Repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Chairman Meeks. We work well together. When we disagree, we do it civilly, and I think that is the way this body should operate. But I do disagree on this one.
I have said many times before that war should not be on autopilot. I do think this is an outdated AUMF, and I do believe that Congress needs to reclaim its war powers under Article I of the Constitution.
I also share the desire to repeal the 2002 AUMF, as well as the 2001 AUMF, but that must be part of a serious process to provide clear, updated authorities against the terrorists who still plot to kill Americans at home and abroad. I still hope to work toward that end with my respected friend, Chairman Meeks, but a repeal and replacement should be simultaneous.
It is confusing to me that we are jamming through a standalone repeal without basic due diligence; without consulting the State Department, the Defense Department, or the intelligence community; without consulting the Government of Iraq and our coalition partners and allies.
In the 3 months since I made that complaint at our markup, the majority still has not scheduled a single briefing. This, in my judgment, is not a serious legislative process for the most serious issues that we face, and that is war and peace.
This feels like yet another political effort to undo one of President Trump's boldest counterterrorism successes: using the 2002 AUMF to remove Qasem Soleimani from the battlefield.
Soleimani was Iran's mastermind of terror for decades. He was responsible for the death of more than 600 Americans and wounded thousands more. He orchestrated the attack on our Baghdad Embassy. He plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador on American soil here in D.C. He oversaw Iran's support for Assad, who killed hundreds of thousands in Syria. In short, America and the world are much safer with Qasem Soleimani gone.
While the 2002 AUMF was largely about Saddam Hussein, it also clearly addressed the terrorist threats in and emanating from Iraq. All prior administrations, Republican and Democrat, have used it for that purpose.
Today, the biggest threat in Iraq is not Saddam Hussein. We can all recognize that. But it is the Iran-sponsored terrorist groups attacking our diplomats, our soldiers, our embassy, and our citizens. They cannot be targeted using the 2001 AUMF because they are not associated with the forces of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or ISIS, but they can be targeted using the 2002 AUMF, as the prior administration did to take out Soleimani, consistent with longstanding practice.
Last year, the Trump administration ``strongly opposed'' repeal, saying it would ``terminate a critical legal authority'' and undermine our defense ``against ongoing threats from Iran and Iranian-sponsored proxies.''
The Biden administration now claims that it does not need the 2002 AUMF for current operations because it has Article II authority to use force without congressional authorization.
Is that what we are going to do now, is yield to the President's Article II authority without any congressional authorization?
Madam Speaker, that is precisely what this repeal does. It takes our authority, our Article I authorities, away. We are repealing our Article I authority and yielding it to the President of the United States.
Telling the President to rely solely on Article II, in my judgment, is a big step backward from the war powers reform and reasserting Congress' Article I powers.
It is also inconsistent with the War Powers Resolution. That law says that the President's Article II powers are limited to responding to an attack on the territory or Armed Forces of the United States. It does not cover American civilians in a foreign country, such as our contractors, our diplomats, and our embassy, who are under attack, as I speak, in Iraq.
We should not encourage any President to go it alone without Article I congressional authorization.
Finally, today's vote is not happening in a vacuum. This rushed, standalone repeal, without any consultation with the Department of Defense, the Secretary of State, or the intelligence community, as Mr. Mast has consistently talked about, sends a dangerous message of disengagement that could destabilize Iraq, embolden Iran, which it will, and strengthen al-Qaida and ISIS in the region.
We would avoid such dangers by taking up a repeal and a replacement simultaneously. I think both sides of the aisle agree, we need to update this AUMF, and we need to reform it to the modern-day threats in the region. Saddam Hussein is no longer the threat.
Real AUMF reform requires Congress and the administration to work together. The chairman has committed to doing this, and I appreciate and trust him. We work well together, but we have to do this, to work together with the administration to replace this aging AUMF with updated authorities needed to keep Americans safe from today's terrorist threats, an updated AUMF that reflects the modern-day threats in the region.
Again, I look forward to working together with Chairman Meeks and our colleagues on this if we are going to be serious about war powers reform. But this bill is not it. This bill is not responsible. We are not doing this the right way. If we are going to repeal it, let's update the AUMF to modern-day needs and reform it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to comment that to me it is very interesting, the timing of the gentlewoman from California's repeal. It happened after President Trump had an air strike to take out Soleimani in Iraq, at exactly the same time. He had authority to do so under the 2002 AUMF and Article II under the Constitution.
What is interesting about now, the other side of the aisle was upset when President Biden struck the Shia proxies in Syria, and that is when we saw this bill resurrect itself again in this Congress. Very interesting timing.
They talk a lot about Article I on the other side, but aren't we abdicating our Article I responsibility?
I am all for updating this thing, but to completely do away with it and just give this President Article II authorities to do whatever he wants without any congressional review, in my judgment, is a wrong step forward.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just clarify again. This bill was filed last Congress after President Trump took out the mastermind of terror for two decades in the Middle East, Qasem Soleimani, to challenge his authority to take out one of the biggest threats to the region and to our American soldiers, 600 of whom were killed and thousands wounded.
That is the genesis for this legislation, and I think that is important to note. If we do away with this without replacing it, we abdicate our Article I authorities in an absolute manner to the executive branch under Article II.
I think that it is important for anyone watching this debate to understand what we are doing here today.
Madam Speaker, with that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a combat veteran, a distinguished servicemember, and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment, once again, that repealing this Authorization for Use of Military Force, which has been used in the past to take out Soleimani and other very bad actors, and not replacing it does not uphold our Article I responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, what we are doing is ceding our authority under the Constitution to the executive branch and saying: Oh, Article II, the President has unlimited discretion under Article II to do whatever the hell he wants to do.
That is not what this Congress should be doing. We need to replace this with an updated AUMF that reflects the threats in the region, the current threats, which are Iran and the proxies of Iran that have hit our embassy, have killed our soldiers, and are attacking our diplomats in the region.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Just a point of clarification to the chairman. I am not talking about a declaration of war against Iran. What we are talking about is what is the current threat in Iraq. Today, it is proxies, the Shia proxies of Iran in Iraq.
The reason why President Biden hit them in Syria, it is the authorities that President Trump used to take out Soleimani in Iraq, not in Iran. Soleimani, ``The Butcher'', the mastermind of terror for two decades, killing 600 American soldiers and wounding thousands more.
I am all for updating this thing, but to replace this and throw it out with not anything to protect our men and women who are in Iraq today, including the diplomats, is highly irresponsible, it is reckless, and it is dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We need to exercise our Article I constitutional responsibilities and update this outdated AUMF. That is precisely what we are arguing today. We are not saying that we should replace this, but we shouldn't repeal without an updated AUMF that reflects the modern-day threats.
As I close later, I will talk about the chairman and I working on that effort. That is what this body should be doing, because otherwise, if we repeal this, we are again ceding our Article I responsibilities to the executive, and just giving him unlimited Article II powers.
Mr. Speaker, I think I laid out our arguments, and I think it is irresponsible to repeal this authority, which still is used to protect our embassy diplomats and soldiers in Iraq against the Shia proxies of Iran.
I am committed to work with the chairman to update this outdated AUMF. And I think if there is any agreement in this Chamber, and also on both sides of the aisle, it is that we need to modernize it to the modern-day threats.
And as I read from the President's Statement of Administration Policy, the President says: I am committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a framework appropriate to ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from terrorist threats.
I agree with the President of the United States, and I think the chairman does as well. We have to do this, and it is not going to be easy, but it is time to update this outdated AUMF.
I would prefer to have repealed and replaced it with our updated AUMF. But as Brian Mast, a heroic veteran who lost his legs in battle, said, We cannot just repeal this and talk about updating when we haven't even talked to the Department of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the intelligence community about what is the modern-day threat, and what we need to do in Congress to exercise our Article I responsibilities that we have a responsibility to do, and not just cede everything to the executive branch under Article II.
The argument is made, well, this could be done under Article II. Well, that is probably true. But are we not abdicating our responsibility and ceding it to the executive branch by doing this? I would argue that we are.
Mr. Speaker, I want to close with the motion to recommit.
If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Foreign Affairs to consider my amendment to H.R. 256. It responds to the serious escalation by Hamas against Israel that we saw in May.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, Hamas launched over 4,000 rockets at our closest allies in the Middle East. This was a stark reminder of the dangerous threats that Israel faces from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and other terrorist organizations.
For this reason, our MTR makes sure that the United States can quickly react to Israel's security needs in the event of future attacks.
If enacted, this language would establish contingency plans to provide Israel with defense articles such as munitions, ISR technology, aircraft, and related services. It would also create a waiver to expedite arms transfers if Israel is under threat of military attack.
This language passed the House last Congress with broad bipartisan support, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it today.
I fear that the 2002 AUMF repeal we are considering today without a replacement may embolden our adversaries, especially Iran--the largest state sponsor of terror in the world--and its proxies by signaling that we are retreating from the Middle East.
Our MTR is intended to send a strong message that this is absolutely false. It will also send a message that passage will demonstrate our ironclad support for Israel and all our allies in the region.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McCaul moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 256, to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McCaul is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following: SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States to provide assistance to the Government of Israel in order to help enable Israel to defend itself by itself and develop long-term capacity, primarily through the acquisition of advanced capabilities that are available from the United States. SEC. 3. CONTINGENCY PLANS TO PROVIDE ISRAEL WITH NECESSARY DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES.
The President shall establish and update as appropriate contingency plans to provide Israel with defense articles and defense services that are determined by the President to be necessary for the defense of Israel. SEC. 4. WAIVER FOR EXISTING OR IMMINENT MILITARY THREAT TO ISRAEL.
Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Waiver for Existing or Imminent Military Threat to Israel.--
``(1) In general.--Upon receiving information that Israel is under an existing or imminent threat of military attack, the President may waive the requirements of this Act and direct the immediate transfer to Israel of such defense articles or defense services the President determines to be necessary to assist Israel in its defense against such threat. Amounts obligated or expended to carry out this paragraph shall not be subject to any limitation in law, or provision of any bilateral agreement, relating to the amount of United States assistance authorized to be made available to Israel.
``(2) Notification required.--As soon as practicable after a transfer of defense articles or defense services pursuant to the authority provided by paragraph (1), the President shall provide a notification in writing to Congress of the details of such transfer, consistent with the requirements of section 36 of this Act.''.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source