Michael McCaul

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), who was deployed to the Middle East four times during his 30-year career with the United States Air Force before his retirement as a brigadier general.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force to ``defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' We should not be repealing current counterterrorism authorities unless and until we have replaced them with an updated AUMF that clearly allows us to confront the enemies that continue to threaten our Nation, our people, and our allies. As I have stated before, I would prefer a new, updated AUMF. But in the 13 months our Democratic colleagues have been in charge, we have seen no such proposal from the majority. In fact, they haven't even started that conversation. None of us want to see the extension of any conflict beyond what is necessary, but we also have learned that premature disengagement can have huge costs, such as when the Obama administration's rush to withdraw U.S. troops out of Iraq contributed to the deadly rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the formation of the caliphate. The 2002 Iraq AUMF was not only used against Saddam Hussein; it also identified al-Qaida and ``other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.'' So those on the other side who say this only applies to Saddam Hussein, that is absolutely incorrect. It applies to international terrorist organizations like al-Qaida. Members will recall that al-Qaida in Iraq later became ISIS, a brutal transnational terrorist organization that continues to threaten American lives and interests in our homeland. And for that reason, President Obama used the 2002 AUMF as legal authority for his military operations against ISIS in Iraq. The current administration opposes repealing the 2002 AUMF because it ``remains an important source of additional authority for military operations against ISIS in Iraq and to defend the national security of the United States against threats emanating from Iraq.'' As my colleagues know, these vital counter-ISIS operations continue. Repealing that authorization without a replacement endangers not only the United States' national security, but our coalition partners, most notably, Iraq. The 2002 AUMF was most recently invoked for our January 2 strike on Qasem Soleimani, Iran's mastermind of terror, who killed more than 600 Americans, wounded thousands more, and orchestrated the fiery New Year's attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. It was a targeted, defensive strike in Iraq against a designated terrorist by the Obama administration who threatened U.S. Forces inside Iraq. In the 2 months beforehand, Soleimani and his proxies launched a dozen attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq, killing one American and wounding four U.S. servicemen near Kirkuk on December 27. And then, furthermore, as we saw in the photographs from the previous argument, the Embassy was attacked in a very strong way. I don't know what more evidence the President needed to respond under Article II in self-defense than this, Madam Speaker. And if he did not do so, he would be derelict in his responsibility. And if he didn't stop the plot that we know Soleimani was getting ready to move forward after he went to Damascus and Lebanon and Baghdad to go to the Ayatollah to get the green light to kill more Americans and diplomats, then what would the American people say? What if we had a storm on the Embassy like in 1979, then what? I think the President was restrained. I think he did the right thing at the right time. It was an appropriate use of this AUMF, which states that Iraq ``poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States . . . by, among other things . . . harboring terrorist organizations.'' Contrary to some of the rhetoric we heard 3 weeks ago, the administration does not claim that the 2002 AUMF gives them a blank check--as we have heard quite a bit on the other side--to attack Iran. To the contrary--this is very important--the administration, and the President has told me personally, they have stated publicly that it has never interpreted the 2002 Iraq AUMF to provide authority for strikes inside of Iran or for war with Iran. Soleimani was in Baghdad, designated by Obama as a terrorist. The President is also not seeking war with Iran. He has said this time and time again, and he gets misquoted on this time and time again. The President has shown great restraint time and again after Iran's increasing provocations. I was actually quite surprised, after our U.S. military drones were struck down, there wasn't a response. And as he told the Nation and the world, he wants a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper. Repealing this AUMF does not retroactively remove the President's ability to order his justified and limited strike on Soleimani. A repeal standing alone will only send the wrong message to our troops, our partners, our enemies, and our terrorist adversaries in Iraq. To be sure, the 2002 AUMF should be replaced with new authorities-- after all, it is almost 20 years old--that reflect current circumstances and provide our men and women in uniform with clear support for their critical missions that protect us. And it also gives the American people a voice in that. I deeply regret that my colleagues are not serious enough about exercising our Article I authority to put forward a real, updated alternative to counter the persistent terrorist threats that we see in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Therefore, I see today's effort as nothing more than a political message that does nothing to that end. It ties the hands of the President at a time when he is responsibly facing down a very dangerous Iranian regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, that lives by the motto, ``Death to America.'' These critical constitutional issues of war and peace deserve better than that. I think if we are serious, we will work on both sides of the aisle. I know my Conference has great interest in working on a modernized 2002 AUMF, and I hope the other side can join us in that effort in the following year. But, with respect to this, with no replacement, it would be very dangerous. It would tie our hands' ability to attack ISIS in Iraq. I think it is ill-advised, and, for that reason, I oppose it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), whose four decades of uniformed service to our Nation included 40 combat missions in Iraq before his retirement last year as a general in the United States Army.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, I am strongly in favor of exercising our solemn Article I authority for matters of war and peace; but we are not at war with Iran, we are not engaged in hostilities, and the President is not trying to start a war with Iran. I have been in the White House, and I have heard him say this personally. In fact, he has shown incredible restraint against Iran after they shot down our drone, after they hit 50 percent of the Saudi oil fields, after they killed an American, and after they wounded four soldiers. My Democratic colleagues know very well there are many situations short of war which require military action. In fact, they supported President Obama's thousands of unauthorized strikes in Libya which were not even related to the protection of Americans overseas. I believe it is hypocritical and dangerous for the majority to tie this President's hands in responding to the very real and growing threats that Iran and its proxies pose to Americans in the Middle East. As I said, they killed an American contractor and they launched a massive attack against our Embassy in Baghdad. For those Members who think it was a minor brush against the Embassy, look at these photos. Look at the damage that was done to our United States Embassy. It is absolutely disgraceful. Soleimani had an imminent plot when he went to Damascus, Lebanon, and Baghdad to meet with his number two guy to go to the Ayatollah to get the green light to get out further operations to kill diplomats and American soldiers. The idea that that strike on Soleimani was not justified, I don't know what more evidence was required than this. Then, after this, they launched antiballistic missiles against United States military bases. They launched dozens of ballistic missiles at U.S. Forces, causing, as the Speaker said, traumatic brain injury in at least 50 U.S. servicemen. Again, what more do we need? It is unconscionable at this point in time, with this happening at this time in history, to limit the President's ability to respond as needed to protect American lives from this vicious regime. This time I think the Democrats have gone too far. Like President Reagan said, I believe in peace through strength, and it is my sincere hope that we will not need to launch another strike like the President did against Qasem Soleimani, but it did make the world a safer place. Unfortunately, the enemy also gets a vote. If Iran doubts our resolve to respond forcefully, then it will surely affect their calculus moving forward about whether to attack America again. In opposing this amendment, I am standing with the Iranian people. It is important that they hear this. I know they are hearing this because I have so many Iranian friends who tell me that what we say here in this Chamber means something. The people of Iran are listening, and when they see a divided Congress, that sends the worst message at the absolute worst time. I want to let the American citizens there in the Middle East know that they deserve to be covered by the umbrella of our great men and women in uniform. They deserve the protection of our government. If their lives are threatened, I do not view them as a hypothetical. They are real people representing our country abroad, and I will not let them be vulnerable. So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment for the second time this Congress because it divides the Nation and sends a wrong message at the wrong time to the people of Iran. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), the distinguished chair of the Republican Conference.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Watkins), a veteran of the United States Army with 8 years of combat service in the Middle East.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz), a U.S. Army veteran and decorated Special Forces officer with 23 years of service, including combat tours in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous amendment. I would like to refresh the memory of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The Iranian regime orchestrated over a dozen attacks against Americans in Iraq over the last 3 months, killing a U.S. citizen and wounding four U.S. servicemembers. They also hit the Embassy of the United States, ordering a fiery attack on the U.S. Embassy and launched a ballistic missile attack on the United States Forces. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what more the President needs in terms of authorization to respond in self-defense given these events. The President has made it abundantly clear that he is not starting a war with Iran. He has repeatedly shown restraint after Iran's provocations and deescalated when others would not. When forced by Iran's dangerous escalations, the President has targeted limited military action to defend Americans overseas, using his Article II constitutional authority. This included the strike in Baghdad against Soleimani, Iran's mastermind of terror, who was responsible for killing more than 600 Americans and wounding thousands more. He has blood on his hands. But my colleagues cannot accept the fact that the President acted time and again with restraint in these matters. They are so blinded by their contempt for this President that they are seeking to tie his hands. They would rather risk putting Americans in the Middle East in harm's way by an Iranian regime with a 40-year history of deadly aggression against us. This amendment takes legitimate options off the table for the executive branch. In doing so, it shows America divided in the face of mounting Iranian threats, making our Nation less safe. Make no mistake, Iran and others are watching as the Democrats needlessly divide us. We all agree that, under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress possesses the authority to declare war, but this amendment goes much further than prohibiting an unauthorized war. This amendment uses Congress' power of the purse to preclude any use of force whatsoever against Iran unless it is previously authorized by Congress or provoked by an attack on the territory or the Armed Forces of the United States. Think about what that means. What can our military do if Iran attacks American civilians or diplomats or commercial shipping overseas? Under this reckless amendment, the answer is absolutely nothing. The United States military cannot fire a single shot until after the successful completion of a bicameral legislative process that enacts law authorizing the use of force. How many Americans would be dead by then? We need Iran and its terrorist proxies to think twice about attacking Americans, our friends, and our own interests, not enabling them like this amendment does. Further, this is an unprecedented attempt to limit the powers claimed by every Commander in Chief, both Democrat and Republican, since the War Powers Resolution was enacted over President Nixon's veto in 1973. This misguided amendment is actually far more restrictive than the War Powers Resolution itself, which recognizes the use of our Armed Forces for up to 60 days without legislative authorization in situations of war. This is absolutely not the time to play politics with our national security. Iran's aggression is not going to go away anytime soon. I would like to quote from a July 8 letter from the Department of Defense when this same proposal was considered as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. ``The Department strongly opposes this amendment. . . . If U.S. citizens, diplomatic facilities in the region, or other important national interests are threatened or attacked, we must be able to respond promptly and in an appropriate fashion.'' That letter was sent 5 months before the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The concerns expressed in the letter are even more urgent today, given the many attacks on Americans in Iraq in recent days. Bottom line, this measure emboldens our adversary by tying the President's hands on Iran. Mr. Speaker, therefore, I oppose this legislation, which I believe is politics at its worst. It is dangerous. It ties our Commander in Chief's hands. It emboldens our enemy, the largest state sponsor of terror, the Islamic Republic of Iran. And I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the lead Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Michael McCaul

Speeches

Manage analytics