[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14873-14874]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   OPPOSITION TO ARMING SYRIAN REBELS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, we will be asked as a Congress later today to 
vote on authorization of the President's request to arm Syrian rebels.
  I rise this morning to oppose the President's request, and I do so 
with a heart of conviction that says we must do more to combat, 
confront, defeat, and destroy ISIS, but also with the conviction, 
respectfully, that the President's request is simply wrong.
  ISIS constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the 
United States. My belief on this is clear. I was one of a little over a 
dozen Members of Congress to recently introduce legislation authorizing 
the President to do more.
  We must eradicate the ISIS regime that perverts a religion founded on 
peace and uses it as a platform to engage in crucifixions and 
beheadings and mass murders.
  But I oppose today's request because it fails to seek the full 
authorization of this body. It fails to seek a clear mandate of the 
American people and because it asks this body to approve only one small 
portion of an overall strategy that is continuing to evolve. And that 
portion is most controversial, most questioned, and most vulnerable to 
failure.
  We should be here today as a Congress debating whether we are a 
Nation at war, whether ISIS constitutes a direct threat to the national 
security of the United States, and if we are at war, we as a Congress 
should be asking the question: Are we fully engaged as a Nation to 
defeat ISIS, and are we fully committed to accepting the consequences 
and the casualties required to do so? But that is not what today's vote 
is about.
  Today's vote is whether we as a Nation put our reliance on Syrian 
rebels, and that leaves far too many unanswered questions. We tried 
this in Iraq, to mixed results. We know Syrian rebels--we know this--
some will cooperate with ISIS and, in fact, contribute to the 
additional killings of Syrian Christians and religious minorities. Are 
we prepared as a body to accept those collateral casualties of terror?
  We know training will take months. What will we be doing tomorrow? We 
know Russia has declared this will be an act of aggression. What is our 
Nation's response, and what is this body's response? And how does 
today's debate contribute to our Article 1, Section 8 authority under 
the Constitution? Are we quietly allying with the Syrian Government, a 
regime that 18 months ago we said we wanted to topple, or is this an 
act of aggression against Syria's sovereignty? And where is this 
Congress in this debate?
  The final question is: Do we seriously think, as the President 
portends, that this will not require a single pair of boots of our 
Special Operations community to touch Syrian soil? Do we truly rely on 
Syrian rebels to lay the targets for our elite air assets?
  There are boots on the ground today. We can call them military 
advisers, but the fact is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
yesterday said, if necessary, he would recommend putting them in a 
combat role. We are not having that debate here on the floor of the 
House.
  The American people deserve a President and a Congress that are 
honest about what we face as a Nation militarily. The doubt in this 
debate in this Congress has been palpable. We question the strategy, we 
question the trust of Syrian rebels, we question our constitutional 
responsibility, and yet we are prepared as a body to ignore all doubt, 
to ignore our uncomfortable conviction of opposition to this request 
simply out of a desperate hope that somehow this matter might resolve 
itself without the President and the Congress having a hard 
conversation, recognizing that we are a war weary and tired Nation 
faced again with an asymmetric threat from terrorists who have 
threatened our homeland.
  We want to believe the beheadings and the audible threats of terror 
to our shores is not real, but we know it is. We as a Nation do not 
have the luxury to choose what threats confront us; we only choose our 
response.
  So my request of my colleagues in this House is that we have a full 
debate

[[Page 14874]]

on what we face as a Nation. The President has brought us this very 
limited request merely out of statutory convenience, not out of 
constitutional conviction. We should not accept that.
  My request of the President is this: very respectfully, do not 
trample on the constitutional authority of this Congress as you 
reluctantly march to the drumbeat of war that you are rightfully 
hesitant to engage in and with an elusive strategy that leaves so many 
unanswered questions today.
  This body should have a full debate. The American people deserve to 
know that the President has requested full authorization and this 
Congress has had an opportunity to deliberate on it. I reluctantly 
oppose the request today, knowing we must do so much more to confront 
ISIS. I ask my colleagues to do the same.

                          ____________________