    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     MARKUP OF: 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

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 6, 2019

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 116-3

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                                docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                               _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    35-361 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2019

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                       ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman

    BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York               Member
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    KAREN BASS, California               SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts       TED S. YOHO, Florida
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    AMI BERA, California                 LEE ZELDIN, New York
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York          BRIAN MAST, Florida
    TED LIEU, California                 FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota              JOHN CURTIS, Utah
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                KEN BUCK, Colorado
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas                  RON WRIGHT, Texas
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia         TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       GREG PENCE, Indiana
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
    DAVID TRONE, Maryland                MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
    JIM COSTA, California
    JUAN VARGAS, California
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas

                        Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director

                   Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                           STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

    Representative David Cicilline...................................    40
    Representative Ken Buck..........................................    42

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    37
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    38
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    39

                 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Report to Congress...............................................    12
    Statement of Administration Policy...............................    19
    Department of Defense letter.....................................    20
    New York Times article submitted by Representative Cicilline.....    43

                                  RECORD VOTE

    Record Vote Talley...............................................    47

                                 MARKUP SUMMARY

    Markup Summary...................................................    48

     MARKUP OF: 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

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2019

                              House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                         Washington, DC
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:34 p.m., in
    Room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot Engel
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Engel. A quorum which is carried over from before
    is present, and we meet today to consider a single item.
    Pursuant to notice for purposes of markup, I call up House
    Joint Resolution 37.
        [H.J. Res. 37 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Without objection, the resolution is considered read the
    first and second time and open for amendment at any point and
    committee members may have five calendar days to submit
    statements for the record.
        According to House Rule 11 Clause 2, the chair announces
    that he may postpone further proceedings today on the question
    of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment on
    which a recorded vote is ordered.
        Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time. Now I recognize myself for opening remarks.
    We are going to have opening remarks, Mr. McCaul's opening
    remarks. Then we are going to go to vote and come back
    immediately after votes to mark this up and to have members say
    anything they might want to say.
        So the committee has just heard testimony about the crisis
    in Yemen, about the death, disease, and displacement of
    millions that this destructive conflict has caused, and in my
    view, it is incumbent on this committee and this body to do
    everything we can to put a stop to it. We need to push all
    parties toward a political solution.
        And let me explain why I think this measure introduced by
    Mr. Khanna of California will help us do that.
        Now, in last year's Defense Authorization, Congress
    required the administration to certify that the Saudis and
    Emiratis were taking real steps to reduce the risk of harm to
    civilians and civilian infrastructure resulting from the
    military operations in Yemen.
        In the period of time before the certification was due,
    attacks against civilians rose sharply. According to the
    International Red Cross, August was the most violent month in
    2018 in Yemen with nearly 500 people killed in just 9 days.
        Since 2015, the coalition has undertaken 18,000 air
    strikes. That is one every 99 minutes, if you do the math.
    Fully one-third of those have hit nonmilitary targets--one in
    three.
        This is not just a statistic. One of those one in three was
    a school bus in northern Yemen with 40 children on it. That is
    not acceptable.
        So I was stunned, frankly, that in September the
    administration certified that the Saudis and Emiratis were
    indeed taking these steps, these so-called demonstrable actions
    to reduce civilian deaths.
        The administration simply could have waived the
    requirement. The law allowed that. But they did not. They
    essentially told us not to believe our eyes.
        Let me be clear. We have real strategic interests in that
    part of the world. Iran continues to destabilize the region and
    their support for the Houthis is only part of their strategy to
    bleed their regional adversaries.
        But I do not support providing assistance that we know is
    being used to kill civilians. And so, if the administration
    will not demand any sort of accountability from the Saudis and
    Emirates, the work then falls to the Congress.
        The Pentagon cutoff refueling as a matter of policy. But
    that could be reversed at any time. This resolution would
    cutoff refueling as a matter of law. It also sends a clear
    message to the administration, to our partners in the Gulf, and
    to our adversaries that Congress will not sit back and shirk
    our responsibilities when it comes to foreign policy. It is
    time to have the debates about how, when, and where the U.S.
    military is engaged around the world. This resolution is
    sparking that debate.
        So I will support moving this measure to the floor and at
    this time I will yield to the ranking member for any comments
    he might have.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a tremendous respect for the chair, but I must say
    this first markup is a a departure from the strongly bipartisan
    cooperation that we have enjoyed on this committee.
        I believe that this committee does have a solemn
    responsibility to appropriately exercise congressional war
    powers under Article 1 of the Constitution. But the mechanism
    to force withdrawal of U.S. forces under the War Powers Act
    applies only when we are engaged in live fire hostilities.
        This is not the case here. This is not what our military is
    doing currently in Yemen. This resolution would set a very
    dangerous precedent. Are we now going to allow any member to
    use this privileged war powers tool to second guess all U.S.
    security cooperation agreements throughout the world?
        This interpretation could impact our assistance to Israel.
    It could impact our cooperation with African nations in the
    Sahel. We could recklessly undo critical security relationships
    we have spent decades building.
        This is not what the War Powers Resolution has ever meant
    and it should not be used this way now. A vote in favor is a
    victory for bad policy.
        As we heard at this morning's hearing, the situation in
    Yemen poses critical, strategic, and humanitarian issues that
    deserve careful attention. If we want to discuss conditioning
    assistance to Saudi Arabia in this conflict, that is an area we
    can explore and debate.
        But this resolution is trying to hammer a square peg into a
    round hole. It misuses an extraordinary an extraordinary War
    Powers tool to try to get at the issue of security assistance
    to a third country.
        Even our aerial refueling of Saudi jets, which does not
    constitute hostilities as traditionally understood, ended last
    November. And I spoke with Defense Department representatives
    yesterday who reaffirmed that U.S. forces are not engaged in
    hostilities against Houthi forces in Yemen.
        They confirmed the continuing accuracy of the detailed
    letter sent to Congress last year by the department's acting
    general counsel.
        No one is saying that U.S. security assistance to Saudi
    Arabia or anyone else is beyond congressional scrutiny. We have
    many tools to use including this committee's arms sales
    notifications, targeted legislation, and the annual
    appropriations process, among others.
        But this resolution 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
    hostility.
        This has implications far beyond Saudi Arabia. Under this
    model, if any Member of Congress does not 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, quote, ``in or affecting,''
    unquote, that situation. It no longer matters that U.S. forces
    are not actually conducting those hostilities.
        The bill is vague and irresponsible. It will create doubts
    for our partners and allies around the world. It will trouble
    the many Americans who believe the burden sharing with capable
    allies is vital for U.S. national security.
        And for that reason, I oppose this measure and, Mr.
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place into the record
    three documents.
        One, the January 2019 Department of Defense report to
    Congress concerning our similar acquisition and cross-servicing
    activities with over 117 nations around the world including our
    NATO allies, CT partners in the Sahel, Israel, and others.
        Two, the November 28th, 2018 statement of the
    administration policy opposing S.J. Res. 54 because, quote,
    ``The United States forces are not engaged in hostilities
    between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi forces in Yemen,''
    unquote.
        And third, the February 27th, 2018 letter from the
    Department of Defense Office of General Council explaining the
    legal and security concerns posed by the approach used by
    today's resolution.
        I ask unanimous consent to place those in the record.
        Chairman Engel. Without objection, so moved.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. McCaul. And I thank the chairman for that and, again, I
    oppose this measure and I yield back my time.
        Chairman Engel. The ranking member yields back.
        Does any other member seek recognition on the resolution? I
    am told Mr. Connolly does.
        Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the juridical distinction made by the ranking
    member that the United States is not technically involved on
    the ground in hostilities.
        But the United States most certainly has been involved in
    equipping, re-equipping, training, and other support for the
    Saudi activity in Yemen that has led to one of the greatest
    humanitarian crises on the face of the planet.
        And that is what we are trying to address today. We can
    hide behind juridical language that it is not technically a
    combat involvement of the United States. But it begs the
    question.
        Since 2015, the United States has provided support to the
    Saudi-led coalition in its war against Houthis rebels in Yemen.
    In addition to claiming an estimated 60,000 Yemeni lives, this
    war is fueling the world's largest humanitarian crisis.
        Humanitarian agencies now estimate that 85,000 children--
    children--have died from malnutrition. More than half the
    population currently requires emergency food assistance and one
    in every ten Yemeni children has been forcibly displaced from
    his or her home due to this conflict.
        In September 2018, Secretary Pompeo certified to this
    Congress that the Saudi and Emirate government were mitigating
    harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure in Yemen.
        Meanwhile, the Saudi-led coalition has conducted attacks,
    killing dozens of civilians at a time often with U.S.-provided
    munitions, giving--belying the certification made in September
    2018.
        Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution
    States unequivocally Congress shall have the power to declare
    war and to raise and support armies and other armed forces.
        I would argue, just as the executive branch says there are
    implied in the role of commander in chief, certainly there are
    implied powers about our ability to stop military interventions
    as we deem fit. Article 1 says so, as far as I am concerned.
        Pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93148,
    the president must remove U.S. armed forces engaged in
    hostilities outside U.S. territory without a specific statutory
    authorization if Congress so directs, and I would argue that
    that's a broad, broad authority for Congress.
        It does not necessarily mean U.S. combat troops on the
    ground. Support for ongoing hostilities by a third power--an
    ally--certainly qualify as far as I am concerned.
        Chairman Engel. Will the gentleman yield? We are concerned
    that there's time running out. There is 37 seconds left. So----
        Mr. Connolly. I support the resolution in front of us. I
    believe Congress needs to reclaim its congressional power and I
    will vote for the resolution pending before this committee.
        I thank the chair.
        Chairman Engel. I thank the gentleman.
        The committee will now recess until after votes on the
    floor. The committee stands in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Engel. The committee will come back to order.
        For those who were not here, before we broke I gave my
    opening statement and the ranking member gave his opening
    statement and then Mr. Connolly of Virginia gave a statement.
        So we can now call on any other members seeking
    recognition. First we will start from the Republican side.
    Anybody seeking recognition?
        Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the Foreign Affairs
    Committee has always had a strongly bipartisan cooperation to
    work on issues that are so important to the American people.
        I believe the committee has the solemn responsibility to
    appropriately exercise the congressional War Powers Act under
    Article 1 of the Constitution.
        But the mechanism to force withdrawal of U.S. forces under
    the War Powers Act applies only when we are engaged in live-
    fire hostilities. This is not what our military is currently
    doing in its operations and support of operations in Yemen.
        This resolution would set a very dangerous precedent as we
    are now going to allow any member to use this privileged war
    powers tool to second guess all U.S. security cooperation
    agreements throughout the world.
        This interpretation could impact our assistance to Israel.
    It would impact our cooperation with African countries in the
    Sahel. It would recklessly undo critical security relationships
    we have spent decades building.
        This is not what the War Powers Resolution was ever meant
    and it should not be used in this way. A vote in favor is a
    victory for bad politics.
        As we have heard at this morning's hearing, the situation
    in Yemen poses critical strategic and humanitarian issues that
    deserve careful attention. If we want to discuss conditioning
    assistance to Saudi Arabia in this conflict, that is the area
    that we need to explore and debate.
        But this resolution is trying to hammer a square peg into a
    round hole. It misuses the extraordinary War Powers tool to try
    to get to the issue of security assistance to a third country.
        This--even our refueling of Saudi jets, which does not
    constitute hostilities as traditionally understood, ended last
    November. I spoke with the Department of Defense
    representatives yesterday who reaffirmed that U.S. forces are
    not engaged in hostilities against the Houthis forces in Yemen.
        They confirmed the continuing accuracy of the detailed
    letter sent to Congress last year by the department's acting
    general counsel.
        No one is saying that U.S. security assistance to Saudi
    Arabia or anyone else is beyond congressional scrutiny. We have
    many tools to use including the committee's arms sales
    notifications, targeted legislation, and the annual
    appropriations process, among others.
        But this resolution stretches the definition of hostilities
    to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries. It
    reiterates and reinterprets U.S. support to these countries as
    engagement in hostilities.
        This has implications far beyond Saudi Arabia. Under this
    model, if any Member of Congress does not like something that
    any of our security partners conducts overseas, that member can
    force quick consideration of a resolution directing the removal
    of U.S. forces from hostilities, quote, ``in or on affecting,''
    end of quote, that situation. It no longer matters that U.S.
    forces are not actually conducting the hostilities.
        The bill is vague and irresponsible. It will create doubts
    for our partners and allies around the world. It will trouble
    the many Americans who believe that burden sharing with capable
    allies is vital for U.S. security to protect American families.
        For these reasons, I strongly oppose this measure. I yield
    back my time.
        Chairman Engel. Are there any other members seeking
    recognition?
        Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you for moving quickly to
    give this committee the opportunity to advance debate on U.S.
    involvement in the Yemen conflict. It is a debate that is long
    overdue.
        As we just heard earlier today, U.S. presence in the
    Arabian Peninsula and our relationships with regional States
    are vital to stability in the Middle East. These ties are
    enduring and date to the end of the Second World War.
        We should be clear from the outset that we value our
    alliances and we do share common interests. But we should be
    honest in reassessing where those interests diverge and in
    identifying actions that set back our mutual objectives.
        First and foremost, we have to view our relationship with
    regional States through the prism of our own interests. Where
    do our priorities align? What types of action undermine our own
    goals?
        The Saudis and Emirates are preoccupied with their campaign
    in Yemen, which they see as a direct threat to their national
    security. The U.S. is right to support these countries' right
    to self-defense and shares the concern that Iran is assisting
    the Houthis to further its own regional ambitions.
        But I also remain deeply troubled by the protracted
    military campaign in Yemen. The number of civilian casualties
    is alarming, to say the least. The lack of humanitarian access
    that has fostered famine and other extreme conditions and has
    put tens of millions of people at risk of starvation and
    disease is creating the worst crisis in decades.
        And I fear that the United States, through our coalition
    support, may be furthering the suffering and helping to
    perpetuate a conflict that has no military solution.
        The coalition war against the Houthis also redirects
    attention away from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the most
    dangerous branch of al-Qaida, and one that has sought to attack
    the United States directly.
        In fact, public reporting has indicated these very groups
    the U.S. has long targeted in Yemen have at times been
    empowered by our own allies. Numerous reports of the use of
    child soldiers on both sides, illegal detention centers, shadow
    mercenaries, and continued reckless targeting should at least
    give us pause to reexamine exactly what role we should play in
    this conflict.
        That is why I am an original co-sponsor of H.J. Res. 37.
    That is why I will vote in support of it today. For too long
    this Congress has abdicated its role in foreign policy.
        Last Congress procedural moves were made to prevent us from
    even having this debate. The Trump administration, our Saudi
    and Emirate partners, the Houthis, and the Iranian backers must
    know that the status quo is unacceptable and must take greater
    steps to reach a diplomatic settlement to end the war.
        The administration has only been willing to stand up for
    U.S. principles when there is sustained pressure by Congress,
    as we saw with the suspension of refueling. It is time for
    accountability.
        The world must know that the United States does not accept
    and cannot be complicit in the deaths of innocent civilians in
    Yemen. Being an ally does not mean being given free rein and we
    must ensure that we are supporting our partners and making
    decisions that are in our best interest.
        I look forward to continuing this debate with my colleagues
    on the House floor and I look forward to ensuring that our
    policies in the Middle East are also protecting U.S. security
    interests.
        And I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to speak on
    this and yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Kinzinger.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Chairman, I can pass on my opening
    statement if there is nobody else. Otherwise, I will speak.
        Chairman Engel. I think--Mr. Curtis, I think, wanted to
    speak.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Yes, go ahead.
        Chairman Engel. Mr. Curtis.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul,
    for giving me a brief moment to speak regarding House Joint
    Resolution 37 directing the removal of U.S. armed forces from
    hostilities in Yemen.
        To be clear, I support the intent of the resolution. I have
    spoken often and including on the House floor regarding my
    concerns with U.S. involvement in Yemen's civil war.
        This is one of the world's deadliest wars that has killed
    tens of thousands of civilians. It is horrific--a horrific
    humanitarian crisis. An estimated 85,000 children have been
    killed or died of malnutrition and disease.
        The time has come for the U.S. to reconsider our support of
    this disastrous war and to consider the moral imperatives that
    form the foundation of our values and strategic interests.
        It is my fear that our continued support of the Saudi-led
    coalition's effort in Yemen will only increase resentment of
    United States in the region and could diminish America's
    reputation as champion of human rights and civil liberties.
        Aside from the gross inhumanity of this war, I have growing
    concerns about the behavior of Saudi Arabia as it affects our
    larger American strategic interest in the region and our
    interest in preserving global humanitarian norms.
        With all of that said, I will be voting no on the
    resolution before the committee today. My concerns are with the
    way the resolution is written and I believe it is the wrong
    vehicle to achieve the objective.
        I believe that the resolution distorts the War Powers tool
    to address the situation in Yemen. It is my concern that this
    resolution could set a dangerous precedent and would have the
    unintended consequences of complicating U.S. security
    cooperation with partners around the world.
        And for those reasons, I oppose the resolution. With that,
    Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Lieu.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Yemen is not and should not be a partisan issue. As all of
    you know, U.S. assistance to the Saudi-led coalition started
    under the Obama Administration in September 2015.
        I wrote a letter to the Pentagon about this then little
    known war in Yemen because we were seeing reports that the
    Saudi-led coalition was striking innocent civilians.
        In the following months and years more and more Democrats
    as well as Republicans started to get involved, and it is not
    just the humanitarian catastrophe we are concerned about. It is
    war crimes.
        And regardless of what your view is of Saudi Arabia or our
    relationship, we cannot be assisting a coalition that is
    engaging in war crimes.
        We also know, based on years of looking at their activity,
    it is not as if the Saudi jets are trying to hit a moving
    Houthi target and they miss and they strike a bunch of
    civilians.
        What they are doing is precisely trying to strike the
    civilians. They have intentionally hit schools, wedding
    parties, funerals, most recently a bus with over 40 school
    kids.
        And that is why I support this resolution. I do note that
    some of my Republican colleagues do have concerns related to
    War Powers.
        That is why Representative Malinowski, Yoho, and I also
    introduced a simple clean bill that just tells us to get out of
    Yemen and the Armed Services Committee will have jurisdiction
    over that.
        Having said that, I support this resolution and I urge
    people to support it as well.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you.
        Does any other member seek recognition?
        If not, we can go to an immediate vote.
        Mr. Kinzinger.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did change my
    mind because there was more discussion than I thought. So thank
    you for this opportunity to address this again.
        Mr. Chairman, I respect the intention of everybody to try
    to get to the solution. I respect the fact that everybody has
    compassion for what is going on in Yemen, as we all should.
        I am going to make the point that I made earlier today,
    which I think is very important to make, before I make a few
    other points.
        The vast majority, or at least a significant number of
    people that are on this committee are freshmen. The freshmen on
    this committee have not had an opportunity to be briefed by the
    administration on what is going on in Yemen and what we are
    doing in Yemen.
        The reason many people that are supporting this are
    supporting this are supporting this and OK voting for this
    without being briefed in a SCIF about what is going on in
    Yemen. And I hate to say this because I love this committee,
    but it is political.
        It is because back home the Yemen war is all over Twitter
    and because there is pressure so we want to just pass this
    thing out of here. I mean, I love the hearing we did earlier.
    That is important.
        But for the very first action of this committee to be to
    pass a War Powers Resolution that has nothing to do with what
    the War Powers Resolution was intended to do, the fact that
    there is over a hundred agreements between the Department of
    Defense and other countries that this, if passed, would now
    open up for any Member of Congress who disagrees with any one
    of those cooperation agreements to do the same exact thing.
        Let us say we have a member of this committee that is--or
    of Congress that does not like our engagement with Israel. By
    the way, I notice that in this resolution it says none of this
    shall be construed to hurt our cooperation with Israel.
        Well, that is true. It also is not construed for our
    cooperation with Georgia or the puppy brigade or anybody
    because this is specifically about Yemen.
        The point about Israel is this opens up that opportunity
    now for any member to come forward and say they disagree with
    our military cooperation with Israel and do a privileged
    resolution and force a vote on the floor.
        In the country of Georgia, where a third of it is occupied
    by Russian forces, we have cooperation with that nation. Now
    anybody that is pro-Russian can come forward and say that we
    need to debate ending cooperation with the Georgian military
    and everything else.
        I am not--look, if you vote for this I do not think you are
    a bad person. Trust me. I do not think you have America's
    interests not at your heart. But my request of this committee,
    if we are going to take up this resolution is let us all have
    really good discussions about it.
        Let us have information in the SCIF about what we are
    really doing over there. Let us have a detailed discussion
    about what happens if we pull out all cooperation of Saudi
    Arabia and what does that look like in terms of targeting in
    Yemen, and go through what we need and then as a committee we
    can have this vote.
        But, Mr. Chairman, respectively, and I have a great deal of
    respect for you, this is our very first committee action and we
    are getting ready to take an action that is going to have
    detrimental consequences without really thinking it through.
        So I have a great deal of respect here for all of my
    colleagues. But I would beg you--I would beg you to think
    through what your vote would have. I get the political
    implications of this. I get that Saudi Arabia, for instance, is
    a hot topic right now in the political sphere.
        But what we do on this committee is not about politics.
    There is always some of that. We get it. What I have loved
    about being on the Foreign Affairs Committee and the reason I
    have fought hard to get my waivers to be on this committee is
    because this is a committee that puts partisan politics for the
    most part in front--behind what is good for this Nation.
        And if you all think this is good for this Nation, that is
    fine. But I think you need to make that decision after having
    all the information in front of you before just saying in the
    very first meeting of this committee let us have a vote that
    could have a massive impact, open up over a hundred defense
    agreements for any other member of the House of Representatives
    that takes a problem with that to debate and bring a privileged
    resolution.
        So with all due respect, I would beg you to vote against
    this. I would beg the majority to pull this resolution. But if
    they do not pull it, I would beg you to vote against it.
        Let us get briefings, let us move on, and then have a
    really good debate and vote after that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you.
        Mr. Malinowski.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I very much appreciate the sentiment that was just
    expressed and the passion behind it. With respect, I am a
    freshman who has spent many, many hours in SCIFs looking at
    this situation, having helped to oversee some of our assistance
    to Saudi Arabia in this conflict.
        We have a number of freshman members here who have
    significant national security experience. So I think we should
    debate the substance of this rather than suggest that any of us
    on this side have not thoroughly studied the question.
        For me, I--look, many of us on both sides have concerns
    about our engagement with Saudi Arabia. I share some of my
    Republican colleagues' concerns about not overusing the War
    Powers Resolution.
        I think there may be other ways to address these concerns,
    and as Mr. Lieu mentioned, we hope to be able to work together
    with you on that.
        But the question here before us is a very simple one. Are
    we actually involved in active hostilities with the Saudis in
    Yemen?
        I can tell you most of my former colleagues in the State
    Department who are lawyers looking at this question believe
    that the answer to is was yes and I think it stands to reason.
        Imagine, if you will, if a foreign power were engaged in
    air strikes against Washington, DC. as we spoke and a second
    foreign power was refueling its aircraft over the Chesapeake
    Bay and then servicing those aircraft when they landed to stock
    up on bombs again so that they could resume their operations
    against us.
        Would we consider the second power to be engaged in active
    hostilities against us? I think all of us in this room would
    say yes. We are deeply, deeply embedded in the Saudi conflict
    in Yemen in a way that we are not in the various partnership
    relationships we have in Africa, in the Middle East, that my
    friend fears that this will implicate.
        I think the standard we are setting here for defining
    engagement in active hostilities is in fact very, very high,
    very, very appropriate and I will be voting for this resolution
    as a result.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield for a question?
        Mr. Malinowski.
        Mr. Malinowski. Yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my friend agree, in addition to the
    points he made, that we are arguing over what constitutes
    combat and hostilities and that the support we have been giving
    in the Yemen conflict with the Saudis would clearly fall within
    the penumbra of hostilities and combat support involving U.S.
    military if not on the ground?
        Mr. Malinowski. I would say yes and in a way that is
    distinct from most of our partner relationships around the
    world. The provision of weapons to Saudi Arabia, in my mind,
    would not rise to that level.
        Mr. Connolly. And would my friend----
        Mr. Malinowski. But refueling operations, targeting where
    we are actually there with them selecting the target and
    enabling the aircraft to reach the target, if any--if this was
    being done to us there is no question in my mind that we would
    agree that that would be hostilities against the United States.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Will the gentleman----
        Mr. Connolly. So--I am not finished yet. If my friend would
    further yield.
        Mr. Malinowski. Of course, yes.
        Mr. Connolly. So some--I understand that there are
    differences in approach and that some have a juridical
    approach, which is that strictly speaking, unless there are
    boots on the ground, we are not in combat and this does not
    apply and we are overreaching.
        I beg to differ as, obviously, does my friend from New
    Jersey. But let me ask one final question.
        Would my friend also agree that just as there are implied
    powers for the role of the commander in chief that over the
    years have really been expanded that there are also implied
    powers in Article 1 Section A to the Constitution exclusively
    granting to the legislative branch the power of war and peace
    and the assembling of armed forces? That is explicit language
    in the Constitution of the United States.
        And that today we are in fact--you could disagree with the
    action but certainly you cannot argue constitutionally that we
    are not within our right to circumscribe the involvement of
    U.S. military when we have grave doubts about half the people
    we represent.
        Mr. Malinowski. I certainly agree with my friend and it is
    a responsibility that Congress over the years has, arguably,
    abdicated and I think one of the points of this resolution and
    our broader efforts on Saudi Arabia, however we approach them,
    is to assert that Congress has that role and responsibility.
        Obviously, we need to exercise it responsibly. But I think
    we are doing so here.
        Chairman Engel. Time is up.
        Anybody on the Republican side wish to be heard?
        If not, we have one more--Mr. Zeldin?
        Mr. Zeldin. I yield to Mr. Kinzinger.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Just I am not going to take all 5 minutes. I do want to
    make a point, though. If the U.S. Government was overthrown by
    a terrorist organization and somebody was bombing that
    terrorist organization and there was a country refueling and
    giving them targeting against the terrorist organization, I
    certainly would not consider them an enemy.
        I think that is an important point to make. And again, I
    think just--because I do not want to take all 5 minutes--one of
    the biggest things here is what precedent are we setting in any
    one of our defense cooperation agreements by this?
        I respect, sir, the gentleman from New Jersey, that you do
    know what is going on. I would argue that there are a lot of
    people that just do not. And that is not a cut to them. There
    is probably situations around the world I do not know anything
    about because I have not been briefed to the level I should
    have been.
        And I got to tell you--and this is dead honest, and my
    friends on the other side of the aisle know this about me--if
    my party in 2015 was bringing this up against President Obama,
    who began this cooperation, I would be saying the exact words I
    am saying today and I would be opposing my own party in this
    resolution because I think it is so bad.
        With that, I will just yield back, or I will yield back to
    the gentleman.
        Mr. Zeldin. I yield back to the chair.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you.
        Ms. Spanberger.
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        To comment on the positions put forth by my colleague from
    Illinois, I would like to posit that we in fact are making
    informed decisions. That is the focus of what we are doing
    here, and I can think of no better first action than one that
    is focused on Article 1 of the Constitution that requires that
    Members of Congress make informed decisions about hostile
    engagement that in fact we undergo.
        And my colleague's reverse hypothetical of my colleague
    from New Jersey's position was actually not one that was
    something that we can perceive as a comparison because in fact
    the minute we start changing under which circumstances we are
    willing to abdicate our responsibility related to Article 1 in
    the case of a government overthrow, does Congress just step
    back and let the administration or the executive branch do
    whatever they want in this circumstance or that circumstance.
        We are taking away and we are abdicating our responsibility
    as Members of Congress and the minute we engage in these
    hypotheticals where we are talking about different
    circumstances and allowing for and justifying behaviors in
    different circumstances, I think that is where we get into
    challenging territory.
        And so I will be supporting this resolution today because I
    think it is absolutely because we need to make informed
    decisions that Congress should be engaged on where it is that
    we are in fact engaged in hostile activity or military
    activity.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairman Engel. All right. Thank you.
        Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
    is to report House Joint Resolution 37 to the House with the
    recommendation that the bill does pass.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        All opposed, no.
        [Chorus of noes.]
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
        Chairman Engel. A recorded vote has been requested. The
    clerk will call the role.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Meeks.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Sires.
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Ms. Bass.
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Mr. Bera.
        Mr. Bera. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Bera votes aye.
        Mr. Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Castro votes aye.
        Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Ms. Titus votes aye.
        Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Espaillat.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Lieu.
        Mr. Lieu. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Lieu votes aye.
        Ms. Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Ms. Wild votes aye.
        Mr. Phillips.
        Ms. Phillips. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Phillips votes aye.
        Ms. Omar.
        Ms. Omar. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Ms. Omar votes aye.
        Mr. Allred.
        Mr. Allred. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Allred votes aye.
        Mr. Levin.
        Mr. Levin. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Levin votes aye.
        Ms. Spanberger.
        Ms. Spanberger. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Ms. Spanberger votes aye.
        Ms. Houlahan.
        Ms. Houlahan. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Ms. Houlahan votes aye.
        Mr. Malinowski.
        Mr. Malinowski. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Malinowski votes aye.
        Mr. Trone.
        Mr. Trone. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Trone votes aye.
        Mr. Costa.
        Mr. Costa. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Costa votes aye.
        Mr. Vargas.
        Mr. Vargas. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Vargas votes aye.
        Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Gonzalez votes aye.
        Mr. McCaul.
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Mr. Perry.
        Mr. Perry. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Perry votes no.
        Mr. Yoho.
        Mr. Yoho. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Yoho votes no.
        Mr. Kinzinger.
        Mr. Kinzinger. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Kinzinger votes no.
        Mr. Zeldin.
        Mr. Zeldin. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Zeldin votes no.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
        [No response.]
        Mrs. Wagner.
        Mrs. Wagner. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mrs. Wagner votes no.
        Mr. Mast.
        Mr. Mast. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Mast votes no.
        Mr. Rooney. Mr. Rooney.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Fitzpatrick.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Fitzpatrick votes no.
        Mr. Curtis.
        Mr. Curtis. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Curtis votes no.
        Mr. Buck. Mr. Buck.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Wright.
        Mr. Wright. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Wright votes no.
        Mr. Reschenthaler.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Reschenthaler votes no.
        Mr. Burchett.
        Mr. Burchett. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Burchett votes no.
        Mr. Pence.
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Mr. Watkins.
        Mr. Watkins. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Watkins votes no.
        Mr. Guest.
        Mr. Guest. No.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Guest votes no.
        Chairman Engel. May I ask the clerk how----
        Ms. Stiles. Chairman Engel.
        Chairman Engel. Votes aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Chairman Engel votes aye.
        Chairman Engel. Mr. Espaillat.
        Mr. Espaillat. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Espaillat votes aye.
        Chairman Engel. Have all members been recorded?
        And the clerk will report.
        One more?
        Chairman Engel. Is Mr. Sherman recorded?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Stiles. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 25 ayes
    and 17 noes.
        Chairman Engel. Twenty-five ayes and 17 noes. The ayes have
    it.
        The measure is ordered favorably reported and the motion to
    reconsider is laid upon the table.
        Without objection, the staff is authorized to make
    necessary technical and conforming changes, and this concludes
    our business today.
        I want to thank Mr. McCaul and all our members on both
    sides of the aisle and the committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  RECORD VOTE

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 MARKUP SUMMARY

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]