U.S. House votes overwhelmingly for say on Obama's Iraq decisions

WASHINGTON Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:50pm EDT

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about education and the economy while at Los Angeles Trade Technical College in California, July 24, 2014.  REUTERS/Larry Downing

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about education and the economy while at Los Angeles Trade Technical College in California, July 24, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Friday for a resolution that would bar President Barack Obama from sending U.S. troops for any "sustained combat role" in Iraq without congressional authorization.

The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 370-40, reflecting the strong desire by both Republicans and Democrats in the chamber that the White House not act in Iraq without Congress' backing, although it was a largely symbolic vote.

To be enacted, the measure would require backing by the U.S. Senate, which is not expected, and even then it would not have the force of law.

It was introduced by Massachusetts Democratic Representative Jim McGovern, California Democrat Barbara Lee and Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina.

Supporting the law, House members said Congress must reclaim its control over authorizing military force after years in which both Republican and Democratic presidents have claimed their executive powers allow them to deploy troops.

"Congress has ceded too much of its power to the executive branch," McGovern said in a House speech before the vote.

The United States is ramping up its military presence in Iraq, deploying additional troops, helicopters and drone aircraft in response to security concerns in the face of advances by the Sunni Islamist militants.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Dan Grebler)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
SunnyDaySam wrote:
Where were these Reps when the bush/GOP was invading Iraq in the first place? We really needed them then!

Jul 25, 2014 3:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Reg24 wrote:
77-23 in the Senate in 2002 to go to war. That’s bipartisan.

Jul 25, 2014 3:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:
Troops is old fashioned and far too transparent.

Obama prefers to call them Advisers.

Jul 26, 2014 1:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.