AUMF’s chances shrink in lame duck

Prospects for congressional passage of a new authorization of military force (AUMF) against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are dwindling.

With Republicans and Democrats broadly disagreeing over the terms for a new AUMF and other issues crowding it out, it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that a lame-duck Congress will take action on the issue.

{mosads}Without a new AUMF, the administration would only be able to rely on 2001 legislation, approved after the 9/11 attacks,  for its military action against ISIS.

Separately, congressional authority for the Pentagon to train and arm vetted Syrian rebel groups expires on Dec. 11.

It’s possible that lawmakers could extend that program without approving a new AUMF by adding it other must-pass legislation. But when Congress first approved the program in September, there were calls to move a broader authorization along with reupping the training program.

The administration, as well as congressional Republicans and Democrats, is more focused for now on fights over President Obama’s promised executive actions on immigration, a measure to keep the government funded and approving the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Although Obama called on lawmakers to pass an AUMF two weeks ago, the White House seemed to soften its tone the next week, with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough saying on Nov. 12 that the administration wants “to make some progress” on the AUMF during the lame-duck session.

Over the weekend, ISIS beheaded a third American hostage, 26-year-old former Army Ranger Peter Kassig. So far, his killing does not appear to have added urgency to the AUMF issue.

Few lawmakers stepped forward after the beheading to call for legislative action against ISIS, though Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said in a statement that the beheading “shows why the United States and our allies must leave no stone unturned in going after these barbarians.”

“I hope Congress is moved to vote on legislation formally authorizing military action,” he said. 

An initial hurdle in getting a deal is that Democrats would limit the use of ground troops in any authority of military force.

Democrats are worried about mission creep, and their fears have grown as military officials have said they are considering putting U.S. advisers into battle with Iraqi forces and are poised to send another 1,500 U.S. troops to Iraq.

Some Republicans, in contrast, have said Obama must put “boots on the ground” to fight ISIS. They have said they will refuse to pass an AUMF that ties the hands of the administration or military commanders on the ground.

Republicans will have control of the House and Senate in January, and would have more leverage over a new AUMF then.

Yet if the vote is postponed, it is uncertain whether it will happen at all.

The administration has said it already has the authority it needs to pursue ISIS under the 2001 AUMF, and Republicans are indicating that the economy will be their first priority when they take over. 

Peter Billerbeck, policy adviser at Democratic think tank Third Way and former aide to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), said it’s critical to get an AUMF passed in order to set boundaries for U.S. involvement in the fight against ISIS.

“After everything we’ve seen over the last decade in Iraq, we’ve seen what broad, overly expansive missions yield, and it’s not good,” he said. He also said the 2001 AUMF does not legally apply to ISIS. 

Some have said a new AUMF could be attached to a government-funding bill, but appropriators have not endorsed that suggestion.

“AUMF is an authorization issue, not an appropriations issue and is not in the scope of the negotiations,” an Appropriations committee aide told The Hill. 

Another possible vehicle could be the 2015 defense policy bill being worked on by the House and Senate Armed Services committees, which is another lame-duck agenda item.

But House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) has said he won’t put an AUMF in the bill, and supports having a vote next year.  

Billerbeck said Congress has a moral and legal responsibility to pass an AUMF — and failing to do so could hurt both parties. 

“You have a Congress that’s not willing to be on record sending people into combat; you have a Congress that wouldn’t be willing to get on record to take a vote on something that’s gravely serious … and you’d also have a Congress then unwilling to provide legitimate legal and policy backing to this mission that continues to rely on … authorizations that aren’t applicable,” he said. 

–This report was updated at 9:57 a.m.