tv Senate Debate on Authorization for Use of Military Force Amendment CSPAN September 14, 2017 12:23am-1:15am EDT
those who perpetrated the attack against america i was part of the congress at that time in 2001 authorization to use of military forceongress targeted toward afghanistan use and when we took up that authorization i voted against the authorization.n now would has been 14 years since the u.s. invasion atti the end of the saddam hussein regime viet with the force against iraq and it is time for that authorization to rand. i take this time to support the efforts of a termination date in the termination date
in order to prevent any future attacks by such nations that is pretty specific with those who were responsible against the a united states centered in afghanistan and issues for that purpose in the military took action and that was authorized by congress saudia get from the reading of this authorization and use of military force today with isis and of the least to wear anywhere in the world with the interpretation i
think that interpretation cannot be defended. new we have a responsibility to authorize the new threats against our country this is a different threat it is our responsibility to give congressional authorization to use military force. if it can be done the rigo agree -- agree an authorization of force so little over three years ago we came together in our committee to work on a proposal that is more focused toward the current circumstances.
but that is the debate we should be having. not with the 2001 authorization.esident we should pass that authorization to effectively go after row direct threat to the united states. we owe it to the american people and those who served in the military to give clear authority from congress from the military operations. there clearly needs to be direction given by congress from 2001 and we need to be clear. i have heard over and over from the general there is no military only victory.otect
we need to make sure there are leaders and countries human but also good governance and human-rights.cerned cyberthreats. we are concerned about day caliphate as we take more and more of the territory away. that is what we need to do. senator calls amendment a gives us that opportunity that the authorization needed to end that we don't have clearer authorization to pursue a military campaign against isis some say what happens if we don't
we are the ones responsible for the conversation, not thete president of the united states. we had the authorization from congress, so mr. president, it is our responsibility to make sure when our men and women are sent into harms way, they have the direct authorization from the congress of the united states unless there is an urgent conversation to act so i would urge my colleagues we have a chance to start this debate right here and now by supportint the amendment, and i intend to do that.ment
support of the statement from my colleague he knows as i know our responsibilities as the united states senator include important votes. certainly any vote involving sending america into war is a vote we will never forget at least not this senator and many of the votes i cast for the years in the house and the senate created sleepless nights before the vote because you understand even under the best of circumstances, people will die as the result of your vote, not just the enemy tha but evenf own risk their lives and died in defense of the united states and so it was 9/11, 2001 when the senate was faced with the responsibility of voting to go to war. first was on the invasion of
iraq. there were 23 of us. 22 democrats and one republican voted against the authorization of use of force. i continue to believe when it comes to the policy of the most important vote i ever cast.y. second is on the invasion in afghanistaofafghanistan in a die completely. 3,000 innocent americans had been killed. the images are still in my mind and will be until i die. on the world trade center, the pentagon, and of course what happened in the fields of pennsylvania. so the vote came to the floor and they basically said when it comes to the invasion of afghanistan, we are going after the people responsible they joined every other senator of both political parties for voting yes. we had to make it clear when you
strike the united states we will hunt you down and find you and bring you to justice. casting about 15 or 16 years ago i wasn't just voting to go after the terrorists responsible for 9/11, i was voting for the longest war in the history of the united states of america that continues to this day in a afghanistan i don't think there was a single member of the senate either party on the floor that would have believed that's what we are voting for. to date we've lost almost 2400 n american lives, tens of thousands have been injured in l afghanistan, billions and billions of dollars have been spent and there is no end inons
they must always step up and defend america but when it comes to the declaration of war, that's the responsibility of congress. i will be supporting this effort by senator paul and believe it is consistent with the responsibility and i believe it is also time for us to renew the debate as to the future inican afghanistan which has claimed so many american lives and created so many casualties and cost us so dearly it is time for us one behalf of the american people to engage in that debate again. brg first let me offer my efforts with respect to strengthening the nation by american law in the paul's but i've been working on for almost my entire life and it's about time that we start fr making sure when we are spending
billions of dollars for the united states military that we prioritize the companies and we don't allow for them to flow overseas when we have companies icompany isin connecticut, norta and illinois to do the work. it's time for the extraordinary measures, so we've simply not done our constitutional duty and
declarindeclaring in authorizine war. i would argue as many of my colleagues do that no matter how necessary it is for the united states to pick a fight as we have in iraq and syria and other places around the world but is not currently authorized by the congress, and it is a fairly extraordinary leap of statutory interpretation to think that an authorization to attack al on qaeda, the perpetrators of the attack allow you than to conduct a global war with almost no limits against this new enemy, and so to the if we don't reauthorize military action against isis and others, then i'm not sure the congress will ever again authorize the war.
it's a lot harder to authorize military action today than it was a century ago or 50 years ago. we are not marching conventional armies across the field against one another. we are not signing peace treaties that provide a clear end to hostility. the enemy is shadow and diffuse and perpetual into victory noww is harder to define them evero before. so it is very easy for theor united states congress to step back and say authorizing military force is too hard. so we outsource it to thee executive branch for where we fight and how we fight. that's not what the founding fathers imagined with an
authority to declare war. i wouldn't support this extraordinary measure. i've been here long enough to know it is too easy for thisic congress and an executive would be republican or democratic executive to define the parameters of the war in the name new enemies that haven't been before this body so i think it is time to sunset these authorizations and i do think that we will be able to with upt that pressure to be able to come up with a new authorization that gives our military and executives what they need in order to continue the fight against the groups and protecting the interest of the constituents who frankly by and large no matter what state you are from do not want the president of the united states, this or any other to have an unchecked ability to bring the
fight to anyone, anywhere around the globe and i will just tell you to take a look at the way the president authorized to take action against the regime as evidence of how unending the current interpretation can be. the justification for that action was because it was next to the action being taken against isis, which was authorized because they had some familial relationship to al qaeda. that is three or four steps removed from any debate this i body has ever had. that isn't what the foundings fathers reported and i am going ti'm goingto work with my colleo try to craft an authorization that gets the job done the senator from kansas.fter the >> mr. president, thank you. prior to arriving after 2010, i was a member of the house of
presented as, and one of the 30% of us in congress today who were here in 2001 and approved the use of military force in response to 9/11. i don't know what the right answer to this question is. the one we face today i firmly believe it is the united states senate and congress authority to the constitutional responsibility to declare war. i worry that the resolution before us only eliminates the current resolution. only eliminates the currentonnet authority. what's missing is the follow-up and i just heard my colleague indicate he will work to see that we have the opportunity to
vote for a resolution authorizing force. but in some ways we have the cart ahead of the horse. i will always argue that it is our responsibility to make these decisions as determined by the united states constitution. it gives us that responsibility. the question in my mind is the authorizations today before we i have a new authorization in place. i don't know the answer to that question. anand while i've heard my colleagues say we will work to accomplish that, i worry having experience in the senate now be that a six mont six-month oppory will be foregone and those authorizations may not occur.th and at best once the senate may
be presented with a fait accompli which is hearing the hr authorizing force take it orr la leave it, we will have a gun toa our head to prove something in an expeditious way that isn't what i would be supportive of and once again i will have theat dilemma to buy good for an authorization of force even though it is not the one that ie well thought out. if i thought we were going to have an authorization of force i would have expected it to her already. i will commend senator corker the chairman of the committee and many of my colleagues that worked to bring a resolution in place and voted out of the committee that no vote has occurred on the floor or in the house of representatives and i don't know whether we aree' setting up the stage for us to be once again in a position of here it is, take it or leave it.
or worse than that is leaving those in the position of not knowing whether or not there congress supports their efforts. it's not as if this is perspective. we already have troops on the i ground in afghanistan. i just returned from afghanistan this is my fourth visit over the weekend of labor day. i came to the conclusion that we belong in afghanistan. i don't believe this is about rebuilding afghanistan as it is about protecting americans. 21 terrorist organizations that work in afghanistan helped to kill citizens of these united states attack us, and we have a government in afghanistan that is allowing the opportunity to be engaged in the battle to defeat those terrorist organizations.eard the idea that we would walk away, in fact i heard my colleagues talk about how long
we had been there. does anybody talk about how long the terrorism is going to be with us? so the idea that we should set a parameter for our country and knowing that we are engaged in a great battle for the future of the organizations who want us dead seems to be the wrong way to look at this issue. i don't know what the right timeframe is and i'm sad that we are still there, but it's not a matter of time, it is the accomplishment ending attacks against the united states. 9/11 remains fresh in my mind. so, the issue that we face is this resolution offered by senator of kentucky put us in a position in which we finally do what you're supposed to do, which in my view is to authorize and declare war, not necessarily use of force. whatever the mechanism is, the
resolution will be in a position to take advantage of a circumstance in which congress finally utilizes its authority and accepts its responsibility. i don't know the answer to that question. we are making progress in afghanistan. the greatest evidence of that to me was the hospital which int learned 84% of the patients in the hospital are asking any, of the state that strategy by the administration in regards to our efforts in afghanistan and in particular to deal with pakistan as a sanctuary. the last thing i would want to do having just returned from returning is to make a decision today that they are no longer supported by congress.
going to war is something that in my view has been too easy in the united states and we have had presidential leadership for a long time but has downplayed the importance of the work. we've been told it will be easy. it seems as if our politicale aa leadership wants the citizens to believe we can go to war and a they not suffer any consequence or participate in any way. into declaring war in authorization by congress brings the american people into the sink rather than downplayed the significance sacrifice and making certain that others not just thehe soldiers and families not just the military men and women and families that make a sacrifice that we are all in this together to involve th congress in makina decision that this endeavor, whatever it is, is worth the potential loss of life by those that serve in the military. mr. president, these are
difficult, challenging and important decisions. and i want to work with my colleagues to find the right solution, not just to walk awayo but to make sure we have in place something that gives the authority to troops succeed. i will yield the floor. >> what senator mccain being recognized prior to the speaking time. >> any objection? i would ask if the gentleman from kansas would modify the request and i would be allowed to speak to up to five minutes before i would ask unanimous consent senator mccain and senator reid be recognized forob senator corker's speaking time.r >> the senator from kentucky.
>> for the first time in 15 years we are debating the roleof in the declaration of war. we thought the longest war in u.s. history under an original authorization to go after the people that attacked us on 9/11. that is long since over and has lost its purpose and it is a long time we have a debate in congress on whether we should be at war or not. it is the constitutional role of congress. interestingly, the folks that you heard on either side of theo issue said it is our job. it is what he should be doing. and yet we have not done it for 16 years. who in their right mind thinks that congress is going to do their job without being forced to do their job. my resolution is silent on whether we should still be at war. the resolution simply says it's
the resolution of the previously passed will expire. i don't believe they have anything to do with those thatce are involved currently anyway but if we are to enforce them to expire, then we would have a debate but for those that say yes congress should exhort its authority and be involved in the initiation of the war, they don't believe that unless they are going to vote that way. what will happen is the continuation of the same, that we abdicate that role for and with the president do whatever he wants. it is worse than that. let's say we were to vote for the resolution of the authorization to go to war after 9/11 expired you would think any of them would end, no. the neoliberals believe the president has an unlimited authority because article to authority for war. there is some authority given to the president to execute the war but not to initiate the war.
the sole duty was given specifically to congress. so if they were to expire and the president already said i have all the authority i want it under the constitution to do whatever i want. that is not what the founders wanted. madison if he were here would vehemently disagree. he wrote that the executive branch is the branch most prone for war and therefore the constitution with studied care vested with power in the legislature. it was supposed to be difficult to go to war. some say they never agree on the authorization to go to war. you know how long it took after pearl harbor? twenty-four hours and we declared war on japan. and after 9/11, three days. we can come together as a body when we are a fact that we are here to fight in purpose and
after 16 years, it's difficult to determine the purpose inhosew afghanistan. also, those that say we need a new authorization but it's goine to authorize anywhere and anytime with no geographic limit or time limit basically they would be authorizing everything we are doing now and not putting any limitations on it. we are aiding and abetting the war and there has been no vote on it. 17 million people live on the edge of starvation because of this blockade and bombing campaign. yet there has been no vote in congress. we have problems here at home and they are costing trillions of dollars and are unauthorized. we have not voted on them. let's pay attention to some of the problems we have here at home, we have $150 billion tab
for damage in texas, even yet we continue with unauthorized, unconstitutionally undeclared war.e' i think it is time to think about the problems we have here at home and about the 20 trillion-dollar debt that we've got. but still we have this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth was if congress didn't do its job, but if we allow that these authorization of force is to expire and we didn't get another one. that's abdicating the constitutional duty. the trick is to do what is in w your constitutional duty. it's not to say the other congressmen won't do with theirr job is, so i'm not going to do my job. our job is to enforce and execute the constitution.he the constitution says congress shall declare a war it doesn't say the president can go to war anytime and anywhere around the
globe, so for the first time in 15 years, we are debating whether or not congress has a role in this and for those that will vote no against myoting t resolution, they are basically s voting even though they will say otherwise, they are voting to say let's just let the status quo go on. the president can do what he wants. it's to be emotional to debate the war so we will let him do whatever he wants. minus the vote to grab power back.e power the senate has provocative here. the constitution gives the power to the legislature. that's what this vote is about. grabbing power to declare war and say this is a senate prerogative. for the majority in all likelihood we don't want to dowe that.
should we be at war in iraq or afghanistan.e president obama ran on ending taking about war and bombing the countries without any authorization intriguingly the left was relentless in criticizing george bush and yet george bush did come to congress. we have the votes to go after those that attacked us on 9/11. they didn't vote for a generation should one generation be able to bind another generation if we don't force thp authorizations to expire it can go on forever.
they've always been at war with east asia and then saying they've always been at war with eurasia because no one is t standing up to say no. that's what congress is supposed to do, we are supposed to be a voice that debates and this should we go to war as part of doing our job, but the only way to get congress to do their job is to actually let these expire. we should have a full debate over initiates the war. there is no murkiness to the constitution. it is explicit. the initiation, the declaration of war, the power lies with congress. but the war in afghanistan hasas gone on for 16 years now. we have people that will be fighting in the war our young men and women will be fighting in the next year or so who were not yet born on 9/11. we've long since killed those that perpetrated 9/11 and with
the killing of bin lade bin lade is no person left in the leadership of al qaeda or taliban who was around in the period of time and we say it's still the taliban. if you're going to say we are going to fight till the end of time that we are going to have a perpetual war till the end of time if you're going to kill if the radical islamists in the world it is an impossibility. what i would say is it's at least have a debate and that is your purpose and your goals and what you stand for let's have a debate on the war in yemen and somalia and whether we should be bombing people in nigeria or p. in iraq, iran, afghanistan. let's have a debate about allt these different wars but it's not just say the president can do what he wants. because realizing the people in this body who are for perpetual war they don't even think we should have any role in it.wantu
they told me quietly the president can do what everyone under article two of the constitution that's absolutely e false. it was absolutely against everything that our founding fathers, read the federalist papers. there is extensive debate over the warmaking power an powers ay explicitly from washington to adams to jefferson to madison said we give this power to congress because we fear the perpetual war that we have seen in europe of brother fighting brother and brother fighting cousins within the royal disputes that went on endlessly in your han your hand so they sa founding document to try to make it more difficult.tt .. 9/11 virtually unanimously we came together within three days. pearl harbor within 24 hours. so what i would say to my colleagues is, let's do your job.
this is your constitutional role. let's let these expire. and over the next six months, let's debate whether we should be at war and where. but i for one am one who says that we should oppose unauthorized, undeclared, unconstitutional war. at this particular time, there are no limits on war. the 9/11 proclamation has been so interpreted so widely that it could mean anything. so you have people who interpret is widely and you also have people saying the constitution says the president can do anything. it's not what our founding fathers intended. it's proud to be part of and an instigator of a debate for the first time in 15 years the full senate will vote on whether or not we have a role in initiating war, whether we should continue to be at war, or whether we should even vote on whether we should continue to be at war. i urge the senate to adopt my
replace something in rehab nothing in it is six months of more time even at theth request of the president he - - we cannot come together as the senate the senate is befuddled to revive that language that we feed this to be a different debate with the actual a un zaphwithout with the existing authorities. are and without such aid we will confusion in a disruption of them with the allies and having spent a little bit of time with the areas of possibility to cease
operations to begin planning almost immediately for those operations at a time when we get a round to even consider this we could see the of us evaporates with each passing day with the deployment or reposition that is more pressing to the military but the allies will see this as a signal to weaken of cooperation over the last several months that has bendy voices and they have
declare presidential authority under article ii for those in the of the field as the ways this act could be used by the adversary. >> madam president i want to discuss the amendment with the use of military forceions. against violent extremist our and first of all, in bed we o commemorated the anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attack that shuck
our nation into its core. noble so that kind of tragedy would never happen again. we so we must always ask ourselves and to support those service members. a the to recognize the conflict is different and beyond that threats of afghanistan we need to update the aumf as the conflict remains the same to
work their religion of islam with radical ideology asas part of the jihad against the united states of america . service i am open to a process to develop the new aumf with other terrorist organizations. i would be willing to work with my colleagues with the chairman of foreign relations committee.ut heavily have enough hearings without debate? in then to
agree to the use of military force.s f in the associated forces. be and without simultaneously passing a new authorization and to inherit the democracy we and as we speak and with other taliban organizations. to jeopardize the legal authority i cannot stand by silent to put the currently deployed service numbers of
participate that the nation never sees another day like the 11th would including the legal authority. >> the senator from tennessee. >> i a agree with what the senator from arizona said. but i want to explain theth senator paul has offered ane amendment i would ask for the upper down row personally i do not support the amendment for many reasons that senator mccain they doubt but in order for senator paul i am doing this out of respect i will motion to table the
amendment that allows it to get a vote. so this is not a hostile act. i will move to table this shortly. i agree we need to take action and i agree with them to have the legal basis for the aumf i am all for our committee to offer the bipartisan amendment but to do away with that legal basis to put in place and
another ... we believe then to wind down the operation so out of courtesy to the gentleman from kentucky i am going to move to table the paul amendment this will allow him to have a recorded vote. >> is there a second? the question is on the motion to do table and the clerk will call the roll. the body and the