WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-Maine), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, renewed his call for Congress to consider a new Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to wage the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Currently, the Administration is justifying American engagement under the 2001 AUMF passed by Congress nearly thirteen years ago following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

“For us to go home, to take a recess, to say, ‘We don't really want to be talking about this, we don't want to be responsible for this,’ I think is unfair to the American people. It's unfair to the people who are being put into harm’s way. And it's unfair – and not responsive – to the basic principles of the Constitution,” Senator King said. “We owe it to our country to have this debate. And it's one that I believe is important and is constitutionally based. We are very good here in Congress about not making decisions and then criticizing the executive for what they do. This is an opportunity where we have the power – the constitutional power and the constitutional responsibility to discuss, debate, and authorize the executive's actions against this terrible foe. I believe that it is our responsibility to do so.”

Senator King has consistently expressed concern about the scope of the AUMF approved by Congress following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and has urged his colleagues and the Administration to take action to bring it in line with current requirements. In January 2014, Senator King joined Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) to introduce the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, legislation that would strengthen the consultative process between Congress and the President on whether and when to engage in military action.

An unofficial transcript is below:

+++

“Madam President, Senator Kaine has spoken eloquently about events of today. I'd like to speak for a few moments about events of 200-plus years ago.

“On Tuesday, August 17, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the delegates debated the question of war. They debated it passionately and with a sense of history and human nature. And they understood the propensity of the Executive – any executive throughout history, a prince, a king, a potentate, a sultan – to lead their country into war for good reasons or no good reasons. They understood that this was a basic question before the body, before the Constitutional Convention. And, Madam President, I would assert that the framers knew what they were doing.

“Interestingly, in the first draft of the Constitution the clause in Article 1 Section 8 that says, ‘Congress shall have the power to declare war,’ says, ‘Congress shall have the power to make war.’ That was the first draft. The debate was about whether Congress could effectively make and execute war. They wisely, I believe, realized that that was impractical given the nature of Congress, the large number of representatives, and the exigencies of war, so they left the power to be Commander in Chief to the chief executive. They also recognized the Chief Executive's inherent power to repel an attack on this country. But in all other cases, what the Constitution says is very clear: Article 1, Section 8:  ‘The Congress shall declare war.’

“And there was some discussion about this, and some people said, ‘Well, we don't want to tie the hands of the Executive,’ but others made it more clear. Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut – these are from Madison’s notes, by the way, which is a fascinating source about the history of the Constitution. These are the notes that were taken the day of the debate – Tuesday, August 17, 1787. Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut: ‘It should be more easy to get out of war than into it.’ He understood this principle. Pierce Butler of South Carolina said, ‘The Executive should have the power to repel sudden attacks.’ That's common sense.

“But then Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I think, put it most succinctly. He said, ‘I never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.’ And that's the fundamental issue that's before us today. And then George Mason of Virginia later in the debate used a wonderful phrase that I think aptly captures what the framers were after. He said, ‘I’m for clogging rather than facilitating war.’ And that's what we're supposed to do, is to debate, discuss, and have the people engaged in a discussion before this country is committed to war. Now, the Constitution in the preamble makes very clear that one of the fundamental purposes of this government, or any government, is to provide for the common defense.

“Nobody questions that. Neither Senator Kaine nor myself nor anyone else who's talking about this issue questions, A, whether we should be debating this and, B, that it is our solemn responsibility to provide for the common defense. I happen to think, as Senator Kaine does, that the fight against ISIL is worthy of national attention, worthy of national effort and should be debated and circumscribed through some form of authorization in this body.

“Madam President, there has not been a declaration of war by the Congress since 1942. And I’ll conclude with the observation that power doesn't spring from one branch of our government to the other overnight or in some flash of inspiration or change. I would argue, more aptly, it oozes from one branch to the other. Not necessarily through executive usurpation, as through congressional abdication. And for us to go home, to take a recess, to say, ‘We don't really want to be talking about this, we don't want to be responsible for this,’ I think is unfair to the American people. It's unfair to the people who are being put into harm’s way. And it's unfair – and not responsive – to the basic principles of the Constitution.

“We owe it to our country to have this debate. And it's one that I believe is important and is constitutionally based. We are very good here in Congress about not making decisions and then criticizing the executive for what they do. This is an opportunity where we have the power – the constitutional power and the constitutional responsibility to discuss, debate, and authorize the executive's actions against this terrible foe. I believe that it is our responsibility to do so. To not do so is simply one more sliding away, one more giving away of our constitutional authority to the Executive, that I think is in detriment not only to the Constitution itself – clearly –  but also to the interests of the American people.”

###