| Washington Post | - |
Members know their limits, so the Syria Transition Support Act of 2013, approved 15 to 3 on Tuesday, probably won't become law.
- Walter Pincus
- Fine Print
Senate Foreign Relations panel tries to make move on Syria, but that’s a misuse of its power
It’s not the first time lawmakers have moved to pressure a president to take a momentous step that could involve U.S. lives and treasure.
(J. Scott Applewhite/AP) - Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.,
right, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
More from PostPolitics
It's not just Republicans up in arms about Benghazi
THE FIX | More than half of Americans say the Obama administration
is trying to cover up the facts of the attack, according to a new
Washington Post-ABC News poll.
IRS’s Lois Lerner to plead the Fifth
The IRS official who first disclosed the agency's improper
targeting of conservative groups will invoke her right not to
incriminate herself.
Has anyone been ‘fired’ because of the Benghazi attacks?
FACT CHECKER | Sen. Rand Paul claims no one has been fired because
of the Benghazi attacks. So what happened to those State Department
officials who lost their jobs?
Coburn: Tornado aid must be offset
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) will insist that any federal aid to deal
with the tornado in his home state must be offset by budget cuts.
I have enormous respect for the committee’s power to influence foreign policy when it plays its rightful role, but I also believe the actions of the current panel reflect the dysfunction in today’s Congress.
The Constitution gives the president sole power to make foreign policy. The Senate does have its roles to play. Under the Constitution, it must give “advice and consent” to treaties and approve presidential appointees, such as ambassadors.
It also must approve funding of the president’s budget, and through that process it has an opportunity to adopt, reject or even reshape foreign policy initiatives. By investigating and holding hearings, Senate Foreign Relations and other congressional committees can create public understanding — and support or opposition — to a president’s foreign policy agenda.
But trying to legislate what President Obama should do when it comes to initiating military intervention in Syria, through providing arms or nonlethal aid, is going too far.
Members know their limits, so the Syria Transition Support Act of 2013, approved 15 to 3 on Tuesday, probably won’t become law. It’s more of a gesture, specifying it is not authorizing “use of military force” or adding more to the budget. The $250 million for Syrian transition expenses would come from already authorized funds.
These actions misuse the panel’s power, which can be quite useful in our government.
The committee under Fulbright, for example, held multiple hearings on Vietnam, calling in not just government officials but also experts on all sides of the issue. Committee staff members, including me, went on fact-finding missions to South Vietnam and also surrounding countries.
The foreign relations panel had a closed intelligence briefing on Syria in September and another one April 10. The next day it had a public hearing with current administration officials and a former one. Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced his bill, co-sponsored by the ranking Republican member, Bob Corker (Tenn.), on May 6.
“The legislation plans for a post-Assad Syria by offering humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, limited lethal and non-lethal assistance and training to vetted Syrian groups,” according to a panel news release.
The measure lists a dozen purposes for U.S. assistance, almost all of which are noble but few of which can be guaranteed. Note the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Opposition groups to be assisted with arms and other aid are committed to “fascilitating an orderly transition to a more stable democratic political order including protecting human rights, expanding political participation and providing religious freedom to all Syrians, irrespective of religion, ethnicity, or gender.”
