Repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 473, I call up the bill (H.R. 256) to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. 256.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 256. Let me start off by thanking my very good friend and partner, Barbara Lee, the author of this bill. I am proud to stand with her in her unyielding quest to repeal the 2002 AUMF, and I congratulate her early on for working so hard for over 20 years to get this done.

Nineteen years ago, as a junior Member of Congress, I faced one of the most consequential decisions of my career as an elected official with the United States Congress. The drumbeats of war were reverberating throughout Capitol Hill as the Bush administration prepared to invade Iraq. After carefully considering all the evidence before us, including unanswered questions about post-Saddam Iraq, I cast my vote against authorizing military force against the Hussein regime.

But our vote this morning to repeal the 2002 AUMF is not about relitigating our past. Rather, repealing this outdated authorization is about planning strategically for our future. It is about Congress reclaiming its constitutional obligation to weigh in on matters of war and peace.

On substance, the case for repealing the 2002 AUMF is unassailable. The 2002 AUMF would have no effect on any ongoing military operations in Iraq. The United States is not relying on the 2002 AUMF as the sole authority for any military operations. It has been used as an additional legal justification for strikes by Presidents from both parties but not as the sole authority for any strikes over the last decade. The Biden administration, in an unprecedented move, has announced support for the legislation we are moving today.

Repeal is crucial because the executive branch has a history of stretching the 2002 AUMF's legal authority. It has already been used as justification for military actions against entities that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist dictatorship, simply because such entities were operating in Iraq.

Given all of the countries active near Iraq today, including Turkey and Russia, the 2002 AUMF is vulnerable to being abused.

I have heard from my friend, the ranking member, Mr. McCaul, as well as other Members opposed to this legislation who expressed two concerns: one on the process, about the need for further briefings and conversations, and another on substance, about Iran-backed groups in Iraq.

On procedure, we should dispel ourselves of the fiction that this is a new issue. Congress has been debating what to do in a post-Saddam Iraq for 18 years, and our status of forces agreement expired in 2011. This has been a frontline issue for nearly two decades, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee moved this bill through regular order.

Regarding the concern about Iran-backed groups, let me once again reiterate that the 2002 AUMF was about removing the Hussein regime in Iraq. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iran. A decade and a half before the 2002 AUMF was passed, Iran and Iraq were fighting each other in a vicious war that lasted almost a decade.

If the President needs to strike these groups to defend our Nation, our diplomatic personnel, or our Armed Forces, he can do so under Article II of the Constitution. If any Armed Forces personnel on the ground need to defend themselves, they have the inherent right under unit self-defense principles.

Today, Congress has a historic opportunity to repeal this outdated authorization and reassert its proper authority over the solemn matters of war and peace.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the sponsor of this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I will just say really quickly: Before Soleimani, we had passed a bill on the AUMF in 2019, so it wasn't in response to President Trump. So this was attempted even before that.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), head of the United States delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger), a member of our HFAC committee with strong foreign affairs credentials.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), the vice chair of the subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations, and Global Corporate Social Impact.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. I want to remind the gentleman that the 2014 strike against ISIS, the primary AUMF, where it was utilized in the 2001 AUMF, continues and still is in existence. Also, when you talk about Soleimani, the primary utilization, still-President Trump talked about Article II. So those still are in existence to protect the American people and at the President's options.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the assistant Speaker.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his service, and I really respect him for what he put on the line for our country. We will always do that.

But I will also say that those individuals who we did bring before the committee, though they might be professors now, they either served in the DOD or the White House, plus we had a classified briefing in the auditorium with representatives from the Joint Chiefs. So we were making sure that we had to get all of the information that we could in regards to this issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Global Human Rights and the Subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations, and Global Corporate Social Impact.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the chair of the Small Business Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our illustrious leader and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the chairwoman of the Committee on Financial Services.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Eshoo).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to recognize a gentleman who I want to thank for his service, for he is a Marine combat veteran who served in Iraq.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friend from Texas that maybe we should do--if you think Iran is a threat--an AUMF for Iran. This AUMF was for Iraq.

Jayapal).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Schakowsky).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my friend that this 2002 AUMF has not been utilized as the sole reason or the sole authority in over 10 years. The 2001 AUMF is still in effect.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mace), and I thank the gentlewoman for her bipartisan spirit in coming down to the floor today to speak on this AUMF.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his hard work. As he has indicated, it is a pleasure working with him on this committee and working collectively and having open and honest dialog where we agree and where we disagree. The manner in which we do that, I think, serves this body in a very good way, and I look forward to continuing to work with him in that regard.

Even though we see this a little differently, I will say right now that I am ready to work with the gentleman in repealing and replacing the 2001 AUMF. I think that is what we utilized as primary for the 2014 ISIS issue in dealing with all of the terrorists and terrorism that is going on. But the 2002 AUMF was specific to Iraq.

Our duty and our responsibility in what took place is over. There comes a time when certain AUMFs simply become outdated and need to be repealed. We are going to do two others. We have an AUMF still on the books from 1957. We have another one that is on the books from 1991. There is no need to repeal and replace. They are outdated. Once they become outdated, let's just remove them from the books.

So let me again reiterate this: the repealing of the 2002 AUMF would have no effect on any outgoing military operations in Iraq. In fact, the only thing leaving the AUMF on the books does is risk inviting future administrations to try to stretch its legal authority and bypass Congress' constitutional obligation to make decisions on matters of war and peace, thereby getting past and abdicating our responsibilities under Article I authority and allow the executive to interpret the AUMFs far beyond their intent.

So the repeal of the 2002 AUMF is only one in a series of steps that Congress must take to reclaim its Article I authority, but it is, indeed, an important step. Today's historic vote is a turning point to quickly bring an end to this outdated AUMF. I understand from listening to the Senate that the Senate's intention also is to quickly bring the 2002 AUMF repeal for a vote.

So I look forward to Congress no longer taking a backseat on some of the most consequential decisions our Nation can make.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, the Out of Iraq Caucus, and a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 256, which repeals the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq passed by Congress nearly twenty years ago on October 16, 2002 as Pub. L. 107-243.

I extend my thanks and deep appreciation to our colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, for her tireless and unwavering devotion to repealing this misguided AUMF and acknowledging the grievous mistake history has shown it to be and as many of predicted at the time it would be.

Congress never intended for the 2002 AUMF to have such broad and extended reach.

Over the last 18 years, we have seen 3 Presidents use this legislation as a blank check to engage in serious military action.

The 2002 AUMF is an outdated piece of legislation and repealing it will not affect any current military operations.

Moreover, the 2002 AUMF is unnecessary because everything the 2002 AUMF covers is already fully covered under the 2001 9/11 AUMF, except for attacks against Iran.

Congress passed the 2002 AUMF to address the perceived threat posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein and the AUMF permitted the President to use the armed forces as ``necessary and appropriate'' to ``defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and to ``enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.''

U.S. military deployments and operations carried out pursuant to the 2002 AUMF--dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom--officially concluded in 2011.

Almost 18 years after the resolution's passage, the United States recognizes the sovereignty of Iraq and considers Iraq a key ally.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole duty to declare war and repealing obsolete Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) is essential for Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.

Leaving the 2002 AUMF in place increases the likelihood that future presidents will use it as a basis to start a new war, or expand a current one, without Congress's explicit authorization.

In July 2019, the House adopted a Lee amendment to NDAA virtually identical to H.R. 256, To Repeal the AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, by a bipartisan vote of 242 to 180.

The overly broad 2002 AUMF represents deterioration of Congressional oversight.

As our brave service members are deployed around the world in combat zones, Congress is missing in action.

Congress must repeal the 2002 AUMF immediately to fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide oversight and consent on matters of war and peace.

As provided under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, absent a Congressional declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force, the President as Commander-in-Chief has constitutional power to engage the U.S. armed forces in hostilities only in the case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Mr. Speaker, since the objectives which led Congress to pass the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) have been achieved, I believe the authorization to use that military force expired automatically.

That is why thirteen years ago, on October 31, 2007, I introduced H.R. 4020, the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007,'' which acknowledged and affirmed that the two objectives of the 2002 AUMF--(1) to defend the national security of the United States and (2) to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq--had in fact been achieved and called upon the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating military success in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, where a Congressional authorization to use military force has expired, the President must obtain a new authorization to continue the use of force.

As a co-equal branch of government, it is Congress's right and responsibility to be fully consulted regarding any potential plans to expand military operations in the region, to assess whether such action is in the national security interest of the United States and our allies, and to withhold or grant authorization for the use of military force based on this assessment.

As we have learned from the painful and bitter experience of the past 18 years, at the initiation of hostilities, the costs in terms of blood and treasure of U.S. military interventions abroad are often underestimated and the benefits overstated.

More than 6,800 American service members gave the last full measure of devotion to their country on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, with hundreds of thousands more returning with physical, emotional, or psychological wounds that may never heal.

The direct economic cost of the war in the Persian Gulf exceeds $1.07 trillion, including $773 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds, an increase of $243 billion to the Department of Defense base budget, and an increase of $54.2 billion to the Veterans Administration budget to address the human costs of the military involvement in Iraq.

We should not repeat the mistakes of the past and the legislation before us is directly aligned with the will of the American people.

I commend my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee for introducing this legislation and urge all Members to vote for H.R. 256 and repeal the misguided and certainly outdated 2002 Authorization For Use of Military Force in Iraq.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source