[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.

                          ____________________