Syria War Powers Resolution

Floor Speech

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 Congress must repeal outdated war authorizations once and for all, and I applaud the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their bipartisan vote to repeal the 2002 and the 1991 AUMFs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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Spanberger).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. 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.

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source