[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3400-H3401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SYRIAN CIVIL WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Brown) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, there is a civil war in Syria and 
a humanitarian crisis that the United States simply cannot and should 
not ignore.
  Today there are some 2,000 U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground in 
Syria who have spent the past several years engaged in the fight to 
defeat ISIS. That fight has been largely successful, yet troops remain 
in Syria to prevent a resurgence of ISIS. U.S. forces are engaged in 
hostilities against ISIS, not in the Syrian civil war.
  Congress was informed in 2015 that our forces are in Syria pursuant 
to the AUMF enacted in 2001, in response to the attacks on 9/11.
  Although U.S. ground forces aren't engaged in the Syrian civil war, 
our forces have engaged Syrian forces and its regime. Last year, a U.S. 
Navy F-18 shot down a Syrian war plane in the collective self-defense 
of our coalition partners. The use of force in self-defense is 
unquestionably authorized, however risky that may be in potentially 
drawing the U.S. into armed conflict with Syria or into the Syrian 
civil war.
  In the fall of 2016, U.S. forces mistakenly and unintentionally 
killed Syrian troops in an air strike that was intended for ISIS 
fighters. Last year, the Syrian regime launched an aerial bombing with 
sarin, causing the deaths of nearly 100 civilians.
  In response to Assad carrying out these war crimes, the United States 
military, at the direction of President Trump, fired 59 cruise missiles 
against a Syrian air base. It was the air base from which the aircraft 
were launched to drop nerve gas on innocent women, children, men, and 
civilians.

[[Page H3401]]

  But that didn't stop Assad. Just 11 days ago, less than 10 days after 
President Trump instructed military leaders to withdraw U.S. troops 
from Syria as soon as possible, Assad again launched a chemical attack 
on more than 500 people.
  In response, and without meaningful discussion with Congress, 
President Trump, once again, ordered air strikes against Syrian targets 
associated with the Syrian chemical weapons program.
  Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the U.S. presence on the ground and our 
air engagements in Syria since 2015, this Congress has never openly and 
formally debated the question of authorization for the use of military 
force in Syria.
  It is time for us to do our job. Assad is a barbaric, genocidal 
dictator. The use of chemical weapons is heinous, and the use of 
conventional weapons against civilians, which he is also guilty of 
doing, is equally heinous.
  Syria is a humanitarian disaster. 400,000 Syrians, most of whom are 
innocent civilians, are dead. These facts are not disputed. For more 
than 70 years, the United States has been an anchor of international 
security, and I believe we cannot look away when a dictator brazenly 
and repeatedly violates international law.
  The debate that is long overdue in Congress should not be limited to 
if, when, and how the United States should respond to the next chemical 
attack. Congress abdicated that responsibility in 2013 and in 2017, and 
I fear we are on course to do so again this year.
  Deliberations over how and when to retaliate against the next 
chemical weapons attack must be part of the larger debate that we must 
have about our country's goals, policies, and strategy in Syria and 
whether another solitary military strike would be effective.
  We should recognize that another military response will be hollow if 
not accompanied by a more robust, whole-of-government approach. We need 
to agree on a strategy that will permanently deter Assad from using 
chemical weapons, send a message to Moscow and Tehran, and push Assad 
to the negotiation table to achieve a lasting political solution to the 
civil war and humanitarian crisis.
  Will this approach require greater support of the secular opposition 
in Syria? Will we have to work with our NATO allies to intervene more 
purposefully to contain Assad? These are the things--the issues--that 
every Member of Congress must grapple with as we weigh the use of 
military force. The President cannot act unilaterally.
  I believe our ideals and principles, as well as our national 
security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of an 
international system where we seek to ensure that weapons of mass 
destruction are never used.
  I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the 
support of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, let's debate and vote on the authorization to use 
military force in Syria now.

                          ____________________