Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CLYBURN. 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. In fact, I support this amendment precisely because I oppose an American ground war and believe we must eliminate the threat from ISIL without putting thousands of American troops in harm's way.

I oppose another American ground war not only because I believe that we have sacrificed enough already in two wars in the Middle East, although this is certainly my belief I oppose another American ground war primarily because for our campaign against ISIL to have sustained success, the combat troops driving out ISIL need to be Iraqi and Syrian, and in particular, they need to be Sunni. We actually defeated ISIL in their previous incarnation as Al Qaeda in Iraq. We were successful in doing so because we built political support among Iraqi Sunnis. Unfortunately, former Prime Minister Maliki's sectarianism alienated the Sunnis, and this, combined with Bashar al-Assad's brutality against Sunnis in Syria, allowed ISIL to emerge without really being challenged by the moderate majority of Sunnis, who saw them as the lesser of two evils.

Given this reality, the best way to eliminate the threat from ISIL is to empower moderate Sunnis in Iraq and Syria to drive them out of the areas they control. The development of a nonsectarian government in Iraq is a step in the right direction in that country, and this limited amendment is a step in the right direction in Syria. It cannot be the only step; we must continue to work with Sunni Arab countries so that the Sunnis of Iraq and Syria know that there is a much better future for them than the destructive brutality of ISIL.

The fight against ISIL will not be short, and it will not be easy. This should not, and will not, be the last time this body addresses this international challenge. Today we are asked to take a reasoned, sensible step on the path to ridding the world of ISIL's scourge. It is a step that we would be wise to take.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source