Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.

I thank my colleague for this extremely important amendment.

Madam Chair, we have a dire situation in Syria, and everyone's heart breaks for the suffering of the Syrian people. Over 100,000 people are getting slaughtered by the leader of their own government. It's absolutely unconscionable. So the questions for us are: What can we practically do? Whatever it is that we do do, does Congress have a say in the ``yes'' or ``no'' of military action?

I thank the gentleman for this amendment because there are two questions here.

One is as to the policy itself, the use of military force, arming the rebels. Is that a wise policy? Will it make things better or will it make things worse?

The second question is: Whatever the policy is, is it the responsibility of those of us who have been elected to represent Americans as Members of Congress--and we all do--to be accountable in making that enormously important and consequential decision that has the potential to send our troops into combat?

Let me talk briefly about the policy.

The military situation there is chaotic. The rebels are united loosely in an effort to bring down Assad, but distinguishing between the ``good rebels'' and the ``bad rebels'' is impossible. In fact, we are reading reports right now of how rebels who are having disputes with fellow rebels are settling them by beheading them. That's literally what's happening. So the notion that we can have a micromanaged approach and pick the good guys and arm them and not have any reasonable and, actually, inevitable expectation that the arms will get into bad hands, I think, is naive.

Also, General Dempsey, who is a hard-headed thinker about military matters, testified and laid out very clearly, if we just want to arm the rebels, that it's going to be like $500 million, or it could be into the billions. If we want to do standoff attacks, which supposedly will be surgical, that could be in the $1 billion-a-month range. If we want to actually have a no-fly zone, it will take hundreds of ships and aircraft in order to implement that--over $1 billion a month. That's a consequential decision that we can't stumble into.

Then the second question, Madam Chair, is the congressional responsibility to act. One of the frustrations that, I think, Americans have with all of us is the sense that we are not accountable. Do you know what? If we allow an action to be taken that has the potential to send troops into combat and if we haven't actually stood up and voted ``yes'' or ``no,'' then they are right. We have a job to do under the Constitution. This amendment is really saying to all of us here in Congress on both sides of the aisle that, if the moment comes when that decision is going to be made by the President, he has to return to us for approval, and we have to stand and make our decision.

So with regard to that constitutional responsibility, what is more important?

We all talk about how much we admire the troops for their willingness to sacrifice--and all of us do--but do you know what? All Americans admire the troops, but 435 Americans in this Chamber have the responsibility to make certain that, when we take advantage of the willingness of these young men and women to serve and to sacrifice, including to give up their lives, we are the ones who must make the decision about the policy. Our responsibility--all of ours--is to make certain that whatever policy it is we are asking them to pursue be worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. That has to be done at the beginning.

Once our troops are in the field, yes, we have to support them. Then, once they're in the field, we find ourselves conflicted about having a discussion about how it is they got there. Do you know what? They got there because we sent them there. Sometimes we do it consciously. Sometimes we stumble into it. That's not right. There are 435 of us in this House who are united by a common responsibility to the soldiers and sailors who serve and to the citizens whom we represent.

So I thank the gentleman as I see this as an opportunity for Members of this House on both sides of the aisle, who share a common admiration for the people who serve in the military and who share a common sense of duty to the people we represent, to be accountable for any policy that has the potential to send our soldiers into combat.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source