Tulsi Gabbard

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).

Ms. GABBARD. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Ms. GABBARD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Ms. GABBARD. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our esteemed minority whip.

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, we are holding this Special Order today to honor our colleague and friend, Mark Takai. Many of our colleagues are here to share their own memories and remembrances of our friend. In Hawaii, the word ``aloha'' holds a very special place in our hearts. It is a word that we use every day to say hello and good-bye, but, in saying that word, we are actually conveying a much deeper meaning. In the deepest and truest sense of the word, aloha means I come to you with an open heart and offer you my deepest respect, love, and care. It is a word that describes a way of life. Living aloha brings people together regardless of their unique backgrounds or things like age, race, religion, or social class. This open heart, this spirit of aloha, is what I think of when I think of my colleague, my fellow soldier, and my friend, Mark Takai, because he carried this aloha spirit with him wherever he went. He shared it with everyone that he came into contact with. During a celebration of Mark's life held in his hometown of Pearl City on Oahu just a few weeks ago--this is the community that he served for over 20 years as a State legislator--I heard from one of Mark's high school teachers named Mike, who shared her amazement that not only was Mark a great student, not only was he an all-American swimmer, but he would spend his free time doing things like organizing voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote parades in his neighborhood, encouraging his community to make sure that their voice was heard. As a student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Mark was a leader among his peers, one of whom is here today, our colleague, Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth. He served as president of the Associated Students of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, was a champion on the varsity team for 4 years, and was editor in chief of the campus newspaper, Ka Leo O Hawaii. I recently had an intern in my district office who is a part of ASUH, and he told me about how the University of Hawaii student government members today tell stories of the legends of Mark Takai's courage and leadership as student president, taking on difficult issues like sexual harassment and assault, resulting in his being sued by the University of Hawaii professors union. But no matter the challenge, the difficulty, or the obstacle, the legends are true; Mark Takai never backed down. At age 27, he was elected to the Hawaii State House of Representatives, representing his hometown of Pearl City and neighboring Aiea from 1994 to 2014. In 2002, I was elected to the State House where I first got to know him, learning of his commitment and passion for the University of Hawaii, and his and Sami's love for all things Disney, showing me the memorabilia they brought home from the Disney parks they visited around the world, and sharing copies of the cookbook he distributed throughout his Pearl City district, always making time, always ready with a helpful tip and a helping hand. In 2014, after a hard-fought campaign, Mark came here and joined us in Congress, representing the First Congressional District of Hawaii. While here, he served on the Committee on Armed Services, as well as the Committee on Small Business, working hard always, putting first and foremost his constituents. Even after he was diagnosed and going through treatment, he was always there attending his committee hearings, doing things that no one really expected he would do. I was amazed, during our annual NDAA marathon markup session that often lasts over 16 straight hours, Mark was there in the wee hours of the morning passing out the Hawaii-made chocolate macadamia nuts to our colleagues. For 17 years, while simultaneously fulfilling his responsibilities as an elected official, Mark also served as a citizen soldier in the Hawaii Army National Guard, where he earned the rank of lieutenant colonel, deployed to Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and served as president of the Hawaii Army National Guard Association. Because Mark had a master's degree in public health, he came into the National Guard as a direct commissioned officer. What this meant in practical terms was he didn't have to go through basic combat training or OCS. When I came back to Hawaii from my basic training in South Carolina, I was assigned to our medical command, the same unit as Mark. He was a first lieutenant. I was a private first class. As I was rendering him a salute, he would joke around, asking me to teach him how to render a proper salute and how to march in a formation because he never got to learn those through basic training. Mark was incredibly proud to wear the uniform. He was deeply committed to the National Guard, extremely active with the National Guard Association both in Hawaii and here in Washington, always looking to find ways to support the institution and its service to our soldiers and airmen in Hawaii and across the country. I have heard from so many of Mark's soldiers and peers in the Hawaii Guard who express disbelief that he is actually gone and how much they truly valued the time they spent with him and served with him. Mark's service to Hawaii and our Nation spans nearly a quarter century. His legacy of aloha and his commitment to service touched the lives of so many people along the way. All of the stories and remembrances we will hear today I think capture the essence of Mark, his heart for service, his spirit of aloha, his love for God, his love for his family, and caring and sharing aloha with everyone. To our colleagues here today to share their memories of Mark, thank you for opening your hearts as we honor and remember and say aloha to our dear friend. To Mark's staff, thank you for being strong, for serving Mark and our State of Hawaii, and continuing to serve the people of Hawaii through this difficult time. Finally, I would like to recognize Mark's family, who have just arrived here in the gallery. I would like to recognize Mark's wife, Sami; his children, Matthew and Kaila; his parents, Erik and Naomi; and his siblings, Nadine, Nikki, and Ross, all of whom have been incredibly generous in sharing their time and opening their family to all of us, to people across the State of Hawaii, and yesterday during the beautiful and historic service that was held in Mark's honor. I want you to know that you were always with him wherever he went. He was always speaking about you proudly. You were the light of his life. Mahalo, Mark, for the lasting impact that you had on all of us, for sharing your aloha with us, and for dedicating your life to the service of others. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Graham).

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, the people of Hawaii and our colleagues have celebrated the life and service of our friend and colleague, Congressman Mark Takai, in a series of memorials, religious services, and community events. Leader Pelosi led a congressional delegation, including many of the Members who are standing with me today, to Hawaii, where we visited with Mark's wife, Sami, and his children, Matthew and Kaila, as well as with his parents and siblings, and shared with them the memories that we made with Mark and the impact that he had on our country during his service here in the U.S. Congress.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, people shouldn't have to jump through hoops to know what is in their food. That is really what this issue is all about. When we go the grocery store, the very first thing that you do is you pick up whatever it is you are looking at and you read the label to see if it contains products or ingredients or things that you want to eat or that you want to feed your family. Nearly 90 percent of Americans have called for this clear, simple, direct labeling of foods that have been either genetically engineered or modified. They support this very simple concept that we have a right to know what is in the food we eat; yet the GMO bill that we are voting on today is very misleading. Proponents will say that this is a labeling bill, but it is not really about the right to know. It actually creates an illusion of transparency, while making things more difficult for consumers, not easier. This is, as we have heard earlier, exactly what people hate about Washington, that we pretend to solve a problem when, actually, we are just making things harder and more confusing for the American people. If this bill is really, truly intended to expand consumers' right to know, why not require a simple, uniform food labeling standard that is clear, straightforward, and easy to read? Instead of doing that, this bill creates a system of electronic codes, symbols, and text that are intentionally confusing to consumers, making them work harder to try to get access to information that should be readily available to them. Additionally, this bill lacks any enforcement measure to hold companies accountable if they don't comply with labeling requirements. This bill has raised concerns from the FDA over the bill's narrow definition of genetic engineering that leaves common foods without any labeling requirement at all. So let's stop pretending that S. 764 does anything but create confusion, making it harder for the American people to know what is in their food. This is exactly the opposite of what they are calling for. Sixty-four countries around the world have already required labeling of genetically modified foods, like the EU, Australia, Japan, and many others, and this is what we are calling for today. For here, in the United States, we must have one uniform national labeling standard that is simple, clear, and makes it easier for consumers to make their own informed decisions about the food that they are eating. I have cosponsored H.R. 913, introduced by my colleague, Pete DeFazio, which would do just that. The bill passed by the Senate and the bill before us today is a bad bill that does not serve the best interests of the American people. That is why I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for allowing us to bring up this important issue, basically this amendment and the failed Syria train and equip program. The failures of this program have been well documented and have resulted, ultimately, in strengthening groups like ISIS and al Qaeda with American taxpayer-funded weapons. Many of us voted against this program when it first came before Congress in 2014. We predicted the program would fail, and it did. We ended up arming so-called moderate opposition fighters who did not share our objective of fighting ISIS. Instead, they were and remain primarily focused on overthrowing Assad, which, if successful, would strengthen groups like ISIS and al Qaeda, allowing them to take over all of Syria, creating an even worse humanity crisis and an even greater threat to the world. The current program this bill funds is even worse. It only vets the commanders of so-called moderate Syrian opposition forces. Once the commander finishes some very limited training, then the U.S. provides arms and equipment to the entire brigade with no vetting or screening of the thousands of men who make up these units. Most concerning of all is nowhere in this bill or in the NDAA does it state that this program is limited to training and equipping only those who are fighting against ISIS and al Qaeda. Our strategy against fighting ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria right now is not working. We are waging two wars in Syria, providing arms and support to groups that have opposing objectives. The first war is a counterproductive one to overthrow the Syrian Government of Assad, which must end. And the second is our war to defeat ISIS, al Qaeda, and other jihadist groups, which we must win. By helping groups fighting to overthrow Assad, we are essentially helping ISIS and al Qaeda achieve their objective of taking over all of Syria. Some may argue that this program is the only tool we have to fight against ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria. This is false. If this amendment is passed, we can end this failed program and continue to support trusted partners on the ground, like the Kurds and Syrian Arabs, who have proven their effectiveness and commitment to our shared objective of defeating ISIS and al Qaeda through other counterterrorism authorities and funds. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and vote ``yes'' on Gabbard-Welch amendment No. 42. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), my colleague.

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Vermont. I would just like to make a point of clarification that this amendment would not stop our air strikes against ISIS. Those air strikes are funded through funds for Operation Inherent Resolve, which this amendment has nothing to do with. This amendment simply prohibits funds that are solely directed towards the Syria Train and Equip Program, section 1209. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. ``Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and my own sister could not find me. Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong. Why am I still explaining this. ``You said, During the trial I didn't want to victimize her at all. That was just my attorney and his way of approaching the case. ``Your attorney is not your scapegoat, he represents you. Did your attorney say some incredulously infuriating, degrading things? Absolutely. He said you had an erection, because it was cold. ``You said, you are in the process of establishing a program for high school and college students in which you speak about your experience to `speak out against the college campus drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that.' ``Campus drinking culture. That's what we're speaking out against? You think that's what I've spent the past year fighting for? Not awareness about campus sexual assault, or rape, or learning to recognize consent. Campus drinking culture. Down with Jack Daniels. Down with Skyy Vodka. If you want to talk to people about drinking go to an AA meeting. You realize, having a drinking problem is different than drinking and then forcefully trying to have sex with someone? Show men how to respect women, not how to drink less. ``Drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that. Goes along with that, like a side effect, like fries on the side of your order. Where does promiscuity even come into play? I don't see headlines that read, Brock Turner, Guilty of drinking too much and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that. Campus Sexual Assault. There's your first powerpoint slide. Rest assured, if you fail to fix the topic of your talk, I will follow you to every school you go to and give a follow up presentation.''

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, on June 9, 2016, I was unavoidably detained due to a traffic accident and was unable to record my vote for roll call No. 283. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on consideration of the resolution.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, in the United States, 2.1 million people suffer from dependency and addiction to prescription opioid drugs. Eighty percent of the world's pain pills are consumed in the United States, but we only have 5 percent of the world's population. This is an epidemic that reaches every corner of our Nation, transcending regional, State, community, and neighborhood lines. More people died from drug overdose in 2014 than ever before. Over 60 percent of those deaths involved the use of an opioid. Seventy-eight Americans die every single day from an opioid overdose. There are more people dying from prescription drug overdoses than from car accidents. This week, the House is considering 15 bipartisan measures that seek to address some of the widespread problems that have caused and perpetuated this national crisis; but as we look at treatment options and support for those who are dealing with this addiction, it is important that we actually focus on the root cause of the problem. We have seen for decades major pharmaceutical companies that have misled the FDA, doctors, and patients about the safety and risks of opioid dependence on commonly prescribed prescription drugs in their efforts to sell more drugs. Three top executives from Purdue Pharma even pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Just last week, the LA Times revealed how Purdue Pharma has made over $31 billion off of OxyContin, America's best-selling painkiller, by advertising the drug's 12-hour pain relief. Investigations have found that for many people the drug actually doesn't last for 12 hours. In fact, it wears off hours earlier for most people. This often leads to ``excruciating symptoms of withdrawal, including an intense craving for the drug.'' Despite multiple complaints from doctors, sales representatives, and independent research showing that many patients don't experience this 12-hour pain relief, the company has continued to market the drug's 12- hour relief and is even encouraging doctors to prescribe stronger doses when patients complain about its shortened effects. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 7 million Americans have abused OxyContin. Many abusers then turn to heroin, which is made from the same poppy plant and has the same effect. After people are addicted to opioid prescription drugs, they turn to heroin when they can't get their hands on those pills. To give you some context, one 60-milligram pill costs, on average, around $60. To get the very same amount of heroin, you will pay one-tenth of the price. The problems created by companies like Purdue are felt deeply by families all across the country. It is happening to our police officers, to teachers, to nurses, and to others in our communities who all share the same stories. They used to take prescription drugs, but now they inject heroin. In my home State of Hawaii, the rate of pain medicine abuse is more than 10 percent above the national average. According to the Hawaii State Department of Health data, opioid-related deaths have increased 133 percent from 2000 to 2016. Veterans, people who have served our country in uniform, have been disproportionately impacted by this epidemic. I have heard from some of my friends and fellow veterans of how, during their visits to the VA in their seeking treatment, even after telling their doctors ``I don't want drugs,'' they received prescriptions for those drugs. Up until recently, the VA prescribed opioids almost exclusively to veterans who were experiencing chronic pain. Prescriptions for opiates spiked by 270 percent over 12 years, according to the 2013 analysis by the Center for Investigative Reporting. This led to addictions and to a fatal overdose rate amongst veterans at a rate of twice the national average. The VA is beginning to start to change some of its practices by offering alternative modes of treatment, but even so, that change is not comprehensive and it is not happening everywhere across the country. A national health crisis of this magnitude requires leadership, commitment, resolve, and partnership at every level of government, within our medical community and within our community itself. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for further action to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable that are profiting off of America's addiction problems, to hold doctors accountable who are irresponsibly overprescribing these addictive drugs, and to focus instead on finding real solutions that can truly help people. I urge the U.S. Surgeon General to make combating opioid abuse the 2016 Call to Action, which is a yearly initiative that helps to stimulate nationwide action to solve a major public health program in the U.S. In the past few years, the national Call to Action has addressed exercise and walkable communities, skin cancer prevention, breastfeeding, deep vein thrombosis, and underage drinking. With 78 Americans dying every single day from opioid overdose, this is an issue that demands our national attention and action.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, in Bangladesh, the horrendous, brutal street assassinations of members of minority religions, secularists, and atheists violate every single value that we hold dear. Just 2 weeks ago, 28-year-old Nazimuddin Samad was hacked to death in Dhaka, Bangladesh, after speaking out against the persecution of religious minorities on social media. Evelyn Beatrice Hall, the late British author, wrote: ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'' In Bangladesh, discrimination and deadly violence against atheists, secularists, Hindus, Buddhists, and other religious minorities have unfortunately become a regular occurrence. This underscores the absolute necessity of not only defeating this global wave of intolerance, but standing up and fighting for the right of others to freely express their views regardless of whether you agree with those views or not. I introduced H. Res. 396 to call on the Government of Bangladesh to protect the rights of all of its religious minorities, including Christians, Hindus, atheists, and others. They have a responsibility to uphold the principles of its secular constitution, including freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and take action against this senseless violence. I encourage my colleagues to take action and support this resolution's passage.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, as members of Congress, one of our most sacred responsibilities is to serve those who protect our nation. As far back as the Civil War, Congress has enacted laws to safeguard the rights of our military men and women, so they may devote their full attention to the defense of the United States. These laws, like the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and the Military Lending Act, provide protection from repossessions, foreclosures, predatory lending, and other civil actions that could occur while a servicemember is on active duty or deployed. Those protections allow the servicemember to remain solely focused on protecting the nation while on active duty or deployed. One of the protections the SCRA provides is to require banks and businesses to obtain a court order before repossessing a servicemembers' car or home. Requiring a court order ensures that any action to take away a servicemembers' property will be reviewed by a judge, where the judge can evaluate whether the servicemembers' military duties will inhibit him or her from responding to the action in a timely manner. Through the court system, the judge can also ensure the servicemember wasn't victim to predatory lending practices, or other actions protected under the SCRA. Unfortunately, banks and businesses have found a way around those protections. Many mortgages, car loans and other financial agreements now include fine print that requires any dispute over the property to be resolved through a new process that avoids the courts: Forced arbitration. By including that clause in the fine print, banks can still threaten servicemembers' homes, cars and other property by requiring them to enter into a costly arbitration process while they are still in active duty service. This process has resulted in men and women finding out that a bank is taking away their family car, or home, while they are in Iraq or Afghanistan. For example, Army National Guard Sergeant Charles Beard was serving in Tikrit, Iraq when he found out that his family car had been illegally repossessed. His wife was threatened and told she would be imprisoned if she resisted. Sergeant and Mrs. Beard spent four years fighting the case, and ultimately did not get back their car or receive compensation. Sadly, they are not alone. In 2012, the Government Accountability Office found 300 cases of improper foreclosures on servicemen and women while they were still on active duty, along with 15,000 other violations of the SCRA. We must ensure that our brothers and sisters in combat don't have to worry about whether or not their families will not become homeless while they are gone. We must close this loophole. I am proud to partner with Congressman Jones as the Democratic lead sponsor of H.R. 4161, the SCRA Rights Protection Act of 2015, to do just that. The SCRA Rights Protection Act restores the rights enshrined in the SCRA by not allowing forced arbitration for contracts governed by the SCRA unless the servicemember agrees to that process after a dispute has arisen. Our military men and women sacrifice so much in the service of our nation. It is our duty to defend their rights here at home.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, there are more than 200,000 Filipino and Filipino American soldiers who responded to President Roosevelt's call to duty. They fought under our American flag during World War II. These loyal and courageous soldiers suffered, fought, and gave up their lives alongside their American counterparts throughout the war; yet decades have gone by, and they are still waiting for their service to be recognized. I have introduced H.R. 2737, legislation that is strongly supported by Members of both parties and in both Chambers, to award these deserving veterans the Congressional Gold Medal so that our country can show our appreciation and recognize them for their dedicated service and sacrifice in defeating the Imperial Japanese Army. Today there are just 18,000 of these Filipino World War II veterans who are still alive. Time is of the essence. We cannot afford to wait. I urge my colleagues to quickly pass this legislation so that these courageous men may be honored while they are still among us.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I co-sponsored and will vote for H. Con. Res. 75 because of my grave concern about the genocide against Christians, Alawites, Shiites, Druze, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria. However, I was extremely disappointed by amendment language later added to this resolution in Committee that provides ``cover'' or an excuse for ISIS and other terrorist organizations committing this genocide. Specifically, the language I object to is the following: ``Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's violence against the Syrian people has attracted foreign fighters from around the world, who have supported and committed ISIL atrocities.'' I fully reject this amendment to the resolution which gives moral legitimacy to the actions of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others who are committing genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria. This amendment is an obvious attempt to make ISIS look like their cause is legitimate. This is unacceptable and undermines the heart of this resolution. This is very unfortunate because the problem of genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria is very serious. The main area in Syria where Christians and other religious minorities have any protection from being slaughtered, and where they can practice their own religious faiths without fear of persecution, is in the territory controlled by the Syrian government of Assad. The reality is that the language added to this Resolution, coupled with its sister H. Con. Res. 121, is really aimed at justifying the overthrow of Assad--the result of which would be a complete assault and elimination of the Christians and other religious minorities in Syria. The fact that this Resolution, which was originally introduced to increase protection for Christians, Yazidis and other religious minorities, has now been hijacked so it becomes a vehicle to increase the likelihood of even greater genocide against those religious minorities is a disgrace. The reality is that if the Assad government is overthrown tomorrow, every Christian, every Yazidi, and every other religious minority and ethnic minority in Syria will be in greater danger than ever before from ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others who are slaughtering them. This Resolution is no longer a sincere effort to protect religious minorities. It has become a resolution to give moral legitimacy to ISIS and al-Qaeda's genocidal activities, and would bring about even greater genocide of such religious minorities by eliminating the only area where they now have refuge--in Assad-controlled areas.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Con. Res. 121. Make no mistake, this is a War Bill--a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of ``humanitarianism'' as a justification for overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad. Similar resolutions were used in the past to legitimize the regime change wars to overthrow the governments of Iraq and Libya. I will have no part of it. I oppose H. Con. Res. 121 because I oppose more unnecessary, interventionist regime change wars. We all know that Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, is a brutal dictator. But this resolution's purpose is not merely to recognize him as such. Rather, it is a call to action. Specifically, it is a call to escalate our war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad. For the last five years, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others have been working hand-in-hand to overthrow the Assad government, supposedly for humanitarian reasons. But how has our war to overthrow Assad helped humanity? Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed. Millions have become homeless refugees. Much of the country's infrastructure has been destroyed. Terrorist organizations like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others have taken over large areas of the country and are engaging in genocide. And now, the same people who are behind this war to overthrow Assad want to escalate that war, and this resolution is an attempt to gin up public support for such an escalation. This resolution urges the Administration to create ``additional mechanisms for the protection of civilians'' which is coded language for the creation of a so-called ``no-fly'' or ``safe zone.'' The creation of a ``no fly zone'' or ``safe zone'' in Syria would be a major escalation of the war. Such a measure would cost billions of dollars, require tens of thousands of ground troops and a massive U.S. air presence, and it won't work. Furthermore, it will likely result in a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. Fortunately, President Obama has thus far resisted pressure to escalate the war in this way. The fact is that the main area in Syria where Christians, Alawites, Shiites, Druze, Yazidis and other religious minorities can practice their faith without fear of persecution is in the Syrian territories where Assad maintains control. Therefore, the overthrow of Assad would worsen the genocidal activities by ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations against Christians, Alawites, and other Syrian religious minorities. H. Con. Res. 121 could be used to lay the groundwork for the escalation of the present U.S. military action aimed at overthrowing the Assad government. Previous Congresses passed Iraq and Libya resolutions, which were used for remarkably similar ends in several ways. The Iraq resolution was introduced in 1998, and it called upon the United States to ``take steps necessary, including the reprogramming of funds, to ensure United States support for efforts to bring Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials to justice.'' The Libya resolution went further, urging ``the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.'' Both of those statements, while not legally binding, were a part of the public campaign that were later used to build support for U.S. military action. Similarly, H. Con. Res. 121 urging ``the Administration to establish additional mechanisms for the protection of civilians and to ensure consistent and equitable access to humanitarian aid for vulnerable populations'' could be used for similar ends by a future administration. Of course, there are many differences in the Iraq, Libya and Syria conflicts, as well as the military action taken. But if the U.S. learned nothing else in Iraq and Libya, we should have learned that toppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations, in those countries. It is undeniable that in both Iraq and Libya, humanitarian conditions today are far worse than they were before those governments were overthrown, and ISIS and other terrorist organizations are more powerful, causing even more human suffering. If the U.S. is successful in its current effort to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, allowing ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups to take over all of Syria, including the Assad- controlled areas where Christians and other religious minorities remain protected, then the United States will be morally culpable for the genocide that will result. This is exactly what happened when we overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It is what happened in Libya when we overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. To do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome is insanity.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, there were two votes that occurred earlier this week on House Concurrent Resolution 75 and House Concurrent Resolution 121, which deal with very important and complex issues that I would like to talk about this morning. I cosponsored and voted for House Concurrent Resolution 75 because of my grave concern about the genocide occurring against Christians, Alawites, Shiites, Druze, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria. However, I was extremely disappointed by amendment language that was later added to this resolution that provides cover or an excuse for ISIS and other terrorist organizations committing this genocide. Specifically, the language I object to is the following: ``The protracted Syrian civil war and the indiscriminate violence of the Assad regime have contributed to the growth of ISIL and will continue to do so as long as this conflict continues.'' I fully reject this amendment to the resolution because it gives moral legitimacy to the actions of ISIS, al Qaeda, and others who are committing genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria. This amendment is an obvious attempt to make ISIS look like their cause is legitimate. This is absolutely unacceptable and undermines the very heart and intent of this resolution. This is very unfortunate because the problem of the genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in Syria is very serious. In fact, the main area in Syria where Christians and other religious minorities have any protection today from being slaughtered and where they can practice their religious faith without fear of prosecution is in the territory that is still controlled by the Syrian Government of Assad. The reality is that the language added to this resolution, coupled with its sister resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 121, is really aimed at justifying the overthrow of Assad, the result of which would be a complete assault and elimination of Christians and other religious minorities in Syria. The fact that this resolution, which was originally introduced to increase protection for Christians, Yazidis and other religious minorities, has now been hijacked so that it becomes a vehicle to increase the likelihood of an even greater genocide against those religious minorities is an absolute disgrace. The reality is that, if the Assad regime is overthrown tomorrow, every Christian, every Yazidi, and every other religious minority and ethnic minority in Syria will be in even greater danger than ever before from the genocide being perpetrated by ISIS, al Qaeda, and others who are slaughtering them. This resolution is no longer a sincere effort to protect religious minorities. It has instead become a resolution to give more legitimacy to ISIS and al Qaeda's genocidal activities and would bring about an even greater genocide of those religious minorities by eliminating the only area where they now have refuge.

Ms. GABBARD

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week there were a few very important votes that occurred on complex issues that I would like to discuss here today. They were with regards to H. Con. Res. 75 and H. Con. Res. 121, which is the one I will discuss now. Make no mistake. H. Con. Res. 121 is a war bill. It is a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of humanitarianism as a justification for overthrowing the Syrian Government of Assad. Similar resolutions were used in the past to legitimatize the regime- change wars to overthrow the governments of Iraq and Libya. I will have no part of it. I voted ``no'' on H. Con. Res. 121. I voted ``no'' against more unnecessary interventionist regime-change wars. We all know that Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, is a brutal dictator. But this resolution's purpose is not merely to recognize him as such. Rather, it was a call to action. Specifically, it is a call to escalate our war to overthrow the Syrian Government of Assad. For the last 5 years, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others have been working hand in hand in that war to overthrow the Assad Government, supposedly for humanitarian reasons. But I ask: How has this war to overthrow Assad actually helped humanity? Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed. Millions have become homeless refugees. Much of the country's infrastructure has been destroyed. Terrorist organizations like ISIS, al Qaeda, and others have taken over large areas of the country and are engaging in genocide. Now the same people who are behind this war to overthrow Assad want to escalate that war, and this resolution is an attempt to gin up public support for that escalation. This resolution urges the administration to create ``additional mechanisms for the protection of civilians,'' which is really coded language for the creation of a so-called no-fly zone or safe zone. The creation of this no-fly zone or safe zone in Syria would be a major escalation of the war. Doing this would cost billions of dollars, require tens of thousands of ground troops, and a massive U.S. air presence. It won't work. Furthermore, it will likely result in a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. Fortunately, President Obama has thus far opposed implementing such a so-called no-fly zone and has resisted pressure to escalate this war in this way, The fact is that the main areas currently in Syria where Christian, Alawites, Druze, Yazidis, and other religious minorities can practice their faith without fear of persecution are in the Syrian territories where Assad maintains control. Therefore, the overthrow of Assad would worsen the genocidal activities by ISIS and al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations against Christians, Alawites, and other Syrian religious minorities. If the U.S. has learned nothing else from Iraq and Libya, we should have learned that toppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations in those countries. It is undeniable that, in both Iraq and Libya, humanitarian conditions today are far worse than they were before those governments were toppled and ISIS and other terrorist organizations are far more powerful with greater strongholds, causing even more suffering. If the U.S. is successful in its current efforts to overthrow the Syrian Government of Assad, allowing groups like ISIS and al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to take over all of Syria, which is what will happen, including those Assad-controlled areas where Christians and other religious minorities remain protected, the United States will be morally culpable for the genocide that will occur as a result. This is exactly what happened when we overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It is what happened in Libya when we overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. To do the same thing over and over and expect a different result is the definition of insanity. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.