Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force just days after 9/11, it provided the President with the broad authority to strike against those who ``planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored'' them.

That authorization no longer properly encompasses the scope of military action that we are taking in the ongoing fight against terrorism. While the AUMF was originally directed at a fairly narrow range of actors, it has been used to sanction targeted strikes against groups and militants with little relation to the individuals who actually planned, authorized, and perpetrated the attacks on 9/11.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution invests Congress with the power to declare war. It is our most awesome responsibility, and it is central to the success of our military efforts overseas. We owe it to the men and women we send into combat to properly define and authorize their mission.

This amendment would not immediately repeal the 2001 AUMF. Instead, it would sunset one year from the date of enactment, providing time for Congress and the administration to consider what authorities are needed to protect the Nation.

I think a more narrow authorization, constrained in focus and duration, may very well be necessary, but let's be clear. Even in the absence of an AUMF, the administration would retain the necessary authority to respond to threats from al Qaeda.

At a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning, Stephen Preston, General Counsel for the Department of Defense, testified:

The AUMF is not the only authority the President has to use force to keep us safe. The President has authority, under the Constitution, to use military force as needed to defend the Nation against armed attacks and imminent threat of armed attack.

Over the course of the last year, there has been a growing recognition of the outdated nature of the current AUMF. In Syria, for example, one of the most violent groups on the ground is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, which grew out of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Though originally part of the al Qaeda brand, ISIL has since been excommunicated from al Qaeda, and recent months have seen intense fighting between ISIL and the Nusra Front, al Qaeda's preferred jihadi group.

That raises the question of whether action against ISIL would be covered by the current AUMF, and if it is not, do we really want to be in a situation where Ayman al-Zawahiri is able to chose which groups are subject to the authorization for the use of force by the United States and which are not? That is not something I think we want to delegate to our enemies.

Last year, during consideration of the defense appropriations bill, I offered a similar amendment that gained the bipartisan support of 185 Members of the House, indicating strong support on both sides of the aisle, for bringing our actions into conformity with the law.

Since then, the legally precarious nature of our military actions under the AUMF has only become more pronounced. This amendment will force Congress and the administration to do something about it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chair, I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made in opposition, the first, that if the sunset goes into effect and nothing is enacted, subsequently, there will be no authority to take action against our enemies.

That ignores the President's authority under article II, or it is a very, very constrained view of the President's authority under article II as Commander in Chief, one not shared by this President, one certainly not shared by President Bush and, indeed, one not shared by any President, I think, in U.S. history.

This is not an effort to legislate away the threats that we face. That cannot be done, but it is an effort to compel Congress and the administration to bring our use of force into conformity with the laws passed by Congress and to restore our responsibility as the body with the power to declare war and to define the scope of any conflict.

Without a sunset, I am convinced that, a year from now, we will be exactly where we are today, continuing to rely on an increasingly legally unreliable AUMF, and I have confidence that, spurred on by the necessity of acting--and we are not requiring that we act tomorrow, we give a deadline of a year from an enactment--that should not be too much to ask of this Congress. Congress will step up to its responsibility.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chair, I want to thank Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions for making this amendment in order, and I want to thank Chairman McKeon for his service and for allowing this amendment to be part of the en bloc package.

My amendment adds the voice of the House to those of many Americans, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who would like to see the names of the 74 sailors lost aboard the USS Frank E. Evans added to the Vietnam Memorial.

The USS Frank Evans, a destroyer, was launched near the end of World War II and was recommissioned for the Korea and Vietnam conflicts. After participating in combat off the coast of Vietnam, the Evans was deployed for the Operation Sea Spirit training exercise in the South China Sea.

On the morning of June 3, 1969, the Evans was training with an Australian navy carrier when the two ships collided.

The Melbourne ripped the American destroyer in two. The bow sank in just 3 minutes, leaving only a stern section afloat. Seventy-four sailors perished.

Although they were in the South China Sea, these sailors' names have been excluded from the Vietnam Memorial because the Evans was outside the designated combat zone which determines inclusion on the wall.

Although these men did not die in direct combat, they were instrumental in advancing military objectives in Vietnam and participated in the conflict just days before the collision.

I thank the chairman for allowing this amendment which would encourage the addition of their names to the wall.

My amendment adds the voice of this House to those of many Americans, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who would like to see the names of the 74 sailors lost aboard the USS Frank E. Evans added to the Vietnam Memorial.

The USS Frank E. Evans, a destroyer, was launched near the end of World War II and was recommissioned for the Korea and Vietnam conflicts. After participating in combat off the coast of Vietnam, the Evans was deployed for the ``Operation Sea Spirit'' training exercises in the South China Sea.

On the morning of June 3, 1969, the Evans was training with the Australian Navy carrier HMAS Melbourne, when the two ships collided. The Melbourne ripped the American destroyer in two. The bow sank in just three minutes, leaving only the stern section afloat. Seventy-four sailors perished.

Although they were in the South China Sea, these sailors' names have been excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial because the Evans was outside the designated combat zone which determines inclusion on the Wall. Although these men did not die in direct combat, they were instrumental in advancing American military objectives in Vietnam and had participated in the conflict just days before the collision. This happenstance should not obscure their valor, patriotism, and ultimate sacrifice for their country, especially as other exceptions to the stated policy have been made, including by Ronald Reagan, who waived the combat zone criteria to add 68 names of U.S. Marines who were killed when a ``rest and recreation'' flight to Hong Kong crashed.

It has been nearly 45 years to the day since that June night in 1969, and the passage of time has made duller and less distinct, boundaries and criteria that may have seemed reasonable and clear back then. The 74 sailors from the Evans belong with the other 58,000 Americans who gave their lives in Vietnam--on the Wall--where Americans from every corner of this great nation can give our silent thanks for their having given the ``last full measure of devotion.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source