Prohibiting the President from deploying or maintaining United States Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific, subsequent statutory authorization.

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.

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. 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. 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).

I look forward to a continued exchange on this issue with my colleague. I want to thank him for

his passion on this issue and for reminding not only our colleagues, but the American people that there are really consequences to war.

One of the things that has frustrated me is that, for too long, we have avoided talking about the wars in this Congress, not just Iraq, but also Afghanistan.

My colleague, Mr. Jones, and I had an amendment to the defense authorization bill a few weeks back, which said that President Obama had mentioned a couple of years ago that we would be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Clearly, that is not going to be the case.

The amendment said that the President had to notify Congress of what our military plans were going to be in Afghanistan and that Congress should consider that and vote up or down on whether we should continue our military involvement in Afghanistan.

That is hardly a radical bill. It is simply a bill that says: Congress do your job, you have an obligation--a constitutional obligation when it comes to war.

This amendment, which was germane, it was in order--on the defense bill, no less--at the last minute, we were told we could not offer it, it would not be made in order because the leadership of this House didn't want that debate, they were afraid it might pass.

Well, that is the way democracy is supposed to work. If a majority in this place does not want to continue an endless war in Afghanistan or does not want to start another war in Iraq, then that ought to mean something.

My criticism right now is not with the White House. I may have some disagreements with the President in terms of what his policy on Iraq might be, but he has done his job, he has notified us, he has sent letters up to Congress that have announced the deployments that he is making, and it says--consistent with the War Powers Resolution, so this is not a complaint about the White House. We may disagree with their policy, but they did what they were supposed to do.

Our complaint is with this institution, that we are not doing what we are supposed to do. The Foreign Affairs Committee, in consultation with other relevant committees, ought to bring a resolution to the floor if they want to authorize the use of additional force in Iraq.

I would vote ``no.'' There are some in this Chamber that would vote ``yes,'' but there ought to be a debate. We ought to go into any new deployment--any new military intervention with our eyes wide open. We have lived through enough deception. We have been lied to over the years too many times. It is time for us to demand some truth when it comes to war. People ought to know what we are getting into.

By the way, one other thing that has troubled me greatly about these wars that we have been involved with is that we don't pay for them. We all complain about the deficit and the debt, and we have to dig ourselves out of this hole of debt. Trillions of dollars of that debt are directly related to these wars. We don't pay for these wars. We put them on a credit card.

I offered a bill a few years ago calling for a war tax, saying that if we are going to go to war, then we ought to pay for it--the American people ought to pay for it, and if the American people don't want to pay for it, maybe we ought not go to war.

This notion of going to war and putting it on a credit card and making believe like it is not a big deal has to stop, has to stop. The first George Bush, when he went to war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait--I wasn't for that war, I wasn't in Congress then--but nonetheless, when he went to war, he got the cooperation of all the Arab states in the region to pitch in to pay for it.

What wasn't paid for, Congress paid for, but it wasn't added to our debt. Now, it has become commonplace, and we don't even question it.

There are huge costs to these wars, not only in terms of blood, but also in terms of treasure. We nitpick on this House floor over whether or not we are going to feed hungry children or make sure people have adequate housing.

We say we don't have enough money, but when it comes to these wars, the sky is the limit--whatever you want, you can get.

Here is the deal: I would argue with you that that money has not been spent wisely. Notwithstanding the incredible service of our men and women, we are in Afghanistan right now propping up one of the most corrupt governments in the world, in the world.

In Iraq, we are now reentering a situation where even our own administration is saying the Maliki government is lousy, and we obviously hate this extremist group called ISIL, so we are going right in the middle, and I worry that we are going to be target practice for both sides.

One other thing--the Iraqi Army, as I mentioned earlier, has been trained by the very best of American military personnel. They have the best equipment, they have the best weaponry you can imagine.

They outnumber, overwhelmingly, these extremist groups that are now attacking Iraq. We read in The Washington Post last week that commanders of the Iraqi Army in areas that come under fire decide to leave--they basically desert--and so do the troops.

If they are not willing to fight after all that we have sacrificed, why the hell are we going back in there and thinking of fighting this? Now, this is the beginning--this is the very beginning of our reentry.

As Mr. Jones and I have said, we hope that it doesn't go any further than this, but this is the time when we ought to have a debate about what might happen and what we are prepared to do.

I am happy to yield to my colleague.

I thank the gentleman for his eloquent remarks. I want to associate myself with every single word that he has said.

I believe deep down that the President of the United States does not want to get involved in another endless war in the Middle East, but sometimes things have a way of happening and sometimes things have a way of spinning out of control, and that is why this debate is so important and so timely now.

Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war has already claimed 4,500 American lives. 4,500 Americans have already been killed in the Iraq war. According to one study, over 500,000 Iraqis have also perished over the past decade of war. The UNHCR states that over 1 million additional people have been displaced in Iraq this year alone.

Linda Blimes, an expert in public finance at Harvard University, estimates that the total cost of the Iraq war for the United States will be $4 trillion when we take into account the long-term costs of health care and benefits for the veterans of that war.

The human and financial costs for us and for the Iraqis have been severe.

Let me just quote a few experts on military and foreign policy about this possibility of reentering the Iraq civil conflict.

Gordon Adams, a former senior White House budget official, said in mid-June:

What is happening in Iraq right now is both a cautionary

tale and an unfolding tragedy. The caution is about the

blithe American assumption that the United States is

omnipotent, and that with enough money, goodwill, expertise,

equipment and training, Americans can build foreign forces

and bring security to troubled areas around the world. The

tragedy is that what the U.S. does, and has done, leads down

the road to failure.

Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Robert Gard, Jr., stated, on July 6:

The collapse of the Iraqi Army was not due to a shortage of

trained Iraqi troops or the inferiority in firepower or

equipment. The case was their lack of confidence in, and

commitment to, Iraqi national institutions and leadership,

both military commanders and political authorities. This

intangible but essential element in combat effectiveness

depends upon legitimate governance, not admonitions from

foreign military advisers.

Retired General Barry McCaffrey, on June 12, said:

At the end of the day, if your army won't fight, it's

because they don't trust their incompetence, corrupt

generals, they don't trust each other. This is an enduring

civil war between the Shi'a, the Sunni, and the Kurds. So I

don't think we've got any options, and we'd be ill-advised to

start bombing where we really can't sort out the combatants

or understand where the civilian population is.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the United States should be involving itself militarily in a civil war, a sectarian war, a religious war, a struggle for power that has been going on for generations. We shouldn't be taking sides in this conflict.

I do believe that a region in turmoil is not in the best interest of the United States. But as so many have said, including the President, this requires a political solution and it requires the political will of all the key actors in the region, not just outside actors like the United States and the Europeans, but those in the region. The countries and leaders in the region need to step up to the plate and actually lead on finding a political solution or watch their neighbors go up in flames and hope the fire doesn't jump to their homes and destroy them as well.

This is why we need a full debate on what is happening in Iraq, in the region, what our options are, and whether or not we should keep sending troops to Iraq or not.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the bipartisan Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I cochair with my good friend Congressman Frank Wolf, held a briefing on the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Iraq. We had witnesses from the administration, the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees Office, and several NGOs.

The situation on the ground in Iraq that they described is horrifying, but it stretches back over a year. The human rights and humanitarian crisis in Iraq did not begin with ISIL coming back into Iraq, but that certainly has worsened and accelerated the decline in security, protection, and basic rights for the civilian population.

Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the head of UNHCR said:

There will not be a humanitarian solution for the Iraqi

crisis. It is absolutely crucial that the Iraqi political

system find a way to overcome its political divisions and

contradictions.

He urged Iraq's neighbors and Western countries to work together to find a political solution as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, this is where we should be putting our energy, not trying to find some sort of military path to civility in Iraq, because there is none.

I will enter into the Record today's Washington Post article on UNHCR's assessment of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

[From the Washington Post, July 17, 2014]

Refugee Chief Urges Political Deal in Iraq

(By Abigail Hauslohner)

Baghdad--The head of the U.N. refugee agency said Wednesday

that he was increasingly frustrated with Iraq's skyrocketing

number of displaced people--and with governments worldwide

that expect humanitarian aid organizations to ``come clean up

the mess.''

``There will not be a humanitarian solution for the Iraqi

crisis. There is no humanitarian solution for the Syrian

crisis,'' Antonio Guterres, the U.N. high commissioner for

refugees, said in a closed briefing with reporters here in

the Iraqi capital.

``It is absolutely crucial that the Iraqi political system

find a way to overcome its political divisions and

contradictions,'' he said.

Iraq's Political factions are negotiating the key positions

in a new government that they hope will guide this fractured

nation out of its worst crisis since U.S. troops pulled out

in late 2011.

In recent weeks, Iraq has come dangerously close to

breaking apart as Sunni militants calling themselves the

Islamic State have seized control of a vast swath of

territory stretching from Syria to central Iraq.

The Shiite-led government has fought back with the help of

militias, raising the specter of sectarian war as violence--

including airstrikes, bombings, and executions of Shiites by

Sunnis and vice versa--racks many parts of the country.

Iraqi Kurds, meanwhile, are pressing for a referendum on

independence in their largely autonomous--and relatively

stable--region in the north.

On Wednesday, Guterres urged Iraq's neighbors and Western

countries to work together to find a political solution as

quickly as possible.

He said about 1.1 million Iraqis have been displaced since

the start of the year, when serious violence first broke out

between government forces and Sunni insurgents in the western

province of Anbar.

At least half a million have fled their homes in the past

five weeks alone, Guterres added.

During his weekly televised address Wednesday, embattled

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki congratulated the Iraqi

parliament on electing a new speaker. The vote Tuesday was a

crucial step toward forming the desperately needed new

government.

``I hope that they will work in harmony and to agree on

running the parliament . . . away from all differences and

calculations,'' Maliki said, according to the Associated

Press.

But the parliament still needs to vote on a president and a

prime minister. Maliki is facing growing pressure to step

down, and his reluctance to do so has been the main cause of

Iraq's political deadlock.

In his address Wednesday, however, he did not comment on

whether he would seek a third term.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

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?

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. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. And I will be joined by some other members of the Progressive Caucus to talk about issues that are important to this country and issues that are important to have a debate about in public.

This is our first week back. After 5 weeks of being in our home districts, we have a lot to get done in this Congress. And so far this week, we have not exactly risen to the occasion. We have important things to do regarding the continuing resolution. We have important things to do regarding situations overseas. We have important legislation that this Congress simply has not gotten done. And, instead, another week has gone by without addressing some of the most important issues of the day.

One of those issues that, I think, is front and center in people's minds is what is going on overseas, what is going on with ISIL in Iraq, perhaps in Syria, and what does that mean for the American people.

And I am here today asking many of the questions that I get from people in the district. The President is going to address the Nation this evening, and he is going to give us his vision for where he thinks this country should go. And I am asking the President to please come to Congress before military action is taken against ISIL because it is so important that we are a part of this debate. We are the closest to the people in this country, and Congress needs to be involved. And I have some questions that I would like to see Members of Congress debate and the President help us address as we decide this extremely important issue.

I want to give props to Rachel Maddow who, last night, I thought did an excellent job on her program in looking at some of the questions that we should be debating in this body to make sure that we are doing the right thing by getting involved and that we have got the thought ahead of time going into it, unlike I think what we have done previously when we have gone into Iraq, as a country.

So these are some of the questions that we would like to have answered and we would like to have assistance with. One, why should the President seek congressional authorization and debate for military action against ISIL? Well, for one, it is in the Constitution. The Constitution, article I, section 8: ``The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than 2 years.''

Directly in our United States Constitution is the power that this body, Congress, has to be involved if we are going to get involved in what would essentially be seen as war. And I think the debate that we have to have is, what are we looking at as we look at the situation in Iraq and perhaps in Syria.

John Nichols from The Nation magazine wrote: ``It is a healthy respect for the complex geopolitics of the region, combined with a regard for the wisdom of the system of checks and balances and the principles of advice and consent outlined in the US Constitution'' that we have a say. Those are the words of John Nichols.

This Congress, in July, before we left to go back to our districts, voted 370-40 for H. Con. Res. 105. We don't get many 370-40 votes in this House. It was a bipartisan resolution. It had overwhelming support and said: ``The President shall not deploy or maintain United States Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization.''

That is the resolution that was passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way by this body just weeks ago. We are facing these questions today. And the President is going to present to the Nation this evening exactly what he would like to see us do and hopefully will let the Congress have a say in it because, clearly, the situation has escalated. It needs a debate.

The beheadings have certainly caught the attention of the country, but we want to make sure that attention is on our behalf, not the attention of someone who did that to try to provoke a reaction, and that we don't fall into the hands of doing the reaction that some people would hope that we would do to engage in a region that could be very complex.

And after this country has had so many unfortunate failures in Iraq-- twice in my adult lifetime we have gone into this region, with very limited success, and we have gone into Afghanistan--we owe it to the American people, to our veterans, our servicemen and -women and their families, those who have gone in and put their lives at risk following 9/11, to have this rigorous debate in this very body before us.

This is a complex situation. But given the failures that we have had previously in going into Iraq--whether it be the lack of debate, the lack of buy-in from other nations and other partners specifically in the region and, quite honestly, the faulty intelligence that we had or that were told at the time--it has put us in a bad situation in the past in this region.

In fact, one of the reasons we have to have this debate is there are a number of Members who are right now writing authorizations for us to go in. In fact, there is one from the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Frank Wolf, that would essentially be an Authorization for Use of Military Force that could authorize force virtually anywhere, with no expiration date and no specific targets.

And I can tell you, when I talk to people across Wisconsin, when I talk to my colleagues in this room and they talk to their constituents, I think people want better answers than that. I know a year ago, when we had the debate about whether or not we would get involved in Syria, within 2 weeks in my district, I received 2,200 responses, 97 percent to 3 percent who were leery of us getting involved in Syria. And while the situation is different from a year ago and is even a situation different from a month ago, I think the public still has questions, certainly questions that we need to debate in this body. So we need to have that debate in Congress.

What do we want from the President in a new authorization? Well, I think there are three things that should be in that. One is that Congress has a say. Again, we have the ability to have a vote. We are elected and accountable to our districts, and these decisions are not just made behind closed doors without the advice and consent of Congress. We will have a stronger effort if we have that public debate. So that is one. Two, that we have a narrow scope. We simply can't bomb our way into success.

And let me just go over a little bit of the timeline just in the very few months since ISIL has been out there.

Let me just talk a little bit about that timeline. Back on June 16 of this year, the administration announced it was sending 275 military personnel to protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Three days later, they announced that 300 military advisers would collaborate and train Iraqi forces--3 days later. On June 30, the administration announced the deployment of 200 more troops to Iraq. On August 7, the President authorized airstrikes in Iraq. On the 12th of August, the administration announced 130 additional U.S. military personnel to assess the scope of the humanitarian mission. On the 26th of August, the President authorized surveillance flights over Syria. On September 2, the administration announced the deployment of 350 additional military personnel to Iraq, bringing our total to 1,100 U.S. troops now deployed in Iraq. And in the last month alone, there have been 153 airstrikes in Iraq. Just in the little bit of time that has passed, that is what we have seen happen. And I think we need to be very specific in the limited scope of what that is going to be so we don't have mission creep leading us into perhaps more involvement than we thought was going to happen in the beginning.

And third, I think--and others that I talk to think--it is important that we go in with a coalition, that we are not doing this either alone or largely alone and that we are doing this with partners from the region. Right now, there are 10 other countries that I know of that are involved in saying that they will commit to help work with us. But we need to build a moderate Sunni support and buy-in from some of the Arab States specifically to help us in this region because right now, this is a regional situation, and we need to have partners within that region to make sure that we can accomplish any goals.

There are many questions that we continue to have, and I think there are many about what that strike would look like, what exactly does it mean to have that involvement.

I just mentioned who are some of the allies that we are going to have. But what are some of our short-term goals? What do we expect to accomplish when we decide that we are going in? What would we carry out in military action? It is one thing to say that we are not going to have boots on the ground, but clearly, we are having pilots in the sky.

Right now, we are using U.S. attack aircraft, fighter aircraft, and drone aircraft to do attacks within that region. So you already have a presence that--I don't like the term ``boots on the ground,'' because these are people with families, sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, brothers and sisters that we have who are overseas, and we need to know exactly what that means.

There has been potentially a request to aid some of the moderate Syrian rebels that may come out of the conversations. And, once again, I think there are questions that this body has to have a debate on. Steven Sotloff, the journalist, who was the second person that was beheaded, that we have followed very closely, as an American citizen, his family recently said that it was moderate Syrian rebels who essentially sold access to ISIL to get Steve Sotloff. And who is it that we are going to provide assistance to? And what does that assistance mean? And who are the people that we can potentially be doing that for?

What is our long-term commitment to military action? Now, if we would have asked this question years ago when we first looked at Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think anyone would have expected to hear a 13-year commitment to Afghanistan. More than 2,000 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan and more than 4,000 in Iraq. The cost has been estimated to be 4 to $6 trillion in that region just since that last action was called years ago. And, as I mentioned, there have been 153 airstrikes just in the last month. How many more airstrikes will it take to say that that is enough? So we need to have more meat put onto this to have an idea of what that involvement is if we are going to be authorizing something.

And finally, the question I would ask is: How do we define mission accomplished? What is the end goal that we are going to have? And where does that end happen? I certainly hope the end goal is not flying in military gear on an aircraft carrier with a banner behind it that says ``Mission Accomplished.'' Because we all know, there was no mission accomplished at that time. We need to have clear and definite goals of what it means to defeat ISIL and to make sure that that region can have some stability after the instability of so long that it has had.

So, in conclusion, the President has a constitutional obligation, I feel, to work with Congress before engaging in extended military operations. The public is still very war-weary. And while right now, polls may say people think we should get involved in Iraq and Syria with limited airstrikes, we have to have that much longer debate.

Clearly, the public beheadings of two American citizens has raised the ire of the American people and I think many in Congress. It is a different situation than it was a year ago. It is a different situation than it was a month ago. But at the same time, we have got to be sure that we are not falling into doing something that could be counterproductive because, clearly, ISIL did that to provoke a reaction, and I think that needs to be a part of the debate we have.

After being entangled in a global conflict for 13 years, we owe it to the American people and to the servicemen and -women and their families and the veterans who have already made tremendous sacrifices and the support of our country that we have a transparent and thorough debate on any action that would happen with ISIL in Syria or Iraq.

So those are my hopes. Those are my questions. I am looking forward to hearing the President tonight, and I am hoping that this body will be able to have that full debate so we know everything that we can possibly have for information prior to continuing and perhaps enhancing any actions there.

Now, I am very proud to be joined by other members of the Progressive Caucus. We have one of the most senior Members of this body, who has become a mentor and a friend to me, and I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Representative Rangel, you have been an outspoken advocate for equality within the draft, making sure that everyone understands that there is an expense when we go into war. As someone who has had several nephews personally get involved and plenty of constituents, those decisions are something that are mighty, and this body has to have that as part of that debate, and that is why we should have that debate. Thank you so much for your time and your efforts.

One of the other issues that is extremely important that this body get done before we leave is addressing income inequality and addressing how we can best help those who need help the most, those who are aspiring to be in the middle class and helping the middle class. One of the very best ways and one of the priorities of the Democrats in this House is to give America a raise, to raise the minimum wage, through a bill that we have, to $10.10, to make sure that people have more money in their pockets. When that money is in their pockets, they will spend it in the community, and that will lift the economy and help create more jobs. It is exactly what we need right now.

For too long, we have not raised the minimum wage. If the minimum wage were the same and kept up with inflation from 1967, it would be well over $10.60 an hour. And we are not. We are at a much lower rate, and we need to have that.

One of my colleagues from California has been an outspoken advocate for raising the minimum wage, and I would love to, on behalf of the Progressive Caucus, yield to my colleague from the great State of California, Mr. Alan Lowenthal.

If I could just ask you, gentlemen, one question--and I will go to Mr. Rangel again for a comment.

Let me ask you a question. The leadership in this House, the Republican leadership, has refused to schedule a bill to raise the minimum wage, and we have one other device to do that called the discharge petition.

I would like to ask the gentleman if you signed the discharge petition so that we can force a vote in this House to raise the minimum wage in the remaining weeks we have before we finish the session for the year.

And we have done that.

Again, thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.

Because that is the problem--we have been told the Speaker won't schedule the vote, but there are other ways. Every single Member of this body can sign a discharge petition, and if we get a majority of us, 218 of us, to sign that, it will come to this body. So there are no excuses not to get this done.

I would like to yield to my good friend from New York, Mr. Charlie Rangel.

Again, thank you, Mr. Rangel.

One of the things I look at--it is pretty simple math to someone like me, coming from America's heartland, when productivity is going up and wages are flat, the money is going somewhere.

In 1988, the average CEO made 40 times the lowest-paid employee. Now, it is 354 times the lowest-paid employee. Now, if you put extra money in the pockets through raising the minimum wage of someone who is in the middle class or aspiring to be in the middle class, it is going to go back into the economy. If they can afford a long weekend vacation to the Wisconsin Dells in my area, that helps boost the economy, helps create jobs--but you know what? That CEO can't take 354 vacations to make up for it.

Clearly, when the money goes into the pockets of those who need it the most, it is going to go instantly into the economy, help create jobs, and help do everything that we need to, to stimulate the economy to the point that we can be as great as we possibly can be.

To me, it is a no-brainer. I think to many of the constituents I talk to it is a no-brainer.

You are very articulate in talking about the troubles that people go through in trying to just get by. It is another thing this body simply has to take up before we leave.

If we don't take this up before November, quite honestly, those who didn't try to take it up shouldn't come back because we need people who will take it up because it is the will of the people. Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans are looking at this as an issue that is important and has to happen.

Again, thank you so much for all your work on this for so many years. Alan Lowenthal and I are freshman here. We are the newbies. We are taking up the fight, but you have been doing it for so many years and been a mentor to so many of us. Again, thank you, Mr. Rangel, and thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.

Mr. Lowenthal went through all the numbers for the State of California. It has the same effect in my State of Wisconsin. When you look at it, if you raise that minimum wage to $10.10, as the bill from Senator Harkin does and the one that Representative George Miller from California has introduced in this body, not only is it 28 million people in this country that will get a raise, but it is half a million people just in my home State of Wisconsin, a half million people.

One of the things that I have heard sometimes when you talk to people, they say, ``If you raise the minimum wage, all you are doing is giving extra pocket money to teenagers who are living with their parents.''

Well, that is one of the great myths that is out there because here is the reality: the average age of a minimum wage worker is 35 years old. When you look at the exact breakout of who it is, 90 percent are over 20 years old, and

more than half of them are older than 25 years old.

You are not talking about a teenager living at home. You are talking about people who are living independently in the community, trying to get by on $7.35 an hour or close to $15,000 a year, in a job that often has no benefits--health benefits, pension, et cetera.

Fifty-five percent of the people on minimum wage are working full time. Forty-four percent have some type of college education, an associate degree or bachelor's degree or other higher education. That is the reality of the minimum wage worker in this country. It is not the myth of a teenager living at home, looking for some pocket money.

These are hardworking people trying to get by, often on two or three jobs, without the benefits. Without that ability, if they miss their rent, they get evicted, and then they are homeless. As Mr. Rangel said, these are some of the same people that then show up on our health plans that States provide for being low-income.

So you know who then is subsidizing their salaries? We all are. Every single individual who is a taxpayer pays into those programs. While that employer may not offer a wage that they can live on, we all subsidize it, so that they can actually get something as basic as health care.

So there is a real need to pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act that is proposed. We have tried and tried in this body to get a vote on it. We have signed a discharge petition. Virtually every Democrat in the House of Representatives has signed that.

We need those Republicans, especially those Republicans who are on record supporting a minimum wage, to also sign that, so we can get a vote before we leave in a few weeks, before the November elections, before the end of the year--because I think a question that I would want to ask my Representative when I see them in the community in the coming weeks before the election is: What have they done to help make the middle class stronger? What have they done to help people who are aspiring to be in the minimum class? What have we got done in Congress?

There was a Congress in 1948 that was called the do-nothing Congress because they got so little done. The first year of that session, they passed 350 bills. Last year, this body passed 88.

Here we are sitting another week back in Congress, and we haven't raised the minimum wage, we haven't passed equal pay for equal work so that women make just as much as men do, and we haven't done anything about the affordability of higher education, allowing students to refinance their loans.

These are simple issues that aren't partisan issues. They are not Democratic/Republican. They are not liberal/conservative. They are about whether or not you are fighting for the middle class and those who aspire to be in the middle class or whether you are here trying to help out the special interests and the lobbyists who represent the special interests. It is really that simple.

So we need to pass a raise for the American people. That means you pass an increase in the minimum wage. As other Members have said, it will lift so many people out of poverty and give a raise to so many people to help stimulate the economy.

So the Progressive Caucus is fighting each and every single day while we are here for a variety of issues: raising the minimum wage, trying to stop wage theft in this country, trying to extend unemployment insurance so that everyone who is out of work can still get some benefits while they are looking for work so that they can get that job. We all know the best social program is a job, and we want to make sure that everyone can get that job.

We need to continue to do the things that Congress needs to get done and we have not gotten done. So the minimum wage is one issue that we wanted to talk about today.

As we have the President speaking to us this evening, we want to make sure that this body has a very full and rich debate. As we passed in a bipartisan way, 370-40, we need to have a real debate and have real questions answered before we get involved, so that we never again have what happened the last time we got involved in Iraq because we are back again. There was no ``mission accomplished.'' A banner and a fly-in in military gear is not a successful end to an involvement.

We need to make sure whatever we do this time is thoughtful, done with consultation of Congress, with narrow scope, and with a partnership with other nations specifically in the region to make sure that we are doing this not alone or not largely alone.

With that, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Caucus appreciates this time this evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), one of the leaders on this resolution.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

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.

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.''

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

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.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I want to thank him for being a leader on bringing to the floor of the House not only this resolution asking for a vote about bringing our troops home from Iraq, but also the way that he speaks about the fact that 17 million American children go home at night hungry. That is another issue, I understand that, but it all ties in.

When we continue to not debate whether we should be sending our young men and women to die, we are shirking our constitutional responsibility that we, in this Congress, have raised our hand to swear that we will uphold the Constitution of the United States, but we don't do that, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to war, and I blame myself.

In 2003, I bought the lie that was told by the previous administration about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had and how he was going to use that against the American people.

That misinformation that was given by the previous administration caused us to go into Iraq, and I voted to give the President at the time--President Bush--the authority to bypass the Constitution.

It is called the AUMF, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and I regret that and will until the day I die because I gave up my constitutional responsibility to debate and to vote on whether we should go to war or not, and that was the constitutional responsibility of this Congress and of me being a Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have beside me a poster of a funeral. It is a military funeral where a soldier has given his life for this country. His wife is there with her sunglasses on, holding the hand of her little girl who can't quite understand why her daddy is dead, why her daddy is in a flag-draped coffin.

That is why we need to be on this floor, as Mr. McGovern and Ms. Lee have said, to debate whether we continue to allow the President--in this case, President Obama--to use the War Powers Act to send our troops into Iraq, and yet, we sit here idle.

We don't even hardly debate the issue of war when we are going to pass millions and billions of dollars to be spent by our military overseas. It does not make any sense.

I want to say about my own side, I regret that my side, the Republican Party, we have become the war party now. It is not so much the Democrats who were the war party during the Vietnam war. Now, it is the Republican Party.

I am a great supporter of Pat Buchanan. I love his position on foreign policy and his many articles. This is from a recent article that he wrote. Pat Buchanan says:

It is astonishing that Republicans who threaten to impeach

Obama for usurping authority at home remain silent as he

prepares to usurp their war powers to march into Syria and

back into Iraq. Are Republicans now prepared to sit mute as

Obama takes us into two new Middle East wars on his own

authority?

This is what Mr. McGovern and Ms. Lee and I are trying to say. It is time that this Congress start speaking out. We listen to the American people when it comes to war, and the American people are tired. They are worn out.

A recent survey actually said that 71 percent of American people said that the first intervention in Iraq was wrong. It was a mistake. It should never have happened, and yet that is why I admire you, Mr. McGovern, and Ms. Lee and the others who are willing to speak out on this.

Just a couple of other points I want to make--people always say those who wrote the Constitution, they maybe really better understood more than we do, and yet they didn't have the sophistication that we have today in the wars that we fight, but that brings me to a letter from George Washington to James Monroe:

I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation

has a right to meddle into the concerns of another, that

everyone has the right to form and adopt whatever government

they like best to live under themselves.

That is George Washington in 1796, in a letter to James Monroe. Again, I think about the fact that I, along with other Members of Congress, gave away my constitutional right to declare war when we gave to President Bush the authority to use military force.

That in itself is something, again, being repetitive for just a moment, I will always, always regret.

Another quote, this one by James Madison, and this is Mr. McGovern's point:

The power to declare war, including the power of judging

the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the

legislature.

We are the legislature. It is our responsibility to meet our constitutional duties. Mr. McGovern, I have signed over 11,000 letters to families and extended families in this country since we went into Iraq because I have asked God to forgive me for listening to the misinformation and the distortions by the previous administration to go into Iraq.

That is my pain, and I will live with that pain.

I am on the floor with you today--and Ms. Lee who has already spoken--to say thank you for taking the lead in trying to force this Congress to have a debate.

I am not going to restate what Pat Buchanan has said, but I will say to my own side many times: Why do you sit idly by when you complain about Mr. Obama and spending, spending, and we have already spent $1.5 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we are still spending money in Afghanistan?

We will for 10 more years because of a bilateral strategic agreement, but what we are trying to do today is to say that we are not going to make another mistake in Iraq.

That is why I am pleased to join with you today in this effort to make the American people aware that we do care. We want the American people to contact the Members of Congress and say join in this concurrent resolution, this privileged resolution, to bring a debate to the floor of the House.

Mr. McGovern, thank you very much.

I want to pick up on a few things you said just a few minutes ago.

Iraq is in total chaos. It is kind of ironic. In 1983--I found a photograph of Donald Rumsfeld who was a special envoy sent by President Reagan to thank Hussein for what he had done to try to defend Iraq against the Iranians.

That brings me to where we are today and why this resolution that you have sponsored is so important. I have the former Commandant of the Marine Corps who, for the last 6 years, has been my adviser on Afghanistan, simply because I don't have the military background, and he is a very dear friend of mine.

I emailed him a week ago and asked him:

What do you think about all of these advisers going to

Iraq, something you were just talking about?

He emailed me back and he said:

We should not put boots on the ground.

He further stated:

It is a Middle East issue that needs a Middle East

solution, not more troops.

That is why, again, your resolution, and our resolution needs to be debated.

A couple of other points, very quickly--after I found out that I had been misled with the first war in Iraq, I contacted Lieutenant General Greg Newbold because he wrote an article for Time magazine. I want to read just a little bit of it very quickly.

General Greg Newbold was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002 and describes himself as ``a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq, an unnecessary war''--Mr. McGovern, unnecessary war.

He wrote an insightful editorial for Time in April 2006 titled, ``Why Iraq was a mistake.'' I want to share a paragraph from his article because it is so appropriate of what we are trying to do today and what we are trying to do with this resolution to force Congress to meet its constitutional responsibility about sending our young men and women to die.

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem

``Won't Get Fooled Again.'' To us, its lyrics invoked a

feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those

ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and

then mismanage the conduct of it.

He further stated:

Never again, we thought, would our military's senior

leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to

an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the

judgment is in: The Who had it wrong. We have been fooled

again.

We were fooled to go into Iraq.

I am with you. I know Mr. Obama came out against the Iraq war--and I want to thank him for doing that--when he was a Senator, but you are right, it is not the administration we are talking about today. It is the role of Congress and our lack of fulfilling our constitutional duty.

One last point, very quickly--four weeks ago, I went to Walter Reed hospital. I was told that two marines from Camp Lejeune in my district had been severely wounded, so I went to Walter Reed hospital.

As I go into the area where they teach them how to walk without legs, on prosthesis--they teach them how to use the artificial limbs to pick up a spoon--I met three Army guys from Fort Bragg, which is not in my district, but in North Carolina. All three had lost one leg each, each one of them.

Then, Mr. McGovern, when I went over to meet the young marine from Camp Lejeune, 23 years of age, and he is on what they call an exercise mat about 3 feet off the floor--he has lost both legs and an arm. I never will forget his father's eyes.

They were the saddest eyes I have ever seen on a man in my life. I saw pain. I saw worry. Here is his son, both legs gone and one arm gone, 23 years of age.

The second marine that I saw from Camp Lejeune had lost both legs by stepping on a 40-pound IED in Afghanistan.

The more that we have troops in Iraq, the longer they stay, there will be someone killed or wounded before it is over.

That is why your resolution--that is why it is necessary for my party, the Republican Party, to stop being the war party and being the party that wants to defend the Constitution. My party needs to allow us to have this debate that you have introduced.

As I leave, I want to thank you for giving me a little bit of this time today. I want to thank you for your friendship. I want to thank you for what you do for America. I want to thank you for what you do for our military. I want to thank you for what you are trying to do for the House of Representatives to say we have an obligation.

No kid should ever die again if the Congress is not willing to follow the Constitution and demand a declaration of war and have that debate and that vote, so I thank you so much for giving me this time, and may God continue to bless our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership on this particular issue.

We are a Nation that is struggling to make ends meet. The rising cost of everyday essentials, such as gas, groceries, and electricity, all continue to rise, while household incomes remain stagnant.

There is no need to compound these problems with a Tax Code that punishes working parents by making it hard for them to keep up with the rising costs of raising a family.

The child tax credit was originally enacted in 1997 to ease the financial burden on families. Over time, the original credit amount was eventually increased and made partially refundable to help more families. However, since being expanded to $1,000 back in 2004, the child tax credit has failed to keep pace with costs.

Kids are expensive: diapers and car seats, haircuts, toothbrushes, books, clothes, and even sporting equipment. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that for a middle-income couple, it will cost over $240,000 to raise a child until 18 years of age.

I did the calculation for a middle-income two-parent household with three kids. According to the USDA calculator, the average household will spend $3,500 on food, $4,000 on transportation, $1,600 on clothing, and nearly $7,000 on child care and education for a total of over $30,000 annually.

Contributing the most to these rising costs are items such as spending on education and child care. In fact, since 2000, the cost of child care has increased twice as fast as the median income of families with children.

The Child Tax Credit Improvement Act, which is before us today, indexes the credit and the limitations to inflation to help parents keep more of their hard-earned money to use for the mounting expenses of parenting.

In addition to indexing the credit and limits to inflation, the bill also eliminates the marriage penalty by increasing the joint filing phaseout threshold to exactly double that of single filers. Removing marriage penalties and indexing for inflation have become a recognized part of our tax system.

The lack of indexing of a particular provision to inflation means that a provision is worth less to taxpayers every year. In the case of the child tax credit, this means working low and middle class families.

This legislation essentially removes the annual hidden tax placed on these families and recognizes that $1 of income in 1998 and in 2004 is not the same as $1 of income in 2014.

Similar tax credits that Congress has smartly indexed to inflation include the adoption tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and education tax credit. All of these tax credits make it easier on working families to put money aside and save for the future.

Increasing the phaseout level is a family-friendly change that greatly simplifies the code for middle class parents currently forced to perform a complicated computation and increases the fairness across the Code.

It also includes an antifraud provision championed by Congressman Sam Johnson, seeking to curtail tax fraud by requiring a Social Security number to be eligible for this tax credit. It is a simple principle also supported by Democrat United States Senator Claire McCaskill. Simply put, if you are breaking the law by working illegally in our country, you should not be getting a tax benefit for it.

This is sensible legislation that will help hardworking families keep more of their paychecks and help pay for the rising costs of raising a family. A vote for this bill will give Americans more freedom to save their own money and help struggling families who are just trying to get by.

I urge everyone to support H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014, because when working families succeed, the Nation's economy succeeds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to commend the gentleman from Washington for recognizing that this does put more money back in the pockets of hardworking Americans, but I just want to correct the record that this is in no way, shape, or form a tax increase.

There certainly have been a lot of inaccuracies and highly misleading statements from the other side of the aisle about this bill this morning. This bill does not end the credit for low-income working families. It is not a tax increase on them. It certainly does not cast millions of children deeper into poverty.

The tax provision in this bill originated from the stimulus bill. It was extended back in 2013 for 5 additional years. So it is not currently expiring, and it will not expire until 2018.

All H.R. 4935 does is it keeps that in place and does not even address that particular provision. It does not call for ending that provision. It does not call for reducing or altering that provision. Rather, this bill deals with the immediate concern, and that is the erosion of the value of the child tax credit for every family struggling today.

So following this absurd logic from the other side, every single bill and amendment that comes to the House floor that fails to address or does not extend their provision is a tax increase.

This bill before us today will have and deserves bipartisan support. It is unfortunate that some have resorted to recycled talking points and outright falsehoods to conjure up some reason to oppose the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am just puzzled by this logic that the minority is concerned about a provision that expires in 4 years. They are worried about that today, but yet they are not worried about the loss of buying power for hardworking American families starting next year. They are willing to give up helping families next year, and they want to debate an issue that we aren't going to even address for another 4 years.

As it relates to their charge that this in some way helps the wealthy, I would like to point out that a foundational principle of the Tax Code is that it should be, at worst, neutral toward the decision to get married. It should not be a deterrent. Certainly, it should not make taxpayers worse off merely by making the decision to marry and start a family. Marriage is beneficial to society and something that we have and should continue to encourage.

Removing the marriage penalty is about one thing, and that is fairness. This is especially true for today's two-earner households where both spouses have to work just in order to make ends meet.

Congress has had the wisdom to remove the marriage penalties from many other parts of the Tax Code, including the standard deduction. A deduction for married couples is twice the amount for single filers, and in tax brackets the income range of 10 to 15 percent brackets for couples is twice that of individuals, as it should be.

We are asking for that same parity to be afforded in the child tax credit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed by the other side's doing time travel 4 years into the future when a lot of hardworking families are struggling every day--right now--to deal with this economy, and that needs to be the focus of this debate.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Brady, a fine member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and will be prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One goal of tax policy is to strengthen the economy so that there are more jobs and bigger paychecks for American families. Today, we have an opportunity to put more money in the pockets of hardworking families.

This commonsense bill reforms the child tax credit so that it can keep up with the rising cost of living, and eliminates the current marriage tax penalty.

I have a letter of support that says it best, and I quote:

Representative Jenkins' bill indexes the credit and income

limits for inflation. Inflation erodes the value and

purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and, as a result, a

dollar is worth less today than it was years ago. This

important piece of legislation adjusts the credit for

inflation to ensure that the value of the credit continues to

maintain its value.

We know that family and marriage is beneficial to society,

and the Federal Government ought to promote economic policies

that allow families to thrive. This tax credit recognizes the

important contribution of the family and children to our

country and starts to address a problem with our Tax Code

today, the marriage penalty. A fair system of taxation does

not penalize marriage and family.

With that, I would ask the body to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014, to honor families with children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.