[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13161-13167]
[From the U.S. 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:

       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.

  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 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.

[[Page 13162]]

  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 
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

[[Page 13163]]

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 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,

[[Page 13164]]

     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 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.

[[Page 13165]]

  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 balance of my 
time 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.
         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

[[Page 13166]]

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:

       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 adoption of this concurrent resolution.

  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 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

[[Page 13167]]

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.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 105. From day one, I have used my voice and my vote to 
promote peace in Iraq. Now, more than ever, that country and its 
citizens deserve peace. Accordingly, any decision to escalate our 
military involvement in this war-torn country must be careful, 
deliberative, and include Congress. I was proud to be one of the first 
cosponsors of H. Con. Res. 105, which stipulates that ``the President 
shall not deploy or maintain United States Armed Forces in a sustained 
combat role in the Iraq without specific statutory authorization for 
such use enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent 
resolution.''
  There is no question that sectarian violence in Iraq poses a grave 
danger to both the country and region's stability. But before military 
options are put on the table, we must exhaust every possible diplomatic 
solution. Diplomacy and debate leads to lasting peace and 
stabilization, and at this point, I do not believe that sending more of 
our brave women and men to Iraq will win the peace. And I know I am not 
alone in this call for peace. But while it is one thing to express the 
desire for peace, it is a perhaps more daunting task to do what it 
takes to achieve peace. Change is afoot in Iraq's leadership, and I am 
hopeful they can move swiftly towards a more inclusive government that 
reflects the diversity of religions and prioritizes the meaningful 
stability and security for all citizens.
  I will continue to watch this situation closely and insist that 
Congress be consulted for any matter involving U.S. military 
involvement. The stakes are too high and the cost is too great. I 
strongly urge you to vote in favor of this resolution.
  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.

                          ____________________