Congress Gets Assertive With the White House Over Syria


Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, meets with reporters, discussing immigration, student loans, and Obamacare, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 11, 2013. The GOP leadership rejected the immigration bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate. Boehner said House committees will continue their work on a step-by-step approach to immigration reform, calling the current laws a broken system. 
National Journal
Michael Catalini
Aug. 27, 2013, 3:30 p.m.

Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers in Con­gress are re­mind­ing the White House to con­sult with Con­gress be­fore au­thor­iz­ing mil­it­ary ac­tion in Syr­ia.

“If U.S. ac­tion is im­min­ent, it is our hope that the pres­id­ent doesn’t for­get his ob­lig­a­tions — to Con­gress, but, also, to speak dir­ectly to the Amer­ic­an people,” said House Speak­er John Boehner’s spokes­man, Brendan Buck, in a state­ment.

“The speak­er made clear that be­fore any ac­tion is taken there must be mean­ing­ful con­sulta­tion with mem­bers of Con­gress, as well as clearly defined ob­ject­ives and a broad­er strategy to achieve sta­bil­ity,” Buck said.

That’s a sen­ti­ment GOP lead­ers across the Cap­it­ol are also ex­press­ing, pitch­ing the bur­den of proof onto the ad­min­is­tra­tion to ex­plain it­self if mil­it­ary strikes are ordered.

“Be­fore any ac­tion is taken re­gard­ing Syr­ia, it is im­per­at­ive that Pres­id­ent Obama make the case to the Amer­ic­an people and con­sult with Con­gress,” said Sen­ate Minor­ity Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, in a state­ment. “He needs to ex­plain what vi­tal na­tion­al in­terests are at stake and should put forth a de­tailed plan with clear ob­ject­ives and an es­tim­ated cost for achiev­ing those ob­ject­ives.”

The state­ments come with Con­gress still on its an­nu­al Au­gust re­cess. But De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel says that U.S. forces are “ready to go,” and Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry severely re­buked Syr­i­an lead­er Bashar al-As­sad earli­er this week over what the ad­min­is­tra­tion says was the leth­al use of chem­ic­al weapons.

A U.S. at­tack on Syr­ia could come as early as Thursday, NBC News re­por­ted on Tues­day. Aides to House and Sen­ate mem­bers on the Armed Ser­vices, For­eign Af­fairs, and For­eign Re­la­tions com­mit­tees say that law­makers have talked to the ad­min­is­tra­tion. What’s not clear is wheth­er those talks will sat­is­fy Re­pub­lic­ans’ de­mands for in­clu­sion.

House For­eign Af­fairs Com­mit­tee Chair­man Ed Royce, R-Cal­if., re­buked As­sad but also warned that mil­it­ary ac­tion could have “ser­i­ous con­sequence.” He also echoed Cornyn’s call for Obama to keep Con­gress and the pub­lic in­formed. “The Syr­i­an re­gime’s use of chem­ic­al weapons is bey­ond the pale,” Royce said in a state­ment. “The pres­id­ent should be mak­ing the case to the Amer­ic­an pub­lic, and his ad­min­is­tra­tion should come to Con­gress to ex­plain their plans. The con­sequences are too great for Con­gress to be brushed aside.”

The War Powers Res­ol­u­tion of 1973 re­quires the White House to no­ti­fy Con­gress with­in 48 hours of mil­it­ary ac­tion, ab­sent a vote in Con­gress to sup­port such ac­tion. With­in 60 days of that re­port to Con­gress, the pres­id­ent “shall ter­min­ate any use of United States Armed Forces,” un­less Con­gress has ac­ted, either de­clar­ing war or ex­tend­ing that peri­od, ac­cord­ing to the res­ol­u­tion. The res­ol­u­tion al­lows the White House an ad­di­tion­al 30 days for force re­mov­al, if Con­gress is no­ti­fied.

When the United States launched at­tacks against Libya in 2011, Boehner sent a let­ter to the pres­id­ent at the 90-day mark, say­ing that the White House “sys­tem­at­ic­ally avoided re­quest­ing a form­al au­thor­iz­a­tion for its ac­tion.” News ac­counts at the time noted that the let­ter came some 30 days after the 60-day peri­od ex­pired, sug­gest­ing that it is dif­fi­cult for Con­gress to en­force the act and that Re­pub­lic­ans’ ef­forts were half-hearted.

Re­ac­tion among law­makers to a po­ten­tial ac­tion in Syr­ia has been mixed, with some polit­ic­al lines blur­ring. Sen­ate hawks, in­clud­ing Re­pub­lic­ans John Mc­Cain of Ari­zona and Lind­sey Gra­ham of South Car­o­lina, have be­gun call­ing for a mil­it­ary re­sponse.

“Now is the time for de­cis­ive ac­tions. The United States must rally our friends and al­lies to take lim­ited mil­it­ary ac­tions in Syr­ia that can change the bal­ance of power on the ground,” the law­makers wrote in a joint state­ment.

Some House Demo­crats also ap­peared to back mil­it­ary ac­tion.

“While the de­cision to use force in a for­eign con­flict is nev­er an easy one, I be­lieve that the United States in con­junc­tion with our in­ter­na­tion­al al­lies have a mor­al ob­lig­a­tion to help pre­vent the fur­ther use of these hor­rif­ic weapons against ci­vil­ians and take steps to tip the bal­ance away from this bru­tal re­gime,” said Rep. Eli­ot En­gel, D-N.Y., the rank­ing Demo­crat on the House For­eign Af­fairs Com­mit­tee.

Still, lib­er­al Demo­crats and con­ser­vat­ive Re­pub­lic­ans tele­graphed qual­i­fied op­pos­i­tion to the use of mil­it­ary force in Syr­ia.

“The United States Armed Forces doesn’t ex­ist to be a po­lice­man of the world,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in a Fox News in­ter­view.

“I urge the ad­min­is­tra­tion to con­tin­ue to ex­er­cise re­straint, be­cause ab­sent an im­min­ent threat to Amer­ica’s na­tion­al se­cur­ity, the U.S. should not take mil­it­ary ac­tion without con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a state­ment.

Na­tion­wide, polling shows that Amer­ic­ans are skep­tic­al about mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion in Syr­ia. Nearly 60 per­cent sur­veyed said the U.S. should not in­ter­vene, ac­cord­ing to a re­cent Re­u­ters/Ipsos poll taken Aug. 19-23. Only 9 per­cent thought Obama should act, ac­cord­ing to the sur­vey.

In­deed, the num­bers are not lost on Re­pub­lic­ans, who have poin­ted out that the pub­lic re­mains wary of get­ting in­volved.

“Sur­veys have shown that the Amer­ic­an pub­lic is hes­it­ant to in­ter­vene in Syr­ia,” Buck said in a state­ment. “This is un­der­stand­able, and it un­der­scores the need for the pres­id­ent to fully ex­plain what is at stake and out­line why he be­lieves ac­tion is ne­ces­sary.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4404) }}

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.