[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1926-1927]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  MR. HATCH. Madam President, today I rise with my friend, the senior 
Senator from Oklahoma, to discuss some of the most pressing national 
security issues the Senate is poised to confront. These matters include 
the confirmation of Ashton Carter as Secretary of Defense, whose 
nomination I strongly support; and Senator Ayotte's Guantanamo Bay 
detainee transfer bill, of which I am a cosponsor. Indeed, I applaud 
the expeditious consideration of Senator Ayotte's bill in the Armed 
Services Committee under the leadership of Senator McCain.
  These moves come at a critically important time as we continue to 
witness the spectacles of barbarism perpetrated by the so-called 
Islamic State, or ISIS--aid workers and journalists gruesomely 
beheaded; Christians tortured and murdered for refusing to convert; and 
most recently, a captured coalition pilot burned alive.
  These acts are just a glimpse of the undiluted savagery unleashed by 
this terrorist organization on the large swath of territory in Iraq and 
Syria that it controls. Even beyond its horrific human rights 
violations, the Islamic State threatens to destabilize the entire 
Middle East and it is attempting to undo all that was accomplished by 
our servicemembers in 8 years of blood and sacrifice in Iraq.
  Most troubling of all, the Islamic State serves as a safe haven for 
terrorist training and planning, similar to Afghanistan prior to the 
September 11 attacks. With the Islamic State's stated intention to 
``raise the flag of Allah in the White House'' and kill ``hundreds of 
millions'' in a worldwide ``religious cleansing,'' there can be no 
doubt this organization poses a clear and present danger to the 
national security of the United States and to our allies, not only in 
the Middle East but throughout the world. Accordingly, we must fight 
and defeat this dangerous terrorist organization.
  It is therefore incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure we provide 
all the tools necessary for defeating the enemy. Personally, I agree 
with the Obama administration's previous determination that the 
President has ample powers to conduct operations against the Islamic 
State under article II of the Constitution as well as the existing 
authorizations for the use of military force passed by Congress in 2001 
against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in 2002 for Iraq. Nevertheless, I 
agree with the President that Congress should authorize the use of 
force against the Islamic State, not only to put to rest any legal 
questions about the President's power to use force, but also to 
demonstrate to the world America's resolve in this fight against 
terror.
  If we are to pass a new authorization for use of military force, it 
is critically important to ensure that this new law is properly 
crafted. It will define against whom and under what conditions our 
Nation may direct its national might.
  Therefore, Senator Inhofe and I feel compelled to propose general 
principles that we believe should guide this effort, especially since 
it appears the President will send his own draft to Congress shortly. 
Senator Inhofe and I are offering these thoughts with no intention to 
undermine careful consideration of the President's proposal by the 
Senate's national security committees.
  Furthermore, we do not at all wish to complicate the efforts to reach 
consensus by laying down demands. Far from it. Rather, our intent is to 
facilitate the legislative process by outlining some of the elements we 
believe to be most crucial for ensuring the success of our 
servicemembers as they confront this great evil.
  First, the authorization should clearly articulate that the executive 
branch is authorized to use force--employed in accordance with the law 
of armed conflict--against the Islamic State.
  Second, the authorization should be flexible enough to be utilized 
not only against the Islamic State as it appears today, but also in 
whatever form the organization takes going forward. This flexibility 
should also include the authority to use force against organizations 
that are associated with or materially supporting the Islamic State.
  Finally, and most importantly, the authorization should not impose 
any artificial and unnecessary limitations--such as those based on 
time, geography, and type of force--that could interfere with our 
strategic objective of defeating the Islamic State.
  Unfortunately, many have suggested including such artificial 
limitations on the use of force in a future authorization. 
Specifically, many have discussed prohibiting the use of ground forces 
as well as providing an expiration date for the authorization. These 
are restrictions the Islamic State could use to its advantage. If we 
are telling the Islamic State upfront we will not use ground forces, 
will they not tailor their strategy around that fact? If we advertise 
when the authorization expires at an arbitrary date and time, will they 
not hunker down and wait for that date? Why would we not only 
unilaterally impose limitations as to which types of tools and tactics 
our servicemembers can use, but then also broadcast those limitations 
to the enemy?
  Indeed, we believe that Congress and the President should heed the 
advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin 
Dempsey, who stated in an interview on January 23, 2015, that:

       I think in the crafting of the AUMF, all options should be 
     on the table, and then we can debate whether we want to use 
     them. But the authorization should be there. . . . In 
     particular, it shouldn't constrain activities geographically, 
     because ISIL knows no boundaries [and] doesn't recognize any 
     boundaries--in fact it's their intention to erase all

[[Page 1927]]

     boundaries to their benefit. . . . Constraints on time, or a 
     ``sunset clause,'' I just don't think it's necessary. I think 
     the nation should speak of its intent to confront this 
     radical ideological barbaric group and leave the option until 
     we can deal with it.

  Senators Inhofe and I could not agree more. We hope the Congress will 
enact a new authorization based on the principles we are outlining here 
today. I want to thank him. I hope our colleagues will take this 
seriously and hopefully we can turn this mess around.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.

       The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call 
     the roll.

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________