage and civilian 
casualties?
  I am concerned that, if we walk away now, these terrible tragedies 
will simply multiply.
  The United States must be at the table so that we can insist on and 
respect international law. This does not mean that the coalition will 
always do the right thing, but it does mean that we will have leverage 
and influence to promote the right direction.
  Instead of this resolution, I hope that our colleagues, Foreign 
Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel and Ranking Member, Republican 
leader,   Mike McCaul, will work together on a bipartisan initiative 
that can address these important concerns in Yemen.
  We can all agree that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen must be 
addressed and that the ongoing conflict must come to an end. Let's work 
together as we have always done on the Foreign Affairs Committee to 
address this issue and end the suffering of the Yemeni people.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin), a new member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who is 
already making his mark.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Engel for his 
incredible leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chair, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Congressman 
Khanna's resolution.
  The Saudi-led war in Yemen has led to a staggering crisis, and it is 
happening on our watch. This bombing campaign would not be happening 
without the active involvement of the United States military with the 
Saudis.
  More than 75 percent of Yemen's population needs humanitarian 
assistance. Yemen has one of the highest maternal death rates in the 
region. Its health infrastructure has crumbled, and tens of thousands 
of pregnant women are at risk of serious complications. The list goes 
on and on.
  It is long past time to bring U.S. involvement in this calamity to an 
end.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Congressman Khanna for his leadership and 
Chairman Engel for making this a top priority.
  We have a responsibility not just as Members of Congress, but as 
human beings not just to talk about these horrors, but to do everything 
in our power to end them.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Panetta). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.

[[Page H1546]]

  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
the additional time.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. 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. YOHO. Mr. Chair, I think the chairman for yielding. I appreciate 
it.
  Mr. Chair, this is something that we do need to get resolved, but I 
cannot support H.J. Res. 37.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this resolution, which I 
could not support as it was pushed through the Foreign Affairs 
Committee over strong objection from me and my 16 colleagues.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee has a proud tradition of 
bipartisanship, but that was thrown out the window with this bill.
  Among my objections to this bill is the basic premise of the bill, 
which is flawed. U.S. Forces are not engaged in hostilities between the 
Saudi-led coalition and the Houthi forces in Yemen.
  This bill distorts the definition of hostilities to cover non-U.S. 
military operations by third countries. It then reinterprets U.S. 
activities in support of those countries as U.S. engagement in those 
hostilities.
  I have been well documented throughout my time in Congress as 
opposing the misuse of the War Powers Act. That is really what needs to 
be addressed: the misapplication of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.
  While I wholeheartedly believe that the U.S. Forces put into combat 
roles must be approved by Congress, I cannot stand by as those firm 
beliefs in the Constitution are twisted around to make a political 
messaging point.
  Keep in mind, my colleagues from the other side talk about the 
humanitarian crisis in Yemen, yet they fail to mention the Houthi rebel 
fighters overthrew the legitimate government of President Hadi, and 
this overthrow was sponsored by Iran, which Iran is the largest sponsor 
of state terrorism. That is really where the problem is in this. We are 
there in a different capacity.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues not to vote for this partisan bill 
because, if we break this agreement, we have got over 100 other 
agreements that we would have to negotiate with our allies, and this 
would be bad for America's foreign policy.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for sponsoring this.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Engel, Chairman Smith, 
Representative Khanna, and others for ensuring that the House expresses 
its views on the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.
  After the Republican leader declined to allow this resolution to come 
to the floor in December, I promised to bring it to the floor.
  Here we are, and now the House will have an opportunity to express 
its views to the President and to the country that he ought to end his 
administration's support of the Saudi coalition's military campaign in 
Yemen. It is a campaign that has led to tremendous human suffering, 
with minimal military gains. After 4 years, it is time for a change in 
policy.
  Let me be clear: The Houthi rebels in Yemen are bad actors, engaging 
in brutal actions against civilians, and they are sponsored by Iran. 
The Houthis commit human rights abuses, prevent humanitarian assistance 
to starving civilians, and exercise a brute form of governance in the 
areas they control. We should have no illusion that there are two 
parties responsible for this humanitarian catastrophe; however, we are 
supporting one of them.
  The result of the coalition campaign thus far has been an unmitigated 
humanitarian disaster as well as a military stalemate.
  Using military force to pressure the Houthi rebels into accepting 
coalition demands has demonstrably not worked. It is time, therefore, 
for Congress to make clear to the Trump administration and to our 
country and to the international community that it cannot simply keep 
our Yemen policy on autopilot while the situation not only has not 
improved, but deteriorates.
  With the United States supporting one party to this conflict, the 
best way we promote a peaceful and positive solution is by focusing our 
efforts on the variables that we can affect. It is time that we set a 
new course forward on Yemen and that the House and Senate need to 
demand that the administration uphold basic American values in its 
exercise of our foreign policy. That means ending our support for the 
Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
  Although not the focus of this resolution, I am mindful that this 
debate is taking place a day after the President disregarded the law 
and failed to report to Congress who was responsible for the murder of 
journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The more the President tries to sweep this 
heinous incident under the rug, the more incumbent upon Congress it is 
to act.
  This resolution is bipartisan. A similar resolution passed the United 
States Senate. It was not brought to this floor. I hope it will receive 
the strong support of both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a member of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  I am opposed to H.J. Res. 37, Mr. Chair. This resolution is poor 
policy and will not achieve the aims of those who support it. That is 
really the crux of the issue here.
  My colleagues are using this resolution to express their concerns 
with the actions of Saudi Arabia and the status of the war in Yemen, 
disregarding the dangerous precedent this resolution will send.
  The joint resolution improperly expands the definition of hostilities 
to include non-U.S. military operations by third countries. This bill 
then reinterprets the U.S. activities in support of those countries as 
U.S. engagements in said hostilities.
  The Department of Defense and the White House have both correctly 
stated that, under the longstanding definition of hostilities, the 
United States is not engaged in such in Yemen.
  In order to force a privileged measure in the Senate, my colleagues 
had to expand and distort the definitions in the War Powers Resolution 
to achieve their goals. This is absolutely poor policy, and we cannot 
support such a measure.
  The misuse of this privileged tool endangers U.S. security 
cooperation with over 100 partners around the world, to include Israel, 
NATO, and many antiterror allies.
  Now, I understand my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are 
unhappy with the actions taken by Saudi Arabia. Frankly, I am as well. 
Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, Mr. Chairman, with 
imperfect actors. We must deal with the reality of geopolitics in the 
way that they are and not the way that we wish they would be.
  We and I find many of the things the Saudis to be doing horrific, 
including the murder of Muslim Brotherhood member Khashoggi. I was one 
of the first people to go on the record demanding the declassification 
of the 9/11 report concerning Saudi Arabia, but this will not be the 
first action Saudi Arabia takes that is counter to our beliefs here in 
the United States. During the first 4 months of 2017, Saudi Arabia 
beheaded 48 people.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, according to the reports, half of those deaths 
were for nonviolent drug charges. The Saudi Kingdom executes its 
citizens for blasphemy and crimes against the state, actions that are 
protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  I understand that we are dissatisfied--I am, too--but using poor 
policy to terminate U.S. assistance will not improve conditions in 
Yemen. Iran's own IRGC commander openly admitted that Iran provides 
military assistance to the Houthis in Yemen.
  In this body, we can choose to stand with Iran or the Houthis or, as 
I suggest, to stand with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

[[Page H1547]]

  Mr. Chair, this resolution is not the right step. It is poor policy. 
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a very well-respected member of the House 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Engel for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this resolution. I want to commend 
Congressman Khanna for offering it. It is another step in years of 
pressure that Congress has put on the executive branch to get us out of 
this bloody war in Yemen.
  In 2015, I wrote a letter to the Pentagon about what was then a 
little-known war in Yemen, asking why the U.S. was involved in war 
crimes committed by the Saudis in Yemen.

  I previously served in Active Duty in the military. It was clear to 
me that what the Saudi jets were doing in dropping bombs on innocent 
civilians was a war crime.
  In 2016, I introduced legislation to limit the transfer of air-to-
ground munitions from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia. And then, working with 
other Members such as Representatives Pocan and Welch and others, we 
were able to cause the Obama administration to stop a shipment of air-
to-ground munitions to Saudi Arabia.
  In 2017, I worked with Representative Ted Yoho, and we helped insert 
language into the NDAA requesting the administration to certify what 
the heck it was doing in Yemen.
  And then last August, I wrote a letter to the Pentagon inspector 
general asking for an investigation of whether U.S. personnel were 
aiding and abetting Saudi war crimes in Yemen.
  I am very pleased that a few months later, in November of last year, 
the Trump administration announced it was going to stop the U.S. 
refueling of Saudi jets in Yemen.
  Now we need to pass this resolution as another step in increasing the 
pressure on the administration to get us out of the war in Yemen.
  It is not a partisan issue. This started under Obama's watch, 
continues under Trump's, and at the end of the day, war crimes and 
humanitarian catastrophes are not partisan issues. Every Member of 
Congress should vote for this.
  Mr. McCAUL. 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. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman McCaul for yielding. I have 
great respect for him, as well as our committee chair, Eliot Engel.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 37, directing the 
removal of U.S. Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in Yemen. 
One of the reasons why is because we aren't even engaged in hostilities 
in Yemen.

                              {time}  1445

  The United States is not involved in any direct live fire exchanges. 
Last November, the U.S. stopped aerial refueling of Saudi jets.
  According to the Department of Defense, U.S. support to the coalition 
is for defensive purposes only. It focuses only on helping minimize 
civilian casualties, which means that this resolution, if passed and 
implemented, will actually result in less food and medicine getting 
into Yemen and more civilians dying, and the war will not end.
  If anyone wants to propose a bill and pass one cutting off or 
conditioning specified U.S. security assistance to Saudi Arabia, they 
have the ability to do so. That is not this bill.
  What is also important is that there are a lot of freshman Members 
here in this Chamber, and the fact that we are rushing this to the 
floor so quickly without having a classified briefing for all of those 
Members is also deeply unfortunate. That should take place before 
passing this resolution.
  Congress has many other ways to engage in oversight efforts for U.S. 
security assistance with Saudi Arabia, including approving arms sales 
and through appropriations.
  Our assistance for Saudi Arabia started in 2015, when the Houthis 
overthrew a legitimate government, backed by Iran. The Houthis fired 
missiles against Saudi Arabia with support from Iran, and the U.S. 
provided intelligence and logistical support in compliance with the law 
of armed conflict.
  Iran poses a massive geostrategic threat to Yemen and to the United 
States and many of our allies. Iran is providing training and support 
to the Houthi rebels, including supplying ballistic missiles that have 
been fired into Saudi Arabia. In 2016, missiles were fired by Iranian-
backed Houthi rebels at a U.S. Navy warship near the Bab el-Mandeb. If 
Iran has the ability to cut off global shipping through the Strait of 
Hormuz and el-Mandeb, it would have disastrous consequences.
  If this resolution passes, we are emboldening Iran to continue their 
nefarious ambitions in the region without restraint.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.J. Res. 37. I think Iran would endorse it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Espaillat), another very valuable member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Engel for allowing me 
this opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 37, in which 
Congress will finally reclaim its constitutional authority over the 
power to declare war and will finally address the terrible suffering 
happening in Yemen.
  For 4 years, we have aided the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen, which has 
contributed to the gravest humanitarian crisis in the world, a man-made 
crisis that we could help alleviate, rather than contribute to. This is 
4 years too long.
  The Trump administration has cozied up to the Saudis, ignoring the 
harm they cause in Yemen and their egregious violations of human 
rights. The President has expressed his personal affirmation for the 
Saudi Kingdom on several occasions, saying, ``They give us a lot of 
business,'' and, ``They've been a great ally to me.''
  Trump and those opposed to this resolution have argued that our ties 
to Saudi Arabia are too precious and that our cooperation on 
counterterrorism and countering Iran would be jeopardized by this 
resolution. But in December, when discussing an earlier version of this 
resolution, Senator Lindsey Graham wrote the following: ``The fear that 
the Saudis will stop cooperating with the U.S. on terrorism or Iran 
isn't rational. Those threats pose as much of a danger to the Saudis as 
they do to America. Demanding better from allies isn't downgrading the 
relationship; it's a sign that Americans take our principles seriously 
and won't be taken advantage of by anyone, friend or foe.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Congress to reassert its constitutional 
authority to work to end the suffering of millions and to pass this war 
powers resolution. This is what it is.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Watkins), a member of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my Republican leader, Mr. McCaul, 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.J. Res. 37, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  As a combat veteran, with many years of experience in conflict and 
postconflict environments, I am particularly concerned about this 
resolution. Passing it would pose a threat to many other important 
bilateral agreements that help keep us and our allies safe and make the 
world a better place.
  Even the resolution is misleading. Our Armed Forces are not engaged 
in hostilities in the Yemen conflict. Outside of Yemen, the U.S. Armed 
Forces support an ally, through intelligence sharing, threat analysis, 
and logistical support.
  The strength of our international relations lies on the numerous 
global relationships that we hold. We help each other understand, 
forecast, and eliminate threats. This is especially true in the Arabian 
Peninsula, where ISIS and al-Qaida have been notoriously active.
  Furthermore, pertinent facts relating to Yemen are classified, 
leaving Congressmen and -women to vote blind.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a long history of free-thinking bipartisanship 
when it comes to foreign policy. I ask my colleagues to think for 
themselves, not merely vote along party lines.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Trone), another new member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.

[[Page H1548]]

  Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the 
joint resolution. It is important for us in this institution, in this 
critical moment, to undertake serious debate regarding the use of U.S. 
military in the conflict in Yemen.
  As my colleagues have pointed out, Article I of our Constitution 
clearly states that the power to declare war belongs to the Congress. 
Congress must put down a marker stating it is unacceptable for our 
military to support hostilities we have not authorized.
  Our support for the Saudi-led coalition's efforts in Yemen has proven 
problematic in so many ways. The impact on civilian lives is real and 
painful. Overall, 60,000 lives have been lost.
  Ultimately, the question should be really simple: Did Congress 
authorize our military to engage in hostilities in Yemen? The answer is 
no.
  So, today, we must pass this resolution to stand up for our 
Constitution and stand up for what is right.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to lend their support to that 
effort.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the 
committee for his leadership.
  I rise to speak against this resolution, which would direct the 
removal of U.S. forces from Yemen. This resolution is dangerous, and 
the majority should immediately take this vote off of our schedule.
  The majority claims to be concerned about the threat of Iranian and 
Russian influence around the world. If that were the case, they would 
not force a vote on this war powers resolution.
  Let's be clear: The U.S. is not involved in hostilities in Yemen, so 
this resolution would set a dangerous precedent by calling into 
question many security agreements we have with nations around the world 
that do not involve hostilities. The Pentagon has repeatedly stated 
that America is only providing support to our allies in the region as 
they combat the Houthis, and everyone is trying to reduce civilian 
casualties. Ultimately, we want to limit Iran's ability to gain more 
influence in the region.
  The Houthi rebels are just one part of the Iranian regime's proxy 
battles around the world with the ultimate goal to destroy Israel, 
America, and all those who share our democratic values.
  Mr. Chairman, a vote for this resolution is a vote for Iran. A vote 
against this resolution is a vote for Israel. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this dangerous resolution, and I urge the administration 
to veto this resolution, if it should somehow pass.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a champion of progressive causes.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for shepherding this 
important resolution to the floor.
  Today, Yemen is the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet. Eighty-
five thousand children under the age of 5 have died of starvation since 
2015, and 150 children die every single day.
  The U.S., alongside Saudi Arabia, which has used starvation as a 
weapon of war, has supported targeting for deadly airstrikes, provided 
logistical support and refueling, and sent Special Operations Forces to 
the Yemeni border.
  It is time for these activities to end, absent congressional consent. 
The American people deserve a transparent debate and a vote by 
Congress, per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, before the U.S. 
engages in war-making.
  While the President is tweeting about wars and nuclear bombs, we must 
reassert our authority and end the unconstitutional U.S. participation 
in Yemen's civil war.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
allowing me time, as I do support H.J. Res. 37. Fundamentally, it is 
about Article I and the authority of Congress as addressed in 
Federalist Paper No. 69.
  As the President said, great powers don't fight endless wars. I would 
add nor do they fight or participate in undeclared wars.
  The United States is not participating in the Yemen war in the sense 
that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
characterized. In fact, I personally asked Secretary Mattis on two 
occasions to help draft authorization against Iranian proxies.
  This is, at best, a half measure in that it stops any active 
participation in undeclared unauthorized combat. But it also fails to 
advance the policy of our country, which is to treat Iran as the threat 
it is, not just to the United States of America, but to its neighbors 
and our allies in the region.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Also, I thank Representative Khanna, Representative Pocan, 
and Chairman McGovern for their work in bringing this very critical 
measure to the floor.
  Of course, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 37. Today, I am 
remembering our dear friend and colleague, Congressman Walter Jones, 
who was an original cosponsor. I miss him tremendously. I know he would 
be down here speaking on behalf of this resolution.
  Since 2015, the United States has participated in the Saudi-led 
military campaign in Yemen without authorization from Congress. We have 
helped create and worsen the world's largest humanitarian crisis. 22.2 
million Yemenis, 75 percent of the population, need humanitarian 
assistance. At least 85,000 children under the age of 5 have died from 
war-related hunger and disease.
  Our involvement in this war, quite frankly, is shameful. That is why 
this bipartisan measure to end the United States' unconstitutional role 
in this war is so important. I have long pushed efforts to repeal the 
overly broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 37 
and to support this bipartisan bill to end the United States' role in 
the war on Yemen.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), another very valued member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It 
is a delight to call him that title.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 37, directing the President 
to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting Yemen 
within 30 days.
  Since 2015, the United States has provided support to the Saudi-led 
coalition in its war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
  In addition to claiming an estimated 60,000 Yemeni lives, this war is 
fueling the world's largest humanitarian and refugee crisis. 
Humanitarian agencies estimate that 85,000 children have died from 
malnutrition, more than half the population currently requires 
emergency food assistance, and 1 in every 10 Yemeni children has been 
forcibly displaced from their homes due to the conflict.
  In September of 2018, Secretary Pompeo certified to Congress that the 
Saudi and Emirati Governments were mitigating harm to civilians and 
civilian infrastructure in Yemen. Meanwhile, the Saudi-led coalition 
conducted attacks killing dozens of civilians at a time, often with 
U.S.-provided munitions.
  Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution 
states unequivocally that Congress shall have the power to declare war 
and to raise and support armies and other Armed Forces. That is 
Congress' prerogative in the Constitution.
  Pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, the President must remove U.S. 
Armed Forces engaged in hostilities outside U.S. territory without a 
specific statutory authorization from Congress.
  Congress must reclaim its constitutional role, and American 
complicity in the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen must end. That 
is why I am glad to support H.J. Res. 37, which

[[Page H1549]]

would direct such a removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities 
associated with the Saudi-led coalition war in Yemen.
  Importantly, this legislation defines hostilities to include in-
flight fueling of non-U.S. aircraft conducting counter-Houthi missions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this resolution.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chair, finally, this House is doing what the 
Constitution demands: to debate war and peace.
  The problem here is that President Trump has essentially 
subcontracted out American foreign policy in the Middle East to a 
murderous Saudi regime, and the result has been that 85,000 little 
children under the age of five have been starved to death or have died 
of disease as a result of Saudi blockades and aggression. Indifference 
to their suffering is dooming a generation--unlawful, murderous 
airstrikes with bombs made in America on schools, on hospitals, on 
weddings, on markets.
  All these people who speak out about the security of Israel and of 
America, they seem to have forgotten that these same Saudis have been 
giving away American-made weapons to al-Qaida--al-Qaida--once the sworn 
enemy of the Houthis about whom they complain.
  The Saudi leadership, which approved the killing and dismemberment of 
an American resident journalist, is unsurprisingly not moved by the 
suffering of these children. They are intent on annihilation of the 
Yemenis.
  We cannot let the slaughter continue in the name of American 
taxpayers. The Saudis do not represent our values, but they are using 
our tax dollars and our weapons.
  Instead of shutting down our government, President Trump needs to 
shut down cooperation with the regime that tortures women who speak 
out, that kills its enemies who dare to speak the truth, and that is 
waging an immoral conflict, the world's largest humanitarian 
catastrophe.
  Mr. Chairman, the days of symbolic action have far passed. Months, 
years, hundreds of small graves ago this Congress should have acted. 
Today, we can act to put a stop to this nonsense, this misappropriation 
of our values in the Middle East.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  I have listened to the arguments of my colleagues who say that Saudi 
Arabia is an ally and a partner and we have to support them. Saudi 
Arabia is a questionable ally--we all know that--and it is time to 
reexamine that relationship.
  But I have a question that this raises: If we have an ally that is 
engaged in violent strikes killing innocent civilians, including 
children, do we turn a blind eye and condone that behavior because it 
is ``an ally''?
  Do we condone the bombing of schools, of hospitals, of funerals 
because it is a partner or an ally?
  Do we disregard our own responsibility as human beings to oppose 
violence against innocence because that violence is being perpetrated 
by an ally?
  And, yes, it is true, our troops are not there, but our bombs are, 
our mid-air refuelers are, our targeting folks are.
  We are allowing ourselves to be complicit in what is the greatest 
humanitarian tragedy that is on the face of this Earth at this moment. 
We should not be doing that, and we should stop by voting for this 
resolution.
  Mr. Chair, we have a proud tradition in this country that both sides 
want to honor, and that is to stand up for freedom and for human 
decency and dignity.
  This policy of Saudi Arabia to bomb and bomb again and bomb yet 
again, despite the devastating impact upon innocent people, despite how 
reckless and ineffective it is, must end. Let's end it.
  Mr. McCAUL. 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

[[Page H1550]]

     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. McCAUL. 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. McCAUL. 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

[[Page H1551]]

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. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Today is the day that Congress begins to take back its jurisdiction 
over war and peace. For time after time and year after year, 
administration after administration, Congress after Congress, the 
Congress has relinquished its responsibility given to us by the 
Constitution.
  The Constitution clearly says that Congress has the power to wage 
war, and yet, since President Roosevelt declared war against Japan on 
December 7, 1941, we have had war after war and conflict after 
conflict, and Congress has not had anything to do with it. Congress has 
been silent.
  This is not a matter of whether a war is a good war or a bad war. 
This is a matter of the fact that this Congress needs to make that 
determination.
  Article I makes us a coequal branch of government. And, again, for 
too long, we have had administration after administration, Republican 
and Democratic, usurp the power that should be the Congress'. So this 
is the day my colleagues would begin to take it back.
  Mr. Chair, I know that my friends on the other side of the aisle have 
been saying that this is not the best way to do it, but, you know, I 
have learned through the years that, if you don't take the bull by the 
horns, it is never the best way to do it.
  There is always a reason not to do it. There is always a reason to 
point out certain things and say, well, this is not a perfect 
situation. This isn't the perfect situation. I will be the first to say 
that. But it is perfect in terms of saying we will take back our 
jurisdiction and do what the American people elected us to do.
  Again, I want to thank Mr. Khanna for his tireless work on this 
issue.
  As I mentioned, this measure is an important step in Congress 
reclaiming its role in foreign policy by debating where and when the 
United States military is engaged abroad. I don't think that is too 
much to ask. I think that is what we should be doing.
  With the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, it is critical that we act 
now. We can go after Iran another time--and heaven knows I have been 
the sponsor of many resolutions and bills sanctioning Iran--but this is 
not to mix apples with oranges.
  There is a civil war going on now in Yemen, and innocent children are 
dying. We have an ability to put an end to that, and that is what we 
should do. With this humanitarian crisis, it is critical that we don't 
delay.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 37, 
which would end U.S. involvement in the Yemen conflict that has claimed 
tens of thousands of lives and will soon enter its 4th year.
  The humanitarian situation in Yemen is grave and deteriorating. Since 
the conflict began in 2015 between the Saudi-led military coalition and 
the Houthi militias, Yemen has faced what is widely recognized as the 
worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
  The conflict has displaced millions of Yemenis, shattered the 
country, and triggered a famine that has 13 million men, women and 
children facing starvation.
  Additionally, the country is facing an outbreak of cholera of 
unprecedented scale, with over a million cases of this disease because 
of the destruction of Yemen's water and sanitation infrastructure.
  The United States has provided weapons, targeting assistance and 
refueling support to the Saudi-led coalition since the conflict began. 
However, this support was never authorized by Congress and is not 
covered by any existing Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
  In addition, the coalition's bombing campaign has caused significant 
numbers of civilian casualties, and the conflict continues with no end 
in sight.
  My district is home to a large Yemeni-American community, and I 
constantly hear stories of the suffering caused by the Yemen conflict 
and the dire humanitarian situation on the ground.
  The breadth and magnitude of the humanitarian crisis is almost 
unimaginable, and we must take action to address this without delay.
  This begins with ending our nation's involvement in the Yemen war. 
U.S. involvement in the Yemen conflict has undermined our nation's 
moral authority and has never been authorized by Congress.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important resolution, 
which will send a strong signal that this Congress will not stand idly 
by in the face of such actions.
  H.J. Res. 37 will help bring an end to the suffering of the Yemeni 
people and reassert Congress's authority as a coequal branch of 
government. It is my hope that passage of this resolution will be the 
first step toward healing Yemen and ending this brutal and senseless 
conflict.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.J. 
Res. 37, which directs the removal of United States Armed Forces from 
hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by 
Congress.
  The passage of H.J. Res. 37 would mark the first time in the 45 years 
since the enactment of the War Powers Act that the House of 
Representatives successfully invoked the statute's removal mechanism to 
compel the Executive Branch to remove American troops from harm's way.
  I support this resolution because, Congress has the sole power to 
declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chair, Congress has not declared war with respect to, or provided 
a specific statutory authorization for, the conflict between military 
forces led by Saudi Arabia, including forces from the United Arab 
Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Senegal, and Sudan 
(the Saudi-led coalition), against the Houthis, also known as Ansar 
Allah, in the Republic of Yemen.
  Since March 2015, members of the United States Armed Forces have been 
introduced into hostilities between the Saudi-led coalition and the 
Houthis, including providing to the Saudi-led coalition aerial 
targeting assistance, intelligence sharing, and mid-flight aerial 
refueling.
  The United States has established a Joint Combined Planning Cell with 
Saudi Arabia, in which members of the United States Armed Forces assist 
in aerial targeting and help to coordinate military and intelligence 
activities.
  Mr. Chair, the conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and the 
Houthis constitutes, within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the War 
Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)), either hostilities or a 
situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly 
indicated by the circumstances into which United States Armed Forces 
have been introduced.
  Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)) states 
that, ``at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in 
hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions 
and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory 
authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the 
Congress so directs''.
  Most importantly, no specific statutory authorization for the use of 
United States Armed Forces with respect to the conflict between the 
Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen has been enacted.
  Also, no provision of law explicitly authorizes the provision of 
targeting assistance or of midair refueling services to warplanes of 
Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates that are engaged in such 
conflict.
  For this reason, the resolution directs that the President 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 or associated forces, by not later than 
the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment.
  The resolution makes clear that the term ``hostilities'' includes in-
flight refueling, non-United States aircraft conducting missions as 
part of the ongoing civil war in Yemen.
  Mr. Chair, Yemen is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world 
right now.
  The Yemen crisis began in the Arab Spring of 2011, when an uprising 
forced the country's long-time authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah

[[Page H1552]]

Saleh, to hand over power to his deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi.
  Since 2015, Saudis Arabia has launched an estimated 18,000 air 
strikes on Yemen, attacking hospitals, schools, water treatment plants, 
funerals, markets and even farms.
  The Saudis also imposed a blockade on food, fuel and medicine from 
freely entering the country in what can only be described as a 
deliberate effort to starve the civilian population into submission.
  More than 14 million Yemenis are steps away from starvation and at 
least 85,000 children under the age of five have perished from war-
related hunger and disease.
  The United States has supported the Saudi-led air campaign with mid-
air refueling support, intelligence and targeting assistance, and other 
support.
  Yemen is experiencing the world's worst famine in 100 years, with 12 
million to 13 million innocent civilians at risk of dying from the lack 
of food within months.
  Mr. Chair, too many lives hang in the balance to allow American 
involvement in Yemen war to continue.
  I ask all members to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 37.

                              {time}  1515

  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original joint resolution for 
the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
116-4. The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                              H.J. Res. 37

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under 
     article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States 
     Constitution.
       (2) Congress has not declared war with respect to, or 
     provided a specific statutory authorization for, the conflict 
     between military forces led by Saudi Arabia, including forces 
     from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, 
     Jordan, Morocco, Senegal, and Sudan (the Saudi-led 
     coalition), against the Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, 
     in the Republic of Yemen.
       (3) Since March 2015, members of the United States Armed 
     Forces have been introduced into hostilities between the 
     Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis, including providing to 
     the Saudi-led coalition aerial targeting assistance, 
     intelligence sharing, and mid-flight aerial refueling.
       (4) The United States has established a Joint Combined 
     Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia, in which members of the 
     United States Armed Forces assist in aerial targeting and 
     help to coordinate military and intelligence activities.
       (5) In December 2017, Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis 
     stated, ``We have gone in to be very--to be helpful where we 
     can in identifying how you do target analysis and how you 
     make certain you hit the right thing.''.
       (6) The conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and the 
     Houthis constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a) of 
     the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)), either 
     hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in 
     hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into 
     which United States Armed Forces have been introduced.
       (7) Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1544(c)) states that, ``at any time that United States Armed 
     Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of 
     the United States, its possessions and territories without a 
     declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such 
     forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so 
     directs''.
       (8) Section 8(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1547(c)) defines the introduction of United States Armed 
     Forces to include ``the assignment of members of such armed 
     forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement 
     of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of 
     any foreign country or government when such military forces 
     are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such 
     forces will become engaged, in hostilities'', and activities 
     that the United States is conducting in support of the Saudi-
     led coalition, including aerial refueling and targeting 
     assistance, fall within this definition.
       (9) Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization 
     Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a) provides 
     that any joint resolution or bill to require the removal of 
     United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities without a 
     declaration of war or specific statutory authorization shall 
     be considered in accordance with the expedited procedures of 
     section 601(b) of the International Security and Arms Export 
     Control Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-329; 90 Stat. 765).
       (10) No specific statutory authorization for the use of 
     United States Armed Forces with respect to the conflict 
     between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen has 
     been enacted, and no provision of law explicitly authorizes 
     the provision of targeting assistance or of midair refueling 
     services to warplanes of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab 
     Emirates that are engaged in such conflict.

     SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM 
                   HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE 
                   NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.

       Pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 
     1546a) and in accordance with the provisions of section 
     601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms 
     Export Control Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-329; 90 Stat. 765), 
     Congress hereby 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-Qaeda or associated forces, by not 
     later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this joint resolution (unless the President 
     requests and Congress authorizes a later date), and unless 
     and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for 
     such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted. For 
     purposes of this resolution, in this section, the term 
     ``hostilities'' includes in-flight refueling, non-United 
     States aircraft conducting missions as part of the ongoing 
     civil war in Yemen.

     SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING CONTINUED MILITARY 
                   OPERATIONS AND COOPERATION WITH ISRAEL.

       Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to 
     influence or disrupt any military operations and cooperation 
     with Israel.

     SEC. 4. REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY CEASING SAUDI ARABIA SUPPORT 
                   OPERATIONS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this joint resolution, the President shall submit to Congress 
     a report assessing the risks posed to United States citizens 
     and the civilian population of Saudi Arabia and the risk of 
     regional humanitarian crises if the United States were to 
     cease support operations with respect to the conflict between 
     the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen.

     SEC. 5. REPORT ON INCREASED RISK OF TERRORIST ATTACKS TO 
                   UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES ABROAD, ALLIES, AND 
                   THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES IF SAUDI ARABIA 
                   CEASES YEMEN-RELATED INTELLIGENCE SHARING WITH 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this joint resolution, the President shall submit to Congress 
     a report assessing the increased risk of terrorist attacks on 
     United States Armed Forces abroad, allies, and to the 
     continental United States if the Government of Saudi Arabia 
     were to cease Yemen-related intelligence sharing with the 
     United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 116-
8. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 will not be offered.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Buck

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 116-8.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, after line 13, insert the following new section 
     (and redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING INTELLIGENCE SHARING.

       Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to 
     influence or disrupt any intelligence, counterintelligence, 
     or investigative activities conducted by, or in conjunction 
     with, the United States Government involving--
       (1) the collection of intelligence;
       (2) the analysis of intelligence; or
       (3) the sharing of intelligence between the United States 
     and any foreign country if the President determines such 
     sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests 
     of the United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Buck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I am an original cosponsor of this 
resolution, and it was my understanding at the time that I cosponsored 
this that we would have the opportunity to make this resolution better. 
This amendment that I have offered does just that.
  I actually thought of this amendment after the chairman of the 
committee held a hearing on this issue, and I listened carefully to the 
witnesses.

[[Page H1553]]

The witnesses talked about the fact that our intelligence sharing with 
Saudi Arabia helped target sites in Yemen to bomb and reduced civilian 
casualties.
  I want to make sure that we continue to help Saudi Arabia reduce 
civilian casualties. I want to make sure that we are doing everything 
we can to avoid the humanitarian crisis there. At the same time, we 
recognize the geopolitical significance of our relationship with Saudi 
Arabia.
  I support the resolution with the understanding that we have an 
opportunity to improve this legislation. I am concerned about how 
broadly the legislation is drafted, and it may inadvertently call into 
question our ability to maintain intelligence-sharing agreements around 
the globe; not just in this situation.
  My amendment addresses these potential unintended consequences by 
guaranteeing that this resolution does not curtail our Nation's 
intelligence-sharing capabilities. It ensures our country will not face 
another major terrorist attack or be caught flat-footed in battle 
because the necessary intelligence information didn't reach our 
leaders.
  My amendment keeps the spirit of this important legislation intact, 
while ensuring that this Congress isn't hamstringing our intelligence 
capabilities.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment that will keep our intelligence sharing agreements in place.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. I actually support 
intelligence sharing. We need to work to reduce civilian casualties and 
ensure that the United States has a clear picture into the security 
threats in the region.
  However, this amendment is unnecessary. The underlying resolution 
does not implicate intelligence sharing. I have been very clear about 
what this resolution would do. We have made necessary changes to this 
resolution, but I do not support adding unnecessary rules of 
construction to a resolution which has already passed the Senate.
  For that reason, I am opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, but it 
doesn't. This resolution is not clear, and that is the problem. This 
amendment clarifies something that is unclear.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle feel that we must cut our 
intelligence-sharing operations in order to fully withdraw our forces 
from the region. I don't believe that this is the right course.
  The Middle East is a dangerous, war-torn part of the world where we 
need intelligence sharing more than ever. As such, we must ensure that 
we are not putting our intelligence agreements in jeopardy by passing 
this resolution.
  My amendment keeps the intent of this legislation, allowing Congress 
to exercise its Article I powers, while ensuring that we are not 
cutting off our nose to spite our face.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BUCK. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 177, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 81]

                               AYES--252

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Case
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cisneros
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Correa
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delgado
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luria
     Lynch
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Mast
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Porter
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Torres Small (NM)
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Waters
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Crist
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Peters
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Stanton
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Allred
     Dingell
     Kinzinger
     Payne
     Quigley
     Radewagen
     Ryan
     Sanchez

[[Page H1554]]



                              {time}  1556

  Messrs. GONZALEZ of Texas, GARCIA of Illinois, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, 
Messrs. COHEN, SCHNEIDER, Mrs. LOWEY, Ms. DeLAURO, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. 
LEWIS, Ms. JOHNSON of Texas, and Mr. JEFFRIES changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WILSON of South Carolina, McHENRY, MARCHANT, WALKER, Ms. 
KUSTER of New Hampshire, Messrs. CORREA, CUELLAR, BROOKS of Alabama, 
and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, during Roll Call Vote number 81 on H.J. Res. 
37, the Buck Amendment, I mistakenly recorded my vote as Yes when I 
should have voted No.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Butterfield) having assumed the chair, Ms. Plaskett, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 37) directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from 
hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by 
Congress, and, pursuant to House Resolution 122, she reported the joint 
resolution back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kustoff of Tennessee moves to recommit the joint 
     resolution H.J. Res. 37 to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
     with instructions to report the same back to the House 
     forthwith, with the following amendment:
       Add at the end of section 1 the following:
       (11) It is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to combat anti-Semitism around the world because--
       (A) anti-Semitism is a challenge to the basic principles of 
     tolerance, pluralism, and democracy, and the shared values 
     that bind Americans together;
       (B) there has been a significant amount of anti-Semitic and 
     anti-Israel hatred that must be most strongly condemned; and
       (C) there is an urgent need to ensure the safety and 
     security of Jewish communities, including synagogues, 
     schools, cemeteries, and other institutions.
       (12) It is in the foreign policy interest of the United 
     States to continue to emphasize the importance of combating 
     anti-Semitism in our bilateral and multilateral relations, 
     including with the United Nations, European Union 
     institutions, Arab League, and the Organization for Security 
     and Cooperation in Europe.
       (13) Because it is important to the national security 
     interest of the United States to maintain strong bipartisan 
     support for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, 
     all attempts to delegitimize and deny Israel's right to exist 
     must be denounced and rejected.
       (14) It is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to oppose restrictive trade practices or boycotts 
     fostered or imposed by any foreign country against other 
     countries friendly to the United States or against any United 
     States person.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill. It would not kill the bill nor send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the resolution will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  Mr. Speaker, the attack in October last year against the Tree of Life 
synagogue in Pittsburgh was a devastating assault on the Jewish 
community. By inflicting violence on a neighborhood congregation's 
Shabbat morning service, the gunman sent a bone-chilling message; even 
in 2018, hate-filled individuals will attack Jews simply for being 
Jewish.
  The Anti-Defamation League believes that this is the deadliest attack 
on the Jewish community in the history of the United States of America. 
This tragedy is merely one part of an upsetting development that has 
emerged in recent years, a resurgence of anti-Semitism around the 
globe.
  The Anti-Defamation League reported a 60 percent rise in anti-Semitic 
incidents in the United States from 2016 to 2017.
  In December, the European Union released a survey of over 16,000 
European Jews, which reported that ``anti-Semitism pervades everyday 
life,'' undermining European Jews' feelings of safety and security.
  Mr. Speaker, we should all be alarmed by this international trend. No 
one should be forced to live in fear of violence, or be deterred from 
participating in their faith community.
  The United States must remain a global leader, not only in speaking 
out against anti-Semitism, but in holding those who enable these vile 
beliefs accountable.
  Our motion to recommit adds language to H.J. Res. 37 that affirms 
that it is in the national security interest of the United States to 
combat anti-Semitism around the world. It states that we must make 
combating anti-Semitism a priority in all of our diplomatic 
relationships; and we need to ensure that Jews around the world feel 
safe in their communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned by the measure the Democrats 
have called up today on Yemen, but if this resolution is going to move 
forward, it should do so while making a strong statement that the 
United States has no tolerance for anti-Semitism.
  I urge all Members to stand in solidarity with Jews around the world 
and support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, although I do 
not oppose the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I accept this resolution, and I 
agree with everything that Mr. Kustoff just said. Anti-Semitism is a 
scourge. It is a scourge on humanity; it is a scourge on this country; 
and it has to be fought just the way prejudice of any kind has to be 
fought.
  I think that this entire House should support this and say, once and 
for all, with a united voice, we will not tolerate anti-Semitism in any 
shape or form.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on:
  Passage of the joint resolution, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 995, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424, 
noes 0, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               AYES--424

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird

[[Page H1555]]


     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Fulcher
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Green (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Olson
     Omar
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Amash
     Massie
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Allred
     Dingell
     Kinzinger
     Quigley
     Ryan

                              {time}  1616

  Mr. VISCLOSKY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in 
the motion to recommit, I report the joint resolution, H.J. Res 37, 
back to the House with an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:

       Add at the end of section 1 the following:
       (11) It is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to combat anti-Semitism around the world because--
       (A) anti-Semitism is a challenge to the basic principles of 
     tolerance, pluralism, and democracy, and the shared values 
     that bind Americans together;
       (B) there has been a significant amount of anti-Semitic and 
     anti-Israel hatred that must be most strongly condemned; and
       (C) there is an urgent need to ensure the safety and 
     security of Jewish communities, including synagogues, 
     schools, cemeteries, and other institutions.
       (12) It is in the foreign policy interest of the United 
     States to continue to emphasize the importance of combating 
     anti-Semitism in our bilateral and multilateral relations, 
     including with the United Nations, European Union 
     institutions, Arab League, and the Organization for Security 
     and Cooperation in Europe.
       (13) Because it is important to the national security 
     interest of the United States to maintain strong bipartisan 
     support for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, 
     all attempts to delegitimize and deny Israel's right to exist 
     must be denounced and rejected.
       (14) It is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to oppose restrictive trade practices or boycotts 
     fostered or imposed by any foreign country against other 
     countries friendly to the United States or against any United 
     States person.

  Mr. McCAUL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  Mr. HOYER. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248, 
nays 177, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 83]

                               YEAS--248

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)

[[Page H1556]]


     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--177

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Amash
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Allred
     Dingell
     Kinzinger
     Quigley
     Ryan

                              {time}  1628

  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained this afternoon 
immediately following the vote on final passage of H.J. Res. 37. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 83.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ALLRED. Mr. Speaker, as I am back home in Dallas, Texas on 
paternity leave with my family, I submit the following vote 
explanation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 
No. 78, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 79, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 80, ``yea'' 
on rollcall No. 81, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 82, and ``yea'' on rollcall 
No. 83.

                          ____________________