[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13333-13337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           THE SYRIAN CRISIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Missouri). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege to be 
recognized to address you here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. And I appreciate the presentation that's come forward 
from my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Nebraska with regard to the 
Syrian situation and the international issue that's in front of all of 
us.
  I don't always find myself in complete agreement with the wisdom that 
emerges here from this microphone; but, generally speaking, that's 
where I stand this evening on the Syrian issue.
  And I think that it would be of interest to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania that I and a couple of other Members, yesterday morning, 
perhaps the day before yesterday, in the morning--my days blend 
together--we sat down with Syrian Christians who were expatriates who 
had escaped from Syria and are very interested in the cause there. And 
I understand that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has a good number of 
constituents that would be representative of the same cause.
  It was a very interesting conversation that we had at breakfast day 
before yesterday at Brussels. And the concern that they expressed 
essentially came back to it's hard to choose a good side in Syria, in 
that Assad, of course, he's an evil dictator. We've known that for a 
long time.
  We have the Free Syrian Army that emerged as a force for good that 
seems to now be taken over by forces that are not so good. So it 
appears to them, and it appears to me, that whether it would be the 
Assad forces that prevail in the end, or whether it would be the forces 
that are taking over the Free Syrian Army, it's not going to be good 
for Christians in Syria.
  And I'm concerned that, for us to find a way forward, the best hope 
for Christians in Syria is likely to be the moderate groups that began 
the Free Syrian Army in the first place, those groups that want to have 
a secular Syria that respects everyone's right to freedom of religion 
and freedom to associate, and respects the rights of humanity that we 
all defend here.
  So I reiterate the statements that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has made. And we stand, certainly, with the Christians in Syria, but 
also the secular forces in Syria, however they've been marginalized by 
the forces of the Muslim Brotherhood, the forces that are Assad, and 
the anti-freedom forces that seem to want to take Syria over and use it 
for their own evil aims.
  So having traveled, Mr. Speaker, over into that part of the world, 
not into Syria specifically, but into the Middle East--and we just came 
back last night from a trip that was to Tokyo. We spent several days 
there dealing with the top leadership in Japan, including Prime 
Minister Abe, and then from there to the United Arab Emirates, where we 
had a meeting set up with a number of officials.

[[Page 13334]]

  The first meeting was at 11:00 in the morning. We were scheduled to 
meet with the Crown Prince about 1 or 1:30 in the afternoon. Instead, 
he gave us a very pleasant surprise and arrived at our 11:00 meeting. 
And we were able to have a long, engaging conversation, doors closed, 
which gave us a very good perspective on the Middle East and on Syria.
  So I appreciate my colleagues' focus and interest on this, and mine 
is also focused the same.
  Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for his kind 
comments about his experiences with various folks who are in Syria.
  I just wanted to say one other thing too. This past Sunday I attended 
a church service at my own church that has a large Syrian community; 
and a woman made a presentation at the church who represents the 
Presbyterian Church of Lebanon and Syria, and spoke in my church in 
very moderate, secular tones about why she thought it was not in 
anyone's interest for the United States to intervene at this point in 
the Syrian civil war.

                              {time}  1900

  It was a very compelling statement. Then, after that church service, 
I stopped by another at St. George Antioch Orthodox Church after their 
services had ended and met with some of the parishioners whose family 
members are over there, in many cases, and some told me their family 
members had been killed. And there was a lot of crying and wailing and 
deep sadness. It's quite emotional for them, as you can well imagine. 
They feel so strongly that this intervention is only going to make the 
plight of the Christians that much more dire and difficult in Syria and 
that it could lead to their ultimate extermination in many cases. This 
was their term, not mine.
  That's how serious this is to them in a country, that I believe, the 
last I checked, is somewhere between 15 to 20 percent Christian, 
although the numbers are diminishing, given this turmoil. We've seen 
that in many Middle Eastern countries. The Christian communities are 
just not able to endure in this type of environment.
  So I appreciate your interest in this issue, Mr. King, and thank you 
for allowing me to speak. Keep up the good work.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  I would add that there was some dialogue in that breakfast meeting 
with the Syrian Christians that took place the day before yesterday, in 
the morning, about how there was a concerted effort to push and 
eradicate Christians out of all the areas in the Middle East. That 
seems to be something that they have embarked upon. And I know that 
there's a long history of it of over a thousand years. But it's been 
accelerated here, I believe, Mr. Speaker, within the last few years. In 
fact, the date of this meeting goes back to 1982 when that began.
  We're hearing similar narratives about Christians that are being 
persecuted by both sides in this. The population percentage in Syria of 
around 15 to 20 percent fits with what I'm told. I added up the data 
that they gave me from different sections of the Syrian Christians and 
my number came to about 2.6 million Syrian Christians.
  There are also about 2 million Syrians that are refugees that have 
left Syria and that are now housed in refugee camps in the surrounding 
country. There's about 2 million refugees. There are about 2.6 million 
Christians in or around Syria altogether. I see that as almost the 
equivalent of the population of the State of Iowa.
  So we've watched as Assad has persecuted his people--the people that 
were not his. Anybody but his political allies were persecuted by him 
over the years. I remember that he was identified by the Bush 
administration as, I believe, an evildoer. I remember some 
communications being opened up with Bashar al-Assad that took place 
sometime in 2007 or 2008. I remember some pictures that came back from 
there. This individual now has been identified as head of the regime 
that has launched chemical weapons against his own people.
  The evidence that we see doesn't necessarily confirm that it would be 
Assad himself that gave the order, but it does appear that there were 
chemical attacks. It also appears that there were conventional 
artillery assaults into the same neighborhood that brought about many 
casualties. To sort out whether they were chemical casualties or 
whether they were kinetic action casualties is a question that's not 
been answered yet.
  I'm hesitant to get very far into this from a factual standpoint 
because of what's classified and what isn't, Mr. Speaker. I want to 
make this point. It doesn't get brought out in this Congress enough, if 
at all. The forces are lined up on the side of either Sunni or Shia. Of 
course, the Alawite sect of the Shia is the sect that is Assad himself. 
And he's supported by them. When you look at his allies--Hezbollah and 
Iran--they are Shia. If you look at his enemies, generally speaking, 
his enemies are al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. There's a list of 
those Sunni interests that have poured into Syria.
  At the beginning, this was a conflict that was formed by the Free 
Syrian Army that wanted to unseat Assad and establish a government that 
would be of, by, and for the people of Syria and consistent with 
American ideals and American principles of a government that's 
empowered by the will of the people instead of by the will of a 
dictator or a king.
  So as the Free Syrian Army began, their forces were growing and they 
were strong and they were taking over territory. Since that period of 
time, we've watched as the sometimes-labeled ``rebel effect'' has 
diminished. And it's almost been in direct proportion to the influence 
of the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and other radical interests 
stepping in to take over and pick up some of the resources that are 
being used to support the opposition to Assad.
  As I've watched this and from what I know and from the information 
that's come to me, continually the Free Syrian Army is more 
representative of the Muslim Brotherhood than it is of the free Syrian 
people. And not by a majority of the population of the army itself, but 
by the leadership, by who commands the resources, by who's being 
trained. This is now ever more clear that there's not a side that's 
easy to get on in this conflict and be confident that the forces are 
the forces of good. In other words, to identify the good guys has 
gotten ever more difficult month by month. It's more difficult today 
than it was a month ago or 2 or 3 or 4 or 6 months ago.
  But it doesn't mean that there aren't good influences, that there 
aren't good cores of people that we should be identifying with and that 
we should be strengthening and empowering. But from my view, anybody 
that supports al Qaeda or is of al Qaeda is our enemy. Anybody that is 
Muslim Brotherhood or supports Muslim Brotherhood turns out to be our 
enemy. The difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda is 
they both have the same military wing. The Muslim Brotherhood has got a 
lot broader political approach to this. But in the end, they're looking 
to establish the Islamic caliphate everywhere in the world they can and 
establish sharia law everywhere in the world they can. And they don't 
view individual rights, human rights, or this God-given liberty and 
freedom here that our Founding Fathers claimed for us here over 200 
years ago. They don't have respect for that. They reject it. And their 
approach is not compatible with human rights.
  So we see the sectarian interests in Syria taking over the secular 
initiates in Syria. I believe that there's an ability--if we can 
identify the good guys--to empower them, to train them, to fund them, 
to supply them. But there's a way to bring this around and bring it to 
a good conclusion. But the people that need to be empowered in Syria 
are a long way from power. The people that don't need to be in power, 
whether it's the Muslim Brotherhood side of this and the Sunni radical 
Islamists or whether it be the Shia interests and

[[Page 13335]]

Assad, they are competing with each other now for dominance. They 
fought each other for centuries as well.
  There's no good result that can come easy in Syria. There is a good 
result that could come over a long period of time if our administration 
identified the people that we should be allying ourselves with and if 
they could emerge as the strong force. But while that's going on, we've 
been offered something from Putin and the Russians that I don't think 
anyone expected, a little more than 24 hours ago, and that is a way to 
avoid a military conflict in engaging U.S. forces in Syria.
  I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the mail that I'm getting and the phone 
calls that I'm getting are almost universally in opposition to going 
into any kind of military action whatsoever in Syria. Almost universal. 
All of my calls today were against going into Syria. Almost every call 
the last week were against going into Syria.
  It's not that I make decisions exclusively off of constituent input 
or American communications input. I have an obligation and I owe my 
constituents and I owe Iowans and the people in this country my best 
effort and my best judgment. And that includes the input that comes 
from them, weighed more heavily than if it were not directly from my 
constituents. And I owe them my best effort and best judgment--and that 
is to go out and gather information. I have probably the best access to 
the broadest amount of information, including myself, among my 
constituents.
  So I owe them my best effort. Part of that is to go and see with my 
own eyes and get into those parts of the world so that I can be fully 
informed, because this Congress is being called upon to make decisions 
that redirect the destiny of the United States of America. We should 
not do that in an uninformed way. We should not do it in a willfully 
ignorant way.
  There are many things going on in the world that you cannot learn by 
listening to just briefings here or reading the paper. We should know 
from long history that you've got to drill into these things. You've 
got to look the right people in the eye and you've got to verify the 
information that they give you. I've done that. I've done that over the 
last week. I kept my powder dry on Syria throughout that period of time 
because I wanted to gather all the information that I could.
  I didn't want to take a public position until I had seen as much as I 
can with my own eyes and hear as much as I can with my own ears. And 
even though we've done a trip into Cairo and the United Arab Emirates 
and the Middle East and we had briefings in countries beyond that and 
briefings from our State Department, we met with, as I said, Syrian 
Christians and we also met with refugees from Libya. We met with 
Special Forces interests and different perspectives on the Middle East 
entirely and different perspectives on the Syrian operation.
  You put that altogether, from the State Department's position on, I 
came back with stacks of notes on it, Mr. Speaker. But I didn't want to 
speak on my Syrian position until such time as I had sat through the 
classified briefing that I knew over a week ago was scheduled for five 
o'clock yesterday. And that went on from five o'clock until about a 
quarter to seven last night.
  That briefing was useful. The people that were there to brief us were 
Susan Rice and Director Clapper and Secretary Kerry. We also had 
Secretary of Defense Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Five people of the highest level you could 
ask for assured the President of the United States. He gave us a 
briefing with the data that they have and what they know. And they told 
us what was classified and what wasn't. They told us the conclusions 
they had drawn and some method about how they arrived at those 
conclusions.
  But my independent assessment doesn't agree with the course of action 
that seems to be the direction from the President of the United States. 
It doesn't mean that I disagree with the data that they have, but the 
conclusion and how to move forward, I do disagree with. And I have 
taken a position today that if there were a vote on the floor today to 
authorize military force in Syria, I would not support that. Mr. 
Speaker, I would vote ``no.''
  I want to make it clear that I believe the President has 
constitutional authority to order action in Syria or anywhere else. The 
President of the United States has to have that authority to order our 
military into action in an instant. Our Continental Congress was not 
very functional when it came to fighting a war by consensus. When they 
finally got through the Revolutionary War and put a country together 
and built a Constitution that could be ratified by the majority of the 
States--the 13 original colonies--they concluded that we needed to have 
a President of the United States who was also the Commander in Chief of 
the United States military who was in full control of the military. And 
subsequent to that, there was a piece of legislation passed within the 
20th century that was the War Powers Act that was designed to restrain 
the activities of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United 
States.
  Those two conditions were, one, the constitutional authority of the 
Commander in Chief to order our military into battle in an instant 
without consulting Congress. And the other, the War Powers Act, 
requires the President to come back after a period of time and consult 
with Congress. Those two, the Constitution and the War Powers Act, are 
compatible as long as they are respected by the Congress and by the 
President of the United States.
  Anytime we're engaged in a long military engagement, I think the 
President should come consult with Congress. If it's a short operation 
and it's over before it can be consulted, that's consistent with the 
Constitution.
  I would point out when President Reagan ordered our military into 
Grenada, that was an operation that took place quickly. He came before 
the American people and let us know after it was launched that he had 
ordered military action in Grenada. It was a successful operation, and 
we pulled out of there when the objective was achieved. That was Ronald 
Reagan.
  When George Herbert Walker Bush--Bush 41--ordered our military into 
action in Panama to put an end to dictator and drug smuggler Noriega, 
that order was issued and our military took to the field. And as that 
operation was unfolding, then we found out about the order of our 
Commander in Chief.
  This operation that's proposed in Syria is an operation that the 
President of the United States has the authority to order. He has the 
constitutional authority to do so. And if he had identified targets in 
Syria, and was determined that was the right course for America, the 
President should have then issued the order to engage our military in 
the fashion that his best judgment said he should.

                              {time}  1915

  But what has happened instead is there has been a vacillation that 
has taken place. He has sought to sell this to the American people 
while the message and the warning is going out to Assad. The red line 
that was drawn in the sand back during the Presidential campaign, it 
appears that the administration thinks that line has been crossed 
multiple times. And if you cross a red line in the sand enough times, 
it gets pretty blurry after awhile. Now they've decided that August 21 
was the bright red line that was crossed by Assad. And here we are on 
the eve of the anniversary of the Benghazi attack--tomorrow is 
September 11--and on the anniversary of course of the September 11, 
2001, attack; now we're negotiating with Congress to get support to go 
into military action in Syria.
  My position, Mr. Speaker, is if the President thought it was a good 
idea, in a very limited way, as Secretary of State Kerry said, he 
should have done that. He should have issued the order, gotten it over 
with. If they're right and it's a very narrow operation, he could have 
pulled back and we would be done by now. But he watched as David 
Cameron and the United Kingdom took the

[[Page 13336]]

issue before the British Parliament. The British Parliament voted down 
the initiative to strike Syria over the chemical weapons, and that put 
the brakes on the United Kingdom supporting us or any other entity in 
an operation in Syria. I think when the President saw that, maybe he 
concluded, Well, I'll ask Congress. If Congress says no, then I'll have 
this responsibility, this cup taken from him, so to speak--the one that 
he asked for when he put out the red line statement during the campaign 
in a debate with Mitt Romney.
  So we're now in this situation where we've had a protracted national 
and global debate. And each stop around the world where we have gone 
into--into Tokyo, into the UAE, into Cairo, into Brussels--and met with 
multiple entities along the way, Syria is the discussion matter. But 
they look to the United States to lead.
  Some of the countries don't think it's a very good idea to go in 
there, but they say they will support us anyway because they want 
America to succeed. They understand that if we're not strong in the 
world, if we don't lead in the world, then this becomes a very 
precarious place.
  I had it expressed to me a number of times: We don't think it's a 
very good idea, but if you do this, we'll support you; or, We think 
it's a bad idea; we have to support you anyway. But I didn't find 
anybody that said that they were really happy about the idea that 
America might strike someplace inside Syria to send a message to Assad. 
Some said don't pave the road to Damascus for the Muslim Brotherhood, 
that the devil we know may not be as bad as the devil we don't know. 
And we're starting to learn that.
  So as this has unfolded--and I heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
I believe it was, mention NATO and a NATO operation. We aren't going to 
have the support of NATO in an operation in Syria. NATO operates off of 
a consensus. The 28 nations or so that are NATO now have a lot of 
trouble getting to a consensus. If some of those countries decide they 
don't want to participate, they will just simply not commit their 
forces. In the end, it comes down to what will the U.S. do, what won't 
the U.S. do.
  We're not going to have the support of the United Nations. There has 
already been that effort to bring it before the United Nations, and 
we've got opposition from Russia and opposition from China. Now, maybe 
they would reconsider. Maybe China would reconsider; maybe Russia would 
reconsider. But the United Nations is not going to be there behind us, 
Mr. Speaker. NATO is not going to be there behind us. We will have 
perhaps a coalition--not of the willing, but a coalition of the 
unwilling, those unwilling to allow the United States to, let's say, be 
embarrassed by this policy.
  So the best course forward appears to be the lifeline that was tossed 
to us within the last 24 hours by Putin from Russia. He said, Let's 
take you up on your offer, Secretary Kerry, and see if we can gather up 
these chemical weapons and eradicate them from Syria. If doing so will 
prevent a military strike, then let's give it a go. That's a British 
expression, by the way, Mr. Speaker, ``give it a go.''
  Well, I'm for giving it a go. I think that is the best alternative we 
have. I think the military strike is a mistake because it runs the risk 
of paving the road to Damascus for Muslim Brotherhood and other radical 
Islamist entities that are part of that constellation that have been 
systematically marginalizing the true free Syrian Army and empowering 
themselves, and some of them with resources that we would see as 
sourced back to the U.S. taxpayers.
  Well, the best course forward now is to work with the Russians and 
see if we can get the chemical weapons gathered together. I would want 
Americans involved in any kind of a mission to gather those chemical 
weapons. I think the United Nations showed an ability to go into Iraq 
before 2003 and do the nuclear inspection that was there. I was uneasy 
with their conclusions--in fact, I didn't agree with their conclusions, 
but they're the force on the planet that has an opportunity to have the 
global credibility. If they get to that point where they say we've got 
all these weapons picked up, or they will qualify their answer, that's 
the kind of thing that should be going on, Mr. Speaker. But in any 
case, any kind of inspection team, any kind of chemical weapon 
collection team, under the auspices perhaps of the United Nations so 
that it isn't directly under, say, Russia or the United States, but 
with Americans there on the ground to verify the actions that are 
taking place and give us a sense of credibility and confidence.
  Mr. Speaker, I point out that it won't work to go there and just get 
the job done to eradicate the chemical weapons. We must do so in a way 
that has credibility so that especially the American people will accept 
a conclusion and we can perhaps move on. But picking up chemical 
weapons and gathering up that entire inventory, which is tons and tons 
of that inventory, if it's done so in a precision way, perhaps doesn't 
change the balance of the regime versus the forces for good and those 
evil forces that align themselves with the forces for good, perhaps 
doesn't change that balance, or changes it in a more minimal way than a 
military strike would, and it would send the message that we will put 
an end to the abuse of chemical weapons.
  It is also curious to me, Mr. Speaker, that this level of concern and 
outrage didn't seem to exist when chemical weapons were being used 
between Iraq and Iran during the Iraq and Iran war in the eighties. It 
doesn't mean it's all right. I think it's a good position to take 
against the abuse and the use of chemical weapons, but the red line 
itself, as far as a reason for America to put ourselves into a military 
conflict in a nation that we don't have much strategic interest in is, 
I think, a mistake and I would oppose that. We should remember, again, 
who are the forces there, the messages they send to the world.
  What have we seen happen in the Arab Spring? An Arab Spring that has 
emerged now--we are a couple years into that. It looks to me like the 
forces that have emerged on top have invariably been the Muslim 
Brotherhood. So it isn't always good to see a change within a regime or 
administration.
  We saw President Carter support the return of the Shah in Iran and 
support ousting the current power, the power that was in Iran and put 
the Shah in, thinking that there would be a representation that was a 
religious movement--excuse me, the opposition to the Shah in Iran. In 
any case, the Ayatollah was viewed by President Carter as being a 
religious movement that was a voice for the people. What we ended up 
with the Ayatollah instead of the Shah was the beginnings of radical 
Islam within Iran, and the flow that came from 1979 until today might 
have been different had we taken a different position in Iran. Where we 
had friends in Iran, now we have enemies in Iran. As we have developed 
friends in Iraq, we are watching that friendship diminish. As we 
developed the foundational support in Afghanistan, we are watching that 
diminish.
  As we see, we have strong friends and a military alliance with Egypt. 
We supported Mubarak and he was our friend. We built military 
operations going on in the Sinai Desert. That took place with--a good 
number of Iowans served there and people from probably every State 
served in the Sinai in operations with the Egyptians. Then Mubarak was 
essentially pushed out. And the message that came from our 
administration was he needs to leave yesterday. Well, the Morsi forces 
were able to push Mubarak out. They held one election. 5.8 million of 
the 83 million Egyptians voted for Morsi. Morsi came in as an 
incompetent Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood came out of 
that on top again like every other situation in the Arab Spring that 
has unfolded in the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker.
  Now the best break we've seen in Egypt is that 30 to 33 million 
Egyptians took to the streets. Their peak day was the 3rd of July. They 
took their country back; and, yes, they had the support of the 
military. And some call it a coup, but there is no constitutional 
provision for them to impeach

[[Page 13337]]

the incompetent Morsi. The Egyptian people had had enough. You can't 
mobilize that kind of support unless there are many good reasons--the 
economic shambles that they allowed to take place and the injustices 
that were taking place under the Morsi regime.
  So now we have a new leadership that has taken hold in Egypt. I have 
met with the interim President of Egypt, President Mansour. He makes it 
clear he is the interim President, that they are going to hand the 
country of Egypt over to an elective representative government. They're 
going to pass a constitution that they're busy writing now. And the 
military will let go of their control over the country and submit to 
the civilian leadership that emerges in a constitutional fashion. They 
have laid out a timetable and a roadmap, Mr. Speaker. So this is the 
best future that Egypt can hope for.
  Morsi was a mistake. He is Muslim Brotherhood. These forces are anti-
Muslim Brotherhood. They are pro-Egyptian people. I'm supporting the 
forces that are in place in Egypt now, and I would, face to face, 
encourage them, move forward with the timetable that you have. It 
appears to be aggressive and it has some risk. But writing a 
constitution, ratifying a constitution, having elections and 
establishing a civilian government in Egypt and then handing the 
control of the military over to that civilian government is the right 
thing to do. It sets the right destiny for Egypt. And I think that the 
United States needs to do a 180 on the support of the people that are 
now in charge in Egypt.
  I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, your attention and an opportunity to 
address you here this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________