The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE MIDDLE EAST” mentioning Mitch McConnell was published in the Senate section on pages S4601-S4602 on June 17.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now on another matter entirely, the House of Representatives will vote today on a bill from Representative Barbara Lee to repeal one of the key authorities behind nearly two decades of U.S. efforts to fight terrorism: the 2002 authorization for the use of military force. House Democrats claim this vote is an urgent act of congressional oversight, and the Democratic leader has indicated the Senate will take it up with similar zeal.
The right way to address ongoing terrorist threats is a debate certainly worth having. I would have welcomed that debate before the Biden administration began its hasty retreat from Afghanistan without a plan to sustain counterterror missions or support our friends. It is one we should have before we vote to repeal these authorities. Reality is more complicated, more dangerous, and less politically convenient than its supporters actually believe.
The fact is, the legal and practical application of the 2002 AUMF extends far beyond the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime, and tossing it aside without answering real questions about our ongoing efforts in the region is reckless.
So let's clear up some facts. The 2002 AUMF has been understood for years--years--to apply to a variety of threats emanating from Iraq. Administrations of both parties have cited it as an important legal foundation of our fight against ISIS. It has been used precisely because the ISIS caliphate that stretched into Syria emanated from Iraq after President Obama's withdrawal in 2011.
The 2002 AUMF is important in Iraq today because it provides authority for U.S. forces there to defend themselves from a variety of real, exigent threats. It is arguably even more important in Syria, where our personnel are present against the wishes of the brutal Assad regime, supporting local Kurdish and Arab forces and conducting strikes against ISIS. And because ISIS and al-Qaida have sometimes diverged, legal analysts have suggested that the 2001 AUMF alone may be insufficient to authorize operations against ISIS.
Do supporters of this repeal fully understand the ways it might limit counterterrorism missions? How about cyber ops? How about support for Kurdish and Arab forces in Syria? How do they propose we respond to growing attacks against our forces and interests in Iraq?
What about the prospects for robust congressional oversight if the President is left to rely on unilateral article II authorities or even less transparent ones? We are learning a lesson in real time about withdrawing from Afghanistan without a plan. We shouldn't make the same mistake here. So I suspect this isn't really about reasserting congressional oversight. After all, when the last administration announced plans to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan in 2019, two dozen Democrats joined my amendment opposing the decision and reasserting our role in foreign policy. But now, many of our colleagues no longer want to talk about what we should be doing to confront these ongoing threats.
A lot can happen in 2 years, I guess. The political winds have certainly changed. But one thing hasn't changed: The grave threats posed by ISIS, al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups are as real as they have ever been, and repealing AUMFs without agreeing on a set of new authorities up front will only lead to more uncertainty about what we are going to do about them.
For years, U.S. forces have been carefully handing more of the primary responsibilities for counterterrorism to brave local partners. Under the last administration, this allowed our military footprint in Iraq and Syria to shrink dramatically. But the only reason that worked is because our partners have been able to trust that the U.S. military is still authorized to back them up. Today, House Democrats intend to rip out one of the key authorities underpinning that trust.
As I understand it, Democrats don't even intend to stop there. They are also planning to take aim at the 2001 authorities that allow us to keep some of the most dangerous terrorists alive from taking more innocent American lives. The administration says it is looking into how best to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that houses the absolute--absolute--worst of the worst, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attack. But thus far, the administration is rather short on details. How does the President plan to do this? Does he intend to break the law and bring terrorists to the United States? Give them expanded legal rights? Further radicalize our prison population? Talk about domestic violent extremism. Or does the President intend to send KSM and his terrorist cronies to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia before they have faced justice?
Closing Guantanamo Bay will not make Americans safer. It will not bring solace to the victims of terrorism. It will not make America more respected in the world. It won't solve the terrorist threat any more than repealing AUMFs will end their war against us.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up