Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues of the ongoing genocide in Darfur, which began in 2003 and continues unabated. During that time more than 300,000 Darfuris have been murdered, countless numbers of women and children as young as 6 years of age have been brutally raped. Millions have been left homeless. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Bashir for crimes against humanity and, in July 2010, issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of genocide. The government of Sudan, however, has yet to turn him over, and since the issuance of the warrants, the country has seen increased violence. Furthermore, the government's forceful expulsion of humanitarian aid agencies from the country has further jeopardized conditions for many more thousands of displaced and marginalized civilians. Days, weeks, months, years pass and the people of Darfur are not closer to security, a just peace, or adequate humanitarian relief. The international community must do much more to help the people of Darfur.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we remember why we are here today. We are here today not because of the majority's commitment to the rule of law, but because of politics. We are here because the Republican leadership of this House is trying desperately to placate the far rightwing of their base. They are trying to placate a vocal and organized faction that refuses to accept the fact that the American people elected Barack Obama twice as President of the United States. They are birthers and Tea Partiers and minutemen militia members and supporters of nullification, but here is the problem: they will never, ever, ever be satisfied. Listen to this finding from a poll taken just this month: 41 percent of Republicans surveyed believe that President Obama is not really an American citizen. That is percent. That is the base of the modern-day Republican Party, and it is ugly. If you are really concerned about the balance of power between the executive branch and the Congress, there are ways to address it. Just last week, I worked with the Republican and Democratic leadership of the House and of the Foreign Affairs Committee to reaffirm the proper role of Congress in matters of war and peace. I brought a resolution to the floor under the rules of the House, and it passed by a vote of 370-40. That is the way we should do our work around here, not this nonsense about lawsuits. It is the same with the Affordable Care Act. I know my Republican friends are devastated that the bill they hate so much is actually working. Millions of people who didn't have health insurance are now covered. Millions of people can now get preventive care. Millions of young adults can now stay on their family's insurance plan. Being a woman is no longer considered a preexisting condition. Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against the sick, and as we learned just yesterday, the Affordable Care Act has already helped to extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by 4 years. The entire Republican majority in this House was built on opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and yet it stands. The fact that it stands makes the Republican leadership do desperate and irrational things. It makes them vote to repeal the ACA over 50 times. It makes them decide it is somehow a great idea to sue the President for the way he is implementing the law. It saddens me to see how low a once great party--the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt--has sunk. Instead of addressing the real and pressing needs of our country--passing an immigration reform bill, raising the minimum wage, passing a long-term highway bill--they have been reduced to government shutdowns and lawsuits and partisan stunts and gimmicks. This is show business at its worst. Enough of this stupidity. I say to my Republican friends: Do your job, do the people's work, this is shameful.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Paulette Brooks, of Holden, Massachusetts, who passed away suddenly on July 24th, and to offer my sincere condolences to her family, friends and colleagues. Ms. Brooks was a devoted civil servant at the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman. Her untimely death leaves a great loss in the Department and in the world of immigration expertise. Her legacy is one of tireless, innovative and distinctive service to thousands of American citizens, their families and immigrants that include the most vulnerable among us. Ms. Brooks completed law school after raising a family while a widow. She then offered pro bono legal services in her community and rose to serve the CIS Ombudsman with distinction in customer service excellence and legal acumen. She served as an expert in Child Status Protection Act matters, Violence Against Women Act protection cases and in assisting members of the military with immigration or naturalization matters impacting the soldier or his or her family. Ms. Brooks also wrote definitive recommendations for the Department that will serve a wide range of stakeholders for years to come. On volunteer time, she led federal workplace charitable initiatives such as Feds Feed Families and the Combined Federal Campaign. She garnered the President's Award for exceeding Departmental fundraising goals with her infectious enthusiasm and innovation in inspiring others to participate in and enjoy giving. In addition, she served numerous charities in the New England region. Her colleagues at DHS will remember her love of service and learning; her passion for public service; and her integrity, good humor, justice, common sense, transparency and excellence in all she did. I know my colleagues in the House join me in celebrating the life of Paulette Brooks and offering our deepest sympathies to those who knew and loved her.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work of Los Angeles Kings Head Trainer Chris Kingsley, a native of Greenfield, Massachusetts. I would like to congratulate Mr. Kingsley's contribution to the Kings' recent Stanley Cup win, and recognize his fundraising efforts on behalf of the Franklin County Hockey Association. For over 40 years, the Franklin County Hockey Association has contributed to the development of our youth through the game of hockey. The FCHA provides young people with the opportunity to have fun while learning the basic skills of ice skating and how to play hockey. As a team sport, hockey affirms the importance of commitment, self- discipline, and sportsmanship. This helps young people develop skills and values they can carry with them for the rest of their lives. My district is so fortunate that Mr. Kingsley has used his success in the game of hockey to help the sport in the community where he grew up. On behalf of the people of Franklin County, I congratulate Chris Kingsley for another championship season with the Los Angeles Kings and thank him for his continued support of the Franklin County Hockey Association.

Mr. McGOVERN

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, 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.

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 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. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

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.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. 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, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago, Representatives Barbara Lee, Chris Gibson, Richard Hudson, and I hosted a Poverty Simulation for Members of Congress and their staffs here on Capitol Hill. Run by Entergy and Catholic Charities USA, this poverty simulation provided a way for policymakers and their staffs to experience poverty in a new and different way. This simulation allowed participants to experience firsthand what it is like to be poor in America. Far too often, we talk about poverty, but we don't understand it. Being poor is hard work. It is hard to figure out how to stretch your food dollar and get from home to school to work with limited transportation, for example, when you are poor and are living on a limited income. This simulation is one step in understanding how we end hunger and poverty. We can't begin this fight if we can't come together as Republicans and Democrats, and simulations like this could prove to be the way we all start working together on this common goal.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article by Judge Mark L. Wolf in the July 23rd Washington Post. Entitled ``Ending Global Corruption,'' the article describes the adverse effect that grand corruption by high officials has not just on matters of governance, but on the basic human rights of a nation's citizens Judge Wolf proposes establishing an international court on corruption as a possible solution. This is a proposal that merits our close attention and investigation. We must find better means to address massive corruption, and the impunity and human rights abuses required to sustain it. I submit the article in its entirety. Ending Global Corruption (By Mark L. Wolf) It was hard to miss Daria at the World Forum on Governance in Prague in April. The 28-year-old lawyer and mother from Kiev was wearing a ``Ukraine: [expletive] Corruption'' T- shirt. Such a frank message was understandable. Indignation at ``grand corruption''--the abuse of public office for personal profit by a nation's leaders--inspired Daria and many others to risk their lives in the Maidan protests that toppled President Viktor Yanukovych in February. In too many nations, corruption is endemic at the highest levels of government. Then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was correct in characterizing such behavior as an ``insidious plague'' in his 2003 statement upon the adoption of the U.N. Convention Against Corruption. Corruption is extraordinarily costly, consuming more than 5 percent of the global gross domestic product. Developing regions lose more than 10 times in illicit financial flows than what they receive in foreign aid. Russia's corruption- fueled ``shadow economy'' makes up an estimated 44 percent of its GDP. Corrupt governments also often provide havens for international criminals, including drug lords in Mexico and terrorists in countries such as Afghanistan and Yemen. Nevertheless, the most serious consequence of grand corruption is that it destroys democracy and devastates the human rights that governments are constituted to protect. Countries recognized as among the world's most corrupt-- including Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Syria-- repeatedly violate the human rights of their citizens. The poor and powerless are victims of corrupt regimes throughout the world. As Ukraine and Egypt exemplify, opposition to grand corruption is destabilizing many countries and, indeed, the world. International efforts to combat grand corruption have obviously been inadequate. Similar circumstances concerning the evils of genocide and other intolerable human rights abuses led to the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. An International Anti-Corruption Court (IACC) is now equally necessary. Grand corruption depends on the culture of impunity that exists in many nations. An IACC would provide an alternative and effective forum for the enforcement of the laws criminalizing grand corruption that exist in virtually every country, while giving force to the requirements of treaties such as the U.N. Convention Against Corruption and the obligations of organizations such as the World Trade Organization. Like the ICC, an IACC would operate on the principle of complementarity, meaning that only officials from those countries unable or unwilling to prosecute grand corruption properly would be subject to prosecution. This would give many nations a significant incentive to strengthen and demonstrate their capacity to combat grand corruption. An IACC would be comparable to the approach that has served the United States well. In the United States, we do not depend on elected state prosecutors to address corruption by state and local officials because such prosecutors are often part of the political establishment they would be called upon to police and, in any event, generally lack the necessary legal authority and resources. Instead, we rely primarily on federal investigators, prosecutors and courts to deal with corrupt state and local officials. Similarly, an IACC would employ an elite corps of investigators expert at unraveling complex financial transactions and prosecutors experienced in preparing and presenting complicated cases. It would also include experienced, impartial international judges. The IACC's impact would be enhanced if, like federal courts in the United States, it were also empowered to hear civil fraud and corruption cases. An international ``whistleblower'' statute enforceable at the IACC would increase the resources that would be devoted to combating fraud and corruption and enhance the potential for restitution for victims. Notably, an IACC should have strong support from the United States. U.S. companies generally behave ethically and, in addition, are significantly deterred from paying bribes by the threat of prosecution for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. They would benefit from the more level playing field an IACC would create. Finally, an IACC would provide the potential for more effective prosecution and punishment of corrupt officials who commonly abuse human rights. Fraud, corruption and associated money laundering can often be proved based on documentary evidence, which is easier to acquire than eyewitness testimony of victims of human rights abuses, who are unlikely to have knowledge of the criminal responsibility of their nation's leaders. There are practical impediments to establishing an International Anti-Corruption Court and principled concerns to be addressed. But the status quo is intolerable. An IACC could erode the widespread culture of impunity, contribute to creating conditions conducive to the democratic election of honest officials in countries with a history of grand corruption and honor the courageous efforts of the many people, like Daria, who are exposing and opposing corruption at great personal peril.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Jones, Ms. Lee, and I have come to this floor because we are worried. We are worried because we have lived through the last many years of war and we have seen how things have gotten out of control. I remember when the war in Iraq began. Then-Vice President Cheney was on all the news shows saying that it will be over in a few weeks or few months. No big deal. Don't worry. That was in addition to being told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which we all know now was a lie. But the fact of the matter is all those rosy predictions did not come true. We were involved in Iraq for many, many years, and there was a high cost in terms of blood and treasure. Afghanistan, we were told that it would not be an endless conflict, and here we are today still involved in Afghanistan--the longest war in American history. I hope that history doesn't repeat itself, and I know President Obama does not want history to repeat itself. I know he deeply wants to find a political solution. I know he does not want to see more troops be involved in the Iraqi civil war, but the fact of the matter is none of us know what is going to happen. In a couple of weeks, this Congress will adjourn for several weeks of our summer break, and then we come back for only a couple more weeks and we adjourn again for many more weeks for the campaigns. I don't want to come back to a situation and have to react to a situation that is engulfed in an all-out mess, quite frankly. I think we ought to be debating these issues now. We ought to be debating these issues with open eyes. We ought to have a transparent system, and we ought to live up to our constitutional responsibilities. What happens when there are the first American casualties in Iraq? What happens? What is the reaction? Some say maybe we don't have to send military troops; maybe we will just bomb them. We will send drones. We will send missiles. As military expert Micah Zenko tweeted: Unless the U.S. has bombs that can install wisdom and leadership into Prime Minister Maliki, air strikes in Iraq would be pointless. And imagine the civilian casualties that would be associated with that.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, that is not what the Vice President or the Secretary of State or the head of the National Security Council or the President of the United States were talking about. He knows that. What was presented to us was not truthful. It was not truthful. We were deceived. The Vice President of the United States said the war was only going to last a couple of months. He said that on TV, on news shows. That was a lie. It was a lie, and I am sick and tired of being lied to. One of the lessons that I think we should have learned from our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we need to ask the tough questions before we get involved--not in the midst of a conflict, not later on in the conflict. We have a responsibility. Read the Constitution of the United States. The notion that the President of the United States--and, again, I don't believe he wants to get involved in a lengthy, unlimited, endless war in Iraq. But there is the notion that we are ramping up the number of troops, and those in Congress here are saying nothing. The leadership in this Congress says nothing. There is no authorization. I guess it is easy to sit back as an elected official and not have to vote years from now. It is a lot easier. You don't have to take responsibility. If things go well, you can say, ``Hey, that was a good idea.'' If things don't go well, ``Gee, I would have been opposed to that.'' But we are not doing our job here. We are not even paying for these wars. To my friends on the Republican side who complain about debt, where is the outrage on the fact that we don't even pay for these wars? I can't quite understand why people approach war in this Chamber with such indifference. My colleague Mr. Jones and I tried to bring an amendment to the floor, as I said earlier, to debate whether we should stay in Afghanistan longer. We were not even allowed a vote. The amendment we offered was germane, was relevant, and the leadership of this House said you can't even debate or vote this. The defense bill. We are at war. What can be more important than debating whether we should be involved in this war? So this is the time. What Mr. Jones and Ms. Lee and I are saying is that this is the time to debate this, before the first soldier comes home in a body bag. The major proponents of a new war in Iraq are those who disastrously got us involved in the first place; people like Dick Cheney and John Bolton, Senator McCain and Senator Graham. We were deceived, and we should never let that happen again. We should never let that happen again. We should demand the truth. Congress should carry out its constitutional responsibilities and vote on whether or not to get militarily involved in Iraq again. That is what this privileged resolution that Mr. Jones, Ms. Lee, and I have suggested that we vote on. I don't know why that is such a controversial issue, but for some reason in this Congress big issues like that don't ever seem to make their way for debate on the House floor. This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue. In fact, there are Democrats who disagree with my position. There are some Democrats who believe we ought to continue to send more military aid and potentially more troops to Iraq, and there are Republicans who agree with me that we ought not to. So this is a bipartisan concern. I will close by simply saying to the Speaker of the House: Give us a vote. Let us debate this issue. To my fellow Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle: Live up to your constitutional responsibility. Demand a vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President of the United States, the President of the United States, and the Secretary of State came to Congress and told us there were weapons of mass destruction, implied there were nuclear weapons of mass destruction. And the deal was, it was a lie. 4,500 Americans died; 5,000 Iraqis died. We need to pay for the war. We didn't pay for the war. The brave men and women who served our country paid, their families paid, and the rest of us were asked to do nothing. What I am suggesting to everybody in this Chamber now, whether you want to go back into Iraq or not, that is almost beside the point for the purpose of this debate. The issue is we ought to do our job in Congress. We have a constitutional responsibility that we seem to waive, that we seem to ignore. We are bombing in Pakistan. We are bombing in Yemen. We had a military incursion in Libya. None of that was authorized by Congress. We are relying on these vague AUMFs that were negotiated over a decade ago to justify more military involvements in different parts of the world. What is wrong with debating these issues?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think the President did the right thing to inform Congress because I believe that our troops have been introduced into a situation in Iraq where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. In fact, more simply put, if Iraq wasn't engaged in hostilities in a moment of crisis, we wouldn't have sent troops over there. This is why last Friday, on June 11, my good friends and colleagues, Representatives Walter Jones of North Carolina and Barbara Lee of California, introduced a privileged resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 105, to direct the President to remove U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days, or no later than the end of this year, except for those troops needed to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel. We did this for a simple reason. Congress has the responsibility to authorize the introduction of American troops where hostilities are imminent. In less than 3 weeks, in three separate deployments, the U.S. has sent at least 775 additional troops to Iraq. We don't know what might happen next to those troops or to yet another deployment of additional troops, but we do know that Congress should debate it. We do know that Congress should vote on whether to authorize it or not. That is what the Constitution of the United States demands of Congress. That is what the Constitution demands of us. Now is the time for Congress to debate the merits of our military involvement in this latest Iraq conflict--openly, transparently. Do we approve of these deployments and any future escalation? If so, we should vote to authorize it. If we do not support it, then we should bring our troops back home. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker. Congress has the responsibility to act on Iraq now. Mr. Speaker, we did not introduce this privileged resolution lightly. By doing so, we started a process to hold a debate on our engagement in Iraq in the coming days, using the special procedures outlined under the War Powers Resolution. While this is an imperfect tool, it requires the House to take up this bill after 15 calendar days. Like most of my colleagues, I would prefer for this House to bring up a bill authorizing our engagement in Iraq, and nothing in this resolution inhibits such important legislation from being drafted and brought before the House for a clean up-or-down vote. Frankly, I wish that were happening, but I have not heard that such an authorization is even under discussion, let alone being prepared for debate. I regret to say that I only hear how we can avoid having such a debate. So my colleagues--Mr. Jones and Ms. Lee and myself--we introduced this concurrent resolution because we strongly believe that Congress has to step up to the plate and carry out its responsibilities when our servicemen and -women are once again being sent into harm's way. The time for debate is now, not when the first body bag comes home from Iraq, not when the first U.S. airstrikes or bombs fall on Iraq, not when we are embedded with Iraqi troops trying to back an ISIL-held town, and worst-case scenario, not when our troops are shooting their way out of an overtaken Baghdad. Now, Mr. Speaker, is the time to debate our new engagement in Iraq-- before the heat of the moment--when we can weigh the pros and cons of supporting the Maliki government or whatever government is cobbled together should Maliki be forced to step down--now, before we are forced to take sides in a religious and sectarian war; now, before the next addition of more troops takes place--make no mistake, I firmly believe we will continue to send more troops and more military assets into this crisis--now, Mr. Speaker, before we are forced to fire our first shots, launch our first missiles, or drop our first bombs. Now, Mr. Speaker, is when the House should debate and vote on this very serious matter. For those who say it is too early, too premature for this debate, I respectfully disagree. The administration has tacitly signaled when it notified Congress that our troops have been sent to a place where the threat of hostilities is imminent. The longer we put off carrying out our constitutional responsibilities, the easier it becomes to just drift along, and this is what Congress has done over and over. We just kind of drift along, and it has to end. It has to end, Mr. Speaker. Congress must speak. Congress must act. This resolution, should it pass, would direct the President to bring our troops home from Iraq within 30 days--or should the President determine that such a rapid withdrawal would pose a security question, then no later than by the end of the year, nearly 6 months from now. It would not require those troops that have been deployed to safeguard the security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel from withdrawing. They could remain and carry out their crucial roles of protecting our civilian personnel on the ground in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we need to take up this resolution. We need to debate our military engagement in this latest war in Iraq. We need to have a clean up-or-down vote, whether we stay in Iraq or whether we bring our troops home. We owe that much to our troops and their families. We owe that much to the American people, and we owe at least that much to our own democracy and democratic institutions that require Congress to be the final arbiter on whether our troops are sent into hostilities abroad. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield to the conscience of this Congress on issues of war, a man I have great admiration for, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I believe President Obama has done the right thing to send U.S. forces to Iraq to increase the security and help protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel. So far, he has sent two contingents--the first of 275 military troops on June 15 and a second deployment of 200 additional troops on June 30. With respect to the second deployment, he noted that they would also be used to reinforce the security of the Baghdad International Airport. They would consist of additional security forces; rotary wing aircraft; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support. The President specifically noted that they are equipped for combat. In between these two deployments, the President announced on June 19 and notified Congress on June 26 that he was sending 300 military troops to train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces and to establish joint operations centers with Iraqi security forces, so we could share intelligence and coordinate plans on how to confront the threat of ISIL. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this deployment concerns me deeply. In each of these three deployments, the President has rightly formally informed Congress consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The only reason a President has to inform Congress about such overseas deployments--the only time it applies is when the President--and I am quoting now from the War Powers Resolution--has introduced ``United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask to include for the Record the three notifications the President has sent to Congress on deployments of troops to Iraq. The White House Office of the Press Secretary [For Immediate Release--June 16, 2014]

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent words and for her leadership on this issue in particular. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here with my colleagues, Congresswoman Lee and Congressman Jones, to talk about I think an issue that deserves a lot more discussion than it is getting. We need to take a look at the recent return of the U.S. military to Iraq. Iraq is a complicated country with a long history of ethnic and religious divisions. It is now facing a crisis of governance and a crisis of invasion by extremist militant forces. Sadly for Iraq, the two are closely intertwined. In large measure, Iraq is falling apart because of its sectarian government currently led by Prime Minister Maliki that excludes and represses most Sunnis, Kurds, and other ethnic and religious minorities; and an army that thinks more about saving its own skin than protecting the Iraqi people. This is what has laid the foundation for extremist forces, namely ISIL, to enter Iraq and take control of disaffected communities and territory. I do not believe we can fix this. Only the Iraqi people can fix this. And I certainly don't believe our brave and stalwart military men and women can fix this. I believe that we should never have invaded Iraq. I also believe it is foolish to once again commit U.S. troops to try and save an Iraqi Government and army that cannot stand on their own. As Joseph Cirincione wrote last month in ``Defense One'' magazine: This debacle was predictable. In fact, it was predicted by dozens of analysts who knew a great deal more about Iraq than those who cheerleaded the invasion in Iraq in 2002 and 2003. This is not to say ``we told you so'' but to warn that the desperate, quick fixes now being offered are false hopes. The hard truth is that there is little we can do to save the corrupt, incompetent government we installed in Iraq. If 10 years, millions of hours of work, and hundreds of billions of dollars could not build a regime that can survive, it is difficult to imagine any fix that can. Those seeking to blame the Obama administration for the collapse are engaged in a cynical game. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the entire Defense One article. [From Defense One, June 12, 2014] Don't Be Sucked Into War With Iraq, Again (By Joseph Cirincione) We never should have invaded Iraq. It would be folly to recommit United States forces to save an artificial Iraqi government and army that cannot stand on its own. Ten years ago, U.S. forces battled Sunni insurgents in the very same cities that are falling to anti-government fighters today. Hundreds of American lives were lost in the 2004 battles for Mosul, Fallujah, Karbala, Ramadi, Tikrit, Najaf and Samarra. The U.S. spent tens of billions of dollars to train and equip an Iraqi army that was supposed to protect the government we formed to replace the deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein. This week, that army collapsed. In Mosul, The Guardian reports, ``two divisions of Iraqi soldiers--roughly 30,000 men--simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters.'' In other cities, Iraqi troops simply handed over their American-supplied uniforms, guns and armored fighting vehicles to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, fighters, then scattered. ISIS has seized more than $450 million from the banks in these cities, making it perhaps the richest and best equipped insurgent group in the world. This debacle was predictable. In fact, it was predicted by dozens of analysts who knew a great deal more about Iraq than those who cheerleaded the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003. The very first sentence of Tom Ricks' 2006 masterpiece, Fiasco, warns, ``President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 ultimately may come to be seen as one of the most profligate actions in the history of American foreign policy. The consequences won't be clear for decades.'' Well, they are becoming much clearer now. Ricks' concludes his book--which should be read by anyone searching for a solution to the current debacle--with this: ``So while there is a small chance that the Bush administration's inflexible optimism will be rewarded, that the political process will undercut the insurgency and that democracy will take hold in Iraq, there is a far greater chance of other, more troublesome outcomes: That Iraq will fall into civil war, or spark regional war, or eventually become home to an anti-American regime, or break up altogether. In any of these forms it would offer a new haven for terrorists.'' He was not alone. I wrote, with my colleagues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, an anatomy of the false intelligence supplied to justify the war: ``It was almost inevitable that a U.S. victory would add to the sense of cultural, ethnic, and religious humiliation that is known to be a prime motivator of al Qaeda-type terrorists. It was widely predicted by experts beforehand that the war would boost recruitment to this network and deepen anti- Americanism in a region already deeply antagonistic to the United States and suspicious of its motives. Although this may not be the ultimate outcome, the latter has so far been a clear cost of the war. And while a successful war would definitely eliminate a ``rogue'' state, it might--and may-- also create a new ``failed'' state: one that cannot control its borders, provide internal security, or deliver basic services to its people. Arguably, such failed states--like Afghanistan, Sudan, and others--pose the greatest risk in the long struggle against terror.'' This is not to say, ``We told you so,'' but to warn that the desperate, quick fixes now being offered are false hopes. The hard truth is that there is little we can do to save the corrupt, incompetent government we installed in Iraq. If 10 years, millions of hours of work and hundreds of billions of dollars could not build a regime that can survive, it is difficult to imagine any fix that can. Those seeking to blame the Obama administration for the collapse are engaged in a cynical game. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., played the game well in his speech at the Center for New American Security conference, in Washington on Wednesday. He blamed the chaos in Iraq on the failure of the Obama administration to negotiate a status of forces agreement, pulling the troops out too soon and for not intervening in Syria. In other words, for failing to double down on the military policy that created the mess in the first place. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., goes even further, calling on the entire Obama administration national security team to resign. McCain went ``roaring onto the Senate floor'' on Thursday, claiming ``Could all this have been avoided? . . . The answer is absolutely yes.'' Part of this is the normal partisan attack on Obama. His political opponents squeeze everything he does into their preferred frame: he is weak, naive, dangerous, doesn't really care about American security, may not even be an American. Part of it, however, is the way Washington looks at national security issues: focused on the immediate, ignoring or twisting history. So, the Iraq debacle is something that has happened only now, with perhaps one or two years of prelude. The policy fix should address what can be done today, looking forward a year or two. There must be an immediate solution: bomb, invade, supply, sanction. The so- called ``defense Democrats'' jump in, too, wanting to prove their toughness by advocating one or another military solution. The Washington Post, which played a key role in convincing policy makers to go to war with Iraq, picks up the pro-war line of attack in its editorial: ``For years, President Obama has been claiming credit for ``ending wars,'' when, in fact, he was pulling the United States out of wars that were far from over. Now the pretense is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.'' In other words, the problem is not that we started the war, it is that we never should have ended it. None of these critics have the slightest self-awareness. None take responsibility for their previous policy pronouncements. It's like the driver of a car that has plowed into a crowd of pedestrians blaming the emergency medical technicians for not saving the lives of those injured. Nor do the defense Democrats want to go back to this debate, preferring to be seen as positive and forward- looking. They want to talk about robotics or new paradigms. They want to get away from any hint that they once were against the war, or hide their own shame that they were once for it. I understand. But we have to go over this again. The American public long ago decided that the Iraq War was a mistake, that Iraq is not worth fighting for. It is the Washington elite that doesn't seem to have made up their minds. It is the Obama administration that, after being blasted by Republicans for always ``blaming Bush'' whenever they talked about the multiple crises they inherited, stopped drawing the lines from the failed policies of the past to the current dilemmas. Well, it is time to draw the lines again. It is vital that we not be bullied into squandering more resources into a futile effort. We cannot let politics and ideology and short- term thinking again trick the nation into making a bad situation worse. There is not a quick fix to this problem. The hard truth is that, like the collapse of the Diem government in South Vietnam a generation ago, there is little we can do to prop up this government. As military expert Micha Zenko tweeted, ``Unless the US has bombs that can install wisdom and leadership into PM Maliki, airstrikes in Iraq would be pointless.'' We may have to revisit then-Senator Joe Biden's strategy from 2006 that the only way to stop the killing and salvage the situation was to scrap Iraq's artificially- imposed boundaries and partition the country into three ethnic regions. Gen. Colin Powell famously invoked the ``Pottery Barn rule'' about Iraq, but he got it slightly wrong. It is not, ``You broke it; you own it,'' but ``You broke it; you pay for it.'' We broke Iraq. We paid a huge price in lives, treasure and legitimacy. It is time to stop paying.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying the obvious. We are living in a chaotic and dangerous world. But contrary to what some in this Chamber suggest, the solution to every problem is not expanding the U.S. military footprint. There are many of us who are deeply concerned about our renewed military involvement in Iraq. We believe we need a debate. We believe we need a vote. We believe the Congress ought to live up to its constitutional responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by a couple of my colleagues here today who share those concerns and who want to express their beliefs about how we should proceed on this issue. I would like to first yield to my colleague from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who has been a leader on these issues. I yield her as much time as she may consume.