[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 112 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6384-H6391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       IRAQ PRIVILEGED RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is 
recognized for the balance of the hour as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying the obvious. We are 
living in a chaotic and dangerous world. But contrary to what some in 
this Chamber suggest, the solution to every problem is not expanding 
the U.S. military footprint. There are many of us who are deeply 
concerned about our renewed military involvement in Iraq. We believe we 
need a debate. We believe we need a vote. We believe the Congress ought 
to live up to its constitutional responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by a couple of my colleagues 
here today who share those concerns and who want to express their 
beliefs about how we should proceed on this issue. I would like to 
first yield to my colleague from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, 
who has been a leader on these issues. I yield her as much time as she 
may consume.
  Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank Congressman McGovern for 
your tireless leadership and for hosting this Special Order today. For 
many years, you have been raising the level of awareness with regard to 
the responsibilities of Congress, our duties as it relates to war 
making, as well as the impact of these tragic wars on our brave men and 
women. So thank you for once again coming forward with now a privileged 
resolution that directs the President to remove all United States 
military forces stationed in Iraq within 30 days or by the end of the 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very reasonable resolution. It is very 
consistent with what I believe the American people--we know, based on 
what the American people have said over and over and over again, they 
are war weary. And Mr. McGovern has really given us an opportunity to 
vote the views of the American people.
  This resolution exempts, of course, troops necessary for the security 
of the United States diplomatic post and personnel.
  We are all familiar with the reports coming out of Iraq about the 
horrific sectarian violence taking place. We hear many of the same 
voices who championed the unnecessary war in Iraq once again beating 
the drum for a renewed war in Iraq today. So we must not let history 
repeat itself. We must remember history. We must not be dragged back 
into a war in Iraq. This must be rejected.
  Many of my colleagues agree. And I want to remind us that over 100 
Members of Congress now from both parties have signed a letter, 
Congressman McGovern, myself--many--Scott Rigell from Virginia, we are 
calling for the President to come to Congress for debate on an 
authorization before any military escalation on Iraq.
  Last month, during the consideration of the 2015 Defense 
Appropriations bill, over 150 bipartisan Members supported our 
amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to conduct combat 
operations in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no military solution in Iraq. This is a 
sectarian war with longstanding roots that were inflamed when we 
invaded Iraq in 2003. Any lasting solution must be political and take 
into account all sides. The change that Iraq needs must come from 
Iraqis. They must reject violence in favor of a peaceful democracy that 
represents everyone and respects the rights of all citizens.
  The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people. Our job is to 
continue to promote regional and international engagement, recognition 
of human rights, women's rights, and political reforms. Only through 
these actions can Iraq and, of course, the United States, and the rest 
of the world, begin supporting a process of reconciliation and help the 
Iraqis secure long-term national stability.
  Mr. Speaker, after more than a decade of war, thousands of American 
lives, and billions of dollars, the American people are rightfully war 
weary. The American people are looking for Congress to act. We must 
heed their call and bring this privileged resolution to the House floor 
for an immediate up-or-down vote.
  As our President told the American people in May:

       United States military action cannot be the only, or even 
     primary, component of our leadership in every instance.

  This is one of those instances.
  Before we put our brave servicemen and -women in harm's way again, 
Congress should carry out its constitutional responsibilities and vote 
on whether or not to get militarily involved in Iraq. But we must vote 
on this resolution immediately because I think this would give the 
American people a clear understanding of what this administration and 
Congress intends to do, and that is remove all military forces 
stationed in Iraq.
  So I want to thank, again, Congressman McGovern for his leadership 
for bringing this forward. It is time that we have a clear up-or-down 
vote on this. I want to thank Congressman Jones for cosponsoring this.
  Also, I will finally conclude by saying sooner or later--sooner or 
later--we have got to go back and repeal the Authorization for Use of 
Military Force which has become a blank check for this war this past 
decade. It sets the stage for perpetual war. We need to repeal it. The 
American people deserve a vote on this resolution, and they deserve a 
vote for repealing this authorization.
  So thank you again for your leadership, and let's move forward and 
vote the will of the American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent words and for 
her leadership on this issue in particular.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here with my colleagues, Congresswoman 
Lee and Congressman Jones, to talk about I think an issue that deserves 
a lot more discussion than it is getting. We need to take a look at the 
recent return of the U.S. military to Iraq.
  Iraq is a complicated country with a long history of ethnic and 
religious divisions. It is now facing a crisis of governance and a 
crisis of invasion by extremist militant forces. Sadly for Iraq, the 
two are closely intertwined.
  In large measure, Iraq is falling apart because of its sectarian 
government currently led by Prime Minister Maliki that excludes and 
represses most Sunnis, Kurds, and other ethnic and religious 
minorities; and an army that

[[Page H6385]]

thinks more about saving its own skin than protecting the Iraqi people. 
This is what has laid the foundation for extremist forces, namely ISIL, 
to enter Iraq and take control of disaffected communities and 
territory.
  I do not believe we can fix this. Only the Iraqi people can fix this. 
And I certainly don't believe our brave and stalwart military men and 
women can fix this.
  I believe that we should never have invaded Iraq. I also believe it 
is foolish to once again commit U.S. troops to try and save an Iraqi 
Government and army that cannot stand on their own.
  As Joseph Cirincione wrote last month in ``Defense One'' magazine:

       This debacle was predictable. In fact, it was predicted by 
     dozens of analysts who knew a great deal more about Iraq than 
     those who cheerleaded the invasion in Iraq in 2002 and 2003.
       This is not to say ``we told you so'' but to warn that the 
     desperate, quick fixes now being offered are false hopes. The 
     hard truth is that there is little we can do to save the 
     corrupt, incompetent government we installed in Iraq. If 10 
     years, millions of hours of work, and hundreds of billions of 
     dollars could not build a regime that can survive, it is 
     difficult to imagine any fix that can. Those seeking to blame 
     the Obama administration for the collapse are engaged in a 
     cynical game.

  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the entire Defense One article.

                   [From Defense One, June 12, 2014]

               Don't Be Sucked Into War With Iraq, Again

                         (By Joseph Cirincione)

       We never should have invaded Iraq. It would be folly to 
     recommit United States forces to save an artificial Iraqi 
     government and army that cannot stand on its own.
       Ten years ago, U.S. forces battled Sunni insurgents in the 
     very same cities that are falling to anti-government fighters 
     today. Hundreds of American lives were lost in the 2004 
     battles for Mosul, Fallujah, Karbala, Ramadi, Tikrit, Najaf 
     and Samarra. The U.S. spent tens of billions of dollars to 
     train and equip an Iraqi army that was supposed to protect 
     the government we formed to replace the deposed dictator, 
     Saddam Hussein.
       This week, that army collapsed. In Mosul, The Guardian 
     reports, ``two divisions of Iraqi soldiers--roughly 30,000 
     men--simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an 
     insurgent force of just 800 fighters.'' In other cities, 
     Iraqi troops simply handed over their American-supplied 
     uniforms, guns and armored fighting vehicles to the Islamic 
     State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, fighters, then scattered. 
     ISIS has seized more than $450 million from the banks in 
     these cities, making it perhaps the richest and best equipped 
     insurgent group in the world.
       This debacle was predictable. In fact, it was predicted by 
     dozens of analysts who knew a great deal more about Iraq than 
     those who cheerleaded the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003. 
     The very first sentence of Tom Ricks' 2006 masterpiece, 
     Fiasco, warns, ``President George W. Bush's decision to 
     invade Iraq in 2003 ultimately may come to be seen as one of 
     the most profligate actions in the history of American 
     foreign policy. The consequences won't be clear for 
     decades.''
       Well, they are becoming much clearer now. Ricks' concludes 
     his book--which should be read by anyone searching for a 
     solution to the current debacle--with this:
       ``So while there is a small chance that the Bush 
     administration's inflexible optimism will be rewarded, that 
     the political process will undercut the insurgency and that 
     democracy will take hold in Iraq, there is a far greater 
     chance of other, more troublesome outcomes: That Iraq will 
     fall into civil war, or spark regional war, or eventually 
     become home to an anti-American regime, or break up 
     altogether. In any of these forms it would offer a new haven 
     for terrorists.''
       He was not alone. I wrote, with my colleagues at the 
     Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in WMD in Iraq: 
     Evidence and Implications, an anatomy of the false 
     intelligence supplied to justify the war:
       ``It was almost inevitable that a U.S. victory would add to 
     the sense of cultural, ethnic, and religious humiliation that 
     is known to be a prime motivator of al Qaeda-type terrorists. 
     It was widely predicted by experts beforehand that the war 
     would boost recruitment to this network and deepen anti-
     Americanism in a region already deeply antagonistic to the 
     United States and suspicious of its motives. Although this 
     may not be the ultimate outcome, the latter has so far been a 
     clear cost of the war. And while a successful war would 
     definitely eliminate a ``rogue'' state, it might--and may--
     also create a new ``failed'' state: one that cannot control 
     its borders, provide internal security, or deliver basic 
     services to its people. Arguably, such failed states--like 
     Afghanistan, Sudan, and others--pose the greatest risk in the 
     long struggle against terror.''
       This is not to say, ``We told you so,'' but to warn that 
     the desperate, quick fixes now being offered are false hopes. 
     The hard truth is that there is little we can do to save the 
     corrupt, incompetent government we installed in Iraq. If 10 
     years, millions of hours of work and hundreds of billions of 
     dollars could not build a regime that can survive, it is 
     difficult to imagine any fix that can. Those seeking to blame 
     the Obama administration for the collapse are engaged in a 
     cynical game.
       Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., played the game well in his speech 
     at the Center for New American Security conference, in 
     Washington on Wednesday. He blamed the chaos in Iraq on the 
     failure of the Obama administration to negotiate a status of 
     forces agreement, pulling the troops out too soon and for not 
     intervening in Syria. In other words, for failing to double 
     down on the military policy that created the mess in the 
     first place.
       Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., goes even further, calling on 
     the entire Obama administration national security team to 
     resign. McCain went ``roaring onto the Senate floor'' on 
     Thursday, claiming ``Could all this have been avoided? . . . 
     The answer is absolutely yes.''
       Part of this is the normal partisan attack on Obama. His 
     political opponents squeeze everything he does into their 
     preferred frame: he is weak, naive, dangerous, doesn't really 
     care about American security, may not even be an American.
       Part of it, however, is the way Washington looks at 
     national security issues: focused on the immediate, ignoring 
     or twisting history. So, the Iraq debacle is something that 
     has happened only now, with perhaps one or two years of 
     prelude. The policy fix should address what can be done 
     today, looking forward a year or two. There must be an 
     immediate solution: bomb, invade, supply, sanction. The so-
     called ``defense Democrats'' jump in, too, wanting to prove 
     their toughness by advocating one or another military 
     solution.
       The Washington Post, which played a key role in convincing 
     policy makers to go to war with Iraq, picks up the pro-war 
     line of attack in its editorial: ``For years, President Obama 
     has been claiming credit for ``ending wars,'' when, in fact, 
     he was pulling the United States out of wars that were far 
     from over. Now the pretense is becoming increasingly 
     difficult to sustain.''
       In other words, the problem is not that we started the war, 
     it is that we never should have ended it.
       None of these critics have the slightest self-awareness. 
     None take responsibility for their previous policy 
     pronouncements. It's like the driver of a car that has plowed 
     into a crowd of pedestrians blaming the emergency medical 
     technicians for not saving the lives of those injured.
       Nor do the defense Democrats want to go back to this 
     debate, preferring to be seen as positive and forward-
     looking. They want to talk about robotics or new paradigms. 
     They want to get away from any hint that they once were 
     against the war, or hide their own shame that they were once 
     for it.
       I understand. But we have to go over this again. The 
     American public long ago decided that the Iraq War was a 
     mistake, that Iraq is not worth fighting for. It is the 
     Washington elite that doesn't seem to have made up their 
     minds. It is the Obama administration that, after being 
     blasted by Republicans for always ``blaming Bush'' whenever 
     they talked about the multiple crises they inherited, stopped 
     drawing the lines from the failed policies of the past to the 
     current dilemmas.
       Well, it is time to draw the lines again. It is vital that 
     we not be bullied into squandering more resources into a 
     futile effort. We cannot let politics and ideology and short-
     term thinking again trick the nation into making a bad 
     situation worse.
       There is not a quick fix to this problem. The hard truth is 
     that, like the collapse of the Diem government in South 
     Vietnam a generation ago, there is little we can do to prop 
     up this government. As military expert Micha Zenko tweeted, 
     ``Unless the US has bombs that can install wisdom and 
     leadership into PM Maliki, airstrikes in Iraq would be 
     pointless.'' We may have to revisit then-Senator Joe Biden's 
     strategy from 2006 that the only way to stop the killing and 
     salvage the situation was to scrap Iraq's artificially-
     imposed boundaries and partition the country into three 
     ethnic regions.
       Gen. Colin Powell famously invoked the ``Pottery Barn 
     rule'' about Iraq, but he got it slightly wrong. It is not, 
     ``You broke it; you own it,'' but ``You broke it; you pay for 
     it.'' We broke Iraq. We paid a huge price in lives, treasure 
     and legitimacy. It is time to stop paying.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I believe President Obama has done the 
right thing to send U.S. forces to Iraq to increase the security and 
help protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel.
  So far, he has sent two contingents--the first of 275 military troops 
on June 15 and a second deployment of 200 additional troops on June 30. 
With respect to the second deployment, he noted that they would also be 
used to reinforce the security of the Baghdad International Airport.
  They would consist of additional security forces; rotary wing 
aircraft; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support. 
The President specifically noted that they are equipped for combat.
  In between these two deployments, the President announced on June 19 
and notified Congress on June 26 that he was sending 300 military 
troops to

[[Page H6386]]

train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces and to establish joint 
operations centers with Iraqi security forces, so we could share 
intelligence and coordinate plans on how to confront the threat of 
ISIL. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this deployment concerns me deeply.
  In each of these three deployments, the President has rightly 
formally informed Congress consistent with the War Powers Resolution. 
The only reason a President has to inform Congress about such overseas 
deployments--the only time it applies is when the President--and I am 
quoting now from the War Powers Resolution--has introduced ``United 
States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent 
involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask to include for the Record the three notifications 
the President has sent to Congress on deployments of troops to Iraq.

                            The White House

                     Office of the Press Secretary

                 [For Immediate Release--June 16, 2014]


  TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF 
      REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

       Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Starting on June 
     15, 2014, up to approximately 275 U.S. Armed Forces personnel 
     are deploying to Iraq to provide support and security for 
     U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. This force is 
     deploying for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and 
     property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat. This 
     force will remain in Iraq until the security situation 
     becomes such that it is no longer needed.
       This action has been directed consistent with my 
     responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and 
     abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and 
     foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional 
     authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander 
     in Chief and Chief Executive.
       I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep 
     the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers 
     Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of 
     the Congress in these actions.
           Sincerely,
     Barack Obama.
                                  ____


                            The White House

                     Office of the Press Secretary

                 [For Immediate Release--June 26, 2014]


  TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF 
      REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

       Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) As I reported on 
     June 16, 2014, U.S. Armed Forces personnel have deployed to 
     Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and 
     the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
       I have since ordered further measures in response to the 
     situation in Iraq. Specifically, as I announced publicly on 
     June 19, I have ordered increased intelligence, surveillance, 
     and reconnaissance that is focused on the threat posed by the 
     Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). I also ordered 
     up to approximately 300 additional U.S. Armed Forces 
     personnel in Iraq to assess how we can best train, advise, 
     and support Iraqi security forces and to establish joint 
     operations centers with Iraqi security forces to share 
     intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the threat 
     posed by ISIL. Some of these personnel were already in Iraq 
     as part of the U.S. Embassy's Office of Security Cooperation, 
     and others began deploying into Iraq on June 24. These forces 
     will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such 
     that they are no longer needed.
       This action is being undertaken in coordination with the 
     Government of Iraq and has been directed consistent with my 
     responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and 
     abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and 
     foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional 
     authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander 
     in Chief and Chief Executive.
       I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep 
     the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers 
     Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of 
     the Congress in these actions.
           Sincerely,
     Barack Obama.
                                  ____


                            The White House

                     Office of the Press Secretary

                 [For Immediate Release--June 30, 2014]


  TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF 
      REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

       Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) As I previously 
     reported on June 16, 2014, U.S. Armed Forces personnel have 
     deployed to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. 
     personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
       In light of the security situation in Baghdad, I have 
     ordered up to approximately 200 additional U.S. Armed Forces 
     personnel to Iraq to reinforce security at the U.S. Embassy, 
     its support facilities, and the Baghdad International 
     Airport. This force consists of additional security forces, 
     rotary-wing aircraft, and intelligence, surveillance, and 
     reconnaissance support.
       This force is deploying for the purpose of protecting U.S. 
     citizens and property, if necessary, and is equipped for 
     combat. This force will remain in Iraq until the security 
     situation becomes such that it is no longer needed.
       This action has been directed consistent with my 
     responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and 
     abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and 
     foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional 
     authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander 
     in Chief and Chief Executive.
       I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep 
     the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers 
     Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of 
     the Congress in these actions.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Barack Obama.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think the President did the right thing 
to inform Congress because I believe that our troops have been 
introduced into a situation in Iraq where imminent involvement in 
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. In fact, more 
simply put, if Iraq wasn't engaged in hostilities in a moment of 
crisis, we wouldn't have sent troops over there.
  This is why last Friday, on June 11, my good friends and colleagues, 
Representatives Walter Jones of North Carolina and Barbara Lee of 
California, introduced a privileged resolution, House Concurrent 
Resolution 105, to direct the President to remove U.S. troops from Iraq 
within 30 days, or no later than the end of this year, except for those 
troops needed to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel.
  We did this for a simple reason. Congress has the responsibility to 
authorize the introduction of American troops where hostilities are 
imminent. In less than 3 weeks, in three separate deployments, the U.S. 
has sent at least 775 additional troops to Iraq.
  We don't know what might happen next to those troops or to yet 
another deployment of additional troops, but we do know that Congress 
should debate it. We do know that Congress should vote on whether to 
authorize it or not.
  That is what the Constitution of the United States demands of 
Congress. That is what the Constitution demands of us. Now is the time 
for Congress to debate the merits of our military involvement in this 
latest Iraq conflict--openly, transparently.
  Do we approve of these deployments and any future escalation? If so, 
we should vote to authorize it. If we do not support it, then we should 
bring our troops back home. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker. Congress 
has the responsibility to act on Iraq now.
  Mr. Speaker, we did not introduce this privileged resolution lightly. 
By doing so, we started a process to hold a debate on our engagement in 
Iraq in the coming days, using the special procedures outlined under 
the War Powers Resolution. While this is an imperfect tool, it requires 
the House to take up this bill after 15 calendar days.
  Like most of my colleagues, I would prefer for this House to bring up 
a bill authorizing our engagement in Iraq, and nothing in this 
resolution inhibits such important legislation from being drafted and 
brought before the House for a clean up-or-down vote. Frankly, I wish 
that were happening, but I have not heard that such an authorization is 
even under discussion, let alone being prepared for debate.
  I regret to say that I only hear how we can avoid having such a 
debate. So my colleagues--Mr. Jones and Ms. Lee and myself--we 
introduced this concurrent resolution because we strongly believe that 
Congress has to step up to the plate and carry out its responsibilities 
when our servicemen and -women are once again being sent into harm's 
way.
  The time for debate is now, not when the first body bag comes home 
from Iraq, not when the first U.S. airstrikes or bombs fall on Iraq, 
not when we are embedded with Iraqi troops trying to back an ISIL-held 
town, and worst-case scenario, not when our troops are shooting their 
way out of an overtaken Baghdad.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, is the time to debate our new engagement in Iraq--
before the heat of the moment--when we can weigh the pros and cons of 
supporting the Maliki government or

[[Page H6387]]

whatever government is cobbled together should Maliki be forced to step 
down--now, before we are forced to take sides in a religious and 
sectarian war; now, before the next addition of more troops takes 
place--make no mistake, I firmly believe we will continue to send more 
troops and more military assets into this crisis--now, Mr. Speaker, 
before we are forced to fire our first shots, launch our first 
missiles, or drop our first bombs.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, is when the House should debate and vote on this 
very serious matter. For those who say it is too early, too premature 
for this debate, I respectfully disagree. The administration has 
tacitly signaled when it notified Congress that our troops have been 
sent to a place where the threat of hostilities is imminent.
  The longer we put off carrying out our constitutional 
responsibilities, the easier it becomes to just drift along, and this 
is what Congress has done over and over. We just kind of drift along, 
and it has to end. It has to end, Mr. Speaker. Congress must speak. 
Congress must act.
  This resolution, should it pass, would direct the President to bring 
our troops home from Iraq within 30 days--or should the President 
determine that such a rapid withdrawal would pose a security question, 
then no later than by the end of the year, nearly 6 months from now.
  It would not require those troops that have been deployed to 
safeguard the security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel from 
withdrawing. They could remain and carry out their crucial roles of 
protecting our civilian personnel on the ground in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to take up this resolution. We need to debate 
our military engagement in this latest war in Iraq. We need to have a 
clean up-or-down vote, whether we stay in Iraq or whether we bring our 
troops home.
  We owe that much to our troops and their families. We owe that much 
to the American people, and we owe at least that much to our own 
democracy and democratic institutions that require Congress to be the 
final arbiter on whether our troops are sent into hostilities abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield to the 
conscience of this Congress on issues of war, a man I have great 
admiration for, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and 
I want to thank him for being a leader on bringing to the floor of the 
House not only this resolution asking for a vote about bringing our 
troops home from Iraq, but also the way that he speaks about the fact 
that 17 million American children go home at night hungry. That is 
another issue, I understand that, but it all ties in.

  When we continue to not debate whether we should be sending our young 
men and women to die, we are shirking our constitutional responsibility 
that we, in this Congress, have raised our hand to swear that we will 
uphold the Constitution of the United States, but we don't do that, Mr. 
Speaker, when it comes to war, and I blame myself.
  In 2003, I bought the lie that was told by the previous 
administration about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam 
Hussein had and how he was going to use that against the American 
people.
  That misinformation that was given by the previous administration 
caused us to go into Iraq, and I voted to give the President at the 
time--President Bush--the authority to bypass the Constitution.
  It is called the AUMF, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, 
and I regret that and will until the day I die because I gave up my 
constitutional responsibility to debate and to vote on whether we 
should go to war or not, and that was the constitutional responsibility 
of this Congress and of me being a Member of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I have beside me a poster of a funeral. It is a military 
funeral where a soldier has given his life for this country. His wife 
is there with her sunglasses on, holding the hand of her little girl 
who can't quite understand why her daddy is dead, why her daddy is in a 
flag-draped coffin.
  That is why we need to be on this floor, as Mr. McGovern and Ms. Lee 
have said, to debate whether we continue to allow the President--in 
this case, President Obama--to use the War Powers Act to send our 
troops into Iraq, and yet, we sit here idle.
  We don't even hardly debate the issue of war when we are going to 
pass millions and billions of dollars to be spent by our military 
overseas. It does not make any sense.
  I want to say about my own side, I regret that my side, the 
Republican Party, we have become the war party now. It is not so much 
the Democrats who were the war party during the Vietnam war. Now, it is 
the Republican Party.
  I am a great supporter of Pat Buchanan. I love his position on 
foreign policy and his many articles. This is from a recent article 
that he wrote. Pat Buchanan says:

       It is astonishing that Republicans who threaten to impeach 
     Obama for usurping authority at home remain silent as he 
     prepares to usurp their war powers to march into Syria and 
     back into Iraq. Are Republicans now prepared to sit mute as 
     Obama takes us into two new Middle East wars on his own 
     authority?

  This is what Mr. McGovern and Ms. Lee and I are trying to say. It is 
time that this Congress start speaking out. We listen to the American 
people when it comes to war, and the American people are tired. They 
are worn out.
  A recent survey actually said that 71 percent of American people said 
that the first intervention in Iraq was wrong. It was a mistake. It 
should never have happened, and yet that is why I admire you, Mr. 
McGovern, and Ms. Lee and the others who are willing to speak out on 
this.
  Just a couple of other points I want to make--people always say those 
who wrote the Constitution, they maybe really better understood more 
than we do, and yet they didn't have the sophistication that we have 
today in the wars that we fight, but that brings me to a letter from 
George Washington to James Monroe:

       I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation 
     has a right to meddle into the concerns of another, that 
     everyone has the right to form and adopt whatever government 
     they like best to live under themselves.

  That is George Washington in 1796, in a letter to James Monroe. 
Again, I think about the fact that I, along with other Members of 
Congress, gave away my constitutional right to declare war when we gave 
to President Bush the authority to use military force.
  That in itself is something, again, being repetitive for just a 
moment, I will always, always regret.
  Another quote, this one by James Madison, and this is Mr. McGovern's 
point:

       The power to declare war, including the power of judging 
     the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the 
     legislature.

  We are the legislature. It is our responsibility to meet our 
constitutional duties. Mr. McGovern, I have signed over 11,000 letters 
to families and extended families in this country since we went into 
Iraq because I have asked God to forgive me for listening to the 
misinformation and the distortions by the previous administration to go 
into Iraq.
  That is my pain, and I will live with that pain.

                              {time}  1400

  I am on the floor with you today--and Ms. Lee who has already 
spoken--to say thank you for taking the lead in trying to force this 
Congress to have a debate.
  I am not going to restate what Pat Buchanan has said, but I will say 
to my own side many times: Why do you sit idly by when you complain 
about Mr. Obama and spending, spending, and we have already spent $1.5 
trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we are still spending money in 
Afghanistan?
  We will for 10 more years because of a bilateral strategic agreement, 
but what we are trying to do today is to say that we are not going to 
make another mistake in Iraq.
  That is why I am pleased to join with you today in this effort to 
make the American people aware that we do care. We want the American 
people to contact the Members of Congress and say join in this 
concurrent resolution, this privileged resolution, to bring a debate to 
the floor of the House.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I look forward to a continued exchange on this issue 
with my colleague. I want to thank him for

[[Page H6388]]

his passion on this issue and for reminding not only our colleagues, 
but the American people that there are really consequences to war.
  One of the things that has frustrated me is that, for too long, we 
have avoided talking about the wars in this Congress, not just Iraq, 
but also Afghanistan.
  My colleague, Mr. Jones, and I had an amendment to the defense 
authorization bill a few weeks back, which said that President Obama 
had mentioned a couple of years ago that we would be out of Afghanistan 
by 2014. Clearly, that is not going to be the case.
  The amendment said that the President had to notify Congress of what 
our military plans were going to be in Afghanistan and that Congress 
should consider that and vote up or down on whether we should continue 
our military involvement in Afghanistan.
  That is hardly a radical bill. It is simply a bill that says: 
Congress do your job, you have an obligation--a constitutional 
obligation when it comes to war.
  This amendment, which was germane, it was in order--on the defense 
bill, no less--at the last minute, we were told we could not offer it, 
it would not be made in order because the leadership of this House 
didn't want that debate, they were afraid it might pass.
  Well, that is the way democracy is supposed to work. If a majority in 
this place does not want to continue an endless war in Afghanistan or 
does not want to start another war in Iraq, then that ought to mean 
something.
  My criticism right now is not with the White House. I may have some 
disagreements with the President in terms of what his policy on Iraq 
might be, but he has done his job, he has notified us, he has sent 
letters up to Congress that have announced the deployments that he is 
making, and it says--consistent with the War Powers Resolution, so this 
is not a complaint about the White House. We may disagree with their 
policy, but they did what they were supposed to do.
  Our complaint is with this institution, that we are not doing what we 
are supposed to do. The Foreign Affairs Committee, in consultation with 
other relevant committees, ought to bring a resolution to the floor if 
they want to authorize the use of additional force in Iraq.
  I would vote ``no.'' There are some in this Chamber that would vote 
``yes,'' but there ought to be a debate. We ought to go into any new 
deployment--any new military intervention with our eyes wide open. We 
have lived through enough deception. We have been lied to over the 
years too many times. It is time for us to demand some truth when it 
comes to war. People ought to know what we are getting into.
  By the way, one other thing that has troubled me greatly about these 
wars that we have been involved with is that we don't pay for them. We 
all complain about the deficit and the debt, and we have to dig 
ourselves out of this hole of debt. Trillions of dollars of that debt 
are directly related to these wars. We don't pay for these wars. We put 
them on a credit card.
  I offered a bill a few years ago calling for a war tax, saying that 
if we are going to go to war, then we ought to pay for it--the American 
people ought to pay for it, and if the American people don't want to 
pay for it, maybe we ought not go to war.
  This notion of going to war and putting it on a credit card and 
making believe like it is not a big deal has to stop, has to stop. The 
first George Bush, when he went to war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein 
invaded Kuwait--I wasn't for that war, I wasn't in Congress then--but 
nonetheless, when he went to war, he got the cooperation of all the 
Arab states in the region to pitch in to pay for it.
  What wasn't paid for, Congress paid for, but it wasn't added to our 
debt. Now, it has become commonplace, and we don't even question it.
  There are huge costs to these wars, not only in terms of blood, but 
also in terms of treasure. We nitpick on this House floor over whether 
or not we are going to feed hungry children or make sure people have 
adequate housing.
  We say we don't have enough money, but when it comes to these wars, 
the sky is the limit--whatever you want, you can get.
  Here is the deal: I would argue with you that that money has not been 
spent wisely. Notwithstanding the incredible service of our men and 
women, we are in Afghanistan right now propping up one of the most 
corrupt governments in the world, in the world.
  In Iraq, we are now reentering a situation where even our own 
administration is saying the Maliki government is lousy, and we 
obviously hate this extremist group called ISIL, so we are going right 
in the middle, and I worry that we are going to be target practice for 
both sides.
  One other thing--the Iraqi Army, as I mentioned earlier, has been 
trained by the very best of American military personnel. They have the 
best equipment, they have the best weaponry you can imagine.
  They outnumber, overwhelmingly, these extremist groups that are now 
attacking Iraq. We read in The Washington Post last week that 
commanders of the Iraqi Army in areas that come under fire decide to 
leave--they basically desert--and so do the troops.
  If they are not willing to fight after all that we have sacrificed, 
why the hell are we going back in there and thinking of fighting this? 
Now, this is the beginning--this is the very beginning of our reentry.
  As Mr. Jones and I have said, we hope that it doesn't go any further 
than this, but this is the time when we ought to have a debate about 
what might happen and what we are prepared to do.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. McGovern, thank you very much.
  I want to pick up on a few things you said just a few minutes ago.
  Iraq is in total chaos. It is kind of ironic. In 1983--I found a 
photograph of Donald Rumsfeld who was a special envoy sent by President 
Reagan to thank Hussein for what he had done to try to defend Iraq 
against the Iranians.
  That brings me to where we are today and why this resolution that you 
have sponsored is so important. I have the former Commandant of the 
Marine Corps who, for the last 6 years, has been my adviser on 
Afghanistan, simply because I don't have the military background, and 
he is a very dear friend of mine.
  I emailed him a week ago and asked him:

       What do you think about all of these advisers going to 
     Iraq, something you were just talking about?

  He emailed me back and he said:

       We should not put boots on the ground.

  He further stated:

       It is a Middle East issue that needs a Middle East 
     solution, not more troops.

  That is why, again, your resolution, and our resolution needs to be 
debated.
  A couple of other points, very quickly--after I found out that I had 
been misled with the first war in Iraq, I contacted Lieutenant General 
Greg Newbold because he wrote an article for Time magazine. I want to 
read just a little bit of it very quickly.
  General Greg Newbold was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff from 2000 to 2002 and describes himself as ``a witness and 
therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq, 
an unnecessary war''--Mr. McGovern, unnecessary war.
  He wrote an insightful editorial for Time in April 2006 titled, ``Why 
Iraq was a mistake.'' I want to share a paragraph from his article 
because it is so appropriate of what we are trying to do today and what 
we are trying to do with this resolution to force Congress to meet its 
constitutional responsibility about sending our young men and women to 
die.

       In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem 
     ``Won't Get Fooled Again.'' To us, its lyrics invoked a 
     feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those 
     ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and 
     then mismanage the conduct of it.

  He further stated:

       Never again, we thought, would our military's senior 
     leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to 
     an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the 
     judgment is in: The Who had it wrong. We have been fooled 
     again.

  We were fooled to go into Iraq.
  I am with you. I know Mr. Obama came out against the Iraq war--and I 
want to thank him for doing that--when he was a Senator, but you are 
right, it is not the administration we are talking about today. It is 
the role of Congress and our lack of fulfilling our constitutional 
duty.

[[Page H6389]]

  One last point, very quickly--four weeks ago, I went to Walter Reed 
hospital. I was told that two marines from Camp Lejeune in my district 
had been severely wounded, so I went to Walter Reed hospital.
  As I go into the area where they teach them how to walk without legs, 
on prosthesis--they teach them how to use the artificial limbs to pick 
up a spoon--I met three Army guys from Fort Bragg, which is not in my 
district, but in North Carolina. All three had lost one leg each, each 
one of them.
  Then, Mr. McGovern, when I went over to meet the young marine from 
Camp Lejeune, 23 years of age, and he is on what they call an exercise 
mat about 3 feet off the floor--he has lost both legs and an arm. I 
never will forget his father's eyes.
  They were the saddest eyes I have ever seen on a man in my life. I 
saw pain. I saw worry. Here is his son, both legs gone and one arm 
gone, 23 years of age.
  The second marine that I saw from Camp Lejeune had lost both legs by 
stepping on a 40-pound IED in Afghanistan.
  The more that we have troops in Iraq, the longer they stay, there 
will be someone killed or wounded before it is over.
  That is why your resolution--that is why it is necessary for my 
party, the Republican Party, to stop being the war party and being the 
party that wants to defend the Constitution. My party needs to allow us 
to have this debate that you have introduced.
  As I leave, I want to thank you for giving me a little bit of this 
time today. I want to thank you for your friendship. I want to thank 
you for what you do for America. I want to thank you for what you do 
for our military. I want to thank you for what you are trying to do for 
the House of Representatives to say we have an obligation.
  No kid should ever die again if the Congress is not willing to follow 
the Constitution and demand a declaration of war and have that debate 
and that vote, so I thank you so much for giving me this time, and may 
God continue to bless our men and women in uniform.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his eloquent remarks. I want 
to associate myself with every single word that he has said.
  I believe deep down that the President of the United States does not 
want to get involved in another endless war in the Middle East, but 
sometimes things have a way of happening and sometimes things have a 
way of spinning out of control, and that is why this debate is so 
important and so timely now.
  Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war has already claimed 4,500 American lives. 
4,500 Americans have already been killed in the Iraq war. According to 
one study, over 500,000 Iraqis have also perished over the past decade 
of war. The UNHCR states that over 1 million additional people have 
been displaced in Iraq this year alone.
  Linda Blimes, an expert in public finance at Harvard University, 
estimates that the total cost of the Iraq war for the United States 
will be $4 trillion when we take into account the long-term costs of 
health care and benefits for the veterans of that war.
  The human and financial costs for us and for the Iraqis have been 
severe.
  Let me just quote a few experts on military and foreign policy about 
this possibility of reentering the Iraq civil conflict.
  Gordon Adams, a former senior White House budget official, said in 
mid-June:

       What is happening in Iraq right now is both a cautionary 
     tale and an unfolding tragedy. The caution is about the 
     blithe American assumption that the United States is 
     omnipotent, and that with enough money, goodwill, expertise, 
     equipment and training, Americans can build foreign forces 
     and bring security to troubled areas around the world. The 
     tragedy is that what the U.S. does, and has done, leads down 
     the road to failure.

  Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Robert Gard, Jr., stated, on 
July 6:

       The collapse of the Iraqi Army was not due to a shortage of 
     trained Iraqi troops or the inferiority in firepower or 
     equipment. The case was their lack of confidence in, and 
     commitment to, Iraqi national institutions and leadership, 
     both military commanders and political authorities. This 
     intangible but essential element in combat effectiveness 
     depends upon legitimate governance, not admonitions from 
     foreign military advisers.

  Retired General Barry McCaffrey, on June 12, said:

       At the end of the day, if your army won't fight, it's 
     because they don't trust their incompetence, corrupt 
     generals, they don't trust each other. This is an enduring 
     civil war between the Shi'a, the Sunni, and the Kurds. So I 
     don't think we've got any options, and we'd be ill-advised to 
     start bombing where we really can't sort out the combatants 
     or understand where the civilian population is.

  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the United States should be involving 
itself militarily in a civil war, a sectarian war, a religious war, a 
struggle for power that has been going on for generations. We shouldn't 
be taking sides in this conflict.
  I do believe that a region in turmoil is not in the best interest of 
the United States. But as so many have said, including the President, 
this requires a political solution and it requires the political will 
of all the key actors in the region, not just outside actors like the 
United States and the Europeans, but those in the region. The countries 
and leaders in the region need to step up to the plate and actually 
lead on finding a political solution or watch their neighbors go up in 
flames and hope the fire doesn't jump to their homes and destroy them 
as well.
  This is why we need a full debate on what is happening in Iraq, in 
the region, what our options are, and whether or not we should keep 
sending troops to Iraq or not.
  Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the bipartisan Tom Lantos Human Rights 
Commission, which I cochair with my good friend Congressman Frank Wolf, 
held a briefing on the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Iraq. We 
had witnesses from the administration, the U.N. High Commissioner on 
Refugees Office, and several NGOs.
  The situation on the ground in Iraq that they described is 
horrifying, but it stretches back over a year. The human rights and 
humanitarian crisis in Iraq did not begin with ISIL coming back into 
Iraq, but that certainly has worsened and accelerated the decline in 
security, protection, and basic rights for the civilian population.
  Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the head of UNHCR said:

       There will not be a humanitarian solution for the Iraqi 
     crisis. It is absolutely crucial that the Iraqi political 
     system find a way to overcome its political divisions and 
     contradictions.

  He urged Iraq's neighbors and Western countries to work together to 
find a political solution as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, this is where we should be putting our energy, not 
trying to find some sort of military path to civility in Iraq, because 
there is none.
  I will enter into the Record today's Washington Post article on 
UNHCR's assessment of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

               [From the Washington Post, July 17, 2014]

               Refugee Chief Urges Political Deal in Iraq

                        (By Abigail Hauslohner)

       Baghdad--The head of the U.N. refugee agency said Wednesday 
     that he was increasingly frustrated with Iraq's skyrocketing 
     number of displaced people--and with governments worldwide 
     that expect humanitarian aid organizations to ``come clean up 
     the mess.''
       ``There will not be a humanitarian solution for the Iraqi 
     crisis. There is no humanitarian solution for the Syrian 
     crisis,'' Antonio Guterres, the U.N. high commissioner for 
     refugees, said in a closed briefing with reporters here in 
     the Iraqi capital.
       ``It is absolutely crucial that the Iraqi political system 
     find a way to overcome its political divisions and 
     contradictions,'' he said.
       Iraq's Political factions are negotiating the key positions 
     in a new government that they hope will guide this fractured 
     nation out of its worst crisis since U.S. troops pulled out 
     in late 2011.
       In recent weeks, Iraq has come dangerously close to 
     breaking apart as Sunni militants calling themselves the 
     Islamic State have seized control of a vast swath of 
     territory stretching from Syria to central Iraq.
       The Shiite-led government has fought back with the help of 
     militias, raising the specter of sectarian war as violence--
     including airstrikes, bombings, and executions of Shiites by 
     Sunnis and vice versa--racks many parts of the country.
       Iraqi Kurds, meanwhile, are pressing for a referendum on 
     independence in their largely autonomous--and relatively 
     stable--region in the north.
       On Wednesday, Guterres urged Iraq's neighbors and Western 
     countries to work together to find a political solution as 
     quickly as possible.

[[Page H6390]]

       He said about 1.1 million Iraqis have been displaced since 
     the start of the year, when serious violence first broke out 
     between government forces and Sunni insurgents in the western 
     province of Anbar.
       At least half a million have fled their homes in the past 
     five weeks alone, Guterres added.
       During his weekly televised address Wednesday, embattled 
     Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki congratulated the Iraqi 
     parliament on electing a new speaker. The vote Tuesday was a 
     crucial step toward forming the desperately needed new 
     government.
       ``I hope that they will work in harmony and to agree on 
     running the parliament . . . away from all differences and 
     calculations,'' Maliki said, according to the Associated 
     Press.
       But the parliament still needs to vote on a president and a 
     prime minister. Maliki is facing growing pressure to step 
     down, and his reluctance to do so has been the main cause of 
     Iraq's political deadlock.
       In his address Wednesday, however, he did not comment on 
     whether he would seek a third term.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Jones, Ms. Lee, and I 
have come to this floor because we are worried. We are worried because 
we have lived through the last many years of war and we have seen how 
things have gotten out of control.
  I remember when the war in Iraq began. Then-Vice President Cheney was 
on all the news shows saying that it will be over in a few weeks or few 
months. No big deal. Don't worry. That was in addition to being told 
that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which we all know 
now was a lie.
  But the fact of the matter is all those rosy predictions did not come 
true. We were involved in Iraq for many, many years, and there was a 
high cost in terms of blood and treasure. Afghanistan, we were told 
that it would not be an endless conflict, and here we are today still 
involved in Afghanistan--the longest war in American history.
  I hope that history doesn't repeat itself, and I know President Obama 
does not want history to repeat itself. I know he deeply wants to find 
a political solution. I know he does not want to see more troops be 
involved in the Iraqi civil war, but the fact of the matter is none of 
us know what is going to happen.
  In a couple of weeks, this Congress will adjourn for several weeks of 
our summer break, and then we come back for only a couple more weeks 
and we adjourn again for many more weeks for the campaigns. I don't 
want to come back to a situation and have to react to a situation that 
is engulfed in an all-out mess, quite frankly.
  I think we ought to be debating these issues now. We ought to be 
debating these issues with open eyes. We ought to have a transparent 
system, and we ought to live up to our constitutional responsibilities.
  What happens when there are the first American casualties in Iraq? 
What happens? What is the reaction?
  Some say maybe we don't have to send military troops; maybe we will 
just bomb them. We will send drones. We will send missiles.
  As military expert Micah Zenko tweeted:
  Unless the U.S. has bombs that can install wisdom and leadership into 
Prime Minister Maliki, air strikes in Iraq would be pointless.
  And imagine the civilian casualties that would be associated with 
that.
  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Earlier, you made a statement about there being no 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I would respectfully ask the 
gentleman to maybe rephrase that. There are mass graves in Iraq. As 
somebody who----
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, there were no weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq.
  The Vice President of the United States, the President of the United 
States, and the Secretary of State came to Congress and told us there 
were weapons of mass destruction, implied there were nuclear weapons of 
mass destruction. And the deal was, it was a lie.
  4,500 Americans died; 5,000 Iraqis died. We need to pay for the war. 
We didn't pay for the war. The brave men and women who served our 
country paid, their families paid, and the rest of us were asked to do 
nothing.
  What I am suggesting to everybody in this Chamber now, whether you 
want to go back into Iraq or not, that is almost beside the point for 
the purpose of this debate. The issue is we ought to do our job in 
Congress. We have a constitutional responsibility that we seem to 
waive, that we seem to ignore.
  We are bombing in Pakistan. We are bombing in Yemen. We had a 
military incursion in Libya. None of that was authorized by Congress. 
We are relying on these vague AUMFs that were negotiated over a decade 
ago to justify more military involvements in different parts of the 
world. What is wrong with debating these issues?
  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. You have tens of thousands of people in mass graves 
as a result of chemical weapons in Iraq, killed directly by the regime 
of Saddam Hussein. When you continue to perpetuate this idea that there 
were no weapons of mass destruction, WMD includes chemical weapons, 
biological weapons.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, that is not 
what the Vice President or the Secretary of State or the head of the 
National Security Council or the President of the United States were 
talking about. He knows that.
  What was presented to us was not truthful. It was not truthful. We 
were deceived. The Vice President of the United States said the war was 
only going to last a couple of months. He said that on TV, on news 
shows. That was a lie. It was a lie, and I am sick and tired of being 
lied to.
  One of the lessons that I think we should have learned from our 
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we need to ask the tough 
questions before we get involved--not in the midst of a conflict, not 
later on in the conflict.
  We have a responsibility. Read the Constitution of the United States. 
The notion that the President of the United States--and, again, I don't 
believe he wants to get involved in a lengthy, unlimited, endless war 
in Iraq. But there is the notion that we are ramping up the number of 
troops, and those in Congress here are saying nothing. The leadership 
in this Congress says nothing. There is no authorization.
  I guess it is easy to sit back as an elected official and not have to 
vote years from now. It is a lot easier. You don't have to take 
responsibility. If things go well, you can say, ``Hey, that was a good 
idea.'' If things don't go well, ``Gee, I would have been opposed to 
that.'' But we are not doing our job here. We are not even paying for 
these wars.
  To my friends on the Republican side who complain about debt, where 
is the outrage on the fact that we don't even pay for these wars? I 
can't quite understand why people approach war in this Chamber with 
such indifference.
  My colleague Mr. Jones and I tried to bring an amendment to the 
floor, as I said earlier, to debate whether we should stay in 
Afghanistan longer. We were not even allowed a vote. The amendment we 
offered was germane, was relevant, and the leadership of this House 
said you can't even debate or vote this.
  The defense bill. We are at war. What can be more important than 
debating whether we should be involved in this war?
  So this is the time. What Mr. Jones and Ms. Lee and I are saying is 
that this is the time to debate this, before the first soldier comes 
home in a body bag.
  The major proponents of a new war in Iraq are those who disastrously 
got us involved in the first place; people like Dick Cheney and John 
Bolton, Senator McCain and Senator Graham.
  We were deceived, and we should never let that happen again. We 
should never let that happen again. We should demand the truth. 
Congress should carry out its constitutional responsibilities and vote 
on whether or not to get militarily involved in Iraq again.
  That is what this privileged resolution that Mr. Jones, Ms. Lee, and 
I have suggested that we vote on. I don't know why that is such a 
controversial issue, but for some reason in this Congress big issues 
like that don't ever seem to make their way for debate on the House 
floor.

[[Page H6391]]

  This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue. In fact, there 
are Democrats who disagree with my position. There are some Democrats 
who believe we ought to continue to send more military aid and 
potentially more troops to Iraq, and there are Republicans who agree 
with me that we ought not to. So this is a bipartisan concern.

                              {time}  1430

  I will close by simply saying to the Speaker of the House: Give us a 
vote. Let us debate this issue.
  To my fellow Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle: Live up 
to your constitutional responsibility. Demand a vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________