[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 92 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[House]
[Page H3999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SYRIA--ANOTHER GUNRUNNING OPERATION BY UNCLE SAM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe) for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is a civil war raging in Syria.
No question about it, President Assad is a bad guy. He hates Israel and
he hates his own people. The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire. I
have been to Syrian refugee camps in Turkey and seen firsthand the
devastation of this war. In one camp I went to, there were 150,000
Syrians in Turkey fleeing from the devastation of war.
However, there are numerous rebel groups trying to remove Assad from
power. Who exactly are these rebels? We really don't know. But we do
know the most powerful among them is al Nusra, an affiliate of al
Qaeda. These extremists on both sides are killing each other in the
name of religion, and the people of Syria are caught in the middle.
Lining up on President Assad's side are the nations of Russia and
Iran; also, the terrorist group Hezbollah, of course, sponsored by
Iran. Lining up on the so-called rebels' side are Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, and numerous rebel groups from patriots to criminals to al Qaeda
and outside mercenaries.
For 2 years, the United States has just ignored the situation; but
now, suddenly, the administration has decided it's time to get
involved. The administration's answer: send the rebels American guns.
Send the rebels American guns? Blindly traffic American guns into Syria
and, I guess, hope for the best.
Does this sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? We've tried this before. We've
seen this song and dance in Libya and even in Mexico, our neighbor.
This administration is gun-happy to give guns away. In Libya, the
administration armed the rebel group to oust Muammar Qadhafi, another
bad guy. Well, where are those guns now? Were they used in Benghazi?
Who knows. The administration is still silent on Benghazi. Those guns
are scattered all over the Middle East and in north Africa.
Were they used in Algeria? Remember, Mr. Speaker, in Algeria there
were Americans working at an energy plant there, along with other
citizens from other countries. Two Americans were killed in that
attack. Were they also used in Mali? Who knows. Only time will tell.
And who has died because these weapons end up in the wrong hands every
time we give American guns away to rebel groups?
By providing weapons to radical sectors fighting against Assad, we're
really taking sides in somebody else's war. We're also arming some
radicals who seek to destroy us, like al Qaeda, who is fighting on the
side of rebels. More weapons will only escalate this conflict. More
people are going to die because the United States picks sides.
But Syria and Libya are not the first time this administration
blindly trafficked weapons to terrorists. Let's go back to our own
hemisphere. Let's talk about our neighbor, Mexico. Do you remember
Operation Fast and Furious? We still haven't gotten answers on that
scandal.
In an effort to help fight the drug cartels, the administration sent
thousands of weapons to Mexico without even telling the Mexican
Government. And who got those weapons? The drug cartels.
{time} 1220
Of course these guns ended up in the hands of the terrorists--the
narcoterrorists--and resulted in the death of at least two or three
Americans and hundreds of Mexican nationals. Another botched gunrunning
operation sponsored by the U.S. Government.
Too bad we don't learn from history and stop this nonsense of
furnishing guns to groups in somebody else's country. Did we implement
universal background checks on the violent criminals we armed in Syria,
Libya and Mexico? Yeah, right. Is this the new foreign policy of the
United States--international weapons trafficking?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, this administration is on a tireless
crusade to ban guns in the United States. Mr. Speaker, why is the White
House so determined on disarming Americans while arming known potential
terrorists, bandits, drug lords and mercenaries? Ironic, don't you
think? But that's a different issue for a different day.
And I ask this question: What is the national security interest of
the United States to be involved in Syria, in somebody else's civil
war? There is none. This is not our war.
Mr. Speaker, this is a regional religious war that we should not be
involved in. It's a war between the Sunnis and the Shias. These two
religious groups have been fighting each other since the year 630, and
now we're involved in this regional, religious war. What's next? Is the
administration going to propose and implement a no-fly zone? Well, if
this occurs, I believe the President must ask for congressional
approval under the War Powers Act.
Almost 100,000 Syrians are dead.
No question, the U.S. should help with humanitarian aid.
The U.S. should work for a political solution, not a military
solution.
But the Administration's policy seems to be traffic guns to third
world countries and subversives and hope for the best.
However, recent history has shown this is a bad idea.
This is a dangerous foreign policy.
What area of the world is next for our gun running government?
Wait and see.
And that's just the way it is.
War Powers Act
(In Part)
50 USC Sec. 1541--Purpose and policy
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of
the framers of the Constitution of the United States and
insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and
the President will apply to the introduction of United States
Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by
the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in
hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and
proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is
specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power
to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into
execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers
vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief;
limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-
Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into
hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are
exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United
States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces
____________________