Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 28 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)

[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

[[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.

____________________