Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the chairman's amendment. I am very much in sympathy with the comments that have been expressed here on the floor that we should have a larger debate about the Authorization for Use of Military Force. That is not, however, what is before us with the chairman's amendment. And I understand some people would like for it to be. But what we have before us here is a specific request that the President has made for train-and-equip authority for certain Syrians to help provide ground forces against ISIL. I think, just for perspective, it is important to remember that the United States has been involved in training and equipping security forces in over 40 countries. We haven't gotten into a war in all of those. This is something we know how to do, and we do it competently all around the world. But I completely agree with those who say this is a very complex, volatile situation, and there are considerable doubts about whether the President's approach is going to be successful. There are especially doubts about whether his policy will be carried out with a seriousness of purpose and a perseverance that is required against such a formidable opponent. I confess, I share those doubts. But, at the same time, two facts seem clear to me. One is that ISIL is a significant threat. It is not the junior varsity. It is the best- equipped, best-trained, best-financed terror organization and has several thousand people with Western passports that are a part of it. Secondly, is that a threat like this will not be eliminated from the air. And so what that means is you are going to have to have some sort of forces from the ground. Now, some of them need to be the Kurds; some of them need to be the Iraqis. But you need to have some sort of competent ground force in Syria as well or else it becomes a safe haven. So that is where this train-and-equip authority to help develop that competent ground force inside from Syria is important. But it is only--and I think everybody acknowledges this--it is only one small part of what needs to be a much broader strategy. Mr. Speaker, despite all the doubts and concerns, having a competent ground force inside Syria with whom we can talk, with whom we can work, whatever the course of events there, has got to be a useful thing. But for the moment, between now and December 11 or so, giving the President this authority that he has asked for so he can take advantage of some offers from other countries, so he can begin the preparations for this training, seems to me to make sense. We give him this authority with all the checks and oversights that have been described and are very important. We give him this authority, and, Mr. Speaker, it is up to the President to make it work.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) for introducing this measuring and shepherding it through the committee and onto the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important for us to vote on this measure for two reasons. One is that it is important for Congress to speak clearly and directly when a President violates the law, and that is exactly what GAO said the administration did. They violated section 811. Now, it is true that throughout the country's history there have been differences of opinion about the constitutionality of various provisions of law. I think it is fairly rare, however, that a President has chosen to violate a provision that is as clear as this one. There was no waiver authority. There was no ambiguity. There was no matter of interpretation. The law was clear. It says, if you are going to transfer somebody from Guantanamo Bay, you have got to give at least 30 days' notice. And they did have meetings within the administration that discussed whether to follow that 30-day requirement, and they decided not to do it. So it was a clear-cut decision not to follow the law. In addition to that, the point was made by the gentleman from Florida that they also violated the Antideficiency Act. There has never been a dispute about the ability of Congress to put conditions on funding. And yet, by carrying out this action, they spent funds for which they were not authorized to spend, which also violated a separate law. They didn't have to tell everybody. They could have just told the Speaker and majority leader. I think they are pretty safe at keeping secrets. Yet the President chose not to. The rule of law is important. It is fundamental to our system. And so it is important to speak clearly on that. But here is the second reason. The Constitution gives Congress a variety of powers related to national security; but in carrying out those powers, whether it is oversight of the money we spend, oversight of the operations, making decisions to authorize the use of military force, all of that depends upon Congress having accurate, timely information. This decision not to follow the law undercuts the trust that is required between the military and the intelligence community and the Congress in carrying out our responsibilities. Tomorrow night we are all going to listen to the President as he, hopefully, gives us his goals and strategy for achieving the goals to diminish and destroy ISIL, but all of that is possible only if there is an exchange of information so that we can carry out the responsibilities that the Constitution puts upon us. When we don't have trust that the President and the military or the intelligence community following his orders are giving us that information, then we can't have trust that we have the ability to carry out our duties under the Constitution. On a bipartisan basis, over the last several years, we have set up oversight structures on cyber, on terrorism, on sensitive military operations that allow the military to operate in a complicated world but give us the ability to get the information to carry out the oversight that we have to have. That is the other reason this is important. This undermines that trust that is necessary for an executive and legislative branch to defend the country in a complex world. For that reason, I think it is important for us to speak clearly about it because there are going to be more instances in the days ahead. We need--we deserve--to have full information.