To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

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.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank Congressman McGovern for yielding, but also for his tireless leadership on this very important issue.

I am proud to join Congressman Walter Jones and Congressman McGovern in introducing this bipartisan resolution, and I thank them for their consistent support and work, as great Americans, to address these serious issues of war and peace.

This resolution simply prohibits the President to deploy armed services or to engage in combat operations in Iraq without specific debate and authorization from Congress, but this resolution also seeks to reclaim a fundamental congressional responsibility, the constitutionally protected right for Congress to debate and to determine when this country enters into war.

I also am personally concerned about mission creep. We hear many of the same voices who championed the unnecessary war in Iraq, once again, beating the drum for a renewed war in Iraq today.

Last month, President Obama announced that 300 personnel would be sent to Iraq, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support, supported by attack helicopters and drones. A few days later, he announced another 200 personnel were soon to be deployed. There are promises to send many additional Hellfire air-to-surface missiles.

Now, I, too, believe President Obama does not intend to send ground troops to Iraq, but we need to make sure that Congress reasserts its constitutional responsibility on this grave issue.

After more than a decade at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with thousands of United States lives and billions of dollars lost, the need for Congress to reclaim its war-making powers is more critical than ever.

Let me remind you, it was this absence of full debate that led to Congress passing the overly broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in the wake of 9/11. This law has been used to justify everything from the war in Afghanistan, warrantless domestic and international surveillance, holding prisoners indefinitely in Guantanamo, and conducting drone strikes in countries that we are not at war with.

I couldn't vote for that resolution because I have always believed that such

consequences are grave for the United States' national security interests unless we fully debate these issues and, of course, to our standing in the world. We did not debate that resolution any more than 1 hour, and I have continued to attempt to repeal and address the problematic actions justified under this law ever since.

On July 16, Congressmen McGovern, Jones, Rigell, myself, and others-- over 100 Members of Congress from both parties wrote a letter--and we signed that letter--to President Obama to come to Congress for an authorization before any military escalation in Iraq, exactly what this resolution would do.

I will insert the letter into the Record.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 02, 2014.

President Barack Obama,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: We join you and with those in the

international community who are expressing grave concern over

the rise in sectarian violence in Iraq over the last days and

weeks. The consequences of this development are particularly

troubling given the extraordinary loss of American lives and

expenditure of funds over ten years that was claimed to be

necessary to bring democracy, stability and a respect for

human rights to Iraq.

We support your restraint to date in resisting the calls

for a ``quick'' and ``easy'' military intervention, and for

your commitment not to send combat troops back to Iraq. We

also appreciate your acknowledgement that this conflict

requires a political solution, and that military action alone

cannot successfully lead to a resolution.

We do not believe intervention could be either quick or

easy. And, we doubt it would be effective in meeting either

humanitarian or strategic goals, and that it could very well

be counter-productive. This is a moment for urgent

consultations and engagement with all parties in the region

who could bring about a cease fire and launch a dialogue that

could lead to a reconciliation of the conflict.

Any solution to this complex crisis can only be achieved

through a political settlement, and only if the process and

outcome is inclusive of all segments of the Iraqi

population--anything short of that cannot successfully bring

stability to Iraq or the region.

As you consider options for U.S. intervention, we write to

urge respect for the constitutional requirements for using

force abroad. The Constitution vests in Congress the power

and responsibility to authorize offensive military action

abroad. The use of military force in Iraq is something the

Congress should fully debate and authorize. Members of

Congress must consider all the facts and alternatives before

we can determine whether military action would contribute to

ending this most recent violence, create a climate for

political stability, and protect civilians from greater harm.

We stand ready to work with you to this end.

Sincerely,

Barbara Lee; Sam Farr; James P. Moran; Janice Hahn; Peter

A. DeFazio; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Michael M.

Honda; Scott E. Rigell; Chellie Pingree; Betty

McCollum; John Garamendi; James P. McGovern; Richard M.

Nolan; Beto O'Rourke, Members of Congress.

Katherine Clark; Zoe Lofgren; Earl Blumenauer; George

Miller; Anna G. Eshoo; Julia Brownley; Hakeem S.

Jeffries; Chris Gibson; Jackie Speier; John J. Duncan,

Jr.; Judy Chu; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; Alan Grayson;

James A. Himes, Members of Congress.

Michael H. Michaud; John B. Larson; Mark Pocan; Reid J.

Ribble; Frank Pallone, Jr.; Karen Bass; Maxine Waters;

John Conyers, Jr.; Walter B. Jones; Peter Welch; Jared

Huffman; John P. Sarbanes; Ed Pastor; Grace F.

Napolitano, Members of Congress.

Alcee L. Hastings; John Lewis; Jose; E. Serrano; Nydia M.

Valazquez; Louise McIntosh Slaughter; Andre Carson;

Gloria Negrete McLeod; Jim McDermott; Keith Ellison;

Lloyd Doggett; Rush Holt; Bobby L. Rush; Emanuel

Cleaver; Bennie G. Thompson, Members of Congress.

Lois Capps; Kurt Schrader; Jerrold Nadler; Mark Takano;

Collin C. Peterson; Ann McLane Kuster; Justin Amash;

Charles B. Rangel; Raul M. Grijalva; Niki Tsongas;

Kathy Castor; Michael E. Capuano; Yvette D. Clarke;

Matt Salmon; Kyrsten Sinema; Donald M. Payne, Jr.; Lois

Frankel; Rosa L. DeLauro; Richard E. Neal; Eleanor

Holmes Norton; Alan S. Lowenthal; Stephen F. Lynch,

Members of Congress.

Paul Broun; Cheri Bustos; Marcy Kaptur; Sheila Jackson

Lee; John Tierney; Henry Waxman; James R. Langevin;

Thomas Massie; Carolyn B. Maloney; Tony Cardenas; Steve

Cohen; Howard Coble; Donna F. Edwards; David Cicilline,

Members of Congress.

Ann Kirkpatrick; Donna Christensen; William Pascrell;

Luis V. Gutierrez; Robin L. Kelly; Marcia L. Fudge;

Dave Loebsack; Paul D. Tonko; Mike Doyle; Jan

Schakowsky, Chaka Fattah; Suzanne Bonamici; Joseph P.

Kennedy, III; William R. Keating, Members of Congress.

Also, let me remind you that last month, we debated the Defense Appropriations bill. Over 150 bipartisan Members supported my amendment that would have prohibited funds from being used to conduct combat operations in Iraq.

This resolution, which is bipartisan, merely requires the President to come to Congress, should he decide to engage in an escalated combat role in Iraq.

The reality is, though, there is no military solution in Iraq. This is a sectarian war with longstanding roots that were enflamed when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Any lasting solution must be political and take into account all sides.

The change Iraq needs must come from Iraqis rejecting violence in favor of a peaceful democracy and respect for the rights of all citizens.

Madam Speaker, the American people agree. After more than a decade of war, thousands of American lives lost, and billions of dollars spent, the American people are rightfully weary.

Before we put our brave servicemen and -women in harm's way again, Congress should carry out its constitutional responsibility and vote on whether or not to get militarily involved in Iraq.

Of course, after we pass this resolution, I urge the Republican leadership to bring up our bill, H.R. 3852, to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

I want to, once again, thank Congressman McGovern for staying the course. He was one of the first Members calling for an end to the war in Iraq and to bring our brave troops home. He has provided tremendous leadership through a variety of legislative efforts. This is just another one of those efforts. So I want to thank you again, Congressman McGovern and Congressman Jones.

I thank all of the Members who are supporting this, including our leadership. Congress should never allow war authorizations to remain on the books in perpetuity. We don't do this for the farm bill. We don't do this for the transportation bill. Sooner or later, we need to repeal the initial authorization.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of July 23, 2014, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 105) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces, other than Armed Forces required to protect United States diplomatic facilities and personnel, from Iraq and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend and to submit any extraneous materials for the Record on this measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I very much appreciate the way in which Mr. McGovern, Mr. Engel, the bipartisan leadership of the House, and the staff of the committee have worked through this issue to bring us here this morning. I thank all of the Members. I also think all of the Members of this body can support this motion.

Earlier this week, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard testimony from senior officials from the Departments of State and Defense on the situation in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, the situation in this critical Middle Eastern country is precarious. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, an al Qaeda offshoot, has taken over most of western Iraq, it has turned its sights on Baghdad, and it may be preparing to launch attacks against the United States.

Never has a terrorist organization itself controlled such a large, resource-rich safe haven as ISIS does today. Never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, the personnel that ISIS does today, which includes thousands of Western passport holders.

What started as a crisis in Syria has become a regional disaster with serious global implications, including credible threats of international terrorism, humanitarian disaster, and upward pressure on energy prices in a fragile global economy.

The top State Department official told our committee that ISIS represents a growing threat to U.S. interests in the region, local populations, and the homeland, calling it a vital national security challenge. This is a common assessment outside of government as well.

As part of the response to this threat, the Obama administration has deployed additional military assets and up to 475 troops to secure our Embassy, our personnel. A few hundred U.S. military advisers are evaluating how we might best train, advise, and support the Iraqis to take on ISIS.

As the Department of Defense testified this week, these small teams are ``armed for self-defense, but do not have an offensive mission.'' It was noted, these teams are not unlike the missions being carried out by U.S. forces around the world. U.S. forces currently maintain these types of troops in more than 70 countries, in Africa, the Americas, and Asia.

Now, if the President did decide to take more aggressive action in Iraq, Members on both sides of the aisle would be deeply split. Some don't see any role for the U.S. military. Others believe we should be more active in this region, believing that our absence has contributed to a vacuum that is churning the entire region.

But where I think all Members can agree is that if the President of the United States ordered U.S. Armed Forces into sustained combat in Iraq, then he should be coming to Congress to seek an explicit statutory authorization and the backing of this body.

That is the text before us today:

The President shall not deploy or maintain United States

Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without

specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after

the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.

At the same time, this text preserves the flexibility the President may need to respond to the rapidly evolving national security in order to protect our

Embassy, to conduct search and rescue, or target an al Qaeda-type terrorist who poses an imminent threat to the United States, among other things.

Nothing in this text impacts the War Powers Resolution which, of course, requires the President to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities within 60 to 90 days after introduction, absent an authorization from Congress.

The gentleman from Massachusetts brings a critical issue to the House floor: the use of force by U.S. Armed Forces, and the appropriate role for the Congress in that decision.

Any military officer will tell you that the support of the people is critical to the success of a sustained combat operation. As the representative body, that responsibility falls to us. It is an obligation that I know all of my colleagues take seriously, and it is why I expect overwhelming passage of this motion this morning.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Thomas Massie.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to reserve the right to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' spirit of cooperation. Mr. McGovern and I have worked on a number of issues from victims' rights to trying to stop the exploitation of child soldiers in Africa, and so I appreciate that spirit on his part.

As I noted in my opening testimony, my opening statement here, the threat of ISIS is real, and I do think we should reflect on that as we debate this issue.

Never has a terrorist organization itself controlled so much territory, especially such a large, resource-rich safe haven, as ISIS has in this caliphate, as they perceive it, now. Never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry and cash and personnel as ISIS does today, and this includes thousands of Western passports and thousands of individuals who are passport holders from the West.

One militant engaged in this battle recently returned to Europe and attacked a museum in Brussels, so more of that is coming as a result of ISIS. And let's not take this debate to mean that we should not be doing anything to offset that organization.

I think the President has failed U.S. national security interests by not, for example, authorizing or accepting the request made by the government in Iraq and by our personnel in our Embassy for drone strikes on these terrorist ISIS camps. Remember, this is a situation where the drone can actually see the ISIS combatants with the black flag of al Qaeda waving as they move across the desert or as they are encamped. This was an opportunity to hit them when they were vulnerable, before they began that city march across the desert, as they began to take those cities with their armed columns.

I do think, as the U.N. reported yesterday, that there are going to be consequences to these fatwas that come down from ISIS. The one yesterday specifically--according to the U.N., ISIS is requiring female mutilation in the new caliphate it is establishing, at least in the Mosul area and around that area. That is about 4 million females that would be subject to this, if they are as doctrinaire as they have been on other issues. So we will be wrestling with what to do about ISIS, what we can do.

What this resolution says, and I think the overwhelming majority of us in Congress agrees with this, is that if the President of the United States ordered U.S. Armed Forces into sustained combat in Iraq, then he should be coming to Congress to seek an explicit statutory authorization and the backing of this body, and that is the text before us today.

It says, again:

The President shall not deploy or maintain United States

Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without

specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after

the date of adoption of this concurrent resolution.

That is the position of the Members of Congress, as the representative body, frankly, and as any military officer will tell you, support of the people is critical to the success of a sustained combat operation. As the representative body, that responsibility falls to us. It is an obligation that I know all of my colleagues take seriously. And, again, it is why I expect overwhelming passage of this motion this morning.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 105. It reaffirms our belief that U.S. troops should not be deployed in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific congressional authorization.

Since last December, the terrorist group ISIS has marched across Iraq with lethal efficiency. Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul have fallen to their control. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have been killed or have laid down their weapons. The military equipment they left behind, some supplied by the United States, is now in the hands of these fanatics.

After erasing the border between Iraq and Syria, ISIS has advanced toward our ally, Jordan. And the leaders of ISIS have declared an Islamic caliphate, promising to rule with a brand of barbarism, such as mandatory female genital mutilation, more suited to the Dark Ages than the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, the threat posed by ISIS is real. Iraq is teetering on the brink, and we cannot allow that country to become a safe haven for terrorists that could be used to launch another 9/11.

While the Hamas terrorists are pushing forth in Gaza, the ISIS terrorists are pushing forth in Iraq.

At the same time, however, we need to make clear to the American people and to the Iraqi government that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq is over. After losing more than 4,000 American lives and spending more than $1 trillion, we cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into another sectarian quagmire.

The crisis in Iraq cannot be solved through military means alone. The solution will be rooted in real political changes in Iraq, more inclusive policies, and a greater effort to avoid sectarian conflict.

President Obama removed the last American combat troops from Iraq on December 18, 2011, under an agreement reached by the Bush administration, and he has no intention of sending them back, a position with which I firmly agree.

As the President said last month: ``American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.''

In the last several weeks, the President has expanded intelligence and surveillance efforts. He has sent a contingent of troops to protect our diplomatic personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and he has deployed small military assessment teams to get information about the threat that ISIS poses to Iraq, to the region, and to American interests.

I support these measures. They represent the sort of security cooperation with the Iraqi government that we should be offering to support our own national security interests. But they don't require a sustained presence of American combat troops in Iraq.

At the end of the day, we all know it is past time for the Iraqi government to confront some serious challenges. These will require an Iraqi solution, one based on respect for each other and the rule of law.

I would like to thank Representative McGovern, Representative Jones, and Representative Lee for their tenacity and leadership in sparking this important debate. They have worked with us in the Foreign Affairs Committee, constructively with me and Chairman Royce both, along with the House leadership on both sides of the aisle, to ensure that the amendment we are considering today would enjoy broad bipartisan support.

So I hope that the process which brought about today's bill will serve as an example of bipartisan cooperation for the House to follow in the days to come.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 105, a resolution prohibiting the President from deploying or maintaining United States Armed Forces in sustained combat roles in Iraq unless specifically authorized by Congress by statute enacted after the date of adoption of the resolution.

The war in Iraq caused a lot of unearned suffering in Iraq and here at home. This is the same war, Madam Speaker, whose proponents misrepresented to the nation would last no more than six months and likely less than six weeks.

This same war in Iraq, we were led to believe by the Bush Administration, would cost less than $50 billion and would be paid out of

the ample revenues from Iraq's oil fields. The war in Iraq, the American people were promised, should have ended years ago with Americans troops greeted as liberators by jubilant Iraqis throwing rose petals at their feet.

As I and my colleagues in the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus forecast at the time, the starry-eyed, rosy scenarios laid out by President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld would come to pass in fantasy land, but not in the cold, hard world of reality which they refused to live in.

The war in Iraq lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history. But there was a difference. The Second World War ended in complete and total victory for the United States and its allies.

But then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander-in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job.

As a result of the colossal miscalculation in deciding to invade Iraq, the Armed Forces and the people of the United States suffered incalculable damage.

The war in Iraq claimed the lives of 4,484 brave servicemen and women. More than 24,600 Americans were wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers paid more than $800 billion to sustain this misadventure.

The depth, breadth, and scope of the misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war in Iraq is utterly without precedent in American history. It was a tragedy in a league all its own.

And it must never be repeated. That is why I strongly support H. Con. Res. 105 and urge all my colleagues to join me.