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 on the authorization. It was the first that we passed virtually anonymouslyle n because he wanted to hold those responsible that is now 16 years old. A the president will use the appropriate course with those purses he determined those terrorist attacks that occurred september 112001. 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 humanrights. 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 dont have clearer authorization to pursue a military campaign against isis some say what happens if we dont meet that deadline . Read article ii of the constitution and to takei action i was struck when i received a letter from secretary maddest with the Senate Foreign relationsre Committee Try to figure out how to proceed that is the opportunity to have them before us with a candid discussion. Authorization was never taken up. Weve received that the president does not Want Congress to adjust the authorization, because he has adequate authority to do whatever he wants to do. 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 wasnt 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 dont think there was a Single Member of the Senate Either party on the floor that would have believed thats what we are voting for. To date weve 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 sight. Its a responsibility that we have clarity in the constitution but its one that we do not will accept willingly and in most circumstances most members of the senate would acknowledge the opportunity and authority. Now we have a proposal by senator paul of kentucky. Me they must always step up and defend america but when it comes to the declaration of war, thats 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 pauls but ive been working on for almost my entire life and its 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 dont allow for them to flow overseas when we have companies icompany isin connecticut, norta and illinois to do the work. Its time for the extraordinary measures, so weve 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 dont reauthorize military action against isis and others, then im not sure the congress will ever again authorize the war. Its 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. Thats not what the Founding Fathers imagined with an authority to declare war. I wouldnt support this extraordinary measure. Ive 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 havent 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 isnt what the foundings fathers reported and i am going tim 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 dont 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. Whats missing is the followup 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 dont know the answer to that question. Anand while ive heard my colleagues say we will work to accomplish that, i worry having experience in the senate now be that a six mont sixmonth 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 isnt 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 dont 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. Its 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 dont 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 dont know what the right timeframe is and im sad that we are still there, but its 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 youre 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 dont 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 president ial leadership for a long time but has downplayed the importance of the work. Weve 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 corkers 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 its the resolution of the previously passed will expire. I dont 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 dont 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. Lets 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 . Twentyfour 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, its difficult to determine the purpose inhosew afghanistan. Also, those that say we need a new authorization but its goine to authorize anywhere and anytime with no geographic limit or time limit basically they would be authorizing everythin