Rand Paul gets his war debate

Congress may get a chance to debate an authorization of military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant after all.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) attempted to force a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday by offering his legislation declaring war on the Islamic State as a last-minute amendment to an unrelated clean water bill that was scheduled for a vote. But he eventually relented under the promise that he’d get a debate — and a vote on a stand-alone amendment — next week.


“I’m going to reserve my amendment ’til next week if I’m guaranteed a vote on an AUMF,” Paul told reporters. He ultimately pulled his amendment from legislation aimed at increasing safe drinking water across the globe.

( Also on POLITICO: Terrorism insurance deal takes shape)

Paul’s move comes not because he is agitating for more war but as an articulation of his frustration with the lack of congressional action authorizing the fight against ISIL. However, congressional leaders had hoped to take up the authorization of military force issue next year, so Paul’s latest stand threatened to complicate things for a Congress eyeing the exits after a grinding lame duck session.

Asked if he was satisfied by the turn of events, Paul replied: “A hearing and a vote — that’s what I’ve always wanted.”

Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) proposed the committee assemble next week to address the authorization independently. Secretary of State John Kerry might be available on Monday to testify at such a hearing, Menendez said, but added that “we are so late in the process, we don’t know that would actually help us.”

( Also on POLITICO: Bhopal’s Long Shadow)

Menendez said he would then draft his own legislation following the hearing and hold a mark-up on Wednesday where committee members could propose amendments.

Ranking member Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was quick to oppose Paul’s move to submit his war authorization amendment in the water bill at the start of the meeting — not because he is against a war authorization, but because Paul’s amendment rushes important decisions. Corker said he believes such a serious move must be weighed carefully and should align with the Obama administration’s strategy, which is still unclear.

“This is not the right thing to do today,” Corker said. “Is there not some other way for us to deal with this where we actually have hearings, understand it more fully?”

Corker, as a main sponsor of the clean water bill, at first asked to pull the bill rather than have it turned into a vehicle for Paul’s proposal. “We worked on this for years. Forget it. I don’t want to demean this committee.”

( Also on POLITICO: Lawmakers iron out money details for a deal)

While he supported Menendez’s approach, Corker warned the process would likely open up contentious debate over issues on which lawmakers are divided, such as sending combat troops to Iraq, which could snarl next week’s war authorization process.

Paul’s demands for a debate resonated with some of his colleagues. But Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he supported having an AUMF debate — though he believes the president already has authority to take on ISIS, and articulated some misgivings about the process chosen by his colleagues.

“I do share these concerns [about] something of this magnitude voted on in this committee without a hearing,” he said, but noted he understood why it had to happen that way. Given the expiring lame duck session, he acknowledged that inserting Paul’s amendment into the clean water bill was “the last train leaving the station.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he was “totally conflicted” on the mechanism being used to try to authorize force. “I said we were going to do it in a lame duck session. It appears this may be the only place and time we may discuss it,” he said.

Several other committee members also mulled presenting their own legislation to authorize the use of force in order to counter Paul’s push. Still others at Thursday’s committee meeting complained about Paul’s effort.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has filed a proposal that would override Paul’s language in one effort to counter the Kentucky senator’s move. A fierce proponent of authorizing the expanding air war against the Islamic State, Kaine’s proposal would authorize strikes against the militant group.

But Kaine’s legislation doesn’t amount to a formal declaration of war and also includes language to arm moderate Syrian rebels, which Paul’s legislation lacks. Paul’s bill would essentially chart a new course for foreign conflicts, repealing both the 2002 AUMF used in Iraq and the 2001 AUMF used to justify attacks on Al Qaeda.

Kaine also pulled his amendment at the end of the meeting, as the safe drinking water bill passed the committee.

Corker suggested that if an authorization is approved during the lame-duck session, it be more temporary in nature, giving the administration more time to work on its strategy while a better AUMF is drafted.

If Menendez is able to muscle through an AUMF, it remains unclear if there would be time for Senate leaders to engineer a floor vote. The Senate still must approve a government funding bill and the annual defense authorization next week, which, depending on whether any senator places a hold on those bills, could take several days and make it nearly impossible to consider a war authorization.

Jeremy Herb contributed to this report.