[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 106 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H2899-H2910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
REPEALING THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
RESOLUTION OF 2002
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 256
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note)
is hereby repealed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. McCaul) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 256.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
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.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
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
[[Page H2900]]
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.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0930
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), the sponsor of this bill.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, let me first thank our
chairman, Mr. Meeks, for moving this bill through committee. It wasn't
an easy lift, and his leadership was extremely important in getting us
to where we are today.
I also thank Leader Hoyer, Speaker Pelosi, and let me take a minute
to thank our staff: My chief of staff, Julie Nickson, who is here with
us today; my legislative director, Gregory Adams; Congressman Meeks'
staff; and all of the staff members who have worked for 20 years to get
us to this point.
I also want to thank our Democratic and Republican cosponsors and our
outside broad spectrum of groups, like the Friends Committee on
National Legislation, Win Without War, the American Legion, and
Americans for Prosperity that have fought alongside us.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of
Administration Policy and letters of support from many of these groups.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 256--Repeal of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002--Rep. Lee, D-CA with 134 co-sponsors
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 256, to
repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (``2002 AUMF''). This bipartisan
legislation would terminate the October 16, 2002, statutory
authorization for the use of military force against Iraq.
The Administration supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF, as
the United States has no ongoing military activities that
rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and
repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on
current military operations. Furthermore, the President is
committed to working with the Congress to ensure that
outdated authorizations for the use of military force are
replaced with a narrow and specific framework appropriate to
ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from
terrorist threats.
In working with the Congress on repealing and replacing
other existing authorizations of military force, the
Administration seeks to ensure that the Congress has a clear
and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action
and of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and
interests around the world. As the Administration works with
the Congress to reform AUMFs, it will be critical to maintain
the clear authority to address threats to the United States'
national interests with appropriately decisive and effective
military action.
____
[Press Release--June 14, 2021]
CVA Urges Passage of 2002 AUMF Repeal
Grassroots veterans group applauds Rep. Lee, bipartisan leadership on
critical measure to restore balance of power
Arlington, VA.--Concerned Veterans for America (CVA)
Executive Director Nate Anderson released the following
statement urging the U.S. House to pass H.R. 256, Rep.
Barbara Lee's bill to repeal the 2002 Authorization for the
Use of Military Force (AUMF):
``Debating, authorizing, and exercising oversight of
American military action is one of Congress's most solemn
duties. Unfortunately, Congress has largely deferred to the
executive branch and neglected its role in matters of war and
peace over the last twenty years. Repealing the 2002 AUMF
would be an important step toward Congress reasserting its
constitutional role in shaping foreign policy and giving the
American people a voice. We applaud Rep. Lee for her
continued leadership on this issue along with the broad
coalition of bipartisan representatives and organizations who
have found common ground in this endeavor.''
BACKGROUND
Americans for Prosperity, a partner of CVA, issued a Key
Vote Alert for this measure, signaling it will take into
account lawmakers' votes in its annual legislative scorecard.
CVA recently led a coalition in sending a letter to members
of Congress urging support of a bipartisan resolution
introduced by Sens. Kaine and Young to repeal a pair of
obsolete AUMFs. The group was joined on the letter by Defense
Priorities Initiative, Freedom Works, and the R Street
institute.
CVA has been working to repeal the outdated 2001 and 2002
AUMFs for years, making it a priority for its grassroots and
advocacy efforts in its annual policy agendas (2019, 2020,
2021). Notably, though less than a fifth of current members
of Congress voted on the 2001 AUMF, it has been invoked to
justify 41 operations in 19 countries since passage.
In 2019, the group partnered with VoteVets, a traditional
rival, to urge lawmakers to reclaim their constitutional war
powers duties. The New York Times wrote about the unlikely
partnership. Setting the example for lawmakers and the
administration, the groups found common ground on this issue
and flew activists and volunteers in to DC to meet with their
members of Congress to bring lasting policy change in
Washington.
CVA has been staunch in its support of lawmakers who have
taken a principled stand and worked to repeal these measures
in the past. In 2019, CVA welcomed the addition of the
bipartisan War Powers Caucus to Congress, applauding
lawmakers for prioritizing the issue. CVA also launched a
digital ad campaign thanking lawmakers for standing against
endless war, praising lawmakers for voting to ensure proper
Congressional input before any offensive military force
against Iran.
February 17, 2021.
Dear Members of Congress, As organizations from across the
ideological spectrum, we are committed to addressing one of
our country's most critical national security needs: ending
our forever wars. We don't always agree on the reasons to do
so, but we do
[[Page H2901]]
agree that nearly two decades of endless war has failed to
make us safer and a new approach is necessary. To achieve
this goal and reorient U.S. foreign policy away from the
unaccountable, interventionist approach we've seen for nearly
two decades, Congress must sunset the 2001 Authorization for
the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and repeal the 2002 Iraq
AUMF.
Since its enactment on September 14, 2001, the 2001 AUMF
has served as a blank check for endless, global war under
multiple presidents. Despite congressional intent to only
give then-President George W. Bush the authority to use
military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks
and those who harbored them, the law failed to include any
time limits, geographic constraints, specific objectives or
an exit strategy. As a result, three successive presidents
have used the law to unilaterally expand the nation's use of
military force against individuals, groups, and even nation
states never intended by Congress. Presidents Bush, Obama,
and Trump have used the 2001 AUMF to justify U.S. military
action in 19 countries at least 41 times. The expansive U.S.
militarized counterterrorism footprint now extends to at
least 80 countries, costing an estimated $6.4 trillion, as
well as the lives of thousands of American soldiers, and
hundreds of thousands of civilians abroad.
Congress passed the 2002 Iraq AUMF to authorize force
against the Saddam Hussein regime. It is not required for any
ongoing military activities, as the executive branch relies
on an overly broad interpretation of the 2001 AUMF for
operations against ISIS, al Qaeda, and other groups. However,
both the Obama and Trump administrations expanded their
interpretation of the scope of the 2002 Iraq AUMF beyond
congressional intent. Most recently, the Trump administration
cited it as a legal basis for the targeted killing of Iranian
general Qassem Soleimani, an action clearly unrelated to the
original scope of the authorization. Retaining this law
renders it susceptible to further abuse.
President Biden has stated a desire to end the forever
wars. With this in mind, Congress should sunset the 2001 AUMF
eight months after a law is enacted and immediately repeal
the 2002 Iraq AUMF. Rather than expediting a new AUMF,
Congress must first publicly debate whether military force is
both necessary and appropriate for addressing current
security challenges and what, if any, new legal authority may
be necessary. In the interim, Article II of the Constitution
provides the president with the legal authority needed to
defend our country against an actual or truly imminent armed
attack.
With a new president who has signalled support for our
government's institutional checks and balances and a U.S.
public that supports an end to endless war, it is time for
Congress seize the opportunity to reassert its constitutional
authority over war powers. In fact, the U.S. Constitution
places the power to declare war squarely in the hands of
Congress for good reason. Our democracy relies on the
foundational belief that it is the people to whom the U.S.
government remains accountable, not the president. By
assigning Congress the sole authority to declare war, our
nation's founders sought to ensure that a decision as
momentous as the one to wage war was properly debated,
scrutinized, and justified. Failing to sunset the 2001 AUMF
and repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF now will continue to
effectively cede Congress' power over war and peace to the
executive branch.
In the past five years, the House of Representatives or its
committees have voted to repeal both the 2001 AUMF and the
2002 Iraq AUMF, drawing both Democratic and Republican
support. With a new administration who agrees that these
authorizations are outdated, now is the time to finish the
work Congress started. We urge you to join Rep. Barbara Lee's
effort in turning the page on this unsuccessful chapter of
U.S. foreign policy by sunsetting the 2001 AUMF and repealing
the 2002 Iraq AUMF.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union, Brennan Center for
Justice, Bridges Faith Initiative,
BringOurTroopsHome.US, Center for International Policy,
Concerned Veterans for America, Council for a Livable
World, Demand Progress, Defense Priorities Initiative,
FreedomWorks, Friends Committee on National
Legislation, Human Rights First, National Religious
Campaign Against Torture, Pax Christi USA, Peace
Action, Project On Government Oversight, Protect
Democracy, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft,
R Street Institute, Secure Families Initiative,
September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, The
Center for Victims of Torture, VoteVets, Win Without
War, Women's Action for New Directions.
____
Americans for Prosperity,
June 15, 2021.
Dear Representatives, On behalf of Americans for
Prosperity's activists in all 50 states, I urge you to vote
``NO'' on H.R. 1187, the so-called ``Corporate Governance
Improvement and Investor Protection Act.''
Businesses can be a force for good when they serve
customers, drive life-improving innovations, and enable
employees to find fulfillment in their work. But the best way
to do that is through bottom-up approaches, not top-down
regulation. Mobilizing the Securities and Exchange Commission
to force industry from all corners of the economy to adhere
to dubious, ambiguous, and one-size-fits all requirements--as
this bill does--will only harm our ability to improve society
and undermine America's capacity to lead in the global
economy.
H.R. 1187 represents a sweeping expansion of government
overreach and dramatic mission creep for the SEC, which has
neither the authority, expertise, nor accountability to
evaluate the materiality of these disclosures to shareholders
and potential shareholders. Further, the standards these
regulations set, and the effectiveness of the methods to
which those standards would be met, are unclear. As an
example, recent evidence has shown there is virtually no
relationship between trends in energy-related carbon
emissions and top-down climate policies such as the
implementation of international agreements, carbon pricing,
cap-and-trade, or command and control sectoral regulation. In
fact, since the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision, countries
as well as states that have not endorsed these policies have
generally reduced per capita energy-related carbon dioxide
emissions at a far greater pace than those that have.
Beyond this, the very act of forcing companies to meet
preset, one-size-fits-all requirements ultimately undermines
the leaps in innovation we need to actually achieve our
shared goals for the environment and society as a whole.
Business leaders and consumers--not politicians and appointed
Washington officials--are the driving force to innovate and
deliver superior products and services that solve for the
needs of today while also pushing our country toward a better
future that benefits all.
This bill would also impose new costly burdens on
companies, open the floodgates to cronyism, undermine
businesses' ability to create new value, and ultimately put a
drag on our recovering economy.
We look forward to working together to improve the
environment and address other great challenges facing our
country. The best way to do that is through bottom-up
innovation, not top-down regulation such as those mandated by
this bill.
I urge you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 1187. This vote will be
recorded in our legislative scorecard for the 117th Congress.
Sincerely,
Brent Gardner,
Chief Government Affairs Officer,
Americans for Prosperity.
____
The American Legion,
Office of the National Commander,
Washington, DC, April 7, 2021.
Hon. Barbara Lee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lee: On behalf of the nearly two
million members of The American Legion, I am pleased to
express support for H.R. 256, which would repeal the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002. Congress passed the 2002 AUMF to
authorize force against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime in
order to defend the United States against the threat posed by
the regime's alleged possession of weapons of mass
destruction. This threat proved unfounded and the mission
undertaken pursuant to the 2002 Iraq AUMF--designated
``Operation Iraqi Freedom''--officially ended on December 11,
2011.
Our servicemembers have accomplished their original
objectives in Iraq, a dangerous regime was removed, and the
authorization for the war should end. With the understanding
that complex global threats cannot be solved by military
power alone, we value the importance of sustaining a
civilian-led approach of elevating diplomacy and development
alongside a strong defense. The American Legion stands ready
to assist members of Congress with strengthening our nation's
interests and ensuring that diplomacy is the first instrument
of national power considered at the highest level.
In accordance with American Legion Resolution No. 22:
Addressing the `Forever War', passed unanimously by our
National Executive Committee in meetings held October 14-15,
2020, which urges a renewal of a proper constitutional
balance to American foreign policy decision-making by
encouraging Congress to repeal and replace outdated
Authorizations for Use of Military Force, we strongly support
this bill.
We applaud your leadership in addressing this critical
issue facing our nation's servicemembers, veterans, and their
families.
For God & Country,
James W. ``Bill'' Oxford,
National Commander.
Ms. LEE of California. Let me just take a minute to honor my dear
friend, the late Congressman Walter Jones, a Republican from North
Carolina who was my partner for many years to build bipartisan support
to bring our troops home.
I am proud to stand with everyone as we exercise our most important
duty assigned by the Constitution to decide when and how America goes
to war.
We cannot revise history as it relates to why this authorization was
put into place.
Eighteen years ago, in front of the infamous ``Mission Accomplished''
banner backdrop, former President Bush told the Nation that the major
combat operations in Iraq have ended.
[[Page H2902]]
In 2011, President Obama brought our combat troops home, and yet this
authority remains on the books, vulnerable to misuse because Congress
has not acted to remove it.
The Bush administration, yes, misled the American people by saying
there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Iraq posed an
imminent threat by drawing a false connection between the tragic events
of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Those lies and misinformation had deadly
consequences. The mistakes continue to haunt us today.
Once the war started, the Out of Iraq Caucus was founded by
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, me, and led by Congresswoman Maxine Waters.
Over 80 Members joined. Many of us took our protests to the streets,
joining hundreds of thousands protesting the unnecessary, immoral war
of choice. Year after year, we worked for the safe and orderly
withdrawal of our troops.
I share all this history, not because of nostalgia, but we have to
remember why this authorization was passed, because 87 percent of
current Members of the House were not here to vote on this AUMF in
2002. The Constitution requires that we cannot appropriate funds for
armies for more than 2 years, and yet for almost two decades we have
failed to revisit these AUMFs.
To this day, our endless wars continue, costing trillions of dollars
and thousands of lives in a war that goes way beyond any scope that
Congress conceived or intended.
I want to salute our veterans, our young men and women in uniform.
They did everything we have asked them to do. Many veterans support
this repeal.
The outdated 2002 AUMF bears no correlation to the threats we face
today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10
seconds.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, the President earlier stated
his support for the bill, saying that the 2002 AUMF will not impact
current military operations, but repeal can prevent our country from
entering another protracted engagement under this outdated authority.
We can't afford to leave this in place indefinitely. For two decades
it has been in place. This is our opportunity to restore our
constitutional role.
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.
What I object to is that now we are abdicating our responsibility by
giving the President Article II authorities alone without any
authorization of use of military force from the Congress. 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.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Members of the Bush administration seized on our fear at that time to
persuade Americans that Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat to the
United States, and Congress passed an Authorization for Use of Military
Force without any limitation on how long it could be in effect.
Nineteen years later, and ten years after we formally ended ground
operations, it is still law. This is an abrogation of Article I
responsibilities and duties of the Congress of the United States.
There is no more profound power vested in us in the Constitution than
to send our young men and women into combat. It is long past time that
we dealt with this AUMF and righted the imbalance between the powers of
Article I, which are exclusively those of Congress, and the powers of
Article II for a Commander in Chief only after Congress has acted.
I am proud to support this measure today.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
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.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Speaker, on October 16, 2002, the United States
Congress voted to authorize military action against Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. The text of the authorization was clear. That was its purpose.
Years later, Saddam Hussein is long dead, and our military action has
ended.
The 2002 AUMF is separate and distinct from the 2001 AUMF, which
authorized our counterterrorism efforts after 9/11 and which remains in
use today.
The 2002 AUMF is not in use. It is long overdue for repeal, which is
why we have voted multiple times to repeal the 2002 AUMF with
bipartisan support.
Since coming to Congress, I have been very clear, Congress must
reassert congressional authority in decisions of war and peace. The
authority is required by our Constitution, and it is fundamental to our
representation of our constituents, especially our servicemembers.
Our men and women in uniform deserve to see a new era of
congressional accountability, one where Members of Congress do not
shirk their accountability when it comes to issues of war and peace.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
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.
Ms. JACOBS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support this
critical legislation to repeal the 2002 Authorization For Use of
Military Force.
I want to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee and the chair of this
committee for their enduring leadership on this issue.
I was in middle school when Congress passed this authorization to use
force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Today, as a Member of
this body, I am voting to repeal it.
I make this point to remind my colleagues that the decisions around
war and peace are some of the most consequential ones we make here. My
generation has spent our entire adult lives in the shadow of two long
and protracted wars.
I am proud to represent San Diego, a military community that has made
incredible sacrifices because of that vote in 2002. Now it is time to
take it off the books.
Repealing this authorization would not impact any of our current
military operations, but repealing it will prevent a future President
from abusing it and reclaim Congress' rightful role in authorizing war,
ensuring our servicemembers know that they are not being sent to harm's
way without a full debate of this representative body. There is nothing
rushed about something that has taken 20 years.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this repeal.
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
[[Page H2903]]
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).
Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, I remember over the period of the last
Presidency joining my colleagues on both sides of the aisle at various
times when statements were made that we are just going to leave Iraq or
we are going to leave the Kurds in Syria, and I think that was
shortsighted, those statements, so I joined my colleagues on both
sides.
But, yet, today, we are debating the repeal of the 2002 AUMF as if we
all somehow believe that we are going to magically repeal this and then
come up with some narrow replacement that is going to authorize, when
we can't really agree that the sky is blue in this group.
But I want to, for a second, look back and say what would have
happened when this was introduced originally. So in January of 2014
this repeal was introduced. Let's say we passed it.
What happened since January of 2014? Well, I will tell you. In June
of 2014 we began airstrikes against ISIS. Because of the 2002 AUMF, we
were able to assist our allies to defeat ISIS in their capital of
Raqqa, their stronghold in Mosul, and we even destroyed their caliphate
throughout the region.
I know my colleagues who support this legislation have the right
intentions in mind, but even President Biden's own Statement of
Administration Policy admits that this repeal would have an impact on
our military operations. That is why we don't call for a blanket
repeal, but a narrowly crafted replacement. Let's do that first.
The bleak reality is that without an authorization to fight terror,
more innocent human beings will suffer. Let us not forget the horrors
that ISIS perpetrated on innocent men, women, and children. Men were
beheaded for practicing their faith, women were stoned to death for
trying to flee abusive relationships. Children were made foot soldiers
and suicide bombers. Without this AUMF, this would still be happening.
Today, we have militia groups attacking the American Embassy in
Baghdad. We have malign forces trying to destabilize the democratically
elected Iraqi Government. We have dozens of terror organizations,
including ISIS, that want to revive the caliphate which brought so much
pain and suffering to so many in the region.
Before we hastily pass this ill-thought-out and ill-timed political
legislation, I urge every Member to meet with Intel, to meet with the
Department of Defense to hear about the realities of the threats we
face in this world, and maybe once that happens and we put aside these
partisan stripes for a moment, we can have an honest debate about what
a replacement would look like. Short-term political gain has no impact
on what foreign actors make in terms of their policy decisions. ISIS
and terrorists don't change based on what we debate here, and they
certainly didn't give up yet.
We made a decision; the President made a decision to leave
Afghanistan. While I disagree with that, I certainly hope he is
successful and that my predictions are wrong, but I do know that that
sent a message. It sent a message that America is disengaging in the
war on terror. What would this send as well, right on the heels of
this?
What message would this send to the terrorists who are on the ropes,
who haven't attacked in the United States, not because they don't want
to, but because we haven't let them because we have fought them on
their territory, before they have the ability to organize and attack us
here?
What does that message send? Because to a terrorist, all they need is
the ability to go out and say, ``We are winning,'' to recruit somebody,
to give their life for that terrorist cause.
Madam Speaker, I understand where this is coming from. I deeply would
love an AUMF that replaces this the right way, but this is the wrong
process and the wrong order to do that. So I urge my colleagues to join
me in opposing this.
{time} 0945
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.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, 19 years ago, this body
passed the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force based on lies
and misinformation about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
This authorization has entangled us in a decades-long war, costing
billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.
Millions of young people in this country, including my three
children, have never known an America that wasn't at war.
This repeal is long overdue and absolutely vital to protecting the
integrity of our system of checks and balances and the security of our
Nation and servicemembers.
Today we stand up for Congress' constitutional war powers and the
right to say ``no'' to conflicts abroad and ``yes'' to peace.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
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.
Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, war powers and AUMF, it is a distant
impersonal term to talk about the work of the warfighter. And I think
for people on both sides of the aisle, it is anything but impersonal.
Probably all of us in here know people who have passed in our wars,
roads named after them, schools named after them, VFWs, and other
buildings named after them. It is not impersonal to those of us in here
and to those who have been targeted by snipers, have had ordnance
dropped on them, walked across fields of improvised explosive devices,
were burned alive in Humvees and other pieces of equipment that they
served their time in.
It is not impersonal to us. We all know the stories. And I like to
believe that we do take that very seriously.
And there is broad-based consensus on the fact that these AUMFs need
to be changed. But to do that and to have the appropriate
responsibility to those who go out there and fight the wars, we have to
talk to the people who go out there and command the battles, that sit
in the JOC and sit in the TOC, and sit in the Pentagon.
But, instead, what we did was we had professors from NYU and Harvard
and Yale come in and speak to us for a few minutes about their
opinions.
But what I can tell you is that a battlefield looks nothing like a
lecture hall or a faculty lounge. They are not the same things. And
their opinions are not nearly as weighty as those of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary
of the Army or the Secretary of the Navy or the Commandant of the
Marine Corps or one of our combatant commanders.
If we take seriously this power that the 435 of us in this body have,
not just to cast a vote, but to cast an informed vote to say that we
went out there and did every bit of diligence that we could, it means
speaking to those individuals, asking those questions, and then coming
to the conclusions that bring us to the votes that we cast.
But without that, we are acting on pure arrogance that we know better
without asking any questions, that we know what to do without going out
there and seeking any facts, without finding out how this will affect
the defense of our homeland. And it is not what gives the honor and
respect to those who go out there and defend this country. It is not
what gives the honor and respect to them that they deserve.
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his service, and
I really respect him for what he
[[Page H2904]]
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.
Ms. OMAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
thank the distinguished author of this legislation, Congresswoman Lee,
for bringing forth this legislation.
Madam Speaker, for the past 20 years, the 2002 Authorization has been
used to wage war and cause destruction around the world.
While many in this Congress have participated in war, I am someone
who has endured war and understands the impact it has on innocent
lives. The act of war does nothing to make us safer.
Engaging in endless wars has led us to undermining our most important
morals: peace, liberty, and justice.
Congress cannot sit idly by as we take more civilian lives and
decrease our ability to build prosperity at home.
The more we spend on endless wars, the less we are able to invest in
our own people with education, housing, and employment opportunities.
I am pleased that Congress is finally working on restoring its
authority over matters of peace and war.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).
Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his comments about
us seeking advice on Authorization for Use of Military Force from
academics from Harvard, Yale, and NYU. And though they may have spent
time serving in defense roles, I would remind the chairman that in the
hearings that these academics voiced their opinions in, they expressed
numerous times that they didn't even have the access to information
that we had. They said it over and over. They didn't have the answers
that we might have the answers to.
I would say it is incumbent upon this body to seek answers not from
those who say we have more information, but to ask somebody who may
potentially have more information than us so that we can make a more
informed decision about policy that we are tasked with voting on that
affects so many.
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez), the chair of the Small Business Committee.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 256.
Let me first recognize the tireless efforts of Representative Barbara
Lee, who has spearheaded this issue for nearly two decades and has been
the moral conscience in Congress against endless, unjust wars.
The decision to go to war is one of the most profound and
consequential a nation can make. This 2002 AUMF is outdated, and its
repeal will end its legal authority to justify U.S. intervention in
Iraq.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole duty to declare war. By
repealing this authorization today, we are working to return this power
back to the people's House and the Senate. That is how a checks and
balances system works.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 256.
Though a combat-tested security partner, Iraq continues to be a
fragile state. The 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force allowed
the United States to end Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. It also
allowed us to return and assist the people of Iraq when decisions made
by the Obama-Biden administration led to the formation of ISIS and
enabled the terror group to establish a caliphate in northwestern Iraq
in 2014.
Now, that same Authorization for Use of Military Force provides the
United States with the legal authority for military operations in
support of our Iraqi partners, if needed, and against terrorist threats
in Iraq, including those from the Iran-backed militia groups.
This critical piece of legislation provided the authority for last
year's strike on Iran's terror mastermind Soleimani, whose IEDs, I
might remind people, killed more than 600 American soldiers and wounded
thousands more.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force also provides authority
to strike Iranian-backed Shia militia groups that have and are
currently attacking Americans in Iraq.
This shortsighted and purely political effort to repeal the authority
without a replacement sends the wrong message and will embolden the
Islamic terror groups and the world's largest state sponsor of terror,
Iran.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill until we have a
viable replacement that addresses the threat of Iran and its proxies.
We have already turned our backs on Afghanistan. We should not repeat
this error in Iraq.
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.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his leadership in bringing this important and overdue legislation to
the floor.
Congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman, for being the chair of the
committee and, as your ranking member has said, striving to act in a
very bipartisan way. That doesn't hold for today necessarily; but,
nonetheless, where there is a will, there is a way.
Madam Speaker, nearly 20 years have passed since the Congress passed
the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, and 10 years have
passed since the formal end of U.S. military operations: Operation
Iraqi Freedom.
Yet, today, 10 years later, our Nation is still operating under an
outdated Authorization for Use of Military Force, which risks being
used, and in some cases has been used, as a blank check to conduct
unrelated military operations.
Let me be clear. Repealing the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military
Force in no way precludes us, our country, from defending our military
and diplomatic personnel in Iraq. Article II of the Constitution, the
2001 AUMF, and the bilateral agreements with Iraq permit this.
But it will prevent a situation in which U.S. military personnel are
deployed or military operations are conducted, without the approval of
Congress or the country, for purposes that are unconnected to the
AUMF's original purpose.
We are here because of the courage of Congresswoman Barbara Lee. No
one has been fiercer or more relentless or more principled on this
issue. I thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee and others who have worked
with her over the years.
I thank also our Foreign Affairs chair, Gregory Meeks, who has
moved this bipartisan priority with both urgency and unity through the
committee.
{time} 1000
We are pleased that this legislation, which has previously passed the
House twice, has over 130 cosponsors. Thank you, also, to Senator Tim
Kaine, a longtime leader on AUMF repeal and reform in the Senate, who
has introduced a companion bill in the Senate.
Repealing the 2002 AUMF will defend Congress' constitutional
authorities and our American democracy's system of separation of
powers.
Under the Constitution, it is the Congress that has the sole duty to
declare war. We must reassert that authority to decide if and when our
country goes to war.
This repeal is also possible because of the leadership of President
Joe Biden, who understands and has respect for Congress' constitutional
authorities. He understands the need for this action to keep our troops
and the American people safe. Again, that is our first responsibility:
to protect and defend.
[[Page H2905]]
The Congress stands in agreement with the Biden-Harris
administration, which has stated that ``the President is committed to
working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for
the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific
framework appropriate to ensure that we can continue to protect
Americans from terrorist threats.''
Why has that been elusive, for us to come up with a better, more
focused plan?
Madam Speaker, just for public information, when we have tried to
come up with a newer, fresher, more appropriate AUMF, we have three
challenges.
What is the scope? What is the Authorization for Use of Military
Force for? Is it for boots on the ground? Is it for air? What is it
for? What is the scope that we are giving the authority to the
executive branch to use?
What is the geography? How far does that extend? Is this global? Is
it specific to a region?
These are important decisions because some of the threats are, shall
we say, unpredictable. But that doesn't mean what we do here should be
unpredictable.
The third is the timing. How long does it last? What is it for? How
far in geography does it extend? And how long does that authority last?
Over time, as we have tried to replace this outdated Authorization
for Use of Military Force, we have run into those disagreements
internally as well as with the White House. But the more the public
knows about our commitment to honoring our constitutional
responsibility--and we will work with a President who is not here to
undermine that--hopefully, we will have that authorization, as
necessary, as we go forward.
As Members of Congress, the first duty we have is to keep the
American people safe. That includes our courageous men and women in
uniform, who sacrifice every day for our freedoms.
To do this, we must pursue a National Security Strategy and a defense
policy that are smart, strong, and strategic. And we look forward to
working with the administration on this vital mission.
With that, I again salute our distinguished colleague from
California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, for her persistence and her
leadership; our distinguished chairman, Mr. Gregory Meeks.
Again, I am grateful for the courteous consideration of this
legislation today, although we may not be in complete agreement.
Madam Speaker, I urge a strong vote for H.R. 256, to repeal the 2002
Authorization for Use of Military Force, and hope that we will have a
strong bipartisan vote.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the chairwoman of the Committee on Financial
Services.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, Chairman
Gregory Meeks, for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's
resolution to repeal the outdated 2002 AUMF, which was used to start
the Iraq war, which killed more than 4,500 American soldiers and
approximately 200,000 Iraqi civilians.
As the chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I worked with Congresswoman
Lee and our former colleague, Lynn Woolsey, to end the Iraq war and
bring our troops home.
The Iraq war finally ended in December 2011. We cannot allow this
outdated AUMF to be used as a blank check for future wars. It is long
past time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in
authorizing and providing oversight over United States military action.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
The United States Congress has the sole constitutional power to
declare war and, therefore, a constitutional duty to consider, debate,
and, if necessary, repeal an Authorization for Use of Military Force.
The very title of this AUMF shows how much it has strayed from its
original purpose. The 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq was designed to address the threat posed by an Iraq run by
Saddam Hussein. He has been dead for many years.
We have the responsibility to members of the Armed Forces who risk
their lives, and the American public who fund these seemingly endless
conflicts, to terminate the current 2002 Authorization for Use of
Military Force. Since 2009, I voted consistently to revoke this open-
ended authorization and to reassert Congress' role.
For too long, we have failed this responsibility. Congress must act
now to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green), a distinguished Member.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we, who are honored to be Members of
Congress, are here to pass judgment on the great issues of our time.
There is no greater issue of our time than the issue of war and peace.
It is about life and death.
We should not be allowed to escape our duty, responsibility, and
obligation to vote on issues of war and peace.
We must repeal this authorization so that Congress can take up its
responsibility and vote on the great issues of our time.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me and
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to repeal the AUMF
resolution of 2002. Here we are, in 2021.
Mr. Speaker, I voted against that AUMF, and to this day, I believe it
produced one of the worst foreign policy disasters in U.S. history. It
was built on a lie; it claimed the lives of over 4,400 Americans and
countless Iraqi civilians; and it cost our Treasury trillions of
dollars.
The Iraq war ended 10 years ago, but this AUMF is still on the books.
It is a blank check, and we need to get rid of it. We run the risk that
administrations will misuse it to justify future military action and
directly undermine Congress' Article I war powers authority.
The House has voted three times to repeal this AUMF, and today, it is
time to pass it. Let us have a victory here on the floor--and celebrate
another victory that the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care
Act.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gallego).
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 256 to
repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force that sent me
and thousands of other young Americans into war in Iraq.
Even though the mission in Iraq has been over for almost a decade,
this authorization remains on the books. This is not a mistake or an
oversight. It is a dangerous abdication of Congress' responsibility.
The longer this AUMF is on the books, the more opportunity it has to
be abused as a blank check for military action in the Middle East
without the input of the American people.
The longer this AUMF is on the books, the longer we in Congress are
bending our own moral and constitutional duty to debate and to decide
when to send American soldiers into harm's way and to look into the
eyes of servicemen and -women when we do. We cannot run from this
incredible responsibility any longer.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill and
retaking Congress' constitutional role in exercising our war powers.
[[Page H2906]]
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jones), my friend.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I was a sophomore in high school when Congress gave the
green light for war in Iraq. Nearly 20 years later, I am here as a
freshman Member of Congress, urging my colleagues to repeal that
authorization.
For over half my life, Republican and Democratic Presidential
administrations have used the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military
Force as a blank check for war and the justification for aggressive
military actions in the Middle East.
Young people today have never known a time when our country was not
fighting overseas or conducting strikes on poor and Brown nations. It
is time for that to stop.
The American people are tired of endless wars. We need a more
peaceful and productive foreign policy grounded in diplomacy and human
rights, and we, finally, have an administration that agrees.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for
his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this resolution,
Congresswoman Lee's longtime effort to repeal the 2002 Authorization
for Use of Military Force.
The Constitution is clear: Only Congress has the power to authorize
war.
In 2002, this resolution was adopted in order to address the ongoing
threat from Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq, the threat that it
represented to America. Saddam Hussein is gone. A new government has
been established in Iraq, and this AUMF is obsolete.
There are threats to the United States, and we have the authority to
address those threats when they arise. There are ongoing threats that
we ought to be able to debate here on the floor of the House of
Representatives and act upon when our security is threatened. But no
President of any party should ever be able to reach back two decades
when Congress, on a different fact situation, authorized the use of
force in order to authorize any use of force that they deemed to be
important to them.
Congress has this authority, and we need to assert it. That is what
we do today.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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.
{time} 1015
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms.
Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
to repeal an almost two decades-long Authorization for Use of Military
Force against Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying thank you, thank you,
thank you to my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
I was an activist back in 2001, leading the largest immigrant
advocacy organization and the largest march at the time against the war
in Iraq, because we knew that what was happening was wrong. And we were
looking at Congress, and saying, Congress needs to make sure they are
taking action, and Barbara Lee stood up at that time on her own.
The 2002 AUMF was based on a lie; a lie that has resulted in hundreds
of thousands of lives lost, including civilians, U.S. servicemembers,
journalists, humanitarian workers; a lie that was used as the legal
basis for military hostilities beyond Iraq, hostilities that were never
authorized by Congress.
Mr. Speaker, this must be the beginning and not the end of our work
to end endless wars. We must continue our work to forge a meaningful
engagement with the rest of the world toward a lasting peace. Mr.
Speaker, I also thank the chairman for his tremendous leadership.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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 reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote, once again, to
repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force because we
cannot continue endless wars.
Congress passed the 2002 AUMF authorization for war again Saddam
Hussein's regime. I voted against that resolution. And, now, here we
are nearly 20 years later, and we have seen three successive
administrations use the AUMF to wage war in ways that were never
intended, that were way beyond the scope of the congressional
authorization that was used.
Only Congress has the authority to declare war. And it is time for us
to reclaim that authority. We can't let another day go by with this
authorization in place. We cannot support endless wars.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the lead Republican on the House Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that this
argument that we have to get rid of the AUMF is just ridiculous. We
pass the National Defense Authorization Act every year. We have passed
it every year for 60 consecutive years. If we don't want to authorize
something we are doing militarily, we can stop it at any time. So this
is a false argument that we have to do this to be able to prevent what
we are doing in Afghanistan or Iraq or anyplace else.
But with regard to this specific bill, this is a bad deal for our
national security and the safety of American servicemembers overseas.
Since the liberation of Iraq, the murderous Iranian regime has armed
proxy organizations to kill Americans and innocent Iraqis.
Iran has armed proxy militias with small arms, mortars, rockets, and
now sophisticated UAVs that can avoid base defenses. The Obama and
Trump administrations both used the 2002 AUMF to target terrorist
threats originating from Iraq.
Threats like ISIS and militias backed by Iran have killed and injured
American servicemembers and contractors. This bill would repeal the
2002 AUMF and offer nothing in its place; no authorization to mop up
ISIS forces or whatever movement comes next; no authorization to target
Iranian proxies whose sole goal is to destabilize Iraq and kill
Americans.
This bill only offers the illusion of withdrawal. Like President
Biden's
[[Page H2907]]
failing Afghanistan strategy, it does nothing to change the reality on
the ground in Iraq. The threats we face today will remain, and American
commanders will be forced to face those threats with one fewer tool
than they had the day before.
Repealing the 2002 AUMF without a replacement only undermines our
national security. It offers no real solution to the issues.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Brown), who is a colonel, retired, and we thank him for his service in
our military.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Lee for her
leadership on repealing the 2002 AUMF. That was the authorization that
sent me and hundreds of thousands of servicemen and -women to Iraq
since the invasion in 2003. The justification for that war was
fundamentally flawed.
But to be certain, the purpose of the 2002 AUMF established a broad
military mission in Iraq. Yet, I have no doubt that that mission that
we were given has been completed. And, sadly, the Nation has lost more
than 4,400 brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who were
engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
It is time for us, for Congress and the American people, to formally
recognize the end of America's 2002 mission in Iraq. This is an
important first step. As Congress, once again, reasserts its
responsibility in the use of our military forces by authorizing
frameworks that address current threats to our Nation and that we
authorize the use of military force only as the last resort.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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 reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
South Carolina (Ms. Mace), and I thank the gentlewoman for her
bipartisan spirit in coming down to the floor today to speak on this
AUMF.
Ms. MACE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle for giving me a minute on this issue. I want to thank
our veterans that have given lifelong service to their country.
Nearly two decades ago, Congress authorized the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but ever since, three President's, both Republican and
Democrat, have used this permission to drag out conflicts and to get us
into new ones.
Americans who weren't even alive on 9/11 or during the invasion of
Iraq are still fighting and dying there, in Syria, across Africa, and
who knows where else. Our Founders wisely gave Congress the exclusive
constitutional authority over whether our Nation goes to war.
Sadly, Congress has failed to perform this sacred duty for far too
long. This is about restoring the powers set forth in Article I.
Congress can go to war with anyone under Article I. When Washington
drags us into a war, they aren't the ones who go do the fighting and
dying, our children are. The very least we can do is give their parents
a say in when and where and if their kids will fight and die thousands
of miles away.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carbajal). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
{time} 1030
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.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. 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
[[Page H2908]]
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 256,
legislation to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (``2002 AUMF'').
This authorization has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had one.
My position on the Iraq war has been clear: I opposed the occupation of
Iraq and the damage it unleashed. We were wise to exit this quagmire
while retaining the ability to address any legitimate security threats
emanating from this region.
But we left the 2002 AUMF in place, which was a mistake. First the
Obama Administration and now the Biden Administration have made clear
it is no longer needed. As noted by the Biden Administration, ``repeal
of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current military
operations.''
Additionally, I share concerns that failure to repeal the 2002 AUMF
will allow it to continue to be misused to legitimize U.S. military
actions that were never contemplated when it was passed, including in
areas far outside of Iraq.
It's time that Congress begins to reclaim its war powers. Repealing
this outdated 2002 AUMF will also allow our country to refocus our
military strategies and efforts towards defending against legitimate
national security threats facing our country. We will never stop open
ended war if we never reconsider the open-ended authorizations that are
feeding them. The Constitution is clear about Congress' authority.
These are difficult decisions but every time we punt on reasserting our
authority regarding sending our men and women in uniform to war, we
weaken our institution and our democracy.
Today's vote marks the fourth time in the past three years that the
House has passed similar legislation in a bipartisan fashion. Today's
action hopefully marks the last time we do so and that we will finally
see this legislation enacted into law.
I support H.R. 256 and the termination of the Authorization for Use
of Military Force Against Iraq, and I urge my colleagues to support
this measure.
[[Page H2909]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the
previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
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.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 204,
nays 219, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 171]
YEAS--204
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Malliotakis
Mann
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NAYS--219
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Mace
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Doyle, Michael F.
Fallon
Green (TN)
Harshbarger
McHenry
Rice (SC)
Torres (NY)
{time} 1102
Messrs. CASE, MRVAN, STANTON, Ms. TLAIB, Mr. PASCRELL, and Ms.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. ZELDIN, DAVIDSON, HOLLINGSWORTH, and BUDD changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, due to a committee hearing
with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, I was unable to make rollcall
Vote 171 on the Motion to Recommit offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas. I
would like the record to note that I would have supported the Motion to
Recommit and have a long history of supporting our ally, Israel.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Cardenas (Gomez)
Cicilline (Pingree)
Cleaver (Davids (KS))
DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gimenez (Waltz)
Gonzalez, Vicente (Gomez)
Granger (Arrington)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Himes (Courtney)
Hoyer (Brown)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Mrvan)
Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Langevin (Courtney)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lieu (Raskin)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Meng (Clark (MA))
[[Page H2910]]
Mullin (Lucas)
Nadler (Jeffries)
Napolitano (Correa)
Nehls (Fallon)
Payne (Pallone)
Porter (Levin (CA))
Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Rush (Underwood)
Sewell (DelBene)
Sherrill (Pallone)
Sires (Pallone)
Speier (Scanlon)
Strickland (Kilmer)
Swalwell (Gallego)
Trahan (Lynch)
Wagner (Walorski)
Wexton (Connolly)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Bonamici). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 268,
nays 161, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 172]
YEAS--268
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Biggs
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NC)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Boebert
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brooks
Brown
Brownley
Buck
Burchett
Burgess
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Cammack
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cawthorn
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cloud
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Comer
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donalds
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Feenstra
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gohmert
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Jordan
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lynch
Mace
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mann
Manning
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Mfume
Miller (IL)
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rosendale
Ross
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiffany
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--161
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Bilirakis
Bost
Brady
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Calvert
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Clyde
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luria
Malliotakis
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McKinley
Meuser
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--2
Green (TN)
McHenry
{time} 1127
Mr. ISSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Personal Explanation
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, due to an unavoidable conflict, I was
forced to miss votes on June 17, 2021. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 170, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 171, and
``nay'' on rollcall No. 172.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Cardenas (Gomez)
Cicilline (Pingree)
Cleaver (Davids (KS))
DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gimenez (Waltz)
Gonzalez, Vicente (Gomez)
Granger (Arrington)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Harshbarger (Kustoff)
Himes (Courtney)
Hoyer (Brown)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kahele (Mrvan)
Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Langevin (Courtney)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lieu (Raskin)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Meng (Clark (MA))
Mullin (Lucas)
Nadler (Jeffries)
Napolitano (Correa)
Nehls (Fallon)
Payne (Pallone)
Porter (Levin (CA))
Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Rush (Underwood)
Sewell (DelBene)
Sherrill (Pallone)
Sires (Pallone)
Speier (Scanlon)
Strickland (Kilmer)
Swalwell (Gallego)
Trahan (Lynch)
Wagner (Walorski)
Wexton (Connolly)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
____________________