Congress balks at giving Bush a blank check

Legislators work behind closed doors to limit the president's request for unprecedented power to wage war.

By Jake Tapper

Sept. 13, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- Despite a rigorously maintained public image of lock-armed amity between Congress and the White House, Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate quietly discussed placing limits on President Bush's request for unprecedented powers to wage war Thursday.

Leaders of the House and Senate remained mindful of the need to stand united in the face of unspeakable international terrorism -- and to give Bush money and power to deal with Tuesday's horror and its aftermath. But they also didn't want to almost completely abrogate their responsibilities as the one branch of government with the authority to appropriate money and declare war.

Which, to both Democrats and Republicans, is what Bush asked them to do on Wednesday, according to congressional sources.

Wednesday evening, the White House presented draft legislation to Congress that would give to him "the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force a) against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001; and b) to deter and prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States." It's that last clause that members of the House and Senate, both Democrat and Republican, expressed concern about, since they feel it would grant the president too much power to wage war, which constitutionally only Congress can do.

Likewise, Democrats and Republicans were reluctant to agree to appropriate the amount of money the White House wanted to fund this fight, which was -- as first proposed by the White House -- whatever he wanted, a blank check.

Congress is determined to put on a unified front, however, so on Thursday morning House Minority Leader Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., told ABC's "Good Morning America," "There is absolutely no light or air between Democrats and Republicans, between Congress and the president. We will stand with the president to get this done and to take whatever action he deems and our defense people deem to do."

If Bush wants "the authorization to use force, that's what we'll do," Gephardt said.

But in reality, a House GOP leadership source allowed that "the usual executive branch/legislative branch tussle" was going on -- though on a much larger scale than anytime since the 1960s, if not before that.

"We are a coequal branch," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., on Thursday, "and we need to take a look at language and make sure that we've thought it through carefully." Lott said that the leaders of the House and Senate were "looking at the language, seeing that it is constitutional" and "making sure that we're retaining, you know, our responsibilities. It's a normal process."

Seconded Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.: "We are concerned that we be recognized as the coequal branches. We set both defense and foreign policy."

The White House argued that the legislation was largely symbolic. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "Per the Constitution, the president as commander in chief has authority vested in him to take actions as he deems appropriate." But, he said, the Bush administration was seeking the legislation "as a real show of unity by the United States Congress" as well as "a recognition of the unity of our nation."

Congress would take issue with that, of course, but then again, Fleischer said, "There have been some 125 military actions that took place in the United States, and I believe only five involved declarations of war."

Still, to some the bills seemed like overreaching. "I don't blame the president for the power grab," says a senior House GOP staffer. "He wants to get Congress on his side." Nonetheless, the source said, the congressional leadership spent Thursday negotiating with the White House to come up with a more limited hand-over of both money and power.

After receiving Wednesday's request, Democratic appropriators, like Rep. Dave Obey of Wisconsin, ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, suggested giving the president $5 billion to $10 billion immediately with the understanding that more would come. Republicans like Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, of Florida, chairman of House Appropriations, upped the figure to $20 billion.

Next page: "You don't make 10-year policy on attacking terrorism on the back of an envelope"