WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ranking Member of U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism, delivered remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the recently-filed Republican Authorization for the Use of Military Force in the war against ISIS. Murphy argued that the resolution is deeply flawed and that Congress needs to reclaim its war making authority to authorize war against ISIS. 

Excerpts of Murphy’s remarks are below:

“Today I want to come down to the floor and speak very briefly about a resolution that the Majority Leader introduced, I believe, earlier today. This is an authorization for military force resolution that apparently purports to give the president legal authority to conduct military operations against ISIS. Before we break for the weekend, Madam President, I thought it was important to come to the floor to explain what this resolution really is.”

“This resolution is a total rewrite of the war powers clause of the United States constitution. Let’s be clear about that – it is essentially a declaration of international martial law, a sweeping transfer of military power to the president that will allow him or her to send U.S. troops almost anywhere in the world for almost any reason with absolutely no limitations.”

“Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the constitution – it vests in Congress the responsibility to declare war. Many of us on both sides of the aisle have been arguing for over a year that the president, right now, has exceeded his constitutional authority in continuing military operations against ISIS without specific authorization from Congress. Now, I’ve been amongst those that have been calling on this body to debate an authorization of military force. So, in that sense, I’m glad that the introduction of this resolution may allow us to have a debate here on the Senate floor about the right way to authorize war against our sworn enemy, ISIS – a terrorist organization that deserves to be degraded and defeated, wiped off the map of this earth.”

“So, Madam President, while the ink is still wet on this resolution – so I won't endeavor to go into any detailed analysis of it – it’s safe to say that this resolution is the wrong way to authorize war against ISIS. The language of this resolution is dangerous and it is unprecedented. The American people want Congress to authorize war against ISIS, but they also want us to make sure that we don't send hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers back into the Middle East to fight a war that has to be won, first and foremost, with regional partners, and they certainly don't want Congress to hand over the power to the president to send our troops into any country, anywhere in the world, for almost any reason.”

“And that's what this resolution would do. It doesn't give the power to the president to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. It gives the power to the president without consulting Congress to deploy U.S. forces in any one of the 60-plus countries where ISIS has a single sympathizer. And, even worse, the language doesn't even require ISIS to be present in a country for the president to invade. All that is necessary for the president to be able to argue with a straight face is that the threat of ISIS was present.”

“Well, as we've seen here in the United States, the threat of ISIS is present in virtually every corner of the world. Thus, this resolution would give the president total, absolute, carte blanche to send our soldiers to any corner of the world, without consulting Congress.”

“And on the campaign trail today, several of the candidates for president talk with such irresponsible bravado about throwing around America’s military might. The likely republican nominee as we sit here today shows a blissful ignorance about U.S. military law and basic foreign policy that is truly frightening. So given recent history and given the current rhetoric on the presidential campaign trail today, why would we give the president such open-ended sweeping authority ever again? And why would we even contemplate a resolution like this one that makes the 9/11 and Iraq war resolutions seem like exercises in thoughtful restraint? Why would we make the mistake of the Iraq war resolution again, especially when there is an alternative?”

“Mr. President, I know that we will likely have time to debate the question of how you properly authorize war against ISIS later. But in September – excuse me – in December of 2014, the Foreign Relations Committee did vote out an AUMF that gave the president all the power that he needed to fight ISIS while making sure that he had to come back to Congress if he wanted to dramatically expand the current conflict to other countries or to put hundreds of thousands of American troops into a new war in the Middle East. It’s the only AUMF that has gotten a favorable vote by the Senate and it’s a template how we can authorize a war that isn't totally and completely open-ended.”

“A lot of us have argued for us to take up a debate on the AUMF because we believe that over the last 15 years, over the course of the war on terror, Congress has basically abdicated its responsibility to be the voice of the people on the conduct of foreign policy. Many of us think that a smart AUMF would get Congress back in the game when it comes to our constitutional responsibility to decide when and where our brave troops are sent into battle.”

“But this resolution, as it's currently written, would do exactly the opposite. It would permanently hand over war-making power to the president, and Congress would never get it back. It would allow this president and the next president to send our troops almost anywhere in the world for virtually any justifiable reason with no ability of the people's branch of the federal government – this Congress – to step in and have our say.”