WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism, U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday held a press conference to discuss sweeping, bipartisan legislation to overhaul Congress’s role in national security. The National Security Powers Act 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.
“Why did the Founding Fathers give Congress, and not the executive branch, the power to declare war? Because there's nothing more serious than sending our soldiers, our troops, our brave men and women into battle at risk of death. And our Founding Fathers knew that that was a question that needed to be debated throughout the entire country by the American public, not a decision that should be made by one person,” Murphy said.
Murphy continued: “Over the years, the president of the United States has been able to begin wars without coming to Congress. Today, we have combat troops in over a half dozen countries all around the world without having had any debate on the floor of the United States Congress. That's incredibly dangerous, and it's time that we start trusting the national security instincts of the American public.”
Murphy concluded: “[Our legislation] will mean a greater workload for the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, but this country will be better off from more public debates on the way in which this nation engages in war, the way in which this nation exports wars, and the emergency powers that are housed in the executive branch. It means that the American public will have a much greater say in some of the most consequential decisions that are made by Washington. And I think if that happens, some of the biggest mistakes that have been made by the executive branch in committing United States Armed Forces to fights overseas that didn't end up being in the security interests of this country will be less likely to occur.”
On Tuesday, Murphy authored an op-ed in War on the Rocks making the case that U.S. national security is stronger when Congress is involved and outlining his new legislation that would get Congress back to the table.
The National Security Powers Act is supported by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), the Center for International Policy, Common Defense, Concerned Veterans for America, Demand Progress, Foreign Policy for America, Freedom Works, Friends Committee on National Legislation, International Crisis Group, Indivisible, Niskanen Center, Open Society Policy Center, Oxfam America, Project on Government Oversight, Protect Democracy, Public Citizen, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, R Street Institute, VoteVets and Win Without War.
A full transcript of Murphy’s remarks can be found below:
“I am very glad to be joined here today by Senators Lee and Sanders to introduce a bipartisan, sweeping reform of the executive branch’s national security powers. Over the last several decades, there has been a very dangerous shift in national security powers and war making powers from the legislative branch to the executive branch. This shift in national security power to the president has resulted in endless wars, reckless levels of arms sales and national emergencies that seem to have no termination. The Founders were very clear that they wanted the executive branch and the legislative branch to share powers when it came to protecting this country. And to the extent that they believed that one branch versus the other should have supremacy, I think you just need to read the Constitution itself. Article I comes before Article II and in Article I is a fairly exhaustive list of national security powers that the founders grant to Congress--chief amongst those is the power to make war.
“Why did the Founding Fathers give Congress, and not the executive branch, the power to declare war? Because there's nothing more serious than sending our soldiers, our troops, our brave men and women into battle at risk of death. And our Founding Fathers knew that that was a question that needed to be debated throughout the entire country by the American public, not a decision that should be made by one person.
"Over the years, the president of the United States has been able to begin wars without coming to Congress. Today, we have combat troops in over a half dozen countries all around the world without having had any debate on the floor of the United States Congress. That's incredibly dangerous, and it's time that we start trusting the national security instincts of the American public.
"I remember back when President Obama came to Congress asking for authorization to bomb Syria. People said it was foolish because it's so hard to get an authorization of military force from the Congress, the President should just do it on his own. Well if it's difficult to get the Congress to pass a war authorization, if it's difficult to get the Congress to authorize an arms sale, if it's difficult to get the Congress to declare a national emergency-- that's probably for good reason. It is likely because the American public is deeply skeptical of vast national emergency powers and increasing levels of arms sales and the commitment of our troops overseas. We should trust the national security instincts of the American people, which often involve a much higher degree of skepticism about the ability of the U.S. armed forces to change political realities overseas than is housed in the national security consensus here in Washington.
"So I will let Senators Sanders and Lee talk about their perspectives, but before I hand the microphone over to Senator Lee, let me just quickly talk about three major provisions in this bill. I'll talk about two and then actually Senator Lee, who’s really the primary author of the National Emergency Powers section, can talk about that section.
“When it comes to war-making we shorten the clock. [The] president right now has 60 days to come back to Congress after beginning hostilities, we shorten that time for him to 20 days. But more importantly, we flip the script when it comes to how these hostilities begin and end. Right now, Congress essentially has to proactively withdraw funds from a conflict if the president begins it without an authorization from Congress. This legislation would automatically cease funding for hostilities overseas if the President is engaged in those hostilities without an authorization from Congress.
"On arms sales, again, this legislation flips the script. Right now the only way Congress can block an arms sale is to pass a resolution through the House and the Senate, and then survive a veto from the President. This legislation requires Congress to proactively vote on large-scale arms deals and those deals cannot go forward without the consent of Congress.
"Now, will this increase the workload of Congress on national security matters? It will, but I think our Founding Fathers expected that Congress was going to spend a great deal of time protecting this country, and making sure that our nation didn't get involved in unnecessary foreign entanglements.
"So yes, it will mean a greater workload for the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, but this country will be better off from more public debates on the way in which this nation engages in war, the way in which this nation exports wars, and the emergency powers that are housed in the executive branch. It means that the American public will have a much greater say in some of the most consequential decisions that are made by Washington. And I think if that happens, some of the biggest mistakes that have been made by the executive branch in committing United States Armed Forces to fights overseas that didn't end up being in the security interests of this country will be less likely to occur.”
###
