The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons (S.J.Res 21) is a United States Senate Joint Resolution that would authorize President Barack Obama to use the American military to intervene in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The bill was filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on September 6, 2013 in a specially scheduled pro forma Senate session that took place during the last week of the August recess. [1] The bill authorizes only 60 days of military action, with the possibility of a one-time extension of 30 days. [2] The bill also specifically prohibits the use of ground troops. [2]
Senate[ edit]
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations[ edit]President Barack Obama announced on Sunday, August 31, 2013 that he would seek congressional approval for any military intervention in Syria and submitted a draft resolution to Congress. [33] In response, on Tuesday, September 3, 2013, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on the proposal to authorize the use of military force in Syria. [37]The hearing featured Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey as the witnesses. [37] [38] Senator Bob Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated that he supported the use of military force against the Assad government when he announced the hearing. [39]
In the evening on Tuesday September 3, Senator Bob Corker, the committee's ranking Republican member, announced that he and Chairman Menendez had reached a compromise agreement on the language and limitations in the bill. [38] The restrictions included a prohibition of "boots on the ground," a limit to the length of the intervention, and reporting requirements on the vetting of Syrian opposition groups. [38] A draft of the new language was sent to the other committee members prior to a markup session scheduled for the next day. [38] During the markup, Senators John McCain and Chris Coons were responsible for proposing the language found in section 5(a) that would allow the president to try and "change momentum on the battlefield in Syria." [2] [1]
The joint resolution passed the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in a vote of 10-7 on Wednesday September 4, 2013. [1] The vote was bipartisan in both its support and its opposition. Two of the committee's liberal Democrat members voted against the bill and another Democrat simply voted "present" rather than for either side. [32] Three Republicans voted in favor of the bill. [32] After the passage of the resolution, Senator Corker stated that "None of us want the U.S. mired down in another conflict, so the committee has significantly limited the president’s original authorization." [40]
Committee vote breakdown[ edit]Democrats:
Bob Menendez, New Jersey Chairman - supported the bill and intervention. [41] Tom Udall, New Mexico - voted against the bill. [32] Chris Murphy, Connecticut - voted against the bill. [32] Ed Markey, Massachusetts - voted present, "saying he was still haunted by his vote to authorize war in Iraq." [32] He indicated that he would be looking closely at the evidence before deciding how he would vote when the bill reached the Senate floor. [32] Barbara Boxer, California - voted in favor of the bill. [32] Ben Cardin, Maryland - voted in favor of the bill. [32] Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire - voted in favor of the bill. [32] Chris Coons, Delaware - voted in favor of the bill. [32] Dick Durbin, Illinois - voted in favor of the bill. [32] Tim Kaine, Virginia - voted in favor of the bill. [32]Republicans:
Bob Corker, Tennessee Ranking Member - voted in favor of the bill. [32] John McCain, Arizona - voted in favor of the bill. [32] His support was seen as crucial for passage, so changes were made to the language to grant the president great latitude to inflict damage on Assad's government. [32] Rand Paul, Kentucky - voted against the bill. Considered one of the leading figures against intervention, he presented an alternative resolution that would have "declared that the president has the authority to act unilaterally only when the nation faces attack." [32] Jim Risch, Idaho - voted against the bill. [32] Marco Rubio, Florida - voted against the bill. [32] John Barrasso, Wyoming - voted against the bill. [42] Ron Johnson, Wisconsin - voted against the bill. [43] Jeff Flake, Arizona - voted in favor of the bill. [32]Senate floor[ edit]On Friday September 6, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) formally filed the text of the joint resolution agreed upon by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. [1] Reid applauded the bipartisanship of the resolution and stated his own preference in favor of it when he filed the resolution. [1]
Newspaper The Hill released its own with information on which Senators and Representatives had announced their support or opposition for an American military intervention in Syria. [44] As of the September 9, the whip list stood at:
Yes/Leaning Yes: 26 (17 Democrats, 9 Republicans)No/Leaning No: 20 (14 Republicans, 6 Democrats)Undecided/Not Clear: 54 (29 Democrats, 23 Republicans, 2 Independents) The Washington Post also created its own whip count of where the votes stand on Syria. [45] Their count on September 13 stood at:
For: 23 (16 Democrats, 7 Republicans)Undecided: 34 (25 Democrats, 8 Republicans, 1 Independent)Leaning No: 8 (3 Democrats, 4 Republicans, 1 Independent)Against: 35 (8 Democrats, 17 Republicans)House reaction[ edit]Before the authorization bill had even been drafted in the Senate, much less voted upon, there were already doubts being raised about whether any such measure would pass in the House. [33] Prior to Obama's announcement that he would seek Congressional approval, there had already been House Republicans that had announced their opposition to intervention in Syria, arguing that the civil war did not pose a threat to the United States. [33] Doubts about the ability of any legislation authorizing a strike to pass in the House continued over the following week. [2] The House Armed Services Committee was scheduled to hear from Secretary of State John Kerry about the need for strikes on Syria at a hearing on September 10, 2013. [2]
Newspaper The Hill released a whip list with information on which Senators and Representatives had announced their support or opposition for an American military intervention in Syria. [44] On September 9, the whip list stood at:
Yes/Leaning Yes: 31 (21 Democrats, 10 Republicans)Undecided/Not Clear: 92 (71 Democrats, 21 Republicans)No/Leaning No: 144 (109 Republicans, 35 Democrats) The Washington Post also created its own whip count of where the votes stand on Syria. [45] Their count on September 13th stood at:
Yes: 25 (17 Democrats, 8 Republicans)Undecided: 145 (111 Democrats, 34 Republicans)Leaning No: 101 (38 Democrats, 63 Republicans)Against: 162 (34 Democrats, 91 Republicans)A proposed alternative bill favored by Democratic Representatives Chris Van Hollen and Gerald E. Connolly would impose restrictions on President Obama significantly tighter than the Senate bill. [32] Under their proposal, the president would only be allowed one round of missile strikes, with possible additional strikes in the event of additional chemical weapons attacks. [32]
en.wikipedia.org |
