Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

<html>
<title> - MARKUP OF: H.J. RES 37, DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS</title>
<body><pre>
[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

MARKUP OF: H.J. RES 37, DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED
FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS

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

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

FEBRUARY 6, 2019

__________

Serial No. 116-3

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

_________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35-361 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman

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

Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director

Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

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

APPENDIX

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

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

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

RECORD VOTE

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

MARKUP SUMMARY

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

MARKUP OF: H.J. RES. 37, DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED
FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS

----------

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2019

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

APPENDIX

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

RECORD VOTE

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

MARKUP SUMMARY

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]