Diane Randall and Rep. Barbara Lee Reflect

Sep 15, 2011

This Wednesday was the tenth anniversary of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed with one lone “no” vote, by Rep. Barbara Lee (CA). Ten years later, FCNL’s Executive Secretary Diane Randall asked Rep. Lee about that vote, and got her thoughts on a variety of other questions posed by our constituents.

---

Diane Randall: Tell us about your decision ten years ago today to vote against authorization for use of military force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Did you expect to be the lone member of Congress opposing AUMF?

Rep. Barbara Lee: I truly did not expect to be the lone no vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force on September 14, 2001. Many of my colleagues shared my skepticism of the wisdom of the legislation. The ranking members of the House Armed Services and International Affairs Committees, Ike Skelton (MO) and the late Tom Lantos (CA), originally sent the legislation back to the drafters because it was too broad. But the basic flaws remained – this was an unprecedented authorization of military force without limit. For me, there were too many questions that the Bush Administration had not answered. I had an opportunity to change my vote when it became clear that I would be the only no vote. But I followed my conscience and voted against the bill.

Diane: What changes have happened in Congress in the last ten years regarding AUMF?

Rep. Lee: I don’t think many of my colleagues expected to still be in Afghanistan now, ten years later. I would hope that we have learned that there are better ways to deal with terrorist threats than open-ended war. Even though Congress has become a very partisan place over the last decade, there’s a growing consensus that an unlimited military response is not the answer. That’s why I’ve re-introduced a bill (HR 2859) to repeal the AUMF on this anniversary. While I was the lone vote ten years ago, today I am glad to be joined by many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in calling for an end to this flawed AUMF.

Diane: Our constituents at FCNL are passionate about working towards a world free of war. Besides need for revenue at home and reducing the federal deficit, what are some anti-war, reduced- Pentagon- budget arguments that might sound convincing to lawmakers?

Rep. Lee: Some of my colleagues love to talk about government “waste, fraud and abuse.” They usually forget to mention the Pentagon is one of the worst offenders. The Pentagon is the only federal agency that has never had an audit, for example. Taxpayers spend hundreds of billions every year—a proposed $650 billion this year alone—to fund the Pentagon and wars overseas with no real accountability. The Pentagon should be held to the same standards as the private sector. The argument that the Pentagon should be fiscally responsible with our hard-earned tax dollars will resonate with many members of Congress. Another common sense reform would be reevaluating the reliance on Cold War weaponry two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union. We could realize significant savings by reducing our stockpile of nuclear warheads from its current level of over 5,000.

Diane: A constituent from Altoona wonders how we can reduce the bloated Pentagon budget and change our foreign policy when there is a military contractor in every congressional district, providing jobs to a nation that needs them.

Rep. Lee: This question really gets to the heart of this problem. Our entire system has been corrupted by what President Eisenhower coined the “Military Industrial Complex.” It is true that the military sector of our economy has tended to dominate our foreign policy, but I don’t believe that’s a reason to say this cannot change. We have to get back to good sense arguments about what really builds a better society—jobs, schools, good infrastructure and economic security. Not bombs and bombers.

Diane: Right--why can't we be the world's greatest exporter of humanitarian equipment and supplies, instead of the world's biggest weapons dealer?

Rep. Lee: It really comes down to articulating alternatives to our current system. For example, we could spend a million dollars on one U.S. troop in Afghanistan for a year, or we could create seventeen green jobs directed towards building a sustainable, clean economy. We have real choices to make.

Diane: Congresswoman, thank you for taking the time to answer these questions, and as always thank you for the work you do.

Rep. Lee: Thank you. I look forward to continuing to work towards a better society with you and FCNL.