Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just quote the Bureau of Counterterrorism, Mr. Speaker. They say that the rate of foreign terrorist fighter travel to Syria exceeded the rate of foreign terrorist fighters that travel to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, or Somalia at any point in the last 20 years. Individuals drawn to the conflict were diverse in their socioeconomic and geographic backgrounds, highlighting the need for comprehensive countermessaging and early engagement to dissuade vulnerable individuals from traveling to join the conflict. The bill before us today, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 237, is a necessary addition to our national defense. It creates an important deterrent, and it reduces the ability of terrorists to travel. I, again, thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Poe, and the ranking member, Mr. Keating of Massachusetts, and the bipartisan cosponsors of the bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the measure, and I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Smith of New Jersey for bringing this bill up and keeping this atrocity and the lessons that it means for us today in front of this body, and as always, I appreciate Mr. Engel's cooperation in seeing this resolution move to the floor. I appreciate the powerful stories that were shared by Mr. Engel and by Mr. Smith today in terms of what happened on that day 20 years ago this month as Bosnian Serb forces transformed what was supposed to be a U.N. safe haven for refugees into what became an extermination camp. On that July day, 8,000 men and boys were massacred. As they shared with you, Serb forces compiled detailed lists of those targeted for killing. They separated families, and they drove those young Muslim men to various fields where they were summarily executed. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ruled that this act was an act of genocide--and rightly so. We do not know the names of many of these victims, as these killers took extensive measures to cover their crimes. As a result, families have never found their missing relatives, and experts continue to uncover and identify remains at the scenes of these mass killings. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that this tragedy will ``haunt the United Nations forever.'' Although it occurred 20 years ago, this massacre continues to hinder progress towards peace in this troubled region. For while Serbia's President has apologized for crimes committed, he and other Serbian officials still refuse to admit the true extent of the brutality. Mr. Speaker, today's resolution encourages Serbian authorities to publicly acknowledge the genocide that occurred, which would constitute a major step forward in restoring relations with its neighbor. This resolution also reaffirms U.S. policy to oppose mass atrocities in the strongest terms whenever and wherever they occur; but of course, the Srebrenica genocide, along with others in Rwanda, Cambodia, and Darfur, are stark reminders that simply saying ``never again'' will never be enough. Action is needed, and it is demanded as, around the world, violent conflicts threaten to erupt once more into genocidal campaigns. I will name some right now. Ongoing abuses against the Rohingya Muslim population in Burma have caused human rights advocates to sound the alarm over a ``grave risk of additional mass atrocities and even genocide.'' Unable to claim citizenship in Burma or elsewhere and under constant threat of violence, many have called the Rohingya Muslims ``the most persecuted minority in the world,'' leading thousands upon thousands to flee their homes in overloaded boats. That is why I helped lead the effort last Congress to pass H. Res. 418, calling for an end to the persecution of the Rohingya people. In Sri Lanka, anti-Muslim riots broke out last June killing four and injuring dozens more. Acting with impunity under the Rajapaksa government, extremist forces destroyed mosques and Muslim businesses, displacing thousands. Under the Sirisena government, however, we have an opportunity to press for positive change and inclusivity in the newly elected government there in Sri Lanka. Extremist groups are similarly targeting minority communities in Syria, the Central African Republic, and Burundi. While we absolutely must remember past atrocities, we are charged with doing all we can to stop today's violence. I don't want future Congresses having to memorialize atrocities from our era now. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, for introducing this timely and important resolution; and, again, I thank Mr. Engel. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, just last week, this body considered a Defense Appropriations amendment that would have used Congress' constitutional power of the purse to force the AUMF issue, cutting off funding if Congress does not enact an ISIS-specific AUMF within the next year. That proposal failed in this institution. The reality is that Congress has made decisions that amount to, in a practical view, disagreeing with the authors of this resolution. Allowing the President to use current force authorities against ISIS is preferable to refusing to confront the threat ISIS poses to our national security altogether. Now, I will continue to work with Ranking Member Eliot Engel and all of our colleagues to see if we can find a way forward on a revised and updated authorization that is focused on the vicious and growing threat posed by ISIS. That is what we need to be working on together. Merely acting without a credible way forward is foolhardy. It is not brave. A divisive and unsuccessful AUMF process would be perceived by our allies, our partners, and our enemies as a vote of no confidence in the fight against ISIS, resulting in a significant blow to the national security of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who chairs the Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 16, 2015, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 55) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces deployed to Iraq or Syria on or after August 7, 2014, other than Armed Forces required to protect United States diplomatic facilities and personnel, from Iraq and Syria, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to submit statements or extraneous materials for the Record on this measure.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Again, the resolution before us today has nothing to do with an Authorization for Use of Military Force; it is a withdrawal resolution. I don't want to leave some of the oversimplified Authorization for Use of Military Force rhetoric here unaddressed. The real question that the proponents are begging is: What should the United States be doing to combat ISIS? The answer with regard to today's resolution would be nothing and that we should withdraw from combating the ISIS threat. That would be irresponsible and dangerous. I don't disagree that the current state of the legal authorities the President is using against ISIS is less than ideal from our institution's perspective, but that does not equal illegal and unconstitutional. I say this as someone who is deeply concerned about the President's weak and unstrategic response to the ISIS threat. The President has short-circuited this debate by claiming complete authority under prior statutes to use our Armed Forces against ISIS. His administration has made the case that ISIS, which was previously known as al Qaeda in Iraq, ``has been an enemy of the United States within the scope of the 2001 authorization--continuously--since at least 2004.'' He has made the case that ISIS grew out of al Qaeda in Iraq and, in point of fact, that that is where ISIS came from. No AUMF we could draft could give the President more operational authority than he already claims. Indeed, the draft text he sent asks us to constrain the authority that he already has and complicating, by the way, the effort to reach consensus.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I very much appreciate Mr. McGovern for his consistency. Even when we may disagree on substance, I have worked with him on policies with respect to human rights in Africa and, frankly, across the world on many, many issues. I agree that an AUMF would be good, but only the right AUMF. I would make this point: the White House hasn't helped the case to move an AUMF. Indeed, as soon as the President sent up his draft AUMF text to the Congress in February, the White House said he has all the legal authority he needs to conduct these operations, regardless of what the Congress does, undercutting our effort to build a consensus, but we should not give up in terms of our effort to build this consensus. To that end, I intend to continue to work with Mr. Engel and others and craft a bipartisan and successful AUMF that sends a message of unity, that sends a message of resolve. To that end, I would point out that the committee has held seven full committee hearings and nine subcommittee oversight hearings on the ISIS threat. We have discussed the AUMF; we have discussed the U.S. and coalition response, but given the wide range of views, including the view that we have no military business in Iraq, reaching an agreement on a bipartisan AUMF that authorizes the actions needed to defeat ISIS may not be possible, but it may be possible. For that reason, we are going to redouble our effort. There would, though, be a price paid for failure on this floor, signaling disunity. As we work towards the effort to build a consensus, we have passed legislation to directly arm the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga forces who are fighting ISIS on the ground. We have worked to strengthen U.S. defense cooperation with our regional ally Jordan, to help prevent Americans who join and fight for ISIS from returning home to the homeland--we passed that legislation-- and to combat the cultural genocide being perpetrated by ISIS forces. As I say, we will continue to work with our colleagues to try to find a way forward on a revised and updated authorization focused on the vicious and growing threat posed by ISIS, but acting without a credible way forward would be foolhardy, not brave. A divisive and unsuccessful process would be perceived by our allies, our partners, and our enemies as a no-confidence vote in the fight against ISIS, resulting in a significant blow to the national security of this country. For that reason, I would ask Members to contemplate for a moment what the world would look like should ISIS, should our forces, our airstrikes against ISIS, be pulled out of that region because I remember what it looked like when we did not have airstrikes on ISIS before they went into Mosul, and members of our committee, in a bipartisan sense, called for airpower to be used against ISIS on that desert path as they were headed to Mosul. Here is what we saw when they took that city: mass killings, beheadings, abductions, forced conversions, torture, rape, sexual assault, using women and children as human shields, people being burned alive and buried alive, women and girls the age of 13 being taken as captives to be sold as sex slaves and put into forced marriages with ISIS fighters. That is what we witnessed after the fall of that great city. The question I would ask is: If we are to abandon our airstrikes in support of these Kurdish units on that 600-mile front--50,000 of those troops are women fighting against ISIS, and they no longer have U.S. air support to support them in their effort to turn back ISIS--what will become of them? What will become of others? Because this is no longer simply a terrorist organization--it is now a full-blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the Tigris and Euphrates valley in what is now Syria and Iraq and Lebanon and seek to expand that further. We know a lot now about its leader, Abu al-Baghdadi, in Syria. He is a designated global terrorist under U.S. law. His mission, he clearly states, if you want to go online and see the blueprint of ISIS. Part of that is to gain resources and recruits and create a safe haven to attack the United States. Yes, this certainly goes to the direct security interest of the United States if we were to pull off and give a breather to Abu al-Baghdadi and to ISIS. In Iraq, we are taking less than half measures to assist the ISF, the forces there fighting ISIS, with insufficient trainers and advisers, as I said, with no forward air controllers, with insufficient plans to train the Sunni tribes, and insufficient arms to the Kurds and Sunnis, something we are trying to do something about with our legislation. The balance of power in the Middle East is shifting against the U.S. regional interest and certainly against U.S. security. As stated, there are no simple answers or solutions; we discussed this in this debate, but without our involvement--without our involvement--our adversaries will continue to be emboldened, and our friends out of fear are susceptible to poor decisions, while the Middle East region and the world become a more dangerous place. This organization ISIS is simultaneously a strategic threat to the region and to the world and a genocidal terror movement. I recall us saying on the floor of this House, never again with respect to genocidal terror, and we are watching genocidal terror. I would just close with this argument, Mr. Speaker, and that is let's work together to get an Authorization for Use of Military Force, which the President already claims he has under our prior authorization that we gave for him to attack al Qaeda and any al Qaeda affiliate, but let us not pull out our airpower that is being used right now to slow the advance of ISIS as it tries to take over that region and as it attacks civilians throughout the Middle East. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who also served in the U.S. Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan and was one of the earliest voices calling for airstrikes against ISIS.

Mr. ROYCE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a member of the Armed Services and the Veterans' Affairs Committees.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 55. But while I am opposed to this resolution, I do want to commend its author, Mr. McGovern, for his constant and principled attention to the issue of U.S. military engagement in Iraq and Syria and the role of Congress in making this decision. These are some of the most important and challenging issues that we face and that we struggle with as an institution. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts is frustrated. I have listened to him on the floor of the House. In many ways, I share his frustrations. ISIS is making too many gains. Critical cities have fallen. But this resolution, I believe, would take us in the opposite direction of where U.S. policy should be. If the United States were to remove all of our forces from the theater, as this resolution calls for, ISIS would surely grow stronger. ISIS would surely accelerate on a process of decimating all in its path, placing women under brutal oppression and, I have no doubt, further strengthening their position and further threatening our European allies and even the U.S. homeland. More battlefield victories would support ISIS propaganda, which would support its recruitment, which would make it more deadly by the day. Mr. Speaker, no one is eager for this commitment, but ISIS is on the march; and this radical jihadist group is taking more territory, more weapons, and more resources, threatening the government in Baghdad and, indeed, threatening to destabilize this entire critical region. Now, H. Con. Res. 55 calls for the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from the fight against ISIS, halting all U.S. strikes against the terrorist group in Iraq and Syria. It would also leave ISIS unchecked--not only unchecked by U.S. airpower, but it would allow this brutal terrorist group, as I say, to gain strength, to destabilize the critical region, and to create a safe haven from which ISIS can plot attacks against the United States. H. Con. Res. 55 has nothing to do with authorizing the use of military force against ISIS but would unilaterally withdraw U.S. forces from the fight. Last year, debating another Iraq measure offered by Mr. McGovern, I said: ``Never has a terrorist organization itself controlled such a large, resource-rich safe haven as ISIS does today. Never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, the personnel that ISIS does today, which includes thousands of Western passport holders.'' Well, unfortunately, it is worse today. Just weeks ago, Ramadi, a city only 75 miles from Iraq's capital, was overrun by ISIS and by its suicide bombers who led that first wave. ISIS's goals are very clear: wreck every person opposing it, establish a caliphate, and then fight to expand it. ISIS has unleashed a campaign of brutal and depraved violence, not only against Shia Muslims and fellow Sunnis who do not share their radical beliefs, but against vulnerable religious and ethnic minorities. As one witnessed testified to the Foreign Affairs Committee the other day: ``We cherish ethnic and religious diversity. ISIS hates it.'' And they hate in some of the most brutal ways possible. Mr. Speaker, many Americans may not realize that Iraq and Syria are home to dozens of ethnic and religious minorities, with ancient cultures with very deep roots. These communities--Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, Yazidis, Alawites, and many others--are under mortal threat in their ancestral homelands. The mass execution of men, the enslavement of women and young girls as concubines, and the destruction of religious sites is part of the ISIS effort to destroy these communities. Their plan is to make it as if those societies never existed, those religions in that area never existed. In fact, ISIS maintains a special battalion--they call it the ``demolition battalion''--charged with obliterating religious and historic sites and artifacts that it considers heretical. And ISIS has used the ``virtual caliphate'' on the Internet to recruit foreign fighters at an unprecedented rate. Some 20,000 of their fighters are, in fact, from offshore, are foreign fighters drawn to the area from some 90 countries. Those are the numbers that now are swelling its ranks. According to intelligence estimates, this includes at least 150 Americans that we know of. Yet over the last 10 or so months, the administration has put forth a reluctant and half-hearted and ineffective effort to assist our partners there on the ground. I think we all recognize that this is up to the Iraqi Government to fight to win this. We understand that. They are in the lead. But they desperately need help. And I am not prepared to say that we shouldn't be providing any military support to the Kurds strung along a 180-mile, or several hundred mile, front, with 180,000 soldiers. Thirty percent of those Kurdish soldiers are female. And those young women are down there with small arms trying to hold off ISIS fighters along that line. I am not prepared to say that we should not be providing any military support for those Kurds or for the Iraqi forces and any air support whatsoever. That is what this resolution does. It didn't have to be this dire. Well over a year ago, when ISIS was building its force in the desert in Syria, it wasn't bombed and devastated when it could have been. It should have been. Many called for an effort at that point to have an air campaign by the U.S. and our partners to pummel ISIS as it moved across the desert in these long columns and begin the process to take city after city. It came out of Syria. First it headed to Fallujah, and there was a call to use air power to suppress and use ISIS then. That step was not taken. And for 14 separate cities, city after city, all the way to Mosul, we watched every time the request be made for air power, and that was turned down. Well, we are where we are now. And, frankly, the air campaign by the U.S. and our partners isn't pummeling the enemy now, as it should. Daily airstrikes against the Islamic State are one-sixth of what they were in the first campaign against the Taliban back in 2001. U.S. Special Forces should be authorized to call in airstrikes. Most Americans would be puzzled to learn that Canadian Special Forces are doing this, but we are not. Pilots complain of having their hands tied. It has been estimated that three-quarters of U.S. aircraft return to base without discharging their weapons because of overly restrictive rules of engagement that don't allow them to engage ISIS. As one observer notes, with just ``piecemeal attacks, the Obama administration has been systematically squandering our air power advantage.'' I think that is right. Adding to the problem, the regional forces on the ground that these airstrikes are supposed to be supporting are badly undersupplied. After 10 months of fighting, there are still too many reports that the Kurdish Peshmerga, our allies, are outgunned on the front lines against ISIS. I have met with their foreign minister three times now as he has made this case. Again, 30 percent of his battalions, Kurdish battalions, are female battalions, and they can't obtain the antitank weapons, the artillery, the mortars to use against ISIS in this battle. While U.S. forces have been training some Iraqis, that has been done way behind the front lines. Rather than pairing up with smaller units and deploying with them to push them to the front--and that is, by the way, a technique that has proven effective in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past--this has not been done. U.S. advisers are unable to bolster Iraqi units when they come under attack or to call in airstrikes by U.S. planes. We don't have the capacity to do that. And that limitation tragically helped Ramadi fall. Mr. Speaker, our friends and allies and partners in this region of the world are in serious trouble from the threat of ISIS. They need our help. Employing our air power like we should, getting those weapons to the front lines that are needed by the Kurds, putting more U.S. Special Forces into place, would help turn this around. But that is not at all what this measure calls for. As I say, it is quite the opposite. It calls for the President to remove United States Armed Forces deployed to Iraq or Syria on August 7 or after. The Foreign Affairs Committee has held many hearings on ISIS and instability in the region. We haven't heard any witnesses make the case that complete withdrawal is what is needed. What would happen to Iraq, what would happen to Jordan, what would happen to civilians in the theater? I think we can all agree that situation would compound. This is the question in front of us today: Do we pull the modest number of our modest presence out of this theater and see ISIS run wild across the Iraqi desert with no help from the United States? I don't think so. There is no military-only answer to the ISIS challenge. The Iraqi Government must do far more to reconcile with Sunnis, building confidence and empowering them to take on ISIS. ISIS must be attacked financially, and its propaganda must be relentlessly challenged. And Arab leaders need to lead. But just as there is no military-only answer, there is no answer without a military component of helping the Kurds and helping those who are fighting ISIS. And, right now, the U.S. role, as much as we may regret it, is needed desperately. Mr. Speaker, in the national security interest of the United States, I ask all Members to oppose H. Con. Res. 55. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. ROYCE

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I have made clear before, I have serious reservations about the direction of our negotiations with Iran, and this is based in no small part on its treatment of the four Americans we are speaking about today and what that predicts going forward. Let's not forget, this is a regime--and we can turn on the set and watch their rallies--where regularly the chant ``death to America'' is used to rouse the most fervent supporters of the Supreme Leader. This is a regime that has killed its own citizens outright or convicted and imprisoned them based on confessions obtained by torture. This is a regime that takes U.S. citizens into captivity, tortures them, and then denies them medical treatment, denies them basic legal representation, denies them due process. Last month, just prior to Jason's so-called trial, Washington Post editor Martin Baron issued a compelling statement, and I will read part of it: ``It's worth recalling what kind of system we're dealing with. Jason was arrested without charges. He was imprisoned in Iran's worst prison. He was placed in isolation for many months and denied medical care he needed. His case was assigned to a judge internationally notorious for human rights violations. He could not select the lawyer of his choosing. He was given only an hour and a half to meet with a lawyer approved by the court. No evidence has ever been produced by prosecutors or the court to support these absurd charges. The trial date was only disclosed to Jason's lawyer last week. And now, unsurprisingly but unforgivably, it turns out the trial will be closed.'' Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow ourselves to lose sight of these facts. Faced with this, those making the case that Iran will be transparent with the international community on inspections that will be part of any nuclear deal seem to be thinking about the Iran they want, not the one in actuality, the one that is brutalizing Americans. Nuclear deal or not, these Americans deserve to be back with their families today. I urge all Members to support this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 233) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Iran should immediately release the three United States citizens that it holds, as well as provide all known information on any United States citizens that have disappeared within its borders.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Engel has shared with you that the government in Iran refuses to recognize the U.S. nationality for Jason Rezaian. Jason was born in California. He was born a U.S. citizen here in the United States, raised in California; and their position is that, no, he is an Iranian citizen. He was over there to see his grandmother. No, he was over there reporting because he wanted to get an opportunity for greater understanding of the citizens in Iran. The fact that we allow a situation like this to stand, when American citizens are being held like this and subjected to show trials, is appalling. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, and a longtime critic of the human rights abuses that have occurred in Iran.