Syria War Powers Resolution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

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. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source