



Rep. Chris Gibson serves on the House Armed Services Committee under Chairman McKeon. It's ironic that numerous grandstanding House members now say the same things Gibson pointed out in June when he was ignored and his amendment failed. On the floor of the House, he tore into the foolish language McKeon carelessly wrote into the NDAA and he ripped it apart. Rep. Gibson: This amendment is very simple. It strikes the language in section 1251, which pertains to Syria--a very serious subject that's been talked about here this evening. In my view, we should be debating this in regular order, and there should be a stand-alone resolution that deals with Syria. You know, this language that we have in the underlying bill, the intent of it I understand, it was supposed to deal with the weapons of mass destruction in Syria, the control of them. That would be one thing. But I just want every Member to understand what's in the underlying language. Subsection b, subsection 1: President Obama should fully consider all courses of action to remove President Assad from power.

That sounds a lot like unilateral action for regime change to me. Subsection 5: The United States should continue to support Syrian opposition forces with nonlethal aid. I don't remember authorizing any aid to begin with, much less continuing. Subsection 8: Should the President decide to employ any military assets in Syria, the President should provide a supplemental budget request to Congress. Well, yes on the supplemental budget request if it ever comes to it. But should the President decide to employ any military asset, that's for us to decide, not for the President. So, Mr. Chairman, I have concerns. I certainly understand the initial intent. It is my strongest recommendation that we strike this language, that we work together on language that is more suitable for an NDAA and then, if desired, to have broader discussion with a separate resolution if somebody wants to move forward with regard to action in Syria. I would say that I oppose military action in Syria, but I certainly think there should be voices. We should have Representatives speaking for their people . . . This is inappropriate for an NDAA. It is not in our interest to be affirming this language. Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA), who co-sponsored the amendment with Rep. Gibson, also spoke on the House floor. Rep. Garamendi: A lot of analogies come to mind: slippery slopes, camel's nose under the tent. Syria is an extremely serious matter, and the role of the United States in the serious issue of Syria needs to be fully vetted by the Congress and the Senate. We are debating; 435 of us are given 10 minutes, 10 minutes of time to this issue, plus perhaps another 5 minutes in the committee hearing, to this matter of what is the role of the United States in the serious Syrian issue. Slippery slope, red lines, military aid, nonlethal aid. What does it all mean? Where is the House Foreign Affairs Committee on this matter? And by the way, how did this slip by the requirement of dual referencing? It did. We're here. Ten minutes, 10 minutes on a matter that could very easily suck the United States into another war in the Middle East. We need time. We need to debate this. We need to understand all the ramifications of this. The language in this particular section is really serious language. It's far more than has been stated on the floor. Put it aside, step back, take our time, and understand what all the ramifications are.

61 Democratic House members who voted to strike hawkish language on Syria from the FY 2014 NDAA



Representative District Braley, Bruce L. IA-01 Capps, Lois CA-24 Capuano, Michael E. MA-07 Carson, André IN-07 Cicilline, David RI-01 Clarke, Yvette D. NY-09 Conyers Jr., John MI-13 Davis, Danny K. IL-07 DeFazio, Peter OR-04 DeLauro, Rosa L. CT-03 Dingell, John MI-12 Doggett, Lloyd TX-35 Enyart, William IL-12 Eshoo, Anna G. CA-18 Garamendi, John CA-03 Grijalva, Raul AZ-03 Gutierrez, Luis IL-04 Hahn, Janice CA-44 Hanabusa, Colleen HI-01 Heck, Denny WA-10 Higgins, Brian NY-26 Hinojosa, Rubén TX-15 Holt, Rush NJ-12 Honda, Mike CA-17 Huffman, Jared CA-02 Kaptur, Marcy OH-09 Keating, William MA-09 Kind, Ron WI-03 Larson, John B. CT-01 Lee, Barbara CA-13 Lipinski, Daniel IL-03 Loebsack, David IA-02 Lowenthal, Alan CA-47 Lynch, Stephen F. MA-08 Maffei, Daniel NY-24 Matsui, Doris O. CA-06 McGovern, James MA-02 Michaud, Michael ME-02 Miller, George CA-11 Moore, Gwen WI-04 Moran, James VA-08 Nolan, Rick MN-08 O'Rourke, Beto TX-16 Owens, Bill NY-21 Pallone Jr., Frank NJ-06 Payne Jr., Donald NJ-10 Pingree, Chellie ME-01 Pocan, Mark WI-02 Polis, Jared CO-02 Richmond, Cedric LA-02 Ruiz, Raul CA-36 Ruppersberger, Dutch MD-02 Sanchez, Linda CA-38 Schrader, Kurt OR-05 Speier, Jackie CA-14 Thompson, Mike CA-05 Tierney, John MA-06 Tonko, Paul D. NY-20 Tsongas, Niki MA-03 Walz, Timothy J. MN-01 Welch, Peter VT-00 62 Republican House members who voted to strike hawkish language on Syria from the FY 2014 NDAA



Representative District Aderholt, Robert AL-04 Amash, Justin MI-03 Bilirakis, Gus M. FL-12 Brooks, Mo AL-05 Broun, Paul C. GA-10 Buchanan, Vern FL-16 Burgess, Michael TX-26 Chaffetz, Jason UT-03 Coffman, Mike CO-06 DeSantis, Ron FL-06 DesJarlais, Scott TN-04 Duncan, Jeff SC-03 Duncan Jr., John J. TN-02 Fitzpatrick, Michael G. PA-08 Fortenberry, Jeff NE-01 Foxx, Virginia NC-05 Gibson, Chris NY-19 Gosar, Paul A. AZ-04 Gowdy, Trey SC-04 Graves, Tom GA-14 Harris, Andy MD-01 Heck, Joe NV-03 Herrera-Beutler, Jaime WA-03 Huelskamp, Tim KS-01 Huizenga, Bill MI-02 Jones, Walter B. NC-03 Jordan, Jim OH-04 Labrador, Raul R. ID-01 Lummis, Cynthia M. WY-00 Massie, Thomas KY-04 McClintock, Tom CA-04 McHenry, Patrick T. NC-10 Meadows, Mark NC-11 Miller, Candice MI-10 Mulvaney, Mick SC-05 Paulsen, Erik MN-03 Pearce, Steve NM-02 Perry, Scott PA-04 Petri, Thomas WI-06 Pitts, Joseph R. PA-16 Posey, Bill FL-08 Radel, Trey FL-19 Reed, Tom NY-23 Ribble, Reid WI-08 Rigell, Scott VA-02 Roe, Phil TN-01 Rohrabacher, Dana CA-48 Rooney, Tom FL-17 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana FL-27 Rothfus, Keith PA-12 Sanford, Mark SC-01 Schweikert, David AZ-06 Sensenbrenner, F. James WI-05 Shimkus, John IL-15 Smith, Chris NJ-04 Stivers, Steve OH-15 Stutzman, Marlin IN-03 Thompson, Glenn W. PA-05 Tiberi, Pat OH-12 Webster, Daniel FL-10 Whitfield, Ed KY-01 Yoho, Ted FL-03 Rep. Jackie Walorkski who represents IN-02, in the northern part of Indiana along the border with Michigan, spoke in favor of retaining the bill's language on Syria. Rep. Jackie Walorkski: While I greatly respect the author of this amendment, I must rise in opposition. This amendment does, in fact, strike section 1251 of the underlying bill that expresses a sense of Congress in regard to Syria. Section 1251 says the President should have a plan in place to secure U.S. interests in Syria; that the U.S. should support the stability of our allies like Israel--our strongest ally in the region;

and that the U.S. should continue to conduct rigorous planning to secure any chemical and biological stockpiles. It does not say that the U.S. should intervene in Syria. And it requires the President to provide a supplemental budget should military action be necessary. Although much delayed, the confirmation from the Obama administration just a few hours ago that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against rebel forces demonstrates why section 1251 is needed. It's time to get serious about addressing Syria and develop a plan to protect American interests in the region.

According to the President, Assad has crossed a red line. By turning a blind eye to this civil war that has already claimed more than 90,000 lives, we lose credibility within the region and embolden bad actors like Iran and Hezbollah. I would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) who represents the 5th district around Colorado Springs also spoke against the amendment.

Rep. Doug Lamborn: I believe this amendment is misguided and we should defeat it. This does not call for a declaration of war or any kinds of the, I think exaggerated responses I've heard in favor of this amendment. This says that the President should have a course of action. The President earlier stated that there are red lines concerning weapons of mass destruction. I believe, if the news today is correct, then belatedly maybe there is a step toward recognizing that and taking some action for red lines just in the last few hours. But we've been working on this amendment, we debated it in committee, because up until now, and even going forward--I'm not sure how much--there hasn't been very much planning. There hasn't been a stated plan or a course of action by the administration. We need to have that in place.

We can and should and will debate this further. But the administration, I believe, has been lacking in leadership--too much leading from behind, as we've seen in other places. There needs to be leadership. This is a volatile area of the world--there's no question about that. That doesn't mean, though, that we can be disengaged. We can't just throw our hands up and withdraw and put our heads in the sand. We have allies in the region, especially Israel. Israel needs to be supported and defended. We are the most powerful country in the world. We need to take a role of at least planning for what's happening. That's what this sense of Congress language does. Section 1251, the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York, would strike the language. I would urge a 'no' vote on this amendment. Let's have some planning for once by this administration on this important issue.

