Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces From Hostilities in the Republic of Yemen That Have Not Been Authorized By Congress

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source