- The Donald Trump Impact: Not so Inevitable After All
- Heck Decision Prompts Rating Changes in 2 Nevada Races
- Joe Heck to Run for Nevada Senate (Video)
- GOP Women's Recruitment Effort Adapts for 2016
- Edwards Releases Senate Fundraising Totals
“We are not going to lose this vote,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”
The administration’s next big public test comes Tuesday, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee convenes the first public hearing on the use-of-force measure. That panel and Senate leadership were said by an aide to be consulting on the text of the resolution.
With scores of lawmakers cutting short their recess and returning to the Capitol early, and more headed to town for the Senate hearing, the atmosphere took on the eerie feel of the bipartisan, high-pressure negotiations over the 2008 Wall Street bailout. As with the Troubled Asset Relief Program bill, senior lawmakers in both parties said the broad authorization proposed by the White House on Saturday night would have to be narrowed significantly to get their support. And like TARP, the final language will have to be hammered out between the two chambers’ bipartisan leadership to avoid having to vote on multiple resolutions. Narrowing the language has the advantage of allowing lawmakers to say they reined in the president’s original request while still allowing them to vote for the final product.
But if TARP is a model, it also provides a cautionary one, given the bailout failed on the initial House vote.
Many lawmakers who attended a classified briefing Sunday in the Capitol said a Syria resolution vote would have failed if it had been held this weekend.
“So far he doesn’t have congressional authority, he doesn’t have the American people with him, and he doesn’t have an international coalition,” said former Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. “So there are big hurdles that he’s got to go through.”
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. — a close ally of Boehner — said the dynamic could well change.
“Ten days is a long time in politics. The president has got an opportunity to make his case,” he said. But Cole, like many lawmakers, isn’t sure the president’s strategy of a limited strike aimed at deterring Assad and others from using chemical weapons will accomplish much.
“If we’re not going to destroy or secure the [chemical] stocks, if we’re not trying to change the regime, if this is all about making a point — and not a particularly effective one at that — then that strikes me as a rather frivolous use of American military power,” he said.
And Democratic Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut said there was “a great deal of skepticism even for limited strikes” among the almost 70 lawmakers who attended Sunday’s briefing.
“To me, there’s profoundly unanswered questions about effectiveness, about what happens next, about whether we’ve got any international support out there at all for military action. ... So I’m a long way from being a yes vote on even a narrower resolution.”
But Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida — who also serves as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee — said her calculations are simple.
“This has nothing to do with politics,” she said, noting “the images of babies lined up dead.”
“As a mother I would want ... a nation as strong as the United States [to] stand up for my children,” she said.
Matt Fuller, Emma Dumain and Niels Lesniewski contributed to this report.