[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7637-H7662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2015
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule
19, further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124)
making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other
purposes, will now resume.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on Tuesday,
September 16, 2014, 3 hours and 30\1/2\ minutes of debate remained on
the amendment printed in part B of House Report 113-600 offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has 1 hour and 41\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) has 1
hour and 49 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my friend and colleague.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of
something that I am for, and that is the chairman's amendment as he has
presented it.
Madam Speaker, I think that for so many of us who represent men and
women in uniform who comprise our fighting forces and who have been so
diligent in this battle, in this war on terrorism, we look at these
votes and certainly it causes us concern; and we know that the measure
that the House is taking up is a measure as requested by the
President--we recognize that--and we recognize, also, the severity and
importance of the issue.
Madam Speaker, this is an issue that should require the full
attention of every member and every staff member of this body. And I
think that we all approach this--I do--with a lot of questions, and we
realize that what the Commander in Chief has asked for is really, in
the opinion of so many of the men and women that I represent, a half
measure.
I wish we would see more leadership, and I am hopeful that in days to
come we will see leadership from our Commander in Chief. That is what
the men and women deserve, and that is what the American people deserve
as we seek to protect our homeland.
I wish that we could stand here and say this administration has
learned their lessons, because they have so mishandled the drawdown in
Iraq. And the rhetoric of al Qaeda being on the run was truly a
disservice to our military forces and to our men and women in uniform
and to the American people.
It would be my hope that as we take a first step that we recenter our
focus and commit to annihilating ISIL from the face of the Earth.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the threat from ISIS is real. All of us
have seen the violence and the barbarism of ISIS. The rapid advance of
ISIS militants within Iraq and Syria is an immediate threat to these
countries in the region.
No one should be under any delusion about what will happen if the
U.S. sits this one out. If unchecked, the ISIS threat will grow and
become even more difficult to address down the road and directly
threaten our Nation.
As we have seen since President Obama authorized the limited
airstrikes against ISIS in August, we have the ability to mitigate the
ISIS threat, but we cannot defeat ISIS by ourselves with U.S.
airstrikes.
Thomas Friedman said it well in The New York Times:
ISIS loses if our moderate Arab-Muslim partners can unite
and make this a civil war within Islam--a civil war in which
America is the air force for the Sunnis and Shiites of
decency versus those of barbarism . . . It is about them and
who they want to be.
As I see it, an important aspect of U.S. assistance under this
amendment in the training of Syrian rebels is that it will be an
occasion for nations with a Sunni majority to join in a battle against
the fanatical Sunni ISIS. Hopefully, this can lead to expanded
involvement of other nations in this battle at the same time as Iraq's
Shi'a majority, with our active encouragement, finally provides full
rights and participation for its Sunni and Kurdish minorities.
So amidst all the difficulties and the challenges--and they are
serious and many--this amendment can hopefully serve as a stepping
stone, as a stepping stone to a broad-based, effective coalition
against the spread of ISIS.
Our country can provide air support, can provide intelligence and
other logistics, but in the end, it cannot achieve for the people of
Syria and Iraq on the ground what they can only do for themselves.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. McCaul), my colleague and the chairman of the Committee on
Homeland Security.
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the
chairman, whose amendment I support here today, and I will support any
measure that will lead to the destruction of ISIS.
This administration has known about this threat for over a year. It
wasn't until the two beheadings of an American journalist and a British
aid worker that the American people really understood the pure evil
that is ISIS. The White House has been sending mixed messages. Words do
matter.
Finally, I believe this administration realized, despite its flawed
narrative over the years, what the threat from ISIS really is. In fact,
General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said, to fully
defeat ISIS, we have to go into Syria. I agree with him. We must cut
off the head of the snake wherever it exists, and it does exist in
Syria.
While limited in nature, this authorization will begin the process to
do just that by vetting, equipping, and training moderate forces by the
United States military in Saudi Arabia.
I had some reservations about the vetting process. I did visit with
Pentagon officials, and I got greater confidence. I do believe the
numbers are a little bit too low, but the broader strategy under
General Allen is to lead a coalition not only of NATO allies, but of
these moderate Sunni nations to build a ground force in Syria which
currently does not exist.
It is vital, Madam Speaker, that Sunni moderates stand up, Sunni
moderates and Arab nations step up to the plate to defeat and combat
Sunni extremists in their own backyard.
While this is a step in the right direction, I believe that, long
term, the administration needs to come forward with a comprehensive
strategy, one that the American people and Congress can debate, which
could be fully authorized by Congress.
In closing, Madam Speaker, there is nothing more important that we
debate up here, that we talk about here,
[[Page H7638]]
that we vote on up here than matters of war and peace. It is for that
reason that I support this amendment. For, if we do not hit ISIS
overseas, they will certainly hit us in the United States.
Mr. SMITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to this amendment.
I don't take that lightly. I spent 18 years on the Armed Services
Committee and about 12 years on the Homeland Security Committee, and
with any decision like this, we have to weigh what we know and what we
don't know.
We know that, if left unchecked, ISIS would become a direct threat
not only to the United States, but possibly to the entire world. That
is why we are going after them currently in Iraq with partners that we
know we can trust, such as the Kurds.
We know that we cannot sit on our hands, close our eyes, and hope
that ISIS goes away. That is why we need a good plan.
We know that we cannot do this alone, that we need a committed
international coalition to stop ISIS.
The President says we have a coalition of 40. You know, it is
interesting because I remember the Iraq war and the coalition. Some of
our coalition members sent one person. I would really like to know who
our coalition is and what they are really going to do before I vote for
any plan.
What don't we know? We don't know how moderate these Syrian rebels
really are. In fact, some of my Syrian constituents, Syrian Americans
who live in Orange County, have told me that there are no moderates
left or, worse, that the moderates, given the choice between losing or
Assad or ISIS, want ISIS, and they say people aren't going to fight
against ISIS.
We don't know if somewhere down the line they will turn our guns
right back on us. In fact, that is one of the scarier things that we
have to face. We simply don't know who we can trust. In an
uncontrolled, war-torn destabilized country, who do we trust?
We can look back, for example, at what happened in Central America,
how the rebels there, who were armed by the United States, went after
innocent civilians. This blood will be on our hands when that happens.
We need a winning strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS.
Now, we are in an election season. Everybody says this isn't
political, but I know, I have been talking to colleagues on both sides
of the aisle, and some are wondering what they do 7 weeks away from an
election.
I have got to tell you, this is not a political vote. The last time
people took a political vote in this House, it was on the Iraq war, and
many of my colleagues say it was the worst vote they took.
{time} 1415
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my friend and colleague.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I thank our chairman.
This proposal just examines one piece of the puzzle, not the totality
of the Syrian crisis. The White House should have come to Congress for
a full authorization for use of military force in Syria to put all of
our options on the table with no limitations.
ISIS is part of the radical Islam threat, which the 9/11 Commission
identified as a serious threat to U.S. national security and to world
peace and stability.
I have serious reservations about the President's plan to train and
equip the so-called ``moderate opposition'' in Syria because we don't
want ISIL to get even more of our equipment and arms, as it did in
Iraq.
ISIL is not the only terror group in Syria, Madam Speaker, nor is it
the only hurdle for stability in Syria and Iraq. There are dangerous
terrorist groups operating in Syria, like al-Nusra and other terrorist
organizations, that are waiting to take up the mantle should ISIL fall.
And, then, of course, Assad is still responsible for the deaths of over
200,000 people.
Last year, the President failed to act militarily when Assad used
chemical weapons against his own people. We cannot have a plan that
does not address the removal of Assad simultaneously alongside the
destruction of ISIL and other terrorist threats.
Even though I will vote for the McKeon amendment, we still won't be
approaching this situation in a comprehensive manner that is required.
We were successful in isolating Iran with sanctions until we
unraveled that with these nuclear negotiations. We can do the same in
Syria. I am afraid that this misguided negotiations approach in Iran
will preempt many to acquiesce and take a deal that will undermine our
national security and leave Iran with enrichment capabilities.
That, Madam Speaker, is a real and present danger in the Middle East:
a nuclear Iran. This could be a calamity for the region and U.S.
national security interests, such as the safety and the security of our
strong ally, the democratic Jewish State of Israel.
Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
Dempsey, revealed that the use of military forces on the ground may be
needed in Syria. If our military officials believe that it is
absolutely necessary to use the U.S. military on the ground, I would
fully support that.
We cannot take anything off the table and showcase to the terrorists
what we are not willing to do. The full range of United States
political, economic, and military power must be brought to bear against
this radical threat. Announcing to the enemy a self-imposed limit on
the part of our arsenal is signaling that we do not possess the
necessary will to prevail against radical Islam.
I thank the chairman for the leadership.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
the gentleman for his leadership. I thank Mr. McKeon for his
leadership.
We will see today a bipartisan action, bipartisan action on behalf of
America, on behalf of its security, on behalf of our international
partners in confronting terrorism.
Madam Speaker, today, the House is fulfilling one of its most
important responsibilities: to protect our national security and defend
our interests overseas. Among those interests is to prevent the
dangerous ISIL terrorist group from spreading and threatening American
personnel, our allies, and innocent civilians.
The amendment before us will authorize the President to train and
equip moderate Syrian opposition to degrade and destroy ISIL in Iraq
and Syria. No sanctuaries, no place to hide. ISIL is already
threatening Americans and our allies in the Middle East and Europe;
and, if left unchecked, it will surely threaten us here at home.
This amendment is Congress' opportunity to demonstrate unity in
support of the President's strategy and provide him with the
authorization he needs to help train and equip our regional partners to
go on the offense against ISIL. ISIL has already murdered and captured
soldiers, innocent civilians, and journalists, including, of course,
two Americans, and members of religious communities have been targeted,
targeted for their faith. They are no more than a collection of
criminal terrorists bent on imposing their fanatical objectives on
others by force, violence, and barbarism.
ISIL constitutes a dual threat. They pose a counterterrorism threat
to the United States and our regional partners and they represent a
destabilizing force in the region.
Madam Speaker, we cannot ignore the challenge that ISIL presents to
America and to the world. There is no question that there will be
challenges. But we know empirically the cost of doing nothing is far
too great.
The President was right to wait until a government had been formed in
Iraq that is ready to move forward against ISIL. Americans don't want
American women and men on the ground, but Americans do want ISIL
confronted. Congress has an important role to play in this effort, and
this amendment ought to be a strong and clear message to the world that
the American people, through their elected representatives, will join
those in the region to prevent the terrorist group ISIL from running
rampant across the Middle East.
[[Page H7639]]
It is a message to our allies and regional partners that our Nation
is prepared to train and equip those who are working to stop ISIL's
advance. And it is a message to the world that we are united in our
resolve to meet this threat. We clearly may have differences on this
House floor, but we are Americans when it comes to defending our people
and our country.
Madam Speaker, with regard to the underlying bill, the continuing
resolution, let me make some brief comments.
House Republicans have chosen not to repeat their government shutdown
from last year. I think they are making a wise decision.
There are things I would change in this bill, just as I know there
are things my friends on the Republican side would change in this bill.
That is compromise. That is the legislative process. That is what our
Founding Fathers envisioned. That, in fact, is governing.
I am hopeful that this continuing resolution will give Congress the
time it needs to complete work on appropriations for the fiscal year
2015 that meet our obligations to the American people and to America's
future.
We need a budget that embraces fiscal sustainability while investing
in job growth and competitiveness so that we can grow our middle class.
While it is important that Congress move forward with this 72-day
funding bill, I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, that we are not
extending the Export-Import Bank's charter for multiple years. Not
doing so is another example of undermining our competitive position for
the world and the competence of our job creators.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. As CNBC pointed out last week:
At first glance, it might seem like a congressional deal to
extend the Export-Import Bank's charter through June would be
good news for the beleaguered institution, which supports
American exports with loan guarantees and other credit
assistance. In fact, it is the exact opposite. An extension
to June could be a death sentence for the bank.
I sincerely pray it is not.
Congress has a responsibility to make sure the bank's charter is
extended beyond June. We need a multiyear reauthorization along the
lines of the one proposed by Ranking Member Waters and Representative
Denny Heck.
The Export-Import Bank is instrumental in helping small businesses
access foreign markets, and uncertainty over its future has already
cost American businesses lucrative trade deals.
I urge us between now and June to come together in a bipartisan way
to move forward with legislation that achieves this goal. I believe if
the House is allowed to vote, we will achieve that objective, as we
have in the past.
While I oppose this provision, I will vote for the amendment and for
final passage of the continuing resolution, and I urge my colleagues to
do the same. I think it is in the best interest of America, the best
interest of our national security, and I urge this House to act in a
way that will make our constituents proud and safer.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have a letter that was written to myself and Ranking Member Smith
from four of our leading experts in the area, former Ambassadors to the
area, and former generals: Ryan C. Crocker, Robert S. Ford, General
Jack M. Keane, and General David H. Petraeus. This letter was dated
this morning:
Dear Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith:
We write to express our strong support for congressional
authorization of the provision of assistance and training to
properly vetted members of the Syrian opposition.
The Free Syrian Army is simultaneously fighting both the
murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad and the barbaric Islamic
State in Iraq and al-Sham. Providing greater assistance to
the Free Syrian Army is the United States' best opportunity
to develop a moderate force that is capable of defeating ISIL
and bringing about a post-Assad Syria that is free of terror.
As you may know, Free Syrian Army forces have recently
achieved some successes on the ground against ISIL forces in
northern Syria, but their effectiveness is limited by their
lack of sufficient assistance and training.
Building up the moderate opposition in Syria will be a key
element of any successful strategy against ISIL. To be sure,
after 3 years of war, it will take a long time to build the
moderate opposition. But there is no viable alternative. The
United States must set to this task immediately.
Finally, we note that approval of this measure should not
prevent or circumscribe Congress from considering a properly
scoped authorization for the use of military force in the
future, or from otherwise revisiting or revising its position
on this issue as conditions on the ground evolve. But time is
of the essence, and we are convinced of the urgent need for
Congress to authorize this effort.
Sincerely, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker; Ambassador Robert S.
Ford; General Jack M. Keane, USA, Retired; and General David
H. Petraeus, USA, Retired.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter), my friend and colleague, a member of the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good friend, and
the chairman, whom I am very, very lucky and honored to serve under and
serve with.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendment. It is not an easy vote. I
have been looking for reasons to support this amendment and I can't
find it.
This amendment does nothing to destroy the Islamic state. This
amendment does not crush the Islamic state. What this amendment does is
start training Islamists to fight Islamists, and we may have that
Islamist army to fight Islamists in a matter of a few years.
I will not vote for something that I know will not work. Arming
Islamists to fight other Islamists is not a winning strategy. I don't
believe the weapons and tactics that we bestow to the Islamists will
only be used against America's enemies. We have been through this
before in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think I am one of the only people
speaking here today who has served in the U.S. Marine Corps in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
In a confusing situation with many warring factions on all sides, the
last thing that we should do is arm Islamic rebels to fight other
Islamic rebels.
{time} 1430
The truth is that the President invited the Islamic State into Iraq
when he removed our eyes and ears on the ground and removed the U.S.
military from Iraq 2 years ago. We will continue to be at war with
radical Islam in this area well into the future, but that doesn't
matter now. What matters is that the Islamic State is on the march, and
it presents a serious regional threat.
We need to crush the Islamic State. We need to kill them. We need to
destroy them. We need to burn the Islamic State to the ground, and you
don't do that by training Islamic Syrians. You don't crush the Islamic
State by training Islamists to fight other Islamists.
Arming Islamic fighters is no longer a viable strategy. It was a year
ago, it was 2 years ago, but it is not now. There is no confidence that
we are arming the right people, and there is no assurance that those
weapons and U.S. tactics and U.S. communications gear won't fall into
the wrong hands.
The Saudi Arabians are going to help us fight in Syria. If I remember
right, Madam Speaker, the Saudi Arabians provided the majority of the
hijackers who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. I refuse to stand with
the Saudi Arabians.
We need to crush ISIS, not work on training more Islamic radicals.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Washington for yielding.
I rise in support of the McKeon amendment to grant the President the
authority needed to fund and train Syrian opposition forces and counter
the threat posed by ISIS.
Since the September 11 attacks, our Nation has taken the fight to
terrorists. Our brave men and women in uniform supported by the defense
and intelligence agencies have kept us safe from another attack on
American soil. Now, our allies on the ground in the Middle East must
take the fight to
[[Page H7640]]
ISIS, supported by our air power, arms, and expertise.
I agree with the administration that the most effective way for the
United States to realize this goal is providing training and equipment
to our allies in Iraq and select groups among the Syrian opposition.
This is not a situation that can be solved by the introduction of U.S.
troops into combat. In fact, such a response would jeopardize the gains
made recently following the air campaign over Iraq.
It is vital, however, that the Syrian opposition groups selected to
receive support be fully vetted by the administration to ensure to the
greatest extent possible that no weapons or expertise will end up in
the hands of our enemies, whether they be the Islamic State or another
bad actor involved in the conflict.
We must only provide support to those groups that both the Department
of Defense and State have determined to have the greatest chance of
success. While there are no guarantees in this situation, the
administration must take appropriate steps to minimize the risk and
avoid repeating history.
It must also be made clear that these efforts are not the first step
of an ever-escalating conflict ending with widespread U.S. involvement
in a combat role. Our allies in the Arab world, both Sunni and Shi'a,
must be the leaders of the international alliance to combat ISIS.
Only through a coalition and widespread involvement of Arab nations
will these efforts succeed and not be seen as yet another chapter of
Sunni on Shi'a violence or another chapter in a war between the
Christian West and the Muslim Middle East. Our allies must make
significant military commitments to support moderate groups in
opposition to ISIS.
Finally, the administration must be able to give a clear view of
their long-term strategy and goals going forward. Entering a conflict
without clear objectives and an exit strategy is not a situation that
any Member of the House wishes to repeat.
I urge my colleagues to support the McKeon amendment.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend and the distinguished majority
leader.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Madam Speaker, we face an enemy who poses
a grave and growing threat to the United States and our allies, a
threat that has been ignored for too long and must no longer be
tolerated.
I know that many of us in this Chamber from both sides of the aisle
believe that the President's strategy should do more to eradicate those
extremists from the Earth, but despite those reservations--reservations
that I share--we must support this amendment and take this first step
towards a comprehensive strategy to combat these brutal terrorists.
Voting against this request would send a terrible message that
America is unwilling to stand with those who are already fighting a
common enemy and confirm the views of many in the region that America
is but a paper tiger.
I am not convinced this train-and-equip effort will change the
balance of power on the ground anytime soon, and I believe this
approach comes with great risks. I am also concerned that airstrikes
alone will be insufficient to meet the international threat posed by
these terrorists.
Congress must maintain a central role. We must conduct oversight to
ensure this program is managed effectively. Under the leadership of
Chairman McKeon, we have taken the President's original request and
have added substantial oversight provisions to ensure this program is
properly and carefully managed.
Congress must also push the President to craft a comprehensive
strategy that recognizes the inescapable reality that ISIL is but a
symptom of a broader terrorist threat.
Preventing the next 9/11 requires us to confront the reality that al
Qaeda, ISIL, and similar radical terrorist groups are spreading,
operating out of sanctuaries across the Middle East, North Africa, and
South Asia. These groups pose a grave and growing threat to the United
States. Our strategy cannot ignore these growing dangers.
A President who has made ending the war on terrorism the central
focus of his foreign policy must now change. He must now make winning
the war a priority. The Congress will need to push the President and
his administration to do this right; to confront America's enemies; and
to restore America's alliances, strength, and credibility.
This institution will be in no position to do that if we block his
simple request today. Congress must now vote to support the first steps
of what will be a long march toward that victory.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise against this amendment to arm and
equip both Syrian rebels and other Syrian groups and individuals.
I want to be clear: we need to take action against the threat posed
by ISIL, and I support the President in the use of airstrikes, but our
response must also be appropriate to the complexity of the situation on
the ground in Syria.
First and foremost, we must make sure that any response to the threat
that we face does not plunge us deeper into a complicated and sectarian
civil war. I feel that this amendment may lead to that.
With their barbaric attacks against journalists, women, children, and
innocent civilians, ISIL is a terrorist group, pure and simple. While
they are not now a threat to our Nation, they do have the potential to
be one if left unchecked.
I believe that operating with our allies in the region, like Arab
nations and leaders in the newly-formed Iraqi government, we must be
part of a broad coalition to address this potential threat, but I do
not think this amendment is the right way forward.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a tyrant. He has tortured and
massacred his own people for years now. He should stand before the
world and be made to pay for his crimes, but, as the very existence of
ISIL illustrates, simply arming those who oppose his tyranny will not
make America or the region safer.
Syria is a deeply complex situation. It is a nation in the midst of a
civil war, splintered between Shi'a and Sunni, authoritarians and al
Qaeda, and along countless other points of fractures.
I do not see how we are going to be able to thread the needle whereby
we arm those we think are ``good guys'' in this conflict without
inadvertently making the ``bad guys'' stronger as well.
We need to take action against ISIL, and I support airstrikes and
other counterterrorism measures, but I believe that the amendment
before us today provides much broader authority, and I cannot support
it.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), my friend and colleague.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. The President
took an important step in his address to the Nation last week. He said
that he is committed to ``degrading and destroying'' ISIL. The
President should be commended for evolving from his position last month
when he indicated that he didn't think ISIL posed much of a threat to
America.
Madam Speaker, much, much more must be done. I am concerned that the
President isn't fully listening to his military leaders. Reports have
emerged indicating that President Obama did not choose to use the
recommendations that our military leaders gave him.
Specifically, it has been reported that General Lloyd Austin, the top
commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, advised the President to
send in some Special Operations Forces to advise and assist Iraqi Army
units while fighting the militants.
Just today, at a Senate hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin
Dempsey said that the reality of the threat of ISIL might make the
hands-off approach that the President is pursuing insufficient to deal
with the threat. It is troubling when a Commander in Chief with no
military experience chooses to ignore the advice of his military
leaders.
On one hand, Secretary Hagel has said that we are at war with ISIL.
On the other hand, it appears as if the President may be settling for
what may be less than overwhelming force in confronting an enemy that
he says
[[Page H7641]]
should be destroyed because of the threat it poses.
Again, it was encouraging to see President Obama acknowledge ISIL as
the threat that they are to Americans, to our homeland, and our friend
and allies; however, I hope, when this authorization expires in
December, that President Obama will take the steps that his military
leaders propose that will actually accomplish the President's goal of
degrading and destroying ISIL.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and--he insisted I say this--
a fellow graduate of Fordham University.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. We
all agonized as to what we should do, but I want to correct the record.
At 2:25 this afternoon, through the chair, when we started to
pontificate on this floor about Islamists against Islamists, what we do
is perpetuate the agony. What we do is stir up the pot when we
stereotype who is with us and who is not with us.
Not every Muslim is the same, not every Christian is the same, as we
found out in the Balkan wars in 1998 and 1999. In fact, in that war, we
assisted Kosovo because it was being totally overcome with Serbs. One
was Muslim; the other was Christian.
I think it is not good that the Congress go on record as pitting one
group against the other. I don't think it works. I don't think it is
healthy, Madam Speaker.
Let's be clear about what this vote is about. This is not an
authorization for open-ended war. This is not October 2002 which was an
authorization. No one knows that better than the chair and the ranking
member who have done a spectacular job, I believe, in keeping this a
fair debate and a fair discussion, and I want to compliment both of
them.
I believe that ISIL is a threat to our national security, and I
support the President's mission to end that threat. While America must
lead, we cannot do this alone. We must see a real commitment from our
coalition partners in the region, and we must provide the kind of
support that is necessary if we are going to be successful.
In 3 months, when we get to December and we have to vote for a CR
again and we have to vote whether we are going to continue to go down
this path, we better have tangible evidence that those countries who
signed sheets of paper that they are going to support us have tangible
support out there for us and are not just sending cupcakes for the
troops.
We can do our part. We can arm all the properly vetted opposition
forces in Syria that we can find and provide air support and training
for those on the ground, but we won't be successful in destroying ISIL
unless our partners in the region help us cut off their funding, better
police their borders, provide combat troops on the ground, and end the
political bickering that causes the chaos and mistrust that groups like
ISIL thrive under.
I am pleased that the President has chosen to come to Congress to get
our support for his plan. I believe that the provisions of this
amendment will allow us to perform the oversight that is
constitutionally responsible.
However, as I said before, this is not a blank check. Today, we are
voting for a limited mission and ensuring that we properly vet those we
are arming.
{time} 1445
I am pleased that we will revisit this issue later this year in the
intervening months.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. If our coalition partners don't step up to the plate, I
don't see how we could be successful in destroying ISIL and why we
should continue.
The lesson we learned from the war in Iraq is that American military
might alone is not enough to defeat enemies. No matter how murderous
and vicious a terrorist organization like ISIL may be, sometimes the
American military intervention cannot be the silver bullet that solves
all of our problems. And we say this about the greatest air and sea and
land troops in the world. It is going to take a broad regional
coalition acting as one, both militarily and politically.
Madam Speaker, I close by simply saying this: We need support, not
only in the short term, but in the long term to have a government in
Syria. We pray to God that they will have a government that can sustain
itself.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), my friend and colleague.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today 227 years ago on September
17, our Founding Fathers signed our Nation's most precious document,
the U.S. Constitution.
Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: Congress shall
have the power to declare war. The President does not have that power,
only Congress.
Congress gives our President the power to defend our country;
however, that authority remains subject to checks and balances,
particularly by this body.
As such, if the President believes a state of war exists between
ourselves and ISIL--the comments made by both the Secretary of Defense
and Secretary of State indicate that he does--then let him make it
constitutional by first coming to Congress and asking for that
declaration.
Today, the House will vote on the President's request to authorize
assistance to train and arm the Syrian rebels. I have long opposed
arming the Syrian opposition out of the fear that these weapons will
fall into the hands of Islamic radicals such as ISIL. Rather than
supporting relatively unknown opposition groups in Syria to battle
these forces, the Islamic State, we must instead turn to our
longstanding allies, the Kurds.
The Kurds have shown repeatedly that they have the capacity, the
tenacity, and the will to stand up to ISIL. With our support, the
Kurdish Peshmerga, together with the Iraqi security forces, will be
able to successfully annihilate the evil forces of ISIL.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, if the President wishes to engage this
country in military action against ISIL, then I urge him to ask
Congress for a declaration of war. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to
join me in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I respect all
of my colleagues on the tough decisions that we are asked to make
today.
I believe that America must use our military might any time that our
families face an imminent threat. Though ISIS, like a number of
terrorist groups around the world, would like to kill more Americans,
our military leadership has made it clear that ISIS does not represent
such a threat today. It is a regional threat without the capacity to do
the harm it would like to do.
Rejecting this one amendment does not mean doing nothing about ISIS.
The President already has the necessary authority to respond to this
savagery when Americans are murdered.
Now the President's response, however, has been expanded, and he
proposes a full-scale war. This amendment establishes a new objective
for this broader war--to end the civil war in Syria that has already
consumed almost 200,000 lives.
Approving this amendment is the one vote that has been requested to
enable this broader war--but without a declaration by the Congress to
approve that war and without knowing what commitment those in the
region will really make in order to fight this war.
I got a communication from a constituent of mine in San Antonio. Her
name is Gloria Flores, and she tells me this. She poses some questions
that are not being answered today in Washington.
``In my view,'' she says, ``ISIS is just one more extreme group
which, if destroyed, will be replaced with another group . . . I don't
say `boots on the ground' because that phrase . . . takes away from the
terrible toll that will affect a family if its son or daughter is
killed. My nephew . . . was killed in Afghanistan, and we are still
mourning his death . . . Any armed force should consist of almost
entirely Middle Eastern soldiers. Why should American kids,'' she asks,
``carry the load for Saudis, Jordanians, et cetera?''
[[Page H7642]]
Why, indeed.
But this purported coalition does not carry its own load. Others may
appear in photos. They may cheer from the rear, but nearby countries
are not risking their young people in ground combat. In one case, we
even have a neighboring country that will not even permit us to launch
an attack by air from its soil.
With the number of our U.S. military on the ground already
approaching 2,000 in Iraq and with General Michael Hayden, the former
NSA and CIA head, expecting 5,000 by the end of the year, the danger of
escalation is very real.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. Now, I do find it difficult to understand, with its
hostility to Christians and brutal disdain for our American values, how
Saudi Arabia can be a place for training anyone--certainly no Syrian
women learning to drive there.
Ultimately, I believe that this resolution has to be evaluated on
whether it secures our families in a stronger way. I think it entangles
us in a conflict that we cannot get out of as quickly as those trained
Iraqi soldiers dropped their uniforms and their guns.
Today is Constitution Day. Let us use our constitutional powers to
consider a declaration of war before this entanglement.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), my friend and colleague and a
member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the President's
request to train vetted moderate Syrian rebels, as I believe it is only
one step in the right direction and it is supported by military
experts.
Tremendous oversight is going to be necessary in this effort and,
unfortunately, I fear, as do many experienced generals and military
personnel, that it is part of a strategy that is insufficient to secure
America's national security.
The President's stated objective is to destroy ISIL; however, I
believe this overall strategy and the means requested are not enough to
meet this objective.
The current strategy relies on U.S. airpower in support of local
forces. This is not a counterterrorism effort, and to destroy ISIL it
is necessary to have strong coordinated ground troops. The local ground
forces the President is planning to rely on appear currently unready,
and they will need to operate with a strong central command and
control.
The President's strategy does not provide for U.S. Special Forces in
the backing of our ground troops, even though our military leaders have
repeatedly suggested that exact recommendation.
Our security is too important to base military strategy on political
calculations. Our strategy must be firmly rooted in what is necessary
in order to complete the mission and to ensure our security.
From Clausewitz to Powell, military leaders have preached the
necessity of decisive force. I served in Iraq. We heeded this wisdom
and committed to win with decisive force. We acted on militarily
reality and not political risk. We can do this again and fulfill the
American objective to destroy ISIL, but we must commit ourselves to do
what is necessary--not only what it takes, but whatever it takes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend.
Madam Speaker, last week I met with a constituent from Huntington
Station on Long Island, and she said to me, ``Mr. Israel, war is never
the answer.''
I would agree with that view that war is never the answer if I
believed that ISIL agreed with that view, but they do not. I have
thought a lot about my constituent's comments and I have thought a lot
about this resolution. There are four things that we do know.
First, ISIL is not just a threat; it is a savage threat. And what
message do we send to potential beheaders around the world if we bury
our head in the sand?
Secondly, ISIL has filled a vacuum, and if we do not check that
vacuum, it will spread, and instability and beheadings and savagery
will spread across the Middle East and beyond.
Number three, we cannot, nor should we, do this alone. I believe that
the President has helped to organize an important international
coalition to ensure that this is not on our shoulders and that we do
not have boots on the ground.
Finally, there should be no blank checks. We did that. We gave those
blank checks from 2000 to 2008. No more blank checks.
This resolution ensures accountability; it ensures transparency; it
ensures reporting. Taken all together, Madam Speaker, this resolution
is a restrained, responsible and appropriate response to the spread of
ISIL, to beheading, to savagery in the Middle East and potentially
around the world, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my friend and colleague.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, all of us recognize the threat posed to our Nation by
the Islamic State. The question before us is whether to arm and train
supposedly carefully vetted elements of the Free Syrian Army as a proxy
ground force.
I respect the intentions of the supporters, but this proposal runs a
great risk of backfiring.
The FSA is a marriage of convenience among many Islamic factions that
have a long history of collaborating with the Islamic State. The
singular purpose of the FSA is not to destroy the Islamic State. It
exists to destroy the Syrian Government that is now actively fighting
against the Islamic State.
The equipment we provide to the FSA could easily be turned against
the Syrian Government, which, despite all of its despotic tendencies,
is at least at war with the IS right now, and we would weaken our
overall strategic position. Or this equipment could be turned over to
the Islamic State, as we watched carefully vetted Iraqi security forces
recently do. In fact, that is the reason the Islamic State is armed to
the teeth with American equipment.
Neither we nor the world can afford more blunders or miscalculations
in this region. We should have learned by now that alliances in the
Islamic Middle East are in constant flux. An ally today is a sworn
enemy tomorrow. In fact, often our allies are our enemies.
After I was elected, the first man killed from my district in Iraq,
Army Specialist Jeremiah McCleery, died when ``carefully vetted'' Iraqi
soldiers turned their American-provided weapons on him.
The most recent fatality from my district, Marine Staff Sergeant Sky
Mote, died when ``carefully vetted'' Afghan police turned their
American-provided weapons on him.
Madam Speaker, our consistent experience in this region should be
screaming this warning at us. We are making a big mistake.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
Ms. GABBARD. Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to this amendment
because this proposed strategy actually reflects a lack of commitment
to really destroy ISIL and the other Islamic extremist groups that we
are at war with. Here are just a few reasons why I will be voting
``no.''
{time} 1500
First, it is unrealistic. It will take way too long, and the number
of fighters trained will be way too small to be truly effective in the
fight against ISIL. Over that period of time, ISIL will continue to
grow in strength.
Number two, the mission is unclear. The American people want ISIL
destroyed, but the primary objective of the fighters whom we train will
be to overthrow Assad.
Number three, we don't really know who they are. Presently, they are
fighting shoulder to shoulder with al Qaeda and other Islamic
extremists and therefore can't be trusted. The weapons and training
that we give them may end up actually being used against us and our
allies.
Voting to support this proposal is actually a vote to overthrow Assad
because overthrowing Assad is the primary objective of the so-called
Free Syrian Army.
[[Page H7643]]
If we combine the missions of destroying ISIL and of overthrowing
Assad, this is not a smart or effective strategy for a number of
reasons. We must focus on one mission--to destroy ISIL and other
Islamic extremists who have declared war on us. Our mission should not
be to topple the Assad regime, which would make the situation in the
region even worse and more unstable than it is today.
Madam Speaker, we have heard this story before. We know how it ends.
Look at Iraq. Look at Libya. Clearly, our leaders have not learned
their lesson. We must focus on taking out our enemies and on investing
in our own country here at home.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
Mr. WOMACK. My thanks to my friend from Texas for giving me the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Chairman McKeon's
amendment, though I have grave concerns about the President's current
plan to train and equip Syrian opposition forces in the fight against
ISIL.
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, the plan does not fit the threat. ISIL
has made the Middle East into a war zone and an advanced training
ground for terrorists who, by their own admission, seek to do Americans
great harm. Its stated objectives of redrawing the boundaries of and
imposing its will on sovereign nations makes the importance of
confronting this organization, in the most profound way possible,
critical.
Instead of responding proportionately, President Obama has proposed
we outsource the problem to other people, and as a military officer, I
am concerned that he actually believes this limited use of military
power can achieve the ultimate objective of destroying ISIL--a force
that is 30,000 strong and growing by the day.
Madam Speaker, I fear--in fact, I firmly believe--that the problem
will not be solved by the actions taken by this Congress today.
However, we cannot afford to stand idly by for another day, because a
step in the right direction is better than no step at all. So I join my
colleagues in support of the amendment. I believe, in short order, we
will be asked to do more.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, in 2011, former Secretary Robert Gates,
as he was departing office, gave a speech at the West Point academy in
which he said:
In my opinion, any future Defense Secretary who advises the
President to again send a big American land army into Asia or
into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined,
as General MacArthur so delicately put it.
I think Secretary Gates spoke for the entire country in terms of that
sentiment, which, after a long, bitter experience in Iraq and
Afghanistan, speaks to the weariness that many feel today in terms of
those conflicts, and, certainly, with the motion that is before us this
afternoon, it still rings in people's ears. I think it is important
therefore to sort of measure what we are voting on with what Secretary
Gates, I think, so accurately stated.
The motion before us is to provide for title 10 authorization to
allow the U.S. military to train and equip forces in Saudi Arabia to
take up arms against ISIL. I checked with the Congressional Research
Service yesterday to determine how many title 10 operations over the
last 3 years have been conducted by the U.S. military. In 28 countries
all across the world, the U.S. military has been involved in training
and equipping operations, from the Philippines to Yemen to Poland.
For those who argue that what we are about to engage in is a slippery
slope or that this authorization somehow broadly confers on the
administration the ability to conduct a land invasion or a large
military force, the fact of the matter is that the long and broad
experience of title 10 that we have tells us exactly the opposite. In
fact, what title 10 seeks to do is to stand up indigenous forces in
those nations of allies to avoid what Secretary Gates warned about in
2011, which is to, again, not get this country involved in a large land
invasion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ELLISON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, one healthy thing has occurred over the
last few days, which is that folks on both sides of this measure, I
think, have come to the realization that we as a Congress need to be
engaged in terms of these types of decisions.
To their credit, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Smith have fashioned a resolution
which requires by December 11 our revisiting this motion, to have
regular reporting from the Department of Defense, and it requires us, I
think, at some point, to take up the broader question of authorization
of military force, reaching back to 2001 and 2002, in terms of limiting
the scope, which, again, has been supported by this administration and
which we have discussed in the House Armed Services Committee. It is
also to focus on what exactly is the end game for our efforts in Syria
and Iraq.
Again, the measure that is before us today, though, is simply about
title 10 authorization between today and December 11. I think people
should not overthink and overstate the consequences of this vote. What
it provides is for America to stand up with regional allies and
European allies to begin the process of degrading and, ultimately,
destroying a barbaric force, which threatens stability both in the
Middle East and, ultimately, America's national interests.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my thoughts and, frankly, some
concerns about the President's proposal that we will vote on today to
train and arm the Free Syrian Army forces to fight ISIL. We are sort of
in a ``damned if you do, damned if you don't'' situation.
I have always said that our country needs a comprehensive plan,
policy, and strategy to defeat the radical Islamists terrorizing Iraq
and Syria. Certainly, ISIS represents the antithesis of American
ideals, and they have gruesomely demonstrated their disgust for our
Nation with the beheadings of two American journalists in recent weeks.
What we are considering today is a partial plan, one of which I
remain uncertain as to whether it will have the desired outcome. In
fact, since 2011, the administration has consistently resisted any
major efforts to arm and train the moderate opposition forces in Syria
even when, I believe, a window existed to effectively do that some time
ago.
At a hearing in the Appropriations Committee in February of 2012, I
questioned then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about why we were
not doing more to help the moderate Syrian opposition. She flatly
rejected providing support then. Now, however, I fear we may have
effectively missed the time in which arming the FSA will impact the
barbarism of ISIL in the region. Unfortunately, since 2011 and early
2012, the situation in Syria has become dramatically more complex, and
identifying true allies in the fight against ISIS will be exceedingly
difficult.
Questions remain about the President's strategy:
How will we effectively vet the opposition forces? How will we ensure
that arms delivered will not be sold to ISIS forces or will not be used
against already persecuted people in the region, such as the Syrian
Christians?
ISIL is a threat to our Nation's security, and, no doubt, it must be
destroyed and defeated, but I do have trepidation regarding this
initial step in equipping the FSA at this juncture. Those voting on
this measure, I suspect, will do so with great reluctance. Those voting
``no'' will do so with discomfort.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I agree with the last speaker, Mr. Dent,
that this is a very difficult vote, and I think everybody should
approach it with a tremendous amount of trepidation and concern. I am
sure that all of us are doing the best we can to come to the very best
decision we can on behalf of our constituents.
Today, I plan on voting for the measure. The reason is that the civil
war in
[[Page H7644]]
Syria has claimed thousands of lives. Thousands more are now living
under the deadly rule of ISIL, and 200,000 Syrians have been killed so
far as the world, for 4 years, has not done much to protect them.
Now, the fight in Syria and Iraq can, ultimately, only be solved
politically, and I believe that the growing humanitarian crisis caused
by conflicts in the region warrants an urgent response from the United
States. Any military action against ISIL must be led by Iraqis and
Syrians. I believe U.S. troops would be a magnet for a group like ISIL,
and therefore this fight must be carried forth by the people most
affected--Syrians and Iraqis themselves. I believe that a vetted and
better armed, moderate rebel group in Syria can fight ISIL in northeast
Syria when an Iraqi Army, perhaps, can push them out of their country
and into Syria. There cannot be a safe haven in Syria for ISIL.
I also want to note that much has been said about the fractured
nature or the weakness of the Free Syrian Army, but I would remind
people who are participating in this debate that, for 4 years, the Free
Syrian Army has withstood the onslaught of the Assad government,
Hezbollah, Iran, Russian weapons, ISIS, and Jabhat al-Nusra. For 4
years, these people who were dismissed as nothing but bankers and
bakers and not real soldiers have stood their ground and have stood for
their country.
For these reasons, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers), the chair of the Republican Conference.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the chairman's
amendment, and I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the
President on a long-term strategy to dismantle and destroy ISIL.
Last week, the President's address to the country began to make the
case that ISIL is an immediate threat to our allies in the Middle East,
Europe and, ultimately, in our homeland. This is a radical and brutal
force, opposed to all who do not adhere to their narrow view of Islam
and the world. ISIL has declared war on our way of life and the values
on which this country was founded and has flourished for over 235
years. In fact, ISIL has made clear that they will not be deterred
until they see their flag flying over the White House.
When it comes to protecting the safety and security of Americans at
home and abroad, America must lead. As we know, a speech is not a plan.
An F-16 is not a strategy. As the Commander in Chief, we need the
President to give us an honest assessment and an in-depth strategy to
defend the country and our interests around the world.
This amendment responds to the President's request to use title 10
authority to train and equip vetted Syrian opposition forces. General
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called it a necessary
but not sufficient step. Beyond the amendment and the President's
limited request, the American people need to see a plan clearly
articulated with a strategy to dismantle and destroy ISIL.
When we look around the world today, we see instability and numerous
threats. The spread of radical Islam throughout the globe is pervasive.
Iran continues to move toward a nuclear weapon. Russia continues to
take aggressive action toward the Baltic states.
I support this amendment because America must lead. As we have seen,
when America sits on the sidelines, there is a leadership void, which
is filled by bad actors. I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this
action.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
{time} 1515
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will cast my vote to
approve the President's funding request to train and equip the moderate
Syrian opposition forces. I do so after long consideration and am
mindful of the difficulties of vetting such a force during the middle
of a brutal civil war.
Any decision to supply arms to combatants must be weighed carefully.
Indeed, for the last several years, I have opposed arming the Syrian
rebels out of a concern for our ability to properly vet such troops and
the fear that weapons we provide may end up in the wrong hands. Those
concerns persist, but they have been overcome by the growing menace of
ISIL and the willingness of our regional allies to play a greater--and
open--role in the support of these forces.
ISIL now controls about a third of Iraq and a like portion of Syria.
It has been unsurpassed in its brutality, committing mass executions,
forced conversions, trafficking in women, and beheading its hostages,
including Americans James Foley and Steven Sotloff.
If ISIL is allowed to consolidate its territorial gains, or expand
them, it will be able to act on its stated intention of serving as the
platform for attacks on the United States. The thousands of foreign
fighters, including Americans, who have flocked to join its ranks will
one day attempt to return to the West and attack our homeland.
Our response must be proportionate to the threat. It does not justify
American occupation of Iraq or Syria or the introduction of American
ground forces, all of which are likely to be counterproductive. It does
justify the use of American air power, intelligence, and financial,
diplomatic, and military support. And since air power alone will not be
sufficient on the battlefield, it will necessitate the assistance of
local ground forces.
In the case of Iraq, those ground forces will be provided by the
Iraqi military and Kurdish Peshmerga. In Syria, with rigorous vetting,
training, and support, the rebel opposition may provide the raw
material for a credible military force.
There is no guarantee that the Syrian opposition can form a cohesive
fighting force, something that has thus far eluded them. But the open
support of gulf nations in housing and funding this opposition holds
the promise of consolidating regional support behind them.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Heck).
Mr. HECK of Nevada. I thank the chairman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the debate for the past 2 days, I
think one thing that most will agree on is that ISIL poses a clear and
grave danger to our Nation, our interests abroad, and our allies. And I
agree with the President when he stated that we must degrade and
destroy ISIL no matter where they exist. And I support many of the
provisions that he outlined in the speech he gave just last week:
arming the Peshmerga, bolstering the Iraqi security forces, expanding
airstrikes, and disrupting the flow of finances and foreign fighters to
ISIL.
But the one thing I cannot support, the one thing I will not support
is arming the so-called moderate opposition force, the Free Syrian
Army. It is a ragtag collection of 100 disparate groups, and, just a
little more than a month ago, the President stated that the notion that
arming the rebels comprised of former pharmacists, doctors, and farmers
would make a difference has ``always been a fantasy.''
The Free Syrian Army has no cogent leadership, no organization, no
command and control. And without U.S. military advisers embedded with
the forces that we train and send back into Syria, we will have no
visibility on their effectiveness, their defections, or whether or not
our weapons are falling into the hands of our enemies.
This is a plan that is destined to fail for the sake of saying we did
something, and that I cannot support.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, while I support
airstrikes, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
While there is no doubt that ISIS is a brutal terrorist group that is
wreaking havoc in the region, at this time, none of the evidence I have
seen, including U.S. intelligence reports, and none of the arguments I
have heard convinces me that getting involved in a religious civil war
in the Middle East will be successful or effective in keeping our
homeland safer.
I cannot support what could turn into a war on three fronts: fighting
ISIS in Iraq, fighting ISIS in Syria, and potentially Assad in Syria.
Nor can
[[Page H7645]]
I support an unprecedented scenario in which the U.S. tries to reinvent
a substantially degraded rebel army to act as our boots on the ground
against a former ally of theirs, ISIS, all while ignoring their stated
objective of overthrowing Assad.
And this entire plan depends on our ability to identify so-called
moderates in Syria who would be prepared to die for our agenda. It is
not at all clear how we are going to do that.
Trillions of dollars spent, all-out war, and more than a decade of
occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan did not produce the peace we sought
or the stability we were promised. We spent $25 billion to train the
Iraqi Army to defend their own country, and they were decimated by ISIS
in a matter of days and left their weapons to ISIS.
What would make anyone believe that spending a great deal less money
to train a rebel army to defend our interests would turn out any
better?
Mr. Speaker, this is a well-intentioned effort, but it is not a
viable strategy. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendment
to intervene in the civil war in Syria.
It is immoral to use the prospect of a government shutdown to
pressure Members to vote for involvement in a war, much less a civil
war on the other side of the globe. Because the Syrian resolution is
contained within the continuing resolution, Representatives and
Senators must tacitly approve the President's aggressive intervention
in order to vote to fund all government programs.
It is disingenuous for the administration to tell the American public
that we are arming Syrian rebels to fight ISIS when the
administration's stated objective is to topple the secular government
of Syria, a government, I might add, that has not committed aggression
against the United States.
If the goal of arming and training so-called moderate Syrian rebels
is to eliminate ISIS, this plan will not work. Military experts know
this, as does the President. He acknowledged as much 5 weeks ago when
he stated that the idea that arming rebels would have made a difference
has ``always been a fantasy.''
What is our endgame? What is our long-term strategy? What will this
ultimately cost? What are the unintended consequences that may come
about? Will we follow this with boots on the ground? Who has these
answers? The American people deserve these answers.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I also urge the
same Members to stand strong and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
If this amendment should pass, there is no way to avoid culpability
for a military action that is destined to cost innocent lives and will
ultimately fail.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority
leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his leadership in helping us all uphold the oath that we
take when we become Members of Congress to protect and defend the
American people. I believe that the McKeon amendment that is on the
floor today helps us to do just that as well.
Last week, the President presented to the American people a forceful
strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS, a strategy built on a firm
foundation of nonmilitary action.
The President is to be commended for his strong leadership and
humanitarian, political, and diplomatic components that must be part of
any successful mission. In a humanitarian vein, for acting to help
assist those impacted by ISIS and avert the genocide of religious
minorities. Who could ever forget those people isolated on the mountain
until the United States and others came to the rescue? Politically, for
insisting and pushing for an inclusive government in Iraq.
And I commend the Vice President, as well, for his leadership.
Without a change to an inclusive government that respects not only
Shia, Sunni, and Kurds but also the religious minorities in the country
as well, militarily actions would not be so productive.
And, again, in a nonmilitary vein, the President bringing together
NATO allies, a coalition, as well as regional partners, to assist in
degrading and destroying ISIS. This comprehensive strategy includes
increasing our intelligence, disrupting ISIS' finances, and
interdicting the flow of foreign fighters.
I have said in the past, in my view, the President already has the
authority to do what he is doing. And, I will add, this House has voted
overwhelmingly that should the President's actions go farther
comprehensively, then Congress should vote on that authority.
Today we are called upon to authorize a discrete but critical
component of the overall plan: the President's request to train and
equip moderate, vetted Syrians outside of Syria to fight ISIS.
This is not an authorization for use of military force, as we had in
2001 and 2002. I do not support, nor will I support, combat troops on
the ground. That is not what this is about.
I believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and those
who have worked so hard to put this amendment together took many
precautions and set a high standard in terms of the criteria and
standards that the administration must meet with this training: where
it would occur, who would be trained, extensive vetting of the
moderates and the rebels. That is probably the most frequently asked
question: ``How do we know?'' Well, we can do the best we can to vet,
to ensure that we are doing what we set out to do.
The brutality of ISIS, ISIL--whatever they call themselves on any
given day--is outside the circle of civilized human behavior. We wish
that this action that we are called upon to do today was not necessary.
But it is really hard for us to uphold our oath of office all the time
to protect and defend. It is not always easy. And most of the time, it
is hard for anything that takes us down a military path.
But the fact is that with the diplomatic, political, and humanitarian
foundation that the President has laid, with the narrowness of the
request that he is making to us, it is not pleasant, it is not easy--it
is hard, but it really is necessary for the House to approve this.
We all wish, again, that it wasn't necessary. But we will approve it
to help the Syrian people take responsibility for building peace and
stability in their country, to stem the threat that ISIS can pose to
U.S. interests abroad and to our national security.
Now, I have frequently quoted Hannah Arendt, who said, ``Nations are
driven to an endless flywheel of violence because they believe that one
last, one final gesture of violence will bring peace, but each time,
they sow the seeds for more violence.''
I would hope that what we are doing today takes us in a different
direction, one that is predicated on a nation of inclusion in Iraq, one
that defeats ISIS by the moderates in-country defeating ISIS, because
ISIS is now cross-border--in Iraq and in Syria, and who knows where
they may try to go next.
So this is important. It is urgent. And I hope that it will have the
support of our colleagues.
As with all votes, I have never asked a Member to vote with any vote
of use of force or, in this case, training of moderates. But I just
wanted you to know why I am proud to support the President and salute
him for his efforts.
I thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership in shaping this resolution, and
I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for bringing this
legislation to the floor.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this amendment, as I believe it is a plan which will not be successful.
Ronald Reagan reminded us to carry ``a banner of no pale pastels, but
bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand'' on the
issues.
No offense, but I believe the plan before us is one of pale pastels
when the world needed bold action by the leader of the free world.
Who will we be supporting by arming unknown rebels in Syria? Will we
not be getting involved in a Syrian civil war?
{time} 1530
If the fight is with ISIL--and I believe there must be a fight
against
[[Page H7646]]
these genocidal extremists--then let's take it to them in Iraq, begin
by assisting the Kurds who have been doing the heavy lifting against
ISIL after the Iraqis cut and ran.
I could support boots on the ground once again in Iraq, reclaiming
the ground for which so much American blood and treasure has been
expended to liberate, but not arming unknown rebels.
Do you remember Benghazi? We armed and assisted rebels there; and,
now, al Qaeda controls Libya from Benghazi to Tripoli, even swimming in
the U.S. Embassy swimming pool in Tripoli.
We should not send $500 million or $1 to rebels in Syria, especially
at a time when the Department of Defense and National Guard budgets are
being cut here at home.
I believe even the war-weary Americans are looking to support a plan
from President Obama that is decisive, lethal to the enemies of
freedom, and definitive. This plan is not it.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McKeon amendment that would
grant the President the authorization that he seeks to identify, train
up, and equip moderate Syrian forces to stand up to ISIL in their
backyard.
I do so because I believe this is the best of the bad options that we
face that could halt the advance of ISIL in that region and begin
degrading their capability and guard against the rising threat that
they pose to us and to those in the region.
I do so for three reasons. I believe that the President needs a
strong bipartisan hand coming out of this Congress this week that would
help him continue to build the coalition of opposition to ISIL in the
region. It is going to be one of the keys to the outcome--the
successful outcome--of degrading ISIL's capability. We can't do this
alone, and it will be determined by those in the region to stand up
against this evil force.
Secondly, I believe this is the best plan to help us avoid putting
our own boots on the ground and our own men and women in uniform in
what is, in essence, an ongoing sectarian civil war that has gripped
that region for centuries between the Sunni and Shi'a.
There is a lot of concern, especially from Guard and Reserve units in
my congressional district in Wisconsin who have been activated, called
up, and deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan. When I talk to
them today, I can see in their eyes and hear in their voices how tired
they are. They are concerned about another military intervention in
this region.
Finally, I believe this resolution under title 10 will enhance
congressional oversight of the mission that is taking place there and,
therefore, bring greater accountability but also bring a greater say of
the American people in addressing this rising threat in the region.
We are going to move away from the intel agencies running the show
now and move it into the Pentagon, which brings us into the oversight
capabilities which I feel has been lacking for some time in this
endeavor.
This is not an easy decision. I believe the steps that we can take
with this comprehensive plan now can avoid further military
intervention in the future. Again, I think it is the best option we
face amongst a lot of bad options.
May God bless our military personnel who will be in charge of
carrying out this mission, and we all hope and pray for their success
and safe return.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Members are reminded to not
traffic the well while another Member is under recognition.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Harper).
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the McKeon
amendment before us that authorizes the administration to arm and train
vetted moderate Syrian rebels in their fight against the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL. This amendment also contains strong
reporting requirements that the administration must follow to fulfill
Congress' oversight authority.
ISIL has made territorial gains militarily in Iraq and Syria and
announced the establishment of a caliphate in areas under its control.
They have terrorized and killed members of minority groups, including
Christians in northern Iraq, and have invaded Kurdish-controlled
regions.
Minority groups are not the only victims being targeted. ISIL is also
targeting Muslims. Last, but certainly not least, ISIL has beheaded two
American journalists and a British aid worker. This type of radical,
evil behavior must be wiped off the face of the Earth.
This amendment ensures that ISIL is not only confronted kinetically
in Iraq but also in Syria. Providing the means for rebel groups to
aggressively attack ISIL in Syria denies them sanctuary just across the
Iraqi border, as is the case with the Taliban on the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border.
An armed and trained Syrian rebel force, with assistance from the
U.S. and partner nations, will open up a northern front to attack ISIL.
Iraqi security forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga will be the claws in
the south to squeeze this radical group. American airpower will no
doubt be a force multiplier for these indigenous ground forces.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one country in the world willing and able
to build a coalition of nations that includes Arab countries to defeat
this radical threat, and that nation is the United States of America.
The United States has an obligation to lead and respond whenever the
innocent are being massacred.
Our enemies should never underestimate our resolve. Yes, we may argue
and disagree on many issues; but, when it comes to protecting America,
our allies, and our interests, we are united. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a mother, I can see those who are
now mourning because they have lost their babies, their family members.
I can see the Yazidis in the mountains in Iraq fearful, and I can hear
the cries of mothers whose sons were viciously beheaded by a terrorist
group that most cannot understand the level of its viciousness.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to say that doing nothing is not an
option, and I want to say to my friends and to my colleagues, ISIL has
been here, for in 2005 Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of al Qaeda, had
a killer idea, and that was to establish an Islamic State.
It percolated for a number of years. In 2014, now, we have voices
being raised across the world knowing that ISIL exists, and that is
exactly what they want us to do, be terrorized. I refuse to be
terrorized, and I also refuse to do nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I do not stand here today to vote for an authorization
to use military forces. I will not vote to send our precious treasure
again to that region, but I do believe that the President has a
strategy, unlike some of my colleagues, a systematic campaign of
airstrikes, increased military assistance, regional political effort
and humanitarian aid, changing the face of the Islam religion that
people believe is the Islam religion, and looking to those who support
the core values of Islam.
That is a strategy; yet we have to address ISIL. There are 20,000 to
31,000 fighters making their way across the land; so I believe that an
existing provision under section 10, provision 10, simply to train and
to provide instruction to those individuals who can be in the fight in
the region, train them with the expertise of the United States but not
put our precious treasure on the ground.
ISIS has no restraint, and we remember the names of James Foley,
Steven Sotloff, British aid worker David Haines, and 40-some members of
the Turkish diplomatic corps held by ISIS and many others; so I believe
it is important to note what we are doing here today.
In the McKeon amendment, it provides an opportunity for Congress to
be advised 15 days before action. We should hold the administration to
that. We should also say that any authorization for military forces, it
must be a
[[Page H7647]]
debate on the floor of the House. I will not vote for that today. I
will not vote for that.
I do believe, again, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot stand and do
nothing. I think it is extremely important that we do something, and I
hope others will look at the resolution that I have and the no fly for
foreign fighters, H.R. 5488, which I have introduced.
I would like to add something else to the McKeon amendment. It
indicates that appropriate committees will be advised. The legislative
history of this debate should reflect that the Homeland Security
Committee is an appropriate committee and should be one of those that
is appropriately advised.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, today, we had a hearing in Homeland Security with the
Secretary of Homeland Security. There is no doubt that what we are
doing today is to protect the homeland.
What Americans say is they want the homeland protected. They want no
more of their journalists beheaded by this heinous group.
Mr. Speaker, I close by simply saying we organized this Nation to
form a more perfect Union. The Constitution says that Congress must
declare war even as the President indicates that he has the authority
under article II.
I believe if Congress is to do its job, we must have another debate
on the authorization for military forces which we do not approve, but
this is responding to the viciousness of ISIL, building up those
regional forces, and making a difference.
I ask my colleagues: Can we do nothing? I think not. We must rise in
support of this resolution today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee to H. Res. 124, the resolution
making continuing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015.
Specifically, the ``McKeon Amendment'':
1. Authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of
the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or
individuals;
2. Purports to strengthen congressional oversight by requiring
detailed reports, including progress reports, on the plan, vetting
process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end-use of provided
training and equipment;
3. Require the President to report on how this authority fits within
a larger regional strategy;
The McKeon Amendment does not authorize additional funds, but it
would allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to submit a reprogramming
request to Congress should the President request Defense Department
funds to execute this authority and permit the Secretary of Defense to
accept foreign contributions.
Finally, the McKeon Amendment states that nothing in it is to be
construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into
situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the
circumstances.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, to be clear about what the McKeon
Amendment does and does not do.
The amendment does not authorize the use of military force or
deployment of United States combat forces to Syria.
Let me be clear: I am not voting today to authorize the use of
military force or to put American combat boots on the ground.
Let me also be clear on this point: Before American armed forces may
be deployed to conduct combat operations in Syria or elsewhere in the
region the President must come to the Congress and request and receive
from it either a declaration of war or resolution authorizing the use
of military force.
This is not a political nicety but a constitutional requirement,
clearly specified in Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the
Constitution, which by the way, was approved by the Constitutional
Convention in 1787, 227 years ago this very day, September 17.
The McKeon Amendment simply authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance,
including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to
appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other
appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals for the following
purposes:
1. Defending the Syrian people from attacks by the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and securing territory controlled by the
Syrian opposition;
2. Protecting the United States, its friends and allies, and the
Syrian people from the threats posed by terrorists in Syria; and
3. Promoting the conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the
conflict in Syria.
The McKeon Amendment cannot be construed as giving the Administration
a blank check or carte blanche in achieving these objectives.
Rather, the McKeon Amendment requires that not later than 15 days
before providing assistance to a vetted group for the first time, the
Administration shall provide a report to the Congressional leadership
and committees of jurisdiction describing in detail the assistance to
be provided and the bases for the determination that the action
contemplated are consistent with the objectives stated above.
Additionally, the McKeon Amendment requires that not later than 90
days after the Secretary of Defense submits the first report required
by the McKeon Amendment, and every 90 days thereafter, the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall provide the
appropriate congressional committees and leadership of the House of
Representatives and the Senate with a detailed progress report.
In short, the McKeon Amendment only authorizes the Administration to
identify, vet, and provide assistance to those opposition Syrian forces
that can be relied upon to defend the Syrian people from attacks by the
murderous ISIS jihadi.
Mr. Speaker, there is little doubt that the Islamic State of Iraq and
al Sham (ISIS), is a violent extremist movement. It grew out of the
remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Syrian civil war--which has
claimed the lives of 191,369 persons, tens of thousands at the hands of
ISIS--and has spread its reach across the border between Iraq and Syria
and is now seizing military bases and holding territory throughout the
region.
In response, and at the request of the Iraqi government, President
Obama has sent over 1,500 military advisors into Iraq and conducted
over 150 airstrikes there to break the ISIS momentum, to protect U.S.
personnel and save thousands of Iraq's religious minorities.
In his September 10, 2014 address to the nation, the President
announced a four-part strategic plan to degrade and defeat ISIS.
The strategy outlined by the President involves the following
elements:
1. a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIS;
2. increased military assistance and training for allied forces on
the ground;
3. a regional political effort to work with allies; and
4. a humanitarian assistance to populations targeted by ISIS.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the President, Ranking Member Smith, and
Chairman McKeon that ISIS poses a significant threat to American
interests, requiring an effective response.
I also believe that the President should be commended for the
forceful but deliberate and steady but calm leadership he has displayed
to date.
But we must act in a careful, measured, balanced, and limited way to
assist the Iraqi and Syrian people most directly and immediately
threatened by ISIS because left unchecked, ISIS will grow to threaten
the United States.
ISIS presently controls about 13,000 square miles (about the size of
Massachusetts), spanning territory in Iraq and Syria, and a fighting
force estimated to be between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters.
ISIS also commands substantial resources, including cash reserves
estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars and daily
revenue of $3 million from largely criminal activities.
Mr. Speaker, after its gains in Syria and Iraq, ISIS stands as one of
the most dangerous jihadist groups. It was formed in April 2013,
growing out of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which has since condemned and
disavowed the group for its barbarity.
It speaks volumes about any group that is too barbaric to be
associated with al-Qaeda in Iraq!
Unlike other rebel groups in Syria, ISIS aims to establish an Islamic
emirate that straddles Syria and Iraq. Since March 2013, ISIS has seen
considerable military success, beginning with its takeover of the
Syrian city of Raqqa--the first provincial capital to fall under rebel
control.
In January 2014, ISIS took control of Fallujah, the predominantly
Sunni city in the western province of Anbar. It also seized large
sections of the provincial capital, Ramadi, and has a presence in a
number of towns near the Turkish and Syrian borders.
However, it was its conquest of Mosul in June that captured the
world's attention because with the conquest of Mosul came control of
oil fields in northern Iraq and Mosul's branch of Iraq's central bank,
from which ISIS took hundreds of millions of dollars.
The international community received a wake-up call on August 2,
2014, when ISIS
[[Page H7648]]
fighters pushed further into northern Iraq, overwhelming lightly-armed
Kurdish Peshmerga forces that had moved into areas abandoned by the
Iraqi army and seized the strategically important Mosul Dam, which
supplies water and electricity to much of Iraq.
Knowing ISIS's reputation for unmatched brutality, tens of thousands
of people fled their homes, particularly members of religious
minorities, and 50,000 of them were trapped on Mount Sinjar without
food or water, until their rescue was secured by the air strikes
ordered by President Obama providing cover for the Kurdish forces who
wrested back control of the Mosul Dam.
Mr. Speaker, ISIS derives significant revenues from the oil fields it
controls in eastern Syria and from the sale of antiquities it looted
from historical sites.
Today, ISIS is considered to be the most cash-rich militant group in
the world, controlling assets estimated to exceed $2 billion.
ISIS has shown no restraint in dealing with civilian populations,
acting with heinous violence and savagery. ISIS fighters have murdered
and kidnapped civilians throughout the territory under its control,
including the grisly beheadings of two American journalists, James
Foley and Steven Sotloff, and British aid worker David Haines.
More ominous, Mr. Speaker, is the fact many fighters recruited by
ISIS have European or American passports, making it easier for them to
return home. That is also why I introduced H.R. 5488--No Fly Foreign
Fighters Act to protect the homeland.
To his great credit, President Obama has not rushed to judgment. He
has been thoughtful. He has consulted with the Congress and the
international allies.
And the President has been adamant that the planned assistance and
training to rebels fighting ISIS will not involve, or lead to, American
ground forces fighting a war that must be fought by the Iraqi people
and Syrian rebels.
The threat posed by ISIS in Iraq presents the United States with a
conundrum about what to do about ISIS in Syria. On the one hand, we do
not want to strengthen the barbaric Assad regime that is opposed by
Syrian rebels and opposition parties and by ISIS. On the other hand, if
we provide assistance only to anti-Assad opposition forces, we
indirectly strengthen ISIS.
The challenge is to identify, vet, and support those pro-democracy
forces in opposition to both the Assad regime and ISIS.
The defeat of ISIS should be prioritized over the removal of Assad,
though the latter should remain a long-term U.S. objective. And U.S.
assistance to opposition groups should be designed and delivered with
this sequencing in mind.
Finding, vetting, and equipping capable and reliable Syrian partners
who are poised to fight ISIS and the Assad regime is the central
strategic challenge facing the United States in countering the rise of
ISIS.
On June 26, and again on September 10, the Obama administration
announced additional assistance to vetted moderate opposition forces
that are fighting both the Assad government and ISIS and asked Congress
to authorize $500 million to train and equip these fighters.
But a major effort to arm, train, equip, and enable possible U.S.
partners inside Syria is no easy task because potential partners are
weak, causing the Obama administration to hold back additional
meaningful support.
But part of the reason these potential moderate alternatives to Assad
and ISIS remain weak is because they do not have organized and well-
coordinated assistance. These potential partners include the Syrian
National Coalition; the interim Syrian government; the Supreme Military
Council; the Free Syrian Army; and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
The necessary vetting to find capable and reliable partners must be
thorough, rigorous, and meticulous because we cannot afford to provide
training, equipment, and materiel to opposition forces that in turn
combine, or enter into a non-aggression pact, with ISIS.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time for the Members of this body to be
thoughtful, deliberate, and wise. This debate today is healthy and
reflects and enduring strength of our democracy: open debate,
deliberation, and decision.
I urge all members to reflect carefully on the threat posed to the
United States by ISIS and to vote their conscience on the McKeon
Amendment, guided by their best judgment as to what is the best course
of action to take to protect our homeland and keep our nation and its
people safe.
For my part, I will not vote to authorize the use of military force
or to deploy American combat forces in Syria. Instead, I will vote for
the McKeon Amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, a week ago, the President asked this House
to include very narrow language in the continuing resolution that would
allow the United States military to train and equip the Free Syrian
Army individuals to defend themselves.
I can understand why any soldier in any country would want training
from the United States military. They are the best-trained, best-
equipped, best-disciplined, and best moral fighting force in the
history of warfare. Many members of this body and of the administration
have asked, for months, for greater training of the Free Syrian Army.
If we had not previously trained and equipped the Iraqis and the
Kurds, ISIS would have already overrun Iraq and would have already
moved against our allies in the region.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice the concern though of the people
of Oklahoma. We believe this administration has the habit of twisting
every bill into what they want it to say rather than what it actually
says; so I want to clarify this amendment.
This is not an authorization for the use of military force in Syria.
The President has not asked for that authority, and the Congress has
not extended it.
Mr. Speaker, in 2001, this body gave specific authorization to
President Bush to ``use all necessary and appropriate force against
those nations, organization, or persons he determines''--now get this--
who ``he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.''
The fighters currently on the battlefield with ISIS were about 8
years old on 9/11. The leaders of ISIS were teenagers. Unless this
administration is able to show evidence that a group that did not exist
on 9/11 or that 8-year-olds in Syria planned, authorized, committed or
aided in the terror attacks on 9/11, the AUMF is not in effect from
2001.
This body is willing to deliberate and to engage with the American
people in the sobering question of the use of military force, but we
are not willing to abdicate our constitutional responsibility.
No one in this administration should understand this vote as a
request to negotiate with Iran for their cooperation, offering to turn
a blind eye or to turn our head while they advance their nuclear
weapons program for their help and their cooperation. The world should
not have to choose between ISIS or a nuclear Iran. Both are
unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, this vote is also not an acknowledgement of the
President's plan to defend our Nation from ISIS. We have not seen a
plan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, this vote is not an acknowledgement of the President's
plan because we have not seen the plan. Bombing some of ISIS'
facilities and training 5,000 foreign fighters is not a plan.
If ISIS is a direct threat to the United States, we should treat them
that way. Do not make the American people second-guess the threat by
saying that the American people will be protected by the Free Syrian
Army.
While I stand in support of this amendment today, the conversation
must not end here. I look forward to the conversation in how the
administration intends to constitutionally seek authorization to
accomplish the strategy today for the American people and this body.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee and my ranking member for their leadership on this issue and
for the exhaustive discussions and briefings we have had. I also
commend all of my colleagues for their thoughtful statements.
This is, indeed, a tough decision, but we are elected to make tough
decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this amendment to equip
and train the Syrian rebel forces. After countless briefings and the
President's speech, I am left with more questions than answers. At a
briefing today, former U.S. generals have opined that
[[Page H7649]]
training 3,000 to 5,000 members of the Free Syrian Army will be lame--
in fact, totally inadequate.
Why would we train an inadequate number of FSAs to contain ISIL? How
do we identify and vet a sufficient number of Syrians who can fight a
long, protracted conflict to effectively degrade ISIL? How do we compel
the Free Syrian Army to focus on ISIL instead of Assad, the brutal
dictator they took up arms in the first place to destroy?
What will prevent Assad from continuing to attack the FSA? And what
will we do in response? How do we avoid arming individuals that would
rather do harm to the United States than ISIL? How do we create a true
coalition that will share the burden of this conflict when some only
agree tacitly behind closed doors?
Jordan has ISIL on both borders but cannot commit publicly to
providing boots on the ground. How does a plan that relies primarily on
airstrikes truly degrade ISIL's capability?
{time} 1545
What I have heard in response to these questions simply doesn't add
up.
We should have our eyes open wide enough to know that we are being
asked to support today something much more than just training 3- to
5,000 members of the Free Syrian Army. There are consequences of what
we have supported in the past, and there will be consequences today.
What happened when we spent billions of dollars to train and equip
the carefully vetted Iraq military over almost a decade? They folded in
the face of ISIL, many taking arms up with ISIL and others stripping
their uniforms from their backs.
The plan before us is unrealistic and insufficient. None of the
military experts outside the government believe that this strategy will
topple ISIL. General Dempsey conceded yesterday that if this plan is
insufficient, which I believe it is. He may recommend ground forces. He
also said that there is no military solution to ISIL.
We should be frank with ourselves and the American people. We are not
facing a limited engagement but a new war that will only escalate. We
are setting out on a path to send our own troops to the ground. This is
an amendment and a debate to start yet another war in the Middle East
with a very uncertain future.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by Chairman McKeon. We are way past any good solutions in
Syria, but doing nothing would be the worst solution of all.
I understand and, in fact, share many of the reservations expressed
by my colleagues today. This is not an easy choice. Yet we cannot
ignore the threat of ISIL. They are determined to bring war to
America's shores. We must respond.
The President's request to train and equip certain Syrian opposition
forces is a necessary step toward defeating ISIL, so I will support it.
I will also urge the President to do more to explain the true nature of
this crisis to the American people.
This will not be an easy fight. Airstrikes alone are unlikely to
destroy ISIL and diminish its ability to threaten America. Americans
are understandably war weary, but we did not pick this fight. Our
Nation always answers the bell to defend our way of life and protect
our freedom. This time will be no different.
May God bless our military personnel who will be involved in this
effort. May God continue to bless the United States of America.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
his leadership and the chairman for his on this very difficult issue.
I want to make one point clear to my colleagues. We are essentially
declaring war through an amendment to a budget resolution.
Let's make no mistake. We are not simply training rebels in another
country, Saudi Arabia, which, by the way, has been the most successful
exporter of extremism and extremists in the world. We will reinsert
those trained and equipped rebels back into Syria, and we will then be
their air force. We will, through all intents and purposes, be a co-
belligerent in a civil war.
So, if we are declaring war right now, I think we should do it with
our eyes wide open, as my colleague just said, with a full debate, and
only through the power vested in Congress through the U.S.
Constitution.
The logical conclusion of our participation in this war, if
successful, is to depose the Assad regime and replace it with one of
our own making in concert with these rebels. That will be the third
country in 13 years whose regime we have deposed and whose government
we have replaced with one of our own choosing. It is the fourth that we
have been involved in, if you include Libya, in whose government we
have successfully deposed. In not one of those instances can I say that
this has been a success.
We also have no Muslim-majority countries contributing ground troops
to this operation. I think we owe wide deference to the President in
matters of foreign affairs, but when it comes to declaring war, our
Founding Fathers reserved that power for the people through their
representatives in Congress.
This amendment to a budget resolution, which would enter us into this
war in a formal manner, makes a mockery of that and does not do justice
to the servicemembers who will be asked to put their lives on the line
for this U.S. policy.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The terrorist Islamic State, or IS, is a grave threat to our friends
and allies in the Middle East and to our homeland. There is broad
bipartisan agreement that this threat must be confronted and destroyed.
It is important for the President to work with Congress to address
this terrorist threat. The President should continue airstrikes and
support Kurdish and Iraqi forces in their fight.
The amendment under consideration will expand the President's
authority to conduct military operations in the Middle East through the
training and arming of allegedly moderate Syrian rebels.
I have serious reservations about this amendment. There is simply not
enough information about these rebels. Indeed, not even 2 weeks ago,
the President admitted he did not even have a strategy to confront IS.
I am looking to the administration to provide additional information
about the rebels it is proposing to train and arm.
Several administration officials have stated that the rebels may be
fighting both the Assad regime and IS. But against whom will the rebels
first turn their weapons we give them? IS or the Assad regime?
I also have very serious reservations about including this expanded
military authorization in the continuing resolution, a short-term
funding bill. This authorization raises very serious issues.
Make no mistake. It will ultimately involve United States
servicemembers, men and women from our cities, towns, and countryside,
who will leave their families behind at home. Such a measure deserves
consideration in a completely separate resolution.
The President should never have asked for such a serious matter to be
added to a short-term spending bill.
I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment under consideration.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the care that has gone into the
preparation of the amendment before us.
I have perhaps more reason to be involved than most Members because
my district, the Nation's Capital, is a perpetual high-level target for
terrorists like ISIL.
Today I am compelled to come to the floor to convey the indignation
of the residents of the District of Columbia that the Congress would
even approach another period of war where participation of residents of
the District of Columbia is virtually inevitable while
[[Page H7650]]
they have no vote whatsoever on this preeminent matter of war and
peace.
District residents pay $12,000 annually, per capita, more in Federal
taxes than residents of any other State, to support our government in
war and peace. Regardless of what is decided on this amendment, Mr.
Speaker, District residents will be there for America as they have been
during every war our country has fought.
The Nation, however, should not ask D.C. residents to fight another
war without consent of the governed who participate with taxes and live
in the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, we will be debating an amendment which
would not guard our Nation from terrorist infiltration nor even
authorize our Armed Forces to eliminate ISIS personnel, equipment, and
bases. Instead, the amendment authorizes President Obama to train and
equip, with U.S. weaponry, members of the Syrian mujahideen, the so-
called moderate rebels.
The amendment states that training and equipment can only be provided
to ``vetted'' rebels, but who are those rebels? It says they can't be
affiliated with ISIS, al-Nusra, and al Qaeda, which is good, but it
would allow President Obama to arm other Islamist fighters who do not
meet the threshold of being terrorists, including Harakat al Hazm
fighters from the Muslim Brotherhood, the Syria Revolutionaries Front,
and the Army of the Mujahideen.
Now, Mujahideen fighters in Syria are not moderates nor are they pro-
American. They will take our arms and use them as they see fit, most
likely to fight Assad in pursuit of installing a Sunni shari'a state in
Syria. They cannot be counted on to vindicate our interests, which is
why it is a mistake to subcontract out American national security to
Islamist fighters.
Half measures like this, will not suffice. There are no shortcuts
when it comes to our national defense.
So I constantly hear people say that Americans are war weary, and I
disagree with that. I think Americans are willing to do what it takes
to defend our people and our Nation. I think they are weary of missions
launched without a coherent strategy and are sick of seeing engagements
that produce inconclusive results rather than clear-cut victory. I
think they are weary of a President that consistently proves himself
unwilling to do what is necessary to win.
I have heard some colleagues say that arming the Syrian Mujahideen
demonstrates strength and resolve. I think it is evidence of a lack of
resolve. The President's strategy rests on wishful thinking. It is not
sufficient to defeat the Islamic State.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I know the scourge of violent Islamic terrorism all too
well. I represent the World Trade Center area in New York that was
attacked on September 11, 2001. So I agree with the President that we
must work together to combat ISIL.
Today, however, ISIL cannot project military power beyond the Middle
East. ISIL is a direct military threat to our allies and to our
interests in the Middle East. Perhaps we should help bolster the
defenses of our allies, such as Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the
Emirates.
The current threat to the United States is from Europeans and
Americans who may train with ISIL in the Middle East and then return to
the United States to do us harm. This threat cannot be fought by
military means in Iraq and Syria but by counterintelligence,
appropriate surveillance, and border control here and abroad.
When it comes to ISIL operations in the Middle East, those very same
operations that threaten our allies, we must ask why we do not see
these threatened countries offering troops on the ground. Why are we
more interested in their defense than they are?
These are some of the questions we in Congress should debate before
we vote to go to war. Make no mistake; the offensive campaign of air
attacks against ISIL that President Obama recently announced clearly
constitutes a war within the meaning of the Constitution.
The Constitution very deliberately places the decision to go to war
with the American people acting through Congress, not with the
President. The decision to go to war against ISIL and to expand our
efforts into countries like Syria requires congressional authorization.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 cannot be relied
upon for congressional authority for acts of war in circumstances
completely unforeseen then against an enemy that did not exist then.
Identification of ISIL with al Qaeda with the planning of the attacks
on September 11, 2001, is specious. The Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was, similarly, not
about ISIL.
Congress must assert its constitutional power to authorize or reject
the use of force in Iraq and Syria. We are not being asked today to
authorize a new conflict with ISIL, even if that is implied by our vote
today, and therein lies the danger. This vote without a vote on the
wider Authorization for Use of Military Force will be taken by the
public, the media, and perhaps even the courts as a de facto
authorization of military force in Syria. This would undermine our
ability to seriously debate the very real questions before us.
How deadly is the threat we are facing, and what is the best way to
eliminate that threat?
What will happen when American fliers are shot down over Syria and
perhaps beheaded on television by ISIL? Will the demand for revenge be
overwhelming?
Just how steep is the slippery slope we are embarking upon?
How long will the conflict last?
Is there an exit strategy?
What does victory look like?
How much will it cost?
How many U.S. lives will be lost?
Whom will we be arming in Syria?
Do they share our long-term interests?
What are the odds those arms will be turned against us or allies?
It is precisely these types of questions that should be asked when
Congress debates the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Until we
have that debate in Congress and answer these questions and make a
decision on an AUMF, we should not step foot on the slippery slope to
another long war. Approving this amendment would be a big step onto
that slippery slope, and so I must vote ``no.''
{time} 1600
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority
whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
for yielding and for working so hard with the Armed Services Committee
through Chairman McKeon to bring forth this amendment that ultimately
lets the President start a process that he laid out in his speech last
week.
Mr. Speaker, the threat of ISIS is real and growing. It is not just
limited to the Middle East, though. Americans know this is ultimately
something that we will have to confront if we don't address it now with
swift action.
If you look at the legislation that has been brought forward, there
were some important protections that were put in place over the course
of the last few days in negotiations with the White House that, I
think, are very significant and lay out clear benchmarks for President
Obama over these next 3 months that this authorization would last.
The first thing the President has got to do under this authorization
is to go and build that coalition. This is not a go-it-alone strategy.
That is not going to be the kind of strategy that is going to work. The
President has got to go and put those countries together to carry this
out. He has got to get firm commitments, not only on amounts of
resources that will be put in place, but also the number of troops that
those countries would put in place.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, any transfers of funds that would
be needed to carry this out would have to first come back to Congress
before they can move forward. Any plan for vetting
[[Page H7651]]
Syrians who we would train, which is going to be an incredibly
important process, has to come back to Congress, and those plans have
to be laid out.
I think that is so important that those protections are in place
because, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the President is the Commander in
Chief. He has asked for this authorization. But there has got to be a
give and take and, ultimately, a role that Congress plays where the
President is letting us know each step of the way that he is carrying
out the mission as he laid it out, he is building that coalition that
he said he would put together. And over these next 3 months, Mr.
Speaker, it is going to be important that he does those tasks.
And ultimately, as we come back here to deal with this again, it is
going to be important that the President lay out the broader strategy,
because so many of our Members know this is not the final step that is
going to eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism. This is the very
beginning. I think not only Members here in this body--Republican and
Democrat alike--but I think people all across the country want to,
ultimately, see that broader strategy by the President for how he is
going to take on this challenge and eliminate these terrorists from the
face of the Earth.
I rise in support and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), my friend and colleague.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the amendment is to train and equip
Syrian rebels. Well, let us see how that has worked in the past when
America has trained and equipped individuals.
The United States has spent billions of dollars in Iraq to train and
equip Iraqi soldiers. The first time they came in contact with the ISIS
members, they cut and ran.
This is ISIS propaganda that was on the Internet.
This is an American tank now in the possession of ISIS when the
Iraqis cut and ran.
This is a Humvee going through a parade; also, four Humvees that,
apparently, have never been used that are now in the possession of ISIS
when the Iraqis cut and ran.
Now we want to arm Syrian rebels to keep them fighting for America.
Well, let us see how that has worked in the past.
In September 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that ISIS raided
a Free Syrian Army weapons depot, taking small arms and ammunition
provided by the CIA.
In December 2013, Free Syrian Army weapons warehoused on the Syrian-
Turkey border were seized by the Islamic Front. They, like the Iraqis,
cannot keep up with American arms.
Second, some say in this amendment we will support the Free Syrian
Army because they are going to be examined and we will make sure that
they are vetted very well. But let us understand and see how that is
working out.
What is a Free Syrian Army rebel today is an ISIS member tomorrow. It
looks like, in December of 2013, Saddam al-Jamal, the northeast
commander of the Free Syrian Army, announced his defection to ISIS and
condemned those who worked with the West.
A Washington Post article, August 18: A high-level security commander
of ISIS said that there is no more Free Syrian Army in eastern Syria
because they have all joined--yes--ISIS. Isn't that lovely?
It is not a good strategic plan to arm Syrian rebels. If ISIS is a
national security threat, then relying on rebels in a Syrian civil war
will not protect American security interests.
The United States should have a strategy to defeat the barbarians of
ISIS, but we should have that debate on this House floor and not rely
on mercenaries to fight American national security interests somewhere
overseas.
And that is just the way it is.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today, I join many of my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle in support of giving the
President the initial authority needed to confront ISIS and Syria.
I am actually surprised and disheartened by the opposition that some
here in this Chamber have towards the amendment. To be clear, I have
been as vocal a critic of this administration's lack of strategy in
Syria as any other person. But that does not excuse us from what, I
believe, is the right thing to do, which is to give the Commander in
Chief the tools necessary to confront this evil.
I don't remember many of my colleagues from this body stepping
forward a year ago, or even a few months ago, urging the President to
do more in Syria. In fact, at the beginning of this year, I called for
bombing ISIS targets as they moved into Fallujah and Iraq. By many I
was called a warmonger or somebody eager to start another war in Iraq.
It is easy to come up with any excuse not to support an amendment.
Some say it doesn't go far enough. I have heard from a lot of people
here that say it doesn't go far enough. Some people say that it goes
too far, it is too much. It doesn't include an authorization of
military force, it doesn't include an overarching strategy for ISIS or
Syria.
I reject those calls for a perfect strategy from a perfect President
for a perfect outcome in Syria. That is simply not possible given the
circumstances we now face, due to our previous inaction.
Mr. Speaker, to those who believe that the Assad regime is a partner
in the fight against ISIS, I would remind them this regime has
slaughtered nearly 200,000 of its own people. In fact, in Iraq, when we
were fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, the Assad regime gave AQI safe haven in
Syria to fight American forces. And look no further than Hezbollah--one
of the greatest enemies of the West and one of the greatest enemies of
Israel is strongly supported and enabled by the Assad regime. The Assad
regime created the ISIS problem, gave them safe passage through regime-
controlled territory and, ultimately, attacked only Free Syrian Army
targets until the West looked over, and now they look like the savior
of the West by attacking only ISIS. Let's not get sucked into that
argument.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I support this amendment, not because it
is part of a larger strategy in Syria that we would like to see from
this administration but because it is a first step in addressing ISIS
in Syria.
I ask my colleagues to support this first step that many have been
calling for to train the FSA before it is too late. What would our
enemies and allies think if we rejected the President's authority to do
this?
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Smith. I
appreciate your leadership and your courtesy.
In Iraq and Syria, we are facing an excruciating set of circumstances
where there is no clear path forward.
Our challenge in the face of the atrocities perpetrated by ISIS is to
reduce the suffering of innocent citizens and our allies, and to
protect our security at home.
To do nothing is an option, but it is likely the worst choice.
If ISIS were only a potential threat, I would feel differently.
However, ISIS is a well-funded, heavily-armed militia whose strength is
increasing and whose ranks have swollen to over 30,000 and counting by
some estimates. They control an ever-expanding area across Iraq and
Syria's border.
To stand by, allowing ISIS to expand and strengthen its hold in Iraq
and Syria, we will encourage accelerated deterioration of the security
in the region that will become more difficult to address and will,
ultimately, become a threat to the United States.
We must also confront those in the region who say they oppose ISIS
but
[[Page H7652]]
have yet to take action. Those regional players have an even greater
stake in this struggle than the United States.
I think the ``least bad'' option is the McKeon amendment, which does
not provide for an authorization for the use of military force.
I didn't support wars in Iraq or the later surge in Afghanistan, and
I certainly would not support legislation that would expose us to
another open-ended broad commitment.
This proposal strictly limits the use of United States ground forces
in the region and would prevent an open-ended engagement in Iraq or
Syria because the authority provided in this legislation sunsets
December 11.
Any airstrikes or aid would come at no additional cost to our
country, which has already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on war
in the region, and requires the Department of Defense to reprogram
existing funds or find regional allies to pay for our efforts.
This proposal to empower the President for 3 months is the most
reasonable course of action at this point. It is not going to settle
the long-simmering collection of conflicts in the region. Authorizing
the President to train and equip highly vetted Syrian opposition
fighters and strike a narrow set of ISIS targets, however, may degrade
ISIS in a meaningful way.
These 3 months will give the administration an opportunity to show
the progress and enlist support of other countries. Congress will then
reassess these efforts in December.
In the meantime, we are not undercutting the diplomatic and military
efforts of the administration. Helping the administration respond,
allowing the situation to clarify, making some progress, and
galvanizing support are the most we can hope for over the course of the
next 3 months.
I remain open to alternatives, but after listening carefully to the
debate, briefings from experts, and reviewing the materials, I see no
better course at this point than the limited short-term initiative this
amendment provides.
I plan on supporting the amendment and I appreciate the gentleman's
courtesy.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity.
The President spoke last week and he presented nothing that could be
remotely considered a strategy, and yet, the American people understand
the destruction of radical Islamic terrorism is mandatory. It is not
mandatory for creation of democracy around the world, it is mandatory
for keeping people safe in places like Omaha and Denver and Wichita,
Kansas, the place that I represent.
Today, the world is watching what we will do here, what Congress will
do. There are folks watching this in bunkers, there are people from
Hamas watching how we will vote today. They are looking at how this
Congress will respond to a President who has not laid out a strategy,
who has now asked us to provide one arrow in the quiver, one small
piece that doesn't amount to hardly anything remotely close to a
strategy. They are looking to watch and see how we will respond.
And, today, we should respond by telling the President of the United
States we will support his efforts to train and equip, but that we are
going to watch and demand that he develop a strategy for the
destruction of ISIL and for containment in the region as well.
Remember, it is not just ISIL that is the threat. The threat extends
from Damascus to Tehran, it threatens Lebanon and Jordan, it threatens
all the Middle East, and, indeed, if that territory is allowed to
remain inflamed, will threaten us here in the United States.
Today, we take a very small action, a measured action, one that is
necessary but hardly sufficient.
I urge my colleagues to support the McKeon amendment, and I urge the
President of the United States to take action in a way that will defeat
ISIL and defeat radical Islam and keep us all safe here in the United
States of America.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is not a perfect plan. What America wants is a plan that
guarantees success, and that success should be total destruction of
ISIS immediately and without U.S. casualties. But the plan is a
reasonable approach. It is the only approach on this floor. The
alternative is to do nothing. No one has brought a better plan to this
floor.
{time} 1615
For those who say, ``Let's do nothing,'' reflect what we have
accomplished through the President's action. The Yazidis have been
saved from genocide. The Turkmen who otherwise would have been
slaughtered in the many thousands are no longer besieged. The Mosul and
Haditha dams are no longer under the control of ISIS. None of that
would be true if the President had already not begun to take action.
I now yield to the gentleman from California for a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, all the authority provided in this amendment will
expire no later than December 11, 2014. Is that correct?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. McKEON. Or the passage of the NDAA, whichever comes first.
Mr. SHERMAN. Whichever comes first. So it could even be sooner than
December 11.
Second, the administration has stated that it will use this authority
to train Syrian fighters outside Syria. I have a fact sheet, which I
will enter into the Record, provided by the administration, stating
that the training will take place outside Syria and that the Saudis
have agreed to host facilities.
Mr. Chairman, can you confirm that it is, indeed, the
administration's plan to do the training outside Syria?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1
additional minute.
Mr. SHERMAN. Is it your understanding that the training bases will be
outside Syria?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answers.
Attached, please find a fact sheet on the Title X program,
as well as a Q&A your boss may mind helpful. I stand by ready
to answer any questions.
--Robert
Robert N. Marcus,
Special Assistant to the President, White House Office of
Legislative Affairs.
____
Importance of Title 10 Train and Equip in Degrading & Destroying ISIL
The President has outlined a comprehensive approach to
degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. Part of this approach
involves building an international coalition and working with
and supporting local partners.
The Syrian opposition can serve as an effective, local
counterweight to extremist elements in Syria, particularly
ISIL. That is why we have provided a variety of types of
support to strengthen the Syrian opposition since the
conflict began in 2012.
In his speech at West Point in May, the President announced
his intention to seek Congressional approval of a
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund that would allow us to
empower and enable partners in their fight against shared
terrorist threats. As part of this Fund, and as described in
his Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget request in
June, the President requested authority for a Department of
Defense (DOD)-led program to train and equip (T&E) vetted
members of Syria's moderate opposition.
The T&E program can advance our counter-ISIL goals in Syria
as well as our goal to work towards a political solution to
the broader crisis in Syria. But ISIL's aggression in the
region, paired with Saudi Arabia's new willingness to assist
with this effort and impending expansion of our air campaign
against ISIL, means that we must expedite the program's
implementation. As ISIL is degraded and destroyed, a ground
force capable of holding territory and taking advantage of
gains is needed. The Syrian opposition can serve this
critical role.
The T&E program will train vetted fighters, outside of
Syria, to defend the Syrian people against extremists like
ISIL as well as regime attacks; stabilize areas under
opposition control; and help a subset of the trainees to go
on the offensive against ISIL. Ultimately, the opposition
will be able to hold territory from which ISIL is removed and
help provide for a negotiated end to the broader conflict in
Syria. We would provide lethal and non-lethal assistance to
enable trainees to accomplish their missions and advance U.S.
policy goals.
[[Page H7653]]
Initially, the program will rely on other U.S. government
agencies and partner-nations that currently provide support
to the vetted opposition to assist with the recruiting,
vetting, and sustainment of the U.S-trained fighters. Saudi
Arabia has agreed to host and support the training
facilities. Additional allies are expected to contribute to
the effort in the future, as well.
____
Q&A on Syria T&E
1) Question: We spent billions training the Iraqi Security
Forces who melted away the moment they faced ISIL, why would
this force be any different?
Answer: Unfortunately, since the departure of the United
States, years of leadership from former Prime Minister Maliki
turned a competent force into a sectarian one, removing
qualified leaders and severing normal lines of authority and
communication, while alienating the broader Sunni community.
The new inclusive government is committed to reforming Iraq's
security forces and building a National Guard responsive to
the needs of individuals communities. Syrian Opposition
fighters are highly motivated to defend their homes and
families from ISIL. What the opposition lacks is the
resources to successfully resist and counter ISIL. That is
precisely what we will work with our regional partners to
give them. And, as a comprehensive approach and use of air
power starts to change the momentum away from ISIL, the
opposition will gain in confidence.
2) Question: How does the Syria T&E program fit into the
Administration's strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat
ISIL?
Answer: Building partner capacity--both the capacity of
Iraqi partners and vetted opposition partners in Syria--is a
key to denying ISIL safe haven, limiting its access to
recruits, to include foreign fighters, and disrupting the
group's finances. A multi-mission force will be trained to
defend opposition-controlled areas from ISIL advances and
enable the opposition to challenge ISIL's control of
territory in Syria. Bolstering the vetted opposition also
will increase their credibility and influence within Syria
and pull potential recruits away from extremist groups.
3) Question: How can you ensure that Syrian fighters
trained and equipped by DOD will not pass U.S.-provided
weapons to extremists?
Answer: All participants in the T&E program will be subject
to a rigorous vetting process led by our Intelligence
Community, consistent with U.S. law and policy, including to
ensure that they are not affiliated with extremist groups.
They will undergo vetting to determine their eligibility for
the program as well as after they have completed training to
ensure that they will be eligible for additional U.S.
assistance. We also will work closely with regional partners,
including the Saudis, on our vetting process in order to
capitalize on their knowledge of dynamics among the armed
opposition. While we cannot guarantee that U.S. assistance
will never fall into the wrong hands, we will take extensive
measures to reduce the possibility that our trainees will
pass weapons to extremists.
4) Question: How does the counter-ISIL strategy relate to
the Administration's other goal of pressuring the Asad
regime?
Answer: The T&E program is one component of our counter-
ISIL strategy, but our investment in this force is not just
for a counter-extremist role. As the President has said, Asad
has lost all legitimacy, and Syria will not witness lasting
stability so long as he is in power. Asad continues to
present a false choice between radical Sunni extremists and
his regime, but we know that there is a Syrian opposition.
Strengthening the opposition provides the best counterweight
to extremist elements within Syria as well as to the Asad
regime.
5) Question: Why is the T&E program so urgent now?
Answer: Saudi Arabia has recently agreed to host and
support the training facilities for this program. Their
active support is a critical element of a broad coalition of
countries combatting ISIL. Other Sunni countries are also
getting on board. If they see us hesitate, they may back away
and we will lose the momentum we are building against ISIL.
In order to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, we need the
authority to increase our efforts to strengthen the Syrian
opposition.
6) Question: What is the timeline for the program? How soon
will trained fighters return to the battlefield?
Answer: This is a long-term investment, and one that will
require some time on the front end for infrastructure
development, planning, and logistics. We anticipate that
initial trainees could complete training roughly four to six
months after authorization and funding. We will work to
expedite this timeline.
7) Question: Given the immediate threat posed by ISIL,
shouldn't we have the T&E program focus entirely on ISIL?
Answer: The Syrian opposition continues to face threats
from ISIL and the regime, which is why we must train them to
be able to defend themselves against both enemies.
8) Question: Has ISIL negotiated a ceasefire with any
element of the Syrian opposition?
Answer: We are looking into these claims as well as reports
suggesting that one local brigade in Hajar al-Aswad may have
reached a 24-hour agreement with ISIL that quickly broke down
but that was intended to allow both sides to retrieve the
bodies of their fighters who had been killed.
We would note that the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF)--
which is the group that the article claims has signed a
ceasefire with ISIL--has issued a statement indicating that
it has never ceased hostilities with ISIL and will continue
to fight ISIL and the regime.
We will be thoroughly vetting any potential recipient of US
assistance and, of course, any collusion with ISIL would be
automatically disqualifying. Trainees will undergo additional
vetting once they return to the battlefield. This vetting
process will involve multiple US agencies and regional
partners, and we have been using it to determine recipients
of our non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition since
early in the conflict. The training process will include the
need to adhere to the law of armed conflict and respect for
human rights.
A critical reason for our training and equipping the
vetted, opposition is precisely to ensure they are capable of
standing up to and countering ISIL at the local level. We are
certain a vast majority of the Syrian opposition rejects
ISIL, have been fighting it, and will be even more successful
with our increased support. Again, we will only work with
those opposition groups and members who reject ISIL and we
are confident in our rigorous, layered vetting operation.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The threat of ISIL is beyond anything in the last 13 years since the
horror of 9/11. We see there are no limits to gross brutality. They are
a terrorist threat to the region, to the United States, and to our
allies.
This rushed amendment to arm and train vetted Syrian rebels is not
the answer. This Chamber needs to have an informed, robust discussion
and debate about the U.S. role in combating and dealing with ISIL and
other extremists in Syria and Iraq.
It is a debate that should take place on its own. This issue and this
amendment should not be attached to the continuing resolution or any
other matter before the House.
This amendment authorizes the training and equipping of vetted Syrian
opposition forces, but we still aren't clear on who these forces are
and how these rebel groups will be chosen and vetted. How do we ensure
that our weapons, training, and knowledge won't be used by ISIL or
other terrorist organizations in the future?
Additionally, this amendment only highlights a piece of the
President's plan for addressing ISIL, a plan that includes significant
long-term bombing campaigns and military escalation in Iraq and Syria.
If the House leaves for the next 8 weeks without addressing the
already expanding scope of U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria,
I fear that we will return in November to find the U.S. sliding down a
slippery slope toward full military engagement in those countries.
We have been there before. We have seen before how mission creep can
expand a limited mission into a full-blown U.S. armed response. I will
not let this happen or let this country be dragged into another
conflict once again without an informed discussion.
Congress needs to debate a new authorization for the use of military
force before any expansion of military operations. I support the
President's call to dismantle ISIL through robust regional and
international partnerships, support for local capacities on the ground,
and expanded humanitarian assistance.
Arming and training Syrians and Iraqis and perhaps eventually
supporting them with airstrikes may push back ISIL's gains, but it will
not defeat extremism. There is no lasting military solution to
extremism. The only lasting solution is a political solution, one in
which the rights and concerns of all groups are respected.
The U.S. must focus on building partnerships in the region and around
the world to encourage moderate Sunni groups in Iraq and Syria to move
away from ISIL and towards an alternative and inclusive future. We also
need to have a plan for the development of this region beyond our
confrontation with ISIL.
I have deep reservations and important lingering questions that need
to be debated on this floor. I am concerned about exposing our solders
once
[[Page H7654]]
again to a protracted conflict with unclear objectives and no clear
exit strategy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. HONDA. I cannot support this rushed amendment that allows the
U.S. to wade back into another conflict without a serious, informed
discussion of the United States' military role in combating ISIL. We
need to fully debate and discuss actions we as a Nation take against
this vicious foe.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, ISIS poses a savage threat to the world, to
Muslims and Christians in Iraq and Syria, to our allies, and to the
United States. It has executed heinous acts of terror and violence and,
tragically, will continue to do so. Allowing it to thrive unchallenged
is not in the national interest of the United States of America.
Today's vote is not a blanket authority but a thoughtful, detailed,
and limited effort to confront ISIS. We cannot and should not do this
alone. We need tangible support from a global coalition and will
evaluate the commitment level in 3 months. The administration must
continue to work to ensure that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Islamic
nations are involved in this multinational effort.
Despite reservations and questions, in my judgment, we must take
action. The threat is real, and ISIS must be confronted now. I support
the McKeon amendment because it is thoughtful and it provides the
experts here in Washington the authority they need to put together a
clearly-defined, realistic strategy.
This amendment does not authorize the use of military force; indeed,
the amendment includes language that makes it explicitly clear that
this is a train-and-equip authority and not an authorization for force.
Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment, and, in the weeks and months
to come, the House of Representatives must use its oversight powers
under the Constitution to monitor this strategy and to demand changes
as necessary.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, does the
gentleman have any additional speakers?
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, yes, we do have additional speakers.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Texas for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McKeon amendment and in support
of the continuing resolution.
I want to say this: I have heard a lot of people say this process
isn't good and that we haven't had enough hours of debate, but I would
say to Members of Congress: Have we not, in fact, had days and weeks of
debate? How is it that you are a Member of Congress if you haven't
thought about ISIS and the situation?
In fact, have we not had 13 years to debate this very subject
internally, externally, on the floor, in committee, and off the floor?
We certainly have had a lot of time for deliberation on this.
Secondly, I want to say this: I am not certain that the President
needs further approval from Congress, as I have gone back and read the
resolutions of 2001 and 2002. I would also say, though, we should have
a formal resolution. It would be good for the country, it is good for
Congress, it is good for the education process, and it sends a very
strong signal to our enemies.
Perhaps when the President sends it to us--and I hope he will in
November or December--we will have an opportunity to have the debate
again, and we can review how effective these airstrikes have been at
that time, how effective is the training program, how well is it going,
and what allies have actually stepped up and what have they
contributed. Right now, we do not have the answer to those questions.
I will say another thing, Mr. Speaker: If we are going to fight this
war because it is worth fighting, then it is well worth winning, and,
speaking for myself, I want the Commander in Chief and our armed
services to have all the tools that are available to them.
If that means having ground troops on the table, then I want to be
sure that we send that signal because the last thing we need to do
right now to our enemies abroad is say we are not going to do this or
we are not going to do that.
We can't have a half-pregnant war. We have got to fight to win and
wipe out this terrorist surge.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of 6 hours of debate on this
amendment, I think it has been a good and healthy discussion. According
to our count, we have had more than 90 Members of the House come to the
floor and express their opinion about this situation with ISIL and
Syria and Iraq.
I think part of that is it has given all Members an opportunity to
express their opinions and concerns and hopes about what we can do as a
country going forward, but it seems to me, through the course of these
numbers of hours, that most Members agree on at least three things.
One of the things that most everybody agrees on is that ISIL is a
significant threat. It seems to me they are clearly the best-equipped,
best-trained, best-financed terrorist organization we have ever faced.
In addition to that, as the ranking member noted at the beginning of
the debate, there are thousands of people who have Western passports
who are fighting with ISIS who can easily come to the United States and
Europe to launch their attacks.
The second thing I think most people agree upon is that this is a
very complex situation. We have the Syrian civil war underway. You have
the change of government in Iraq. You have the situation with the
Kurds.
There are many players--Iran--that make this a very complex
situation. All of those Members who go down and say there is no good
alternative, I think I agree with that. There is no perfect alternative
to deal with this.
The third thing about which there is a lot of agreement, Mr. Speaker,
is there are a lot of doubts about the President's plan, a lot of
doubts about whether it is going to be enough to defeat ISIL, a lot of
doubts about the commitment of the administration to follow through on
the plan and to persevere over time; but, in addition to that, even if
it is well-done and implemented perfectly over time, no one knows for
sure how this is going to come out.
With those broadly agreed-upon facts, Members have reached different
judgments and different conclusions, but it just seems to me, Mr.
Speaker, that approving this amendment to give the military--the
Department of Defense--the authority to train people in Syria as part
of that fight makes sense.
Just to briefly review what is in the amendment--because during these
6 hours of debate there has been a lot of discussion, some of it about
things that are not in the amendment--but what is in the amendment is
that the amendment authorizes the Department of Defense to train folks
in Syria as part of the fight against ISIL, and it is absolutely true
that the Department of Defense has done this very thing in at least 40
countries.
Now, for all those people who say this is a slippery slope to war, I
just note we are not in war in 40 countries. We train people around the
world every day, and the military does a very competent job of it. That
is what this authority does--that is it--train folks to defend
themselves.
{time} 1630
This amendment has an expiration date, as you just heard, either
December 11, 2014, or the passage of the NDAA, whichever happens first.
There is a broad array of oversight, beginning 15 days before
anything is done, and then every 90 days thereafter specific
requirements of information that has to come to this Congress.
There are limits on the funding. If U.S. taxpayer dollars are used,
then the Congress has to be notified and basically, through the
transfer authorities, Congress has to approve.
[[Page H7655]]
Finally, it is absolutely clear, because it says so, this is not an
authorization to use military force.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
All of those people who are concerned that it is not an Authorization
for Use of Military Force may have a very good point, but that is not
what this is about. This is about a narrow train-and-equip authority
that would provide the Syrians the ability to get into that fight
against ISIL.
So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that I think another thing most
everybody agrees upon is you can't defeat this group from the air. You
have to have folks on the ground. We have folks on the ground with the
Kurds. We have folks on the ground who will be more competent with the
Iraqis. We need some folks in Syria to be on the ground.
That is what this amendment does. It is narrow. It has oversight. It
has limits. It has a time limit. But as General Dempsey told all
Members, it is necessary, but, in and of itself, it is not enough. But
it is necessary.
I believe that the House ought to take this step today to begin this
training, and then it is up to the President to make his strategy work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
I think one of the things that makes this difficult is there are so
many issues swirling around here: the desire; the need that I think, as
Mr. Thornberry said, that everyone agrees on to confront and contain
ISIS.
Their savagery is just unimaginable. They are clearly a threat to us
and to the region, and we need a plan for confronting them, for
stopping them and, hopefully, ultimately defeating them.
Now, part of that plan is what we are doing in Iraq. Part of that
plan is trying to figure out how to deal with them in Syria.
But aside from all of that, this amendment is far more basic and
simple, and I think Mr. Thornberry explained it. It is a train-and-
equip mission. This is something that the Department of Defense does
all over the world in a variety of different places. We have had a
great deal of success training armies in Ethiopia and Kenya and Uganda
to help deal with the situation in Somalia. We have had considerable
success training forces in Yemen to help confront AQAP. The goal of
this is to reduce the requirement for a robust U.S. military presence
to advance our interests.
I have heard a number of folks, particularly on my side of the aisle,
express that concern, that we don't want to go down the slippery slope
of committing U.S. forces to a large-scale war, and I completely agree
with them. But this amendment does not authorize military force. In
fact, it is quite the opposite. It authorizes us to train local forces
so that they can do the fighting.
I have also heard a number of people express the frustration which I
share: we shouldn't be over there fighting these battles; we need the
local populations there to stand up and fight for themselves. But that
is precisely what Mr. McKeon's amendment enables us to do. It enables
the military to train local forces to fight ISIL on our behalf. And
this is important, not just because it keeps us out of the fight, but
because it gives us a far greater chance of being successful.
If this is perceived as the U.S. coming in against the Muslim group,
then that gives ISIS a powerful propaganda message to say that they are
simply defending themselves against Western aggression. If, on the
other hand, they continue to do what they have been doing, which is
killing Muslims and fighting Muslims, then we can recruit and get
greater support from the local Sunni population to stand up against
them.
This is what was successful about the Anbar Awakening back during the
Iraq war, when Sunni tribesmen rose up against al Qaeda, with our
support, and were able to turn the tide in Iraq at that time. That is
why this is so important.
Now, the big issue of concern is what is going to happen within
Syria. Are there truly moderates?
There are, unquestionably, moderates in Syria. Now they have been
under a lot of pressure for the last couple of years from the Assad
regime, but also from al Qaeda-affiliated groups like al-Nusra and also
from ISIL. So they are clearly there. We know this because they are
already, in some instances, fighting against ISIL. They are just not
properly trained. They are not properly equipped, and they haven't been
doing particularly well for the last couple of years. So if we can
train them, they have a chance to survive.
And that is the last point that I will make. I think people can
legitimately say: Is this really going to turn the tide of the war? Is
this really going to defeat ISIL and give us success? This alone,
absolutely not. But what it does is it gives us a chance, because if
ISIL is allowed free rein in Syria, if they are not confronted by
anybody but Assad, then we have no chance of defeating them.
We can do our best in Iraq, but if they can just go right across the
border into Syria, as we have experienced trying to fight the Taliban
in Afghanistan as they go across the border into Pakistan, if they have
a safe haven where they can go without being pressured, then it is
going to be very, very difficult to ever defeat them. The only way we
can take away that safe haven is to find a local force that will fight
our fight, and we can't get there if we don't train them.
This is about enabling the moderates in Syria enough space to
survive. They survive, we slowly build from there to get us the force
that we need to defeat them in Syria and, ultimately, beat back ISIL in
both Syria and Iraq.
This is not a perfect plan. This is not going to solve all problems.
Believe me, it wouldn't take too long to find difficulties and
challenges in any plan that was put out there, but I think this is a
good and prudent step that gives us the best chance of advancing U.S.
national security interests in a reasonable way.
I urge this body to support this amendment. I thank Mr. McKeon for
bringing it.
I also want to join Mr. Thornberry. This has been an excellent
debate. It is great to have so many Members come down and so
articulately explain their positions. I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank Adam Smith, my ranking member and partner for the
last few years in this effort. I think he was very eloquent. He did a
good job in working this debate. I think we have heard from both sides
of the aisle, both positions, and it has been a strong debate.
I want to thank Mr. Thornberry. He has been my vice chairman,
sidekick, for the last couple of years, carried a heavy load. He is a
vice chairman of the committee, but he is also chairman of a
subcommittee and also serves on the Intelligence Committee and a
strong, strong Member, as you can see. He did a great job of explaining
the bill, laying it all out in summary form after this long debate.
There is just one other point I want to mention, and that is that
there is no new money in this bill. The President did not need
additional money, and any money that is needed will be reprogrammed
from money that already exists. They have to come back to the Congress
and go through the process to make that change. But there will be
nothing added to the top line.
I want to thank our staff who worked so hard on this. This came late
in the process. The President sent us language last week. It wasn't
something that we could support.
I want to thank leadership for giving us the time to work this issue,
that, instead of voting on it last Thursday, we had time to work. The
staff worked all weekend, both sides of the aisle. Thank you. Thank you
for your strong work.
We hear sometimes about government workers and they are kind of just
at the government trough. I want to tell you, these people work hard,
long hours, and they are devoted to their jobs. Most of them could
leave here and make more money, but they are committed to what they are
doing, and I want to thank them for it.
Finally, I would just like to say, as a final wrap-up, this letter
that I put in earlier, where Ambassador Crocker,
[[Page H7656]]
Ambassador Ford, who have spent years in this area, really understand
the people, understand what is going on in that area, and then General
Keane, General Petraeus, who both have spent a lot of time on this
issue, the four of them have signed a letter that they sent over to us
this morning that they support this amendment.
I agree with, I think, probably everybody that spoke that this will
not do everything, but it is an important step at this time, and I urge
our colleagues to support this amendment to give our Commander in Chief
the authority that he needs to protect us in this area.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I agree with President Obama that the
destabilizing and destructive actions of ISIL demand an American
response. While I am supportive of President Obama's targeted actions
against ISIS to date, I believe our government must be mindful of the
unintended consequences inherent in training and equipping fighters in
a highly complex foreign conflict For this reason, I authored a
successful bipartisan amendment to the House's Defense Appropriations
bill this summer, prohibiting the transfer of dangerous shoulder-fired
antiaircraft missiles known as MANPADs to parties in the Syrian civil
war. As President Obama uses any authority granted by Congress to train
and equip Syrian rebels, I hope he honors the will of the House of
Representatives to prevent the dissemination of these and other
dangerous weapons in the Middle East and beyond.
We must remain cognizant that military force is not the solution to
the strife afflicting Iraq and Syria. I continue to oppose the presence
of U.S. ground troops in the region. We must do all we can to eliminate
funding sources for ISIL and to support inclusive governance and
vigorous dialogue while respecting Iraqi sovereignty. We must also do
what we can to promote a peaceful settlement in Syria and to invest in
employment-focused economic development throughout the region.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
oppose the H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution of
2015 with the McKeon Amendment, which would allow for the training and
equipment of Syrian opposition. Should a clean continuing resolution to
provide finding to the United States government come to the floor, I
would support it. However, I cannot support an authorization for war.
Since this body did not pass a budget on time, our only option is to
vote to keep the government open and operating until December 11, 2014.
Funding our government should not hinge on a controversial amendment
added at the last minute that provides the opportunity for an open-
ended war.
I am not in favor of unilateral action or troops deployed to the
region and I am committed to resolving this conflict through diplomacy.
I fully support any efforts by our country to provide humanitarian aid
to the countless innocent civilians displaced and injured by this
conflict.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and push for a clean
continuing resolution.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the terrorist
organization known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) is a
growing regional threat that presents greater instability and turmoil
across the Middle East. Today ISIL does not pose a credible strategic
threat outside of the Middle East. So the U.S. response must reflect
that reality. We cannot allow the Dick Cheneys of the world to use the
horrific beheadings by ISIL as a call to war, just like the Gulf of
Tonkin incident or the alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities
of Saddam Hussein. I am voting against this authorization to equip and
train as yet unknown, perhaps non-existent ``moderate'' Syrian
opposition forces to combat ISIL.
The three most successful ground forces fighting in Syria are ISIL
who has ties with Saudi Arabia, the Syrian army backed by Iran, and Al
Nusra which has ties to Hezbollah. The alliances between these forces
are constantly shifting. One day ISIL and Nusra make common cause
against the Syrian army and the other day they are all fighting each
other. These sectarian wars are based on thousands of years of history
and the U.S. has no role in sorting them out.
Congress is being asked to vote today on arming Syrian rebels that
are yet to be vetted by the U.S. In fact, the text of this
authorization requires the administration to report to Congress within
15 days on the plan for providing this assistance. Congress should know
what the plan is before we vote on it. We should come back in 15 days
or however long it takes for the administration to determine the scope
and plan of this operation and who it is that the U.S. is going to arm
in Syria. It is an abdication of our constitutional duties to vote on a
vague authorization today instead of waiting and passing judgment on a
more detailed assessment on this operation and an updated authorization
for use of military force (AUMF).
If you turned to any of my colleagues today and asked the basic
question who are the 5,000 fighters that the U.S. will train and equip
in Syria, they could not give you an answer. Not even our intelligence
agencies know who we can trust. Before granting authorization, Congress
should at least know who it is we are giving U.S. weapons to and what
their ideology and political goals are. This is a complex mess of
various actors, many of whom cannot be considered trustworthy allies.
The Syrian opposition is made up of hundreds of thousands of fighters
from various factions that are also fighting amongst each other.
In Iraq, the U.S. is looking to form an alliance with a new
government whose current Prime Minister has yet to prove he will bring
Sunnis back to their proper place in an inclusive society. At the
moment the Iraqi army barely exists on paper. It is extremely
disturbing that the main Iraqi force currently fighting ISIL, Asaib Ahl
al-haq, is incredibly hostile to the U.S. and was attacking our troops
up to the last day of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
That is why it is so critical that Congress be presented with a
detailed plan of this ``train and equip'' operation including who it is
that we are arming before we vote and this amendment fails to do that.
Most importantly what we are voting on today is a small part of
President Obama's larger strategy to go to war with ISIL. No President
can declare war without Congressional authorization. If the U.S. is
going to war with ISIL as it appears that we are, then my colleagues
need to stay here and debate and vote on an AUMF. It is our
constitutional duty and to leave town without a vote on the overall
military strategy is disgraceful. The American people did not elect us
to punt the responsibility for matters of war and peace to the
President. The purpose of an AUMF is to lay out in detail the scope,
plan, purpose, and duration of a military operation and to provide both
classified and non-classified briefings to Congress and allow them to
debate and express their opinions on the merits of this. Absent an AUMF
from Congress, we are committing ourselves to an open ended war,
declared by the President about which we have little to no details.
Lastly, history has shown that U.S. involvement in sectarian as well
as civil wars raging in the Middle East does not benefit our interests.
ISIL would not exist today if it were not for the unnecessary U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003, which I voted against. ISIL is a regional
threat and it is time for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and other so-
called ``partners'' to step up and fight this war themselves. They have
no incentive to do it if we keep fighting it for them. Additionally,
arming Syrian rebels could drag the U.S. into the Syrian civil war.
General Martin Dempsey said yesterday in his testimony to the Senate
Armed Services Committee that he would put U.S. troops on the ground if
he felt it was necessary despite the President's numerous statements
that he would not put boots on the ground. Already you can hear the
march to war. In fact, it is easy to argue that continued U.S. military
actions in the Middle East only create more hatred directed at our
nation and increase the risk of terrorism both here and abroad.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
There is not a member of this body who does not share the view that
the terrorist organization known as the ``Islamic State in the Levant''
(ISIL) is a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria. ISIL's acts of
barbarism are well known. The question before us is whether arming an
amorphous and largely unknown Syrian opposition is the proper response
to ISIL's rise.
The idea of arming the Syrian opposition has been discussed and even
debated in this body over the last several years. And until now,
Congress has rejected military involvement with Syrian opposition
groups because we did not truly understand the size, composition, and
intentions of the various opposition groups, and were concerned that
the unforeseen consequences of our involvement could easily ruin any
advantages there might be. The fact that ISIL emerged unexpectedly out
of the Syrian fighting and surprised us with their military success in
Iraq illustrates well America's lack of understanding of the situation.
Furthermore, just this week, the head of the Free Syrian Army was
quoted as saying if his group received U.S. aid, he would use it
against the Assad regime, not against ISIL. As I have pondered this
question and discussed it with experts and with citizens in New Jersey,
I have come away with more and more questions about the wisdom of the
proposed action we are debating today.
The President's proposed strategy seems very similar to the one we
have pursued in previous conflicts: arm and train local forces in the
region and plan to turn over responsibility for the fight to those
governments. That strategy failed spectacularly in Iraq. Earlier this
[[Page H7657]]
year, U.S. trained-and-equipped Iraqi security forces melted away in
the face of ISIL forces. We have been told the reason was because of
the Iraqi government under former Prime Minister al Maliki. With a new
Iraqi government in Baghdad results would be better. That is hardly a
believable or a reassuring argument.
The American public was told the same thing years ago after the South
Vietnamese generals ousted Premier Diem in late 1963. If only we had
the right leadership in Saigon, they argued, we could win the war. In
the wake of that U.S.-sponsored coup, the political chaos in South
Vietnam only deepened, and the Viet Cong and their North Vietnamese
allies benefited from and exploited the situation to their political
and military advantage, and less than a year after Diem's ouster
President Johnson began committing large numbers of American ground
troops to Vietnam in a vain effort to roll back the rising tide of
support for the Viet Cong. Of course, the situation today in Syria and
Iraq is not exactly like Vietnam under Diem or Iraq under Saddam, but
we are slow to learn lessons.
Proponents of this resolution argue that a newly trained and equipped
Iraqi security force may be in the field in a few months. If history is
any guide, it is unlikely that schedule will be met, and in any case,
Administration officials have made it clear they believe the Iraqi
security forces will require significant external help for years in
order to retake ISIS-controlled territory in Iraq.
In Syria, the Administration now proposes to arm an amorphous
collection of Syrian opposition groups in the hopes that they can
become a viable combat force. Arming Syrian rebels brings to mind our
experience with the Afghan mujahedeen a generation ago. Can we have any
confidence that our weapons will not be used against us eventually? The
amendment before us explicitly acknowledges--through its reporting
requirements--that American advisors may be killed by supposedly
friendly Syrian opposition fighters, just as American advisors have
been killed by Iraqi and Afghan turncoats in those nations. This
amendment also recognizes--again through its reporting requirements--
that American military aid may be diverted to Islamic militants through
Syrian opposition traitors. If we can already see that this proposed
action will lead to dead American advisors and pilfered American
military aid, why are we continuing down this road?
It was telling that during his trip to the region earlier this month,
Secretary of State Kerry came up empty when he sought concrete military
commitments from other countries--even countries directly threatened by
ISIL and its ideology. In the 1991 Persian Gulf war to oust Saddam
Hussein's army from Kuwait, each of those nations contributed
significant military forces or allowed the use of their bases for
Coalition forces. If the governments most threatened by the march of
ISIL refuse to commit combat forces against it while American pilots
are risking their lives daily in airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq, why
should we put more American lives at risk on the ground in Iraq and
Syria? I must vote no.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McKeon Amendment
because I believe training and equipping moderate Syrian rebels to
fight ISIL will increase the likelihood of success in our effort to rid
the world of this threat.
We have seen that ISIL will ruthlessly slaughter anyone who does not
adhere to their horrific ideology--including Muslims, Shia and Sunni
alike. ISIL, with large numbers of Western fighters, is a threat not
only to the Middle East but to Europe and America as well. We have seen
their disgusting brutality with the beheadings of two brave American
journalists, as well as others of diverse nationalities.
We must be clear about what this amendment is and what it isn't. It
is not an authorization for the use of force against ISIL in Iraq and
Syria. The Administration has stated that it believes it already has
the authority to conduct a military campaign against ISIL, and they are
proceeding pursuant to this authority. I would support a reexamination
of the 2001 authorization by this Congress so we can fully debate its
applicability to current threats. Thirteen years after its passage, it
may be wise to refine it to empower the President to go after ISIL and
other groups that pose a danger to America. This is our constitutional
duty.
But this amendment is much more limited. It would simply authorize
the training and equipping of Syrians to fight ISIL. Again, it does not
authorize an American invasion of Iraq or Syria. If it did, I would not
support it. In fact, I support this amendment precisely because I
oppose an American ground war and believe we must eliminate the threat
from ISIL without putting thousands of American troops in harm's way.
I oppose another American ground war not only because I believe that
we have sacrificed enough already in two wars in the Middle East,
although this is certainly my belief I oppose another American ground
war primarily because for our campaign against ISIL to have sustained
success, the combat troops driving out ISIL need to be Iraqi and
Syrian, and in particular, they need to be Sunni. We actually defeated
ISIL in their previous incarnation as Al Qaeda in Iraq. We were
successful in doing so because we built political support among Iraqi
Sunnis. Unfortunately, former Prime Minister Maliki's sectarianism
alienated the Sunnis, and this, combined with Bashar al-Assad's
brutality against Sunnis in Syria, allowed ISIL to emerge without
really being challenged by the moderate majority of Sunnis, who saw
them as the lesser of two evils.
Given this reality, the best way to eliminate the threat from ISIL is
to empower moderate Sunnis in Iraq and Syria to drive them out of the
areas they control. The development of a nonsectarian government in
Iraq is a step in the right direction in that country, and this limited
amendment is a step in the right direction in Syria. It cannot be the
only step; we must continue to work with Sunni Arab countries so that
the Sunnis of Iraq and Syria know that there is a much better future
for them than the destructive brutality of ISIL.
The fight against ISIL will not be short, and it will not be easy.
This should not, and will not, be the last time this body addresses
this international challenge. Today we are asked to take a reasoned,
sensible step on the path to ridding the world of ISIL's scourge. It is
a step that we would be wise to take.
Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I support the McKeon Amendment to the
Continuing Resolution.
As a nation, we have faced many threats to our national security over
the 238 years of our existence. But the danger presented by the Islamic
State may be unique in its hostility, raw hatred, and dedication to
eliminating the United States from existence.
Less than a week ago, we observed the anniversary of the devastating
attacks of September 11, 2001. Then, as today, we are reminded of the
true nature of this enemy. They will attack at will, without
provocation, and without regard for the lives of any innocent people
who stand in their way. In fact, the more innocent the lives they take,
the better--for their purposes.
I am pleased that President Obama has finally acknowledged the threat
the Islamic State presents to our national security. Not content with
wreaking havoc in their own corner of the Middle East, these terrorists
have conquered territory, beheaded innocent Americans, forged
allegiances with al Qaeda, threatened to strike us at home, and pledged
to raise their flag over the White House. They are a muscular and
growing menace that must be dispatched.
After our briefings on the situation in the region and the
President's proposed strategic outline, I will be supporting his
efforts on behalf of the nation. But I do so with some reservations.
With what we know now, this is not a perfect plan by any means, and I
trust the President will listen to the counsel of his military
advisers. American military strength will be evident in powerful air
strikes, but on the ground, we will be relying on a fighting force
trained quickly by American personnel. These are not seasoned fighters.
These are just regular people--doctors, pharmacists, plumbers, or
laborers. They are not soldiers, although very shortly we will be
asking them to be.
These rookie ground forces will be entering into what the President
has called an anti-terrorism operation, which is, in reality, a war.
The administration and its representatives have been reluctant to use
that word, but when our enemies have declared war on this country,
there is no other terminology that is appropriate. And it will be a
two-front war--on one side they will be fighting in Syria, and on the
other, in Iraq. This will not be an easy fight, and I pray that they
meet with more success than their military qualifications and
experience suggests they might.
Another issue that I find troubling is that we do not know exactly
who we will be assisting. While we trust and depend on their courage
and determination in defeating what we perceive to be our common enemy,
we truly do not know what their core loyalties are. This is a situation
that will require constant monitoring.
The international coalition the president says he is assembling will
be key, as other countries will be called upon to fund much of the
effort, and, we hope, ground troops. Though the president has pledged
significant air strikes, I find it hard to believe that many nations
will be convinced to enter into the conflict with full commitment,
while our own president has made it clear that the United States has
firmly defined limits on what it will and will not do. That is another
concern that I have--that the President has broadcast to the world, and
the enemy, exactly what will not be in his war plan.
In the end, the President is the Commander in Chief, though I believe
it is right that Congress vote on matters as important as this. The
bottom line for me, Mr. Speaker, is that today we are all Americans. We
are not Republicans or Democrats.
Throughout our history, presidents from different political parties
have come to Congress
[[Page H7658]]
asking for our blessing for moving forward with armed conflict. With
what I know now, and with the chance to continually examine this
endeavor, I am prepared to give my consent.
That is why, despite my reservations and my concerns about the
effectiveness of the somewhat vague strategy the president has
outlined, I will be supporting the amendment to the Continuing
Resolution. We must present a united front. It is vital that we show
the world that all of us, as Americans, are together in fighting this
common enemy.
Absolutely essential in gaining my support for the amendment is the
requirement that the administration provide detailed and regular
reports on the effectiveness and status of the ongoing training and
equipping efforts. We must know that what we are doing is having the
intended effect.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect plan. And I worry that moving
forward in such a way can be described as somewhat less than a full
effort to defeat an evil that has pledged to exterminate us.
But sitting by and doing nothing was never an option.
While we take this vote, I am reminded that even with the most
careful planning, any armed conflict is inherently perilous for the men
and women in our military. My thoughts and prayers go with them and
their families as they head toward danger.
I urge my colleagues to support the McKeon Amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Defense Secretary Hagel stated,
``We are at war with ISIL.'' He also said, ``this will not be an easy
or brief effort.''
The current debate on the McKeon amendment does not address the ``war
with ISIL,'' but rather solely training, arming, and supporting Syrian
fighters. The CIA is already training and arming Syrian fighters in
Jordan, without congressional approval. How well has that worked? We
are not discussing that as a body because this is a policy debate that
has been rushed. The Republican majority in the House is determined to
adjourn on Friday so their Members can return home and campaign for re-
election.
Yes, Congress needs to pass a continuing resolution to keep the
federal government funded and prevent another government shutdown
before the start of the new federal fiscal year on October 1st. But, a
``must pass'' continuing resolution should not be the legislative
vehicle for sanctioning the training of Syrian fighters in what is
certainly to be a long war against the Islamic State's terrorist army.
Over and over during the debate on this amendment we have heard how
ISIL is a threat to the United States, expanding its reach into Iraq
and strengthening its hold in Syria, while committing brutal and
widespread acts of extreme violence. All Members agree that ISIL has
grown into a vicious terrorist army that must be stopped and destroyed.
Yet, this chamber's response is to vote on the McKeon amendment to
train and arm Syrian fighters, and then leave town for seven weeks?
I have heard over and over again Republican colleagues condemning
ISIL and then going on to disparage President Obama's efforts. Based on
this rhetoric it appears that before this House can become fully
engaged in authorizing a military campaign to defeat ISIL, campaigning
against our President prior to Election Day comes first.
Yes, the mid-term election will take place on November 4th and many
of us are on the ballot. But until then, we have an obligation to do
our jobs which in this case is a matter of committing to U.S. military
operations in Iraq and Syria based on an authorization that is outdated
and demands Congressional action.
I want President Obama to conduct airstrikes against ISIL--in Iraq
and in Syria if need be. I want Iraqi forces trained and equipped so
they are confident and competent to take the fight on the ground to
remove ISIL from Iraq. I want a broad coalition of nations sharing
intelligence, working to stop the flow of foreign recruits into Syria,
and cutting off the financing of ISIL.
All of this should be done based on an updated authorization approved
by this Congress for the use of military force against ISIL. I voted
for the 2001 authorization following the attacks on September 11th and
I opposed the 2002 authorization which took the U.S. into Iraq. But
today more than half of the Members in this House were not in Congress
for those votes. The war against ISIL is not the war against Saddam
Hussein. This Congress has an obligation to define the scope, duration,
and oversight of what will require a significant and long-term use of
military force and resources.
With regard to the McKeon amendment, I have serious misgivings about
training and arming some thousands of Syrian fighters with the belief
that they will defeat ISIL while they are also intent on removing the
Assad regime from power. The New York Times on September 11, 2014
(``U.S. Pins Hopes on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the Map'')
said the plan to train Syrian rebels ``leaves the United States
dependent on a diverse group riven by infighting, with no shared
leadership and with hard-line Islamists as its most effective
fighters.'' This description of the fighting force at the foundation of
our anti-ISIL policy leaves me profoundly disturbed.
The Government of Germany is training and arming the Kurdish pesh
merga forces in Iraq, but refused to train the Syrian forces. They are
concerned that providing arms to the Syrian rebels could end up in the
hands of ISIL. According to Germany's ambassador to the United States,
``We can't control the final destination of these arms.''
Secretary Hagel is aware of this danger and assured Congress
yesterday that, ``We will monitor them (Syrian forces) closely to
ensure that weapons do not fall into the hands of radical elements of
the opposition, ISIL, the Syrian regime, or other extremist groups.
There will always be risks in a program like this, but we believe the
risks are justified.'' While I respect Secretary Hagel immensely, I
must disagree with him. The risks in this instance are significant and
out weight the prospects of success.
The McKeon amendment's concept of vetting focuses solely on ensuring
that recruits are not known terrorists themselves. That is hardly a
standard of conduct the U.S. should be proud of. No one should be naive
about this, there is no mention of human rights or international
standards of conduct because these recruits will be sent back to a war
in which they will likely be committing barbarous acts of violence. And
how is this in the interest of U.S. national security?
Another issue that profoundly concerns me is the porous border
between Syria and Turkey in which foreign fighters and recruits are
allowed to pass freely. A New York Times report on September 15, 2014
in an article entitled, ``ISIS Draws a Steady Stream of Recruits From
Turkey'', highlights this serious problem.
ISIL has grown into a force of between 20,000 and 30,000 fighters
according to published CIA estimates and it appears their numbers will
continue to grow, far outpacing the modest numbers to be trained by
agreeing to this amendment. Unless Turkey, our NATO ally, shuts off the
flow of fighters and commits to preventing the stream of new recruits
from crossing into Syria, ISIL will only grow stronger in numbers.
Yesterday, in testimony before a Senate committee, General Martin
Dempsey said that if airstrikes were not effective against ISIL he
would recommend to the President the deployment of U.S. troops on the
ground. Now, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dempsey
has an obligation to make recommendations that will allow U.S. policy
goals to be achieved. In this case that means the destruction of ISIL.
We should all expect that there will be some U.S. boots on the ground
in Iraq and quite possibly Syria. Special operations forces, military
trainers, and spotters to direct air strikes may all be required to
enter the battle field at great risk. They need our support to achieve
their missions. But a full commitment of U.S. troops on the ground to
directly engage ISIL is unacceptable. This fight needs to be won on the
ground by Iraqis and the Arab allies who know the risk ISIL poses to
the entire region.
There is no reason why Congress cannot work with the administration,
military leaders, and intelligence experts over the coming weeks to
develop and approve the necessary authorization for the use of military
force to demonstrate to the American people that we are united in this
fight against ISIL and there are clear limits to our engagement in Iraq
and Syria.
I want our Commander-in-Chief to have Congress' full support for a
strategy to destroy ISIL, but I will not write a blank check to any
president. Unfortunately, this amendment and the decision by Republican
leadership to prioritize campaigning for re-election rather than
passing a clear authorization to take the fight to ISIL should give the
American people great concern about the priorities of this Congress.
Right now millions of people in Iraq and Syria are living under the
oppressive, violent rule of ISIL. It is in our national interest to
join the fight to stop their reign of terror. But we need real,
credible allies with military forces willing to take on the fight, the
fight on the ground. This amendment does not require a commitment by
any other allied nations, only desperate Syrians and U.S. taxpayers.
That is not enough to earn my support.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will cast my vote to
approve the President's funding request to support the training and
equipping of moderate Syrian opposition forces. I do so after long
consideration, and mindful of the difficulties of vetting such a force
during the middle of a brutal civil war.
Any decision to supply arms to combatants must be weighed carefully;
indeed, for the last several years I have opposed arming the Syrian
rebels out of a concern for our ability to properly vet such troops and
the fear that weapons we provide may end up in the wrong
[[Page H7659]]
hands. Those concerns persist, but they have been overcome by the
growing menace of ISIL and the willingness of our regional allies to
play a greater--and open--role in the support of these forces.
ISIL now controls about a third of Iraq and a like portion of Syria.
It has been unsurpassed in its brutality, committing mass executions,
forced conversions, trafficking in women and beheading its hostages--
including Americans James Foley and Steven Sotlof. If ISIL is allowed
to consolidate its territorial gains, or expand them, it will be able
to act on its stated intention of serving as the platform for attacks
on the United States. The thousands of foreign fighters, including
Americans, who have flocked to join its ranks will one day attempt to
return to the west and attack us on the homeland. The longer ISIL can
draw new recruits, the longer the United States will have to confront
the threat that these fighters will return home, many with visa-free
travel to our shores.
Our response must be proportionate to the threat. It does not justify
American occupation of Iraq or Syria, or the introduction of American
ground forces--all of which are likely to be counterproductive. It does
justify the use of American air power, intelligence, financial,
diplomatic and military support. And since air power alone will not be
sufficient on the battlefield, it will necessitate the assistance of
local ground forces. In the case of Iraq, those ground forces will be
provided by the Iraqi military and Kurdish Peshmerga. In Syria, with
rigorous vetting, training and support, the rebel opposition may
provide the raw material for a credible military force. There is no
guarantee that the Syrian opposition can form a cohesive fighting
force, something that has thus far eluded them, but the open support of
Gulf nations in housing and funding this opposition holds the promise
of consolidating regional support behind them.
The threat posed by ISIL is an outgrowth of the disastrously
sectarian policies of the Nouri al-Maliki regime in Baghdad and the
ruthless dictatorship of the Bashar al-Asad in Damascus. Our military
efforts and those of our allies alone cannot succeed without addressing
the political fractures created by both. I applaud the Administration
for its role in urging the Iraqis to form a new and more inclusive
government and look forward to the day when a representative government
can take shape in neighboring Syria and this carnage can come to an
end.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McKeon Amendment
to H.J. Res. 124. This is a difficult decision because there are no
good options for American intervention in Iraq and Syria. However, ISIL
is a barbaric group that poses a direct threat to our national
interests and it is our obligation to respond in an appropriate fashion
to this new threat. I believe the counterterrorism strategy laid out by
President Obama represents the best way to combat ISIL without
committing our country to another costly, deadly ground war in the
Middle East.
This amendment is not a declaration of war, or an authorization for
the use of military force. Rather, it is a limited effort to train and
equip members of the moderate Syrian opposition who have been vetted by
our government. I am confident that the limitations and the reporting
requirements in the resolution will ensure sufficient oversight,
ensuring the mission does not expand beyond congressional intent.
Americans are weary of war. Any efforts to expand our role in this
conflict should be openly debated in Congress. Yet, we cannot turn our
back on the threat ISIL poses to our allies in the region, and the
humanitarian catastrophe they helped create. I will be closely watching
this mission as it unfolds to ensure it remains limited in scope and in
line with our national interest.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Amendment to H.J. Res.
124, the Continuing Resolution, that supports training and equipping
the so-called Syrian Opposition.
After attending briefings on the President's proposal, I do not
believe that this Amendment has a reasonable chance of achieving his
goals. Worse, it could embroil America in another endless war. I hate
ISIL and the other terrorist organizations that are plaguing Syria,
Iraq and eventually the U.S.; the question is whether this Amendment
will ``degrade and destroy'' them, to use the President's words. I do
not fault President Obama's intent; I doubt this particular Amendment
will work. Most obviously, it expires in 90 days, according to the very
terms of the CR. And even if, under authority granted outside of this
Amendment, an air strike killed ISIL's leader, it would not stop ISIL.
First, remember the budgetary context of this train-and-equip
mission. Remember that military spending cuts called ``sequestration''
will last another seven years under current law. The readiness of our
military is already threatened by these cuts. Necessary long-term
investments in future weapons systems are being shortchanged. Until
advocates of this train-and-equip mission are willing to fully fund the
U.S. military and stop sequestration, they have no business adding
extra responsibilities. America's credit-card hawks must not continue
to hollow out our military while pursuing questionable foreign
ventures.
Second, the Syrian Opposition is not like the Peshmerga. It is a
number of disorganized, unreliable and shifting groups that face three
hostile armies at once within Syria itself: Assad's army, ISIL, and the
Al-Nusra Front. Each of these hostile armies has demonstrated the
ability to conduct advanced military operations. They are years ahead
of any possible effective counter-attack by the Syrian Opposition,
unless they start fighting each other or Assad's entire military
defects. We are not even sure that the people we train would remain
loyal. Although the Amendment talks about vetting Syrian Opposition
forces, it acknowledges that there will be ``green-on-blue'' violence
against us. The Amendment also anticipates that some of the weapons we
supply to the Opposition will be given or sold to ISIL.
Third, we are entering a series of civil wars. They are notoriously
difficult to stop without years of bloodshed. The idea that U.S. Army
training, guns, and bullets will facilitate a negotiated Syrian
settlement is highly implausible. Another factor is the 1,400-year-old
Sunni-Shia schism, giving our Muslim allies their own religious
agendas. They make excuses for their failure to commit their own forces
in their own backyards, even when their inaction floods their nations
with refugees. Several of these nations have large militaries with
advanced weaponry, which they refuse to use except for very limited,
anonymous airstrikes. They want U.S. soldiers and airmen to do their
dirty work.
Fourth, ISIL was created by wealthy Sunnis in nations like Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait who wanted an attack dog, a proxy army, to
fight the Shia threat posed by Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah. They
got more than they bargained for: a pit bull that might turn against
its masters. Nevertheless, they are not muzzling ISIL, or even yanking
its leash. How does ISIL continue to get its funding? Aside from rape,
pillage, kidnapping, and taxing infidels, it is known for its slick
corporate appeals, even an annual report on its atrocities. Have the
Sunni nations punished ISIL's benefactors, refused to purchase ISIL's
oil, or taken other measures to cut off its funding? No. In the case of
Saudi Arabia, they offer us unused training bases for no more than
10,000 of the Syrian Opposition. That is far from enough.
Fifth, how many times must the U.S. try to rebuild Muslim nations?
We've tried for years, often just inflaming them. Syria will be the
eighth Muslim nation we have tried to repair in the last three decades:
Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. In most
cases, we have not succeeded. The U.S. military is ill-suited for
nation-building. As General Bob Scales pointed out in the Wall Street
Journal recently, the Pentagon has trouble dealing with today's
asymmetric wars.
Sixth, ask yourself what your reaction will be if an American
airman--God forbid--is captured and beheaded on live television. Will
this Amendment, that so carefully denies authorizing military force,
suddenly become the prelude to American ``boots on the ground'' as Gen.
Martin Dempsey has already predicted? And who believes that our
trainers and equippers--and special forces and intelligence officers--
are not already ``boots on the ground''? The language of the Amendment
is surreal: it contains no ``authorization for the introduction of
United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein
hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances.'' Unless our
military operates entirely outside of Syria or northern Iraq, they are
in imminent danger. And if they are training in Saudi Arabia, they will
be working in a nation that beheads more people for minor crimes than
ISIL could dream of.
Lastly, is there a better way to degrade and destroy ISIL? Americans,
with our wonderful optimism that all problems have a quick solution,
have a lot to learn about the nature of the enemies we face.
Unfortunately for us, our enemies do not measure action by the clock,
but by the calendar. They outwait or outlast us. They use social media
against us, to dare America to fight or to recruit the West's
disaffected youth with dreams of martyrdom. They will laugh that this
Amendment lasts only 90 days, particularly when other sections of the
CR extend much longer.
America needs to understand the threats we face from radical
jihadists and to fully fund effective strategies for dealing with them.
Sadly, this Amendment does neither. Therefore, I oppose it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, and on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
[[Page H7660]]
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the amendment will be followed
by 5-minute votes on a motion to recommit, if ordered; passage of H.J.
Res. 124, if ordered; and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the
Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 273,
nays 156, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 507]
YEAS--273
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Farenthold
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holding
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Hultgren
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lynch
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neal
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
NAYS--156
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bentivolio
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Cleaver
Cooper
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
DeSantis
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fincher
Fleming
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heck (NV)
Himes
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Labrador
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meadows
Meng
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Nolan
Nugent
O'Rourke
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perry
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Rangel
Ribble
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Rothfus
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Weber (TX)
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wolf
Yoho
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Barton
DesJarlais
Nunnelee
{time} 1707
Mr. RANGEL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. STIVERS, CONYERS, and HINOJOSA changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mrs. BUSTOS. I am opposed to it in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Bustos moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 124 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Page 21, lines 4 and 5, strike ``June 30, 2015'' and insert
``September 30, 2021''.
At the end of the joint resolution (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) The provisions of the following bills of the
113th Congress are hereby enacted into law:
(1) H.R. 377, as introduced in the House of Representatives
on January 23, 2013 (the Paycheck Fairness Act).
(2) H.R. 1010, as introduced in the House of
Representatives on March 6, 2013 (the Fair Minimum Wage Act
of 2013).
(3) H.R. 4582, as introduced in the House of
Representatives on May 6, 2014, except sections 3 and 4 of
such bill (the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing
Act).
(b) The provisions of an Act enacted in subsection (a)
shall be effective, notwithstanding any other provision of
such Act, as of the date of the enactment of this joint
resolution.
(c) The provisions of an Act enacted in subsection (a)
shall have no force or effect after December 11, 2014, and,
effective after such date, the provisions of law amended by
such Act shall be restored as if such Act had not been
enacted.
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this joint
resolution may be used to enter into any contract with an
incorporated entity if such entity's sealed bid or
competitive proposal shows that such entity is incorporated
or chartered in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, and such
entity's sealed bid or competitive proposal shows that such
entity was previously incorporated in the United States.
Mrs. BUSTOS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It
will not delay or kill the bill or send it back to committee. If
adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage, as
amended.
This amendment reinforces our commitment to the middle class and
making sure that jobs are created right here in America, not overseas,
by taking five key steps.
First, it would extend the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank
for 7
[[Page H7661]]
years. Illinois companies like John Deere and Caterpillar, as well as
large and small businesses across our country, deserve the certainty
that a long-term reauthorization would provide.
Second, it would help ensure that employers provide equal pay for
equal work. Equal pay is not simply a women's issue. It is an issue for
all in the middle class. With households being led by women, equal pay
will help those families get further ahead. Boosting women's earnings
also will increase the purchasing power of families and will help our
economy.
Third, my amendment will make the minimum wage a living wage. The
cost of living has skyrocketed in recent years, but wages have remained
stagnant. Working full time, year round at Illinois' $8.25 minimum wage
will earn a worker only $16,500 per year, a salary that is below the
Federal poverty line.
Raising the minimum wage would not only lift many families out of
poverty, but it would also increase the earning power of households
across the country, leading to an increase in overall economic
activity.
Fourth, my amendment would allow students with outstanding student
loan debt to refinance their loans at the lower interest rates that are
currently offered to borrowers. Student loan debt not only harms young
people and prevents them from reaching their personal financial
potential, such as purchasing a home and starting a family, but it is
deadweight, pulling down our entire economy and preventing economic
growth.
Fifth, and finally, my amendment would prevent government contracts
from going to companies that have moved their operations overseas. The
government should not be giving taxpayer dollars to companies that ship
jobs overseas and take advantage of corporate inversions to avoid
paying their fair share.
These five commonsense elements would strengthen the middle class and
help create jobs right here in America. Too many families are
struggling, and enough is enough. For too long, lawmakers have been
looking out for themselves instead of looking out for the middle class.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized
for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this is a clean, straightforward
continuing resolution that has bipartisan and bicameral support. It is
our best, most clear path forward to keep the lights on in our Federal
Government before the fiscal year ends.
The American people rely on the Federal Government to provide certain
vital programs and services, and they expect the Congress to come
together to ensure these programs continue.
Now, I would prefer to be standing here, presenting a bill that
finalizes the hard work of this body to fund the entire government for
the entire fiscal year. Unfortunately, the other body has refused to
live up to their end of the equation.
They have yet to pass or even consider a single appropriations bill
through their Chamber. Because the Senate leaves us with no
alternative, we must replace politics with responsibility and pass the
CR before us.
{time} 1715
This motion to recommit only increases the possibility of a
government shutdown, ignoring the tireless efforts of Members on both
sides of the aisle to keep that from happening.
The motion to recommit would also put our national security at stake.
With the addition of the McKeon amendment, this bill now provides
authority to train and equip Syrian rebels to help degrade and destroy
the terrorist organization ISIL.
Sadly, the minority is trying to hijack the process at the eleventh
hour. They have reached deep into their grab bag of partisan agenda
items in an attempt to attach, without fair consideration, sweeping
policy changes that could place undue burdens on our economy, an effort
that is designed to do nothing but score political points.
Funding our government and defeating ISIL are of grave national
importance, and they are too important to risk over political maneuvers
like this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on the motion and
``yes'' on final. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 228, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 508]
AYES--199
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--228
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
[[Page H7662]]
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Barton
DesJarlais
Nunnelee
Woodall
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1723
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 319,
noes 108, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 509]
AYES--319
Aderholt
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Chu
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Marino
Matsui
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--108
Amash
Bachmann
Bentivolio
Blackburn
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Capuano
Chabot
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Cooper
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeSantis
Doggett
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Fincher
Fleming
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Huelskamp
Huffman
Hurt
Jeffries
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kennedy
Labrador
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lowenthal
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Massie
Matheson
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
Meadows
Meng
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Nadler
Neugebauer
Nugent
O'Rourke
Pallone
Payne
Perry
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Rangel
Ribble
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Rothfus
Salmon
Sanford
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Velazquez
Weber (TX)
Welch
Westmoreland
Williams
Wittman
Yoho
NOT VOTING--4
Barton
DesJarlais
McCarthy (NY)
Nunnelee
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1731
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted on rollcall 509,
H.J. Res. 124. I intended to vote ``yes'' on rollcall 509, H.J. Res.
124.
____________________