[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 8, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1173-H1180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SYRIA WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 21) directing the 
President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to 
remove the United States Armed Forces from Syria and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, the concurrent resolution is considered as read.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 21

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers 
     Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the 
     President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Syria 
     by not later than the date that is 180 days after the date of 
     the adoption of this concurrent resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable 
for 1 hour equally divided among and controlled by Representative 
McCaul of Texas, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative 
Gaetz of Florida, or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Meeks), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), each will 
control 20 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States is not at war with Syria. Rather, the 
United States is conducting limited but important counterterrorism 
operations in Syria against ISIS, formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq, 
pursuant to the 2001 counterterrorism AUMF.
  Those operations are being reported regularly to Congress, consistent 
with the War Powers Resolution. They are not new or unique to the Biden 
administration.
  In fact, let me quote President Trump about what we are doing here 
when he said: ``A small presence of United States Armed Forces remains 
in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations . 
. . to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria.''
  ``These ongoing operations, which the United States has carried out 
with the assistance of numerous international partners, have been 
successful in seriously degrading ISIS capabilities in Syria and 
Iraq.''
  When ISIS was at the peak of its power in 2015, it controlled vast 
territory in Iraq and Syria, which it used to launch attacks in the 
Middle East and beyond. Those terrorists ruled with medieval brutality. 
We all remember the graphic videos of ISIS fighters beheading 
journalists and innocent civilians.
  These monsters drew thousands of volunteers to join their ranks in 
Iraq and Syria and inspired terrorist attacks around the world.
  Our U.S. military, working with a global coalition and local forces 
on the ground, helped to dismantle and destroy this vicious caliphate.
  I am proud that our men and women in uniform answered the call to 
fight this menace, which threatened the United States and the world.
  Even though ISIS no longer controls significant territory, there are 
still tens of thousands of hardened terrorist fighters in Iraq and 
Syria who are hell-bent on reestablishing their terror state.
  In fact, in the last quarter of 2022, ISIS claimed 72 attacks in Iraq 
and Syria, including several IED attacks.
  Thankfully, our small deployment of U.S. servicemembers is remarkably 
effective at working with local partner forces to achieve results and 
ensure the enduring and complete defeat of ISIS. Otherwise, these 
numbers would be much worse.
  In 2022, we were involved in 108 partner and 14 unilateral 
operations, killing 466 ISIS operatives and detaining 215 others.
  None of us want our soldiers overseas and in harm's way any longer 
than is absolutely necessary. I understand that the gentleman from 
Florida has introduced this resolution in good faith and is well 
intentioned, and he did it in response to a February 17 operation to 
kill an ISIS leader, in which four U.S. servicemembers were wounded.
  Any injured or killed servicemember is a tragedy. We are eternally 
grateful for the sacrifice made by our men and women in uniform and 
their families and never take them for granted.
  It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to reassess, on an 
ongoing basis, whether their deployments and the risk they involve are 
necessary. In doing that, we must recall President Obama's disastrous 
decision to prematurely withdraw our troops from Iraq in 2011.
  A few short years later, American troops returned to fight the deadly 
ISIS caliphate, which grew out of the al-Qaida presence that had not 
been defeated.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, was in Syria just 
days ago to see our troops and assess the state of our mission. He went 
there to figure out what value this mission holds for our security. He 
said: ``Unless you support and devote the correct amount of resources 
to it, things will get worse,'' and, ``If you completely ignore and 
turn your back, then you are setting the conditions for a resurgence.''
  That is why I strongly oppose this resolution directing the removal 
of United States Armed Forces from Syria, and I urge my colleagues to 
do the same.

                              {time}  1415

  If we withdraw our troops from Syria now, we could see a resurgence 
of ISIS or another lethal successor in a short time. Withdrawal of this 
legal, authorized U.S. troop deployment must be based on the total 
defeat of ISIS.
  Let me be clear: Congress' power to declare war is one of our most 
solemn Article I responsibilities. I understand why some in this 
Chamber are uncomfortable with using a 22-year-old force authorization 
for current operations.
  I believe that we should be working together, in a bipartisan manner, 
to have an updated replacement to this AUMF to address the current 
threat environment, while also keeping Congress engaged with our 
constitutional responsibilities.
  But this resolution does not work to that end. I believe it would 
call for an artificial withdrawal and it would be a win for the ISIS 
terrorists committed to our destruction.
  The bottom line is: The premise upon this resolution--as the 
Parliamentarian doesn't make fact-based determinations--the premise of 
this whole thing is that there is no authorization for troops to be in 
Syria today. It is just not accurate. In fact, it is wrong. In 2014, 
the ISIS threat was addressed under the Presidential authority of the 
2001 AUMF.
  I remember being in the White House with President Trump addressing 
this crisis, as well, about what to do about Syria, and whether we 
believe our U.S. troops should remain, in a very small footprint of 900 
soldiers, in Syria.
  At that time, President Trump made the decision that, under the 2001 
AUMF, to keep these troops in country, and I believe that was the 
correct decision, and I stand by that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in this opposition, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1174]]

  

  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 21.
  Mr. Speaker, though I oppose an indefinite U.S. military presence in 
Syria, this measure forces a premature end to our mission at a critical 
time for our efforts. Forcing such a premature removal of U.S. forces 
not only endangers our national security, it threatens that of our 
allies and partners across the region and beyond and, most of all, the 
Syrian Kurds.
  Our very small footprint in northeast Syria, alongside our courageous 
Syrian Kurdish partners, continues to serve a valuable purpose as we 
partner with them in ensuring ISIS does not reconstitute and again 
destabilize the region or use Syria as a base for attacks elsewhere.
  We have seen how ISIS has wrought its brutality, not only on the 
populations of Syria and Iraq, especially against ethnic minority 
groups, but also launched brutal attacks, such as those in Paris, 
Brussels, Istanbul, and beyond.
  Our military and intelligence leaders continue to warn publicly about 
the potential for ISIS to resurge if they are given the opportunity, 
including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, 
who, just last week, made a public visit to northeast Syria. He 
highlighted the importance of finishing the job against ISIS and 
emphasized, if we ignore and turn our back, then we are setting the 
conditions for a resurgence.
  Our presence also serves a critical advisory and assist role as the 
SDF continues to administer ISIS detainee facilities, including those 
holding experienced, highly trained ISIS fighters, as the United 
States, along with our coalition partners, works to safely and humanely 
repatriate them to their countries of origin. Pulling the plug now on 
this important mission jeopardizes the important work and support role 
that we play.
  Finally, while I share the passion of the cosponsor of this 
legislation for Congress reclaiming its war powers, I do not think this 
concurrent resolution is the proper vehicle for doing so.
  Last Congress, under my leadership, the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee marked up repeals of three of the four existing AUMFs that 
are on the books. The full House passed each of these measures as well 
but, unfortunately, they languished on the other side of the Capitol.
  We need to continue this work, and I look forward to working with 
Chairman McCaul and the gentleman from Florida on these efforts. 
Congress must repeal outdated war authorizations once and for all, and 
I applaud the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their bipartisan 
vote to repeal the 2002 and the 1991 AUMFs earlier today.
  So we have important work to do. We should define hostilities in 
statute, not because it is an easy fix, but because it is a hard 
question that underpins key national security issues around the globe.
  Toughest of all, we must repeal the 2001 AUMF and replace it with a 
narrow force authorization that grants the President authority to 
combat select terrorists enumerated in countries where the United 
States' national security is at stake. I intend to introduce such an 
AUMF later this year.
  I believe that the importance of combating ISIS in Syria should be on 
such an authorization, and this is part of why I oppose H. Con. Res. 
21.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, most Americans don't know a single Syrian, and so people 
watching this debate might wonder, how has it come to be that Syria has 
become the great platform of great power competition in the world?
  It begins in 2011, during the Arab Spring, when Assad, who is 
undeniably a madman and a despot, opens fire on his own people 
protesting. Then part of the Syrian Army defects; they engage in 
warfare against Assad, and all of a sudden, they have a whole lot of 
weapons and money being sent from the rich gulf monarchies, through 
Jordan, into Syria.

  So Iran is not just going to watch this. Assad is their ally. They 
activate Hezbollah, they then invade Syria. So now you have Jordan, the 
gulf monarchies, Iran.
  But wait, Russia is pitching their vision of the world as a regime 
preservation force, whether you are Maduro or Assad. So they get 
involved.
  What do they get for their time?
  A warm-water port in the Eastern Mediterranean.
  So we have got Russia, the gulf monarchies. Israel starts to get 
worried about Hezbollah and Iran, so Israel cuts a deal with Russia to 
keep Iran out of southern Syria.
  If it doesn't get any worse than that, now all of a sudden, you have 
got the Kurds who declare war on Syria, and it makes it a little messy 
that the Kurds are also in conflict with Turkiye, which is a NATO ally.
  Then somehow the United States in 2015, says, you know what? We need 
to get involved in this mess in Syria.
  Since we have been there, we have seen Americans die. We have seen 
tens of billions of dollars wasted.
  What is hilarious about the 2001 AUMF--that the neo-conservatives 
wave around like some permission slip for every neo-conservative 
fantasy of turning an Arabian desert into a Jeffersonian democracy--is 
that that very 2001 AUMF would justify attacking the people that we are 
fighting against and the people we are funding because both have ties 
to al-Qaida and, of course, the 2001 AUMF dealt with al-Qaida.
  All this talk about a reemergence of ISIS; I would encourage my 
colleagues to go read the inspector general's report of the last 
quarter that indicates that ISIS is not a threat to the homeland. And 
with the Turks conducting operations in Syria against ISIS, with Assad 
and Russia having every incentive to create pressure on ISIS, I do not 
believe that what stands between a caliphate and not a caliphate are 
the 900 Americans who have been sent to this hellscape with no 
definition of victory, with no clear objective, and purely existing as 
a vestige to the regime change failed foreign policies of multiple 
former Presidents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today in strong opposition 
to H. Con. Res. 21 to pull forces out of Syria.
  Like many in this distinguished Chamber, I have served in the region. 
I spent 23 years as a Navy SEAL. I have hunted war criminals. I have 
dismantled terrorist cells, and I have fought for freedom on foreign 
shores.
  There are several self-evident truths in Syria. First, the U.S. 
troops are authorized by Congress.
  Second, I do believe that we should review those authorizations. They 
may need to be reviewed. We should have answers on objectives, on 
failures, on victories, on a plan for ultimate success. I agree.
  But there is no doubt that Syria also remains a center for radical 
Islamic forces and terrorism, like ISIS, like PKK. These are 
organizations that will never stop, ever. They are committed to 
destroying this Nation and our allies, and we should be aware of their 
objectives.
  Lastly, the hard truth is this: Either we fight them in Syria or we 
will fight them here. Either we fight and defeat them in Syria, or we 
will fight in the streets of our Nation.
  To understand the scope of the military presence, we are talking 
about 900 troops. That is 900 troops that have to have the capability 
for intelligence collection, self-defense, surveillance, targeting. In 
case our troops get in trouble, that force must be sufficient to get 
them out of trouble because every sailor, soldier, airman, and marine, 
deserves nothing less.
  Nine hundred military personnel is an objectively small contingent. 
When you look at it, that is about the size of a Walmart which employs, 
on average, 300 people.
  So I agree with many of the supporters of the resolution that 
Congress has the powers, and these powers should be reviewed. We should 
ask the hard questions: What is the path to victory?
  What are the resources that are being spent? Are they being spent in 
the right spot?
  Is there a clear path to victory, and what are the interests of the 
United States?

[[Page H1175]]

  But believe me, Mr. Speaker, I understand the burden of war. I have 
lost a lot of friends. I understand the consequences of war on foreign 
shores, both to the servicemen and our families, which is why I call on 
my colleagues today to ask the right questions, but to reject this 
well-intended, but really, really bad idea.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this resolution, and I want to associate 
myself with the remarks of the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  For all those reasons, we cannot withdraw our 900 troops now because 
of what was said about ISIS.
  But in addition to that, we are defending the Kurds against certain 
slaughter at the hands of the Peshmerga if we were to withdraw our 
troops.

                              {time}  1430

  The Turks, as we know, are supporting the Peshmerga. In addition to 
which, if we were to withdraw our troops, that increases the worry that 
Israel has to have about Iran, and that increases the odds of a 
conflict between Israel and Iran, which is the last thing the Middle 
East needs or the world needs.
  For all these reasons, I strongly urge this body to reject this 
resolution. We truly should review all of the AUMFs we have lying 
around. I didn't know we had one from 1991. This resolution is the 
wrong vehicle, and it is productive of chaos and probably slaughter. I, 
therefore, oppose it.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, my patriotic colleague, Mr. Zinke of Montana, 
gave up the game when he said ISIS will never be gone. So, presumably, 
the position of those holding that viewpoint is that we have to stay in 
Syria forever, maybe make it the 51st State.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. 
Greene), a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the House 
Oversight Committee.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have the great privilege of 
serving with many veterans here in Congress, and to them, I am so 
grateful for their service. This is also why I rise in support for this 
resolution, to pull our great military from Syria.
  I would point out, on the official website for the U.S. Department of 
Defense, when it tells who the Department of Defense is on the 
``about'' page, it says: We are your defense. The Department of Defense 
is America's largest government agency. With our military tracing its 
roots back to prerevolutionary times, the Department has grown and 
evolved with our Nation. Our mission is to provide the military forces 
needed to deter war and ensure our Nation's security.
  That is the job of our Department of Defense, not to wage war in 
foreign lands and foreign countries at the expense of the American 
taxpayer. It is to deter war.
  It is also the role of the Department of Defense to ensure our 
Nation's security, but our border is being ignored. Every single day, 
our border is invaded by thousands, and over 300 Americans die daily 
from fentanyl brought into our country by Mexican cartels. I would say 
those are the enemies we need to be focusing on, not in a country 
called Syria where no one in my district ever demands: ``Marjorie, we 
must go to war in Syria.'' I never hear that request from anyone who 
voted for me.
  As a matter of fact, the veterans in my district say: We are sick and 
tired of foreign wars. We are fed up with it, and too many of our 
American military have died in foreign lands serving their foreign 
borders and their foreign causes.
  I thank my colleague, Matt Gaetz, for introducing this resolution, 
and I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. 
Con. Res. 21.
  Stopping the resurgence of ISIS now, before more attacks on American 
families, is critical. My appreciation of military service is as a 31-
year Army veteran myself, but I am particularly grateful that I have 
had four sons: Alan, who served in Iraq; Addison, who served in Iraq; 
Julian, who served in Egypt; and my youngest son, Hunter, who did a 
tour in Afghanistan. So I know personally the significance of military 
service.
  I think of the last 20 years that our military, because of 9/11, has 
stopped attacks in the United States. So this strength must be 
maintained.
  At the height of ISIS' reign of terror, Operation Inherent Resolve 
was formally launched in October of 2015 to counter the terrorist 
network's rapid expansion in Iraq and Syria. Upon defeat of the 
physical caliphate in Baghouz in 2019, the United States conducted a 
drawdown of forces.
  Currently, there are approximately 900 U.S. soldiers in northeast 
Syria. The remaining troops assist the Syrian Democratic forces in 
deterrence of continued terrorist threats from Iranian-backed terror 
organizations and maintenance of facilities containing--amazing; this 
is incredible; the American people need to know--10,000 hardened ISIS 
prisoners who are dedicated and trained mass murderers, along with 
thousands of their radicalized family members.
  While the American-led coalition was successful, the threat of ISIS 
and the extremism in the region remain. Reporting indicates that ISIS 
is making significant efforts to reorganize in Syria and Iraq. Iranian-
backed terrorists, who back up the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad, 
also continue attacks on U.S. forces at Al-Tanf and pose a tremendous 
destabilizing effect. Upon withdrawal, terrorists would also have 
unfettered access to the Omar oil field.
  A full withdrawal of the efficient forces remaining would completely 
open the region to the resurgence of ISIS and other terrorist 
organizations whose mission is the destruction of American families.
  Such a threat to American national security would warrant 
intervention. Uprooting the small contingent of troops who have 
successfully maintained order to the extent possible would simply 
ensure that we will be returning to a much larger, more complex problem 
at a higher cost and threat to Americans worldwide.
  The resolution, we know, is well-intended, but deterrence is cheaper 
and more effective than facilitating a full-scale response after the 
fact. We don't need to repeat 9/11. Peace is best maintained through 
strength.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Crow).
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 21.
  Now, I have been one of the most vocal proponents in this Congress on 
reasserting congressional authority in matters of war and peace, 
because the Constitution delegates to this body the decision to debate 
and decide when to send our men and women into harm's way.
  Now, Congress after Congress has abdicated that authority to both 
Republican and Democratic administrations. Yes, it is time to pull it 
back, and it is time to reassert our authority and to have the debates 
that have been long overdue for many, many years. I join my bipartisan 
colleagues in that endeavor, because it is a right, true, and just 
endeavor, and we owe our constituents nothing less.

  There is a good way to do it, and there is a wrong way to do it. I 
rise in opposition to this concurrent resolution, because it is the 
wrong way to do it for three reasons.
  Many of us have spent the morning in the Foreign Affairs Committee 
rehashing the disaster of the 20 years in Afghanistan and hearing about 
the moral stain of our partners and allies that we have left behind in 
Afghanistan. I am not willing to make that mistake again, of saying 
that we will leave behind the Kurds and the Syrian Democratic forces 
and our other partners who have fought side-by-side with us in years 
past and again today.
  Number two, the dangers that ISIS poses to the American people are 
well documented, and we are not prepared yet to abdicate and turn our 
back on that threat.

[[Page H1176]]

  Number three, any military person knows that retrograde operations or 
withdrawal operations are the riskiest operations that you can conduct. 
Setting an arbitrary timeline on a retrograde that is not tied to 
defined benchmarks or operational requirements is the wrong way to do 
it and puts our men and women at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my colleague, I would 
observe that we have done a lot for the Kurds: $1.5 billion. We can 
love the Kurds, but it is not a marriage. It is not until death do we 
part. It seems as though the Kurds have made book with Assad and that 
that would provide a structure for them to continue to exist.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mills), a patriotic American who served in our military, who served in 
Iraq and Syria, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and my 
colleague.
  Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of 
Military Force licensed the executive branch to conduct broad military 
operations, and Congress has disregarded its constitutional oversight 
powers as a result. Repealing these outdated AUMFs restores Congress' 
constitutional check on executive fiat.
  The United States military forces are present in the Middle East 
pursuant to an Authorization for Use of Military Force that was enacted 
more than 20 years ago. At that time, Congress did not conceive that 
these authorizations would sanction an endless military commitment.
  The United States is not the world's policeman, and it is incredibly 
unwise to promote this level of involvement in international disputes. 
However, Democrat and Republican Presidents alike have abused the 
powers of war granted under the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, and Congress must 
act to reign back the executive branch's war authorities.
  Further, continuing to dump trillions of dollars into these endless 
wars is irresponsible, runs contrary to American economic and security 
interests, and unnecessarily places American lives in jeopardy.
  It is clear that the basis for the AUMFs currently in force have long 
expired, and Congress must fulfill its constitutional responsibility 
and ensure we are conducting proper oversight of the executive branch's 
military operations.
  Now, I hear my colleagues on the left talking about leaving the Kurds 
and withdrawals, but yet, I note these are the exact same individuals 
that their party argues that it was time to withdraw from Afghanistan 
and leave our allies and Americans behind, something I know about, 
since I am the only Member of Congress who actually conducted the first 
overland rescue of Americans out of Afghanistan after they were left 
behind.
  I also note that these are the same people saying that pulling away 
is going to increase ISIS' presence. Is this not the exact same 
government that said that nation building was a great strategy for 
Iraq? Is this not the same government who utilized and helped to 
implement the 2005 Iraq Constitution that implemented Article 76 that 
sets forth a sectarian democracy giving rise to Iran's political 
stronghold?
  I have spent 7 years of my life in Iraq, almost 3 years in 
Afghanistan, Kosovo, Pakistan, northern Somalia, been blown up twice in 
2006, a Bronze Star recipient, and a proud combat veteran. I can tell 
you that in the 20-plus years that we served in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
had it been a counterterrorism operation or counterinsurgency strategy, 
I could have fully gotten behind that. But we continue to play 
political football, and that is exactly what the dangers of AUMFs are. 
They allow people to basically do carte blanche with warfare, and that 
is not the intent.
  In fact, I would argue that we have already lost the advantage, and 
we should be refocusing our efforts on what is happening at our 
southern border, where just a day ago, we had two Americans who were 
killed by what I would consider to be a worthy adversary, which is the 
cartels.
  So we sit here today, and I am not going to talk about the arguments 
of the $86 billion that we left behind when we talk about the ISIS 
buildup.
  Let's talk about the ISIS buildup. What about ISIS-Khorasan? What 
about the Haqqani network? What about the Taliban, who has $86 billion 
in weapons, armament, defense products, millions of dollars of pallets 
of cash? They are now the closest to being a true caliph with an actual 
sovereignty in its borders and a recognized government. That is who we 
need to be concerned with.
  When I went to Afghanistan, I thought it was to help to fight from 
this becoming a safe haven of terrorism. Instead, we have actually 
promoted, funded, trained, and actually made it a safe haven of 
terrorism.

  The American people are not about endless wars. The American people 
are about us being involved in things that we have control over. 
Unfortunately, due to the political football and the fact that it was 
the suits, not the boots, making the decisions, we have no clear 
military objective, and that is why this has continued to be a failure.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague, who serves with me on 
the Foreign Affairs Committee, we are a lot in agreement. I think the 
2001 AUMF is outdated, and it should have been sunsetted. Congress has 
a constitutional responsibility to address this. Now, as chairman, that 
is my intention, and I hope to work with the gentleman on this.
  But the point is, this is a privileged resolution under the War 
Powers Act 5(c), section (c), that basically says if U.S. forces are 
engaged in hostilities without authorization, such forces shall be 
removed by the President, if directed by a congressional concurrent 
resolution.
  We have authorization here, and it is the 2001 AUMF. We may not like 
that. We can debate whether we need to update this thing, and I think 
we do. The ranking member and I have had these discussions, as well. 
But that is really the centerpiece of what we are talking about on this 
privileged resolution.
  So when this is all said and done, I hope we can perhaps work on 
updating this outdated authorized use of military force to what is the 
modern-day threat.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Lawler).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I acknowledge and thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for his service and for his 
insights, which are invaluable to our committee and the work that we 
are doing. I thank him.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 21, which would 
remove the United States Armed Forces from Syria.
  While the situation in the Middle East remains complicated and 
volatile, we must not forget the critical role that the United States 
plays in furthering peace and combating international terrorism in the 
region.
  As the chairman just pointed out, the use of military force is 
authorized under the 2001 agreement. We must fulfill our obligations in 
rooting out al-Qaida and its direct successors in ISIS.
  As a resident of New York who was in his fifth day of freshman year 
of high school on September 11, I will never forget the events of that 
day, what occurred and the aftermath of it, and our obligation to 
combat and confront terrorism wherever it rears its head.
  ISIS may no longer hold territory, but they are still a threat. They 
were responsible for 72 terrorist attacks in Iraq and Syria in the last 
quarter of 2022 alone. Just last month, U.S. Forces killed a senior 
ISIS leader in Syria.
  ISIS once held territory the size of Great Britain, but thanks to our 
ongoing efforts, it no longer does. A complete withdrawal of U.S. 
Forces, however, will have the same disastrous consequences as our 
rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan, a topic on which our committee is 
holding a hearing today. Without U.S. Forces in Syria, our enemies will 
return; they will regrow; and they will come after our allies and, 
potentially, the United States.
  While I appreciate and support the desire to prevent any further loss 
of American life and limb, there is no doubt in my mind that if we let 
international terrorist groups run rampant in Syria and throughout the 
Middle East, especially in the wake of a devastating natural disaster 
that the

[[Page H1177]]

country just experienced, we are abdicating our responsibility to keep 
the American people safe from harm.
  Not only that but by maintaining our troop presence in Syria, we can 
continue to support our allies in the region and work toward a more 
stable and peaceful Middle East, including supporting and growing the 
Abraham Accords.
  Of course, we must always prioritize the safety and well-being of our 
military personnel, and any decision to maintain a true presence in 
Syria must be carefully considered and strategically planned. The Biden 
administration must be cognizant of this fact and not allow our true 
presence in Syria to go the way of the disastrous Afghanistan 
withdrawal.
  I agree with my colleagues about the need to reevaluate and look at 
the AUMFs, reform the process, and move forward, but we need to do so 
in a deliberative manner. This is not the way to go about it. For those 
reasons, I cannot in good conscience support this.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this body will reject this resolution 
and allow our committee to do the work that it needs to do to reform 
this process.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of the United 
States over 21 years since 9/11 is no accident. It is due to the sweat, 
toil, and blood of thousands of young Americans.
  Many Americans have enjoyed the fruits of this labor with not 
contributing anything to the cost. As a veteran of the war on terror 
myself, I stand here today and, from the bottom of my heart, genuinely 
wish I could tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I could tell my colleagues: 
``Mission accomplished. We can go home.'' I truly wish I could say 
that, but the mission is not accomplished yet. It is not finished. 
There is still work to do, which our troops in Syria carry on today.
  ISIS remains the deadliest terrorist threat in the world. The work 
that these troops do day in and day out is a relatively small 
investment in our security and the security of our allies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, I share the general consensus that we 
should re-debate the AUMF. That is Congress' job. I have voted for 
measures similar to this in the past that will force that debate. We 
should force Congress to debate the AUMF, but we should not force our 
troops to withdraw.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats alike have been 
citing the 2001 AUMF. It is important to note that there are Americans 
fighting in Syria today who were not born when the 2011 AUMF was 
approved. About 9 out of every 10 of us in the House of Representatives 
weren't here to vote on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Gaetz) for sponsoring this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no legal authority for the U.S. to be involved 
in the Syrian civil war. There is no authority.
  Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act does not say, and I am quoting the 
chairman now, it does not say, ``without authorization.'' That is not 
the language. The language says, ``specific statutory authorization.'' 
You either declare war or you have specific statutory authority.
  Do you know what that 2001 AUMF says? It says those who ``aided the 
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'' It doesn't say 
``ISIS.'' It doesn't say ``Syria.'' It is talking about the events of 
2001, as the gentleman from Florida just referenced.
  It is a quaint idea to say we are going to rely on that 2001 AUMF. I 
thought they were going to say they were relying on the 2002 AUMF. 
Either way, neither one works. You don't have authority, and you are 
going to be there and put U.S. soldiers in harm's way. This is a civil 
war.

  One Syrian analyst said this recently: ``Until we see the externals 
confront each other directly rather than on the Syrian ground, I don't 
see an actual end to the Syrian conflict.''
  Do you know who the externals are? The U.S., the Russians, and Iran. 
That is the externals, and we have no authority to be one of those 
externals. The analyst went on to say this is a proxy war. That is what 
is happening. It is another U.S.-Russia proxy war.
  When the Syrian civil war began with protests during the Arab Spring 
of 2011, U.S. President Obama went to the regime in Syria and said: 
``The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President 
Bashar al-Assad is standing in the way. For the sake of the Syrian 
people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.''
  Is that our objective--regime change? Is that what it is? No. We 
don't know what the objective is. You can't even define what the exit 
ramp is.
  Assad responded that time by fueling the civil war, the exacerbation 
of that problem, and it has just grown. Now, you have us with our 
allies the Turks and our allies the Kurds. They are fighting against 
each other. They don't want each other.
  ISIS, in 2019, was declared to be defeated. Even the inspector 
general recently said they don't have an ability to cause damage and 
fear and harm in the homeland.
  The result is, in the last 13 years, the U.S. has spent more than $15 
billion on humanitarian aid, and we don't even know what we have spent 
in Department of Defense costs. Do you know why? Because they are 
grouping it with what is going on in Iraq. We tried to obtain 
information. How much have we spent? Nobody will tell us.
  When General Milley says--by the way, he was the architect of that 
disastrous Afghanistan retreat, and he is a believer in a ``however 
long, no matter the cost'' approach in Ukraine. He insists we prolong 
our involvement in the civil war in Syria in order to help our allies.
  General Milley, who are our allies? Is it the Kurds? Is it the Turks? 
Who is it? Is it the Assad regime?
  He can't tell you. No one can tell you.
  All of this is being done, though, without legal authority. It is 
time for us to stop fighting proxy wars. It is time for us not to say 
next time we will take care of these AUMFs. We have had time. This is 
the time to get rid of them. I urge us to vote for this.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a Member of 
Congress who has proudly worked to fight and defeat terrorism as a CIA 
officer. I worked with my colleagues to protect the lives of the 
American people, our servicemembers, and our interests around the 
world.
  I fully agree that we need to revisit our Authorizations for Use of 
Military Force. I have worked with Members of Congress, including the 
esteemed gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), to raise this issue. I am 
proud to see that we are actually seeing progress toward the repeal of 
the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs. That is encouraging.
  However, that does not mean that we should abandon ongoing operations 
that keep the United States safe that are authorized under the 2001 
AUMF. Should we discuss it? Should we debate it? Should we look toward 
reforming it? Perhaps. Should we order the men and women in uniform to 
come home over the next few months? Absolutely not.
  We should not encourage a resurgence of ISIS. We should not abandon 
our work with the Kurdish fighters on the front lines. We should 
understand the implications for the long-term stability of the Middle 
East and the actions we take here today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the 
resolution to withdraw quickly from Syria, and I look forward to 
earnest, bipartisan, forward-looking conversations about how we can 
reassert our constitutional role and protect our ongoing work to defeat 
terrorism and keep the homeland safe.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, Syria is such a mess. We are sometimes 
funding both sides in the same battle.

[[Page H1178]]

  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an L.A. Times piece titled: ``In 
Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA.''

                  [From the L.A. Times, Mar. 27, 2016]

 In Syria, Militias Armed by the Pentagon Fight Those Armed by the CIA

             (By Nabih Bulos, W.J. Hennigan, Brian Bennett)

       Syrian militias armed by different parts of the U.S. war 
     machine have begun to fight each other on the plains between 
     the besieged city of Aleppo and the Turkish border, 
     highlighting how little control U.S. intelligence officers 
     and military planners have over the groups they have financed 
     and trained in the bitter five-year-old civil war.
       The fighting has intensified over the last two months, as 
     CIA-armed units and Pentagon-armed ones have repeatedly shot 
     at each other while maneuvering through contested territory 
     on the northern outskirts of Aleppo, U.S. officials and rebel 
     leaders have confirmed.
       In mid-February, a CIA-armed militia called Fursan al Haq, 
     or Knights of Righteousness, was run out of the town of 
     Marea, about 20 miles north of Aleppo, by Pentagon-backed 
     Syrian Democratic Forces moving in from Kurdish-controlled 
     areas to the east.
       ``Any faction that attacks us, regardless from where it 
     gets its support, we will fight it,'' Maj. Fares Bayoush, a 
     leader of Fursan al Haq, said in an interview.
       Rebel fighters described similar clashes in the town of 
     Azaz, a key transit point for fighters and supplies between 
     Aleppo and the Turkish border, and on March 3 in the Aleppo 
     neighborhood of Sheikh Maqsud.
       The attacks by one U.S.-backed group against another come 
     amid continued heavy fighting in Syria and illustrate the 
     difficulty facing U.S. efforts to coordinate among dozens of 
     armed groups that are trying to overthrow the government of 
     President Bashar Assad, fight the Islamic State militant 
     group and battle one another all at the same time.
       ``It is an enormous challenge,'' said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-
     Burbank), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence 
     Committee, who described the clashes between U.S.-supported 
     groups as ``a fairly new phenomenon.''
       ``It is part of the three-dimensional chess that is the 
     Syrian battlefield,'' he said.
       The area in northern Syria around Aleppo, the country's 
     second-largest city, features not only a war between the 
     Assad government and its opponents, but also periodic battles 
     against Islamic State militants, who control much of eastern 
     Syria and also some territory to the northwest of the city, 
     and long-standing tensions among the ethnic groups that 
     inhabit the area, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen.
       ``This is a complicated, multi-sided war where our options 
     are severely limited,'' said a U.S. official, who wasn't 
     authorized to speak publicly on the matter. ``We know we need 
     a partner on the ground. We can't defeat ISIL without that 
     part of the equation, so we keep trying to forge those 
     relationships.'' ISIL is an acronym for Islamic State.
       President Obama this month authorized a new Pentagon plan 
     to train and arm Syrian rebel fighters, relaunching a program 
     that was suspended in the fall after a string of embarrassing 
     setbacks which included recruits being ambushed and handing 
     over much of their U.S.-issued ammunition and trucks to an Al 
     Qaeda affiliate.
       Amid the setbacks, the Pentagon late last year deployed 
     about 50 special operations forces to Kurdish-held areas in 
     northeastern Syria to better coordinate with local militias 
     and help ensure U.S.-backed rebel groups aren't fighting one 
     another. But such skirmishes have become routine.
       Last year, the Pentagon helped create a new military 
     coalition, the Syrian Democratic Forces. The goal was to arm 
     the group and prepare it to take territory away from the 
     Islamic State in eastern Syria and to provide information for 
     U.S. airstrikes.
       The group is dominated by Kurdish outfits known as People's 
     Protection Units or YPG. A few Arab units have joined the 
     force in order to prevent it from looking like an invading 
     Kurdish army, and it has received air-drops of weapons and 
     supplies and assistance from U.S. Special Forces.
       Gen. Joseph Votel, now commander of U.S. Special Operations 
     Command and the incoming head of Central Command, said this 
     month that about 80 percent of the fighters in the Syrian 
     Democratic Forces were Kurdish. The U.S. backing for a 
     heavily Kurdish armed force has been a point of tension with 
     the Turkish government, which has a long history of crushing 
     Kurdish rebellions and doesn't want to see Kurdish units 
     control more of its southern border.
       The CIA, meanwhile, has its own operations center inside 
     Turkey from which it has been directing aid to rebel groups 
     in Syria, providing them with TOW antitank missiles from 
     Saudi Arabian weapons stockpiles.
       While the Pentagon's actions are part of an overt effort by 
     the U.S. and its allies against Islamic State, the CIA's 
     backing of militias is part of a separate covert U.S. effort 
     aimed at keeping pressure on the Assad government in hopes of 
     prodding the Syrian leader to the negotiating table.
       At first, the two different sets of fighters were primarily 
     operating in widely separated areas of Syria--the Pentagon-
     backed Syrian Democratic Forces in the northeastern part of 
     the country and the CIA-backed groups farther west. But over 
     the last several months, Russian airstrikes against anti-
     Assad fighters in northwestern Syria have weakened them. That 
     created an opening which allowed the Kurdish-led groups to 
     expand their zone of control to the outskirts of Aleppo, 
     bringing them into more frequent conflict with the CIA-backed 
     outfits.
       ``Fighting over territory in Aleppo demonstrates how 
     difficult it is for the U.S. to manage these really localized 
     and in some cases entrenched conflicts,'' said Nicholas A. 
     Heras, an expert on the Syrian civil war at the Center for a 
     New American Security, a think tank in Washington. 
     ``Preventing clashes is one of the constant topics in the 
     joint operations room with Turkey.''
       Over the course of the Syrian civil war, the town of Marea 
     has been on the front line of Islamic State's attempts to 
     advance across Aleppo province toward the rest of northern 
     Syria.
       On Feb. 18, the Syrian Democratic Forces attacked the town. 
     A fighter with the Suqour Al-Jabal brigade, a group with 
     links to the CIA, said intelligence officers of the U.S.-led 
     coalition fighting Islamic State know their group has clashed 
     with the Pentagon-trained militias.
       ``The MOM knows we fight them,'' he said, referring to the 
     joint operations center in southern Turkey, using an 
     abbreviation for its name in Turkish, Musterek Operasyon 
     Merkezi. ``We'll fight all who aim to divide Syria or harm 
     its people.'' The fighter spoke on condition of anonymity.
       Marea is home to many of the original Islamist fighters who 
     took up arms against Assad during the Arab Spring in 2011. It 
     has long been a crucial way station for supplies and fighters 
     coming from Turkey into Aleppo.
       ``Attempts by Syrian Democratic Forces to take Marea was a 
     great betrayal and was viewed as a further example of a 
     Kurdish conspiracy to force them from Arab and Turkmen 
     lands,'' Heras said.
       The clashes brought the U.S. and Turkish officials to 
     ``loggerheads,'' he added. After diplomatic pressure from the 
     U.S., the militia withdrew to the outskirts of the town as a 
     sign of good faith, he said.
       But continued fighting among different U.S.-backed groups 
     may be inevitable, experts on the region said.
       ``Once they cross the border into Syria, you lose a 
     substantial amount of control or ability to control their 
     actions,'' Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence 
     Agency official, said in a telephone interview. ``You 
     certainly have the potential for it becoming a larger problem 
     as people fight for territory and control of the northern 
     border area in Aleppo.

  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Luna), a veteran and also a military spouse of one of our 
brave patriots who fought in Syria.
  Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I will start out by saying ISIS has been 
destroyed. A few hundred troops will not stop the next terrorist dot-
com, and that is never going to end. I am, frankly, tired of hearing 
the sentiment on both sides that if we do not fight them there, they 
will come here. There are way too many countries to apply that logic.
  If we are so concerned, then why is the majority of the U.S. 
Government stagnant on the southern border where it matters. Terrorists 
are literally walking in.
  Better yet, if that is a true concern, then why did we leave billions 
of dollars in equipment during a botched withdrawal in Afghanistan? Do 
you really think terrorist dot-coms aren't going to use that equipment 
like ISIS did?
  Peace is accomplished through superior firepower, strong leadership, 
and a plan, not blunders of failed foreign policy literally repeating 
itself.
  We have zero strategic advantage and zero reason to be in Syria. In 
fact, they don't even want us there.
  Al-Assad and Putin are tight. If you check out some of Russia's naval 
warships, they are actually hanging out in the western port of Syria. 
What we need to be focusing on is a bigger issue like China.
  Syria is a very dangerous place for us to be leaving a few hundred 
Americans. We are better off sending those troops to places like South 
America, where we can build stronger and useful allies who will 
actually work with us.
  Make no mistake, if we take China at their word, a near-peer fight is 
coming. It will require 100 percent of our military and more than the 
American people are going to pay for it. That is why I support this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, if I can also add, to those of my colleagues that had 
mentioned the Kurds, our NATO ally Turkiye, who is not the best NATO 
ally, might I add, has deemed them a terrorist organization. After the 
take-back of Mosul, we actually turned our back on them after promising 
to recognize them as a nation at the United Nations.

[[Page H1179]]

  


                              {time}  1500

  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the ranking 
member of the committee and the chairman of the committee, and my 
colleague from the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Florida, 
because this is a thoughtful initiative dealing with a question that 
Congress must confront, and that is the AUMF in its totality. We have 
had it since 2001, and I believe that is an important discussion.
  I would like to distinguish, however, what I think is an area that 
does not warrant the removal of 900 of our troops. It is a tough area. 
It is an area in Syria where if you talk to Syrian Americans, Mr. 
Speaker, they want the people of Syria to be protected.
  In my meetings with the President of Syria so many years ago, I had 
hoped for a new vision with Syria. I had hoped for an ally with 
Syrians.
  Syrian Americans want democracy. In this instance, we are on the 
border in a very tough location, and I have to look at the humanitarian 
question. I have to look at the issue of the protection of women and 
children as well as the Kurds. The Kurds have no one but us, and the 
opposition has a strong ally as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I recognize the fact that we all want peace, but in 
this instance--also in the midst of the crisis of the earthquake--we 
knew the stories and heard the stories that the Syrians in that area 
were not getting help because of the conflict and fighting. That is 
tragic that we allow people to be desperate and need humanitarian aid 
because they cannot get the protection they need.
  It is important for the stability of that area, for the protection of 
women and children, and to save lives that at this time we do not 
withdraw our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose the underlying legislation 
and to respect the gentleman for the discussion that I think we should 
have.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to my remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues how many more 
remaining speakers they have and are they prepared to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  The gentleman from New York has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Florida has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, much of the discussion today has revolved around whether 
or not withdrawing from Syria will ignite some new ISIS caliphate. We 
have pointed out time and again to inspector general reports saying 
that is unlikely.
  I am not entirely sure that our having troops in Syria deters ISIS 
more than it is a recruiting tool for ISIS.
  Moreover, President Trump said that if Russia wanted to kill ISIS, 
then we should let them. I think there is wisdom in that.
  Both Assad and Turkiye are in stronger positions today to put 
downward pressure on ISIS. Maybe if we weren't giving weapons to people 
shooting at Assad, then Assad would have every incentive to be able to 
engage ISIS in a way to ensure that it doesn't come back.
  We have to also acknowledge Syria and Iraq are the two countries on 
the planet Earth where we have done the most to fund ISIS. We give 
weapons to these so-called moderate rebels--which I actually thought 
was an oxymoron--and it turns out that they are not so moderate. 
Sometimes the rebels we fund to go fight Assad turn around and raise 
the ISIS flag.
  So it is quite silly to be saying we have to withdraw to stop ISIS 
when it is our very presence in Syria in some cases that has been the 
best gift to ISIS.
  There are groups like al-Nusra and associated entities that are like 
our frenemies when they are in Syria, and then they cross over the 
border into Iraq and they become full-fledged jihadists posing a so-
called threat to the homeland. There are 1,500 different groups in 
Syria, so today's friend is tomorrow's ISIS.
  There is no real clear delineation as to what the enduring defeat of 
ISIS means.
  Do we have to keep 900 Americans in Syria until the last heartbeat 
stops of the last person who holds some sympathy for ISIS?
  I would certainly hope not. It would mean we would have to be there 
forever.
  Israel has made their deal with Russia to be protected, the Kurds 
have made their peace with Assad to be protected, and what we see among 
this quagmire is that there is really not a role for the United States 
of America in Syria.
  We are not a Middle Eastern power. We have tried this time and again 
to build a democracy out of sand, blood, and Arab militias, and time 
and again the work we do does not reduce chaos. Oftentimes it causes 
chaos, the very chaos that then subsequently leads to terrorism.
  My colleagues and my staff who have served in Syria and my 
constituents tell me that often these anti-ISIS raids are just raids of 
local thugs and drug dealers who have some cousin that is in ISIS, and 
it is not appropriate to put Americans at risk.
  Often our Americans are guarding these oil fields where the Iranians 
are sending Kamikaze drones, and I am shocked that we have not had 
escalatory accidents or even more casualties for our U.S. 
servicemembers.

  So if this is all one big Georgetown School of Foreign Service essay 
exam about great power competition in Syria, then you go tell that to 
the parents of the Americans who have to sleep tonight in Syria, and 
who have to guard oil fields with Iranian drones coming at them, that 
they are necessary to preserve the balance of power. That is not true.
  The Kurds have an opportunity to pave their path. Let's pave ours. 
And if we are so worried about threats to the homeland, how about we 
actually focus on our true point of vulnerability, which is not the 
emergence of some caliphate, it is the fact that terrorists are 
crossing our southern border on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. We 
seem far less concerned about that than we undeniably should be.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution to 
reassert Congress' power to speak on these matters of war and peace. So 
often we come to the floor and we debate frivolities. This is one of 
the most important things we can be talking about: how we use the 
credibility of our fellow Americans, how we spend America's treasure, 
and how we spill the blood of our bravest patriots.
  We have stained the deserts in the Middle East with enough American 
blood. It is time to bring our servicemembers home.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that is clear from this debate that I 
think we all can agree upon: We need to debate and look at AUMFs and 
that Congress must assert its authority that the Constitution has given 
us. I think that that is something that we can all agree and work 
together on.
  Chairman McCaul and I had these conversations last year in the last 
Congress, and we will continue to have them on the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, I am sure, because it is important.
  For me, the toughest votes that I have had as a Member of Congress is 
to determine whether or not we should send our women and men into 
combat. So I should not now, because it is a tough vote, yield that to 
anyone because it is my responsibility and our responsibility as 
Members of Congress to make that decision.
  I, again, call on Members to oppose this measure as such a forced 
premature end to our presence and joint

[[Page H1180]]

efforts in northeast Syria because this not only threatens to give ISIS 
an opportunity to resurge and again use Syria as a launchpad for 
attacks throughout the region and beyond, but it also leaves our Syrian 
partners out to dry.
  Any withdrawal of U.S. forces must be done in close coordination with 
our coalition allies and partners because our courageous Syrian 
opposition friends need to be a part of this, and we need to talk to 
them in a manner that ensures our national security.
  I hope my colleagues will join me as I oppose this resolution and 
look forward to a future debate on AUMF issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say, it has been a good debate. There is nothing 
more important in this body than issues of war and peace and what we 
have been talking about today.
  I was a counterterrorism Federal prosecutor after 9/11 and the 
chairman of the Homeland Security Committee when ISIS and the caliphate 
were at their strength with external operations and, yes, the southern 
border and the threat that that poses. We can talk about the merits 
some more, and I appreciate this discussion.
  But at the heart of this under the War Powers Resolution privilege 
is, and I am quoting directly: `` . . . that United States Armed Forces 
are engaged in hostilities . . . without a declaration of war or 
specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the 
President if the Congress so directs. . . . `'
  The authority is there, and if you look under the AUMF of 2001 `` . . 
. to prevent any future acts of international terrorism. . . . `'
  I want to close with what President Trump said. I was a part of this 
decision with him on June 9, 2020. He said:

       Since October 7, 2001, United States Armed Forces have 
     conducted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida. Since 
     August of 2014, they have targeted the Islamic State of Iraq 
     and Syria, otherwise known as ISIS, formerly known as al-
     Qaida in Iraq.
       These ongoing operations have been successful in seriously 
     degrading ISIS capabilities in Syria and Iraq.

  If we want to start having a debate without repealing and replacing 
the 2001 AUMF, then I would just argue to my colleagues that that would 
be the productive route to fix this issue of whether the United States 
should be present in the Middle East at all.
  And to close, our Afghanistan hearing, what a mess we have left 
behind and what a threat that has become, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to 
the order of the House of today, the previous question is ordered on 
the concurrent resolution.
  The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________