Many members of Congress from both parties lamented the Obama administration's use of military force under congressional authorization dating to 2001, almost eight years before his presidency began.
Finally, every four years, it requires the president to submit to Congress a plan to repeal, modify or keep the authorizations. "I am pleased that we have reached an agreement on a product for the committee to consider and that I hope will ultimately strike an appropriate balance of ensuring the administration has the flexibility necessary to win this fight while strengthening the rightful and necessary role of Congress".
Another limitation for the President would be that if he orders military action against a new associated force or in a new country, he must report it to Congress within 48 hours. If Congress did not act, the existing authorization would stay in place.
"For too long, Congress has given Presidents a blank check to wage war", Kaine said in a statement. "We've let the 9/11 and Iraq War authorizations get stretched to justify wars against multiple terrorist groups in over a dozen countries, from Niger to the Philippines", Kaine said.
Corker said he expected the foreign relations committee to debate and possibly vote on the new AUMF as soon as next week. The Trump administration, like its two predecessors, carries out military operations under a congressional authorization dating to 2001.
Cardin said he had trouble with those two provisions because while they would allow Congress to weigh in, it would be very hard to get enough support to override a probable presidential veto.
Republicans, who typically want to give the president as much power as possible to take military action, have reasons to get on board.
· Quadrennial Congressional Review: Establishes a process for Congress to review the AUMF every four years without risking a lapse in authorization.
Then there's the issue of Hill leaders letting the bill get a floor vote at all.
Congress' inaction has infuriated a relatively small but bipartisan group of lawmakers who argue they are shirking their role in war-making decisions and letting presidents abuse the never-expired 2001 AUMF.
Bush later invaded Iraq under that authorization and President Barack Obama also used it to continue those military operations and begin others. And just last week, Speaker Ryan said Trump could use the 17-year-old war authorization to bomb the Syrian government, which has nothing to do with al Qaeda.
"For as long as I have helped lead the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, beginning as ranking member in 2013, we have been engaged in a discussion over the 2001 AUMF, which provides the legal authority necessary to fight terror overseas", said Senator Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"This is personal to me as the father of a Marine and someone who represents a state so closely connected to the military", he said.