As House members begin a new round of talks on Thursday to formally authorize the war campaign against the Islamic State that has stretched on for almost a year and a half, differences of opinion remain among lawmakers on the use of U.S. combat troops.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold its first listening session to give Republican members a chance to say what they’d like to see in an Islamic State-specific war authorization.
“I’m looking forward to continuing our discussions,” Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce, D-Calif., said in a statement. “As I’ve said before, if we can get an AUMF [authorization for the use of military force] done that ensures our commanders have the flexibility they need to defeat ISIS, I want to move it.”
After Thursday afternoon’s listening session, Republican members of the committee will also have chances to voice their opinions Jan. 11 at 2 p.m. and Jan. 12 at 10 a.m. A committee aide said listening sessions at the conference level are likely the next step.
But opinions on what should and shouldn’t be covered by a new war authorization differ. Several versions have been floating around Capitol Hill for the past several months.
Many plans share similarities, suggesting there is some common ground on which lawmakers can work. Some of the recent plans circulated on Capitol Hill last for three years, get rid of at least one of the former war authorizations under which current operations are legalized and don’t put geographical restrictions on where the U.S. can strike.
The plan Obama sent to Capitol Hill in February has similar characteristics. The president’s proposal would also last three years with no geographical limits and repeal the 2002 AUMF that covers operations in Iraq.
The largest sticking point is putting American troops into ground combat. The president’s proposal prohibits “enduring offensive ground operations,” a phrase Democrats opposed because it meant a small number of U.S. troops could be back in combat and Republicans disagreed with because many felt it needlessly tied the president’s hands.
Two proposals introduced last month deal with ground troops in different ways.
A plan circulated by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., would authorize force but allow any member of Congress to immediately call for a debate and potential repeal of the war authorization if the administration deployed American ground troops to fight the Islamic State. Schiff, also the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has been heavily involved in the push to vote on a new war authorization, introducing his first proposal in September 2014.
On the Senate side, Tim Kaine, D-Va., has been vocal about the need for Congress to take a tough vote on the war if U.S. service members are going to risk their lives. He introduced an AUMF alongside Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., in December that would allow U.S. ground forces only to protect U.S. citizens in imminent danger.
The airstrikes and special operators participating in the fight against the Islamic State are covered by a 2002 AUMF that authorized military action in Iraq and a 2001 war authorization against Al Qaeda, of which the administration says the Islamic State was an affiliate. Critics have said this leaves the administration on shaky legal grounds, since the Islamic State didn’t even exist when Congress passed that authorization in the days after 9/11.
The closest Congress has gotten to voting on an Islamic State-specific authorization came in December 2014, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a three-year authorization with no geographical limits, limited ground troops to intelligence-gathering and emergency rescue, and got rid of previous authorizations from 2001 and 2002. But that effort died when Congress adjourned for the year later that month without voting on it.
There still seems to be an unwillingness in the Senate to pass a new war authorization. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said an AUMF isn’t a priority for him since President Obama doesn’t feel he needs it and any new authorization could tie the hands of the next commander-in-chief, who might have a different strategy.
“I would not want to saddle the next president with a prescriptive AUMF,” McConnell told Roll Call last month. “He or she may have a different view about the way to deal with ISIS and that part of the world. I don’t think we ought to be passing an AUMF as the president exits the stage when he already thinks he has the authority to do what he’s willing to do now.”
House leaders, however, seem eager to get something done early this year. Both Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have said a new war authorization is a priority for them in 2016.
“I’m not going to get ahead of our members and their discussions,” Ryan said, according to a Huffington Post report. “But what we’re not going to do is pass an AUMF that prohibits the next president from doing what he or she needs to do to destroy ISIS. And so far I’ve seen a lot of proposals that, I think, handcuff the next president.”
