37 military operations in 14 countries have been carried out under the authorization for preventing another 9/11 GovTrack.us Follow Sep 22, 2016 · 3 min read

Three days after September 11, 2001, one of the first things Congress did upon its return was pass an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) “against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” The measure passed 98–0 in the Senate and 420–1 in the House.

Who was the lone dissenter in the House? Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA13).

Lee is still serving in the House and — far from regretting her 2001 vote — has introduced H.R. 1303, Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, in the current Congress. It would repeal that 2001 AUMF, which is still in effect to this day. And the idea has garnered significantly more support now than it did during its origin when it commanded near-unanimous support.

History and context

The original AUMF passed on September 14, 2001, on the same day in both the Senate and House, with virtually no debate. Capitol Hill had just been evacuated. Congress’s usual slow and deliberative nature went out the window. In the face of vitriolic opposition including death threats — Lee cast the lone vote against the measure.

In a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed column at the time, Lee wrote that although she believed “All appropriate steps must be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice,” she also warned that, “It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit… I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.”

In the view of Lee and many others, her worst fears indeed come to pass. The AUMF has been used to justify at least 37 U.S. military operations in 14 countries since its original passage. That includes 18 uses under President George W. Bush and 19 uses (and counting) under President Obama.

Many of these have come under fire as being unrelated to attacking those responsible for 9/11, not to mention unnecessarily costly in both dollars and lives. In other words, many of these missions may not have been approved by Congress if they were proposed individually, but have been “authorized” by Congress back in 2001 through their never-ending AUMF from that time.

What supporters say

Supporters argue that a full repeal is necessary to lessen the cost to the American military in money and blood, and that it would strengthen Congress’ oversight role.

“[The 2001 AUMF] has been used to justify warrantless surveillance and wiretapping activities, indefinite detention practices that fly in the face of our constitutional values, extrajudicial targeted-killing operations, and a policy of borderless and open-ended war that threatens to indefinitely extend U.S. military engagement around the world. It is time for Congress to reexamine, and ultimately repeal this flawed authorization,” Lee said in a press release unveiling a previous iteration of the bill. “The alternative, to concede Congress’s constitutional responsibilities and blindly accept the persistence of war without end, is unacceptable.”

What opponents say

Opponents argue the bill would hamstring the Commander-in-Chief and the U.S. military, and that with ever-growing terrorist and national security threats around the globe the original AUMF still represents a necessarily broad green light to confront what can at times be murky or nebulous threats.

“ISIS grew out of al Qaeda in Iraq, the president has determined that the 2001 AUMF allows the United States to target ISIS, both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs agree that they have full legal authority to combat ISIS and Congress has supported that view by appropriating funds,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA39) told the Los Angeles Times.

Recent history and odds of passage

The bill was introduced in March 2015. An attempt in May to pass the substance of the bill through an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which funds U.S. defense, received 138 votes. That fell short of passage, with less support than a similar amendment to the 2013 NDAA had, which received 157 votes. Support for the proposal has seemingly gone down from the previous Congress to the current one.

Previous versions introduced by Lee had steadily increased in co-sponsorship with every iteration, signaling growing support for a time. In 2010 it attracted 11 cosponsors, in 2011 it increased to 18 cosponsors, and in 2013 it increased again to 33 cosponsors.

This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.