[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 106 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4601-S4602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE MIDDLE EAST

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now on another matter entirely, the 
House of Representatives will vote today on a bill from Representative 
Barbara Lee to repeal one of the key authorities behind nearly two 
decades of U.S. efforts to fight terrorism: the 2002 authorization for 
the use of military force. House Democrats claim this vote is an urgent 
act of congressional oversight, and the Democratic leader has indicated 
the Senate will take it up with similar zeal.
  The right way to address ongoing terrorist threats is a debate 
certainly worth having. I would have welcomed that debate before the 
Biden administration began its hasty retreat from Afghanistan without a 
plan to sustain counterterror missions or support our friends. It is 
one we should have before we vote to repeal these authorities. Reality 
is more complicated, more dangerous, and less politically convenient 
than its supporters actually believe.
  The fact is, the legal and practical application of the 2002 AUMF 
extends far beyond the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime, and tossing 
it aside without answering real questions about our ongoing efforts in 
the region is reckless.
  So let's clear up some facts. The 2002 AUMF has been understood for 
years--years--to apply to a variety of threats emanating from Iraq. 
Administrations of both parties have cited it as an important legal 
foundation of our fight against ISIS. It has been used precisely 
because the ISIS caliphate that stretched into Syria emanated from Iraq 
after President Obama's withdrawal in 2011.
  The 2002 AUMF is important in Iraq today because it provides 
authority for U.S. forces there to defend themselves from a variety of 
real, exigent threats. It is arguably even more important in Syria, 
where our personnel are present against the wishes of the brutal Assad 
regime, supporting local Kurdish and Arab forces and conducting strikes 
against ISIS. And because ISIS and al-Qaida have sometimes diverged, 
legal analysts have suggested that the 2001 AUMF alone may be 
insufficient to authorize operations against ISIS.
  Do supporters of this repeal fully understand the ways it might limit 
counterterrorism missions? How about cyber ops? How about support for 
Kurdish and Arab forces in Syria? How do they propose we respond to 
growing attacks against our forces and interests in Iraq?
  What about the prospects for robust congressional oversight if the 
President is left to rely on unilateral article II authorities or even 
less transparent ones? We are learning a lesson in real time about 
withdrawing from Afghanistan without a plan. We shouldn't make the same 
mistake here. So I suspect this isn't really about reasserting 
congressional oversight. After all, when the last administration 
announced plans to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan in 2019, two 
dozen Democrats joined my amendment opposing the decision and 
reasserting our role in foreign policy. But now, many of our colleagues 
no longer want to talk about what we should be doing to confront these 
ongoing threats.
  A lot can happen in 2 years, I guess. The political winds have 
certainly changed. But one thing hasn't changed: The grave threats 
posed by ISIS, al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups are as real as they 
have ever been, and repealing AUMFs without agreeing on a set of new 
authorities up front will only lead to more uncertainty about what we 
are going to do about them.
  For years, U.S. forces have been carefully handing more of the 
primary responsibilities for counterterrorism to brave local partners. 
Under the last administration, this allowed our military footprint in 
Iraq and Syria to shrink dramatically. But the only reason that worked 
is because our partners have been able to trust that the U.S. military 
is still authorized to back them up. Today, House Democrats intend to 
rip out one of the key authorities underpinning that trust.
  As I understand it, Democrats don't even intend to stop there. They 
are also planning to take aim at the 2001 authorities that allow us to 
keep some of the most dangerous terrorists alive from taking more 
innocent American lives. The administration says it is looking into how 
best to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that 
houses the absolute--absolute--worst of the worst, including Khalid 
Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attack. But thus 
far, the administration is rather short on details. How does the 
President plan to do this? Does he intend to break the law and bring 
terrorists to the United States? Give them expanded legal rights? 
Further radicalize our prison population? Talk about domestic violent 
extremism. Or does the President intend to send KSM and his

[[Page S4602]]

terrorist cronies to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia before they have faced 
justice?
  Closing Guantanamo Bay will not make Americans safer. It will not 
bring solace to the victims of terrorism. It will not make America more 
respected in the world. It won't solve the terrorist threat any more 
than repealing AUMFs will end their war against us.

                          ____________________