Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source