WASHINGTON — Efforts to legally authorize US military operations against the Islamic State appear stalled in the House just two months after the White House submitted a draft measure.
The Obama administration in mid-February sent an authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) to lawmakers that would prohibit American ground forces from participating in “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” It would also require another congressional vote in three years.
Since then, most of the action has been in the Senate, where the Foreign Relations Committee has heard from Pentagon and State Department leaders.
That panel’s chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., says he and other senators are still trying to glean from Obama administration officials just how their Islamic State strategy meshes with the controversial draft AUMF they sent to Congress. Corker has yet to set a date to mark up the White House’s version or an entirely new authorization measure, a spokeswoman said.
But last week, he told CongressWatch the panel is in a “solid go-ahead” mode to move a new AUMF and a bill requiring Congress to approve a and deal over Iran’s nuclear program.
But in the House, other than a few public hearings, lawmakers and sources see little evidence of any progress on an Islamic State-authorization measure, despite Speaker Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, stating publicly he wants to put an AUMF on the floor for a vote this spring and bipartisan support.
“We haven’t heard much to indicate that this is moving,” said one House Democratic aide involved in national security matters.
“I’m not picking up on any momentum in the House,” said Roger Zakheim, a former senior House Armed Services Committee counsel who has ties to key congressional offices. “It really appears the president’s proposal is dead.”
“But the question remains whether Congress will put forth their own proposal,” said Zakheim, who has discussed the issue with House aides through his work as a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “My own view is that the conflicting priorities that essentially sunk the president’s proposal will pose similar challenges for whatever Congress might come up with.”
One issue is what kinds of restrictions to include on what US ground forces would be permitted to do operationally in Iraq — and beyond, he said. Another is whether the measure should eventually expire, requiring another congressional vote to extend it.
Democrats support both, but Republicans are leery — especially of slapping restrictions on US troops.
“By putting that forward without restrictions, you’re not going to be able to get bipartisan support,” Zakheim said, adding he believes House and Senate leaders have yet to bring a new AUMF to the floor because they lack “the bipartisan votes needed to proceed [the measure] to the president’s desk.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, told reporters on March 16 that “not a lot of people” in the House “think the president’s proposal makes much sense.”
So lawmakers are “asking is there a proposal that could pass,” Thornberry said. “Members are turning their minds toward that.”
The lower chamber’s Foreign Affairs Committee has jurisdiction over force-authorization measures. That means it would be charged with crafting, marking up and sending to the full House a revised version of the White House’s drafts or a totally new version.
In a statement prepared for CongressWatch, Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., said his panel “will examine the [White House] proposal in-depth.”
“The administration has a lot of questions to answer,” Royce said, echoing Corker and a list of lawmakers from both parties. “Thus far, this bipartisan examination has included a number of hearings and briefings. The committee is planning to hear from the secretary of state and secretary of defense about the proposal this month.”
Following that testimony and the committee’s “review,” Royce said “we’ll look at next steps.”
But some House members say Royce is moving too slowly.
One is Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Schiff is one of the few members to unveil his own Islamic State AUMF. His version answers calls from many congressional Democrats by going further than the White House on the thorny ground forces issue. Schiff’s measure proposes language prohibiting the use of US ground forces for any combat missions in Iraq and Syria.
“For months, many members of Congress clamored for President [Barack] Obama to take the first step and send a draft AUMF up to the Hill — despite the fact that it is Congress’ responsibility to declare war under the Constitution,” Schiff said in a statement prepared for CongressWatch. “And now that the President Obama has, weeks ago, the Foreign Affairs [and Relations] committees … have still failed to take up a bill.
Schiff is calling for both chambers to take up “an AUMF — any AUMF — that can be brought to the floor, debated, amended and voted on.
“The Congress should work its will and determine what form of authorization has the votes for passage,” he said. “After eight months of unauthorized war, there is no excuse for further delay; our troops are doing their duty, it’s time for Congress to do the same.”
As the House and Senate committees searching for a way to overcome the ground forces restrictions and expiration issues that have stalled the Obama proposal, Zakheim doubts either panel will send a measure to the floor. But he believes there is another way a new AUMF could still get a vote in one or both chambers.
“The bottom line is I think the president’s proposal fizzles,” he said. “Someone could try and take this up on the House floor as an amendment to the defense authorization act. That’s certainly a possibility.”
Email: jbennett@defensenews.com
Twitter: @BennettJohnT
