The 10-8 vote was along party lines, with Democrats supporting the measure and Republicans opposing it. No floor debate is expected in the Senate, nor will the House take up the issue during the last days of this lame-duck session, leaving it for the new Republican-controlled Congress that will be seated in January.

The legislation would prohibit ground combat troops except in certain circumstances, such as rescue missions or conducting operations against high-value targets. The authorization, which would run three years with no geographical limitations, would require President Barack Obama to submit a comprehensive strategy within 30 days of its passage.

The committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, voted no because “I don’t like this process, I don’t like where we are.” The White House, he said, has yet to lay out a clear strategy to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as ISIS, particularly in Syria.

“I have no earthly idea how the administration plans to go about degrading and destroying ISIS in Syria,” he said, adding the president needs to have a plan on dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad in addition to fighting ISIL.

Several amendments were offered along the way.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) wanted to make clear the importance of finding ways to pay for the fight against ISIL.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) offered language that would sunset the 2001 AUMF, which the president is using now to authorize current operations against ISIL, after three years. His amendment would give Congress the ability to update and reauthorize both the 2001 AUMF and the AUMF against ISIL at that time.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wanted to amend the preamble of the bill to recognize abuses by ISIL against women and girls.

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) unsuccessfully offered an amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), that would sunset the authorization after only one year. “I believe it’s our responsibility as a Congress to exercise real oversight,” Udall said, “and reviewing the authorization after one year provides that.”

Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he wasn’t comfortable with a one-year time limit because the president has said the conflict will last for years and a three-year limit would “bridge the divide between multiple years and having an open-ended conflict.”

Paul also offered an amendment to set geographic limitations to only Syria and Iraq, since “ISIL is a group without a country,” as Boxer described it, and could move anywhere. But it was rejected.

Democrats and Republicans generally sparred over how limiting the authorization should be.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said a three-year limit signaled to him the United States would commit to degrading and defeating ISIL, but only if “we can beat them with airstrikes, in three years and where they are currently located.” If not, “ISIL gets to stay.

“I think we have created a big problem for ourselves,” he added.

Menendez disagreed, saying a limit created checks and balances on the president, “as is envisioned by the founders.”

The administration generally supports the proposal drafted by the committee, Secretary of State John Kerry said at a committee hearing on Tuesday, and reiterated the president was “crystal clear” about not using U.S. combat troops in Iraq and Syria.

Tuesday’s hearing was hastily arranged after Paul threatened to offer an amendment to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State on an unrelated foreign water bill during a committee meeting last week.