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
Michael Catalin and Billy House
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Michael Catalin Billy House
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 »
Kasowitz Out, John Dowd In
6 hours ago

As the Russia investigation heats up, "the role of Marc E. Kasowitz, the president’s longtime New York lawyer, will be significantly reduced. Mr. Trump liked Mr. Kasowitz’s blunt, aggressive style, but he was not a natural fit in the delicate, politically charged criminal investigation. The veteran Washington defense lawyer John Dowd will take the lead in representing Mr. Trump for the Russia inquiry."

Trump Looking to Discredit Mueller
6 hours ago

President Trump's attorneys are "actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work." They plan to argued that Mueller is going outside the scope of his investigation, in inquiring into Trump's finances. They're also playing small ball, highlighting "donations to Democrats by some of" Mueller's team, and "an allegation that Mueller and Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia had a dispute over membership fees when Mueller resigned as a member in 2011." Trump is said to be incensed that Mueller may see his tax returns, and has been asking about his power to pardon his family members.

Why Yes, Mueller Is Looking into Trump Businesses
11 hours ago

In addition to ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, Robert Mueller's team is also "examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates, according to a person familiar with the probe. FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development in New York with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, the person said. The investigation also has absorbed a money-laundering probe begun by federal prosecutors in New York into Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort."

Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions
17 hours ago

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team is "is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates", including "Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008."

32 Million More Uninsured by 2026 if Obamacare Repealed
19 hours ago

"A Senate bill to gut Obamacare would increase the number of uninsured people by 32 million and double premiums on Obamacare's exchanges by 2026, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The analysis is of a bill that passed Congress in 2015 that would repeal Obamacare's taxes and some of the mandates. Republicans intend to leave Obamacare in place for two years while a replacement is crafted and implemented."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.