House appropriators vote to repeal 9/11 war-making power

It was a victory for Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who offered the amendment to the Defense Department spending bill to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, and set a deadline for Congress to debate and pass new legislation setting limits on U.S. military operations overseas.

Her bill appeared on track to fail on a typical party-line vote during a markup of the fiscal 2018 defense appropriations bill, as a top Republican countered that the bill “cripples our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations” to protect the country. But the measure was rescued by several Republicans who broke ranks in the course of the debate, and the language was approved in a voice vote.

It will have to be approved by the Senate and signed into law before it takes effect. Still, the vote is a signal that Congress may be ready to stop using the old 9/11 authority to justify military action nearly two decades later.

It’s an important signal because President Trump is relying on the 2001 AUMF to provide a legal basis for the fight against the Islamic State.

Lee herself seemed surprised that the measure was passed.

“Whoa,” she tweeted. “My amdt to sunset 2001 AUMF was adopted in DOD Approps markup!” she tweeted.

But she had support from Republicans like Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who said new authority is needed to fight new threats.

“We are at war against and enemy that did not exist in a place we did not expect to fight, so how an AUMF that was passed 16 years ago, before I was in Congress, could possibly be stretched to cover this is just beyond belief to me,” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said in support of Lee’s bill.

Lawmakers have tried and failed over the past few years to write a new AUMF that covered the Islamic State. The current fight is covered under the original AUMF, which was specifically written for al Qaeda. ISIS began as an offshoot of the terror group before al Qaeda disavowed ISIS, prompting lawmakers to question how the U.S. can deploy troops to Iraq and Syria to aid locals in fighting the group without an authorization.

Attempts to write a new ISIS-specific AUMF under former President Barack Obama failed on both sides. Some versions gave the president too much authority and others gave him too little.

Lee’s language would have the 2001 authority expire in 240 days, and it wasn’t immediately clear if Congress was up to the task of writing a new AUMF in that span of time, given past difficulties.

“I know that while we may not share a common position on the replacement of the [2001 bill authorizing the invasion of Afghanistan], but many of us do agree that it’s overly broad and this authority is a major and concerning deterioration, really, of congressional oversight and war-making authority,” Lee said during the debate.

Cole’s declaration surprised colleagues, but he wasn’t the only Republican to break ranks.

“As I listen to you, I feel like my world is rocked because I see these two [Lee and Cole], who have very different opinions, and yet I agree with you,” said Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, a former Air Force pilot. “[Members of the military] notice that Congress doesn’t have the courage to have this debate. I support the intent of the amendment, I hope Congress will have the courage to have this debate.”

Rep. Scott Taylor, a Virginia Republican and former Navy Seal, echoed Stewart and Cole’s comments. And that was enough to sway even members of Lee’s party who opposed her idea at the beginning of the day.

“I came in this morning, I was going to vote no, but we’re debating right now and when two respected members of the military stand up and make a comment, I’m listening,” said Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md.

By the end of the debate, Lee’s amendment passed on a voice vote, and no one dissented. “In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it,” Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-Ky.