Providing for Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, over the weekend France suffered the worst attack that it has seen since World War II. The day before that, Beirut was rocked by two suicide bombs perpetrated by ISIL that killed more than 40 civilians. We just had confirmation that the Russian plane flying over Sinai was taken down by a terrorist bomb. Again, ISIL has claimed credit. These attacks have followed on the heels of an announcement 2 weeks earlier by the President that he has authorized deployment of up to 50 Special Forces in Syria. They will be there to support U.S.-backed Syrian rebels in the campaign against ISIL.

More than 1 year after the announcement of Operation Inherent Resolve, a mission to ``degrade and ultimately defeat'' ISIL, this conflict has escalated dramatically. The facts on the ground in the Middle East have changed dramatically. Russia is intervening militarily on behalf of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians left their homes and their country to escape ISIL and Assad, precipitating a massive humanitarian crisis that has brought the European Union under great strain.

In addition to the deployment of U.S. Special Forces in Syria, news reports indicate that the United States will increase supplies and military weapons to U.S.-backed Syrian rebels fighting ISIL.

For all the changes that we have seen over the past year, one thing has not changed: The Congress of the United States has not voted to authorize the use of military force against ISIL. That needs to change. That is why I have come to the floor today. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, who will speak in a moment, has come as well. We need an authorization for the use of military force.

The President maintains that the legal underpinnings of his authorization come from an AUMF provided to our previous President in the 107th Congress, back in 2001. The 2001 AUMF allowed the President the authority to use ``all necessary and appropriate force'' against those he determined ``planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.''

More than 10 years later, two provisions of the massive Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act expanded the 2001 AUMF to include ``associated forces'' of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This is the expansion from which the administration derives its authority for today's actions to go after the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

I am not standing here today to debate the merits of the administration's argument as to whether they have the legal authority. That is not what is at issue right here. What is at issue is the ease with which Congress happily defers to old statutes and abdicates its authority to weigh in on what history will record as a long, complex, brutal conflict. This conflict has been going on for more than a year with very mixed results, and the consequences will change the geopolitical landscape in that region for decades.

Ten American service members have died supporting Operation Inherent Resolve--one of them recently killed in action. Five others have been wounded. With thousands of service members in support of Operation Inherent Resolve and attacks happening all over the world, the notion that a 14-year-old statute aimed at another enemy is any kind of a substitute for congressional authorization is insufficient. Operation Inherent Resolve warrants its own authorization not just because of its size and duration, because Americans are dying in pursuit of it, or because it is directed at an enemy that is a threat to our security; this mission warrants its own authorization because we want it to succeed. We want the world to know that the United States speaks with one voice.

Nearly a year ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee pressed the administration to come forward with a draft AUMF against ISIL. When it did not do so, the committee proceeded with its own AUMF, which spurred the administration to take action. Two months after that exercise, the administration sent up its own draft AUMF. That was more than 8 months ago. But efforts to produce an AUMF here in Congress have since stalled. In an effort to break the gridlock, as I mentioned, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, and I introduced a resolution that we think represents a good compromise. It may not be perfect. It may represent only a starting point. But we need a starting point here, and we need to move forward. This issue is far too important not to try to get an agreement to move ahead.

I urge my colleagues to consider the importance of this operation against ISIL and the implications to foreign policies for many years ahead--specifically, the implications to this body, the Congress of the United States and the U.S. Senate. If we are not even willing to weigh in and authorize the use of force here, what does that say to our adversaries? What does that say to our allies? What does that say to the troops who are fighting on our behalf? How much longer can we go without an authorization for the use of force?

I wish to yield time to my colleague, the Senator from Virginia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source