Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 118 (Friday, July 25, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 118 (Friday, July 25, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6819-H6825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REMOVING UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM IRAQ

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of July
23, 2014, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 105)
directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers
Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces, other than Armed
Forces required to protect United States diplomatic facilities and
personnel, from Iraq and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Wednesday, July 23, 2014, the amendment numbered 1 printed in the
Congressional Record is adopted, and the concurrent resolution, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution, as amended, is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 105

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION REGARDING UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
IN IRAQ.

The President shall not deploy or maintain United States
Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without
specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after
the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.

SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

Nothing in this concurrent resolution supersedes the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et
seq.).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each will control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

General Leave

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend and to submit any
extraneous materials for the Record on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I very much
appreciate the way in which Mr. McGovern, Mr. Engel, the bipartisan
leadership of the House, and the staff of the committee have worked
through this issue to bring us here this morning. I thank all of the
Members. I also think all of the Members of this body can support this
motion.
Earlier this week, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard testimony from
senior officials from the Departments of State and Defense on the
situation in Iraq.
Madam Speaker, the situation in this critical Middle Eastern country
is precarious. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, an al Qaeda
offshoot, has taken over most of western Iraq, it has turned its sights
on Baghdad, and it may be preparing to launch attacks against the
United States.
Never has a terrorist organization itself controlled such a large,
resource-rich safe haven as ISIS does today. Never has a terrorist
organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, the personnel that
ISIS does today, which includes thousands of Western passport holders.
What started as a crisis in Syria has become a regional disaster with
serious global implications, including credible threats of
international terrorism, humanitarian disaster, and upward pressure on
energy prices in a fragile global economy.
The top State Department official told our committee that ISIS
represents a growing threat to U.S. interests in the region, local
populations, and the homeland, calling it a vital national security
challenge. This is a common assessment outside of government as well.
As part of the response to this threat, the Obama administration has
deployed additional military assets and up to 475 troops to secure our
Embassy, our personnel. A few hundred U.S. military advisers are
evaluating how we might best train, advise, and support the Iraqis to
take on ISIS.
As the Department of Defense testified this week, these small teams
are ``armed for self-defense, but do not have an offensive mission.''
It was noted, these teams are not unlike the missions being carried out
by U.S. forces around the world. U.S. forces currently maintain these
types of troops in more than 70 countries, in Africa, the Americas, and
Asia.
Now, if the President did decide to take more aggressive action in
Iraq, Members on both sides of the aisle would be deeply split. Some
don't see any role for the U.S. military. Others believe we should be
more active in this region, believing that our absence has contributed
to a vacuum that is churning the entire region.
But where I think all Members can agree is that if the President of
the United States ordered U.S. Armed Forces into sustained combat in
Iraq, then he should be coming to Congress to seek an explicit
statutory authorization and the backing of this body.
That is the text before us today:

At the same time, this text preserves the flexibility the President
may need to respond to the rapidly evolving national security in order
to protect our

[[Page H6820]]

Embassy, to conduct search and rescue, or target an al Qaeda-type
terrorist who poses an imminent threat to the United States, among
other things.
Nothing in this text impacts the War Powers Resolution which, of
course, requires the President to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities
within 60 to 90 days after introduction, absent an authorization from
Congress.
The gentleman from Massachusetts brings a critical issue to the House
floor: the use of force by U.S. Armed Forces, and the appropriate role
for the Congress in that decision.
Any military officer will tell you that the support of the people is
critical to the success of a sustained combat operation. As the
representative body, that responsibility falls to us. It is an
obligation that I know all of my colleagues take seriously, and it is
why I expect overwhelming passage of this motion this morning.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 105. It
reaffirms our belief that U.S. troops should not be deployed in a
sustained combat role in Iraq without specific congressional
authorization.
Since last December, the terrorist group ISIS has marched across Iraq
with lethal efficiency. Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul have fallen to
their control. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have been killed or have
laid down their weapons. The military equipment they left behind, some
supplied by the United States, is now in the hands of these fanatics.
After erasing the border between Iraq and Syria, ISIS has advanced
toward our ally, Jordan. And the leaders of ISIS have declared an
Islamic caliphate, promising to rule with a brand of barbarism, such as
mandatory female genital mutilation, more suited to the Dark Ages than
the 21st century.
Madam Speaker, the threat posed by ISIS is real. Iraq is teetering on
the brink, and we cannot allow that country to become a safe haven for
terrorists that could be used to launch another 9/11.
While the Hamas terrorists are pushing forth in Gaza, the ISIS
terrorists are pushing forth in Iraq.
At the same time, however, we need to make clear to the American
people and to the Iraqi government that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq
is over. After losing more than 4,000 American lives and spending more
than $1 trillion, we cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into another
sectarian quagmire.
The crisis in Iraq cannot be solved through military means alone. The
solution will be rooted in real political changes in Iraq, more
inclusive policies, and a greater effort to avoid sectarian conflict.
President Obama removed the last American combat troops from Iraq on
December 18, 2011, under an agreement reached by the Bush
administration, and he has no intention of sending them back, a
position with which I firmly agree.
As the President said last month: ``American forces will not be
returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the
fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and
American interests as well.''
In the last several weeks, the President has expanded intelligence
and surveillance efforts. He has sent a contingent of troops to protect
our diplomatic personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and he has
deployed small military assessment teams to get information about the
threat that ISIS poses to Iraq, to the region, and to American
interests.
I support these measures. They represent the sort of security
cooperation with the Iraqi government that we should be offering to
support our own national security interests. But they don't require a
sustained presence of American combat troops in Iraq.
At the end of the day, we all know it is past time for the Iraqi
government to confront some serious challenges. These will require an
Iraqi solution, one based on respect for each other and the rule of
law.
I would like to thank Representative McGovern, Representative Jones,
and Representative Lee for their tenacity and leadership in sparking
this important debate. They have worked with us in the Foreign Affairs
Committee, constructively with me and Chairman Royce both, along with
the House leadership on both sides of the aisle, to ensure that the
amendment we are considering today would enjoy broad bipartisan
support.
So I hope that the process which brought about today's bill will
serve as an example of bipartisan cooperation for the House to follow
in the days to come.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House is debating H.
Con. Res. 105. I want to thank the Republican leadership for working
with Mr. Jim McGovern, Barbara Lee, and myself and our staffs to get
this language so that we could debate it today.
As James Madison said: ``The power to declare war, including the
power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in
the legislature.''
Unfortunately, we in Congress have for too long abdicated our
constitutional responsibility to authorize the use of military force.
This began, for me personally, with my vote for the 2002
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which is one
of the biggest regrets during my tenure of Congress in voting for that.
With that vote, we gave up our constitutional authority on one of the
most important decisions a Member of Congress can make: the decision to
send American men and women into war to possibly die.

{time} 1030

Madam Speaker, it is my hope that one day, we in Congress will repeal
the 2001 and the 2002 AUMF. Until that time comes, I believe that today
represents a strong step toward reclaiming the constitutional power
that we each have and are entrusted with, to make decisions about going
to war or declaring war.
I cannot emphasize enough that no decision is more important for a
Member of Congress than a vote to send young men and women to fight and
to die for our country.
The main text of this resolution is simple. The President shall not
deploy or maintain United States Armed Forces in a sustained combat
role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization.
Madam Speaker, this is what Madison meant when he said, ``The power
to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is
fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROYCE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. JONES. The legislature is us, the Congress. This is a monumental
step toward reclaiming our constitutional authority.
In closing, I want to thank Representatives McGovern and Lee and all
my friends in both parties who have fought with me for the right of
Congress to declare war. For years, we have been calling for a debate
on the floor of the House with regard to the use of our military.
I also want to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel and
their staffs for this opportunity today.
May God continue to bless our troops, their families, and may God
continue to bless America.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent
Resolution 105, as amended. This important bipartisan bill asserts the
important constitutional role of Congress in matters of war and peace,
and it is my sincere hope that every single Member of this institution
will vote in favor.
It is important for our colleagues to know that this resolution is
the result of open discussion and dialogue between both sides of the
aisle, and it is an example of what can happen when Members come
together and decide they want to accomplish something meaningful.
I want to thank Speaker Boehner and the majority leadership, Leader
Pelosi and Minority Whip Hoyer, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman

[[Page H6821]]

Royce and Ranking Member Engel, and I want to thank my good friends who
have helped lead this effort, my colleagues Congressman Walter Jones
and Congresswoman Barbara Lee, for working together on the language of
this resolution.
I want to send a special thanks to all the staff who spent many hours
listening to the views and concerns that spanned the political spectrum
of this House about America's engagement in Iraq.
In particular, I want to thank Jen Stewart, Rob Karem, Emily Murry,
Wyndee Parker, Dan Silverberg, Doug Anderson, Tom Sheehy, Ed Burrier,
Jason Steinbaum, Janice Kaguyutan, Doug Campbell, Mira Resnick, Ed
Rice, Jirair Ratevosian, Dan Zisa, Ray Celeste, Cindy Buhl, and Keith
Stern on my own staff. I am very grateful for how hard each of them
worked to achieve a consensus.
Madam Speaker, this resolution is quite straightforward. It requires
an authorization from Congress, should the President determine that the
United States should escalate its military presence in Iraq.
It does not change the President's existing authorities to protect
and ensure the security of U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel,
and it does not alter the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.
This resolution makes one clear statement: if the President decides
we should further involve our military in Iraq, he needs to work with
Congress to authorize it. I don't know how Congress would respond and
vote on such a request. For the record, I want to state in the
strongest possible way that I think it would be a grave mistake for the
United States to reengage militarily in Iraq.
I want to make clear that the intent of this resolution is not to
criticize President Obama. I believe him when he says that he has no
intention of significantly expanding our military presence in Iraq, and
so far, in each of the three recent deployments to Iraq that he has
announced, the President rightfully and formally informed Congress
``consistent with the War Powers Resolution.''
Nor is this the intent to criticize the Republican leadership--
rather, the intent of this resolution is to begin to reestablish
Congress' rightful role, under article I, section 8 of the
Constitution, when it comes to matters of war and peace.
I believe there is broad bipartisan and growing concern that over the
past several decades, Congress has ceded far too much of its power to
the executive branch. It has happened under Democratic and Republican
Presidents. It has happened under Democratic and Republican control of
the House and Senate. It is not really a partisan issue. It is an
institutional one. We simply haven't done our job.
My concern all along is that Congress has not lived up to its
constitutional responsibilities to debate and authorize the
introduction of U.S. forces where they are engaged in roles related to
combat.
So while this resolution clearly puts the President on notice, it
also reinforces the institutional role of Congress in matters of war
and peace.
Madam Speaker, the time to debate our reengagement in Iraq--should it
come to that--is before we are caught in the heat of the moment, not
when the first body bags come home, not when the first bombs start to
fall, not when the worst-case scenario is playing out on our TV
screens.
The time to debate Iraq is when we can weigh the pros and cons of
action, the pros and cons of supporting the violent and sectarian
policies of the Maliki government or whatever government is cobbled
together should Maliki be forced to step down.
So I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure
that further deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq receives the careful
debate and authorization it deserves. We owe as least that much to our
men and women in uniform and their families, and we owe at least that
much to our democracy and democratic institutions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr. Thomas Massie.
Mr. MASSIE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 105. Article
I, section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution gives the sole power
to declare war to Congress, not the President.
The situation in Iraq is deteriorating as we speak. ISIS, a group of
violent fundamentalist Islamic thugs, is terrorizing the people of Iraq
and destroying the ancient culture of Mosul.
Some have called for the U.S. to interfere once again, but if we are
to do so and to send our brave men and women into harm's way overseas,
we must honor the Constitution. Congress must authorize any such
military action. It would be illegal for the President to do so alone.
Any future military action in Iraq would constitute a new war, with
new enemies--ISIS--and would require a new congressional authorization.
The President cannot use the 2002 authorization for the use of force in
Iraq to justify any new action.
It is important for those who are quick to rush into another war to
remember that wars often have unintended consequences. Iraq is a prime
example.
In a recent article in The Telegraph, historian Dr. Tim Stanley
pointed out that prior to the 2003 Iraq war, there were 1.5 million
Christians in Iraq. Today, there are only 400,000.
As Dr. Stanley writes, ``The lesson is: `either leave other countries
alone or, if you must intervene, do so with consistency and
resilience.' The consequences of going in, messing things up, and then
quitting with a weary shrug are terrible for those left behind.''
If we are going to go to war, we must follow the Constitution, have
Congress declare it, and fight to win. Anything else is illegal,
unconstitutional, and likely to lead to unintended, horrific
consequences. That is why I support H. Con. Res. 105, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), one of the leaders on this
resolution.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank
Congressman McGovern for yielding, but also for his tireless leadership
on this very important issue.
I am proud to join Congressman Walter Jones and Congressman McGovern
in introducing this bipartisan resolution, and I thank them for their
consistent support and work, as great Americans, to address these
serious issues of war and peace.
This resolution simply prohibits the President to deploy armed
services or to engage in combat operations in Iraq without specific
debate and authorization from Congress, but this resolution also seeks
to reclaim a fundamental congressional responsibility, the
constitutionally protected right for Congress to debate and to
determine when this country enters into war.
I also am personally concerned about mission creep. 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.
Last month, President Obama announced that 300 personnel would be
sent to Iraq, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
support, supported by attack helicopters and drones. A few days later,
he announced another 200 personnel were soon to be deployed. There are
promises to send many additional Hellfire air-to-surface missiles.
Now, I, too, believe President Obama does not intend to send ground
troops to Iraq, but we need to make sure that Congress reasserts its
constitutional responsibility on this grave issue.
After more than a decade at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with
thousands of United States lives and billions of dollars lost, the need
for Congress to reclaim its war-making powers is more critical than
ever.
Let me remind you, it was this absence of full debate that led to
Congress passing the overly broad 2001 Authorization for Use of
Military Force in the wake of 9/11. This law has been used to justify
everything from the war in Afghanistan, warrantless domestic and
international surveillance, holding prisoners indefinitely in
Guantanamo, and conducting drone strikes in countries that we are not
at war with.
I couldn't vote for that resolution because I have always believed
that such

[[Page H6822]]

consequences are grave for the United States' national security
interests unless we fully debate these issues and, of course, to our
standing in the world. We did not debate that resolution any more than
1 hour, and I have continued to attempt to repeal and address the
problematic actions justified under this law ever since.
On July 16, Congressmen McGovern, Jones, Rigell, myself, and others--
over 100 Members of Congress from both parties wrote a letter--and we
signed that letter--to President Obama to come to Congress for an
authorization before any military escalation in Iraq, exactly what this
resolution would do.
I will insert the letter into the Record.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 02, 2014.
President Barack Obama,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We join you and with those in the
international community who are expressing grave concern over
the rise in sectarian violence in Iraq over the last days and
weeks. The consequences of this development are particularly
troubling given the extraordinary loss of American lives and
expenditure of funds over ten years that was claimed to be
necessary to bring democracy, stability and a respect for
human rights to Iraq.
We support your restraint to date in resisting the calls
for a ``quick'' and ``easy'' military intervention, and for
your commitment not to send combat troops back to Iraq. We
also appreciate your acknowledgement that this conflict
requires a political solution, and that military action alone
cannot successfully lead to a resolution.
We do not believe intervention could be either quick or
easy. And, we doubt it would be effective in meeting either
humanitarian or strategic goals, and that it could very well
be counter-productive. This is a moment for urgent
consultations and engagement with all parties in the region
who could bring about a cease fire and launch a dialogue that
could lead to a reconciliation of the conflict.
Any solution to this complex crisis can only be achieved
through a political settlement, and only if the process and
outcome is inclusive of all segments of the Iraqi
population--anything short of that cannot successfully bring
stability to Iraq or the region.
As you consider options for U.S. intervention, we write to
urge respect for the constitutional requirements for using
force abroad. The Constitution vests in Congress the power
and responsibility to authorize offensive military action
abroad. The use of military force in Iraq is something the
Congress should fully debate and authorize. Members of
Congress must consider all the facts and alternatives before
we can determine whether military action would contribute to
ending this most recent violence, create a climate for
political stability, and protect civilians from greater harm.
We stand ready to work with you to this end.
Sincerely,
Barbara Lee; Sam Farr; James P. Moran; Janice Hahn; Peter
A. DeFazio; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Michael M.
Honda; Scott E. Rigell; Chellie Pingree; Betty
McCollum; John Garamendi; James P. McGovern; Richard M.
Nolan; Beto O'Rourke, Members of Congress.
Katherine Clark; Zoe Lofgren; Earl Blumenauer; George
Miller; Anna G. Eshoo; Julia Brownley; Hakeem S.
Jeffries; Chris Gibson; Jackie Speier; John J. Duncan,
Jr.; Judy Chu; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; Alan Grayson;
James A. Himes, Members of Congress.
Michael H. Michaud; John B. Larson; Mark Pocan; Reid J.
Ribble; Frank Pallone, Jr.; Karen Bass; Maxine Waters;
John Conyers, Jr.; Walter B. Jones; Peter Welch; Jared
Huffman; John P. Sarbanes; Ed Pastor; Grace F.
Napolitano, Members of Congress.
Alcee L. Hastings; John Lewis; Jose; E. Serrano; Nydia M.
Valazquez; Louise McIntosh Slaughter; Andre Carson;
Gloria Negrete McLeod; Jim McDermott; Keith Ellison;
Lloyd Doggett; Rush Holt; Bobby L. Rush; Emanuel
Cleaver; Bennie G. Thompson, Members of Congress.
Lois Capps; Kurt Schrader; Jerrold Nadler; Mark Takano;
Collin C. Peterson; Ann McLane Kuster; Justin Amash;
Charles B. Rangel; Raul M. Grijalva; Niki Tsongas;
Kathy Castor; Michael E. Capuano; Yvette D. Clarke;
Matt Salmon; Kyrsten Sinema; Donald M. Payne, Jr.; Lois
Frankel; Rosa L. DeLauro; Richard E. Neal; Eleanor
Holmes Norton; Alan S. Lowenthal; Stephen F. Lynch,
Members of Congress.
Paul Broun; Cheri Bustos; Marcy Kaptur; Sheila Jackson
Lee; John Tierney; Henry Waxman; James R. Langevin;
Thomas Massie; Carolyn B. Maloney; Tony Cardenas; Steve
Cohen; Howard Coble; Donna F. Edwards; David Cicilline,
Members of Congress.
Ann Kirkpatrick; Donna Christensen; William Pascrell;
Luis V. Gutierrez; Robin L. Kelly; Marcia L. Fudge;
Dave Loebsack; Paul D. Tonko; Mike Doyle; Jan
Schakowsky, Chaka Fattah; Suzanne Bonamici; Joseph P.
Kennedy, III; William R. Keating, Members of Congress.

Ms. LEE of California. Also, let me remind you that last month, we
debated the Defense Appropriations bill. Over 150 bipartisan Members
supported my amendment that would have prohibited funds from being used
to conduct combat operations in Iraq.
This resolution, which is bipartisan, merely requires the President
to come to Congress, should he decide to engage in an escalated combat
role in Iraq.
The reality is, though, there is no military solution in Iraq. This
is a sectarian war with longstanding roots that were enflamed when we
invaded Iraq in 2003. Any lasting solution must be political and take
into account all sides.
The change Iraq needs must come from Iraqis rejecting violence in
favor of a peaceful democracy and respect for the rights of all
citizens.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, the American people agree.
After more than a decade of war, thousands of American lives lost, and
billions of dollars spent, the American people are rightfully weary.
Before we put our brave servicemen and -women in harm's way again,
Congress should carry out its constitutional responsibility and vote on
whether or not to get militarily involved in Iraq.
Of course, after we pass this resolution, I urge the Republican
leadership to bring up our bill, H.R. 3852, to repeal the 2002
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
I want to, once again, thank Congressman McGovern for staying the
course. He was one of the first Members calling for an end to the war
in Iraq and to bring our brave troops home. He has provided tremendous
leadership through a variety of legislative efforts. This is just
another one of those efforts. So I want to thank you again, Congressman
McGovern and Congressman Jones.
I thank all of the Members who are supporting this, including our
leadership. Congress should never allow war authorizations to remain on
the books in perpetuity. We don't do this for the farm bill. We don't
do this for the transportation bill. Sooner or later, we need to repeal
the initial authorization.

{time} 1045

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to say thank you to
the chairman for yielding me this time. Thank you to both sides for
your hard work. It is rare that we get compromises in Washington, and I
appreciate the work you have put in, but I cannot, in good conscious,
support this.
I am a veteran of Iraq. I saw many people that fought hard to bring
the Iraqi people freedom, and I saw a war that was won in 2011. What we
are watching happen in Iraq right now is the worst-case scenario in the
Middle East. There is a march of jihadism and extremism that makes al
Qaeda look like puppy dogs that is happening in Iraq, a President that
is indecisive on what to do. We have genital mutilations ordered in
Mosul just the other day by ISIS, and we are here in Washington, D.C.,
debating what we need to do to hamstring the President who is already
indecisive enough about this.
When American military--American Marines and Army--get themselves
into sustained combat, they often call on strong air support to help
them win the fight. And that is why--as well as the strong Marines and
Army we have, that is why we are so good at what we do. We are asking
the Iraqi military to take back their country and take land but yet not
providing them substantial air power that is needed to destroy this
very evil cancer that is growing in the Middle East.
That is what we ought to be here discussing today is how to stop this
cancer of jihadism and ISIS that is growing in the Middle East, how to
stop that from growing, and ultimately prevent it from coming here to
the United

[[Page H6823]]

States of America and potentially to our allies.
So while I, again, strongly respect and fully understand what my
chairman is doing here and appreciate his hard work, I think instead of
giving the President an ability to blame Congress for his
indecisiveness, I think it is time that we stand up and say we have to
defend our interest and defend people that want to defend themselves.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
comments and for his service to our country. But the gentleman should
draft an authorization for war and ask for his leadership to bring it
up. That is what the Constitution tells us to do.
What this resolution is about today is not a vote on getting out of
Iraq or staying in Iraq or expanding our role in Iraq. This is a vote
on whether or not we are going to live up to our constitutional
responsibility. This should not be controversial no matter what one's
views are on military reengagement in Iraq.
At this point, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa), who has been a leader on this issue.
Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding.
I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 105 having already taken
action on this issue that has every American gravely concerned. I
opposed our involvement in Iraq in 2002. I opposed it last month, and I
oppose it today.
While I intend to support the resolution at hand, I believe we should
have required the President to recall any troops that are not in Iraq
strictly for diplomatic security. This was the original version of this
resolution. Notwithstanding, it is very significant that this House of
Representatives will probably pass overwhelmingly this resolution that
takes a very firm stand that Congress should be authorizing any further
military action in Iraq. We owe it to the people of this Nation.
Let's be clear. The President invoked the War Powers Act under the
guise of protecting our embassy. There are now nearly 1,000 U.S. troops
in harm's way--Apache helicopters and drones, just to name a few--and
we are taking sides in a sectarian civil war. Let's not forget that
that is what we are doing.
Congress must reject a new war in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to
demand further action and to take further action to withdraw our troops
now before our men and women in uniform are again asked to pay too high
a price for our inaction.
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, Joseph Cirincione wrote an article in
Defense One, and I want to quote a part of it. He says:

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 cannot 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. 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 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.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I commend the authors of this resolution,
Representatives McGovern, Jones, and Lee, for their leadership on this
issue of war and peace.
The topic of limiting our future military involvement in Iraq
deserves more than 1 hour. It deserves an entire legislative day to
discuss this resolution and the larger question: the issue of the war-
making powers of Congress. The history of our involvement in Iraq and
exactly how we came to this point is of paramount importance in
understanding why it is vital that the House pass this resolution. But
since time is limited, let me come to the point: no more American
soldiers should kill or be killed in Iraq to redeem our past mistakes.
The United States has spent years and billions of dollars trying to
rebuild Iraq's armed forces, to no end. Sending 300 or 3,000 or 30,000
advisers to Iraq would be a pointless exercise when the Iraqi Army
continues to melt away in the face of rebels.
Unless the Iraqi Government can inspire confidence in Kurds, Sunni,
and Shi'a that it is a fair, legitimate government concerned with the
welfare of all Iraqis, no amount of money or American advisers will
save it. We have already lost more than 4,000 Americans in one war in
Iraq. Let's not invoke the insidious and fallacious argument that our
previous heavy investment justifies further heavy investment.
Had America not waged an unnecessary war in Iraq starting in 2003,
there would be no need for us to debate this resolution now. Like so
many misguided military interventions in our history, America's
misguided war with Iraq unleashed forces that we cannot now control. We
should not compound that error by squandering more lives and money in
Iraq.
I hope we can have, beyond this moment now, a fuller debate of the
war-making powers of Congress. I hope, as Representative Lee said a few
moments ago, that we can have a debate on the repeal of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force that was the excuse for much
military, paramilitary, and domestic intrusive activities in this
country.
But for now we should, I think, recognize the good acts of
Representatives McGovern, Jones, and Lee in bringing this resolution to
the floor. I think it will help further the debate greatly. I urge my
colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I am going to reserve the right to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I insert in the Record a letter from 33
national organizations in support of this resolution.
July 23, 2014.
Dear Representative McGovern: Representatives Jim McGovern,
Walter Jones and Barbara Lee have introduced H. Con. Res.
105, a privileged resolution to direct the President to
remove U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days, or no later than
the end of this year. We urge you to co-sponsor and support
this important resolution.
This resolution, which provides an exception for those
troops needed to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and
personnel, is likely to be voted on in the full House before
the end of July. The sponsors are using the special
procedures outlined under the War Powers Resolution that
requires the House to take up this bill after 15 calendar
days.
Last month, President Obama announced that 300 personnel
would be sent to Iraq, including intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance support, augmented by Apache attack
helicopters and drones, after military aggression by the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. A few days later, he
announced another 200 personnel were soon to be deployed.
There are promises to send many additional Hellfire air-to-
surface missiles.
As the United States knows from past, bitter experience in
Vietnam, a small military engagement can escalate into a
major military war that is disastrous for the United States.
There is little a few hundred or a few thousand troops can do
in Iraq that 140,000 could not do at the height of American
involvement in Iraq.
President George W. Bush signed an agreement before leaving
office to withdraw all American forces from Iraq by 2011.
That decision should not be reversed.
Congress has the constitutional responsibility to debate
the merits of American military involvement in Iraq before
the first American casualties. Whatever your position on Iraq
or this resolution, the measure provides an opportunity for
sorely needed debate on a very critical issue.
We urge you to co-sponsor and support the resolution, and
to oppose what is likely to be a tabling motion before the
end of July.
Sincerely,
Fred Azcarate, USAction; Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans,
CODEPINK; Becky Bond, CREDO; Simone Campbell, SSS,
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby;
Angela Canterbury, Council for a Livable World; Jeanne
Dauray, Progressive Democrats of America; Carolyn Rusti
Eisenberg, United for Peace and Justice; Michael
Eisenscher, U.S. Labor Against the War; Jenefer
Ellingston, DC Statehood Green Party; Hannah Frisch,
Civilian Soldier Alliance; Anna Galland, MoveOn.org;
William Hartung, Center for International Policy; Susan
Henry-Crowe, M.Div., DD, The United Methodist Church--
General Board of Church and Society; Matt Howard, Iraq
Veterans Against the War; Rev. Linda Jaramillo, United
Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; Kevin
Kamps, Beyond Nuclear; Aura Kanegis, American Friends
Service Committee; David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation; Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Magazine's
Network of Spiritual Progressives; Paul Kawika Martin,
Peace Action.

[[Page H6824]]

Stephen Miles, Win Without War; Andrea Miller,
Progressive Democrats of America; Robert Naiman, Just
Foreign Policy; Jim O'Brien, Historians Against the
War; Jon Rainwater, Peace Action West; Diane Randall,
Friends Committee on National Legislation; Susan Shaer,
Women's Action for New Directions; Alice Slater,
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, NY; Guy Stevens,
PeacePAC; Paul Walker, Green Cross International; Jim
Wallis, Sojourners; Rabbi Arthur Waskow, The Shalom
Center; Jim Winkler, National Council of Churches, USA.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Regarding the term ``sustained combat role,'' this resolution
specifically states that nothing in this language supersedes the War
Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution lays out very clear
timeframes, beyond which we should consider troops to be deployed for a
sustained period. ``Combat role'' implies the many roles that our
troops might be engaged in or supporting combat operations in Iraq. I
think, however, that this resolution is based on the President and the
Congress acting in good faith and working together to authorize any
deeper involvement in the ongoing conflict in Iraq.
I want to again acknowledge that this is an important resolution, and
this is an important moment for this institution. We have bipartisan
collaboration on this language. We have bipartisan agreement that we
ought not to give up our constitutional responsibilities when it comes
to declaring war or getting into wars.
Again, I want to thank Speaker Boehner. I want to thank Leader
Pelosi, and I want to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel and
everybody who is involved in working together and understanding that no
matter what your view is on what we should be doing in Iraq, that we
all agree that we have a responsibility here and that we matter in this
debate.
I think it is also important to realize that we are coming together
to acknowledge that it is important to debate this issue before we get
into the heat of battle, and I hope that it never comes to that. For
too long, I think this institution has not done what it is supposed to
do when it comes to war, both under Democratic Presidents and under
Republican Presidents.
As I said in the beginning, this is not a critique of President
Obama. I believe the President when he says he does not want to see any
more combat troops deployed in Iraq. I believe him when he says he does
not want to reengage militarily in yet another war. But I also know
from history that there is such a thing called the slippery slope and
there are events that happened that sometimes overtake people's
original positions, and then we find ourselves in a situation that we
did not expect to be in.
What we are saying here is that, if, in fact, the President, for
whatever reason, decides to escalate our military involvement, Congress
needs to debate it and Congress needs to authorize it. It is that
simple.
This resolution is not as strong as some of us would want it to be,
and it is not as weak as some would want it to be. This represents a
compromise. I also think it is important to point out that every once
in a while this place works; and I think this is one of the moments
where we can point to that the Congress is working, and we are working
on an issue that I think is of incredible importance.
Madam Speaker, I will just close by saying, like so many of my
colleagues here, I have been to countless funerals of soldiers who have
been killed not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan. I have talked to
parents, I have talked to brothers and sisters, and I have talked to
grandparents during very difficult times when they have lost a loved
one.
It is important that we recognize that going to war, deploying our
troops in hostilities, is a big deal. We ought to be very clear that
this is important and that we ought not to go down that road lightly. I
am grateful that this resolution makes it clear that we are going to
debate these issues, that we are going to authorize these issues, and
that we are going to respect the Constitution.
So, with that, Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Royce. I want to
thank everybody who has been involved in this. This is an important
statement, and I am very hopeful that we will get strong, bipartisan
support.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying I appreciate the
gentleman from Massachusetts' spirit of cooperation. Mr. McGovern and I
have worked on a number of issues from victims' rights to trying to
stop the exploitation of child soldiers in Africa, and so I appreciate
that spirit on his part.
As I noted in my opening testimony, my opening statement here, the
threat of ISIS is real, and I do think we should reflect on that as we
debate this issue.

{time} 1100

Never has a terrorist organization itself controlled so much
territory, especially such a large, resource-rich safe haven, as ISIS
has in this caliphate, as they perceive it, now. Never has a terrorist
organization possessed the heavy weaponry and cash and personnel as
ISIS does today, and this includes thousands of Western passports and
thousands of individuals who are passport holders from the West.
One militant engaged in this battle recently returned to Europe and
attacked a museum in Brussels, so more of that is coming as a result of
ISIS. And let's not take this debate to mean that we should not be
doing anything to offset that organization.
I think the President has failed U.S. national security interests by
not, for example, authorizing or accepting the request made by the
government in Iraq and by our personnel in our Embassy for drone
strikes on these terrorist ISIS camps. Remember, this is a situation
where the drone can actually see the ISIS combatants with the black
flag of al Qaeda waving as they move across the desert or as they are
encamped. This was an opportunity to hit them when they were
vulnerable, before they began that city march across the desert, as
they began to take those cities with their armed columns.
I do think, as the U.N. reported yesterday, that there are going to
be consequences to these fatwas that come down from ISIS. The one
yesterday specifically--according to the U.N., ISIS is requiring female
mutilation in the new caliphate it is establishing, at least in the
Mosul area and around that area. That is about 4 million females that
would be subject to this, if they are as doctrinaire as they have been
on other issues. So we will be wrestling with what to do about ISIS,
what we can do.
What this resolution says, and I think the overwhelming majority of
us in Congress agrees with this, is that if the President of the United
States ordered U.S. Armed Forces into sustained combat in Iraq, then he
should be coming to Congress to seek an explicit statutory
authorization and the backing of this body, and that is the text before
us today.
It says, again:

That is the position of the Members of Congress, as the
representative body, frankly, and as any military officer will tell
you, support of the people is critical to the success of a sustained
combat operation. As the representative body, that responsibility falls
to us. It is an obligation that I know all of my colleagues take
seriously. And, again, it is why I expect overwhelming passage of this
motion this morning.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary
and Homeland Security Committees, I rise in strong support of H. Con.
Res. 105, a resolution prohibiting the President from deploying or
maintaining United States Armed Forces in sustained combat roles in
Iraq unless specifically authorized by Congress by statute enacted
after the date of adoption of the resolution.
The war in Iraq caused a lot of unearned suffering in Iraq and here
at home. This is the same war, Madam Speaker, whose proponents
misrepresented to the nation would last no more than six months and
likely less than six weeks.
This same war in Iraq, we were led to believe by the Bush
Administration, would cost less than $50 billion and would be paid out
of

[[Page H6825]]

the ample revenues from Iraq's oil fields. The war in Iraq, the
American people were promised, should have ended years ago with
Americans troops greeted as liberators by jubilant Iraqis throwing rose
petals at their feet.
As I and my colleagues in the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq
Caucus forecast at the time, the starry-eyed, rosy scenarios laid out
by President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld would come to pass in fantasy land, but not in the cold, hard
world of reality which they refused to live in.
The war in Iraq lasted longer than America's involvement in World War
II, the greatest conflict in all of human history. But there was a
difference. The Second World War ended in complete and total victory
for the United States and its allies.
But then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great
Commander-in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace,
listened to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and
sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job.
As a result of the colossal miscalculation in deciding to invade
Iraq, the Armed Forces and the people of the United States suffered
incalculable damage.
The war in Iraq claimed the lives of 4,484 brave servicemen and
women. More than 24,600 Americans were wounded, many suffering the most
horrific injuries. American taxpayers paid more than $800 billion to
sustain this misadventure.
The depth, breadth, and scope of the misguided, mismanaged, and
misrepresented war in Iraq is utterly without precedent in American
history. It was a tragedy in a league all its own.
And it must never be repeated. That is why I strongly support H. Con.
Res. 105 and urge all my colleagues to join me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 23, 2014, the
previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution, as amended.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________