OPPOSITION TO ARMING SYRIAN REBELS; Congressional Record Vol. 160, No. 133

<!-- -->

OPPOSITION TO ARMING SYRIAN REBELS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr). The Chair recognizes the

gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly) for 5 minutes.

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, we will be asked as a Congress later today to

vote on authorization of the President's request to arm Syrian rebels.

I rise this morning to oppose the President's request, and I do so

with a heart of conviction that says we must do more to combat,

confront, defeat, and destroy ISIS, but also with the conviction,

respectfully, that the President's request is simply wrong.

ISIS constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the

United States. My belief on this is clear. I was one of a little over a

dozen Members of Congress to recently introduce legislation authorizing

the President to do more.

We must eradicate the ISIS regime that perverts a religion founded on

peace and uses it as a platform to engage in crucifixions and

beheadings and mass murders.

But I oppose today's request because it fails to seek the full

authorization of this body. It fails to seek a clear mandate of the

American people and because it asks this body to approve only one small

portion of an overall strategy that is continuing to evolve. And that

portion is most controversial, most questioned, and most vulnerable to

failure.

We should be here today as a Congress debating whether we are a

Nation at war, whether ISIS constitutes a direct threat to the national

security of the United States, and if we are at war, we as a Congress

should be asking the question: Are we fully engaged as a Nation to

defeat ISIS, and are we fully committed to accepting the consequences

and the casualties required to do so? But that is not what today's vote

is about.

Today's vote is whether we as a Nation put our reliance on Syrian

rebels, and that leaves far too many unanswered questions. We tried

this in Iraq, to mixed results. We know Syrian rebels--we know this--

some will cooperate with ISIS and, in fact, contribute to the

additional killings of Syrian Christians and religious minorities. Are

we prepared as a body to accept those collateral casualties of terror?

We know training will take months. What will we be doing tomorrow? We

know Russia has declared this will be an act of aggression. What is our

Nation's response, and what is this body's response? And how does

today's debate contribute to our Article 1, Section 8 authority under

the Constitution? Are we quietly allying with the Syrian Government, a

regime that 18 months ago we said we wanted to topple, or is this an

act of aggression against Syria's sovereignty? And where is this

Congress in this debate?

The final question is: Do we seriously think, as the President

portends, that this will not require a single pair of boots of our

Special Operations community to touch Syrian soil? Do we

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-160/house-section/page/H7623) \[H7623\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-160/house-section/page/H7623)\\\]\\\]

truly rely on Syrian rebels to lay the targets for our elite air

assets?

There are boots on the ground today. We can call them military

advisers, but the fact is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

yesterday said, if necessary, he would recommend putting them in a

combat role. We are not having that debate here on the floor of the

House.

The American people deserve a President and a Congress that are

honest about what we face as a Nation militarily. The doubt in this

debate in this Congress has been palpable. We question the strategy, we

question the trust of Syrian rebels, we question our constitutional

responsibility, and yet we are prepared as a body to ignore all doubt,

to ignore our uncomfortable conviction of opposition to this request

simply out of a desperate hope that somehow this matter might resolve

itself without the President and the Congress having a hard

conversation, recognizing that we are a war weary and tired Nation

faced again with an asymmetric threat from terrorists who have

threatened our homeland.

We want to believe the beheadings and the audible threats of terror

to our shores is not real, but we know it is. We as a Nation do not

have the luxury to choose what threats confront us; we only choose our

response.

So my request of my colleagues in this House is that we have a full

debate on what we face as a Nation. The President has brought us this

very limited request merely out of statutory convenience, not out of

constitutional conviction. We should not accept that.

My request of the President is this: very respectfully, do not

trample on the constitutional authority of this Congress as you

reluctantly march to the drumbeat of war that you are rightfully

hesitant to engage in and with an elusive strategy that leaves so many

unanswered questions today.

This body should have a full debate. The American people deserve to

know that the President has requested full authorization and this

Congress has had an opportunity to deliberate on it. I reluctantly

oppose the request today, knowing we must do so much more to confront

ISIS. I ask my colleagues to do the same.

&nbsp;