Congress appears ready to tackle presidential war powers after years of yielding to the executive branch.
Lawmakers on both sides have said it’s time to examine the extent of the president’s power and three previous authorizations for the use of military force, according to The Hill.
The issue is a messy one for some members in both major parties. Hawkish Republicans who disagree with President Joe Biden’s policies are leery of restricting presidential authority in terms of military use.
Other members want Congress to reassert itself on foreign policy.
“I think we’re overdue,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said. “We are so far past the scope of what any member serving in ’01 or ’02 imagined.
“I think it’s important that we take this up, debate it, and pass something.”
The three previous authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) being examined are:
- The 1991 measure for the Gulf War.
- The 2001 bill passed days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
- The 2002 legislation passed for the Iraq War.
Lawmakers say the biggest challenge will be how to handle the 2001 authorization, approved by Congress just days after Sept. 11, 2001, to go after groups responsible for the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.
That authorization since has been expanded to cover military operations in 19 countries and against groups that didn’t even exist on 9/11.
“What the replacement looks like, what are the contours of it, that’s going to be the tricky part of that and the more difficult part,” said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., said the 2001 AUMF should be “rewritten,” but that it would be hard to do.
“The administration seems open to revisiting some of these things, but admittedly the ’01 AUMF is going to be much more challenging than ditching the ’02 and the ’91,” Young said.
Proponents of making changes have been encouraged by the Biden administration appearing to be open to revamping the military authorizations.
In a statement, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the administration was “committed to working with Congress to ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework.”
Menendez and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said they were in early discussions with administration officials about rewriting the 2001 authorization.
Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said the 2001 authorization has been “misused” and no longer was “functional.”
“You’re going to have to get the president to take on White House counsel to do what’s right because White House counsel will tell a president, ‘Why do you want to limit your options?'” said Cardin, who added there would be “significant Republican opposition,” but that he thought there could be support for a “reasonable” authorization.
“I think we’re now so many years into this war [on terror] that the American public, I think, is reflecting a view that’s having an impact on the traditional views of some of the members of the Senate,” he said.
However, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told The Washington Post he thought the debate about previous authorizations could “incentivize the rise of terrorism.”
Progressive lawmakers would love to see the 2001 AUMF expire unless Congress acted to extend it, and they want stricter guidelines on how the military could be used.
Democrats in support of changing the AUMFs hope they’ll be able to pick up at least 10 GOP votes in the Senate on a 2001 rewrite.
The 1991 and 2002 AUMFs seemed less problematic.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted late last week to repeal the 2002 authorization, with two Republicans joining with Democrats on the panel.
A bipartisan Senate group introduced legislation to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations. Menendez indicated he intended to take them up “sooner rather than later,” but declined to give a specific timeline.
Source: Newmax
