Seeking to avoid a repeat of its disastrous push to approve military strikes on Syria in 2013, the White House is ramping up its outreach with lawmakers ahead of Capitol Hill’s imminent debate over whether to authorize the ongoing military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

With Congress expecting a draft Authorization of the Use of Military Force this week, President Barack Obama and other top national security officials are courting a broad bipartisan swath of lawmakers and Hill staffers to ensure that Congress and the White House can begin the politically perilous task at least partly in sync. The draft is likely to bear imprints from an extended back-and-forth between the White House and lawmakers, sources said, though that’s no guarantee that Capitol Hill will approve a new military conflict.


The debate over the new measure could last for weeks, possibly months, said lawmakers and administration officials.

The White House hopes to ensure that the Republicans who control Congress aren’t blindsided by Obama’s draft military force resolution, especially after lawmakers in both parties balked at both his 2013 request for approval to attack Syria and a Democratic-led 2014 authorization against ISIL. The White House legislative office, led by Katie Beirne Fallon, has been quietly holding meetings with GOP and Democratic lawmakers, chiefs of staff for key players and aides to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Also involved in the discussions for the Obama administration are Secretary of State John Kerry; White House counsel Neil Eggleston; Lisa Monaco, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism; National Security Adviser Susan Rice; Assistant Deputy National Security Adviser Avril Haines; and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, said a source familiar with the outreach.

Eggleston is expected to attend the Senate Democratic Caucus meeting Tuesday. Additional meetings with GOP senators are also being put together, said a source familiar with the White House’s outreach efforts.

White House officials say the text of the AUMF is still under review, and they will not finalize a draft proposal until they have consulted with as wide a group of lawmakers as possible. White House officials have told reporters that the AUMF is expected on the Hill by Wednesday, although that remains fluid depending on the state of consultations with lawmakers.

“On the whole, the consultations have been productive and well-received,” said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Even members who have expressed some disagreement with the administration’s approach have noted they appreciate the thoughtful and constructive way in which the White House has gone about seeking their input and engaging in a meaningful discussion on specific aspects of the language.”

The source added: “Furthermore, consultations are ongoing with additional Republicans and Democrats, and we have worked hard to accommodate various scheduling challenges of members, as well. The final text of the AUMF and timing for delivery will not be locked until we are able to complete these robust consultations and consider all of the feedback we have received.”

Obama must thread the needle on a new war resolution: Democrats are antsy about anything that could lead to U.S. combat troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria, while hawkish Republicans are already pushing back against language that would restrict Obama from responding to an evolving conflict in a volatile yet critical region. How to write language that would allow ground troops in only specific circumstances, like personnel rescue, will be a major pivot point for an AUMF’s path to a House majority and 60 votes in the Senate.

The state of the Iran nuclear negotiations is another factor playing into the Islamic State debate. A number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been critical of how Obama and Kerry have handled the multilateral discussions over Iran’s nuclear program, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned address to a joint session of Congress next month has caused a huge uproar. On the Islamic State, the White House and lawmakers want to find a consensus to demonstrate American resolve in the face of a growing threat to stability in the Middle East, as well as to U.S. allies like Jordan and Iraq.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has been a focus of the administration’s outreach. The White House was already courting him aggressively even when he was in the minority, thanks to his disposition toward deal making, but he’s getting even more attention now. Corker rode on Air Force One with Obama last month and chewed over his own Iran policy during breakfast with Vice President Joe Biden in late January, and Corker has extensively discussed the war with top administration officials.

“We’ve always been pretty engaged with them,” Corker said. “We are setting the agenda. I think that just automatically causes there to be a little more engagement.”

Expecting an AUMF draft within days, Corker will call hearings as soon as he receives a blueprint from the White House. He indicated he will give it plenty of scrutiny, declining to say whether he’d back the AUMF as soon as it’s released.

Asked if he’s spoken with Obama about the matter, Corker said: “Of course, I traveled with the president to Tennessee, we talked about a lot of things. I’ve been able to adequately express myself.”

White House officials have also concentrated on the Foreign Relations rankand file, sending lawyers, legislative affairs staffers and National Security Council personnel to meet with lawmakers and their staffs.

Also receiving special attention: Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking member of the panel and an outspoken critic of Obama’s handling of Cuba and Iran.

In the House, Reps. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the chairman and ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, have also been contacted repeatedly by administration officials.

“They’ve been pretty good about communicating their priorities,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who voted against the 2013 Syria AUMF in the Foreign Relations Committee. “I feel like no lack of attention on discussions around the AUMF.”

Clearing Corker’s panel will be a major accomplishment for the White House given that senators in both parties balked at authorizing military strikes against Syria in 2013 and rejected the committee’s resolution from December 2014, which never received a vote in the full Senate. That measure would have provided a three-year authorization of force that prohibited ground troops except for certain circumstances. It would also have sunsetted the 2001 authorization used to justify war in Afghanistan — along with the ongoing bombing campaign against ISIL that began in August.

Sen. Ben Cardin, a senior member of Foreign Relations, has met with Obama’s legal team to hear the outlines of what the administration is mulling over, though Cardin did not see a paper draft. In those meetings, the Maryland Democrat urged the administration to submit a draft to Congress that largely mirrors what the committee passed two months ago and seeks to avoid getting the U.S. stuck in a protracted conflict that lawmakers could come to regret supporting.

“I would hope that the president would come in where we were at in committee,” Cardin said. “We should be very careful as to what we authorize with current needs to the military … and not try to give a broad authorization that could be used many years from now.”

Cardin said Republicans may be more willing this year to approve a time-limited force resolution if the language comes directly from the president, rather than Senate Democrats. Cardin’s conversations with other committee lawmakers show what appears to be “a real desire to get an authorization to the president,” he said.

But Republicans are already setting their terms of debate. Though Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is no longer on Foreign Relations, his support will be key for any AUMF. He was one of three Republicans who helped muscle the 2013 force resolution against Syria through the committee, along with Corker and Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona.

“To constrain the commander in chief under certain parameters in my view is a violation of the Constitution, which calls for the president of the United States to be commander in chief,” McCain said. “It would be a terribly dangerous precedent if we were somehow curtailing the kind of operations he can engage in.”

But Democrats are likely to fixate on the prohibition against ground troops and on ensuring Congress does not pass another open-ended resolution. Kerry laid out that he could support Democrats’ desire to limit an AUMF to three years, but has argued against geographic restraints or any combat prohibitions.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is involved in these discussions for the House Democratic Caucus, said his colleagues are not going to give Obama — or any president — a “blank check.”

“Yes, the White House is reaching out,” Van Hollen said. “I’ve had conversations with folks on the National Security Council. I know they’ve reached out to others, especially those folks that have expressed an interest in the past, which is most members of Congress. I know they’re listening.”

Van Hollen, though, warned, “There’s this tension between those who want to give the executive [branch] a blank check, and those who want to place limits on war-making power, especially with respect to the deployment of American ground troops.

“At the end of the day, this may be a needle that’s impossible to thread,” the Maryland Democrat cautioned.

Manu Raju contributed to this report.