[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     is hereby repealed.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)

                          ____________________