On the recordSeptember 17, 2014
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.…





