WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today spoke on the Senate floor urging his colleagues to replace the current resolution to authorize use of military force (AUMF). Specifically, Flake spoke in support of the bipartisan measure to update the AUMF he introduced with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).
“Our inaction on updating the 2001 AUMF has already relegated the role of the Senate in authorizing force to that of a cog in some sort of feedback loop,” said Flake. “We need real Congressional buy-in and oversight over a conflict that has morphed considerably since 2001 – and which we are now being told is morphing onto a new continent.”
Video of Flake’s speech can be viewed here and a transcript of his remarks can be viewed below:
Background:
- On Oct. 30, 2017, Flake spoke during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the need to for an updated AUMF. To watch Flake’s full remarks, click here.
- On Sept. 12, 2017, Flake spoke on the Senate floor to express his concern with an amendment to repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) before a new AUMF has been fully considered and approved to replace it with. To watch Flake’s full remarks, click here.
- During a Senate Foreign Relations hearing on June 20, 2017, Flake spoke in support of his resolution with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) to authorize use of military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. To watch Flake’s full remarks, click here.
- On Nov. 17, 2015, Flake and Kaine spoke on the Senate floor on the need to debate and pass an AUMF against ISIL, especially in the wake of the recent attacks on Paris and Beirut. To watch Flake’s full remarks, click here.
- On June 8, 2015, Flake and Kaine introduced S.1587, Authority for the Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Act, a bipartisan bill which would authorize the use of military force against ISIL.
***
Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee held a very important hearing last week regarding the 2001 authorization for use of military force, the law that serves as the legal underpinning for the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
I am grateful to our witnesses – Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson – for making themselves available to members of the Committee and for the straightforward, honest answers they provided for us.
As we have gotten further and further away from the September 11th attacks that resulted in the passage of the 2001 AUMF, I have urged Congress to take a fresh look at that authorization. When four soldiers died recently in Niger, I think most Americans, and even some members of Congress were shocked to learn we even had troops in that country.
Our troops were not there under the auspices of the 2001 AUMF, but considering they were reportedly ambushed and killed at the hands of an Islamic State affiliate, questions have been raised about where our forces are at war with terrorists, versus where they are simply conducting “train and equip,” or other missions of that sort.
It was encouraging that nearly every member of the Foreign Relations Committee was in attendance at the hearing last week, where the witnesses testified that the administration believes it has ample authority to prosecute the war on terrorism and does not need a new AUMF.
I cannot say I was surprised to hear this testimony. No administration – Republican or Democratic – will ever willingly cede the broad authority given to the Executive branch three days after the September 11th attack.
If they were to say that we need new authorization they would concede that they hadn’t been acting with authorization all this time. So they’re never going to say they need a new AUMF.
What has surprised me is that there are members of this body, the Senate, who are content to let this 16 year-old authorization remain in place. Some have even suggested that any updates to the AUMF can be made using the appropriations process.
Are we really going to start using policy riders on annual spending bills to approve of sending troops into harm’s way? We rarely even vote on individual spending bills anymore – let alone controversial policy riders to those spending bills. Are we truly willing to leave it to the members of the appropriations committee to update a law that puts our service members in harm’s way? Particularly those of us on the authorizing committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I hope that we more jealously guard our prerogatives than that.
Our inaction on updating the 2001 law has already relegated the role of the Senate in authorizing force to that of a cog in a “feedback loop.” I would submit we in the Senate ought to aspire to be more than that.
For sixteen years, Congress has been all too willing to let successive administrations use those broad authorities to address new threats and deploy US troops to new places. Beyond Afghanistan, our troops have deployed all over the world to places like Yemen, the Philippines, Somalia, and Libya to fight al-Qaeda and its affiliates. We have also sent forces to Syria and back to Iraq to defeat ISIS, a group that didn’t even exist in 2001.
Now we need to fight terrorism overseas and I am not suggesting the US should shy away from these battles – to the contrary, I believe Congress should do its duty to support these missions by voting to authorize them.
In the sixteen years since passage of the 2001 AUMF, approximately 300 members of the House who voted on it are no longer in that chamber. In the Senate, only 23 Senators remain in their seats today. That leaves approximately 70 percent of the entire Congress that has never cast a vote to authorize military force abroad and yet, over the years, deployments have continued to new places combatting new foes.
The U.S. is strongest when we speak with one voice, therefore Congress must have some buy-in on these missions. Our allies and our adversaries need to know the war on terrorism has the support of Congress, and, more importantly, our troops need to know that Congress is behind them.
I know the concept of passing a new, updated AUMF is a tricky one. This is not a conventional war against a sovereign nation in which victory is easily defined. Instead, we are fighting an ideological enemy that has no sovereignty, and which over the years has moved all over the world, resulting in many splinter factions that can change their names at any time with ease.
This new kind of war requires a new kind of authorization; one that allows Congress’ continued buy-in and increases its oversight.
Right now, we have neither of these.
After working on this issue for several years, Senator Tim Kaine and I have introduced legislation that we think gets us to the right place. Our bill would authorize the use of military force against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS.
It authorizes force against known affiliates of those groups and requires the President to report to Congress when he initiates force against a new group he designates as being associated with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS. Military operations can begin as soon as the President has notified Congress – there is no time lapse required.
If Congress does not agree with the President’s designation, our bill allows a 60-day timeframe during which any member can bring a resolution of disapproval to the floor under expedited procedures, and adoption of such a measure in both Houses would result in the end of military operations against that group.
Our bill adopts the same process with regard to geography to allow Congress to disapprove of military operations in a particular country.
I recognize that traditional declarations of war and other authorizations of military force haven’t referred to a particular geographic area in which operations can take place. But all our previous military engagements were against sovereign nations with armed forces, not terrorist groups that can pop up in any country, at any time.
If Congress is going to authorize the use of force, we ought to know which countries U.S. troops are operating in. Requiring the President to notify Congress when he begins operations against one of these terrorist groups in a new country is an important check on the Executive branch, to ensure there is no overreach.
And the bar for disapproving the President’s decision is high - appropriately so. It would require two-thirds of the House and Senate to disagree with the President on his decisions with regard to new associated forces, or new countries.
Right now, Congress has very little say over who or where our military fights – the only option available is to cut off appropriations and history has demonstrated that is simply not realistic or appropriate.
The most recent example of this, as some of my colleagues will recall, was in 2011 when the Obama administration joined the NATO operation to help rebels in Libya topple Muammar Gaddafi.
The administration never made the case to Congress as to what U.S. interests were served by U.S. involvement, and as a result, many members on both sides of the aisle publicly opposed our intervention in Libya. And yet, when the clock ran out on the time constraints set forth in the War Powers Resolution, Congress did not turn off appropriations.
Because we can’t just pull the rug out from beneath our service members in harm’s way overseas. The “turning off appropriations” approach simply hasn’t worked in the past, and it’s not likely to work in the future. We need real Congressional buy-in and oversight over a conflict that has morphed considerably since 2001 – and which we are now being told is morphing onto a new continent.
S. J. Res. 43 gives us just that.
I should note, the bill also includes a five-year sunset. The sunset is not intended to serve as a notice that the war on terrorism will end in five years. It is there to require a new Congress to put its skin in the game by voting on authorizing force.
The administration has signaled its objection to a sunset. They think that the war against terrorism could be undermined if the terrorists think they can just “wait us out.” I worry more that the lack of Congressional buy-in undermines the war right here at home. 70 percent of Congress has no skin in the game at all. We’re free to criticize the president – whether the president is a Republican or Democrat.
That’s not right. We ought to have a responsibility here. We’re the Article I branch, we’re the branch tasked with declaring war and authorizing the use of force. We shouldn’t shirk our responsibility.
We can’t let history repeat itself and go another 16 years without voting on the use of force against terrorists and that is why I support a sunset on any new or updated AUMF.
Perhaps the best feature of the Flake-Kaine measure is that it is bipartisan. That is an essential feature. I think we can all agree that passing an updated AUMF along party lines is perhaps the only thing worse than letting the status quo remain.
Mr. President, I commend the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Corker, for signaling that we move ahead with a markup of a new AUMF.
I think that Flake-Kaine is a great start, but I am under no illusion that the process of putting a bill together that can garner widespread, bipartisan support will be an easy one. But the longer we wait, the higher the risk becomes that we will render ourselves irrelevant when it comes to authorizing force.
That is a risk that the Senate and Congress should not take.
###
