Note: This op-ed first appeared in War on the Rocks.

Anyone who has served in the U.S. armed forces is familiar with completing an Operations Order (OPORD). Spelling out the situation, mission, execution, sustainment, and command and control enables our Army to “fight and win our Nation’s wars.” For our troops in harm’s way in Syria right now, the mission has not been spelled out and Congress, by ignoring its responsibilities to authorize and exercise oversight over the use of military force, is responsible. History has shown us that when Congress neglects its duty, our troops are at an avoidable strategic disadvantage.

For a prime example of this dynamic, we need look no further than the Vietnam War. In the jungles of Southeast Asia, the United States gradually built up its activities with no clear direction from Congress. The result of this legislative negligence was a bloody, deadly, and tragic waste of resources. One does not have to look hard to see the parallel in Syria. Over the years, a steady trickle of troops were committed as the United States sought to train “moderate rebels.” Where does this path lead?

In the wake of the failures of Vietnam, Congress attempted to reassert its authority over war-making with the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Seeking to prevent further failures in Syria, Congress likewise needs to reclaim its war powers through a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The time for this is now.

The 2001 AUMF, with its vaguely worded authorization targeting the 9/11 attackers and their associated forces, forms the legal justification for many of our current military operations in the Middle East, including those directed against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The mismatch between the 2001 AUMF approved by Congress and the reality of current operations on the ground is not just a theoretical constitutional issue. Congressional negligence and neglect on this front is a recipe for failure.

Congress must take ownership of the fact that the United States is currently engaged in a different war than the one it authorized 16 years ago. The Global War on Terror was focused on ousting al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Afghanistan and shutting down affiliated jihadist cells in Southeast Asia and North Africa. Today, ISIL and al-Qaeda compete around the globe for affiliates, whether by attempting to establish cells in more stable nations such as India or taking advantage of the increasing number of failed states such as Yemen and Libya. While ISIL shares the same Salafi-jihad ideology as al-Qaeda, it is a distinct organization with different capabilities, leadership, structure, and strategies.

There are clear differences between defeating ISIL in 2017 and defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001. These different dynamics were most recently on display in the U.S. attack on the Shayrat Airbase in Syria. Are American actions in Syria focused on defeating ISIL or regime change in Syria? Was Trump’s cruise missile strike retaliation for crimes against humanity or was it aimed at reestablishing deterrence against chemical weapons use? Listening to various senior administration officials in the days following the attack, all of these were offered as explanations. It was clear that no objectives had been elucidated and agreed upon even within the administration.

The White House seemed to settle on the positon that the purpose of these strikes was to send a signal to our adversaries that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. This may be sensible, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with the aims laid out in the 2001 AUMF. Under what authority were these strikes carried out?

The landscape of threats and challenges in the Middle East and elsewhere indicates we are fighting in a very different battlespace than the one envisioned in 2001. We need a foreign policy that reflects that reality. And should that foreign policy require the use of force, Congress must take the lead and reclaim its constitutional prerogatives by debating and passing a new AUMF. Critics might argue that this will only hamstring our military from actually winning on the battlefield, but this is not the case. Congress can and should craft an AUMF that is narrowly tailored and spells out the mission clearly, but also gives our leaders room to adapt and ensures that our commanders have reasonable autonomy with respect to rules of engagement.

America’s men and women in uniform deserve decisive leadership from Congress. When the United States commits these lives and resources to an effort, we need to ensure that it is not in vain and make clear that America intends to win. We cannot determine if we have won if we do not define what winning looks like. Now is the time to define clearly what an “America First” foreign policy looks like. It is time to reverse Obama-era failures to take our enemies seriously. But the United States should also reject the neoconservative approach that envisions American military power solving every problem in the world to affect regime change and take on doomed nation-building, projects.

A new AUMF would place war power authority squarely where the founders intended it: in the hands of Congress. The founders rightly understood the serious nature of waging war and the lives and resources our government asks to be put on the line in the process. War needs buy-in from the people and should be openly debated by Congress where the people are most directly represented. Members of Congress have sworn to uphold the Constitution and need to begin acknowledging the weightiness of that oath with respect to authorizing combat, declaring our wars, and providing accountability for victory.

It could not be more important for Congress to perform this most basic duty of reclaiming its constitutional war powers. Executive branch overreach, no matter who is president, should be of concern on both sides of the aisle. The status quo of allowing for uninterrupted war without following the constitutional framework has paved the way for the imperial presidency, making Congress complicit in taking away the voice of the American people. This dereliction of duty threatens to tear apart the fabric of our republic, to the dishonor of all who have fought to defend and preserve our freedoms. Now is the time for deeds, not words. Congress must act and support our president, our troops, and the American people by providing an updated AUMF specific to the fight against ISIL.

Congressman Warren Davidson (R-OH) was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a June 2016 special election. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he had the honor of serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment, The Old Guard, and the 101st Airborne Division.   

Note: This op-ed first appeared in The Daily Signal.

We all knew President Barack Obama’s lame-duck presidency would be bad, but for the millions of Americans who work at family farms and businesses, it’s about to get a lot worse.

As Heritage Foundation tax expert Curtis Dubay wrote at The Daily Signal, Obama is trying to sneak in a tax hike in his twilight days. His Treasury Department unveiled midnight regulations that effectively would increase the death tax to 30 or 40 percent.

If Obama channeled his desire and creativity in raising taxes into cutting spending, we probably would have a budget surplus by now.

In this case, the president’s creativity involves tinkering with well-established “valuation discounts” that families use to calculate their death tax liability.

These valuation discounts are one reason family businesses have been able to accurately calculate the burden of the estate tax—popularly known as the death tax—so the business or farm itself can be passed from generation to generation.

If these valuation discounts didn’t exist, then every time an owner died, a business essentially would have to overvalue itself, and thus be subject to a higher effective tax bill than the law intends. Farms especially are affected by this issue, and the estate tax generally, because it is a lot harder to sell off 40 percent of your farm than 40 percent of stocks or other assets.

If that’s not too much of a burden, imagine being a partial owner of one of these farms.

If you own one-tenth of your grandfather’s farm, you don’t have enough say in the future of the business to decide whether you want to sell off the farm or pay the 40 percent tax to keep it.

Such partial owners are faced with a choice: Either sell off your share for much less than it is worth or pay the government 40 percent of its value. For family-owned businesses, built with the blood, sweat, and tears of ancestors, this is an immoral choice for the government to force on people.

This issue affects workers, too. In cutting costs and selling assets to pay the IRS, many family businesses facing a tragic death and an ensuing death tax are forced to downsize.

For the economy as a whole, this means that millions of people who work for small businesses could lose their jobs, just because the Internal Revenue Service wants an added piece of the action if a business owner dies.

What’s good for the economy is when businesses grow and innovate. They shouldn’t have to plan to liquidate their assets to pay the IRS bill whenever an owner dies.

Democrats are floating a plan for a 65 percent death tax in order to “level the playing field.” This is no more than socialist planning by elites to confiscate property from hardworking Americans to pay for failed government programs and spending that won’t improve standards of living.

For the mega-rich who have enough money to structure their assets, this works just fine. For hardworking Americans who put everything they own into creating jobs and building their business, this is not an option.

Regardless of the bad economics behind the death tax, the Obama administration is going about it in the wrong way.

Deciding tax policy is a power enumerated solely for Congress. This is something that should be decided in the open with a robust public debate. The Founding Fathers believed this too, which is why they gave Congress, and the House in particular (the “people’s House”), the power to initiate tax laws.

If Congress doesn’t do anything, this will mean an even greater increase of out-of-control executive authority.

That is why I introduced legislation, the Protect Family Farms and Businesses Act, to halt the Obama administration’s backdoor tax increase. It would prohibit the administration’s new rule, or any like it, from going into effect.

The bill already has more than 20 co-sponsors and the support of more than 100 organizations.

Too much is on the line for too many for Congress to stand idle. The jobs of millions of Americans are at stake.