[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 71 (Thursday, April 27, 2023)] [House] [Pages H2056-H2069] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-27
Chamber: HOUSE
Mr. MEEKS: I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 30. This resolution was drafted in such a way that it is simultaneously overbroad and underinclusive. The resolution fails to end our involvement in hostilities in the region while preventing crucial security cooperation with local partners in Somalia. The resolution states that the United States forces must withdraw from Somalia, unless they are there for the purposes of protecting the Embassy. Historically, war powers resolutions such as this are thought of as attempting to force the President to withdraw American troops from a foreign country that are actively engaged in combat, but our forces on the ground in Somalia are there to provide security training and intelligence support. Our footprint in Somalia is not large. We have several hundred troops stationed in the country primarily to train host-nation troops in countering terrorism. The sponsor of this legislation sometimes references the lost blood andtreasure from our overseas engagements. These are obviously essential considerations. It is why I supported President Biden's decision to end the war in Afghanistan. But no American has been killed in Somalia in over 4 years, and our security cooperation and assistance to the country amounts to a rounding error in the Federal budget. It is a fact that Al-Shabaab and other terrorist organizations like ISIS control large swaths of territory in Somalia, but local forces from the Somali Government and the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia have made steady gains the past several years. United States forces have been instrumental in some of these changes because of the very training and intelligence support we provide to local forces on the ground. By mandating that our forces cease security cooperation in Somalia, this resolution would roll back some of the gains that have been made to take back territory from terrorist organizations in the past several years. This measure doesn't end American hostilities in the region. It includes nothing about removing American forces from other nations in the region where groups like Al-Shabaab operate, and it does nothing to address over-the-horizon strikes. While I disagree with this measure, let me say that what I do agree with is that we are having this debate. It is one that is long overdue. American forces have been in Somalia and other parts of the world without proper engagement from the United States Congress. While I understand the logic that both Republican and Democratic administrations have used to include groups like Al-Shabaab under the 2001 AUMF, I can tell you that Members of Congress did not believe that they were authorizing force against Al-Shabaab when we passed the legislation decades ago. I can tell you this not just because I was here when Congress voted on that AUMF but because Al-Shabaab didn't even exist in September 2001. I believe, though, that the proper way to address the issues of matters of war and peace in Somalia is not through a legally dubious resolution such as this. I agree with Representative James in this, and we should work together, all three of us, I believe, because the right way to address this issue is through a repeal of the 2001 AUMF and its replacement with a narrow force authorization that provides the President authority to combat selected terrorists in selected countries where the United States' national security is at stake. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced just such a resolution, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that. H.J. Res. 52, which narrows the list of terrorist organizations the executive branch can strike, limits the number of countries in which we could engage in hostilities, places curbs on executive branch additions of associated forces and successor groups, and includes a sunset requiring Congress to reauthorize the legislation.  {time}  1245  Reasserting Congress' proper role over matters of war and peace while ensuring that the President has the necessary authorities to strike those who mean to do us harm can be and is a tough balance to strike. I believe wholeheartedly it is our responsibility to make some of those hard decisions. We cannot punt it or give it off just to the executive. I am willing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strike a balance. Let's take a look at H.J. Res. 52. From the debate we are having today, I think that we have some of the basics of what we agree with, that it is this body that the Constitution empowered to make sure there are checks and balances on the executive. Unfortunately, I cannot say that about H. Con. Res. 30 before us today. Therefore, I must oppose this legislation, urge my colleagues to do the same. Let's come together as Members of the United States House of Representatives and take our responsibility. Let's repeal and replace the 2001 AUMF and move forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.