SYRIAN CIVIL WAR; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 63

<!-- -->

SYRIAN CIVIL WAR

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from

Maryland (Mr. Brown) for 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, there is a civil war in Syria and

a humanitarian crisis that the United States simply cannot and should

not ignore.

Today there are some 2,000 U.S. soldiers and marines on the ground in

Syria who have spent the past several years engaged in the fight to

defeat ISIS. That fight has been largely successful, yet troops remain

in Syria to prevent a resurgence of ISIS. U.S. forces are engaged in

hostilities against ISIS, not in the Syrian civil war.

Congress was informed in 2015 that our forces are in Syria pursuant

to the AUMF enacted in 2001, in response to the attacks on 9/11.

Although U.S. ground forces aren't engaged in the Syrian civil war,

our forces have engaged Syrian forces and its regime. Last year, a U.S.

Navy F-18 shot down a Syrian war plane in the collective self-defense

of our coalition partners. The use of force in self-defense is

unquestionably authorized, however risky that may be in potentially

drawing the U.S. into armed conflict with Syria or into the Syrian

civil war.

In the fall of 2016, U.S. forces mistakenly and unintentionally

killed Syrian troops in an air strike that was intended for ISIS

fighters. Last year, the Syrian regime launched an aerial bombing with

sarin, causing the deaths of nearly 100 civilians.

In response to Assad carrying out these war crimes, the United States

military, at the direction of President Trump, fired 59 cruise missiles

against a Syrian air base. It was the air base from which the aircraft

were launched to drop nerve gas on innocent women, children, men, and

civilians.

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/house-section/page/H3401) \[H3401\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/house-section/page/H3401)\\\]\\\]

But that didn't stop Assad. Just 11 days ago, less than 10 days after

President Trump instructed military leaders to withdraw U.S. troops

from Syria as soon as possible, Assad again launched a chemical attack

on more than 500 people.

In response, and without meaningful discussion with Congress,

President Trump, once again, ordered air strikes against Syrian targets

associated with the Syrian chemical weapons program.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the U.S. presence on the ground and our

air engagements in Syria since 2015, this Congress has never openly and

formally debated the question of authorization for the use of military

force in Syria.

It is time for us to do our job. Assad is a barbaric, genocidal

dictator. The use of chemical weapons is heinous, and the use of

conventional weapons against civilians, which he is also guilty of

doing, is equally heinous.

Syria is a humanitarian disaster. 400,000 Syrians, most of whom are

innocent civilians, are dead. These facts are not disputed. For more

than 70 years, the United States has been an anchor of international

security, and I believe we cannot look away when a dictator brazenly

and repeatedly violates international law.

The debate that is long overdue in Congress should not be limited to

if, when, and how the United States should respond to the next chemical

attack. Congress abdicated that responsibility in 2013 and in 2017, and

I fear we are on course to do so again this year.

Deliberations over how and when to retaliate against the next

chemical weapons attack must be part of the larger debate that we must

have about our country's goals, policies, and strategy in Syria and

whether another solitary military strike would be effective.

We should recognize that another military response will be hollow if

not accompanied by a more robust, whole-of-government approach. We need

to agree on a strategy that will permanently deter Assad from using

chemical weapons, send a message to Moscow and Tehran, and push Assad

to the negotiation table to achieve a lasting political solution to the

civil war and humanitarian crisis.

Will this approach require greater support of the secular opposition

in Syria? Will we have to work with our NATO allies to intervene more

purposefully to contain Assad? These are the things--the issues--that

every Member of Congress must grapple with as we weigh the use of

military force. The President cannot act unilaterally.

I believe our ideals and principles, as well as our national

security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of an

international system where we seek to ensure that weapons of mass

destruction are never used.

I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the

support of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, let's debate and vote on the authorization to use

military force in Syria now.

&nbsp;