Supporting the goals and ideals of National Public Health Week.

Mr. Speaker, as a mother, I can see those who are now mourning because they have lost their babies, their family members. I can see the Yazidis in the mountains in Iraq fearful, and I can hear the cries of mothers whose sons were viciously beheaded by a terrorist group that most cannot understand the level of its viciousness.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to say that doing nothing is not an option, and I want to say to my friends and to my colleagues, ISIL has been here, for in 2005 Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of al Qaeda, had a killer idea, and that was to establish an Islamic State.

It percolated for a number of years. In 2014, now, we have voices being raised across the world knowing that ISIL exists, and that is exactly what they want us to do, be terrorized. I refuse to be terrorized, and I also refuse to do nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I do not stand here today to vote for an authorization to use military forces. I will not vote to send our precious treasure again to that region, but I do believe that the President has a strategy, unlike some of my colleagues, a systematic campaign of airstrikes, increased military assistance, regional political effort and humanitarian aid, changing the face of the Islam religion that people believe is the Islam religion, and looking to those who support the core values of Islam.

That is a strategy; yet we have to address ISIL. There are 20,000 to 31,000 fighters making their way across the land; so I believe that an existing provision under section 10, provision 10, simply to train and to provide instruction to those individuals who can be in the fight in the region, train them with the expertise of the United States but not put our precious treasure on the ground.

ISIS has no restraint, and we remember the names of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, British aid worker David Haines, and 40-some members of the Turkish diplomatic corps held by ISIS and many others; so I believe it is important to note what we are doing here today.

In the McKeon amendment, it provides an opportunity for Congress to be advised 15 days before action. We should hold the administration to that. We should also say that any authorization for military forces, it must be a

debate on the floor of the House. I will not vote for that today. I will not vote for that.

I do believe, again, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot stand and do nothing. I think it is extremely important that we do something, and I hope others will look at the resolution that I have and the no fly for foreign fighters, H.R. 5488, which I have introduced.

I would like to add something else to the McKeon amendment. It indicates that appropriate committees will be advised. The legislative history of this debate should reflect that the Homeland Security Committee is an appropriate committee and should be one of those that is appropriately advised.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, today, we had a hearing in Homeland Security with the Secretary of Homeland Security. There is no doubt that what we are doing today is to protect the homeland.

What Americans say is they want the homeland protected. They want no more of their journalists beheaded by this heinous group.

Mr. Speaker, I close by simply saying we organized this Nation to form a more perfect Union. The Constitution says that Congress must declare war even as the President indicates that he has the authority under article II.

I believe if Congress is to do its job, we must have another debate on the authorization for military forces which we do not approve, but this is responding to the viciousness of ISIL, building up those regional forces, and making a difference.

I ask my colleagues: Can we do nothing? I think not. We must rise in support of this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee to H. Res. 124, the resolution making continuing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015.

Specifically, the ``McKeon Amendment'':

1. Authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals;

2. Purports to strengthen congressional oversight by requiring detailed reports, including progress reports, on the plan, vetting process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end-use of provided training and equipment;

3. Require the President to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy;

The McKeon Amendment does not authorize additional funds, but it would allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to submit a reprogramming request to Congress should the President request Defense Department funds to execute this authority and permit the Secretary of Defense to accept foreign contributions.

Finally, the McKeon Amendment states that nothing in it is to be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, to be clear about what the McKeon Amendment does and does not do.

The amendment does not authorize the use of military force or deployment of United States combat forces to Syria.

Let me be clear: I am not voting today to authorize the use of military force or to put American combat boots on the ground.

Let me also be clear on this point: Before American armed forces may be deployed to conduct combat operations in Syria or elsewhere in the region the President must come to the Congress and request and receive from it either a declaration of war or resolution authorizing the use of military force.

This is not a political nicety but a constitutional requirement, clearly specified in Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution, which by the way, was approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, 227 years ago this very day, September 17.

The McKeon Amendment simply authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals for the following purposes:

1. Defending the Syrian people from attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and securing territory controlled by the Syrian opposition;

2. Protecting the United States, its friends and allies, and the Syrian people from the threats posed by terrorists in Syria; and

3. Promoting the conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria.

The McKeon Amendment cannot be construed as giving the Administration a blank check or carte blanche in achieving these objectives.

Rather, the McKeon Amendment requires that not later than 15 days before providing assistance to a vetted group for the first time, the Administration shall provide a report to the Congressional leadership and committees of jurisdiction describing in detail the assistance to be provided and the bases for the determination that the action contemplated are consistent with the objectives stated above.

Additionally, the McKeon Amendment requires that not later than 90 days after the Secretary of Defense submits the first report required by the McKeon Amendment, and every 90 days thereafter, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall provide the appropriate congressional committees and leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate with a detailed progress report.

In short, the McKeon Amendment only authorizes the Administration to identify, vet, and provide assistance to those opposition Syrian forces that can be relied upon to defend the Syrian people from attacks by the murderous ISIS jihadi.

Mr. Speaker, there is little doubt that the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS), is a violent extremist movement. It grew out of the remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Syrian civil war--which has claimed the lives of 191,369 persons, tens of thousands at the hands of ISIS--and has spread its reach across the border between Iraq and Syria and is now seizing military bases and holding territory throughout the region.

In response, and at the request of the Iraqi government, President Obama has sent over 1,500 military advisors into Iraq and conducted over 150 airstrikes there to break the ISIS momentum, to protect U.S. personnel and save thousands of Iraq's religious minorities.

In his September 10, 2014 address to the nation, the President announced a four-part strategic plan to degrade and defeat ISIS.

The strategy outlined by the President involves the following elements:

1. a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIS;

2. increased military assistance and training for allied forces on the ground;

3. a regional political effort to work with allies; and

4. a humanitarian assistance to populations targeted by ISIS.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the President, Ranking Member Smith, and Chairman McKeon that ISIS poses a significant threat to American interests, requiring an effective response.

I also believe that the President should be commended for the forceful but deliberate and steady but calm leadership he has displayed to date.

But we must act in a careful, measured, balanced, and limited way to assist the Iraqi and Syrian people most directly and immediately threatened by ISIS because left unchecked, ISIS will grow to threaten the United States.

ISIS presently controls about 13,000 square miles (about the size of Massachusetts), spanning territory in Iraq and Syria, and a fighting force estimated to be between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters.

ISIS also commands substantial resources, including cash reserves estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars and daily revenue of $3 million from largely criminal activities.

Mr. Speaker, after its gains in Syria and Iraq, ISIS stands as one of the most dangerous jihadist groups. It was formed in April 2013, growing out of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which has since condemned and disavowed the group for its barbarity.

It speaks volumes about any group that is too barbaric to be associated with al-Qaeda in Iraq!

Unlike other rebel groups in Syria, ISIS aims to establish an Islamic emirate that straddles Syria and Iraq. Since March 2013, ISIS has seen considerable military success, beginning with its takeover of the Syrian city of Raqqa--the first provincial capital to fall under rebel control.

In January 2014, ISIS took control of Fallujah, the predominantly Sunni city in the western province of Anbar. It also seized large sections of the provincial capital, Ramadi, and has a presence in a number of towns near the Turkish and Syrian borders.

However, it was its conquest of Mosul in June that captured the world's attention because with the conquest of Mosul came control of oil fields in northern Iraq and Mosul's branch of Iraq's central bank, from which ISIS took hundreds of millions of dollars.

The international community received a wake-up call on August 2, 2014, when ISIS

fighters pushed further into northern Iraq, overwhelming lightly-armed Kurdish Peshmerga forces that had moved into areas abandoned by the Iraqi army and seized the strategically important Mosul Dam, which supplies water and electricity to much of Iraq.

Knowing ISIS's reputation for unmatched brutality, tens of thousands of people fled their homes, particularly members of religious minorities, and 50,000 of them were trapped on Mount Sinjar without food or water, until their rescue was secured by the air strikes ordered by President Obama providing cover for the Kurdish forces who wrested back control of the Mosul Dam.

Mr. Speaker, ISIS derives significant revenues from the oil fields it controls in eastern Syria and from the sale of antiquities it looted from historical sites.

Today, ISIS is considered to be the most cash-rich militant group in the world, controlling assets estimated to exceed $2 billion.

ISIS has shown no restraint in dealing with civilian populations, acting with heinous violence and savagery. ISIS fighters have murdered and kidnapped civilians throughout the territory under its control, including the grisly beheadings of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and British aid worker David Haines.

More ominous, Mr. Speaker, is the fact many fighters recruited by ISIS have European or American passports, making it easier for them to return home. That is also why I introduced H.R. 5488--No Fly Foreign Fighters Act to protect the homeland.

To his great credit, President Obama has not rushed to judgment. He has been thoughtful. He has consulted with the Congress and the international allies.

And the President has been adamant that the planned assistance and training to rebels fighting ISIS will not involve, or lead to, American ground forces fighting a war that must be fought by the Iraqi people and Syrian rebels.

The threat posed by ISIS in Iraq presents the United States with a conundrum about what to do about ISIS in Syria. On the one hand, we do not want to strengthen the barbaric Assad regime that is opposed by Syrian rebels and opposition parties and by ISIS. On the other hand, if we provide assistance only to anti-Assad opposition forces, we indirectly strengthen ISIS.

The challenge is to identify, vet, and support those pro-democracy forces in opposition to both the Assad regime and ISIS.

The defeat of ISIS should be prioritized over the removal of Assad, though the latter should remain a long-term U.S. objective. And U.S. assistance to opposition groups should be designed and delivered with this sequencing in mind.

Finding, vetting, and equipping capable and reliable Syrian partners who are poised to fight ISIS and the Assad regime is the central strategic challenge facing the United States in countering the rise of

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Defense Secretary Hagel stated, ``We are at war with ISIL.'' He also said, ``this will not be an easy or brief effort.''

The current debate on the McKeon amendment does not address the ``war with ISIL,'' but rather solely training, arming, and supporting Syrian fighters. The CIA is already training and arming Syrian fighters in Jordan, without congressional approval. How well has that worked? We are not discussing that as a body because this is a policy debate that has been rushed. The Republican majority in the House is determined to adjourn on Friday so their Members can return home and campaign for re- election.

Yes, Congress needs to pass a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded and prevent another government shutdown before the start of the new federal fiscal year on October 1st. But, a ``must pass'' continuing resolution should not be the legislative vehicle for sanctioning the training of Syrian fighters in what is certainly to be a long war against the Islamic State's terrorist army.

Over and over during the debate on this amendment we have heard how ISIL is a threat to the United States, expanding its reach into Iraq and strengthening its hold in Syria, while committing brutal and widespread acts of extreme violence. All Members agree that ISIL has grown into a vicious terrorist army that must be stopped and destroyed. Yet, this chamber's response is to vote on the McKeon amendment to train and arm Syrian fighters, and then leave town for seven weeks?

I have heard over and over again Republican colleagues condemning ISIL and then going on to disparage President Obama's efforts. Based on this rhetoric it appears that before this House can become fully engaged in authorizing a military campaign to defeat ISIL, campaigning against our President prior to Election Day comes first.

Yes, the mid-term election will take place on November 4th and many of us are on the ballot. But until then, we have an obligation to do our jobs which in this case is a matter of committing to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria based on an authorization that is outdated and demands Congressional action.

I want President Obama to conduct airstrikes against ISIL--in Iraq and in Syria if need be. I want Iraqi forces trained and equipped so they are confident and competent to take the fight on the ground to remove ISIL from Iraq. I want a broad coalition of nations sharing intelligence, working to stop the flow of foreign recruits into Syria, and cutting off the financing of ISIL.

All of this should be done based on an updated authorization approved by this Congress for the use of military force against ISIL. I voted for the 2001 authorization following the attacks on September 11th and I opposed the 2002 authorization which took the U.S. into Iraq. But today more than half of the Members in this House were not in Congress for those votes. The war against ISIL is not the war against Saddam Hussein. This Congress has an obligation to define the scope, duration, and oversight of what will require a significant and long-term use of military force and resources.

With regard to the McKeon amendment, I have serious misgivings about training and arming some thousands of Syrian fighters with the belief that they will defeat ISIL while they are also intent on removing the Assad regime from power. The New York Times on September 11, 2014 (``U.S. Pins Hopes on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the Map'') said the plan to train Syrian rebels ``leaves the United States dependent on a diverse group riven by infighting, with no shared leadership and with hard-line Islamists as its most effective fighters.'' This description of the fighting force at the foundation of our anti-ISIL policy leaves me profoundly disturbed.

The Government of Germany is training and arming the Kurdish pesh merga forces in Iraq, but refused to train the Syrian forces. They are concerned that providing arms to the Syrian rebels could end up in the hands of ISIL. According to Germany's ambassador to the United States, ``We can't control the final destination of these arms.''

Secretary Hagel is aware of this danger and assured Congress yesterday that, ``We will monitor them (Syrian forces) closely to ensure that weapons do not fall into the hands of radical elements of the opposition, ISIL, the Syrian regime, or other extremist groups. There will always be risks in a program like this, but we believe the risks are justified.'' While I respect Secretary Hagel immensely, I must disagree with him. The risks in this instance are significant and out weight the prospects of success.

The McKeon amendment's concept of vetting focuses solely on ensuring that recruits are not known terrorists themselves. That is hardly a standard of conduct the U.S. should be proud of. No one should be naive about this, there is no mention of human rights or international standards of conduct because these recruits will be sent back to a war in which they will likely be committing barbarous acts of violence. And how is this in the interest of U.S. national security?

Another issue that profoundly concerns me is the porous border between Syria and Turkey in which foreign fighters and recruits are allowed to pass freely. A New York Times report on September 15, 2014 in an article entitled, ``ISIS Draws a Steady Stream of Recruits From Turkey'', highlights this serious problem.

ISIL has grown into a force of between 20,000 and 30,000 fighters according to published CIA estimates and it appears their numbers will continue to grow, far outpacing the modest numbers to be trained by agreeing to this amendment. Unless Turkey, our NATO ally, shuts off the flow of fighters and commits to preventing the stream of new recruits from crossing into Syria, ISIL will only grow stronger in numbers.

Yesterday, in testimony before a Senate committee, General Martin Dempsey said that if airstrikes were not effective against ISIL he would recommend to the President the deployment of U.S. troops on the ground. Now, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dempsey has an obligation to make recommendations that will allow U.S. policy goals to be achieved. In this case that means the destruction of ISIL.

We should all expect that there will be some U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq and quite possibly Syria. Special operations forces, military trainers, and spotters to direct air strikes may all be required to enter the battle field at great risk. They need our support to achieve their missions. But a full commitment of U.S. troops on the ground to directly engage ISIL is unacceptable. This fight needs to be won on the ground by Iraqis and the Arab allies who know the risk ISIL poses to the entire region.

There is no reason why Congress cannot work with the administration, military leaders, and intelligence experts over the coming weeks to develop and approve the necessary authorization for the use of military force to demonstrate to the American people that we are united in this fight against ISIL and there are clear limits to our engagement in Iraq and Syria.

I want our Commander-in-Chief to have Congress' full support for a strategy to destroy ISIL, but I will not write a blank check to any president. Unfortunately, this amendment and the decision by Republican leadership to prioritize campaigning for re-election rather than passing a clear authorization to take the fight to ISIL should give the American people great concern about the priorities of this Congress.

Right now millions of people in Iraq and Syria are living under the oppressive, violent rule of ISIL. It is in our national interest to join the fight to stop their reign of terror. But we need real, credible allies with military forces willing to take on the fight, the fight on the ground. This amendment does not require a commitment by any other allied nations, only desperate Syrians and U.S. taxpayers. That is not enough to earn my support.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the chair of the Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, yes, we do have additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of 6 hours of debate on this amendment, I think it has been a good and healthy discussion. According to our count, we have had more than 90 Members of the House come to the floor and express their opinion about this situation with ISIL and Syria and Iraq.

I think part of that is it has given all Members an opportunity to express their opinions and concerns and hopes about what we can do as a country going forward, but it seems to me, through the course of these numbers of hours, that most Members agree on at least three things.

One of the things that most everybody agrees on is that ISIL is a significant threat. It seems to me they are clearly the best-equipped, best-trained, best-financed terrorist organization we have ever faced.

In addition to that, as the ranking member noted at the beginning of the debate, there are thousands of people who have Western passports who are fighting with ISIS who can easily come to the United States and Europe to launch their attacks.

The second thing I think most people agree upon is that this is a very complex situation. We have the Syrian civil war underway. You have the change of government in Iraq. You have the situation with the Kurds.

There are many players--Iran--that make this a very complex situation. All of those Members who go down and say there is no good alternative, I think I agree with that. There is no perfect alternative to deal with this.

The third thing about which there is a lot of agreement, Mr. Speaker, is there are a lot of doubts about the President's plan, a lot of doubts about whether it is going to be enough to defeat ISIL, a lot of doubts about the commitment of the administration to follow through on the plan and to persevere over time; but, in addition to that, even if it is well-done and implemented perfectly over time, no one knows for sure how this is going to come out.

With those broadly agreed-upon facts, Members have reached different judgments and different conclusions, but it just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that approving this amendment to give the military--the Department of Defense--the authority to train people in Syria as part of that fight makes sense.

Just to briefly review what is in the amendment--because during these 6 hours of debate there has been a lot of discussion, some of it about things that are not in the amendment--but what is in the amendment is that the amendment authorizes the Department of Defense to train folks in Syria as part of the fight against ISIL, and it is absolutely true that the Department of Defense has done this very thing in at least 40 countries.

Now, for all those people who say this is a slippery slope to war, I just note we are not in war in 40 countries. We train people around the world every day, and the military does a very competent job of it. That is what this authority does--that is it--train folks to defend themselves.

This amendment has an expiration date, as you just heard, either December 11, 2014, or the passage of the NDAA, whichever happens first.

There is a broad array of oversight, beginning 15 days before anything is done, and then every 90 days thereafter specific requirements of information that has to come to this Congress.

There are limits on the funding. If U.S. taxpayer dollars are used, then the Congress has to be notified and basically, through the transfer authorities, Congress has to approve.

Finally, it is absolutely clear, because it says so, this is not an authorization to use military force.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.

All of those people who are concerned that it is not an Authorization for Use of Military Force may have a very good point, but that is not what this is about. This is about a narrow train-and-equip authority that would provide the Syrians the ability to get into that fight against ISIL.

So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that I think another thing most everybody agrees upon is you can't defeat this group from the air. You have to have folks on the ground. We have folks on the ground with the Kurds. We have folks on the ground who will be more competent with the Iraqis. We need some folks in Syria to be on the ground.

That is what this amendment does. It is narrow. It has oversight. It has limits. It has a time limit. But as General Dempsey told all Members, it is necessary, but, in and of itself, it is not enough. But it is necessary.

I believe that the House ought to take this step today to begin this training, and then it is up to the President to make his strategy work.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2015 with the McKeon Amendment, which would allow for the training and equipment of Syrian opposition. Should a clean continuing resolution to provide finding to the United States government come to the floor, I would support it. However, I cannot support an authorization for war.

Since this body did not pass a budget on time, our only option is to vote to keep the government open and operating until December 11, 2014. Funding our government should not hinge on a controversial amendment added at the last minute that provides the opportunity for an open- ended war.

I am not in favor of unilateral action or troops deployed to the region and I am committed to resolving this conflict through diplomacy. I fully support any efforts by our country to provide humanitarian aid to the countless innocent civilians displaced and injured by this conflict.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and push for a clean continuing resolution.

Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) is a growing regional threat that presents greater instability and turmoil across the Middle East. Today ISIL does not pose a credible strategic threat outside of the Middle East. So the U.S. response must reflect that reality. We cannot allow the Dick Cheneys of the world to use the horrific beheadings by ISIL as a call to war, just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident or the alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities of Saddam Hussein. I am voting against this authorization to equip and train as yet unknown, perhaps non-existent ``moderate'' Syrian opposition forces to combat ISIL.

The three most successful ground forces fighting in Syria are ISIL who has ties with Saudi Arabia, the Syrian army backed by Iran, and Al Nusra which has ties to Hezbollah. The alliances between these forces are constantly shifting. One day ISIL and Nusra make common cause against the Syrian army and the other day they are all fighting each other. These sectarian wars are based on thousands of years of history and the U.S. has no role in sorting them out.

Congress is being asked to vote today on arming Syrian rebels that are yet to be vetted by the U.S. In fact, the text of this authorization requires the administration to report to Congress within 15 days on the plan for providing this assistance. Congress should know what the plan is before we vote on it. We should come back in 15 days or however long it takes for the administration to determine the scope and plan of this operation and who it is that the U.S. is going to arm in Syria. It is an abdication of our constitutional duties to vote on a vague authorization today instead of waiting and passing judgment on a more detailed assessment on this operation and an updated authorization for use of military force (AUMF).

If you turned to any of my colleagues today and asked the basic question who are the 5,000 fighters that the U.S. will train and equip in Syria, they could not give you an answer. Not even our intelligence agencies know who we can trust. Before granting authorization, Congress should at least know who it is we are giving U.S. weapons to and what their ideology and political goals are. This is a complex mess of various actors, many of whom cannot be considered trustworthy allies. The Syrian opposition is made up of hundreds of thousands of fighters from various factions that are also fighting amongst each other.

In Iraq, the U.S. is looking to form an alliance with a new government whose current Prime Minister has yet to prove he will bring Sunnis back to their proper place in an inclusive society. At the moment the Iraqi army barely exists on paper. It is extremely disturbing that the main Iraqi force currently fighting ISIL, Asaib Ahl al-haq, is incredibly hostile to the U.S. and was attacking our troops up to the last day of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

That is why it is so critical that Congress be presented with a detailed plan of this ``train and equip'' operation including who it is that we are arming before we vote and this amendment fails to do that.

Most importantly what we are voting on today is a small part of President Obama's larger strategy to go to war with ISIL. No President can declare war without Congressional authorization. If the U.S. is going to war with ISIL as it appears that we are, then my colleagues need to stay here and debate and vote on an AUMF. It is our constitutional duty and to leave town without a vote on the overall military strategy is disgraceful. The American people did not elect us to punt the responsibility for matters of war and peace to the President. The purpose of an AUMF is to lay out in detail the scope, plan, purpose, and duration of a military operation and to provide both classified and non-classified briefings to Congress and allow them to debate and express their opinions on the merits of this. Absent an AUMF from Congress, we are committing ourselves to an open ended war, declared by the President about which we have little to no details.

Lastly, history has shown that U.S. involvement in sectarian as well as civil wars raging in the Middle East does not benefit our interests. ISIL would not exist today if it were not for the unnecessary U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which I voted against. ISIL is a regional threat and it is time for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and other so- called ``partners'' to step up and fight this war themselves. They have no incentive to do it if we keep fighting it for them. Additionally, arming Syrian rebels could drag the U.S. into the Syrian civil war. General Martin Dempsey said yesterday in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he would put U.S. troops on the ground if he felt it was necessary despite the President's numerous statements that he would not put boots on the ground. Already you can hear the march to war. In fact, it is easy to argue that continued U.S. military actions in the Middle East only create more hatred directed at our nation and increase the risk of terrorism both here and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Amendment to H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Resolution, that supports training and equipping the so-called Syrian Opposition.

After attending briefings on the President's proposal, I do not believe that this Amendment has a reasonable chance of achieving his goals. Worse, it could embroil America in another endless war. I hate ISIL and the other terrorist organizations that are plaguing Syria, Iraq and eventually the U.S.; the question is whether this Amendment will ``degrade and destroy'' them, to use the President's words. I do not fault President Obama's intent; I doubt this particular Amendment will work. Most obviously, it expires in 90 days, according to the very terms of the CR. And even if, under authority granted outside of this Amendment, an air strike killed ISIL's leader, it would not stop ISIL.

First, remember the budgetary context of this train-and-equip mission. Remember that military spending cuts called ``sequestration'' will last another seven years under current law. The readiness of our military is already threatened by these cuts. Necessary long-term investments in future weapons systems are being shortchanged. Until advocates of this train-and-equip mission are willing to fully fund the U.S. military and stop sequestration, they have no business adding extra responsibilities. America's credit-card hawks must not continue to hollow out our military while pursuing questionable foreign ventures.

Second, the Syrian Opposition is not like the Peshmerga. It is a number of disorganized, unreliable and shifting groups that face three hostile armies at once within Syria itself: Assad's army, ISIL, and the Al-Nusra Front. Each of these hostile armies has demonstrated the ability to conduct advanced military operations. They are years ahead of any possible effective counter-attack by the Syrian Opposition, unless they start fighting each other or Assad's entire military defects. We are not even sure that the people we train would remain loyal. Although the Amendment talks about vetting Syrian Opposition forces, it acknowledges that there will be ``green-on-blue'' violence against us. The Amendment also anticipates that some of the weapons we supply to the Opposition will be given or sold to ISIL.

Third, we are entering a series of civil wars. They are notoriously difficult to stop without years of bloodshed. The idea that U.S. Army training, guns, and bullets will facilitate a negotiated Syrian settlement is highly implausible. Another factor is the 1,400-year-old Sunni-Shia schism, giving our Muslim allies their own religious agendas. They make excuses for their failure to commit their own forces in their own backyards, even when their inaction floods their nations with refugees. Several of these nations have large militaries with advanced weaponry, which they refuse to use except for very limited, anonymous airstrikes. They want U.S. soldiers and airmen to do their dirty work.

Fourth, ISIL was created by wealthy Sunnis in nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait who wanted an attack dog, a proxy army, to fight the Shia threat posed by Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah. They got more than they bargained for: a pit bull that might turn against its masters. Nevertheless, they are not muzzling ISIL, or even yanking its leash. How does ISIL continue to get its funding? Aside from rape, pillage, kidnapping, and taxing infidels, it is known for its slick corporate appeals, even an annual report on its atrocities. Have the Sunni nations punished ISIL's benefactors, refused to purchase ISIL's oil, or taken other measures to cut off its funding? No. In the case of Saudi Arabia, they offer us unused training bases for no more than 10,000 of the Syrian Opposition. That is far from enough.

Fifth, how many times must the U.S. try to rebuild Muslim nations? We've tried for years, often just inflaming them. Syria will be the eighth Muslim nation we have tried to repair in the last three decades: Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. In most cases, we have not succeeded. The U.S. military is ill-suited for nation-building. As General Bob Scales pointed out in the Wall Street Journal recently, the Pentagon has trouble dealing with today's asymmetric wars.

Sixth, ask yourself what your reaction will be if an American airman--God forbid--is captured and beheaded on live television. Will this Amendment, that so carefully denies authorizing military force, suddenly become the prelude to American ``boots on the ground'' as Gen. Martin Dempsey has already predicted? And who believes that our trainers and equippers--and special forces and intelligence officers-- are not already ``boots on the ground''? The language of the Amendment is surreal: it contains no ``authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances.'' Unless our military operates entirely outside of Syria or northern Iraq, they are in imminent danger. And if they are training in Saudi Arabia, they will be working in a nation that beheads more people for minor crimes than ISIL could dream of.

Lastly, is there a better way to degrade and destroy ISIL? Americans, with our wonderful optimism that all problems have a quick solution, have a lot to learn about the nature of the enemies we face. Unfortunately for us, our enemies do not measure action by the clock, but by the calendar. They outwait or outlast us. They use social media against us, to dare America to fight or to recruit the West's disaffected youth with dreams of martyrdom. They will laugh that this Amendment lasts only 90 days, particularly when other sections of the CR extend much longer.

America needs to understand the threats we face from radical jihadists and to fully fund effective strategies for dealing with them. Sadly, this Amendment does neither. Therefore, I oppose it.