[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14888-14915]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule 
XIX, 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

[[Page 14889]]

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. 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, 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.

[[Page 14890]]



                              {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.
  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

[[Page 14891]]

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 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

[[Page 14892]]

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 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

[[Page 14893]]

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?''
  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.

[[Page 14894]]


  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.
  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

[[Page 14895]]

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 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.

[[Page 14896]]

  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 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

[[Page 14897]]

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 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

[[Page 14898]]

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.

[[Page 14899]]

We should also say that any authorization for military forces, it must 
be a 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

[[Page 14900]]

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 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.

[[Page 14901]]


  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 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,

[[Page 14902]]

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 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

[[Page 14903]]

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 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

[[Page 14904]]

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 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 an 
additional 1 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

[[Page 14905]]

     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.
       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

[[Page 14906]]

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 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.

[[Page 14907]]

  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.
  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 an additional 1 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

[[Page 14908]]

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, 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.

[[Page 14909]]

  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 
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

[[Page 14910]]

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 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.

[[Page 14911]]

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 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

[[Page 14912]]

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).
  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

[[Page 14913]]


     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 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

[[Page 14914]]

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
     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

[[Page 14915]]


     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.

                          ____________________