Washington D.C.—Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), Lead Republican of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke on the House Floor in opposition to dangerous legislation that would limit the ability of our Commander-in-Chief to protect Americans in the Middle East and would repeal a key counterterrorism authority without a replacement. Democrats attached these reckless amendments to H.R. 550, a completely unrelated bill that honors the bravery of the World War II Merchant Mariners. In doing so, the Democrats are hijacking a bipartisan bill to honor the Greatest Generation that was on its way to the President’s desk. Key highlights below:

No War Against Iran Act: prohibits unauthorized use of military force in or against Iran

Click to Watch Opening Remarks

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous amendment. I’d 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 three months, killing a U.S. citizen and wounding four U.S. service members, and 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 we need — what more the President needs — in terms of authorization to respond in self-defense given these events.

“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 a 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 what this amendment does. This is absolutely not the time to play politics with our national security. Iran’s aggression is not going to go away anytime soon.

“Bottom line, this measure emboldens our adversary by tying the president’s hands in Iran. So, therefore, I oppose this legislation, which I believe is politics at its worst. It’s 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.” 

Click here for full opening remarks. For a video of remarks as delivered, click here or the photo above.

 

Click to Watch Closing Remarks

“As I have said repeatedly I’m strongly in favor of exercising our solemn Article I authorities for matters of war and peace. But, we are not at war with Iran. We are not engaged in hostilities. 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’s shown incredible restraint — he’s shown incredible restraint against Iran after they shot down our drone, after they hit 50% of the Saudi oil field, after they killed an American, 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 protections of Americans overseas. I believe it’s 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 the Americans in the Middle East.”

“When [Iran] sees a divided Congress, that sends the worst message at the absolutely worst time. I want to let the American citizens there in the Middle East know that you deserve to be covered by the umbrella of our great men and women in uniform. You deserve the protection of our government if your life is threatened. I do not view you as a hypothetical. You are real people representing our country abroad, and I will not let you be vulnerable. So with that I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, for the second time in this Congress, because it divides the nation and sends a wrong message at the wrong time to the people of Iran.” 

Click here for full closing remarks. For a video of remarks as delivered, click here or the photo above.

Repeal of 2002 AUMF Against Iraq

Click to Watch Opening Remarks

“Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose repealing the authorization of the use of military force to quote, “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’ve 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. 

“The 2002 Iraq AUMF was not only used against Saddam Hussein, it also identified al-Qaeda and, quote, “other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of the United States citizens. So, those on the other side say it’s only — it only applies to Saddam Hussein, that’s absolutely incorrect. It applies to international terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. Members will recall that al-Qaeda in Iraq later became ISIS, a brutal transnational terrorist organization that continues to threaten the American lives, and interests, and our homelands. 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.

“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 terror, that lives by the motto “death to America.” These critical constitutional issues of war and peace deserve better than that. I think we’re 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’s ill-advised, and for that reason I oppose it.”

Click here for full opening remarks. For a video of remarks as delivered, click here or the photo above.

Click to Watch Closing Remarks

“I think back to my Dad’s war, Churchill warned Neville Chamberlain about the dark clouds of the Nazi regime on the horizon. He talked about weakness invites aggression. And then we saw Hitler take the stage, the world stage. And Reagan talked about peace through strength. These are the ideals I believe in. And these bills do not project that. They project weakness. Weakness with ISIS. Weakness with Iran. Weakness with our enemies. I’d like to close by stating the obvious. I think we all can agree here to some extent that the 2002 AUMF is outdated. It’s almost 20 years old. I believe it’s time to replace it with a new authority that is tailored to the specific threats that we face today.”

“Madam Speaker, repealing the AUMF without a replacement shows ours soldiers, our partners, our adversaries, that we are undermining our important mission there to protect the homeland. That we are not committed to completing the mission. That we are not committed to a free and democratic Iraq. The last time the United States abandoned Iraq under President Obama, ISIS reared its ugly head and formed the caliphate. And just a few short years later they declared it – the caliphate, and kill and savaged thousands of people, and we all saw the videos that surged all across the world. None of us in this chamber should allow that to ever happen again. So let’s have a serious conversation about what an authorization of use of military force to defeat today’s threats would look like instead of playing partisan politics.

What else are the Democrats’ partisan maneuvers costing us today? They are exploiting the Greatest Generation. Our World War II Merchant Mariners whose brothers died at the hands of the Nazis on the high seas. World War II veterans are dying every day, yet this Majority is hijacking a bipartisan bill to honor their bravery in World War II as the vehicle for these two political measures. Rather than sending the President a Senate-passed version of this bill, to grant this long-overdue recognition, they are setting that effort back to square one where it’ll require passage again by a Senate that’s tied up with impeachment. Let me just say this, as a son of a World War II veteran, I am saddened and ashamed that the Majority would allow to play procedural games that set back this bipartisan bill that was on its way to the President’s desk.

Click here for full closing remarks. For a video of remarks as delivered, click here or the photo above.

###