[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H1533-H1542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 37, REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES 
ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY 
   CONGRESS; WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH 
   RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 
   COMMITTEE ON RULES; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO 
                           SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 122 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 122

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for 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. The first 
     reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the joint 
     resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs. After general debate the joint 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     joint resolution for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-4. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only 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 in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the joint resolution for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the joint 
     resolution or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     made in order as original text. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of February 17, 2019, relating to a measure 
     making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2019.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of February 17, 2019, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.
       Sec. 4.  The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may 
     insert in the Congressional Record not later than February 
     17, 2019, such material as she may deem explanatory of 
     measures making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2019.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my 
good friend, who is the ranking member of the Rules Committee, pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

[[Page H1534]]

                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 122, providing for consideration of 
H.J. Res. 37, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs. It also provides same-day authority for fiscal year 2019 
appropriations measures, suspension authority, and authority for the 
Appropriations chair to insert explanatory language into the 
Congressional Record, all through February 17.
  Madam Speaker, the Constitution specifically empowers Congress with 
the responsibility to declare war; and for more than 4 years, there has 
been a Saudi-led, U.S.-supported conflict happening in Yemen that is a 
war by any logical definition.
  Nearly all of the bombs that have fallen say the same thing: ``Made 
in the United States of America.'' They fall on weddings. They fall on 
hospitals and on homes. They fall on funerals, refugee camps, and 
school buses. It is an aerial bombing campaign that hammers children, 
families, and civilian neighborhoods every single day.
  The U.S. military has supported this reign of terror with logistics, 
intelligence, ground support, midair refueling of bombers, and the sale 
of bombs and munitions dropped on Yemen.
  The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project estimates that 
more than 60,000 civilians and combatants have been killed in Yemen 
over the last 2 years. This total is increasing by more than 2,000 
people every single month.
  Madam Speaker, 85,000 children under the age of 5 have died from 
hunger and disease; 18 million people there are food insecure; and 75 
percent of Yemen's population is in need of humanitarian assistance.
  The United Nations has said Yemen is suffering from the fastest 
growing cholera epidemic ever recorded, as well as the world's biggest 
food emergency.
  These are not abstract numbers. These are human lives--tens of 
thousands of children lost.
  Given all of this, Americans would be forgiven for believing that 
Congress actually declared our involvement in this war, but we have 
not. We abdicated our responsibility to the executive branch instead, 
across multiple Presidents, Democratic and Republican alike.
  Some may dance around this fact by calling what is happening there a 
conflict, but let's call it what it is. It is a war. And our 
involvement in this war is unconstitutional.
  Despite being one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, others, 
like the President, don't mention Yemen at all. In his State of the 
Union Address last week, President Trump, right here in this Chamber, 
discussed his ineffective wall with Mexico, encouraged Congress to stop 
upholding our oversight responsibilities over his administration, and 
highlighted how Americans will once again be sent into space.
  It was the longest State of the Union Address in nearly 20 years, but 
the President didn't utter the word ``Yemen''--not once. He couldn't 
even spare 2 minutes to update this Congress and the American people on 
our involvement there. Are you kidding me?
  The President may not want to talk about it, but a free press has 
been delivering the grisly details day after day, in spite of the 
roadblocks the Saudis have thrown up to limit media access to Yemen.
  Perhaps none spoke more vocally than the late Saudi dissident and 
Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi. He called for an end to this 
conflict in a column titled: ``Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Must Restore 
Dignity to His Country--By Ending Yemen's Cruel War.'' That was 
published in The Washington Post just weeks before his death.
  Let's be honest. What happened to Jamal Khashoggi was a murder. All 
evidence makes it clear that it was likely at the behest of Saudi Crown 
Prince Mohammad bin Salman. A recent New York Times article even 
revealed that American intelligence agencies intercepted a conversation 
where bin Salman threatened to use a bullet on Mr. Khashoggi if he 
didn't end his criticism of Saudi Arabia and this conflict.
  Madam Speaker, is this really the kind of regime Congress wants as 
our Nation's partner?
  There was even a report that Saudis and the UAE are transferring 
American-made weapons to al-Qaida fighters and other rebels. This would 
expose sensitive national security technology that could endanger the 
lives of our military.
  President Trump has said of Saudi Arabia: They have been a great 
ally.
  Really? Really? This is a country that is responsible for killing and 
dismembering a Washington Post reporter.
  Madam Speaker, if this is what the President considers a friend, then 
I would hate to see what he considers a foe.
  Even Republicans are angry with this administration's apparent 
affinity towards Saudi Arabia. Politico reported: ``Senate Republicans 
are fuming at President Donald Trump for telling lawmakers that he 
would disregard a law requiring a report to Congress determining who is 
responsible for the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.''
  No Member of Congress should be okay with a President showing such 
disregard for the laws that we pass, and we certainly shouldn't look 
the other way when it comes to the murder of a resident of the United 
States.
  I say to all my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you want 
to send a message that United States foreign policy respects human 
rights, join with us on this resolution.
  Prior Republican Congresses have used every legislative trick in the 
book to prevent this debate. They even took the unprecedented step of 
stripping war powers resolutions related to our involvement in Yemen of 
their privileged status--not once but twice.
  These tactics may have delayed us, but they did not deter us. Speaker 
Boehner may have been content ceding our constitutional duties to the 
executive branch. Speaker Ryan may also have been happy to do so. 
Thankfully, Speaker Pelosi is not. She is empowering this Congress to 
do its job.

  I am glad that, under her leadership, this Congress has strengthened 
its political will and is reasserting our Article I constitutional 
responsibilities. This is the system our Founders intended, and it is 
what our constituents expect of all of us.
  This Congress is not turning a blind eye to U.S. involvement in 
Yemen. This Congress is not looking away from the civil war the world 
sees unfolding on its television screens.
  I want to thank the Congressional Progressive Caucus and, especially, 
Congressman Khanna for leading this matter. Congressman Khanna has been 
the conscience of Congress when it comes to our involvement in Yemen. 
He has pushed us again and again and again to do something as these 
atrocities mount.
  We not only have a constitutional responsibility to pass the 
underlying resolution, we have a moral responsibility.
  No Congress should be complicit in the bombing of children or the 
bombing of water treatment plants during a cholera outbreak or the 
decimation of hospitals during a humanitarian catastrophe or the 
creation of a blockade that leads thousands of people to die by 
starvation.
  Considering this measure in the opening weeks of this Congress 
represents a clear break from the old ways of doing business, where 
matters of war and peace were routinely swept under the rug.
  I am proud that this is a structured rule that makes in order a 
bipartisan amendment and a minority amendment. The bipartisan amendment 
is mine, and, among other things, it says that nothing in this 
resolution may be considered as authorizing the use of military force 
and nothing may alter the 2001 AUMF because, as important as this 
measure is, it is also targeted specifically to our involvement only in 
and affecting the war in Yemen.
  It is something Republicans and Democrats agree on. Members ranging

[[Page H1535]]

from conservative Republican   Tom Massie to progressive Congresswoman 
Barbara Lee have signed on as cosponsors. It should not be 
controversial.
  Madam Speaker, there is bipartisan agreement that the U.S. 
involvement in Yemen needs to end, so I urge all my colleagues to seize 
this opportunity that we have fought for for so long. Vote ``yes'' on 
this rule and the underlying joint resolution. Let's finally end our 
Nation's complicity in the greatest humanitarian crisis taking place on 
our planet today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I want to thank my good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  Normally, Madam Speaker, I would be agreeing with my good friend, Mr. 
McGovern, on the issue of congressional war powers, and, frankly, I 
want to applaud his efforts over the years to reassert congressional 
war powers.
  It is a responsibility, in my view and, I know, my friend's view, 
that Congress has abdicated and one which we must work to reclaim in 
the weeks and months ahead. I commit to work with my friend, as I have 
in the past, to do just that in the future. But, in my view, this 
particular issue is not about congressional war powers.
  Madam Speaker, we had a spirited debate on this joint resolution in 
the Rules Committee Monday night, and I expect that today's debate will 
be just as spirited. The reason is because this measure concerns one of 
the most important of Congress' powers: the power under Article I of 
the Constitution to declare war and to say when, where, and with whom 
the American Armed Forces will be committed to combat.
  In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which is intended 
to give Congress and the President procedures to follow when committing 
U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities and to give Congress a method to 
instruct the President to remove U.S. forces from hostilities.
  Today, the majority is bringing up H.J. Res. 37, a resolution 
ostensibly arising under Congress' powers under the War Powers 
Resolution, to instruct the President to remove United States Armed 
Forces from hostilities in Yemen. Specifically, this refers to United 
States support for key allies, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia in their 
intervention in the civil war in Yemen against the Iranian-backed 
Houthi rebels.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I believe this resolution is fatally 
flawed, misstates the facts, and will not accomplish what the majority 
is promising. For that reason, I oppose this rule and oppose this joint 
resolution.
  Let's start with the text of the resolution.
  Section 2 of the resolution directs the President to ``remove United 
States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of 
Yemen except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations directed 
at al-Qaida or associated forces.''
  Of course, the problem with this resolution is that, under the terms 
of the War Powers Resolution, American Armed Forces are not currently 
engaged in hostilities. Hostilities, under the War Powers Resolution, 
means firing weapons or dropping bombs.
  As we heard on Monday night at rules, the United States is presently 
providing assistance to the Saudi-led coalition that falls short of 
actual hostilities. We are providing intelligence and logistics support 
to an ally, but that is a far cry from the threshold necessary to be 
considered hostilities for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution.
  This came up during Monday night's Rules Committee debate. I note 
that even Representative Connolly, who spoke in favor of this 
resolution at the Foreign Affairs Committee a few weeks ago, stated 
that ``the United States is not technically involved on the ground in 
hostilities.''
  If we are not ``technically involved'' in hostilities--we don't have 
troops on the ground, we don't have flights in the air, and we are not 
engaging in combat missions of any kind against the Houthis in Yemen--
then what does this resolution actually accomplish?

  The majority attempts to get around this by redefining hostilities to 
mean ``in-flight refueling non-United States aircraft conducting 
missions as part of the ongoing civil war in Yemen.''
  Even if I did accept, for the sake of argument, that this is a 
legitimate definition--and I don't--this is still a false statement. 
The United States is not currently providing Saudi Arabia with in-
flight refueling assistance and has not since early November of last 
year. That fact is just one of the many problems with the resolution.
  I do point out the last administration certainly did that. It is 
actually this administration that canceled that procedure, which it 
inherited from the Obama administration.
  But even if the statement, again, were accurate, I believe the 
majority's resolution raises significant questions that should give us 
pause.
  Across the globe, the United States has security agreements with 117 
countries, including Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Saudi-led 
coalition. We as a nation and the President of the United States have 
obligations under those security agreements, including to provide them 
with support when they find themselves in combat situations. The 
resolution the majority is asking us to consider today is putting all 
of those security agreements--all 117 of them--into jeopardy.
  When the President provides assistance short of hostilities to allies 
and to countries with whom the United States has a security agreement, 
the President is generally well within his or her rights as Commander 
in Chief to do so and well within his or her statutory authority to do 
so.
  It is only when American troops enter hostilities that the War Powers 
Resolution applies, and today, in Yemen, American forces are not 
involved in hostilities.
  I think that the majority should sit back and think about the 
possible consequences of this resolution. For allies around the globe, 
this resolution should give them pause; and, for our adversaries, this 
resolution should give them hope.
  For the first time, the United States Congress would be saying that 
the President of the United States no longer has the authority to 
provide assistance short of hostilities that we have agreed to under 
our security agreements with these countries. For our allies and NATO, 
this would put in jeopardy our commitment to the collective defense of 
Europe.

                              {time}  1230

  For our allies in the Pacific, like South Korea and Japan, it would 
put into question our ability to continue to provide support in the 
event of a conflict with North Korea.
  For potential adversaries like Russia or Iran, this resolution 
provides the hope that America will not live up to its security 
commitments and will not support our allies during their time of need.
  Perhaps most disturbingly, it would put our ongoing security 
arrangements with the state of Israel in question. In 1973, shortly 
before the War Powers Resolution was passed, Israel was subject to a 
surprise attack. During the resulting Yom Kippur War, while Israel was 
fighting for its survival, the United States launched an effort to 
resupply Israel. The United States military airlifted supplies, 
ammunition, and vehicles to Israel, helping to ensure their continued 
survival. However, we were never engaged in hostilities. We never 
committed forces to combat.
  If the majority has its say, U.S. assistance to Israel under similar 
circumstances could be put in jeopardy. Under the type of resolution 
the majority is putting forward today, Israel would have good cause to 
question the U.S. commitment to that nation and to question our 
commitment to providing Israel with support in the future.
  Should the United States provide Israel with the support it needs, 
our allies would have good reason to fear that a portion of the House 
of Representatives would try to shut off the tap by putting forward a 
resolution like this. I suggest to my friends that they rethink whether 
the War Powers Resolution should or even can be used in this way.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just so there is no misunderstanding, in this resolution, it is 
written, Section

[[Page H1536]]

3: ``Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to influence or 
disrupt any military operations and cooperation with Israel.'' I mean, 
it is written here for everybody to see.
  Secondly, my good friend talked about the consequences of moving this 
legislation forward. Let me tell you what the consequences of not 
moving this resolution forward are. It means that we are totally 
content to sit back and say nothing and not admit that our government 
has its fingerprints all over one of the worst humanitarian crises in 
the world. It means that we will be complicit in the continuing 
destruction and murder in Yemen.
  If this country stands for anything, if the United States of America 
stands for anything, we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human 
rights. For too long, especially under this administration, human 
rights have become an afterthought.
  What makes us great is the fact that we do have a high standard when 
it comes to human rights, that we are there to speak up for those who 
are being persecuted and those who are being murdered.
  This is a statement, this is a signal, to the administration and to 
the Saudi Government that when it comes to human rights, there are 
people in this Congress--hopefully, a bipartisan group of people in 
this Congress--who are not going to be silent, who are going to demand 
that things change.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentleman from California for their leadership on 
this matter. They have discussed this over the months, and I have been 
pleased to join them in this effort.
  Madam Speaker, U.S. bombs are bombing school buses of 40 children. 
U.S. bombs are bombing those in Yemen who are innocent citizens. The 
violence through bombing has been facilitated with U.S. resources. This 
is a demand that is without parallel of its necessity.
  The question is whether we are engaged without the authorization of 
the United States Congress, whether we have declared war against Yemen. 
If the answer is no, then this resolution is appropriate.
  Yemen is the poorest or one of the poorest countries in the world. 
This resolution clearly says that we should stop the hostilities 
against the Houthi forces. More importantly, we should stop being used 
by the Saudi forces.
  By the way, having gone to Yemen, I know that at least a decade ago, 
Saudi closed its doors to the Yemen young men, who could find no work 
in Yemen because of its poverty, to go into Saudi to work there. 
Without that opportunity, all we ceded was poverty and violence. Now, 
because of the conflict, we have been bombing Yemen citizens for many 
years.
  This is a constructive resolution. It does not violate the 2001 
Authorization for Use of Military Force. It is one that says that we 
must take our forces and impact out of Yemen.
  Let me also say that I know that we will discuss this further, but I 
do want to add that it is crucial to take note that we have an 
agreement on border security and funding the different agencies, so 
that we do not hold our Federal employees hostage and we don't shut the 
government.
  This resolution, coming back to this resolution dealing with 
directing the removal of Armed Forces from Yemen, is constructive work 
of the Democratic Caucus and Democratic Members. We hope our Republican 
Members will join us in doing the right thing in removing the impact of 
the United States forces in Yemen.
  Stop bombing children.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friends talked a great deal about human rights, and I just want to 
make the point that I don't believe--I surely don't believe they think 
that the Houthi rebels in Yemen are great defenders of human rights or 
that the Iranian forces who are on the ground in Yemen are actually 
there to advance human rights and are defending them.

  Frankly, I think this issue has more to do with whether or not we are 
involved in hostilities, which we clearly are not.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall), my good friend, a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I don't know if you have ever tuned in 
the Rules Committee when my chairman and my ranking member up there are 
having a conversation. You get a very different look at what goes on in 
Congress then, because it is not everybody poking each other with sharp 
sticks. It is thoughtful, deliberate public servants who are really 
very close to finding a common way forward that is going to make all 
Americans proud.
  That is my frustration with this resolution today and why I hope my 
colleagues will reject it.
  My friend from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Rules Committee, is 
working very hard to open up the Rules Committee, add more voices, 
bring more of a constructive process to the House of Representatives. I 
admire him for it. I appreciate his effort, and I support him every 
step of the way.
  But we are in some bad habits here on the floor of the House, and we 
are in the habit of finding ways to make important distinctions instead 
of making important agreements.
  My friend from Massachusetts said just a few moments ago that not to 
do this resolution is to do nothing, and that is a false choice. There 
is unanimity on the floor of this House that we must stand up for 
Article I, that we must stand up against an overreaching Article II 
executive branch, that we must speak with one voice on issues of 
international affairs.
  Instead of bringing a bill to the floor that would have brought us 
together so that we do speak with one voice on behalf of 330 million 
Americans, we are bringing a bill to the floor that is going to pass on 
a largely party-line vote. We have done that time and time again in 
these first 45 days.
  We did that with veteran housing last week. We took a bill that 
passed unanimously in the last Congress to both provide childcare for 
our veterans and pay for that childcare and, instead, this year, we 
brought it back where we are going to have to cut some veteran accounts 
in order to fund that childcare going forward. It made that motion to 
recommit a party-line vote.
  We did that with recognition of Federal employees, Madam Speaker, 
where we are trying to recognize their service and their sacrifice. 
Instead of bringing a bill that we would have agreed on unanimously, we 
brought a bill that divided this institution and made us speak with two 
voices.
  This is another missed opportunity today. My friend from 
Massachusetts doesn't have control over this entire institution. He 
can't work his will on this entire institution. He is doing what he can 
on the House Rules Committee to open up the process and lead to a 
better product.
  Flawed processes produce flawed products. Divided bills on the floor 
of this House do nothing to unify a divided nation.
  We have opportunities. There are plenty of things on which we 
disagree. When we have things like this on which we agree, I think we 
need to work harder, Madam Speaker, to bring ourselves together, put 
our divisions behind us, rather than highlight those divisions in the 
name of political gain.
  This could have been a unifying moment, not just for this Congress, 
but for the global political entirety as they see America speak with 
one voice to say, when troops are in harm's way, the United States 
Congress, not Article II, controls that destiny. I hope we will get to 
that point sooner rather than later. We only get so many chances, and 
each time we waste one, it becomes harder.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for his kind 
words. I have a great deal of respect for him, as I do for the ranking 
member, Mr. Cole. I am hoping that this week maybe we will have a 
bipartisan moment where we all stand together and keep the government 
open and prevent another shutdown.
  But on this bill in particular, the bill that we are taking up here 
today is virtually identical to the bill that passed the United States 
Senate last year with a bipartisan vote. That bill that

[[Page H1537]]

passed the Senate last year was prevented by the then-Republican 
majority from even being considered on this House floor on at least two 
occasions. So I can appreciate the fact the gentleman may not agree 
with the statement we are trying to make today or the bill that we are 
putting forward here today, but the process, I think, has been pretty 
good.
  It just had a hearing in the committee of jurisdiction. It had a 
markup. We had a long hearing in the Rules Committee. All the germane 
amendments were made in order, a bipartisan amendment and a Republican 
amendment, and we are going to debate it here today under regular 
order. So the process has been very, very, very good.
  I think, for many of us, we are bringing this forward in large part 
because we believe that this institution has been silent for too long.
  I am not here to defend the Houthi rebels or, certainly, to cover up 
for any Iranian meddling here, but I will say this: We know that 85,000 
children under the age of 5 have died of hunger and disease since 2015. 
Eighty percent of all children in Yemen require humanitarian 
assistance, according to UNICEF, the U.N.'s children's agency.
  We need to do everything in our power to encourage a political 
solution to this terrible humanitarian crisis. I mean, this is 
unbelievable. Every person who cares about human rights should be 
outraged by what is going on.
  We are having this debate here today to say that enough is enough and 
to let the Saudi Government hear loud and clear that we will no longer 
be complicit in this.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. 
Gabbard).
  Ms. GABBARD. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and the sponsor of 
this important legislation for the incredible leadership and continuing 
to be a resolute voice.
  The United States support for Saudi Arabia's genocidal war in Yemen, 
with no authorization from Congress, has resulted in the deaths of tens 
of thousands of Yemeni civilians. The U.S.-Saudi coalition has dropped 
bombs on children in school buses, on people in markets, and on 
families who are celebrating weddings.
  They have left millions of Yemeni people on the brink of death from 
famine, disease, starvation, a lack of access to clean water, 
sanitation, and healthcare. This has created the worst humanitarian 
crisis in a generation.
  Earlier this week, the Trump administration threatened to veto this 
critical legislation should it pass Congress, this legislation that 
would end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, by spreading 
blatant lies. They have said that this legislation draws 
``constitutional concerns,'' and they say it would ``affect our ability 
to prevent the spread of violent extremist organizations.''
  But here is the truth. First, the United States' support for this war 
in Yemen is unconstitutional. Congress has not authorized it. Second, 
Saudi Arabia is not our ally, and continued U.S. support for this war 
in Yemen is strengthening terrorist groups like al-Qaida.
  A recent CNN report documented how Saudi Arabia is literally taking 
the U.S. weapons that have been provided to them in this war in Yemen 
and handing them off to al-Qaida on the ground in Yemen, the very same 
terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11.
  Or to speak of the fact that Saudi Arabia is continuing to spend 
billions of dollars spreading their Wahhabi-Salafist ideology that is 
fueling terrorist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaida, causing them to 
grow stronger.
  Congress must take action today. We must reclaim our constitutional 
responsibility and pass this legislation to stop supporting Saudi 
Arabia's genocidal war in Yemen and strengthening these terrorist 
groups that threaten us.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up the text of H.R. 336, the 
Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019. One of 
the four constituent parts of this bill has already passed the House by 
voice vote in this Congress, and three of the four constituent parts 
passed the House by voice vote last Congress.
  The four parts of this bill authorize assistance and weapons 
transfers to Israel, extend defense cooperation with Jordan, establish 
additional sanctions related to the conflict in Syria, and allows 
States to divest from entities boycotting Israel. On the whole, unlike 
the resolution on the floor today, it will preserve and strengthen our 
relationship with our allies and reaffirm America's commitment to a 
peaceful and more secure Middle East.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), my distinguished colleague and the chair of the 
Republican Conference.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I thank very much my colleague, Mr. Cole, 
for his tremendous leadership on this issue and all others as the 
leading Republican on the Rules Committee.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will move to 
bring up H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle 
East Act of 2019. I urge the House to vote on this bill, whose 
companion passed the Senate with bipartisan support this month.
  Bringing this legislation to the floor, Madam Speaker, is not a 
partisan maneuver; it is an urgent matter of national security that 
requires action by this House.
  H.R. 336 includes two bills that enhance our security cooperation 
with Israel and Jordan, key U.S. allies in the Middle East that are 
active in the fight against terrorist organizations in the region.
  H.R. 336 also reaffirms America's unwavering support for Israel with 
the Combating BDS Act, a bill that empowers State and local governments 
to counter discriminatory anti-Israel boycotts.
  There should be no doubt, Madam Speaker, about the bipartisan nature 
of each of these bills. The Israel security assistance legislation 
passed the House by voice vote in September. The Jordan defense 
cooperation bill passed the House by voice vote last February. The 
Syria sanctions bill passed the House by voice vote just last month. 
And last Congress, Senator Marco Rubio's Combating BDS Act gained the 
support of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and a number of other 
Democrats on the Senate side.
  Most Democratic Members continue to stand with Republicans in 
rejecting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, BDS, campaign. These 
Members understand, as the Republicans do, that this is a campaign that 
too often seeks to delegitimize and demonize Israel. So, Madam Speaker, 
why not hold a vote on H.R. 336 that contains a bill called the 
Combating BDS Act?
  BDS is a campaign whose adherents have time and time again revealed 
their anti-Semitic motives. This is a campaign that directs its 
followers to avoid certain products merely because they are made in 
Israel. Armed with economic warfare tactics, supporters of BDS seek to 
isolate and punish the only Jewish state. That, Madam Speaker, is the 
dictionary definition of discrimination.
  Opponents of the Combating BDS Act often cite First Amendment 
objections to this legislation, but the truth is, this bill would not 
prohibit individuals or companies from speaking out in support of the 
BDS movement, nor would it prohibit them from boycotting Israel. The 
Combating BDS Act applies to entities, such as companies, and their 
conduct.
  This bill cements what should be an obvious point: States have the 
right not to contract with companies that engage in discriminatory 
conduct against Israel.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Ms. CHENEY. In fact, many States already have laws on the books that 
promote that right. At its core, the Combating BDS Act protects and 
empowers States in their efforts to

[[Page H1538]]

counter a hateful anti-Israel movement.
  There is no reason not to hold a vote on H.R. 336, which also 
includes legislation that authorizes security assistance to Israel and 
extends our defense partnership with Jordan. Helping our key allies in 
the Middle East ensure their security should not be controversial.
  Madam Speaker, we are now at a moment in this House, at a moment in 
this body where we are facing real anti-Semitism from the other side of 
the aisle. It is time that we all come together as a body in a 
bipartisan manner to stand against anti-Semitism, to condemn it, to 
ensure that everyone understands it has no place in this House, in this 
body, or in our public discourse.
  These bills that we are offering today, if the previous question is 
defeated, are those bills that will recognize and symbolize American 
leadership and define American leadership. I hope Democrats will choose 
our security and our closest allies over partisanship and bring H.R. 
336 to a vote.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, on process, just so everybody understands, we are bringing a 
bill to the floor today under a structured rule that has a bipartisan 
amendment and a Republican amendment.
  What my Republican friends are suggesting is that they want to bring 
up a bill, and all amendments are blocked, with the exception of one if 
offered by a Republican, sight unseen.
  Boy, old habits die hard. This is the way they were in the majority. 
And thank God they are no longer in the majority, but, wow, what a 
lousy process this is.
  Then secondly, I want to say that we are having a debate about Yemen, 
about one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, where the 
Saudi Government is bombing weddings and funerals and school buses, 
where thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of people are on the 
verge of starvation, where children are dying every day.
  The previous question has nothing to do with Yemen. I mean, it is as 
if this entire horrific catastrophe that is now unfolding in Yemen 
doesn't even exist. I mean, how sad.
  This is an important issue, and we have a responsibility to debate 
and to vote on this issue, because we have been involved in supplying 
so much assistance to the Saudi Government, and not even a mention, not 
even a mention of this.
  Maybe this doesn't matter to my Republican friends. Maybe they are 
perfectly fine turning a blind eye to this horrific horror show that is 
happening in Yemen. But I am going to tell you, I think most people in 
this country, when they are made aware of what is going on and they are 
made aware of our involvement, are horrified. This is not what the 
United States Government is about.
  So, in any event, it is a little bit disappointing.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Khanna), the author of H.J. Res. 37, and I want to thank him for 
his leadership on this.
  Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, I want to echo Representative Cole's 
praise for Chairman McGovern for leading for years in this body in 
helping Congress reassert its role on matters of war and peace.
  I want to just note the difference procedurally of what happened. 
Every time we introduced this in the last Congress, Speaker Ryan didn't 
allow a vote. He tied a vote on Yemen with a vote on endangered wolves.
  In contrast, Chairman McGovern, not only is he allowing a vote on the 
resolution of Yemen, he is allowing a vote on an amendment that 
Representative Buck has offered that I oppose vehemently, that I went 
to him and I said, ``This is going to gut the entire resolution.''
  What did Chairman McGovern do? Did he say, ``Oh, we will go behind 
closed doors. Don't worry. We won't allow a vote?'' No. He said, ``We 
are going to bring it to a vote on this floor.''
  I said, ``Do we have the votes?''
  He said, ``I don't know.''
  Why are we bringing it to the floor? Because that is a democracy. 
That is what we are supposed to do in a democracy.
  We will have the votes. You know how I know we are going to have the 
votes and it is going to be a bipartisan vote? Because when Lindsay 
Graham is quoted saying he may vote in support of the resolution, you 
know there is going to be an overwhelming vote.
  I want to just address one point, because Representative Cole is one 
of the more thoughtful Members here and I take what he says very 
seriously, but on the War Powers Act, we just disagree. When you read 
the plain reading of the War Powers, it says that the United States 
Armed Forces cannot be assigned to coordinate, participate, or 
accompany any foreign government's military when they are in 
hostilities.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, our forces are coordinating with the Saudi 
forces. I concede to Members we don't have troops there, but the War 
Powers Resolution was written broadly, precisely because we wanted 
Congress to have a say.
  And, Representative Cole, I am convinced if one of our allies, like 
Israel or another country, were attacked; I have enough confidence in 
this body that we would make the right decision. This is a matter of 
the Congress' right to have a say on matters of war and peace, and I 
thank Chairman McGovern for bringing this for a vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their 
comments to the Chair.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and then I will turn to my friend from Texas.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his comments. And we do; 
we just disagree. I do not see this as appropriate for the War Powers 
Resolution, because we don't have troops in common; we have not 
committed anybody to hostilities. But the Commander in Chief 
historically has had broad authority to assist countries that we have 
agreements and arrangements with that he thinks are important in our 
own security, short of committing troops into combat. I think that is 
precisely what he is doing.
  Frankly, that is what his predecessor did. It would have been nice if 
our friends were as equally concerned when President Obama actually was 
committing us to the kinds of activities we are talking about. I don't 
recall hearing a lot about it then, but I am happy to discuss it now.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
McCaul), the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and the 
current ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Cole for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can consider H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's 
Security in the Middle East Act, under a rule that would allow an 
amendment to add a section recognizing the dangers of a precipitous 
withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan. This amendment would change H.R. 
336 to mirror the text of the Senate companion bill S. 1.
  S. 1 passed the Senate just last week by an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote of 77-23.
  I introduced this House companion in January.
  This package of bipartisan bills from last Congress bolsters the 
security of America and our allies in the Middle East.
  This bill authorizes U.S. security assistance to Israel over a 10-
year period and updates key elements of our security cooperation to 
ensure that Israel can respond to the significant threats it faces from 
its neighbors.
  It also reauthorizes the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation 
Act, allowing Jordan to remain eligible to receive special treatment 
for the transfer of U.S. defense articles and services.
  Jordan is a critical ally in the fight against ISIS and other 
extremist groups. We need to make sure that they are adequately 
equipped to help maintain stability in the Middle East.
  H.R. 336 also contains the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act. This 
bill passed the House earlier this year. It should have been law a long 
time ago.

[[Page H1539]]

  This act will impose long-overdue sanctions against Syria's Assad 
regime and its backers, including Iran and Russia, for their egregious 
human rights abuses.
  Finally, this bill empowers State and local governments in the United 
States to counter the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, 
otherwise known as BDS, movement's discriminatory economic warfare 
against Israel.
  These provisions have already passed the Senate with bipartisan 
support. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the 
previous question in order to consider this important bill to shore up 
U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East and take action against 
Assad's murderous regime.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, the 
distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for 
his comments. I just would inform the gentleman that, you know, another 
bill that passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote is the bill that we 
are discussing here today on Yemen.

                              {time}  1300

  The other thing I would say to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, one of the things that we are trying to do is return to regular 
order, something that I think a lot of people don't know what it looks 
like. A number of the bills that the gentleman is referring to had no 
markup. Let's go through the committee process. Let's do markups, and 
let's do this the way we are supposed to do it.
  I appreciate that my friends don't want to talk about the horrific 
situation in Yemen, but that is what we are going to do here today 
because it is horrific, and it is about time that this body take a 
stand.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the extraordinary 
leadership of the chairman of the Rules Committee and this very 
transparent and open process.
  I stand to support, strongly, H.J. Res. 37, which directs the 
President to remove American troops from their role in hostilities in 
Yemen.
  By taking up this War Powers Resolution, the House is, finally, 
reasserting our constitutional authority and responsibility over 
American military actions and sending an important message both to the 
Saudi-led coalition and to the Trump administration.
  The Iranian-backed Houthis have acted with complete disregard for 
civilian lives in Yemen, blocking humanitarian aid and mounting attacks 
into Saudi Arabian cities. There is no question that they bear much of 
the blame for the current humanitarian crisis.
  However, for nearly 4 years, the Saudi and Emirati-backed coalition 
has used American bombs, American planes with American logistical 
support, and, until recently, American refueling to further a conflict 
that has cost thousands of civilian lives and led to a humanitarian 
crisis in the country. There is no question in my mind that American 
involvement, to date, has exceeded the congressional authorization that 
exists to combat terrorists in the region. For too long, the United 
States has been directly involved in this war without proper 
congressional authorization or oversight.
  This bill, which passed the Senate last year with bipartisan support, 
specifically exempts actions that target al-Qaida and any other 
terrorist activity.
  My colleagues opposing this effort seem to forget that we have a 
responsibility under the Constitution to exercise our oversight 
authority over American military engagement. Nothing in this 
legislation prevents the administration from coming to Congress and 
presenting a strategy and asking for authorization to involve our 
military in Yemen. That is not something I would support, but they did 
not even try to make the case.
  Instead, we have become embroiled in a humanitarian nightmare and 
backed a flawed military engagement with no end in sight, all without 
proper authorization or oversight. It seems pretty obvious that it is 
time to exert our proper role as Congress.
  H.J. Res. 37 is an important first step of what I hope will be a 
concerted effort to bring the war in Yemen to an end and to reestablish 
Congress' role in overseeing our military's engagements overseas. Madam 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Cole's 
amendment so that the House may take up H.R. 336.
  The House should immediately bring this legislation up, which is a 
bipartisan legislative package that would help others fight back 
against the BDS movement, protect U.S. security in the Middle East by 
strengthening our alliances with Israel and Jordan, and sanction bad 
actors like Assad.
  The Senate version of this bill, S. 1, passed with strong bipartisan 
support, 77-23.
  The major point of contention for some, regarding this package, is 
the Combating BDS Act of 2019, a bipartisan bill with over 100 
cosponsors last Congress, that would help stop the BDS movement.
  It is okay to have a reasonable, legitimate concern with any 
government, including Israel, as well as our own, but, keep in mind, 
the founder of BDS was blatantly anti-Semitic, and, on college campuses 
all across our entire country, we have college students who are being 
targeted by blatant anti-Semitism in the name of BDS.
  The founder of the BDS movement was a raging anti-Semite, who once 
said: ``We are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can 
be done to save it, for Zionism is intent on killing itself. I, for 
one, support euthanasia.'' That is not all he has said.
  This bill would simply allow State and local governments to have the 
right to counter the BDS movement by ending contracts with companies 
that boycott Israel. This bill does not impede the right of any 
American to boycott or criticize Israel. Instead, this bill protects 
States' rights to divest from countries that boycott Israel and from 
lawsuits driven by the ACLU.
  The BDS movement is designed to hurt Israel by encouraging companies 
to boycott Israeli goods. The BDS movement is consumed by efforts to 
delegitimize and demonize Israel.
  Numerous incidents are highlighted in my resolution, H. Res. 72, 
condemning this behavior. For example, at NYU, after the student 
government passed a resolution supporting BDS, they had to close the 
Center for Jewish Life in response to threatening Twitter posts by a 
student who expressed ``a desire for Zionists to die.''
  There are so many other examples on college campuses all across our 
country. Where the BDS grows, anti-Semitism follows. Yet some Members 
in the House openly support this movement. House Democrats are holding 
up this major bipartisan legislation.
  This bill would provide $3.3 billion in security assistance to Israel 
and authorize the 2016 MOU to guarantee Israel's security for the next 
10 years by providing advanced capabilities to protect our 
greatest ally.

  This bill strengthens Jordan's ability to promote regional security 
and stability by enhancing Jordan's military capacity in the sale of 
defense articles.
  This bill also sanctions those who provide financial assistance or 
support to prop up the Assad regime, which is responsible for chemical 
weapon attacks in Syria.
  Madam Speaker, I thank, again, Mr. Cole for bringing this amendment, 
and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from New York that I 
appreciate his comments, but that is not what we are talking about here 
today.
  I would just say to him, while we appreciate the cooperation of the 
minority in the Rules Committee and trying to facilitate a process 
dedicated more to regular order--and we are going to continue to work 
that way--that he should make sure that these bills have hearings and 
markups and that the Members of the House have an opportunity to be 
able to deliberate on them, and then bring them to the Rules Committee 
and we can have that debate.
  But I am going to say to the gentleman, this is a new day. We, 
hopefully, will discuss process less and ideas more.

[[Page H1540]]

  I would also say that we have an emergency right now when it comes to 
Yemen. It is one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. I am a 
little bit struck by the fact that the last couple of speakers haven't 
even used the word ``Yemen'' once.
  So, in any event, there is a right way to bring legislation to the 
floor. We want to have regular order. We want to do this the right way. 
We did this bill the right way. It did pass the Senate. We had a 
hearing, we had a markup. It came to the Rules Committee. We made in 
order a bipartisan amendment, a Republican amendment, one that I 
strongly disagree with; but, nonetheless, we hope we can defeat it on 
the floor. If not, that is the way it goes.
  That is the process we ought to adhere to. And I would say that, if 
we adhered to a better process, we are going to end up with better 
legislation and more, hopefully, bipartisan legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time to 
close.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying 
measure.
  The majority has brought up a resolution under the War Powers 
Resolution instructing the President to remove the United States Armed 
Forces from hostilities in Yemen. Unfortunately, this resolution is 
misguided. United States Armed Forces are not currently involved in 
hostilities in Yemen, and it is unclear exactly what this resolution 
will accomplish.
  Further, passage of this resolution would likely damage our 
relationships with our allies, who would have reason to question our 
commitments to them, and embolden our potential adversaries in the 
future.
  I want to take just a moment to, frankly, reaffirm and thank my 
friend for his strong assertion of Congress' powers under war powers. I 
think he has absolutely been a leader in this area, and I have tried to 
work with him on many occasions.
  I want to state for the Record, I look forward to working with him in 
this area again, because I think this body, under both Republicans and 
Democrats, has far too often abdicated its responsibilities and simply 
left it to the executive branch to determine when we were at war.
  Frankly, when President Bush 41 went to war in the Gulf, he came to 
Congress and asked for its permission; when President Bush 43 went to 
war, he came to Congress and asked for its permission in both 
Afghanistan and Iraq--and they received it.
  President Obama never bothered to do that. Whether it was in Libya or 
whether it was extending the mission, in many cases, he simply did not 
choose to do that. And, frankly, it was President Obama who began the 
actions that concerned my friends in Yemen.
  So, again, my friend has appropriately tried to pursue, over the 
course of his career, the reassertion of congressional war powers, and 
I commend him for that. This case is not one of those cases.
  The President of the United States does have legitimate powers as 
Commander in Chief to support friends and allies short of war without 
congressional approval. That has happened time and time and time again 
in American history.
  We have 117 security agreements with various countries around the 
world. Some of those are with countries we have formal alliances with, 
some of them are not. They do not commit the United States to 
hostilities, but they do say, in certain situations, we will be there 
to render support.
  I agree with my friend that there have been atrocities in Yemen. I 
think he is absolutely right about that. I think, unfortunately, we 
didn't talk very much about the Iranian role in that. We didn't talk 
very much about the Houthi role in that. We didn't talk very much about 
who overthrew a legitimate government and what other countries were 
involved in that. This is a lot more complex than that.
  But, in this case, unlike Libya, for instance, where President Obama 
did commit us to military activity without coming to this Chamber and 
asking permission, somehow stretched the NATO alliance to cover our 
participation in a conflict within a country that had not attacked any 
member of NATO, let alone the United States of America, that was a time 
we should have done something like this.
  Right now, in my view, whether you agree with him or not, the 
President is exercising his legitimate authority as Commander in Chief. 
And it is worth noting for the Record, he is actually doing less than 
his predecessor, President Obama, did. He actually is the person, 
President Trump, who ordered the cessation of aerial refueling 
operations with the Saudi Air Force.
  Again, there is room for disagreement here. I know, on the underlying 
issue of congressional war powers, my friend and I agree. I look 
forward to working with him on that issue as we go forward, as I know 
we will. But, in my opinion, this is the wrong place and the wrong time 
to have this debate.

  I think the President is operating well within his rights. He has 
made it clear he will veto this legislation should it pass the United 
States Senate. None of us know whether it will. But I can assure you 
this: that veto will have more than enough votes to sustain it.
  So, again, I thank my friend for the spirited debate and discussion. 
It is always thoughtful.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' 
on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the work of Ranking Member Cole on 
these issues. We may not agree on this specific bill, but we have 
worked together on matters like the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force for many years. He is always thoughtful in urging Congress to 
reclaim authority on matters of war and peace, and I do look forward to 
working with him in the months ahead.
  Let me just remind my colleagues about how this bill came to the 
floor.
  It was introduced in January. There was a hearing in the Foreign 
Affairs Committee. They held a markup, and the Rules Committee did a 
hearing and made amendments in order.
  Some of my Republican friends may not agree with the underlying bill, 
but there shouldn't be much disagreement about the process, because 
this is how the process should work. We even made in order a Republican 
amendment from Congressman Buck that I strongly oppose. That amendment 
would allow the President to maintain unfettered intelligence sharing 
with any foreign country, even when the sole objective is to help 
determine which targets to bomb in offensive airstrikes not authorized 
by Congress.
  I don't believe we should preemptively cede our own purview over 
intelligence sharing, and certainly not as part of a resolution 
designed to reassert Congress' constitutional war authority.
  Maybe this amendment passes--I hope it doesn't--but it will be 
debated, voted upon, and this House will decide.
  Let me say to my colleagues what is happening in Yemen is horrific. 
It should shake every Member of this institution to their core: 
bombings of weddings, funerals, and school buses; thousands dead; 
children starving--a humanitarian nightmare.
  I don't know what is going to happen over in the Senate, but I know 
what this institution should do, and that is reclaim our 
responsibilities and make clear that the Constitution matters, that 
human rights matter; the lives of people in Yemen and the children in 
Yemen, they matter. This Chamber, under this majority, is going to 
provide a consequence for the actions of the Saudi Government.

                              {time}  1315

  And I hope that this resolution is just our first step in responding 
to the humanitarian issues across the region. I look forward to the 
Foreign Affairs Committee holding more hearings and markups and 
bringing more bills to the Rules Committee.
  I have introduced a bipartisan bill with 20 colleagues that will 
immediately stop all military aid and armed sales to the Government of 
Saudi Arabia. I think it is the right thing to do when our democratic 
values are on the line. I would like to see that come up for a vote, 
but I want to have a hearing and a markup before it comes to this 
floor.
  But, Madam Speaker, this Congress needs to start somewhere so we can 
step up our response as a country.

[[Page H1541]]

  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question. I urge a ``yes'' vote 
on this rule and the underlying resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 336) to make improvements to certain defense and 
     security assistance provisions and to authorize the 
     appropriation of funds to Israel, to reauthorize the United 
     States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act of 2015, and to halt 
     the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any further amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; (2) one 
     amendment if offered by Representative McCaul of Texas or his 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order or demand for division of the question and 
     shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 336.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
  Adoption of House Resolution 122, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 195, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 78]

                               YEAS--227

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     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)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     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
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     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)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Allred
     Castor (FL)
     Connolly
     Dingell
     Granger
     Kinzinger
     Pingree
     Quigley
     Ryan

                              {time}  1342

  Messrs. HIGGINS of Louisiana and HUDSON changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. NADLER, TAKANO, SARBANES, Ms. BASS, and Mr. NORCROSS changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 193, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 79]

                               YEAS--228

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries

[[Page H1542]]


     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     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)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     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
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     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)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--193

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Allred
     Connolly
     Dingell
     Granger
     Kinzinger
     Pingree
     Quigley
     Ryan
     Taylor
     Wagner


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1350

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________