2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Requiring An Authorization Of Military Force Against ISIS. In June 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] use of funds for combat operations in Iraq or Syria unless an authorization for use of military force is enacted." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 defense appropriation. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 135 to 285. [House Vote 329, 6/16/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/16/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1215; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5293]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Force Congress To Pass An Authorization Of Military Force Against ISIS By April, 2016. In June 2015, Schweikert effectively voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] use of funds after March 31, 2016 for Operation Inherent Resolve absent enactment of a law that authorizes the use of military force against the Islamic State before that date." The underlying legislation was H.R. 2685, the FY 2016 Defense appropriations act. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 196 to 231. [House Vote 346, 6/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 479; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2685]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Eliminating The $600 Million Appropriated For The Syria Train And Equip Fund. In June 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would eliminate $600 million appropriated for the Syria Train and Equip Fund. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would "eliminate the $600 million appropriated for the Syria Train and Equip Fund and transfer the savings to the spending reduction account." The larger legislation was H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2016. The vote was on agreeing to the amendment and the House rejected the amendment 107 to 323. [House Vote 343, 6/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/10/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 476; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2685]
Rep. Curt Clawson (R-CA): The Amendment Would Have Ended Funding For Syrian Rebels Because There Was No "Long-Term Strategy." Speaking on the House floor in support of his amendment, Rep. Clawson said, "We all want to end U.S. involvement in conflicts where there is no long-term strategy, no vision of success in the end, and the disproportional sacrifice of our brave military forces, Mr. Chairman. U.S. involvement against ISIS in Syria fits this characterization. The administration even admits that there is no comprehensive strategy in place. Therefore, by amendment, we are proposing to defund U.S. support for the Syrian rebels and move the funds to the spending reduction account. [...] The Defense Appropriations bill includes $600 million to train and arm Syrian rebels as part of this needed boots-on-the-ground. But whatever the number of Syrian rebels we ultimately introduce into the battlefield, they alone, I believe, are unlikely to turn the tide. Nor are these rebels expected to end the Assad government, even though that, too, is one of our stated goals. History has shown that when we arm untested and difficult-to-vet rebel forces, the weapons we provide too often wind up being aimed at our U.S. troops. I am told that the last time our country funded a foreign war through vicarious fighters was the Taliban fighting against the Russians in the 1970s. Please join us in saying 'no' to additional funding for these untested Syrian rebels unless and until Congress receives clear answers to the following questions: Where is the accounting for the first $500 million? I don't have it. Why isn't the second $600 million, if appropriate, funded by other folks in the coalition? What is the objective? What does success look like in the Syrian civil war? Does victory require the end of the Assad government? What is the comprehensive strategy for defeating ISIS in Iraq and beyond?" [Congressional Record, 6/10/11]
The Total Funding Allocated For The Syrian Train And Equip Fund In The Fiscal Year 2016 Defense Budget Was $600 Million. According to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller's overview of the fiscal year 2016 defense budget, Figure 7.3 shows that the Syria Train and Equip Fund (STEF) requested $.6 billion, or $600 million. [Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, 2/15]
Opponents Of The Amendment Said The Amendment Went Too Far And Would "Tie The U.S. Government's Hands" In Navigating The Complicated Situation In Syria. Speaking on the House floor in opposition to the amendment, Congressman Frelinghuysen said, "However, this amendment, in my judgment, goes too far, for it attempts to tie the U.S. Government's hands in navigating the complicated situation we--or, more importantly, our allies Israel and Jordan--face related to threats emanating from ISIL in Iraq and Syria every day. We have to be realistic. There are many countries, including our allies, as well as other groups already involved in Syria. This amendment would do nothing to stop the arming of the Syrian opposition. What this amendment would do is remove the possibility of the U.S. engaging under any circumstances, even if such engagement would be in the best interests of the United States or allies. Even at this rate, the U.S. is paying just a portion of the costs." [Congressional Record, 6/10/11]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Eliminating $715 Million Appropriated For The Iraqi Train And Equip Fund. In June 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would eliminate $715 million appropriated for the Iraqi Train and Equip Fund. According to the Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would "eliminate the $715 million appropriated for the Iraqi Train and Equip Fund and transfer the savings to the spending reduction account." The larger legislation was H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2016. The vote was on agreeing to the amendment and the House rejected the amendment 56 to 375. [House Vote 342, 6/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/10/15; Congress.gov, 6/10/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 475; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2685]
Rep. Richard Nolan (D-MN): The Amendment Would Have Ended Funding For The Iraqi Train And Equip Program Because Funding The Iraqi Army Ultimately Helped Arm U.S. Enemies Like ISIS. Speaking on the House floor in support of his amendment, Rep. Nolan said, "My amendment eliminates funding for the Iraq Train and Equip Program and applies that money to reducing the deficit. The administration, as we all know, is now urging strategic patience with Iraq. The truth is we have had a failed strategy there from the very beginning. The fact is that this is a century-old conflict. The fact is that we have no friends in this conflict. The history of it is clear. [...] The fact is we have spent $3 trillion on this conflict. Think about that--$3 trillion. For $1 trillion of that, we could have graduated debt free every kid in America from college and vocational school. Just think about it. We could have rebuilt our transportation and infrastructure system in this country. For another $1 trillion, we could have given the Americans a tax break. Mr. Chairman, instead of 13 years of war, the administration now admits that we have no strategy. The Secretary of Defense admits that the Iraqi Army has no will to fight ISIL. When they took over Ramadi, all they did was growl at them, and they ran like rabbits. They left their Humvees, and they left their tanks, and they left all of their weapons, and we resupplied ISIL, once again, to use those weapons against us. The weapons we have supplied and the people we have trained have ended up in enemy hands time and time again and have been used against us." [Congress.gov, 6/10/15]
Total Funding Allocated For The Iraqi Train And Equip Fund In The Fiscal Year 2016 Defense Budget Was About $700 Million. According to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller's overview of the fiscal year 2016 defense budget, Figure 7.3 shows that the Iraqi Train and Equip Fund (ITEF) requested $.7 billion, or $700 million. [Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, 2/15]
June 2015: The Iraqi Train And Equip Fund Was Meant To Develop A "Capable Ground Partner" In Iraq. According to The Hill, "The Pentagon is looking at ways to train and equip Sunni forces in Iraq faster after their embarrassing rout by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), defense officials said Thursday. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday he met with a team at the Pentagon earlier this week to discuss ways to enhance the U.S. military's train-and-equip program of Iraqi forces, particularly for Sunni tribal fighters. 'I think one particular way that's extremely important is to involve the Sunni tribes in the fight. That means training and equipping them. So those are the kinds of things that the team back home is looking at,' he during a press briefing en route to Singapore. The Pentagon is currently providing all training and equipment to Sunni forces through the Shia-dominated central government in Iraq, out of deference to Baghdad's concerns of a Sunni uprising and sectarian mistrust. However, Sunni forces who fled from Ramadi complained they had never received payment or equipment from the central government. 'The events of recent weeks there have highlighted the central importance of having a capable ground partner. And that's what the purpose of our train-and-equip program is,' Carter said." [The Hill, 5/28/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A Resolution That Directed The President To Withdraw U.S. Forces Deployed To Iraq In Support Of Operations Against The Islamic State In Syria and Iraq. In June 2015, Schweikert voted against a resolution that directed the president to withdraw U.S. forces deployed to Iraq in support of operations against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "direct[ed] the president to withdraw U.S. forces deployed to Iraq in support of operations against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, other than armed forces required to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel within 30 days of enactment." The vote was on agreeing to the Resolution and the House rejected the resolution 139 to 288. [House Vote 370, 6/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/17/15; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 55]
August 2014: President Obama Announced Limited Airstrikes Against Islamic Militants In Iraq And In June 2015, Authorized Additional Ground Forces. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This resolution directs the president, pursuant to Section 59(c) of the War Powers Resolution and in the absence of a congressionally enacted Authorization for the Use of Military Force, to remove U.S. armed forces who were deployed to Iraq and Syria on or after Aug. 7, 2014, with removal to occur within 30 days of adoption of this concurrent resolution. Under the measure, the president may postpone their removal if he determines that it is not safe to do so within that time period; however, the troops must be removed no later than Dec. 31, 2015, or an earlier date as determined by the president." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/16/15]
Supporter Noted That The United States Had No Clearly Defined Mission In Iraq And Syria. In a floor speech, Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) said, "I am deeply, I am deeply troubled by our policy in Iraq and Syria. I do not believe it is a clearly defined mission with a beginning, a middle, and an end, but rather just more of the same. I am not convinced that by enlarging our military footprint, that we will somehow end the violence in the region, defeat the Islamic State, or address the underlying causes of the unrest. It is a complicated situation that requires a complicated and more imaginative response. I am also concerned by recent statements by the administration about how long we will be engaged in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere fighting the Islamic State. Just yesterday, on June 3, General John Allen, the U.S. envoy for the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIL, said that this fight may take ``a generation or more.'' He was speaking in Doha, Qatar, at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum." [Congressional Record, 6/4//15]
Opponent Noted That Adopting That Resolution Would Have Been Akin To "Cutting Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face." In a floor speech, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said, "adopting his resolution ordering a unilateral U.S. troop withdrawal would be like 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 6/17/15]