Murphy: When It Comes to Putting American Troops in Harm's Way, We Owe It to Our Voters to Make Sure AUMFs Aren't Expanded Beyond Their Initial Scope

WASHINGTON-U.S Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,on Thursday spoke on the U.S. Senate floor ahead of voting in support of Senator Mike Lee's (R-Utah) amendment to sunset all future authorizations for use of military force after two years, which is included in Murphy and Lee's National Security Powers Act. Murphy highlighted the importance of Congress reclaiming its role as a co-equal branch on matters of war and national security.

"I'm going to support Senator Lee's amendment, [in] part because I've introduced legislation to do the same thing alongside him, but because I think it's time that we started putting this Congress in the position to flex that muscle that is given to us in Article I, which is to be co-determinants of American foreign policy alongside the executive branch. Notwithstanding the good work of Senator Menendez and Senator Kaine, we have over the course of the last several decades completely outsourced that responsibility to set the national security of this policy to an executive branch, and a national security apparatus inside the executive branch, that has become bigger than the Founding Fathers' wildest dreams," said Murphy.

Murphy continued: "Senator Lee's amendment says this, if you're going to pass an authorization of military force, every Congress you have to come back and debate that authorization of military force. When you're talking about our most sacred responsibility, putting the men and women who protect us in harm's way, I think we owe it to them, I think we owe it to our voters, to make sure that those authorizations of military force are not being expanded or perverted beyond their initial scope."

On the expansion and misuse of the 2001 AUMF over the past two decades, Murphy said:"The 2001 AUMF, which everybody at the time knew was about fighting al Qaeda, and those that harbored al Qaeda, which at the time was a fight in Afghanistan, has been used to justify airstrikes operation and support for counterterrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Cuba, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Kenya, Kosovo, Jordan, Lebanon, Niger, Nigeria, Philippines, and Turkey. I don't think anybody who voted for the 2001 AUMF believed at the time that it was an authorization for military force and counterterrorism operations in that many countries, and if we were required to come back and have the debate on the 2001 AUMF, or other AUMFs, we would be able to check with our public, to check with the people we represent, and see if they still believe it is necessary to send American forces that far and wide. Maybe some of the most disastrous military engagements of our history, like the war in Iraq, would have come to an earlier close had this Congress been required to debate those measures on a regular basis instead of just allowing those AUMFs to persist."

Murphy concluded:"We should repeal and rewrite the 2001 AUMF. It is way too broad and cuts Congress out of some of the most important decisions about where our troops fight. That's a complicated endeavor, but I know Senator Menendez is committed to it, I know there are many Republican colleagues committed to it. But I think history has shown that without a forcing mechanism, it's unlikely that Congress is going to make those very difficult decisions, which is why a sunset on AUMFs is a worthy idea of consideration."

Last Congress, Murphy introduced the National Security Powers Act, bipartisan legislation to reclaim Congress's critical role in national security matters. The legislation specifically safeguards congressional prerogatives in the use of military force, emergency powers and arms exports. In each of these cases, the president is required to consult congressional leaders and obtain congressional authorization before exercising the powers in question. Any congressional authorization will have to meet specific requirements, including an automatic sunset. Under the National Security Powers Act, any activities lacking such authorization will face an automatic funding cutoff after a specified number of days. You can read more about the bill here.

A full transcript of his remarks can be found below:

"Mr. President, later today we are going to vote on an amendment offered by my colleague Senator Lee, and this is a really important amendment. This is a really important debate for us to have: The question of how long authorizations of military force should last. We are able to have this amendment vote because of the great work that Senator Kaine and Senator Menendez have done to bring to an end authorizations of military force that have been on the books for decades. Authorizations of military force that most Americans didn't even know existed.

"So first, I'm grateful to my colleagues and to Senator Young as well for having brought us to this moment where we can make the collective decision, Republicans and Democrats, to take off of the books these expired authorizations of military force that are dangerous so long as they allow a President of the United States to pervert the original meaning of the authorization of force, to go to war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, for other means and mechanisms.

"I think this is really important, both spiritually to show that Congress is still in the game of setting foreign policy alongside the executive branch, but practically because we have seen these authorizations occasionally be sort of picked up, unearthed from the grave, and used to justify military action that can't find a justification in Article II power, or in other AUMFs, and so I couldn't be more supportive of the underlying measure.

"But Senator Lee is asking us to look prospectively and to take a step to not repeat the mistakes of the past. His amendment would suggest that every future authorization of military force, and we've passed very few of them on this floor, would be limited to two years.

"Full disclosure, I've introduced that legislation with Senator Lee. It's part of a broader piece of legislation that he and I have introduced to reform the War Powers Act, to reform our arm sales processes, and to reform the President's emergency powers to try to right size the balance of authority between an outsized executive branch and I think an underwhelming legislative authority.

"I think Senator Lee's amendment is a good idea. The only reason I wouldn't support it is if it jeopardizes the underlying bill. But if it doesn't, then I'm going to support Senator Lee's amendment, [in] part because I've introduced legislation to do the same thing alongside him, but because I think it's time that we started putting this Congress in the position to flex that muscle that is given to us in Article I, which is to be co-determinants of American foreign policy alongside the executive branch. Notwithstanding the good work of Senator Menendez and Senator Kaine, we have over the course of the last several decades completely outsourced that responsibility to set the national security of this policy to an executive branch, and a national security apparatus inside the executive branch that has become bigger than the Founding Fathers' wildest dreams.

"There's a wonderful book by Walter Isaacson, called "The Wise Men," that's about the individuals who set up the post-World War II order, but it's also an interesting examination of how things used to be when Congress was doing its job, regularly passing legislation setting the parameters of American foreign policy.

"One of the most extraordinary stories that's told in "The Wise Men," is the story of Robert Lovett, who at the time, I believe, was the Deputy Secretary, or an Undersecretary of the Department of Defense. He eventually went on to become Secretary of Defense, and on a regular basis, I believe it was multiple times a week, Robert Lovett on his way home from work, would stop and have a drink or dinner with Arthur Vandenberg, the then-Senate Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Every single week, multiple times, the administration would send one of their most important policymakers to sit down with the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to work together on setting American national security policy in the wake of World War II.

"Senator Menendez is a very powerful Chairman, but I don't think he gets that kind of deference from the administration. Because the administration knows that they can make national security policy largely without or around the United States Congress because we have made a collective decision to outsource that responsibility. Now that has become convenient in a world in which our enemies are a lot harder to define. They're shadowy, they're defuse, they change names in an era where victory is just as hard to define. We don't have peace treaties any longer with our enemies, or non-state actor enemies at the very least. So we've been content to just let the administration decide who we fight, when we fight them. We've let the Department of Defense get so big that we can barely track what they do. We don't even demand much information from them.

"I learned last week that the Department of Defense sees very little responsibility to engage members of Congress when it comes to briefing us on contract award decisions, despite the statute mandating that Congress receive information when requested. There's just an imbalance of power, and it's created by our decision to only have debates on national security policy every long, random, infrequent, once in a while.

"Senator Lee's amendment says this: If you're going to pass an authorization of military force, every Congress you have to come back and debate that authorization of military force. When you're talking about our most sacred responsibility, putting the men and women who protect us in harm's way, I think we owe it to them, I think we owe it to our voters to make sure that those authorizations of military force are not being expanded or perverted beyond their initial scope.

"The 2001 AUMF is still on the books. It's important because it's our sole authorization of military force against extremist groups. And let me tell you, I cover the Middle East on the Foreign Relations Committee, there are still groups there that are thinking about plotting attacks against the United States. We need to chase them, we need to keep them on the run. But the 2001 AUMF has a scope and a size today that would be shocking to most Americans.

"The 2001 AUMF, which everybody at the time knew was about fighting al Qaeda and those that harbored al Qaeda, which at the time was a fight in Afghanistan, has been used to justify airstrikes operation and support for counterterrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Cuba, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Kenya, Kosovo, Jordan, Lebanon, Niger, Nigeria, Philippines, and Turkey.

"I don't think anybody who voted for the 2001 AUMF believed at the time that it was an authorization for military force and counterterrorism operations in that many countries, and if we were required to come back and have the debate on the 2001 AUMF, or other AUMFs, we would be able to check with our public, to check with the people we represent, and see if they still believe it is necessary to send American forces that far and wide. Maybe some of the most disastrous military engagements of our history, like the war in Iraq, would have come to an earlier close had this Congress been required to debate those measures on a regular basis instead of just allowing those AUMFs to persist.

"And so I come to the floor to frankly thank Senator Lee for bringing this piece of our bigger bill before the Senate. I'm going to certainly consider voting for it. I want to make sure that it doesn't compromise the underlying legislation; these amendments are moving fast. But my last hope for our body is this: that this isn't the last time that we have a debate on this floor about the scope of American military operations abroad.

"We should repeal and rewrite the 2001 AUMF. It is way too broad and cuts Congress out of some of the most important decisions about where our troops fight. That's a complicated endeavor, but I know Senator Menendez is committed to it. I know there are many Republican colleagues committed to it. But I think history has shown that without a forcing mechanism, it's unlikely that Congress is going to make those very difficult decisions, which is why a sunset on AUMFs is a worthy idea for consideration.

"I yield the floor."

###

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.