[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1829-S1836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN
THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign
Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.J.
Res. 7 and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of
S.J. Res. 7. I further ask that there be 2 hours of debate, equally
divided between the two leaders or their designees, with 10 minutes of
the Democratic time being reserved for Senator Menendez; further, that
the following amendments be called up and reported by number, Paul
amendment No. 193, Inhofe amendment No. 194, and Rubio amendment No.
195; further, that no other first-degree amendments be in order and no
second-degree amendments be in order prior to a vote in relation to
these amendments; finally, that upon the use or yielding back of that
time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed
and that following the disposition of the amendments, the joint
resolution, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the Senate
vote on passage of the joint resolution as amended, if amended, with 2
minutes equally divided prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7) to direct the removal of
United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic
of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.
Thereupon, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to
consider the resolution.
Amendments Nos. 193, 194, and 195
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments by
number.
The bill clerk read the amendments as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee], for others, proposes
amendments numbered 193, 194, and 195.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 193
(Purpose: To provide that nothing in the joint resolution may be
construed as authorizing the use of military force)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 6. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING NO AUTHORIZATION FOR
USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), nothing in this joint
resolution may be construed as authorizing the use of
military force.
amendment no. 194
(Purpose: To provide an exception for supporting efforts to defend
against ballistic missile, cruise missile, and unmanned aerial vehicle
threats to civilian population centers in coalition countries,
including locations where citizens and nationals of the United States
reside)
On page 5, line 7, insert after ``associated forces'' the
following: ``or operations to support efforts to defend
against ballistic missile, cruise missile, and unmanned
aerial vehicle threats to civilian population centers in
coalition countries, including locations where citizens and
nationals of the United States reside''.
amendment no. 195
(Purpose: To provide a rule of construction regarding intelligence
sharing)
Insert after section 3 the following new section:
SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING INTELLIGENCE SHARING.
Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to
influence or disrupt any intelligence, counterintelligence,
or investigative activities relating to threats in or
emanating from Yemen conducted by, or in conjunction with,
the United States Government involving--
(1) the collection of intelligence;
(2) the analysis of intelligence; or
(3) the sharing of intelligence between the United States
and any coalition partner if the President determines such
sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests
of the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, just like last year, I remain deeply
concerned about the humanitarian situation in Yemen, as well as the
erratic behavior of Saudi Arabia's leadership. We have all suffered
through that.
However, I oppose the resolution brought forth by Senators Lee,
Murphy, and Sanders, which, if implemented, would end all security
cooperation with our partners in Yemen against the Houthis.
First of all, we are not engaged in hostilities in Yemen against the
Houthis, and here is what we are doing in Yemen: We are providing
intelligence support that helps construct no-strike lists that enable
humanitarian efforts and protect humanitarian aid workers.
Some of these workers are workers we are very close to--our allies.
Our intelligence support is also vital to assisting our partners in
defending themselves against the Iranian-supported ballistic missile
attacks.
It is important to emphasize that our partners are the tip of the
spear, not us. Beyond this, our security cooperation provides leverage
that we have used with the Saudi-led coalition to advance peace
negotiations.
If we pull that support, here is what we can expect: Israel loses,
Iran wins, and the humanitarian situation will get worse. I think we
all understand that.
Our partners will be less capable to confront the lethal ballistic
missile threat, and peace efforts will lose a vital line of support.
Moreover, if a ballistic missile hits a population center and kills
Americans because we, due to the resolution, withheld intelligence, it
would be unforgiveable. That is why I introduced an amendment to
specifically protect our civilian population.
In closing, the vote is not about whether we approve of Saudi
Arabia's behavior; I don't. It is about whether we will use our
leverage with the Saudi-led coalition to ensure humanitarian access and
promote peace, and, more fundamentally, it is about whether we take
seriously our responsibility to keep Americans safe. That is really
what this is all about. It merely includes that we would eliminate the
threats to civilian population centers in coalition countries,
including locations where citizens and nationals of the United States
reside. I can't imagine anyone would be opposed to that.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Declaration of National Emergency
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support the joint resolution of
disapproval and to urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Let's be clear, there is no national security emergency at the
southwestern border. The President and his administration continue to
mislead Americans about what really is happening at the border in order
to fulfill a misguided campaign promise to build a wall. After weeks of
threats and toying with the idea of declaring a national emergency to
circumvent Congress, the President, in my view, wrongly issued such a
proclamation on February 15 under the authority of the National
Emergencies Act.
This proclamation redirects military construction funds provided by
Congress to the Department of Defense for projects deemed important to
the readiness, welfare, and missions of our Armed Forces. This action
is an extreme overreach of Executive authority. No President has ever
declared a national emergency to circumvent Congress for a construction
project he failed to get approved through legislation.
In fact, this authority to use military construction funds in an
emergency has only been used twice for projects in the United States--
first by President George Herbert Walker Bush during Operation Desert
Shield and then by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/
11 terrorist attacks--and those projects addressed
[[Page S1830]]
immediate and recognized needs of our warfighters. While the
administration claims President Obama also used this authority, the
distinction is, he used it for its true intent, to provide facilities
quickly in overseas locations for our warfighters in combat zones. To
say those needs are the same as President Trump's campaign pledge to
build a wall is simply wrong and misleading.
The President tries to justify this emergency as responding to a
humanitarian crisis at the border, but the wall is not an effective
solution to that crisis. What he ignores is the fact that the House and
Senate overwhelmingly approved $22.54 billion in border security
funding in the recent appropriations bill to enhance physical barriers
at ports of entry, to hire additional law enforcement personnel, to
address the humanitarian needs of migrants, and to increase
counternarcotics and counterweapons detection technologies used at the
border. Moreover, I would argue that to truly stop the influx of
migrants at our southern border, there has to be a much more
coordinated international effort led by the Department of State to
address the conditions in Central America that cause migrants to leave
their homes. Stopping mass migration at the source is the most
effective and humane policy.
In its statement opposing the resolution before us today, the
administration characterizes increasing numbers of ``family units,
unaccompanied minors, and persons claiming a fear of return'' as a
national security threat and a national emergency. Let us be clear.
These groups of people present no military threat to our Nation.
General O'Shaughnessy, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, confirmed
this in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
February 26, when he said: ``The threats to our nation from our
southern border are not military in nature.'' So I have a hard time
understanding why the administration thinks it is acceptable to use
Department of Defense dollars for a wall that would provide little to
no value to the Department of Defense in countering the very real
military threats our Nation does confront across the globe.
Some have argued that the wall is a necessary response to the opioid
crisis we are experiencing. There is no doubt we have a serious
substance abuse crisis in this country. According to the Centers for
Disease Control, over 70,000 people died in 2017 of drug overdoses.
That means more people died that year because of drug overdoses than
due to car crashes or gun violence. These numbers are staggering, and
no community is immune. Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to
combat this crisis, passing landmark legislation and historic increases
in funding, but the administration has failed to live up to its
commitments. A wall will not fix this problem.
Indeed, while the administration would have the American people
believe these drugs are coming across the southwestern border between
ports of entry--where they want to build this wall--the facts from the
Drug Enforcement Agency's 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment reveal
otherwise.
In the case of heroin, in their words, ``The majority of flow is
through [privately owned vehicles] entering the United States at legal
ports of entry.'' This will not be stopped by building a wall.
When it comes to fentanyl, according to the National Drug Threat
Assessment, smaller quantities but of higher purity are ``transported
into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from
China through Canada.'' A wall on the southwest border will not stop
packages of fentanyl coming through the mail from China. Again,
according to the DEA, the fentanyl that is smuggled in from Mexico is
most commonly, in their words, ``concealed in [vehicles] . . . through
[southwest border ports of entry]''--not through the terrain where the
President wants to build a wall.
To underscore this point, just 2 days ago, Customs and Border Patrol
announced the seizure of the biggest shipment of cocaine recovered at
the ports of New York and New Jersey in 25 years. About 1.6 tons of
cocaine were seized from a shipping container that arrived at the port
in Newark, NJ. President Trump's wall would not have stopped this
shipment.
Instead of addressing, for example, the high-purity fentanyl and
fentanyl precursors coming from China or improving law enforcement's
ability to detect and seize drugs at the ports of entry, this emergency
declaration for a wall will divert billions of dollars from our troops
and other national defense priorities and will not make our country any
safer. Canceling or delaying military construction projects will have
damaging impacts to the military services. These projects are intended
to improve deteriorating airfields and piers, provide modern training
and maintenance facilities, rehabilitate antiquated and hazardous
hospitals and schools, remediate environmental contamination at former
bases, and contribute to alliance and partnership responsibilities
around the globe.
Bypassing congressional intent that these funds be used on vetted
military construction projects in order to build a border wall Congress
has rejected time and again is an affront to our Nation's system of
checks and balances. It is also an abuse of the power of Congress
granted to the President to use in times of true security emergencies
or in times of war to address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces.
Furthermore, the administration wants to use another authority, title
10 United States Code, section 284, which allows the Department of
Defense, without requiring an emergency declaration, to ``provide
support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter
transnational organized crime of any other department or agency of the
Federal Government,'' to include the ``[c]onstruction of roads and
fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors
across international boundaries of the United States.''
This seems to be within the realm of the President's contemplation,
but because there is only about $238 million remaining in this
counterdrug account, the administration plans to reprogram roughly $2.5
billion appropriated in other DOD accounts into this counterdrug
account to use for the wall. We know much of the funds being
transferred would not be used for their original intent.
For example, the Army will have excess funding in military pay
because it will not meet anticipated end strength, and fewer personnel
opted into the new blended retirement system than anticipated, which
created savings. However, instead of transferring these dollars to
higher priority defense needs, DOD will have to use these amounts for
the wall.
Ironically, the $238 million now remaining in the counterdrug
accounts will not be used for its original purpose of providing
critical intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and other
detection capabilities for drug interdiction in the Caribbean, Central
and South America, and Asia. It will be used to build a wall that will
not solve the Nation's drug problems. We are literally taking money
that is now being used to help interdict the flow of drugs through the
Caribbean, in the Pacific, et cetera, and will put it into the ground
in Mexico, where the drugs are not passing through.
We also know DOD has immediate and compelling needs of its own that
we should be addressing. The Air Force and the Marines need billions of
dollars to clean up and rebuild Tyndall Air Force Base and Camp Lejeune
after hurricanes devastated both installations last year. According to
the Marines, it is about $3.5 billion to Camp Lejeune, and--according
to some numbers I have seen for Tyndall--it is about $5 billion for
Tyndall. Instead of fixing Camp Lejeune and Tyndall Air Force Base, the
President is going to take that $8 billion and put it into a wall
through the deserts of the Southwest.
What is more important to the national security of the United States
than rebuilding our major Marine Corps facility on the Atlantic Coast
and rebuilding our major Air Force facility in the Florida Panhandle? I
think, clearly, we should invest in our troops in the Marines and Air
Force. We know all of the services continue to have readiness gaps in
aircraft maintenance, depot maintenance, and ship overhauls. We know
there continues to be a shortage of childcare facilities in certain
locations, but these very real needs in our military are put in
jeopardy because of the President's obsession with building a wall on
the border.
[[Page S1831]]
As I indicated, the President intends to fill the 284 account by
reprogramming funds. Congress authorizes this reprogramming process to
allow the Department of Defense to conduct a certain amount of
transfers of funds between accounts for unforeseen problems. By
tradition and custom, reprogramming is done with the specific approval
of the defense oversight committees, but this time, when DOD transfers
dollars to pay for the President's wall, Congress will have no say. The
administration will only notify Congress it is happening. Again, this
is another example of complete disregard for the legislative branch's
role, as directed by the Constitution, in approving and appropriating
funds for the activities of the executive branch.
Furthermore, the amount of funds that can be reprogrammed in a year
has a $4 billion limit, and DOD will use a significant portion of that
$4 billion to transfer money for the wall. This means that billions of
dollars of other high-priority defense needs will not be met this year,
needs like ship maintenance, unexpected fuel costs, vehicle upgrades,
and other equipment shortfalls we will see at the end of this year. The
Department of Defense is in a situation where they have ships that have
to be refueled, they have ships that have to be overhauled, they have
equipment that must be prepared for the readiness of the troops that
they will not have the money for because it has been spent already, and
they have exhausted their reprogramming not serving the needs of the
military but building a wall in the middle of the deserts of the
Southwest.
We need to address the real issues at our southwest border. To do so,
I will continue to support effective border security measures, such as
those in the recently passed Homeland Security Appropriations Act to
invest in new technology and equipment, increase the number of Customs
and Border Protection agents, and make smart physical improvements at
ports of entry.
This law also included funding to increase the number of immigration
judges to help reduce the backlog in our immigration system, provide
humanitarian aid for Central American countries, and address
humanitarian concerns at the border.
These efforts are important and appropriate for the true nature of
the situation, but I cannot support diverting billions of dollars of
money from the needs of our men and women in uniform to fulfill a
campaign promise. Therefore, I will vote in support of the resolution
to terminate the President's inappropriate declaration.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
S.J. Res. 7
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wanted to come down here and
participate in this debate. It is the second one we have had in a
couple of months on the floor of the U.S. Senate regarding this
resolution with regard to U.S. policies and participation in helping
Saudi Arabia--a difficult ally but nevertheless a longstanding ally of
the United States--in its conflict with regard to Yemen. There have
been a number of speeches, as there were last time we debated this
issue a few months ago on the Senate floor.
I do want to call out my Senate colleague from the great State of
Utah, Senator Lee, who has been down here passionately arguing the
issue of constitutional authority that the President may or may not
have with regard to our U.S. military activities with regard to the
conflict in Yemen. Senator Lee is a great constitutional scholar. He is
someone who cares deeply about this issue, as do I. He is one of the
leaders in the Senate on this issue. That is where he has been focused.
That is why I believe he is part of this resolution that we are going
to be voting on here in a few minutes on the Senate floor.
I happen to disagree with him that under the War Powers Act, the
United States of America doing air refueling of Saudi aircraft--not
above Yemen, not above our conflict zone, but above Saudi Arabia--would
constitute hostilities. I think that is too limiting a view of that
statutory prohibition in the War Powers Act. I know Senator Lee comes
at this very honestly; I just happen to respectfully disagree with him.
I say to the Presiding Officer, as you have been watching this
debate, the vast majority of my colleagues, all of whom I have deep
respect for--Senator Durbin, Senator Sanders, Senator Murphy, and
Senator Menendez--have all been on the floor the last hour or so making
the case that if we, the United States, limit our involvement in this
war in Yemen, somehow it is going to get better.
We all want the humanitarian crisis in Yemen to end. We all want
that. I think all 100 U.S. Senators want that. The arguments that have
been made--and by the way, they were made a couple of months ago. We
debated this for a week. Nearly every U.S. Senator came down here on
the floor. They have just done it again. They said: The Saudis are
involved in this war in Yemen, a civil war--they are--and the
involvement of the United States is actually increasing the
humanitarian crisis.
These are the arguments. I have been listening. By the way, they were
the arguments a couple of months ago. Senator after Senator after
Senator made that argument. Well, I just wanted to provide a counter-
argument. I am hoping my colleagues are listening because we should not
pass this resolution. We should not pass this resolution.
One thing that all of these debates--and I listened and I watched.
Certainly, we debated this a couple of months ago for almost a whole
week. Do you know what word never came up from my colleagues in these
debates--almost never? The word ``Iran.'' Why is that important? As the
Presiding Officer probably knows, the Houthis are actually backed by
the Iranians. The Iranians are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism
in the world. Right now, we are having this debate all about the
humanitarian crisis in Yemen, which we want to stop--we want to stop--
but this resolution would say: OK, one of the best ways to stop it is
we, the U.S. Senate, are going to tell the U.S. military that in terms
of military assistance regarding Yemen, they can't work at all anymore.
We are not going to allow that.
Somehow our lack of involvement is going to, A, help end the war, and
B, help end the humanitarian crisis. That is the argument. That is what
we are voting on right now. I happen to think that argument is wrong. I
think that, but I am going to talk about some people who have testified
on this very issue in the last couple of weeks who have a lot of
knowledge on this issue. I am going to replay a little bit of what they
said because I think it is important for other Senators to hear this.
Yes, we have a lot of experts, but I am going to talk about some of the
people who have talked about this recently, who I think have a little
more expertise on this issue than the vast majority--I would say
actually every Member of this body, with all due respect.
Let me go back to this point. Right now, as the Ayatollahs in Tehran
watch this debate, they are very pleased. They are very pleased. Why?
Because nobody is talking about them. Nobody is talking about them.
Well, I am going to talk about them.
First of all, with regard to what started as a humanitarian crisis--
which has been going on for a long time, but this war really kicked in
when Iranian-backed Houthi rebels seized power in 2015. There is not a
lot of discussion about how this began, but that is how it began.
Tehran has been trying to establish a Hezbollah-like entity on the
Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, increasing capabilities to target cities in
Saudi Arabia with ballistic missiles supplied by Iran. This is all part
of Iran's broader strategy in the region to encircle our traditional
allies--Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab States, and, of course, Israel--
with proxy fighters in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Yet nobody is talking
about Iran.
Let's talk about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. U.S. humanitarian
aid has totaled almost $697 million in the last 14 months. Yes, the
Saudis could do a much better job, but they have invested over $1
billion in trying to end the suffering.
[[Page S1832]]
Iran--the country that started this war, the country that nobody on
the Senate floor is even talking about--has not spent a dime to relieve
the suffering. Now, of course, they have supplied weapons and ballistic
missiles in the tens of millions of dollars but nothing to relieve the
suffering.
(Mrs. BLACKBURN assumed the Chair.)
There is something else here that I wanted to reemphasize on the
floor of the Senate. The horrible death of Mr. Khashoggi is something
we have all condemned. It is very important that we do that. It is very
important that we get to the bottom of it. Again, there has been a lot
of discussion on that death, and any death is a problem, but let's talk
about some other deaths, again, caused by the Iranians--a country we
are not even talking about in this debate.
In 2005, 2006, and 2007, they started supplying Iraqi Shia militias
with very sophisticated, improvised explosive devices that killed and
wounded over 2,000 American soldiers--2,000 American soldiers.
Where is the outrage on that? How come no one is talking about that
issue? Where are the editorials about that issue--killing our
servicemembers?
The whole concept in which we have to view this issue is through the
lens of the Iranian efforts to spread terrorism and to push their
malign interests, including in Yemen. Yet, once again, it is all about
the Saudis, and no one is talking about Iran. No one is talking about
Iran.
What has happened in the last couple of days since we debated this
issue 2 months ago? Well, we had an Armed Services Committee hearing.
It was classified, but I am going to talk about things that I asked
some of the witnesses--all of the witnesses with regard to operations
in Yemen and Saudi Arabia--and the answers are clearly not classified.
I asked: Will stopping U.S. support to help the Saudis end the
conflict in Yemen? No. Would it prevent more civilian casualties? No.
Would it give leverage to our negotiators and speed up the peace
process? No. Would it support Israel's interests in the region? No.
Would it support the U.S. interests in the region? No. Would it help
embolden Iran with its regional malign goals? Yes.
These are the experts in the U.S. intelligence community and the
Pentagon giving these answers. This is about 3 or 4 weeks ago. They are
questions that I was asking.
Let me give you another group of experts. Just last week, we had a
hearing. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a hearing for the
nominations of our new Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, General John
Abizaid, and our new Ambassador to Iraq, a career Ambassador,
Ambassador Tueller, a career Foreign Service officer. That Ambassador
had just spent the last several years as Ambassador to Yemen.
I had the honor of introducing General Abizaid at his confirmation
hearing just last week. He was the U.S. Central Command commander. By
the way, he was the U.S. CENTCOM commander when this spread of these
IEDs killing American soldiers started and began. I happen to have been
a Marine Corps major, a staff officer to General Abizaid for 1\1/2\
years during this time. I had the honor of introducing him.
This is an individual who is a great American, by the way, who spent
his life in the Middle East. He retired as a four-star general, speaks
Arabic, has a master's degree from Harvard on Middle East studies, and
was an Olmsted scholar at the University of Amman in Jordan. He knows a
lot about this issue that we are debating, as does Ambassador Tueller,
who had just spent the last several years as the U.S. Ambassador in
Yemen. He is a career Foreign Service officer who is getting ready to
go to Iraq as our Ambassador.
We have a lot of expertise here, but, with all due respect to my
Senate colleagues, these gentlemen have spent their lives in the
region. I am just going to quote from a couple of the questions and
answers that came from General Abizaid and Ambassador Tueller on what
is going on in the region.
Here is an important one. Ambassador Tueller was asked about the
humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Remember, this is the current Ambassador
to Yemen--a very, very knowledgeable career political officer, a career
Foreign Service officer. He said: But almost 100 percent of the
humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen has been caused by the Iranian-backed
Houthis that overthrew the Yemeni Government, destroyed the
institutions of state, and caused approximately a 40-percent decline in
the GDP of the country.
Let me say that again. This is the current Ambassador to Yemen, who
is getting ready to be Ambassador to Iraq. He was asked who was
responsible. Right now, if you listen to the Members of the Senate, it
is all the Saudis, and the Iranians have nothing to do with it.
Here is a guy who knows more than anybody, with all due respect to
the people in this body, on Yemen: One of the things I often feel badly
about is because we have a relationship with Saudi Arabia, and
understandably, hold them to a higher account. We do focus on the
consequences of Saudi actions. That is what is going on in this debate
right now. But almost 100 percent of the humanitarian catastrophe in
Yemen has been caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis that overthrew the
government in 2015, destroyed the institutions of state, and caused
approximately a 40-percent decline in the GDP of the country.
He continued: I see very, very little reporting, for example, of the
millions and millions of mines that the Houthis have planted around the
country, that in fact have caused more civilian casualties and continue
to cause civilian casualties going into the future. That is a great
concern, and I think the American people need to be concerned about the
humanitarian issues caused by the Iranian-backed Houthis.
This is last week in the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Now, you
wouldn't know it in this debate because everybody is saying the whole
problem is Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is a problem. They are an ally. They are a difficult
ally. They are a complicated ally. But one of the experts in our
country on this issue says that almost 100 percent of this is the
Iranian-backed Houthis who caused the humanitarian crisis.
Let me just make a couple of more points. This is General Abizaid. I
see the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is on the floor,
and I hope he will talk to this because this was in front of his
committee. Iran and its proxies want us out of the region.
By the way, that is what this resolution would help us do. This is
General Abizaid last week: They see that their agenda is served by
having the United States disengaged and out to not counter their malign
influence. I think it is very important that we work to ensure that the
relationship with Saudi Arabia allows us to continue our influence in
the region. I think, as we continue to apply pressure to them, what I
hope is that we can create conditions with some of the elements to
begin to abandon sort of the Houthi ideological project, a project that
because it is an Iranian project really in Yemen will never bring
stability to Yemen.
Again, what is going on here is that the Iranian-backed Houthis in
Yemen are causing the humanitarian crisis. The Iranian regime wants us
out of the region, including in Yemen, and the U.S. Senate is getting
ready to vote on a resolution that does just that.
Again, the Ayatollahs are watching this debate, and they are very
pleased. They are very pleased with what is happening.
Let's hear one more final thing that General Abizaid said, again, in
this hearing just last week--a man who understands so much more about
what is going on in the region than my colleagues here on the Senate
floor: One thing we can't afford in Yemen, we can't afford to withdraw
U.S. expertise to the coalition about how to fight.
He is talking about the Saudis.
He continued: Does anyone think that if we leave and take our
assistance with regard to the Saudis, that is going to help the
humanitarian situation in Yemen?
The question almost answers itself, and here is General Abizaid, the
former CENTCOM commander, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
just last week, saying that is not a good idea: If we want them, the
Saudis, to fight right, we need to continue to give them that
expertise.
That is exactly the opposite of what this Senate resolution is
getting ready to do.
[[Page S1833]]
He continued: As far as competence in military operations conducted
by the Saudi coalition, I think they have much work to do. We all agree
with that. It is very important for us to continue to talk to them
about the targeting system--we all agree with that--and about the way
that they go about hitting the various targets, and about the
professionalization of their forces, and when mistakes are made, that
they do like what we do, which is to convene a board of officers, talk
about the mistakes, and then take corrective action necessary to gain
better and better expertise.
This is still General Abizaid, just last week: I am hopeful that
there is a way to move forward with regard to easing humanitarian
problems in Yemen, and that it will continue. And if I am confirmed--
which we all hope he will be very soon--will tell the Saudi Government
they need to do that.
But the former commander of U.S. Central Command--and I spent 1\1/2\
years with him in the region, seeing him in action every day--
emphatically stated that if we don't work with the Saudis in terms of
military assistance, it is going to get worse.
The current Ambassador to Yemen testified last week that almost 100
percent of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is caused by the Houthi
rebels backed by the Iranians. Yet, if you listen to the debate today
and if you listen to the debate 3 months ago on the floor of the
Senate, almost nobody even talks about Iran.
So given that the experts believe this strongly, given that they have
more knowledge--and they are not political; one is a career four-star
general, and one is a career Foreign Service officer--and given that
they think this is a really bad idea to vote for this resolution, I am
not sure how it advances American interests. I am not sure how it
advances humanitarian interests in Yemen, which we all want to advance.
It certainly will not advance the peace process, which we all want to
move forward.
The only entity in the Middle East that will be cheering a resolution
in support of American withdrawal with regard to the Saudis is the
biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the region, and that is Iran.
That is not just me saying it. That is literally some of the most
prominent experts in the country who have spent their lives focused on
these issues.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution that we are going
to take up here very soon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to associate myself
with those clear, concise comments of my friend and colleague from the
great State of Alaska. He is absolutely right from not only a military
standpoint but also from the standpoint of getting this resolved
through a political resolution.
We are going to consider the Senate joint resolution today, and it is
a joint resolution that directs removal of U.S. Armed Forces from
hostility in the Yemen conflict unless authorized by Congress. The
premise of this resolution is fundamentally flawed.
Let's start here, though. Every single one of us--all 100 of us--can
agree what a horrible situation this is and what a horrible catastrophe
this is in Yemen. But this resolution sets a bad precedent for using
the War Powers Act to express political disagreements with a President
under expedited Senate rules.
I want to start by making it absolutely clear what is and what is not
happening with respect to our current U.S. engagement in Yemen.
First of all, this is what isn't happening. What is not happening is
the injection of U.S. troops into active hostilities in Yemen. We are
not doing that.
What we are doing, however, is most important. We provide limited,
noncombat support, including intelligence sharing, and the practices
that minimize civilian casualties to the Saudi-led coalition. This
support is advisory in nature and helps defend the territorial
integrity of the region, which faces a very real threat from the
Iranians and the Iranian-backed Houthis.
This point can't be understated. The United States conducts war
operations entirely differently from any other country on the face of
the Earth, and it is done with a direct and involved method of
minimizing civilian casualties. Our presence here assists the parties
in conducting operations to minimize those civilian casualties, and it
is badly needed there because there are tremendous civilian casualties.
Iran's support for the Houthis, notably the transfer of missiles and
other weaponry, threatens to undermine our partners' territorial
integrity. It imperils key shipping routes and puts U.S. interests at
risk, including the thousands of U.S. personnel and citizens currently
within the range of Iranian-made missile systems under the control of
the Houthis. That said, there can be no argument that after 4 long
years of conflict, Yemen, a country with a long history of
socioeconomic challenges is now in the grip of the world's worst
humanitarian crisis at this moment. An estimated 24 million--80 percent
of the Yemeni population--are in need of some kind of assistance and
15.9 million people--more than half of the country's population--remain
severely food insecure.
A resolution to this conflict must be found, and make no mistake,
many of us on a bipartisan basis are working regularly every day to do
everything within our power to restore peace in a country that has been
ravaged by years of proxy war and fractious infighting. But we all
recognize that lasting peace can be achieved only through a political
settlement brokered by the U.N. The U.N.-led peace talks are our best
bet for achieving peace in Yemen, and they appear to be at a critical
juncture at this moment.
In the past, we have helped advance the negotiations by using the
support we provide to the coalition as leverage over the parties to
advance the negotiating process. In the past, parties have been
reluctant to take on the negotiating process, but in the place we are
in, we have the ability to leverage them to get there.
As this body considers ways to drive effective U.S. policy that helps
end the war and relieves humanitarian suffering in Yemen, I urge
Members to bear in mind that the U.N. negotiations are our best hope
for achieving peace. We must do everything in our power to advance this
cause, and advancing this cause does not mean turning our backs on the
negotiations and on what is going on there at this time. We need to
stay engaged with the limited engagement that we have had.
The peace envoys have come to this body and have testified over and
over again, and they are telling us they want deeper U.S. engagement.
Voting for this resolution sends a terrible message of U.S. division
and lack of resolve. We need to send a signal and resolve that we are
committed to playing an important role in pushing for a sustainable
political settlement. As I stated, turning our backs at this critical
moment is only going to empower them, and it is going to send a message
to people that they don't need to negotiate right now and that they are
actually making gains.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this at this time and give peace
a chance through the negotiations.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I want to be very clear about a couple of
things. No. 1, the fact that the word ``hostilities''--
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.
Mr. INHOFE. It was my understanding that before the vote on my
amendment, I would be recognized prior to the vote for 1 minute or so.
Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first vote is on the Paul amendment, but
there are 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to this vote.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I need to make a few points, and I say these
with great respect for my distinguished colleagues on the other side of
this issue, with great respect for my colleagues, the Senator from
Alaska and the Senator from Idaho, from whom we just heard.
I must nonetheless insist on a couple of points being made. No. 1,
this tortured definition of the word ``hostilities'' that we have heard
over and over and over again is itself, No. 1, ridiculous and, No. 2,
utterly at odds
[[Page S1834]]
with and irrelevant under the War Powers Act.
The War Powers Act itself, in title 50 of the United States Code,
section 1547(c), states in pertinent part that ``For purposes of this
chapter, the term `introduction of United States Armed Forces' includes
the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate,
participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular
military forces of any foreign country or government when such military
forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces
will be engaged, in hostilities.''
There is absolutely no question here that the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia-led coalition is involved in hostilities. No one doubts that. No
one tries to dress it up in ridiculous language amounting to anything
other than what it is, which is a war. It is also beyond dispute that
our U.S. Armed Forces are, in fact, involved in the commanding, the
coordinating, the participating in the movement of and the accompanying
of those forces, as they themselves are engaged in hostilities.
Therefore, the War Powers Act is itself implicated, and that matters.
Why? Well, because in the absence of an act of Congress authorizing
this, it is unconstitutional for us to send our brave young men and
women into harm's way. It is unconstitutional and unlawful for us to be
involved in a war, and, make no mistake, we are involved in a war.
Next, we hear a lot about Iran--Iran this and Iran that. I get that.
I get that some people in this Chamber really like war or at least
really like this war. I get that some people in this Chamber really
distrust the regime in Iran, and of that latter group, I count myself
among them. The regime in charge of Iran is not a friend of the United
States and is, in fact, an enemy.
I do not understand--for the life of me, I cannot comprehend how the
fact that the Iranian regime is an enemy to the United States in any
way, shape, or form authorizes an unconstitutional war effort, an
undeclared war by the United States in a civil war half a world away in
Yemen. It makes no sense. It is a complete non sequitur. So, look, if
somebody wants to bring a resolution declaring war on Iran, let's have
that conversation. If somebody wants to use military force in Iran or
anywhere else in the world--in Yemen--let's have that conversation too.
Remember a few years ago, when President Obama decided he wanted us
to go to war in Syria. At the time he made that point, Congress
reconvened. I believe it was during a summer recess. Congress came
back. We had a lot of discussions. A lot of us received classified
briefings in the SCIF, and, ultimately, Congress concluded: Let's not
do that. We didn't authorize that, but that is, in fact, for Congress
to decide. That is, in fact, Congress's decision.
The fact that Iran or the regime of Iran may be an enemy of the
United States does not justify our going to war in a civil war against
the Houthi rebels in Yemen. To suggest otherwise makes no sense and
shouldn't carry the day here.
Third, experts--we hear a lot of talk about ``experts.'' I don't care
whether general this, that, or the other or civilian this, that, or the
other in the Pentagon or elsewhere in the executive branch of the
government thinks that our going to war in somebody else's civil war
half a world away makes sense. I really don't care. They don't hold
this office.
I care in the sense that I will listen to them; I care in the sense
that their opinion might be informative to us as we exercise our
constitutional authority to decide whether we should go to war. But it
is a complete non sequitur to suggest that general this, that, or the
other or somebody or other at the Pentagon who is an ``expert'' thinks
that we should be in that war or that we should somehow be able to
circumvent the Constitution and the law in order to go to war.
Finally, with respect to the suggestion that this would somehow
hinder our involvement in international humanitarian aid, that is
completely incorrect. That is not at all what this resolution does.
This resolution wouldn't do that.
What this resolution does is very simple. It says that short of the
U.S. Congress's declaring war or authorizing the use of military force
in the civil war in Yemen, half a world away, we shouldn't be there,
and we should get out. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
resolution.
Thank you.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the situation in
Yemen and express my continued support for the resolution that is
currently before us.
The conflict in Yemen is approaching its 4th year and has resulted in
the most severe humanitarian crisis in the world. The human cost of
this war is truly hard to fathom. According to the United Nations,
approximately 20 million people--or more than two-thirds of Yemen's
population--have no reliable source of food or access to medical care;
roughly 10 million Yemenis are on the brink of famine; more than 3.3
million Yemenis have been displaced from their homes; and credible
reports indicate that approximately 80,000 children have died of
starvation and another 360,000 children suffer from severe acute
malnutrition.
The international community must come together to demand an end to
the violence in Yemen and a sustainable political agreement. I strongly
support the efforts of the U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Martin
Griffiths, in partnership with the United States and other engaged
nations, to expeditiously negotiate an end to the conflict and bring
relief to the Yemeni people. The December 2018 Stockholm Agreement and
resulting ceasefire around the port of Hudaydah was a critical
confidence building measure that will hopefully provide a foundation
for continued negotiations.
I commend my colleagues Senators Sanders, Murphy, and Lee for their
steadfast efforts to keep focus on the suffering of the Yemeni people.
As the events of the last 4 years have made clear, there is no military
solution to this civil war.
I remain deeply concerned about the significant number of civilian
casualties that have resulted from airstrikes by the Saudi-led
coalition. I strongly supported the decision last fall to cease U.S.
aerial refueling support to the coalition, an outcome I long advocated
for. It is appropriate for the U.S. to help the coalition avoid
civilian casualties, but those efforts have not yet yielded sufficient
results. Secretary Pompeo acknowledged this fact when he told Congress
in September that ``Recent civilian casualty incidents indicate
insufficient implementation of reforms and targeting processes'' and
``Investigations have not yielded accountability measures'' into the
behavior of coalition pilots flying missions into Yemen. It is clear
that the coalition has not sufficiently minimized the impact of the war
on Yemeni civilians, and more must be done. The U.S. should use all
available leverage to affect better outcomes.
The resolution before us would make clear that Congress does not
support the introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities in Yemen
absent an affirmative authorization for the use of military force. I
believe that any U.S. assistance to members of the Saudi-led coalition
should be explicitly limited to the following objectives: enabling
counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda and ISIS; defending the
territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia and UAE, including against
specific, imminent ballistic missile and UAV threats; preserving
freedom of navigation in the maritime environment around Yemen; and
enhancing the training and professionalism of their armed forces with a
primary focus on the adherence to the Law of Armed Conflict and the
prevention of civilian casualties. With particular regard to defense
against ballistic missile and UAV threats, the United States cannot be
in the position of providing targeting information in Yemen that would
be misused by the Saudi-led coalition either deliberately or through
carelessness.
Continued U.S. engagement is critical to helping to resolve the
conflict in Yemen, but any assistance to the Saudi-led coalition should
be provided in accordance with the principles outlined above,
activities which I do not believe conflict with the War Powers
Resolution. From a policy perspective, the provision of U.S. support
that could be used to enable offensive operations against the Houthis
runs counter to our objective of ending the
[[Page S1835]]
civil war and risks exacerbating the suffering of the Yemeni people.
Beyond the humanitarian crisis, the conflict continues to negatively
impact the strategic security interests of the United States, Saudi
Arabia, and UAE, including by emboldening Iran and relieving pressure
on al Qaeda and ISIS. It is time for this war to end, and Congress
should take every opportunity to make its voice clear on this point.
Order of Business
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Menendez's time be reserved; that all other remaining time be yielded
back; and that the Senate begin voting on the amendments, as under the
previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 193
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to the vote in relation to the Paul amendment no. 193.
Who yields time?
Mr. LEE. I yield back time.
Mr. SANDERS. We yield back time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 194
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to the vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of controversy about
this. I think the main thing for me at this late hour in relation to
use of force--ours is not that type of activity there. We are on the
outside. We are providing intelligence. We are not the tip of the
spear. We are not the inductee in that type of action.
I would just say that if they are successful in their efforts, then
the loser would be Israel. Iran would be the winner, and the
humanitarian situation would be worse. I think most of us understand
that.
The amendment we are talking about right now is merely an amendment
that would put us in a position where, if a ballistic missile or cruise
missile or UAV hits a population center and kills Americans, because
we, due to the resolution, withheld intelligence, it would be
unforgiveable. I think we all understand that. American lives could be
lost.
That is why I introduced an amendment to specifically protect
civilian populations. I am talking about not just other countries but
our civilian population. We all know the exposure is there, and this
would take that exposure away.
Motion to Table
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment.
This amendment provides an exception to this resolution in support of
efforts to defend against threats to civilian population centers in
coalition countries, including locations where citizens and nationals
of the United States reside. But the President already has authority to
support the defense of U.S. partners and U.S. citizens residing in
those countries, so it simply duplicates the authorities the President
already has.
In the best interpretation, this amendment is unnecessary, but this
amendment could also very easily be used by the administration as a
loophole that will allow the Department of Defense to continue the
unauthorized activities that the sponsors of this resolution are
attempting to halt.
This resolution is intended to end U.S. support for the Saudi war
against the Houthis in Yemen, support that has not been authorized by
Congress as the Constitution requires. Under the language of this
amendment, the administration could continue to wage that war under
different pretenses.
The goal of this resolution is to get the United States out of a war.
Senator Inhofe's amendment creates a pretext to keep the United States
in that war.
I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I move to table the
Inhofe amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NAYS--48
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
McSally
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
The motion to table the amendment (No. 194) was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 195
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to the vote in relation to amendment No. 195.
Mr. CORNYN. We yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 195.
The amendment (No. 195) was agreed to.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NAYS--46
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
McSally
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7), as amended, was passed, as
follows:
S.J. Res. 7
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under
article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States
Constitution.
(2) Congress has not declared war with respect to, or
provided a specific statutory authorization for, the conflict
between military forces led by Saudi Arabia, including forces
from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt,
Jordan, Morocco, Senegal, and Sudan (the Saudi-led
coalition), against the Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah,
in the Republic of Yemen.
[[Page S1836]]
(3) Since March 2015, members of the United States Armed
Forces have been introduced into hostilities between the
Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis, including providing to
the Saudi-led coalition aerial targeting assistance,
intelligence sharing, and mid-flight aerial refueling.
(4) The United States has established a Joint Combined
Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia, in which members of the
United States Armed Forces assist in aerial targeting and
help to coordinate military and intelligence activities.
(5) In December 2017, Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis
stated, ``We have gone in to be very--to be helpful where we
can in identifying how you do target analysis and how you
make certain you hit the right thing.''.
(6) The conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and the
Houthis constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a) of
the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)), either
hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into
which United States Armed Forces have been introduced.
(7) Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1544(c)) states that ``at any time that United States Armed
Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of
the United States, its possessions and territories without a
declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such
forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so
directs''.
(8) Section 8(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1547(c)) defines the introduction of United States Armed
Forces to include ``the assignment of members of such armed
forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement
of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of
any foreign country or government when such military forces
are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such
forces will become engaged, in hostilities,'' and activities
that the United States is conducting in support of the Saudi-
led coalition, including aerial refueling and targeting
assistance, fall within this definition.
(9) Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a) provides
that any joint resolution or bill to require the removal of
United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities without a
declaration of war or specific statutory authorization shall
be considered in accordance with the expedited procedures of
section 601(b) of the International Security and Arms Export
Control Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-329; 90 Stat. 765).
(10) No specific statutory authorization for the use of
United States Armed Forces with respect to the conflict
between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen has
been enacted, and no provision of law explicitly authorizes
the provision of targeting assistance or of midair refueling
services to warplanes of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab
Emirates that are engaged in such conflict.
SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM
HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE
NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.
Pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C.
1546a) and in accordance with the provisions of section
601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms
Export Control Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-329; 90 Stat. 765),
Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States
Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of
Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in
operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces, by not
later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this joint resolution (unless the President
requests and Congress authorizes a later date), and unless
and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for
such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted. For
purposes of this resolution, in this section, the term
``hostilities'' includes in-flight refueling of non-United
States aircraft conducting missions as part of the ongoing
civil war in Yemen.
SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING CONTINUED MILITARY
OPERATIONS AND COOPERATION WITH ISRAEL.
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to
influence or disrupt any military operations and cooperation
with Israel.
SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING INTELLIGENCE SHARING.
Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to
influence or disrupt any intelligence, counterintelligence,
or investigative activities relating to threats in or
emanating from Yemen conducted by, or in conjunction with,
the United States Government involving--
(1) the collection of intelligence;
(2) the analysis of intelligence; or
(3) the sharing of intelligence between the United States
and any coalition partner if the President determines such
sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests
of the United States.
SEC. 5. REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY CEASING SAUDI ARABIA SUPPORT
OPERATIONS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this joint resolution, the President shall submit to Congress
a report assessing the risks posed to United States citizens
and the civilian population of Saudi Arabia and the risk of
regional humanitarian crises if the United States were to
cease support operations with respect to the conflict between
the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen.
SEC. 6. REPORT ON INCREASED RISK OF TERRORIST ATTACKS TO
UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES ABROAD, ALLIES, AND
THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES IF SAUDI ARABIA
CEASES YEMEN-RELATED INTELLIGENCE SHARING WITH
THE UNITED STATES.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this joint resolution, the President shall submit to Congress
a report assessing the increased risk of terrorist attacks on
United States Armed Forces abroad, allies, and to the
continental United States if the Government of Saudi Arabia
were to cease Yemen-related intelligence sharing with the
United States.
SEC. 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING NO AUTHORIZATION FOR
USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), nothing in this joint
resolution may be construed as authorizing the use of
military force.
____________________