In authorizing military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday set the stage for a key War on Terror law to expire.
An amendment paired with the resolution assembled by committee chair Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) would relinquish the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) in three years.
“Those of use who were in Congress in 2001 never envisioned that authorization would still be utilized today the way it was utilized in thirty separate military operations,” the amendment’s author, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said at a committee meeting. “We were interested in going after those who attacked our country on Sept. 11.”
The provision wouldn’t necessarily end that authorization or make war on non-state actors any less likely, especially considering it was approved by the committee in tandem with a separate green-light for military force. Cardin also noted similar sunset clauses on the PATRIOT Act exist, and they have mere merely forced Congress to amend the controversial War on Terror legislation.
Patience with the executive branch’s use of the law does, however, appear to be wearing thin. A critic of operations without explicit approval by Congress, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) praised the possible expiration of the 2001 AUMF, and said moving a repeal forward is “exactly what the President asked the nation to do” in a May 2013 speech.
Nonetheless, the President has used its continued existence to skirt Congressional authority when making war. In the absence of an Islamic State-specific AUMF, the White House has said the 2001 approval legally justifies ongoing operations. As The Sentinel reported, Secretary of State John Kerry claimed Tuesday that the months-old war with the extremist group was started by Osama Bin Laden over 13 years ago. On Thursday, Cardin called the administration’s interpretation of the law “a stretch.”
The bill that moved out of committee also included an amendment, written by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), requiring Congress to finance the war, and another, authored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), recognizing Islamic State violence targeting women and girls. Operations against the Islamic State have already cost the US government more than $1 billion since they were launched four months ago.
The committee’s bill, if left intact and passed by the Senate and House, would set Congress on a collision course with the administration. Language included in the bill would see authorization expire in three years after enactment. It would also limit the use of “ground combat operations.” These two points, along with the resolution’s definition of “associated forces” have put lawmakers at odds with an administration demanding “flexibility.”
The limitations have also needled many Republican lawmakers. At the committee meeting Thursday, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) lamented the time restrictions. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said ground forces shouldn’t be sent to fight the Islamic State, but argued that the option should be available to the Obama administration.
“If you want to take this to a level of absurdity, think about this: if we pass this proposal here today and any other amendments associated with it, what we would be saying is we’re not allowed to use ground troops, but we could use nuclear weapons,” Rubio commented.
The markup vote that included the AUMF and the three amendments–the so-called manager’s package–passed along partisan lines, with ten Democrats voting for it and eight Republicans voting against it.
At least one Republican, however, didn’t appear to be voting it down out of fear it would fetter American forces. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) co-sponsored an amendment written by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would have seen the authorization expire after just one year. He drafted another, with Udall returning the co-sponsorship favor, that sought to limit operations to Iraq and Syria, pointing out that groups pledging allegiance to the Islamic State have appeared in more than thirty countries. Both the amendments were rejected in bipartisan votes.
While Secretary Kerry told Paul on Tuesday that the administration is imposing restraint on itself, the senator dismissed the claim as irrelevant.
“The limitations have to come from a co-equal branch or they’re not of any value,” he said.
