{"id":18348,"date":"2018-05-16T20:09:39","date_gmt":"2018-05-16T20:09:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2018\/05\/16\/broad-new-war-authorization-roiling-us-lawmakers\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T21:43:01","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T21:43:01","slug":"broad-new-war-authorization-roiling-us-lawmakers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/congress\/2018\/05\/16\/broad-new-war-authorization-roiling-us-lawmakers\/","title":{"rendered":"Broad new war authorization roils US lawmakers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker<\/a>, R-Tenn., said he wants to reach consensus on his expansive new war authorization<\/a> before putting it to a vote, but that consensus seemed far away Wednesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The panel\u2019s hearing on the measure, a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine<\/a>, D-Va., saw marked ideological splits among the panel\u2019s Democrats and Republicans, highlighting the challenge of replacing the post-9\/11 authorization for use of military force (AUMF). Those authorizations are widely considered stretched beyond their original intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some lawmakers are objecting because the bill would not expire or limit the military\u2019s expansion of counter-terrorism operations into new countries or against new groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the AUMF would not authorize attacks against nation-states, it would explicitly permit continued operations against al-Qaida, the Taliban, the Islamic State and \u201cassociate forces\u201d \u2014 offshoots like al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula<\/a>, al-Shabab<\/a>, the Haqqani Network<\/a> and other groups the president designates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bill\u2019s supporters say they sought to find the sweet spot between congressional oversight and micromanaging the president, acknowledging that balance had to be tilted to favor the Republican majorities in Congress.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While imperfect, the bill would \u201cclaw back some of the authority that rightly belongs to this institution,\u201d said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe\u2019re trying to give Congress more of a role, recognizing that we need 60 votes to pass something,\u201d Flake said. \u201cIt\u2019s fine and nice to talk about what\u2019s optimal and what we should have. We deal here in what we can pass.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, stiff headwinds for the measure were on full display Wednesday, as Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez, of New Jersey; Ben Cardin, of Maryland, and Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, said the bill\u2019s lack of a sunset was a no-go. (Democratic panelists Chris Coons and Bill Nelson support the bill.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cardin said he was reluctant to codify successive presidents\u2019 over-broad interpretations of the post-9\/11 authorization or legal language a president could find ways to skirt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI don\u2019t know of any way other than a sunset in order to preserve the rights of our constitutional protections,\u201d Cardin said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the left, Merkley on Wednesday announced<\/a> his work on an alternative measure that would more tightly constrain the White House. It would include a three-year sunset provision and require explicit congressional approval to use ground troops.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the right, libertarian Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., opposed the proposed AUMF as a blank check for unlimited war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe have completely flipped the Constitution on its head,\u201d Paul said. \u201cThe Constitution says the role is ours by a simple majority vote. Now we\u2019re saying \u2026 we can disapprove of it by a two-thirds vote. I cannot more strongly object to doing this.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corker, earlier in the hearing, defended the requirement for a supermajority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf the president decides he wants to go into Yemen and some other place, it takes a supermajority to stop him today. If you took up a bill to stop [the president from engaging in military action], the president would veto it, and it would take a supermajority to override it,\u201d Corker said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He suggested Republicans in control of Congress will not favor a bill with a sunset provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s clear today that an AUMF will not become law if it contains a sunset provision. [That\u2019s] just the balance of power here within Congress,\u201d Corker said. \u201cThat is not going to happen, that is not a reality.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t