Michael McCaul

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, America's first responders represent to the world the humanity at the heart of our Nation. I, again, thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for his expression of support for their overseas activities, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 529.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 1941, which will block oil and natural gas lease sales in the Atlantic and Pacific. To start, this bill reduces the United States' ability to develop our domestic energy resources. Furthermore, it emboldens Russia to continue to use its oil and gas as a weapon against Europe. At a time when Putin is using all available tools to sow discord and chaos around the world especially in Europe and the Middle East, we need to work together to stop him from further harming our national security interests and those of our allies. This bill is a step in the wrong direction and will further empower Putin In addition to this bill's geo-political ramifications, it also ignores the fact that American energy extraction technology and techniques are the best in the world. Inhibiting U.S. energy production will create a void for Russia and others to fill with their more ecologically damaging methods, while also sacrificing American jobs. Based on the negative effects H.R. 1941 will have on global security, the environment, and our economy, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and career of Theresa Jenkins. My home state of Texas fosters a remarkable music scene. One such remarkable person I had the privilege knowing was Theresa Jenkins. Theresa was Senior Executive Director of the Texas Chapter of the Recording Academy. In that role and throughout her life, she was a tireless advocate for the music community of Texas. Theresa began her career at Recording Academy in 2004. Soon after, the Recording Academy, best known for the annual GRAMMY Awards, quickly recognized her talent and within a year promoted her to Executive Director of the Texas Chapter. As the organization's face in Texas, she had a hand in growing the careers of many songwriters, performers, producers and other music professionals in our state. During her visits to Washington, I identified Theresa as an unwavering advocate for the rights of music makers. Year after year, she would walk these halls with prominent music makers from Texas and make the case for passage of legislation to help creators, such as the landmark Music Modernization Act we passed last year. Back in Texas, Teresa led groups to the state capital for the Texas Arts Advocacy Day in Austin. No matter where or when I encountered her, Theresa's commitment, energy, and passion was always evident. She recently poured that energy and passion into creating a world- class celebration of Texas music at the Texas Chapter's 25th Anniversary celebration. Sadly, Theresa was unable to attend the festivity in person as in December of last year, she was diagnosed with advanced stage Esophageal cancer, and was undergoing treatment at the time. Despite this, Theresa continued to work for the Texas music community, often making calls from her hospital bed. Though Theresa was unable to attend the celebration, her husband Cris and daughters Jackie and Marina were on hand to hear the gratitude of the entire Texas music community. As the Recording Academy's Chair Emeritus, Christine Albert stated at the event: ``For 15 years, Theresa has been a constant--the hub of the wheel, the eye of the hurricane, the den mother to our troop, herder of our cats and the quarterback of our team. She has also been a friend, advisor, and cheerleader. Throughout her illness, she has continued to work on this gala as well as the ongoing robust agenda of deadlines and projects that are involved in keeping the Recording Academy's mission moving forward. At the same time, she has made countless trips to MD Anderson in Houston, undergone chemotherapy, spent precious time with her family and friends, and taken care of her body, mind and spirit. We are all together, in one room. I ask you to generate all the love, gratitude, prayers, healing and good juju you can find in your hearts and send it to our good friend and fearless leader, Theresa Jenkins.'' Christine's words were conveyed to Theresa with the prayers and good wishes of a grateful community. Sadly, last month, Theresa passed away. The moving tributes from so many musicians are a testament to the love and respect she earned so well. I will miss seeing Theresa leading her fellow Texans through the Halls of Congress and the statehouse. However, I know her legacy will live on and that the lives of our music community have been made better by their steadfast champion, Theresa Jenkins.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. I just want to say, as I said at the beginning, how proud I am to work with Chairman Engel, to draft this critical and overdue authorization bill. I think it was mentioned previously, I think this is the most bipartisan committee on the Hill, and it should be, because we shouldn't bring partisanship to this body on issues of importance like this. I want to thank the staff on the majority side for working with my staff on the minority side, and particularly, I want to thank Grant Mullins on my staff for his excellent work on this bill. This doesn't happen by accident. It happens by design, and it happens when the staff can work together because the chair and the ranking member send a message, a message of leadership, in a tone that we want to get this done in a bipartisan way. And the beauty of that is, Mr. Speaker, that will give this bill, this authorization, the first one we have seen since 2002, the best opportunity to pass the Senate and be signed into law. And, Mr. Speaker, this will be a hallmark of this Congress, I believe, when that fine event happens. It is exercising our constitutional prerogatives under Article I and our oversight role on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the State Department Authorization Act of 2019, which I was proud to draft with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), my friend and chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I thank him for his strong bipartisanship. The last State Department reauthorization was signed into law in 2002. Imagine that, 2002, 1 year after 9/11. In the 16 years since that authority lapsed, we have seen too many taxpayer dollars wasted on inefficient hiring and procurements, an expanding bureaucracy, and an outdated IT system that left us vulnerable to cyberattacks from foreign nations, states, and hackers. It is the fundamental duty of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to pass an annual authorization bill. This is necessary to fulfill our constitutional Article I oversight responsibilities and our obligation to be good stewards of the people's money. For these reasons, I am proud of this bipartisan bill that our committee has produced. It will address numerous longstanding difficulties. It will also fortify the Department and our diplomats with the tools they need to fulfill their missions to promote America overseas and enhance our national security. Among other important reforms, the bill before us will modernize the workforce, eliminate outdated reports and special offices, prohibit expensive and unnecessary construction practices, impose rigorous monitoring and evaluation metrics, save taxpayer dollars, and reassert, as I mentioned before, our Article I prerogatives of Congress. As the United States faces growing challenges from nation-states around the world, like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, we need our Secretary and our diplomats to know that Congress fully supports them, and this bill does just that. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Engel, again, and his team for working with my staff and our members to ensure that this is a strongly bipartisan product; otherwise, it could not pass the House, Senate, and be signed into law. The chairman knows that, and I want to thank him, again, for working with me on this important legislation that we really haven't seen in over a decade. This type of collaboration has been a hallmark of our work in this committee. I, for one, am very proud of that work, and I know Chairman Engel is as well. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this long overdue bill, which deserves our unanimous support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 246, opposing the anti-Semitic Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions--or BDS-- movement and all efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel. It is important that we clearly state our opposition to the BDS movement, as this non-binding resolution with 349 cosponsors before us does. However, it is even more important that we take strong legislative actions to defend Israel. As hateful as this growing movement is, sadly, it is not new. Over 40 years ago, the Arab League began its boycott of Israel. In response to this boycott, Congress passed a law that makes it illegal to participate in foreign boycotts of U.S. allies. Today, the Global BDS movement seeks to pressure Israel by using Israel's participation in the global economy, in academic exchanges, and in cultural activities as leverage. For example, the BDS movement tries to pressure recording artists from performing in Israel. It tries to keep students from studying abroad in Israel. It tries to keep consumers from purchasing Israeli goods. Not only is the BDS movement antithetical to the values of openness and exchange shared by the United States, Israel, and free democracies all over the world, it is antithetical to peace. As threats to U.S. allies, including Israel, evolve over time, we must update our policies to effectively stand with our partners. In weakening Israel, the global BDS movement endangers the national security of the United States. I introduced a real legislative solution in January--H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act. This bill has direct policy implications by allowing state and local governments to adopt laws to divest public funds from entities that boycott Israel. Additionally, it would sanction the Assad regime and its backers for their malign activities, and strengthen our support for Israel and Jordan. While I support today's resolution, I regret that we are not considering H.R. 336 instead. The Senate companion to H.R. 336, S.1, was the first bill the Senate considered this Congress, demonstrating how urgent it was. It passed with robust bipartisan support. But, neither S.1, nor my House companion H. R. 336, have received consideration in this body. Standing up for Israel has never been a difficult decision for the United States Congress. It wasn't difficult for Senator Chuck Schumer when he voted in favor of S.1, and it wasn't difficult for over half of the Democrats and nearly all Republicans in the Senate when they too supported the bill. Just as we passed the original anti-boycott act 40 years ago, we must update our laws to protect our interests. When foreign entities foster boycotts against Israel in the United States, they are interfering in U.S. policy, and it is appropriate for our government to respond. We take a first step today by publicly acknowledging BDS is dangerous and antiSemitic; but tomorrow we must take real actions--and advance the real policies in my bill--to protect Israel and combat the BDS movement. I want to thank Mr. Schneider, Mr. Zeldin, Ms. Wagner, Mr. Nadler, Chairman Engel and the Foreign Affairs Committee Membership for their bipartisan work to counter this threat to our friend and ally Israel. I sincerely hope all Members vote in favor of this resolution that shows our solidarity with our friend and ally Israel, and hope we can vote on my bill this week.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous resolution. Right now, as I speak, Iran is stretching its tentacles of terror across the Middle East. By aiding the Houthis in Yemen, arming Hezbollah and Lebanon, and supporting the Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, Iran is creating a Shia Crescent that can dominate the region. Their goal is to build a strategic land bridge from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea. If we allow them to succeed, terrorism will flourish, instability will reign, and the security of our allies, like Israel, will be threatened. One of the ways we can push back against Iran's murderous aggression is by empowering our partners in the region. Unfortunately, this irresponsible resolution handcuffs our ability to do so. Specifically, this legislation would prohibit an export license and stop the United States from providing our partners with the arms that they need to defend themselves. This particular license first came before members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in January of 2018. When I became the lead Republican in January of 2019, I reviewed this case and maintained the informal approval granted by my predecessor, Chairman Royce. The administration has been criticized for bypassing Congress to push these sales through. But the Democrats, in fairness, placed informal holds on the sale for more than 13 months, a total of 407 days, which I believe abuses the process that we have in place in Congress. During that time, the State Department continued to pursue this case with Congress. They also sent forward additional cases to help support the Saudis, the UAE, and Jordan. And, by the time the State Department submits such cases to Congress, they have already undergone a thorough interagency review process. This important process ensures compliance with the President's conventional arms transfer policy intended to support our partners and strengthen our national security. Other critics are worried that these weapons will increase civilian casualties in Yemen. However, the precision-guided munitions that we were trying to send to the Saudis will actually lower the risk of civilian casualties in Yemen as it counters attacks from Iranian-backed Houthis. Now is not the time to deny our partners what they need for their defense. Nor is it time to hold precision-guided munitions that could minimize the risk to civilians. Recently, after Iran attacked civilian ships and shot down drones--a U.S. military asset--the President brought together a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, including the chairman and myself, to discuss an appropriate response. He listened to our advice and made a prudent decision to exercise restraint. The President has made it explicitly clear the United States is not looking for war. The decision to move forward with these arms sales is part of a larger effort to deter Iran. A key part of that effort is to empower greater burden sharing by enhancing the defense capabilities of our allies. These sales provide more options for deterring Iran that do not all depend on U.S. intervention. I support these sales, even though I do not think that all 22 required emergency certification--this is a point the chairman and I actually agree on--especially those that will not be ready for delivery until later this year. I support revising the law with Chairman Engel to ensure and enhance the role of Congress in future emergency sales. I thank the chairman for his bipartisan work with me on that amendment to the NDAA that was passed by a wide margin. But I do oppose relitigating prior, lawful sales to partners who face growing threats to their security, which is what today's resolutions attempt to do. Mr. Speaker, we face many dynamic challenges. Iran threatens the Middle East, it continues to pursue the eradication of Israel, and it remains the number one state sponsor of terrorism around the world. That threat is growing, not waning. For that reason, I believe that Members should oppose today's resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to when we debated the Yemen resolution, which I thought was, once again, pro-Iran and pro-Houthi rebel, and anti-Israel. It is interesting that after that passed this Chamber, that the Houthi rebels celebrated a victory in the Congress, thinking that the American people, through the Congress, actually supported them. We have to be responsible in our rhetoric on this floor and what we stand for. Many in this body favor asking our partners around the world to step up and do more to help protect our shared interests. The President has called on other nations to take on the burden of defeating terrorism in the Middle East and has commended our partners for their contributions to regional security. Sharing this burden of collective security interest is really vital to ensuring the United States is not the only one bearing the costs in blood and treasure, for we have borne way too much in the Middle East. But these arms sales are where the rubber hits the road for burden sharing. We cannot ask for partners to take on additional burdens while withholding from them the tools to do so. We should and do work with our partners to train them to use U.S.-origin equipment effectively and responsibly. This is an ongoing process. My fear is that if we are unwilling to provide our partners with the means to ensure their own security and to invest the resources to turn them into responsible users, then the United States will find itself as a main guarantor of Middle East security. We have borne that burden for the last several decades. We also need to be wary of our partners turning to China and Russia for their defense needs. Mr. Speaker, it was unfortunate how the current law, I believe, was utilized for these 22 sales. That is where Chairman Engel and I agree. And that is why we have worked on a bipartisan basis to refine this process for invoking an emergency moving forward. We have the informal congressional review process to try to resolve concerns regarding sales. But when Members place indefinite holds on sales and place a stop to our ability to share burdens with our partners--for 18 months in some cases--it undermines our entire security strategy and the important bilateral partnerships we worked so hard to establish and grow. For that reason, I oppose the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the United States-Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act, for which I am proud to be the lead Republican cosponsor, and I want to thank Chairman Engel for his bipartisan work on this very important piece of legislation that was really the product of a trip that we took down to Latin America. This bill requires the State Department and USAID to develop and fund a 5-year strategy to address the drivers of illegal immigration to our southern border. The bill requires State and USAID to develop annual benchmarks to track the progress of programs in stemming migration flows. It requires those to be reported to Congress, increasing our ability to oversee U.S. foreign assistance to the Northern Triangle. As Chairman Engel mentioned, we recently traveled to El Salvador earlier this year and saw the hard work that the U.S. Government is doing to support international law enforcement investigations to capture MS-13 gang members. The bill also prioritizes security assistance to combat transnational crime and to improve security and counternarcotics efforts at their borders and ports. This legislation also supports the amazing work of faith-based organizations that are engaged with the private sector to provide employment for youth and prevent them from joining gangs. This bill builds on existing efforts to increase coordination with Mexico in our shared efforts to curb illegal migration, spur economic development, and combat corruption in the Northern Triangle. I understand and share the President's frustration with the continued stream of migrants to our southern border, and as a native Texan, I understand the unique challenges caused by illegal migration to our border. Addressing this problem requires a comprehensive solution and utilizing all tools at our disposal, including foreign assistance, which should be used. I also agree with the President that the governments of the Northern Triangle countries can and must do more to address the drivers of migration. This bill includes conditions that these governments must meet to receive assistance and requires the State Department to engage with these governments to track and ensure they are doing their part to address the crisis. Lastly, the bill authorizes targeted sanctions against individuals engaged in corruption that impacts the Northern Triangle, and so I urge my colleagues who believe that we must do all we can to address this humanitarian crisis on the border to support this legislation. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Engel, for his ongoing bipartisan work on this committee. I think we are probably the most bipartisan committee on the Hill, and I know Mr. Engel and I are both very proud of that accomplishment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the United States Agency for International Development does an incredible job of providing lifesaving humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people all around the globe. I want to take this opportunity to commend our former colleague, Administrator Mark Green, for his hard work at USAID. I have had many constructive conversations with him since becoming the lead Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I look forward to many more. This bill is actually his idea. While the primary goal of such assistance is to save the lives of people in desperate need, we also want to ensure the recipients know that it is a gift from the people of the United States of America. We hear a lot about the need to maximize America's ``soft power.'' There is no better way to win hearts and minds than by saving lives, feeding hungry children, and helping impoverished populations. This is why I introduced the Branding Modernization Act, together with Chairman Engel. While this bill places no mandates on USAID and maintains the Administrator's flexibility, it does empower him to brand all of our humanitarian assistance. It also expands the tools and logos available to the Administrator for implementing a comprehensive branding strategy. Finally, it requires an audit by the agency's inspector general to ensure that our personnel are complying with branding regulations. This bill represents smart diplomacy, good governance, and the true compassion of the American people. I believe it deserves our unanimous support. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Engel again for working with me, as usual, on this bill as well as many others, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It simply lists complaints about the 2001 authorization for the use of military force while avoiding the serious work of proposing an improved replacement. Most Members, including me, would say they would be fine with an updated AUMF that better describes current threats. Unfortunately, there is no consensus at all about what that should look like. The fact that the majority has not put forward a single proposal in the 6 months they have been in charge indicates to me that they have deep disagreements. The author of this amendment has also inserted an outright repeal of the 2001 AUMF into this year's Defense appropriations bill, which would make all counterterrorism operations globally illegal. That is reckless because AUMF provides the necessary legal authority to confront ongoing deadly threats against our homeland. It would also be simply irresponsible and dangerous to repeal it until an adequate replacement has passed both Chambers and been sent to the President's desk. The gentlewoman from California, with all respect, has held a principled, consistent position on this issue, and I do respect that. I just disagree with it. But it is incorrect to assert, as this amendment does, that the 2001 AUMF is a blank check for any President to wage war at any time and at any place. The AUMF has been interpreted as covering al-Qaida, the Taliban, and ``associated forces.'' And while that interpretation is sometimes broad, it can't be stretched to cover just anything. For example, it does not capture North Korea or countless other potential adversaries and, arguably, Iran, as well. The amendment also complains that the 2001 AUMF did not include things like geographic limitations or a named enemy. But it is hard to see how it could have done so while also meeting the grave transnational terrorist threats it was intended to defeat. Because these enemies aren't nation-states marching uniformed troops to face us on the fields of battle, authorizing force to fight them is much more complicated. The amendment also wrongly implies that the will of Congress has been thwarted by how long and how broadly the AUMF has been used. But Congress has been kept aware of how it is being used, and has always had the same power to legislate, amend, or repeal, as it had back in 2001. The fact is--and this goes on both sides of the aisle--it has not done so. That indicates a decision that, under both Democrat and Republican majorities and administrations, the 2001 AUMF is working. For my years as Homeland Security chairman, I know that our operations overseas, and the sacrifices of our service men and women, have saved American lives and helped to protect the homeland from countless thwarted attacks. Unfortunately, the threat does continue. As the Director of National Intelligence has testified, al-Qaida and ISIS maintain transnational networks actively committed to our destruction. Don't get me wrong: I would like to see an updated AUMF as well. That comes out of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We should deliberate an updated AUMF on our committee. But this amendment contributes nothing towards that outcome. Until we have new authorities in place to combat the real and dynamic threats to American lives and safety, we need to focus on responsibly using the authorities we have, not just complaining about their imperfections. If the other side is serious about a fix, then let's work together on a fix and provide a serious replacement to begin this process on a very serious issue of counterterrorism and war and peace. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment to repeal the 2002 law that authorizes the use of military force ``to defend the national security of the United States against the continued threat posed by Iraq.'' First of all, the repeal of any AUMF does not belong in this NDAA bill. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has longstanding sole jurisdiction over declarations of war and intervention abroad. Any significant change to war-making authorities needs to be the result of deliberations and votes by the committee of jurisdiction. There is no issue more deserving of regular order than issues related to war and peace. Although none of us want to see the extension of any conflict beyond what is necessary, we have also learned that premature disengagement can have huge costs, such as when the prior administration's rush to withdraw U.S. troops contributed to the deadly rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. While the Saddam Hussein regime was a key focus, it was not the sole focus of the 2002 AUMF. It expressly identified al-Qaida and ``other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of the United States citizens.'' Members will recall that al-Qaida in Iraq later became ISIS, a brutal transnational terrorist organization that continues to threaten American lives and interests. President Obama cited the 2002 AUMF as legal authority for his military operations against ISIS. The current administration has stated its opposition to the repeal of 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 interests of the United States against threats emanating from Iraq. For those reasons, we shouldn't be repealing key counterterrorism AUMFs unless and until we have replaced them with updated authorities that clearly confront the enemies that continue to threaten our Nation, our people, and our allies. To date, we have seen no such proposal from the majority. So for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in prioritizing American security by opposing this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this unfortunate and dangerous amendment which is a propaganda win for the Iranian regime and the Houthi allies. It takes legitimate options off the table; shows America divided in the face of mounting Iranian threats; and makes our Nation less safe. We all agree that, under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress possesses the authority to declare war. The administration's measured response to Iran's shooting down of our U.S. military asset in international airspace shows that the President is not looking for war with Iran. But this amendment goes much farther in prohibiting unauthorized war with the number one state sponsor of terror. It uses the 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 United States or our Armed Forces. Think about what that means. What can our military do if Iran attacks American civilians or our regional allies like Israel and Jordan or strategic international shipping through the Straits of Hormuz? Under this reckless amendment, the answer is: Absolutely nothing. The U.S. military cannot fire a single shot until after the successful completion of a bicameral legislation process that enacts a law authorizing the use of force. All of us here today know how long that could take. This will tie our military's hands at a perilous time. We need Iran and its terrorist proxies to think twice before they attack Americans, our friends, or our interests. This amendment is an unprecedented attempt to micromanage the powers claimed by every Commander in Chief, Democrat and Republican, since the War Powers Resolution was enacted over President Nixon's veto in 1973. In fact, the effect of this misguided amendment is far more restrictive than the War Powers Resolution itself. This is absolutely not the time to play politics with our national security. Iran's saber rattling and provocation is not going to go away anytime soon. I would like to quote from a July 8 letter from Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He says: The Department strongly opposes this amendment. If U.S. citizens, diplomatic facilities in the region, or other national interests are threatened or attacked, we must be able to respond promptly and in an appropriate fashion. And he says: At a time when Iran is engaging in escalating military provocations demonstrated most recently by the shooting down of the U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle, it is attacking allied shipping. They shot a missile at our U.S. Embassy in Iraq. This amendment could only embolden Iran to further provocations. Bottom line, this amendment will give comfort to our enemy who has the blood of Americans on their hands--from the Marine barracks bombing to the Iraq war--and who continues to hold American hostages to this day. This is a pro-Iran, pro-Houthi amendment. I was in the White House when the President made his decision and exercised restraint to not escalate this war, but this, I believe, is an ill-proposed amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, no one respects the Constitution more than I do. We have Article I authorities. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers put Article I first, because that is the American people over the imperial presidency. Why are we debating such an important issue, matters of war and peace, which is what my committee argues day in and day out on the Foreign Affairs Committee--well, first of all, it is part of the NDAA. But why are we arguing this at 9:15 at night, in the darkness of night and not the sunlight of day? This is a dangerous amendment. It is a preemptive use of the AUMF. We have not engaged in hostile forces, combat forces in Iran. We have not engaged in hostilities. That is when the War Powers Resolution kicks in, notification to the Congress, and then Congress debates the Authorization for Use of Military Force. I have been in this body for eight terms. That is how the process works. You don't handcuff the President, the Commander in Chief. You don't handcuff him in advance of any preparation for dealing with state-sponsored terror. This is just wrong.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Laredo, Texas, who really made a good case for this bill. He knows, being the largest land port in the United States, what trade and tourism means for Mexico and the United States. This bill will not only strengthen our economies, which is always a positive thing, but I think it will strengthen our relationship. It will also strengthen our security, working together, and it deepens our rich cultural ties that we have and that we know is so important. I think it is good for both nations, a step forward in the right direction. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend Henry Cuellar for bringing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution that Chairman Engel and I introduced because of our serious concerns regarding the United States-Turkey alliance. Turkey has been a member of NATO for almost 70 years. Through our bilateral and multilateral relationship, we have worked together to advance our shared objectives. However, I am deeply disturbed and concerned that our relationship is increasingly characterized by bumps in the road. And right now, we are all watching as Turkey stands at a fork in the road. This summer, Turkey is scheduled to obtain the Russian S-400 defense system. Purchasing the S-400 would have unavoidable negative consequences for U.S.-Turkey relations. By law, the purchase would trigger congressionally-mandated sanctions under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions law. The purchase also puts at risk Turkish participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program and broader security cooperation, including future U.S. arms sales. The F-35 program promotes NATO interoperability. And Turkey's decision to complete the purchase of the S-400 would erode its partnership in this multilateral alliance. While we are deeply, deeply concerned about our alliance with Turkey, we very much want to rehabilitate our relationship. Both sides of a bilateral partnership need to take steps toward strengthening and preserving it. That is why this resolution expresses full support for the United States Government's offer to sell Turkey the Patriot system if Turkey does not acquire the S-400. We want to give Turkey the ability to accommodate its security needs without endangering its place in NATO. So Turkey really has a clear binary choice between buying Russian S- 400s and the U.S. offer to accelerate the delivery of Patriot missiles. So I call upon Turkey to now step forward and choose the United States and NATO over Russia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.