More than 100 Lawmakers Urge Obama to Consult on Syria


Congressman Scott Rigell, R-Va., gestures during an interview in his office in Virginia Beach, Va., Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012. Rigel is a freshman Congressman being challenged by Democrat Paul Hirschbiel. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
National Journal
Billy House Michael Catalini
See more stories about...
Billy House Michael Catalini
Aug. 28, 2013, 8:29 a.m.

A grow­ing num­ber of law­makers are call­ing on Pres­id­ent Obama to se­cure con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion for a mil­it­ary strike on Syr­ia, and House Speak­er John Boehner on Wed­nes­day asked Obama in a let­ter to “per­son­ally make the case to the Amer­ic­an people and Con­gress” for any po­ten­tial in­ter­ven­tion.

In a sep­ar­ate let­ter, 116 U.S. House mem­bers—in­clud­ing 18 Demo­crats — urged Obama to con­sult with Con­gress be­fore tak­ing any mil­it­ary ac­tion in Syr­ia, in­sist­ing that do­ing oth­er­wise would be un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

The sign­ers said they are ready to re­con­vene in Wash­ing­ton amid their sum­mer re­cess at Obama’s re­quest to “share the bur­den” of the de­cision-mak­ing re­gard­ing a re­sponse in the Syr­i­an con­flict, ac­cord­ing to the let­ter, which was set to be de­livered to the White House late Wed­nes­day.

“We strongly urge you to con­sult and re­ceive au­thor­iz­a­tion from Con­gress be­fore or­der­ing the use of U.S. mil­it­ary force in Syr­ia,” the let­ter said. “Your re­spons­ib­il­ity to do so is pre­scribed in the Con­sti­tu­tion and the War Powers Res­ol­u­tion of 1973.”

“En­ga­ging our mil­it­ary in Syr­ia when no dir­ect threat to the United States ex­ists without pri­or con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion would vi­ol­ate the sep­ar­a­tion of powers that is clearly de­lin­eated in the Con­sti­tu­tion,” the let­ter said.

Mean­while, Pres­id­ent Obama on Wed­nes­day said he has not reached a de­cision on Syr­ia yet.

“I think it’s im­port­ant that if, in fact, we make a choice to have re­per­cus­sions for the use of chem­ic­al weapons, then the As­sad re­gime … will have re­ceived a pretty strong sig­nal that, in fact, it bet­ter not do it again,” Obama said in an in­ter­view with PBS News Hour. 

The let­ter from law­makers was ori­gin­ally cir­cu­lated by Rep. Scott Ri­gell, R-Va., and Rep. Mi­chael Mc­Caul of Texas, chair­man of the House Home­land Se­cur­ity Com­mit­tee, was among those who signed on. Earli­er Wed­nes­day, the let­ter had some 65 sig­nat­or­ies, but that num­ber bal­looned to 116 by late in the af­ter­noon.

Demo­crat­ic co­sign­ers in­cluded Reps. Beto O’Rourke of Texas; Zoe Lof­gren, Sam Farr, and Anna Eshoo of Cali­for­nia; Peter De­Fazio and Kurt Schrader of Ore­gon; Rush Holt of New Jer­sey; Bill En­yart of Illinois; Tim Walz, Col­lin Peterson, and Rick No­lan of Min­nesota; Mi­chael Cap­uano of Mas­sachu­setts; Peter Welch of Ver­mont; Jim Math­eson of Utah; Jim Mc­Der­mott of Wash­ing­ton; and Bruce Bra­ley and Dave Loeb­sack of Iowa.

The let­ter will con­tin­ue cir­cu­lat­ing be­fore de­liv­ery. Oth­er law­makers, in­clud­ing both Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans, have made sim­il­ar, sep­ar­ate ap­peals that Con­gress be con­sul­ted.

In his let­ter to Obama, Boehner writes that “I have con­ferred with the chair­men of the na­tion­al se­cur­ity com­mit­tees who have re­ceived ini­tial out­reach from seni­or ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials, and while the out­reach has been ap­pre­ci­ated, it is ap­par­ent from the ques­tions above that the out­reach has, to date, not reached the level of sub­stant­ive con­sulta­tion.”

Boehner adds, “It will take pres­id­en­tial lead­er­ship and a clear ex­plan­a­tion of our policy, our in­terests, and our ob­ject­ives to gain pub­lic and Con­gres­sion­al sup­port for any mil­it­ary ac­tion against Syr­ia.”

He goes on to provide a list of spe­cif­ic ques­tions he says should be ad­dressed by the pres­id­ent. They in­clude:
  • What stand­ard did the ad­min­is­tra­tion use to de­term­ine that this scope of chem­ic­al-weapons use war­rants po­ten­tial mil­it­ary ac­tion?
  • What res­ult is the ad­min­is­tra­tion seek­ing from its re­sponse?
  • What is the in­ten­ded ef­fect of the po­ten­tial mil­it­ary strikes?
  • Would the sole pur­pose of a po­ten­tial strike be to send a warn­ing to the As­sad re­gime about the use of chem­ic­al weapons? Or would a po­ten­tial strike be in­ten­ded to help shift the se­cur­ity mo­mentum away from the re­gime and to­ward the op­pos­i­tion?
  • Would Obama con­sider us­ing the U.S. mil­it­ary to re­spond to situ­ations or scen­ari­os that do not dir­ectly in­volve the use or trans­fer of chem­ic­al weapons?
  • Does the ad­min­is­tra­tion have con­tin­gency plans if the mo­mentum does shift away from the re­gime but to­ward ter­ror­ist or­gan­iz­a­tions fight­ing to gain and main­tain con­trol of ter­rit­ory?
  • Does the ad­min­is­tra­tion have con­tin­gency plans to de­ter or re­spond should As­sad re­tali­ate against U.S. in­terests or al­lies in the re­gion?
  • Does the ad­min­is­tra­tion have con­tin­gency plans should the strikes im­plic­ate for­eign power in­terests, such as Ir­an or Rus­sia?

In a sep­ar­ate state­ment is­sued Wed­nes­day, Rep. Adam Smith of Wash­ing­ton state, the top Demo­crat on the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee who re­cently re­turned from a vis­it to the Jordan-Syr­ia bor­der as part of a con­gres­sion­al del­eg­a­tion, ex­pressed con­cern about a po­ten­tial U.S. mil­it­ary strike.

“Mil­it­ary ac­tion could have sig­ni­fic­ant con­sequences, and there is no guar­an­tee that it would im­prove the situ­ation or pro­mote a pos­it­ive out­come. Any po­ten­tial use of mil­it­ary force will have long-term costs and will put our troops in harm’s way,” Smith said. “Simply lash­ing out with mil­it­ary force un­der the ban­ner of ‘do­ing something’ will not se­cure our in­terests in Syr­ia.”

The White House has made it clear it be­lieves there must be some pun­it­ive ac­tion taken, fol­low­ing the chem­ic­al at­tacks in Syr­ia on Aug. 21 that the U.S. blames on Syr­i­an Pres­id­ent Bashar al-As­sad. However, the ad­min­is­tra­tion also in­sists that Obama has not yet made a de­cision on how to re­spond. Sen­ate Demo­crats have kept mostly quiet on the is­sue. Mes­sages to Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id’s of­fice were not re­turned. For­eign Re­la­tions Chair­man Robert Men­en­dez, D-N.J., con­demned the chem­ic­al-weapons at­tacks in a state­ment a week ago, call­ing for the United Na­tions to im­pose sanc­tions.

An ex­cep­tion has been Sen. Chris Murphy of Con­necti­c­ut, who said Monday that ab­sent a threat to U.S. se­cur­ity, the pres­id­ent should not take mil­it­ary ac­tion in Syr­ia without con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion.

Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­an re­ac­tion has been mixed. Some signaled their op­pos­i­tion to tak­ing ac­tion in Syr­ia. Sen. James In­hofe of Ok­lahoma, the rank­ing Re­pub­lic­an on the Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, said he op­poses mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion and called on the ad­min­is­tra­tion to con­sult with al­lies in the re­gion. “We can’t simply launch a few mis­siles and hope for the best,” In­hofe said in a state­ment. “No red line should have been drawn without the strategy and fund­ing to sup­port it.”

Sen. Rand Paul of Ken­tucky, a skep­tic of in­ter­ven­tion abroad, re­buked the Syr­i­an re­gime over the use of chem­ic­al weapons, but he sug­ges­ted on Wed­nes­day that there was little be­ne­fit for the United States to in­volve it­self in the con­flict. “The war in Syr­ia has no clear na­tion­al se­cur­ity con­nec­tion to the United States, and vic­tory by either side will not ne­ces­sar­ily bring in­to power people friendly to the United States,” he said.

But Sen. Bob Cork­er, R-Tenn., the rank­ing mem­ber on the For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee, offered qual­i­fied sup­port for a mil­it­ary strike. The White House has sat­is­fied its re­quire­ment to con­sult Con­gress, Cork­er said, but it would be bet­ter if the ad­min­is­tra­tion sought con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion. “While I’m op­posed to Amer­ic­an boots on the ground in Syr­ia, I sup­port sur­gic­al, pro­por­tion­al mil­it­ary strikes as­sum­ing the in­tel­li­gence brief­ing es­tab­lishes the claims that the ad­min­is­tra­tion is mak­ing,” he said.

Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell’s of­fice did not re­turn re­quests seek­ing com­ment, but on Monday, the No. 2 Re­pub­lic­an in the Sen­ate, John Cornyn of Texas, warned the pres­id­ent that be­fore any ac­tion is taken, Obama would have “to make the case with the Amer­ic­an people and con­sult with Con­gress.”

On Wed­nes­day, the White House re­leased a list of the tele­phone calls made to for­eign lead­ers since Aug. 21, hop­ing to un­der­score the ex­tent that the ad­min­is­tra­tion is con­sult­ing the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity. Obama, Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden, Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry, De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel, U.S. Am­bas­sad­or to the U.N. Sam­antha Power, and oth­er ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials all made calls.

But in the con­gres­sion­al let­ter, House law­makers in­dic­ated that Obama should not look to the 2011 U.S. mil­it­ary ac­tion in Libya, which in­cluded cruise mis­sile and oth­er mis­sile strikes, as a pre­ced­ent.

In that case, they noted Obama had stated that au­thor­iz­a­tion from Con­gress was not re­quired be­cause our mil­it­ary was not en­gaged in “hos­til­it­ies,” as defined by law. An April 1, 2011, memo to Obama from the White House Of­fice of Leg­al Coun­sel also con­cluded that the pres­id­ent then could au­thor­ize mil­it­ary ac­tion without con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion “to safe­guard the na­tion­al in­terest” be­cause the op­er­a­tions were “lim­ited in their nature, scope, and dur­a­tion.”

“If the use of 221 Toma­hawk cruise mis­siles, 704 Joint Dir­ect At­tack Mu­ni­tions, and 42 Pred­at­or Hell­fire mis­siles ex­pen­ded in Libya does not con­sti­tute ‘hos­til­it­ies,’ what does?” the law­makers asked. “If you deem the mil­it­ary ac­tion in Syr­ia ne­ces­sary, Con­gress can re­con­vene at your re­quest,” the let­ter says. “We stand ready to come back in­to ses­sion, con­sider the facts be­fore us, and share the bur­den of the de­cisions be­ing made re­gard­ing U.S. in­volve­ment in the quickly es­cal­at­ing Syr­i­an con­flict.”

Apart from that let­ter to Obama cir­cu­lated by Ri­gell, an­oth­er let­ter was sent Wed­nes­day to Obama by Reps. John Gara­mendi, D-Cal­if., and Wal­ter Jones, R-N.C., both of whom are mem­bers of the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee. It sim­il­arly urged that the pres­id­ent “ob­tain con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion be­fore or­der­ing the use of mil­it­ary force in Syr­ia.”

Jones sent his own let­ter to Obama. In it, he ar­gues that it must be de­term­ined that As­sad “is un­ques­tion­ably re­spons­ible for the re­cent mass killing of Syr­i­ans by chem­ic­al weapons” be­fore the pres­id­ent seeks con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al for tak­ing mil­it­ary ac­tion. “That means shar­ing raw in­tel­li­gence data with all mem­bers of Con­gress and not op­pos­ing present­a­tions by those who be­lieve that fact pat­terns point to oth­er pos­sible per­pet­rat­ors,” Jones states in that let­ter to Obama.

Gara­mendi and Jones also sent an­oth­er let­ter on Wed­nes­day ad­dressed to Boehner and House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal­if., re­quest­ing that “a full hear­ing be­fore Con­gress re­gard­ing the po­ten­tial risks, costs, and na­tion­al se­cur­ity im­per­at­ives of any U.S. mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion in Syr­ia be­fore the U.S. en­gages in any kind of mil­it­ary ac­tion in the re­gion.”

For the sake of timeli­ness, the Jones and Gara­mendi let­ters were sent with only their two sig­na­tures on Wed­nes­day, but they will be re­cir­cu­lat­ing the let­ters to build sup­port in the com­ing days, a Gara­mendi spokes­wo­man said.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
2 days ago

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.