A bill to prospectively repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Madam President, the Senate today has finally voted to repeal two outdated and obsolete authorizations for the use of military force--those that launched two wars against the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein, enacted into law in 1991 and 2002.

Yet this is not the only action we must take to protect our national security. A third AUMF, which Congress enacted in 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on our country by the terrorist organization al- Qaida, is also outdated and ought to be repealed. This authorization was fully justified and necessary at the time, and I voted in favor of it.

It was sadly necessary to go to war in Afghanistan to remove the very real threat that al-Qaida posed from its sanctuary there.

But, as I have repeatedly argued in successive Congresses since 2014, this AUMF, too, is now obsolete. We ought to repeal it and replace it with a new AUMF that more accurately reflects the threats our country faces today.

Four Presidents from both parties have used the 2001 AUMF to target groups that did not even exist on 9/11/2001 in countries such as Yemen and

Somalia, far from the battlefield of Afghanistan. Presidents have used this AUMF in ways that those of us in Congress who voted for it could never have imagined 22 years ago.

Publicly available War Powers Resolution notifications that refer to the 2001 AUMF address more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Niger, Philippines, Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.

The number of countries where the U.S. military has actually resorted to military action is smaller but not insignificant. Again based on War Powers Resolution notifications, the 2001 AUMF has been publicly cited as authorization for military activity in seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Niger. No administration should continue to use the 2001 AUMF--that clearly and specifically is aimed at those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks--as a blank check for war anywhere and anytime, and it is past time for Congress to take action.

In 2014 and 2015, President Obama relayed his intent to work with the Congress to repeal and replace the 2001 AUMF, at the time the United States was assembling the Coalition to Defeat ISIS, but we were not able to get it done.

Now, President Biden has reiterated the same intent. In the official Statement of Administration Policy on the bill we have passed today, the White House declared its support for passage of S. 316 and goes on to say:

Furthermore, President Biden remains committed to working

with Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the

use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific

framework more appropriate to protecting Americans form

modern terrorist threats. Toward that end, the Administration

will ensure that Congress has a clear and thorough

understanding of the effect of any such action and of the

threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and interests around

the world.

So, in response to the invitation President Biden has extended to Congress to replace and repeal the 2001 AUMF, I am today introducing legislation that would prospectively repeal the outdated authorization--while providing enough time for both the executive and the legislative branches to agree on the most appropriate replacement. This legislation would sunset the existing AUMF in July 2025, 6 months into the next administration. So we will have adequate time to consult with the administration's national security professionals about the best way to do so.

This would also provide a framework for the necessary national debate about how to modernize our national security posture during the upcoming 2024 elections.

This is a pivotal moment. Congress must act to reassert its rightful role in war-making authorities, as set out in article I of the Constitution. We must take action on all fronts. Having voted decisively to repeal the authorizations of 1991 and 2002 in legislation led by my able colleagues, Senator Kaine of Virginia and Senator Young of Indiana, we now need to move with dispatch to repeal and replace the 2001 authorization. It is a responsibility that we must assume to protect our national security in today's context.

I look forward to moving on this initiative as soon as possible in this session of the 118th Congress.

Madam President, the Senate today has finally voted to repeal two outdated and obsolete authorizations for the use of military force--those that launched two wars against the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein, enacted into law in 1991 and 2002.

Yet this is not the only action we must take to protect our national security. A third AUMF, which Congress enacted in 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on our country by the terrorist organization al- Qaida, is also outdated and ought to be repealed. This authorization was fully justified and necessary at the time, and I voted in favor of it.

It was sadly necessary to go to war in Afghanistan to remove the very real threat that al-Qaida posed from its sanctuary there.

But, as I have repeatedly argued in successive Congresses since 2014, this AUMF, too, is now obsolete. We ought to repeal it and replace it with a new AUMF that more accurately reflects the threats our country faces today.

Four Presidents from both parties have used the 2001 AUMF to target groups that did not even exist on 9/11/2001 in countries such as Yemen and

Somalia, far from the battlefield of Afghanistan. Presidents have used this AUMF in ways that those of us in Congress who voted for it could never have imagined 22 years ago.

Publicly available War Powers Resolution notifications that refer to the 2001 AUMF address more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Niger, Philippines, Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.

The number of countries where the U.S. military has actually resorted to military action is smaller but not insignificant. Again based on War Powers Resolution notifications, the 2001 AUMF has been publicly cited as authorization for military activity in seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Niger. No administration should continue to use the 2001 AUMF--that clearly and specifically is aimed at those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks--as a blank check for war anywhere and anytime, and it is past time for Congress to take action.

In 2014 and 2015, President Obama relayed his intent to work with the Congress to repeal and replace the 2001 AUMF, at the time the United States was assembling the Coalition to Defeat ISIS, but we were not able to get it done.

Now, President Biden has reiterated the same intent. In the official Statement of Administration Policy on the bill we have passed today, the White House declared its support for passage of S. 316 and goes on to say:

Furthermore, President Biden remains committed to working

with Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the

use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific

framework more appropriate to protecting Americans form

modern terrorist threats. Toward that end, the Administration

will ensure that Congress has a clear and thorough

understanding of the effect of any such action and of the

threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and interests around

the world.

So, in response to the invitation President Biden has extended to Congress to replace and repeal the 2001 AUMF, I am today introducing legislation that would prospectively repeal the outdated authorization--while providing enough time for both the executive and the legislative branches to agree on the most appropriate replacement. This legislation would sunset the existing AUMF in July 2025, 6 months into the next administration. So we will have adequate time to consult with the administration's national security professionals about the best way to do so.

This would also provide a framework for the necessary national debate about how to modernize our national security posture during the upcoming 2024 elections.

This is a pivotal moment. Congress must act to reassert its rightful role in war-making authorities, as set out in article I of the Constitution. We must take action on all fronts. Having voted decisively to repeal the authorizations of 1991 and 2002 in legislation led by my able colleagues, Senator Kaine of Virginia and Senator Young of Indiana, we now need to move with dispatch to repeal and replace the 2001 authorization. It is a responsibility that we must assume to protect our national security in today's context.

I look forward to moving on this initiative as soon as possible in this session of the 118th Congress.

Madam President, today I am introducing the Protection from Abusive Passengers Act, a bill that is aimed at eliminating the rash of violence and abuse that is occurring on commercial flights across the country. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Representatives Eric Swalwell of California and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who are introducing companion legislation in the other body. The goal of our bill is to send a clear signal that individuals who engage in serious abusive or violent behavior on an aircraft or at an airport security checkpoint will be banned from flying.

In the last few years, we have seen an extraordinary increase in the number of cases of violence and abuse against crewmembers and airline passengers. In 2022, the Federal Aviation Administration received 2,456 reports of ``unruly passengers.'' Those complaints led to 831 investigations, a record 567 enforcement actions initiated, and a historic $8.45 million in proposed fines. That makes 2022 one of the most violent years in air travel since the FAA started tracking incidents in the mid-1990s, second only to 2021. While the numbers are trending down, we are still seeing some extraordinary dangerous and violent behavior.

In April 2022, the FAA proposed a record $81,950 fine against a passenger who tried to open the cockpit door on an American Airlines flight from Dallas to Charlotte, struck and threatened multiple flight attendants, and continued to attempt to assault the crew and other passengers once restrained.

The FAA also proposed a $77,272 fine against a passenger on a Delta flight from Las Vegas who ``attempted to hug and kiss the passenger seated next to her; walked to the front of the aircraft to try to exit during flight; refused to return to her seat; and bit another passenger multiple times.''

Just this month, the Department of Justice reported the arrest of a passenger for allegedly attempting to open an emergency exit door while aboard a United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Boston. During the incident, the passenger attempted to stab a flight attendant with a broken metal spoon, hitting the flight attendant on the neck area three times. Video of this disturbing assault went viral and was widely reported on.

In any setting, these actions would be shocking and unacceptable but on an airplane, such behavior also represents a danger to all passengers. Clearly, the existing regime of civil and criminal penalties have not been enough to deter this upsurge. We need to send a signal that such type of behavior will not be tolerated.

The Protection from Abusive Passengers Act would require the Transportation Security Administration to create and manage a program which bars passengers who are fined or convicted of abusive behavior and physical violence from flying. Transparency and notice will be provided to banned individuals, including guidelines for removal and opportunities for appeal. The bill would also permanently ban abusive passengers from participating in the TSA PreCheck or Customs' Global Entry Programs.

The bill provides appropriate fairness and due process by ensuring that only individuals who have been assessed civil or criminal penalty for abusive and violent behavior will be included on a list of banned fliers. The bill also requires the TSA to explain how it will maintain its list of banned fliers, provide an explanation of how long an individual may be barred from flying based on the severity of the offense, and set guidelines for an individual to appeal and seek removal from the list of banned fliers.

I believe this bill strikes the appropriate balance of assuring fairness and transparency while sending a strong signal that violent and abusive behavior will not be tolerated. I am pleased that the bill is supported by both airline industry leaders and labor unions, including Air Line Pilots Association; Association of Flight Attendants, CWA; Association of Professional Flight Attendants; Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO; Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Communications Workers of America, CWA; American Airlines; Delta Airlines; and Southwest Airlines. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.