End the President's Blank Check on War Powers, House Vets Say

The president's 16-year-long blank check to wage the war on terrorism should end, a small bipartisan group of combat veterans is saying as its members seek to persuade House colleagues to reassert their constitutional war-making powers.

A draft Authorization for Use of Military Force has been introduced by a handful of House lawmakers, including four Republicans, three Democrats and four combat veterans. The measure (H J Res 118) would repeal the open-ended 2001 and 2002 authorizations to use military force and replace them with an authorization that expires every five years if not renewed by Congress.

The authorization would explicitly cover Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic State and any individuals — but not sovereign nations — who are part of or provide "substantial" support to one of the named terrorist groups and have "engaged in hostilities" against the United States or its armed forces.

"I'm so concerned about the erosion of the balance of power between the executive and the legislative branch," said Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., the primary sponsor of the measure, who served in the Army and Marines in both Iraq wars. "We are allowing this precedent of the imperial presidency."

Coffman told a Thursday audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that had President Barack Obama requested military authorization before intervening in Libya in 2011, Congress would have refused to provide it and perhaps the North African nation would not be the widening security vacuum and chaos machine it has become today.

He spoke alongside three fellow veterans and members of the House Armed Services Committee who have co-sponsored his AUMF, which was introduced in mid-October.

"I don't think this authorization of force should be a blank check," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired Air force brigadier general who was elected last year. "I think if we vote on something 16 years earlier and we're still using the authorization, something is not right."

The frequently harsh assessments by the four House combat veterans of how the White House and Defense Department have brushed aside congressional requests over the years for more briefings, information and oversight of U.S. military conflicts stands in stark contrast to recent Senate Foreign Relations testimony by Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

The cabinet secretaries argued that AUMF sunset clauses would force an arbitrary end to conflicts rather than the "conditions-based approach" favored by the administration. They urged against passage of any new AUMF that would place constraints on how or where the military operates, while Mattis said even if a new authorization is put in place, the 2001 version should not be repealed.

But Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., said the responsible thing is for Congress to have a debate every five years about the war on terrorism and how effectively it is being prosecuted.

"We do need to rein in the executive," said Gallego, who served as a Marine lance corporal in Iraq in 2005. "We should have reined it in before Donald Trump."

Differences with Senate AUMF

The House measure differs somewhat from a Senate war authorization bill that has been gaining traction in the Foreign Relations Committee. That version (S J Res 43) from Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., would additionally require congressional review if the military wishes to target any other unnamed terrorist groups and would give Congress the opportunity to object if the scope of military operations is expanded beyond Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

"Sen. Kaine's bill is a little more extensive, and they address geography authorizations in some countries," said Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., who served a tour in Afghanistan in 2007 as a Navy Reserve intelligence officer.

Gallego, who serves as the vice chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, acknowledged that the bipartisan House AUMF didn't contain some provisions he supports such as a requirement to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but he readily accepted that as a necessary compromise.

"The most important thing is to get it passed. . . . There are some elements we did not address because once we go down that road, we start losing votes," the second-term lawmaker said. "As much as I hate Guantanamo and its use . . . the reason I didn't include it is this bill would never have gotten off the ground. It would have been more difficult to be bipartisan."

None of the measure's co-sponsors sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over AUMFs. The lack of interest from Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., in taking up this or any other AUMF isn't deterring Gallego.

Last month, Gallego introduced a bill (HR 4428) that would transfer authority in the House for AUMFs and general war-making powers from the Foreign Affairs Committee to the Armed Services Committee.