[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8078-8081]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) for 30 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, first, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleagues, to 
talk about restoring Congress' constitutional oversight on matters of 
war and peace. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in demanding 
that this House immediately repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of 
Military Force.
  Nearly 16 years ago, Congress passed an open-ended, blank check for 
endless war. This authorization gives any President the authority to 
wage limitless war at any time, anywhere, for any reason in perpetuity. 
The vote to relinquish our constitutional authority occurred just 3 
days after the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11. The American people 
were angry and anxious to take action.
  Madam Speaker, I was just as outraged and devastated as every other 
American, but I voted against this 2001 AUMF because I believed then--
as I believe now--that it was a blank check and set the stage for 
perpetual war.
  This House rushed to pass the 60-word authorization with little 
debate. Sixty words, Madam Speaker, drastically altered history. In the 
almost 16 years since its passage, the 2001 AUMF--which was designed, 
mind you, to punish the perpetrators of the brutal and deadly attacks 
on September 11--has been used now by three Presidents to wage endless 
war around the globe. A recent report from the Congressional Research 
Service shows that this authorization has been used more than 37 times 
in 14 countries to justify military action.

                              {time}  1800

  These include operations at Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, 
and recent military actions in Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and many 
more. This report only looks at unclassified military actions.
  I would like to now yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 
Watson Coleman), who has been such a leader on so many issues, 
especially around issues of our constitutional responsibility, issues 
around war and peace.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Congresswoman 
for having this Special Order to address this issue and for continuing 
to be such a leader on behalf of this great democracy that we have.
  Although I was not in Congress when this AUMF was established, more 
than 15 years later, it is clear this authorization is not designed for 
this endless and perpetual war on terror.
  I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her bravery 
and her unwavering stance for what is right.
  Sadly, what the gentlewoman feared is now our reality. Just today, 
U.S. forces participated in an airstrike against the Assad regime under 
the umbrella of the same AUMF. This is just the latest example of this 
virtual endless war we are able to wage in the Middle East and beyond.
  As of January 2013, DOD reported 7,008 U.S. military deaths in the 
war on terror in addition to the over 50,000 that have been wounded. 
This does not include the huge numbers of civilians killed and families 
that have been impacted by the U.S. military machine. This is 
compounded by the harsh reality that, according to Pentagon statistics, 
suicide, not combat, is the leading killer of U.S. troops deployed to 
the Middle East to fight Islamic State militants. Between 2001 and 
2010, the rate of suicide in the military has doubled.
  When we decide to commit our troops to our mission, it needs to be 
with clear goals and the explicit approval of Congress, approval that 
aligns with the goals of the administration and the Commander in Chief. 
Anything less puts personnel at risk, draining vital resources, 
finances, and our military.
  We are taking our military away from readiness everywhere. We are 
making tactical and deliberate actions less feasible by spreading our 
military capacity thin. We are not doing our job if we allow carte 
blanche to any President to wage a nebulous war.
  This is not just a bipartisan issue, this is an American issue.
  I have voted against funding bills that maintain operations under the 
2001 AUMF under the previous administration and feel no differently 
today. Quite frankly, based on the actions of this President, I have 
even less confidence that he has a reasonable and targeted plan to deal 
with such a complex military issue.
  We need a deliberate process. We need a new AUMF that establishes 
strict parameters, attainable goals, and, most importantly, 
accountability. There is a real cost here, a human cost here; so 
whether it is an additional 1 or 1,000, our troops demand more, our 
allies demand more, and this country of ours deserves more.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 
Watson Coleman) for that very powerful statement and also for reminding 
us that this should not be a partisan issue.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), who has 
been very diligent in his effort to repeal the 2001 Authorization for 
Use of Military Force.
  Mr. YOHO. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
organizing this very important Special Order. This is something that 
she has been a champion on. This is my third term, and we have been 
talking about this for 4 years. Enough is enough. It is time to end 
this.
  I rise today in support of Congress reclaiming its authority under 
Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution. The United States 
must have a clear strategy with well-defined goals to counter nonstate 
actors like ISIS that

[[Page 8079]]

threaten the United States. They threaten our national security 
interests. We must also develop clear legal authority for our military 
to take action against these groups. Ending the 2001 AUMF is a crucial 
part of that effort.
  According to scholars at Brown University's Watson Institute of 
International and Public Affairs, our government, our taxpayers, have 
spent $4.8 trillion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, paid for 
almost entirely by borrowing.
  As of today, 6,925 American soldiers have given their lives serving 
our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation 
Enduring Freedom, Operation Inherent Resolve, and Operation Freedom's 
Sentinel, according to the Department of Defense. But what about the 
costs to take care of these young men and women for the next 60, 70, 
and 80 years in our country?
  While our brave men and women in uniform continue to fight in the 
sands of Iraq and Syria and the mountains of Afghanistan, we have gone 
through three Presidential administrations without a statement 
articulating what victory is, except that ``terrorism must be 
defeated.''
  No one disagrees with that goal, but it is an uncertain way to order 
our Nation's military posture and to commit our young men and women in 
the military serving this Nation without a clear, defined goal. We have 
been at war in Afghanistan for 16 years, yet the Taliban controls or 
contests 40 percent of Afghan districts, according to the Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
  The U.S. intelligence community's worldwide threat assessment states 
that ``the overall situation in Afghanistan will very likely continue 
to deteriorate, even if international support is sustained,'' and that 
``endemic state weaknesses, the government's political fragility, 
deficiencies of the Afghan National Security Forces, Taliban 
persistence, and regional interference will remain key impediments to 
improvement.''
  In addition to Afghanistan, the United States has also been involved 
in Iraq, on and off, since 2003.
  Dr. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute conducted a poll of 
Iraqi public opinion in 2016, which found that 94 percent of Iraqis had 
an unfavorable attitude about the United States. Ninety-four percent of 
Iraqis polled say they do not think the U.S. contributes to peace and 
stability in the Arab world.
  We need a much clearer strategy for our men and women in uniform than 
to tell them just to keep doing the same thing over and over again. We 
all know what the definition of insanity is, and we need to do better 
for them and for our partners around the world.
  Our Nation has arrived at a historic and constitutional moment. Prior 
to President Trump's inauguration, President Obama released a framework 
outlining his administration's formal legal view on the use of military 
force against Islamic terror groups around the globe. That report 
relied heavily on the 2001 AUMF, which has been used to justify 
numerous American military operations against an ever-expanding number 
of terror groups, many of which have only slight links to the 
perpetrators of the September 11, 2001, attacks.
  In reality, our loose interpretation of the 2001 AUMF to have a 
perpetual war against terror might as well be using the authorization 
that Thomas Jefferson used to go after the Barbary pirates on the 
shores of Tripoli the way this has been stretched over and over again. 
It is unconscionable.
  I hope that President Trump's administration will not continue to 
rely on that same legal framework but, rather, that he will formally 
ask Congress to pass a new authorization with a clear directive of what 
success is for the use of force that will not perpetually operate in 
constitutional gray areas.
  Strikes against groups like al-Shabaab in Somalia take place in 
constitutional twilight zones where the Constitution's distribution of 
authority to use force is uncertain, as Justice Jackson wrote in 
Youngstown v. Sawyer.
  To better preserve our Constitution's separation of powers structure, 
Congress must make it a priority to develop clear legal authority for 
American military action against Islamist terror organizations. 
Further, such authorization should be structured so it will not turn 
into the expanding grant of power like the 2001 AUMF has done.
  If we fail to pass a new AUMF, it would do our servicemen and -women, 
as well as the American public, a fundamental disservice. It would 
prolong authorization of an endless war.
  It is time to end the Middle East conflict. Let's end the 
authorization of the 2001 AUMF. Right now, I fear that many of our 
military operations do not have congressional authorization and do not 
comply with the clear statement of Article I, section 8, clause 11 of 
the Constitution that gives Congress the power to declare war.
  To show our servicemen and -women we support them, to uphold the 
Constitution, and for the good of our Nation, I hope we can work on the 
passage of a new AUMF with deliberate speed.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. Her commitment to this cause 
is commendable.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Yoho for his clear and 
concise statement laying out how explicit the Constitution is as it 
relates to matters of war and peace and how we must debate both if we 
are going to continue to use force. We look forward to a bipartisan 
effort this year to get us where we need to be, and that is to repeal 
this authorization. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel), who is the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and 
whom I served with on the committee for many years, and who really has 
a very clear understanding of foreign and military policy and has been 
such a leader on so many issues and someone on whom we rely on so many 
fronts.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Lee. We are all 
grateful to you for being so clear and so principled.
  As I have often said, Congress must fulfill its constitutional 
obligation to consider an updated AUMF, and as my colleagues said, that 
stands for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Right now, 
the administration is still using the authorization we passed after 
September 11, 2001, in the legal justification to fight ISIS. That is 
deeply problematic.
  The 2001 AUMF has none of the limits many of us are seeking. We are a 
Congress. We are not a rubber stamp to any President. We have a right 
to vote on issues such as war and peace.
  U.S. leadership to defeat ISIS is critical, but this doesn't require 
a large-scale deployment of U.S. forces. With American leadership, we 
were able to prevent the wholesale slaughter of the Yazidi people.
  Iraqi partners were able to maintain control of the Mosul Dam, which, 
if breached by ISIS, could have resulted in death and displacement of 
up to 2 million people and endangered American personnel in Iraq. With 
our support, local forces have taken back about 80 percent of the 
territory from ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
  So another large-scale, open-ended commitment of American troops is 
certainly not the answer. The disastrous intervention in Iraq last 
decade set the stage for the rise of ISIS in the first place. The 2001 
AUMF has no limits at all on U.S. ground troops.
  As troop levels continue to rise in the fight against ISIS, we just 
cannot put our heads in the sand. We need to sit together as a 
deliberative body and make these important decisions, not give any 
President or any administration a blank check.
  I am working on legislation to limit the authority Congress provided 
after September 11. We need to tailor this authority to the threat we 
face today. September 11 happened 16 years ago. We need new parameters 
to define our mission and our goals. I voted for that AUMF 16 years 
ago, but I never would have imagined that 16 years later it would still 
be there and give a blank check to any President who would use

[[Page 8080]]

it anytime, anyplace, and to do anything. So we must fulfill our 
constitutional responsibility and consider what an appropriate 
authorization should include.
  Using a 2001 authorization for a 2017 conflict sets a terrible 
constitutional precedent. Congress has a vital constitutional 
responsibility over America's war powers. This is one of the most 
important decisions we are charged with making. When we fail to live up 
to that responsibility, we weaken the balance of power that is the 
bedrock of our democracy. Considering an updated AUMF is not easy, but 
it is our job. We should do our job.
  President Obama came to Congress well over a year ago with a proposed 
AUMF. Not many people cared for it, but it was a proposed AUMF. We 
could have changed it--it was a starting point--but we didn't do it. We 
threw it away because it just got too hard. That cannot happen again.
  Congress has a responsibility to do its part here, and, 
unfortunately, we are not meeting that responsibility. We owe it to the 
American people and we owe it our men and women in uniform to do our 
job. Congressional inaction on an AUMF is inexcusable.

                              {time}  1815

  I want to say that it a separate issue from the recent strikes 
against Assad. Congress has made no authorization whatsoever for 
sustained military action against Assad. The 60-day clock started 
ticking when the President notified Congress of his missile strike.
  The administration must come to Congress on that issue as well. There 
cannot be long-term military action against Assad without Congressional 
say-so.
  Assad is a bad guy, and I think that he should be deposed, quite 
frankly. I think that any future for Syria cannot include Assad, who 
has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people.
  But whether the United States must involve itself in every single war 
and ground troops using an outdated authorization for the use of force 
just strikes me as being something that should not happen and will lead 
us down a path in the future where we can't get out of it.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). She has 
always stood up for her beliefs, whether they seem popular or unpopular 
when it happened. That is just the kind of people we want to serve in 
Congress: someone who speaks out and has been a consistent fighter.
  I am proud to join with her tonight, and I hope that more colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle will understand that this is an important 
constitutional principle. It is not a matter of who is in power, who is 
the President, what party has the majority. As Americans and as 
legislators, we should all be very concerned about giving any President 
a blank check to go to war.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel) for that very powerful statement and for really laying out 
the fact that Congress is missing in action and that this resolution, 
this AUMF, must be repealed so that we can move forward and make some 
determinations as to what Congress' role will be and what we think 
should happen in terms of our strategy as it relates to going to war.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for 
being here tonight and I thank him for his leadership and his 
expertise.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones), who has been a friend, a supporter, who constantly is talking 
about why we need to protect our troops, support our troops, keep them 
out of harm's way, support our veterans. He is a great American, and I 
have the pleasure of working with him on so many issues.
  Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
the leadership and also this opportunity. I could not agree more with 
where we are and why we are on the floor tonight.
  If you believe in the Constitution, which the majority of us do 
because we raise our hands when we are sworn in, then we need to do our 
constitutional responsibility. What has been said tonight by my 
colleagues and will be ended by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee) in just a few minutes is the fact that we do not do our 
constitutional duty or responsibility.
  The 2001 AUMF to talk about going after Osama bin Laden after 9/11, 
meaning Afghanistan, made sense. The AUMF in 2002 should have never 
passed this House. I regret that I voted for it because Iraq was an 
unnecessary war. But that is history now.
  What we are talking about is learning from history and dealing with 
the present and the future. Therefore, there is no reason that the 
leadership of the House, Mr. Ryan, will not permit the committees of 
jurisdiction to bring forward a new AUMF. It could be a blanket AUMF or 
it could mean Syria or maybe Afghanistan.
  I have joined with colleagues on the other side, including the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), to put in H.R. 1666 that says, 
after 16 years, there needs to be a debate on the future involvement of 
the American people and the military into Afghanistan.
  We have 300 Members of Congress sitting on the floor day in and day 
out who have never been part of a debate or a vote on the future of 
Afghanistan. After 16 years, $800 billion spent, 2,000 Americans killed 
and 20,000 wounded, if we do not have a debate on whether we stay in 
Afghanistan or we talk about coming home, then our leadership in the 
House are not doing their constitutional duty either.
  Madam Speaker, tonight I wanted to be very supportive, as I will be. 
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and I have been on each 
other's bills as it deals with Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq. It is time 
for us to demand from our leadership--I do not blame the Presidents, 
whether it be Trump or Obama, I do not blame them, because it is our 
responsibility.
  James Madison was very clear, and I am going to paraphrase very 
quickly. It is the legislative branch that will debate and declare war, 
not the executive branch. What we have done with these AUMFs from 2001 
and 2002, we have abdicated our responsibilities.
  I know how the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) feels, and all 
those who spoke tonight and those who are not here tonight to speak, 
how we all feel. But it is up to us to demand from our leadership. 
Don't wait for a President to give direction, because Madison was very 
clear. It is our responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, I have written five or six letters to Mr. Ryan, the 
Speaker of the House. I have written him additional letters with my 
colleagues on the other side asking him to permit us to meet our 
constitutional responsibility. At this point we have had no luck, and I 
am asking Mr. Ryan tonight, the Speaker of the House, to direct the 
committees of jurisdiction to come forward with one of these bills that 
have been introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and 
other Members of the Democratic Party and those of us in the Republican 
Party to come forward and let's have a refresher course, so to speak, 
on the constitutional responsibility.
  I have Camp Lejeune Marine Base in my district. I talked to marines 
as recently as 2 weeks ago. One has been five times to Afghanistan. He 
said it is not worth a dime to be there. We are spending billions and 
billions of dollars, and kids still getting killed.
  I have signed over 10,000 letters to families and extended families 
who have lost loved ones because I knew I should never have voted to go 
into Iraq. That is my mistake, and I am living with my mistake. But 
what I am trying to do now is to join you and others to say we have a 
constitutional responsibility to debate war. If we are going to send 
our young men and women to die in war, we need to debate it.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee) for this opportunity. I look forward to working with her as we go 
forward. I think we really need to put pressure on the leadership to 
allow us to meet our responsibilities. I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) for giving me this opportunity to be here with my 
colleagues.

[[Page 8081]]


  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Jones) for his statement tonight and for his leadership. I think, 
listening to him, listening to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), 
and working with our colleagues in a bipartisan way, you know, we have 
to keep hope alive on this because our young men and women, our 
Constitution, our country, deserves it. You have been here from the 
beginning in terms of trying to help put Congress back into action 
because we have been missing in action.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Khanna), my colleague from the Silicon Valley, right next door to my 
district, who has come to Congress and has hit the ground running. He 
is a true advocate on so many issues as it relates to peace and justice 
and security.
  Mr. KHANNA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) for her vision in making sure Congress votes on matters of 
war and peace.
  When we were attacked, after 9/11, I, like many Americans, supported 
strikes on the people who attacked us. But no one in this country would 
have thought that a resolution would be used for perpetual war.
  Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had the 
courage back then and the foresight to stand up with courage and stand 
up against a resolution that has provided a blank check for the last 16 
years. I do believe that that is the type of political courage that one 
day will be remembered in history, and I applaud the gentlewoman for 
that.
  We have seen that, since 2001, the terrorists, which were contained 
on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, have spread. They have spread to 
the Middle East. They have spread to Africa. And it is about time that 
we ask: What have all these interventions gotten us?
  And this is not a partisan issue, as the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) has mentioned and as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones) just articulated. It goes back to our founding principles of 
John Quincy Adams, an early President who said: ``We ought not to go 
overseas to slay monsters.''
  And he said the reason we shouldn't do that is we should give people 
who seek freedom our voice and our prayers; but if we go out to destroy 
monsters, we actually will be seen not as a liberating force, but as a 
dictatorial force because we often won't know who the truly freedom-
seeking people are.
  I wish every Member of Congress, every Senator would read John Quincy 
Adams' insight so that we had more restraint.
  Consider the issue of Afghanistan, where 40 percent of the country is 
not under our control. And here is the thing: I know this region. I was 
born here. But being of South Asian origin, on the Pakistan-India 
border, where there are 3,000 terrorists, there are 150,000 troops to 
take care of that.
  Does anyone think sending 10,000 troops again and again has 
accomplished anything?
  It has not. All it is doing is further antagonizing people and 
putting our troops at risk.
  Then when we called for regime change in 2011 with Syria and Assad, 
we made Syria a magnet for terrorist groups. Now in Yemen, where we are 
aiding the Saudi Arabian Government, which is aligned, ironically, with 
al-Qaida, and al-Qaida, which has claimed responsibility for the shoe 
bomber and the underwear bomber in this country, we are aiding and 
intervening in a place where we are actually supporting groups that are 
harming us.
  All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is saying is we ought 
to debate these issues, that the American people ought to know what 
these interventions are getting us; why they are not making us more 
safe and why we are not having a thoughtful policy.
  Madam Speaker, I applaud the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lee) 
vision and I applaud her leadership. I know that history will vindicate 
her.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Khanna) for those kind words, but also for his clarity and his 
vision and understanding that we must repeal this authorization to use 
force and put Congress back in the mix where we should have been from 
day one. I want to thank him again very much for being here.
  Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) 
has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. LEE. I will close now. Once again, I ask our Speaker a very 
simple question, and that is why he has not scheduled a debate on this 
vital issue that affects our national security.
  We asked over and over again for a vote to repeal this authorization. 
We want a debate and we want to have a new vote based on the current 
realities of what is taking place as it relates to the use of force by 
our own government.
  In February of 2015, Congressman Eliot Engel mentioned that President 
Obama sent to Congress an ISIS-specific AUMF, and it was never taken 
up. There were no actions, no hearings, no formal debate. Not one vote.
  We have a new President that is continuing to use the outdated 2001 
AUMF in expanded ways, including justifying sending more troops to 
fight ISIS in Syria and spending more taxpayer dollars on war and 
putting our young men and women in harm's way.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all of the Members who were here 
last night. Let's hope that this discussion will help more Members come 
to the floor and talk about why we need the Speaker to bring up the 
bill to repeal the authorization to use force.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________