WASHINGTON — Congress next week will begin scrutinizing a White House war powers measure, a process senior members say largely will focus on three contentious issues.
The Obama administration last week sent a draft authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to Capitol Hill that would place limits on US ground forces, allow the executive branch to go after the Islamic State anywhere it deems necessary and limit US operations to three years. It also would sunset the 2002 AUMF for the Iraq war, while leaving a post-9/11 authorization on the books.
Each of those issues has a distinct set of proponents and critics on Capitol Hill, where both chambers eventually would have to approve the same version of an Islamic State AUMF.
But a series of interviews with senators involved in previous AUMF processes and who will play a role in this one show the coming debate will mostly be about whether or not to put limits on American ground troops and the president, the White House's strategy, and what to do about the old authorization measures.
The legislation proposed by the White House would "not authorize the use of the United States armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations."
In an accompanying letter to lawmakers, President Barack Obama stated his draft AUMF "would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations," Obama wrote, adding his version proposes "the flexibility" for US ground forces to do "limited" missions.
In an interview before the Presidents Day recess, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., called that language "the singular issue" that lawmakers must examine.
"The definition of what that is is problematic," he told CongressWatch.
There is no consensus among lawmakers about what constitutes an "enduring offensive ground combat operation," nor whether an AUMF should limit a president's constitutional authority to launch one, nor about who would determine when that threshold has been reached.
Menendez also highlighted lingering questions about what to do with the the September 2001 AUMF, something about which Democrats are concerned.
"And, for many members, the 2001 [AUMF]. Not dealing with that, or sunsetting it at some time is a problem," he said.
Those concerns must be addressed in the coming weeks and months. That's because it will take 60 votes to pass the Senate, where some GOP opposition is likely, meaning at least a handful of Democratic votes would be necessary on the floor.
For Republican members, crafting an authorization that does not, as many put it, "tie the hands" of the president — and the next president — and the military will be key.
But after they had analyzed what Obama submitted for a few days, senior Republicans told CongressWatch they want to hear how the White House's Islamic State war strategy aligns with what its draft legislation would authorize.
"I think there are concerns about 'OKOkay, what are the plausible ways forward'?" Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in an interview. "Sending it over is the first step. We'll have hearings when we get back and discern that. … We'll let the process work."
GOP members are questioning whether the administration's Islamic State strategy meshes with its "degrade and destroy" rhetoric.
For the latest national security news from Capitol Hill, go to CongressWatch
"The bigger part of all of this truly is going to be the developing and understanding of how they really plan to go forward," Corker said. "I think that's one of the things that slowed them sending something over.
"They haven't been able to articulate how we're going to be successful, especially in Syria. I look forward to that," he added.
Republican members, joined by a growing list of Democrats, "have to have a degree of confidence that the president is going to conduct the operations in a way that fits the stated outcome," Corker said. "That's the next phase in this. It's very important … that we have that level of confidence."
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a member of the Armed Services and Judiciary committees, said members will demand to hear from administration officials about their strategy.
"The challenge is for the president to lay out a strategy that we can buy into and that the American people can support. But the first thing is to know what it is," Sessions said. "That, to me, is the difficult problem."
email: jbennett@defensenews.com
Twitter:@bennettjohnt
