WASHINGTON >> On September 14, 2001, Rep. Barbara Lee, who represents Oakland and Berkeley, stood up in the House of Representatives to cast the lone vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a measure paving the way for the war in Afghanistan.
Almost 16 years later, a House of Representatives committee voted on Thursday for Lee’s amendment to repeal that authorization, which has been cited as justification for American military actions in at least a dozen countries over three presidential administrations.
In a move that surprised many on Capitol Hill, the House Appropriations Committee, which is controlled by Republicans, approved Lee’s amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill with a voice vote. If passed into law, it would repeal the 2001 authorization 240 days after Lee’s amendment passes. It means a new vote in Congress would be required to continue military action against the Islamic State.
The unexpected vote is a sign that there’s a bipartisan desire to revisit the sweeping powers given over to the president to wage the war on terror. When the amendment passed, members of the committee broke into applause.
“Whoa,” Lee said in a tweet. “GOP & Dems agree: a floor debate & vote on endless war is long overdue.”
The amended defense spending bill will now go to the full House of Representatives.
The 60-word AUMF, written as bodies were still being pulled from the rubble of Ground Zero, authorized the president to use force against nations, groups or people involved in the 9/11 attacks “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” It’s been used to justify at least 37 different military actions since 2001, a Congressional Research Service report found.
“Any administration can rely on this blank check to wage endless war,” Lee told her colleagues before Thursday’s vote. “Many of us can also agree that a robust debate and vote is necessary, long overdue, and must take place.”
Only one member of Congress, Kay Granger, R-Texas, argued against Lee’s amendment, arguing that it “would tie the hands of the U.S.”
“It cripples our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations against terrorists who pose a threat to the United States,” Granger said.
Other Republicans commended Lee. “She has raised an important point, I think she’s done it repeatedly and effectively, and I think the Congress ought to listen to what she has to say and we ought to debate this issue,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma.
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, said Lee had changed his mind on the amendment. “I was going to vote no, but … I’m going to be with you on this, and your tenacity has come through,” he said.
The broad support in the committee for Lee’s bill doesn’t mean it will become law, said Monica Hakimi, a law professor at the University of Michigan who’s studied the AUMF.
“I could very easily imagine a situation where various members of the military testify to Congress that even the possibility of a drastic change in the nature of the operations permitted requires them to engage in all sorts of planning months in advance,” Hakimi said. That could quickly slow any drive toward repeal.
Nonetheless, Thursday’s committee vote is a major milestone for Lee, one of the strongest anti-war voices in Congress. After her lone vote in 2001, she faced condemnation from politicians, a deluge of angry phone calls from around the country, and even enough death threats to merit around-the-clock protection from the Capitol Police.
