Madam Chair, I have amendment No. 31 at the desk, preprinted in the Congressional Record. Madam Chair, I rise today, remembering 12 years ago when I stood on this floor and offered an amendment with the same purpose as the amendments I…
Madam Chair, I have amendment No. 31 at the desk, preprinted in the Congressional Record.
Madam Chair, I rise today, remembering 12 years ago when I stood on this floor and offered an amendment with the same purpose as the amendments I offer this evening: to prevent a war with Iraq; to keep our young men and women--our troops--out of harm's way; and to be prudent with taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, as well as ensuring our national security.
We are all familiar with the reports coming out of Iraq about the horrific sectarian violence taking place. We must not let history repeat itself. Calls to be dragged back into a war in Iraq must be rejected because the reality is there is no military solution in Iraq.
I want to applaud the President for reiterating that again today and for making it clear that he does not want combat troops on the ground in Iraq.
This amendment would not allow funding for combat operations. This is a sectarian war with longstanding roots that were inflamed, unfortunately, when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Any lasting solution must be political and take into account respect for the entire Iraqi population.
The change Iraq needs must come from Iraqis, rejecting violence in favor of a peaceful democracy that represents all and respects the rights of all.
Our job is to continue to promote and support regional and international engagement, recognition of human rights and political reforms, support for women and children, and religious freedom.
Madam Chair, after more than a decade of war, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, the American people are rightfully war weary. The American people are not interested in repeating the mistakes of the past. A recent poll found that 74 percent of the public is opposed to sending combat troops into Iraq.
This amendment would not impact the President's ability to protect U.S. personnel or our Embassy. We must do that. It does not impact the President's ability to act if there is a direct or imminent threat to our national security. As the President cited in his recent notification to Congress, doing so would be consistent with his responsibilities to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad.
Finally, it does not impact the President's ability to send assistance to gather intelligence or advisers and trainers.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, just to clarify, all this amendment does is it would not fund the combat operations in Iraq.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute now to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Madam Chair, in closing, let me just underscore the fact that combat operations will not solve the problems in Iraq. This amendment would not fund combat operations. We should not repeat these terrible mistakes of the past.
Let me once again clarify. This amendment would not impact the ability of the United States personnel and our Embassy. We want to protect the United States personnel and Embassy.
Secondly, it would not impact the President's ability to provide unmanned intelligence gathering and assistance. It would not impact the President's constitutional authority to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad.
I urge for a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of her time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Madam Chair, this amendment would simply prohibit funding for any operations or activities pursuant to the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.
Why is this amendment necessary? Well, more than 2 years since the United States troops withdrew from Iraq, the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force remains on the books.
Two years ago, President Obama declared the war in Iraq as over. Just yesterday, according to press reports, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that the 2002 AUMF is ``no longer used for any United States Government activities.''
Further, in our Appropriations Committee, our chairman confirmed that this bill does not contain any funding to implement the 2002 authorization. That is good news, and it should make supporting this amendment an easy thing to do for Members on both sides of the aisle.
The American people need an affirmative vote that the war in Iraq that began over 11 years ago through the military operation--shock and awe, which took over 2,000 lives--has come to an end and none of their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent.
Some of us agree that it is well past time that we remove this authorization totally from the books, but on this appropriations bill, we only state very clearly that no funds may be obligated or expended for the authorization.
Congress should never allow war-funding authorizations to remain on the books in perpetuity. We don't do this for the farm bill. We don't do this for the transportation bill.
Madam Chair, we are all familiar with reports coming out of Iraq about the horrific sectarian violence taking place there. Once again, I want to applaud President Obama for reiterating again today that there is no military solution to the sectarian war there and also for his clear position that the United States is not going to be returning to combat in Iraq.
This amendment does not limit the President's authority under the Constitution or War Powers Act to act if there is a direct or imminent threat to our national security.
As the President cited in his recent letter to Congress, doing so would be consistent with his responsibilities to protect United States citizens both home and abroad. This amendment does not take away that authority.
Further, this amendment fully allows for the protection of the United States Embassy and its personnel and would not impede any of those efforts by the United States military.
Given that there is no funding in this bill for the 2002 AUMF, supporting this amendment is just plain common sense. The American people deserve this vote. It is long overdue. We should vote primarily also to ensure that our constitutional role is reasserted in war- making.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.
I want to thank the ranking member for his comments and for reasserting and reassuring Members that our constitutional role is extremely important in matters of war and peace.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Madam Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 34 at the desk, preprinted in the Congressional Record.
Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment is straightforward. It is cosponsored by Congressman Broun of Georgia and Congressman Sanford of South Carolina.
It will prohibit any funding in this bill pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force after December 31, 2014.
This date is set as the official end of combat operations in Afghanistan. Furthermore, it gives the President and Congress sufficient time to determine what, if any, authorization would be needed to replace the 2001 AUMF.
The fact of the matter is the world has changed dramatically in the aftermath of the horrific tragedy of September 11.
On September 14, 2001, I could not vote for the resolution, an authorization that I knew would provide a blank check to wage war any time, anywhere, for any purpose, and for any length. Thirteen years later, this authorization is still on the books.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there are over 30 known instances of the executive branch invoking authority to engage in hostilities or deploy Armed Forces under this AUMF.
The report, which is on my Web site, lists 30 instances where the AUMF has been invoked by President Bush and President Obama, including to deploy troops in Ethiopia, Djibouti, Georgia, Yemen, justify detentions at Guantanamo Bay, and conduct military commissions, among many other uses, for which this resolution served as the legal justification for.
No executive office, not President Bush, not President Obama, nor any future President can be handed such broad authority to wage war with no oversight.
In fact, President Obama has stated that he looks forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine and ultimately repeal the AUMF's mandate, and he will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further.
We need to take up the President's suggestion. There was very little debate on this resolution. I was here 12 years ago, and so year after year, I have introduced legislation to repeal this resolution.
It is long past time for Congress to have a meaningful debate. I remember that night. There were five or six maybe on the floor, maybe a few more, and we had probably an hour's debate that evening.
We need to have a real debate about our constitutional role in declaring war and our obligation to conduct rigorous oversight, accountability, and to demand transparency and accountability for the American people for their tax dollars. I ask Members to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say I don't know how much time--how much more time the opposition to this amendment wants to see this authorization on the books and continue to fund it. There is no reason that a 13-year authorization should continue to be funded.
I just want to read you this, as I close, what this authorization said 13 years ago, which totally has abdicated our constitutional responsibility and authority as Members of Congress. We are abdicating our constitutional authority by not going back to the drawing board and debating any further efforts as it relates to military force.
The President is authorized to use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or
persons he deems planned, authorized, and aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11.
That is 2001. Again, the Congressional Research Service has cited 30 instances. We know there are more. Once again, we need to come back and have a debate. We need to talk about how far removed now we are from 2001.
If we think this needs to be brought up to date, bring it up to date, but we definitely need to stop the funding.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, my straightforward bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by Representatives Walter Jones and Jim McGovern.
What this amendment does is prohibit any funding for combat operations in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014. Even though some of us would rather have all of our troops returned, the President announced in May that the United States would end the U.S. combat mission in December 2014.
This simple amendment codifies and clarifies the President's position. It would also allow Congress to determine and reauthorize any further combat operations in Afghanistan should the President deem it necessary.
By reinserting Congress' constitutional authority, this amendment would ensure that we have a debate and a vote in this body for the future of combat operations in Afghanistan.
Last month, I joined Congressmen McGovern, Jones, Garamendi, and Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith in offering an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have required a congressional vote to continue deployment of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014.
Unfortunately, that amendment was not allowed to come to the floor.
Instead, to date, the Republican leadership of this House has failed to allow the American people any say in the future of America's longest war. It is really unconscionable that the Afghan public through the Afghan parliament has ample opportunity to weigh in on the future presence of United States combat troops in Afghanistan, while the American public has been given no such opportunity through this Congress.
For many years, we have known there is simply no military solution in Afghanistan, and our constituents are sick and tired of this endless war.
This war has cost taxpayers over $750 billion, and promises to cost tens of billions more for every year our troops remain in Afghanistan. We have lost thousands of our young men and women. They conducted themselves in a way that everything we asked them to do they did, and so it is time now to honor them by ending this endless war.
This war, again, when you look at the human cost, the lives of I think it is 2,321 soldiers, and tens of thousands injured, it is really time to end this. It is time to look out for our veterans, our brave young men and women, bring them home, not fund any more combat operations, and ensure their job security, their health, their mental health, and their future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, this amendment says we are not going to fund combat operations after December 31, 2014. That is what it says. That is what it will do. That is what the President has indicated.
For the life of me I don't understand why the opposition really believes that there is a military solution in Afghanistan. We have been there 13 years. History shows that the United States military is not going to continue to have a military presence and support what has taken place in Afghanistan. It is now up to the Afghan government and people to secure their own future.
Of course, we are not taking away any authority from the President. We have taken away our authority here, our constitutional duty and responsibility. We can't allow funding for combat operations beyond December 2014. The President has said that will not happen. So what in the world are we talking about by saying, yes, here is the money, we want you to continue funding these combat operations?
He said they would end in December of 2014, so we should do what we need to do here in Congress. We should end it, we should not allow any more funding. If, in fact, the President believes, and if you believe, that we want to engage in more combat action and operations--which, of course, the American public I believe are telling us in no uncertain terms they are war-weary--but if you believe that, then come back to Congress and exercise your constitutional duty and responsibility, and vote for whatever it is that the President is asking for. This doesn't make any sense--13 years. Again, we sunset in the farm bill, the transportation bill. Here we have got an authority now and funding for the last 13 years. It doesn't make any sense. We want to do what the President has said he is going to do.
This Congress needs to reassert itself and do our constitutional duty, engage in our constitutional authority and responsibility, and say in no uncertain terms: no funding for combat operations after December 31, 2014.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.