Michael McCaul

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me first say, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. I met today with U.N. officials on the refugee crisis. I have been to the camps in Jordan and Turkey, so I agree with the premise of this amendment. But, again, it does nothing to reduce our emissions. We should be debating, I think, bipartisan solutions, such as boosting research, technology, and innovation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me first say to my good friend from New Jersey that there are many of us on this side of the aisle who agree the climate is changing, and I think it is a question of how we get there and the solutions and innovation and technology. I hope that--it will not move forward; it will be, obviously, vetoed--maybe we can work together in a bipartisan way on something that can reduce emissions using innovation technology. I personally think nuclear power should be examined as well. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I will close after the gentlewoman yields back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Clean energy technologies are important in my hometown of Austin. We have a lot of clean energy in Irvine, California, a lot of clean energy, a lot of collaboration between our two States, but this is simply a finding and does not reduce our emissions. I again would urge, since I do not think this will become law, that we work on a bipartisan solution, talking explicitly about what you are talking about. We can pass these bills out of the House; we can pass them out of the Senate; and if we can do it bipartisanly, we can get it signed into law. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentleman has yielded back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Drought conditions, water scarcity are important in, I know, the gentlewoman's home State, certainly important in my home State of Texas. It will be--as climate change advances, the entire continent of Africa will face drought conditions. But, again, this is a finding. It doesn't, in and of itself, reduce the emissions, and I would again urge bipartisan solutions to advancing technologies and promoting innovation. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 148 inventors who will soon be inducted as the 2018 Fellows of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI) in an induction ceremony in Houston, TX that will feature a keynote address by U.S. Commissioner for Patents Andrew Hirshfeld. In order to be named Fellow, these men and women were nominated by their peers and have undergone the scrutiny of the NAI Advisory and Selection Committees, having had their innovations deemed as making significant impact on quality of life, economic development, and welfare of society. Collectively, this elite group holds nearly 4,000 patents. The individuals making up this year's class of Fellows include individuals from 125 research universities and non-profit research institutes spanning the United States and the world. The now 1060-member group of Fellows is composed of more than 100 presidents and senior leaders of research universities and non-profit research institutes, nearly 500 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; 30 inductees of the National Inventors Hall of Fame, 57 recipients of the U.S. National Medal of Technology and Innovation and U.S. National Medal of Science, over 30 Nobel Laureates, over 300 AAAS Fellows, 200 IEEE Fellows, and 164 Fellows of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, among other awards and distinctions. The NAI was founded in 2010 to recognize and encourage inventors with patents issued from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, enhance the visibility of academic technology and innovation, encourage the disclosure of intellectual property, educate and mentor innovative students, and translate the inventions of its members to benefit society. We are greatly indebted to innovators such as these for contributions to society through their inventions. I commend these individuals, and the organizations and taxpayers that support them, for the work they do to revolutionize the world we live in. As the following inventors are inducted, may it encourage future generations to strive to meet this high honor and continue the spirit of discovery and innovation. The 2018 NAI Fellows include: Seth Y. Ablordeppey, Florida A&M University; Rafi Ahmed, Emory University; Pulickel M. Ajayan, Rice University; Rodney C. Alferness, University of California, Santa Barbara; Emad S. Alnemri, Thomas Jefferson University; Hal S. Alper, The University of Texas at Austin; Evelina Angov, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research; Bernard P. Arulanandam, The University of Texas at San Antonio; Stephen F. Badylak, University of Pittsburgh; Harrison H. Barrett, The University of Arizona; Mark A. Barteau, Texas A&M University; Jacqueline K. Barton, California Institute of Technology; Susan J. Baserga, Yale University; Rashid Bashir, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Frank S. Bates, University of Minnesota; J. Michael Bishop, University of California, San Francisco; Elizabeth H. Blackburn, University of California, San Francisco; Sylvia M. Blankenship, North Carolina State University; Robert E. Burrell, University of Alberta; Ahmed A. Busnaina, Northeastern University. Yihai Cao, Karolinska Institute; Federico Capasso, Harvard University; Ni-Bin Chang, University of Central Florida; Constance J. Chang-Hasnain, University of California, Berkeley; Russell R. Chianelli, The University of Texas at El Paso; Young I. Cho, Drexel University; Sang H. Choi, NASA Langley Research Center; Chih-Chang Chu, Cornell University; Walter G. Copan, National Institute of Standards and Technology; Mark S. Cushman, Purdue University; Karl A. Deisseroth, Stanford University; Calum J. Drummond, RMIT University; Lawrence T. Drzal, Michigan State University; Igor R. Efimov, The George Washington University; Hesham M. El Gamal, The Ohio State University; Mary K. Estes, Baylor College of Medicine; Omid C. Farokhzad, Harvard Medical School; Mauro Ferrari, Houston Methodist Hospital/Cornell Medical College; Alan S. Finkel, Monash University/ Australia's Chief Scientist; Jessica Fridrich, Binghamton University; Elaine V. Fuchs, The Rockefeller University. Judy L. Genshaft, University of South Florida; Durham Kenimer Giles, University of California, Davis; George T. Gillies, University of Virginia; Jay R. Goldberg, Marquette University; Jeffrey I. Gordon, Washington University in St. Louis; Craig J. Gotsman, New Jersey Institute of Technology; Linda G. Griffith, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; John L. Hall, University of Colorado Boulder; Tayyaba Hasan, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School; Gary M. Hieftje, Indiana University; M. Cynthia Hipwell, Texas A&M University; Dean Ho, National University of Singapore; Peter Hfj, The University of Queensland; Robert A. Holton, Florida State University; Susan Band Horwitz, Albert Einstein College of Medicine; Matthew A. Howard, Ill, University of Iowa; Alex Qin Huang, The University of Texas at Austin; Shu-Yuen Ron Hui, The University of Hong Kong/Imperial College London; Bahram Javidi, University of Connecticut; Quanxi Jia, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York; Hongxing Jiang, Texas Tech University. Jingyue Ju, Columbia University; Kenneth Kaushansky, Stony Brook University; Pradeep K. Khosla, University of California, San Diego; Robert P. Kimberly, The University of Alabama at Birmingham; Joseph W. Kloepper, Auburn University; Thomas L. Koch, The University of Arizona; Philip G. Koehler, University of Florida Jindrich Kopecek, The University of Utah; Sally Kornbluth, Duke University; William J. Koros, Georgia Institute of Technology; Adrian R. Krainer, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; Tei-Wei Kuo, National Taiwan University; Joshua LaBaer, Arizona State University; Roger A. Laine, Louisiana State University and A&M College; Edmond J. LaVoie, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Abraham P. Lee, University of California, Irvine; Anna M. Leese de Escobar, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific; Warren J. Leonard, National Institutes of Health; Johannes Lercher, Technical University of Munich/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Teik C. Lim, The University of Texas at Arlington; Craig W. Lindsley, Vanderbilt University; Elizabeth G. Loboa, University of Missouri; Ted L. Maddess, Australian National University; Elizabeth M. McNally, Northwestern University; Muriel Medard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ellis Meng, University of Southern California; Joachim Messing, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Lalit K. Mestha, The University of Texas at Arlington; Lyle R. Middendorf, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Shaker A. Mousa, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Science; William P. Murphy, Jr., Florida International University; William L. Murphy, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Prakash Nagarkatti, University of South Carolina; Nathan Newman, Arizona State University; Bert W. O'Malley, Baylor College of Medicine; Aydogan Ozcan, University of California, Los Angeles; Muthukumaran Packirisamy, Concordia University; Drew M. Pardoll, Johns Hopkins University; Roderic I. Pettigrew, Texas A&M University; Apparao M. Rao, Clemson University. Theodore S. Rappaport, New York University; L. Rafael Reif, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Joshua Rokach, Florida Institute of Technology; Yoram Rudy, Washington University in St. Louis; Wheeler Ruml, University of New Hampshire; Thomas P. Russell, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Jagannathan Sarangapani, Missouri University of Science and Technology; Vinod Sarin, Boston University; Rahul Sarpeshkar, Dartmouth College; Steven J. Sasson, University of South Florida; Christine E. Schmidt, University of Florida; Zheng John Shen, Illinois Institute of Technology; Thomas E. Shenk, Princeton University; Mark B. Shiflett, The University of Kansas; Michael L. Simpson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory/The University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Koji Sode, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Costas M. Soukoulis, Iowa State University; John W. Spirk, Cleveland Clinic; Gary Stacey, University of Missouri; F. William Studier, Brookhaven National Laboratory; Samuel I. Stupp, Northwestern University; Koduvayur P. Subbalakshmi, Stevens Institute of Technology. Bruce A. Sullenger, Duke University; Xiuzhi S. Sun, Kansas State University; Jing Sun, University of Michigan; Yu Sun, University of Toronto; Wanchun Tang, Virginia Commonwealth University; Susan S. Taylor, University of California, San Diego; Bhavani Thuraisingham, The University of Texas at Dallas; David A. Tirrell, California Institute of Technology; Don M. Tucker, University of Oregon; Jeffrey S. Vitter, The University of Mississippi; Israel E. Wachs, Lehigh University; Albert Wang, University of California, Riverside; Michael S. Waterman, University of Southern California; Alan W. Weimer, University of Colorado Boulder; Louis M. Weiner, Georgetown University; Robert G. Wilhelm, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Yushan Yan, University of Delaware; Jian Yang, The Pennsylvania State University; Eui-Hyeok Yang, Stevens Institute of Technology; Mark H. Yim, University of Pennsylvania; Michael J. Yost, Medical University of South Carolina; James M. Zavislan, University of Rochester; Ruiwen Zhang, University of Houston; Huda Y. Zoghbi, Baylor College of Medicine.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I close, I include in the Record a statement of administration policy issued on Monday. Statement of Administration Policy S.J. Res. 7--Directing the President to Remove United States Armed Forces from Hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that Have Not Been Authorized by Congress--Sen. Sanders, I-VT and 19 cosponsors The Administration strongly opposes passage of S.J. Res. 7, a joint resolution that purports to direct the President to remove United States forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Yemen, with certain exceptions. The premise of the joint resolution is flawed. Since 2015, the United States has provided limited support to member countries of the Saudi-led coalition, including intelligence sharing, logistics support, and, until recently, aerial refueling, to assist in the defense of United States allies and partners. The provision of this support has not caused United States forces to be introduced into hostilities. Such support is provided pursuant to licenses and approvals under the Arms Export Control Act, statutory authorities for Department of Defense to provide logistics support to foreign countries, and the President's constitutional powers. Because the President has directed United States forces to support the Saudi-led coalition under his constitutional powers, the joint resolution would raise serious constitutional concerns to the extent it seeks to override the President's determination as Commander in Chief. In addition to its erroneous premise, the joint resolution would harm bilateral relationships in the region, negatively affect our ability to prevent the spread of violent extremist organizations--such as al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS in Yemen--and establish bad precedent for future legislation by defining ``hostilities'' to include defense cooperation such as aerial refueling for purposes of this legislation. While we appreciate that sections 5 and 6 of the resolution acknowledge these serious consequences to some extent, after-the-fact reporting is not an effective means to mitigate them. Our continued cooperation with regional partner nations allows the United States to support diplomatic negotiations to end the conflict, promote humanitarian access, mitigate civilian casualties, enhance efforts to recover United States hostages in Yemen, and defeat terrorists who seek to harm the United States. If S.J. Res. 7 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend he veto the joint resolution.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me first say, at the outset, that the chairman and I work very closely together. There is a recent article that said that Chairman Eliot Engel and Ranking Member McCaul forge a rare bipartisan bond, and I think that is the way we like to conduct this committee. It is a national security committee, and it needs to be bipartisan. However, as the chairman mentioned, there are times when we do have policy differences, but we do have respect in those differences. We did take this up on the floor several weeks ago. I did oppose it then, and I oppose it for the same reasons today, most importantly, because the resolution uses the war powers mechanisms to direct the removal of U.S. troops from hostilities. The problem is there are no U.S. Forces to remove, and the basic premise of this resolution is that somehow we have forces in Yemen that need to be removed that are engaged in hostilities. As the Department of Defense has repeatedly confirmed, no United States Forces are conducting hostilities against the Houthis in Yemen. This resolution abuses a war powers tool to get at a completely different security assistance issue which Congress already has clear tools to address. If Members want to condition or cut off U.S. security assistance to Saudi Arabia, then bring forward a bill to do just that. But this resolution does nothing to address the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. It does nothing to secure justice for the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi. It does not even make real decisions on U.S. security assistance to Saudi Arabia. The only thing it addresses clearly is the midair refueling of coalition aircraft, ended in November of 2018, which is not in danger of restarting. Meanwhile, this resolution stretches the definition of war powers hostilities to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries. Specifically, it reinterprets U.S. support to these countries as ``engagement in hostilities.'' This radical reinterpretation has implications far beyond Saudi Arabia. This precedent will empower any single Member to use privileged war powers procedures to force congressional referendums that could disrupt U.S. security cooperation agreements with more than 100 countries around the world. Just days after Israel was forced to respond to rocket attacks from Gaza, I believe this would be a dangerous precedent to legitimize this abuse of process. It could also be used to call into question our commitments to NATO members. Let me remind my colleagues that we are celebrating NATO's 70th anniversary this week, as we saw the Secretary of NATO address a joint session of Congress. Finally, this one-sided resolution completely ignores the destructive role of the Houthis and their backers in Tehran. The Houthis violently overthrew the Government of Yemen. They are attacking Saudi Arabia with weapons they got from Iran in violation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions. They have killed Saudi civilians and endangered many Americans living there. Human Rights Watch accused the Houthis of taking hostages and torturing detainees. The United Nations says the Houthis use civilian human shields. The World Food Program has criticized them for illegally stealing urgently needed food aid. The Houthis have targeted ships in the Red Sea. These realities are ignored in the text of this resolution. The only impact this resolution will have on the Houthis will be to encourage them. In addition, Madam Speaker, this is very important because, since the last time we debated this on the floor, the Houthis engaged in a propaganda outlet, supported by Hezbollah, actively touting this very resolution online. They used our debate on the floor of the Congress to advance their propaganda, a proxy of Iran and Yemen. This is what we are doing here today. I would submit, Madam Speaker, that is very dangerous. It is dangerous, and I believe it is reckless. This will weaken the hand of the U.N. Special Envoy, as well, to Yemen, whose efforts currently represent the best hope we have of bringing a negotiated end to this conflict and ending the suffering of the people of Yemen. So, for these reasons, I continue to oppose this pro-Iran, pro-Houthi resolution. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting against it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, it really, basically, states yet again that the fundamental premise of this resolution is flawed, because U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities against the Houthis in Yemen, which is what the War Powers Act requires. If we want to cut off economic assistance or logistic assistance, security assistance to Saudi, there is a way to do that, but it is not through the War Powers Act. I think it is unfortunate that we couldn't work that out, but I think we are using the wrong vehicle here. I think this confrontation abuses the War Powers process, and we need to protect the integrity of the War Powers Act that Congress, in its wisdom, passed. Also, what worries me is the resolution stays silent on the role of Iran. It does not condemn the Houthis, who are responsible for the killings. It tells them both to press on. It also undermines the peace negotiations going on, as I speak. The U.S. envoy is working with the full support of the United States to negotiate a political end to this conflict. Getting all parties to the table has taken substantial pressure, which I believe this resolution would relieve. Again, I think the fact that the Houthis are using this resolution as propaganda to advance their cause is concerning and disturbing. The other side cannot tell us specifically what assistance this resolution would cut off. What I can say for sure is that this resolution says to the Houthis and to Iran to keep going, because you can gain more ground. It only emboldens the rebels who violently overthrew Yemen's government and the radical regime that backs them. That would be Iran. So I think this resolution would set a dangerous precedent with respect to the War Powers Act, a dangerous, damaging policy. Once again, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCAUL. I am in its current form.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the Yemen resolution before us here today is pro-Iran and anti-Israel. I rise today to offer a motion stating that it is in the national security interest of the United States to oppose the global movement to boycott the State of Israel. This motion will not kill the joint resolution or send it back to the committee. If adopted, the resolution will immediately proceed to final passage. As we heard from the powerful speech of the Secretary of NATO yesterday, it is in our national interest to work with our allies to counter our shared threats and promote our shared values. Since its founding in 1948, the United States has stood shoulder to shoulder with Israel against enemies that want to destroy it. Let's be clear about the BDS movement: It is yet another enemy of Israel. It wants to exclude, isolate, and, ultimately, destroy Israel. The founder of the BDS movement has stated: ``We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian . . . will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.'' The BDS movement is not about equality. It is not about peace. It is about undermining negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, and it is about placing all of the blame on one party, and that is Israel. We do not support a movement that demands concessions from one party alone. We do not stand with a movement that seeks to isolate and shame our strongest ally in the Middle East. By weakening Israel, the global BDS movement endangers American security. When foreign entities like the U.N. foster boycotts against Israel, they are interfering with the United States' foreign policy. The Senate passed a bill, S. 1, in its wisdom, 2 months ago with overwhelming bipartisan support to tackle BDS, better support Israel and Jordan, and sanction Assad's brutal regime. Sadly, the House Democratic leadership won't let that bill or a House version of that bill to this floor for a vote. Mr. Speaker, I want to close with this: As the son of a World War II veteran, a B-17 bombardier who bombed the Nazis and was part of the D- day air campaign, it saddens me that we are still struggling here today with the same issues that the Greatest Generation defeated. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Cole for yielding. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act, under a rule that would allow an amendment to add a section recognizing the dangers of a precipitous withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan. This amendment would change H.R. 336 to mirror the text of the Senate companion bill S. 1. S. 1 passed the Senate just last week by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 77-23. I introduced this House companion in January. This package of bipartisan bills from last Congress bolsters the security of America and our allies in the Middle East. This bill authorizes U.S. security assistance to Israel over a 10- year period and updates key elements of our security cooperation to ensure that Israel can respond to the significant threats it faces from its neighbors. It also reauthorizes the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act, allowing Jordan to remain eligible to receive special treatment for the transfer of U.S. defense articles and services. Jordan is a critical ally in the fight against ISIS and other extremist groups. We need to make sure that they are adequately equipped to help maintain stability in the Middle East. H.R. 336 also contains the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act. This bill passed the House earlier this year. It should have been law a long time ago. This act will impose long-overdue sanctions against Syria's Assad regime and its backers, including Iran and Russia, for their egregious human rights abuses. Finally, this bill empowers State and local governments in the United States to counter the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, otherwise known as BDS, movement's discriminatory economic warfare against Israel. These provisions have already passed the Senate with bipartisan support. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question in order to consider this important bill to shore up U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East and take action against Assad's murderous regime.