Congress Must Act on Terrorism

I was deeply moved when the French Parliament, after observing a minute of silence for those slain in the Charlie Hebdo attacks, spontaneously broke into singing France's national anthem. It was the first time that had happened since 1918.

The Parliament immediately got down to work, and despite party differences as sharp as those that exist in the United States, the French overwhelmingly approved an extension of France's participation in airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq by a vote of 488 to 1 (with 13 abstentions). Their national unity in the face of an attack on their basic values of free speech stirred (indeed, agitated) something in my heart.

We, but for the grace of God and our hardworking intelligence, military and homeland security agencies, could have been mourning Americans killed in a criminal terrorist attack. It took only a handful of people in France to create days of havoc. Back here in the U.S., a young, radicalized Ohio man was arrested by the FBI after agents uncovered his plot to shoot and kill congressional employees and bomb the U.S. Capitol building.

My thoughts turned to the U.S. Congress, and I wondered if this latest news gripping Europe would be enough to spur lawmakers to act together -- in a bipartisan way -- to debate and pass a new national strategy to deal with ISIS and al-Qaida. Astonishingly, Congress has refused to authorize U.S. actions against ISIS, the terrorist organization so brutal that even al-Qaida itself tossed them out of their membership. ISIS now controls territory the size of Indiana in Iraq and Syria.

"There is currently no legal authority to support the action against ISIL unless and until Congress comes in, has the debate, and votes," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told a group of foreign policy scholars in Washington back in November. Kaine is talking to the need for Congress to approve, or extend, an AUMF (authorization for the use of military force) to cover the specific action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. "We have already asked too many U.S. service members to risk their lives without a political consensus behind this mission," Kaine said.

Kaine believes existing AUMFs do not legally cover U.S. actions against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The first AUMF was passed immediately following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and has been often cited by George W. Bush and Barack Obama as authority for military actions they've taken to combat al-Qaida.

Congress passed another AUMF in 2002 that authorized the president to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Kaine wants Congress to also amend the War Powers Resolution and provide "a better process" for authorizing military action. "The events of the last months reveal the weaknesses of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, an act whose provisions have been ignored by presidents and Congresses of both parties since the ink was dry on the original," Kaine said in remarks on the Senate floor last December. Kaine has introduced bipartisan legislation with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to clarify the consultation process between the legislative and executive branches of government on matters of war.

Although some members of Congress have urged action on the AUMF, others have simply criticized the president while remaining quiet on their own responsibility. "This war is now illegal," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a 2016 hopeful, wrote in November after Obama invoked the same authorization that Bush had used for Iraq.

House Speaker John Boehner, after a bipartisan leadership meeting at the White House on Jan. 13, stated that if Obama drafts an AUMF and outlines a strategy, "Republicans will work with him to build bipartisan support for its enactment." The speaker usually never shirks away from criticizing the president, but this sounds like there is an opening to finding a bipartisan strategy and solution for confronting the twin threats of ISIS and al-Qaida.

Debating an AUMF is a way for Congress to give its valuable input into strategy, and to agree on action with the executive branch. Now is the right time for a debate, and for concerted action. We do not want a permissive Congress that sets dangerous precedents for future presidents on matters of life and death for our servicemen and women. If Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that our wars can end, but military action can go on for generations.

The purpose of passing an authorization is to come together to authorize the proper military and other strategic actions against terrorism, and to prevent a Charlie Hebdo in the United States. Debating and agreeing on an authorization should be at the very top of the new Congress' agenda. After all, the U.S. Constitution assigns declarations of war as a responsibility of Congress.

They should finally take responsibility. And it's time we demand a robust debate on the proper way forward.

###